On my mission, I came across a preacher of another faith. As my companion and I met with him, he told me that he could save me right there, on the spot if I said the sinner’s prayer. For some reason, I declined. As I think back on that experience, would it have mattered if I said the prayer or not? I remember leaving his house, and he stood at his doorway and said, “God bless these DAMNED souls!” The funny thing was that when I got back to my bike, I realized that we had left a copy of the Book of Mormon with him, but I thought, “Oh well, it might do him some good.” But he returned to the doorway and said “You forgot your book.” I told him he could keep it, but he declined.
Surely not all Christians believe this. Pastor Jerry Beaver has a PDF that asks “CAN A CHRISTIAN SIN AFTER THEY ARE SAVED?” He says that “The subject of the Christian’s relationship to sin after salvation can be a little confusing, since our sins of the past, present and future have been forgiven.” But he does go on to say “Does the Christian just continue to live in sin with no consequences, just pleading salvation, justifying sin since we are already forgiven?
NO!”
Yahoo Answers has some interesting takes on the question “What if you commit sin after being saved by Jesus, will u go to hell? & does being saved give the right to commit sin?” Here is a sampling of answers:
- Chosen “Best Answer” From Wyomugs. “As for committing sin after being saved, NO, we will NOT go to hell… UNLESS we INTENTIONALLY reject Christ, deny Him, and fall away from our salvation….”
- Here’s a Catholic perspective. “You can confess to a priest or ask forgiveness from God.Whichever you prefer. And just because you commited one sin doesn’t mean your going to go directly to hell. You can always go to Purgatory. And being saved does not give you the right to commit sin because, usually, when you commit sin you injury yourself or someone else and in doing so you hurt God.”
- “Just dont live in a continual carnal state of sin. Also remember that salvation isnt a license to sin.”
- “No, being saved does not give any one a free pass on sin. But it does mean, we now have a mediator if we do sin. Jesus Christ stands in for us.”
- “99% of Christians today will say weird things here. They will say you have to in perpetuity say your repentance prayers and then misquote scripture, for they themselves sin and are sinners and don’t know either.”
I don’t know about you, but I kind of liked that last one the best. But it got me thinking. Don’t Mormons have a bit higher standard, but similar line of reasoning with the “Calling and Election Made Sure?” Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine discusses this:
Those members of the Church who devote themselves wholly to righteousness, living by every word the proceedeth forth from the mouth of God, make their calling and election sure. That is, they receive the more sure word of prophecy, which means that the Lord seals their exaltation upon them while they are yet in this life. (emphasis in original)
…
Those so favored of the Lord are sealed up against all manner of sin and blasphemy except the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood. That is their exaltation is assured; their calling and election is made sure, because they have obeyed the fulness of God’s laws and have overcome the world. Though such persons “shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into the exaltation.” (D&C 132:26)
This seems unusually similar to a Born Again Christian’s line of thinking. There are some people that say “I have accepted and trusted in God to save me. Now my salvation is up to Him, and He will not fail me. Even if I murder and/or commit suicide I cannot go to Hell.” Mormons are different because even Elder McConkie says that murder disqualifies one’s calling and election, so I am not trying to imply that these positions are equal; but they do seem to be quite similar. Tom Phillips received his Second Anointing a few years ago, and the experience actually led him to apostatize. He has posted his experience on MormonThink, (note: many consider MormonThink as an anti-Mormon website.) Sins such as apostasy or adultery are surprisingly absent from the list of disqualifications in D&C 132:26.
Do you see any problems with this line of thinking that anyone (Born Again, Mormon, or otherwise) can truly be “saved” or “exalted” in this life?
Wheat & Tares 
I find the whole thing weird. It doesn’t make sense to me.
The problem in resolving these questions is the mistakenly applied LDS correlated gospel perspective that perfecting the natural man via. obedience alone is the path to return to God. It isn’t, obedience is just a beginning lesson! The natural man must be transcended via. the mighty change of heart which is a process lead personally by the Holy Spirit that leaves one without the craving to do wrong and places one under gospel principles rather than under the letter of lessor laws including the 10Cs and the church handbook. If one continues to follow the Spirit you will eventually be custom tutored and thoroughly tested (in ways similar to the Abraham and Isaac story) which when completed becomes the substance of the phrase calling and election made sure. In other words by then God knows you and what you will choose to do in nearly every circumstance and while there are some gray areas and a variety of choices that can still be made you can be trusted to always always choose the light over darkness.
The calling and election made sure ordinance like all ordinances is just symbolic and assures nothing on it’s own without completing the work and growth.
Christians are saved on his name as are all people because exclaiming His name even in thought while in the spirit world opens a path of light in place of the darkness first encountered. The reason darkness is encountered first is to preserve agency which is respected by the light but not by the darkness so the light must be chosen via conscious choice and thought, darkness is the default. Saving means to be saved from the dark path but what lies ahead on the path of light for all including the most pious orthodox LDS member is personal growth pursuant to becoming like Christ and one with God.
I like Howard’s explanation. Obedience is just the beginning. Being saved is just the beginning too. There are different degrees of salvation.
I don’t believe that second anointing literally has the effect of making someone’s calling and election sure, even if they commit murder or adultery. Certainly, neither does E. Holland as evidenced by his replies to Tom P. If he did, he wouldn’t consider Tom’s newfound antagonistic position so pitiable; Tom would be able to do whatever he likes and still have a penthouse apartment in the eternities.
The biggest issue with this ordinance, which was dropped for a while then reinstated from what I’ve read online, is that mortality is a test. All of mortality. While we are mortal, we still must repent. The information provided about this ordinance says that if you’ve had it, you no longer need to repent. Individuals who believe that would become very arrogant. What’s in it for the Lord? It doesn’t build up his work to have people be arrogant and be able to commit gross sins and not held accountable. Perhaps that attitude is espoused by some who’ve had the ordinance. Maybe they are no longer willing to listen to input from those lesser mortals who have not. The other issue is that there is no real qualification to receive the ordinance other than nepotism – people are “referred” by those who have had it. Does that really mean that they are worthy of it? That they are ready for it? I simply don’t buy it. Just as mistakes are sometimes made in calling bishops, so are mistakes going to be made in this process. Mr. Phillips is a case in point.
We all must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Even the prophet. That’s the nature of mortality. I understand why some would like to believe they can take a short cut. This just seems like elitism. The temple was already elitist (as was polygamy), but clearly not elitist enough for some.
The restriction on murder is limited to those with “innocent blood” in their veins. Murdering of sinners is ok under “frontier-era” mormon doctrine.
I also like Howard’s ideas. The fundamental point of Calling and Election is not some ordinance performed but the actual nature of the person. Someone who has reached that point in their eternal progression does not have the desire to sin any longer. they have, in that way, overcome the world and the natural man.
Is it possible, yes. Is it likely, no. IMO, a person can also lose that with their actions. But we are talking about someone who truly achieves the mighty change of heart.
oh, and I was reading Tom Phillips’ website the other day and I must say, it would be hard to find a more prideful person……..
The exemption for sin and repentance isn’t what it appears, it isn’t a license to sin because once you experience the mighty change of heart your desire to sin no longer exists, you have stopped sinning and you are following the Spirit. Instead as your tutoring continues you will be encouraged to break taboos as a part of your continuing enlightenment. This concept is particularly difficult for LDS to understand and accept because they tend to see the WoW and LoC as some kind of absolute law when it is not. Joseph enjoyed a little alcohol and apparently women he was not married to or who were married to others. Taboo breaking is taught to provide an understanding of why these laws are given. They are largely given for social control and necessary for the level of enlightenment of the people they are given to who because of normal but spiritually immature traits of selfishness, possessiveness, jealously or lack of self knowledge or self control need such laws but as they grow these laws can be relaxed. For example plural marriage might be seen as a relaxation of monogamous marriage for some priesthood holders. We all need to evolve to this level eventually, calling and election made sure is about achieving this level during mortal life rather than during the after life and the sin/repentance exemption is to prevent those who have not yet evolved to taboo breaking from judging and trying those who have and are being trained to it.
BTW, sometimes calling and election is seen as some kind of free ride or some kind of reward, it is neither. It simply means with the Spirit’s help you have worked and grown to a point that defection into selfishness or to the dark side is highly unlikely in part because you’ve transcended the paradigm of dualism and oneness with others and with God has begun to a tangible level so your continuing growth to that ultimate goal is strongly predicted.
Jeff: I agree with you that “it would be hard to find a more prideful person,” but the responses from E. Holland (that are doubtless taken out of context of an entire exchange) are equally bad. I can think of about 50,000 better ways to respond to Tom P’s direct and frank questions than what he is quoting E. Holland said. But I’m just a mere mortal, so what do I know?
Howard & Jeff: I too have heard this explanation that the person would no longer have desire to do sin, but that was said in conjunction with the second comforter specifically, which is the “organic” version of the second anointing ordinance (which was also discouraged by Bruce R McConkie but I was taught about it at BYU). Clearly that’s not always the case. The selection process (people who know “important” people) is destined to result in some bad choices. In the case of Mr. Phillips, I can see why he was chosen. He sounds like he was an eager fellow, very much a great example of the church in Europe. Yet he was totally untested. He hadn’t really given much thought to the origins of the Book of Mormon (srsly? he left over the earth not being 6,000 years?) nor had he read much contrary evidence. Hedgehog already explained that this information has always historically (before the internet) been nearly impossible to access in Europe, so that’s not really his fault. And yet he was chosen for this, and he certainly didn’t stay in his so-called changed state – BECAUSE HE IS MORTAL – just like everyone else. He has the capacity to change, for good or bad, until he’s six feet under. That is the nature of being mortal.
Howard: I question the notion of taboo breaking that you are describing. I agree that WoW and LoC aren’t as black & white as presented, but the way you are describing it, I just can’t get behind. It sounds like a perk for the elite, once again, which polygamy certainly appears to have been (those with “believing blood” only which was code for the popular dudes in power). I seriously don’t see alcohol or extramarital sex as ever being elevating to the soul, bringing us closer to godhood.
What is God prohibited from except perhaps breaking natural laws? Do you really believe you can become Godlike by being an obedient follower of prophet given rules? Certainly you cannot share his perspective if you haven’t yet learned to autonomously manage yourself.
Perk?
Poly relationships have much to teach us about ourselves. Certainly the enticement to be involved in them comes from the desire for sex and/orromance with more than one person and this is their power; by enticing and engaging the base desires of the natural man we embark on a journey that has the potential to transcend the natural man. The natural man goes fishing only to be hooked and caught!
Howard,
I must agree with Hawkgrrrl here. I just finished watching the Dateline special on Warren Jeffs at http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/53005981#53005764 Warren definitely was breaking taboos, and if we are to believe his main accuser Rebecca Musser (and she seems believable to me), Jeffs certainly used the promise of underage brides as a perk of this taboo breaking you refer to. He also used obedience as a bludgeon to stamp out dissent. While I think you have some interesting things to say, this whole concept of taboo breaking seems like you are “looking beyond the mark.” I can’t get behind the concept you are trying to espouse here. It seems too easy to abuse as Warren Jeffs has.
BTW, that kind of enticement obviously works better with men than women which is probably why plural marriage began as polygyny.
Howard: “Do you really believe you can become Godlike by being an obedient follower of prophet given rules? Certainly you cannot share his perspective if you haven’t yet learned to autonomously manage yourself.” I know you know me better than that. I am specifically talking about the two taboos you mention. Taboo breaking as a concept is fine, but I disagree with your description of what would happen if someone started an extramarital sexual relationship. We know what happens when people do that. I don’t see it as having elevated most people to a higher spiritual plane; on the contrary, it brought out the worst in people. Shouldn’t we be preparing to sacrifice ourselves for others, not others for ourselves? Christ didn’t host key parties. The aghori religion in India is built on taboo breaking. They also drink urine and eat the flesh of human corpses. Is that elevating?
We tried it. It didn’t work. So we abandoned it.
But humankind continues to evolve to greater levels of enlightenment, certainly we are more enlightened today than cavemen were. What was the typical level of introspection and self knowledge in the late 1800s? At some point humankind will evolve to a level of understanding to successfully turbocharge their growth rate via. poly relationships, which is why I believe they were commanded by God rather than a simply a selfish lustful self gratifying creation of Joseph exploited by Brigham.
The greatest growth occurs in the person who shares their partner with another or with others. But first there is pain to be felt and to work through, This pain is normal in the sense that nearly everyone goes through it but it is based in one’s child like psychology of possessiveness and jealousy and in their craving for unconditional love which in truth can only be approached through selflessness rather than one’s natural possessiveness. This pain is all about themselves not about the object of their desires which is largely a projection of their inner selves rather than a pure love for their partner.
Howard: B.S. To clarify, self-serving B.S.
So, tell me how you really feel about it and how you see it as self-serving.
MH,
I’m talking about being led and tutored by the Spirit in taboo breaking. I can’t speak for Warren Jeff’s, is that what he was doing?
Uh oh!
Howard:
“But humankind continues to evolve to greater levels of enlightenment, certainly we are more enlightened today than cavemen were.”
This is very much debatable. I am not sure I think we are becoming more enlightened. Certainly from a politically correct notion, so would say. But, in terms of honor and morality, honesty and integrity, I am not sure one can make that claim.
So cavemen were more honest and moral?
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a baseless concept?
Jeff,
Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed in many cultures. Today although slavery still exists in some places it is illegal in every country in the world. I would point to this as evidence of the enlightenment of humankind, you see it as political correctness?
Howard, Jeffs and his followers claim that Jeffs is following the spirit.
“So cavemen were more honest and moral?”
I haven’t known any cavemen. Some neanderthals, yes, cavemen, no.
And you know I wasn’t referring to slavery in any politically correct context.
My point about slavery is that it’s been with us throughout recorded history but humankind has reached a level of enlightenment where most find it self evident that one person should not own another. This has not always been the case.
Really Howard, exactly how do we justify ruling elites every country in the world prohibiting what people can ingest into their bodies as well as how much of the fruits of their labor they can keep, how can this be justified if people don’t accept slavery?
Howard: “The greatest growth occurs in the person who shares their partner with another or with others.” This is what is self-serving B.S. Marriage should teach us about sacrifice, serving and being loyal to our spouse and family, and self-improvement. What you are describing is satisfying your sexual lust because life is boring without variety. That’s the slippery slope of taboo breaking. Of course there’s pain with it; there’s pain because you are doing something wrong, degrading yourself and others in the process. Plural sexual relationships are less intimate emotionally because you have several concurrently; there are things you tell one but not others. Societies that practice polygamy today treat women like children and commodities, in no way equal to men. This is a male fantasy that has been perpetuated by self-serving individuals, and it is a haven for abusers.
Jpv, your comment doesn’t make sense to me, please explain it.
Hawkgrrrl,
So you choose to interpret my comments as rationalization rather conclusions from personal experience. How do you know plural relationships are less intimate do you have exoerience with both or a comparitive study to point to or are you offering opinion here?
Howard, this is the dumbest conversation ever. Read the OT. The wives are constantly fighting in these marriages. Read in Sacred Loneliness. Look at the abuses in the FLDS communities. Who benefits? The disgusting horn dog men, and those poor women who are otherwise prevented from having any status in society. Even in the early LDS days it was incredibly difficult. It’s an unequal, disgusting system. I also have a very close friend who grew up in a non-religious polyamorous household. It created an isolated environment for the kids who knew they had to hide their home life and could never bring friends home, and they also clearly saw that it was all because their dad was too selfish to limit himself to one sexual partner.
Enough of this threadjack. Do what you want, obviously. But IMO, it’s rationalization and not elevating. It is not Christlike.
Howard, watch Dateline to see how plural marriage is abuse of women. It’s ridiculous.
This topic is not about taboo breaking, let’s bring it back to the real topic.
The idea of being “saved” (whether via 2nd anointing or the protestant version) just doesn’t make sense, and make the atonement no longer efficacious for saved/2nd anointers. That seems very problematic, IMO. I guess I just don’t understand how God would recognize such an ordinance (or in the case of the preacher, a prayer.) I just have a real hard time with the logic behind this idea that a prayer/ordinance is a get out of jail free card.
Hawlkgrrrl and MH,
I am aware of the history of plural marriage abuses.
Howard says: “Taboo breaking is taught to provide an understanding of why these laws are given….but as people grow these laws can be relaxed.”
I’m curious about the practical application of your theory Howard. You mentioned poly relationships and the Word of Wisdom as examples. Does this mean that a more enlightened person in today’s church should be free to drink in moderation, and have poly relationships? Do you personally drink alcohol in moderation, rather than complete abstinance? Would you have a three-some, and not tell the bishop, because in his unenlightened state, he wouldn’t understand?
I think your perspectives work well as a “theory” to explain Joseph Smith’s behavior, but I think it is dangerous to apply it to “normal” people. Perhaps we can gain all the benefits of a taboo breaker like Joseph Smith, without actually breaking those taboos, by simply embracing their theoretical possibility.
Nate,
I think my comments relating to taboo breaking make it pretty clear that these lessons are being guided by the Spirit. In my personal case this took place while I was outside the church but had I been a member I would have followed the spirit then as well, as my Bishop says; the Spirit trumps all.
I know active endowed members who choose drink beer and wine in moderation. It doesn’t bother me that they do, it’s their choice and it is between them and God as far as I am concerned. But that isn’t something I was promoting here.
There are a lot of problems with poly relationships mostly stemming from the fact that very few people are selfless enough to actually live them in a healthy way. But if you take the position that God actually commanded them, learning selflessness over several generations appears to be the reason for it. Of course driving them into the closet facilitates and amplifies the potential for abuse.
Howard, thank you for your response, from which I gather that you yourself don’t drink alcohol in a poly relationship, but that you don’t judge others who do, reasoning that God might be guiding and teaching them higher ways through this process. Theoretically I am with you, although in practice, most of the people I see who abandon the commandments you mention seem to me to be in a lesser spiritual state than those who don’t, unless we are talking about David O McKay drinking Coke or something like that.
But I do find it odd that you would mention it in a posting about salvation, as if divinely sanctioned disobedience to commandments were the fifth principle and ordinance of the gospel. Maybe for Abraham or Joseph Smith, but I think it’s hardly universal. Rather, for many, particularly of the liberal bent, it is the opposite. The final test is submission to imperfect priesthood authorities, the weak things of the world who have been called by God over us, though we may sometimes esteem them to be less enlightened than us. To know the commandments are a lesser Law, but yet to still obey them.
Nate,
The post is also about the second anointing which is about calling and election made sure which includes taboo breaking. True personal revelation (not inspiration) proceeds the mighty change of heart which proceeds the intermediate lessons of taboo breaking. So in practice I agree unfortunately few around you will be experiencing this. This is unfortunate because Peter admonished the ancient saints to “make your calling and election sure,” and President Marion G. Romney, as a member of the Council of the Twelve, admonished the Saints in general conference to make their calling and election sure.
Regarding The final test is submission to imperfect priesthood authorities…. Final test?. Really? In what way? What final test?
Without stretching or backing into it where is this actually stated in scripture? I ask because this seems to be the new mantra of the faithful once their idolization of the brethern has been dissolved by straight talking liberal arguments.
Howard, calling and election made sure has nothing to do with taboo breaking. Please quit de-railing the topic to your own pet topic.
I do agree with you that many saints do idolize the brethren.
It’s not my pet topic MH I’m just sharing experience that it IS part of calling and election made sure but if you’re banning taboo breaking here I’ll say no more about it unless directly addressed.
Howard, We “idolize” the brethren because they are the voice of God to you: “whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same.”
Not because what they say is perfect, but by virtue of their call. They stand in imperfectly for Christ, and to worship Christ we must honor His servants. Indeed, their weaknesses are part of the test: embrace the foolishness of God (his weak servants) over the wisdom of men (your own wisdom.)
It may not be the “final” test, but it is an important one.
Good gravy,
Do I really have to be the one to stick up for Howard, of all people?
Just because today’s polygamous marriages are abusive is not evidence that yesterdays were.
Good grief, let’s just talk about judgment and historical collapse.
Normally it’s Howard who’s doing those things…
Nate,
I think that means when they say something like “love one another” or “don’t kill each other” we should listen to them as if God were speaking but you’ll have a hard time conviencing me it applies to “Let’s go shopping!”.
H_nu,
Thanks for the sweet part of your back handed comment. Talk of poly relationships makes some people very insecure triggering a lot of ego defense. OMG evil sex with more than one partner! Makes you wonder about Joseph and Brigham, which is ok as long as you unquestionly support TSM!
Howard, This post is about whether people think the protestant version of being “saved” has any parallels to the LDS version of calling and election made sure. Surely McConkie nor the preacher in the first paragraph of the OP wouldn’t subscribe to polygamy or taboo breaking that you’re trying to espouse here.
I’m not trying to ban anything, but this topic of polygamy and taboo breaking would probably be more appropriate for your guest post at http://www.wheatandtares.org/12127/morality-just-dont-tell/ So, if anyone wants to talk about those topics, click on the link to Howard’s post and continue your discussion there. It has no relevance to being saved or the 2nd anointing, which is what this post is about. We’re wildly off topic here, but since Howard has already guest-posted about Morality, feel free to continue the conversation there where it makes much more sense.
Howard: “the second anointing which is about calling and election made sure which includes taboo breaking” How are you convinced that second anointing & calling and election being made sure entailed taboo breaking? That’s not what BRM says nor have I seen Tom P say so; I cannot find any other source that says this is the case, and I have looked around quite a bit for the last 2 days.
Have you had your second anointing and were told to go break taboos? What’s your source?
My source is personal experience via personal revelation. For support I will add;Joseph Smith identified a few significant keys that unlock the doctrine of calling and election. The first of these keys is knowledge. “If you wish to go where God is, you must be like God, or possess the principles which God possesses.” God is prohibited from nothing except perhaps breaking natural laws. How can we be like God through rote obedience? We can not. We must understand the reasons for the prohibitions and be able to apply them as God would.
Joseph’s many women some still married to other living men wasn’t taboo breaking???
Howard, how would either Bruce r mcconkie or the preacher refer to your claims? Do you think they would support your position?
I think BRM would be more likely to support my position than the preacher. But it’s important to understand that there is a significant perception problem in imagining and judging this; the mighty change of heart *precedes* commandment breaking so it isn’t the thrill that some who have haven’t experienced the mighty change perceive it to be, it is far more educational than titalating
titillating
Thread killed.