Earning Salvation

[Vance]

Okay, you asked for it. What appears below are the first several questions, the LDS Church's answers, and my comments.

An obvious cut and paste job.

Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?

A: For the most part, this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the Church and its core doctrines and beliefs. Under those circumstances it is too easy to label a religion or other organization that is not well-known with an inflammatory term like

[yesucan2]

yesucan,

That is what Paul says, isn't it?

So then you do believe there is at least something you have to do to be saved, so what's the problem?

Once again, here we are at the point where you are taking statements of Latter-day Saints that should be interpreted in the context of the Gospel as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, but instead interpreting them from the perspective of a non-member whose concept is of one heaven and one hell(the same concept that I was raised with).

Now, from my perspective, it looks to me like we LDS are the ones that really believe in salvation by grace alone as we are the ones that believe that through Christ's atonement alone we will all be raised to unfathomable glory despite anything else (except for those few who commit the unpardonable sin), yet it looks to me like most of Christendom outside the LDS Church are the ones that believe that there IS something that one must do to be saved i.e. believe, have faith, etc.

...And now regarding believing on Christ: When I found out about the LDS Church, I was not particularly amenable to changing my lifestyle. On the other hand, I knew that I had to be honest with myself so I had to face the question of what IF this really was Christ's Church restored to the Earth in the Last Days with everything that goes along with it. I wondered how I would feel one day standing before the Lord and tried to answer how I had "believed on Him" if I also had to answer how I had found out that there was a possibility that He had restored His Church to the Earth but I had not cared enough to find out for sure whether it were really true or it were true but I didn't believe.

If you are comfortable about where you stand with God where you are, that's your business, but I would not be, especially since I have not ever had one person show me how they have something superior and I have never had one person ever show me anything that even approaches a world and eternal view of things where the pieces fall together and fit into place and continue to do so into the the tapestry of truth that I have found via the teachings of Christ as taught by the LDS Church.

If you can demonstrate that what you have is superior, go for it.

[thatjimguy]

Thank you for the extensive list. As an aside, it has been some 60 years since anyone speaking as prophet actually made the claim that we can earn our salvation. The vast majority of your quotes involve quite notable leaders before they ever became president - the first one being George Albert Smith in 1950. It's been 60 years...

My only thought on your rebuttal is that even though it has been 60 years, and all those quotes were from people other than those who were Prophets, it does seem it was taught. More importantly, it does not seem like it was refuted. Did anyone during that time say they were wrong? Does anyone during this time say they are wrong that has authority?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't you also miss Kolob Sunday?

That is awesome. Thanks for sharing.

[Vance]

My only thought on your rebuttal is that even though it has been 60 years, and all those quotes were from people other than those who were Prophets, it does seem it was taught. More importantly, it does not seem like it was refuted. Did anyone during that time say they were wrong? Does anyone during this time say they are wrong that has authority?

See post 40 & 41. Words mean things. And a word can, and usually does, have more than one meaning. It is common for people to restrict the meaning of a word so they can create a strawman to trounce.

[Thunderfire]

Do Mormons believe they must earn their salvation? The answer to this question is: It depends on which Mormons you ask, and it depends on what you mean by salvation.

I was happy to see this qualifying statement that "it depends on what you mean by salvation" because the same can be said about Evangelicals beliefs regarding salvation. Many Bible believing Christians believe in a form or degree of works based salvation. The difference again is what is meant by salvation, or rather something which must be earned that sets you apart from another in the world to come.

Here are just some examples to consider. In the scriptures we are told of five (5) crowns which must be earned...the Crown of Incorruption given to those who lived a disciplined life (1st Corinthians 9:24-27)...The Crown of Life given to those who through patience endured trials (James 1:12)...the Crown of Rejoicing given to those who joyously expressed their faith (1st Thessalonians 2:19-20)...the Crown of Glory given to those who faithfully ministered the word of God (1st Peter 5:1-4)...The Crown of Righteousness given to those who eagerly looked for the Lord (2nd Timothy 4:8 )

All of these represents rewards based on our works received in the after life. Surprisingly, John wrote about many different works based rewards in heaven. He said, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they will rest from their labors, for their deeds will follow them..." (Revelation 14:13). This speaks of a reality that in fact our deeds do follow us, opening greater doors for some and not for others.

So if we merely look at salvation as being rescued from hell when we die, that is a gift of God through grace in the atonement (of course some say baptism is necessary for this and we need to ask if this is a form of works which MUST be earned by choosing baptism). But if there are in fact different rewards for "works done" on earth, this can in fact be seen as earning greater degrees of salvation when they are not rewarded to all.

[wenglund]

Wade,

For most of your history, LDS evangelistic efforts were aimed almost entirely at converting Christians to LDS religion, and this is still largely the case. If necessary, we could go through the missionary lessons and document just how integral to LDS missionary efforts the supposed apostasy of historic Christianity is. The subject also comes up repeatedly in such a basic manual of LDS doctrine as Gospel Principles. We are not talking about "a few isolated statements," but about something essential to the very identity and core claims of the LDS Church.

Yes, please, do go through the missionary lessons and give us a proportional analysis of the pro-LDS statements vs the anti-evangelical statements. Then, contrast that, just for starters, with some of the articles you have written about the LDS Church. Hopefully, you will begin to see just how remarkably silly you are getting on this tangential point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mbh26]

I was an LDS who liked it the old way you have so solidly backed up with references. It really bothered me when they started backpeddling and changing the rules on this subject. And you're exactly right, it depends on which Mormon you talk to, and probably depends on when you talk to him and what it's in reference to and how his answer will effect the growth/health of the Church. I think it's interesting that you and I are coming to the same conclusion about what is being promoted/preached even when we are probably 180 degrees apart on our beliefs in the role of works. I think you're right.

[Facsimile 3]

Rob, I don't understand the point of this OP. Just as I don't understand your motivations for trying to dissuade Christians whether in the LDS church or in another church from the LDS belief system. To me this is just silly, its like trying to tell someone who plays the card game Go Fish the evils of playing Solitaire.

When William James set out on his work The Varieties of Religious Experiences he did so with this purpose.

Most books on the philosophy of religion try to begin with a precise definition of what its essence consists of. Some of these would be definitions may possibly come before us in later portions of this course, and I shall not be pedantic enough to enumerate any of them to you now. Meanwhile the very fact that they are so many and so different form one another is enough to prove that the word

[Facsimile 3]

So again I just don't understand what motivates you. If people thrive under various Christian sects let them thrive. Just because certain people find joy in card games doesn't mean they would all thrive the most playing Go Fish.

A point of clarification:

I think missionary work is great. If you want to share with me the basic rules of Go Fish, and I start to play and find way more satisfaction doing that then good for me and good for you.

Missionaries teach about the great apostasy and don't (aren't supposed to) single out any faith and tear down it's merits. Rather, they teach the investigator the basic rules of the Mormon game and invite the family to see if it gives them greater joy and peace and closeness to Christ in their life. And if it does good for them and good for the missionaries and the LDS Church.

[Sargon]

Forgive my late entry into the discussion. I hope my comments here are not just repeating what someone else has already said (actually, I hope they do).

Rob has more or less appropriately distinguished between "salvation" and "exaltation". The former is granted by grace alone, the latter is granted by grace and works. Why is this worthy of conversation? Why has Rob spent an inordinate amount of time digging up quotes about this? Presumably Rob intends to use this research to suggest that Mormons believe in a form of salvation by works. But this idea is directly contradictory to what Rob himself stated in his opening post.

General salvation means that everyone will be resurrected from the dead and given

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You're kidding. How about YOU show ME where the LDS Church affirms that Jesus Christ has always been God.

CFR on that one too. Show me where we say that Jesus hasn't always been divine.

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

You wrote:

Really isn't this whole discussion rather pointless? Rob has made it his mission in life to criticize another religion instead of preaching Jesus Christ. Perhaps it's best if we simply ignore him.

You are mistaken. My "mission in life" is to defend the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ, not to criticize another religion. I respond to a wide array of belief systems that distort or deny that biblical gospel, including atheism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism, Unitarianism, and yes Mormonism. And I don't just criticize these other beliefs; I present positive evidence for the truth of the Bible and its teachings. This just happens to be a forum focused on Mormon apologetics, so what you are seeing here is only a sample of what I do.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

The LDS Church's answers could have been equally as brief and not been misleading.

I shouldn't have allowed the thread to be derailed with this question. If you want, we can discuss the Virgin Birth in another thread.

I think you are so straining at nats here. You are totally whining becuase they did not give pages and pages of explinations and every detail and trivial thing on the doctrine. The main thrust of what is said is true and I cannot see how it is misleading. Particually the parts about Kolob. And the Virgin Mary stuff you say is flat out false.

"that the conception took place through a sexual union." I have not read a single church leaders quote were they said it took place by a sexual union. The thing that they stress is that Jesus has a Father just as you and I. Talk about a mis-representation. It is church doctrine that Mary is a Virgin. There could not have been a "sexual union" and she remain a virgin.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

The sentence you quoted reflects a rather recent development. The first lesson routinely focused on the Great Apostasy and Restoration because virtually all of the prospective converts to the LDS Church were people of Christian church backgrounds. As missionaries have come into more contact with people of non-Christian background, the Church has adapted the first lesson to meet that situation.

For me, the issue is not "unflattering rhetoric," but whether what is taught is true or false. If traditional Christianity is apostate and its creeds an abomination, say so. I'm not offended by straight talk.

This is correct - it is taught as part of a historical overview of the Biblical pattern of obedience of a people to prophets, followed by period of apostasy through disobedience, followed again by prophetic message, etc. Its purpose is to show the continuity and consistency of God sending prophets after periods of falling away, and to place the modern-day Restoration into the context of sacred history.

Preach My Gospel also points out this is specifically to be taught to those with a non-Christian background as well. It even gives the purpose for it:

"You might wonder how gospel dispensations are relevant when teaching people who do not have a Christian background or culture. But you will find that by briefly relating the history of gospel dispensations, you can help people understand that God loves His children and that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

So the stated reason for teaching this is to express the consistency and love of God. The focus is on prophetic restorations. The period of the Apostasy is presented for important context, and in fact the manual speaks favorably of the reformers.

While there certainly has been unflattering rhetoric used against protestants (and especially Catholics) in the past, it is not something I'm aware that has been done for many years now in the Church - especially not in the missionary program. When emphasis is given to the pre-Restoration period, reformers are spoken of as being inspired by God, and the followers thereof (and this is applied to such today as well) as being generally innocently misled due only to a lack of proper information and experience - yet still earnestly striving for God, and being blessed according to the light and knowledge they have.

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

You asked:

Wasn't the CFR against your claim that the church was making statements that made it sound mainstream? Your complaints seem to be that the churches answers describe a doctrine that isn't mainstream. You may wish for some more details about minutiae that would sound even more non-mainstream, but I see no indication (or complaint from you) that the answers are misleadingly mainstream sounding.

The following is a good example:

A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

While not completely eliminating its non-mainstream teachings (e.g., affirming that God the Father has an immortal body), the statement minimizes such aspects, couching them in vague or bland ways.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

An obvious cut and paste job.

You asked for a reference. And the comments were all my own words.

You wrote:

And yet I haven't seen a single incident where one of them actual used the word "sex"/"sexual" or "intercourse". Nor has such a statement been canonized.

As I told Mola, I don't want to derail this thread even further. We can discuss this issue in a separate thread.

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

You wrote:

So expose the false prophets, draw that bright line, and then leave it alone. Does the New Testament teach us to obsess over the false teachings of others?

I don't. As I explained briefly to LifeonaPlate, you aren't seeing the big picture of what I do on this forum. Since this forum focuses on Mormon apologetics, that's what I'm focusing on here. But I don't obsess over Mormonimsm.

You wrote:

You're not evangelizing Mormons, you are attacking them.

I'm not attacking Mormons at all. You could fairly say that I am attacking Mormon claims, but I'm not attacking Mormons. I'd hope that you would agree that I have made a good effort to speak civilly and respectfully to Mormons here, even while disagreeing with their views.

You wrote:

Evangelizing them would be to counter the claims of Apostasy and showing how the greater truth lies within Evangelicalism.

That's a good description of what I try to do in this context.

[Rob Bowman]

yesucan2,

You wrote:

So then you do believe there is at least something you have to do to be saved, so what's the problem?

You can't be serious. You probably missed it, but I have addressed this argument in another thread. Briefly, the necessity of responding in faith by humbly accepting the free gift of salvation is not "doing something" in the same sense as the alleged necessity to join the right church, receive the right ordinances, tithe, avoid drinking coffee or tea, participate in temple ordinances frequently, live a morally exemplary life, etc., etc., in order to earn one's salvation.

[Vance]

Vance,

You're kidding. How about YOU show ME where the LDS Church affirms that Jesus Christ has always been God.

You made the claim. Now BACK IT UP!!!!

You have FAILED to address the CFR!

[Vance]

You are mistaken. My "mission in life" is . . . not to criticize another religion.

. . .

And I don't just criticize these other beliefs;

Double speak?

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

You asked for a reference. And the comments were all my own words.

That doesn't change the fact that they were cut and paste comments.

I also noticed that you have no refutation for my analysis. So again your assertion is UNSUPPORTABLE!!

You should retract it.

You wrote:

As I told Mola, I don't want to derail this thread even further. We can discuss this issue in a separate thread.

Nice lame excuse. You have a lot of them.

[David T]

Nice lame excuse. You have a lot of them.

Umm... it appears to me that he's willing to discuss it, but in a different thread. Why don't you start one before claiming it's just an excuse to back off?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

A CFR is not a demand that the other person convince you. It is not an excuse to pester someone if you don't like their answers.

That in LDS doctrine Jesus Christ has not always been God seems pretty straightforward to me. If it's so obviously false, refute it.

You made the claim. Now BACK IT UP!!!!

You have FAILED to address the CFR!

[Vance]

Vance,

A CFR is not a demand that the other person convince you. It is not an excuse to pester someone if you don't like their answers.

That in LDS doctrine Jesus Christ has not always been God seems pretty straightforward to me. If it's so obviously false, refute it.

You are the one claiming it. Now back it up.

The CFR still stands.