What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

[brotherofJared]

That's simply not true.

That simply is true. If for nothing else, you expect to be saved, do you not?

I do good things "BECAUSE I believe", and I have no expectation of a reward for what I do.

That's just not true. You expect to be saved. Would you grab the life ring if you didn't expect to be saved? If you didn't believe it would save you?

That's not WHY I do them. I don't do them "for reward". I do them out of gratitude.

Gratitude for what? For being saved? That's the cart leading the horse. You haven't been saved. You're still here and you still have temptations and you might run into an issue where you decide that God double-crossed you and all your gratitude was for nothing. You don't know your future, no one does. You might go through life with a twinkle in your eye only to find out in the end that the Mormons were right and then what? Will you still have that twinkle in your eye?

Here's the thing, show me in the scriptures where it says that if I do good works for the wrong reason, I'm going to hell and I'll accept that. EDIT divisive , tell me how that will work in your faith-alone theology. Whatever you do, you do in gratitude, no matter what it is, right? Praise God. You walk in the newness of life.

Sorry, I disagree. It sounds nice, but it makes no sense.

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.

I'm not familiar with the movie but the principle is common. I think it fails because Jacopo serves one person and those who are saved by Christ serve everyone. Of course, that may not be how you see it. That's the first problem, the second is that the gratitude is for services rendered already and therefore, he has committed to pay for something that he has already received. You haven't received salvation yet. You won't receive it if you don't endure to the end. Do you see the difference?

I know. I know. Of course, you've been saved already, right? People who believe that are living in a fantasy world.

I guess that puts Christians in a better position than Mormons, doesn't it?
You expect "rewards" for your good works; we don't.

Then you'll not be disappointed when you found out you were wrong.

In my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), Mormons don't have a "hell" in their theology.

You're wrong.

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.

He qualifies if he reaches for the life ring.

I didn't think reasonable argument would last long, but at least we know that you all are capable.

 

[brotherofJared]

Well, I guess that you're unaware that the New Testament wasn't written in "English",

Well, I guess that you are unaware that the New Testament is written in "English" today. If you disagree with the translations in English, I suggest you go to the translators and have them fix it.

 

[Aaron32]

That's not what I believe you are saying. I believe you refuse to say what the works are. Having your "heart in the right place" is not work. You are so vague in your explanations that no one really knows what they are supposed to do.

Ahhh...ok. So when you say salvation by works your referring to ordinances?
Yeah, that's not what I'm referring to.
Yes, ordinances are necessary for salvation. Baptism for the remission of sins, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
If your definition of "salvation" I'd to become perfect like HF, the temple ordinances are required.
When Christians say "works" this is referring to any act of obedience to the commandments.

Ok. I accept that faith is the basis for our works.

Great, So anything that follows is faith-based.

Now, what works are those?

Mentioned above.

power is a subtle and interesting concept, I don't see why you'd introduce it now.

Because it's power that brings "the mighty change of heart", and gives us spiritual gifts like "charity".

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.

Agreed.

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.

Ok. So, the question then is what caused us to ask in the first place? The answer is "the Word of God".

Correct. It is the little investment we make to obtain huge dividends.

I'm glad that you recognize that works are a little part.

And they'd be right.

Again, no prayer was offered. The action that saved the drowning person isn't the prayer.

But the life ring had to come by some means. Having the life ring thrown at us, when we don't even recognize that we're drowning, it like infant baptism.

This argument gets more ridiculous as it goes on which is typical of our critics who, when they can't directly address it, they start adding components and start arguing about those instead of the argument at hand.

This is simply your pride talking. Clearly, you only care about being understood, not to understand.

I thought you would offer the flip side of this argument to show me how wrong I am, but instead your argument got even more ridiculous.

But I'm not. So why are we bringing it up?

The flip side of this argument is, I'm guessing, that you think that the drowning man, in a "works-based" salvation, saved himself and that the he would get all the credit. I'm sure you realize that that is ridiculous and maybe that's why you didn't suggest it.

Yes, it is ridiculous. Keep in mind, I'm working off your analogy not mine, but this is essentially the argument you've been making (probably unintentionally). When Christians say "faith based salvation" they are explaining salvation from soup to nuts.
Man is lost forever without Jesus. It's because of God we know we're drowning, it's because of the gospel, and the HG, we know the life ring will save us. It's Jesus that throws us the life ring. Jesus is there every step of the way, because He loves us: http://www.4laws.com/laws/englishkgp/default.htm

By saving we're saved only because we decided to grab on to the life ring, (our works) is ignoring all the things God has done for us, and basically taking credit for our salvation.

Now give the analogy of enduring to the end, and the necessity of the sacrament.
This is the doctrine of Christ in the BoM, and it's taught in terms of faith, not works.

In the above scenario, the person throwing the life right is Jesus Christ. The gift is the life ring. 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.

Exactly.

 

[Aaron32]

.

True. Why would they, unless they thought there was a better chance some other way? An easier way.

Great. So, recognizing this, we can say we're "saved by grace" too.

One could say that. The problem is, in this life, God isn't the only voice that people hear.

I agree. But just so we're clear, what are those other voices?

No. It isn't all motive, my friend. It's all work. We have no idea what the motive is.

How is "absence of hypocrisy and guile, sincerity of heart" = "work"?

I'm confused how you could be confused. If you do something good "BECAUSE I believe.", there is an expectation for a reward. How much better is the person who does the work having no knowledge of any reward?

I'm confused because you're defending a works based salvation, you're saying motive has nothing to do with it, and now you're saying a person gets a better reward based on the degree of their faith and purity of their motive. That's contradictory. I agree with the above statement, I'm just confused on your position given your other statements.

I suppose that one could make anything that isn't true or makes no sense whatsoever true if one "recognizes" that's true.

Huh?

Telestial glory is not hell unless we make it hell by not following Christ. Babies are not able to make this life hell. If it becomes hell for them, it's through no fault of their own, but you are, apparently, willing to make them pay for it anyway. We've already discussed ignorance. That can be fixed at any time before judgment day.

If Eternal Life is to "know God" the the opposite ("hell") would be "not know God". Now, little children are the kingdom of heaven, because they are very much in tune with their conscience (aka. the light of Christ), but the fact remains we can't be saved in ignorance. If the child continues to live, the stain of the world takes hold, and willfully rebels against God. Any way you slice it "the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever".
There is nothing I'm making them pay for. Permitting them to remain in that state of innocence might be bliss to them (as ignorance is bliss), but they never know righteousness, because the never know wickedness, because they're unaware of the law, and thereby never gaining full potential of happiness. We would probably consider that the terrestrial glory, like the Garden of Eden before the Fall.
Thus, what Christians call "salvation" is the terrestrial kingdom. Little children are already there, but in terms of children reaching their full potential, they'd always be lacking. So, both can be right, depending how you look at it.

None of that matters if you keep doing the sin.

That's irrelevant. God changes our heart so we no longer want to sin, and therefore we don't commit the act.

Again, I don't what to beat you to death and therefore it's not a sin when I beat you to death. Got it.

That's not what I'm saying...again, why do we change behavior? Do we just wake up one day and become perfect? No. We have to be aware of the sin, we need godly sorrow, we need the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost.

Pay close attention, that is true only because you say so.

I think you give me to much authority.

A couple of things here. 1. That's not what a sin of omission is. Omission is not doing things we should be doing. That would be like Joseph Smith being commanded to practice polygamy and then not practicing it.

I said: Sin of omission = "a sin that would have been prevented if I had 'done the work'"
You say: Sin of omission = "not doing things we should be doing"
Can you please explain the difference? I'm pretty sure we're saying the exact same thing.

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.

That maybe your definition, but that's not how your audience is interpreting it.

Faith-alone ignores the work and makes it nice but not necessary and then tries to skew good works to be evil if we do them for the wrong reasons which is totally ridiculous.

That might be how you interpret it, but that's not what other Christians, or myself, mean when they say "Faith alone".

No. I don't.

Well, that's how you're coming off. So, you can end the contention by conforming to the definition the rest of society uses, or continue the battle of seeing if you can make the whole world submit to your terminology. It's up to you. But reality is, as I've been saying all along, there's not much difference in understanding salvation between Mormonism and Christianity, it's just a matter of priesthood authority and ordinances.

Doing temple work does not mean people will believe in Christ. Now, It appears that you believe in works based salvation. Our work saves them.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't shove words in my mouth just to use it as evidence that I'm wrong. Why you insist on making things as difficult as possible is beyond me.

I'm glad you think it's so funny. I think it's tragic.

 

[Aaron32]

Exactly.

No. He didn't. We still practice polygamy.

All in how you look at it.

No. You should work your way out of the church, isn't that what I said? Look. based on what you've said so far, you don't believe the church teaches the truth. It seems reasonable, therefore, that you should find a church that does. I know, there aren't any others, so that puts you in a pickle but the fact remains, we still practice polygamy, the only way it has changed is that we now practice it serially and through natural attrition. As for works-based salvation, we don't teach that Baptism saves or marriage in the temple saves. Those are necessary but not salvific. The works that save are the works of our everyday life. If you aren't walking in the newness of life, then you can't be saved. It's that simple.

If you are walking in that life, then I have no worries about you, but you should stop telling people that we believe in faith-alone theology, since we don't.

You describe "enduring to the end in faith" not "faith alone" theology. Interesting.

hmmm.....

That is weird.


Apparently, you didn't get the point. My statement was your truth relative to the church's truth and they are not the same.

And my point is, you haven't understood the other side to begin with outside of your strawman argument, so you really can't make that claim.

 

[Aaron32]

Uh Yep. we disagree because you keep ignoring the works part of faith.

Nope. I very much see works as faith.

If there is no action, there is not faith.

Agreed.

You say all the right things and then make the lame claim that it's faith-alone when it obviously isn't.

Well it's certainly not works alone, and faith precedes works, so what is the base? It must be faith.

I have never taught works-alone. I never once suggested that our works alone will save us. Faith-based is the cause for work. The point is, if the work isn't there, you can't be saved.

Ok then. Salvation then isn't works-based. How many ways do we have to rephrase this to illustrate that you're using the wrong term.

Again, "faith in action" is what make our theology a works-based theology.

Ummm...no. Faith is faith. Works is works.
Faith without works is nothing.
Works without faith doesn't save.
Faith in action is a faith-based salvation.

faith-alone makes a faith-based theology and there is no such thing as faith-alone.

Oh, so faith alone doesn't even exist now, even though it does.
But if we have real faith, then saving faith is faith-based salvation, and it's the faith that saves, not the works.
Can you see how you're wrestling against your own strawman? Maybe God will open your eyes one day. But go ahead and keep tormenting yourself. I'm curious to see how long you can beat your head up against a wall.

 

[Theo1689]

Well, I guess that you are unaware that the New Testament is written in "English" today. If you disagree with the translations in English, I suggest you go to the translators and have them fix it.

<sigh>
The issue is not the English translation.
The issue is your lack of understanding of the English translation.

Why did you IGNORE my citations of Merriam-Webster, and Webster's, both which define "belief" and "faith as SYNONYMS, as "faith" means "belief", and "belief" means "faith"?

 

[Theo1689]

That simply is true. If for nothing else, you expect to be saved, do you not?

<sigh>
Not exactly do you continue the OFF-TOPIC discussion of Christian beliefs, you refuse to accept correction on what I believe. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, that you can presume to tell me what I personally believe?

That's just not true. You expect to be saved. Would you grab the life ring if you didn't expect to be saved? If you didn't believe it would save you?

You're not even paying attention to what I write.
I DIDN'T "grab the life ring".
I was too busy being unconscious/dead at the bottom of the lake, when my Saviour dragged me to shore and put life in me.

Gratitude for what? For being saved? That's the cart leading the horse. You haven't been saved. You're still here and you still have temptations and you might run into an issue where you decide that God double-crossed you and all your gratitude was for nothing. You don't know your future, no one does. You might go through life with a twinkle in your eye only to find out in the end that the Mormons were right and then what? Will you still have that twinkle in your eye?

I believe God.
You don't.
Mormonism isn't true.

Mormonism got the number of gods wrong.
Mormonism got salvation wrong.
Mormonism got marriage wrong.
Mormonism got the duration of marriage wrong.
Mormonism got elders wrong.
Mormonism got deacons wrong.
Mormonism got coffee and alcohol wrong.

It's like Joseph Smith decided to contradict ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he found in the Bible, simply to be "different.

Here's the thing, show me in the scriptures where it says that if I do good works for the wrong reason, I'm going to hell and I'll accept that. In the meantime, while you bludgeon someone over the head in gratitude,

I can't have a rational discussion with you, if YOU think "bludgeoning someone over the head" is a sign of "gratitude".

Maybe you're related to the Danites?

You haven't received salvation yet. You won't receive it if you don't endure to the end. Do you see the difference?

God has me in His hand, and will not let me go, so I *WILL* endure to the end.
Do you never read the Bible?

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of tthe Father’s hand.

I am in the flock of the Shepherd's sheep, and He will never lose any of His sheep, but instead go after any who stray and bring them back.
Do you never read the Bible?

Luke 15:4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’

He qualifies if he reaches for the life ring.

Clearly you know nothing about life-guarding.

 

[Theo1689]

If I have faith, I can beat you to death and still be saved.

Here's the thing, show me in the scriptures where it says that if I do good works for the wrong reason, I'm going to hell and I'll accept that. In the meantime, while you bludgeon someone over the head in gratitude, tell me how that will work in your faith-alone theology.

Is anyone else concerned about the violent themes that are constantly coming from this poster's keyboard?

 

[Magdalena]

Is anyone else concerned about the violent themes that are constantly coming from this poster's keyboard?

Yes.

 

[Fenuay]

Is anyone else concerned about the violent themes that are constantly coming from this poster's keyboard?

Yeah. I think he is very angry.

 

[brotherofJared]

Ahhh...ok. So when you say salvation by works your referring to ordinances?

No. I didn't say salvation by works. When I say "works-based salvation", I mean that what you do makes a difference where you salvation is concerned. Your works show what you believe. They are the evidence of your faith. The point of my post was that " I believe you refuse to say what the works are." I have been very clear about what those works are and I never said the ordinances will save you. Keep the commandments to enter into life. How hard can that be to understand?

Great, So anything that follows is faith-based.

The problem is what that term means to our critics. They seem to believe it means faith-alone and there is no such thing.

Mentioned above.

I don't know how far "above" you think you mentioned it, but I haven't see anything from you yet that describes the works that make the difference between the saved and the damned.

I'm glad that you recognize that works are a little part.

Totally not what I said.

Yes, it is ridiculous. Keep in mind, I'm working off your analogy not mine

You're clearly not working of my analogy.

Now give the analogy of enduring to the end

already given.

 

[brotherofJared]

Not exactly do you continue the OFF-TOPIC discussion of Christian beliefs,

run away, as always.

 

[brotherofJared]

Is anyone else concerned about the violent themes that are constantly coming from this poster's keyboard?

Our critics' belief system supports the violence. Mine does not.

 

[Theo1689]

Our critics' belief system supports the violence. Mine does not.

Well, let's see...
I've NEVER made any statement or implication about "bludgeoning" anyone.
And your comment falsely projecting that idea onto me was deleted by the moderators.
What does that tell you?

 

[Aaron32]

No. I didn't say salvation by works. When I say "works-based salvation", I mean that what you do makes a difference where you salvation is concerned. Your works show what you believe. They are the evidence of your faith. The point of my post was that " I believe you refuse to say what the works are." I have been very clear about what those works are and I never said the ordinances will save you. Keep the commandments to enter into life. How hard can that be to understand?

So why not say "faith-based salvation"? Why are the only 2 option in this conversation are either "works-based" or "faith alone".
In concept, whether you want to accept it or not, we're in agreement. I understand what you believe, but for some reason, you refuse to simply express your beliefs in the words that the rest of the world uses so that they can understand you.

The problem is what that term means to our critics. They seem to believe it means faith-alone and there is no such thing.

So make a new post. Ask our critics if "faith alone" means "lawlessness".
Define "faith alone" as you understand it, and see how many agree with you. And if they don't agree with you, LISTEN to them, so you can correctly use the term on their behalf.

I don't know how far "above" you think you mentioned it, but I haven't see anything from you yet that describes the works that make the difference between the saved and the damned.

Oh my heck! You are killing me, Smallz! Stop going back to this overly-simplistic argument.
It's not the works that make the difference. You've said this yourself - the works themselves don't save us. Works are a result of our faith. It's our faith that makes the difference. Faith leads to works. Not everyone saved was baptized. Not everyone saved has kept all the commandments. We are only accountable to our degree of knowledge, and everyone is at a different degree of knowledge.
We are saved by faith, we are judged by works.

Totally not what I said.

Then define what the "huge dividends" are, and who gave them.

You're clearly not working of my analogy.

Then tell me what I'm getting wrong about it.

already given.

Where?

 

[brotherofJared]

So make a new post. Ask our critics if "faith alone" means "lawlessness".

I already posted in the apologetics subforum on this topic. It is easy enough to see that while they recognize that works are important, they also say that they are not necessary. But they absolutely are necessary because if you don't do the works that is associated with what you claim you believe, you cannot be saved.

I once knew the wife of a Nazarene minister. She had no problem with committing adultery until she got caught. Was she saved during the time she was committing adultery when she thought she was getting away with it? I don't think so. I believe she is a lot better off now, but now she practices what she claims she believes. Her daughter, as far as I know, as still not forgiven her. She will probably have to deal with those consequences for the rest of her life.

They are not just important, they are absolutely necessary or you cannot be saved.

It's not the works that make the difference.

Oh, but that IS the argument and they do make the difference.

You've said this yourself - the works themselves don't save us.

I also said, it is those works that qualify us for the grace that does save us. If you don't do the works, you won't be qualified.

Works are a result of our faith.

I agree, but if the works aren't there, then obviously there is no faith. That's why they are not only important, they are necessary.

It's our faith that makes the difference.

LOL. No. It is our works that make the difference. Works transform lip service into faith. Without works all that remains is lip service which, of course, is not salvific.

Not everyone saved was baptized.

Except for little children, every person that is saved must be baptized. But, not every person that is baptized will be saved.

Not everyone saved has kept all the commandments.

But they can only be saved, if they are reconciled to Christ. I'm not sure if you know what that means. It is the process that allows us to correct our course, the cycle of obedience, failure, repentance, obedience. It means they actually have to try to follow his teachings and if they fail, repent and keep trying.

We are only accountable to our degree of knowledge

At the same time, no one can be saved in ignorance. Therefore, somewhere along the way, knowledge must be obtained. Then those who accept Christ can be judged in accordance with that knowledge.

We are saved by faith, we are judged by works.

we are saved by grace, we are judged by works and works is the result of our faith. If the works are not there, the faith isn't either. That's why works makes the difference.

 

[Aaron32]

I already posted in the apologetics subforum on this topic. It is easy enough to see that while they recognize that works are important, they also say that they are not necessary. But they absolutely are necessary because if you don't do the works that is associated with what you claim you believe, you cannot be saved.

So we have to identify and separate necessary works, from not necessary works.
Ordinances to walk in are necessary.
For all the other commandments, we strive to obey, but we are not perfect. Thus, "by grace we are saved, after all we can do."

I once knew the wife of a Nazarene minister. She had no problem with committing adultery until she got caught. Was she saved during the time she was committing adultery when she thought she was getting away with it? I don't think so. I believe she is a lot better off now, but now she practices what she claims she believes. Her daughter, as far as I know, as still not forgiven her. She will probably have to deal with those consequences for the rest of her life. They are not just important, they are absolutely necessary or you cannot be saved.

So now she's perfect? She doesn't break any other commandments? At what level obedience can I claim to be saved? What exactly is the line you're looking for that you're expecting me to reveal to you?
I stated in my OP, the only commandment we're expected to obey is to have faith and everything else follows. True faith leads to repentance. Repentance leads to baptism. And fulfilling the commandments in meekness leaded to the reception of the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost will tell you all things that you should do.

Oh, but that IS the argument and they do make the difference.

What does that mean? How do works make the difference?
If anything, striving to be obedient, shows us our weaknesses, its giving our weaknesses to Christ that makes them strengths is what makes the difference.

I also said, it is those works that qualify us for the grace that does save us. If you don't do the works, you won't be qualified.

Again, conflating ordinances with the rest of the commandments. What amount of works is required? God can't permit sin with the least degree of allowance.

I agree, but if the works aren't there, then obviously there is no faith. That's why they are not only important, they are necessary.

So you have no faith in 3 Nephi 11, because instead to trying find agreement in the best of intentions, you continually want to contend with me.
Go pull the beam out of your eye, then we can talk.

LOL. No. It is our works that make the difference. Works transform lip service into faith. Without works all that remains is lip service which, of course, is not salvific.

It makes the difference to help people determining if you have faith, but it does not make any difference in our level of conversion or toward our salvation. Works are simply manifestations of faith that already exists within us. They help us recognize that we are on the right path. They are a lagging indicator. We did not do good works, for the sake of good works.

Except for little children, every person that is saved must be baptized. But, not every person that is baptized will be saved.

How was Alvin Smith saved? He wasn't baptized. He didn't even have the work done for him. If works make the difference, then explain this paradox.

But they can only be saved, if they are reconciled to Christ. I'm not sure if you know what that means.

I know what it means. I don't know what it means to you.

It is the process that allows us to correct our course, the cycle of obedience, failure, repentance, obedience. It means they actually have to try to follow his teachings and if they fail, repent and keep trying.

Nope. I disagree. I don't see examples in the scriptures of people trying to be obedient, fail, and then try again.
Being reconciled to Christ means confessing to Christ that are hearts are broken in a contrite spirit, turning our lives over to Him, and then accomplishing the things which he commands us.

At the same time, no one can be saved in ignorance.

So are little children all knowledgeable?

Therefore, somewhere along the way, knowledge must be obtained. Then those who accept Christ can be judged in accordance with that knowledge.

Yep.

We are saved by grace, we are judged by works and works is the result of our faith. If the works are not there, the faith isn't either. That's why works makes the difference.

These two sentences are a complete contradiction:
You say "Works is the result of faith."
and "Works make the difference."

What do you tell drug/sex addicts that want to change, but keep making the same mistakes over and over? I'd imagine you'd say "Just TRY HARDER until you can get saved. You're not there yet." Yeah, there's no hope there. Works cannot be the catalyst that makes the difference.

Works are the evidence of our faith.
Suppose we live next door, and you ask me to walk to your house. And it's snowy outside.
I know how to walk, I know where your front door is, I believe that if I put my knowledge into action I will reach your house. That belief is faith.
Now, if I've never been to your house before, then I don't REALLY know, but I have a fair amount of confidence than my plan of action will get me there. That confidence is faith.
As I walk to your house, I leave footprints in the snow. And you ask me, how did you get to my house. Should I then say "my footprints got me here."? No, that's simply evidence that I HAD faith that got me there.
Being at your house, I can say I my faith is no longer faith, it's knowledge.

So here's the question. Do you know that Jesus Christ is your Savior, or do you simply believe that Jesus is your Savior?
I know Jesus Christ is my Savior, because I have the ability to live according to His words I could not otherwise do. I know the difference in behavior didn't come from me. In the words of Moroni 10:32 - Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

If you know Jesus is your Savior, then you must claim that you are "saved". You might not be perfect, but you are justified, according to His law - which is the law of the gospel of repentance. You can become perfected as you obey teachings of the scriptures, attend the temple, follow the prophet, etc. (which is the everlasting gospel) using the repentance process.

 

[brotherofJared]

So we have to identify and separate necessary works, from not necessary works.
Ordinances to walk in are necessary.
For all the other commandments, we strive to obey, but we are not perfect. Thus, "by grace we are saved, after all we can do."

No. We don't. All good works are necessary and all evil works are damning regardless of what they are. That is why we need a Savior.

There are no ordinances that we must walk in. Ordinances are events, you don't walk in an event, you walk in life. And every action should reflect your belief, your faith.

And you missed the key in "after all we can do". What is "all we can do"? Grace offered through Christ's work on the cross comes only to those who do this and it comes to no others. This "all we can do" is effective whenever we apply it regardless of whether we are in life or after death. Those who are dead must do all they can in spirit.

Question, what is it that they can do in spirit that would meet this absolutely necessary requirement? Obviously, the commandments have little import on them as they cannot kill, they cannot steal, they cannot commit adultery, they cannot covet, and they cannot bear false witness, what is it that they can do? Any thoughts?

So now she's perfect?

You really need to stop arguing points I haven't made. Did I say that she was perfect now? Did I ever say that perfection was necessary for Salvation?

She doesn't break any other commandments?

What difference does that make? If you break one, you are guilty, period.

At what level obedience can I claim to be saved?

I don't know. What level of obedience do you think she can keep? Is it obedience? or is it the effort to be obedient that is necessary? How does one reconcile themselves to God?

What exactly is the line you're looking for that you're expecting me to reveal to you?

This one: "Was she saved during the time she was committing adultery when she thought she was getting away with it?" Reveal to me, was she saved or wasn't she? Or, at least reveal your opinion about it. My guess is that you won't.

I stated in my OP, the only commandment we're expected to obey is to have faith

No commandment has ever been given that says, "I command you to have faith". That is your interpretation which I disagree with, because, in my mind, that means that as long as this woman had faith, she could commit adultery and still be saved. That seems counterintuitive. If that was true, then we shall all just go ahead and commit adultery as long as we have faith. We ought to reinstate that pastor that got fired soliciting prostitutes.

True faith leads to repentance. Repentance leads to baptism. And fulfilling the commandments in meekness leaded to the reception of the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost will tell you all things that you should do.

In this context, I disagree with you. That which leads to Baptism isn't repentance brought about by "true" faith.

True faith leads to reconciliation which is the process where we strive to do the teachings of the gospel.

 

[Theo1689]

No. We don't. All good works are necessary and all evil works are damning regardless of what they are.

So if you do a good work, and an evil work, does that you saved, or damned?
And if you do multiple good works and multiple evil works, do someone of them cancel out? How exactly does that work?

That is why we need a Savior.

I thought the Mormon Savior only gave you resurrection?
Please clarify?

No commandment has ever been given that says, "I command you to have faith".

Well, if you understand language, then you know the "I command you" is redundant.
Do you really think there is any difference between:

"Stand at attention!"; and
"I command you to stand at attention!"?

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

"Repent" and "believe" are both in the "imperative" (ie. "command") mood.

Mark 5:36 But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.”

"Fear" and "believe" are both in the "imperative" (ie. "command") mood.