Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[owl]

I want to preface my comments by saying that I think any church that teaches people to love God and love and serve each other is doing good.

Bob: I look at the authority stucture of any given local Protestant Church today, and if it serves Christ and the community with true believers who love God and their neighbor, understanding the biblical nature of God as triune and one, and that salvation is by grace through faith alone, as taught from our extremely well-preserved Biblical canon, then it is a successful body of Christ, being used of, and bringing glory to God.

Paul Ray: I think you're making a lot of assumptions...

Bob: How could I be making assumptions about what I believe, as I understand the Bible.

Not assumptions about what you believe, assumptions about what is worthy of belief.

I will grant you that, whether grace produces faith or faith accesses grace, as long as living faith leads to baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost by one who has the authority to do so, and your faith continues living to the end, you will be saved by that grace.

None the less, you are assuming that the Biblical canon has been well-preserved, and unstated but there, that your interpretation of the scriptures is correct, and therefore, that your 'triune and one' God is biblical.

I would not agree with these assumptions, but you can.

However, I think you would be on a lot safer ground if you could tell us that you had recieved a burning in the bosom about each of these issues.

The Bible is well preserved and sufficient.

Individual interpretations or even congregation interpretations are satisfactory to God.

God is triune and one, incomprehensible, and is not as the LDS believe, a perfect and exalted man who is literally the Father of our spirits.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow, Owl you realise that you are going to keep Bob busy here, lol. He will get to your post just an FYI, he has a very systematic way of doing things, he just doesnt respond to Consig.

[Paul Ray]

I think you would be on a lot safer ground if you could tell us that you had recieved a burning in the bosom about each of these issues:

First of all, not everyone receives a "burning in the bosom" sensation, or what they would refer to as a "burning in the bosom" sensation. Some people experience an "assurance from God" a little differently than some other people do.

I do agree with your main point, though. Bob and everyone else needs to receive faith from God, or a personal assurance from God, to let him know that God is personally giving him God's personal thoughts... in some way that Bob will know beyond doubt that it is God... and not just Bob or some other person.

You and I both know God has a way of doing that, and it isn't just by personally interpreting some book(s).

The Bible is well preserved and sufficient.

The Bible is well preserved and sufficient for it's purpose.

It's just that the Bible isn't the only record containing what God has said to some people.

... and I know that because God has told me, personally.

Individual interpretations or even congregation interpretations are satisfactory to God.

... satisfactory for what purpose?

I'm sure God has no problems with people having their own individual interpretations, and/or even congregational interpretations.

It's just that people shouldn't think that what they think is what God thinks, unless God has told them, personally, that what they think is really is what God thinks.

Everyone can have their own opinion, but not every opinion is God's opinion.

God is triune and one, incomprehensible, and is not as the LDS believe, a perfect and exalted man who is literally the Father of our spirits

Ah, here's the thing.

Part of the problem is that God is triune, in some way, and God is also one, in some way, and God is also incomprehensible, in some way. Those are all true ideas, in some sense.

I think people get themselves into trouble by saying that God is NOT this, or NOT that, or by NOT seeing how all truth should be connected in some way.

I know God is ALSO as LDS believe, a perfect and exalted man who is literally the Father of our spirits... because God has told me.

[consiglieri]

Wow, Owl you realise that you are going to keep Bob busy here, lol. He will get to your post just an FYI, he has a very systematic way of doing things, he just doesnt respond to Consig.

You are right. After the first time Bob broke his word and responded to me, he hasn't said a thing.

You've heard of the "Promise Keepers"?

Bob's group is the "Promise Breakers."

I tend to think he is ignoring me out of convenience.

He simply has no response the points I raise.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Zemah]

You are right. After the first time Bob broke his word and responded to me, he hasn't said a thing.

You've heard of the "Promise Keepers"?

Bob's group is the "Promise Breakers."

I tend to think he is ignoring me out of convenience.

He simply has no response the points I raise.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If it makes you feel any better, I think Bob's ignoring me too.

The positive side is that you can write just about anything you want and he won't post a rebuttal.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If it makes you feel any better, I think Bob's ignoring me too.

The positive side is that you can write just about anything you want and he won't post a rebuttal.

Dont be to fast here, Bob takes it all on a systematic approach, he doesnt want to miss anybodies post, well accept for Consig.

[Dale]

Reread 3 Nephi 28:18 and 23, and realize that they were granted to do what they were doing until Christ's return.

But, there are also other verses I quoted, that they would bring souls to Christ, going to all the scattered tribes of Israel, nations, kindreds, tongues and people. So, leaving the land of Zarahemla didn't end their priesthood calling by a longshot.

That's not the question.

Sure we do. I quoted them from 3 Nephi and D&C 7.

But, that's wasn't my question, whether they presided over any one church.

Only if priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The existence of the four, having the power and keys of Christ's ministry, refutes that claim.

I disagree. I itemized from 3 Nephi, what their roles were. We know exactly what they were doing. See above, or reread 3 Nephi 28.

"26. Why did John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John have to restore priesthood authority on Joseph Smith when RLDS doctrine teaches that at least four men with authority (the apostle John and the three Nephites) never died, but still remain on the Earth? (Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 7:1 B.C. Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 13:13-19)

Though these men were given a continuing ministry on the Earth, they are not charged with administering ecclesiastical affair's, but rather they function as heavenly ministers. The priesthood was restored to the Earth through the prophet Joseph Smith by means of these heavenly messengers, so that men in the church might once again represent Jesus Christ with power and authority." (On Behalf of Christ's Restored Gospel (Volume 1) pg. 58) Taken from an article entitled Answers to "Forty Provocative Questions" By Jim Reeves and Jon Tandy.

"26. Why did John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John have to restore priesthood authority on Joseph Smith when RLDS doctrine teaches at least four men with authority (the apostle John and the three Nephites) never died, but still remain on the earth? (Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 7:1 B.C. Book of Mormon 13:13-19)

Though these men were given a continuing ministry on the Earth, they are not charged with administering ecclesiastical affair's, but rather they function as heavenly ministers. The priesthood was restored to the Earth through the prophet Joseph Smith, so that men in the church might once again represent Jesus Christ with power and authority." (On Behalf of Christ's Restored Gospel (Volume 1) pg. 58) The answer is taken from an article enitled Answers to "Forty Provocative Questions" By Jim Reeves and John Tandy.

Bob-Does that answer your concern?

[Zemah]

Dont be to fast here, Bob takes it all on a systematic approach, he doesnt want to miss anybodies post, well accept for Consig.

That's encouraging; I guess Iâ??ll keep asking questions of him.

1). Do Protestants today believe the Catholic Church is in a state of apostasy as did the first Protestant reformers?

2). Since the Catholic church never really did change (reform), since the reformers failed to convert the â??mother churchâ?, why are you not playing â??concerned Christianâ? with the catholic Christians who are still in a false church?

3). Since the reformers failed at their initial goal of reform, shouldnâ??t todayâ??s Protestants try to finish the job of changing the Catholic church started by their forefathers?

4). Is it ironic or hypocritical for Protestants to preach to the latter-day saint when there remains all of Catholicism to convert to the truth?

5). Is it wrong for me to assign disingenuous motives upon your attempt to convert latter-day saints to the lesser covenant Christians maintain?

Patiently yours,

Zemah

[Hammer]

Bob states: "You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets."

You have some kind of indepth record with pictures and artifacts to back this statement up? We do honor our prophets. But you treat our prophet Joseph Smith the same way they did in the OT and NT.

2 Chr. 36: 16

16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

Neh. 9: 26

26 Nevertheless they were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their backs, and slew thy prophets which testified against them to turn them to thee, and they wrought great provocations.

Isa. 30: 9

9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:

Jer. 20: 2

2 Then Pashur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the LORD.

Luke 16: 31

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Doesn't this seem like the way you and your fellows treat prophets today?

[Dale]

Who say's prophet's need to be treated only as Old Testament prophet's were treated? Is such different treatment inappropriate? The New Testament was added to the Old Testament. That mean's to me the Old Testament is no longer an final authority on what's appropriate. Certainly in Mormonism Joseph Smith seem's to be treated second to Christ.

Does Jesus consider Joseph Smith's treatment inappropriate? It doesn't matter what man thinks, but what Jesus thinks.

[owl]

Contrary to what your religion teaches and believes, grace cannot be earned. It's free from God (Eph. 2:8-9). Not only are works not required for God's unmerited favor, works cannot buy God's favor.

I know this has been said many times, but perhaps if you hear it enough, you will quit making incorrect statements about us.

We do not and cannot earn grace. Everyone is saved from physical death. Being reunited with God can only happen if we are saved from sin. Without the atonement of Jesus Christ, being forgiven of our sins is not possible. Justice requires a price for sin, and Christ was willing to pay that price for us.

We believe our salvation is by grace, but that we access that grace by repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. Surely you do not believe you will be forgiven of sins without first repenting. Fully repenting itself may only be possible through grace, but whether we can repent on our own or we can only repent through the aid of Christ and the Holy Ghost, repentance is a neccessary step in the path to forgiveness. We do believe that if we love Christ we must keep His commandments, but we do not believe that keeping commandments earns us salvation. Salvation is a gift freely given by Christ to those who accept Him.

Mosiah 2:21,23,24 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants....

And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.

And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

So we believe that even if we do choose to repent, be baptised, and receive the Holy Ghost to access salvation we are just keeping God's commandments and cannot boast.

[owl]

What's minimalistic about "after all you can do"? What's minimalistic about "total effort on the part of the recipient"? What's minimalistic about having to "deny yourself of all ungodliness, THEN is His grace sufficient for you"?

If God has [even] minimalistic demands on us, then Christ's crucifixion was NOT sufficient to satisfy the debt for all sins and for everlasting life.

Bob,

I realize that according to your OSAS belief it requires no effort on your part to forsake sin and to live a Christlike life after once having professed with your lips that Christ is your savior. However, I am confident that you do not believe that a living faith requires just lip service, or that a man can expect salvation if he professes Christ and continues sinning.

Why then, if we believe that to receive salvation we must repent and forsake sin, does repentance become a work of which we can boast, but for you it does not?

[owl]

I don't ask for directions from God, when He's already given them.

Obviously, God did not have any prophet write, "In the last days when there will be many churches, true believers should join the baptist church." He did not name any specific organization. He did have an Apstle tell us, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1: 5)

...I know what to look for in a local Church, regarding their teachings and doctrines.

You are very confident. I hope you will consider me respectful, if I ask, "Have you prayed about this and received an answer? How did the answer come?

...we would then prayerfully decide if this local Church is where we would want to plant ourselves.

I'm glad you do not consider the heavens completely closed. We can still expect inspiration from God.

[owl]

You're very welcome. Thank you for the very courteous questions, without having to relentlessly accuse me of "strawmen" and "obfuscation" in every post, as some are want to do.

I am a little upset that any LDS poster would be so impolite. Thank you for your patience.

Most of us hope we can say something that will convince you that in large part our beliefs are much the same as yours and where we differ our interpretation of the scriptures is not unreasonable, just different from your present belief.

If our religion were the same in every respect except for the idea of angels, visions, and new scriptures, and if it originated by someone studying the Bible and coming up with ideas that came closer to the original gospel and church organization, I think you would find it easier to accept us as Christians.

[Hammer]

Who say's prophet's need to be treated only as Old Testament prophet's were treated? Is such different treatment inappropriate? The New Testament was added to the Old Testament. That mean's to me the Old Testament is no longer an final authority on what's appropriate. Certainly in Mormonism Joseph Smith seem's to be treated second to Christ.

Does Jesus consider Joseph Smith's treatment inappropriate? It doesn't matter what man thinks, but what Jesus thinks.

Well since you believe you can tell us what Jesus thinks of Joseph Smith treatment, lets measure yours against mine above.

Joseph was treated quite rudely. 200 court cases set up against him? Murdered? Jesus wasn't not happy with this in the least.

Until the enemies of the church realize they are in the same group as those who cast out the prophets and killed them, they will not have the truth.

You have some kind of indepth record with pictures and artifacts to back this statement up? We do honor our prophets. But you treat our prophet Joseph Smith the same way they did in the OT and NT.

2 Chr. 36: 16

16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

Neh. 9: 26

26 Nevertheless they were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their backs, and slew thy prophets which testified against them to turn them to thee, and they wrought great provocations.

Isa. 30: 9

9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:

Jer. 20: 2

2 Then Pashur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the LORD.

Luke 16: 31

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Doesn't this seem like the way you and your fellows treat prophets today?

I believe this needs to be re-read!

[Dale]

Hammer-To clarify i wasn't thinking of that kind of treatment when i was thinking of inappropriate treatment. I was thinking of the fact LDS do have a special status for Joseph Smith that goes beyond the treatment of Old Testament prophet's. He has a status that is second to Christ in popularity. Evangelicals think that kind of status is inapropriate, and that's all i meant. Does Jesus think that status inappropriate? I wasn't asking about Joseph Smith's bad treatment at the hands of men.

[Zemah]

I donâ??t worry about Joseph and his fate in the eyes of God. I know that God â??is no respecter of personsâ?. Look how He treated Israel (Jacob), â??I will be with you until I am done with you.â?

I worry more for the people who, by denying Joseph Smith was a prophet, are denying the power of the Holy Ghost and the will of God in revelation. Itâ??s understandable to not believe that Joseph was a prophet; he even said, â??I wonâ??t believe it myself if it hadnâ??t happened to me.â? But it is not OK to ignore or dismantle the word of God that came through the Holy Ghost.

The issue is the wrath of God that awaits those who fight against the LDS Church. Blasphemy Joseph Smith all you want, his glory in Christ is untouchable. Even the Son of Man allowed his person to be physically assaulted and spiritually insulted by men.

But having tasted the spiritual death that awaits the sinner, I can assure you the things you say and do here on earth will haunt you at the gates of the new world. The toll exacted by a mouth of dissention and persecution against His Church cannot be paid, except through much grief. We die with empty pockets and no collateral when we confront the work of God and Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Zemah

[owl]

Bob: I doubt that you would view our Protestant Churches as having become less wrong, our creeds less abominable, and our professors less corrupt. At least not according to what I've heard on THIS site.

I believe many of them are making a lot of progress, actually.

Amen. For an example, many no longer marry "until death do you part" or "so long as you both shall live", not that they marry for eternity, or claim the authority to do so, but it seems to be LDS influence that caused the change in wording. I doubt they would have changed because of the prevalence of divorce.

[Dale]

What if the statement of Joseph Smith were revised so as to make it written about Mormon's? Maybe someone ought to do that for fun. Then i would wonder if any Evangelical would then object to the revised content. Are not LDS beliefs abominable to the Lord of Evangelicals, and to Evangelicals themselves? Are Mormon professors not corrupt to them until they get saved, and start preaching Evangelical orthodoxy?

Do they really think they can find any non-corrupt LDS authorities in another community? LDS critic's don't think any LDS knows the true Jesus in their hearts. So LDS hearts to them are far from God, and that they teach the commandments of men. That LDS have a form of godliness, but deny the power only present among saved men.

[consiglieri]

If it makes you feel any better, I think Bob's ignoring me too.

The positive side is that you can write just about anything you want and he won't post a rebuttal.

A fact on which I am doing my best to capitalize.

My position is that if Bob does not deny any of my allegations, he is tacitly admitting they are true.

Silence is consent.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[owl]

Dear Bob,

Worry you have been busy elsewhere. You have been very patient with us. I wonder if you understand our position any better. I do feel I understand yours better and even agree with some of it.

[owl]

Bob, Thanks for your response. I’m just about caught up and I got to this. I don’t know if someone else may have answered for me, but here are my thoughts on this.

Bob is right that the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ exists in Heaven. The original 12, less Judas, are there, and they still have their authority, so the Church does exist in Heaven.

I don't recall saying anything about "the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ exists in Heaven." You must have me mixed up with someone else. I've never said this.

Perhaps, I should have said that you are right that the foundation of the Church exists in heaven, not the organization. However, when the Church began, its initial organization consisted entirely of Jesus and the apostles. Thus I tend to equate the organization and the foundation.

Furthermore, at the risk of putting words in his mouth, there is no hope of convincing him of a Great Apostacy between the time of Christ and the present as long as Bob believes that apostles, authority, a church organization, and revelation are not needed on earth. If he believes no organization is necessary on earth, how could there have been a complete apostacy. The words Universal and Apostasy are not found in any of the scriptures. Bob admits there have been wolves among the flock and a falling away, but throughout this time, we have had the Scriptures, imperfect as they may be, and there have always been believers, misguided as some of them may have been. There has been continuous access to whatever truth can be found in the Bible, limited as access may have been before printing and before common people could read.

Correct. I do not see any apostasy of priesthood authority or keys being taken from the earth, since Christ has always been here as He promised He would be. I've also talked about a remnant of God's people, which is consistent throughout the OT, and no doubt God would have ensured one since the deaths of the Apostles. Christ was still here in Spirit, along with Bishops and Elders and Deacons, etc. The permanent and immovable foundation was laid, unaffected by the deaths of the Apostles, with Christ still here as the Head and Chief Cornerstone.

For at least some time after the deaths of the apostles, there were still authorized Bishops, Elders, and Deacons, but you surely do not believe that authority continued to the present or you would be Catholic. And do you honestly believe that access to the scriptures only through what those church Fathers chose to read to you would be adequate?

Bob, I'm not trying to trip you up, but what makes you sure you are alive in Christ? Don't try to convince me. Just tell me what convinces you.

Mostly the promises of God through Christ in the scriptures. But, also the conviction of Christ's Spirit in me. The fruit of the Spirit which I bear. The peace of God which surpasses human comprehension, which I experience. The testimony of a few miracles God has done in my life. The understanding of the Word of God, which requires the Spirit. The gifts that I've received for the building up of the Body of Christ, which I successfully use. These are a few reasons I know I'm alive in Christ.

I believe you are alive in Christ at least to some degree. The Holy Ghost, or at least the Spirit of Christ which is given to all men, will testify of truth where ever you find it, and certainly when you find it in the scriptures.

To LDS it (feeling alive in Christ) is when we feel the burning in our hearts as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

As I've examined that story, I've determined that their experience was not the same as what you (LDS) desribe. First, they weren't praying about anything, and never did in the story. Second, it could not have been the Spirit burning within them, since Christ had not ascended to His throne and sent the Spirit, yet. Third, they didn't even recognize Christ until later when he broke bread and gave it to them.

The burning in their hearts didn't tell them that Christ was true, or His preaching was true. There is no indication that their experience was under the same conditions as what LDS claim to receive such a burning. Also, I recently had a former LDS Bishop, who is now a high LDS priest, tell me he never got a burning in the bosom, and that it wasn't necessary. He said he felt peace, but not a burning.

I’m sorry if I seemed to imply that the overpowering burning is the only way the Holy Ghost can influence us. Among others, comfort in the face of trouble, calm peace and assurance about a decision, a feeling of enlightenment when a new idea comes to you about the scriptures you are reading are also examples.

I too have wondered about the road to Emmaus being an example of a witness of The Holy Ghost since the gift was scheduled to be received at Pentecost. However, since the two disciples experience is so like the witness I felt when one of the apostles was opening the scriptures to me at a conference, it must have been a special dispensation.

Not all witnesses of the Holy Ghost are in answer to a prayer given immediately previously. It certainly seems to me that, in the case of the disciples on the road, the burning was a witness to the truth of what Christ was showing them. And the reason the disciples did not recognize Christ was that their eyes were holden. That may have been so they could pay attention to what he was saying and not be distracted by the miracle of his resurrection.

Also, why do ministers marry for time only when Peter was given power to bind on earth and have it be bound in Heaven?

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus does tell Peter about His authority to bind and loose, but it never mention marriage for eternity. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus said it again in the specific context of dealing with someone who is unrepentant of their sin, not in context of marriage. Why do you assume marriage is supposed to be for eternity from these passages?

The authority given Peter was to be able to perform ordinances that would be valid in the eternities. I don’t know why if a member had an unresolved dispute with a brother, binding or loosing would be involved unless "let him be as heathen and a publican" meant excommunicate him. I agree there is no proof here that marriage is an ordinance that would be valid in eternity, but it seems reasonable that marriage would be one of the ordinances that should be eternal. Paul did say that the man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord.(1 Cor. 11: 11)

Adam and Eve were not married for time only since there was as yet no death when Eve became Adam's wife.

But, there is no evidence in scripture that we remain married in heaven. Not that we won't be with our spouses. But, why in the capacity of man and wife. There's a reason why Christ dealt with this very question in response to the Saducees, "Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Remember that Christ was speaking to unbelievers. If I remember right the Saducees did not even believe in the resurrection, so I doubt that the Saducee marriages spoken of were for eternity even if eternal marriage was the preferred alternative. (See Mola Ram's 631))

As to why we should be in heaven in the capacity of man and wife, since you do not believe we progress to become perfect like God our Father, you obviously don’t see any need to be married in order to be parents of spirit children. However, at the very least, wouldn’t it be nicer to have the same closeness to your wife in heaven as you do here, not just have our spouses as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

As to evidence in the scriptures, the works that did contain more specific references to eternal marriage were not left in the cannon.

[Zemah]

Bob, Thanks for your response.

Did I miss it? Or is he now responding in PM's?

Yet my mail box is empty of any response from Bob to my questions.

[owl]

The following is comments on Bobs post 632 responding to one of mine.

BCSpace "One certainly can have the promise of future salvation though. The Bible testifies that one is not saved until after it is determined that you have endured to the end (Matthew 24:13 etc.)"

Bob ... if you include this verse with all other salvation-related scriptures, and in context, then enduring to the end is one of several expectations on those who already have been saved, along with loving God, loving your neighbor, doing the will of the Father, etc. Salvation is secured to those who have been saved, unless they prove they weren't really saved by NOT fulfilling the expectations of the Christian life. This is precisely what James was talking about in his letter, chapter 2:14ff. Faith without works is dead faith. A faith that IS alive in Christ WILL be a saved life of good works, of loving God and neighbor, and enduring to the end.

Owl The difference in this area between LDS and Evangelicals seems very slight.

Bob Then read some of my most recent posts. The differences are night and day.

The LDS and evangelical ideas of behavior after being saved still seem close to me.

]Owl We believe that Faith and repentance are both necessary, and that if a believer has completely repented, his life will become free of sin and filled with good works.

Bob Wow, I never said THAT at all. John said, If we say we have no sin, then we are a liar and the truth is not in us.(1 John 1:?) I will never be free, this side of heaven, from the sinful nature which still lives in me. Read what Paul said regarding this in Rom. 7.

If you read more of 1 John 1, John was talking to believers about their condition before accepting Christ through baptism. The commandment to be perfect still applies.

Owl You apparently, if I understood correctly, believe that when one accepts Christ as his individual Savior a mighty change is wrought, and he has no more desire to do evil, but to do good continually.

Bob Not at all: Gal. 5:17 "For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please." I have to die to my flesh, daily. I desire to do good continually, and wish I didn't desire to sin, but the desire has not left me, nor will it in this life. Read Rom. 7.

In response to your request, I read Romans ch. 6-8. I particularly liked 8.

Owl Therefore, his life becomes filled with good works.

Bob "filled" would be an exaggeration.

Then is it a saved life of good works, but we still struggle against sin? You did say that one who is truly saved and is alive in Christ will manifest a life of good works. Actually I think you said it was an expectation, and that if we did not fulfill the expectation we were not really saved.

Owl Actually the concept I attributed to the evangelicals is very LDS, it is just that while we believe such a mighty change is a gift from God, the gift is only given after all we can do.

Bob Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the gift must be earned, "only given after all we can do," then it's NOT a gift. Can you imagine a father telling his, "I have this free gift for you, of a brand new puppy. No charge. But, you have to work for it. Here's the list of requirements." What's free about the father's gift if it must be earned by a list of required works? Do LDS make their children earn their birthday and Christmas gifts?

Bob, You say, “I have to die to my flesh, daily. I desire to do good continually, and wish I didn't desire to sin, but the desire has not left me.” Do you see that when you say that the truly saved are expected to live a life filled with good works, and that they must struggle daily, it sounds a lot like all you can do.

When I am struggling and call for help, it comes. Still, when I would if left to the natural man, just succumb, it sure feels a lot like all I can do to just reach out for help.

We LDS do believe in a mighty change being wrought in our hearts, but it still seems to me that the struggle against sin you describe for evangelicals is very like what we LDS experience. The mighty chnge does not eliminate the need to take up our cross daily, but Christ makes the burden light if we let Him.

[owl]

Did I miss it? Or is he now responding in PM's?

His response was several days and pages ago. I'm still reading back on page 36. I was gone for a couple days and got back about page 40. I have 4 pages left to be caught up.