LDS and Grace

[Rescued One]

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).
Grace

 

[TasteForTruth]

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

So, you are saying that God gave man his ability to choose as a reward for choosing to obey... is that correct?

 

[Rescued One]

So, you are saying that God gave man his ability to choose as a reward for choosing to obey... is that correct?

Nope. But tell me what were those intelligences thinking when they had no agency?

 

[TasteForTruth]

Nope.

Then upon what principle did these spirits obtain their agency from God?

But tell me what were those intelligences thinking when they had no agency?

Intelligence is light and truth. (D&C 93:36) I didn't know that light and truth had thoughts. What leads you to believe that they do?

 

[Rescued One]

Then upon what principle did these spirits obtain their agency from God?
But tell me what were those intelligences thinking when they had no agency?Intelligence is light and truth. (D&C 93:36) I didn't know that light and truth had thoughts. What leads you to believe that they do?

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
D&C 93:36

So God took lights and truths and made them into spirit children and gave them the opportunity to choose evil?

 

[TasteForTruth]

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
D&C 93:36

So God took lights and truths and made them into spirit children and gave them the opportunity to choose evil?

You didn't answer my question. Nor did you answer this one:

Then upon what principle did these spirits obtain their agency from God?
​

I'd like to get your responses on those before we get into other things.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Ah yes, The Plan of Salvation. I would be remiss in not considering The Plan of Salvation. All religions have a plan of salvation, so I was somewhat surprised when the Mormon missionaries asked me if I had ever heard The Plan of Salvation. It took me a while to understand that they were not talking about just any old plan of salvaton, but The Plan of Salvation. There are many interesting aspects of The Plan of Salvation, not the least of which are those you touched upon. I found the Mormon version of The Fall to be really quite bizarre, but that has already been discussed at length on other threads. So, rather than derail this thread with discussions of various aspects of The Plan of Salvation, I have chosen to focus on grace and the Mormon understanding of it. I have discovered, thanks in large part to yourself, that your understanding of grace cannot be divorced from your understanding of agency, hence the current state of our discussion. I would readily discuss any of these other aspects with you, if you would like to start another thread. Actually, that would provide you with an opportunity not to criticize the non-LDS OPs of these other threads.

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

I have no doubt that the whole of the LDS restored gospel contains agency in its proper place. As you know the LDS restored gospel is not the gospel of the Bible, but that, again, is the subject of another thread.

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.

Where in the Bible has "God 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" i realize that your statement is extremely loose, but I would like to see a biblical citation which links agency and its products to those properties you mentioned. Thank you.

What are works necessary for? It seems that for Mormons there is no salvation (exaltation) apart from works, but for the Christian there are no rewards (not salvation) apart from works. Again there is the problem of conflating salvation and sancitification.

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).

If is a mighty big word, as my teachers used to say. Please show me in the Bible where God gave us our agency. Otherwise, I will just consider this to be your opinion as well as that of the LDS. As I mentioned above rewards for works are biblical but salvation is never mentioned as the result, reward, or wages of works.

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?

That person would be Joshua. Technically, he is not considered to have been a prophet. Prior to him Moses, upon descending from Mount Sinai with the Law posed a similar question to Israel. They made a clear decision to enter the covenant. The relationship of their will in entering the covernant and God's sovereign working in them has been discussed and debated for centuries and I am certain I cannot add anything to what has been said and written.

As if LDS scriptures are eclusive of the Bible!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.

Very well. I have requested various LDS posters to interpret Psalms 14 and 53 for me to point out my errors and, to date, none have done so. Would you kindly tell me what these two identical Psalms mean to you?

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.

If they do, I would expect them to respond to my post. If not, then I consider that I am unaware of any who do.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Ah yes, The Plan of Salvation. I would be remiss in not considering The Plan of Salvation. All religions have a plan of salvation, so I was somewhat surprised when the Mormon missionaries asked me if I had ever heard The Plan of Salvation. It took me a while to understand that they were not talking about just any old plan of salvaton, but The Plan of Salvation. There are many interesting aspects of The Plan of Salvation, not the least of which are those you touched upon. I found the Mormon version of The Fall to be really quite bizarre, but that has already been discussed at length on other threads. So, rather than derail this thread with discussions of various aspects of The Plan of Salvation, I have chosen to focus on grace and the Mormon understanding of it. I have discovered, thanks in large part to yourself, that your understanding of grace cannot be divorced from your understanding of agency, hence the current state of our discussion. I would readily discuss any of these other aspects with you, if you would like to start another thread. Actually, that would provide you with an opportunity not to criticize the non-LDS OPs of these other threads.

Fire away. If you have an honest question, then I have honest answers. But I'm not here to compare religions or theologies. So if you're just looking for something with which to disagree, don't bother. There are already plenty of those kinds of threads, which, consequently, are the ones that elicit my criticism.

I have no doubt that the whole of the LDS restored gospel contains agency in its proper place. As you know the LDS restored gospel is not the gospel of the Bible...

No, I don't know that any more than I know that the gospel you believe is not the gospel of the Bible. I already know how you feel about Mormonism. I do not need to be reminded of it over and over and over. I am not here to convert you, so please leave your insults at the door. But I'll make you a deal. If you can find one single, solitary post in which I have mocked traditional Christianity or told another poster that his chosen gospel was not Biblical, in the year or so that I've been here, I will never again take issue with such a comment from you. Fair?

Where in the Bible has "God 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"

First off, I didn't say that it was in the Bible, nor would it be less true if it weren't, from my perspective (which I what I thought you were here to talk to me about). But I believe that God indicates many times in the Bible that He desires good works from us. One example would be Matt. 5:16, wherein Christ exhorts us to let our light shine, that others will be led to glorify God on account of our good works. Yes, this indicates to me that God desires us to do good works. And lest we think that we can do good works for self-serving reasons, the Savior also warned us against that very thing. (Matt. 6:1-4) And he further taught that God is not satisfied if we love and do good only for our friends (Matt. 5:46-47), but that we must love even our enemies and do good to them who hate, use, and persecute us. (Matt. 5:44)

I could go on, but all these indicate to me that God is desirous "that our works (the product of our agency) be good, be full of love to Him and all men, etc."

What are works necessary for? It seems that for Mormons there is no salvation (exaltation) apart from works, but for the Christian there are no rewards (not salvation) apart from works. Again there is the problem of conflating salvation and sancitification.

You're comparing again. Why not just ask what the LDS view is, without projecting your own faith onto it? That just makes a discussion into a battle. Aside from the fact that I have no interest in that, don't we already have enough of it as it is? Just ask me to explain. Don't set me up to disagree with me—I'm not here to convert you, as I already said.

If is a mighty big word, as my teachers used to say. Please show me in the Bible where God gave us our agency. Otherwise, I will just consider this to be your opinion as well as that of the LDS. As I mentioned above rewards for works are biblical but salvation is never mentioned as the result, reward, or wages of works.

How 'bout this... I'll show you where I believe God, in the Bible, gave man his agency. That will save you the trouble of telling me that my gospel is unBiblical, and you can just simply disagree that such is what the verse indicates. Deal?

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (Gen. 2:16)
​

Have at it.

That person would be Joshua. Technically, he is not considered to have been a prophet. Prior to him Moses, upon descending from Mount Sinai with the Law posed a similar question to Israel. They made a clear decision to enter the covenant. The relationship of their will in entering the covernant and God's sovereign working in them has been discussed and debated for centuries and I am certain I cannot add anything to what has been said and written.

Fine with me.

Very well. I have requested various LDS posters to interpret Psalms 14 and 53 for me to point out my errors and, to date, none have done so. Would you kindly tell me what these two identical Psalms mean to you?

Well in them David says that the man who says in his heart that God doesn't exist—such a man is fool. David also sings about the corruption in man, and the imagery he uses to express this idea is that of God looking down upon his children, seeing none who do good. There are other ideas in them, but those are prominent to my mind. Is that response sufficient for your present purpose?

If they do, I would expect them to respond to my post. If not, then I consider that I am unaware of any who do.

You mean to say that you've never met a Trinitarian Christian of any flavor who believed that man having the power to choose was a Biblically-supported truth?

 

[Rescued One]

You didn't answer my question. Nor did you answer this one:

Then upon what principle did these spirits obtain their agency from God?
​

I'd like to get your responses on those before we get into other things.

I'm still waiting for answers from you. Try answering post #185. There could not have been agency in God's presence unless there was evil in his presence to be in opposition to the good.

 

[Rescued One]

If you can find one single, solitary post in which I have mocked traditional Christianity or told another poster that his chosen gospel was not Biblical, in the year or so that I've been here, I will never again take issue with such a comment from you. Fair?

You wouldn't tell a Protestant that his gospel is not biblical because it is based on the Bible. Mormonism, OTOH, claims to have more truth and derives its teachings from books that teach doctrines not found in the Bible.

One of the “plain and precious things” long ago “kept back” or “taken away” (1 Ne. 13:34, 40), this enormously important truth did not reach the Holy Bible in an abundant degree, though it is surely there. (See Jer. 1:5; Eph. 1:4–5; 2 Tim. 1:9.) It was briefly extant after the original Apostles. Alas, however, just as Paul foresaw, the time soon came when Church members did not “endure sound doctrine,” including this one. (See 2 Tim. 4:3.)

With the later disapprovals of councils, the doctrine of premortal existence demonstrably was not a doctrine which could have been reestablished by research. The doctrine does not abuse logic, for “truth is reason,” especially “truth eternal”, but is more than logic alone can fully support. (See Hymns, 1985, no. 292.) It could only come from restoration by modern revelation. It was certainly not abroad in the land of America until Joseph Smith’s articulations.

Furthermore, so much had happened in human history to make the restoration of this key truth necessary. It was needed to confound the false doctrine of a mankind created ex nihilo—out of nothing. (See 2 Ne. 3:12.) The “ex nihilo” view, said the Prophet Joseph “lessens man in my estimation.” (Words of Joseph Smith, Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, comps., Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980, p. 359.)

Without this truth, existential lamentations prevail about how man spends his entire life trying to prove to himself that his existence is not absurd. Even believers, in Paul’s words, if malnourished as to doctrine, can become “wearied and faint in [their] minds” and surrender to circumstance. (See Heb. 12:3.)
Neal A. Maxwell, “Premortality, a Glorious Reality,” Ensign, Nov 1985, p. 15

 

[TasteForTruth]

I'm still waiting for answers from you. Try answering post #185. There could not have been agency in God's presence unless there was evil in his presence to be in opposition to the good.

I did answer. My answer was to take it to another thread and I'd happily discuss it with you there. This thread (according to the non-OP) is about grace, not evil in God's presence. Our current discussion is about whether or not grace was a factor in man's reception of agency, or whether man deserved agency for having obeyed a commandment prior to actually receiving agency. I patiently await your response.

 

[Rescued One]

I did answer. My answer was to take it to another thread and I'd happily discuss it with you there. This thread (according to the non-OP) is about grace, not evil in God's presence. Our current discussion is about whether or not grace was a factor in man's reception of agency, or whether man deserved agency for having obeyed a commandment prior to actually receiving agency. I patiently await your response.

You haven't shown that there was grace in premortality.

 

[TasteForTruth]

You wouldn't tell a Protestant that his gospel is not biblical because it is based on the Bible.

So is Mormonism!

Mormonism, OTOH, claims to have more truth and derives its teachings from books that teach doctrines not found in the Bible.

And that means it's not Biblical? I thought "more" meant "in addition to," not "exclusive of."

 

[TasteForTruth]

You haven't shown that there was grace in premortality.

Uh... acutally, I have. I have shown through the scriptures, church teachings, and statements from general authorities, that agency was both a gift—an act of grace... unmerited favor... an unearned blessing, etc.—and was given to man at his spirit birth.

But rather than acknowledge this, you have chosen to try a "what if" tactic, suggesting that, as in other areas in the standard works, the word "gift" actually refers to a reward offered on conditions of obedience:

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.

OK, I'm an open-minded guy. So let's run with your idea and see where it goes. You say that God gave the blessing of agency to man, but that the blessing had to be earned. That requires obedience, as you say. Obedience requires agency. So, now that we have established your position... that agency was given to man as a result of obedience—an exercise of agency—the question I immediately asked after the post quoted above was nothing more than a reiteration of your position:

So, you are saying that God gave man his ability to choose as a reward for choosing to obey... is that correct?

And we get this response:

Nope.

What?!? Nope?!?! I restate your own position and you tell me that it's not your position?

And now you tell me, after providing zero substantiation of that position beyond your own views, and also after contradicting yourself... that I haven't shown that there was grace in the premortal realm?

Well, we can't have this, can we? I mean, this is no way to have a discussion—self-contradiction and fly-in-the-face-of-truth claims! But, you must have some legitimate reason for taking a position and then saying that it's not your position, right? If you first say that agency was given to man on the principle of obedience, and then disagree with yourself, it must be because agency was given to man upon some other principle. Hence my follow-up question:

Then upon what principle did these spirits obtain their agency from God?

But, sadly, this question has gone unanswered. And, after attempting to change the subject to other things, you appear to have no plans to answer it. Instead you have have fallen back to telling me I haven't shown what I have shown.

But, I'd like to offer you another opportunity to answer the question. Therefore, if man was given agency because he was obedient (your position), but you don't agree with your own position ("Nope" post), then...

...upon what principle did these spirits obtain their agency from God?

Thanks in advance for a direct reply to this very simple question.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Fire away. If you have an honest question, then I have honest answers. But I'm not here to compare religions or theologies. So if you're just looking for something with which to disagree, don't bother. There are already plenty of those kinds of threads, which, consequently, are the ones that elicit my criticism.

You were the one to raise the issues of other aspects of The Plan of Salvation, such as the Atonement. I have already raised various questions on threads about The Plan. If you wish you can hunt them up. As for myself, I think they ran their respective courses and am not particularly interested in reinventing the wheel. You, however, might be interested in doing so. If you are actually uninterested in merely playing the role of critic, you can start a thread or two.

No, I don't know that any more than I know that the gospel you believe is not the gospel of the Bible. I already know how you feel about Mormonism. I do not need to be reminded of it over and over and over. I am not here to convert you, so please leave your insults at the door. But I'll make you a deal. If you can find one single, solitary post in which I have mocked traditional Christianity or told another poster that his chosen gospel was not Biblical, in the year or so that I've been here, I will never again take issue with such a comment from you. Fair?

I apologize for having insulted you. I refuse to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange and will leave my apology to stand as it is. Should this happen again in the future please point it out to me.

First off, I didn't say that it was in the Bible, nor would it be less true if it weren't, from my perspective (which I what I thought you were here to talk to me about). But I believe that God indicates many times in the Bible that He desires good works from us. One example would be Matt. 5:16, wherein Christ exhorts us to let our light shine, that others will be led to glorify God on account of our good works. Yes, this indicates to me that God desires us to do good works. And lest we think that we can do good works for self-serving reasons, the Savior also warned us against that very thing. (Matt. 6:1-4) And he further taught that God is not satisfied if we love and do good only for our friends (Matt. 5:46-47), but that we must love even our enemies and do good to them who hate, use, and persecute us. (Matt. 5:44)

I doubt any Christian denies that God is disinterested in our good works. I certainly do not hold that position.

I could go on, but all these indicate to me that God is desirous "that our works (the product of our agency) be good, be full of love to Him and all men, etc."

I think the issue is much less the character of our works but whether or not those works originate with our agency or with God. I have provided scripture showing that they originate with God.

You're comparing again. Why not just ask what the LDS view is, without projecting your own faith onto it? That just makes a discussion into a battle. Aside from the fact that I have no interest in that, don't we already have enough of it as it is? Just ask me to explain. Don't set me up to disagree with me—I'm not here to convert you, as I already said.

Very well, please show me where in the Bible it is stated that our good works originate with our agency.

How 'bout this... I'll show you where I believe God, in the Bible, gave man his agency. That will save you the trouble of telling me that my gospel is unBiblical, and you can just simply disagree that such is what the verse indicates. Deal?

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (Gen. 2:16)
​

Have at it.

Fine with me.

Oh dear. I was afraid you might go there. From what the Mormon missionaries told me, the LDS do not believe that Adam and Eve had agency. The reason is that they did not know good and evil and were incapable of making a reasoned decision. They were innocent to the point their they were clueless regarding human reproduction. I assume you will take umbrage with me (and the missionaries). Do you believe that Adam and Eve knew good from evil and thus had agency?

Well in them David says that the man who says in his heart that God doesn't exist—such a man is fool. David also sings about the corruption in man, and the imagery he uses to express this idea is that of God looking down upon his children, seeing none who do good. There are other ideas in them, but those are prominent to my mind. Is that response sufficient for your present purpose?

Yes, thank you. Do these Psalms provide a basis for agency?

You mean to say that you've never met a Trinitarian Christian of any flavor who believed that man having the power to choose was a Biblically-supported truth?

Actually, I am one of those individuals and know many who agree with this quite assuredly. So, what is the problem now?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I know lots of truths that are not in the Bible. I'm not sure why anyone would limit that to their only source of truth? I know that the earth is spheroid and orbits the sun as opposed to being flat, unmoving, center of the universe, protected by a firmament that keeps the waters above from crashing down us, situated on pillars, etc. I wouldn't have learned those truths from the Bible in fact I might be drawn to the later conclusions if that was my only source.

 

[Rescued One]

I doubt any Christian denies that God is disinterested in our good works. I certainly do not hold that position.

EPH 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

1 JOH 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."

I think the issue is much less the character of our works but whether or not those works originate with our agency or with God. I have provided scripture showing that they originate with God.

Oh dear. I was afraid you might go there. From what the Mormon missionaries told me, the LDS do not believe that Adam and Eve had agency. The reason is that they did not know good and evil and were incapable of making a reasoned decision. They were innocent to the point their they were clueless regarding human reproduction. I assume you will take umbrage with me (and the missionaries). Do you believe that Adam and Eve knew good from evil and thus had agency?

Our Father in Heaven created a beautiful place on the earth for Adam and Eve to live in. It was called the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they each had a body of flesh and bones that could not die. They did not have children. They did not have to plant and harvest or work for the things they needed. They did not remember their life in heaven. They did not know what was good and what was evil.
“Chapter 6: Adam and Eve,” Gospel Fundamentals, p. 21

Nevertheless, they were punished. LDS teach that little children are innocent and therefore not accountable for wrongdoing until age eight.


The lives of Adam and Eve changed after they ate the fruit our Father in Heaven had told them not to eat. Our Father in Heaven sent them out of the Garden of Eden. They could not walk and talk with Him anymore. From then on mankind was separated from the presence of our Father in Heaven. Not being able to be with our Father in Heaven is called spiritual death.* Adam and Eve had to live in the world outside the beautiful garden. They had to work to obtain the things they needed.

Their bodies changed. Now they could have children.
Chapter 6: Adam and Eve,” Gospel Fundamentals, p. 21

Their bodies of flesh and bone changed to bodies of flesh and blood (or so I was told).

 

[TasteForTruth]

You were the one to raise the issues of other aspects of The Plan of Salvation, such as the Atonement. I have already raised various questions on threads about The Plan. If you wish you can hunt them up. As for myself, I think they ran their respective courses and am not particularly interested in reinventing the wheel. You, however, might be interested in doing so. If you are actually uninterested in merely playing the role of critic, you can start a thread or two.

I see no reason to hunt up your old threads. If you have no interest in asking me directly, I have no interest in taking the time to respond.

I apologize for having insulted you. I refuse to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange and will leave my apology to stand as it is. Should this happen again in the future please point it out to me.

Thanks. I will, but it probably won't.

I doubt any Christian denies that God is disinterested in our good works. I certainly do not hold that position.

Oh. OK.

I think the issue is much less the character of our works but whether or not those works originate with our agency or with God. I have provided scripture showing that they originate with God.

I don't disagree. I have shown that all that we are originates with God, including our agency. I have also shown that our agency is only profitable for us—aka we are actually only able to choose good—when we are the recipients of Christ's grace. That post was in another thread, though: http://www.christianforums.com/t7525884-27/#post57647357

So I don't disagree that they are a product of God's grace. They are God's works. But I disagree that we have no part at all in producing them.

Very well, please show me where in the Bible it is stated that our good works originate with our agency.

I believe my immediate comment above has clarified how I understand agency to function, and that I don't disagree that my good works—or anyone else's—are truly God's.

Oh dear. I was afraid you might go there. From what the Mormon missionaries told me, the LDS do not believe that Adam and Eve had agency.

Don't be afraid... they were misinformed missionaries.

The reason is that they did not know good and evil and were incapable of making a reasoned decision. They were innocent to the point their they were clueless regarding human reproduction. I assume you will take umbrage with me (and the missionaries). Do you believe that Adam and Eve knew good from evil and thus had agency?

Well we need to straighten something out here. It appears that you do not understand what agency is, from the LDS perspective anyway. Inherent in agency is the ability to choose good from evil, but that is not the definition of agency:

Agency: The ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves. Agency
​

And the first scriptural reference under this heading happens to be regarding Adam's agency in the garden:

<LI eid="125">Of every tree thou mayest freely eat, Gen. 2:16 Agency
​

So I think the missionaries taught you poorly. That is unfortunate, but maybe we can get it straightened out for you here.

Yes, thank you. Do these Psalms provide a basis for agency?

Provide a basis for agency? Are they supposed to? I don't see in them any intent to teach specifically about agency. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking. Could you clarify or restate?

Actually, I am one of those individuals and know many who agree with this quite assuredly. So, what is the problem now?

I see no problem. I just know Trinitarian Christians who would disagree with your position, so your statements are somewhat surprising to me. Either way, though, it certainly isn't a problem of mine whether you all agree or disagree.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't disagree. I have shown that all that we are originates with God, including our agency. I have also shown that our agency is only profitable for us—aka we are actually only able to choose good—when we are the recipients of Christ's grace. That post was in another thread, though: http://www.christianforums.com/t7525884-27/#post57647357

Herein lies a significant difference in definition. LDS grace is limited both in time and in scope. In time, it is limited to what God has done in setting up His Plan of Salvation. Now that the Plan is in effect His grace is unnecessary because agency is required to effect the Plan. It is limited in scope because it merely encompasses that which was needed to establish the Plan. Now that the Plan is underway, all God can do is sit back and hope that people exercise their agency and meet the requirements of the Plan and save (exalt) themselves. Again, feel free to correct me, but this is what the LDS missionaries told me.

So I don't disagree that they are a product of God's grace. They are God's works. But I disagree that we have no part at all in producing them.

See above.

I believe my immediate comment above has clarified how I understand agency to function, and that I don't disagree that my good works—or anyone else's—are truly God's.
Don't be afraid... they were misinformed missionaries.

It is a great pity, indeed, that the LDS sends out official representatives of your church who are misinformed on basic tenets of your faith. Mind you, it was not just one pair of missionaries who told me this, but at least half a dozen different pairs who came to my home over time. It seems quite odd to me that all of them were equally misinformed. Do you know who might be responsible for misinforming them?

Well we need to straighten something out here. It appears that you do not understand what agency is, from the LDS perspective anyway. Inherent in agency is the ability to choose good from evil, but that is not the definition of agency:

Agency: The ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves. Agency
​

And the first scriptural reference under this heading happens to be regarding Adam's agency in the garden:

<LI eid="125">Of every tree thou mayest freely eat, Gen. 2:16 Agency
​

So I think the missionaries taught you poorly. That is unfortunate, but maybe we can get it straightened out for you here.

Is it reasonable to think a one-year old infant is capable of choosing and acting for itself? As I understand your religion, until the age of eight children do not possess agency and are not held responsible for their sins and transgressions. If they possess agency can they be held accounable?

Were Adam and Eve not like little children - totally innocent and thus incapable of knowing good and evil?

Provide a basis for agency? Are they supposed to? I don't see in them any intent to teach specifically about agency. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking. Could you clarify or restate?

No, quite the contrary. They disprove the possibility of agency, would you not agree? I am still awaiting a biblical reference stating that God has given man agency.

I see no problem. I just know Trinitarian Christians who would disagree with your position, so your statements are somewhat surprising to me. Either way, though, it certainly isn't a problem of mine whether you all agree or disagree.

Excellent, then this aspect of the discussion is now closed.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Herein lies a significant difference in definition. LDS grace is limited both in time and in scope. In time, it is limited to what God has done in setting up His Plan of Salvation. Now that the Plan is in effect His grace is unnecessary because agency is required to effect the Plan. It is limited in scope because it merely encompasses that which was needed to establish the Plan. Now that the Plan is underway, all God can do is sit back and hope that people exercise their agency and meet the requirements of the Plan and save (exalt) themselves. Again, feel free to correct me, but this is what the LDS missionaries told me.

I do not agree that LDS grace is limited in either time or scope as compared to other Christian definitions of grace. The post I linked in my last post should have made very clear that God is not just sitting back waiting on man to work everything out with his agency alone. If you didn't read my post before, I'll post it here inline:

And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people; for, notwithstanding the pains of my soul, I have seen it; wherefore, I know that it shall come to pass; and they sell themselves for naught; for, for the reward of their pride and their foolishness they shall reap destruction; for because they yield unto the devil and choose works of darkness rather than light, therefore they must go down to hell. For the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man. And when the Spirit ceaseth to strive with man then cometh speedy destruction, and this grieveth my soul. (v. 10-11)
​

Nowhere in LDS doctrines is it taught man can choose God or accept the salvation that He offers with his agency alone. Without the continuous operation of the light of Christ on his behalf, he is depraved in the sense that he cannot choose but a morally corrupt path. In the scriptures there are examples of people who have moved beyond the influence of the light of Christ while in mortality:

For behold, the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with [the Nephites]; and they are without Christ and God in the world; and they are driven about as chaff before the wind. They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father. But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they. (Mormon 5:16-18)

----------

And it came to pass that Coriantumr wrote again an epistle unto Shiz, desiring that he would not come again to battle, but that he would take the kingdom, and spare the lives of the people. But behold, the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and Satan had full power over the hearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle. (Either 15:18-19)
​

These Nephites and Jaredites could not choose God once they had arrived at the dire point of Christ's spirit (the light of Christ) ceasing to strive with them. They were "without Christ and God in the world." Depraved. They had lost the ability to choose good. They were at that point what all men would be like without the light of Christ&#8212;wholly under the influence and power of Satan. Their agency in relation to spiritual things was worthless. And that is because agency istelf is an extension of God's grace, and it has been so from our spirit birth, and it always will be so.

It has been my point here for a long time now that in LDS teachings we are all under grace at all times. Our agency only works in our favor because of Christ's grace. Remove it, and our agency is not sufficient to choose good. And that is exactly what we see with these Nephites and Jaredites.

So I don't believe that the difference you point out actually exists. In the LDS faith, what is fallen man without the light of Christ? Nothing. What good can he do without it? None. What is his agency worth at that point? Nothing. Without the operation of Christ's grace upon him at all times his agency cannot but drag him to hell.

...all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them. (Moroni 7:24)

---------

And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. (Ether 4:12)
​

As you can see, without God's active grace, man's agency alone is worth nothing.

It is a great pity, indeed, that the LDS sends out official representatives of your church who are misinformed on basic tenets of your faith. Mind you, it was not just one pair of missionaries who told me this, but at least half a dozen different pairs who came to my home over time. It seems quite odd to me that all of them were equally misinformed. Do you know who might be responsible for misinforming them?

I don't. I can speculate, but I see no value in that.

Is it reasonable to think a one-year old infant is capable of choosing and acting for itself?

Well our 7th child will turn one in three days. He is very much capable of choosing and acting for himself, and does so every day. Compared to our other six children at this age, he is by far the most choosey when it comes to eating. When we hold the spoon to his mouth, if he doesn't want what we're offering, he shakes his head and refuses to open his mouth. If you persist, he flails his arms to knock the spoon out of your hand. Sometimes he will refuse your food, but if you put it on his plate and let him do it himself, he'll eat it. Other times he'll refuse unless he has a spoon himself, and then he'll let you feed him. He's very capable of choice. A one-day-old child though... my own experience would tell me that a one-day-old child is not yet capable of choosing very much at all.

As I understand your religion, until the age of eight children do not possess agency and are not held responsible for their sins and transgressions.

They do possess agency, but they are not held to account for their choices.

If they possess agency can they be held accounable?

Were Adam and Eve not like little children - totally innocent and thus incapable of knowing good and evil?

I've addressed these questions in another thread. This post, and what follows, may have all the answers you're looking for: http://www.christianforums.com/t7536238-8/#post56819714

No, quite the contrary. They disprove the possibility of agency, would you not agree?

No, I wouldn't agree. I don't even know why you say that at this point. I asked for clarification, remember?

I am still awaiting a biblical reference stating that God has given man agency.

I provided you a reference for this, and I stand by it. If you disagree that the reference I provided shows that God gave man agency, then searching for additional ones would be pointless.

Excellent, then this aspect of the discussion is now closed.