Mormons: Did Christ need to be saved?

[SteveVH]

I found this article “Our Relationship With the Lord” written by Bruce R. McConkie and found in the BYU Devotional dated March 2, 1982. This portion of the article left me somewhat stunned :

**"5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father.

After the Firstborn of the Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God; after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number; after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord Omnipotent-- after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal body.

After the Son of God “made flesh” his “tabernacle,” and while he yet “dwelt among the sons of men”; after he left his preexistent glory as we all do at birth; after he was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea–after all this he was called upon to work out his own salvation.

Of our Lord’s life while in this mortal probation the scripture says, “He received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness.” Finally, after his resurrection, “he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.” (D&C 93:12-17)**

Do Mormons actually believe that Christ needed salvation? If so, from what did he need to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what?

Thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

I found this article “Our Relationship With the Lord” written by Bruce R. McConkie and found in the BYU Devotional dated March 2, 1982. This portion of the article left me somewhat stunned :

**"5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father.

After the Firstborn of the Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God; after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number; after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord Omnipotent-- after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal body.

After the Son of God “made flesh” his “tabernacle,” and while he yet “dwelt among the sons of men”; after he left his preexistent glory as we all do at birth; after he was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea–after all this he was called upon to work out his own salvation.

Of our Lord’s life while in this mortal probation the scripture says, “He received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness.” Finally, after his resurrection, “he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.” (D&C 93:12-17)**

Do Mormons actually believe that Christ needed salvation? If so, from what did he need to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what?

Thank you.

bump

 

[ParkerD]

…

Do Mormons actually believe that Christ needed salvation? If so, from what did he need to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what?

Thank you.

SteveVH,

Perhaps we share the belief that Christ was subject to temptation “in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15 and 2:18), but that He gave no heed to the temptations (see D & C 20:22 as a reference).

By accepting His divine mission of coming to earth, receiving a physical body with a mortal mother and thus accepting that His body would be subject to temptation, He accepted that there was the possibility that He could be imperfect at some point, which is all the more amazing that He understood in pre-mortal life that by His accepting to come to this earth as the promised Savior and Redeemer, the Messiah, He descended to the level that was allowing His childhood to be a total learning experience where He would need to learn by study of the scriptures, learn by hearkening to the Holy Spirit and the guidance of His Father, and show by His every choice that He was doing His Father’s will, and never “His own will”. He did the will of His Father, who sent Him.

So the expression “worked out His own salvation by worshiping the Father” means that it was “work” to study as a child and a youth, to learn from His study, and to accept that He would be tempted and be in a position to make decisions about those temptations. All of that He did completely perfectly, but the possibility of not making perfectly perfect decisions meant that He “worked out His own salvation” and did the will of His Father in all things, in every decision He made and in His worship of the Father, so beautifully shown in His Intercessory prayer.

The fact that He was perfect was crucial and essential to His being our Redeemer and Savior, in that He suffered not for Himself or anything He had done, but for us because of His perfect love for us and His perfect willingness to do the will of His Father, again so beautifully shown in His Intercessory prayer, the account of which is in John 17.

 

[KathleenGee]

Steve…

Excellent question and post.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

Perhaps we share the belief that Christ was subject to temptation “in all points tempted like as we are” (Hebrews 4:15 and 2:18), but that He gave no heed to the temptations (see D & C 20:22 as a reference).

Agreed.

By accepting His divine mission of coming to earth, receiving a physical body with a mortal mother and thus accepting that His body would be subject to temptation, He accepted that there was the possibility that He could be imperfect at some point, which is all the more amazing that He understood in pre-mortal life that by His accepting to come to this earth as the promised Savior and Redeemer, the Messiah, He descended to the level that was allowing His childhood to be a total learning experience where He would need to learn by study of the scriptures, learn by hearkening to the Holy Spirit and the guidance of His Father, and show by His every choice that He was doing His Father’s will, and never “His own will”. He did the will of His Father, who sent Him.

I would disagree with the foundation of your premise; that being that there was a possiblility that he could be imperfect. Jesus underwent temptation in order to reveal to us who he was; the new Adam. Being God he could not sin. Being God the Son, he was perfectly obedient to his Father. Where Adam failed, Jesus would succeed. Where Israel provoked God for forty years, Jesus was perfectly obedient. This was someone unlike any other person walking the earth and he came to fulfill Israel’s vocation and to undo what Adam had done. He was perfect because he is perfect and that is what he revealed by undergoing temptation.

So the expression “worked out His own salvation by worshiping the Father” means that it was “work” to study as a child and a youth, to learn from His study, and to accept that He would be tempted and be in a position to make decisions about those temptations. All of that He did completely perfectly, but the possibility of not making perfectly perfect decisions meant that He “worked out His own salvation” and did the will of His Father in all things, in every decision He made and in His worship of the Father, so beautifully shown in His Intercessory prayer.

The very notion that Jesus had to work out his salvation presupposes that there was something from which he needed to be saved. One is not in need of being saved unless they have fallen out of the boat. We all fell out of the boat at the moment that Adam and Eve made the free choice to disobey God. Jesus never fell out of the boat and therefore was never in need of slavation and therefore had no need to “work out” his salvation. He is, indeed, the boat itself.

The fact that He was perfect was crucial and essential to His being our Redeemer and Savior, in that He suffered not for Himself or anything He had done, but for us because of His perfect love for us and His perfect willingness to do the will of His Father, again so beautifully shown in His Intercessory prayer, the account of which is in John 17.

I agree completley which again brings up the question. Why would one need to work out their salvation when they were never in need of being saved in the first place? Jesus is, after all, Salvation itself.

 

[Telstar]

Excellent reply, Steve.

That OP poses several other serious problems for me, but they are not necessarily related to the thread topic, so perhaps it would be best to put them into another thread. The whole concept of the preexistence is something that I don’t think I could ever wrap my logically inclined brain around. It leaves way too many ‘loose ends’ that go unanswered, and makes no logical sense to me, whatsoever.

 

[SteveVH]

Excellent reply, Steve.

That OP poses several other serious problems for me, but they are not necessarily related to the thread topic, so perhaps it would be best to put them into another thread. The whole concept of the preexistence is something that I don’t think I could ever wrap my logically inclined brain around. It leaves way too many ‘loose ends’ that go unanswered, and makes no logical sense to me, whatsoever.

I agree. There are many other issues that come into play here based upon McConkie’s statements. I think it is just a consequence of basic, very fundemental flaws in Mormon theology which confuse the nature of God and the person of Christ. There seems to be no distinction between the nature of Christ and ourselves. God has been made in man’s image, therefore Christ is thought to be no different, other than his level of exaltation, from us, and is even thrown into the same predicament as we are concerning our eternal destiny.

 

[PaulDupre]

That’s true. Mormonism teaches that gods, men and angels are all the same species.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[SteveVH]

That’s true. Mormonism teaches that gods, men and angels are all the same species.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

It seems that the BoM held to the common Christian understanding that God is fundamentally different from us in that he is eternal and unchanging:

""I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18).

This seemed to change with the King Follett discourse in which God is portrayed as an exalted human being. Is this the first seeming change in this aspect of Mormon theology?

 

[Telstar]

I agree. There are many other issues that come into play here based upon McConkie’s statements. I think it is just a consequence of basic, very fundemental flaws in Mormon theology which confuse the nature of God and the person of Christ. There seems to be no distinction between the nature of Christ and ourselves. God has been made in man’s image, therefore Christ is thought to be no different, other than his level of exaltation, from us, and is even thrown into the same predicament as we are concerning our eternal destiny.

Exactly. The only way anyone could ‘believe’ in their theology, is if they completely throw all logic and reason out the window, and, put blind faith and trust into the words of Joseph Smith and the leaders that followed him. The basic concepts are all based on every man having the potential to become a ‘god’. They certainly don’t see God as a ‘supreme being’ that is so far beyond our comprehension, that we compare to Him, like ants compare to us. That’s nothing like their concept of him being ‘just a regular guy’ with some kind of secret ‘magic’ powers that he’ll give to them, as long as they believe in him. The way I look at it, what Joseph Smith came up with was a very early sci-fi story about ‘ancient aliens’ with some kind of futuristic powers, like on that TV show, that he based on all of the ‘characters’ in the Bible.

 

[Miriam1947]

I found this article “Our Relationship With the Lord” written by Bruce R. McConkie and found in the BYU Devotional dated March 2, 1982. This portion of the article left me somewhat stunned :

**"5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father.

After the Firstborn of the Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God; after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number; after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord Omnipotent-- after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal body.

After the Son of God “made flesh” his “tabernacle,” and while he yet “dwelt among the sons of men”; after he left his preexistent glory as we all do at birth; after he was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea–after all this he was called upon to work out his own salvation.

Of our Lord’s life while in this mortal probation the scripture says, “He received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness.” Finally, after his resurrection, “he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.” (D&C 93:12-17)**

Do Mormons actually believe that Christ needed salvation? If so, from what did he need to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what?

Thank you.

I have absolutely no problem with this. After all when the Mormons talk about D&C as scripture I just look at it all as a work of fiction.

Actually I think this is nutz. :bigyikes:

 

[Miriam1947]

Excellent reply, Steve.

That OP poses several other serious problems for me, but they are not necessarily related to the thread topic, so perhaps it would be best to put them into another thread. The whole concept of the preexistence is something that I don’t think I could ever wrap my logically inclined brain around. It leaves way too many ‘loose ends’ that go unanswered, and makes no logical sense to me, whatsoever.

It’s reincarnation in reverse.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s reincarnation in reverse.

Never thought about it like that but I think you actually have a point. From pre-existent intelligence, to spirit child, to mortal human, to God. Doesn’t reincarnation also have the element of progression in it? uch:

 

[Telstar]

It’s reincarnation in reverse.

Never thought about it like that but I think you actually have a point. From pre-existent intelligence, to spirit child, to mortal human, to God. Doesn’t reincarnation also have the element of progression in it? uch:

That’s exactly what it is! And, yes, reincarnation continues to ‘perfection’. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/surprised.gif

I was tempted to pose a question, but I think I’d be better off not ‘going there’.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In a philosophy course I took, the professor described the different views (philosophically) of the soul like this:

Buddhism: infinity ----------------------------------> nothing
Christianity: nothing--------------------------------> infinity

With Mormonism it is :

infinity ----------------------------> infinity

Being born and living a life, is just a blip in the line to Mormons.

The Mormon teaching of spirit is that it has always existed, in one form or another. Progressing from unorganized matter to being a god.

unorganized matter -----------------------> god

Is a description of the same line, being bon and living a life is just a blip in the line to Mormons.

As to Jesus Christ in this. I have yet to figure out the straight scoop on that one. There seems to be two different beliefs on this one.

• Jesus is the first born spirit of the Father (the Father organizing matter into spirits, including Jesus, you, me, everyone)
• Jesus has always been a God

or

• Jesus is the first born spirit of the Father (the Father organizing matter into spirits, including Jesus, you, me, everyone)
• Jesus became a God by obedience in His life to the Father

Mormons can’t seem to answer definitively which scenario is their doctrinal belief. The same person will sometimes answer in both ways, depending on the context of the discussion.



I’ve googled a few times at LDS.org trying to find some sort of teaching, but it just isn’t there. Growing up LDS, I was taught that Jesus was not a God until He became exalted at His resurrection. But today, Mormons don’t seem to be teaching this. They just seem to find no importance to it at all.

 

[ParkerD]

Agreed.

I would disagree with the foundation of your premise; that being that there was a possiblility that he could be imperfect. Jesus underwent temptation in order to reveal to us who he was; the new Adam. Being God he could not sin. Being God the Son, he was perfectly obedient to his Father. Where Adam failed, Jesus would succeed. Where Israel provoked God for forty years, Jesus was perfectly obedient. This was someone unlike any other person walking the earth and he came to fulfill Israel’s vocation and to undo what Adam had done. He was perfect because he is perfect and that is what he revealed by undergoing temptation.

SteveVH,

But it wasn’t really “temptation” under what you described, because “being God He could not sin” is what you wrote. That would mean He was “coasting”, “on auto-pilot”, never even needing to think whether there was a choice to be made at any point, because of knowing “being God He could not sin”.

So I disagree with that belief. I know that He didn’t sin, because He was indeed perfect, but that didn’t mean He didn’t have choices that He was obliged to make, and instead it means that just as He told Satan “get thee hence” He responded to every temptation or chance for imperfection with “get thee hence”: He never doubted for an instant, and trusted His Father always but also knew that He had enough wisdom through the Holy Spirit and through having studied the scriptures, to make the perfectly right choice in every situation.

The very notion that Jesus had to work out his salvation presupposes that there was something from which he needed to be saved.

Not if one views the word “salvation” as synonymous with “exaltation” (which would be the meaning Elder McConkie was using), in which case when the Savior and Redeemer of mankind prayed in His deeply moving Intercessory prayer-- “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (17:4, 5)
–then He was being sincere and truthful 100%, and really meant that there was something important He was asking His Father to do: “glorify thou me with thine own self…”

Those words mean, to a Latter-day Saint who has studied about exaltation and its meaning, “glorify thou me [in exaltation] with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (i.e. “glorify” means “exalt”, or “bring into exaltation”)

Those words mean Jesus did not assume that He did not need to ask His Father for His divine approbation as He had finished the “work thou gavest me to do”.

Several times during His ministry, the Father had given His divine approbation by saying “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. Theirs was shown to be a tender relationship–not an autopilot relationship, but the most loving and earnest of relationships. I see it being misunderstood in how you described His “being God He could not sin” (that would mean He never had to make a single choice, but automatically did the most perfect thing at every point without thinking about it at all), and in minimizing or misunderstanding the very meaningful and totally sincere words of the Intercessory prayer when He prayed earnestly, “Glorify thou me…”

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
But it wasn’t really “temptation” under what you described, because “being God He could not sin” is what you wrote. That would mean He was “coasting”, “on auto-pilot”, never even needing to think whether there was a choice to be made at any point, because of knowing “being God He could not sin”.

No, it really was temptation. Jesus subjected himself to being human, but he never ceased being God. He was very hungry, obviously, after forty days without food. He had the power, as God, to turn stones into bread and satisfy is physical body’s hunger. Instead, he remained perfect, even while feeling the hunger pangs that all humans would have felt. What you are saying is that I believe that it was just all show, that he didn’t feel hunger, but only pretended, because he was God. There were heretics who believed that he did not really suffer on the cross; that he only pretended to be human. That entire line of thought is heretical. We have a human being who could suffer everything that a human being suffers, but he also had a divine will so he was completley obedient to the Father. This does not in any way detract from the fact that he suffered temptation.

So I disagree with that belief. I know that He didn’t sin, because He was indeed perfect, but that didn’t mean He didn’t have choices that He was obliged to make, and instead it means that just as He told Satan “get thee hence” He responded to every temptation or chance for imperfection with “get thee hence”: He never doubted for an instant, and trusted His Father always but also knew that He had enough wisdom through the Holy Spirit and through having studied the scriptures, to make the perfectly right choice in every situation.

Yes, he had choices. He chose to lower himself to human status and suffer and die for us so that we might spend eternity with him. I think what you are at least hinting at here is that Jesus had to progress, therefore he had to make the same “free will choices” that the rest of us have to make in order to be exalted. That is not what he was doing here. He was God before he came, while he came and after he came to earth. His purpose was not to progress, but rather to defeat evil and to save humanity from the slavery to sin. He was and is the Almighty God. To where was he going to progress? That never changed with the incarnation.

Not if one views the word “salvation” as synonymous with “exaltation” (which would be the meaning Elder McConkie was using), in which case when the Savior and Redeemer of mankind prayed in His deeply moving Intercessory prayer-- “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (17:4, 5) --then He was being sincere and truthful 100%, and really meant that there was something important He was asking His Father to do: “glorify thou me with thine own self…”

And the word blue does not really mean blue if we view it as being synonymous with red.
The fact is if we had that view we would be incorrect because they are not synonymous.
Salvation means to be saved from something. Exaltation is a lifting up, an intensification in degrees of glory. From what do you believe we are saved, Parker? From lower degrees of glory? Is that why Christ came? No, he came to save us from our sins and eternal damnation as a consequence of that sin. Does the word change its meaning when speaking of us or when speaking of Jesus? I don’t think so.

Several times during His ministry, the Father had given His divine approbation by saying “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. Theirs was shown to be a tender relationship–not an autopilot relationship, but the most loving and earnest of relationships. I see it being misunderstood in how you described His “being God He could not sin” (that would mean He never had to make a single choice, but automatically did the most perfect thing at every point without thinking about it at all), and in minimizing or misunderstanding the very meaningful and totally sincere words of the Intercessory prayer when He prayed earnestly, “Glorify thou me…”

Doing the most perfect thing at every point does not take away one’s ability to think or make choices. It only means you are perfect, in your thoughts, in your will, in your actions and there is only one who is perfect and that is God. Where have I indicated that Jesus had an “autopilot relationship” with his Father? No, there is no more intense realtionship than there is between the Father and the Son. We believe that it is this relationship that is the essence of God and why God is Love. He is love because of the eternal love between the Father and the Son. I’m not at all sure what this has to do with the questions at hand, however.

 

[Miriam1947]

Steve, great response.

Parker, humanizing. That is what you do with God and Jesus.

 

[ParkerD]

Steve, great response.

Parker, humanizing. That is what you do with God and Jesus.

Miriam,

So are you saying that the Intercessory prayer “humanizes” God and Jesus? Since Jesus asked His Father, “Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”–which I referred to to show that Jesus was asking to return to His exalted position (this time with a resurrected body)–that this “humanizes” Jesus?

Just because the Catholics who refer if at all to the Intercessory prayer don’t care to acknowledge that very direct request Jesus made in all humility and in all sincerity, doesn’t mean they are correct in assuming that Jesus was incorrect or misunderstood His own role in His request, which would mean (if He was correct) that there was something He desired from His Father, and asked for–meaning that it was not something He had at that moment, or He wouldn’t have been asking for it. (Namely, “glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”)

Since I had noted that Heavenly Father said to those listening on certain very significant occasions, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, and I noted their very real relationship full of love and tenderness, are you saying that “humanizes” God and Jesus?

Well, then, if those concepts mean to you that God and Jesus are “humanized”, then that is a sad case for looking at the power of divine love and divine tenderness.

 

[mwok]

SteveVH,

But it wasn’t really “temptation” under what you described, because “being God He could not sin” is what you wrote. That would mean He was “coasting”, “on auto-pilot”, never even needing to think whether there was a choice to be made at any point, because of knowing “being God He could not sin”.

So I disagree with that belief. I know that He didn’t sin, because He was indeed perfect, but that didn’t mean He didn’t have choices that He was obliged to make, and instead it means that just as He told Satan “get thee hence” He responded to every temptation or chance for imperfection with “get thee hence”: He never doubted for an instant, and trusted His Father always but also knew that He had enough wisdom through the Holy Spirit and through having studied the scriptures, to make the perfectly right choice in every situation.

Not if one views the word “salvation” as synonymous with “exaltation” (which would be the meaning Elder McConkie was using), in which case when the Savior and Redeemer of mankind prayed in His deeply moving Intercessory prayer-- “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (17:4, 5)
–then He was being sincere and truthful 100%, and really meant that there was something important He was asking His Father to do: “glorify thou me with thine own self…”

Those words mean, to a Latter-day Saint who has studied about exaltation and its meaning, “glorify thou me [in exaltation] with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (i.e. “glorify” means “exalt”, or “bring into exaltation”)

Those words mean Jesus did not assume that He did not need to ask His Father for His divine approbation as He had finished the “work thou gavest me to do”.

Several times during His ministry, the Father had given His divine approbation by saying “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. Theirs was shown to be a tender relationship–not an autopilot relationship, but the most loving and earnest of relationships. I see it being misunderstood in how you described His “being God He could not sin” (that would mean He never had to make a single choice, but automatically did the most perfect thing at every point without thinking about it at all), and in minimizing or misunderstanding the very meaningful and totally sincere words of the Intercessory prayer when He prayed earnestly, “Glorify thou me…”

I also have to disagree with this line of thinking for two reasons:

1. If Jesus was perfect because he was a human who never had a moment where he lost his focus on God, then we too could by our own power be perfect if we just constantly thought of God’s will. This we know to be false because even with God’s divine grace we make mistakes and lose focus.
2. To think that Jesus couldn’t be both man and divine because he would be on “autopilot” leaves out the fact that God Himself has a will and that he never acts contrary to that will without being on “autopilot”.