Ok. I accept that faith is the basis for our works. Now, what works are those?
The works are whatever works happen to be produced by that faith.
Why do you need to know "what works are those"?
Because you want to make salvation based on works, and you want to be able to judge salvation based on whether YOU see those particular works.
I didn't say anything about asking for the life ring Once again, please address what I said, don't put words in my mouth. Faith is our hope in the things we believe are true. It is useless if we don't act on it. But, since you brought it up, of course asking is evidence of hope, it is also work. Ask and ye shall receive. We have faith that if we ask, we shall receive. If we don't ask, then our faith is null and void, the only evidence that we have faith in such a principle is that we actually ask.
For purposes of understanding, I think it is useful to go over the four main historical views of salvation:
Pelagianism: Salvation is all of works.
Example: If you are drowning at sea, you're able to come to your senses, figure out the direction of the shore, and swim to safety yourself.
Semi-Pelagianism: Salvation is partly of works, and then grace to complete it.
Example: If you are drowning at sea, you have enough strength to find the shore, and are able to swim close enough to it so that the lifeguard can throw you a ring and save you.
Arminianism: Salvation is partly of (prevenient) grace, and the individual works to respond to that grace.
Example: You are drowning at sea, and the lifeguard throw you a ring. But you have to swim to the ring, grab it, and put it around you.
Calvinism: Salvation is wholly of grace.
Example: The individual has already drowned and his body is resting at the bottom of the lake. The "lifeguard" swims down to the bottom, grabs the individual, and drags him lifeless to shore. Then he performs CFR and breathes new life into him.
Now, based on 2 Nephi 25:23 ("We are saved by grace,
AFTER all we can do"), it would seem that Mormonism is semi-Pelagianism. But they way you are trying to describe it sounds like you're trying to describe Arminianism.
Your comment, "Our faith is useless if we don't act on it", is strange, since you seem to be ASSUMING that one can actually HAVE faith but not act on it.
Correct. It is the little investment we make to obtain huge dividends.
So you seem to look at salvation as a very selfish endeavour.
"What's in it for me?"
All you are required to do is grab on to it and keep holding it until the end which is marked by your being safely on dry ground. For your little bit of effort, you have obtained life, but without your little bit of effort, you would have drowned. The brunt of the work was performed by the person who threw you the life ring. All you had to do is all you could do and that was hold on. You didn't pull yourself out of the water. You didn't pick up the life ring and throw it and you didn't haul yourself back in.
So your view of salvation is synergistic, a combination of the efforts of two people.
To you salvation is grace ("throwing out the ring"), plus works ("grab onto it and hold on"). You seem to try to downplay man's effort, ("the brunt of the work was performed by the person who threw you the life ring"), but the fact remains that without your part of the work, you're not saved.
In that regard, you agree with Rome, "grace is necessary".
While we would assert that "grace is SUFFICIENT."
If you do something good "BECAUSE I believe.", there is an expectation for a reward.
That's simply not true.
I do good things "BECAUSE I believe", and I have no expectation of a reward for what I do. That's not WHY I do them. I don't do them "for reward". I do them out of gratitude. I'm guessing that you're projecting your OWN personal feelings that when YOU do something good, YOU perhaps expect a reward. But others don't.
I think a good example is from the movie, "The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)". When Zatara saves Jacopo's life in the knife fight, Jacopo pledged, "I am your servant forever." He didn't do so out of "an expectation of reward", but merely out of gratitude.
How much better is the person who does the work having no knowledge of any reward?
I guess that puts Christians in a better position than Mormons, doesn't it?
You expect "rewards" for your good works; we don't.
Telestial glory is not hell unless we make it hell by not following Christ.
In my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), Mormons don't have a "hell" in their theology. They only have "outer darkness" (which is limited to apostate Mormons, so I'm safe), and "damnation", which I believe Joseph Smith confused with being "dammed" (like a river), or "stopped", which could supposedly occur at ANY point in one's "progression".
2. works-based salvation isn't about saving ourselves. It's about qualifying for the blessings of Salvation which is based on our actions. It recognizes the fact that what we do is the work that qualifies us and that if we refuse or choose to do some other work instead, it may disqualify us.
I can just see it now... A lifeguard is sitting high atop his chair, with full view of the olympic-sized swimming pool. Suddenly he sees someone drowning, and blows his whistle to get everyone else out of the pool. Now the lifeguard has to do some sort of "assessment" to determine whether the drowning man "qualifies" for salvation.
We have a quote that addresses the alleged "qualifications" for salvation:
“
You contribute nothing to your salvation
except the sin that made it necessary.”
-- Jonathan Edwards
I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but I wanted to point out how (IMO) counterproductive emojis are, especially the one you use. I wish there were more LDS participating here, as maybe then they could provide you with an intervention. IMO, the constant use of that emoji only takes away from your credibility. Maybe that's just me.
I follow a podcaster named Matt Walsh, who believes that emojis are for women and children, and more suitable for places like Twitter and Instagram, than discussion forums where serious discussion is attempted. I agree with the sentiment, but I think there is a place for some emojis, as they can convey humour or sarcasm where they might otherwise be misinterpreted in a strictly written format without vocal cues or body language.