Pres. Uchtdorf- "they will serve as a Liahona, guiding us through the unknown"
Elder Widtsoe- "The principal business of a prophet has MISTAKENLY been thought to foretell coming events"
Quite often I have found myself undermining General Conference because the Prophets, Seers and Revelators don't seem to teach us any new futuristic prophesies. It wasn't until today that I received a profound answer upon this subject: It is much more important for us to receive knowledge on how we can prepare for the future (via prayer, scripture study, fasting, temple attendance, family home evening, avoiding debt, food storage, etc) than it is to know what the future will bring. As President Uchtdorf said, their words will guide us through the unknown. In other words, it is of little use to known in detail what the future has in store if we don't know how to handle it when it comes. Like Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." If we have received the teachings of the Prophets and applied them, we will be prepared for whatever the future can throw at us, which is all that really matters.
(Previous to today, I would tend to tell myself that the reason we don't receive many futuristic prophesies in our General Conferences today is because we are so close to the end of the world, and all the needed prophesies of the future have already been given. This may hold some water, but I believe my other explanation better applies the concept of "if ye are prepared ye shall not fear.")
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Muhammad and Joseph Smith
Alma 29:8-"the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have"
Since I didn't have time this Sunday for a post, I decided to post a paper that I wrote for my Islam and the Gospel class. This paper is in response to a prompt and has a word limit and thus is much more narrow than all the things I would love to say about Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Anyone that knows me knows that I love and respect Islam, so this paper needs to be taken in that context. In other words, this paper assumes someone already sees the similarities between Muslims and Mormons but this paper's intent is to help us know why we can't be over the top in this comparison and why we shouldn't allow others to label Joseph Smith as an "American Muhammad".
Since I didn't have time this Sunday for a post, I decided to post a paper that I wrote for my Islam and the Gospel class. This paper is in response to a prompt and has a word limit and thus is much more narrow than all the things I would love to say about Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Anyone that knows me knows that I love and respect Islam, so this paper needs to be taken in that context. In other words, this paper assumes someone already sees the similarities between Muslims and Mormons but this paper's intent is to help us know why we can't be over the top in this comparison and why we shouldn't allow others to label Joseph Smith as an "American Muhammad".
The question at hand is “why should one observe some caution in comparing Muhammad and Joseph Smith?” Initially as I began to ponder on this question I could only see reasons in support of comparing Muhammad and Joseph Smith. For instance, both were from humble beginnings but then received divine revelation that allowed them to restore the truth about God to help the religiously corrupt society in which they lived. For Muhammad it was helping his countrymen abandon their idols, for Joseph Smith it was helping his countrymen abandon their abominable creeds. I saw that both were prophets of God and have caused much good in the world, however, I wasn’t able to see the danger in comparing these two men until after reading an article by Arnold H. Green entitled The Muhammad-Joseph Smith Comparison: Subjective Metaphor or a Sociology of Prophethood.
Essentially, by comparing Joseph Smith to Muhammad we run the risk of people thinking that everything that Muhammad believed, preached, and did applies to Joseph Smith as well. This obviously is not the case. By saying that Joseph Smith is the "American Muhammad" causes people to make the immediate jump to think that Joseph Smith doesn’t see Jesus Christ as our Savior and other such conclusions. A more appropriate way of comparing them would be to show some attributes or teachings that they have in common, such as: charitable, humble, faithful, prayer, fasting, revelation, etc. By doing so we compare positive traits between the two without saying that one is a copy of the other or that they both had the same religious mindset. Likewise, it is crucial to point out the glaring differences. Arnold Green mentions a few, namely: lack of priesthood, lack of continuous revelation, concept of Deity, etc.
In addition to these concerns, we should note that there is no reason to alienate these two prophets from the rest of the more “mainstream” Old Testament Hebrew Prophets. Why can’t we compare Muhammad to Moses or Joseph Smith to John the Baptist? Both of those comparisons have equal validity, however, Western Christianity sees Muhammad as a heretic and thus wants to clump Joseph Smith with him as being from the same tree. As Arnold Green put it, “this intriguing comparison, which has existed in the literature for nearly 150 years, has thus been pursued for questionable reasons and with questionable methods: to discredit Mormonism by equating its founder with Muhammad, who was presumed to be a fraud and a heretic.”
In conclusion, although many of the similarities between Joseph Smith and Muhammad are faith inspiring and help us see God’s hand extended towards all his children, it is necessary to be cautious in comparing Muhammad and Joseph Smith for several important reasons. First off, you never know what stigmas your audience already has when they think of who Muhammad was. Secondly, there are some significant difference between Joseph Smith and Muhammad that must be pointed out. Lastly, by so doing you diminish their roles and leave them as “lesser prophets” whereas they should be just as legitimately compared to all the prophets that have ever lived.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Salvatory Repentance versus Nonsalvatory Doctrinal Concerns
Alma 42:29-"And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance."
"These things" that troubled Alma's son Corianton were a few doctrinal concerns that his father had just explained. They were: the resurrection of the dead, the final restoration to all men, and the justice of God in the punishment of sinners. For the first point he wanted to know how it was that all men would be resurrected, where those that had died now reside, when it was that they should come forth, whether it was all at once, etc. We have Alma 40 thanks to this inquiry. The second concern was how it was that men were restored all things in the final judgment, which is why we have Alma 41. His final concern was basically, if all men are sinners and fall short, how is it that God can justify punishing sinners? This is a logical concern for anyone that believes that since we are all fallen there is nothing we can do to avoid judgment and thus should just live however we want to (this obviously being false and the root of the "eat, drink, and be merry" philosophy that many non-LDS Christians have today). Alma 42 was written in response to this question.
However, I find it very intriguing that after all of this scriptural and doctrinal elaboration Alma points out that none of this really matters in the long run. What really matters is that we repent so that Christ's Atonement can redeem us. I refer to this scripture whenever I can tell that I am getting too caught up in scriptural debates and logical analysis of the doctrine. For example, my last two blogs have been due to much analysis and research on two subjects that bothered me for a while. In the end I must remind myself that "these things trouble me no more" but only "let my sins trouble me". In other words, although it is good to want to know mysteries of the kingdom (for Alma told Corianton that this was one of the mysteries), it is better to want to apply the simply principles of the kingdom that even a child can understand. Repentance of our sins should always come before deep doctrinal endeavors. That being said, Alma was able to embark on a search of greater light on these mysteries and thanks to Corianton's concerns we have some of the most eye-opening chapters of scripture. So there is some good in wanting to find explanations to things that trouble us, but we can never confuse that "spiritual candy" with the "spiritual feast" that is the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. Candy is not a necessity but can be a bonus to those that have already had their vitamins.
(It should be noted that Corianton was in a very poor spiritual state and thus had greater sins than most of us, but I believe this counsel is still applicable to me.)
Sunday, September 4, 2011
The Atonement- Part 2- Saved by Grace
2 Nephi 25:23- "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
This is another post that was sparked by my encounter with the 3 UC-Riverside guys. Ever since then it seems like this verse (among others) has been finding me wherever I go. Not only that but any where I find it I find the word "misunderstanding" preceding it. Like in July's Ensign, "a second false assumption (that we can trust in our own efforts) might come from misunderstanding 2 Nephi 25:23. We mistakenly deduce that we must first prove our worth through our obedience and righteousness before the Lord's sacrifice will cover us or His grace enable us." Although I probably still misunderstand it to some degree, I feel like I have recently gained some treasured insights into a more complete understanding of this passage. Namely, there are two (at least) acceptable interpretations of this verse, one applying to achieved immediate salvation and one to conditional future salvation.
For starters, the initial surface interpretation is basic and incorrect: we do everything that we possible can do and then Christ stands in and leaves a nice tip. For me this interpretation was completely dispelled once and for all at Education week when I attended Brad Wilcox's seminar. In short, the first interpretation is "we are saved by grace no matter how much we do" . Although I had read the exact same talk in his book The Continuous Atonement, I must have misplaced those highly valuable teachings in my gospel memory. As he started to expound on this verse I quickly recalled his profound explanation of this verse. Basically, Brad shows how emphasizing each individual word in "after all we can do" can completely change the meaning of the verse. In fact, he dedicates an entire chapter to this single phrase. For a more thorough analysis of this interpretation I suggest reading, if not in it's entirety, that chapter of his book. Some crucial statements from his book are the following:
Another example is from Robert Millet's Christ-Centered Living, "too many of us misread 2 Nephi 25:23 and conclude that the Lord can assist us only after, meaning following the time that, we have done "all we can do." That is incorrect; he can and does help us all along the way. No matter how much we do, it simply will not be enough to guarantee salvation without Christ's intervention."
One source that Brad references is Stephen E Robinson's book Believing Christ. I also recommend this book (although I must add that this book must be read from an LDS perspective, for reading this from a protestant perspective it can sound as if he is teaching that we don't need to do anything after accepting Christ. He clarifies this in the sequel Following Christ.) as it caused a vital change in my life. Here are some crucial quotes form his book:
One final citation (though there are numerous more) is Robert Millet's Grace Works which reemphasizes the essential concept of the gospel covenant through the Atonement (which literally means at-one-ment, or becoming one with Christ). "As I come unto Christ by covenant, we (Christ and I) are complete. Together we are perfect. Through relying alone upon his merits, those who come unto Christ become perfect in him." Notice the tense of the verb "are" and "become". This isn't speaking of a future perfection or salvation. It is teaching that as soon as we entire the gospel covenant through baptism we are saved in Christ solely because of his merits. Now that is a fundamental aspect of salvation by grace, I repeat, "solely because of his merits". It is clear that we are not saving ourselves, but what must we do to entire into the gospel covenant? Faith-to motivate us, Repentance-to demonstrate that faith, Baptism-to demonstrate that repentance and to entire the gate, Gift of the Holy Ghost-to confirm that we have entered the covenant. At that very moment, as soon as we hear the words "amen" we have been saved. Yes, as Stephen E Robinson explains, we do believe that "we have been saved". Unfortunately, because of the negative connotations attached with the protestant version of "being saved" we tend to only speak of salvation in the future tense, when there are really two meanings for salvation. Namely, the immediate state of being saved in Christ because of the covenant of the Atonement and the future state of being saved in the Celestial Kingdom. As Robinson explains "Latter-day Saints have hesitated to use the term being saved, as many Protestants do, as an equivalent for "being converted" or "coming to Christ," since we understand that as long as we live, this salvation is conditional upon our enduring to the end."
Let me intervene real quickly, so these quotes from LDS authors are all fine and dandy but we need some actual scriptural backing. So here we go:
Alma 34:21- "now is the time and the day of your salvation...if ye will repent, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you."
Ether 12:26,27-"my grace is sufficient for the meek, my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me"
Moroni 10:32,33-"that by his grace ye might be perfect in Christ".
These verses demonstrate that we are saved in the present tense and that Christ's grace is sufficient for us to be perfected in Him because we are in a covenant with Him through His Atonement.
The second interpretation is a future conditional salvation. The idea is captured in the phrase "enduring to the end". This phrase in and of itself implies the chronological idea of "after". We are saved in heaven after we have endured to the end. However, we obviously have already entered into the kingdom and thus have already been saved and simply need to endure in order to stay in the kingdom forever and thus be saved again. Stephen E Robinson explains very majestically that once we have been saved by entering the kingdom of God the only way we won't be finally saved is if we decide to leave. In other words, we are saved conditionally because we have the agency to decide whether or not we want to endure to the end. As of right now we are saved, but it is possible for a man to fall from grace. So for us to be saved forever we must endure to the end. This is evident through numerous passages:
Matthew 24:13-"he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
D&C 20:25-"endure in faith to the end, should be saved"
3 Nephi 15:9-"unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life."
2 Nephi 31:20-"endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life."
2 Nephi 33:4-"endure to the end, which is life eternal."
2 Nephi 31:13-"unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved."
The last three quotes are the most important because all three were written by the very same Nephi that wrote 2 Nephi 25:23. Not only that, but they were all written after that passage and thus any understanding he possessed would have been even deeper by the time he wrote those three verses. Even after enduring to the end we are saved by grace because enduring to the end is just continuing in the grace we have already received. Thus we advance "from grace to grace" and "from salvation to salvation."
Originally when I tried to explain this passage to Rob (the one from UC-R that I stay in the most contact with), I only understood the possible interpretation that I found in my new testament manual, namely, that "all we can do" refers to repenting of all our sins. The discouraging part of this explanation was that I couldn't find any sources to validate it. First off, the manual was one that my professor had made himself and this was one of the few cases where there was no reference cited. In fact, it was a mere one sentence explanation, almost as if it was left up to the reader to find out where it came from. Well, just recently in my search for why, Erica and I read a verse in the Book of Mormon that was perfect.
Alma 24:11-"all that we could do was to repent of all our sins...for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain"
This verse demonstrates that all the Sons of Mosiah could do to be saved was to repent of all their sins. This makes sense. Since we are all imperfect, "all we can do" is repent when we sin because this applies the Saviors Blood and allows the Atonement to clean us. (Remember, one thing Christ hasn't eliminated is our agency, he won't and can't force us to apply his Atonement, that's what repentance is for.) But does this verse/concept actually apply to 2 Nephi 25:23? Let's look at the context. The total verse says, "to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
So first it says to "believe" and thus implies faith. Second, "reconciled" means to repent so that the Atonement can redeem you. Cross reference this with a previous teaching of Jacob, Nephi's brother:
2 Nephi 10:24-"after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved."
Again we see the words "after","reconciled","grace", and "saved". So it appears that there is some truth to the idea that we are saved by grace after (sequentially) repenting. I think this concept applies to both interpretations that I have presented. The first interpretation is that we are saved immediately through grace despite our greatest efforts. This is true only after we have entered into the gospel covenant with Christ which is only possible after repenting and then being baptized. Secondly, it applies to the idea of future conditional salvation because an essential part of enduring to the end is continued repentance.
So why do we misinterpret this verse? Why did Joseph Smith translate this verse using the word "after"? Hopefully upon reviewing these two interpretations the answer is obvious. Because "after" has two different meanings and thus is the perfect word to cover both meanings of "saved by grace". Unfortunately, we only read the chronological interpretation of "after" and we even misunderstand it in that sense. (For instance, notice that we always read it as "after all that we can do". The word "that" is not found in the verse and if it were that could imply that our actions as a noun are what matters.)
In review, we must repent of all our sins to be baptized and thus entire the gospel covenant. Once we have been confirmed with the Holy Ghost we are saved in Christ immediately. This is through grace no matter how much we do. However, to realize our eternal salvation we must continue repenting of all our sins and thus endure to the end. Even in this case, we are still saved by grace after having endured to the end.
(A thorough study of Moroni 10:32-33 might be the most complete explanation of this duality of salvation and perfection through grace. However, I do not feel ready to embark on such an endeavor as this verse might be even more misunderstood and it is much longer than the single phrase I've already analyzed).
This is another post that was sparked by my encounter with the 3 UC-Riverside guys. Ever since then it seems like this verse (among others) has been finding me wherever I go. Not only that but any where I find it I find the word "misunderstanding" preceding it. Like in July's Ensign, "a second false assumption (that we can trust in our own efforts) might come from misunderstanding 2 Nephi 25:23. We mistakenly deduce that we must first prove our worth through our obedience and righteousness before the Lord's sacrifice will cover us or His grace enable us." Although I probably still misunderstand it to some degree, I feel like I have recently gained some treasured insights into a more complete understanding of this passage. Namely, there are two (at least) acceptable interpretations of this verse, one applying to achieved immediate salvation and one to conditional future salvation.
For starters, the initial surface interpretation is basic and incorrect: we do everything that we possible can do and then Christ stands in and leaves a nice tip. For me this interpretation was completely dispelled once and for all at Education week when I attended Brad Wilcox's seminar. In short, the first interpretation is "we are saved by grace no matter how much we do" . Although I had read the exact same talk in his book The Continuous Atonement, I must have misplaced those highly valuable teachings in my gospel memory. As he started to expound on this verse I quickly recalled his profound explanation of this verse. Basically, Brad shows how emphasizing each individual word in "after all we can do" can completely change the meaning of the verse. In fact, he dedicates an entire chapter to this single phrase. For a more thorough analysis of this interpretation I suggest reading, if not in it's entirety, that chapter of his book. Some crucial statements from his book are the following:
- This is one of the most widely quoted scriptures in the Church, yet it may also be one of the least understood
- For a long time I believed the word after in this verse was time related. I believed I had to do all I possibly could and then grace would kick in- as if it were a finishing touch to all I had to first accomplish alone.
- The light isn't just at the end of the tunnel, it is all around us
- Christ is not waiting at the finish line; He is finishing our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2)
- Grace is not the prize at the end of the climb. It is the enabling power throughout (Bible Dictionary)
- We as in each of us with Jesus. It is by grace that we (you and I) are saved, after all we (Christ and each of us) can do together.
Another example is from Robert Millet's Christ-Centered Living, "too many of us misread 2 Nephi 25:23 and conclude that the Lord can assist us only after, meaning following the time that, we have done "all we can do." That is incorrect; he can and does help us all along the way. No matter how much we do, it simply will not be enough to guarantee salvation without Christ's intervention."
One source that Brad references is Stephen E Robinson's book Believing Christ. I also recommend this book (although I must add that this book must be read from an LDS perspective, for reading this from a protestant perspective it can sound as if he is teaching that we don't need to do anything after accepting Christ. He clarifies this in the sequel Following Christ.) as it caused a vital change in my life. Here are some crucial quotes form his book:
- In my opinion some of the blame comes from a misunderstanding of 2 Nephi 25:23
- I understand the preposition "after" in 2 Nephi 25:23 to be a preposition of separation rather than a preposition of time. It denotes logical separateness rather than temporal sequence.
- We are saved by grace "apart from all we can do" or "all we can do notwithstanding" or even "regardless of all we can do" or "we are still saved by grace, after all is said and done."
- The gospel covenant is therefore a covenant of grace, an expression of God's goodwill. We humans did not earn or merit the offer of a new covenant. We didn't earn it-we needed it-we are saved by grace.
One final citation (though there are numerous more) is Robert Millet's Grace Works which reemphasizes the essential concept of the gospel covenant through the Atonement (which literally means at-one-ment, or becoming one with Christ). "As I come unto Christ by covenant, we (Christ and I) are complete. Together we are perfect. Through relying alone upon his merits, those who come unto Christ become perfect in him." Notice the tense of the verb "are" and "become". This isn't speaking of a future perfection or salvation. It is teaching that as soon as we entire the gospel covenant through baptism we are saved in Christ solely because of his merits. Now that is a fundamental aspect of salvation by grace, I repeat, "solely because of his merits". It is clear that we are not saving ourselves, but what must we do to entire into the gospel covenant? Faith-to motivate us, Repentance-to demonstrate that faith, Baptism-to demonstrate that repentance and to entire the gate, Gift of the Holy Ghost-to confirm that we have entered the covenant. At that very moment, as soon as we hear the words "amen" we have been saved. Yes, as Stephen E Robinson explains, we do believe that "we have been saved". Unfortunately, because of the negative connotations attached with the protestant version of "being saved" we tend to only speak of salvation in the future tense, when there are really two meanings for salvation. Namely, the immediate state of being saved in Christ because of the covenant of the Atonement and the future state of being saved in the Celestial Kingdom. As Robinson explains "Latter-day Saints have hesitated to use the term being saved, as many Protestants do, as an equivalent for "being converted" or "coming to Christ," since we understand that as long as we live, this salvation is conditional upon our enduring to the end."
Let me intervene real quickly, so these quotes from LDS authors are all fine and dandy but we need some actual scriptural backing. So here we go:
Alma 34:21- "now is the time and the day of your salvation...if ye will repent, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you."
Ether 12:26,27-"my grace is sufficient for the meek, my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me"
Moroni 10:32,33-"that by his grace ye might be perfect in Christ".
These verses demonstrate that we are saved in the present tense and that Christ's grace is sufficient for us to be perfected in Him because we are in a covenant with Him through His Atonement.
The second interpretation is a future conditional salvation. The idea is captured in the phrase "enduring to the end". This phrase in and of itself implies the chronological idea of "after". We are saved in heaven after we have endured to the end. However, we obviously have already entered into the kingdom and thus have already been saved and simply need to endure in order to stay in the kingdom forever and thus be saved again. Stephen E Robinson explains very majestically that once we have been saved by entering the kingdom of God the only way we won't be finally saved is if we decide to leave. In other words, we are saved conditionally because we have the agency to decide whether or not we want to endure to the end. As of right now we are saved, but it is possible for a man to fall from grace. So for us to be saved forever we must endure to the end. This is evident through numerous passages:
Matthew 24:13-"he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
D&C 20:25-"endure in faith to the end, should be saved"
3 Nephi 15:9-"unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life."
2 Nephi 31:20-"endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life."
2 Nephi 33:4-"endure to the end, which is life eternal."
2 Nephi 31:13-"unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved."
The last three quotes are the most important because all three were written by the very same Nephi that wrote 2 Nephi 25:23. Not only that, but they were all written after that passage and thus any understanding he possessed would have been even deeper by the time he wrote those three verses. Even after enduring to the end we are saved by grace because enduring to the end is just continuing in the grace we have already received. Thus we advance "from grace to grace" and "from salvation to salvation."
Originally when I tried to explain this passage to Rob (the one from UC-R that I stay in the most contact with), I only understood the possible interpretation that I found in my new testament manual, namely, that "all we can do" refers to repenting of all our sins. The discouraging part of this explanation was that I couldn't find any sources to validate it. First off, the manual was one that my professor had made himself and this was one of the few cases where there was no reference cited. In fact, it was a mere one sentence explanation, almost as if it was left up to the reader to find out where it came from. Well, just recently in my search for why, Erica and I read a verse in the Book of Mormon that was perfect.
Alma 24:11-"all that we could do was to repent of all our sins...for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain"
This verse demonstrates that all the Sons of Mosiah could do to be saved was to repent of all their sins. This makes sense. Since we are all imperfect, "all we can do" is repent when we sin because this applies the Saviors Blood and allows the Atonement to clean us. (Remember, one thing Christ hasn't eliminated is our agency, he won't and can't force us to apply his Atonement, that's what repentance is for.) But does this verse/concept actually apply to 2 Nephi 25:23? Let's look at the context. The total verse says, "to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
So first it says to "believe" and thus implies faith. Second, "reconciled" means to repent so that the Atonement can redeem you. Cross reference this with a previous teaching of Jacob, Nephi's brother:
2 Nephi 10:24-"after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved."
Again we see the words "after","reconciled","grace", and "saved". So it appears that there is some truth to the idea that we are saved by grace after (sequentially) repenting. I think this concept applies to both interpretations that I have presented. The first interpretation is that we are saved immediately through grace despite our greatest efforts. This is true only after we have entered into the gospel covenant with Christ which is only possible after repenting and then being baptized. Secondly, it applies to the idea of future conditional salvation because an essential part of enduring to the end is continued repentance.
So why do we misinterpret this verse? Why did Joseph Smith translate this verse using the word "after"? Hopefully upon reviewing these two interpretations the answer is obvious. Because "after" has two different meanings and thus is the perfect word to cover both meanings of "saved by grace". Unfortunately, we only read the chronological interpretation of "after" and we even misunderstand it in that sense. (For instance, notice that we always read it as "after all that we can do". The word "that" is not found in the verse and if it were that could imply that our actions as a noun are what matters.)
In review, we must repent of all our sins to be baptized and thus entire the gospel covenant. Once we have been confirmed with the Holy Ghost we are saved in Christ immediately. This is through grace no matter how much we do. However, to realize our eternal salvation we must continue repenting of all our sins and thus endure to the end. Even in this case, we are still saved by grace after having endured to the end.
(A thorough study of Moroni 10:32-33 might be the most complete explanation of this duality of salvation and perfection through grace. However, I do not feel ready to embark on such an endeavor as this verse might be even more misunderstood and it is much longer than the single phrase I've already analyzed).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)