LDS and Grace

[TasteForTruth]

Quotes from disparate sources rarely carry equal weight. For example, if one were to quote Thomas Jefferson on the role of government and to also quote Joseph Stalin on the same topic, there is little doubt that these two quotes would carry equal weight.

I don't disagree. I just don't see what that has to do with my point. I said that if two people quote the same statement by the same person... those identical statements carry equal weight in a discussion unless one of them used out of context in some way.

 

[TasteForTruth]

What is thoelogy?

Here... I'll be more specific:

I'm not asking that you reconcile your understanding of agency with the conditions of premortality—I'm asking you if you can identify when it is—in LDS doctrine and teachings—that man received agency for the first time.

 

[HenryPorter]

Who said I was congratulating you?

when you responded to this post of mine

Originally Posted by HenryPorter

I view it from the opposite angle.
I have nothing to "work out with God" because God has worked it out for me.
He did all the work on the cross
​

with this

congrats

Who were you addressing, if you were not adressing me, in your reply to my post?

 

[TasteForTruth]

when you responded to this post of mine


with this



Who were you addressing, if you were not adressing me, in your reply to my post?

I don't remember. Did you want to talk about grace?

 

[HenryPorter]

Ask yourself, and answer, all these questions in relation to the Bible and you have my answer. Let's not make it more complicated than it is.

It seems that you have stated several conditions to your protocols for determining what constitutes a "weighted" post.

I am asking for clairifacation concerning the conditions you posted.

From what I read in the Bible, God says exactly what He means, be it in scripture, or thru His spokesmen ( Prophets, Apostles, Evangalists, Pastors, and Teachers)

You bring in the notions of orginial and composite context. This is a non biblical concept.

Would you please respond to the specific question I have asked you on a one by one basis?

 

[TasteForTruth]

It seems that you have stated several conditions to your protocols for determining what constitutes a "weighted" post.

I am asking for clairifacation concerning the conditions you posted.

From what I read in the Bible, God says exactly what He means, be it in scripture, or thru His spokesmen ( Prophets, Apostles, Evangalists, Pastors, and Teachers)

You bring in the notions of orginial and composite context. This is a non biblical concept.

Would you please respond to the specific question I have asked you on a one by one basis?

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (James 2:24)
​

God said exactly what he means, right? Man is justified by works and faith, right? God said this through a spokesman, right?

Do you have your answer yet?

 

[skylark1]

I wanted to post the following for discussion from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. I hope that you all don't mind the length, but it was the last paragraph that interested me and it needed the preceeding paragraphs for context.

Some Christians would likely say that only the first form of grace mentioned is truly grace, but are not some blessings that are a result of God's grace subject to some cooperation, effort, or action on our part? Doesn't the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost enable the fruits of the Spirit to grow within us as we walk with God, that enpower us to live a Christian life?

"Grace is thus the source of three categories of blessings related to mankind's salvation. First, many blessings of grace are unconditional -free and unmerited gifts requiring no individual action. God's grace in this sense is a factor in the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the Plan of Salvation. Specifically regarding the Fall, and despite death and other conditions resulting from Adam's transgression, Christ's grace has atoned for original sin and has assured the resurrection of all humankind: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (A of F 2).

Second, the Savior has also atoned conditionally for personal sins. The application of grace to personal sins is conditional because it is available only when an individual repents, which can be a demanding form of works. Because of this condition, mercy is able to satisfy the demands of justice with neither mercy nor justice robbing the other. Personal repentance is therefore a necessary condition of salvation, but it is not by itself sufficient to assure salvation (see Justice and Mercy). In addition, one must accept the ordinances of baptism and the laying-on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which one is born again as the spirit child of Christ and may eventually become sanctified (cf. D&C 76:51-52; see also Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Third, after one has received Christ's gospel of faith, repentance, and baptism unto forgiveness of sin, relying "wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save," one has only "entered in by the gate" to the "strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life" (2 Ne. 31:17-20). In this postbaptism stage of spiritual development, one's best efforts-further works-are required to "endure to the end" (2 Ne. 31:20). These efforts include obeying the Lord's commandments and receiving the higher ordinances performed in the temples, and continuing a repentance process as needed "to retain a remission of your sins" (Mosiah 4:12).

In the teachings of Martin Luther, such works of righteousness are not the result of personal initiative but are the spontaneous effects of the internal grace one has received, wholly the fruits of the gracious tree. In LDS doctrine by contrast, "men should…do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves" (D&C 58:27-28). At the same time, individuals lack the capacity to develop a Christlike nature by their own effort. The perfecting attributes such as hope and charity are ultimately "bestowed upon all who are true followers…of Jesus Christ" (Moro. 7:48) by grace through his Atonement. This interactive relationship between human and divine powers in LDS theology derives both from the significance it attaches to free will and from its optimism about the "fruits of the spirit" (Gal. 5:22-25) among the truly converted, "those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do" (D&C 46:9).

God bestows these additional, perfecting expressions of grace conditionally, as he does the grace that allows forgiveness of sin. They are given "after all we can do" (2 Ne. 25:23)-that is, in addition to our best efforts. In general, this condition is related less to obeying particular commandments than it is to one's fundamental spiritual character, such as "meekness and lowliness of heart" (Moro. 8:26) and possessing "a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (Ps. 51:17; 3 Ne. 9:20; Hafen, chap. 9). Or, as Moroni wrote at the end of the Book of Mormon, "If ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; …then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ" (Moro. 10:32-33)."

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism - Grace​

 

[bbbbbbb]

I wanted to post the following for discussion from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. I hope that you all don't mind the length, but it was the last paragraph that interested me and it needed the preceeding paragraphs for context.

Some Christians would likely say that only the first form of grace mentioned is truly grace, but are not some blessings that are a result of God's grace subject to some cooperation, effort, or action on our part? Doesn't the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost enable the fruits of the Spirit to grow within us as we walk with God, that enpower us to live a Christian life?

"Grace is thus the source of three categories of blessings related to mankind's salvation. First, many blessings of grace are unconditional -free and unmerited gifts requiring no individual action. God's grace in this sense is a factor in the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the Plan of Salvation. Specifically regarding the Fall, and despite death and other conditions resulting from Adam's transgression, Christ's grace has atoned for original sin and has assured the resurrection of all humankind: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression" (A of F 2).

Second, the Savior has also atoned conditionally for personal sins. The application of grace to personal sins is conditional because it is available only when an individual repents, which can be a demanding form of works. Because of this condition, mercy is able to satisfy the demands of justice with neither mercy nor justice robbing the other. Personal repentance is therefore a necessary condition of salvation, but it is not by itself sufficient to assure salvation (see Justice and Mercy). In addition, one must accept the ordinances of baptism and the laying-on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which one is born again as the spirit child of Christ and may eventually become sanctified (cf. D&C 76:51-52; see also Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Third, after one has received Christ's gospel of faith, repentance, and baptism unto forgiveness of sin, relying "wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save," one has only "entered in by the gate" to the "strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life" (2 Ne. 31:17-20). In this postbaptism stage of spiritual development, one's best efforts-further works-are required to "endure to the end" (2 Ne. 31:20). These efforts include obeying the Lord's commandments and receiving the higher ordinances performed in the temples, and continuing a repentance process as needed "to retain a remission of your sins" (Mosiah 4:12).

In the teachings of Martin Luther, such works of righteousness are not the result of personal initiative but are the spontaneous effects of the internal grace one has received, wholly the fruits of the gracious tree. In LDS doctrine by contrast, "men should…do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves" (D&C 58:27-28). At the same time, individuals lack the capacity to develop a Christlike nature by their own effort. The perfecting attributes such as hope and charity are ultimately "bestowed upon all who are true followers…of Jesus Christ" (Moro. 7:48) by grace through his Atonement. This interactive relationship between human and divine powers in LDS theology derives both from the significance it attaches to free will and from its optimism about the "fruits of the spirit" (Gal. 5:22-25) among the truly converted, "those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do" (D&C 46:9).

God bestows these additional, perfecting expressions of grace conditionally, as he does the grace that allows forgiveness of sin. They are given "after all we can do" (2 Ne. 25:23)-that is, in addition to our best efforts. In general, this condition is related less to obeying particular commandments than it is to one's fundamental spiritual character, such as "meekness and lowliness of heart" (Moro. 8:26) and possessing "a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (Ps. 51:17; 3 Ne. 9:20; Hafen, chap. 9). Or, as Moroni wrote at the end of the Book of Mormon, "If ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; …then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ" (Moro. 10:32-33)."

/indent]]The Encyclopedia of Mormonism - Grace
​

Thanks, Skylark, for this enlightening quote. The theology in it is not very far from that of Roman Catholicism. It appears that justification is conflated with sacntification. Thus, grace becomes conditional and is not unconditional in the biblical sense of the meaning of grace.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Thanks, Skylark, for this enlightening quote. The theology in it is not very far from that of Roman Catholicism. It appears that justification is conflated with sacntification. Thus, grace becomes conditional and is not unconditional in the biblical sense of the meaning of grace.

As long as "Biblical" (as you call it) grace is not given to all God's children it is most certainly conditional. The difference here is that in LDS teachings, God's conditions involve the operation of man's agency, whereas in "Biblical" teachings God's conditions account only for His agency—the conditions are wholly exclusive of man's involvement. That is, unless grace in "Biblical" teachings is given entirely by arbitrariness, caprice, or whim, which some Christians apparently believe. (http://www.christianforums.com/t7525884-25/#post56675006) In other words, as long as "God has his reasons," there are conditions placed upon the gifting of grace, and whether or not they are conditions influenced by man's agency or not makes no difference.

When all is said and done, therefore, I ultimately see little difference between LDS grace and "Biblical" grace in terms of their being umerited favor. They are both offered freely by God without compulsion whatever (unmerited), while yet being received conditionally (still unmerited).

 

[bbbbbbb]

As long as "Biblical" (as you call it) grace is not given to all God's children it is most certainly conditional. The difference here is that in LDS teachings, God's conditions involve the operation of man's agency, whereas in "Biblical" teachings God's conditions account only for His agency—the conditions are wholly exclusive of man's involvement. That is, unless grace in "Biblical" teachings is given entirely by arbitrariness, caprice, or whim, which some Christians apparently believe. (http://www.christianforums.com/t7525884-25/#post56675006) In other words, as long as "God has his reasons," there are conditions placed upon the gifting of grace, and whether or not they are conditions influenced by man's agency or not makes no difference.

When all is said and done, therefore, I ultimately see little difference between LDS grace and "Biblical" grace in terms of their being umerited favor. They are both offered freely by God without compulsion whatever (unmerited), while yet being received conditionally (still unmerited).

I see your point. As long as there are differences in the eternal state of individuals, one cannot say that grace is equal or that God's love is equal. One can say, as do the LDS, that God's grace is not the issue, but the individual's "agency" determines the operation and effectiveness of that grace. This is similar to the Arminian position, although most Arminians do not go as far. The problem with this position is that it renders God essentially powerless and impotent and makes man the master of his destiny. Correct me please if I am wrong in this idea.

The opposite position is held by Calvinists who hold their position to varying degrees. In its more extreme forms, man becomes a mere tool of God as He exercises His divine will. The positive aspect is that God is held to be omnipotent and omniscient - both of which attributes the Bible clearly expresses. The dark side of this position is that God's grace is unknowable in its operation and there is no determinant as to the qualities of its recipients.

The first position is relatively simple and easy - people achieve eternal bliss because they earned it. The second position is neither simple nor easy - we are undeserving sinners who are given the gift of salvation apart from any merit of our own. The Bible supports the second view but not the first. The question ultimately comes down to whether or not one believes the biblical record - and that is a choice, which brings us to the first position. If the choice is something we do, then there is merit in our choosing and, at least to a minor extent, we have contributed to our salvation. If the choice is something that God, through His Spirit, leads us to do (irresistable grace) then the responsibility for having made that choice belongs to God.

I realize I have oversimplified the issue. There are a multitude of variations on these themes, all of which are interesting IMO but none of which fully define and explain the dynamic tension between God's grace and human responsibility.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I see your point. As long as there are differences in the eternal state of individuals, one cannot say that grace is equal or that God's love is equal. One can say, as do the LDS, that God's grace is not the issue, but the individual's "agency" determines the operation and effectiveness of that grace. This is similar to the Arminian position, although most Arminians do not go as far. The problem with this position is that it renders God essentially powerless and impotent and makes man the master of his destiny. Correct me please if I am wrong in this idea.

The opposite position is held by Calvinists who hold their position to varying degrees. In its more extreme forms, man becomes a mere tool of God as He exercises His divine will. The positive aspect is that God is held to be omnipotent and omniscient - both of which attributes the Bible clearly expresses. The dark side of this position is that God's grace is unknowable in its operation and there is no determinant as to the qualities of its recipients.

The first position is relatively simple and easy - people achieve eternal bliss because they earned it. The second position is neither simple nor easy - we are undeserving sinners who are given the gift of salvation apart from any merit of our own. The Bible supports the second view but not the first. The question ultimately comes down to whether or not one believes the biblical record - and that is a choice, which brings us to the first position. If the choice is something we do, then there is merit in our choosing and, at least to a minor extent, we have contributed to our salvation. If the choice is something that God, through His Spirit, leads us to do (irresistable grace) then the responsibility for having made that choice belongs to God.

I realize I have oversimplified the issue. There are a multitude of variations on these themes, all of which are interesting IMO but none of which fully define and explain the dynamic tension between God's grace and human responsibility.

Well I for one don't see your thoughts here as an oversimplification, whether I agree with them completely or not. I really think that this issue is pretty simple. Maybe some think it's complicated or make it complicated, and that's surely their prerrogative.

At any rate, I can't reconcile your conclusion about the first position with the teachings of the LDS faith—that of cooperative salvation. In a way I can understand why you conclude that man's agency in some fashion renders God powerless. For it would seem that if it's God's will that a man be saved, and the man chooses otherwise, then God is not omnipotent, because He cannot save the man against his will. Ironcially, however, what is missing from that line of thinking is that it is by God's very own will and choice—an exercise of His limitless power—that man is made a participant in God's will to save him. And this is—again, ironically—an expression of God's omniscience, as He knows that there isnt' any other way for a just God to save a man possessing agency outside of respecting the agency God gave the man. For to save the man against his will is to render the man's agency void—it is God lying to Himself and to the man. And that destroys both God and the man.

So what has man earned by choosing to accept what God freely offers him, regardless of whether or not God offers it upon conditions? Or how can a man diminish God's power by using what God gave him—the power to accept or reject—to reject the Giver of the gift? It just doesn't work. There is nothing "earned" about cooperative salvation. For if man can earn his salvation with God, then he can certainly earn it without Him.

 

[skylark1]

Here... I'll be more specific:

I'm not asking that you reconcile your understanding of agency with the conditions of premortality—I'm asking you if you can identify when it is—in LDS doctrine and teachings—that man received agency for the first time.

TasteForTruth,

I am sorry if my posts contributed to a derailmnent of this exchange.

When do you think that according to LDS teachings that man received agency for the first time?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well I for one don't see your thoughts here as an oversimplification, whether I agree with them completely or not. I really think that this issue is pretty simple. Maybe some think it's complicated or make it complicated, and that's surely their prerrogative.

At any rate, I can't reconcile your conclusion about the first position with the teachings of the LDS faith—that of cooperative salvation. In a way I can understand why you conclude that man's agency in some fashion renders God powerless. For it would seem that if it's God's will that a man be saved, and the man chooses otherwise, then God is not omnipotent, because He cannot save the man against his will. Ironcially, however, what is missing from that line of thinking is that it is by God's very own will and choice—an exercise of His limitless power—that man is made a participant in God's will to save him. And this is—again, ironically—an expression of God's omniscience, as He knows that there isnt' any other way for a just God to save a man possessing agency outside of respecting the agency God gave the man. For to save the man against his will is to render the man's agency void—it is God lying to Himself and to the man. And that destroys both God and the man.

So what has man earned by choosing to accept what God freely offers him, regardless of whether or not God offers it upon conditions? Or how can a man diminish God's power by using what God gave him—the power to accept or reject—to reject the Giver of the gift? It just doesn't work. There is nothing "earned" about cooperative salvation. For if man can earn his salvation with God, then he can certainly earn it without Him.

It seems to me that the bedrock of the LDS view of man is the concept of "agency". It is fundamental to understanding all other aspects of your theology IMO. Without it your theology is relatively meaningless, but with it there is the means of holding the disparate parts together. For example, with it one can justify works as being necessary and contributory to salvation. That is because the exercise of "agency" is the means by which works are generated.

Ephesians 2:10, however, states clearly that God is the author of our good works. It contains no statement concerning cooperation or the exercise of "agency". In fact the Bible is replete with passages such as Psalms 14 and 53 which readily quash any idea that man is good or capable of good. The Bible never addresses the concept of LDS "agency" directly and, overall, presents an opposing picture of the human state.

It comes down to whether I believe the Bible to be true or LDS scriptures and theology. It really is an either/or decision. As you said, it is not complicated. Either many has "agency" or he does not. If he does then LDS theology is reasonable. If he does not, biblical theology is reasonable.

 

[TasteForTruth]

It seems to me that the bedrock of the LDS view of man is the concept of "agency".

And frankly this is the great error in much non-LDS thinking where LDS doctrine is concerned. People say that the bedrock is agency and they stop there. No mention of the atonement of Christ, his grace, or his sacrifice. It's a convenient thing to gloss over, or which to give but a passing mention. "Oh yeah, sure... the atonement... yeah... I know that's a part of it... but agency... that's the bedrock." The reality is that the bedrock God himself. It is His plan. And agency is but a part of it.

It is fundamental to understanding all other aspects of your theology IMO.

That I agree with, so long as agency finds its proper place in the whole of the restored gospel.

Without it your theology is relatively meaningless, but with it there is the means of holding the disparate parts together. For example, with it one can justify works as being necessary and contributory to salvation. That is because the exercise of "agency" is the means by which works are generated.

God has told us that He desires that our works (the product of our agency) be good, be full of love to Him and all men, etc. We therefore don't need to justify that they are necessary. Ironically, many outside our faith often project upon us their own perception that we need to justify the necessity of works. The result is LDS defending against strawmen on every hand.

Ephesians 2:10, however, states clearly that God is the author of our good works.

If God gave us our agency—which He did—then our works do belong to Him. Was that not made clear in the parable of the talents? And yet the Lord rewarded those who used His talents well, not only allowing those who used His talents well to keep the talents, but actually taking talents from the slothful to add upon the faithful (in the case of the servant who made five talents).

It contains no statement concerning cooperation or the exercise of "agency". In fact the Bible is replete with passages such as Psalms 14 and 53 which readily quash any idea that man is good or capable of good. The Bible never addresses the concept of LDS "agency" directly and, overall, presents an opposing picture of the human state.

I seem to recall a prophet of God exhorting covenant Israel to choose whom they would serve. (Joshua 24:15) And yet the Bible supposedly indicates that man cannot participate in the forging of his own destiny?

It comes down to whether I believe the Bible to be true or LDS scriptures and theology.

As if LDS scriptures are eclusive of the Bible!

It really is an either/or decision.

I know I don't feel that way, nor do I know any other Mormon who does. If you mean that you find no compatibility between LDS teachings and your interpretation of the Bible, then I think your statement makes sense. And to pre-empt the argument over interpretation, yes... everyone who espouses the Bible at all embraces an interpretation of it, LDS included.

As you said, it is not complicated. Either many has "agency" or he does not. If he does then LDS theology is reasonable. If he does not, biblical theology is reasonable.

I believe that a great many non-LDS Christians would disagree with your last statement, but I leave it up to them to speak up if they're so inclined.

 

[TasteForTruth]

TasteForTruth,

I am sorry if my posts contributed to a derailmnent of this exchange.

When do you think that according to LDS teachings that man received agency for the first time?

If you don't mind, I'd like to keep this question open to Phoebe Ann, to whom it was originally addressed.

 

[RufustheRed]

If you don't mind, I'd like to keep this question open to Phoebe Ann, to whom it was originally addressed.

Because?

The redundancy of your interrogation and your response to Skylark makes it quite obvious that the answer is not what you are seeking. Apparently it is very important to you that Phoebe Ann walk into your trap so that you can attempt to embarrass her. Furthermore, badgering does not bode well for your witness, does it?

I have read the answer to your question several times since the original query from you was posted. Instead of playing these sophomoric games perhaps we should just get on with discussion. How does that sound?

Have a great week-end.

Rufus

 

[Rescued One]

TasteforTruth, I have posted an LDS answer three times. I've included the only LDS scripture I could find (Moses 4:3), I've quoted Delbert Stapley, I've highlighted his comment about the time, and you kept asking me anyway.

According to LDS teachings, the law of agency was predetermined prior to this life. Those who opposed the law (Lucifer and his followers) were cast out of heaven. The Plan(LDS) of Heavenly Father was that men would have choices to make; Christ sustained the the Plan. Lucifer opposed the Plan (he was already rebellious).

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
Moses 4:3

The scriptures teach us that the prophets prepared themselves to become leaders on earth while they were still spirits in heaven (see Alma 13:1–3).
LDS.org - Family Chapter Detail - Our Heavenly Family
...

My brothers, sisters, and friends, one of God’s most precious gifts to man is the principle of free agency—the privilege of choice which was introduced by God the Eternal Father to all of his spirit children in the premortal state. This occurred in the great council in heaven before the peopling of this earth. The children of God were endowed with freedom of choice while yet but spirit beings. The divine plan provided that they be freeborn in the flesh and become heirs to the inalienable birthright of liberty to choose and act for themselves in mortality. It was essential for their eternal progression that they be subjected to the influences of both good and evil.
Delbert L. Stapley, “Using Our Free Agency,” Ensign, May 1975, p. 21...

It appears to reference it to me.

My brothers, sisters, and friends, one of God’s most precious gifts to man is the principle of free agency—the privilege of choice which was introduced by God the Eternal Father to all of his spirit children in the premortal state. This occurred in the great council in heaven before the peopling of this earth. The children of God were endowed with freedom of choice while yet but spirit beings. The divine plan provided that they be freeborn in the flesh and become heirs to the inalienable birthright of liberty to choose and act for themselves in mortality. It was essential for their eternal progression that they be subjected to the influences of both good and evil.
Delbert L. Stapley, “Using Our Free Agency,” Ensign, May 1975, p. 21

Okay, please pay attention:

Moses 4:3 says that Satan sought to destroy man's agency at the council in heaven. That means that Satan had agency.

Delbert Stapley determined that agency was given to them at the council.

Bruce R. McConkie believed that the spirit children received agency at their spirit birth:

"From the time of their spirit birth, the Father's pre-existent offspring were endowed with agency and subjected to the provisions of the laws ordained for their government. They had power to obey or disobey and to progress in one field or another. 'The first principles of man are self-existent with God,' the Prophet said. 'God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.' (Teachings, p. 354.)

"The pre-existent life was thus a period -- undoubtedly an infinitely long one -- of probation, progression and schooling. The spirit hosts were taught and given experiences in various administrative capacities. Some so exercised their agency and so conformed to law as to become 'noble and great'; these were foreordained before their mortal births to perform great missions for the Lord in this life. (Abra. 3:22-28.) Christ, the Firstborn, was the mightiest of all the spirit children of the Father. (D. & C. 93:21-23.) Mortal progression and testing is a continuation of what began in pre-existence." (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., pp. 589-590.)
http://emp.byui.edu/huffr/Plan of S...Life First Estate and Intelligence Quotes.pdf

So are you saying that before the gift of agency, spirit children could not obey the laws upon which all blessings are predicated? Therefore everything goes back to agency which perhaps was not deserved by any of the spirit children? But then again, LDS scripture doesn't state that agency is an unearned blessing.

And it doesn't change the LDS law about obtaining blessings:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”
D&C 130: 20-21

Obviously those who accepted the LDS Plan of Salvation were blessed with mortal bodies. Those who did not accept the Plan were cast out. Even then there were consequenences to actions.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Because?

The redundancy of your interrogation and your response to Skylark makes it quite obvious that the answer is not what you are seeking. Apparently it is very important to you that Phoebe Ann walk into your trap so that you can attempt to embarrass her. Furthermore, badgering does not bode well for your witness, does it?

I have read the answer to your question several times since the original query from you was posted. Instead of playing these sophomoric games perhaps we should just get on with discussion. How does that sound?

Have a great week-end.

Rufus

In another post here recently you said that you were here for "dialogue." (presumably on-topic dialogue) see http://www.christianforums.com/t7560614-15/#post57599585 Yet the majority of your posts are little more than calls into question of other posters' motives, spelling, posting style, etc., as can be seen here: http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=4243078 How about you walk your talk and say something on-topic for a change.

Phoebe Ann started this thread. It was a trap to begin with. If it has since turned on her, I guarantee you that it was none of my doing.

 

[TasteForTruth]

TasteforTruth, I have posted an LDS answer three times. I've included the only LDS scripture I could find (Moses 4:3), I've quoted Delbert Stapley, I've highlighted his comment about the time, and you kept asking me anyway.

Fair enough. If you feel you've answered the question, I'll consider it answered, and I won't ask again. So let's address what you've said here...

Okay, please pay attention:

Moses 4:3 says that Satan sought to destroy man's agency at the council in heaven. That means that Satan had agency.

Delbert Stapley determined that agency was given to them at the council.

Bruce R. McConkie believed that the spirit children received agency at their spirit birth:

"From the time of their spirit birth, the Father's pre-existent offspring were endowed with agency and subjected to the provisions of the laws ordained for their government. They had power to obey or disobey and to progress in one field or another. 'The first principles of man are self-existent with God,' the Prophet said. 'God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.' (Teachings, p. 354.)

"The pre-existent life was thus a period -- undoubtedly an infinitely long one -- of probation, progression and schooling. The spirit hosts were taught and given experiences in various administrative capacities. Some so exercised their agency and so conformed to law as to become 'noble and great'; these were foreordained before their mortal births to perform great missions for the Lord in this life. (Abra. 3:22-28.) Christ, the Firstborn, was the mightiest of all the spirit children of the Father. (D. & C. 93:21-23.) Mortal progression and testing is a continuation of what began in pre-existence." (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., pp. 589-590.)
http://emp.byui.edu/huffr/Plan%20of%20Salvation/Premortal%20Existence/The%20Pre-Mortal%20Life%20First%20Estate%20and%20Intelligence%20Quotes.pdf

So are you saying that before the gift of agency, spirit children could not obey the laws upon which all blessings are predicated?

It matters not whether I say it or not—a being with no agency cannot possibly be blessed for choosing to obey! However, if you can produce any single, solitary shred of evidence to suggest that our agency was the reward for properly exercising agency which God had not yet given us, I'd be interested in seeing it. As it stands, I accept that God gave me agency before I used it to choose to obey him. That is in harmony with what Elder McConkie taught, and with what President Penrose taught in 1914 General Conference:

For man in spirit form, in his spirit nature, is an independent entity. It is an organized being a son of God or a daughter of God, as the case may be, and in the spirit birth he obtained not only an eternal organization, but power and intelligence by which he can determine and understand light from darkness, truth from error, and choose between that which is right and that which is wrong. In the Pearl of Great Price we read that God gave him that power. (Conference Report, 1914, p. 40)
​

Therefore everything goes back to agency which perhaps was not deserved by any of the spirit children?

But then again, LDS scripture doesn't state that agency is an unearned blessing.

Well, we can argue all day about what the scriptures don't say, but I think we should look at what the scriptures do say about how man got his agency:

D&C 107:78 states that God gave man his agency.

In Moses 4:3, God says that he gave man his agency.

In Moses 7:32 God says that He gave man his agency.

In D&C 29:35 God states that He gave unto man to be an agent unto himself.

In Helaman 14:31 Samuel teaches that God gives to men the choice between life and death (spiritual).

In Moses 3:17 God says to Adam that the power to choose to obey or disobey God's commandment is given him.
​

And what does the church teach about it? Let's see...

Your Heavenly Father has given you agency http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h...toid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Moral agency (the freedom to act for good or evil) is a gift from God to all mankind (see Moses 6:56 ; see also 2 Nephi 2:27 ; Helaman 14:30 ; D&C 101:78 ). Pearl of Great Price Teacher Manual - Religion 327 : Moses 6:48 - 56 - Enoch Preached the Plan of Salvation

Just what Paul might have had in mind may not be too clearly expressed in the translation that has come to us. That he taught that some men are destined to be damned must be rejected; likewise that some were predestined to be saved without a trial of their faith. Those who rejected the truth and rebelled were cast out with Lucifer because of the great gift of free agency. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:153) The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles : 40 - Heirs of God, and Joint-Heirs With Christ

Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Same-Gender Attraction

Some of you have children who do not respond to you, choosing entirely different paths. Father in Heaven has repeatedly had that same experience. While some of His children have used His gift of agency to make choices against His counsel, He continues to love them. Yet, I am sure, He has never blamed Himself for their unwise choices” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1993, 43; or Ensign, May 1993, 34 ). Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Parental Success

We have moral agency as a gift of God. Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Prophetic Counsel
​

Sure seems that the scriptures and the church teach that agency was a gift, not a reward. And that is in line with what other prophets and apostles have taught, and with what the church currently publishes on the matter.

But again, all that said, if you've got some quote someplace which contradicts all the scriptural and doctrinal support for agency being a gift, and which indicates clearly that we obeyed one of God's laws in order to be blessed with the ability to obey God's laws—now's the time to produce it. Heaven knows I've asked enough times for it!

And it doesn't change the LDS law about obtaining blessings:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated – And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”
D&C 130: 20-21

Look, the conundrum is yours, not mine. You're the one suggesting that we obeyed a law to receive the ability to obey laws, not I. If you're having trouble wrapping your mind around that, I really do sympathize. But don't blame the LDS church or its leaders or scriptures, for that certainly isn't our doctrine!

Obviously those who accepted the LDS Plan of Salvation were blessed with mortal bodies. Those who did not accept the Plan were cast out. Even then there were consequenences to actions.

I have never argued otherwise.

 

[Rescued One]

Fair enough. If you feel you've answered the question, I'll consider it answered, and I won't ask again. So let's address what you've said here...

It matters not whether I say it or not—a being with no agency cannot possibly be blessed for choosing to obey! However, if you can produce any single, solitary shred of evidence to suggest that our agency was the reward for properly exercising agency which God had not yet given us, I'd be interested in seeing it. As it stands, I accept that God gave me agency before I used it to choose to obey him. That is in harmony with what Elder McConkie taught, and with what President Penrose taught in 1914 General Conference:

For man in spirit form, in his spirit nature, is an independent entity. It is an organized being a son of God or a daughter of God, as the case may be, and in the spirit birth he obtained not only an eternal organization, but power and intelligence by which he can determine and understand light from darkness, truth from error, and choose between that which is right and that which is wrong. In the Pearl of Great Price we read that God gave him that power. (Conference Report, 1914, p. 40)
​

Well, we can argue all day about what the scriptures don't say, but I think we should look at what the scriptures do say about how man got his agency:

D&C 107:78 states that God gave man his agency.

In Moses 4:3, God says that he gave man his agency.

In Moses 7:32 God says that He gave man his agency.

In D&C 29:35 God states that He gave unto man to be an agent unto himself.

In Helaman 14:31 Samuel teaches that God gives to men the choice between life and death (spiritual).

In Moses 3:17 God says to Adam that the power to choose to obey or disobey God's commandment is given him.
​

And what does the church teach about it? Let's see...

Your Heavenly Father has given you agency LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Agency

Moral agency (the freedom to act for good or evil) is a gift from God to all mankind (see Moses 6:56 ; see also 2 Nephi 2:27 ; Helaman 14:30 ; D&C 101:78 ). Pearl of Great Price Teacher Manual - Religion 327 : Moses 6:48 - 56 - Enoch Preached the Plan of Salvation

Just what Paul might have had in mind may not be too clearly expressed in the translation that has come to us. That he taught that some men are destined to be damned must be rejected; likewise that some were predestined to be saved without a trial of their faith. Those who rejected the truth and rebelled were cast out with Lucifer because of the great gift of free agency. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:153) The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles : 40 - Heirs of God, and Joint-Heirs With Christ

Our freedom can be limited by various conditions of mortality, but God’s gift of agency cannot be limited by outside forces, because it is the basis for our accountability to him. Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Same-Gender Attraction

Some of you have children who do not respond to you, choosing entirely different paths. Father in Heaven has repeatedly had that same experience. While some of His children have used His gift of agency to make choices against His counsel, He continues to love them. Yet, I am sure, He has never blamed Himself for their unwise choices” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1993, 43; or Ensign, May 1993, 34 ). Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Parental Success

We have moral agency as a gift of God. Eternal Marriage Student Manual : Prophetic Counsel
​

Sure seems that the scriptures and the church teach that agency was a gift, not a reward. And that is in line with what other prophets and apostles have taught, and with what the church currently publishes on the matter.

But again, all that said, if you've got some quote someplace which contradicts all the scriptural and doctrinal support for agency being a gift, and which indicates clearly that we obeyed one of God's laws in order to be blessed with the ability to obey God's laws—now's the time to produce it. Heaven knows I've asked enough times for it!

Look, the conundrum is yours, not mine. You're the one suggesting that we obeyed a law to receive the ability to obey laws, not I. If you're having trouble wrapping your mind around that, I really do sympathize. But don't blame the LDS church or its leaders or scriptures, for that certainly isn't our doctrine!

I have never argued otherwise.

A gift, in Mormonism, is something that can be earned. It is a blessing. Correct choices equal blessings. Highlighting the word gave doesn't change anything. The LDS say God gave them blessings, yet the blessing had to earned. The wages of obedience in Mormonism appears to be blessings. Choices bring consequences or blessings.

Some choices have greater consequences than others. We make no greater voluntary choice in this life than the selection of a marriage partner. This decision can bring eternal happiness and joy.
James E. Faust, “Choices,” Ensign, May 2004, p. 51

What is an intelligence? The word implies an enitity capable of thought.

"The word 'intelligences' (plural) occurs frequently in LDS literature, having reference to the period of the premortal existence of mankind. The term has received two interpretations by writers within the Church: as the literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents and as individual entities existing prior to their spirit birth. Because latter-day revelation has not clarified the meaning of the term, a more precise interpretation is not possible at present."
Intelligences - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism