Mormons: Did Christ need to be saved?

[catholic-rcia]

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.

Dear Parker
You are either not hearing what she said …understanding it or you ignore it with this post above. You’re playing games with words right? Right?

Jesus lessoned Himself and became human. Jesus is God, humans are not. Humans never will be God. We will be like God but we will never be God. Love and tenderness come from God alone. We as created beings get to share in this love. The love between the Father and the Son. You bring God down to a human level in a whole different way Parker. What you are missing is the Holy Trinity. But maybe not. (Creation itself, God, Father Son and Holy Spirit – Created, me and you) You make God out to be created, that is where you bring Him down to a human level. Nothing to do with His love and tenderness. He is Love itself. We are not.

 

[ParkerD]

Dear Parker
You are either not hearing what she said …understanding it or you ignore it with this post above. You’re playing games with words right? Right?
…

No, I was emphasizing the specific words of the Intercessory prayer, which neither she nor SteveVH, dealt with even remotely, nor has your post here. I also emphasized the words “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, which shows a real relationship.

By the way, this thread starts with a “title” that is an erroneous question, which may be why people are going off on a tangent about “humanizing Jesus”. Christ didn’t need to be saved–it was a question that was misleading by supposing that Elder McConkie had said that–which he did not, nor implied it.

 

[ParkerD]

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”.

mwok,

I hope it is clear to you that I know that Jesus is the divine Son of God. Therefore, your item 1 is irrelevant. What I disagreed with SteveVH about was the use of the words “could not sin” which would mean “did not have the capability or the capacity to sin”, which is incorrect.

God Himself having a will and not being presented with temptation where a choice or a decision needs to be made, is not the same kind of case as described about Jesus by Paul: (Hebrews 4:15) “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”, so it is a different kind of case with the Savior, and Paul was conveying that Jesus has compassion and that we can “find grace to help in time of need” (v. 16) because of that compassion.

 

[Telstar]

No, I was emphasizing the specific words of the Intercessory prayer, which neither she nor SteveVH, dealt with even remotely, nor has your post here.

[1] These things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said: Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee. [2] As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. [3] Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. [4] I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. [5] And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, **with the glory which I had, *before ***the world was, with thee.

[6] I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word. [7] Now they have known, that all things which thou hast given me, are from thee: [8] Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. [9] I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine: [10] And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

[11] And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are. [12] While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled. [13] And now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in themselves. [14] I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. [15] I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.

[16] They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

[21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. [25] Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me.

[26] And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.
The focus of that prayer is NOT on Jesus looking for a pat on the back from His Father to pump up His ego. He is asking His Father to take care of everyone that will follow Him (that the Father has given to Him), while they still remain on this earth, because He will be going back to the Father, to share the same power and glory that He always had, before. He sacrificed and set aside all of the power that He had as God, and humbled Himself down to **our **level, when He chose to take on human flesh. Now that He was going back to the Father, He would once again share in all of that power and glory of God that was always His, from the beginning, even though He had set it all aside to live as a humble human being, in order to save us from the sin that had closed Heaven from all mankind. He came here to be the perfect sacrificial Lamb of God, so that we would no longer be completely separated from God.

Your church misinterprets and misrepresents the meaning of that entire prayer, as if He was only thinking about gaining His own power and glory, that your church also claims He earned for you. You cannot ‘gain’ what you’ve always possessed. But, there isn’t one word in that entire prayer where He says anything about glorifying anyone but God (His Father, the Holy Spirit and Himself). All glory belongs to God, alone. The promise He makes to us, is that we will have eternal life, and a share in the same Divine Love that binds the Trinity of God, together. We will never become gods. That’s not why we follow Jesus. We follow Him for the Love of God. That’s the most precious gift that we can ever want to receive, because nothing can compare to that kind of love. We don’t follow Him, hoping to bring glory to ourselves by becoming ‘gods’.

Say whatever you want, McConkie clearly stated that Jesus ***needed ***to be saved, just like the rest of us.

And, salvation is definitely not “synonymous with ‘exaltation’”.

 

[SanAgustin]

And, salvation is definitely not “synonymous with ‘exaltation’”.

I’m not even sure what ‘exaltation’ means in Mormon ‘theology’ …

 

[Telstar]

I’m not even sure what ‘exaltation’ means in Mormon ‘theology’ …

According to LDS: Becoming a ‘god’, just like the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, which are all separate ‘gods’ that are only ‘one in mind and purpose’ (not one in being or substance).

 

[ParkerD]

[1] These things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said: Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee. [2] As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. [3] Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. [4] I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. [5] And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, **with the glory which I had, *before ***the world was, with thee.

… [10] And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

[11] And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are. [12] While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled. [13] And now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in themselves. [14] I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world; as I also am not of the world. [15] I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil.

[16] They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

[21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. [25] Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me.

[26] And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.

The focus of that prayer …:
He is asking His Father to take care of everyone that will follow Him (that the Father has given to Him), while they still remain on this earth, because He will be going back to the Father, to share the same power and glory that He always had, before. He sacrificed and set aside all of the power that He had as God, and humbled Himself down to **our **level, when He chose to take on human flesh. Now that He was going back to the Father, He would once again share in all of that power and glory of God that was always His, from the beginning, even though He had set it all aside to live as a humble human being, in order to save us from the sin that had closed Heaven from all mankind. He came here to be the perfect sacrificial Lamb of God, so that we would no longer be completely separated from God.

Telstar,

Agreed–except that I left out the part of the first sentence of the paragraph you wrote that completely misunderstood what I had written, and instead you wrote what I was meaning, so, thank you for all that you wrote in that paragraph except that first sentence.

… You cannot ‘gain’ what you’ve always possessed.

But yet you wrote “set aside all of the power that He had as God”.

(My meaning was never that He hadn’t had that power before. One way to say it is that He “set aside all of the power that He had as God, and humbled Himself down to our level”.

But that means He was being perfectly correct and sincere and honest to ask, “And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself…”

But, there isn’t one word in that entire prayer where He says anything about glorifying anyone but God (His Father, the Holy Spirit and Himself).

Not quite true, since He specifically asked His Father, “And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself…” And further, in verse 22 which you included above, He prayed “the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one”…

So those verses specifically note that there is a “glorifying” or a “glory” that is being asked for, that involves Jesus and involves His followers and the Father, and involves becoming one with Them.

… We follow Him for the Love of God. That’s the most precious gift that we can ever want to receive, because nothing can compare to that kind of love. We don’t follow Him, hoping to bring glory to ourselves by becoming ‘gods’.

So your last sentence here discounts and refutes the words of Jesus since “hope in Christ” certainly means one would believe Him and believe His words, so if one discards or discounts the meaning of the words “the glory thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one” then they have lost a significant aspect of their hope in Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

(Continuation to Telstar in reply)

By the way, the hope really is in Christ, so the words “bring glory to ourselves” aren’t a correct way of looking at what He was praying for, and the correct way would be “hoping to bring glory to God by accepting the grace Christ offered so that we may become one with Them.”

Say whatever you want, McConkie clearly stated that Jesus ***needed ***to be saved, just like the rest of us.

That is stated because you took the word “salvation” and gave it the traditional meaning rather than understood it in the meaning and context used by the speaker.

It means you refuse to acknowledge Elder McConkie had a different meaning in mind than the meaning you are attributing to him–in other words, by putting your meaning in his mouth, then of course you can say “clearly stated” because now it is you who is doing the stating.

And, salvation is definitely not “synonymous with ‘exaltation’”.

Not for you or for probably any Catholic–agreed. That was not the issue about the use of the word “salvation”. It’s use was not by a Catholic in the sentence we are writing about.

One ought to try and understand what a speaker meant, and their frame of reference, rather than use one’s own frame of reference if discussing what the speaker meant.

 

[mwok]

To answer the posts question:

No, Christ did not need to be saved, since he was the Savior it would be almost completely selfish to save all of mankind if he was included in the ransom. This is why it means so much more that God Himself came down from his throne in heaven to save our doomed souls, rather than annoint some pious prophet to do it for Him.

 

[catholic-rcia]

The focus of that prayer is NOT on Jesus looking for a pat on the back from His Father to pump up His ego. He is asking His Father to take care of everyone that will follow Him (that the Father has given to Him), while they still remain on this earth, because He will be going back to the Father, to share the same power and glory that He always had, before. He sacrificed and set aside all of the power that He had as God, and humbled Himself down to **our **level, when He chose to take on human flesh. Now that He was going back to the Father, He would once again share in all of that power and glory of God that was always His, from the beginning, even though He had set it all aside to live as a humble human being, in order to save us from the sin that had closed Heaven from all mankind. He came here to be the perfect sacrificial Lamb of God, so that we would no longer be completely separated from God.
Your church misinterprets and misrepresents the meaning of that entire prayer, as if He was only thinking about gaining His own power and glory, that your church also claims He earned for you. You cannot ‘gain’ what you’ve always possessed. But, there isn’t one word in that entire prayer where He says anything about glorifying anyone but God (His Father, the Holy Spirit and Himself). All glory belongs to God, alone. The promise He makes to us, is that we will have eternal life, and a share in the same Divine Love that binds the Trinity of God, together. We will never become gods. That’s not why we follow Jesus. We follow Him for the Love of God. That’s the most precious gift that we can ever want to receive, because nothing can compare to that kind of love. We don’t follow Him, hoping to bring glory to ourselves by becoming ‘gods’.

Say whatever you want, McConkie clearly stated that Jesus ***needed ***to be saved, just like the rest of us.

And, salvation is definitely not “synonymous with ‘exaltation’”.

This is truth parker. Jesus and his Father do not just have a relationship of Love and of tenderness. They are love and tenderness. Not just a perfect kind of Love. Love itself. When we do something good to another is originates from God whether we know it or not. Taking credit for the good that we do is sinful. When you give it up to God this is where joy and peace has its roots. Much better to know and act on these truths. The treasure found. How Saints become Saints. The root of our Catholic faith. The Sacrament of Confession comes to mind. The Cross comes to mind, the Crucifix comes to mind. Christmas Mass, the Easter Vigil, Mary and Josepf, the communion of Saints, Issac Jouges, the Blessed Sacrament Chapel, Eucharist, healing all come to mind.

 

[SteveVH]

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?

Jesus was human, so why would anyone have a problem with him being “humanized”. But I would propose a diferent scenario. Having a familial relationship has to do with our being made in the image and likeness of God. This did not start with humans. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have had a familial realtionship for eternity. The human family exists precisely because of who God is and the fact that we were made in his image and likeness and the family and the relationships between the family members are a reflection of the relationship that exists within the Trinity. So intercessory prayer on behalf of Jesus to his Father is perfectly natural (or supernatural).

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…

I have been Catholic all of my life and have never, ever, experienced a Catholic assuming that Jesus was incorrect or misunderstood his own role. I’m really not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

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.

And since we do not feel this way you have created a dilema which does not exist. I am still very confused as to what any of this has to do with whether or not Christ was in need of salvation. Are you trying to say that Christ’s intercessory prayer somehow proves his need of salvation?

 

[SteveVH]

No, I was emphasizing the specific words of the Intercessory prayer, which neither she nor SteveVH, dealt with even remotely, nor has your post here. I also emphasized the words “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, which shows a real relationship.

Your statement assumes that we do not believe that Christ had a real relationship with his Father. Where in the world did you come up with that assumption?

By the way, this thread starts with a “title” that is an erroneous question, which may be why people are going off on a tangent about “humanizing Jesus”. Christ didn’t need to be saved–it was a question that was misleading by supposing that Elder McConkie had said that–which he did not, nor implied it.

Really? Here is just a portion of the quote: "Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father."

Trust me Parker, the Mormon faith provides enough contraversy. We are not dependent upon building straw men to tear down in order to have something about which to talk. I didn’t begin this thread by implying anything. I started it by quoting directly from McConkie. Those are his words, not mine.

As usual, your answer is that “salvation” doesn’t really mean “salvation”. This gets really old after awhile. If I could give any advice to Mormons it would be to learn how to communicate with the rest of the world and to use words which contain the same definitions that have been accepted by the rest of the world in order to accomplish this. If McConkie meant “exaltation” rather than “salvation” then why did he not just use the word “exaltation”?

 

[Crdl2Grv]

I’m not even sure what ‘exaltation’ means in Mormon ‘theology’ …

Neither do Mormons, Agustin. Neither do Mormons. I’m sure they’ll figure it out soon enough, though. And then probably change it as soon their desire to appear more mainstream exceeds their willingness put up with people saying, “Are you… are you serious?” about their theology.

I’ve been too busy to post anything for a while, so I thought I’d check in to see if anything has changed. All I saw was Jacques Derrida - er, I mean, Parker saying, “Not if one views ‘salvation’ as synonymous with ‘exaltation.’” Although this is the last place I expected to encounter such consistent deconstructionism, it is no less tedious than it was when I was forced to plug my nose and swim through that swamp in college. (Love “and the word blue does not mean blue if we view it as being synonymous with red” rejoinder.)

Against my better judgement, I’ll make the obvious point that even if “salvation” and “exaltation” are synonymous to members of the LDS faith then the LDS answer to Steve VH’s question is still an emphatic “Yes.”

In the Christian view, Jesus did not need to “work out” anything for himself. That’s the whole point of Jesus - he gave his life, his entire life, for us. It was explicitly not for himself. None of his work, his parables, his teachings, his resistance to temptation, his sufferings on the cross were for himself. It was all for us. So whether you call it “salvation” or “exaltation” is irrelevant. What makes McConkie’s statement so wrong is his claim that Jesus worked out “his own” anything.

And with that, I’ll leave it to Parker to explain to us all that “his own” only means “his own” if we view it as synonymous with “not anyone else’s,” and that, in context, when McConkie says “his own” he really means “everyone else’s.”

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

Agreed–except that I left out the part of the first sentence of the paragraph you wrote that completely misunderstood what I had written, and instead you wrote what I was meaning, so, thank you for all that you wrote in that paragraph except that first sentence.

But yet you wrote “set aside all of the power that He had as God”.

(My meaning was never that He hadn’t had that power before. One way to say it is that He “set aside all of the power that He had as God, and humbled Himself down to our level”.

But that means He was being perfectly correct and sincere and honest to ask, “And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself…”

I don’t think I misunderstood anything that you wrote (unless it was intentionally meant to be deceitful), nor did I misunderstand any of McConkie’s words. I’ve been speaking and reading English my entire life. I think I have a pretty darn good grasp of the real meaning of common words. I don’t think I should have to try to interpret what people are trying to say, by trying to understand what those other people*** think*** words mean. I always go by the dictionary meanings, generally speaking (unless it’s ‘slang’). Otherwise, why would anyone bother to speak any specific language if we all had to try to figure out if the other person uses the same dictionary? So, don’t put words in my mouth just because you think Mormons should be interpreted according to their special ‘understood meanings’, if I have no idea that there’s some kind of a secret to decode in whatever they say.


What LDS seem to ignore is that Jesus is God, always was God, and always will be God. He never had to “gain” anything from His Father. He didn’t have to lower Himself to save us from sin, He chose to do that out of His great love for us, His own creatures. And, contrary to what many people might believe, He was subject to all of the things that any human being suffers while He remained here. He didn’t get tired of being hungry and use His power (that He still possessed) to satisfy that hunger, He chose to suffer it all, for ***our ***sake, but He still always had that power.

Not quite true, since He specifically asked His Father, “And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself…” And further, in verse 22 which you included above, He prayed “the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one”…

So those verses specifically note that there is a “glorifying” or a “glory” that is being asked for, that involves Jesus and involves His followers and the Father, and involves becoming one with Them.

I agree. I also knew that you would take that particular line out of context. Sharing in the glory of God does not equate to becoming gods. We will all share in His glory by being welcomed into Heaven and being given eternal life with God. Those who choose not to follow Him, will be permanently separated from God, and suffer eternal damnation. One is a reward for living a life based on everything that Jesus taught, and the other is a punishment for not doing that. Those who gain entrance into Heaven (eternal life) will share in the love of God, forever. We will never be separated from Him, again. That’s the reward that all Christians long for, not becoming gods and running off to start our own planet full of people to worship us.

He prayed that we would all remain united to Him*** within*** His True Church, and not be separated from each other by the workings of the devil that wants us to become scattered, in order to weaken our bond with God. He was also well aware that there would always be false prophets that would try to deceive us, and, inevitably teach grave error to further separate us from each other. Unfortunately, He knew very well that we would become scattered when the faith of all would become weakened, as we grew ever nearer to the ‘end of times’. But, His Church will never fail because He will always be Faithful & True to it, even if it is weakened to the point of collapse. He will never allow it to fall.

So your last sentence here discounts and refutes the words of Jesus since “hope in Christ” certainly means one would believe Him and believe His words, so if one discards or discounts the meaning of the words “the glory thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one” then they have lost a significant aspect of their hope in Christ.

Contrary to your personal opinion of me, I firmly believe in every word that Jesus has ever uttered. But, I don’t use a special dictionary or secret code in order to interpret them differently than everyone else, because they are all “plain and precious” to me, just as they are. I don’t have to try to invent new ways to make them mean what ***I want ***them to mean. My greatest hope in Jesus is that, in the end, He will welcome me into His Heavenly abode, where I will get to share in His perfect love and happiness, forever. That’s all that I have ever wanted, and that’s exactly what He has offered to us all. Plain and simple.

 

[Telstar]

(Continuation to Telstar in reply)

By the way, the hope really is in Christ, so the words “bring glory to ourselves” aren’t a correct way of looking at what He was praying for, and the correct way would be “hoping to bring glory to God by accepting the grace Christ offered so that we may become one with Them.”

That is stated because you took the word “salvation” and gave it the traditional meaning rather than understood it in the meaning and context used by the speaker.

Once again, the LDS focus on receiving ‘glory’ from God, as if it were an inference that they would become a god, just like Him, when He never meant it in that context, at all. He intends for us to receive glory in a measure that reflects the depth of our union with Him, while we were still on earth. Some of us will receive more glory, some less, but we will not care how much or how little glory we have, because we will all be perfectly happy, just to be counted amongst those that were chosen by Him to receive our own ‘fair share’ of His glory. All glory belongs to God, alone. We are only His insignificant creatures that He deigns to share a small part of it with us, out of His great Love for us.

It means you refuse to acknowledge Elder McConkie had a different meaning in mind than the meaning you are attributing to him–in other words, by putting your meaning in his mouth, then of course you can say “clearly stated” because now it is you who is doing the stating.

I’m sorry, but I refuse to use a secret decoder ring to interpret what people say when they are supposed to be speaking English. Once again … http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/english-smiley.gif

Not for you or for probably any Catholic–agreed. That was not the issue about the use of the word “salvation”. It’s use was not by a Catholic in the sentence we are writing about.

One ought to try and understand what a speaker meant, and their frame of reference, rather than use one’s own frame of reference if discussing what the speaker meant.

And, again, if you want anyone to clearly understand anything that you say … http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/english-smiley.gif

 

[Jay53]

Once again, the LDS focus on receiving ‘glory’ from God, as if it were an inference that they would become a god, just like Him, when He never meant it in that context, at all. He intends for us to receive glory in a measure that reflects the depth of our union with Him, while we were still on earth. Some of us will receive more glory, some less, but we will not care how much or how little glory we have, because we will all be perfectly happy, just to be counted amongst those that were chosen by Him to receive our own ‘fair share’ of His glory. All glory belongs to God, alone. We are only His insignificant creatures that He deigns to share a small part of it with us, out of His great Love for us.

I’m sorry, but I refuse to use a secret decoder ring to interpret what people say when they are supposed to be speaking English. Once again … http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/english-smiley.gif

And, again, if you want anyone to clearly understand anything that you say … http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Smilies/english-smiley.gif

Off topic, but I LOVE your little signs!!!

 

[Telstar]

Off topic, but I LOVE your little signs!!!

LMAO! Thank you! (I’ve go a lot of them in my ‘bucket’.) It was nice to finally find a good use for that one!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[rainman10]

So, was the Mormon answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’? Did Christ need saving or not? Did I miss the answer somewhere?

 

[ParkerD]

No, I was emphasizing the specific words of the Intercessory prayer, which neither she nor SteveVH, dealt with even remotely, nor has your post here. I also emphasized the words “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, which shows a real relationship.

By the way, this thread starts with a “title” that is an erroneous question, which may be why people are going off on a tangent about “humanizing Jesus”. Christ didn’t need to be saved–it was a question that was misleading by supposing that Elder McConkie had said that–which he did not, nor implied it.

Rainman,

This post answered your latest question.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD, do you believe Jesus was saved by obedience to the Father?