Death, Embodiment and Grace

I totally agree. One thing that is often missed in reading these verses you mention, plus many others, is that after resurrection, the atonement also brings everyone back into the presence of God. It is Christ’s grace that does this. Alma 12 then mentions that the wicked would wish to be covered with rocks, so as to hide them from God’s glory. Mormon 9:3-4 explains that the wicked would be more miserable in the presence of a just God than with the condemned souls in hell.

IOW, the grace brings us into the presence of God, as well as resurrects us. What we have become becomes a self-judgement on whether we choose to remain in His presence or not. D&C 88 states that those who will not (or cannot) obey a celestial law, must dwell in another glory, and so forth down to Outer Darkness, where there is no law or glory.

Christ saves all through his grace. Most will not accept the fullness of the gift, because they are not able or willing to receive the full gift. But it is freely offered to those who will take it.

I’m not sure I agree with how Robinson takes it. To me it ends up being only a slight change of degree. The view I favor is closer to the old Methodist view of prevenient grace. (This is the view Blake tends to favor as well) However in the LDS view of prevenient grace not only is it always there enabling choice we still have to chose.

I know you participated in the discussion but others might like this Feast Upon the Word discussion of grace. This T&S post is worth reading as well.

One way of framing the debate is between transcendent grace (the idea that grace fills a gap) or immanent grace (the idea that there is no gap but grace is already there).

I think the claim about Millet and Robinson is that they attack the economic theory of grace and then end up still talking in terms of it. i.e. talk about things we have to do in terms of ordinances without speaking of the ordinances as grace given to enable us.

So the claim is that there is an inconsistency in their discussion of grace. i.e. they like the abstract idea of immanent grace but still think in terms of transcendent grace.

There’s a paper coming out on that I’ve read that I don’t want to steal the thunder on and that I promised not to quote from. (Hopefully they will present it at SMPT as it really is a fantastic point being made and I want it to get lots of exposure) There was an extended discussion of this on LDS-Herm that I thought was quite compelling. The quote that might be problematic is the following:

At that point, the Savior steps in and says, ‘So you’ve done all you can do, but it’s not enough. Well, don’t despair. I’ll tell you what, let’s try a different arrangement. How much do you have? How much can fairly be expected of you? You give me exactly that much (the whole sixty-one cents [from the “parable of the bicycle”]) and do all you can do, and I will provide the rest for now. . . . You do everything you can do, and I’ll do what you can’t yet do. Between the two of us, we’ll have it all covered. You will be one hundred percent justified. (Believing Christ, 33)

It’s been so long since I last read Robinson and Millet that I can’t really debate it too much. I can just say I think the case can be compellingly made. Rather than talking about some absolute standard we can’t meet instead we get it transformed into our doing what “can fairly be expected.”

I think the argument is that he’s inconsistent. That he argues against this “grace of gaps” or the idea that there’s a standard and Christ makes up the gap we fall short of. Yet he merely replaces it rhetorically with a different situation of the same type. The problem is that he’s still thinking in terms of success and wants to keep the idea that we have to meet some standard. I think the solution is that there is always already a solution and that all we have to do is take hold of it. It’s not making up any gap of any sort but is just enabling us to become. Thus we have a “grace for grace” situation defined in terms of becoming rather than being (presence). This is what the first section of D&C 93 appears to teach. And as I mentioned it bears similarities to the Methodist view Joseph would have been exposed to. However I think the radical transformation of mortality and salvation in Mormonism requires a transformation of how we think of grace. I think the problem both Robinson and Millet have is still thinking of the problem in Calvinist terms albeit transformed versions of it.

It would be interesting to see them comment on Blake’s book. I don’t agree with everything in it. (I think he’s wrong on foreknowledge) But I think he gets a lot of grace correct. His bit on relationships is quite good I think.

I’m actually trying to remember if Millet was at last year’s SMPT. It’s too bad that this year’s is at Claremont and thus a lot of Utah folk won’t be going.

LOL. I think grace is a bit of a mystery in that I think it’s just presented as too vague and ambiguous to say much about. However I think that to the degree it is doing something it is (a) already in place (b) heals relationships (c) changes our bodies to change our mind (d) is a process and (e) isn’t economical in function.

My personal feeling is that it was always intended to be vague and that we want a genealogy, a history, or an ontology where none is given. i.e. I think we sometimes worry about things too much.

Well that’s got to be the first analogy of that sort I’ve ever encountered…

Part of the problem with our understanding 2 Nephi 25:23 as Church members is that we take it out of context, even avoiding reading the entire verse. The proper voice, I think, is ironic: Nephi is telling us how HARD he is working to convince his children and his brethren that we are saved by–NOT incessant work–but by grace, a gift from God through Christ’s atonement. The phrase “after all we can do” is not meant in a temporal, sequential sense. It is meant to convey, as the lead-in of the verse also says, that all of the work we put into trying to save our families would be useless without Christ’s grace/gift/charity. Nephi is demonstrating that grace comes WITH the work of obedience. This statement is a bookend with his other oft-quoted statement: “I will go and do what the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them, that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.”

That verse also emphasizes that we only accomplish rightous acts through God’s help. It also says that we can be confident–have faith–that we will receive God’s help IF we are doing what God commands us to do! In other words, both of these scriptures are Nephi emphasizing that when we do righteous works, to obey God’s commandments–whether obtaining sacred records or teaching our families the plan of salvation–that is when we are receiving God’s help and grace. There is not a dichotomy between obedient works and grace. Rather, it is precisely when we make the effort to obey God that God steps in and helps us to do what he commands, to accomplish things that we don’t have the skills or knowledge to do on our own. Our righteous and faithful works become GRACIOUS and GRACE-FULL works, filled and enabled and empowered by God’s gifts. We don’t do righteousness first, then wait for Christ’s seal of approval. It is even as we set out to do obedient works that God’s grace starts flowing into us, enabling and enlightening and encouraging us.

We Mormons do not need to be forever anxious about whether we are going to receive Christ’s grace. When we are obedient, we are getting that gift, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost is the manifestation of that grace. As also are the inspirations we receive when we are teaching as parents, and church leaders, and missionaries.

Perhaps the best way to picture the operation of grace is the invitation of the Savior in Matthew 11, to “take my yoke upon you, for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The yoke of the Savior is a two-man yoke. It lifts the burden of our sins, and it does so because Christ is carrying the lion’s share of the load. For him to lift our load, we must become jointly yoked with him. We cannot expect him to lift our burden if we are going off somewhere else. It only works, we only get the help, when the destination we are going to is the one the Savior chooses.

Finally, the relation of our works to grace is explained by the angel to King Benjamin in Mosiah 3, where we learn that the “natural man” must change, and become like an obedient child, offering up a broken –that is, an obedient and humble and meek–heart, submitting to God as Christ did. Only when we give ourselves to him can we receive the gift he offers.

Raymond, I agree that the narrative context is important for understanding Nephi here. I’d just say that the grace in the narrative is God warning Lehi and providing all these enabling means for Nephi to do what he needs to do to reach the land of promise. The Liahonah is the classic example of a metaphor that has a real place in the narrative. Ditto for the visionary rod of iron.

I think a lot of confusion among LDS arises because there is a lot of latent Calvinist thinking in American culture. (Even amongst atheists) I have a post on this I might post tonight – albeit one done in more technical Derridean language.

If you think grace is something God give out to people he picks then the perspective of “what is reasonably expected” seems fair. And that’s roughly where Robinson points things, as I understanding. (Standard caveat that it’s been may years since I last read Robinson and Millet so I’m in no position to represent their thought: I’m going on second hand accounts.) I think that to the degree people think about grace as something God gives to make up a gap that people think the limits of the gap is based upon some fairness. What they consider fair tends to vary. So people who are aware of the influence of the brain in ways that seem uncontrollable in any easy fashion by the individual are willing to ascribe a larger gap than people more skeptical of mental illness or the like.

I should add that while I may reject the application of scriptural terminology here the actual reason is quite fair and correct. To me the issue is somewhat less interesting as I tend to see it more as a semantic debate even if it’s not usually presented as such.

That’s because even if the way people talk about grace might be incorrect the way they demonstrate understanding of the issues seems correct. That is once we move from theological formal discourse to a broader narrative the typical Mormon appears to get it right.

To me the two clear examples of grace are the Brother of Jared in Ether 3 with the narration of getting the stones lit for the arks and then Lehi and the Liahonah. I think both these stories, which pretty much every Mormon is extremely familiar with, is pretty evidence in how they relate their own encounters with God’s grace. They just don’t call it grace.