I talked to the missionaries and they asked me to read the Book of Mormon (BOM), especially Moroni 10:4 and pray about it. They were so excited that I actually agreed to read the book, I couldn’t let them down. Besides, they said that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was the one true church on earth today. If it really is true, I needed to know about it. I decided to read the last chapter first, Moroni 10 because they had already pointed out verse 4. Sounded good, until I got to 10:32, I was a little concerned with what it said, but I decided to read the introduction.
The intro says that Joseph Smith told the brethren that the BOM is the “most correct book on earth and people will get closer to God by reading it than any other book.” Wow, I really wanted to know God, so I decided to read the entire book. It’s written in King’s English, just like my King James Bible so it took a little getting used to, but I managed. I didn’t know the Hebrews in Egypt knew 17th century English, but I had faith and the missionaries were so darn eager for me to read it.
It didn’t take me long to get to 1 Nephi 3:7. It says that God will not give me a commandment that I can’t keep. Really? I know that I can’t keep every commandment every day. I started thinking that I wasn’t worthy enough for God. I hoped that there would be some way to get closer to God because I was really struggling with sin. I kept reading.
Soon, I got to 1 Nephi 13 and 14 and learned about the great abominable church and that there were only two churches on the earth, the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the Devil. The missionaries already told me that the LDS church was the one true church, so I knew what the Lamb of God church was. I grew up Catholic and I knew that the Catholic Church wasn’t my favorite church, but it says that everyone that is a member of any other church is of the Devil. I don’t think that I am of the Devil and I don’t think that my family and friends are of the Devil. That sounded pretty harsh for a loving God. I continued to read.
I read about the trip that the family of Lehi took to the Americas and the trials and tribulations that followed them. I read 2 Nephi 9:27 and it says woe to me for my awful state. I transgress commandments. Transgress means sin. That is why I needed to find God, I am a sinner and the BOM says woe to me. I read up to 2 Nephi 25:23 and had a question. What does “after all you can do” mean? Does it mean that I need to stop sinning, or does it mean that I need to join the LDS church; does it mean that I need to see all my family as the devil? I don’t understand what that means do you?
I continued to read about wars and peoples, cities and prophets, coins, horses, elephants, steel, glass, etc. It was a great story. Plenty of action and bible verses. It sounded great. I had never heard about this history of the Americas before. I was reading in Alma and there was another verse that really weighed down on me. I know that I must always do what God says, and Alma 11:37 seemed impossible to me. It says I couldn’t be saved in my sins. I need to be saved. But it says God can’t save me in my sins. I always thought that God could do anything, but I guess that He can’t save me in my sins. I know that I am a sinner. I started to feel doomed. But I listened to the missionaries and they said that the BOM was true. If it is true, I’m in real trouble.
It didn’t take long to reach Alma 34. The missionaries told me that I could repent and I would be saved. Great! I could repent and my sins would be forgiven. But I sin every day. I would need to repent every day to make sure that I would live with Heavenly Father again if I died unexpectedly. I read in Alma 34:32-35 that I needed to repent of all my sins before I die or I will be sealed to the Devil. But the missionaries told me that I would be sealed to my wife and children and be a family for eternity. But if I’m sealed to the devil, are my wife and kids sealed to the devil also? Again, I always sin. It may not be a big sin, but it is still a sin. There must be something more.
That something more better hurry, because I read Alma 42:30. I can’t excuse myself from any of my sins. Big, little, any sin. But maybe teeny, tiny sins are OK. I hoped there was a loophole for people like me.
I finally got back to Moroni and continued to read. There was 10:4 again saying that I must pray about the truth of the BOM. By this time, I was really depressed. Then 10:32 hit me hard.
“Yea, come unto Christ and be perfected in Him,”
Sounds great! I really needed to be perfected because I am a sinner
“and deny yourself of all ungodliness,”
I still can’t do this, what’s next?
“And if ye shall deny yourself of all ungodliness, and love God with all your
might, mind, and strength,”
I will try, but sometimes I will question things and sin occasionally.
“then is His grace sufficient to you.”
If I deny myself of all ungodliness then what am I? I’m perfect. But only Jesus was perfect. If I am perfect, why would I need grace? But what if I can’t deny myself of all ungodliness? I still need His grace! I’m a sinner. I really need grace. But it won’t be sufficient for me. God loves me, I need His grace. But the God in the BOM can’t save me in my sins. But I again listened to the missionaries and they told me that there was always repentance and the atonement. Good, there must be something more. I prayed about the BOM, but I didn’t get that “burning in the bosom” that the missionaries said that they felt. I decided to look deeper into the LDS church because the missionaries were adamant that the church is true. I went to engineering school and research comes naturally to me. I decided not to judge the church on just the BOM, even though it does say that it the “most correct book of any on earth, and the keystone of our religion.”
I bought a quadruple combination from LDS.org. It contains the KJV Bible with Joseph Smith’s changes in the footnotes, the BOM, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrines and Covenants (D&C). That’s a big book! Tons of commandments, laws, rules, etc. The missionaries referred to D&C a number of times. Maybe I would start to feel better about my salvation and eternal life by reading that book.
I was wrong. Right from the start, in D&C 1:31-32, I knew I was in big trouble. There was no way I could even get by with tiny little sins. Remember Alma 42? No more little white lies, looking at a pretty girl, covetousness, hatred, are there more? I’m sure there are. God couldn’t look upon ANY sin with the least degree of allowance. Again, I thought God could do all things, but I guess not. But wait, there may be a way out of my predicament. In verse 32 it says, “He that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven.” I need that forgiveness, desperately.
I looked up repentance in the index and it says “requires” with D&C 58:43. I needed to know how to repent because I needed to be saved. The only way I could be perfect is by grace and that requires repentance. I read, “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins, behold, he will confess them and forsake them. What does forsake mean? I looked it up in the dictionary. It says I can’t do it anymore. Forsake means abandon. Abandon means stop. Again, I need to stop sinning. I CAN”T. It’s too hard! There is no way I can do it! But remember 1 Nephi 3:7, it says that I can do it! Will I ever be worthy enough?
I wanted to find out what happens if I sin again after I repent. Back to the index and under SIN, it says D&C 82:7, “former sins return…” I looked up the verse. I shouldn’t have done that.
“And now, verily, I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge;
go your way and sin no more;
There it is again, I can’t sin again, ever!
“but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.”
Great, I’m right back where I started from. Will I ever be worthy enough?
Now I really needed forgiveness. Again, the missionaries said that all we need to do is try our best and God will know that we are sincere and enduring to the end. That sounded good, but I couldn’t find where trying was enough in the scriptures that I had read. The missionaries to the rescue again! They said that is what modern day prophets were for, to clarify the scriptures and provide guidance to the people of this dispensation.
I tried deseretbooks.com. Bingo! I was looking for modern day prophets and their teachings. I bought “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” and “Miracle of Forgiveness”, by Spencer W. Kimball. These two guys were supposed to be God’s prophets on the earth, so I had better listen to them. Plus, I needed that miracle that Kimball’s book talks about. I really needed that forgiveness. My sin just continues to happen.
Joseph Smith was the man who brought about the restoration of the Gospel, so I decided to read his book first. Pretty boring, not much that told me about my eternal life, until page 150. What did the missionaries say, “We repent every day.” But Joseph Smith, the Prophet Himself, says that daily repentance doesn’t please God. God is already mad at me and can’t save me in my sins, so now I can’t even repent every day! What happens if I die on my way home from work? Remember Alma 34, I’m sealed to Satan. But God only wants us to try our best, I hope.
“The Miracle of Forgiveness.” What a great title to a book. I was sure that in this book I would have all my worries put to rest. Forgiveness is a miracle. I needed a miracle to forgive a sinner like me. I started reading.
The title of the first chapter already had me worried, “This Life is the Time.” I already knew what that meant. Remember Alma 34. The second chapter’s title wasn’t much easier on me, “No Unclean Thing Can Enter.” I know that I’m unclean, but I didn’t know how dirty I really was until I got to pages 23-25. Remember that I asked if there were more sins I needed to know about? Spencer Kimball found them for me! I’ll be honest, if this is the list of sins that I need to repent of, and be finished with by the time I die, I have no hope. The church is true and the BOM is true, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and Spencer Kimball was a prophet, and prophets don’t lie (I don’t think), and the church teaches this information. But all I need to do is try. Trying is enough for God, right? I can’t find it anywhere in the books I have read, but the missionaries are certain trying is all that needs to be done. I better not trust the scriptures and the books the church publishes, only the missionaries. They really know their doctrine!
I read further in “Miracle of Forgiveness.” Now I’m really praying for that miracle it talks about in the title. I need grace, forgiveness, salvation, sealing to my family, exaltation, worthiness, etc. I’m trying my best. I have all the desire in the world to please God. That is all that God asks for, trying and desire. I have all the blessings, or so I thought. Chapter 12 sealed my eternal doom.
Again, the title was familiar, but not comforting, “Abandonment of Sin.” Where did I hear that before? I remember, D&C 58:42-43. Abandon means forsake, forsake means stop. I asked myself how well I was doing with abandoning my sins. Not good. I really want to abandon them, really! I didn’t even get off the first page of the chapter before I knew I had a problem. “Desire Is Not Sufficient.” Great! “The saving power does not extend to him who merely wants to change his life.” I sincerely want to change my life. Am I saved if I really, really truly want to change? Nope. I agree that wanting to change is different from trying to change. At least that is what God wants us to do, right? Work! Spencer doesn’t stop with desire.
“Trying is Not Sufficient.” The final hammer fell. Those two missionaries didn’t have all the answers, did they? Up until this point, I truly believed that little saying, “We do our best, and Jesus does the rest.” Spencer Kimball, a prophet of God declares, “Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin.” “To try is weak.” “To ‘do the best I can’ is not strong.” We must always to better than we can.” What is better than we can? We can do anything (1 Nephi 3:7). Where is that miracle?
Now I knew what “after all you can do” meant in 2 Nephi 25:23. It is the complete abandonment of all of my sins before I die. I can’t just want to, I can’t just try. I must live up to the scriptures and teachings of the prophets. I must deny myself of all ungodliness, do all I can do, abandon every sin, not repent every day, endure to the end (end of what? I’m still unclear), and remain worthy. What happens to me if I don’t complete my repentance before I die? I’m sealed to Satan. Do I make it to the Celestial Kingdom? No. Do I have my eternal family? No. Can I progress in the post-mortality? No. I must be PERFECT.
No one is perfect, therefore, there is NO HOPE! There must be something more. A loving, caring, merciful, and just God would never teach that there is no hope. Fortunately, there is a God that understands the nature of His creation.
My journey through Mormonism didn’t end the way I thought, or the way the missionaries wished it would have. The missionaries were so happy (how I can’t figure out) and knowledgeable (well, somewhat) and certain (I heard their testimonies 5 times). They “knew” that if I only prayed about the BOM, I would have that “burning” and “know” that it is true. I sincerely prayed about the Mormon Church. The Holy Spirit clearly told me that it wasn’t true and guided me to the Bible.
When you enter a cult, the first thing they do is give you a new name or call you brother or sister. Then it is harder to leave because you are leaving a 'family.' Jesus told us to turn away from anyone who does not want to follow Him. You are not following Jesus. You are doing exactly what Jesus warned us of. Do not follow your 'feelings'. Follow him. Beware of wolves' in sheep's clothing preaching a false doctrine.
Oh. And what is the Third Article of Faith?
fmelo said,
That’s right fmelo, the Methodist and Presbyterian churches in Australia believe very much in salvation despite works, as Martin Luther also taught. That is why they are ordaining openly homosexual ministers and accepting of homosexual unions (as homosexual marriage in Australia is illegal at the moment). That is definitely living a life that is saved without works. And yes, these are Christian churches, aren’t they?
Then there is also the acceptance of people having sex before marriage, which is known in the Bible as fornication. There are numerous Christian churches that accept, or have in the past accepted this – Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican and Pentacostal to name a few.
So go ahead and tell me that these people are not Christian according to your definition (I know RickB believes this as he has said it before), and that they are not saved, but they are living what you believe is taught in the Bible – that one is saved by faith in Jesus despite works. And no I am not making these examples up, the former is in the newspapers and the latter is from personal experience with friends that belong to these congregations.
“The Third Article of Faith,” Children’s Songbook of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 123
Smoothly
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ,
all mankind may be saved,
by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
Words: Joseph Smith, 1805–1844
Music: Vanja Y. Watkins, b. 1938. © 1978 IRI
Hebrews 5:9
Doctrine and Covenants 93:38
Ralph, Again, READ YOUR BIBLE. The Bible (or better yet, JESUS) tells us that not everyone that says Lord, Lord Knows Him. As I also said before, and you if I recall correctly agreed with me. If I say I am a Mormon, better yet A TRUE BLUE MORMON, yet Teach the Gospel that I believe, which is different from you, You would tell me I am not a Mormon and cannot teach it. Let me re-word it, Going back to the What if Topic I said I wrote.
What if I put on an elder badge, Went Door to Door and said hello My name is elder Beaudin and I am from the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. I believe in the Holy Trinity, One God period, The Bible only, Not the Book of Mormon, or the Qur'an or Modern day prophets. You would tell me I cannot say that and I am not a Mormon just because I say so. Am I correct? If So then how come I cannot say to people you are not really Christians if you reject the Bible and Jesus. Also the Bible tells us that many false prophets will arise from with in our own ranks to deceive.
How come these people cannot be labeled as false prophets? How come they must be true believers just because they say they are? Read the OLD TESTAMENT, Read about the ark of the covenant. It hold the tablets that the ten commandments were written on, it also holds the Aaron's rod that budded and a jar of manna. Now guess what else? It is covered by the mercy seat which has the blood upon it, so the law is covered by mercy, guess what else, If anyone removes the mercy seat and looks into the law they die.
It's a symbol of Christ and the law, The law cannot save, the law only brings about death, only Christ can save, and works cannot play any part in our being saved. The Bible is clear, anyone who wants to abide by the law is cursed. Also works cannot save and have no part in saving us, thats why people on their death bed and death row, and anyone who repents, if they all of a sudden drop dead will be saved. Man I'm tired of you guys trying to bring people back under the law.
Let me add one more thing, Go back to Adam and Eve. After Adam and Eve sinned they did a work, They Covered themselves by works of their own Hands. God said Thats Not Good enough, so God Covered them. When God covered them Adam and Eve Had no say or part in the deal.
Look at Cain and Able. Why was Able's Gift Pleasing to the Lord and Cain's was Not? Able had nothing to do but care for the Sheep, Cain worked with his hands and brought forth a gift, A gift by his own hands, his works, verses What God provide and it also was a blood offering, the sheep could be killed and use for a sin offering, you could not get blood from a turnip or some other vegetable.
Also Just because someone sits in a church or even goes to one does not make them saved, any more than if I go to a burger place does not make me a worker their.
http://seminary.lds.org/manuals/Book-of-Mormon-se…
THE GREAT PLAN OF HAPPINESS
Agency
“1. All beings are subject to divine law, obedience to which brings blessings. Disobedience results in suffering and damnation.
“2. Each person has the divine gift of agency to choose good or evil. A person may worship how, where, or what he or she may, but only by learning and obeying celestial laws can he or she be exalted.
“3. Each person can choose and act for him- or herself only as he or she gains knowledge of good and evil and is influenced by one or the other” (“Basic Doctrine,” Charge to Religious Educators, 3rded. [1994], 85).
The proper exercise of our moral agency is essential to becoming like God (see 2Nephi 2:14–16 ). There are, however, some consequences to granting us the opportunity to choose. As essential as agency is to our growth, it was inevitable that we would not always choose correctly. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” ( Romans 3:23 ). This consequence was anticipated and provided for in the plan the Father presented to His children in a premortal council.
http://seminary.lds.org/manuals/Book-of-Mormon-se…
THE GREAT PLAN OF HAPPINESS
Judgment
When the Father presented His plan and proposed the creation of an earth, His purpose was to “prove” His children to see if they would keep His commandments (see Abraham 3:25 ). Through the Prophet Joseph it was revealed that we will be judged not only on the basis of what we do but also on what we desire in our hearts (see Alma 41:3–6 ; D&C 137:9 ).
The Judgment and the Resurrection are closely intertwined, and part of our final judgment will take place as we are resurrected. All will come forth in the Resurrection with perfect bodies, but they will differ in glory. All will be raised with a body appropriate to the kingdom they will inherit, be that celestial, terrestrial, or telestial. Sons of perdition will be resurrected but will not be given any degree of glory; they will be cast out into outer darkness (see 1Corinthians 15:35, 39–42 ; D&C 88:28–32 ).
President Packer said:
“After all have been dealt with equally, a judgment will be rendered (see Mosiah 3:18 ; see also Teachings, 218–19). Each will be resurrected in his or her own order (see 1Corinthians 15:21–23 ). The glory one receives, however, will depend on obedience to the laws and ordinances of our Father’s plan (see 1Corinthians 15:40–42 ).
"You can´t just zoom in in a little piece of your theology that resembles Christianity and pretend that represents the Mormon Gospel."
I'll accept that. But I can try to find one little piece of the gospel where we agree and try to find common ground. My whole goal in this discussion was to try to (a) correct a few misconceptions about the Mormon doctrine of grace and (b) show that there is SOME similarity between my beliefs as a mainstream Mormon and yours. I did not mean to imply that my beliefs were entirely the same, or that the doctrine we preach in the LDS church is the same as you'd get in any representative Evangelical congregation. Clearly they are different, and those differences are important. But I do not believe that they are all encompassing.
Clearly, I have failed at both goals. You (as a group) refuse to accept my description of the Mormon understanding of grace despite my referencing some pretty canonical sources for interpretation (the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, http://mormon.org/jesus-christ for example). I regret that my powers of communication have not been up to the task.
My little paragraph was not intended to be a whole description of Mormon doctrine, though it is a description that is compatible with Mormon doctrine. As a Mormon, I can whole-heartedly say, "Yes, that is how I understand grace and how I see grace operating in my life" and still see the need for tithing, etc. I simply want to point out that grace is the key for salvation for all Mormons.
I'm especially sorry that I've disappointed you, f_melo, because you seem reasonable and compassionate. I really did not mean to ignore your question, but, as I mentioned, I have only short time to dedicate to our conversation here. I promised to respond to your questions, and I will.
I suppose the difficulty I am having here is that I am using the plural "you" to speak to people I presume participate in orthodox Christianity. And by orthodox Christianity, I mean accepting doctrine from one of the major Christian denominations. Because, I figure that most people who read the Bible will agree with the interpretations of Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Wesley or whichever historical figure who is the founder of a major Christian denomination. The fact is that your arguments against the necessity of baptism contradict them all. So if I am wrong here, so are the Baptists and the Methodists and the rest of 'em.
Are we all wrong? And if the sin of believing that there are requirements to receive the free gift of grace makes me destined for Hell, I suppose I am comforted in knowing that I won't be lonely. (That's humor, folks.)
I apologize that I have incorrectly lumped you in with that group. Since your doctrine does not fit into any of those categories, I'm sometimes not sure how to respond, because I know their doctrine but not yours. (And y'all will respond that your doctrine is the doctrine of the Bible. But please humor me and acknowledge that there is clearly some room for intelligent people to reach different conclusions about the Bible's teaching. Or else everyone is an idiot except you. And I'm not willing to call Calvin and idiot, for one, nor Wesley nor the rest of 'em. They're not idiots, not one of them, and they don't even agree amongst themselves. So let's not assume that our interpretations of scripture is obvious. Failing that, you might imagine that we're all just dumber than you and can treat us with pity rather than scorn. I'm OK either way.)
So let me restate: I have a list and the orthodox Christian churches all have lists: we differ only in the application, not the principle.
Ralph, your argument is that they are not Christian because they're not living up to their own standards, and of course by that standard every church fails.
But do they require works? Yes! They do. Read the official doctrinal statements for them and you'll find that they assert the NECESSITY of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. It's in the official statement of the SBC and of the UMC and of the Catholics and… you get the idea.
The question is do they preach the necessity of "good works"? That is, do they preach that a person must behave up to a certain standard in order to receive grace. No, none of them preach that. (Actually, the Catholics kind of do, but I honestly get all confused once we start talking about working out of purgatory and so I'm ignoring that for now. Besides, I suspect this group trends pretty heavily Evangelical. Just a hunch.)
There is a difference between "works" and "good works." It's pretty important, actually.
Rick, I'm sure you're a swell guy, but I'm totally confused by your comment. Maybe it's late or maybe I'm just dumb. Probably both. I'd love to give you a response, but I'm just speechless.
Rick, your fingers must be tired! That's quite a lot of stuff there. It is more than I can deal with in this format, alas. (They're a frustrating system sometimes, don't you think? I've entirely given up trying to read these comments on my iPhone. I don't know why but they take forever to load.)
I'll make two quick points and then, sadly, have to leave the rest for another day–perhaps when we can deal with things with more granularity.
First: does Mormonism differ from the Christianity practiced by most non-Mormon believers? Yes. You don't need to show me that we're different, I get it. But we're not as different as some people make us out to be. At least, not different in everything. You might keep denying it, but I'll keep asserting it–and I don't think we're going to budge here. So let's just leave it at this: I think we have some similarities. You think I'm an idiot who has nothing whatsoever the same as your belief.
Second: we must sometimes interpret scripture, must sometimes recognize metaphor, and must sometimes bear multiple scriptures in mind. Let me pick one particularly controversial example: at the baptism of Jesus we have all three members of the Godhead represented–the Son is in the water with his cousin, John; the Father is heard speaking from above; the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. If we take this scripture by itself, it would argue for a pantheon of gods, right? Fortunately for you, there are plenty of other scriptures that teach that God is one. So we read the story of Jesus' baptism while keeping in mind these other scriptures, else we'll reach a wrong conclusion. I assert the same right to interpret my scriptures. You'll perhaps interpret them differently, and will perhaps bring different passages to bear in that interpretation. But the text is neither yours nor mine, and we both have a right to read and understand it as we see best.
The point is that your apparent discrepancies are, generally speaking, only discrepancies in your interpretation. I've read the Bible, I've read it closely, multiple times. I've read the Book of Mormon, etc, in the same way. I don't' see them at odds. I am not an idiot, and you are not an idiot–let's please stop treating me as if I were. Thanks.
Really? Playing the Hitler card? I thought we'd have to get to at least a hundred comments before Adolf showed up. (I'm only teasing: you were trying to attribute a quote, that's all. Still, it wasn't him, at least originally (though he might have repeated it at some point). A better source is William James.)
It *is* in the manual. It's in Preach my Gospel and in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and on http://mormon.org. All those sources also, as I mention above, build upon that foundation, yes. They each talk about the importance of obedience and repentance. But what I'm arguing here is that canonical Mormon doctrine is that grace is the central fact and obedience is secondary. And if somehow you missed all those lessons about the atonement of Jesus Christ being the only means for salvation, I am, yes, sorry. Because I hear it all the time. I hear it in general conference and in sacrament meeting. I read it in the Book of Mormon.
Are there lessons and encouragement to be obedient and to repent? Obviously. Do we disagree about the necessity of obedience and repentance? Again, that seems pretty obvious. I'm not trying to pretend that those differences do not exist or that they do not matter. They matter. They are differences. We disagree about the importance of obedience (sometimes described as "enduring to the end") and repentance. I think that obedience and repentance are part of the plan; you think they are not part of the plan. Can we agree with this description?
But you believe, as I understand it, that Jesus provides grace to those who believe, and with that grace they receive salvation. Right? I honestly hope I'm correctly portraying your beliefs; I don't want to put words into your mouth or to do any injustice to your faith. Honestly, I am trying to understand and to restate your beliefs.
Presuming I have it correctly, then we would describe it algebraicaly (more or less) like this:
If a person X, then through the grace of Jesus' he will be given Y.
If I understand correctly, for you X=believe and Y=salvation.
If you're a practicing Methodist, et al, your X=believe, be baptized, and partake of the Lord's Supper.
If you're a Mormon, then X=believe, be baptized, repent, endure to the end, et al.
If you're a Mormon, then Y=exaltation.
My X includes different things than your X. I might understand Y to be different than you do. But the part I'm trying to argue is that the part in the middle is the same. The equation "If a person X, then through the grace of Jesus' he will be given Y" works for you and for me. What also works for you and for me is that "person" is by necessity a sinful person who is therefore undeserving of Jesus' grace.
Again, please forgive me if I have mischaracterized your faith. I'm not trying to (re)convert you, only trying to show similarities.
Do I keep commandments perfectly? Heavens, no. But I try and I repent when I fail. I'm commanded to repent, and the power of Jesus' atonement makes it possible for me to start over often. And 1 Nephi 3:7 does say that God always prepares a way, yes. I do believe that he gives no commandment that is impossible to keep. And, alas, I'm still to weak. We all are. We all fail, often. How glorious that through the atonement I can repent and try again. I love God, yes, I do. Which is why I keep trying.
Am I a pitiful hypocrite? Yeah, I guess so. Here I stand as one who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ and to love my fellow man and to keep His commandments, and yet I make mistakes all the time. I'm not perfect. And still God loves me. The atonement of Jesus Christ allows me to repent all the time. Brigham Young talked about repenting every five minutes, and, well, I guess that's how it goes sometimes. Hypocrisy is only one of my sins: I'm also prideful, quick to anger, sometimes slothful. Two weeks ago I downloaded a pre-release copy of the Decemberists new album (which I purchased once it was officially released–just in case any record label folks are reading this). And God really did provide a way that I could have avoided all that ugly sin–but I'm simply not good enough. And I never will be. Happily, even after all I try to do, there is the grace, the atoning blood of Jesus, by which I am saved.
[continued below]
[continued from above]
Send the missionaries home? Look, I hope you have read enough of my comments to know that I'm a sincere Mormon, even if I don't always express myself as clearly as I would like, and that I try to be generally a good-natured, pleasant, and happy guy. Even online when I'm called a pitiful hypocrite. I am, by and large, a very happy guy. I am happy in part because I have a deep love for my Savior and because I feel His love for me pretty regularly.
I am happy because I look at my wife and I look at my kids and I think about being sealed with them eternally. I am happy because I honestly love the Book of Mormon and the Bible both, and I feel happy when I read them. I am happy because I feel privileged to believe that Thomas S. Monson is a real, honest to goodness prophet–and that it is amazing to receive counsel from someone of such stature. These things make me happy. And I think they will make other people happy, too. I've seen it happen, dozens and dozens of times. I see that happiness in the lives of those over whom I have stewardship in my calling (or, sometimes, I see comfort and strength in times of great trial for others). I won't send home the missionaries because I believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ gives more tools to help those in need, gives more reason for rejoicing for those who follow.
I went out with the missionaries last week and visited with an eighteen year old boy and his seventeen year old girlfriend. He has a strong background with the Bible and is a good, believing Christian. His girlfriend is… well, she doesn't know what she is. Let's say that she's lost, spiritually speaking. She is discovering truth as she learns from the missionaries; she is developing a relationship with God that she's never sought before. She is coming to know her Father.
He ended the last meeting by telling the missionaries how much he liked the meetings, even though he didn't believe everything he was hearing. He said (more or less, I didn't actually record the conversation or anything): "I might never come to believe in the Book of Mormon or in Joseph Smith, but I like it when you guys come around. I like talking about this stuff because it helps me feel closer to God. I want to keep meeting with you guys even if I never join the Church." I responded with one of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith: "If I esteem all mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No! I will lift them up and [each] in his own way if I cannot persuade him my way is better!"
I know we don't agree on everything, but I would hope that we could agree that it is a noble thing to "lift them up and each in his own way if I cannot persuade him my way is better." Heck, it's what I'm trying to do here.
I Commend you on your verbal slap in the face to terciero that is a nice way to win people to Christ. I am glad you are able to tell people what they believe. You must realize that we worship the same God- the God who created me also created you-we just see him differently. We also live in a world where you have to put up with different people and there different beliefs. We can't say 'if you cannot see things my way off with your head.'
Violet: whew, there's a lot there. I'm going to skip over the cheeky bits, OK? In fact, I'm going to just hone in on the part I can actually respond with something, perhaps, constructive for our conversation.
"God says it is not what you put in your mouth that makes you holy, but what is in your heart. You need to check your heart."
So, according to your belief, what is in my heart is more important than what is in my mouth, right? The phrase "what you put in your mouth" is in reference to the teaching that all the stuff that the Pharisees were doing is actually unimportant. What is important is "what is in your heart." So if I have goodness in my heart, the rest doesn't matter. Right? I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but seriously: is that what you're saying?
Because if it is, then we're cool. My heart is (mostly) full of love. My heart is full of love for the Bible and for Jesus. And if the rest doesn't matter, then what's the fuss? I have, by this view, some detrius about tithing and home teaching, but that's just "what I put in my mouth." That's the outward stuff. Right?
Of course, this explanation doesn't really explain all the cheeky stuff. I mean, if what was in my heart was really all that mattered, then doctrinal differences don't matter. Since they, apparently do matter, since my apparent incorrect belief is enough to keep me out of heaven, then correctness is important. In which case, you're arguing that a person cannot be saved in ignorance. And, yes, I think I did just make you and Joseph Smith agree.
Violet, please don't be angry. I'm teasing a little because it's late and I'm tired and this place needs some lightening up. I keep trying to inject some humor in this discussion and am met with only strident argument. I guess I'm hoping that your sarcasm toward me shows a glimmer of lightheartedness and so will take my lighthearted sarcasm in good spirits.
Then again, you're ending by telling me that I'll have to "pay a debt" for teaching incorrect doctrine to the children in primary. That's pretty strident stuff. Maybe I misread your good humored sarcasm for a much more bitter sentiment–though I had quite hoped that you were above that.
The primary lesson went well, by the way. We read John 1:4 and 3:16-17 and 1 John 4:9 and noticed the language in each about being the "Only Begotten." We read about the angelic visitation to Mary, and how Jesus was born to a mortal mother and an immortal father. We talked about how Jesus being the Son of God was able to live a perfect life and then pay for each of our sins through the atonement. I bore my testimony to the children about my love for Jesus and my gratitude for his atonement. Whatever debt there is to pay for this lesson, I'll pay it gladly. However, I felt God's love in that room, and rather than punishment, I felt blessed.
falcon,
You're right: I didn't know that jackg had formerly been a Mormon. I do not see what it is of any consequence, however. I'm a little taken aback at your assertion that I have no clue or the implication that I have not engaged in any intellectual exercise on the matter. You might be surprised.
What Rick and jackg have both misunderstood is that in regards to the necessity of baptism I am really not interested (in this conversation) about your particular interpretation of the Bible. I am arguing only that baptism is widely accepted across orthodox Christian churches as a requirement for salvation. You might argue that the Bible says this isn't necessary, but my point is that the doctrine of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Wesley et all preached that it is necessary.
If you are correct that baptism is unnecessary, you go against these men and the denominations that have followed. That's the point (for now). And the larger point is that to say that Mormons are wrong IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR POINT is also to say that all these men and all these denominations are wrong.
Now if you'd like to debate exegesis of John 3 or any other Biblical passage, swell. But let's not confuse that discussion with the one I'm trying to have here.
Ralph, [sentence deleted]
All those things you mention are sins and they need to repent and be forgiven. They are still Christians, no question, but they need to repent, because the Apostle Paul made clear that we are not saved to live a life after the lusts of the Flesh but we are saved to do good works. Christ wants us to produce fruits of the Spirit, not take advantage of His sacrifice to continue as slaves of sin.
But if you think you´re going to please God because you follow a few cherry-picked commandments, most of which not even found in the Bible(home teaching, for example), go ahead, but your self-righteousness is filthiness before God. What´s about sex with Mormons? Oh, i know – the lying BoM says sexual transgression is the second worst sin of the list! The author of the BoM probably wasn´t familiar with the Epistle of James in the New Testament. Here:
James 2:10-11 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”
See, Ralph! What commandments do you break? Are you aware that if you break even the least commandment you´ve broken the whole law, just like homosexuals and adulterers? The purpose of the Law is to convict us of our sins, stop using the Law to make yourself more righteous than others.
Answer the questions i asked Terceiro. If you say that you keep God´s commandments because you love Him, answer this – are you keeping perfectly all of God´s commandments? If you are not then you DON`T love God! But keep lying to yourself, and being a self-righteous Pharisee – see where that´s going to lead you.
"We can't say 'if you cannot see things my way off with your head."
Nobody is saying that, that´s a straw man – what we are contending for is the original Faith delivered by the real Jesus Christ as He has revealed Himself in the flesh, recorded by the Apostles and their disciples.
I don´t care if you believe that God is a polygamous man – you can believe whatever you want. Just don´t go around saying you´re the only true form of Christianity by deceiving people about what your church really teaches, and has taught since its beginnings. I´m against lies and deception, and Terceiro has been very deceitful about his "orthodox" mormon doctrine even in the face of what his leaders taught.
Clyde, your position is rather pathetic not to say sad. You should be complaining about Terceiro´s willingness to falsely teach about his religion in an attempt to deceive Christians that don´t know better. You don´t care about that though…
"Are we all wrong? And if the sin of believing that there are requirements to receive the free gift of grace makes me destined for Hell, I suppose I am comforted in knowing that I won't be lonely"
I don´t know if you noticed, but if you have a requirement it is no longer a free gift, but you know what, i won´t bother trying to explain to you anymore. You say you read Luther and others and you still don´t understand, then who am i to think i can accomplish otherwise.
Now, to say that you´re saved by grace alone in Mormonism is pure deception, Rick has done a great job of exposing passages that show that. So, this is for people who visits this blog who are in doubt, mormons work with deception, redefining terms and twisting meanings – believe and trust in the Scriptures. Paul makes it clear, it is either by your works or by your faith, not both. Baptism and other rituals are not what saves anyone – even though they are considered sacraments, or means of grace they´re never talking about the Grace of Salvation – otherwise Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, none of them baptized, would be in hell at the moment.
Mormons will have the audacity of implying they were in a spirit prison together with every wicked man who has died in the past waiting for someone living to be baptized for them. That´s a huge offense and goes contrary to what Jesus Himself teaches.
Borrowing from the apostle Paul, if you are going to keep the law, you had better keep it perfectly, otherwise you will be condemned by it.
This is a great, great broadcast explaining about the difference between the Law and the Gospel, i recommend it to everyone who wishes to truly understand it:
http://www.piratechristianradio.com/fftf/F4F01171…
"(a) correct a few misconceptions about the Mormon doctrine of grace"
No, everybody here, i suppose, understands that a Mormon is ultimately saved by the grace of Christ. The problem is that that "salvation" is not by Grace alone – which opposes biblical teaching.
See, mormons have to do all they can do, meaning obedience to the laws and ordinances of their gospel, and then if you fall short, Christ´s sacrifice will fill up for the rest and you´ll be saved, and that´s somehow free. In other words, it´s your works, you pulling yourself by the bootstraps – "I´ll do my best and Christ will do the rest" Now, if you want to believe that, it´s fine by me, i don´t care. That goes contrary to the teachings in the New Testament, and even though Paul explains it clearly several times you insist that he is wrong and the scriptures are wrong.
The problem is how you´re trying to portray Mormonism as Salvation by Grace alone. It is not. Mormonism also is very far away from historic Christianity. The Roman Catholic do mix grace and works, but that´s a different story altogether, and if they do it, they do it in vain – yet they believe in the same God and Jesus every Christian does.
"(b) show that there is SOME similarity between my beliefs as a mainstream Mormon and yours"
Why would you care to do that? Remember, you have ex-mormons here. I served a mission, and by my training i know that you´re not really interested in debate, but you´re trying to plant seeds. Your hope is to be able to convert people to mormonism. The reason why you use those terms that way is for people to think you´re not so different and then lower their guards to "feel the spirit", and the "spirit" will confirm the "truth" of mormonism.
You would be very effective if you were talking to people who never heard much about mormonism before, had a Christian background but never really touched a Bible, etc. Not the case here.
"grace is the key for salvation for all Mormons"
Your Bible dictionary defines grace as such: "Grace. A word that occurs frequently in the New Testament, especially in the writings of Paul. The main idea of the word is divine means of help or strength, given through the bounteous mercy and love of Jesus Christ."
That in of itself is a gigantic deception and should raise red flags all over. Grace is much more than simple a means to give us the help/strength for us to save ourselves by walking the bridge you call atonement. The Grace of God is what saves us – Christ received for us the penalty for our sins, so God can save us despite our own efforts to try to please Him which always fall short, no matter if you save a life of a child.
Think about that. I´ll be waiting for your answers, because you claim to love God because you "keep" His commandments, but i doubt that very much.
Terceiro said
two things, 1. We both agree that marriage is Good and the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, there we have common ground, That means nothing. 2. The FLDS and the RLDS believe more of what you believe that we do, Examples, They like you believe JS is a prophet, they believe BY is a prophet, they read and believe in the BoM, the D and C and the Pearl where we believers do not believe any of that.
I find it rather sad that you try and say we all have the same beliefs yet you wonder why we claim no we dont. Yet you do not do that with the RLDS or the FLDS, and your church and it's leaders will not allow those guys to call themselves LDS. I love the double standard.
Clyde, Why are you here? Really, why are you here, Nobody takes you seriously. You accuse someone of a verbal slap in the face, while you ignore the Bible. The Bible tells us to contend for the Faith, JS attacked our faith and said it was God who told him to say that. You ignore the verses where JESUS said some people are from their father the Devil, and the verses that say wolves in sheeps clothing will arise from with in to kill and destroy.
I am going to say, from everything I see you say, your a wolf in sheeps clothing, You always seem to side with the cults and you clearly do not know your bible or you do but ignore things taught in it.
What exactly did I say that you need clarified? I said a lot of things so I'm not sure exactly what your talking about?
"at the baptism of Jesus we have all three members of the Godhead represented–the Son is in the water with his cousin, John; the Father is heard speaking from above; the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove. If we take this scripture by itself, it would argue for a pantheon of gods, right? Fortunately for you, there are plenty of other scriptures that teach that God is one. So we read the story of Jesus' baptism while keeping in mind these other scriptures, else we'll reach a wrong conclusion."
That would only be true if i thought the Holy Ghost is an actual bird! I mean, what?!? Seriously? That show that God is one, manifested in three different manners. Your main point is correct but that example is not a good one.
"I assert the same right to interpret my scriptures. You'll perhaps interpret them differently, and will perhaps bring different passages to bear in that interpretation. But the text is neither yours nor mine, and we both have a right to read and understand it as we see best"
The bottom line – you interpret according to Joseph Smith, the Bible has to fit what Joseph taught. Christians don´t do that, they don´t have to fit their interpretation into anyone´s format, they do Exegesis and a lot of study to be able to let the text speak for itself – to let the author´s message be as faithfully communicated as possible. That doesn´t mean there are no disagreements, but most Christian denominations agree in the major most important doctrines.
"I've read the Bible, I've read it closely, multiple times"
yet your eyes are closed as were mine, because i had to put Joseph´s interpretation of it in first place and fit it all in with it. After i knew beyond doubt that Joseph wasn´t even close to being a real prophet of God thanks to his involvement in occultism and fraudulent practices, i was no longer forced to do that, and i could just let the Bible speak to me not being afraid of having to change major beliefs or ideas i was attached to, such as eternal families in the mormon format.
You made great points there Rick!
and according to the SL LDS, the FLDS and others will not be going to the Celestial Kingdom, even though they practice the eternal principles and didn´t compromise as did their cousins in SLC.
terceiro said
Some things you must not be aware of, Church denomination's are man made, you cannot find them in the Bible. Then each denomination makes up their own little doctrinal statement. If it denys Gods word or does not agree with Gods word I will not follow them or abide by what they say. But since you and Ralph clearly ignore what I say, let me say this.
Let's add to this:
Their, You read it and heard it, so this applies to you, not only to a select few as Mormons claim, otherwise God lied
Read verse 5-6. it is a LAW that you MUST obey. Verse 8 says, Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion..
THEIR, YOUR CHURCH TAUGHT IT, But yet you guys do not believe it. So let me ask you this, Why do I have to believe Churchs that teach things I dont believe are taught in the Bible, But yet you guys deny things that your church teaches are from God.
Terceiro said
Big deal that these guys believe something, does that mean I must also believe it? Did you not read the part in the Bible where Jesus said You are in error of Scripture. Did you ever think these guys could be wrong? You only mention them because they believe as you do. Jesus told people they were wrong, you know why? Because they were wrong. Seems pretty simply that even people who think since they are a"Religious" Leader does not mean by default they know everything.
"sometimes described as "enduring to the end"
Enduring to the end according to the Bible means to stay in the Faith, not work until you die – see the Christian Martyrs as an example of how that is meant to be understood in the Bible.
"Am I a pitiful hypocrite? Yeah, I guess so. Here I stand as one who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ and to love my fellow man and to keep His commandments, and yet I make mistakes all the time"
Follower of a different Jesus – it wouldn´t matter if you were a follower of Buddha, for me you´re the same. Now you just confirmed your hypocrisy. See, you say that you love God and because of that you keep His commandments, and presumably that´s why you´re a Mormon and not a Baptist or a Methodis, etc. That automatically implies everybody who is not a mormon doesn´t love God because they don´t keep His commandments. At the same time you confess you break God´s commandments all the time, which means that you don´t keep God´s commandments and therefore by your own statements you don´t love Him making you no different from a prostitute, a murderer, etc., people who also breaks God´s commandments all the time and need repentance through Jesus´sacrifice. So, to say you love God is pure hypocrisy, and to say that your love of God leads you to be a Mormon and to abide by its principles is an even greater hypocrisy and show the complete and total failure of your theology.
"Send the missionaries home?"
Yes! If the difference between you and me is simply the requirements for X to get Y, than why bother at all? I already got Y!!!!! Oh, unless you´re saying that my Y is false, and you have to explain me why that is… hmmm… let´s see you work that out.
" I'm a sincere Mormon, even if I don't always express myself as clearly as I would like, and that I try to be generally a good-natured, pleasant, and happy guy"
You´re playing the "i´m a nice guy" card. That´s usually the trick someone resorts to when he´s thoroughly exposed and caught beyond escape, and resorts to that to try to create some pity in the hearts of those ready to execute punishment – the one who will do that will be God, not me – that´s why you should be worried.
"I am happy because I look at my wife and I look at my kids and I think about being sealed with them eternally"
Whatever – but hey, did you know that Christians believe they are all children of God through faith in Jesus and that they´ll live together as one big family – without separation of families? BTW, don´t you guys believe you are literally spiritual brothers and sister? Why all this concern about being separate as families instead of all living together like the family you once were? It doesn´t make sense.
"I am happy because I feel privileged to believe that Thomas S. Monson is a real, honest to goodness prophet"
Honest? By not telling the Mormon people the true story of their idol prophet Joseph Smith, and trying to hide it as much as possible? Yeah, sure.
"These things make me happy. And I think they will make other people happy, too"
Funny. Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ about making people happy? As a former member of the church i can say that while a few people are happy because of those reasons, a lot of people if not more find that those principles don´t bring happiness but security and comfort. Actually if you attend the church frequently you´ll find more reasons to be upset than happy. So, if happy is what you´re going for, don´t bother. A lot of people are happy without religion – and since happiness is subjective, don´t you even try to say you know what the standard of happiness is for everyone.
Terceiro said
I dont get tired, ever, of sharing the Gospel and fighting the good fight.
Terceiro, When it come to work lets look at it this way. The Bible talks about oxen plowing and wearing a yoke. Does the oxen put the Yoke on himself and of his own desire pull the plow? No.
Jesus said MY YOKE is easy and MY BURDEN is light. It is Jesus that uses us and puts upon us the Yoke to do the work. As I said also before, Jesus told the religious leaders who asked Him, What work(S) must we do. Jesus Said their is ONLY ONE WORK (Singular) to do, That is to believe on the one God sent. Their are so many places that God could have told us believe and with belief we must be baptized.
But that never happened, Jesus said, ONLY BELIEVE, Jesus never baptized, Paul said, Jesus DID NOT SEND me to baptize. I can go on, but you ignore all of this then tell me about men who dont agree with me that since they believe baptism is required I must believe them.
Rick, I'm afraid we're talking past each other here. I now understand where you stand on the idea of baptism and where you stand in relation to most churches. You have made that point very clearly, thankyouverymuch.
My appeal to orthodox Christianity is not to imply that Luther, for instance, had things right, but that he is a pretty smart guy who knew his Bible and he thought baptism was a requirement for salvation. You say that Luther was wrong–and I'm not going to stand up to his defense. But I also am not so full of hubris as to imagine that I would survive five minutes of debate with the guy. I mean, have you read his doctrinal analysis? He was one smart dude. Not perfect, and I don't think he had the full truth.
If your interpretation of the Bible is 100% correct and everyone else is wrong, heaven will be a very lonely place.
Rick, may the Lord bless you that it may always be so. And I mean that sincerely.
terceiro,
Sorry if I sound condescending at times, but my experience with Mormons is that they are very weak when it comes to Biblical exegesis and have very fanciful (Biblical) interpretations to support the false claims of Mormonism. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools through eighth grade. I had a heavy dose of catechism and religious training in Catholic doctrine. Let me give you a clue as to the Catholic position on baptism. Water baptism, Catholics teach, is not necessary for salvation. Catholic doctrine points to three types of baptism; baptism by water, blood and desire. The first is obvious. The second deals with someone who may have come to faith in Christ, was not baptized and died as a martyr to the Faith. The third is someone who came to faith in Christ never got baptized but the desire to do so was present.
Now Catholic theology is classic Christian theology because of the early history of the church going back to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and the early Church Fathers. I haven't been a practicing Catholic for over forty years but I have a real appreciation for the scholarship and intellectual gravitas of these men.
Let me give it to you straight. When I look at Mormon scholarship it appears to me to be amateur night or very bad religious karaoke. The "spiritual" component is also incredibly weak especially as it relates to the topic of revelation.
I admire folks who have piety, devotion, and a strong moral code. I can even admire their desire to have spiritual experiences like answers to prayer and so forth. But the bottom line is, if you don't get God right, His nature and character and attributes, you're lost. And that's the bottom line with aberrant religious sects like Mormonism, the Jehovah Witnesses or any of the other numerous groups who claim special revelation.
"See, you say that you love God and because of that you keep His commandments, and presumably that´s why you´re a Mormon and not a Baptist or a Methodis, etc. That automatically implies everybody who is not a mormon doesn´t love God because they don´t keep His commandments. At the same time you confess you break God´s commandments all the time, which means that you don´t keep God´s commandments and therefore by your own statements you don´t love Him making you no different from a prostitute, a murderer, etc."
I have always interpreted Jesus statement "if ye love me, keep my commandments" to mean that, well, if we love Jesus we'll keep his commandments. I guess I've taken it pretty literally. Now you're imposing a standard that anyone who tries and fails therefore must not love Jesus, and I don't see that. Jesus understood that those who love him will try and fail and he provided an atonement as a loving gift for my imperfections. It seems straightforward enough to me, and I am not willing to concede to your interpretation. I think we should simply acknowledge that we read verse differently and move on. You think I'm wrong, and I think I've got it right. In this particular point, I feel we must be at an impasse.
"Actually if you attend the church frequently you´ll find more reasons to be upset than happy. So, if happy is what you´re going for, don´t bother."
You've stepped in a hole there using the second person pronoun: I have enough experience in the Church to more than qualify as a "frequent" participant. My previous calling used more weekly hours than did my job. My temple attendance would probably qualify as "frequent" for all except those retired old ladies who attend every day. And so I, personally, find many reasons to be happy because of my participation in the Mormon church. Your experience was different than mine, obviously. I'm not going to try to pretend that your experiences weren't authentic, but I do think they're regrettable–if only because you deserve happiness.
"A lot of people are happy without religion – and since happiness is subjective, don´t you even try to say you know what the standard of happiness is for everyone."
I do not know what the standard of happiness is for everyone.
God does know the standard of happiness for everyone. And so I'll follow the dictates of my conscience and follow the Spirit and do my best to love those around me and bring them to what, in my experience, brings real joy. Imagine the kind of crazy person would I have to be to say "The Church makes me happy; stay away!" So until my experience in the Church brings me sadness and despair, I'll continue to encourage my friends and loved ones to come and enjoy it with me.
"I went out with the missionaries last week and visited with an eighteen year old boy and his seventeen year old girlfriend. He has a strong background with the Bible and is a good, believing Christian."
He already believe He´s saved by the Grace of Jesus – the only difference are the "in-betweens". Why bother converting him, if you´re not saved by works?
". She is discovering truth as she learns from the missionaries;"
What truth? That god is a polygamous man, that Jesus and Satan are brothers as well as everyone else, that Joseph Smith used a "crystall ball" in a hat to translate the BoM, that JS was caught by Emma having sex with her 16 years-old maid and then claimed God told him to start polygamy,etc.?
"If I esteem all mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No! I will lift them up and [each] in his own way if I cannot persuade him my way is better!"
And then baptize them after they´re dead. What a good guy that Joseph was… (sure)
"I would hope that we could agree that it is a noble thing to "lift them up and each in his own way"
We have motivational speakers for that, we have Oprah, Dr. Phill, even Joel Osteen to lift me and others up. No i don´t agree with you here, the Gospel is not about making people feel good, or happy. It is about reconciling a perverse humanity with God through the blood of Jesus.
" And God really did provide a way that I could have avoided all that ugly sin–but I'm simply not good enough. And I never will be. Happily, even after all I try to do, there is the grace"
Finally the confession! What are you "trying" to do? Are you trying to overcome sin on you own? If God doesn´t give a commandment you can´t keep, what about the commandment "be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect"? You just confessed you´re not, and that you can´t – you don´t love God at all.
Sorry, but you confessed and confirmed everything we´ve said so far. You believe in works and Grace are necessary for salvation. You´re not just a hypocrite, you´re also a liar. Thank you for making sure to show what your church is really all about.
f_melo,
I don't know that I'll convince you, but I'm really not trying to proselyte here. I'm not trying to plant any seeds. You all have some experience with the LDS church–some, like yourself, were once members and now feel some opposition to it. Some have never been members and find the doctrine is incorrect and needs to be clarified. This blog is an extension of the MRM–and no one comes and hangs out here because they're neutral. So please don't try to read into my actions any more than I'm actively asserting. And I'm actively asserting that this particular post misinterprets mainstream Mormon doctrine. I am posting to try to clarify from the position of a mainstream Mormon. I am not expecting any of you to suddenly slap your heads and proclaim, "Oh! Now I see! Joseph Smith had it right all along!"
What I want is for, maybe at least one of you, to say, "Oh, I had previously imagined that Mormon doctrine taught that Mormons had to earn their way into heaven. Now I see that Mormons believe that they are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ." That one person will almost surely add "But of course they also believe that you have to continually repent and have to 'endure to the end', which idea is not present in contemporary orthodox Christianity." If someone were to say that, I'd be overjoyed. I'd probably shut up and get back to my real work (in which I'm supposed to be writing about the drama of the English renaissance, oh and there's a stack of stuff I need to grade as well; sometimes I wish I were independently wealthy and could do away with having to work for a living, don't you?) and would let the rest of this conversation continue without me. (Not that you'll be rid of me forever, mind you, but eventually we'll have to move on to other posts.)
Instead I keep getting told that I do not believe in grace/the atonement, and that I believe that I will achieve salvation only through my own good works. I have been told, repeatedly, that I do not worship Jesus. I have been told in these comments here my own doctrine more times that I wish to count–and it has always been told in ways that, it feels to me, misrepresents my actual belief. And because there are many of you, each with his or her own slightly different interpretation of things, I simply can't deal satisfactorily with you all.
Perhaps I can find satisfaction if I put it this way: in Mormon doctrine, we preach that we are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ when we perform certain tasks. Most of you believe that a person is saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and that's it. Does THAT work? And if that works, can we at least acknowledge that the statement of Mormon doctrine mirrors yours for the first half?
Finally, you're waiting for my answers, but I confess that the structure of our conversation has whomped me. I'm not sure what questions I have left to answer. If you, f_melo, give me a list, I'll do my best to deal with them honestly. But I also have to get my work done!
"You´re playing the 'I´m a nice guy' card. That´s usually the trick someone resorts to when he´s thoroughly exposed and caught beyond escape, and resorts to that to try to create some pity in the hearts of those ready to execute punishment – the one who will do that will be God, not me – that´s why you should be worried. "
Actually, I don't feel particularly trapped. I was really trying to assert that the Church makes me happy. That's all. You don't have to pity me (though I would prefer something less than scorn–jus' sayin'). This conversation doesn't even have me particularly worked up.
I should be worried because I'm happy? Um… ?
"So, according to your belief, what is in my heart is more important than what is in my mouth, right? The phrase "what you put in your mouth" is in reference to the teaching that all the stuff that the Pharisees were doing is actually unimportant. What is important is "what is in your heart." So if I have goodness in my heart, the rest doesn't matter. Right? I'm not trying to be cheeky here, but seriously: is that what you're saying?"
If you read it in context, Christ was talking about the complaint that the disciples didn´t wash their hands before eating – that what goes in the mouth is literal. It´s not what you eat or drink that defiles you.
Matthew 15:17-19 "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,"
A little bit of context is enough to see through your attempt at mocking Violet´s argument. Christ was very clear, actually – your word of wisdom is worthless for one´s Salvation. It has good advices but far from being considered seriously as "conditions" for someone to get into Heaven.
"So if I have goodness in my heart, the rest doesn't matter. Right?"
Have you really read the Bible, if so how can you argue something like that? My goodness… it´s sad… it´s typical for mormons to take Scripture out of context like that – but so far you´re the champion, together with Boyd K Packer saying that by holding the BoM and the Bible together he was fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah that had to do with reuniting the divided kingdoms of Israel… lol…
RickB and fmelo,
You both miss the point. If doing something (ie and act, deed or work, what ever you want to call it) will keep one out of heaven, then the corrollary is true. That is not doing that act, deed, work (in other words doing the opposite act, deed, work) will assist one or give one a chance to get into heaven. This then means that getting into heaven is based upon doing or not doing certain acts, deeds or works, as well as having faith in Jesus.
There is no logical way around this. If something stops you from getting somewhere, then the opposite of that something will get you there.
But if it is really faith despite works then these people I mentioned above in the Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal and Anglican churches are still saved despite what they do a they believe in your list of 'Christian criteria'; eg Believe in the Trinity; Bible is the only source of God's word; salvation by faith despite works; doctrine is sola scriptura; etc. And yes, they have found a way to interpret the Bible to allow for their small divergence of opinion to yours.
We LDS teach that first one must have faith in Jesus, then we will be willing to do what He has asked us to do and our faith in Him will do 2 main things – 1 make it easier for us to do them despite the buffettings of Satan and his followers; 2 cause a synergystic effect and allow us to do things that are beyond our normal capabilities, which is why in some of our leaders comments; eg Miracle of Forgiveness states as mentioned above “To try is weak.”… “To ‘do the best I can’ is not strong.”…” We must always to better than we can.” The 'better than we can' is because of our faith in Jesus bringing the Spirit in to assist us and making a synergystic effect. It is thus not us doing it alone, but assistance from God that allows us to do more. At least that is what I understand from what I have been taught.
Falcon,
Your comment here is far from condescending. In fact, it is perhaps one of the most clear and concise I've read. Thanks for that.
My background in understanding religion mostly comes from my PhD coursework (in English literature)–and I am very aware that my knowledge of other religions pales in comparison to some. My first PhD advisor (who retired mid-way through my work, the bum!) is one of the world's foremost scholars on the Reformation, particularly the print history (e.g. Foxe's Book of Martyrs). My second advisor currently edits a scholarly journal on Reformation history. My own research is only tangentially religious (I deal primarily with drama), but it factors into all my professional research. This research, however, is not "spiritual" or "devotional" at all, but either history or literary criticism. I don't write "church books" and I don't write for church audiences: I write for professional historians and literary scholars. And, notably, my research is very heavily skewed to the Protestant side of things–not many Catholics were willing to brave the climate of post-Reformation England until way past my period of research.
So perhaps you can help me out, then, about the role of baptism for Catholics. The current catechism states, "Baptism [by water] is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."
Then there's the exceptions you mention. Again, in the words of the official catechism, "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized." Hence the "baptism of blood" and the "baptism of desire."
But, if I understand correctly, those are exceptions under very special circumstances. You cannot choose to skip baptism of water, but you can, if you are forced through an untimely death, still hope for salvation. This does not seem to nullify the first statement that baptism is necessary for those who have the possibility of receiving it. Neither you nor I can, were we to desire to be Catholics, hope to be saved (according to their doctrine) without baptism by water, since we have had the gospel proclaimed to us and we have the opportunity.
Another way to look at it would be to consider the Catholic (and Greek and Episcopalian) practice of emergency baptism. In cases of dire need (immanent death) baptism can be performed by a lay member so that the person would not die without the necessary sacrament. Benedict has even recently said that, if necessary, a conditional baptism could be administered while the child is still in utero by using a medical instrument that could guarantee that the water actually reaches the child. There is considerable discussion about the methods of baptizing an infant after the death of the mother in childbirth–for example, whether you can baptize a child through the cesearean incision but before it it removed from the womb.
The Council of Trent affirmed that the doctrine of a metaphorical baptism was heretical and that baptism by water was absolutely and conclusively necessary. Actually, Trent has quite a bit about baptism–it was a hot topic in 16th century. And while I know that Vatican II was pretty revolutionary, I don't think it overruled Trent. And currently Benedict VXI is more Trentean than he is Vat II-ean.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (at http://newadvent.org) describes the doctrine of baptism as "held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti." Which is to say that without baptism, salvation cannot be attained, and to avoid baptism is considered a sin.
So I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how "water baptism… is not necessary for salvation" according to Catholic doctrine. I'm struggling to see how the words "necessary for salvation" in the catechism do not mean what they seem to mean.
And I really don't mean to be condescending, either. I'm only citing sources because, when it comes to Catholic doctrine, I'm very much an outsider and so my interpretation cannot be considered canonical. But it does seem pretty conclusive that water baptism is "necessary" — even if there are two very specific exceptions.
f_melo, I was under the impression that Violet was using the phrase "put in one's mouth" as a synecdoche and not as a literal example. By your description, OK, I've got it. I see your point.
Christ also said at one point that he wasn't speaking to the Samaritans. Sucks to be them, huh? Unless of course we take a later statement about going unto all the world into account. So did He lie the first time? Of course not! But if He could say at one point to keep the Gospel just within the Jews and then later extend it to all men must also mean that He could give a provisional commandment and later expand it when the people were better prepared.
And the statement "So if I have goodness in my heart, the rest doesn't matter. Right?" in not an interpretation of the Bible, but of what Violet was saying. I don't believe that, and I don't think that Violet believes that either, but it is the conclusion that one would have to reach based on what she wrote. I wasn't taking scripture out of context, but I was extending her argument out to it's comfortable (or uncomfortable, in this case) limit.
I need to add a little more to my presentation on the Catholic teaching on baptism. I"m going back to the 1950s as I was taught then. Babies, infants were baptized to "remove original sin" and if they died prior to being baptized they (baby) would go to "limbo". Kind of a strange place limbo. It's not purgatory and it's not hell. I don't know if that's popular accepted doctrine today, I'd have to get up to speed on it.
Here's the latest word.
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.
In a long-awaited document, the Church’s International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”
The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the document, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised.”
The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century.
“The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation,” it said.
“There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”
The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.
“NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM”
The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or “used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament.”
Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning “border” or “edge,” was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.
“People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian,” the document said.
It said the study was made all the more pressing because “the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent.”
The commission’s conclusions had been widely expected.
In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a defined truth of faith.”
In the Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo. The Catholic Church’s official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.
"There is no logical way around this. If something stops you from getting somewhere, then the opposite of that something will get you there."
Here we are entering into the doctrine of Election. I have to disagree with you, what you do to not go to Heaven is to not believe in Jesus.
"But if it is really faith despite works then these people I mentioned above in the Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentacostal and Anglican churches are still saved despite what they do a they believe in your list of 'Christian criteria'; eg Believe in the Trinity;"
See, i´m not the one to judge one person´s heart towards God, but true Faith results in good works. The fact they are Christians does not necessarily mean they are saved. If they deceive themselves and create a new faith to accommodate their personal lifestyles that go blatantly contrary to God´s Word that means they have abandoned the true Faith, and therefore it is to them as if they didn´t have faith in Christ at all to begin with.
Salvation is not a ticket to Heaven, it is the Work of God. That´s what´s hard to understand, and i don´t fully comprehend it yet. Sin is still part of our nature after we´ve been saved, but we need to repent and be forgiven. Like James says, to say you have faith doesn´t mean much, but the faith has to be a living faith. Does that mean that i´ll struggle to overcome sin and become perfect, and do all i can to please God? No, that´s impossible. I can only please God by believing in Jesus. That also doesn´t mean i´ll not avoid sin when i´m able to. It just means that i´ll enjoy the freedom of my Salvation to do good works, since i´ve been reborn spiritually – i don´t have to be worried about buying or not on sunday, or drinking coffee, or doing home-teaching, etc. I´m worried about the well being of people around me but not because i´m worried about my personal salvation. I do it because that´s what Christians do – it´s part of their new nature in Christ.
"1 make it easier for us to do them despite the buffettings of Satan and his followers;"
Ralph, don´t you see? You can´t do that!!!! It might be easy for you to not commit adultery, but what if a church brother of yours is weak in that area? Even though he tries, he can´t overcome that sin? What about people with addictions? You know – just because it might seem easy for you to not do certain things it doesn´t mean that it is easy for everyone… and even then you still sin by omission all the time. So, that accomplishes nothing. Read James again, how he talks about when you break one point of the law you break the entire law.
"2 cause a synergystic effect and allow us to do things that are beyond our normal capabilities, which is why in some of our leaders comments"
Like what? Give me one example. I doubt in that list there will be anything that someone not Mormon hasn´t done before.
"The 'better than we can' is because of our faith in Jesus bringing the Spirit in to assist us and making a synergystic effect."
So then are you keeping all the commandments or are you trying to? Are there any commandments you don´t keep? See, Paul explains that God gave us the law to condemn us an to point us to faith in Christ, among other things. You´re using the law wrong – how were the sins of the people of Israel forgiven in the Old Testament, and how were they at keeping the law?
". It is thus not us doing it alone, but assistance from God that allows us to do more"
More, how much more? Enough that you can sleep at night with the peace of mind you´d go to the Celestial Kingdom in case anything happened to you?
To be honest, my understanding of Catholic doctrine is pretty sketchy for anything after about 1650. So you've got 300 years on me. Where would I be without Google to help me figure things like this out? I guess I'd be about 400 years behind!
It appears to me that in general principle, the Catholic doctrine of baptism is very similar to the Mormon one. Both believe that baptism is necessary, but (now) describe a means for those who could not receive this necessary ordinance/sacrament in mortality to be saved otherwise. Both preach that for those who are able, however, baptism is necessary.
I think that's a fair description of the two doctrines, don't you think?
As far as the Protestant view goes, we could do worse than to quote from Martin Luther himself: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted."
So that covers Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans (and by extension most other Protestants). And I've already quoted the United Methodist Church on the matter. Can we all agree that Mormon insistence on baptism is in line with most other churches?
And–here's the stretch–can we now acknowledge that the difference between just baptism and baptism+temple (for instance) is a difference in degree but not in kind?
And, in hopes that this will stop those of you who feel compelled to broaden this discussion when I keep trying to narrow it down, I'm willing to begrudgingly accept that you might see "repent and endure to the end" as an entirely different category from baptism. (Though, of course, no one here has actually made that argument. I'm just hoping that by making it myself we can reach some sort of consensus.)
Though I must admit that I'm feeling a little flummoxed. I can't actually recall anyone agreeing with me on any topic I've mentioned. (I suppose in theory I could get Clyde to agree with me, but that feels like cheating.) I wonder if I could get you (not you particularly, Falcon, I mean everyone as a whole) to agree that the Earth is a slightly compressed sphere, or if my Mormonism makes even that suspect.
"e thought baptism was a requirement for salvation"
I´m sorry but Luther was pretty strong about Salvation by Grace alone through faith – someone even posted here once him talking about how we should sin a lot to make God´s grace even greater, etc. You´re not portraying Luther´s position correctly. Lutherans would never preach baptism as a requirement for someone to be Saved, i´ve been listening to a Lutheran´s radio show for almost a year and what i hear is the complete opposite to what you´re saying about baptism.
"If they deceive themselves and create a new faith to accommodate their personal lifestyles that go blatantly contrary to God´s Word that means they have abandoned the true Faith, and therefore it is to them as if they didn´t have faith in Christ at all to begin with."
I presume you're referring to Joseph Smith here, and then applying it to those who acknowledge him as a prophet. Obviously it doesn't literally apply to me (or to Ralph, I hope!) because I have not created a new faith. But I do believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet: does his (by your accusation) accommodating his personal lifestyle and going blatantly contrary to God's word somehow pass on to me, too? Must I suffer because of another man's sins?
But since you're not specific, could we not also apply it to Martin Luther? His contemporary opponents had a long list of his failures as a man, and they condemned his schismatic church he created because of it. He did abandon his clerical post to get married (gasp!) and suffered from syphilis. Luther was a genius and an inspired guy, but he was in no way perfect. So do we condemn those who are members of the church he established?
"See, Paul explains that God gave us the law to condemn us an to point us to faith in Christ, among other things. You´re using the law wrong – how were the sins of the people of Israel forgiven in the Old Testament, and how were they at keeping the law?"
This description sounds pretty antinomian. And maybe you see yourself that way. I'm not assuming, just asking: would you describe your beliefs as antinomian?
Luther was indeed a major proponent of "sola fides" in addition to "sola scritura." As I said, he was one smart dude. Maybe even a genius. But here's a quote (again, I already used it once here in this forum) from the man himself: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted."
Let me emphasize the middle portion there: "it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved." It's pretty definitive: Luther saw baptism as absolutely necessary.
Luther absolutely rejected the seven sacraments of the Catholic church. His first real rebellion was to go down to five sacraments, then three. He wavered (as I recall) about the necessity of the sacrament of confession, but he never went so far as to deny the necessity of baptism and the Lord's Supper.