Why don't most LDS like Grace?

[Corsair]

Does grace require belief in and discipleship of Christ? I'm not trying to be smarmy here, it's a genuine question. If I have to believe and follow Christ then there is something I must do to benefit from grace and we've stepped, even if just so slightly, in works territory (not that works save me but that works are required for grace to apply). Which is fine, grace and works can certainly be portrayed as a continuum rather than a complete dichotomy.

I have seen various ideas on a required belief in Christ throughout Christendom. There are hardliners who think that if some random heathen was truly worthy of Christian heaven, then surely some pious soul would inevitably find and teach them. It is a sobering conclusion to this theory that billions of children forgotten mortals throughout history are sent to Satan's realm.

There are other theologians who are more universalist and believe that any Plan of Salvation that consigns people like Socrates and Mahatma Gandhi to hell are deeply flawed and incorrect. They reason that a just god will work things out. This has the effect of making Christian living an optional plan and far from necessary as long as a person is "good" in some sense.

Both sides of this debate have their challenges which keeps the argument quite alive.

[moksha]

The notion of grace and being a good Christian is not synonymous. At least in my way of thinking, grace is freely given, but Jesus seemed to ask for more. He mentioned being merciful, forgiving, withholding our harsh judgment, carrying for the poor and needy, etc.... These are all action-oriented, requiring us to do something. He did give some clues as to what not to do, such as slavish devotion to ceremonies and not putting the law above the spirit. He did not put much stock in the Sanhedrin.

[Give It Time]

The notion of grace and being a good Christian is not synonymous. At least in my way of thinking, grace is freely given, but Jesus seemed to ask for more. He mentioned being merciful, forgiving, withholding our harsh judgment, carrying for the poor and needy, etc.... These are all action-oriented, requiring us to do something. He did give some clues as to what not to do, such as slavish devotion to ceremonies and not putting the law above the spirit. He did not put much stock in the Sanhedrin.

Good point.

The works he demanded of us were not Pharasaical, but that we extend grace to others, ourselves. Therefore, it is truly by grace--Jesus's and our own--we are saved.

[achilles]

There are other theologians who are more universalist and believe that any Plan of Salvation that consigns people like Socrates and Mahatma Gandhi to hell are deeply flawed and incorrect. They reason that a just god will work things out. This has the effect of making Christian living an optional plan and far from necessary as long as a person is "good" in some sense.

This concept is what exploded LDS theology about kingdoms and the necessity of ordinances for me. IMO, there is no way all the ordinances are necessary (although i think rebirth probably is).

I also think this is hell, right here on earth--there is no hell to come.

[Mad Jax]

I absolutely loathe the doctrine of grace. It's predicated on the idea of unassailable unworthiness. To quote Hitchens, it's being told we're "born broken and commanded to be whole." It's a hateful teaching, the idea that we need a savior to do absolutely everything for us while we can do absolutely nothing.

I much prefer being a homo sapiens with multiple internal biological drives that require experience and, if possible, guidance, so that I can learn to find the balance of them with the requirements of survival and of achieving a form of human dignity, but the latter being a manner which suits me and which I choose.

[Give It Time]

I absolutely loathe the doctrine of grace. It's predicated on the idea of unassailable unworthiness. To quote Hitchens, it's being told we're "born broken and commanded to be whole." It's a hateful teaching, the idea that we need a savior to do absolutely everything for us while we can do absolutely nothing.

I much prefer being a homo sapiens with multiple internal biological drives that require experience and, if possible, guidance, so that I can learn to find the balance of them with the requirements of survival and of achieving a form of human dignity, but the latter being a manner which suits me and which I choose.

I have to admit that I've gone to some Christian churches. I never equated what you say, but you're right. It would be grace. I hate how Christian churches teach how we are absolutely nothing without Christ. That teaching is the reason why I'm not really exploring Christianity. I much prefer our trailing clouds of glory perspective.

[Newme]

Because most members serve in the Church not because they want to, and not because they care all at much about the other members they serve - most serve because they think they have to, due to the emphasis on "Works".

I think you are spot on. The implied retirement plan for a faithful LDS couple is senior missionary service and frequent temple service. There is a delightful elderly woman in my ward who attends an endowment session or two every single day following this plan. I don't doubt her sincerity and I am glad that she has an activity that gets her out of the house every day and doing something with other people.

At the same time, virtually every person who attends the temple implicitly believes that they are building up blessings in heaven that are at least as good as working with the poor or performing service to living, mortal people. I'm sure there are members who keep a careful count of the number of proxy ordinances they have performed. The blessings are supposed to be real and you don't get them unless this explicit work is performed. It's like they are grinding out achievements on the Celestial XBox live.

It's not that the Doctrine of Grace is disliked. It is simply the consequences of decades of being told that you are being graded by the LDS point system. Virtue and piety are earned through rote performance of temple rituals which is more conventient than helping alleviate real suffering.

Yeah, the church's name is based on heaven's reward fallacy.

I believe that the ideal approach to living & spirituality is a combo of both working to improve conditions and appreciating grace.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can, and
Wisdom to know the difference."

[Corsair]

I believe that the ideal approach to living & spirituality is a combo of both working to improve conditions and appreciating grace.

This is such a lovely thought and surely a Platonic ideal for human interaction. But it does not lead to increased tithing for a church or taxes for a state and so it is rarely embraced by the ruling class.

[nibbler]

Why don't most LDS like Grace?

I think the concept of grace really strains people's sense of justice and what's fair. It wouldn't be fair if someone that did "less" was graced into the same reward as someone that did "more." We don't even have to speculate about what may happen in the afterlife, if there even is one; this is a phenomenon that can be observed in things that are right in front of us.

Take social programs as an example. I'm thinking of the middle class that live paycheck to paycheck and how they struggle to make ends meet. How might they feel when they see someone getting government assistance for which they themselves do not qualify? Like they just missed the cutoff. There's also a large contingent that view social programs as people getting something for nothing... if they just worked harder like me. I'm sure there's a minority where that is the case, why work when it's easier to be be dependent on a program, but often we're blind to our level of privilege, whatever our level of privilege may be.

There are people that believe that humans are inherently good and there are people that believe humans are inherently evil. I think that plays a role as well. If you believe "the natural man is an enemy to god" then you might believe that humans are inherently evil, if left to their devices the whole of humanity would devolve into chaos. The definition of grace gets warped into believing that people will use grace as a loophole to be evil, because that is their natural state. Why would anyone do good if they can be evil and get the same reward?

To recap, I think most LDS don't like grace because they think people are inherently evil (I'm guessing most would say that it's necessary to believe in god to have morals) and they are ultra conservative (I think politics influences one's religion more than religion influences one's politics) and have taken a party line on the perceived fairness of social programs without spending much time thinking about how they may benefit society as a whole.

Random thoughts:

I know people that have mental illness issues that prevent them from being in full control of their behaviors. I'm not sure what the party line is for the LDS church. I couldn't say whether most members would say "they could overcome it if they tried hard enough" or whether they would recognize the inability of some to control their behaviors. I tend to think that most members hold the mindset that all behaviors can be controlled.

Anyway, mental illnesses often occur along a spectrum. You may have a touch of a particular illness or be in a really bad way with that same illness... and for all we know every human being on this planet may be operating somewhere along some spectrum of what we believe to be mental illnesses. Who is to say that any human is 100% in control of their "works" 100% of the time? That's why grace is important to me.

Here's a question: why should I be concerned at all with god's grace? It seems like how much grace I extend others and how much grace they extend me is much more relevant to my life.

[deacon blues]

Why don't most LDS like Grace?

I think the concept of grace really strains people's sense of justice and what's fair. It wouldn't be fair if someone that did "less" was graced into the same reward as someone that did "more." We don't even have to speculate about what may happen in the afterlife, if there even is one; this is a phenomenon that can be observed in things that are right in front of us.

Take social programs as an example. I'm thinking of the middle class that live paycheck to paycheck and how they struggle to make ends meet. How might they feel when they see someone getting government assistance for which they themselves do not qualify? Like they just missed the cutoff. There's also a large contingent that view social programs as people getting something for nothing... if they just worked harder like me. I'm sure there's a minority where that is the case, why work when it's easier to be be dependent on a program, but often we're blind to our level of privilege, whatever our level of privilege may be.

There are people that believe that humans are inherently good and there are people that believe humans are inherently evil. I think that plays a role as well. If you believe "the natural man is an enemy to god" then you might believe that humans are inherently evil, if left to their devices the whole of humanity would devolve into chaos. The definition of grace gets warped into believing that people will use grace as a loophole to be evil, because that is their natural state. Why would anyone do good if they can be evil and get the same reward?

To recap, I think most LDS don't like grace because they think people are inherently evil (I'm guessing most would say that it's necessary to believe in god to have morals) and they are ultra conservative (I think politics influences one's religion more than religion influences one's politics) and have taken a party line on the perceived fairness of social programs without spending much time thinking about how they may benefit society as a whole.

Random thoughts:

I know people that have mental illness issues that prevent them from being in full control of their behaviors. I'm not sure what the party line is for the LDS church. I couldn't say whether most members would say "they could overcome it if they tried hard enough" or whether they would recognize the inability of some to control their behaviors. I tend to think that most members hold the mindset that all behaviors can be controlled.

Anyway, mental illnesses often occur along a spectrum. You may have a touch of a particular illness or be in a really bad way with that same illness... and for all we know every human being on this planet may be operating somewhere along some spectrum of what we believe to be mental illnesses. Who is to say that any human is 100% in control of their "works" 100% of the time? That's why grace is important to me.

Here's a question: why should I be concerned at all with god's grace? It seems like how much grace I extend others and how much grace they extend me is much more relevant to my life.

When I think about grace, I think it's something I already have, whether the Giver is God or fate. Did I deserve to be born in the USA instead of Viet Nam or tropical Africa? did I deserve to have all my facilities and modest mental capacities? Did I deserve to be born at all? My current answer to all those questions is "probably not, they were free gifts/Grace. Growing up in the church, I was told I was "chosen" because I was a valiant Spirit in the pre-existence, but I don't hear that much anymore, possibly because I attend LDS church rarely. I think Nibblers question is important, "do we treat others well because we like them or we think they deserve it, or do we treat them well even if they don't deserve it? I think the latter is a better reason. If so, then we are gracious.