Blogger John Redelfs continues his unique brand of gospel interpretation, arguing in a recent blog post that people not baptized as LDS church members do not have faith in Christ. That idea seems wrong for many reasons.
Redelfs starts with a lengthy quote from President McKay, that includes these paragraphs:
The means of obtaining citizenship in the Church of Jesus Christ are very explicit; so clear, indeed, that it is surprising that so many seemingly intelligent and well-read people … [assume] that they can gain entrance by other and various means. . . . There are many roads … leading sincere people toward the church and kingdom of God, but those who would participate in the privileges and blessings of citizenship therein must obey the principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
From there, Redelfs adds his own interpretation of President McKay’s remarks:
First, faith in Christ is a direct reference to our willingness to repent of our sins and keep his commandments. Does a man have “faith in Christ” if he is unwilling to repent and keep his commandments? And the first commandment we are required to keep once we have proclaimed a faith in Christ, is to be baptized. This may not be the first commandment in order of importance, but it is absolutely essential. And it is the first commandment we are asked to keep as members of his Church. Without keeping this commandment we cannot obtain eternal life and in that sense we are damned unless we are baptized. One cannot obtain the celestial kingdom without a proper baptism, much less be exalted which is eternal life.
Why is this wrong? Let me count some of the ways.
First, this interpretation renders vast portions of scripture superfluous. If there cannot be faith without baptism, then why break them into separate principles and ordinances at all? There would not be four first principles and ordinances — there would merely be faithrepentancebaptismcomfirmation.
Second, Redelf’s description of faith is problematic. He suggests that there is a divide is between those who have faith and those who do not have faith — and subsequently, that everyone who has faith will be baptized. Redelfs’ yes-or-no, binary approach to faith is not borne out by the scriptures. The most important scriptural explanation of the Mormon concept of faith is found in Alma 32. And what does Alma 32 tell us? Among other things, that faith is not a binary switch that is either on or off; rather, faith is a seed that grows. Because faith is a seed, a person may have faith — a growing seed — but that faith may not yet be sufficiently strong to lead to baptism. Redelfs’ approach ignores the seed analogy. For Redelfs, there is either a strong tree or no tree; there can be no saplings. This idea mocks the nature of faith and contradicts Alma 32.
Third, it is clear that some can have faith without baptism. People may be legally unable to be baptized into the church. These may include a 12 year old without a parent’s permission; a member whose country does not permit baptism; and so forth.
Finally, Redelfs’ entire project is deeply misguided. It is simply not appropriate for him, or for most other people, to be making broad characterizations about the faith of multitudes of others.
There are particular exceptions to this rule, of course. Prophets, guided by the Spirit and acting properly under their stewardship, may validly make such generalizations. But absent this aegis — and it is indeed absent — it is not for Redelfs or others to make such statements. The fact is that only God knows who has or does not have faith.
A follow up question is that, if Redelfs’ interpretation is counter-scriptural, then what are we to do with the David O. McKay text?
The answer is simple: Redelfs’ argument is actually not at all implied by the McKay text. President McKay focuses on the fact that many people who are not church members are coming slowly to God through other routes. He notes that unless they are baptized, they cannot enter God’s kingdom. From this straightforward prophetic statement, Redelfs jumps to the suprising conclusion that President McKay believes that one cannot have faith without baptism. However, Redelfs’ argument is not President McKay’s, but rather a man-made gloss that is counter to well established scriptural principles.
No wonder lots of folks in his high priest’s quorum didn’t agree with him.
Perhaps you could read the lesson a bit more carefully. There is even a heading (not McKay’s no doubt) that says that true faith and repentance lead to baptism. Read McKay’s words that follow. It is perfectly clear that a faith that does not lead to baptism into The Church if Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation. How could we teach otherwise? Why do missionary work if we believed that one could have a faith in Jesus Christ and not obey his commandment to be born again?
“Blogger John Redelfs continues his unique brand of gospel interpretation, arguing in a recent blog post that people not baptized as LDS church members do not have faith in Christ.”
I just read John’s post, and it’s not clear to me that this accurately captures what he’s saying. But then, it’s really not entirely clear to me what he is saying. I’m confused. I thought John was simply saying that Mormonism claims to possess the exclusive authority to effectuate a “real” baptism, given that it is Christ’s Church. This is a fairly straightforward reading of Mormon doctrine. Granted, this issue gets complicated because as LDS, we kinda seem to talk out of both sides of our mouths. On the one hand, we are “The True Church.” On the other hand, we believe all Churchs have some truths, we want to “build on what others have,” yadda, yadda, yadda. (I’m not saying these points are contradictory; I’m just saying that they often come off that way to non-members).
I don’t disagree with much of your doctrinal analysis, Kaimi, but I wonder if you and John aren’t speaking past each other here. I could be wrong; maybe I missed a key passage somewhere.
After reading John’s blog, I came away thinking that the “problem” with his lesson was probably more one of bluntness and emphasis, rather than doctrinal inaccuracy. Assuming he’s representing what the class members said accurately, I suspect they were offended at how he couched things, rather than at Mormonism’s claims to exclusivity, per se.
Aaron B
Friend (comment #1),
I’ve looked at the lesson. And we’re in agreement that, as you write, “a faith that does not lead to baptism into The Church if Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation.”
That does not mean that such faith is not faith.
You ask:
“Why do missionary work if we believed that one could have a faith in Jesus Christ and not obey his commandment to be born again? ”
Because we don’t just tell people to have faith. Just having faith is not enough. One must also repent, be baptized, be confirmed, receive temple ordinances, endure to the end.
It is absolutely clear that one can follow certain ordinances and principles of the gospel, yet still fail to achieve salvation through familure to abide by other rules.
For example, baptism. One may have a perfectly valid baptism, and then fall away. It happens all the time. This does not mean that the baptism of such people is not valid. It does not mean that their ordinance is not a real baptism. It simply means that they failed to take the later steps necessary to receive salvation.
Similarly, it is quite possible for a person to have faith, but to fail to take the necessary steps to continue down the path. That person will not receive salvation. More is required than faith alone.
But that requirement does not negate the fact that such a person had faith to start with. Just like the baptism of someone who later falls away — the problem is not with the faith (or baptism) to start with; the problem is with the person’s lack of follow through.
Assuming that what we mean by Salvation is entering the Celestial kingdom and we mean Faith sufficient for entering therein, then I think that baptism in this life is a very poor measure of Faith in Christ.
First we have a gigantic portion of the human population that has died before the age of eight and will automatically recieve Celestial glory. Next we have all those great christians who are simply too culturally removed to experience the fruits of Mormonism. E.g., Mother Teresa – does anybody really believe that she lacked faith in Jesus? I have known many great christians of all stripes and have witnessed their great and abiding Faith in Jesus – faith that is manafested in the fruits of the spirit and in repentance. Hence the great blessing of posthumous ordinance work. God is the judge and all will have the opportunity to recieve baptism. If someone has faith in this life yet isn’t baptized, who to say that they won’t be baptized in the next.
Was Joseph Smith baptized when he recieved a remission of his sins? We forget that the reason he went to the grove was not to find the true church, but to pray for his soul.
I don’t know if maybe speculating on the state of other people’s salvation is a wrongheaded exercise in itself. It seems to me that finding one’s own path to salvation, and sharing what one finds as a freely given gift, is a better approach. Each person is given stewardship over his own life. Even if I think baptism into the church would be the best use of someone else’s agency, it’s entirely presumptuous of me to second-guess his choices. It’s a very difficult line to walk, to be a missionary, to want to share the blessings of the gospel, without treading upon the sacred ground of other people’s stewardship over their own lives. God vouchsafed it upon them and not me. He must have had more confidence in their ability to choose for themselves than he did in mine to choose for them. So I must respect that.
Notwithstanding the fact that I’m told by the scriptures about the only path to salvation for *me*, yet I hesitate to speculate on the state of anyone else’s relationship with God. There have been many exceedingly holy people, far kinder and better and more advanced than I, who have been Jainists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddists, or whatever. Am I really qualified to tell the Dalai Lama that his spiritual path is wrong? I think not. However, I would feel great about sharing with him the joy that I’ve found in the teachings of the church.
It’s strange to me how prudish some people are when they feel they grasp something well, or better than others. What gets me is how many faithful people lived and died at a time when baptism didn’t even exist or had fallen out of use, and yet it’s their faith in God that will redeem them. I know, I know, “the work for the dead” and all that, but really, the work for the dead is, as a friend recently pointed out to me, God’s way of saying “good try, mortals.” God’s grace is still going to have to come into play–even if he were to “reveal all the names that we couldn’t find in our own genealogical endeavors” — that in itself is a profound movement of grace and mercy.
Was Joseph Smith baptized when he recieved a remission of his sins? We forget that the reason he went to the grove was not to find the true church, but to pray for his soul.
Well said, J. I mean, baptism and the other ceremonies and rituals of the gospel are just that — ceremonies. Like God cares about you and me and the rest of the world getting wet in a pool of water, as if to suggest that the event transcends the one who receives it. C’mon, that’s just lame. Call me a liberal, but it’s the people that matter to God. And if God chooses someone to enter his kingdom who wasn’t a baptized Mormon posthumously or not (as I think there will be myriads in this category), then I say there will be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from the straight-laced interpreations like the guy in the original post. It almost fulfills the analogy portrayed in the parable of the Prodigal Son (the older brother who is mad that his brother repented last minute and received “undeserved” grace from his father).
Tatiana–amen, sister. Right on!
There is some discussion of this topic going on over at John Redelfs’ blog. I posted a comment there, which I’ll partially re-post here:
I’m not saying that faith without baptism will bring a person to salvation. However, it is still faith. Similarly, a baptism which is not followed up with endurance to the end will not lead to salvation. But it is still baptism.
Whether or not we follow though perfectly, we will be blessed for our obedience to commandments. Even if baptism is as far as we go, and then we fall away. Or even if faith is as far as we go.
Limited obedience will not lead to salvation. But nonetheless, _any_ obedience to a commandment will lead to the blessings attached to that commandment. Those who have faith but are not baptized will not receive salvation. But they _will_ receive the blessings associated with their obedience to at least one gospel principle.
The same for someone who is baptized and then falls away. That person’s baptism will not lead to ultimate salvation. But the blessings associated with that baptism — such as the forgiveness of prior sins — will still hold. The baptism alone (absent further progress) will not be enough for salvation, but the person _will_ still receive the blessings associated with that ordinance itself.
such as the forgiveness of prior sins
And even this isn’t automatic.
2 Nephi 9:24 and many other scriptures state that in order for salvation to be active and available one must 1. believe. 2. repent. 3. be baptized. 4. endure to the end. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin according to Romans 14:23. There will be no good reward (kingdom of glory) for someone who after being baptized falls away and never comes back and repents before the final judgement. In fact it is quite clear that all who want salvation (saved from the second death) must be obedient to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. If we see the end results of temple work we will see that all will be baptized and other vicarious work done in their behalf, so it really becomes the question of under what circumstances someone accepts the gospel and endures from that moment on as to what kingdom of glory they will go to. D&C 29:41-45 & Helaman 12:23-26 make it clear that all who wish to be saved from the second everlasting spiritual death must believe and repent. Baptism avails a person nothing if they fall away afterwards, because without partaking of the sacrament on a regular basis they do not have the true belief or faith required for the Holy ghost to sanctify (set apart for holy purpose) you for immortal glory, therefore if upon death you have fallen away you will be damned (delivered over to the devil) until proper compliance to the law is met.
Baptism and faith work together. Faith leads one to proper repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. Everyone who has true faith in Jesus and his gospel will be baptized wheather in their mortal journey or done vicariously, thus fulfilling the prophetic statement found in Helaman 12:23-26. Salvation in our mortal minds is mysterious because we find it truly hard to believe that even most wicked people have the capacity to repent and believe the gospel. Even more strange to us mortals is the thought that even Telestial heirs will repent and be cleansed of their sins through the atonement of Christ and become holy sanctified servants to God (D&C 76:39-43,110-112). The power that Satan has over our minds because of our lack of belief is truly amazing in our mortal journey here. We truly would be amazed at just how great the plan is set up to save even what we consider our worst enemies. Take Satan out of the picture and sin disappears, faith is established so that the veil of unbelief is diminished once again and salvation becomes a part of almost everyone, this will happen in the millenium.
The principle of faith always precedes a blessing from Heavenly father. It is through faith that we enter into every covenant we make with Heavenly father. His kingdom is established and runs completely off of faith, it is the very esence of holiness for without faith we are nothing, and could not do anything righteous.
True faith in Christ will and must eventually lead one to baptism, otherwise they will remain in their filthy state and be eternally damned at the final judgement and must suffer as Christ did (D&C 19; 2 Nephi 9:15-16) this suffering will be to suffer with an imortal body all of the torments that can be inflicted upon the physical mind and spirit, this is the eternal death spoken of in 2 Nephi 2:27-30.
because without partaking of the sacrament on a regular basis they do not have the true belief or faith required for the Holy ghost to sanctify (set apart for holy purpose) you for immortal glory, therefore if upon death you have fallen away you will be damned (delivered over to the devil) until proper compliance to the law is met.
Rob, are you suggesting that partaking of the Lord’s Supper has salvific value? Sacrament isn’t one of the saving ordinances. Where are you getting this? I’m curious.
The principle of faith always precedes a blessing from Heavenly father.
Genesis 15:1-6 might read the other way — it clearly shows that God blessed Abram first, and then Abram believed God. My point is that sometimes God just pours out (in mercy and grace) his goodness and blessings upon us because of no work or merit of our own. And in the case of Abram, and in my case as well, we both came to believe in God after we were blessed. Sometimes that’s how God gets people to work in him — he blesses them first. I’m not so sure that “faith always precedes the blessing” is a hard-and-fast rule of sorts.
I would agree that sometimes we get blessed before we get an increase in more faith, but the blessing we recieve before attaining that faith, as in the case of Alma praying for his son, will either lead us to have the faith sufficient to believe or even be healed (spiritually/ physically) or to our condemnation.
As far as our own personal salvation is concerned though, God will not bless us and bring us back into his presence and reward us if we do not put forth an effort of faith first.
John 6:53-56 speaks as far as us mortals is concerned, we have no life within us without it. The sacrament is a saving ordinance at least for us mortals because all of us will continue in sin after baptism. Once we have sinned ( after baptism) we become spotted with sin, and only through proper repentance and then partaking of the sacrament do we receive the remission of those sins so that the holy ghost can once again dwell within our holy temple.
It is amazing that there could be so much discussion and difference of opinion among supposedly knowledgable Latter-day Saints on a doctrinal topic as basic as faith and baptism.
A person cannot obtain eternal life without being baptized. A person is not baptized unless he is baptized by proper priesthood authority. Unless faith in Christ leads to baptism, it is futile because such faith does not lead to eternal life. David O. McKay taught this in Lesson Twenty-one of the priesthood study manual. Our missionaries teach it to every investigator. The scriptures teach it. It is true doctrine. It is official Church doctrine. Those who believe something else believe false doctrine.
Perhaps the urgency we feel in doing missionary work is negatively impacted by the thought, apparently held by some, that a person can obtain salvation or eternal life without a priesthood baptism. If there were some other way to obtain eternal life, it would not be so important to do missionary work and temple work for the dead. But there is no other way to obtain eternal life. Therefore, missionary work and temple work for the dead is not merely a “good thing.” It is absolutely necessary for salvation if by salvation we mean eternal life.
There is no way for a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, atheist or agnostic to obtain eternal life unless he becomes a Mormon. He must be baptized by the Mormon priesthood in this life or the next. Otherwise he cannot obtain eternal life regardless of how much faith he may otherwise have.
We need to remember this. Doing so will keep us focused on what is important: Doing missionary work, doing temple work, repenting of our sins, and keeping the Savior’s commandments. We cannot say that we have faith in Christ if we refuse to follow him by keeping his commandments. And we cannot follow him in the way that he himself requires unless we are baptized by his authority which is found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Among believing Latter-day Saints, this should not provoke any controversy whatever. It is fundamental, basic and introductory doctrine. A person who does not understand this does not understand the first thing about the gospel of Jesus Christ. He has been misled by the devil and believes false doctrine. He believes a lie.
Those who disagree with me about this need to consult with their Bishop or stake president. Ask any missionary. Ask the mission president. Or consult the scriptures. This is what the Savior taught during his mortality. And it is what he teaches today through his only true Church. It is what all of his true prophets teach. Anyone who teaches something else is a false prophet.
John, I just went to your blog — I had no idea you were of the BRM/JFS sort. THAT explains everything…
Rob, I still don’t know where you’re getting the idea that partaking of the sacrament is necessary for salvation. If you look in just about any manual (written by the Correlation committee, no less!) it’s never listed as one of the saving ordinances. They usually just list baptism, init/endowment, marriage, and if it’s an older manual, the fulness of the priesthood. At least that’s what I’ve noticed.
“There is no way for a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, atheist or agnostic to obtain eternal life unless he becomes a Mormon.”
John W., I think it’s a bit more complex than that. Think about Alvin Smith, for example. He was not baptized, yet Joseph Smith saw a vision of him in the Celestial Kingdom. How did that happen? Now, presumably Alvin has been baptized since then, and perhaps Joseph’s vision was a vision of the future, but D&C 137 clearly makes room for people other than those who have been baptized to be in the Celestial Kingdom.
Brother Redelfs, I salute you and your attempts to try to keep doctrinal purity on the Bloggernacle, a place where new, strange doctrines find their way into people’s belief systems. IMHO, you are correct to emphasize the doctrines of the Church. But I do think it is a bit more complex than you have set forth.
In addition, one of the lessons I have learned the hard way is that calling people to repentance on the Bloggernacle is an exercise in futility and frustration. I consider myself a pretty orthodox Mormon, but I have found that calls to repentance just stir up contention, which is of the devil, as we know. The best way to get your point across is to take a cue from President Hinckley and be loving and gentle and recognize that your salvation does not depend on rebuking others. Just my two cents.
JStapley: “We forget that the reason he [Joseph] went to the grove was not to find the true church, but to pray for his soul.”
Joseph Smith himself seems to remember things differently: “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.” (JS-H 18)
Tatiana: “It’s a very difficult line to walk, to be a missionary, to want to share the blessings of the gospel, without treading upon the sacred ground of other people’s stewardship over their own lives. God vouchsafed it upon them and not me. He must have had more confidence in their ability to choose for themselves than he did in mine to choose for them.”
Your logic is non sequitur. That “God vouchsafed [people’s stewardship over their own lives] upon them and not [you]” does not in any way prove that “[God] must have had more confidence in t heir ability to choose for themselves than he did in [your ability] to choose for them.” Rather, it simply shows that, as the scriptures teach, God has given to each man and woman the agency to choose his or her own path. Nothing we do can change that, so you may rest easy in knowing that no missionary, no matter how overzealous, can possibly violate another’s agency.
Tatiana, again: “Notwithstanding the fact that I’m told by the scriptures about the only path to salvation for *me*, yet I hesitate to speculate on the state of anyone else’s relationship with God.”
How wonderful, then, that you con’t have to speculate. Christ himself (aka God, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer) taught that “except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This would include the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa.
David J: “Like God cares about you and me and the rest of the world getting wet in a pool of water, as if to suggest that the event transcends the one who receives it. C’mon, that’s just lame.”
Funny, then, that God himself would have taught how important it was. Perhaps you should take God’s lameness up with him directly.
“Once we have sinned ( after baptism) we become spotted with sin, and only through proper repentance and then partaking of the sacrament do we receive the remission of those sins so that the holy ghost can once again dwell within our holy temple.”
It is news to me that sins cannot be forgiven until one takes of the sacrament. Following up on David J.’s comment, if this is so, then perhaps we should be performing the sacrament vicariously in the temples.
David J: “Rob, are you suggesting that partaking of the Lord’s Supper has salvific value? Sacrament isn’t one of the saving ordinances. […] I still don’t know where you’re getting the idea that partaking of the sacrament is necessary for salvation.”
1. We must obey God’s commandments in order to be cleansed and enter into his realm (numerous scriptures, e.g. Alma 7:25).
2. One of God’s commandments is that we meet together oft and offer up our sacraments on his holy day (e.g. D&C 59:9, 12).
3. Therefore, partaking of the sacrament does indeed have “salvific value”.
I have always believed that the sacrament was how we renew our baptismal covenant. The main purpose of baptism is to receive a remission for our sins, for without it we cannot receive such remission. Remember that when we partake of the emblem of the water we drink of his blood to our soul which is in remembrance that his blood was shed for those who believe on his name for a remission of their sins. The emblem of water as I see it represents the cleansing power of his blood to our soul. Compare to JST Matthew 26:24-25
DavidH: “It is news to me that sins cannot be forgiven until one takes of the sacrament. Following up on David J.’s comment, if this is so, then perhaps we should be performing the sacrament vicariously in the temples.”
Why? We have no indication that the sacrament is an ordinance that applies to the hereafter. Even if we were to suppose that “sins cannot be forgiven until one [in mortality, by implication] takes of the sacrament”, what relevance would this new doctrine have to vicarious ordinances?
“Joseph Smith himself seems to remember things differently: “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.â€? (JS-H 18)”
Stephen,
The reason Joseph wanted to know which church to join was to save his soul, and receive a remission of sins. And, indeed, his sins were forgiven without joining any church. See Ronald O. Barney, “The First Vision: Searching for the Truth,� Ensign, Jan. 2005, 14:
“Indeed, when 14-year-old Joseph entered the secluded stand of timber on his family’s farm near Palmyra, New York, he had salvation on his mind.
“Young Joseph’s desire to please God and to be found acceptable by Him was a characteristic of his personality. He finally resolved to call upon “the Lord for mercy, for there was none else to whom I could go [to] obtain mercy.â€?
“Hence, he “kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of [his] heart to Godâ€? (JS—H 1:15).
Of his experience in the Sacred Grove, the Prophet Joseph wrote, “A pillar of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day came down from above and rested upon me.� Within that light, he said, “I saw the Lord and he spake unto me.� The first words that Joseph heard from the Savior filled him with unspeakable joy—“Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee.�
“This heavenly declaration informing young Joseph that he was acceptable to God proved to be life altering. Never again could Joseph wonder about the interest of God our Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in him or about Their love for the human family.”
See also D&C 20:5 (which, to my knowledge, is the only scripture outside JS-H that refers to the First Vision.
“Even if we were to suppose that “sins cannot be forgiven until one [in mortality, by implication] takes of the sacramentâ€?, what relevance would this new doctrine have to vicarious ordinances?”
If taking the sacrament were a saving ordinance, and if sins could not be forgiven until one could take of the sacrament again, then, (to paraphrase the question we used to ask in missionary discussions), what of those who died without the opportunity to take of the sacrament again after sinning and repenting?
DavidH: “The reason Joseph wanted to know which church to join was to save his soul, and receive a remission of sins.”
Joseph’s own testimony in JS-H claims he wanted to know which church to join. JStapley’s claims was that “the reason he [Joseph] went to the grove was not to find the true church”. This is demonstrably false.
“And, indeed, his sins were forgiven without joining any church.”
I fail to see the relevance of this fact. Joseph may have been forgiven of his sins at 14, but he certainly was not at that point a candidate for exaltation. Whom God calls, he makes fit, and that includes cleansing; but the things necessary for exaltation were revealed to and implemented by the Prophet. To claim they were not necessary is to deny Joseph’s life work and the very word of God.
“If taking the sacrament were a saving ordinance, and if sins could not be forgiven until one could take of the sacrament again, then, (to paraphrase the question we used to ask in missionary discussions), what of those who died without the opportunity to take of the sacrament again after sinning and repenting?”
1. Taking the sacrament is most definitely a “saving ordinance”, at the very least in the sense that it is a commandment of God, and we must obey God’s commandments to be saved.
2. It is possible to fail to obey God’s commandments and yet still repent and gain forgiveness, even salvation; but that doesn’t mean it’s an advisable course of action.
3. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Do you suppose that, if Abraham had refused, God would have seen to it that Abraham had had that sacrifice done vicariously for him, such that he (Abraham) could accept that sacrifice in the hereafter? Or is it likely that some requirements of obedience, even “salvific ordinances”, only apply to beings in their mortal state and aren’t of efficacy or meaning after death?
— Geoff B —
In addition, one of the lessons I have learned the hard way is that calling people to repentance on the Bloggernacle is an exercise in futility and frustration. I consider myself a pretty orthodox Mormon, but I have found that calls to repentance just stir up contention, which is of the devil, as we know. The best way to get your point across is to take a cue from President Hinckley and be loving and gentle and recognize that your salvation does not depend on rebuking others. Just my two cents.
—
I am not and have not called anyone to repentance. I am just trying to clear up what seems to be confusion on a most basic point of fundamental doctrine by teaching the correct doctrine. Some things are not a matter of personal opinion. They are a matter of truth vs
falsehood.
I found a talk on the sacrament that I thought was very helpful in settling the question of just what the ordinance means to us. The talk is in the October Ensign 1998 by Dallin H. Oaks, it is entitled “The Aaronic Priesthood and the Sacrament”. I will quote him……
“Not one of you young men and not one of your leaders has lived without sin since his baptism. Without some provision for further cleansing after our baptism, each of us is lost to things spiritual. We cannot have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and at the final judgment we would be bound to be “cast off forever” (1 Ne. 10:21). How grateful we are that the Lord has provided a process for each baptized member of His Church to be periodically cleansed from the soil of sin. The sacrament is an essential part of that process.
We are commanded to repent of our sins and to come to the Lord with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and partake of the sacrament in compliance with its covenants. When we renew our baptismal covenants in this way, the Lord renews the cleansing effect of our baptism. In this way we are made clean and can always have His Spirit to be with us. The importance of this is evident in the Lord’s commandment that we partake of the sacrament each week (see D&C 59:8Â9).”
I would think that it is evident that partaking the ordinance of the sacrament regularly is essential to salvation. As far as it is concerned in the hearafter……..who knows? I would think though that there would be some sort of worship there to recognize Christ, but it is all just speculation.
Trying to wrap my brain around terms like “salvation” and “exaltation,”
and how they’re bandied about within and outside the church,
sends me to the medicine cabinet …every time.
Ya them two words “salvation and exaltation” are probably the most misunderstood words inside and outside of the church, everyone has their own opinions and more often than not everyone is totally confused about their true meanings.
It is sad that those opinions become semi-retro iconic in our doctrine without a proper and thorough study that in fact shows we are truly more in line with mainstream christianity in our definitions than we really believe. It kind of makes one wonder if we were to bring our definitions more in line with their true meanings, maybe the christian community would more readily accept us.
As sure as I am that the church is the right path for me, I’m not at all sure that it’s the only path available to anyone ever. Other workers there may be in the vinyard who receive their pennies under a different deal, or so I read that parable. The other parable that applies, I think, is the one about motes and beams. I feel that I’m expressly forbidden from having opinions about the state of salvation of anyone other than myself. Who am I to judge? So sharing this wonderful blessing with those who want to hear about it sounds to me like a great thing to do. Telling those with no interest in it that they’re doing wrong sounds to me like a mistake of judgement.
“As sure as I am that the church is the right path for me, I’m not at all sure that it’s the only path available to anyone ever.”
Then you do not understand the gospel or the scriptures. Certainly good people can and do exist outside the Church, just as evil people can and do exist within it. Nevertheless, the teachings are clear: A man or woman cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without making the baptismal covenant; there is only one way into heaven, and it is straight (and strait) and narrow; all will have the opportunity to accept the gospel, and those who reject it will lose their exaltation; those endowed with their full measure of agency who gain exaltation will be, without exception, the people who make and then keep their baptismal, Priesthood (for the men), and temple covenants, including being sealed to a spouse.
There is no other way. That’s it. We can quibble until dawn about good people outside the gospel and whether non-Mormons can have faith, blah, blah, blah, but ultimately it’s all irrelevant. Salvation in its fullest sense is today available only and uniquely to Latter-day Saints and those who, by the authority found in the LDS Church, make those same covenants by proxy after death. If you do not believe this, then you do not believe the gospel as preached by Joseph Smith and his successors and as taught in the scripture.
Hey, quick idea to run by everyone. If a sinner who repents in the hereafter and then receives salvation (Terrestrial, Telestial) by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel and are cleansed, can they continue on in faith and in time receive their full rewards in the Celestial kingdom seeing as their temple work will have been done and the atonement of Christ is infinite?