Alma And Good Works

[Deborah]

I was reading in Alma 5, the great sermon calling the people to repentance. In there Alma talks of good works coming from God and evil works coming from the Devil. As I was reading I thought of all the good works the church has done, from the beginning. Joseph brought forth beautiful writings that bore testimony of the power of God and explained fully the Plan of Salvation. The saints took desolate land and build beautiful cities. They built at great sacrifice beautiful temples wherein to worship. Through the years the church has helped many throughout the world in its humanitarian efforts. Members of the church continue for the most part to become educated and industrious and to benefit the communities they live in. All these are â??good worksâ? in my eyes, and yet there are those who tell us we are going to hell and that we donâ??t follow the teachings of Christ, the most important of which is to do good to our fellow men, which with Visiting and Home teaching and humanitarian works we do in great measure.

It then struck me that the reason good works arenâ??t recognized, at least by a portion of the Christian world, is because they donâ??t believe in the principle of works to begin with. Therefore works are meaningless because you can only be saved by saying you believe, but only if you believe according to a certain dogmatic criteria which has been established not by scripture but the philosophies of men. And yet it seems that works are the only true measure of how much one loves Christ and accepts him. As it says in James â??Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.â?

I do not want any discussion of polygamy or other controversial issues, because the merit of those things is in the eye of the beholder. I am talking about true Christian works which build communities and help those in need. All churches do these things, but why is it the faith of the Mormons is still condemned in spite of the good they do?

[Hoops22]

good works arenâ??t recognized, at least by a portion of the Christian world, is because they donâ??t believe in the principle of works to begin with

Not sure what this means

only if you believe according to a certain dogmatic criteria

Wouldn't this apply to all faiths? Other than Unitarians.

but the philosophies of men.

In your opinion

why is it the faith of the Mormons is still condemned in spite of the good they do?

Wouldn't LDS agree that good works do not necessarily mean a regenerate heart?

Sorry, still working on how to quote. Despite the sarcasm on another thread I will get it one day.

[Uncle Dale]

...

It then struck me that the reason good works arenâ??t recognized, at least by a

portion of the Christian world, is because they donâ??t believe in the principle of

works to begin with...

It was already a longstanding debate when I attended a Christian seminary.

For the ultra-Calvinists, they seem to feel that their eternal fate is already

sealed, for better or worse, no matter what they may do.

For the pious Protestant of an Arminian persuasion, the favored scriptural

texts seem to be those telling us that our good works are as "filthy rags" in

the sight of God. Spreading the gospel seems to be all that is necessary.

And for the "by grace alone" Christian, there seems to be more interest in the

world to come, or in the rapture, or such things, than in building the temporal

Kingdom of God.

As for myself -- I sometimes think of the scriptural passage, advising us not

to let one hand know what the other is doing, when we give of ourselves. In

a perfect world, I suppose "good works" would be our natural response to

Heavenly Father's love -- with no accompanying thoughts of reward nor any

sort of recognition-seeking for ourselves.

I'm still waiting for that perfect world.

yer Unk

[Deborah]

Welcome back, Uncle Dale. You've been missed.

I agree with good works being "our natural response to Heavenly Father's love -- with no accompanying thoughts of reward nor any sort of recognition-seeking for ourselves." I don't think even the works of humanitarian efforts are for recognition but to help others, though being in the public arena they are noticed. I think most people do good works in secret, without thinking about it, and expect no reward.

But this is what I find hard to understand: why a group of people who do try for the most part to live good lives, should be so condemned by some for their beliefs, just because those beliefs differ from theirs. This criticism seems very unChristlike; there is such a self-righteousness in such an attitude.

[Mormon Vader]

...but why is it the faith of the Mormons is still condemned in spite of the good they do?

Because those who believe that are themselves believers in a corrupt Christianity.

[Hoops22]

I think you have stated these views accurately. I was wondering if the OP sees it the same way.

In addition, I guess I am not as jaded as I will become. If one accepts all these views as true (I don't) I still see representatives of all these views doing good, selfless works. Certainly, there are "slackards" just as their are in any organization, but many get out there and fight the good fight.

To answer the OP, faith and works are too different things. Is it not possible to appreciate LDS good works yet still disagree (condemn)?

[Hoops22]

Because those who believe that are themselves believers in a corrupt Christianity.

there is such a self-righteousness in such an attitude.

Yes, I see what you mean.

[Deborah]

To answer the OP, faith and works are too different things. Is it not possible to appreciate LDS good works yet still disagree (condemn)?

It is interesting you use the word disagree and then in parentheses condemn. I have no problem with disagreement in beliefs, but why would you condemn those who disagree?

[Hoops22]

merely referring back to the OP. His/her word, not mine.

Which was you, of course.

[Deborah]

merely referring back to the OP. His/her word, not mine.

But that is the point, it's not just mere disagreement with beliefs of Mormons, but actual condemnation, as if anyone but Christ has the right to judge anyway.

[Hoops22]

Okay, I think I get where you're headed. Just that you used the word condemn and I know of few - if any - evies who will condemn anyone, let alone an LDS. I don't know the pleasant folks at Westboro.

But okay,

Can we establish that most appreciate the efforts of LDS? If so, in response to your original question:

There is a sizable bunch out there who flatly disagree with your theology - rightly or wrongly. To that end, they see it as part of The Great Commission to minister to you - in all it's various forms - some good, some not so good. I know, I know, many will regard it as an attack and I don't think that is fair, but okay.

I don't pretend to know what it is like to be in your position (assuming you are LDS) so it is presumptous of me to ask you to see this from their perspective. I ask nonetheless.

[Scottie]

I'm not sure why you would use a scriptural reference that only LDS would acknowledge as valid as the basis of your argument? Just because Alma said it, why would you expect other religions to all of a sudden believe it?

Of course other religions don't believe your good works will get you saved.

However, I would ask this...how are LDS much different? Lets say we have a Catholic that is doing good works, just because it makes him a better person, not because he believes he needs to for salvation. Is he saved in eyes of the LDS? No. Why? Because he doesn't have the proper ordinances. How is that much better?

I know you asked not to bring up the negative, but I think it warrants discussion. It's very hard to make a case that you are doing good when you are actually doing something evil, but claim the evil act was sanctioned of God, therefore in this one instance, it becomes good. Did that make any sense? Nephi killing Laban is a good example. Murder is of the devil, unless someone claims that God commanded it, then it is good.

There is a lot of line blurring in the early church. A lot of evil things done in the name of righteousness.

[Hoops22]

I'm not sure why you would use a scriptural reference that only LDS would acknowledge as valid as the basis of your argument? Just because Alma said it, why would you expect other religions to all of a sudden believe it?

Of course other religions don't believe your good works will get you saved.

However, I would ask this...how are LDS much different? Lets say we have a Catholic that is doing good works, just because it makes him a better person, not because he believes he needs to for salvation. Is he saved in eyes of the LDS? No. Why? Because he doesn't have the proper ordinances. How is that much better?

I know you asked not to bring up the negative, but I think it warrants discussion. It's very hard to make a case that you are doing good when you are actually doing something evil, but claim the evil act was sanctioned of God, therefore in this one instance, it becomes good. Did that make any sense? Nephi killing Laban is a good example. Murder is of the devil, unless someone claims that God commanded it, then it is good.

There is a lot of line blurring in the early church.

A lot of evil things done in the name of righteousness.

sorry about the above. please disregard this from me. Scottie is much more eloquent.

[BlueDreams]

I was reading in Alma 5, the great sermon calling the people to repentance. In there Alma talks of good works coming from God and evil works coming from the Devil. As I was reading I thought of all the good works the church has done, from the beginning. Joseph brought forth beautiful writings that bore testimony of the power of God and explained fully the Plan of Salvation. The saints took desolate land and build beautiful cities. They built at great sacrifice beautiful temples wherein to worship. Through the years the church has helped many throughout the world in its humanitarian efforts. Members of the church continue for the most part to become educated and industrious and to benefit the communities they live in. All these are â??good worksâ? in my eyes, and yet there are those who tell us we are going to hell and that we donâ??t follow the teachings of Christ, the most important of which is to do good to our fellow men, which with Visiting and Home teaching and humanitarian works we do in great measure.

It then struck me that the reason good works arenâ??t recognized, at least by a portion of the Christian world, is because they donâ??t believe in the principle of works to begin with. Therefore works are meaningless because you can only be saved by saying you believe, but only if you believe according to a certain dogmatic criteria which has been established not by scripture but the philosophies of men. And yet it seems that works are the only true measure of how much one loves Christ and accepts him. As it says in James â??Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.â?

I do not want any discussion of polygamy or other controversial issues, because the merit of those things is in the eye of the beholder. I am talking about true Christian works which build communities and help those in need. All churches do these things, but why is it the faith of the Mormons is still condemned in spite of the good they do?

Because they see the good coming from the wrong place. When I've spoke to other, I often hear a common theme that we are weighed down with our duties...our thousand rules that we muxt follow strictly, or our checklist up to heaven. I get a feel for this cold mathmetician trying to find the formula in his basement for true purpose in life, when what he is really supposed to do is go outside and experience the sunlight for once. Stop going for the flourecent light bulb while you work out your equation. you can't do it alone, the perfect man is outside waiting to help you in the real deal...you'll just catch a cold (with a really high fever) in here. That's the message I get. They're not, theoretically saying all that we do is bad...its more that our hearts are not in the right place. i say theoretically because at the end they also question the works as well...its just not the first thing that's q'd.

For them conversion is to bring about this change of heart/conversion/born again moment that brings about good works. So it isn't that they don't believe in good works. It's worse, if you ask me...because they judge the one thing that most cannot know entirely: our hearts. I say it's worse not because we are never to make a judgement call....but often times the judgement is made on previous bias and misinformation. Like most biases, it finds its own evidence and that is where our works are scrutinized, often with a comb that their own faith would never pass. It's said that our works are without coming to Christ and is but a duty to us to get to heaven. We insist that we have and that it is our desire to follow Him. Here it can be a slew of reasoning, usually following the reasoning that it wasn't the true Jesus we follow, or feelings are unreliable, or in other words, our conversion is questionable. THe right one matches their beliefs closer. That is why some of the more extreme also question the christian nature of catholicism...the ritual is to rigid and the belief slightly devient from their own (though technically it is their faith that is deviant from the catholiv faith)

That's what I see. I'd write more, but I've written at a late hour and I can't see what it is I am writing besides.

wit luv,

Bd

[Deborah]

I'm not sure why you would use a scriptural reference that only LDS would acknowledge as valid as the basis of your argument? Just because Alma said it, why would you expect other religions to all of a sudden believe it?

Well, we believe it is a principle taught in the Bible as well. I'm not using it as the basis of an argument to convince others, but asking the question why someone woud condemn someone else's belief in God in spite of the good they do.

However, I would ask this...how are LDS much different? Lets say we have a Catholic that is doing good works, just because it makes him a better person, not because he believes he needs to for salvation. Is he saved in eyes of the LDS? No. Why? Because he doesn't have the proper ordinances. How is that much better?

This is a false premise. We do believe all our saved, and appreciate the good that all people do and in fact work with other churches in humanitarian efforts. We do not condemn their beliefs.

I know you asked not to bring up the negative, but I think it warrants discussion. It's very hard to make a case that you are doing good when you are actually doing something evil, but claim the evil act was sanctioned of God, therefore in this one instance, it becomes good. Did that make any sense? Nephi killing Laban is a good example. Murder is of the devil, unless someone claims that God commanded it, then it is good.

As I said those cases are in the eye of the beholder and require an understanding that others do not have. As Matthew 7 says

"16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil

fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

In light of this scripture and the fact that the church has not been hewn down but has grown and prospered it's pretty hard to say they were an evil tree or corrupt tree.

[Uncle Dale]

...

But this is what I find hard to understand: why a group of people who do try for the

most part to live good lives, should be so condemned by some for their beliefs, just

because those beliefs differ from theirs....

That is the age-old query of the Saints -- recall the elderly sister in the MGM "Brigham Young"

movie of the 1940s? Somebody asks her why her house was burned to the ground, and

she replies: "Just because we're Mormons!"

It is a simplistic (and often wrong) observation -- but one that the Saints have often used

to try and answer your question, Deborah.

The true/valid answer is complex and multi-faceted, and this is not the thread in which

to discuss it all. But my feelings are that the Saints (or, particularly their early topmost

leaders and overt activities) have brought much of this "condemnation" upon themselves.

If ever there was a religious group that has suffered from "bad PR" it is the Mormons. For

the last few decades they've been doing much better -- but the arrogance and exclusiveness

of the past is still ingrained within the culture. Or so it seems to me, looking in from outside.

One final thought -- while the LDS view on the need/authority for "ordinances" is not much

different from that of the Roman Catholics and some other Christian groups, the Mormon

precept of being "saviors on Mt. Zion" and all the peripherial doctrines that go along with it,

are generally offensive to non-Mormons. Take for example, the Jewish reaction to hearing

that some of their deceased family members are being baptized as Mormons by proxy. Or,

at a more theological level of offense, the Evangelical reaction to the LDS teaching that they

and all other followers of Jesus Christ will be judged by Joseph Smith, Jr. on the Last Day.

I hope that contemporary LDS leaders can find ways to express or re-define these sorts of

doctrines, so that they are no longer an immediate offense in the eyes and ears of non-LDS.

Uncle "these things take time, I guess" Dale

[Scottie]

This is a false premise. We do believe all our saved, and appreciate the good that all people do and in fact work with other churches in humanitarian efforts. We do not condemn their beliefs.

If this is the case, then why are LDS so concerned over the salvation of apostates? I am still doing good works, and am pretty much still temple worthy (except for the whole believing in JS and drinking coffee and paying tithing). Yet, my soul is in jeopardy. Why?

As I said those cases are in the eye of the beholder and require an understanding that others do not have. As Matthew 7 says

"16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil

fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

In light of this scripture and the fact that the church has not been hewn down but has grown and prospered it's pretty hard to say they were an evil tree or corrupt tree.

As you said, it is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think that the average person out there knows of the good fruits? I doubt it. Mormons are known, for the most part, for polygamy. They are taught that polygamy is of the devil, not of God. Therefore, they see bad fruits. It's not hard to understand why they think the way they do. Now, mind you, I'm not necissarily saying they are justified in thinking this way, just trying to put some perspective on why they might.

I am reminded of the Amazing Race a couple of years ago where they were driving through Southern Utah. There was a mom, 2 teenage daughters and a teenage son. One of the daughters was commenting on how bleak the landscape was and asked what is in Utah. The Mom said, "Oh, I know...Mormons!" The look of disgust and horror on the faces of the girls as they said, "Ewwwwww!" was priceless.

[Mormon Vader]

Because those who believe that are themselves believers in a corrupt Christianity.

there is such a self-righteousness in such an attitude.

Yes, I see what you mean.

You misunderstand me, Hoops. Perhaps if I put it a different way:

LDS parents that won't let their kids or teenagers date non-Mormons are themselves believers in a corrupt Mormonism.

Also, if anyone can feel self-righteous, it certainly isn't me. I am a bone-head most of the time.

[Hoops22]

You misunderstand me, Hoops. Perhaps if I put it a different way:

LDS parents that won't let their kids or teenagers date non-Mormons are themselves believers in a corrupt Mormonism.

Also, if anyone can feel self-righteous, it certainly isn't me. I am a bone-head most of the time.

In the bone-headed olympics I will take you every time.

My apologies. I did misunderstand your point. May I offer a comment thought? Just as an exploration?

I don't think I would mind if an LDS parent did not let their child date mine (especially my girls, but then they can't leave the house 'til they're 30) because I am not sure I would let my children date a LDS. Don't you find that the theological structure of either are incompatible? I can go further with that if you wish but maybe you see my point?

I would not find that example to be self righteousness, something else entirely. Maybe dating is a bad case study?

[Deborah]

One final thought -- while the LDS view on the need/authority for "ordinances" is not much

different from that of the Roman Catholics and some other Christian groups, the Mormon

precept of being "saviors on Mt. Zion" and all the peripherial doctrines that go along with it,

are generally offensive to non-Mormons. Take for example, the Jewish reaction to hearing

that some of their deceased family members are being baptized as Mormons by proxy. Or,

at a more theological level of offense, the Evangelical reaction to the LDS teaching that they

and all other followers of Jesus Christ will be judged by Joseph Smith, Jr. on the Last Day.

I hope that contemporary LDS leaders can find ways to express or re-define these sorts of

doctrines, so that they are no longer an immediate offense in the eyes and ears of non-LDS.

Uncle "these things take time, I guess" Dale

What I find interesting about these things, is that others don't believe in Priesthood authority anyway so why do they find offense? Being "saviours on Mt. Zion" is no different than other churches sending out missionaries to different nations, particularly non-Christian, to "save them" or in sending them to proselytize to the Mormons. I'm not offended at their desire to save us, but I do find their tactics often offensive. Genealogy and missionary work is done on a very general basis and is not particular to a specific faith and does not denounce those faiths but on the contrary accepts the good that is in them. I do think the church has tried to change it's ways of expression so as not to be offensive, but then some will find offense at the littlest things.

[Deborah]

If this is the case, then why are LDS so concerned over the salvation of apostates?

Because they are as you call it "apostate" in that they once knew and then denied the truth. Also when we talk about salvation in the church, especially in this context, it is more about exaltation and not salvation which all will receive.

As you said, it is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think that the average person out there knows of the good fruits? I doubt it. Mormons are known, for the most part, for polygamy. They are taught that polygamy is of the devil, not of God. Therefore, they see bad fruits. It's not hard to understand why they think the way they do. Now, mind you, I'm not necissarily saying they are justified in thinking this way, just trying to put some perspective on why they might.

I lived in the Bible Belt of the south for many years and experienced the pamphlets directed specifically at Mormons. Surprisingly polygamy wasn't the main issue. It was more our concept of God and accepting a living prophet. However, you are right that those who do not understand the principle of polygamy as we do will not see it in the same light. Even some members of the church have a problem with it and are glad it is part of the past. Nevertheless, in looking at the "fruits" of the church I am looking at the bigger picture, not only of it's growth and prosperity but at the world-wide good it does today. If polygamy were so evil in the OT, how is it the great prophets and the lineage of Israel came through plural marriage. Or in modern terms, if it were so evil when the early saints practiced it why is it the church continued to grow and prosper and how is so many faithful and stalwart leaders and good men and women of the church arose from it. Do not mistake me here, I believe that polygamy when not ordained by God and when practiced without proper authority is evil and will have evil fruits. But I do not see those evil fruits evident in the LDS church.

I do find the Christians in general to be a little two-faced about some of the controversial issues, such as polygamy or killing in the name of the Lord, considering both these things were very much a part of the OT. The atheists at least are consistent. Many of them denounce it all and state the harshness of God as part of their reasons for not believing in God.

[Scottie]

I lived in the Bible Belt of the south for many years and experienced the pamphlets directed specifically at Mormons. Surprisingly polygamy wasn't the main issue. It was more our concept of God and accepting a living prophet.

This is interesting. I know that when I was TBM and I brought up mu religion to someone living outside of Utah, the first question was almost always, "Do you have more than 1 wife?"

However, you are right that those who do not understand the principle of polygamy as we do will not see it in the same light. Even some members of the church have a problem with it and are glad it is part of the past.

Let me put a different perspective on it. Oral Roberts claimed that a 700ft Jesus told him that he must raise a million dollars or he would be killed. Now, to us, this looks like a scam. But to his followers, since God commanded it, it is all part of good fruits. So, you see, the rest of the world puts JS in the same camp as Oral Roberts.

Nevertheless, in looking at the "fruits" of the church I am looking at the bigger picture, not only of it's growth and prosperity but at the world-wide good it does today.

No argument here. In the big picture, the church is a force for good in the world. It's just not what it claims it is.

If polygamy were so evil in the OT, how is it the great prophets and the lineage of Israel came through plural marriage.

Well, my argument here is how do we know those sections of the Bible are correct? What if they were mistranslated or what if they really WEREN'T sanctioned of God, but the "prophet" claimed it was, so the scribe wrote it down without question.

Or in modern terms, if it were so evil when the early saints practiced it why is it the church continued to grow and prosper and how is so many faithful and stalwart leaders and good men and women of the church arose from it.

Oh come now. There have been MANY churches much more wicked than the LDS church that have grown magnitudes faster. That's not a valid argument.

Do not mistake me here, I believe that polygamy when not ordained by God and when practiced without proper authority is evil and will have evil fruits. But I do not see those evil fruits evident in the LDS church.

I agree. If this church were of the devil as some claim, the fruits would be much worse. However, don't kid yourself. There are some rotten apples in the LDS church. Just like any other church.

I do find the Christians in general to be a little two-faced about some of the controversial issues, such as polygamy or killing in the name of the Lord, considering both these things were very much a part of the OT. The atheists at least are consistent. Many of them denounce it all and state the harshness of God as part of their reasons for not believing in God.

I agree. Many Christians belittle Mormons for believing the BoM on "faith" when they do the same with the Bible. There is a huge amount of hypocrasy in these religions.

[Deborah]

Oral Roberts claimed that a 700ft Jesus told him that he must raise a million dollars or he would be killed. Now, to us, this looks like a scam. But to his followers, since God commanded it, it is all part of good fruits. So, you see, the rest of the world puts JS in the same camp as Oral Roberts.

And if he does good with the money why not? Besides I don't think most LDS would presume to judge Roberts' motives. On the other hand he and his followers haven't been subjected to persecution and torture and death and forced out of their homes or had their leader slain in hopes of wiping out his church. The LDS have gone through all of that and persevered in spite of all hopes to wipe them out. It is reminiscent to me of the Jews throughout history who have managed to survive inspite of persecution and death camps and extermination orders.

Oh come now. There have been MANY churches much more wicked than the LDS church that have grown magnitudes faster.

Name some and tell me how many countries in the world they are in.

However, don't kid yourself. There are some rotten apples in the LDS church. Just like any other church.

Indeed there are, but they do not obtain to the leadership of the church. If such have arisen they have been removed.