The January 2011 issue of Ensign magazine reprinted a portion of a discourse first delivered by Heber C. Kimball in 1854. Mr. Kimball was the First Counselor in the First Presidency when he spoke to the Latter-Day Saints about “The Potter and the Clay.”
As you might guess, Mr. Kimball’s remarks focused on obedience: obedience to God through obedience to “His servants,” which would in turn result in happiness. The discourse has been heavily edited (shortened) to fit the space allotted for “Gospel Classics” in the magazine. Curious about what had not been included (indicated in the Ensign by ellipses), I went to the Journal of Discourses (volume 2, pages 150-154) to read it all in context.
Many of Mr. Kimball’s interesting thoughts didn’t make it into the Ensign. A few examples:
- Kings and princes and other “great men” according to the ways of the world will not have as much power once they enter the spirit world. Mr. Kimball explained, “We can hear of their spirits trying to peep, and mutter, and mock, and rap, and cause tables to dance, and chairs to move from one place to another, but that is all the power they have.”
- Parents who are not sufficiently submissive to the Priesthood will suffer “as God makes their children a scourge to them.” Mr. Kimball warned, “Parents, if you do not listen to counsel, and walk in the path the Priesthood marks out, the Lord will prepare a scourge for you…”
- The Priesthood is worthy of the greatest love and reverence. Mr. Kimball said his prayer was, in part, “that I may always honor the Priesthood, magnify it, reverence it, and love it more than I do my wives and children. If I do that, I know the Priesthood will honor me, and exalt me, and bring me back into the presence of God.”
It’s understandable that these things were not included in the Ensign article since they don’t really address the main point the LDS Church meant to highlight. But one section that was left out seems quite relevant to the topic of obedience. Mr. Kimball told the Saints,
“What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time. And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfil (sic) His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so.”
Mr. Kimball’s teaching is a far cry from the comforting idea being promoted by many lay-Mormons these days that God (according to Mormonism) does not require perfect obedience, He only asks for sincerity and good effort. Some Mormons like to say, “If I try my best, Christ will do the rest.” Well, according to LDS Apostle Heber C. Kimball, God is not going to do “the rest.” If you, Mormon, have covenanted in baptism to keep the commandments; if you have covenanted in the temple to obey the law of God; if it takes ten thousand years, you are required by God to do it yourself.
No wonder Mr. Kimball added a caveat when he told the Saints that the person who submits to the providences of God “will feel cheerful and happy in all circumstances”; that is, Mr. Kimball warned, “if he continues to keep the commandments of God.” For in Mr. Kimball’s Mormonism, a failure to do so presents the sincere Latter-day Saint with the decidedly unhappy circumstance described by Mr. Kimball’s grandson, Spencer W. Kimball, as “a long road spiked with thorns and briars and pitfalls and problems” (Miracle of Forgiveness, 149). That is, perhaps ten thousand years of keeping the commandments in an effort to gain forgiveness and eternal life.
—–
The Mormon system will fail every time, given ten thousand years or ten thousand million years. To learn about the Bible’s promise of hope–the Good News that salvation is based on the merits of Christ alone–read Charles Spurgeon’s One Door to Salvation.
"The Priesthood is worthy of the greatest love and reverence. Mr. Kimball said his prayer was, in part, “that I may always honor the Priesthood, magnify it, reverence it, and love it more than I do my wives and children. If I do that, I know the Priesthood will honor me, and exalt me, and bring me back into the presence of God.”
Wow! I think my understanding that the Priesthood is the one true eternal god of mormonism isn´t an exaggeration after all… He´s even worshiping it, and he´s attributing his exaltation to it! Wow, wow, wow – that´s pure idolatry!
“If I try my best, Christ will do the rest.”
I guess that´s been the mentality since they´ve realized that no matter how hard you try you can´t even come close to obeying ALL the commandments in the giant laundry list Mormonism presents as the new law, the conditions for someone to be exalted. Even Bishops who are supposed to be the example can´t even come close because they are so busy being half psychologists/managers that they don´t even have time left to do simple home-teaching, or scripture study, etc.(besides the fact our nature is corrupt and no man can keep the law). So, to not lose control of it all, in an avalanche-like effect, they started instilling that idea that God wants your best. That´s where the "after all you can do" passage comes handy, because it is subjective and you can adapt it to whatever circumstances necessary.
I think that also exposes the heart of many mormons, who ignore scripture and lie to themselves saying they are righteous because they keep a few cherry-picked commandments, and if you question that be prepared to deal with a "bit" of anger and animosity. I was like that as a mormon, every time i was tormented by the guilt of not doing whatever the many commandments discussed in a General Conference/Stake Conference, i would just comfort/lie to myself saying that i was doing the very best i could, and i would be convinced that God was satisfied with that through "spiritual" confirmation in prayer – and that (and many other things as well)convinces me that powerful energy i felt which mormons call the Holy Ghost comes from a demon/lying spirit.
Just to remember how horrible it was, i´m so thankful i´m out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heber Kimball’s quote by Sharon: “What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time. And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfil (sic) His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so.”
Sharon’s summary interpretation: “If you, Mormon, have covenanted in baptism to keep the commandments; if you have covenanted in the temple to obey the law of God; if it takes ten thousand years, you are required by God to do it yourself.
Hopefully those with ears to hear & a heart to understand can see that Heber’s point was to underscore the eternal & uncompromising nature of God’s word. God is not capable of idle speech or empty commandments any more than He is capable of broken promises. Are Evangelicals in disagreement on this principle? Do you really think that when God commands his earthly servants & they fail to execute that command that he simply shelves that command if they fail to fulfill it but later turn back to him? I’ve personally heard my share of Evangelical sermons on Christian stewardship that would take well to Heber’s doctrine here. In the Christianity that I understand, faithfulness to God is the requirement for God’s blessings to extend to us. In God’s biblical ideal of restoration, the promises that come of his word are conditioned upon our faithfulness to that word. That simple. At the judgment seat if I want God’s full mercy and forgiveness than it is required that I be ever forgiving and merciful in all my dealings. Very simple concept (but ever so hard to live! Of that we can hopefully agree.) As a mortal is my faithfulness expected to be godly in nature? No, certainly not to start. But neither is it expected to be something less than an honest attempt to embrace the perfection of God’s word extended to me. To live a new life in Him. Yes, again we are all in agreement, I certainly hope. Though Christ’s ultimate judgment will extend to all, Christ’s ultimate mercy can only extend to the faithful…as Christ numerous times explained, to those who are merciful, to those who forgive seventy times seven. And, yes, and to those who diligently heed God’s counsels that are extended through his earthly servants. As Kimball clearly implied, there is no division or rank when God’s word is involved. It is simply God’s word.
Please note that Sharon’s attempt to say that Kimball said we are required to follow all God’s commandments by ourselves to achieve salvation is an utter imposition upon Heber’s words. From what I can tell, Heber’s speech had nothing directly to do with eternal judgment & salvation, but rather, to the eternal nature of God’s word extended to us – and to the faithfulness to it that is required of us. Like God’s final judgment upon each of us, His word, whenever it is spoken, cannot be hid from, neither deviated from. Subsequent repentance does not simply make it go away. Are we really in disagreement on this? Please tell me “no”. After all, Christ came here to make us one with he in the Father. And as I understand the scriptures, nothing less than faithfulness to His eternal word can make this happen. The miracle of mortal embracing immortality is fully dependant on the mortal following the words of eternal life. That is, God’s undeviating word.
Sincerely, mutu.
I don't agree that Heber Kimball's point was to "underscore the eternal & uncompromising nature of God’s word." The context was obedience, pure and simple. Immediately preceding the paragraph quoted above Kimball said, "I would like to see all this people do right, and keep the commandments of God. I would like to see them fulfil (sic) their covenants, and live up to their vows and promises, and fulfil (sic) their obligations, for they have obligated themselves before God, and before angels, and before earthly witnesses, that they would do this. [Next paragraph] What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time."
When I summarized that Kimball said people are required to keep the commandments ("vows," "promises," "obligations") "by yourself," please understand that this is in the context of God requiring people to perform all they have freely agreed to do. Kimball says they are to do it — "God will compel you to do it." Later in this discourse Kimball says that God will help people keep the commandments, but he never says they are not required to actually succeed at doing all they promised to do (i.e., "I do my best and Christ makes up the rest."). They will have ten thousand years to work on it if need be.
Applying Kimball’s words to salvation is not much of an imposition (if an imposition at all). The speech, as quoted in the Ensign, begins, “I ask you, brethren and sisters, if you expect to go into heaven, if you do not do his will on earth…I do not expect it, and when you depart from this state of existence, you will find it out for yourselves.”
Mutu, Mormons take in such a sacred manner the making of covenants with God and the importance of keeping them, of keeping your side of it so that God can deliver the blessings promised. Why is it that when it is your turn to perform, you just don´t? I agree with Sharon – you´re expected to keep your side of the agreement. Is that to be done without the help of God? No, of course not! Even so, you´re expected to keep your promises.
1 Nephi 3:7 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."
Do you believe that God prepared a way for you to keep all of His commandments the same way He prepared Nephi´s in that situation? More importantly, are you going to keep them all before you die and receive your reward?
That also leads us to another problem. Why is it that Mormons can´t keep the commandments as they promise? They don´t believe they are corrupted by Adam´s sin, the original sin, so, in theory they should be able to perform – especially when they receive the gift of the Holy Ghost when they are baptized.
In this fallen world what is keeping Mormons from keeping the commandments? Is it imperfections or just the fact that they fall into temptation?
In the Gospel Principle´s lesson on the Millennium, we read:
"During the Millennium, Satan will be bound. This means he will not have power to tempt those who are living at that time"
"People will still have their agency, and for a time many will be free to continue with their religions and ideas. Eventually everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is the Savior."
That means, they will still sin – because there will still be people committing idolatry, at least. Even with Satan bound people will still sin, and yet Mormons deny the doctrine of original sin or "total depravity".
So, Mormons, please help me out here. You can´t have both ways – you either keep God´s commandments as you promised in your baptism and temple covenants, or you just "do all you can" even though i don´t remember anything in them saying you could do that ("just do your best, don´t worry about it"), not knowing when you have done enough to earn Jesus´ grace. What is it? And why aren´t you able to perform and have to repent all the time and start over again?
Sharon, you see what you want to see, but the truth is that Heber Kimball's call to faithfulness of his LDS flock was clearly established on the doctrine that God's word is eternal. His requirements at our hands cannot be revoked any more than his eternal promises extended to us. That is Heber's clear teaching. And I'll ask you again: are you in agreement with it? (I'm on board fully.) You can twist Heber's words to mean that Mormons have hopelessly imprecated themselves before an all-holy God by taking upon a perfectionism that they can never possibly achieve, but that is not Mormon faith or expectation at all. Nor was it Heber's. That is a Protestant idealism that traditional Mormonism had nothing to do with. I’ll grant that there are many Mormons today that play around with this Protestant idealism, but I can assure you that I do not.
Contrary to fmelo's claims below, Mormons DO believe in the "corruption" of humanity through Adam's fall. But contrary to Evangelical belief, we do NOT believe that full redemption from human "corruption" occurs any sooner than Christ's final judgment of each and every man and woman. In either the literal, or the spiritual sense. To be "born again" in Mormon faith is to take on Christ's name and being through the Gospel covenants we make to follow him. And the condition of these covenants are sealed with the promise and understanding that ultimate reality in this world isn't death, but to stand before God again and be judged of our deeds in the flesh (these promises being established through God's word — be that word revealed through the holy covenant of baptism, eucharist, or the temple endowment).
As for the redemption from the effects of sin that we experience through the Spirit in this life, Mormons, unlike Evangelicals, do not understand such personal experience with redemption as an assurance of our final standing before God. Rather, it is the assurance that life in Christ, not death, is indeed ultimate reality, and that all sin and corruption will indeed be washed away in Christ eternally. Just as the Spirit continuously washes from our soul the guilt and fear from sin — according to our continued belief and faithfulness in Christ — so will Christ eternally purify the righteous from all sin & corruption when they stand before the Father. The Spirit testifies of Christ's final redemption, but he does not execute that redemption. It is a common misconception within the Gospel.
P.S. So Sharon, how do you answer Heber Kimball's question to his followers? Do you expect to go into heaven if you do not do God's will on earth?
I hope all Christians — Mormon, Evangelical, or what not — take heed of the example of Ananias and Sapphira. Their religious belief did not save them any more than it will save any of us. If you think the LDS Church — whether in this day or in Heber's — somehow asks more of its members than did the early Christian Church than I'm afraid you have not read your scriptures close enough.
"And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."
While I believe Christ's Gospel is the only way to find an enduring peace in either this life or the next, I do not believe it to be a Gospel built in any way upon convenience. Rather, it is built squarely upon the strength of God's eternal word. As Heber Kimball taught, the strength of that eternal word is a two-edge sword involving God's promises to us, but also his requirements from us. With God we cannot have our cake and eat it too. That's not Christ's mercy at all. I hope we're all in agreement on that.
mutu.
That quote of Kimball's went straight into my "quote book".
(The only things that get into my "quote book" are statements that either max out my awesome-o-meter, or my creeped-out-o-meter. Guess which meter this one got registered on.)
f_melo,
Good question. I'd put it this way;
Why does Mormonism fail to deliver?
Though unacceptable behaviors are stated in the NT, the disconnect for some people (Mormon and otherwise) seems to come from a misunderstanding of the order of things. We come to God as we are.
Romans 5:8 – "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Christ, with Whom we enter into relationship when we are saved, gives us the strength and the desire to do the things that are God's will for us.
John 15:4,5 – Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Philippians 2:13 – for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Galatians 5:22, 23 – But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.
I don't know but when I read what these Mormon "higher-ups" have said and written it reminds me of that saying, "a person wandering about in search for a cogent thought". It all sounds like "blah, blah, blah" to me. Mormonism is a playground for the creative religious types. That's basically what progressive revelation produces. A never ending rendition of amateur night at the Apollo Theater. At least at the Apollo, the bad acts get booed off the stage. In Mormonism, they became the leaders and deep thinkers. It's all mindless speculation and pointless drivel. What fools these people are. What's that verse in the Bible, "thinking themselves wise they have become fools". They may as well be talking about how much money the tooth fairy will leave depending on the size of the tooth and whether or not the tooth is left under the pillow or on the night stand.
"I’ll grant that there are many Mormons today that play around with this Protestant idealism, but I can assure you that I do not"
why don´t you throw you BoM in the garbage can then if that´s just an idealism the fact that God´s commands have to be kept? Are those covenants just a crutch to help you up the ladder of exaltation?
"o you really think that when God commands his earthly servants & they fail to execute that command that he simply shelves that command if they fail to fulfill it but later turn back to him?"
Are you talking about polygamy?Or the temple in Missouri that´s now not even owned by the Church? Or 90% of Brigham Young´s prophecies and teachings?
"Contrary to fmelo's claims below, Mormons DO believe in the "corruption" of humanity through Adam's fall."
Mantis, then why are you "corrupted" at all? Did God make you this way? I don´t get it.
"Mormon faith is to take on Christ's name and being through the Gospel covenants we make to follow him"
Covenants you´re not really expected to keep, because its impossible despite of 1 Ne. 3:7 – i understand it now.
"If you think the LDS Church — whether in this day or in Heber's — somehow asks more of its members than did the early Christian Church than I'm afraid you have not read your scriptures close enough."
I´ve read it pretty close, and no – they didn´t ask nearly as much as the LDS power-hungry church. Paul didn´t even care if they kept the Sabbath, what they ate or drank, etc!!!!!!!!!!! You see over and over again Paul and the others just asking the church to behave with love towards one another. No callings, no tithing(only voluntary help towards those in extreme need), no pointless temple work for the dead.
"I do not believe it to be a Gospel built in any way upon convenience."
Oh, funny how it is convenient for you to excuse yourself from keeping God´s commandments, and deny the fact that the Bible teaches we are of a corrupt nature… How convenient it is to ignore how that what you call "God´s word" has been tampered with by JS (D&C and the BoM), and call it a strong foundation. Funny how convenient it is for you to accuse Evangelicals of misrepresenting your doctrine while it keeps changing interpretations all the time, like that guy, Terceiro, from the last article demonstrated. How convenient for you to say, when you don´t have time to do genealogy work and spend hours baptizing for the dead(or if you do that you don´t spend time with your family, etc.) and then say everything is going to be OK on the last day… Mormonism is the king of convenience, except when it is about money. You HAVE TO pay your $$ but it won´t be that bad if you just go to the temple once a year every five years.
"That's not Christ's mercy at all. I hope we're all in agreement on that."
No, we are not. You don´t have the least idea what Christ´s mercy is all about, but let me give you a hint
Romans 5:6-10 "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Don´t let Mutu fool anyone with his "take heed of the example of Ananias and Sapphira"
At that time the Church in Jerusalem was very small and very united. They, not by commandment of God, but by love towards one another had all things in common as we read in Acts 4:33-35:
"And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."
But in Romans 5:1-3 we read:
"But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?"
Because of that he and his wife had their lives taken by God Himself. Now, was that because they disobeyed a commandment? If you read the scriptures carefully you´ll see there was never a commandment forcing them to sell all they had and share with each other. What was wrong was Ananias´s deceit. It was the fact that Ananias promised to sell his land and after keeping to himself part of the money he still lied to the Holy Ghost pretending to give to Peter the full price as promised.
That is plainly explained in verse 4: "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."
Now, is that a warning for Evangelicals, or Christians in general as Mutu put it? I argue that it is more a case of warning for Mormons – they are the ones making lots of covenants they are not keeping – they are the ones breaking promises, and if you went by that New Testament "standard" of God killing those who lied to the Holy Ghost, how many Mormons would be dead now for lying in their temple interviews? Think about that Mutu…
"I hope all Christians — Mormon, Evangelical, or what not — take heed of the example of Ananias and Sapphira. Their religious belief did not save them any more than it will save any of us"
Adressing what he actually said(sorry, i´ll stop posting if i can´t devote full attention to what i´m doing) – It´s my opinion, they received punishment but i don´t believe they were sent to hell, or were eternally damned because of it.
Feel free to correct me if you want.
Again, I do not believe I have “twisted” Kimball’s words at all; but I have brought his (and other LDS leaders’) teaching to a logical conclusion. It seems to me that it is the conclusion with which Mutu disagrees. Of course Mormons (including Kimball) do not believe (or expect) that their situation is hopeless or impossible. If they did, they would (and sometimes do) leave Mormonism for the free gift offered by Christ in His Gospel. Kimball expected to be able to achieve the perfect obedience he pledged–some day–and he called others to strive for that same goal, making it perfectly clear that this is what God requires from them.
And indeed, this seems to be what Mutu is arguing for – that Kimball taught a two-edged sword “involving God's promises to us, but also his requirements from us.” Mutu punctuates his agreement with Kimball by repeating Kimball’s question: “Do you expect to go into heaven if you do not do God's will on earth?” In the context of Kimball’s discourse, the requirements implied in “God’s will” are comprised of covenant keeping, commandment keeping, and obedience to LDS leaders (no matter how long it takes to achieve).
The Bible tells me that I can have complete assurance of eternity in Heaven (in the presence of God)–not based on my obedience to laws and ordinances, but based on Christ’s perfect obedience on my behalf (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 5:18-19; Rom 4:23-25; Gal 2:15-16; Gal 3:24); this is the mercy and grace of God. Try as I may, I will fail; but Jesus never fails.
fmelo: "Don´t let Mutu fool anyone with his "take heed of the example of Ananias and Sapphira"
At that time the Church in Jerusalem was very small and very united. They, not by commandment of God, but by love towards one another had all things in common as we read in Acts 4:33-35."
That's an interesting interpretation, fmelo, but the details of the story demand a more rigorous reading then the one you've supplied, I'm afraid. If your reading is true, & this act of the wealthy in giving ALL their inheritance was simply a spontaneous act of love, why are we told that the wealthy laid the cost of their property at the feet of the apostles? If their act of charity was indeed spontaneous, then it would be expected that the distribution of their donation would have likewise been spontaneous. Rather than trust their property to the Apostles, they naturally would've distributed it on their own. Such spontaneous "love" would've had specific, struggling members in mind, & the property wealth would've gone directly to them from the hand of the donator. No, sir, the text more reasonably implies that the Apostles ordered for this very, very huge sacrifice to be performed. Furthermore, if this act of extreme charity was simply a spontaneous act of love then it is very doubtful that the text would describe it as being general among the wealthy of the church ("as many as were possessors of lands or houses").
While I'll admit that it might be possible that one wealthy person/family started this practice & that the rest of the wealthy within the church them followed suit, if that were the case, it would seem reasonable for the narrative to have identified the family or person who started this historic event (reported in two different places in the NT). But it doesn't. While it's true that we can't expect the narrative to include every detail of the history, if one person/family did inspire this event, it seems odd that they go unmentioned, while Ananias is singled out for his stinginess & deceit. But I'll admit that yet another possibility is that perhaps the wealthy within the church collaborated as to what they might do to ease the burden of the poor, & perhaps as a group decided to donate all that they had, putting it fully in trust of the Apostles. And once again, if that were true, it would be nice if such a detail were included in the history, but it is not.
What the text does tell us is that the wealthy in the Church gave what that they had to the Apostles, & that they didn't do it merely as an act of charity, but rather, as the Ananias story reveals, in fulfilling an ideal that ALL their property (not just a portion) be given, & that this wealth would then be "[distributed] unto EVERY man according as he had need." Now, I'll admit fmelo that while the text is clearly describing a strict communal redistribution of wealth, its language stops short of specifying that this was something commanded by the Apostles to the members of the Church. But it seems like the most reasonable explanation. Mormons are hardly the first or only ones favoring such a reading. The Monastic Orders within Catholicism looked heavily to these verses for their basic inspiration, & a good many communal orders were also inspired by it within Protestantism–Calvin & Simon Menno's groups being perhaps the most popular–with the more conservative Mennonites (like the Amish) being the lone holdouts of which I'm aware. And, as I said, the details of the narrative involving Ananias & his wife seem to all but tie down the rightness of this reading.
(continued)
fmelo, do you really think that if Ananias was simply giving his wealth as a matter of spontaneous love as you say, that Peter would've called wrath down upon him because he deceptively made it seem like he had given more than he really had? No, the scripture says that he "held back a portion." The text clearly implies that there was a requirement — extended by Peter the Apostle — for ALL of Ananias's property value. Yes, Ananias & his wife were guilty of deceit, but they were first guilty of falling short of a requirement that can only be attributed to the head Apostle who both collects their property & calls down wrath upon them for falling short of the required amount. The text is very clear on this, & your attempt to say otherwise in like manner falls short of what I would call an honest reading of the scripture. I think you really got to put down your agendas on this one, fmelo, & honestly come to terms with the text.
While I'll agree that the communal system that the early Church lived in its first generation had love as its basic impetus (very few would give up ALL their property blindly out of religious obligation), the text strongly implies that this was not some spontaneous act of love, but was something that the Apostles required of the Church as a set standard & principle. Whether or not you concede this to be a "commandment" is rather pointless. "Commandment," "principle" — whatever you choose to call it — there was a clear monetary requirement extended to all the early church members by the Apostles–a requirement of no less than ALL their temporal inheritance. Furthermore, there's no good evidence that I know of to suggest that Paul's Churches didn't live by the same communal principle at least in the context of their own congregations. Paul's special efforts to collect charity from his Greek congregations for the Jerusalem Church certainly demonstrates that not all wealth went to Peter at Jerusalem, but it doesn't indicate that these Gentile congregations failed to have things in common within their own Asia Minor settings. On that point, the text is less clear, however. I'll admit.
But one further note, fmelo — you describe the "commandments" within Mormonism as "forcing" conformity. I'm sorry, sir, but I have never been "forced" to follow any commandment within the Mormon faith. To believe that such "commandments" come from the Lord is to believe that the commandments are extended with consequences (& blessings). This whole idea is utterly biblical. I get full well that you don't believe God has commanded any man through the LDS leadership, past or present, but to suggest that the whole concept is unbiblical is just plain naive. As a Christian ideal, it's also alarmingly convenient to think God's commands are limited to what we read in the Bible. In the early Church it is very clear that the Lord commanded the Church through his Apostles. And what they had to say was often very inconvenient. Again, I turn you to Ananias.
mutu.
"fmelo, do you really think that if Ananias was simply giving his wealth as a matter of love, that Peter would've called wrath down upon him because he made it seem like he had given more than he really had? No, the scripture says that he "held back a portion." Obviously, the text states that their was a requirement "
It wasn´t an obvious requirement or did you forget tor read verse 4? He didn´t have to sell his property AT ALL if he didn´t want to. Apparently you didn´t read that chapter or the verses i mentioned.
"they were first guilty of falling short of a requirement that can only be attributed to the head Apostle who both collects their property & calls down wrath upon them for falling short of the required amount."
No, that´s your flawed JS inspired unscriptural interpretation of it. When you read that passage in context, it make it clear that he was punished because of his deceit, because HE LIED to the Holy Ghost.
"I think you really got to put down your agendas on this one, fmelo, & honestly come to terms with the text"
Actually you´re the one reading JS communist.. err.. law of (forced)consecration into this.
"the text strong implies that this was not some spontaneous act of love, but was something that the Apostles required of the Church as a unequivocal standard & principle."
Rrrright…. Mormons are good at taking Christ out of Christianity. Christians do things out of love, not because of forced compliance out of fear.
"On that point, the text is less clear, however. I'll admit."
So, why are you fighting for a supposed commandment that is not even clear? It wasn´t a commandment even though Joseph would love if you gave him all that you own, and if you decided to disagree with him he could excommunicate you and the church would keep your property anyways… my goodness, how there are people that love to be fooled out of their money!
"I'm sorry, sir, but I have never been "forced" to follow any commandment within the Mormon faith"
Actually you have sold your soul to the church when you made those covenants in the temple and they have the right to enforce due punishment for your lack of obedience, if they had the political power to do so. Once you´ve made the covenants you´ve made you are no longer free to discuss whether or not you´ll obey them since you´ve already agreed to it and signed the document with your baptism and oaths.
"This whole idea is utterly biblical"
Yes, it is, i know that. The people of Israel, after agreeing with God about their covenant no longer had a choice – therefore for a Mormon to say he is free to choose, is misleading. That´s also the contrast with Christian life where i can serve whoever i want, when it is necessary without having to forcefully comply with a program.
" No, sir, the text clearly implies that the Apostles ordered for this very, very huge sacrifice to be performed. Furthermore, if this act of extreme charity was simply a spontaneous act of love within a very small group then it is very doubtful that the text would attribute the act to as being general among the wealthy of the church ("as many as were possessors of lands or houses")."
Mutu, i´m worried about you. Your heart is cold as ice. You are also stuck in the OT times. Sacrifice? What sacrifice can man do to please God? God even rejected blood sacrifice because were not offered in righteousness… The Apostles demanded an act of extreme sacrifice? Are you joking? They didn´t have to.
"then it is very doubtful that the text would attribute the act to as being general among the wealthy of the church"
Mutu, i believe you´re an intelligent guy. So, i´m going to give you the benefit of the doubt while bringing some facts to mind. First, Jesus disciples were among the poorest of people, they were the lowest class in the economic food chain. They had close to nothing and little if any education. So, if afterwards more wealthy people were joining the church that meant they were the only ones actually capable of contributing with wealth, because nobody else had anything. So, they decided(out of love) to sell their properties to give the money to the Apostles for their own survival and well being and for the well-being of all those original disciples of Jesus, that probably were living out of whatever little they could generate. The Apostles didn´t sustain themselves because they worked full time as missionaries, with the exception of Paul, and maybe others i don´t know, but they didn´t have to, the church was supposed to sustain them in their efforts.
"But it seems like the most reasonable explanation."
No, actually the most reasonable explanation is that given by the text itself. I´m going to paste it here since you didn´t read it in my previous post:
Acts 5:3-4 "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."
See, Mutu, Peter said that Satan had filled Ananias heart to lie to the Holy Ghost – that was the ONLY accusation. So, he didn´t have to sell all he had and give it to the Apostles, he could have kept it if he wanted to because that wasn´t the accusation. Ananias promised to give the full price of the land, and he gave the money to Peter as if it was the full price thus lying to God, with the intention to deceive Peter and the Church.
First of all, I have been very impressed at the quality of the writing in the top posts here. I teach English at a large public university in the Midwest, and seeing well-crafted prose makes me happy. I'd give Sharon an A, if she were in my class.
But of course I'd write a comment at the end about her conclusions. I'm especially interested in this one sentence: "if it takes ten thousand years, you are required by God to do it yourself." This implies that the entire strength to obey must come from the individual, that they must muster up the courage and strength of will on their own to obey. Put that way, it would scare me, too.
It is the same conundrum, when you think about it, as in Matthew 5:48. "Be ye therefore perfect." That imperative form is a nasty beast; it's worded as a commandment: be perfect. Perfect? I can't be perfect! And there's Jesus telling me, nay, commanding me to be perfect. Crap.
But I find comfort in the Gospel, but it isn't "If I try my best, Christ will do the rest." While I do believe that God asks me to do my best (not try; do), there's even more than that. I must be pure. I must be perfect. And still I cannot.
I like the way it's laid out here, in an official, current LDS church publication:
"Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, Heavenly Father has provided the only way for you to be forgiven of your sins. Jesus Christ suffered the penalty for your sins so you can be forgiven if you sincerely repent. As you repent and rely on His saving grace, you will be cleansed from sin" (“Repentance,” True to the Faith, (2004),132–35).
I am commanded to obey, to perfectly obey, and yet I fail. In the Plan of Salvation, I have another chance (and another and another and another) to learn and grow and progress. So that's a little bit of hope, but not quite the whole enchilada, because it's still just me doing all the work and starting over again (fresh, sure, but starting over again) on my own strength. That sounds exhausting.
A quote farther down in the True to the Faith entry previously mentioned encourages me to "Pray daily for the Lord to give you strength beyond your own." And that's the super-cool-magic step. We pray and ask for forgiveness, for help, for additional strength, and then we can achieve. With the metaphorical rocket-boosters of God's power to augment my own, I can do anything. You know what it says in Mark 9:23: " If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth."
You might then, wisely, ask why, if I believe, am I not yet perfect? You might throw out 1 Nephi 3:7 at me and accuse me of either disbelieving that scripture or, through some twisted logic, hating God because I'm not yet perfect. I'm perfecter than I was yesterday and believe that I can grow from grace to grace.
Sharon writes that "according to LDS Apostle Heber C. Kimball, God is not going to do 'the rest.'" But that's not what Kimball says. He doesn't address that at all. To be "compelled to perform" does not preclude divine assistance.
There's a nice, probably apocryphal story about Joseph Smith that illustrates this in a secular setting:
"While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleaded that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the freedom of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. . . . Joseph said, 'I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed, and we will have to impose a fine.'
"The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child" (Young Woman's Journal, XVII, p. 538).
We're commanded to perform, yes. God will hold us to these standards, yes. And he forces us to stretch and grow and operate at a level that is better than our best. The appropriate aphorism here is not "I do my best and God does the rest," but rather, "With God, all things are possible" (which is Matt 19:26 of course, but also the state motto of Ohio).
I just can't get over how people think that somehow quoting the Bible to a Mormon will make him suddenly slap his head and say, "What? Oh! Now I get it!"
Romans 5:6-10: yes! I'm on board with that. "We shall be saved from wrath through him" fits in perfectly with my mainstream Mormon theology. The whole thing fits in perfectly with my theology.
We interpret it differently, I presume. So, understanding that, you should also understand that simply quoting a passage isn't going to sway a Mormon, ever. At least it won't ever sway me (and, I presume, won't sway Mutu, either).
So if you want to show a Mormon that his doctrine is wrong by using the Bible, you'll probably need to delve a little. You'll have to show how a passage from the Bible that's beloved by the LDS people is actually modified by another passage (or perhaps is clarified in another passage that might change the interpretation). You might even roll up your sleeves a bit and show me, for instance, that the Greek is actually saying something different than I presume it to say.
Here's something to chew on, something that might get you started. Look at the phrase "free gift" that Paul uses right there in Romans 5:18. Look it up in your Strong's and see that the Greek "charismatic" was translated to "free gift." Now delve deeper and see that "charis" is the Greek root. And then, if you really want to wow me, do some research and tell me what charis means.
Of course, to make it stick, you'll want to use sources that aren't already emotionally-charged in the debate, so you'll stick away from Bible commentaries and use a different source. Maybe a secular dictionary, or some scholarly (not ecumenical) source. And if you've got something damning to my faith, bring it on! I'm invested in finding the truth, not just running some party line.
Oh, and you can give it up with the "charis" line since, as you might have presumed, I've already beat you to it. And, once you get into the scholarly sources (like its use in Classical Greek, etc) it looks better for my side than for yours. But fear not! I'm sure you can find something. Just make it more than throwing out a Bible passage as if it were self-evidently obvious that you're right and I'm wrong, because that's just a waste of both your time and mine, rhetorically speaking.
"You might throw out 1 Nephi 3:7 at me and accuse me of either disbelieving that scripture or, through some twisted logic, hating God because I'm not yet perfect."
And you accuse people of misrepresenting your doctrine… give me a break. Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments therefore if you don´t keep God´s commandments that means you don´t love Him. That´s why Jesus had to die for us, because we are not capable of loving God because of the fall of Adam that corrupted us all and gave us a sinful, god-hating nature. Mormons aren´t bothered by that because their god was once like they are now, probably a sinful man as well, and he progressed, so, no biggie.
So, you either keep God´s commandments or you don´t. You either love God or you don´t. That´s not twisted thinking, that´s just plain logic.
" "Pray daily for the Lord to give you strength beyond your own." And that's the super-cool-magic step. We pray and ask for forgiveness, for help, for additional strength, and then we can achieve"
Yes, if that was the case all mormons would have been translated by now. Yet if that´s not the case, what are you doing? You´re not getting anywhere.
The little cute story you shared is not in the Scriptures… it doesn´t illustrate what scriptures teach, because apparently Anthony had to pay his fine – that´s not what God does. God´s punishment is extremely serious, it´s not just the light going to telestial kingdom mormonism portrays. With God all things are possible, not because he gives the power to perform, but because He already took on Him the penalty of our sins, and gives it to us freely.
What i believe is going on here is pure pride, they can´t admit that God can do His own work without our help, without man´s intervention. Like in one of those articles that Aaron mistakenly published on sunday, which i´m not going to comment about, but it´s VERY good! I read it on my RSS feed, i didn´t resist…
"Be ye therefore perfect".
I would like to take a quick stab at this one. I've looked into it myself (even the hebrew word that I can't recall right now). Anyways, I am at work and can't go scouring the scriptures again but you should look into this Terceiro.
There were multiple people in the Bible that were called "Perfect". Noah being one and we all know he wasn't perfect. I believe there were 2-3 others as well that were called "perfect".
What your making it sound like is that is a commandment to be sinless – which is not what the meaning of that word is supposed to be. It has to deal with things like being mature, grown to an "adult" spirituality, etc.
God wasn't saying "be sinless" he was saying GROW UP! Be the person I created you to be. Be complete, be mature, be wise.
Mormon Coffee Blog is the greatest blog on earth. If only we could record all comments on audio, I could listen all day. Looking for Forgiveness article had over 150 comments. Life is good. Completely obsessed. Thank you mrm.org.
terceiro wrote
There are some people who, having seen Bible texts in context (e.g. Isaiah 43:10, contra the man-to-god doctrine of Mormonism) have come to the conclusion that Mormonism is a sham. They may not have "suddenly" slapped their heads but, for them, it was as if someone flicked the switch and the lights went on. They came to the realization, contrary to what Mormonism teaches, that the message of Mormonism is at war with the message of Jesus and the Biblical authors.
There are many people who, in their sincere enquiries about Mormonism have come across criticisms of it, but didn't know what these criticisms were based on. The Bible-verses provide this basis.
Mormornism itself claims to believe the Bible as the Word of God (conditional on a "correct" translation; 8AoF), which should give Evs and Mormons a common point of contact. Without it, we'd just be comparing our disparate experiences.
Mormonism also claims to be a restoration of true "primitive" Christianity. That should drive it to the Bible, which has faithfully captured and transmitted the faith of the first Christians.
So, in many ways, the Bible should be regarded as authoritative in Mormonism. It should give us a common frame of reference.
My problem with Mormonism is that it's not treated as such. Instead, whenever there's something in it that's not regarded as "faith-promoting", it's swapped out for the current fad, whatever that is. It's an unstable mix of Christianity and other "stuff", which allows Mormons to retreat into whatever stance they choose; sometimes a kind of Christianism, sometimes the most bizarre paganism, increasingly post-modern-the-truth-is-whatever-I-feel-it-is-ism.
Mormonism is a sea of conflicting currents and tides, into which the believer is tossed and told to swim for himself. You link arms with your colleagues and form a raft occasionally then, when you think you've found some security, you get characters like Heber C. Kimball come down and break it up. It's not incidental; Kimball is just following the pattern that Joseph Smith laid down, who radically revised his doctrine of God from 1830 (BoM) to 1844 (King Follet, BoA etc). If Joseph couldn't decide which "god" he was talking about, how can he possibly offer you salvation in his name? How can he be a true servant, when he can't determine which boss he is serving?
(One thing that gets me angry is that this environment fosters the notion that we can't even begin to understand or know God, or that the stream of revelation is ephemeral, vaporous, and elusive, when the message of the Bible is remarkably clear, coherent and, well, "solid", even "fleshly" – see John 1:14)
The reason I post here is that I hope that there are Mormons out there who sincerely seek God. I quote the Bible, and I comment on the Bible because it illuminates the way to God (Psalm 119:105). I have a problem with Mormonism because it grossly misrepresents the Bible (when it's not deriding it). Mormonism is a road-block on the road to Christ. In my posts here, I hope to demonstrate why that is so.
The Good News is that Christ can be found. Joseph Smith, though, will not lead you to him.
What swayed me as a Mormon wasn´t really the Scriptures. Was the fact the Church lies like there´s no tomorrow. Lies about Joseph Smith, about the restoration of the priesthood, the proven fraud the Book of Abraham, etc. That´s what opened my eyes to actually take the scriptures seriously.
"So if you want to show a Mormon that his doctrine is wrong by using the Bible, you'll probably need to delve a little"
The Bible itself shows your doctrine is terribly wrong, from beginning to end.
"You might even roll up your sleeves a bit and show me, for instance, that the Greek is actually saying something different than I presume it to say."
Why am i going to waste my time if you already told me that is not enough to sway a Mormon. Not even if an Angel appeared to you saying Joseph was a fraud you´ll change… God would have to hit you hard to undo the brainwashing, like it was for me. I´ll no longer submit to any leader from any congregation that says he´s the only path to reach god, like the mormon church does. The right understanding of scriptures to you is what JS says is right, it doesn´t matter what the text says.
"Here's something to chew on, something that might get you started. Look at the phrase "free gift" that Paul uses right there in Romans 5:18. Look it up in your Strong's and see that the Greek "charismatic" was translated to "free gift."
How dare you lecture me on consulting the Greek – look at your Book of Abraham written in Egyptian from Kolob, Book of Moses that has no backing in any manuscript. You want me to take you seriously? It doesn´t matter what concordance i use, it will do no good.
"And then, if you really want to wow me, do some research and tell me what charis means"
I´m not your monkey – do that yourself. That is if you are interested in truth at all.
"Of course, to make it stick, you'll want to use sources that aren't already emotionally-charged in the debate, so you'll stick away from Bible commentaries and use a different source"
Like what? Mormon prophets? As if there is such a thing as someone neutral when it comes to religion.
" And if you've got something damning to my faith, bring it on! I'm invested in finding the truth, not just running some party line."
Oh my goodness – the ENTIRE MRM is dedicated to do that!! This entire blog is. The entire work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner as well as the work of excommunicated Mormon writers, among many, many others. You´re unbelievable.
"Oh, and you can give it up with the "charis" line since, as you might have presumed, I've already beat you to it. And, once you get into the scholarly sources (like its use in Classical Greek, etc) it looks better for my side than for yours."
Oh, sure, like the scholarly sources you´ve brought to the table so far… right. Mormon arrogance oozing from your keyboard.
"Just make it more than throwing out a Bible passage as if it were self-evidently obvious that you're right and I'm wrong, because that's just a waste of both your time and mine, rhetorically speaking"
Like what you´ve been doing here all the time? Hypocrisy much? Even in the face of quotations from your leaders? Yeah, right. You know, for almost two thousand years people have been reading the Bible and never ever came to most of the conclusions your church presents as the truth – especially the one about God being a polygamous exalted man procreating for eternity… odd, huh? I guess the entire Christian world is just dumb and you mormons got it right…
THe bottom line is what Falcon said. You believe in a false god made up by Joseph Smith. Let´s dissect JS´ history and that in and of itself will expose any mormon position on a specific doctrine that is based on that man´s "inspiration" a lie. But, of course, you´ll find a way to fit Joseph´s "honorable" teachings and "truth-claims" in a good frame.
"Anyways, I am at work and can't go scouring the scriptures again but you should look into this Terceiro."
Great, i´m anxious to see Terceiro´s intellectual prowess in Greek! btw, where can i find the Strong´s Dictionary of Reformed Egyptian? I wanted to do a word study of that exact same passage in the BoM.
"There were multiple people in the Bible that were called "Perfect". Noah being one and we all know he wasn't perfect. I believe there were 2-3 others as well that were called "perfect"."
All those you mentioned are in the Old Testament, in Hebrew. Jesus´ words in that scripture were recorded in Greek…
"What your making it sound like is that is a commandment to be sinless – which is not what the meaning of that word is supposed to be. It has to deal with things like being mature, grown to an "adult" spirituality, etc"
Actually the entire passage says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."(Matthew 5:48). In that sense you´re wrong, because Jesus is taking God as the standard of perfection and that also means to be sinless.
terceiro wrote
That's very, very, very odd.
No. not odd in the context of the Christian Gospel, but odd in the context of the Mormon "Gospel".
Firstly, because it's totally the wrong "training" for someone who is destined to become God. Shouldn't you be focussing on setting your own rules? It seems to me, you're better off trying some disobedience – it will give you better experience for your future position of unquestioned leadership.
Secondly, because God (according to the Mormon Gospel) trod this exact same path. So, did he fail too? At what point did he learn to get it right? Is he still learning to get it right?
I shouldn't need to say so, but nowhere in the Bible do we find God learning to obey anything other than Himself.
Thanx for the response, Sharon.
Sharon says: "I do not believe I have “twisted” Kimball’s words at all; but I have brought his (and other LDS leaders’) teaching to a logical conclusion."
You're of course free to believe (naturally, as a Protestant) tht by reminding his Mormon flock of their obligations to their covenants, Heber had led them to trust in faithfulness to commandments (rather than trust in Christ) & had therefore imprecated them by getting them to trust in dead "law" rather than in the living Son of God. But you're guilty of "twisting" Heber's words specifically because Heber never set up this dichotomy of "law" versus "Christ", nor did he in the least imply it. As you admit, you simply carry Heber's words to "their logical conclusion" by imposing these things upon his teaching — conveniently sidestepping Heber's actual teaching to condemn him as you (with your Protestant idealism) hope to find him condemned. But using your same logic I don't see how you fairly fail to condemn Jesus himself for suggesting to the young Rich man that he would need to forsake all that he hath & follow him if he were to have eternal life. In your system of belief, Christ misrepresents himself (& his "free gift" of salvation) if he requires of the man anything more than that he "believe."
Sharon continues: "The Bible tells me that I can have complete assurance of eternity in Heaven (in the presence of God)–not based on my obedience to laws and ordinances, but based on Christ’s perfect obedience on my behalf (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 5:18-19; Rom 4:23-25; Gal 2:15-16; Gal 3:24); this is the mercy and grace of God. Try as I may, I will fail; but Jesus never fails."
What these classic passages of Pauline justification assure you, Sharon, isn't eternity in Heaven in the presence of God, but reconciliation & justification before God's presence in a final judgment (with Christ as your advocate, capable of cleansing you of all sin). That you are indeed assured of this is fully because of the merits of Jesus Christ — of this we are in full agreement. Through his holiness & resurrection, Christ has himself (re)attained the Father's presence, & as a daughter of Adam, he has indeed assured you both an eternal resurrection & a place before he and the Father in a final judgment. Though Christianity has for centuries found in these passages an assurance of God's heavenly realm itself, Augustine simply got the significance of these passages wrong, in large measure because he wanted to see in them a delineation between the right (and saved) Christians on the one hand, & the Christian heretics on the other (who he threw in with the hopelessly damned pagans). But these passages all quite plainly testify that Christ's redemption, like Adam's transgression, was to all men (& women, of course), regardless of religious belief or affiliation. What advantage did the Christian have, then? Through "faith" (rather than mere birth into a religious tradition, as the Jews), the first generation of Christians were brought to the real truth that Christ had indeed established a new covenant with Israel that restored them to the presence of the Father as sons & daughters of God. Death & sin no longer reigned over the believing Christians, because they understood that death was not the end, but that they would not only live again, but in Christ's person would be restored to the presence of God that had been denied Israel on Sinai through their transgression there. That was the basic superiority of Christianity over the "works of the Law" found in Judaism, as Paul would argue time & again. Because the Law of Moses was a lesser covenant given due to transgression, obedience to the "works" of this covenant afforded the believing Christian nothing, who now lived under a covenant established in Christ that entirely fulfilled the covenant of transgression established with Moses.
(continued)
The whole idea that Judaism was wrong because it was based on a system of outward deeds (ritual "works") rather than faith in the free gift of grace, is an inventive reading of Luther. None of these texts that you cite read this way unless an imaginative context is imposed upon the text. (And in fairness, Paul's letters require that a context be imposed upon them, because they were written as responses to people & issues that we know little about, & which Paul in his letters often takes for granted.) But a careful consideration of both Romans & Galatians shows that Paul doesn't castigate Judaism because it's a system of ritual works (versus faith-attained "grace"), he castigates his fellow Christians who believe tht they are somehow obligated to continue fulfilling the ritual works of that covenant after it had been entirely replaced by the covenant of Christ (which covenant Paul unequivocally identifies as baptism in Galatians 3: 25-28, an extension of one of the passages which you cite, Sharon; Paul again plainly identifies baptism as the new covenant in Romans 6: 1-5). It cannot therefore be a dead "work," a mere "sign," as most Protestants maintain.
The confusion between "works" versus "faith" comes because Paul is addressing Christian converts; those who had left their previous religious & social lives (be they Jew or Greek) as an utter act of "faith," rather than simply fulfilling the religion into which they were born. In that, as Paul explained, they took on the heritage of Abraham, who likewise left the religion of his upbringing to follow the true God. In Judaism, to attain justification required continuous deeds of ritual cleansing; but in Christ's covenant, which was made by the Son of God without angelic mediation (as Paul explained in Galatians), no such continual cleansing was recognized, for Christ had emptied us of all sin. For this specific reason was the "gift" offered Christ dishonored by those who thought the works of the Law (of Moses) were also required on top of the baptism covenant. Christ had freed them from the ritual righteousness demanded of the law, yet they still insisted that this ritual righteousness was required (& even tried to convince Gentile Christians that it was required). It was NOT required specifically because Christ's restitution — fulfilled once through taking on his name at baptism — negated all the various forms of restitution from sin offered by the Law.
And with tht explanation, I will make my end, Sharon. I hope you are now a little better informed of Mormon Christology then you were yesterday. But perhaps not. Regardless, I pray that you see that Christianity is a message of hope to believer and unbeliever alike. To the believer foremost, because it is they who faithfully look forward to the final Judgment before God and Christ as the ultimate reality of this world. Death & sin being swallowed up in Christ for all the sons & daughters of Adam.
Sincerely, mutu.
"The whole idea that Judaism was wrong because it was based on a system of outward deeds (ritual "works") rather than faith in the free gift of grace, is an inventive reading of Luther."
I didn´t have time to do a whole study on the matter, but i did a quick google search to find out if that´s true… well this is what i found so far:
"Question: Are there examples from church history of leaders in the Catholic Church who taught salvation by grace through faith alone, or something approaching it?
Answer: Yes, definitely. Most of the quotations from the Church Fathers and Catholic scholars listed below were compiled by James Buchanan in his classic book "Justification" and listed in the abridged version, "Not Guilty" (Grace Publications).
Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).
Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.
Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).
Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."
Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."
Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."
Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."
Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."
Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because…the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but…he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."
Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not."
Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous… it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works…but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."
Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,–in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."
Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and …put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""
Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore…let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls…whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God."
Further reading
Justification in the Ancient Church Fathers by James Buchanan (1519-1605)"
source – http://www.justforcatholics.org/a84.htm
Inventive reading of Luther? Sure… That´s the Mormon mentality all the way, everything in Historic Christianity is made up. That´s ok though, because we think the same about Mormonism.
There are screen-readers you can use for that!
fmelo, as all your patristic & medieval sources are Catholic/Orthodox, I think you should be careful in presuming that their paraphrasing of Pauline doctrine somehow refutes the statement I made & which you cite.
These men all upheld a sacramental form of Christianity very different from your own.
Again, I will repeat: Paul rebuked Christians for upholding the Law of Moses, not because that system was ritualistic, but because it failed to justify its followers to the sinless presence of God. Christ had fulfilled it, & to think that one couldn't be a true Christian without upholding the old Law–as Paul explained–failed to understand the obligations that they had made in their baptism to faithfully take upon them the name of Christ. This new covenant in no way required the Christian to uphold Moses' Law. In Christ (who we take upon us in baptism) Moses' Law (given to unrighteous Israel) was utterly fulfilled.
mutu.
Its the 'group think' that is upsetting. Parallels Steve Hassan's journey out of the Moonies. In two weeks, Hassan quit college, gave Moon his life savings and believed Moon to be the Messiah. Moonies emphasize complete obedience to authority, group think. If a Mormon is born into the culture of do what you can, your best, for the mormon church, they can never be de-programmed. Its not about God. God doesn't need for us to follow His commandments. He gives them to us for our protection and so we may have blessings. Its conditional. If you do this, good things will happen. If you do bad, bad things will happen. If I give you a million dollars, you will be happy. If I take it away, you will be sad.
Bible Answerman had guest from Mormon Research Ministry on yesterday (Tues. Jan. 25. 2011), audio. Eric Johnson Interview and Q&A
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
In the second segment of today’s broadcast Hank interviews Eric Johnson about his article in the latest edition of the Christian Research Journal entitled, Converting Them Softly with Their Words: Mormon Evangelism in the Twenty-First Century. Eric is a graduate of Bethel Seminary with a Master’s in Divinity and works full-time with Mormonism Research Ministry.
Mutu, I did not “set up this dichotomy” that HC Kimball taught “law vs. Christ” or “obedience vs. faith.” You did. This is what I wrote:
I did not address the idea of law instead of Christ, only that HC Kimball taught that God will require people to live up to all of their promises (baptismal and temple covenants, etc). From everything you’ve written, it looks like you agree.
For an informative appraisal of E. P. Sanders’ (and others) teachings regarding the new perspective on Paul offered here by Mutu, see “Was Luther Right?” by Thomas Schreiner.
(Sorry for the multiple attempts at getting this link right, friends. Sigh.)
mantis, you stated some great truths concerning the value of God's Word . Thanks for that. Concerning
what you said about any " deviating from " God's Eternal Word verses faithfulness to His Word ,I have
a comment. What about the claim of Mormonism that their prophets and apostles are the
authority to clarify and interpret the written Word ? These claims of reliability in teaching correct
doctrine are numerous : These leaders provide a source for " unpolluted guidance " ; " the Pres. of
the Church will never teach us false doctrine " [ references available] . When I look over the record
of public teachings by these men I see this claim to be inaccurate . Did not Jesus warn us of future
teachers whose claims of authority to act as God's mouthpiece's would come ? I think you were
correct concerning God's eternal Word , which I take to be the Bible. It is sufficient for me.
terceiro, if I said I was keeping the commandments of God 100%, what would you say to me ? I'm
interested in your thought on this.
ww
WW, Even though Mutu showed some respect for the scriptures, they have little to no authority in mormonism. The Scriptures have become just a source of stories twisted to illustrate whatever it is the Church is putting emphasis on at the moment.
This is an official statement that makes that clear:
"Second fundamental: “The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 26)."
source – http://lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedien…
You have others also:
"Third fundamental: “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet”
This one is for Terceiro, that was criticizing me for not using scholarship in the discussion:
"Fifth fundamental: “The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time” (“Fourteen Fundamentals,” 27)."
"Eighth fundamental: “The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning. …"
Those are good reasons for mormons to keep scholarship out of the discussion(i really don´t have problem with it though, even if it sometimes contradicts what i previously understood about certain topics). The Church has a record of despising intellectuals and scholars because they often disagree with the "Spirit".
f-melo, I understand what you say. In my reply to mantis I was trying to show that we would benefit
in keeping the discussion of the teaching accuracy of Mormon prophets and apostles centered on
the Word of God, the scriptures , this should be our priority. I believe the teachings of these men have
contradicted the Word of God ( the Bible), and therefore they are false teachers/prophets. Jesus
warned us of such men.
ww
You´re absolutely right! Those quotes i posted will be their way to escape any unresolved issues proposed by careful study of the Bible, or anything that will eventually undermine their current doctrines and authority.
In my experience every time i question some of my family members about a specific teaching of the Bible, they say that those things were either just for that time, or that today they have a prophet and they follow what that prophet has determined, that´s who they have to follow. If the Bible is extremely clear they´ll resort to "the Bible has been corrupted" explanation, and just ignore.
Obviously Mutu doesn´t seem to take that kind of approach, or maybe he is just taking the Bible seriously to be able to communicate with people here.
Violet,
At one time we did do audio presentations on Mormon Coffee. I had a whole series on one of the threads. I don't know if they are around any more. It would be under "the falcon's greatest hits". That last part is a joke, but I did do a bunch of audio presentations. Really took a long time putting them together.
I always get out of these discussions especially from the Mormons who post here. They seem to be thrashing about looking for some sort of basis to believe that Mormonism is true but at the end of the day, eventually, when their backs are against the wall, what we are going to get is, "I bear my testimony." Now the intellectual types generally take a little longer to get there than the rank and file spewers of Mormon mottos and platitudes. However at the end of the day, we're going to get the burning in the bosom testimony.
No intellectually honest person will embrace Mormonism. The idea of a restored gospel proposed by a practitioner of folk magic with a (magic) rock in his hat, is a little too much for most people. You don't even have to get into the historical record or examine Joseph Smith's life and visionary claims to push Mormonism down the dirty laundry chute of bad religious ideas.
But some people dig it (Mormonism) and they will fight like crazy like a drowning man gasping for air, to make it true for themselves.
I keep asking myself why people would reject the living God for a "god" that is one of countless other gods who made themselves into gods from their former position as sinful men?
This is spiritual warfare and everyday I become closer to being a Calvinist based on these interactions.
Ah, yes, the Matthew 5 teaching to be perfect. John Wesley got this right when he talked about Christian Perfection. It's not a matter of being perfect in performance, but a matter of being perfect in love. The context of Matthew 5:48 is to love our enemies. Sure, we can love our parents, siblings, spouses, children, friends, and those who treat us well, but to love our enemies is a love that matches the love of God. Later, Jesus commands us to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. When one truly studies the 10 commandments, we can see that man can keep them if he truly loved God and others as himself. We need to see obedience within the context of relationships–right relationship with God and others. So, perfection spoken of in Matt. 5:48 has everything to do with relationships, which will impact our behaviors. It's really a matter of the heart, not a matter of mere performance. So, I submit that one of the evidences of a Spirit-empowered life is to love God and others perfectly, which does not mean that we will be perfect in the execution of such love–which is why we need daily reflection, conviction, repentance, and God's grace.
Blessings…
So anyway what I'm saying is that after observing one of my Christian buddies having deep philosophical, intellectual, well documented discussions with a well-healed Mormon University type (for months), at the end of the day these are still people who with all their hearts believe that Joseph Smith stuck his head in his hat and read messages from God off of a magic rock. Now where are you going to go with that? These Mormons are literally trying to make a silk purse out of sows ear with their intellectualizing and philosophizing. Anyone who thinks that he's going to turn himself into a god, with a little help from his deity, isn't going to be to impressed with well framed arguments filled with heavily documented information and Biblical sourcing. The Church Fathers went through this same thing with the heretics.
Just think of what these folks have to do to make it work. They even have to resort to wild speculative conspiracy theories to explain why Mormonism isn't contained in the NT, or why there's no archeological evidence for the BoM, or why Joseph Smith was marrying women already married and on and on and on. That's why I say that with every passing day I'm being pushed further into Calvinist theology. How else can we explain this?
Thank God that through His Holy Spirit He drew me to Himself that through His grace and the gift of faith, that I might believe on Him and His Son Jesus Christ and in that, have the gift of eternal life.
2 Tim. 4:2-5 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."
I think that scripture sums up the work here of MRM, and that of you Falcon and many others. Even though they won´t listen, you´re still making full proof of your ministry, and that´s what we are called to do, right? Keep it up!
I love reading your posts. Thanks falcon. The replies for terceiro from everyone on Looking for Forgiveness were 'out of this world.' Forgive the pun. (hee hee..)
Terceiro,
As you probably understand, Mormons and Christians do not operate from shared presuppositions. I understand that you want to use the Bible in a way that shows you have some authority in its use. The question is whether or not the Bible is authoritative for you. You are correct that Mormons don't respond to a use of the biblical texts with a "What? Oh! Now I get it!" One of the reasons is because of the faulty lense Mormons where, and this lense is called the 8th AOF. With this lense, Mormons not only question the interpretation of the Bible, but they hold it against the standard of the BOM, D&C, and PGP. I say that if the Bible were truly authoritative for the Mormon, then he would have to question the very teachings of JS. But, Mormons question the veracity of the Bible in light of JS teachings.
Praying for you…
It seems to me, Terceiro, that you are disengenuous when saying that Romans 5:6-10 fits in with your theology. Mormon theology is built on making oneself worthy through works to enter God's presence. My evidence for this is the quest for a temple recommend, which one can only receive by not doing certain things and by doing other things. This is what makes the Mormon worthy. And, without a TR, how can one get into God's presence without having a new name, without knowing the right hand shakes, and without knowing the names of the signs and tokens to get through the veil? It is incongruent to claim that this passage is in alignment with your theology while maintaining a hope in the tempe system of entering God's presence.
Praying for you…
"What these classic passages of Pauline justification assure you, Sharon, isn't eternity in Heaven in the presence of God…"
This is the "joy" of the Mormon message, that one cannot be assured of his or her eternal status until judgment day. There is blessed assurance of where we will end up when we believe in Jesus Christ–in God's presence. There's an old hymn I fell in love with when I was coming out of Mormonism, and one of the lines goes like this: Grace, grace, God's grace, grace that is greater than all my sin.
It is the Mormon message that what Christ did on the cross is not good enough to get us into God's presence, but that it merely opens the door for us to earn our way there through works.
Blessings…