Honest question for my evangelical friends

[LeSellers]

Sorry he will not be able to see this. It's a great rebuttal, masterfully crafted, and absolutely irrefutable.

Your argument that Christ, to be fully man, requires him to have physical gametes from his father and mother, is refuted, by your own admittance that Adam did not inherit gametes from any parents.

You ignore the fact that the two cases are very, very different. Jesus had two parents. Adam had none at all.

You impose God, who can form man out of dust, and woman out of a rib, is limited by what He can do with a womb.

Not at all. He can do anything necessary. However, there is no reason to believe that He does anything in a "miraculous" way when a "natural" means exists. You seem to fear what He can do with a womb.

Furthermore, why should we believe that God is not Jesus' Father when both Father and Son have declared He is? Your position makes God a liar. It makes Christ a liar. It makes the Holy Ghost a liar. They have all born witness that God is Jesus' Father, but you refuse to believe Them.

There is no reason to believe that God does not have a physical body, and many to accept that He does.

We know Christ was conceived in Mary's womb as she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. What we don't know is if Mary was just a surrogate and God supplied a fully fertilized egg, or if her egg was used, or even if there was an egg at all.

No, we don't know from scripture exactly what the process was. But we do know that the scriptures are uniform in calling Mary His mother and God His Father.

I believe that God is bright enough to employ unambiguous terminology (whether in Hebrew, English, Aramaic, or Greek) to describe the relationship between Him and Jesus. That He uses "Father" and "Son" repeatedly means something to me and to most people who understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Those who support the Greek philosophers, that matter is implicitly evil and the immaterial is inherently good have emasculated God, destroyed His Person, and undermined the relationship between Them and us, His children.

There are some verses that may allude to a distance between Christ and Mary:

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"

Mat 12:48

You're really fishing here. You seem to be claiming that Jesus was telling us that Mary was not His mother. He was making a totally different point.

Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."

Jn 2:4

"Woman" was a polite term, as I have read, for a man to address his mother.

The whole sentence doesn't make any sense if we read it as it stands. He must have meant something more like, "Mom, it's not my place to step in here, and it's not the right time or place anyway."

Since the Father is spirit, ...

Only according to your distorted interpretation of the scriptures.

...we conclude He has no physical gametes. That Christ would have received gametes would have been created for that purpose.

Your conclusion is based on the false assumption that God has no physical body and therefor no gametes.

The point is that without both a mortal mother (whose mortality made it possible for Him to die) and an immortal Father (whose immortality made it possible for Him to avoid death) there could have been no Sacrifice in Gethsemane and on Golgotha. If He had to die as all mortals must, then his death would have been impotent. If He could not die at all, there would have been no Crucifixion. He needed both, and He got both conditions, one from each parent.

A 40,000 ft. view of LDS doctrine, Mary and Christ would be the spiritual children of HF and HM. A consequence of your argument means that the Father, in some physical capacity, impregnated one of his daughters. Last I checked, that's incest.

Just as Adam's children, in order to fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth had to marry their siblings. So what?

Now it appears to be you who are limiting the power of God.

Besides, you're just plain wrong. Mary was not God's physical daughter, Christ was His physical Son by her. It was not incest. And, you seem to imply that there was sexual intercourse, which is not what we know at all. What we know is that God is Jesus' father. We know that there are a variety means that we insignificant mortals can make a woman pregnant without sexual intercourse, so it is more than possible that the same thing (or something even more "miraculous") that allows God to have sired Jesus Christ without offending your delicate sex-is-evil,-so-God-could-not-have-done-it sensibilities. (However, as I read Genesis, God saw that His works were "good" (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) until He joined Man and Woman. You will note, after He commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the Earth God saw that it was "very good" (1:31). Apparently, sex is very good in the eyes of God.)

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Thank you again for your comments (below). I hope my response will not come across as personally disrespectful, even though I have strong disagreements with your perspective.

In characterizing LDS requirements for individual salvation (entrance into the celestial kingdom) as a "checklist," I don't mean to suggest that Mormons don't find spiritual value or significance in them. No doubt you do. But this doesn't change the fact that there is a checklist. A checklist is not necessarily a bad thing. We want airline pilots to go through their checklist before takeoff. Each item on the list is important to the safe functioning of the aircraft. My point, though, is that in regards to salvation, to teach that there is a fairly lengthy list of things that a person must do (or not do) in order to be saved is contrary to the biblical gospel message that salvation--eternal life--is a free gift of God (Rom. 6:23). You can explain every item on the checklist in pious terms about each bringing you closer to the Savior or making you more like him, but in reality you are still trying to save yourself by your works. You do an excellent job of articulating the significance of LDS obligations in evangelical terminology, no doubt due to your upbringing as a pastor's kid, but in doing so you are glossing over serious, not merely semantic, differences.

Of course, another major problem I have with what you say is that I don't agree that God commands anyone to be married for eternity, be baptized for the dead, and so forth. Nor do I think God forbids people to drink tea. If I claimed to be a prophet of God and announced that God has forbidden his people to eat chocolate chip cookies, I'm sure my apologists could come up with plausible-sounding explanations for why the prohibition will enhance my health and bring me closer to Jesus, but that doesn't make it true. To the contrary, such prohibitions are not in keeping with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles (Mark 7:14-19; Col. 2:16-23).

The establishment of a system of temples and ordinances is a step backward from the Christian gospel, backward from the substance to the shadow (see Col. 2:16-23 again). I am not anti-ordinance, since of course I accept the NT practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper, but these do not have the significance in NT Christianity that they and the temple ordinances have in Mormonism. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are respectively an initiatory sign and remembrance of the covenant, not steps in the ascent to higher and higher spiritual levels (an idea that has some precedent in mystical versions of Christianity but not in the Bible). The NT knows nothing of the idea of Christian temples and teaches that the temple and its distinctive functions became outmoded by the coming of Christ and his sacrifice on the cross for our sins (e.g., John 4:20-24; Ephesians 2:11-22; Hebrews 2-20; 1 Peter 2:4-10). The fact that your religion is actively preaching all over the world the claim that no one can live with God the Father forever or have their families together in heaven apart from the LDS system of priesthood, temple, and ordinances is, from an evangelical perspective, an affront to the gospel of grace that Christ has commissioned us to take to the nations.

Well, those are some brief thoughts in response to your post. I appreciate your patience as it took me several days to get around to it.

Rob, Let me explain again, in different, and then perhaps more personal terms.

The ordinances (all of them) have us symbolically walking in the footsteps of the life and ministry of the Savior, bringing His life to our remembrance, while being a token of a spiritual covenant which brings additional blessings as we place our will more in line with His. They teach us of the character of Christ, and of His attributes. They are guideposts which help us to see and recognize where we are. For those who have been properly taught, they bring hope. As we are striving earnestly to be like our Savior, our natural man gives way more and more to the working of the Holy Spirit within us. The changing of us into a new creature is a cooperative effort, and not done against our will. Obedience to the Lord is a way we submit our will to his, and allow the spirit to work, and to greater empower us.

While often characterized as a checklist of things we need to do to be saved, that really isn't accurate, although I understand why it can be viewed that way. The ordinances and level of our service are helpers and indicators of our own level of conversion.

When we are baptized, it is the beginning - it shows an acceptance of the belief and faith in in the ministry of Jesus Christ, that He Lives, and that He has personally restored His Church. It recognizes the authority of the Lord, and of His Kingdom. It is the covenant of Salvation - an act symbolizing the death of our old life, and new life as a child of Christ, subject to Him, and a pledge to obey him. The reception of the Gift of the Holy Ghost is an endowment of power that will spiritually cleanse us and do the work of sanctification in us as we align our will with the Lord's, and don't resist it.

The Sacrament is a pledge of allegiance to the Savior - renewing our vows that we may have broken, and allowing additional spiritual healing to do its work as we symbolically come back into communion with the Savior.

Temple Service, which emphasizes the necessity of the Atonement in our Salvation, takes us further into the role of the Savior, walking even further symbolically in the Savior's footsteps, covenanting to live even more like the Savior. It also enables us to participate in proxy work in the smallest degree in imitation of the Savior's great and infinite proxy work of Atonement. Our love and selfless service towards others is increased. Without Charity, the scriptures teach, we are nothing. Temple service helps us to be prepared to receive, in a very special way, the gift of Charity.

Rob, those of us who study the Gospel and live the Gospel do not view these as simple checkoff lists. They are guideposts which grant greater hope. Each ordinance and covenant, when emulated and followed, brings us by degrees closer to the Savior in heart and deed. As we do so, we become prepared to receive a greater measure of grace, and grow to the next level.

We can always know where we stand with the Lord. If we are currently faithful to our covenants (in mind and deed), we can see that the spirit has worked within us, and we are made aware of areas we desire to work on and pray specifically for help on to become more like our great Exemplar, recognizing that without the Atonement, we'd still be at the starting line. Not even there yet, actually. The ordinances are good, but not perfect indicators.

I grew up in an evangelical Church. My dad is still an evangelical minister. While still recognizing I have a long way to go, I recognize a much greater yearning and desire to be like my Savior now than I did before. I have a greater faith and reliance on the Lord in all that I do. I trust completely in the Atonement of Jesus Christ to save me. But I feel it would be a sign of complete disregard to the Savior if I did not obey what I have come to have a conviction of is His will and plan. Even when I falter, I don't worry about my salvation. I have complete hope in the redemptive work of the Atonement to cover my faults - but I desire to keep striving to be like my Savior, that I may be more effective in serving others.

You appear to make it seem like your belief is that our attempts to obey many ordinances and commandments shows that we do not have saving faith, because we do not rely solely on Christ's redemptive ability separate from our own actions.

I believe you when you say you do works of righteousness as a result of your love for the Savior and the acceptance of His grace, as a sign of his working within you. What I ask is that you believe the same of us when we say so, semantics aside.

Because of the work of the Lord in my life, I desire to continuously do as he asks me, believing that the additional empowerment I receive from doing so is a direct result of actively submitting my will to His degree by degree, causing the natural man to lose power by degree, and to more embrace the New Life in Christ. Our willingness and ability to receive and obey personal communication from the Lord in these regards is another sign of our progress.

It increases Faith.

It's been said that Abraham's obedience in his command to sacrifice Isaac was more because "Abraham needed to learn something about Abraham" - and I think that is a key reason for our need to heed the ordinances and commandments. They help us learn where we are, what we are willing to do, and sacrifice. It's easy to say, "I'd do anything for the Lord" when we are not asked much. But when we are, we see what we are really willing to do. We learn our degree of commitment, and what needs to be worked on to be more like the Savior here and now.

When we fully submit our will as the Savior did, and know it, we truly know him better than we ever could otherwise. This is my understanding of John 17:3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

I think this aspect of how any why we live our lives as we do is largely ignored by our critics. It is viewed solely as a "Saved by Works, Saved by Grace" dichotomy, which it really isn't at all, and greatly belittles our faith and reliance on the Lord, and our desires and efforts to emulate Him.

[Vance]

. . . but in reality you are still trying to save yourself by your works.

Why do anti-Mormon evangelicals stick to this myth regardless how often it is shown to be in error?

Why is understanding this so difficult for them? Is it beyond their comprehension? Is there some defect that prevents them from understanding?

I just don't get their problem.

Edited to add,

Rob,

You are AGAIN trying to tell us what we believe, and AGAIN getting it WRONG!!!

[David T]

Rob, thanks for your response.

nackhadlow,

Thank you again for your comments (below). I hope my response will not come across as personally disrespectful, even though I have strong disagreements with your perspective.

In characterizing LDS requirements for individual salvation (entrance into the celestial kingdom) as a "checklist," I don't mean to suggest that Mormons don't find spiritual value or significance in them. No doubt you do. But this doesn't change the fact that there is a checklist. A checklist is not necessarily a bad thing. We want airline pilots to go through their checklist before takeoff. Each item on the list is important to the safe functioning of the aircraft. My point, though, is that in regards to salvation, to teach that there is a fairly lengthy list of things that a person must do (or not do) in order to be saved is contrary to the biblical gospel message that salvation--eternal life--is a free gift of God (Rom. 6:23). You can explain every item on the checklist in pious terms about each bringing you closer to the Savior or making you more like him, but in reality you are still trying to save yourself by your works.

Although I didn't initially intend to, It turns out I address this a little bit more below. It grew into something much longer than I thought I'd be writing.

You do an excellent job of articulating the significance of LDS obligations in evangelical terminology, no doubt due to your upbringing as a pastor's kid,

Thank you.

but in doing so you are glossing over serious, not merely semantic, differences.

I do think, however, that before differences can be discussed, similarities in outlook need to be understood, or else there will be a huge amount of talking past each other - which often happens in these discussions. While I certainly recognize there are huge differences in our understanding of scripture and doctrine, I feel that often times discussions such as this make it seem as if there are far more than there are. An unwillingness to even associate with similarities in the other point of view, for the fear that it would appear to make one look sympathetic or in agreement with the Whole. It's not necessary, and damaging to coming to an understanding.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous when I use terms that you also use. I'm trying to present our belief and devotion to the savior in a way that is more difficult to be caricatured.

I think it comes down, in full essence, to our understanding of what God does, and what our will has to do with.

I think it comes down to our definitions and understanding concerning the terms Justification, and Sanctification, and how they relate to "Salvation."

Please bear with me.

My understanding does not conceive of a God who changes an individual's will without consent. And I understand that one may view the initial confession of salvation through Christ as that Consent. I can't reconcile Jesus' statements such as "the merciful will receive mercy", 'with what judgment you judge others you will be judged", and other such without seeing a directive and promise that to enjoy the promised blessed life in Heaven, one needs to actively seek to acquire those attributes. That this involves leaving our comfort zones, and emulating the Savior. In turn, I do not believe that one's Will and Desires and behaviors can (or would be) instantaneously changed by God at the moment of Judgment, or entrance into Heaven.

I guess it's my point of view that imitation truly is the sincerest form of flattery, and that if someone professes to want to live in Heaven with Jesus in everlasting Joy, one should be willing to strive to live the attributes that Jesus lived. To take his admonitions to "Go, and do likewise" not as an impossible ideal, but as something he expects us to work at desiring to do. That he gives us the gifts of the spirit to assist and motivate us in our abilities to bless the lives of others.

I know you don't believe in Eternal Marriage between individual humans. But you do believe in the Eternal Marriage between Christ and His Church, the Bride.

We view Ephesians 5 as a direct centerpiece between Christ's relationship to the Church, and our covenant relationship with our spouses.The symbolism is brought even stronger to our minds when we recognize that just the Church's relationship with Christ does not end at death, neither does our marriage covenant. Yet, one can reject the Church, and no longer be part of the Bride, just as well as one can break out a Covenant marriage by disobedience and a change in heart.

The parallel loses a degree of value to us when even faithful commitment to our covenant spouses has an inevitable disillusion at death, while Christ's relationship to the Church becomes a greater and stronger unity at our death.

Just as we plan our marriages around that eternal perspective, and strive to change our behaviors and attitudes and values around becoming united eternally, we plan our lives with Christ accordingly: we recognize habits and desires that will not work eternally as a Companion to Christ, and strive to change our wills to be more like His. I know, in my marriage, if we ignore a conflict of will or base desire, through the years, it will escalate. Can you imagine that on an eternal level? To be caught in an Eternal Marriage with someone you can't stand, and have nothing in common with, would be hell! The same goes with our wills and desires.

So it brings me to two things I can't imagine:

1) Being joyful in the presence of God with wills and desires different from His, and

2) God forcedly changing my will and desires without my own complete and willful submission.

I truly do believe this comes down to a difference between my understanding of Justification (forgiveness of our sins - something topical), and Sanctification (removal of the desire to sin, and our sinful nature). Both I view as completely unmerited. To my understanding, to say that anything we do merits either of those things is an absurdity. From our perspective, Justification is only merited by living a perfect life, with not a momentary desire in opposition to the will of God's. We all lose that pretty early in life. From that point on, there is absolutely nothing we could do to merit the status of being Just before God. As good as we may be, we have stained ourself, and lost our standing before God.

Jesus Christ is the only merit-ably Just one who has ever walked on this earth. He alone merited his Justification. Even the very willingness to extend the status of Justification to us is a complete act of unmerited grace. No matter what he may ask us to do in order to show we accept it, it is not something we could ever, ever accomplish without Jesus. His desire to carry and remove from us the effects of sin, and willingness to do so, alone, is more grace than I can fathom! From our point of view, Baptism is the way we enter into and accept Covenant of Salvation and Justification. This will bring us into Heaven, into the presence of God's Kingdom, cleansed of our record of sin.

However, even upon being Justified, I do not believe we are immediately Sanctified. I believe one can be Justified (Saved) and enter into the Lord's presence, and it would still be a hell to them, because their desires are completely at odds with the love and glory of God. They could not bear to be in his presence, and would shrink away! This may even be the true reason behind the Three Degrees of Glory doctrine - the Saved who have not been diligent in working with the Lord are kept from his presence only by their own natures - and not from any sort of physical barrier (somewhat like C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, which I think is actually a very fascinating look at heaven/hell, and has much application to the LDS view).

I personally believe that obedience to the further commandments and ordinances provide additional tools of grace that work in us for Sanctification - a change of our very natures to be prepared to not only be in God's presence, but to feel at home there, and be prepared to be, in deed, a "Good and faithful servant".

The Lord first Justifies us - which comes by initial Faith in Jesus Christ, repentance (which will of a matter of course produce "fruits meet for repentance", as in Matthew 3: 8 , and the specific choice of entering into the Covenant with Christ, acknowledgment His Sovereignty, and His being the only means of Salvation. These, as I understand them, are the only prerequisites of Justification (Salvation) through Christ.

Then, in this Justified (Saved)relationship, the next goal is to work with Christ towards full sanctification - again, something that requires divine endowments such as the gifts of the spirit and presence of the cleansing power of the Holy Ghost to actively work on us - again, something we have no power to merit on our own. We activate and use the sanctifying tools given us, so that when we enter into God's presence, we are not just cleansed topically, but our very natures are fully cleansed of desires to do anything contrary to God's will - not out of fear, but out of love and adoration, and a degree of understanding.

This, I think, is the key difference, and is necessary to understand before a dialogue will be much more than eternally talking past one another!

Thanks, Rob, for your desires to understand and properly communicate our beliefs. Hopefully this may help you understand some of our viewpoints from a different perspective.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Why do anti-Mormon evangelicals stick to this myth regardless how often it is shown to be in error?

Why is understanding this so difficult for them? Is it beyond their comprehension? Is there some defect that prevents them from understanding?

I just don't get their problem.

Edited to add,

Rob,

You are AGAIN trying to tell us what we believe, and AGAIN getting it WRONG!!!

I am not telling you what you believe. I am telling you what the doctrine of the LDS Church means from my perspective as an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian.

As for my understanding of LDS doctrine, my problem, Vance, is that I have to decide whether I will accept what some guy on the Internet named Vance says is LDS doctrine, or what LDS presidents, apostles, and other widely accepted LDS sources have routinely said over the years. I am thinking of such statements as the following:

"We should remember that all blessings are based upon faithfulness and that salvation is an individual matter. We receive according to our works

[Vance]

I am not telling you what you believe.

That is NOT the way it comes across!!

Quotes like ". . . but in reality you are still trying to save yourself by your works" don't suggest your "perspective" at all.

I am telling you what the doctrine of the LDS Church means from my perspective as an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian.

Then you still don't understand LDS theology/doctrine. And considering the time you have spent, it is easy to assume that you don't WANT to understand it.

"We should remember that all blessings are based upon faithfulness and that salvation is an individual matter. We receive according to our works

[Calm]

In turn, I do not believe that one's Will and Desires and behaviors can (or would be) instantaneously changed by God at the moment of Judgment, or entrance into Heaven.

I think this view (that "imposed from outside" change is inappropriate) is based deeply in the LDS perception of man as an eternal being as opposed to the more general Christian concept of man as a creature of God. God has every right to do whatever he wants to something that is the sole product of his work; it is another thing entirely for him to impose his Will---no matter how beneficial this is to the individual---on someone that has at least in part an independent existence to his. And LDS believe he has made clear his reluctance to act on someone who does not desire to be acted upon. LDS generally, in my experience, relate to this idea of God overwriting/reprogramming our nature in a fundamental way as something similar to Stepford Wives. It is one thing if we are working hand in hand with the Lord to make those changes and those changes are an expansion on the 'original' or an emphasis on various potentials of the individual, it is another thing for God to do it on his own even with our consent---with our limited understanding of what those changes would mean to our being our consent in this life would never be fully informed---with those changes being a fundamental alteration of the 'original'. At a very fundamental level, for God to do so would be for him to choose to destroy something unique in the Universe...not a problem if he made it in the first place, especially as he could always recreate it, but a problem if he was not the creator of its original nature, even if he was the instrument of any progression that individual has made over the eternities.

[Calm]

No matter what he may ask us to do in order to show we accept it, it is not something we could ever, ever accomplish without Jesus. His desire to carry and remove from us the effects of sin, and willingness to do so, alone, is more grace than I can fathom! From our point of view, Baptism is the way we enter into and accept Covenant of Salvation and Justification. This will bring us into Heaven, into the presence of God's Kingdom, cleansed of our record of sin.

Even if we were able to fully pay Justice for our sins (in my view this would amount to suffering to the same extent that we've imposed suffering on others), we would never be able to satisfy Justice in the sense of removing the consequences of our sin, restoring that which we destroyed. Thus there is no way for us to "earn" our way into heaven on our own. Only through Christ can Justice truly be answered, all trace of our sins---the twisting of our souls, the harm we have imposed on others sometimes to the extent of damaging their souls as well---removed. This is not only true Justice, but ultimate Mercy. For me, Justice and Mercy are simply two sides of the same coin.

When speaking in specifics like this, I have never known an LDS that denied that the only way we can truly repent (which requires restitution/restoration) and thus perfect our souls is through Christ.

[Vance]

"We should remember that all blessings are based upon faithfulness and that salvation is an individual matter. We receive according to our works

[Vance]

Rob,

Let's not forget that those quotes teach people to keep the commandments.

What did Jesus have to say about that?

Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[cdowis]

My point, though, is that in regards to salvation, to teach that there is a fairly lengthy list of things that a person must do (or not do) in order to be saved is contrary to the biblical gospel message that salvation--eternal life--is a free gift of God (Rom. 6:23).

Please pardon me for the duplication, but is baptism necessary for salvation? Somewhere I am sure you already answered this.

In any case, Christ commanded us to keep the commandments. When we do what He tells us, the gift of salvation is not earned -- our righteousness is as filthy rags, but a free gift contingent upon our following His commandments. "Free gift" does not mean "without effort".....

Salvation is a journey.

Finally, you might want to take another look at what Peter had to say about the words of Paul. If I have to choose between what Christ taught, and what you think Paul is teaching, I choose Christ. He made it very clear what needs to be done.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob,

Let's not forget that those quotes teach people to keep the commandments.

What did Jesus have to say about that?

Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Were in the bible does it claim that only those that are saved will do these good works?

This one is easy vance, notice that all are in the kingdom of heaven. On 2nd thought what it does say is that they are only called such.

[Vance]

When speaking in specifics like this, I have never known an LDS that denied that the only way we can truly repent (which requires restitution/restoration) and thus perfect our souls is through Christ.

Because, the truth of the matter is, that without Christ and His grace/gift, we wouldn't have repentance, or in other words, our repentance would be inaffective.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I agree that I should have left the McMurrin quotation out. What he says is entirely accurate, though, as far as what LDS doctrine teaches.

You wrote:

Then you still don't understand LDS theology/doctrine. And considering the time you have spent, it is easy to assume that you don't WANT to understand it.

Vance, I have every right simply to ignore you and your comments. You keep making statements like this, and even some of your fellow LDS on this forum disagree with your harsh assessment of my attitudes and motives. Try to engage me in discussion without constantly making these personal judgments, or I will just start ignoring you.

The rest of your comments have nothing to do with the issue of whether the LDS presidents and apostles speak for the LDS Church or some guy named Vance (whose last name we don't even know) does.

Furthermore, it is doubletalk, plain and simple, to claim to agree that salvation is "earned" and "merited" and will be strictly "according to our works," that it "depends on one's works," and on the other hand to deny that you are trying to save yourself by your works. I'm not denying that you acknowledge the need for Christ. In your theology, Christ's atonement is necessary for you to get started with your salvation. But your individual salvation, according to your own leaders, depends on your works.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Please pardon me for the duplication, but is baptism necessary for salvation? Somewhere I am sure you already answered this.

Strictly speaking, no, it is not. However, anyone who professed to be a believer in Jesus Christ but refused to be baptized would be showing by his refusal that he was not serious or sincere in his profession of faith.

You wrote:

In any case, Christ commanded us to keep the commandments.

A tautology, but one with which I agree. But keeping the commandments is not a precondition of salvation.

You wrote:

When we do what He tells us, the gift of salvation is not earned -- our righteousness is as filthy rags, but a free gift contingent upon our following His commandments. "Free gift" does not mean "without effort".....

Salvation is a journey.

Your reasoning is not in keeping with Paul's clear teaching that the free gift is a gift to those who do not deserve it and cannot merit or earn it.

You wrote:

Finally, you might want to take another look at what Peter had to say about the words of Paul. If I have to choose between what Christ taught, and what you think Paul is teaching, I choose Christ. He made it very clear what needs to be done.

Apples and oranges. I could just as easily say, "If I have to choose between what Paul taught, and what you think Christ is teaching, I choose Paul." The choice is not between Christ and Paul. We should accept both Christ's teachings in the Gospels and Christ's teachings through his apostles, including Paul, Peter, and John. As Peter points out, false teachers distort not only Paul, but also the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16)--and that would of course include the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

To put it another way, if I have to choose between what Paul taught and what Joseph Smith or Charles Dowis thinks Christ taught, I will choose what Christ taught, both in the Gospels and through his apostles. And in fact that is what I choose.

[David T]

To put it another way, if I have to choose between what Paul taught and what Joseph Smith or Charles Dowis thinks Christ taught, I will choose what Christ taught, both in the Gospels and through his apostles. And in fact that is what I choose.

Do you think that is not our intent as well? That is a key reason we seek personal spiritual witnesses of the veracity of records or claims of the Words of Christ, ancient, modern, whatever.

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

You wrote:

Your confusion comes from being to narrow in your assumptions about how someone would come to know that Jesus was the Son of God.

What if Jim grew up in a family and belonging to a church that taught that Jesus died for their sins but was not resurrected? What if his whole young life he was surrounded by the teachings of the Atonement (and thus the spirit could testify of their truth) while only ever being taught that the resurrection was a heresy that never occurred? What if Jim then died when he was 7? What if he died when he was 12 and belonged to a family and church that never even told him about the resurrection?

Do you believe Jim would be saved? Can you speak with certainty on the issue?

I hope i've illustrated why i believe there are too many variables possible, in the history of the world, to make a flat, sweeping pronouncement on how God will judge someone who believes X but does not believe Y.

There is a saying: Hard cases make bad law. It's easy to imagine scenarios in which an individual might seem to us not culpable for his rejecting truth, but this is not a sound basis for making theological generalizations such as "one may reject the resurrection of Jesus and still be saved." For example, I was clearly not concerned about children who die before they are old enough to think about such matters, just as I was not concerned about the mentally retarded (who really cannot reject something they don't understand).

You wrote:

All i said was that Jesus is begotten of the Father (which the bible also teaches), that He was made of flesh (which the bible also teaches), and that He's the only one (which the bible also teaches). Are you really trying to argue that you don't believe those things?

It seems like you're being tricky here. It's the way you put these together and what you mean by the first statement in particular that leads to our disagreement.

You wrote:

You guys should read the bible more.

Please tell me you were joking. Otherwise, I will have to consider this statement offensive.

You wrote:

If i may ask you, on what basis are you confident that a person cannot be saved if they do not believe that Christ rose from the dead after three days?

My position is that a person who rejects (not simply "does not believe") the resurrection of Jesus is showing by his rejection of this basic gospel truth that he has not accepted the gospel. My basis? The Bible explicitly says this is an essential, fundamental element of the gospel (e.g., Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:1-5).

You wrote:

What percentage of the knowledge to they have to have exactly, to be saved then? You said 100% is not necessary but 50% is not enough. What amount of knowledge is enough to be saved?

I didn't say anything like "50% is not enough." We are not saved by passing a doctrinal exam. Thus, there is no "passing grade" on any such exam. However, again, if a person rejects a basic truth of the biblical message, that rejection is evidence that the person has not accepted the gospel.

You wrote:

So, you believe that no one will be held responsible for knowlege they were never taught? Does that mean that you believe that those who die without a knowledge of Christ will be saved anyway, without ever having had faith in Him? If you don't believe someone can be saved without having faith in Christ, what will happen to those people.

My view, based on the Bible, is that people who lived before Christ came but who knew and trusted the true God were saved by his mercy and grace, even though they had not heard about Christ. I apply this same principle as far as the Bible allows. Christ's death saves them, even though they have not heard of him. But those who have heard yet deny or distort basic elements of the message are showing evidence that they likely have not really trusted in Christ in a way that comports with the truth about him.

You wrote:

What does the bible mean by faith? How did the thief fulfill the bible's requirements for faith that LDS people aren't fulfilling (i started a different thread on this question if you would like to answer this question over there to keep the posts from becoming too crazy).

These are two different questions and could lead us down quite a path. Faith means trusting, depending, relying on God, accepting his promise and placing one's confidence in God and his promise.

You wrote:

Perhaps you should stop trying so hard to turn LDS beliefs into words that are easy for you to dismiss and instead try to understand what they are actually saying.

Again, I'm going to put up with such judgments of my motives only so far, and then I will simply choose not to engage people in discussion that are prone to make such judgments.

You wrote:

In short, to remain in my covenant relationship with Christ i must desire and strive to follow Him. What, exactly, do you disagree with, or find offensive, in that statement?

If you have read my other posts in this thread, you should know this isn't really the issue.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Do you think that is not our intent as well? That is a key reason we seek personal spiritual witnesses of the veracity of records or claims of the Words of Christ, ancient, modern, whatever.

I was responding to Charles Dowis's argument. Please take my comment in that context.

[Vance]

Vance,

I agree that I should have left the McMurrin quotation out. What he says is entirely accurate, though, as far as what LDS doctrine teaches.

Except that he gets it totally wrong and the fact that you think he gets it right speaks to your ignorance.

Vance, I have every right simply to ignore you and your comments. You keep making statements like this, and even some of your fellow LDS on this forum disagree with your harsh assessment of my attitudes and motives.

And some agree with my accurate assessment. So what to do?

Try to engage me in discussion without constantly making these personal judgments, or I will just start ignoring you.

Perhaps if you started to show a level of understanding then I would have no reason to make such judgments. Just as below, you continually show that you don't get it. Understanding it doesn't require you to believe it. Just as I understand your concept of grace, yet I totally and unequivocally reject it.

The rest of your comments have nothing to do with the issue of whether the LDS presidents and apostles speak for the LDS Church or some guy named Vance (whose last name we don't even know) does.

What you are AGAIN failing to do it read those statements IN LIGHT of LDS canon. If LDS canon (including the Bible) wasn't so explicit in the need for both grace and obedience for salvation, then I could understand you take on those quotes.

But in the context of the whole, your take is ridiculous.

Furthermore, it is doubletalk, plain and simple, to claim to agree that salvation is "earned" and "merited" and will be strictly "according to our works," that it "depends on one's works," and on the other hand to deny that you are trying to save yourself by your works.

You know Rob, you still aren't getting it. You want to pound on that single note "save yourself", "save yourself", "save yourself".

It may comfort you, but it doesn't reflect the truth about our theology/doctrine.

There are two parts to our salvation (eternal life).

The part that Jesus does,

And the part we do.

If we don't do our part, will Jesus GIVE us eternal life?

No! He won't.

If we do our part, will Jesus GIVE us eternal life?

He has said that He will. Is His word good? Yes.

How good is it? So much so that we are free to focus on OUR part.

Why? Because His part is as solid as a DONE DEAL!!!!!

What about our part?

Not so much.

Now, if you want to continue to ignore the quotes of Jesus that I posted that clearly agree with the quotes of the "Brethren" that you posted, then you are not listening.

I'm not denying that you acknowledge the need for Christ.

A small ray of hope that you might be getting it.

In your theology, Christ's atonement is necessary for you to get started with your salvation.

And why limit it there?

It is the beginning, middle and end of our salvation. I don't understand why you are trying to limit it.

But your individual salvation, according to your own leaders, depends on your works.

Only in the sense that it places me in a position were Christ has promised that if I get there, He will give me eternal life.

As Paul says, (in Romans, no less)

2:6 [God] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

That is very explicit. I don't know why you excoriate LDS leaders for similar language.

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing . . .

Again, very explicit and LDS-esque.

. . . seek for . . .

Apparently "seek"ing for eternal life by doing something is NOT the bad thing that you continually imply.

. . . glory and honour and immortality, . . .

Again apparently "seek"ing for GLORY AND HONOR AND IMMORTALITY is NOT the bad thing that you continually imply.

. . . eternal life:

Yes!!! The reward!!!

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

That is clear.

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Again, very explicit and LDS-esque.

And this from your (and our) beloved Paul.

Paul makes it very CLEAR and PLAIN that good works are needed to receive eternal life.

Was Paul wrong?

And how is this different from what the "Brethren" said in those quotes?

[cdowis]

Charles,

Your reasoning is not in keeping with Paul's clear teaching that the free gift is a gift to those who do not deserve it and cannot merit or earn it.

This is what the LDS church teaches. It is a free gift, because we cannot earn our way to salvation. Only the atonement of Christ can pay for our sins. But Paul was speaking to the Judaizers, who taught that living the law brings one to salvation.

But we disagree on the application of this teaching of unearned grace. Christ made it clear that baptism is necessary for salvation, not an option. No one can enter the kingdom without baptism.

We know that not all Christian churches perform baptism -- believing that it is unnecessary. So, a person sincerely confesses Christ, but no baptism is offered to him by his church. He has not fulfilled the requirement for salvation, regardless of how fervent and sincere he is with his confession of faith. He did not deliberately refuse baptism, just failed to follow the requirement through indifference or ignorance of this law on the part of his minister.

According to the clear teaching of Christ, he has not fulfilled the requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven.

[Vance]

Finally, you might want to take another look at what Peter had to say about the words of Paul. If I have to choose between what Christ (CLEARLY AND PLAINLY) taught, and what you think Paul hard to be understood is teaching, I choose Christ. He made it very clear what needs to be done.

There is more to it than just this.

From Deu 18:15

[David T]

Rob and the EV's place their misinterpretation of the "hard to be understood) teachings of Paul in preeminence over the clear and plain teachings of Jesus.

I think this is cheap, and mostly inaccurate, and could easily be turned right back against LDS. Most in the Christian world would turn to the 'clear and plain teachings of Jesus' as reported by the Gospel writers, to teach that there is no marriage in the eternities. There are certainly writings of Paul that could be used to support that understanding. And without further information, it's a very valid and clear understanding of what is recorded that Jesus said and approved of.

Seriously.

With all the accusations going towards Rob and Evangelicals of twisting and distorting our own views and doctrines, there are many LDS here who do a pretty good job of doing exactly what you're accusing them of doing.

We all interpret scripture according a world-view. If one is convinced that mankind are finite creatures, with God creating 100% of their essence ex nihilo, that is a completely different view than LDS who hold the world-view that mankind has, at their essence, an uncreated nature co-eternal with God.

That alone colors so much, not the least of what is an appropriate and reverence-worthy relationship or behavior between God and Man.

LDS doctrinal approach to the Bible begins with the clear statements in Modern Revelation, which we believe are clear statements that communicate the will and word of Christ. Statements attributed to Christ in more ancient scripture are interpreted in that light.

It's not fair to judge and expect non-LDS Christians to share an interpretative standard that is not reinforced or 'made clear' by scripture that they accept as such.

The best we can do is ask, "Does not this appear to be at least as plausible interpretation given as this and that?"

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have always understood that in LDS theology Jesus does his part and human beings do their part, as you put it. If you don't like the wording "trying to save yourself," how about "trying to earn your individual salvation" or "trying to merit eternal life"? These ways of wording the point are practically direct quotations from LDS general authorities, after all.

I would be happy to discuss the interpretation of Romans 2:6-9, but I need to know first if it matters. That is, I need to know if it matters to you what these verses mean in the larger context of Paul's argument in Romans, or if you will prefer to read them through the lens of LDS doctrine regardless of what they might seem to mean within the context of Romans itself. The same thing goes for statements that Jesus made in the Gospels: shall we discuss these statements in their own historical and literary contexts, or in the end will you simply argue that LDS revelation "clarifies" what these biblical passages mean? If the latter, discussing the exegesis of a biblical text with you would be a waste of time.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I appreciate your fair-minded comments. Thank you.

[Lightbearer]

But keeping the commandments is not a precondition of salvation.

Then what is the point of the commandments? You seem to see the atonement of Christ as an end in itself, the whole purpose is not to change us from disobedient children into obedient children. That is what you cannot see, that this life is a test of faith. We try our faith, but to what end? If we are saved at the moment we accept the atonement, without condition, without covenant, without righteous living, then you must accept the idea that once one has been "saved" then they cannot fall. However the whole idea of salvation is a process by which we become like Christ. We cannot do it without Him, in fact we do not lay aside our faith when we keep the commandments, it is in fact the very meaning of what our faith is, what makes it a living faith. The writings of Peter indicate that faith is not the end all of our journey to salvation.

(2 Peter 1:4-11) "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

So while our keeping of the commandments is not what "saves us" still we cannot be saved without it. Why make our calling and election sure if we "cannot fall." If we are barren and unfruitful will we still be saved? I think not.

Now if there is any doubt I also quote the following:

2 Peter 2:20-22) "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

This very definitely states that if the Saints (followers of Christ) are again entangled in sin, they they are not saved! So if keeping the commandments (avoiding sin) is not a precondition of salvation then what is Peter talking about? Why is he warning the members of the Church?