Hey we believe in grace too!

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Trying to convince the rest of Christiandom that we do the grace thing too:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... hange.html

[RubinHighlander]

Ah yes, the delicate balancing act to get TBMs to work out their own salvation, serving the COB with every fiber of their being, but it's still not enough. At the end of their tired and worn out lives, saved by grace after all they could do, with little to no hope for any blessings of healing in this life, only the life to come. Made to believe that anything good in their lives that ever happened to them was a tender mercy from God and that anything bad was their test to prove their faith and worthiness.

The much quoted scripture on the topic from 2nd Nephi:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Why does this grace topic also conjure up in my memories the great speech by King Benjamin?

For behold, if the knowledge of the goodness of God at this time has awakened you to a sense of your nothingness, and your worthless and fallen state—

...always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily...

For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

Can you imagine treating your own children that way? Telling them they are worthless and their very existence depends entirely on you, that the only reason they are alive is because of your grace and and long-suffering toward them? Now I've had my moments of anger with my kids, especially when they express ingratitude, but I don't think this King Benjamin speech is a healthy disposition to inflict upon my kids; it's very narcissistic!

I'm just glad to be out from under all that grace and works BS all together!

This also brings to mind the RFM podcast about the Faith Not To Be Healed Bednar talk and the one where Eyring visits the dying old man, offering no blessing of healing. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... ot-healed/

[LaMachina]

Do the gospels and/or Jesus really say anything different than "we are saved after all we can do"? If they do, I haven't seen it. It's one of those frustratingly circular arguments - I'm saved by Jesus - which means good works - which means I'm saved by Jesus- which means good works...on and on ad infinitum. As long as your good works include "I believe in Jesus!" you're set. Which I personally find to be it's own level of immoral.

While King Benjamin's speech can come across harsh, as you mention, I have had similar conversations with my children when they get a little spoiled or entitled. Basically Kendrick Lamar sums it up in three words - B*tch, be humble.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

That used to be one of my favorite scriptures. I asked for that to be put on my missionary plaque in our ward building, but someone switched it out for some more missionary gospel spreading sounding one instead. I don't know if it was deliberate. Maybe they thought it sounded too sad and depressing (which was how I experienced Mormonism in a lot of ways).

[BriansThoughtMirror]

This was a really interesting article. I do think the doctrine is changing. The article frames it as LDS teachers coming to better understand the doctrine, and I guess you could make that argument. The ideas of grace in the BOM do sound pretty Protestant to me!

As a kid, I remember hearing about salvation by grace as a false doctrine. We didn't believe in that, it was a false teaching of apostate churches. It was a teaching designed to let people think they could do whatever they want and still be saved. In connection to such a doctrine, we'd be likely to quote 2 Nephi 28:8-9:

"8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark."

On my mission in the Bible belt, I wrestled hard with this issue. I had always felt like I could never quite measure up to what God wanted from me, and I felt like I was not accomplishing the things I had been blessed to accomplish on my mission, either, despite my best efforts and faith. Why was I failing? Wasn't God supposed to provide a way for me to accomplish the things he commanded of me? When I would get into discussions with Baptists, Evangelicals, and other protestants, we'd often discuss grace. Their perspective hit me hard, and made a lot of sense. It was a big part of what started my faith crisis. To them, our works were worth NOTHING. Only Christ could save us. When I read the Bible, I found more of their doctrine than my own. It was confusing and gut wrenching.

While I was out, I heard Stephen E. Robinson speak in one of those "Know Your Religion" series lectures. They don't do those anymore, to my knowledge. He taught his basic ideas from Believing Christ. His ideas about grace were super eye opening to me. Was it possible we did believe in grace? It was so contrary to the way I'd been taught, though. And he wasn't a prophet or apostle...

Now, I think Robinson's views are sort of a compromise between protestant ideas and Mormonism. They are the result of a practical wrestle he himself had with the reality of Mormon doctrine. He had to find a way to make it work, and for him (and his wife), it was not working. I think that's kind of how all doctrine develops- people are trying to reconcile multiple, conflicting, authoritative statements, AND trying to find a practical way to make it work for them intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. Robinson found a way that worked better than what LDS leaders had been saying. I think that perspective is now trickling up to the upper leadership. Mormonism really might be somewhat different now than it was when I was growing up.

I recently watched an interview between Terryl Givens and Marlin K. Jensen. It was a very interesting interview, and I enjoyed it, even though I don't really share many beliefs with either of them. Among many interesting points, Jensen made a passing comment:

"I think there may be a recalibration under way. I mean, it’s like you point out — Joseph said very little, if anything, about the Atonement. Very little, if anything, was said about it in my youth. I don’t think I ever had a lesson on it; I don’t think I was aware of it as a doctrine, even, to speak of. It was maybe in the 1980s that we began to talk about it and write about these things in the Church."
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... usion.html

That blew my mind! It must have been even more different when Jensen was a kid. He openly acknowledges this massive shift in thinking and emphasis.

Thanks for posting this! It was an interesting read! Mormons are starting to see themselves differently, and even interpret their history and doctrine differently.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

On my mission in the Bible belt, I wrestled hard with this issue. I had always felt like I could never quite measure up to what God wanted from me, and I felt like I was not accomplishing the things I had been blessed to accomplish on my mission, either, despite my best efforts and faith. Why was I failing? Wasn't God supposed to provide a way for me to accomplish the things he commanded of me? When I would get into discussions with Baptists, Evangelicals, and other protestants, we'd often discuss grace. Their perspective hit me hard, and made a lot of sense. It was a big part of what started my faith crisis. To them, our works were worth NOTHING. Only Christ could save us. When I read the Bible, I found more of their doctrine than my own. It was confusing and gut wrenching.

While I was out, I heard Stephen E. Robinson speak in one of those "Know Your Religion" series lectures. They don't do those anymore, to my knowledge. He taught his basic ideas from Believing Christ. His ideas about grace were super eye opening to me. Was it possible we did believe in grace? It was so contrary to the way I'd been taught, though. And he wasn't a prophet or apostle...

I also went to the bible belt and they used to beat us over the head with all the grace teachings in the book of Romans. It caused a lot of dissonance for sure.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

I also went to the bible belt and they used to beat us over the head with all the grace teachings in the book of Romans. It caused a lot of dissonance for sure.

Not only that, but a lot of them seemed happier than I was, too! Talk about dissonance...

[alas]

I got into a discussion once, and although I was not TBM, and neither was my friend Protestant any more, she took that position and I took the TBM position of "Faith without works is dead". We were both unbelievers in the church we were raised in, so we could discuss theology without a need to prove the other wrong. We ended up saying that the doctrine is essentially the same, once you understand the language used and get away from attacking the other Religion.

Mormonism isn't saying what they do believe so much as ridiculing Protestantism in 90% of what gets taught.

They believe that you are saved by faith alone, but if your faith is not demonstrated by your works, they your faith is not faith but empty words. It is like asking, is Roy Moore a Christian? Is Trump a Christian? They both profess belief, but then when you look at their behavior, it becomes clear that they do not *really* believe. "They draw close to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me."

One thing my friend said that sounded very Mormon was that we prove our faith by our works. What is the difference then?

And Mormons believe that we are saved by faith after our works prove that the faith is real. What is the difference? We stress the "after all you can do," but they really believe that no matter how much you do, you are saved by faith. Where is the difference? The only difference is that we want to prove the other wrong, so we twist what they say into something that is not REALLY what they believe, and then tell our own people how wrong the other group is. Protestants claim that our being saved is BY our works and whether we have faith or not doesn't matter. Well, that is not what our doctrine says, that our faith does not make any difference one way or the other. Mormons sure do lose their temple recommend quick if they say they do not believe in Christ. In the end, both groups believe that salvation depends on us proving that our faith is real and in the case of death bed conversion, well, God knows our heart and knows if it is real or not. Which is the bottom line. God knows our hearts and knows if our giving to the poor was just a tax deduction or if it was out of love for our fellow humans. A Protestant would be just as quick to say that the "good works" of giving to charity for the tax deduction won't count to your credit. It is not showing love for God.

Then Mormons have "exaltation," which seems totally based on having the right words said over you. But since you can do all that later, we bounce right back to "show your faith by your works"

[alas]

I recently watched an interview between Terryl Givens and Marlin K. Jensen. It was a very interesting interview, and I enjoyed it, even though I don't really share many beliefs with either of them. Among many interesting points, Jensen made a passing comment:

"I think there may be a recalibration under way. I mean, it’s like you point out — Joseph said very little, if anything, about the Atonement. Very little, if anything, was said about it in my youth. I don’t think I ever had a lesson on it; I don’t think I was aware of it as a doctrine, even, to speak of. It was maybe in the 1980s that we began to talk about it and write about these things in the Church."
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... usion.html

That blew my mind! It must have been even more different when Jensen was a kid. He openly acknowledges this massive shift in thinking and emphasis.

Thanks for posting this! It was an interesting read! Mormons are starting to see themselves differently, and even interpret their history and doctrine differently.

I think Jensen has a point. The church I was raised in never talked about the atonement or grace and Jesus Christ was mostly the name of the church and the closing words to prayer.

It was like the church started where Christianity leaves off and went from there. They assumed we all knew the Bible, but we never studied it. They assumed we all understood the atonement, but it was never talked about. It was like everything the church taught was for new converts coming from a Christian religion. My brother went to Korea on his mission, in 1968, and he said first thing he had to do with new converts is teach them Christianity, because what they got at church was the stuff that comes after Christianity.

When you consider what Joseph Smith used to bring people into his church, it was all the stuff added on top of basic Christianity. One thing he taught was that the Bible was badly translated, so we all needed something beyond the Bible. Then he taught that the assumption that we would be with loved ones was incomplete and you needed special sealings done. So, really, he started with Christianity and said this and this and this are wrong and we have the correct answers. It is like how the story of Cinderella's wicked step sisters is not funny unless you know the story of Cinderella. But the story of the step sisters does not retell the story of Cinderella, but starts off by correcting it and goes on to tell how it "really" was. But it is meaningless unless you know the story of Cinderella really well.

So, the kids who grew up hearing the story of the step sisters, but never hearing about Cinderella grew up really confused.

[moksha]

Does this mean the full lyrics of Martin Luther's hymn, A Mighty Fortress, can be added back into the Mormon Hymnbook? The full song contained too much emphasis on grace, even though the Authorities at the time really liked the melody by JS Bach.

[deacon blues]

I’m convinced that Mormonism was invented so that 19th century people would rely on Joseph Smith/Church, rather than God. God’s grace makes that unnecessary. The Church may preach grace, but when it conflicts with tithing and temples, grace becomes an enemy to the Church.

[RubinHighlander]

And Mormons believe that we are saved by faith after our works prove that the faith is real. What is the difference?

That's a good point Alas, that this works thing, along with the evolution of the new Godhead, special underwear, the WOW, child baptism, and other quirky things were an effort to differentiate Mormons from the rest of Christendom and make them feel more super special; that whole "peculiar people" crap. It speaks to the way the old temple film trashed on the Catholic church and other Christian religions to try and paint them as the Great and Abominable. It really helped JS and other prophet buoy themselves up and revolutionaries with new ideas given them from God. Mormons like to think that way about all the cool new shiny doctrines JS came up with, when in reality he was regurgitating borrowed thoughts and concepts and putting his own spin on them.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

What is the difference then?

To me, the differences are getting smaller. Mormonism is becoming more like mainstream Christianity, and this is a fairly recent development. Like Jensen said, there used to be much less taught about grace or the atonement.

[alas]

What is the difference then?

To me, the differences are getting smaller. Mormonism is becoming more like mainstream Christianity, and this is a fairly recent development. Like Jensen said, there used to be much less taught about grace or the atonement.

I don't think the ideas are new or changing. I think the church just assumed that of course we all know that stuff already. They didn't talk about it much, but it was still foundational to "the gospel" and was assumed. Joseph Smith basically took Christianity and added on a bunch of junk. Junk to make us feel like we had something special ON TOP of what all other Christians had. So he added on temples and being ordained and stuff and junk. On top of salvation, he added exaltation. But he didn't do away with salvation. You still need that. On top of baptism, he added temple stuff, but you still need baptism.