Critics want us to believe that church leaders taught the only way people could be forgiven at all was by the shedding of their blood, execution style. Since there is no record of any such executions in the history of the church, it is obvious that the members of the church and the leaders had a much different understanding of this rhetoric.
I've never heard this that I have put in bold and that is not what I took away from that quote.
What I did hear though, was that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to cover sin, all sin except the rejection of the Savior.
I hear a works salvation. In other words, grace, through faith, + works, salvation.
What I was trying to point out is that Brigham is not referring to salvation, but rather that Christ’s atonement does not prevent us from the suffering in the flesh, or as a result of sin while in these mortal bodies of flesh and blood.
Righteousness being our justification unto salvation can only be available through the righteousness of Christ. Our own righteousnesses being as filthy rags, for attainment of salvation.
A good description of Mormon doctrine.
The righteousness that has obtained our mercy and grace for us, is Christ's.
Also authentic Mormon doctrine.
So therefore, there is nothing we can do, we are at His mercy. "Have mercy on me, for I have sinned against thee." we cry. At the same time we cannot claim our right standing in Him because we obey rules, laws, do good works. It's just not sufficient for the righteousness of God.
Mormons believe that no matter how well we follow the rules or perform good works, they have no power to save us. It is only the grace and mercy of Christ that saves. Following His rules must flow from our acceptance of His grace. However, consciously choosing not to follow His rules is evidence of our rejection of His atonement and grace.
I have spoken with Mormons, they do not believe that when one repents their sin is thrown as far as the east is from the west. They believe they may have to pay for that sin, in some way in the after life.
Either they are misunderstanding you and you them, likely both, and/or they do not fully understand the LDS doctrine of the atonement. I think the problem could be Mormons assuming you believe and try to counter the idea that a person can claim acceptance of Christ’s grace, but think they can reject His teachings by not attempting to change their lifestyle to be in harmony with His gospel and still claim to be saved. Mormons believe that any sin that we have not repented of will bring consequences, but will not necessarily prevent salvation. You seem to agree with this in your next couple sentences.
I see that sin is not the issue in eternity, if one is in Christ. But certainly our good/bad works will be measured and will have some different outcomes for different individuals. But they will be saved.
So you seem to be saying here that there are different degrees to which a person can be saved. Is that right?
I have a question for you though. If we were going to have our own worlds, and different levels of heavens don't you think that would be important enough that God would have made that teaching available to the Apostles, and they would have taught it?
I believe these two ideas, as they are officially taught by the LDS church, were very much available to and clearly taught by the apostles. There are many ideas in the New Testament that are alluded to, but not explained in detail. When you think about it, the books in the New Testament are all letters to members of the church who have already been taught the basics. We have no record of what was taught to people just before and just after baptism, where they learned the bulk of the doctrine. So the apostles in writing their letters to the saints assumed that their readers already knew many basic doctrines. In order to communicate a specific message about a specific subject they only alluded to other doctrines that needed to be understood in order to comprehend the ideas of the letter. They were building on an already existing foundation that didn’t need to be completely rebuilt each time.
Because for centuries the Bible was all Christians had that was authoritative, it was assumed it was complete and all God intended for us to ever have. That idea, however is nowhere taught in the Bible and is very contradictory to the Bible. To me, one of the most emphasized ideas taught throughout the Bible is that the written word from former prophets was never intended to stand alone as God’s only way of guiding His people or church.
But after saying all that, I believe the idea of man being able to be like Heavenly Father and the idea of different levels of heaven can still be found in the Bible. First of all, the idea of having our own worlds is not specifically taught in LDS scripture. It is just an assumption people have made that grows out of the Biblical teaching that we can inherit all that the Father has and become like him.
Here are just a few of the Bible verses that teach this doctrine: Romans 8:16-17,32, 2 Corinthians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 15:49, Galatians 4:7, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 3:21, Revelation 21:7.
The idea of multiple degrees of heaven is also taught in the Bible, but it is clear that there is an assumption that the readers already understand the details. A great example of that is in 2 Corinthians 2:7 where Paul tells of his vision of the third heaven. He goes into more detail of these three degrees of heaven in the great chapter on the resurrection, chapter 15 of I Corinthians. He describes three different degrees of resurrected glory in verses 40-42. But he doesn’t really explain much more about it because the members of the church already knew and understood the details.
Now I admit that anyone who does not want to believe the Mormon interpretation of these verses can go in and figure out alternate ways to interpret them. But you have to admit that my interpretation is a very obvious and possible if not probable one. Actually, I could show you many of the early Christian Fathers who interpret these verses the Mormon way. I hope that answers your questions.
