Saved from our sin instead of in our sin


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Understood.

I have been without internet for the past two days.  There was some major outage in the area.  Fixed now.

It appeared to have happened just as I read this post of yours.  I wrote an entire response that was about as long as your post.  Then I couldn't post it.  Now it's all gone.  

I spent a lot of time on it to get just the right wording.  What a waste.  So, I spent some time pondering what would be some bullet points I could distill out of what I said.

  • The ancient "sense" of reward is a bit different than how we see it today.  While I think that reward is probably a correct translation, it loses some connotation. It always included an idea of cause and effect.  Wages for a days work was not simply a contract between parties (although, it was, indeed practiced that way).  It was understood that wages were the natural result of a days work.  If we can make a distinction between "reward" and "result" we begin to understand what the ancient meaning was.  I think it would be incorrect to see it simply as "result" just as much as I think it is incorrect to see it as "reward".  It seems to be something in between.
  • It is an old notion that we "earn" our eternal "reward".  And in a sense I don't disagree.  But in another sense, I think it to be incomplete.
    • Brad Wilcox phrased it as "No, we are not earning heaven. We are learning heaven."  We prepare for it as if we are preparing for a wedding (feast).  But we never "earn the right" to go there.  Any more than we "earn" the right to go to a wedding feast.  We are invited.
    • Romans 4:4

To "earn a reward" is great imagery which is often used in scriptures and has been taught throughout history.  And it works with the mentality that we mortals are used to understanding.  But when we understand that the economy of God works differently than that of man, we have to accept certain truths while still working with that imagery.

AoF 2-4:

  • We dig ourselves into a pit through sin.  And there is no way for us to get out by ourselves. 
  • Through the Atonement, the Savior sends down a ladder (of principles & ordinances)
  • and tells us to climb up.  We're still required to do the minimal work of climbing the ladder. 

Never in such a circumstance would we say that we "earned" our way out of the pit.  We'd completely give credit to the one who provided the ladder to us.

Perhaps it is just perspective and attitude.  But beyond principles, ordinances, and obedience, our "eternal reward" does require attitude and perspective.  That tells us that the changes are not just outward, but that the Lord has effected a miraculous change of heart.   

Do we have the perspective to recognize that NOTHING would be possible without the Atonement?  Do we have the attitude of believing we only made it by relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save?

I hate it when that happens. But, man alive, the forum's been dead for the last 2 days. Maybe others had the same outage. :D

I don't believe I used the word "earn". So I'm not sure where you're reading that into what I said. Whether we "earn" it or not isn't relevant to my point.

But...the point I'd like you to answer and discuss is the one I made about being eternally "telestial" and that just being revealed vs. choosing whether we are tel/terr/celestial. Are we just fish? Or do we choose to be fish?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Brad Wilcox phrased it as "No, we are not earning heaven. We are learning heaven."

Fwiw, btw, Brad Wilcox's take on these matters never sat well with me. It's hard to articulate why without review. I know the talk you're speaking of. I'd have to review it in detail to really express why it doesn't sit well with me. (It's been a while since I've heard it but I remember it not sitting well with me.) But as a direct reply to the direct quote: earning isn't in opposition in any way to learning. So the statement doesn't really make contextual sense. And it's a false idea to promote that "learning" heaven is what qualifies us for heaven. Because if "learning" is the key...then why could "learning" be considered "earning" just as easily as anything else (depending on how one views the idea of "earning"). Brad Wilcox may not have meant to say that learning is the key...but he implies it with statements like you've quoted, whether he means to or not. Maybe that's why it doesn't sit well with me. And maybe that's unfair of me. Just sharing my feelings on it.*

As with many things, "earning" becomes a semantic issue. But one I don't care for as to how it's typically addressed. What does it mean to "earn" something? I do quite like your ladder idea. That works pretty well. But I'm not sure it's fully accurate either. I think it becomes semantically problematic to say we don't earn our reward (and semantically problematic to say we do earn our reward). I think it would be more helpful to our understanding to simply qualify what we must do. What are the requirements? That's what we need to know. Defining whether those requirements qualify as "earning" or not isn't, honestly, that helpful. It's a distraction.

Useful question: Do we need to be baptized to be saved?

Not a useful question: Is choosing to be baptized part of "earning" your salvation?

It's not a useful because it's semantic. It depends on what you mean by "earning". And...more importantly...whether you believe the answer to be yes or no has nothing to do with your salvation. If you choose to accept, follow, and obey, but view doing those things as "earning" it will not disqualify you, as far as I understand, from anything. It's just a semantic perception.

Anyhow...just some of my thoughts on "earning". Not really relevant to the points I was making before. But since you brought it up, I thought I'd share.

*I've become particularly pet peevish about the idea of "learning" being key in the past few years. Meaning to say, I don't like that narrative. So I might read into certain ideas unfairly -- and maybe I'm doing that with Brad Wilcox. I dislike the idea, and consider it false, that knowledge is the measure of our status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe I used the word "earn". So I'm not sure where you're reading that into what I said. Whether we "earn" it or not isn't relevant to my point.

Our current vocabulary and definitions make "earn" and "reward" interlinked.  And that was certainly the message I got from all the context in your previous posts.  If I was mistaken in my interpretation, then I'd look forward to hearing your position on how we earn/reward are NOT connected.

I realize that Wilcox is not an apostle.  So, we cannot consider this real doctrine.  But philosophically, I agree in this sense:  In our hearts and souls, we must be changed.  While we generally think of "learning" as a mental/intellectual exercise, this context clearly points at something different.  Just as we develop "muscle memory" in our bodies, we can develop a different type of memory in our spirits.  That "spiritual muscle memory" is the process of repentance. 

Our ability (muscle memory development) to repent is what causes us to find our eternal destiny.

54 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Are we just fish? Or do we choose to be fish?

This is the philosophical question of the ages.  Do you think we can actually settle the matter?  I'll just give you my opinion. And you can take it or leave it.

When human embryos develop, we take on the appearance of various animals.  If our development is halted at the point we are fish, then we self-abort and end our existence as a fish instead of a human.  The difference is that we choose to halt our development which results in our eternal destiny.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As with many things, "earning" becomes a semantic issue. But one I don't care for as to how it's typically addressed. What does it mean to "earn" something? I do quite like your ladder idea. That works pretty well. But I'm not sure it's fully accurate either. I think it becomes semantically problematic to say we don't earn our reward (and semantically problematic to say we do earn our reward). I think it would be more helpful to our understanding to simply qualify what we must do. What are the requirements? That's what we need to know. Defining whether those requirements qualify as "earning" or not isn't, honestly, that helpful. It's a distraction.

Useful question: Do we need to be baptized to be saved?

Not a useful question: Is choosing to be baptized part of "earning" your salvation?

It's not a useful because it's semantic. It depends on what you mean by "earning". And...more importantly...whether you believe the answer to be yes or no has nothing to do with your salvation. If you choose to accept, follow, and obey, but view doing those things as "earning" it will not disqualify you, as far as I understand, from anything. It's just a semantic perception.

Anyhow...just some of my thoughts on "earning". Not really relevant to the points I was making before. But since you brought it up, I thought I'd share.

*I've become particularly pet peevish about the idea of "learning" being key in the past few years. Meaning to say, I don't like that narrative. So I might read into certain ideas unfairly -- and maybe I'm doing that with Brad Wilcox. I dislike the idea, and consider it false, that knowledge is the measure of our status.

I believe I addressed this with my analogy of the pit and the ladder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The difference is that we choose to halt our development which results in our eternal destiny.

This feels contradictory to this:

On 3/7/2023 at 11:46 AM, Carborendum said:

I believe it is a natural consequence of who/what we are as eternal beings.  It is what we gravitate to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It has always seemed somewhat paradoxical to me that we must constantly have the Lord command us to do those things which are for our own good. The Lord has said, “He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39). We lose our life by serving and lifting others. By so doing we experience the only true and lasting happiness. Service is not something we endure on this earth so we can earn the right to live in the celestial kingdom. Service is the very fiber of which an exalted life in the celestial kingdom is made.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2009/03/the-celestial-nature-of-self-reliance?lang=eng

It is not to be likened to a capitalistic approach to expect a wage for work done.  It is instead, an altruistic understanding that we choose the right regardless of consequences.  We just need to be sure it is right.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe I addressed this with my analogy of the pit and the ladder.

Sort of.

I mean the pit part doesn't strike me as a great analogy to exaltation because we weren't as God is before we "sinned" in mortality. It's not like we were as God is, then sinned, and now must climb back out of that pit to stand on the same level as Him once again. 

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We choose what we choose because it is the natural choice for us to make.

Isn't real choice being able to choose contrary to the natural choice for us to make? Isn't that kind of what faith in God is all about?

If we have no ability to choose contrary to the natural choice then do we really have the ability to choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sort of.

I mean the pit part doesn't strike me as a great analogy to exaltation because we weren't as God is before we "sinned" in mortality. It's not like we were as God is, then sinned, and now must climb back out of that pit to stand on the same level as Him once again. 

Now you're changing the meaning of the pit.  There really is no perfect analogy that gets all of it in one metaphor.  So, I was addressing one aspect of the whole discussion, not one that covers the entire discussion.

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Isn't real choice being able to choose contrary to the natural choice for us to make? Isn't that kind of what faith in God is all about?

If we have no ability to choose contrary to the natural choice then do we really have the ability to choose?

Like I said, this is the question of the ages.

I had once proposed that we can possibly conceive that we are placed on an infinitely fine knife's edge with all things perfectly balanced.  Plank's constant no longer applies.  And the only unknown (to us) is what we will choose.  We're given the choice to go right or left.

Such choices do not come every day.  For the most part, we can predict what we would do in most situations.  But to be given a test of Abraham is quite different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 10:45 AM, Carborendum said:

Which direction does your tent face?

Regarding the quote "Salvation does not come from believing we don't need to change.  It comes
from knowing that, through the Atonement of Christ, we CAN change.  And by His grace, we WILL
change"

Makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 10:45 AM, Carborendum said:

There are two common lines or reasoning on the topic.  I'll share one of them.  There seems to be a disagreement on whether the Telestial and/or Terrestrial Kingdoms are a form of salvation or a form of damnation. I tend to think it is both. 

  • You're saved from hell. 
  • But you don't get to live with God. 
  • So, if you don't live with God, but you don't stay in hell, is that salvation?  Or is that damnation? 
  • If you were LDS and believed these things, how would you see it?

Based on what I have read on the church's website, damnation is defined as

The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and His
glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation
will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that
extent
.

In short, eternal life (exaltation, eternal increase) is the opposite of damnation.

Regarding hell, I see that it too is equated to damnation:

Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus
Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found “filthy still” (D&C 88:35, 102).
This is the place where Satan, his angels, and the sons of perdition—those who have denied the
Son after the Father has revealed Him—will dwell eternally (D&C 76:43–46).

The scriptures sometimes refer to hell as outer darkness.

Hell, for the filthy, also includes those who are not the sons of perdition (1 Nephi 15:33-35). It
is the location for those who did not choose eternal life (2 Nephi 2:28-30).

And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken 
unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life
according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil 
which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring 
you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom
.

Can one escape hell?  Based on which of two ways hell is described, I would say no
(1 Nephi 15:33-35; 2 Nephi 9:25; Alma 34:32-35).

Edited by romans8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2023 at 9:38 AM, laronius said:

First of all, our definition of "saved" can, based on it's context, either imply a fullness of salvation, which we also call exaltation, or happen in part. This verse speaks of those who do not inherit a fullness of salvation but are nonetheless saved:

D&C 132:17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Thanks. I found some other info at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/hell?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 10:36 AM, Carborendum said:

Understood.

I have been without internet for the past two days.  There was some major outage in the area.  Fixed now.

It appeared to have happened just as I read this post of yours.  I wrote an entire response that was about as long as your post.  Then I couldn't post it.  Now it's all gone.  

I spent a lot of time on it to get just the right wording.  What a waste.  So, I spent some time pondering what would be some bullet points I could distill out of what I said.

  • The ancient "sense" of reward is a bit different than how we see it today.  While I think that reward is probably a correct translation, it loses some connotation. It always included an idea of cause and effect.  Wages for a days work was not simply a contract between parties (although, it was, indeed practiced that way).  It was understood that wages were the natural result of a days work.  If we can make a distinction between "reward" and "result" we begin to understand what the ancient meaning was.  I think it would be incorrect to see it simply as "result" just as much as I think it is incorrect to see it as "reward".  It seems to be something in between.
  • It is an old notion that we "earn" our eternal "reward".  And in a sense I don't disagree.  But in another sense, I think it to be incomplete.
    • Brad Wilcox phrased it as "No, we are not earning heaven. We are learning heaven."  We prepare for it as if we are preparing for a wedding (feast).  But we never "earn the right" to go there.  Any more than we "earn" the right to go to a wedding feast.  We are invited.
    • Romans 4:4

To "earn a reward" is great imagery which is often used in scriptures and has been taught throughout history.  And it works with the mentality that we mortals are used to understanding.  But when we understand that the economy of God works differently than that of man, we have to accept certain truths while still working with that imagery.

AoF 2-4:

  • We dig ourselves into a pit through sin.  And there is no way for us to get out by ourselves. 
  • Through the Atonement, the Savior sends down a ladder (of principles & ordinances)
  • and tells us to climb up.  We're still required to do the minimal work of climbing the ladder. 

Never in such a circumstance would we say that we "earned" our way out of the pit.  We'd completely give credit to the one who provided the ladder to us.

Perhaps it is just perspective and attitude.  But beyond principles, ordinances, and obedience, our "eternal reward" does require attitude and perspective.  That tells us that the changes are not just outward, but that the Lord has effected a miraculous change of heart.   

Do we have the perspective to recognize that NOTHING would be possible without the Atonement?  Do we have the attitude of believing we only made it by relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save?

An essential element in the proper understanding of salvation by the grace of Christ is coming to the realization that there are two principle ways in which the grace of Christ is able to save us: The first way Christ’s grace saves us is when we are justified (cleansed of our sins) through his atoning sacrifice. The second way his grace saves us is when we are sanctified (spiritually empowered and made holy) through the indwelling of his Spirit which is only made possible through his atonement.

The principle of sanctification by grace reveals that we would never be able to successfully climb the ladder, of which you speak, without first receiving the spiritual enabling power which Christ graciously imparts to us through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This indicates that we are not able to successfully do the work God requires of us by means of  our own unaided efforts, but that we are only able to grow and progress spiritually, in thought and in deed, when we submit ourselves to becoming the workmanship of Christ Jesus unto good works through the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. Even Christ himself testified that the only reason why is was able to do the will of his Father is because a spiritual power greater than his own (the Father’s) dwelt within him. Even Christ was saved by grace…

I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14)

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/30/2023 at 12:08 AM, askandanswer said:

I'm guessing that come the resurrection, when we all have our glorious immortal bodies, those who have been plagued with nasty skin conditions during mortality will be saved both from their skins and in their skins. 

Well played, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share