Conference tecrus::mormonism

More than 700 people attended BYU's first symposium that focused on the
seven Lectures on Faith given by Joseph Smith and others to a school of
elders in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1834.

"We were thrilled at the response," said Larry E. Dahl, director of the
Doctrine and covenants Area of BYU's Religious Study Center, which sponsored
the March 18-19 [1988] symposium.  "People were fed not only intellectually,
but also spiritually...."

"Joseph Smith referred to the lectures as lectures on theology," said Dahl
in the symposium's opening address, titled "The History and Authorship of
the Lectures on Faith."

"Lecture 1 explains what faith is," he explained.  "Lecture 2 describes how
mankind comes to know God.  Lectures 3 and 4 make clear the necessary and
unchanging attributes of God.  Lecture 5 deals with the nature of the
Godhead.  Lecture 6 proclaims that sacrifice of earthly things is prerequisite
to gaining faith unto salvation.  Lecture 7 treats the fruits of
faith--perspective, power and eventually perfection."

Dahl said many early Church leaders participated in writing the lectures.

"It is clear that Joseph Smith and perhaps others prepared them for publication
after they were written," he said.  "The lectures were, in the words of
President John Taylor, 'published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet
Joseph Smith.' It would therefore seem appropriate to use quotations from
the Lectures on Faith and attribute them to the Prophet Joseph Smith."

The lectures, he said, were delivered by the presiding officers of the Church
and some of the brethren to a school for the elders in the Kirtland printing
office during the winter of 1834 to prepare them to be effective missionaries.

"I love the Lectures on Faith," Dahl concluded.  "For me there is a special
spirit associated with them.  They are a rich source of doctrinal treasures
couched in clear and powerful language.  One can drink from them as deeply as
he has a mind to."  (Church News, March 26, 1988, p. 5)

Faith sustains hope for future

What then is faith?  Lecture 1 quotes Hebrews 11:1, adding the word assurance.
"Now faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen."

Faith sustains hope for things not yet obtained and grants assurance that
they will be.  What is the practical import of this assurance?  What is the
nature of faith?  The lecture affirms that faith is "the principle of action
in all intelligent beings."  These few words provide a new viewpoint from
which to study the nature of faith.--Dennis Rassmussen, associate professor
of philosophy at BYU, "What is Faith".  (BYU Symposium, Church News, March 26,
1988, p. 5)

Chosen vessels inspire men to know God

To join the Church is to join the school of the prophets.  To receive
the priesthood is to assume the responsibility to teach and testify of
those truths revealed to that vessel chosen to be the instrument of
restoration in the dispensation one lives.  Through God's chosen
vessels, men are inspired to come to know God [Lecture 2].

to those of our dispensation the Lord has said, "You shall declare the
things which have been revealed to my servant Joseph Smith Jr." (D & C 31:4)
Thus it is for us to teach the message of the restoration.  We ought to 
answer questions from the revelations of the restoration and not hide behind
Bible texts.

It has become a common practice of recent years for those called up to pray
in our meetings and classes to make some expression to the fact that what is
taught be pleasing to the speaker or the teacher.  If not improper, this is
at least irrelevant.  Anciently it was the likes of Sherem and Korihor who
taught doctrines to please themselves and others.  Our commission is to
"declare the word with truth and soberness."  That is to faithfully declare
the gospel as it has been revealed without distortion of any sort to please
either the speaker or the listener.--Joseph F. McConkie, professor of
ancient scripture at BYU: "Chosen Vessels and the Order of the Priesthood"
(BYU Symposium, Church News, March 26, 1988, p. 5)

Salvation hinges on knowing God

The third and fourth lectures examine God's character, perfections and
attributes, and how those divine qualities relate to mankind's ability
to exercise a saving faith.

"Ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith." (Moroni 12:6)

But the trial of faith is only as valid as the faith itself.  A vain or false
faith can only produce false results.  Still, many religious people view
faith pragmatically as an end in itself: faith in faith.  It doesn't matter
what you believe as long as you believe in something.  This approach to faith
is the equivalent of whistling past the graveyard--a psychological crutch
for limping through mortality.

The notion that one god, or one religion, is as good as another is an attempt
to democratize the principles of faith.  But faith has no saving power if it
is directed toward false gods or false religious concepts and practices.  Jesus
taught: "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) No matter how fervent one's
supposed faith, to be ignorant of that God and His will is to be without a
hope of salvation.--Rodney Turner, professor of ancient scripture at BYU, "The
Imperative and Unchanging Nature of God" (BYU Symposium, Church News, March 26,
1988, p. 5)

Lectures on Faith teach about God

The lectures [especially lecture 5] reveal a deep concept of God.  We are
made privy to a divine Being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent:
He has all power, all knowledge, and is, by the power of His Spirit, everywhere
present.  We also are given insights into a Being who can be approached, a God
who communicates with His people and reveals Himself to those who, like Enoch,
the brother of Jared and Moses, seek after Him with diligence and faithfulness.

We come face to face with the reality later taught in the King Follett Sermon--
that men and women can mature spiritually to the point where they can become
even as their exalted Being.

These lectures are not primitive: they contain doctrinal pronouncements and
allusions normally associated with the mature Joseph Smith in Nauvoo.  These
lectures are not Protestant: indeed, we learn of a truly infinite Being--an
independent Being who possesses every godly attribute in perfection.  But in
no way do we encounter the transcendent Deity of the creeds.--Robert L. Millet,
professor of ancient scripture at BYU: "the Supreme Power Over All Things: The
Godhead in Lectures on Faith" (BYU Symposium, Church News, March 26, 1988, p. 5)

Man needs to know life acceptable to God

Lecture 6 treats two items:

* The necessity of a person knowing that his life is acceptable to God.  After
one learns of the perfect character and nature of God, what kind of a Being He
is, there wells up within one's own bosom an intense desire and a craving and
thirsting and a longing to be in harmony with Him.  That is why repentance,
followed by baptism for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands for
the baptism of fire or the Holy Ghost, accompanies true faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.

* The necessity of being willing to sacrifice all earthly possessions and honors
are the means to obtain the knowledge and approval of the Lord Jesus Christ.

A large factor inherent in the sacrifice of all earthly possessions is that the
plan of redemption did not begin in this mortal life.  It began in the
pre-mortal world.  Man's knowledge in his natural, mortal, fallen state is
earthbound.  His affections are centered on this mortal life.   What better test
of his faith and his testimony than to ask him to forego his honors,
possessions, reputation, and such things, to gain an inheritance in a time and
place that he as a natural man doesn't even know exists nor does he naturally
know that the sacrifice of all things is the way to get there?--Robert J.
Matthews, dean of religious education at BYU, "Great Faith Only Obtained Through
Sacrifice" (BYU Symposium, Church News, March 26, 1988, p. 5)

Eternal perspective, salvation and perfection are 'Fruits of Faith'

The following relate to the fruits of faith presented in Lecture 7:

* Faith brings an eternal perspective of our mortal life--Faith is a principle,
a key of power, that opens the door to our progress.  The abundance of life
and salvation can only come to us through our faith.  It is the source of our
feeling of well-being, of courage, and of peace, both in this life and in the
world to come.  Through the history of this earth, we see Adam's descendants
receiving blessings and privileges according to their faith.

* Salvation as the result of faith--The relationship between faith and
salvation is found in the Savior's teachings.  Lecture 7 explains what Jesus
proposed to the human family when He provided a means to save them.  "He
proposed to make them like unto Himself, and He was like the Father, the
great prototype of all saved beings; and for any portion of the human family
to be assimilated into their likeness is to be saved; and to be unlike them
is to be destroyed; and on this hinge turns the door of salvation."

* Perfection through faith.--As we feast upon the words of Christ through
earnest study to know His will, then humble ourselves and learn to bend our
will as well as our knees, our faith increases, becoming stronger and stronger.
We have an ever increasing desire to know His will and want to carry it out.
--Ardeth Kapp, General President of the Young Women: "Fruits of Faith"
(BYU Symposium, Church News, March 26, 1988, p. 5)

Persons opposed to the LDS Church have focused on the fifth lecture, because
it contains a statement which they say indicates that Joseph's teachings about
God were inconsistent.  In this reply, I am giving the fifth lecture.  In my
next reply I will discuss the controversy.


     1.  "In our former lectures we treated of the being, character,
         perfections, and attributes, of God.  What we mean by perfection is,
         the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature.  We
         shall in this lecture, speak of the Godhead--we mean the Father, Son,
         and Holy Spirit.

     2.  There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless,
         governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were
         created and made, that are created and made, whether in heaven, or
         earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity
         of space.  They are the Father and the Son--the Father being a
         personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and
         fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of
         tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and
         likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in
         his image; he is also the express image and likeness of the personage
         of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same
         fullness with the Father; being begotten of him, and ordained from
         before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins
         of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son
         because of the flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man
         can suffer; or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was
         exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be.  But,
         notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained
         without sin, showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep
         the law and remain also without sin; and also, that by him a
         righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk
         not in the law of God may justly be condemned by the law, and have no
         excuse for their sins.  And he being the Only begotten of the Father,
         full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of
         the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father,
         which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and
         the Son, and these three are one; or in other words, these three
         constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all
         things; by whom all things were created and made that were created
         and made, and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one; the
         Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory,
         power, and fullness--filling all in all; the Son being filled with
         the fulness of the mind, glory, and power; or in other words, the
         spirit, glory, and power, of the Father, possessing all knowledge and
         glory, and the same kingdom, sitting at the right hand of power, in
         the express image and likeness of the Father, mediator for man, being
         filled with the fullness of the mind of the Father; or in other
         words, the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all
         who believe on his name and keep his commandments; and all those who
         keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become
         heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ;
         possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or
         likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all; being
         filled with the fullness of his glory, and become one in him, even as
         the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

     3.  From the foregoing account of the Godhead, which is given in his
         revelations, the saints have a sure foundation laid for the exercise
         of faith unto life and salvation, through the atonement and mediation
         of Jesus Christ; by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins, and
         also a sure reward laid up for them in heaven, even that of partaking
         of the fulness of the Father and the Son through the Spirit.  As the
         Son partakes of the fulness of the Father through the Spirit, so the
         saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fullness,
         to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so,
         in like manner, the saints are to be one in them.  Through the love
         of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the
         Holy Spirit, they are to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus
         Christ.  (Lectures on Faith From the School of the Prophets at
         Kirtland, Ohio, Compiled by N.  B.  Lundwall, Bookcraft, Inc.  p.
         48)

The fifth lecture contains the following statement about God.

    They are the Father and the Son--the Father being a personage of spirit,
    glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was
    in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned
    like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was
    formed after his likeness and in his image;

Taken as an isolated statement, one could easily jump to the conclusion that
God is an immaterial influence or force, without body, parts, or passions, as
the Christian world commonly thinks of a spirit.  However, taken in context
with the full lecture, we realize that a much grandeur meaning was intended
to the statement.  In addition, the Mormon concept of spirit as taught in the
Book of Mormon (published four years before this lecture was written) is that
a spirit is of bodily form with arms, legs, a head, etc.  In fact, a spirit
looks to our mortal eyes as if it were of flesh and blood even though it is
not.  For those not familiar with the LDS concept of spirit, I refer you to
the experience of the brother of Jared as given in Ether 3:6-16.

The lecture stated that Jesus Christ was in the express image and likeness of
the Father and possessed all the fulness of the Father, the fulness of the glory
of the Father.  Since the Bible teaches very clearly (see notes 4.1 and 4.2)
that Jesus Christ was resurrected with a glorified physical body of flesh and 
bones, ascended to Heaven with that body, and will return with that body, in
fact must have that body today in order to avoid having died again, it seems
plain to me that the lecture is implying that God the Father has such a body
since it states that Jesus is in the express image and likeness of the Father.

In addition, the lecture states that those who keep the commandments of God 
shall become heirs of the heavenly kingdom and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.
They will be transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express
image, of God.  Since the Bible clearly teaches that all people will be
resurrected with glorified physical bodies (see notes 4.58 and 4.59), we
have further implication from the lecture that the Father does have a
glorified body of flesh and bones.

What then, did the lecture mean when it said the Father was a personage of
spirit?  The key, I think, is the phrase "a personage of spirit, glory,
and power".  The lecture was trying to say that God is not as we are but is
glorified and all powerful, a spiritual being rather than a mortal being.  We
have to keep in mind that to Joseph Smith the word "spirit" did not mean
"immaterial"; rather it meant "material" that "is more fine or pure".
(Ether 3 and D & C 131).

The lecture stated that the mind of God was the Holy Spirit.  The context of
that statement is one of unity--Jesus was united with the Father, and that
unity was achieved through the influence of the Holy Spirit.  The statement
that the Holy Spirit is the mind of God is like saying "God is love".  We do
not mean that God is literally love, that is an influence or feeling instead
of being a personage.  We mean that love is one of His attributes, that He
exhibits love.  Likewise, in saying that the Holy Spirit is the mind of God,
the lecture is saying that unity is one of the attributes of the Godhead, and
that unity between Christ and the Father as well as between us and God is
accomplished through the Holy Spirit.

This lecture is a beautiful statement of our belief in God, the unity of the
Godhead, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and our eternal destiny in becoming
heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ if we keep the commandments
of God.

    re.5
    I'm a late starter and just ran across this notesfile on the Lectures
    on Faith. Probably nobody is reading it anymore, inasmuch as the
    last entry, .5, is dated in 1988, but here goes.
    In 1967 I was teaching institute classes in Arizona and encountered
    this lecture, which is incredibly "presbyterian" in nature: by that,
    I mean that it conforms very closely to the contemporary protestant
    doctrine of the relationship between members of the Godhead during
    the lifetime of Joseph smith. Our resident expert on doctrinal and
    historical problems was a guy by the name of Robert J. Matthews.
    Bob has written more extensivley about the inspired version of the
    bible than any other Latter-day Saint living or dead.He is the primary
    reason the LDSA church now uses the Inspired version as a reference
    work ( and he is the reason it is included in the new scriptural
    concoerdances we use)---a dramatic change from the 1940s to 1970s
    when Latter-day Saints considered the Inspired Version to have been
    "doctored" by the reorganized church, which it wasn't. I put the
    question to Bob about why the contradiction between lecture 5, and
    our doctrine. His answer was simply that in 1833 "Joseph just didn't
    know." The completeness of the doctrine had not yet unfolded to
    J.S., and he was not speaking from a basis of revelation. Keep in
    mind that the first vision did not reveal the "bodies of flesh and
    bones" attritubes of the Godhead, only their seperateness. Likewise,
    it did not reveal anything about the role, purpose and nature of
    the Holy Ghost. In the current Ensign, there is an article by Larry
    Dahl which is supposed to address the development of the doctrine
    of the godhead. It is really a crummy article, skirts the issues
    like it were a vat of boiling lava, and does a great disservice
    to members of the church by representing itself to be something
    which it certainly is not. I get hot under the collar at such sloppy
    scholarship from people who should and do no better, because I was
    in the meetings with Larry Dahl when Bob Matthews discussed the
    whole issue.
    jpr
    

    In my last sentence, the word should be "know better" not "no better."
    Also, Belay that about Larry Dahl----I was thinking of Paul Dahl,
    who used to direct the LDS Institute of religion in Tuscon. I have
    no knowledge of Larry--except that either he didn't do his homework,
    or "somebody" thought such knowledge might compromise the testimonies
    of people who believe that Joseph had the whole salami dropped in
    his lap on day #1
    john
    

Larry Dahl (see note 109.1) is director of the D & C area of BYU's Religious
Study Center.

Re .10

>    In 1967 I was teaching institute classes in Arizona and encountered
>    this lecture, which is incredibly "presbyterian" in nature: by that,
>    I mean that it conforms very closely to the contemporary protestant
>    doctrine of the relationship between members of the Godhead during
>    the lifetime of Joseph smith.

The contemporary Protestant doctrine in the 1830's was that God is a
spirit only without body, parts, or passions.  In the fifth lecture, Joseph
said

         They [the Godhead] are the Father and the Son--the Father being a
         personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and
         fullness,...

There is no way that we can rationally say that by "personage of spirit", 
Joseph meant without body or parts, i.e. without form.  Joseph knew from his
translation of the book of Ether that spirits had form and shape.  He knew
that the brother of Jared thought the spirit body of Christ was flesh and
bone until he was informed that what he saw was the spirit body of Christ.

In the First Vision, Joseph saw God and knew what he looked like.  In both
the 1834 fifth lecture and his 1835 account of the First vision (see note 67.6)
Joseph used the word "personage" to refer to God.  I don't know precisely
what he meant by that word, but I find it hard to believe that he meant a
personage without body or parts, especially since he had already translated
the Book of Mormon.

I doubt that when Joseph saw God in the First Vision, he knew whether God
had a glorified body of flesh and bones or only a spirit body.  The four
accounts of the vision do not say that God had flesh and bones; we know from
the brother of Jared's experience that spirit bodies and physical bodies look
the same to our (and to Joseph's) mortal eyes.

After he left the forest, he had a very scanty knowledge of God (although much
more knowledge that we will ever have unless we too see Him).  When he died
25 years later, he had a much greater knowledge of God.  As various notes and
replies are pointing out, his knowledge of God did not all come at once but
came gradually over time as he grew in his relationship with God.  Prof. Robert
L. Millet (of BYU) seems to think that when he wrote the fifth lecture, Joseph
did understand the true nature of God and our potential as his children
(see .5).

******
The lectures [especially lecture 5] reveal a deep concept of God.  We are
made privy to a divine Being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent:
He has all power, all knowledge, and is, by the power of His Spirit, everywhere
present.  We also are given insights into a Being who can be approached, a God
who communicates with His people and reveals Himself to those who, like Enoch,
the brother of Jared and Moses, seek after Him with diligence and faithfulness.

We come face to face with the reality later taught in the King Follett Sermon--
that men and women can mature spiritually to the point where they can become
even as their exalted Being.

These lectures are not primitive: they contain doctrinal pronouncements and
allusions normally associated with the mature Joseph Smith in Nauvoo.  These
lectures are not Protestant: indeed, we learn of a truly infinite Being--an
independent Being who possesses every godly attribute in perfection.  But in
no way do we encounter the transcendent Deity of the creeds.--Robert L. Millet,
professor of ancient scripture at BYU: "the Supreme Power Over All Things: The
Godhead in Lectures on Faith" (BYU Symposium, Church News, March 26, 1988, p. 5
******

I don't think it is very important to know if by "personage of spirit" Joseph
was referring to the Father's spirit body or His glorified physical body,
because we recognize that Joseph's knowledge of God grew with time, and during
the Nauvoo period, Joseph said very clearly that the Father had a glorified
body of flesh and bones.  I do think it is *very important* to understand that
Joseph did *not* mean that God was without body or parts, for if he did mean
in the fifth lecture that God was without body or parts as the creeds of the
1830's taught, then his claim to have seen God in vision and his statement
that God had a glorified physical body can not both be true, and this is
the point that the critics of the church are trying to make.  The concept of
"spirit" as taught in the Book of Ether is very important in this discussion.

Allen

    re.13
    If you want to abide by strict protestant images of God, the terms
    "body, parts and passions" refers to something very different from
    what we Latter-day Saints think of. Protestants would have no trouble
    with the idea that God appeared as a man. They would explain in
    very different terms, but would have no trouble with the idea. What
    Joseph Smith DID learn from the First Vision (and I have said it
    before) was that God and Jesus Christ were two different
    personages. This same learning is reflected in the 5th Lecture on
    Faith. But that the Fifth Lecture gives us our understanding of
    the Godhead just cannot be supported either by church history or
    commentary. (In the quote cited to support the importance of lecture
    5. the writer (Larry Dahl?) used the words omniscient, omnipresent
    and omnipotent reflecting LDS belief about God the Father. Those
    words are inappropriate to LDS doctrine. McConkie suggests that
    God is "relatively" o.o.o.
    jpr

John,

I'm interested in your comment about Protestants in the 1830's not having
problems with the idea that God appeared as a man, and I'm wondering if
you (and others who might care to join in) would elaborate about this.  I have
to admit that my knowledge of Protestant theology is skimpy and second-hand.
I do recall from Talmage's "Articles of Faith" that he spoke of a Church of
England creed stating that God was a spirit, without body, parts, or passions,
and I've always thought of that as meaning that God would not appear in the
form of a man.

Allen

    RE. .15
    Hi, Allen
    Inasmuch as I am in transit--all my church books are packed in boxes
    still in Salt Lake--its tough to find the specifics you want. We
    LDS take the "body parts and passions" to refer to body-parts, i.e.
    arms, legs, earlobes, etc. The Nicean creed, and later on the pro-
    testant reformers meant this in quite a different sense: the wording
    escapes me and does much of the nuance, but the essence was that
    God is no constrained by human limitations (It was actually a lot
    more than that, and it would be unfair of me to misrepresent the
    view). I was raised in a campbellite faith, and there was no trouble
    with the idea that God would appear, that is show himself as a man--
    or as a person.
    What I was trying to get at, was that Joseph was not surprized to
    see God as a man but, according to the common teachings of the day,
    WAS surprized to see the Father and the Son as two DIFFERENT
    personages;seperate and apart.
    I think there is an interesting issue in lecture #5 which all
    discussion here so far seems to skirt, and that is that the Holy
    Ghost is not referred to as a personage (and was not so identified
    in the First Vision either), but as a "mind"--or some essence
    existing between the Father and the Son.
    
    It also is extremely interesting to me how we squirm at the thought
    that LDS doctrine---fundamental doctrine at that--could be very
    different today than it was in Joseph's day. We-just-can't-seem-
    to-deal-with-that-dimension of our faith. At any rate, we work very
    hard to show that "oh, it was really there all along: us'ns just
    arn't spiritually well developed enough to understand it."
    
    Some years ago I served on a general church committee, and one of
    the "games" people played was "I know something more spiritually
    insightful than you do---but you're not worthy to know it."
    
    Sorry, I just don't buy into that line of nonsense. It smacks of
    arrogance, and upsmanship, and "I can't be happy in the Celestial
    Kingdom unless I have a good knowledge that other people 'less
    worthy' than I have to be content with a lesser degree of glory.
    
    An Aside: Some time ago I hypothesized a "final exam" for all
    candidates for the Celestial Kingdom. It's in the form of an alagory
    and so can't be taken literally inasmuch as there are obvious holes
    in it, but it serves the purpose: "You are standing in line to gain
    entrance to the celestial kingdom. You are worthy: all of your papers
    have been signed, there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt that you "belong."
    As you approach the gate you are given to know also that for unknown
    reasons, you will never--worlds without end--have another such
    opportunity.If you step out of the line you can NEVER step back
    in. In short, this is IT! As you near the gate, a heavenly
    messenger approaches you accompanied by an individual you KNOW
    (not guess, or think, or imply, etc., but KNOW) is unworthy. The
    messenger speaks to you and asks if the individual in question may
    have your place in line. . .
    (Hint: Would a person be willing to give up his/her salvation so
    that another might be exalted?)