There is an odd celebration today over a perceived breakthrough regarding the LDS doctrine of grace, as witnessed in the pages of the Deseret News (here, here, here and here). Perhaps thinking they are pioneering a road less traveled, these few LDS scholars only complicate long-standing and uncomplicated official doctrine.
This celebration is odd because these scholars lack commensurability. Nearly to the person they are in disagreement, “in many instances fundamentally” so. It is like celebrating a Super Bowl victory when your favorite team was not playing. Also unclear is the target of their celebration. Is it doctrinal or cultural? Are these LDS scholars celebrating changes to official doctrine or are they celebrating a broader acceptance of their particular interpretations of official doctrine?
These LDS scholars rightly see how the idea of the Lord’s grace gets blended, shuffled, grinded and wrested by rank-and-file Saints coping with personal spiritual and emotional pains, but forget or fail to see that we do the same thing with every other doctrine that stands in our way of happiness without change. Correlation and centralization inside the LDS Church is not a punishment for stray ideas. It is a witness of their natural pervasiveness. These scholars should know better.
In the 1990s I read Stephen Robinson’s book Believing Christ and, for twenty-five years now, I have known its self-serving nature, doctrinal incorrectness and, yes, why it is so wildly popular among the Saints. Any struggling soul wants – needs – Robinson’s parable of the bicycle to be true. It is not. Our Lord, through His divine Atonement, does not make up any differences between our mortal strivings and where we fall short. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is never applied in our lives. It simply is. There are no more transactions left. He paid our debt in the garden and upon the cross. The only question remaining concerns what we are going to do about it.
When we have President Boyd K. Packer’s parable of the debtor, why do we need Robinson’s parable of the bicycle? Unless the answer to that question is that Robinson feels that President Packer’s explanation is incorrect or incomplete. When we have the teachings of Joseph Smith about grace and works, taught by every LDS Church president to follow, why do we need anyone else to tell us what grace means? We have the Book of Mormon and Latter-day prophets of God to teach us and to correct any misunderstandings. We have our agency and intellect to make their words our own and pass along their truths to rising generations. What have these LDS scholars added to God’s word or these processes?
Unfortunately, rather than clarify the official doctrine of grace, these scholars create new misunderstandings. For instance, are these scholars implying we do not need to repent? I hope not. We are not saved in our sins. We are saved from our sins. Hence, we are given a Savior and Redeemer. Are these scholars implying the Atonement of Jesus Christ alone ensures exaltation? I hope not. Are these scholars implying that our works are not involved in the act of coming unto Christ? I hope not. Our exaltation is based upon doing all sorts of works.
If grace means simply our resurrection then, yes, we do nothing to receive it. This is God’s “unconditional love,” as referred to throughout LDS popular culture. Resurrection of the dead is a miracle and universal but mere resurrection is not the goal of Saints. That important aspect of grace is essential but insufficient to gain us eternal life in the presence of God.
The official doctrine of grace and works has long been clear. In the relationship between grace and works, there is first an “if” followed by a “then.” Every “if” is our works and every “then” is God’s grace leading to eternal life – “if” we desire, “if” we bow down and submit, only “then” do we receive the Lord’s promises. Our sincere desires precede our submission to God. In submission, we learn to love God through a “broken heart and contrite spirit.” In loving God, we keep His commandments. And only then do we find His rest in exaltation.
The submission with which we are called upon to display our love for God is a similitude of the submission of our Savior to his Father. Our Savior did not submit to his Father simply to be resurrected. He desired to come back into the full presence of his Father. This is the same desire of all faithful Saints. The act of submission is our works and obeying His commandments follow naturally once we learn to love Him – therein the cart follows the horse. The act of submission, and repenting when we fail, is “all we can do.”
So, in that light, what do these LDS scholars want from us? What exactly are they celebrating when they gather? Evidently, they must believe that their writings and speeches have accomplished something that prophets of God could not. Otherwise, these scholars would react as the rest of us when we listen to the Brethren speak of grace – “Oh, I really liked how he taught that doctrine. It gives me a lot to ponder. Hey, what is for dinner?” We don’t hold a press conference.
What have these scholars shared with us that is new? Nothing. But their odd celebrations project a sense that they have. If they have shared something new about grace and works, chances are they are wrong in fact and in celebration – because there is nothing new to share. Are they celebrating a newfound sense of awareness among the Saints that God really does love us? So be it, but how is that newfound sense measured? Through book sales and conference attendees?
Hopefully, these LDS scholars will see how they have fomented warm contentions among the Saints in celebrating what was, up to now, not an open wound of doctrine. Hopefully, they will not continue to trade in false hopes (and doctrines) simply in a well-intentioned, but selfish, quest to relieve the personal pains of struggling Saints. We need to leave pain management to our Savior, Jesus Christ.
The LDS Doctrines of Grace and Works
There is an odd celebration today over a perceived breakthrough regarding the LDS doctrine of grace, as witnessed in the pages of the Deseret News (here, here, here and here). Perhaps thinking they are pioneering a road less traveled, these few LDS scholars only complicate long-standing and uncomplicated official doctrine.
This celebration is odd because these scholars lack commensurability. Nearly to the person they are in disagreement, “in many instances fundamentally” so. It is like celebrating a Super Bowl victory when your favorite team was not playing. Also unclear is the target of their celebration. Is it doctrinal or cultural? Are these LDS scholars celebrating changes to official doctrine or are they celebrating a broader acceptance of their particular interpretations of official doctrine?
These LDS scholars rightly see how the idea of the Lord’s grace gets blended, shuffled, grinded and wrested by rank-and-file Saints coping with personal spiritual and emotional pains, but forget or fail to see that we do the same thing with every other doctrine that stands in our way of happiness without change. Correlation and centralization inside the LDS Church is not a punishment for stray ideas. It is a witness of their natural pervasiveness. These scholars should know better.
In the 1990s I read Stephen Robinson’s book Believing Christ and, for twenty-five years now, I have known its self-serving nature, doctrinal incorrectness and, yes, why it is so wildly popular among the Saints. Any struggling soul wants – needs – Robinson’s parable of the bicycle to be true. It is not. Our Lord, through His divine Atonement, does not make up any differences between our mortal strivings and where we fall short. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is never applied in our lives. It simply is. There are no more transactions left. He paid our debt in the garden and upon the cross. The only question remaining concerns what we are going to do about it.
When we have President Boyd K. Packer’s parable of the debtor, why do we need Robinson’s parable of the bicycle? Unless the answer to that question is that Robinson feels that President Packer’s explanation is incorrect or incomplete. When we have the teachings of Joseph Smith about grace and works, taught by every LDS Church president to follow, why do we need anyone else to tell us what grace means? We have the Book of Mormon and Latter-day prophets of God to teach us and to correct any misunderstandings. We have our agency and intellect to make their words our own and pass along their truths to rising generations. What have these LDS scholars added to God’s word or these processes?
Unfortunately, rather than clarify the official doctrine of grace, these scholars create new misunderstandings. For instance, are these scholars implying we do not need to repent? I hope not. We are not saved in our sins. We are saved from our sins. Hence, we are given a Savior and Redeemer. Are these scholars implying the Atonement of Jesus Christ alone ensures exaltation? I hope not. Are these scholars implying that our works are not involved in the act of coming unto Christ? I hope not. Our exaltation is based upon doing all sorts of works.
If grace means simply our resurrection then, yes, we do nothing to receive it. This is God’s “unconditional love,” as referred to throughout LDS popular culture. Resurrection of the dead is a miracle and universal but mere resurrection is not the goal of Saints. That important aspect of grace is essential but insufficient to gain us eternal life in the presence of God.
The official doctrine of grace and works has long been clear. In the relationship between grace and works, there is first an “if” followed by a “then.” Every “if” is our works and every “then” is God’s grace leading to eternal life – “if” we desire, “if” we bow down and submit, only “then” do we receive the Lord’s promises. Our sincere desires precede our submission to God. In submission, we learn to love God through a “broken heart and contrite spirit.” In loving God, we keep His commandments. And only then do we find His rest in exaltation.
The submission with which we are called upon to display our love for God is a similitude of the submission of our Savior to his Father. Our Savior did not submit to his Father simply to be resurrected. He desired to come back into the full presence of his Father. This is the same desire of all faithful Saints. The act of submission is our works and obeying His commandments follow naturally once we learn to love Him – therein the cart follows the horse. The act of submission, and repenting when we fail, is “all we can do.”
So, in that light, what do these LDS scholars want from us? What exactly are they celebrating when they gather? Evidently, they must believe that their writings and speeches have accomplished something that prophets of God could not. Otherwise, these scholars would react as the rest of us when we listen to the Brethren speak of grace – “Oh, I really liked how he taught that doctrine. It gives me a lot to ponder. Hey, what is for dinner?” We don’t hold a press conference.
What have these scholars shared with us that is new? Nothing. But their odd celebrations project a sense that they have. If they have shared something new about grace and works, chances are they are wrong in fact and in celebration – because there is nothing new to share. Are they celebrating a newfound sense of awareness among the Saints that God really does love us? So be it, but how is that newfound sense measured? Through book sales and conference attendees?
Hopefully, these LDS scholars will see how they have fomented warm contentions among the Saints in celebrating what was, up to now, not an open wound of doctrine. Hopefully, they will not continue to trade in false hopes (and doctrines) simply in a well-intentioned, but selfish, quest to relieve the personal pains of struggling Saints. We need to leave pain management to our Savior, Jesus Christ.