Alan355

Talkback

Hello, Alan355. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VernoWhitney (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Alan355, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ...comments? ~BFizz 23:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I would like to do well here, these links will help me learn my way around.--Alan355 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvation, grace and works

Alan, I hope you don't mind me bringing this tangent of the discussion here but because it delves into personal beliefs which I'm still working out and comparing to sources, I thought it best to bring to the personal talk pages. I think that what you've touched on is one of the mysteries that the LDS face. How does one reconcile the idea of a gradation of glory with the concept that none of it is deserved/earned by the works that correlate with the groups that end up there and the concept that any glory is a gift through the grace of the atonement? I don't think I've found any source yet from the LDS leaders that delineates the heavenly arithmetic of it all but, especially in the articles from Oaks, they are clear that salvation and glory in whatever amount is cause by the grace/atonement. I have my own personal thoughts on the subject, based in part on the "prepare for" comment, how this is reconciled. I believe that God will bless us as much as He can such that are happiness is maximized. By the law, all fall short and are unworthy of returning to God, hence the atonement and grace which allows the ends of the Law to be satisfied in the sacrifice of Christ and allows us, though unworthy, to come back into the presence of God. But those who do not repent and achieve forgiveness by means of the atonement would be miserable in the presence of a perfect God (Alma 12:14). In this way the works are more to prepare and qualify us for the reward, but do nothing to earn or make us deserving of the reward, because in truth we don't deserve it no matter how many good things we do. So God, being both just and merciful, blesses each person as much as he or she can stand and still be happy. I think this is one reason why the degrees of glory are characterized by whose presence is present (Father and Christ vs. Christ vs. just the Spirit). So the things that I do are not to earn, to merit, or to make so that I deserve neither the grace nor the heavenly reward, but to prepare myself so that I can be be truly happy in the presence of God and happy receiving all the blessings He can give me. That's why I believe He gives us commandments and requires us to do certain things to receive blessings, not so that He, like an umpire, can call us at home if we fail, nor so that He, like a glorified accountant, can make sure that the heavenly ledger of my life is balanced, but because He knows that, somehow in the calculus of the cosmos, doing so will maximize my happiness and because the journey which the commandments lays out increases the intrinsic value of the heavenly destination. I think part of the divine calculus for why this works the way it does is that the actions themselves are necessary but not sufficient condition for a personal relationship with Christ, which relationship is really what determines our happiness. In the end though I don't know what that calculus is which makes this all work, it's still a mystery to me, but I'm content with not knowing because I do know that God loves His children and that love is His motivation for everything He does and everything He asks of me. Like I said, this is my personal beliefs based on my gleanings from the scriptures and statements from LDS leaders and my own experiences, which precludes its inclusion in the article, but it is a way (in particular my way) to still believe within an LDS theology in salvation and heavenly reward received by grace but requiring works without the idea of the works earning or meriting the reward. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No I don’t mind discussing it here at all. I want to thank you for explaining it to me, I hope you don’t think that my comments and questions about this have been disrespectful. I know this isn’t indicative of all Mormons, but a lot of the LDS literature I read said the current prophet and the apostles are responsible for interpreting scripture, so it is a little confusing when over the last 180 years some of the interpretations have changed, and it can be a little difficult to figure out what the current beliefs are. I grew up in the Church of Christ, which always emphasized personal study and understanding. Many of my teachers, and I as well as I became a teacher, always stressed getting our information from the Bible. The message of the Bible is unchanging, final, and absolute, some parts are difficult and in Job, God tells us that he isn’t going to answer every question we have. In practice, if I hear something taught or preached in a religious environment and it doesn’t agree with what the Bible says then I must follow the Bible, just like the Bereans how checked to scriptures to make sure what Paul was teaching was right (Acts 17:11). There can be great help in the words of men, but the source of all wisdom in his book is the final interpretation (2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved… rightly dividing the word(NIV – correctly handles the word of truth)) otherwise, I believe we risk changing God as we see fit and as time and culture change, which he doesn’t do whether we want him to or not. If we attempt to do that, we distance ourselves from who and what God truly is and become lost without his light. I do absolutely respect the fact that two honest well-intentioned people can read a scripture and come to different conclusions. I say all this to give a frame of reference and to explain that my beliefs are rooted deeply in the Bible and if it isn’t in the Bible then I try very hard not to attach that to my faith. Concerning grace and works, the Bible says that we are saved by grace alone, and doing good works is the race that we run. The Bible teaches that we should do good to others because it is right, and if we really want to be Christ-like than we should live like Christ. Do I sometimes do good begrudgingly, absolutely, but the more I work at being like Christ, it becomes less like good work, and closer to good life and a Christ attitude. Paul does say faith without deeds is dead, in James 2:26, but the context tells us that deeds are a symptom and natural result of real faith in Jesus. I think that works and obedience are how we reflect God’s love in this world. We have been forgiven, helped & fed, as servants of Christ we should do the same for others so that they can feel God’s love for themselves (Luke 6:31). I do disagree with Oaks, there are many scriptures that talk about eternal punishment, Matthew 8:12 says they will be cast into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, meaning among other things absence from God. Concerning different rewards in Heaven, Jesus also taught a parable that illustrated that even though some show up late or do less work, all of his servants receive the same reward. The Bible says God is vengeful and jealous, and a good look at the Old Testament will show what happened to those who ignored God and did what they wanted to instead. The Bible tells us of Heaven and Hell, and our inability to describe exactly what those are stems from our having never been there and no absolute frame of reference except the stories in the Bible. I hope this explains my frame of reference and what I think the Bible says about the subject. I really haven’t intended to be disrespectful in any of this, but I had a really hard time understanding what you meant, and I hope that my explanations showed a little of that. On this discussion I very much enjoy having my faith challenged, as Hugh Nibley said, “it keeps us on our toes”. I think we are both searching for how to understand God best, and I would very much enjoying more discussions with you in the future.--Alan355 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think that you will find that the LDS theology has similar position on the purpose of charity, "pure religion", and what we traditionally think about as good works. I think the difference comes when we start to discuss ordinances that we really can't fit into the category of an act meant to reflect God's love in this world. These are the main things, besides the acceptance of Christ, listed in the descriptions of who goes to which glory in heaven. For example, consider baptism. From the LDS perspective, Christ clearly taught that baptism is necessary for entry into the kingdom of God (John 3:5) and the apostles afterwards put a lot of importance on baptism (Acts 2:37-38; Acts 8:12-17,36-38; Acts 19:3-8). LDS often connect baptism with the strait gate (Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:24) that all must enter to reach eternal life. The rest of the path is considered to be enduring to the end, following Christ's example as laid out by the commandments he gave. Baptism is interesting because it has the dual purpose of not only the forgiveness of sins and as a rite accompanying the making of a covenant, but also as a necessary act to fulfill all righteousness. I think one of the other reasons that the LDS place importance on keeping commandments is because Christ said that eternal life is to know God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3), which is impossible to do if we don't keep the commandments (1 John 2:3-4).

In regards to epistemology (how we know what we know), I would say the LDS claim the legitimacy and necessity of sources besides the Bible because, as you pointed out, two well-intentioned people can read a scripture and come to different conclusions, but also because the Bible itself supports the use of the sources, namely inspiration/revelation via the Spirit at a personal level and revelation to a living prophet/head apostle. Inspiration/revelation via the Spirit is both seen (Acts 2:37; Luke 24:32) and encouraged (John 14:26, John 16:13; 1 Corinth 2:10-11,13; James 1:5-6) in the Bible, and revelation for the entire Church after Christ's ascension coming through visions and revelations of leaders of the Church is seen in Acts 11:1-18 and the entire book of Revelation. The LDS consider these other two methods as a means to clarify when multiple interpretations can be arrived at via the scriptures. All three are expected to be in agreement. The only other major means for LDS to know something is the Book of Mormon, which they do find some support for in their interpretation of the Bible (Genesis 49:22; Ezekiel 37:16-19; John 10:16) and which again they believe will always be in agreement with the other sources. The reason I mention all of this is to point out that the LDS believe that the basis for their beliefs and their epistemology can be found in the Bible, and I do believe that a large portion of the doctrinal differences can be reduced to different interpretation of Biblical verses. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)