I used the word "pesky" in jest, my friend. Of course I never considered keeping the commandments pesky - still don't. I feel that they are given for a reason out of love of God for His children, and that applies regardless of church affiliation, don't you think? However, since we were talking about those extraneous (is that better?), peculiarly LDS commandments, we'll go back to discussing those, and the answer to your question is a resounding NO. Like you, I felt blessed to have what I then believed was the real truth that the entire rest of the world refused to acknowledge. So many times I was on your end of conversations exactly like this one - does that surprise you?
Honestly, no. It doesn't. But it really makes it difficult to understand your perspective. I mean, if as a Mormon you kept the "extraeneous LDS commandments" with the same feelings of love, joy, and desire as you now keep the "regular" commandments, then they were never burdensome to you, right? And, touching on what irritates you (as described below), if you believed and understood
as a Mormon that your keeping of the commandments was not going to save you... if the gospel you knew then was a joy to live... if you then defended the attacks of critics who claimed the same things to you then that you claim to me now... then how come you resist with such fervor when I express those very same sentiments about keeping the commandments? Because
your personal view of Joseph Smith changed? Is that what makes something true or not—how
you feel about it? Because that's the way it looks to me. I hope you can understand that.
I would love to tell you about it - but first I'd just like to air a complaint, if you will indulge me. I've noticed that you (and others) have the frequent tendency to imply/tell people here that they don't understand this or that about LDS doctrine, and that makes you come across as quite pompous, and I know you don't want that. That said, let me hasten to assure you that it is SOUND LDS doctrine that a person's discipleship is fact measured by his/her works - as well as his/her faith - as has been shown on this very thread by numerous LDS scriptural citations. As an example you will certainly relate to, don't you attend PPI sometimes, in which your priesthood file leader requires of you an accounting of your stewardship? Perhaps you even conduct those interviews yourself. Are you telling me that this doesn't constitute measuring a person's discipleship by his works?
Well, let's look at a PPI. Why do we conduct them? Is it to weed out the "bad members" who are lazy, so that we can punish them for not doing things they should be doing? Is it to identify the "good members" who are hard workers, so that we can reward them for doing what they should be doing? You seem to think that the interview is a measuring rod of some kind. What is being measured then, and for what purpose?
And when you said that "All we can do" (in reference to 2 Nephi 25:23) to be saved is to repent, I truly and strongly believe that you are 100% mistaken about your own interpretation of that verse (and your Alma reference, concerning the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, is totally taken out of context - sorry).
I don't think I've misinterpreted the Nephi verse at all, nor do I believe that I've taken the Alma verses out of context. Whether we're talking about being forgiven or being exalted, the problem for us is the same—we can't do the thing for ourselves. Let's look at the Alma 24 verses, and then compare them to the Nephi verse.
The Anti-Nephi-Lehi's weren't just your average sinners. They were guilty of "many sins and murders" (v. 10). And when they were made aware, through the preaching of the Nephite missionaries, that they had indeed
grossly sinned, and that they were consequently "the most lost of all mankind," (v. 11) how is it that they were taught to have their "stain" removed? They state that there was only one thing they could do "to get God to take [their sins] away from [their] hearts." And they are emphatic about it being "all" they could do. And what was "all they could do" to be forgiven? It was repent. There was nothing else they could do. And
after they had done that one thing, there was nothing else they could do. It was in the hands of the Savior. He could accept their repentance or reject it. It was 100% up to him, and their fate hinged wholly on his mercy and grace. What if they had sacrificed 100 lambs? What if they had paid a little extra tithing that month? What if they had taken a couple extra trips to the temple? Would those things have somehow lessened the amount of forgiveness they needed for the many sins and murders they had committed? Hardly!
Now what follows their forgiveness is equally important. After they have been forgiven, which forgiveness they have been gifted following only one thing—repentance... after they have been forgiven they point out the need for what? Obedience.
Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren. Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. (v.12-13)
And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.
And what role does their obedience play, since it played no part in their forgiveness? As they, themselves, point out, their obedience is
a testimony of their conversion and their repentance. And who or what made them clean? Was it their works? No. "He," meaning God, "has made us clean."
Is it any different when talking about eternal life? Are not our works—our obedience—merely testimonies to God of our conversion? of what is inside? of who we are and what we love? In the end we may have to agree to disagree, but I do not think for one second that I have misunderstood what these verses teach. And they do not tell me that the atonement "kicks in" when my works are shown to be insufficient to save me. They say that the atonement is made operative when I repent, and that my subsequent obedience is a sign to God of my true conversion.
So back to Nephi. What is all I can do to be saved? Repent. And what saves me? Christ's grace. And then I give God a
testimony that I have accepted his forgiveness and have become his disciple... a testimony I give in and through my obedience. How is this a misinterpretation?
Section 132 CLEARLY states that without the extraneous, peculiarly LDS commandment/ordinance of eternal marriage, exaltation is utterly and forever impossible - and that's just one example, but it proves the point quite well enough.
I would think that
refusal to obey
any commandment would have consequences, wouldn't you? We wouldn't
dare think of refusing to love God or our fellow man, right? So why should refusal to be baptized or to take the sacrament, or to be married for eternity be treated any differently? Just because they're ordinances? If God commands it, shouldn't we do it if we claim to love Him? What difference does it make what the commandment is? And why would we expect God to turn his head to our own refusal to obey?
