Grace/Salvation/Atonement as a process or as an event

Elsewhere, Clark Goble has publically agreed with Dr. Millet’s assessment of salvation as a process. In a slightly different context, Mssrs Goble, Greenwood, and Johnston have all admitted that, while they think it is possible for people to hold the idea that humans are “instantly transformed” at judgment, they are uncertain as to why anyone would (see here and following comments). I am one of those who do believe in “instant transformation”, but I object to that characterization and actually believe that the distinction between process and event is actually not all that helpful. These notions are tied together; please allow me to explain.

I tend to view salvation/justification/sanctification as a process consisting of a series of saving events, each of which should be termed as a gift or a grace. I, therefore, dislike Dr. Millet’s distinction because it seems to separate out two ideas that I find are intertwined. We are “instantly transformed” in a thousand, thousand small ways as part of the life-long process of repentance. All good things (including faith, grace, love, hope, patience, intelligence, light, and so forth) are gifts from God and, as such, are not earned. There is no way for us to earn them. They are given in God’s own time and in His own wisdom. Even if we make the central covenants of the gospel, there is no gaurantee of the instant receipt of those gifts, just the promise that, as we abide in the covenant, we will receive…eventually.

Now some may argue that abiding in the covenant constitutes “work.” I disagree, because those qualities that we use to abide in the covenant are themselves inherently gifts from God. It is a bit recursive, admittedly, but the idea that we can do anything of ourselves is, I believe, contrary to one of the central messages of the gospel: our need for complete submission to the will of God.

In fact, this is the central trial that Christ faced on earth. There is real pain, suffering, and work behind his concession in Gethsemene that God’s will be done. My argument is that, fundamentally, this is what God is asking each of us to do. None of us will be as good at it as Christ, which is why the atonement is in place, but if we do what we are able (which, by the way, ain’t much), then God considers us in fulfillment of this covenant in the same way His Son was (which is why we can be joint-heirs).

So, ultimately, all God asks of us is to submit to his will. He makes up for our lacks by a process of instantaneous transformations that slowly make us better. However, with that as an understanding of the atonement, I find no reason to object to the idea that transformations can be more overarching at the time of the judgement. I do believe that God can and will make us Celestial (so long as that is what we want), by means of instantaneous transformation (if that is what it takes).

The good fight

First of all, I have been very busy lately with a variety of silly issues developing with my beginning a new semester. These are starting to smooth out and therefore I should be more able to post and comment in the future. This is a fundamental difference between me and Ronan; he posts more during the semester and I less.

Geoff J has a post over at his blog asking why people don’t discuss doctrinal issues more. I should post a comment there, and will, but I fall along those who don’t feel like they have done enough research to explain my take adequately (read: convincingly). I don’t know enough Mormonalia (pithy mission statements aside) to really feel like I can comment on what Heber C. Kimball or Joseph Smith may have said as an aside in a discussion written down in someone’s journal some years later. Or the journal of discourses.

For that matter, I am reluctant to dismiss arguments regarding other people’s positions if I haven’t had time to really consider them. For instance, there are several things in Jeffrey Gilliam’s development of Mormon theology that I find objectionable, but having only taken the time to read about have his posts on the subject, I am consumed with the fear that he has answered my concerns elsewhere. Moreso, I think that I will find more of the same in his other posts and still be left with only a vague uneasiness defining my skepticism.

That said, there have been a rash of posts recently that deal with issues that are central to me and my understanding of the doctrine. I am certain that I fundamentally differ with J. about the meaning of the atonement. I know that I disagree with Jeffrey G. about the usefulness of evolution as a model for spiritual development, the importance of the inspiration/revelation distinction, and the pervasiveness of Adam-God. I think the parable of the mortgage vastly overestimates the importance of works and underestimates the power of grace. I respect all of these men, don’t think that they are apostate, appreciate that they are good thinkers, and, nonetheless, believe that they are all wrong. Just plain wrong.

In part, this is because I am a fairly orthodox guy. I actually believe that the “common” understanding of the scriptures is, in many cases, the best one. This, in turn, makes it hard for me to defend my position because it makes it hard for state clearly what it is. As Davis Bell has commented elsewhere, the “common” understanding of the gospel is a witch’s brew of innuendo, speculation, offhand remarks from general authorities, and occasional scripture. I have commented on this before.

That said, I am deeply interested in the Atonement. Many times I am impressed with the level of speculation that takes place here in the ‘Naccle. But I feel like, in some ways, J., Geoff, and Jeff are creating issues out of thin air; creating confusion where the doctrine was fairly clear. I believe all three men (and others like them) to be sincere. So the confusion must be genuine. But it fails to make sense to me because I have a hard time understanding why the non-sense of previous theories needs rectification. The Atonement is inherently irrational. There is no need to create a theological foundation for it (and it is possibly backward to do so).

Nonetheless, with the discussion thusfar, and with my conscience growing guiltier every time I fail to comment on one of their interesting posts, I have decided to put forward what I mean by the “common” understanding of the gospel. I know that I am idiosyncratic (I let far more people into the Celestial Kingdom than might normally be considered doctrinally possible), but I feel like, in general, it is sound doctrine (I may even cite scripture to make my point).

First of all, the reason that we are sent here is to submit our will entirely to God in a manner whereby we do it rationally, devotionally, and willingly. God cannot make us do this, but he is not above engineering things so that this is the most likely outcome. We are sent to the mortal realm to experience failure, sin, pain, sorrow and a whole host of other things that are simply impossible for us to experience unless we are separated from God, which can only happen if we choose it and we have a mortal, fallible body. At least in part, we undergo this to develop compassion for our eventual wayward children. Additionally, we do this so that we can develop the faith necessary to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and, thereby, become joint-heirs with him.

The role of Christ is that of the Redeemer. Though necessarily sinless in order to undergo the atonement, it was necessary for even him to experience and take upon himself our sins. He had to be separated from God as part of his mortal experience. His role is that of the Father to us. I am not saying that He is the Father, because The Father plays a different role and is a different being. What I am saying is that Christ is divinely endowed with the power and, to a degree, the presence of the Father in his role as Savior, Redeemer, Judge, and God of this world. Christ is the Father of our covenants; the Gospel makes us His Children. The role of the Father (meaning God, the Father) in this is mysterious. We are already His Children. However, I can say that, however we interact with the Father, it is through the mediation of His Son. As much as He may like to, God cannot save his Children without the Atonement of His Son.

We are saved when, during or after this life, we are divinely invested with the attributes of the Father through the mediation of the Son. As Christ became the Father through divine investiture, so too can we. To do so, we must do as Christ did and submit our will wholely to God, allowing Divine Grace to perfect us. All good things are gifts fro
m God and salvation is no exception. The reason that this is accomplishable in this life is because, ultimately, God isn’t demanding some arbitrary level of righteousness or obedience for us to advance to the next level. Salvation is not earned; it is given by a loving Father through the conduit of His Son. What we are asked to do is to humble ourselves sufficient to rely on God and His Grace; He really will take care of the rest. So, that’s what I think. You?

Mama, I’ve got those Fantasy Football blues…

Well, the season has begun, and I have bested the forces of darkness yet again. Yes, John C. took a nosedive yesterday, as his team was left panting on the sidelines after a thorough drubbing by yours truly.

As large sweaty men pummel each other on the gridiron each Sunday, yet another of my neuroses surfaces. The commandment to keep the Sabbath holy is being battered to pieces by the aforementioned helmeted warriors, a small but significant portion of which are LDS. With a few notable exceptions, most of these seem not to mind.

So, what are your thoughts on professional sports and the Sabbath, particularly on LDS athletes/coaches, etc.? Are they truly accomplishing missionary work by being the public figures that they are, or is this just an excuse for them to ignore one of the Ten Commandments in the pursuit of the almighty dollar? Am I breaking the commandment if I watch sports on Sunday? What if I just check the fantasy stats on the internet?

What would Sean Diener do?

PETA Campaign Coordinator Sean Diener, a devout Latter-Day Saint who grew up in Salt Lake City says,“Anyone who thinks that Jesus would approve of the way that these animals are raised and killed completely misses the gospel’s greatest message: compassion.”

Do you think that the gospel’s greatest message is compassion?

Historical Mormon Smackdown: Standard Works Edition!

Well, the last time we did this, the Book of Mormon hero wupped up on the Biblical one. It got me thinking about this, a subject destined to become this week’s smackdown!

Scriptural Mormon Smackdown: Standard Works Edition!
Not that one is, but if one was, which of these Standard Works is the most important: The Pearl of Great Price or The Old Testament?


The Pearl of Great Price is the source of all of our knowledge regarding Kolob and most of our knowledge regarding Enoch.

The Old Testament has Isaiah, Genesis, and several other LDS proof-texts.

Please vote and then comment below.

PETA billboards and Word of Wisdom

At this posting, Judah holds a very slight lead with 3 votes. Personally, I think that’s a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease… at any rate, on to today’s topic of contenti…er discussion.

Anyone see those LDS-oriented PETA billboards a year or so ago in Utah? The ones quoting D&C 89 about eating “…meat sparingly, only in times of cold or famine”? Those actually got me thinking. We (Americans) eat meat a lot, all year long. No recent famines to my knowledge. And yet we (Mormons) seem to just completely skip over this advice in the Word of Wisdom. I’ve asked people about this, and I can barely get the question out of my mouth when they start hollering at me “D&C says vegetarianism is not from God!” Well, no, that’s not what the Lord says. He says PREACHING vegetarianism as a commandment is not from God. But in the WoW he also says it is pleasing unto him that meat not be used, only in times of cold or famine. Why doesn’t anyone (except PETA) holler about that verse? Anyway, being as it’s neither cold now nor faminous (I love inventing words) I opted for vegetarianism for the summer at least, with only minor villification from friends and church members.

So… whaddya think? Is a veggie lifestyle Satan’s secret plan to destroy us? Or do we consume way more hamburger than was ever intended?

They’re not lost, I just don’t remember where I put them…


So, moving on from Bigfoot…. I want to know, where have those Lost Ten Tribes got to? Center of the Earth? The Moon? Russia? right here among us, disguised as ordinary citizens? C’mon, let’s have it… let’s hear all those wild and wooly theories.

And by the way, exactly which tribes ARE lost, anyway? Ephraim was originally one of the Ten, but now we’re back; Levi didn’t originally count as one of the twelve, but he is technically lost. I think we know where Judah, Benjamin and the two Joseph tribes are, right? And what about Dan? why doesn’t Dan count as part of the 144,000? Is Dan lost or not, and do we want to find him? If there’s 13 tribes and only 12 apostles, does somebody get to skip the judgment? Tell me more….

Perhaps we should have a poll/smackdown:
Which tribe is most historically significant, and would win on MTV Celebrity Deathmatch?

Sasquatch and Melchizedek

Ok, since this place is dedicated to “oddments and marginalia” and other weird Mormon Legends, I have two that I’d like to hear more about:

1) I remember reading somewhere that there was a theory that Shem, son of Noah, was the same person as Melchizedek. And then I remember reading somewhere else, Mormon Doctrine possibly, that the theory was nonsense. But if I remember right, the first person was quoting Joseph Smith. Anyone else ever heard of this controversy, and could provide better sources than my rotten memory?

2) In an old copy of the Lectures on Faith, I remember seeing a quote from somebody’s journal about how they were riding on a horse, and a big 8 ft tall naked hair-covered man came up beside them, and then later on the Prophet told them they had seen Cain, son of Adam. Anyone know anything about this one? Makes no sense to me… first of all, how come Adam dies of old age, but Cain gets to hang out? And why does he look like Bigfoot? And how’d he make it through the flood?

Addendum: Ok, our intrepid commentators have informed me that I had it all backwards, the Cain story was in Miracle of Forgiveness and the Shem/Melchizedek story was in Lectures on Faith.

God v. Mammon, 2005

Didn’t Brigham Young say something to the effect that he knew the Saints could withstand mobbings and lynchings, but he was worried about the effects prosperity would have on [us]?

Well here is my question: Since leaving school and working for a few years, I’ve been able to put a little money away and now am beginning to invest it. How aware do I need to be of who gets my money? Certainly I’m not going to go out and invest in shares of Phillip Morris or Anheiser Busch or Bally’s Casinos… But what about Coca-Cola? What about companies that SELL tobacco and alcohol, like restaurants & convenience stores, What about studios that make good movies, but also make R-rated ones? What about Marriott, for Pete’s sake, which has porn available as pay-per-view in all its hotel rooms? If I invest in these companies, am I not also profitting from the vices they promote and exploit?

To take it a step further, what if I don’t bother to invest in individual stocks at all, but stick to mutual funds? Am I responsible to monitor each individual company the fund invests in? If I don’t, then in theory, my money could be used to do things I would never dream of doing in person, right?

Perhaps I’m neurotic. After all, Phillip Morris also owns “Kraft”, I could tell myself that I was investing in Velveeta instead of Marlboro. I can go to the casino just for the buffet, right, and tell myself i’m not helping finance people’s addiction to gambling. If I subscribe to HBO, but only watch the PG13 stuff, never mind that i’m also helping produce The Sopranos, right? right?

What’s a gospel-conscious investor/consumer to do?

[For the record, when I mentioned this dilemma to a member of my stake presidency, he told me not to worry about it, because you don’t have enough time to investigate all the uses your money is put to, and because ANY company might be doing something immoral you don’t even know about. I’m not sure I’m satisfied with that answer….]

———————————

Philip Morris is a tobacco company that has successfully diversified, and is now a producer of well-known brands of food and beer. (Its 2000 Annual Report noted that “Fifteen of our brands generated $1 billion or more in revenues last year: Marlboro, Kraft, Basic, Miller Lite, Virginia Slims, Parliament, L&M, Oscar Mayer, Post, Philip Morris, Maxwell House, Jacobs, Philadelphia, Merit and our newest addition, the Nabisco trademark.”)

-(http://www.virginiaplaces.org/econ/philipmorris.html)

Please Welcome Rob

FPR is pleased to announce the appointment of my brother Robert to perma-blogger status. Please feel free to welcome him to the blog.

Robert is a board-certified MD in rural Missouri with too much spare time. Although his online persona thusfar may make him seem like “House,” he is really much more like “Marcus Welby” (by which, I mean, old).

In the interest of keeping all posts from becoming bitter flame wars inspired by sibling rivalry, please feel free to keep commenting (additionally, please feel free to point out that I am right).