I think Mormons regularly equivocate over the meaning of salvation. But I tend to think it means exaltation for Mormons. That is, the fulness of salvation.

See also this chapter from Gospel Principles, which states, “Exaltation is eternal life.”

I will agree that the three terms “salvation” “exaltation” and “eternal life” all tend to be used interchangably, perhaps even in scripture, but I simply do not believe that these three concepts are, strictly speaking, equivalent. I agree with Clark and Geoff that this confusion arises principally from our constant equivocation with the term “salvation.”

It’s interesting that the term “exaltation” doesn’t appear in scripture anywhere other than a Nauvoo context, a context typically associated with temple ordinances and a growing emphasis upon spiritual progression and works. Prior to Nauvoo, the word for a felicitous after life was “salvation” or “eternal life” those two terms being pretty much synonymous.

Perhaps the best instance which RT must deal with is D&C 132:15-17

“These angels… remain… without exaltation in their saved condition to all eternity.”

This is a tough one. From what I can understand salvation pretty much means acheiving the celestial kingdom, whereas exaltation means achieving the highest of the three degrees within the celestial kingdom. Salvation was indeed the greatest gift of God to man which had been revealed at that time. But like Joseph said there are glories upon glories, exaltation upon exaltation.

I should also mention that salvation could also have an entirely different meaning, namely being saved from death and hell (spirit prison) something which will happen to everybody. This salvation is probably what most Mormons would be most comfortable calling a “free gift” for God.

I thought that, vaguely speaking, salvation = eternal life while exaltation = eternal lives.

Also, what do we mean by greatest in each case? Most valuable? Most important to the most people? Salvation could be the greatest in that it has the greatest affect on the greatest number, while exaltation might be the greatest in that it is the highest to which we could aspire. Words simlpy mean different things in different contexts which makes this difficult.
I agree with those who see the use of the term salvation as equivocal in the sciptures. Amulek seems to struggle with the term when he tells Zeezrom:
And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their asins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

Oops… I keep posting as Serenity Valley. The last comment was by me. Sorry!

John, other equally impressive general authorities, including James Talmidge, have taught that there is progression across kingdoms. But this issue is obviously irrelevant to the question of why we should keep commandments. We keep the commandments because it makes us happy now, whereas sin makes us miserable now. (As the other good book says in Alma 41:11, “wickedness never was happiness.”) Speculation about poorly-understood future rewards and punishments seems an inadequate movitator for most people in any case.

I think there are substantial and genuine differences in theology among members and leaders of the church over the issues reflected in discussions of salvation. Some genuinely believe that only a few will receive God’s greatest gift, whereas others equally genuinely believe that many or most will recieve that gift.

Once again, I refer everybody to Dallin Oaks’ conference talk of April 1998, entitled “Have You Been Saved?” He sorts the issue out quite coherently, but does not go as far as I would like in encouraging consistent usage among the members. He begins by stating that

As Latter-day Saints use the words saved and salvation, there are at least six different meanings.

I summarize the six meanings below, accompanied by some commentary.

1. Saved from the permanence of death.

Actually, we hardly ever use the word “salvation” in this context. We properly refer to the universal resurrection instead.

2 Saved from sin and the consequences of sin.

This is the context in which we use “salvation” most frequently when we don’t mean exaltation. It is an important concept that deserves its own term. I strongly advocate Mormons reserving the term “salvation” for this concept alone, rather than conflating it with either 5 or 6 below.

3. “Born again.”

Again, we hardly ever use the word “salvation” in this context. Oaks threw it in to justify saying “Yes” unconditionally whenever we are asked by evangelicals if we have been saved.

4. Saved from the darkness of ignorance of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and of the purpose of life, and of the destiny of men and women.

Another context in which “salvation” is rarely used by Mormons. I can’t remember a single instance.

5. Saved from the second death (meaning the final spiritual death) by assurance of a kingdom of glory in the world to come

This is a potential source of confusion. Statements to the effect that our wayward children will eventually be saved if we remain faithful are using the term in this context, but the statements are frequently misunderstood to mean #2 above or even #6. We need a new word for this!

6. Exaltation or eternal life.

Here’s an idea. When we mean “exaltation,” lets say “exaltation.”

D&C 76: 42-43 specifically says that all shall be saved except the sons of perdition, exactly as John’s friend says. This basically amounts to the “escape” from death and hell that Jacob speaks of in 2 Nephi 9 and pretty much mirrors what other Christian mean by being “saved” if I understand them correctly. Thus, salvation is a very free gift which is given completely according to grace, no works. In fact, the only thing works can accomplish in this context is getting “not saved.” It needs to be recognized that the telestial kingdom is a degree of glory. It is a kingdom of heaven, not hell.

This probably means that we should differentiate between this kind of salvation and celestial salvation, which is what I will call eternal life. This is achieved by those who reach the celestial kingdom, but not the highest level of it.

Those few individuals who do reach the highest level are those who achieve exaltation or eternal lives. Sections 131 and 132 are clearly intended to establish the difference which exists between this and eternal life, or celestial salvation.

RT,

There is precedence in the scripture for equating all of these, but these statements tend to rely upon both equivocation on our part and the insufficient light available in the context in which the earlier revelations, which such an equivalence depends upon, were given. Thus, while early saints could have, and probably did equate these three things, we should not because we now know better. We have Section 19, 76 and 132 to clarrify the distinctions which exist between them.

The biggest problem, as we all have correctly noted, is the inherent ambiguity in the particular usages of such terms. Of course these terms, when used before the differences between them were revealed, would have been used interchangably so a significant amount of interpretation and inference must be applied when reading these passages. Unfortunately, however, this same advice would seem to apply to many statements made after the differences had been revealed as well. Prophets and members have never been very specific or careful in their word usage and this has lead to an awful lot of problems in interpreting scripture. (Think of the term “celestial marriage” for a clear example.)

D&C 76:88 also says that the telestial shall be “heirs of salvation”. There used to be a saying in the Church that “salvation without exaltation is damnation”, meaning that the progression of those saved in a lesser degree of glory would be limited.

On the other side, Brigham Young once made a statement to the effect that repentance and baptism would be required before inheriting any degree of glory. The baptism part isn’t current doctrine of course.

I really think that my belief in MMP’s in beside the point in this matter. I think that most members would find it compelling that everybody except the SoP’s are saved, though they would be very uncomfortable saying that they all have eternal life or exaltation. Of course this is when some people bring in discussions of “the fulness of salvation” and the like. It seems clear that Joseph’s usage of this phrase in Nauvoo did seem to be equivalent with exaltation. While I don’t expect other people to adopt my three separate meanings for the three separate terms, I think that such a distinction is useful, if only to clarify what we mean when we speak of the atonement and the necessity of ordinances and the like.

Unfortunately, RT, other scriptures make a distinction between the two. For example, D&C 132:17:

“For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, WITHOUT EXALTATION, in their SAVED condition…”

I disagree with your either/or options. I would suggest the relationship changed over time, originally being more equivalent, but eventually progressing to a definite difference. This is exactly what we would expect to see as more revelation is given on the subject. Thus the term exaltation, which didn’t appear until Nauvoo, along with its distinctions from salvation, which also appeared in Nauvoo, should be seen as greater light and knowledge, not less. Thus we can read statements from the pre-Nauvoo period which say that salvation amounts to things which would later be identified with exaltation without getting too upset. Joseph Smith didn’t have a word to describe this difference, if he even appreciated it at all, until the Nauvoo period.

That there clearly was a difference can be seen in a number of dichotomies which are used by the prophet to describe the two:

eternal life/eternal lives
saved/exalted
salvation/fulness of salvation

It seems perfectly clear to me that in the prophet’s final years he was desperately trying to establish this difference which he saw between the two, especially in relation to the “higher” ordinances he was revealing at that time.

I disagree.

“we can see that the earlier scriptures on the basic principles and ordinances of salvation/exaltation had already explained what we needed to do in order to obtain exaltation.”

This doesn’t necessarily follow. Just because Joseph started to understand what exaltation consisted of doesn’t mean that he understood what the requirements were to reach it.

“What the later revelations add is really just two additional required ordinances: endowment and sealing.”

Though I would be happy if it really was “just” these two, for these two are no small things in Mormon theology, you left out the most important ordinance of all: the fulness of the priesthood recieved by a man and wife. I could also point out that adoptions were considered rather different indeed from marriage sealings. Basically what your account leaves out is “kings and priests” along with “queens and priestesses.” All these things are clearly required for exaltion, but not for mere salvation in the celestial kingdom.

In other words, it would seem that Joseph came to understand, rather vaguely at first, that there were huge blessings in store for those who were really righteous. Blessings which went far beyond what most scriptures and people refer to as “salvation.” There is a difference between being saved from something and being exalted. After he came to understand that there was a “higher” level of blessings in store, he gradually began to reveal how these higher blessings could be achieved, principally through the temple.

I don’t see how anyone who pays attention in the temple can consider it unnecessary, just perhaps not likely to be received prior to the resurrection.

RT,

I’m not sure if I made myself clear or not. I acknowledge that many sources predating Nauvoo speaking in a rather vague way about what would later be called exaltation. These authors apparently did equate salvation (though a very strong form of it we must admit) with this concept. However, Joseph eventually DID come to see a difference between the two, as clearly be seen in section 132. Thus Joseph saw this separation in terms as a addition of light and knowledge to his previous understanding of “salvation/exaltation.” To deny this difference is to ignore his later revelations, it is to go backwards.

“I don’t agree with the idea that chronologically later texts should be priviledged over earlier texts. It’s all canonized, right?”

I think that this is were our main difference lies on this issue. Lot’s of the Old Testament and even the New Testament is completely rejected by the church, despite its canonized status, for the simply reason that such revelations have been superceded by later ones. Chronological order, I maintain, is VERY, VERY important in trying to establish the meaning of any given revelation. If you don’t agree with this, then I don’t think we could ever really even communicate about topics like these, for we would simply speak past one another.

RT,

Those three perspectives deserved a post of their own! Let me clarify my position a little bit, if only for anybody who hasn’t been reading along. I don’t necessarily think that new revelation always replaces old revelation. Sometimes it is accumulative. The only way to distinguish is to have a good understanding of the context in which the revelations are received, both old and new, and inasmuch as the intended meaning derived from such an understanding is not totally harmonious, the new one does replace the old one.

I don’t expect you to respond to this given your last comment, but I do wish to go a little further. I think that we as a church have rejected a lot of doctrines which are revealed, or at least advocated in scripture, both ancient and modern. There are a lot of central points to Paul’s theology which we reject. We reject far more in the Old Testament than can reasonably be put under the umbrella of “Law of Moses.” In fact, we as a church have almost intentionally expanded the Law of Moses in our minds so as to include anything from the Old Testaement which we don’t like. As near as I can tell, the Law which was fulfilled was pretty much the animal sacrifices and thats it. All the other commandments are but a sometimes not too accurate desription of what the law of of God requires. Jesus didn’t advocate the fulfilment of those, only a more perfect way of living them. As to the BoM and the early D&C the doctrines advocated there which are now rejected are by no means a secret. There was no tritheism, no degrees of glory, no self-existent spirits, and others.

We can say that when the scriptures say that God in one only, that they mean “in purpose” or something like that, but it is clear that that is not what the author meant. It’s true, we can harmonize the statements, but maybe we should ask if these statements should be harmonized. Other examples could be scriptural views concerning “celestial marriage” “united order” and Jesus’ views concerning the imminent second coming.

You worry is well founded in that it would seem to suggest that we can’t trust the most recent revelation. However this is partially based on an incorrect understanding of my view. I’m not necessarily saying that all the past revelations which are corrected and/or superceded were errors on the part of the prophet. Instead, I would suggest that the Lord revealed somethings which were not absolutely true for any number of reasons: 1) the revelations focus was not really on that particular topic and correcting that information would have distracted from the real intent. 2) the recipient simply wasn’t prepared to receive the absolute truth, but must gradually work their way to it through a process involving numerous revelations which are not entirely true. 3) the Lord doesn’t reveal what we want to know, absolute truth, but instead what we need to know, what will help the most people progress spiritually the most.

Of course this is on top of the possible errors which might have been introduced by the prophet him or herself in the process of “expansion.” This may seem to suggest that we can’t trust the current revelation 100% and you are right. This doesn’t change the fact, however, that these revelations are almost assuredly better informed than my personal opinion. The fact that we can’t trust revelation of fallible men 100% should come as no real suprise anyways.

Geoff, on my reading, in most of the scriptures outside of the two sections of the Doctrine and Covenants discussed above (where there are special, variant meanings), those who receive God’s highest reward are called “saved” and those who do not are called “damned.” As to the proportions of humanity that will end up in different places, I don’t think it’s necessarily clear what those would be. In other words, I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with your “vast majority” claim.

Geoff, as I’ve alluded to previously in this thread, I prefer a different old Mormon heresy than you do. If push comes to shove, I’d rather think about progression between kingdoms in the next life instead of reincarnation.

As to the many/multitude/broad quotes you refer to, we have the concept in Mormonism that the idea of “eternal punishment” is in effect a misleading phrase that God has used in order to “work upon the hearts of the children of men”. (Doctrine and Covenants 19:7–I know that the section goes on to explain that Endless and Eternal are God’s names, so they’re appropriate titles for His punishment. This means that the phrase “eternal punishment” is technically correct in some sense but misleading.) Why would it be problematic for us to extend this idea and hypothesize that the texts you’re referring to are also misleading but intended to work upon our hearts? Another choice is to adopt a less literalistic approach to scripture, reject the idea that God deliberately misleads us, and treat the scriptures you mention as poetic rather than informative.

From an eyewitness point of view, I know from personal experience that it is impossible to distinguish between a crowd of 100,000 and a crowd of 1,000,000. Either one seems as innumerable as the stars in the sky. And, anyway, that passage also seems poetic, doesn’t it?

Last but not least, all of this contradicts an idea from what I think is the most theologically important book of scriptures, the New Testament:

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:28-30)

If Christ’s burden is light, why can’t lots of us carry it?

Jeffrey, now that I’ve completely broken my former decision not to comment more on this thread, let me note that I think I will take up your suggestion to put a little more time and effort into the ideas about different approaches to the scriptures. That will take a little time; we’re moving back to the US this coming week.

Geoff, we’re well outside the realm of things I feel comfortable offering well-formed opinions on. I’m happy to leave the answer as vague as this: somehow, after the resurrection, people might possibly be able to learn and progress.

But while we’re on the subject, I’d like to ask you a question that I’ve always had about Mormon reincarnation types. (MMP is sometimes used because the English term reincarnation didn’t exist yet when these ideas were discussed in the 19th century. I don’t view either term as necessarily negative, but I prefer reincarnation as being more familiar to modern audiences.)

In a reincarnation framework, why do we need ordinances for the dead?

Geoff, if we regard the ordinances as necessary for salvation and we don’t believe in reincarnation (in which people could just go back and get the ordinances next time), then ordinances for the dead seem to open the door for some more inclusive plan of salvation. In particular, if baptism is one of the things you need to qualify for salvation, then baptism for the dead would seem to open the door for post-mortal progression into the saved state.

Once again, though, I should note that I don’t have a theory here. What I have instead is a vague hope that God has some more inclusive plan, some plan that brings more people to Him than the narrower versions of Mormonism seem to think.

Joseph Fielding Smith discussed the differences among redemption, salvation and exaltation. He resolves some of the controversy about them by explaining that these terms frequently are used synonymously in the scriptures. He then gives clear descriptions of the difference in these concepts. Some of his comments appear in “Doctrines of Salvation, as shared below:

REDEMPTION AND SALVATION MEAN EXALTATION.
I want to discuss a little these three terms, redemption, salvation, and exaltation, used synonymously in the scriptures. Many places where you see the word redemption or where you see the word salvation it means exaltation, or in other words salvation in the kingdom of God; and yet sometimes there is a difference in meaning. While these three terms are used frequently in the scriptures synonymously, in fact most of the time, yet they also do have different meanings describing three separate stages in the eternal progress of man.

SPECIAL MEANINGS OF REDEMPTION AND SALVATION.
“Redemption” is the act of purchasing back, recovering from captivity, or restoring. So Christ becomes our Redeemer in bringing life back again where it was taken away through transgression. There will be some individuals who will be redeemed from death – I am speaking now of the physical death – and that is all. They will go our as sons of perdition to dwell with the devil and his angels, as set forth in section 76 and other scriptures. They are not redeemed from the spiritual death, which is banishment from the presence of God.
“Salvation” is preservation from impending evil; deliverance from sin and its penalty realized in a future state; also, the means of deliverance from evil and ruin. That is salvation. (I am giving you the dictionary definition of these terms).
Salvation will come to the great body of humanity. The redemption of the soul is the resurrection. Salvation is to find a place somewhere in that redeemed state, freed from the realms “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” in its fulness, or in other words redemption from that spiritual death which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when the Lord says unto them, “Depart,” and they go into the realms of Satan.
Salvation will come to all who enter the terrestrial kingdom. They will receive a higher grade of salvation than will those in the telestial kingdom. Salvation will come also to those who enter the celestial kingdom. That will be a higher grade of salvation.

SPECIAL MEANINGS OF REDEMPTION AND SALVATION COMPARED. “Exaltation” is the act of being raised or elevated, as in position or rank; it is to be magnified or glorified. So in the celestial kingdom those who pass by the gods who are set to guard the way to a fulness, receive exaltation. The telestial kingdom is not a kingdom of exaltation; the terrestrial kingdom is not a kingdom of exaltation, although it is higher than the telestial kingdom; and there will be many who enter the celestial kingdom in their saved condition without an exaltation in it, for there are different degrees even in the celestial kingdom.
“Redemption,” according to the gospel, is the gift of God to every creature born into the world, that he shall live again, being entitled to the resurrection. Christ is frequently spoken of in the scriptures as our Redeemer, as so refers to himself.
“Salvation” is the gift of God, according to the scriptures, to all men who do not sin against the light and become sons of perdition. Salvation is of varying stages or degrees. Every man is to be judged according to his works, and for this reason various degrees or kingdoms have been established.
“Exaltation” is to dwell in the presence of God and to be like him.

- “Doctrines of Salvation,” vol. II, pp. 11-13

I am a bit late but here goes- To be saved is to be saved from Eternal death. Once one is saved he passes from death and enters into life, this is Eternal life. All will either receive eternal life or eternal death at the last judgement (D&C 29). Salvation is the process that restores one from spiritual death into an eternal spiritual life. Because it comes through Jesus Christ and not from anything we ourselves could possibly merit solely on our own it is called a gift because of mercy. Yes salvation is the greatest gift because it allows us to be saved from that everlasting misery or eternal death. Just as Eternal life is also the greatest gift because salvation leads directly to it.

Exaltation and eternal life are not the same terms though. A person who has exaltation enjoys the fullness of eternal life through temple marriage, but one who does not have that fullness who is not exalted only enjoys eternal life which can happen in any degree of glory.

Remember, To be saved from eternal death is eternal life.

And yes all who partake of salvation and are thus saved must enter into the waters of baptism just like everyone else in order to be saved. For the lower kingdoms this will be done by proxy for and in their behalf(D&C 138, AoF 3-4)

RT, I agree with you that sometimes in the scriptures and also from Prophets that they use the terms synonymously. The problem arises though when we use those interpretations or those occasions from a talk to give clear definition of that word to be used in all scriptural text. Problems arise when that happens. Take for instance the word “damnation”, early on in the church the word was used synonymously with the word dam or dammed like you would dam a stream or slow it’s progress. But the true definition of damn or damnation is to either condemn to hell, or the state of the condemned in hell, even to deliver up to the devil. Because we give it the wrong definition though we say that a person is damned if they don’t make celestial glory or even exaltation.

Nowhere in scripture does it even remotely say that a person who is saved into a degree of glory is damned. Only those who disobey the gospel are damned/ delivered up to the devil.

Now to get back to the point. The point being that if we use the word “salvation” to mean exaltation then it won’t be long before the saints wrongly define another saving term or principle. In this case people who beleive that the two terms can be exchanged for each other in the scriptures will begin to say that Telestial & Terrestrial heirs won’t partake of salvation and they will thus be damned. The sad part of it is, is that people are already saying this.

The 2 lower kingdoms are kingdoms of light and truth and the inhabitants will be righteous beings who are servants to God. To exclude them from the Atonement or from Christ’s saving gospel as found in the scriptures is not fare to those future inhabitants who truly will repent and become obedient to the same gospel that we ourselves are now trying to obey.

It is my opinion that the terms “Eternal Life” and “Salvation” will be/ are being used to teach the plan of salvation to the spirits in prison.

A careful study of the scriptures in my opinion reveals that for most all of the scriptures that use these terms, they are used in a general salvation manner that can be applied to all savable people, meaning that you could use the same terms and scriptures in the spirit world to teach a Telestial heir how to work out his salvation through Christ.

Well said there Manaen. I especially like how you have stated that the same salvation we teach is the same as other Christian religions. I have been saying this for a long time to deaf ears in the church because we have somehow twisted up the very definitions into something quite incomprehesible & contradictional.

Yes it is true that we have more light and truth and thus have the added doctrine of exaltation and the different degrees. The good news of it all is that no scripture definitions have to be modified to fit the added knowledge. Because of that we truly can know it comes from God line upon line precept upon precept.

I have made numerous flow charts & simple study sheets that pertain to the gospel plan that harmonize definitions correctly and help one to understand where everything fits, if anyone is interested please email me & I will send you copies of them to you through email.