Here is the link to the Blue Letter Bible’s entry on doron—I’ve found the resources at this site very helpful, so I recommend checking it out, even if you do find your Lexicon. (If you click on any verse and then click the “C” next to it, there is a handy Interlinear page that opens with links to every word used.)

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

God through his grace gave us life as his spirit children.

God through his grace gave us this mortal world to help us in our progression to become like him.

God through his grace gave us a Savior who provided the way back to God.

Jesus Christ through his grace gave us the resurrection.

Jesus Christ through his grace gave us remission of sins.

Jesus Christ through his grace will give us a place in the three kingdoms of glory via his redemption. If we become a son (or daughter) of Perdition, we will not partake of the redemption.

But, what do we have to do to receive these gifts?

In our pre-earth life, we had to choose to follow Christ rather than follow Lucifer. We helped defeat Lucifer in the war in Heaven. Revelation 12:11 tells us that it was our testimonies coupled with Jesus’ atonement that defeated Lucifer.

Now that we are here in mortality, we don’t have to do anything to receive the resurrection. That gift was given to all as an unconditional gift.

But, we learn from D&C 19:16-17 that the give of remission of sins (i.e. salvation) was given as a conditional gift. Christ suffered for our sins that if we repent we might not suffer for those sins (v. 16). But, if we don’t repent then we must suffer for our sins (v. 17).

My interpretation of this is that our repentance, and by implication acts of service, (i.e. works) are a doorway by which the atonement removes our sins. We repent for one reason and one reason only — to change our behavior. Our repentance does not cause our sins to be forgiven. Our acts of service do not cause our sins to be forgiven. Our repentance and service change our behavior such that we become more like Christ. We are not working our way to Heaven. We are changing our behavior so we are more like Christ. And, in so doing, we open the door to the Atonement, and Christ’s Atonement, his blood so to speak, removes our sins and we have salvation. So, salvation is an act of grace, but that gift is given only to those who do “all that we can do” to change their behavior and live more as Christ would live.

Of course, none of us can ever in mortality become like Jesus. All we can do is try to as much as we can. We all have different personalities. We all come from different backgrounds. We all have our own weaknesses and vices. We just have to keep on trying to improve. When we fall down due to our human weaknesses, we just have to try to pick ourselves up and go forward. God will, I believe, judge us according to the conditions we lived in during our mortal stay on earth. He will judge us according to the sincere and honest desires of our hearts and our wanting to become like him and in changing our behavior to become more like him. Even though we love God and Jesus Christ, even though we seek to be with God again, even though try to change our behavior and become more like Christ, we will fail, because we are human. We will always have imperfections, weaknesses, sins in our lives, and Christ’s atonement will remove the blemishes from our lives that we can’t overcome because of our humanism. I am thankful for the grace of God. I am thankful for Jesus’ suffering for my sins that I might not suffer for them if I repent and try to become more like him.

This is how I see it.

However, one minor correction. The word doron just means “gift.” Though it is sometimes used to refer to sacrifices (as in Matthew 5:23 and Hebrews 5:1), indeed more often than not, that is not its only use. The same word is used in Matthew 2:11 and Revelation 11:10 to refer to things that one person gives another without cost, a gift in the usual sense. It is also used to gifts of money to the temple (which were not sacrifices under Jewish law), as in Luke 21:1, as well as to the gifts that God gives to human beings, as in Ephesians 2:8. The last of these one underscores the point you are making: Christ is the gift to us, God’s sacrifice.

Thanks again.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The key to understanding that scripture is, I believe, the word “gift”. The traditional interpretation of the word “gift” is that God gives salvation to us as a gift, implying a free gift. However, I believe the writer of Ephesians was referring to a different gift. The word “gift” is from the Greek word doron and refers to a present in the form of a sacrifice or offering. I believe the “gift” was Jesus Christ. God gave Jesus Christ as his gift to us, i.e. Christ gave us the atonement. For me, Ephesians 2:8-9 is clear if I refer to the Greek meaning and substitute the word sacrifice for the word gift.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is [comes through] the sacrifice of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

My concern is that you feel that what you believe about grace is sufficiently opposed to what other LDS believe that it sanctions becoming estranged from them (on several different levels). You might consider Elder Hafen as a model of one who (likely) feels as you do, yet he has (apparently) been able to “patiently endure” the slow process of change in the Church as a whole. He remains a part of the change process, whereas you (at least in regard to your SP, and possibly others?) have a diminished connection. You can’t help paddle if you’re not in the boat.

(Here’s a thought—write a letter to Elder Hafen and ask his advice.)

Rhetorically: When Justice is slandered, how does she respond? How does Mercy respond to the same offense? What about Grace?

I guess we’re agreeing to a point. I’m not sure what the solution is. Of course the last 10 – 15 years there have been a lot of talks on grace. There has been a change of emphasis, although I sometimes think that like a pendulum the other side has been neglected at times. But I have faith that in terms of picking content the brethren are inspired. So I really can’t criticize what they say in Conference as I’m sure it’s what the church needs. I’m just a bit cranky I suppose since I think sometimes other stuff is neglected. Although to be fair that kind of stuff one can find if one studies. Ultimately we should be focusing on scripture study rather than waiting passively for information to be given to us.

Part of me just wishes the membership would get the basics down, read their scriptures, come prepared to Sunday School and Priesthood, etc. I suspect that if we as a people did that Conference talks would change accordingly.

My point is we can’t criticize simply because someone speaks assuming an at least semi-informed audience. If that is your demand – that we always assume ignorance – then I just have to strongly disagree.

Assuming he is honest, as I would, then where does that kind of understanding come from? I would maintain he reported just what he thought we believe from what we say about our doctrine. Such as, we can earn our way to heaven, could lead one to believe that we do not place much emphasis on Easter. Why would we if we can get there on our own without the savior?

Here is another quote from Elder Hafen.
On page three and page four, Elder Hafen say this; “Despite this remarkable truth about the Book of Mormon, we Latter-day Saints are, for the most part, only superficially acquainted with our own doctrines of grace, mercy, justice, and the Atonement. As an indication of our reluctance to consider the principle of grace, one researcher found only one serious article on grace in the periodicals published by the Church in the twenty-three years from 1961-1983.”

If our language does not make a big difference, how does something like the above happen? I believe the reason Paul tried to make such a big deal out of being saved by grace, not works is because he knew that people have a natural inclination to try and do things on their own, and of course taking credit for it.

I know we are doing better now, but at the pace we are going it will take years to correct it.

So, I have made my best effort to explain how I see things in the Church. I would greatly appreciate it if someone/anyone/everyone would show me how what I believe is bad enough to be called a heretic and asked to not talk about grace so much. What do I believe that is all messed up?

Here is the quote from Elder Hafen that answered the question my SP asked me that took over a year of looking to find. “Why don’t the GAs teach grace the same way you do?”

Page 4&5. “I was surprised on one occasion to hear a senior General Authority tell me something in a private conversation that allowed for greater flexibility on a particular issue than I had expected to hear. I told him how valuable I thought it would be if more members of the Church could hear his counsel, because what is said across the desk can so nicely clarify what is said over the pulpit. He replied that private counsel can be adapted to the attitudes and understanding of the person being counseled. If that same counsel were given publicly to an audience that included individuals of insufficient background of commitment, it might appear to give license to those whose needs require mot more flexibility, but less.”

It does not specifically mention grace, but from the context of what he is talking about, I would not know what else it could be. I wish the leaders had more confidence in it’s members.

Newsweek summarized our understanding to the Atonement in these words: “According to Mormon tradition, not only did Adam’s fall make procreation possible, it also established the conditions for human freedom and moral choice. Unlike orthodox Christians, Mormons believe that men are born free of sin and earn their way to godhood by the proper exercise of free will, rather than through the grace of Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus’ suffering and death in the Mormon view were brotherly acts of compassion, but they do not atone for the sins of others. For this reason, Mormons do not include the cross in their iconography nor do they place much emphasis on Easter.”
There was a person that responded to the article in hopes of showing the author how wrong he was. This is the response of the author that wrote the article.
“It seems that [the letter’s author] doesn’t’t understand the distinction between a book review and a magazine article. I did read several books of Mormon scripture and theology before I wrote the article. My intent, however, was not to review books but rather to report how representative members of the LDS Church describe and interpret their own traditions… The point is to determine what doctrines of a church are genuinely infused into the lifeblood of its adherents.”
Elder Hafen, then says … At the same time, the magazine writer’s observation about Church members’ actual understanding of the Atonement rings just true enough to leave me equally troubled about the level of our own doctrinal literacy. It is disturbing that some Latter-day Saints might convey incorrect ideas to members of other faiths; but in some ways it concerns me even more that this limited understanding might deny those same Latter-day Saints the reassurance and guidance they may desperately need at pivotal moments in their personal lives.

I think the problem of speaking unclearly is self evident in this story.

Our making a distinction between salvation and Eternal Life only muddies the water when it comes time for us to talk to our Christian friends and we expect them to understand us.

That’s just an inherent problem in discussing. Our theology is both maddening similar yet different from our Evangelical friends. When we both use scriptural language yet mean quite different things by it the opportunity for misunderstanding is high. Thus the utility of philosophy as a means of understanding.

As to your Yancy quote. What is wrong with it? Nothing, as far as it goes. Yet if love is foundational but we have to explain it we’re stuck using metaphors and analogies that violate our understanding in a certain way. This, taken to its logical position, leads to a rhetoric much like medieval negative theology. We say something and then immediately deny it. However for regular discussions, especially in Church, that’s not helpful and actually leads to much more confusion than enlightenment.

Our making a distinction between salvation and Eternal Life only muddies the water when it comes time for us to talk to our Christian friends and we expect them to understand us. But I do understand the point. It seems like this just boils down to language. I see the same problem in the New Testament between Paul and James. I really like the way Philip Yancey explains this problem. Here is a quote form his book “What’s So Amazing About Grace.” It is kind of long, and I even edited it some.

“One summer I had to learn basic German in order to
finish a graduate degree. What a wretched summer!
… Five nights a week, three hours a night I spent
memorizing vocabulary and word endings that I would
never again use. I endured such torture for one
purpose only: to pass the test and get my degree.

What if the school registrar had promised me, “Philip,
we want you to study hard, learn German, and take the
test, but we promise you in advance that you’ll get a
passing grade. Your diploma has already been filled
out.” Do you think I would have spent every
delectable summer evening inside a hot, stuffy
apartment? Not a chance. In a nutshell, that was the
theological dilemma Paul confronts in Romans.

Why learn German? There are noble reasons, to be sure
- languages broaden the mind and expand the range of
communication – but these had never motivated me to
study German before. I studied for selfish reasons,
to finish a degree, and only the threat of
consequences hanging over me caused me to reorder my
summer priorities. Today, I remember very little of
the German I crammed into my brain. “The old way of
the written code” (Paul’s description of the Old
testament law) produces short-term results at best.

What would inspire me to learn German? I can think of
one powerful incentive. If my wife, the woman I fell
in love with, spoke only German, I would have learned
the language in record time. Why? I would have a
desperate desire to communicate mit einer schonen
Frau. … I would have learned German unbegrudgingly,
with the relationship itself as my reward.

That reality helps me understand Paul’s gruff “God
forbid!” response to the question “Shall we go on
sinning that grace may increase?” Would a groom on
his wedding night hold the following conversation with
hid bride? “Honey, I love you so much, and I’m eager
to spend my life with you. But I need to work out a
few details. Now that we’re married, how far can I go
with other women? Can I sleep with them? Kiss them?
You don’t mind a few affairs now and then, do you? I
know it might hurt you, but just think of all the
opportunities you’ll have to forgive me after I betray
you!” To such a Don Juan the only reasonable response
is a slap in the face and a “God forbid!” Obviously,
he does not understand the first thing about love.

Similarly, if we approach God with a “What can I get
away with?” attitude, it proves we do not grasp what
God has in mind for us. God wants something far
beyond the relationship I might have with a slave
master, who will enforce my obedience with a whip.
…

Indeed, God wants something more intimate than the
closest relationship on earth, the lifetime bond
between a man and a woman. What God Wants is not a
good performance, but my heart. I do “good works” for
my wife not in order to earn credit but to express my
love for her. Likewise, God wants me to serve “in the
new way of the Spirit” : not out of compulsion but out
of desire. “Discipleship,” says Clifford Williams,
“simply means the life which springs from grace.”

…If we comprehend what Christ has done for us, then
surely out of gratitude we will strive to live
“worthy” of such great love. We will strive for
holiness not to make God love us but because he
already does. As Paul told Titus, it is the grace of
God that “teaches us to say No to ungodliness and
worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright
and godly lives.”

I really like the way Yancey thinks and writes. So what is wrong with the above? It seems to me he has a very good understanding of the importance of being dowers of the word not hears only, without saying we have to earn heaven.

This it way long so I will make other comments in another post.

First, grace is not irresistible in a Calvin sense as I understand it. In the chocolate analogy, my loving chocolate relates to what I would call a universal longing to be loved and forgiven. Even if someone has never personally felt either of those things, I think they are something everyone would like to experience. So when grace (love, forgiveness) is offered it will eventually be accepted and embraced. To me, it is the embracement that makes it heart changing. Just accepting it, I have not seen making the watershed event in ones life. A difference yes, but not the *mighty* change of heart. Some will take a life time to embrace it, for others it will be the moment they really believe Christ has saved them already, not after a life time of doing good works.

Clark asked a good question about Laman and Lemuel and even Satan in regards to my claim. I believe the offer is available to everyone at all times, but our free will means that we do not have to accept it. It will be something that certain people will knowingly understand and acknowledge, and looking Christ in the eye saying “ I would rather spend the rest of eternity in darkness than spend another minuet in your presence.” Pure evil exists just as surely as the pure love of Christ, the two opposites that seem to govern the universe.

When I talk about being afraid to accept grace, it is a relatively new idea for me. It came about in a conversation I had with the guy that converted my wife when she was fourteen years old. (I happened to be here when she turned 18 and got to baptize her) A few years ago, we were in SLC to see my oldest daughter and husband. We went by to see the guy and his wife. My wife brought up grace, she always does, and so we talked about our problem in the Church. This guy rubs shoulders with GA s, lives across the street from one.

Before I knew it, I was in a one on one conversation with his wife. An extremely bright and gifted woman. She made a statement that blew me away. She said, “I have been afraid to embrace grace.” We had already been there longer than we had planed, so we had to excuse ourselves and leave. I have not talked to her again. Here is my conclusion of what she meant. Although I am not sure what she meant.

For one of us in the Church, knowing the importance of works, we would know the implications of the embracement of grace. We would know it would be life changing, and perhaps we are just not ready for that kind of commitment/life changing event in our lives. Outside of something like that, I do not know why one would be afraid to embrace grace. But rest assured, it is life changing.

I will address Clark’s latest post a little latter.

The first covenant (as often interpreted) was given in the council in heaven where the commandment was to, “do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them” (Abr 3:25) Now we all fail in this first covenant. As Paul himself notes. So we have a second covenant which is the idea of a savior. In him we are then able to fulfill the first covenant. Grace deals with this second covenant: salvation in terms of overcoming our sins. Yet, the first covenant remains. Will we be like God? Salvation is giving us the opportunity to thereby earn the merits of this first covenant.

Now do all Mormons agree with this way of thinking? No. Clearly not. For the record I do. Thus my constant comment about Mormons being semi-Pelegian. That is salvation is the enabling of us to act and earn eternal life.

So I understand what the GA you spoke of thought when your brother cornered him. Yet I also think that in many ways the earlier talk was quite appropriate. Allow me a few scriptural metaphors.

…they might reap their rewards according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one. For every man receiveth wages of him whom he listeth to obey, and this according to the words of the spirit of prophecy; therefore let it be according to the truth. And thus endeth the fifth year of the reign of the judges. (Alma 3:26-7)

Note the strong economic metaphor.

God shows us the way, gives us the plan, and gives us the capabilities but beyond that it is us to us. And that “up to us” can be seen in one sense as earning the opportunities that God gave us. That is grace (and our unmeritness) are presupposed)

Now the problem with this approach is that to those who don’t take grace as a starting point it seems like people working their way to heaven. Thus misunderstandings by outsiders who think we deny Grace (when clearly we don’t) and even the occasional misunderstanding by those in the Church who attempt to be perfect via a checklist of “to dos” which I think misunderstands the limitations of human nature and the nature of how sanctification takes place. (The need for a resurrection, if nothing else)

So I think one needs to see ones audience.

A couple of thoughts on the GA quotes. I'd note most of these were from the 70's. I was more thinking of recent GAs. I’ll agree that some of the rhetoric in the 60′s and 70′s was unfortunate. Having made that caveat let me raise an additional point.

There is a difference between salvation and eternal life.

Salvation (roughly in LDS theology making it to the Celestial Kingdom) is different primarily because one can make it to the Celestial Kingdom but not be exhaltated and be like God. Thehe typical basis for this view (beyond GA commentary over the last century and a half) is D&C 131. Although I must note that some see this tripartite division as a restating of the three degrees of glory and not as three degrees within the highest glory. However the traditional reading is degrees within Celestial glory.

An additional point I think we need to add contextually is one I agree with Blake Ostler on. Grace is ultimately about God’s love. Grace is ultimately God offering to enter into a relationship with us. Just as I can’t merit my wife’s love in an absolute sense of the term I can’t merit grace. Further God always offers grace before I do anything.

Yet having said that we can talk about not meriting someone’s love. (Say a wife who loves her abusive husband – we think something is wrong in this relationship) So I do not think terms like “earn” or “merit” are out of bounds even though I agree with Blake in that viewing grace (our relationship with God) in terms of economics misses the point. Yet Blake’s prime view of grace is love and, despite what is sometimes asserted, it’s not inappropriate to talk like this at times. A husband who is not doing what he is supposed to with his family is sometimes spoken of as not earning them or meriting them. On one level this talk is wrong yet on an other it is quite right.

The bigger point I wish to raise about love though is to note the audience of the talks you quoted. They are primarily written to Mormons. Thus they are people who have through baptism and the endowment already entered into the relationship with god. As I mentioned the focus now is not merely salvation but eternal life. Further what they focus in on are what God in his relationship has asked of us.

Primarily then the main issue is eternal life vs. salvation and what is asked of us in a relationship vs. the offering of the relationship.

Hope that helps.

I thought some more on the basketball analogy. It brings a sense of God’s foreknowledge and vast knowledge of his children, because Christ knows what we need (how high we need to be lifted) before we make any attempt to do anything. Also, rather than an analogy where God reaches down from heaven to pull us up, Christ has descended beneath us to lift us up. I can’t figure out accountability in the analogy, but nothing is perfect and I just thought of it last night.

My brother teaches the GD class in a ward in Scottsdale AZ. And yes, I finally converted him to grace. Anyway, an area authority or whatever we call them now, gave a talk in his Sacrament meeting and used that terminology of earning Eternal Life. My brother being a little like me, went up to the GA after the meeting and told him that he was the GD teacher and wanted to make sure he was not teaching false doctrine to his class and asked the GA if one really had to *earn* Eternal Life or is it a gift as the scriptures say? My brother said the GA thought for a moment and said, “you are right, I am sure I will not teach it that way again.”

My question and frustration is why do the others not hear what Robinson, Millet and many others are teaching and correct what is nothing but fodder for our critics to use against us? I am at a loss to explain it. However, Clark taking so long to fire back an answer to the question is making me very nervous. I am not sure if I should have a few movies scoped out to go see or have a couple of six packs here just in case he somehow shows me how I have everything dead wrong and one must really earn a gift, otherwise it is not a gift. :) Whatever happens, I am sure I will come out of it a better person.

Nathan, you have a good understanding of how grace works. I like your analogy of the basketball and I think it works nicely with Robert’s idea of how grace makes out efforts more efficacious, able to accomplish more. That is what Robinson talks about in his book. Once we have a relationship with Christ, our little six foot/six inch high jump, now is only limited by our faith in Christ. If you believe Christ, then your effort is now enhanced by the savior. His perfection becomes your perfection. So whatever your limits were, they are now absorbed in Christ making all things possible in Christ. In other words, you can now jump as high as the moon. How cool is that?

But our dear friend Clark, does not buy into what Robinson teaches. I concede that a GA saying Robinson’s book is inspired does not make it doctrine any more than GAs saying Eternal Life must be earned is doctrine. We seem to be at an impasse. But I am not one to doubt Clark’s prowess to see things I miss. I like teasing him, but I do have the utmost respect for him as a person and what he knows.

So back up to the first attempt at shooting. Perhaps there is a child who has never seen a basketball, or a basket and is lifted up in front of the basket. He may not realize what to do with it. He needs to see someone making a basket and being excited about making a basket before he knows what to do (although there are always some who figure it out without seeing it done by others). We definitely need examples (BrianJ, perhaps you could add another works category, those done for the blessing of other people). It would seem that in this instance the grace of God being extended is the Light of Christ which is granted to all people, but they may not know what to do with it until they see it put to good use by someone already living the gospel.

Now fast forward to a time when I have been resurrected and obtained Eternal Life. Do you think I am now shooting on my own and making baskets? Or, even as an exalted being am I still heavily reliant on God’s grace?

First, a few paragraphs before the statement he states “By his atonement Jesus brought men within the reach of eternal life. However, he did not guarantee eternal life to all men as he did guarantee immortality.” Earlier in this thread the example of jumping was given and then God would make up the difference. His phrase gives a different approach in I’ll lift you as high as you need to be lifted so you can attain Eternal Life. I think of a father lifting his child to make a basket in basketball. The child’s own ability may be sufficient to simply roll the ball over the rim (really young and undeveloped child) or they may be able to shoot the ball from a lower point and make it (someone who has grown and developed). This analogy needs to end, though before the child is able to make a basket from the ground lest we think we can earn our way independent of Christ (which I don’t think was MGR’s point in the talk).

Second, after his statement that we must earn eternal life in mortality he lets the scriptures speak. I particularly like the first verse of D&C 93 which sounds like a list of things (all of which revolve around Christ) we must do to behold his face and know him, which cold represent a visitation while in this life of mortality or could also refer to eternal life (using John 17:3).

So, I think as far as the first article is concerned (haven’t made it to the others) the word used in that one phrase didn’t seem to me to represent his complete view on how eternal life is obtained.

Regarding your bit about everyone acknowledging God. That’s really not dependent upon Grace in the sense you are using it. (i.e. relative to salvation) Everyone might well have a knowledge that God is God simply because the evidence is overwhelming. But confessing Jesus is Christ isn’t salvation otherwise Lucifer would be sitting pretty.

As to coercion, God does occasionally use it. (Although I’m not convinced that often) Yet he doesn’t force someone to be saved. Even where a level of evidence is used that we’re not used to there’s still free will. (i.e. Laman and Lemuel)

What this entails then is that our works are essential for grace to operate. If there are two essential and necessary components – one of us one of God then I feel that rhetorically pointing this out is fine. (Although I’ll get to the GA quotes in a little bit)

I would like to take up Clark’s response to you., # 137. I do not understand how grace works, but I know it when I see it. It must work on the spiritual side of us, something innate that we recognize from our time with God. Is grace irresistible? Does accepting grace make us less free in our will to chose? Here is how I see it.

I really like chocolate. I understand that Clark sells some of the best chocolate in the world. Clark comes by my place with chocolate bars hanging out of every pocket and chewing on one. Not one to ask for favors, I keep it to myself that I love chocolate. Out of a gracious nature, Clark leaves a couple of bars on the desk when he leaves that I did not notice until he is gone.

Being a little suspicious, I am slow to pick up the bars, I might even leave them there thinking he will come back for them as soon as he misses them. (This is too good to be true) A few days go by, no Clark, the bars are still where he left them. I love chocolate!!! I slowly pick one up thinking it just might go bang or something. (not sure if I trust Clark) Nothing happens. This is just too good to be true, I put it back down thinking if it was really good stuff, he would not have been so careless and left them here. (some will wait a thousand years before they ever pick one up) Finally, my nature (a child of God) gets the best of me and I pick one up and eat it. Good grief, it is indeed the best Chocolate I have ever tasted. Why did I wait so long to eat it? It becomes my mission in life to share with the world the most marvelously wonderful chocolate that Clark makes.

Where in the above did I not have a choice to choose to partake of the chocolate? Did choosing to accept this gift limit my free will? Do I *have* to share with others what I have learned about Clark’s stuff?

Everyone will eventually choose to accept the grace of God, otherwise, God will have to use coercion so that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. Of course Mormons know that God does not use coercion. How else could it work? Any other theories?

But that’s a helpful comment since it will lead into my response to the quotes your provided. (Which really does make life easier)

And no, you are not irritating me. You have been very kind in our conversation and I appreciate it. It is just frustrating for me not to be able to make a point that you can follow. Going to see a movie is better than going for a drink. People with addictive personalities do not always deal well with stress. None of which is your fault. But I put the simile face there so you would know I was not being too serious.

So to be clear, there are leaders of the Church that have made claims that I believe are not supported by scripture. My SP continues to say that immortality is a free gift, but Eternal must be earned. If you would like to defend the idea that the gift of Eternal Life must be earned, then I will be glad to try and show the illogic of earning a gift. I will say this again, work we must, judged by our works, certainly, must be a people of doing not hearing only goes without saying, but we never do earn our way to heaven. It is a gift. I do not want to make this to long so I will save more for another post.

The Worth of Souls
Marion G. Romney
Man’s Potentiality It is in the attainment of eternal life, which man must earn in mortality, that he reaches his full potentiality. As God’s work and glory is to bring to pass the eternal life of man, so the desire, hope, and work of every man should be to obtain eternal life for himself.
Gospel Library > Magazines > Ensign > November 1978

The Path to Eternal Glory
Delbert L. Stapley
Unfortunately, for the most part, the thoughts of mortal men are centered in this temporal life and not on the eternal life. But eternal life is a personal responsibility we must earn and be worthy of.
Gospel Library > Magazines > Ensign > July 1973

Our Sisters from the Beginning
Bruce R. McConkie
The man and the woman are together in worship; they are together in teaching their children; they are together in establishing the family unit that hopefully will endure in the eternities ahead, thus giving eternal life to all those who earn it. In effect she is saying, “If Jacob marries out of the Church as Esau has done, what good is there left for me in life?
Gospel Library > Magazines > Ensign > January 1979

“Let’s say part of grace is being given an environment that makes some choices more likely than others.” Yeah, I like that. But I didn’t mean to focus on physical environment, per se; rather, on the notion that when we are touched by the Spirit we (often, hopefully) feel a desire to “go out and do some good”—like after attending the temple I feel all “fired up.” Also, think of the hymn “…How can I (possibly) see another’s lack and I not share?” I don’t mean to discount your point about physical environment—that’s certainly grace in my life—but my point was more about spiritual experience. Perhaps I need a fifth point?

Why did Alma get a religious experience [but not] all the other people…?” I sometimes worry that all the other people did, but they rejected it. But something about this “answer” seems too harsh, so I reject it.

“Oh, BTW Brian, the “counted” is a great point.” Yes, all of my good ideas come from Robert C.

“…[Others] sometimes say we don’t adopt a theology of grace while simultaneously attacking our history…. That always struck me as deeply hypocritical.” Thanks. That is very interesting.

“But the nature of these definitely shows the limits of merits, works, and “earning” in terms of grace.” One of the most important points made in this discussion, I think.

It’s quite interesting that our Protestant brethren will sometimes say we don’t adopt a theology of grace while simultaneously attacking our history and the human element in say Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. That always struck me as deeply hypocritical. Certainly both were very flawed men but I feel strongly that God justified them. The sanctification (saving us from – not in – our sins) ultimately requires the resurrection. But justification is something else entirely.

By definition the just are undeserving since being justified is that gap between their flawed human nature and the divine nature. But it is, in a way, a promise still of what is to come (sanctification).

But the nature of these definitely shows the limits of merits, works, and “earning” in terms of grace.

Brian, your number (1) with caveat is important, although it raises other philosophical issues. (No I’ll not go off on a tangent on them given this already long thread) Let’s say part of grace is being given an environment that makes some choices more likely than others. For instance I suspect being raised in a religious but not overbearing middle class American home makes it easier to “be good” than being raised in an abusive home where all your peers are criminals. Is that an example of grace? I think so.

Yet (and this takes us to the philosophical point as well as your point about responsibility) don’t we also lose some responsibility in this case? After all it’s much harder and therefore praiseworthy for someone in the abusive difficult environment to choose God than the other. (Elder Ashton had a fantastic talk on this I can’t find at the moment – it’s one of my all time favorite GA talks) There’s also the issue of why God does this. But that takes us into the problem of evil and I don’t want to get side tracked.

The problem of free will in this situation is intrinsically wrapped up with the problem of free will. As Blake argues well, one is free to the degree one is responsible. So if grace makes a choice “we are almost compelled to do” then it seems we are “nearly free.” There is an inherent tension there.

God wants responsible children though. Which is why I’m convinced that grace is a process. Grace for grace, as D&C 93 puts it. But it also leads to lots of questions. Why did Alma get a religious experience so strong that it was very probable he would be righteous and convert? (Yes, not absolute as we see with Laman and Lemuel) But why him and not all the other people who parents have prayed for? Is that fair? Would God be just to judge both Alma and say Pres. Kimball’s son who left the Church the same?

So no matter what one does, if one views grace as an event the problem of justice, responsibility, and free will raise their head. It’s not an easy matter.

Because of this I think the LDS notion of a plan of salvation as well as an idea of God developing our characters but being incapable of determining them is pretty important. But I think that it ends up having huge implications in terms of how we think of grace as opposed to our other Christian friends who adopt the theology of creation ex nihlo.

Note at the beginning of #132: “…and all of them are correct:”

(I’ve bolded it now so it’s harder to miss)

The Greek word (used in Romans 4, among other places) has a sense of “count, compute, calculate, to make an account of, etc”

I also wonder if the phrase “glory upon their heads” is relevant. Why would God praise (i.e. glorify) someone if that person had done nothing worthy of praise?

The parable of the talents is related: all servants were given something to work with from the beginning, but how they worked was up to each individually. They were not praised for the gifts they were given, but for their faithfulness towards those gifts. (And yes, I am sort of abusing the parable, because I think the talents really represent responsibility rather than gifts, but the point is still valid).

1) Works that come through grace—the good acts we are almost (no, Clark, I’m not denying free will) compelled to do because of our changed hearts. (Cf. Galatians 2:20)

2) Works we do as a plea for grace—repentance would be the key example here, but there are others as well (prayer, fasting, etc.) (Cf. Alma 36 as well as several GA talks I linked to in comment #50)

3) Works we do to maintain grace—actions that serve as reminders to us of the grace we have received; as reminders, they keep our hearts focused on God and not on ourselves. I think many of the ordinances we perform should be viewed this way (though that is not their exclusive purpose). (The sacrament is a good example.)

4) Works we do to prepare us for grace—God knows that we are selfish (i.e. ungodly), so he gives us some commandments that teach us—effectively—how to act more like him (i.e. charitably). Obedience prepares our hearts to receive grace which we otherwise would have rejected or not valued (Cf. Moses 5).

Grace is about the givingness of God.

The issue about earning a gift the way you put it is, as I said, a strawman. People just don’t talk that way. But when earning is used with grace that’s not the way we typically talk. So once again, I’d simply ask you to point to a text from a GA you feel is a problem.

As to Millet’s example, I’d say both answers are wrong. If God asked me that I’d hope I could say, “you are my savior and I have become your son.”

I would so much like to come to some kind of a meeting of the minds here, I guess I will keep on trying.

I learned in the mission field that it is always better to be on the offensive and not the defensive. (I liked a good bible bash once in awhile) In other words, it is easier to attack another position than it is to defend your own. So here is my proposition to you. I am the underdog here so it would be nice if you would take the high ground and explain to me how it is possible to earn a gift. When you do that, I will then worry about how to explain why it is not possible to earn a gift. And while you are at it, please explain why brother Millet did not explain why *his* works were sufficient to be allowed to enter heaven. Note it is the works (merits) and grace of Christ that brother Millet is relying on, *nothing* he did.

The following is a quote from Millet in his book “Are We There Yet?” This is a response to a question by one of his nonmember friends that he has had an ongoing conversation about each others faith. Question: “You are standing before the judgment bar of the Almighty, and God turns to you and asks: Robert Millet, what right do you have to enter heaven? Why should I let you in?” Answer: Some personal pondering before he answers his friend. “Would I say to the Lord something like, ‘Well, I should go to heaven because I was baptized into the Church, I served a full-time mission, I married in the temple…” “I would say to God, I claim the right to enter heaven because of my complete trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and my reliance upon his merits and mercy and grace.”

I still do not see the straw man in this, but that does not mean it is not there.

I am going to take the rest of the day to go for a drive, and see a movie. Clark has me all stressed out. :)

Hopefully I can pick it up tomorrow.

Robert, Thank you, you are very kind. I agree with you, and I hope I come across as being big enough to accept the fact that I could have all of this wrong and make the necessary changes.

NathanG #125: You asked, “Suppose somebody then refused to be baptized, but continued to believe in him, would they inherit the kingdom of God?” I think this raises the important question of what it means to believe in Christ. That is, why wouldn’t a believer refuse to be baptized? I don’t think the only good answer is that your supposed believer is not really a believer (else, why should s/he refuse to be baptized?!).

Also, I think you raise many other difficult questions in asking about those in the Telestial Kingdom. First of all, although we are told that some will be resurrected to a Telestial glory, I don’t think we know whether that is the glory they will always enjoy. Also, I wonder if we might think about those who will be resurrected to a Telestial glory in terms of the purity of their belief. That is, it seems there is some sort of double-mindedness going on, perhaps like those described in Alma 32 as being compelled to believe. That is, it seems that one must eventually confess that Jesus is the Christ even to ineherit a Telestial glory, so it seems we might think about the difference between Telestial and Celestial in terms of the distance between being “forced” to confess that Jesus is the Christ (“forced” in scare quotes b/c it seems those in Outer Darkness can deny that Jesus is the Christ even after having some sort of complete knowledge that Jesus really is the Christ…) and voluntarily choosing to confess that Jesus is the Christ (somehow it seems the less “evidence” we are given to believe, the more blessed we are for our belief—at least that’s how I tend to read the discussion of faith, sign-seeking, etc. in Alma 32…).

So while I understand why people will say we do good works because God commands us – and that’s true as it goes – logically it can’t really explain things.

The issue of the GA isn’t “if you’re so smart” but simply a request that perhaps discussion could be clearer if we addressed particular texts rather than these vague assertions. In discussions discussing explicit texts is always better. The reason I say that is because the portrayals of rhetoric you give bear no resemblance to what I read. So my inclination is just that you’re not addressing what is there but are creating strawmen. Sincerely I’m sure. But I’m just not at all convinced that the Church is what you portray it as. (Individual members I’m sure are – but I can find no end of poor communication or doctrinal deficiencies among lay members – that’s to be expected)

Here Christ has shed his grace upon them in allowing them to come to him and feel his hands and his feet. Were they worthy of such an experience? Not on account of any works they had done, it was a gift and I can’t imagine a person in that position stating that they deserved the experience because they were so good. They then shout “Hosanna” a great word that I have always thought of as a praise word, but probably is better described as a plea (save us now). He then goes on to teach them to believe in him, repent, and be baptized. Suppose somebody then refused to be baptized, but continued to believe in him, would they inherit the kingdom of God? The answer is kind of in verse 24: he would be damned (although technically he has commented on not believing AND not being baptized, which is not really my example). What does being damned mean anyway? If put in the context of the degrees of glory, that person above would probably obtain terrestrial glory. Is he saved, yes and no, at least not to the extent I hope to be. You might say he is saved because he enters the kingdom of God, in a terrestrial glory, and as best I can tell will not have to suffer for his sins and will dwell with Christ, but he does not inherit the kingdom of God, as in receiving all that the Father hath. He will not progress. He is damned.

Anyway, Christ granted his grace upon the people and gave a commandment. Now jump forward to 3 Nephi 19:25 (although the whole chapter is worthwhile). These people (specifically the 12 chosen) have now been baptized and have received the Holy Ghost and after the series of prayers “his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus.” I think this is an awesome manifestation of his grace. What did they do to deserve that? Not much really; they were obedient to the commandment. They were baptized. Is there something magical about somebody submersing you beneath water. No, not at all. However, I come back to Jacob 4:5. It (the baptism) pointed their souls towards Christ and they were subsequently blessed with a much greater manifestation of his grace. I feel the Christian I spoke with on my mission was limiting himself by not believing that the commandments were important. On the other hand, I’m sure there are many people in the church who are missing out on blessings because they are so caught up in keeping the commadments that they have forgotten Christ (I say many because I personally know how easy it is to slip into a works focused life at the expense of a focus on Christ). If we are not centered on Christ, our works are meaningless.

Well, that wasn’t really the point I intended to make, it just kind of happened that way. The challenge then is how to properly teach grace and works, because I believe both are important. Grace because that is the only way we can be saved. Works, because the person who has granted his grace has commanded us to do works.

Basically he said, “ if you are so stinking (my word not his) smart, why don’t the GA’s explain grace the way you do?” That is a great question, and I did not have a great answer. As I have said before, I spent the next year or so looking for the answer.

In a perfect world, it would not matter what word or words we used in the place of grace. We could even use the word earn or earned pertaining to heaven. And other Christians would just say, “oh, that is just the Mormons, they use different words for salvation, but they mean the same thing as we do, so they are good Christians.” But this is not a perfect world.

Our vocabulary that developed in an insular world in the 19th century where we could say anything we wanted and basically thumb our noses at the rest of Christendom, has changed, but we have not changed with it.

I said elsewhere, that I am a construction worker and have a vocabulary or four letter words that I do not use around certain people. I suppose in a society that values free speech, I could use those words anywhere, but I do not wish to be seen as a jerk. We can continue to use words that offend other Christians, but why?

If you have never experienced first hand the animosity that exists with other churches towards us, then maybe I can understand that others just do not see a need to change our ways. I said earlier in this thread that I never had any inclination to worry about the way other Christians see us, if they do not like the way we see blacks, well that is just too bad. We are the true Church, period, end of story. That is no longer my world view.

The reason I said that I am ready to drop this thing, is because in the past, we had kids here that I really wanted to have the opportunity to go to church in the same town they go to school in. So my wife, that used to be one of the best missionaries the Church has ever seen, cornered the mission president (grace makes people do crazy things) and talked him into putting missionaries here in this town of 2000 people. There had not been missionaries here since I left well over thirty years ago. The Baptist came out of the wood work to fight our efforts. The minister that I considered a friend, started giving sermons about how bad the Mormons are.

My youngest daughter left for college last Saturday. I no longer have a reason to make waves. I can retreat back into my comfort zone and let the world pass me by. *Except* for this one particular thorn in my side. Grace. What am I suppose to do with it? Sometimes I would like to bury in under a rock, turn my back on it, give it back to the owner, anything to get back to the way things were in the good old days.

Grace does not seem to work that way. It is compelling, nagging, driving one to do things you would never do on your own. I wonder how many construction workers hang out in places like this. I am *way* out of my league here? How many uneducated people like me would go toe to toe with their SP, a PhD in an intellectual discussion of grace? I am not sure if one would call that stupidity or brain damage. In either case, I am driven to share the grace I have been given and realize I do not deserve.

So what would you have me do Clark? Any suggestions would be very much appreciated. You are perhaps the most intellectually gifted person I have ever had the pleasure (and I mean that sincerely) of interacting with. What would you do?