What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[KevinG]

Its not a loophole Rob. It is an ordinance provided by the Lord's authoritative church and referred to in the New Testament. Would that Evangelical Christianity had as much foresight and mercy as the Lord's church.

But since you asked the Lord has provided for those good honest Christians without the fullness of the Gospel. It's called the Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[KevinG]

Vance,

You admit that at least most of what I said was, and I quote:

You then had to manufacture an "anti-Mormon" error where there was one, claiming:

I said absolutely nothing denying the possibility according to LDS doctrine of "the Holy Ghost's gift of a spiritual confirmation or witness of truth that the Holy Ghost may give to whomever He chooses has no such requirement." All I said was that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" according to LDS doctrine can only be received by the laying on of hands by a Mormon male priesthood holder. That is a correct statement of the LDS position. Instead of admitting that what I said was correct, you changed the subject. After knocking down a straw man, ironically, you concluded:

Even you were able to manufacture only one alleged falsehood in my post, and that was by a clear-cut distortion of what I said. You are the one guilty of a strawman argument.

I pretty much understood your point as blurring the lines between the Gift of the Holy Ghost and being able to access the ministrations of the Holy Ghost. If that wasn't your intent you may want to clear up your writing.

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

I'm interjecting at this point because others have adequately addressed your questions.

We'll just have to disagree about that.

You wrote:

Here is what I learned - Every single one of those churches focused on ONE THING - Justification. They would justify God, justify Christ, justify the Gospel, justify the things they were teaching, justify why you should keep coming to their church and not the one down the street. I could never understand why they didn't just teach from the scriptures by reading them. Every one of them had to try to explain things that were missing or explain how this word here correlated to this word way back here which meant this word way up here means this. As I matured, I eventually realized that they did it because they know they're missing information. Several times I watched people (my friends) ask their pastor a question that I knew the answer to. Their pastor would pick out scriptures from all over the place to try to formulate some answer and they could never come up with something adequate that made sense.

I guess you think, on the other hand, that Mormons don't try to justify questionable or dubious claims.

You wrote:

So there is Key #1 - the LDS doctrine is the ONLY one I've seen that MAKES SENSE

Again, we will just have to disagree about that.

You wrote:

Being an instructional manual, the scriptures should provide plain information that a reader can understand. If you read and read and you cannot figure out what something means that you've heard, been taught or are wondering about, there is a problem with your instruction manual. A manual that is meant to save the world should be complete and should not require scholars to interpret and explain it to us.

First, the Bible is not an instruction manual. For that matter, neither are any of the LDS scriptures. So that is a serious false premise on which to base a criticism. The Bible is a collection of writings of different genres -- history, poetry, song, proverbial sayings, biography, letter, apocalyptic prophecy, etc. -- and not an instruction manual (The Gospel for Dummies, say).

Second, the LDS Church has a cadre of scholars who work very hard to interpret and explain the Bible and LDS scriptures to their fellow Mormons. Is that okay, or is it only evangelical biblical scholars that you find objectionable on principle?

You wrote:

Key #2 - LDS Doctrine is clear in their scriptures and provides answers in a way that the reader can understand and interpret - it does not require scholars

But you've got them. See above.

You wrote:

Christ and several apostles make it clear in the Bible that the Gospel is simple. Therefore, the Gospel should be simple and the lay person should be able to understand it. This unequivocally negates anything which requires extensive study, picking things apart, conjecture, or in depth explanations.

See above.

You wrote:

Key #3 - LDS Doctrine is laid out in the scriptures, it does not require extensive reanalysis to understand

Those of us on the outside (whom you dismiss as limited to the "natural man") who pay attention to Mormon scholarship find this utterly false. For a century Mormon theologians and scholars from James Talmage to Robert Millet have worked very hard and developed complex theological explanations for the numerous statements in the LDS scriptures that don't fit what the LDS leadership actually teaches. This is especially true for the Book of Mormon, which by all plausible accounts teaches a strong doctrine of monotheism.

You wrote:

You are attempting to present LDS Doctrine to those who live it when it is something that you do not even believe in and the feeling I get, is that you mock it.

No, I am very civil and respectful in the way I discuss LDS doctrine. I disagree with it, but that is not the same thing as mocking it. If you want to see mocking in action, read Vance's posts.

You wrote:

I do not know anyone other than anti-mormons who have studied or even see the books that anti-mormons quote from. Furthermore, I do not care what is in them. I have a testimony of the truthfulness of the LDS Scriptures and of the doctrine that is taught.

If you don't care what is in your religion's own books, that's your business.

You wrote:

I also have extensive experience with evangelicals and their defensiveness when their falsehoods are challenged - this is because of pride and money in my opinion. They take pride in "being right" and they find themselves in a position that, were they to deny their falsehoods en masse, there would be a financial impact to their spiritual leaders. This is simply my observation. Pride and Money are huge issues. Neither are issues in the LDS faith.

So typical. A Mormon claims, without any evidence, that I am mocking his beliefs, and then impugns my motives for disagreeing with Mormonism. Buddy, if you don't think pride is an issue for Mormons, you haven't met many. Pride is an issue for many people in all religions, mine included. But generalizations like yours are toxic. Try to consider the possibility that someone like me might disagree with Mormonism for sincere reasons. If you can't allow yourself to admit such a possibility, then you might want to rethink where the pride problem might really be.

You wrote:

What you do not seem to be understanding is that LDS doctrine doesn't really have a "hell". Our understanding of the afterlife is completely different than yours - and it's all in the scriptures. Will non-mormons be allowed in heaven? OF COURSE!

All you are doing at this point is displaying your ignorance. I have written extensively on the LDS view of the afterlife (especially in my book-length work Gospel Principles and the Bible, available free online) and am very familiar with the differences between the LDS and evangelical views. I also know that in LDS theology non-Mormons can make it into the celestial kingdom -- by becoming Mormons in the afterlife. This element of LDS doctrine confirms, rather than undermines, my point, which is that according to LDS doctrine salvation to the celestial kingdom cannot be found in traditional Christian churches. Their members may eventually make it to the celestial kingdom, but to do so they will have to convert to Mormonism in the afterlife and accept proxy ordinances performed by Mormons on earth on their behalf.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

I pretty much understood your point as blurring the lines between the Gift of the Holy Ghost and being able to access the ministrations of the Holy Ghost. If that wasn't your intent you may want to clear up your writing.

How did you come to that understanding? If I say "the gift of the Holy Ghost," how do you get from that expression a "blurring the lines between the Gift of the Holy Ghost and being able to access the ministrations of the Holy Ghost"?

[zerinus]

The question I asked is not whether there are loopholes or provisions in LDS theology for those who have not been baptized, but whether a person can enter the celestial kingdom through a traditional Christian church (including its gospel, teachings, baptism, worship, etc.). As you say, the LDS Church practices baptism for the dead. It does so not just for six-year-olds but for sixty-year-olds who believed in Jesus Christ, repented of their sins, were baptized in an evangelical church, lived exemplary moral lives, evangelized their neighbors and relatives with kindness and respect, but was not part of the LDS Church. Thus my question, as it seems clear that in LDS doctrine one cannot be saved to the celestial kingdom through a traditional Christian church, even if members of such a church can be saved in some other way (e.g., by in effect becoming a Mormon after death).

Don't be silly Rob. That question was adequately answered by me, if not by others. There is no "loophole". Those who wilfully and knowingly reject the message of the Restoration in this life after it has been explained to them, and harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit testifying to their hearts of its truth, and "waste the day of their probation," will not get a second chance in the next life. The criteria for who gets to go where is adequately explained in D&C 76. No further explanation is needed. But there is a provision for those who "would have received the fullness of the gospel with all their hearts if they had been allowed to tarry" (I am paraphrasing) to be saved in the celestial kingdom as if they had already received it in this life--except that we have no way of knowing who such persons might be; only God who judges the thoughts and intents of the heart knows.

[zerinus]

Even then, we don't believe they spend eternity in outer darkness, or "hell" as traditional Christianity describes it.

Which is irrelevant to the question being asked.

[zerinus]

First, the Bible is not an instruction manual. For that matter, neither are any of the LDS scriptures. So that is a serious false premise on which to base a criticism. The Bible is a collection of writings of different genres -- history, poetry, song, proverbial sayings, biography, letter, apocalyptic prophecy, etc. -- and not an instruction manual (The Gospel for Dummies, say).

The Bible may not be an "instructional manual," but it does have instructions within it; and so does LDS scripture.

Second, the LDS Church has a cadre of scholars who work very hard to interpret and explain the Bible and LDS scriptures to their fellow Mormons. Is that okay, or is it only evangelical biblical scholars that you find objectionable on principle?

You got that seriously wrong, Rob. The LDS Church has no such "cadre". The Church has not appointed those people to write those commentaries, and does not endorse their writings. The only thing that the Church endorses is the standard works; and encourages Church members to familiarise themselves with them and learn to extract correct doctrine from them. Others are free to write such commentaries if they like; but the Church neither endorses nor commissions their writings.

[Dogmatic]

I guess you think' date=' on the other hand, that Mormons don't try to justify questionable or dubious claims.

[/quote']

Are you pretending that you aren't familiar with what I'm saying, or are you agreeing with it and falsely projecting it onto Mormons?

Here is a very clear example that is all over this thread, this board and the internet: The Trinity. Trinity doctrine has to be justified for every person who attempts to understand it. How about these: If the scriptures say my spirit is an eternal being, and eternity means without beginning or end, where was I before being here? How could the afterlife be heaven if I'm no longer married to my partner? What will I be doing for an eternity after I die, playing a harp on a cloud? If God loves us as He says in the Bible, why would He condemn someone to a fiery hell simply because they didn't understand? Why does God let mass murders like the holocaust happen? Why doesn't He stop them? Why does God allow babies to be born and live for years as a near total vegetable? And on and on... These are all questions that my friends had when I was younger. Answers to these questions are typically justified by the person being asked them.

Correct - I am saying that Mormons don't "try to justify" Doctrinal claims - they're in the scriptures. The answers to the questions above are in Mormon Doctrine as well. They don't require justification because they are answerable.

So there is Key #1 - the LDS doctrine is the ONLY one I've seen that MAKES SENSE

Again' date=' we will just have to disagree about that.

[/quote']

Show me another doctrinal base that makes sense through simple reading of their scriptures. Explain Eternity to me as an evangelical in a way that makes sense without conjecture and hypothesis. Explain the damning of an eternal soul who's value is great in the eyes of God simply because of a doctrinal misunderstanding.

I absolutely understand that when you use Evangelism as a proof against Mormonism that it doesn't make sense. That's not what I'm talking about.

First' date=' the Bible is not an instruction manual. For that matter, neither are any of the LDS scriptures. So that is a serious false premise on which to base a criticism. The Bible is a collection of writings of different genres -- history, poetry, song, proverbial sayings, biography, letter, apocalyptic prophecy, etc. -- and not an instruction manual ([i']The Gospel for Dummies, say).

Second, the LDS Church has a cadre of scholars who work very hard to interpret and explain the Bible and LDS scriptures to their fellow Mormons. Is that okay, or is it only evangelical biblical scholars that you find objectionable on principle?

Please educate me further on this. If not from the Bible, where do you get your instruction on the Gospel? Do you have further revelation that you use? Do you not tie every single thing that is taught in your religion back to the Bible? I'll be shocked if you claim otherwise so I'll assume you'll understand my point. Certainly the Bible is not written as a 12 step manual or an owners manual or other modern day instruction manuals but it is a collection of writings of different genres -- history, poetry, song, proverbial sayings, biography, letter, apocalyptic prophecy, etc all of which is included and intended to teach us how to live, what we must do to return to Him, how we must treat others, things we should and should not do and so on - in other words, an instruction manual.

Your Second - the LDS Church itself does no such thing. Just because hundreds of Mormons decide to write things or a bunch of professors quibble over idiosyncrasies and publish their thoughts does not invalidate what I said. Their work is NOT canon. What IS LDS canon - the scriptures - is what I'm referring to.

What I said was that an instruction manual that is meant to save the world should be complete and should not require scholars to interpret and explain it. It should be self-evident through reading. I'm not objecting to scholars in any religion. I'm saying that something as critical as the gospel should be evident without their work.

I can honestly tell you that I have never read any books about the gospel beyond the scriptures. Not "Mormon Doctrine" not "Jesus the Christ" not "Articles of Faith" and certainly not the "Journal of Discourses". I have no need of them.

Those of us on the outside (whom you dismiss as limited to the "natural man") who pay attention to Mormon scholarship find this utterly false. For a century Mormon theologians and scholars from James Talmage to Robert Millet have worked very hard and developed complex theological explanations for the numerous statements in the LDS scriptures that don't fit what the LDS leadership actually teaches. This is especially true for the Book of Mormon' date=' which by all plausible accounts teaches a strong doctrine of monotheism.

[/quote']

I "dismiss as limited to the "natural man"" - your umbrage inclines me to revisit what I said:

You cannot claim to understand LDS Doctrine. You have already admitted your bias to it and you are presenting it from an analytical viewpoint attempting to disprove it. You are presenting from the natural man to those who have been converted in their hearts to that doctrine. Your stumbling block is that you are convinced that you are right and you look at LDS Doctrine as flawed and wrong and then try to prove it from the things you find. You attempt to challenge us with doctrine you believe to be flawed when we understand it in our hearts - and then you want us to try to explain it to you when you are coming at it from a rejection standpoint.

There are two characters in the description above:

- An LDS Person who is converted in their hearts to LDS Doctrine (a converted Mormon if you will)

- A non-LDS Person who specifically is NOT a converted Mormon

A converted Mormon is no longer a "natural man"' date=' true? Then a non-converted Mormon, who has not been changed, is by comparison a Natural Man. This isn't derogatory, as you seem to take it, rather it is exclusionary for the sake of presentation. No offense was intended and I apologize if it was given.

As you say, "See above", regarding the discussion on the need for scholars. Perhaps these scholars you speak of are doing these things in response to the very thing we're discussing. Scholarship is not needed to understand LDS doctrine and I would content it is also not needed to understand the Bible itself. I would contend that it is scholars who have muddled and twisted what is plain so much that it takes another scholar to try to figure out what the hec others are talking about and address it.

Wasn't it the scholars that Jesus rebuked and who eventually claimed Jesus was not the Christ? Were not the scholars those who watched a miracle and then twisted scripture and their used their scholarlyness to deny it?

What does Jesus say of scholars in Matthew 23? Did He think they were needed to explain the gospel?

You wrote:

No, I am very civil and respectful in the way I discuss LDS doctrine. I disagree with it, but that is not the same thing as mocking it. If you want to see mocking in action, read Vance's posts.

I agree that you are very civil in discussing LDS doctrine, from everything I've seen thus far.

If you don't care what is in your religion's own books' date=' that's your business.

[/quote']

My point was that YOU care. To use as a proof some obscure reference that most Mormons are completely unfamiliar with is not a proof. My statement was much more broad to include all anti-mormons - obscurity is their specialty. If it's not in the scriptures, it doesn't count for anything.

So typical. A Mormon claims' date=' without any evidence, that I am mocking his beliefs, and then impugns my motives for disagreeing with Mormonism. Buddy, if you don't think pride is an issue for Mormons, you haven't met many. Pride is an issue for many people in all religions, mine included. But generalizations like yours are toxic. Try to consider the possibility that someone like me might disagree with Mormonism for sincere reasons. If you can't allow yourself to admit such a possibility, then you might want to rethink where the pride problem might really be.

[/quote']

It is interesting that my statement was fully inclusive of all evangelicals and fully exclusive limiting to those in my experience, yet you took it as a direct insult to you. I did not say pride is not an issue for Mormons, indeed it is. I said that defense of Mormonism is not based on pride while evangelist's defense of, for example, the trinity, is. Trinity isn't something you have faith in, you decide if the logic and claims fit. The distinction is whether you can point to a scripture that states it or whether you cannot. And you are correct, I am blatantly generalizing and I'm limiting at the same time. The purpose of which is to allow for exceptions, you potentially being one.

All you are doing at this point is displaying your ignorance. I have written extensively on the LDS view of the afterlife (especially in my book-length work Gospel Principles and the Bible' date=' available free online) and am very familiar with the differences between the LDS and evangelical views. I also know that in LDS theology non-Mormons can make it into the celestial kingdom -- [b']by becoming Mormons in the afterlife. This element of LDS doctrine confirms, rather than undermines, my point, which is that according to LDS doctrine salvation to the celestial kingdom cannot be found in traditional Christian churches. Their members may eventually make it to the celestial kingdom, but to do so they will have to convert to Mormonism in the afterlife and accept proxy ordinances performed by Mormons on earth on their behalf.

I have not claimed to know anything about you. My response is to the questions you are asking which would generally indicate not knowing something. Now that you've explained it, I understand you were asking Leading Questions which is something else entirely.

You are displaying a very limited worldly-view here. You appear to take offense in stating that "non-Mormons can make it into the celestial kingdom -- by becoming Mormons in the afterlife." which I suppose would be considered a true statement if your intent is to limit everything to world views. I don't think many Mormons would state it the way you do. IF and I know that's a huge IF for you so hang with me a second, IF the LDS Church is truly Christ's re-establishment of his original doctrine to the world and IF He truly came here and set it up, then the proper way to state this is that in the afterlife, people will learn of Christ's original doctrine and may be converted to it. In which case, they will simply learn of the proper order of things and will then be able to choose what they accept. They wouldn't "join the Mormon Church", there will be no such thing. Now, the big IF for me - IF the Mormon Church is not the restored gospel of Jesus, then what does that mean for me? I have accepted Christ as my Savior and follow Him as I understand Him. Doesn't that qualify me for acceptance into heaven as you understand it?

I really don't see a problem here.

On a related note, I just watched a youtube video of you discussing the Priesthood on the IRR site. I find it odd that you attempt to discredit the Priesthood by quoting Hebrews and by showing Christ as the only priest in the Melchizedek priesthood. It is interesting hearing you work through and present things in such a particular way using half-truths and omission. You completely ignore the LDS Church's claim on the Priesthood and simply claim that based on the Bible it is not possible.

You are claiming that based on what you are reading, Jesus/God/the Spirit, the omnipotent, all powerful, ruler of the universe, is not allowed to restore the Priesthood to the earth in a new dispensation differently than it was in ancient times. What you are saying does not make any sense to me at all. I'm bringing all this up because the same thing seems to happen in these discussions, the only valid word to you is the Bible and your understanding of it. What is the point in doing a video about the priesthood that ignores what those holding the priesthood believe? What is the point of quibbling over whether someone "becomes Mormon" or acknowledges the Gospel of Christ in the afterlife?

I don't think you're familiar with the differences between LDS and evangelical views at all because you don't address the LDS view. I think you're very familiar with evangelical views of LDS doctrine though - which was my whole point in my last post.

[Vance]

How did you come to that understanding? If I say "the gift of the Holy Ghost," how do you get from that expression a "blurring the lines between the Gift of the Holy Ghost and being able to access the ministrations of the Holy Ghost"?

Maybe he read the thread where you did just that.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Don't be silly Rob. That question was adequately answered by me, if not by others. There is no "loophole". Those who wilfully and knowingly reject the message of the Restoration in this life after it has been explained to them, and harden their hearts against the Holy Spirit testifying to their hearts of its truth, and "waste the day of their probation," will not get a second chance in the next life. The criteria for who gets to go where is adequately explained in D&C 76. No further explanation is needed. But there is a provision for those who "would have received the fullness of the gospel with all their hearts if they had been allowed to tarry" (I am paraphrasing) to be saved in the celestial kingdom as if they had already received it in this life--except that we have no way of knowing who such persons might be; only God who judges the thoughts and intents of the heart knows.

For the umpteenth time, I understand all this. My point remains not only unrefuted but untouched, which is that in LDS doctrine a traditional Christian church cannot be the instrument of salvation to such persons. These individuals who would have received the fullness of the gospel if they had heard it will have to receive it in the spirit world. Their reception of the less-than-full gospel of their traditional Christian church does not secure their salvation. Their baptisms in that church is invalid; they will have to accept the proxy baptism performed on their behalf by a mortal Mormon on earth. They did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in their church (even if, as has been mentioned, they might have experienced some illumination by the Holy Ghost in lesser ways) and so could not benefit by that specific gift during their mortal lifetimes. They had no opportunity to be sealed in marriage for eternity. In all these ways and for these specific reasons the traditional Christian churches, according to LDS doctrine, cannot be a means of salvation to the celestial kingdom, even though their members might still make it there by other means.

If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm open to being corrected. But so far the alleged corrections have been whizzing by and missing the target.

[KevinG]

Maybe he read the thread where you did just that.

Lets just say he has a history of misinterpreting LDS doctrine to suit his agenda.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

The Bible may not be an "instructional manual," but it does have instructions within it; and so does LDS scripture.

Of course. But this observation, while accurate enough, doesn't negate the validity of my point as a response to Dogmatic's complaint about the Bible supposedly not being simple enough to understand.

You wrote:

You got that seriously wrong, Rob. The LDS Church has no such "cadre". The Church has not appointed those people to write those commentaries, and does not endorse their writings. The only thing that the Church endorses is the standard works; and encourages Church members to familiarise themselves with them and learn to extract correct doctrine from them. Others are free to write such commentaries if they like; but the Church neither endorses nor commissions their writings.

You are the one who is seriously wrong. Brigham Young University is owned and controlled by the LDS Church. Many of its scholars and other LDS scholars and theologians have had articles published in the Ensign and other official LDS Church publications; you can find some of these online at lds.org. For example, you can find articles by Daniel C. Peterson, Robert Millet, John W. Welch, Hugh Nibley, John Gee, John Sorenson, C. Wilfred Griggs, Robert J. Matthews, and Stephen E. Robinson on lds.org, mostly taken from the Ensign magazine.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the LDS Church endorses everything these scholars write. But then, it doesn't even endorse everything its own Prophets say.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Maybe he read the thread where you did just that.

CFR. (Cite the specific statement or statements where I supposedly did so, not just the thread.) Also, the point here is that in this thread I certainly did no such thing.

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

I'm not going to be able to take the time to respond to everything in your post. Just a few quick comments will have to do.

Here is a very clear example that is all over this thread, this board and the internet: The Trinity. Trinity doctrine has to be justified for every person who attempts to understand it. How about these: If the scriptures say my spirit is an eternal being, and eternity means without beginning or end, where was I before being here? How could the afterlife be heaven if I'm no longer married to my partner? What will I be doing for an eternity after I die, playing a harp on a cloud? If God loves us as He says in the Bible, why would He condemn someone to a fiery hell simply because they didn't understand? Why does God let mass murders like the holocaust happen? Why doesn't He stop them? Why does God allow babies to be born and live for years as a near total vegetable? And on and on... These are all questions that my friends had when I was younger. Answers to these questions are typically justified by the person being asked them....

Correct - I am saying that Mormons don't "try to justify" Doctrinal claims - they're in the scriptures. The answers to the questions above are in Mormon Doctrine as well. They don't require justification because they are answerable.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "justify" and "justification." The answers I as an evangelical give to the kinds of questions you ask are based on the Scriptures (the Bible). In that sense they don't need justification. However, if someone raises objections to the biblical answers, as they often do, it is worthwhile to be ready to answer those objections. If that is "justification" I plead guilty and see nothing wrong with it.

You wrote:

Explain the damning of an eternal soul who's value is great in the eyes of God simply because of a doctrinal misunderstanding.

I can't, because that is not what I or other evangelicals believe. God judges people because of their sins, not because of mere doctrinal misunderstandings.

You wrote:

Please educate me further on this. If not from the Bible, where do you get your instruction on the Gospel? Do you have further revelation that you use? Do you not tie every single thing that is taught in your religion back to the Bible? I'll be shocked if you claim otherwise so I'll assume you'll understand my point. Certainly the Bible is not written as a 12 step manual or an owners manual or other modern day instruction manuals but it is a collection of writings of different genres -- history, poetry, song, proverbial sayings, biography, letter, apocalyptic prophecy, etc all of which is included and intended to teach us how to live, what we must do to return to Him, how we must treat others, things we should and should not do and so on - in other words, an instruction manual.

Somehow you began by acknowledging my point and ended by rejecting it. Yes, the Bible contains instructions. No, the Bible is not written in the genre of an instruction manual. It is not written so as to be easy to understand all the way through. It is not The Gospel for Dummies. There are things in the Bible that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). This is not a serious objection to the Bible.

You wrote:

Your Second - the LDS Church itself does no such thing. Just because hundreds of Mormons decide to write things or a bunch of professors quibble over idiosyncrasies and publish their thoughts does not invalidate what I said. Their work is NOT canon. What IS LDS canon - the scriptures - is what I'm referring to.

This misses the point. We don't view our scholars' writings as scripture, either. But your claim was that Scripture should be so easy to understand that scholars would be superfluous. If that were so, the LDS Church would not pay scholars to do their work. See my response to zerinus on this point.

You wrote:

I agree that you are very civil in discussing LDS doctrine, from everything I've seen thus far.

Thanks for that.

You wrote:

On a related note, I just watched a youtube video of you discussing the Priesthood on the IRR site. I find it odd that you attempt to discredit the Priesthood by quoting Hebrews and by showing Christ as the only priest in the Melchizedek priesthood. It is interesting hearing you work through and present things in such a particular way using half-truths and omission. You completely ignore the LDS Church's claim on the Priesthood and simply claim that based on the Bible it is not possible.

The video is only a short introduction to the topic; it directs the viewer to an article that does engage what the LDS Church says on the subject, in quite a bit of detail.

[Vance]

CFR. (Cite the specific statement or statements where I supposedly did so, not just the thread.) Also, the point here is that in this thread I certainly did no such thing.

You mean you don't recall equating "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10:45 with "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Article of Faith 4 (and Acts 2:38)?

Edited to add,

Edited August 23, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You mean you don't recall equating "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10:45 with "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Article of Faith 4 (and Acts 2:38)?

That isn't what you claimed earlier in this thread that I had done. Instead, you claimed that in the other thread I had blurred "the lines between the Gift of the Holy Ghost and being able to access the ministrations of the Holy Ghost." Yet in that thread, in one of the very posts you cited, I had explicitly said, "Receiving revelation from the Holy Ghost isn't the same thing as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost" and "The gift of the Holy Ghost is not the same as being touched by the Holy Ghost" and "People can feel the Holy Ghost before baptism."

As for equating "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10:45 with "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:38, I plead guilty.

[zerinus]

For the umpteenth time, I understand all this. My point remains not only unrefuted but untouched, which is that in LDS doctrine a traditional Christian church cannot be the instrument of salvation to such persons. These individuals who would have received the fullness of the gospel if they had heard it will have to receive it in the spirit world. Their reception of the less-than-full gospel of their traditional Christian church does not secure their salvation. Their baptisms in that church is invalid; they will have to accept the proxy baptism performed on their behalf by a mortal Mormon on earth. They did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in their church (even if, as has been mentioned, they might have experienced some illumination by the Holy Ghost in lesser ways) and so could not benefit by that specific gift during their mortal lifetimes. They had no opportunity to be sealed in marriage for eternity. In all these ways and for these specific reasons the traditional Christian churches, according to LDS doctrine, cannot be a means of salvation to the celestial kingdom, even though their members might still make it there by other means.

If I'm wrong about any of this, I'm open to being corrected. But so far the alleged corrections have been whizzing by and missing the target.

You are now being dishonest. You are misrepresenting your original question, as well as my answers. This is the question you had asked, in response to what I had said:

In biblical terms, the simplest and most basic beliefs in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, provided it is accompanied with a commitment live by His precepts and keep His commandments. That was the key ingredient.

Okay. Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?

To which I gave the appropriate reply. However, to answer the question that you are now asking:

My point . . . is that in LDS doctrine a traditional Christian church cannot be the instrument of salvation to such persons. These individuals who would have received the fullness of the gospel if they had heard it will have to receive it in the spirit world. Their reception of the less-than-full gospel of their traditional Christian church does not secure their salvation. Their baptisms in that church is invalid; they will have to accept the proxy baptism performed on their behalf by a mortal Mormon on earth. They did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost in their church (even if, as has been mentioned, they might have experienced some illumination by the Holy Ghost in lesser ways) and so could not benefit by that specific gift during their mortal lifetimes. They had no opportunity to be sealed in marriage for eternity. In all these ways and for these specific reasons the traditional Christian churches, according to LDS doctrine, cannot be a means of salvation to the celestial kingdom, even though their members might still make it there by other means.

This was neither your original question nor your original "point;" however to answer it, you are wrong again. Traditional Christian churches can be a means of bringing salvation to their members insofar as they are able to inculcate in them a faith in Jesus Christ, and willingness to live by his precepts, as a steppingstone to their receiving the greater light and truth obtainable in the Restored gospel, either in this life or in the next. You know how St Paul talks about the Law of Moses being a "schoolmaster" in bringing the Jews to Christ (Galatians 3:24-25)? That is the kind of role that traditional Christian churches have been playing during the past two millennia or so in preparing the Christian world to receive the greater light and truth to be revealed in the Restoration (without realizing it). Well they can still continue (and are still continuing) to play that role in the lives of many of their adherents--although their role in that regard keeps diminishing as the the Restoration takes root, and becomes strengthened, and the traditional churches become weaker. In the meantime, however, they can still continue to play that role, to the extent that they are able to instil faith in Jesus Christ in their adherents, and a desire to keep His commandments.

[Vance]

That isn't what you claimed earlier in this thread that I had done. Instead, you claimed that in the other thread I had blurred "the lines between the Gift of the Holy Ghost and being able to access the ministrations of the Holy Ghost." Yet in that thread, in one of the very posts you cited, I had explicitly said, "Receiving revelation from the Holy Ghost isn't the same thing as receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost" and "The gift of the Holy Ghost is not the same as being touched by the Holy Ghost" and "People can feel the Holy Ghost before baptism."

As for equating "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10:45 with "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 2:38, I plead guilty.

And what you are pleading guilty to, is the same as what I accused you of. So thanks for the admission.

"The gift of the Holy Ghost" as used in Acts 10:45 is "( r)eceiving revelation from"/"being touched by the Holy Ghost".

Edited August 23, 2012 by Vance

[zerinus]

You are the one who is seriously wrong. Brigham Young University is owned and controlled by the LDS Church. Many of its scholars and other LDS scholars and theologians have had articles published in the Ensign and other official LDS Church publications; you can find some of these online at lds.org. For example, you can find articles by Daniel C. Peterson, Robert Millet, John W. Welch, Hugh Nibley, John Gee, John Sorenson, C. Wilfred Griggs, Robert J. Matthews, and Stephen E. Robinson on lds.org, mostly taken from the Ensign magazine.

BYU is a world class university. It is not a stooge of Mormonism. BYU Professors, academics and scientists write scientific and scholarly papers on all kinds of academic and scientific disciplines, and publish them in reputable journals. By your logic you could argue that the LDS Church has a "cadre" of scientists and academics writing papers on physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, agriculture, literature, history, politics etc. etc., which is downright idiotic.

As far as the Ensign is concerned, anybody can write an article for the Ensign. Most articles in there are written by ordinary Church members. The distinguished academics you have mentioned are also Church members, and therefore have as much right to have their articles published in the Ensign as other Church members do. Publishing an article in the Ensign does not prove anything other than that it was deemed good enough by the editorial board to be published. The Church leadership, however, not only do not encourage nor commission the writing of scripture commentaries by BUY academics (or anyone else), but are even cool on the idea, because they want Church members to read and understand the scriptures for themselves by the light of the Spirit, rather than through the lens of somebody else's interpretation. Let me quote you something interesting from a conference talk given by the late Gordon B. Hinckley:

I am grateful for emphasis on reading the scriptures. I hope that for you this will become something far more enjoyable than a duty; that, rather, it will become a love affair with the word of God. I promise you that as you read, your minds will be enlightened and your spirits will be lifted. At first it may seem tedious, but that will change into a wondrous experience with thoughts and words of things divine. Source.

As I recall, in the original spoken version of this he made a snide remark about scripture "commentaries," which he later must have edited out to avoid giving offence. Church leaders are gracious and don't want to give offence; but I don't think they are keen on scripture commentaries. They like Church members to be able to understand the scriptures for themselves, rather than through the bias of somebody else's interpretation.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the LDS Church endorses everything these scholars write. But then, it doesn't even endorse everything its own Prophets say.

LOL! The Church endorses what the scriptures say, and encourages Church members to become familiar with them, and learn to judge everyone's doctrine by them.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

You are now being dishonest. You are misrepresenting your original question, as well as my answers.

You are usually more fair-minded than this. Shame on you. I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and instead of accusing you of being dishonest I will say that it appears you are not thinking carefully about what I have said. You had asserted (underlining added):

In biblical terms, the simplest and most basic beliefs in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, provided it is accompanied with a commitment live by His precepts and keep His commandments. That was the key ingredient.

I asked: "Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?"

Your answer, over a few posts, has been that a member of a traditional Christian church can attain salvation (to the celestial kingdom) through the proxy ordinances of the LDS Church and by accepting the fullness of the gospel (i.e., the Mormon gospel) in the afterlife. As I have explained, this doesn't amount to an affirmative answer to my question, your protestations notwithstanding. If one must wait until after death to accept the Mormon gospel and accept proxy ordinances performed on one's behalf in order to attain salvation, then what one obtains through a traditional Christian church is obviously not "sufficient for salvation." I explained this to you (rather patiently, I might point out), and instead of giving my explanation serious consideration you rashly accused me of dishonesty and of changing the question or issue. Your explanation merely confirms once again my point, even though you seem to think it disproves it. You write:

Traditional Christian churches can be a means of bringing salvation to their members insofar as they are able to inculcate in them a faith in Jesus Christ, and willingness to live by his precepts, as a steppingstone to their receiving the greater light and truth obtainable in the Restored gospel, either in this life or in the next.

Fine. But if what the traditional Christian church provides is only a "steppingstone" that gets them part of the way home, then it is not "sufficient" to get them all of the way home. If what it offers can merely prepare them to receive the Restored gospel, and if that Restored gospel is necessary for salvation, then the preparation provided in the traditional Christian church is not sufficient for salvation.

The key point you are missing is that something can be helpful and still not be sufficient. I fully understand how Mormons can view traditional Christian churches as praeparatio evangelica, but the fact remains that according to LDS doctrine one cannot be saved (to the celestial kingdom) through the gospel and ordinances of a traditional Christian church; one must at some point (in this life or in the next) go on to accept the Mormon gospel and ordinances.

I respectfully request that you apologize for accusing me of dishonesty. I don't mind vigorous disagreement with my views, but your accusation is unfair and unfounded.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Any thoughtful person can see that you are blowing smoke.

And what you are pleading guilty to, is the same as what I accused you of. So thanks for the admission.

"The gift of the Holy Ghost" as used in Acts 10:45 is "( r)eceiving revelation from"/"being touched by the Holy Ghost".

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

BYU is a world class university. It is not a stooge of Mormonism.

And I never characterized it this way. My point was simple: the LDS Church finances BYU, and its scripture scholars and theologians produce scholarship explaining and defending LDS scripture and doctrine. This isn't a criticism! It is a response to Dogmatic's criticism of evangelical Christians for having scholars who explain and defend the Bible and evangelical doctrine.

[Dogmatic]

Dogmatic,

I'm not going to be able to take the time to respond to everything in your post. Just a few quick comments will have to do.

Since you didn't really address any of the many points I brought up other than the video, I certainly hope you'll go back through it and address the many questions I asked you.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "justify" and "justification." The answers I as an evangelical give to the kinds of questions you ask are based on the Scriptures (the Bible). In that sense they don't need justification. However' date=' if someone raises objections to the biblical answers, as they often do, it is worthwhile to be ready to answer those objections. If that is "justification" I plead guilty and see nothing wrong with it.

[/quote']

You have to justify your answers NOT being clearly laid out in the scriptures. You're justifying a belief that is not described in the scriptures. You justify your belief when it is not plainly in the scriptures by explaining it by taking one thought here in the scriptures, one thought there, one way back over there and then you create an assumption of what it means. If it's gospel, it should be clear in the scriptures. Multiple verses building on each other is fine, but slamming together things that don't fit and having to explain how I need to interpret it is justification for your belief.

Make sense now? If you belief is not based on something plain in the scriptures then you must justify your belief through scholarly conjecture.

I can't' date=' because that is not what I or other evangelicals believe. God judges people because of their sins, not because of mere doctrinal misunderstandings.

[/quote']

Interesting. So tell me, am I saved? Is the guy who has never heard of Christ saved? Is the guy who couldn't make sense of your doctrine and dismissed it saved?

Or are we all damned?

Somehow you began by acknowledging my point and ended by rejecting it. Yes' date=' the Bible contains instructions. No, the Bible is not written in the genre of an instruction manual. It is not written so as to be easy to understand all the way through. It is not [i']The Gospel for Dummies. There are things in the Bible that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). This is not a serious objection to the Bible.

I quite agree that you cannot gain a full understanding of the gospel from the Bible. I am not referring to the minutiae study of the scholar. I am referring to the believer who reads through the scriptures and is taught and confirmed to by the Spirit. The scriptures are not for the mind but are for the heart. I've said all this before, you have yet to address it at all - including everything Jesus said about scholars. Nevertheless, the scriptures are indeed an instruction manual for mankind to know God and understand how to live their lives. The tenets of the gospel are plainly laid out including the nature of the Godhead. It is laid out so plainly that interpretation and conjecture of it confounds the reader who is being converted.

This misses the point. We don't view our scholars' writings as scripture' date=' either. But your claim was that Scripture should be so easy to understand that scholars would be superfluous. If that were so, the LDS Church would not pay scholars to do their work. See my response to zerinus on this point.

[/quote']

Zerinus has explained this quite thoroughly and I have yet to see him/her present anything that I disagree with. I challenge you to explain your gospel without scholarly justification. I can do so with mine.

You have ignored the real meat of this conversation and opted to address just these items. I totally understand having time constraints, I appreciate you taking the time to engage on these topics and hope that you will go back and address the many points that have now been lost in this discussion.

Thanks!

[Dogmatic]

zerinus,

You wrote:

And I never characterized it this way. My point was simple: the LDS Church finances BYU, and its scripture scholars and theologians produce scholarship explaining and defending LDS scripture and doctrine. This isn't a criticism! It is a response to Dogmatic's criticism of evangelical Christians for having scholars who explain and defend the Bible and evangelical doctrine.

As I stated previously, much of that work is, as you stated, in "defense" of Mormonism. My point, which you have either overlooked or missed, is that evangelical scholarship is necessary to explain evangelism to members. A simple reading of the Bible does not teach the reader of the evangelical doctrine, interpretations and explanations from men are needed. Such is not the case for Mormons.

Here is a simple phrasing of my assertion and point:

The Gospel is simple. Reading the scriptures is sufficient for understanding. Further explanation is not required.... if you're Mormon.

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

Since you didn't really address any of the many points I brought up other than the video, I certainly hope you'll go back through it and address the many questions I asked you.

Better to address several points well than to fail to address any adequately.

You wrote:

You have to justify your answers NOT being clearly laid out in the scriptures. You're justifying a belief that is not described in the scriptures.

I don't agree, but for my purposes here it doesn't matter. The fact is that Mormon scholars do the very thing you are criticizing -- and I would argue they do it far more blatantly. Try reading Daniel Peterson's article in which he tries to argue that the idea of a Heavenly Mother is implicit in Nephi's vision, or any of the many pieces Mormon apologists have written trying to reconcile the strong monotheism of the Book of Mormon with Joseph Smith's doctrine of a plurality of gods. Whether these arguments are successful or not, it is incontrovertible that these are excellent examples of Mormon scholars trying to tease out of the Book of Mormon ideas that are not "clearly laid out" there.

You wrote:

Make sense now? If you belief is not based on something plain in the scriptures then you must justify your belief through scholarly conjecture.

You seem to think that I started out as an evangelical Christian and went looking for evangelical beliefs in the Bible, and when I couldn't find them resorted to scholarly chicanery to justify my preconceived notions. This is neither accurate nor fair. I started out with a simple belief in Christ, came to accept the Bible as the word of God, and then studied the Bible assiduously to see what it taught on various theological issues, constantly questioning and testing what evangelicals were telling me. I went through a period when I seriously doubted many orthodox, evangelical doctrines, such as the Trinity. All I wanted to know is what doctrines rested securely on the teachings of Scripture.

You asked:

Interesting. So tell me, am I saved? Is the guy who has never heard of Christ saved? Is the guy who couldn't make sense of your doctrine and dismissed it saved?

I don't have the knowledge or competency to judge individuals, especially individuals I don't know personally. That's not what I'm about. I'm certainly not going to speculate about your salvation. But let me remind you that in Mormon theology "the guy who has never heard of Christ" is not saved (to the celestial kingdom) -- at least not yet. He must hear of Christ in order to be saved. Mormonism teaches that this can happen in the spirit world after death, which is not an idea I find in the Bible. Likewise "the guy who couldn't make sense of your [LDS] doctrine and dismissed it" is not going to be saved to the celestial kingdom unless he later changes his mind, according to the usual interpretation of the LDS doctrine. In any case, according to evangelical Christian doctrine, anyone whom God condemns will be judged justly on the basis of what he has done, not on the basis of what he has not understood or not heard or not had a chance to do.

You wrote:

The scriptures are not for the mind but are for the heart.

Frankly, this is nonsense. The Scriptures are written in human language, which must be read or heard by a human being whose mind is actively engaged in thinking about what they say. The Scriptures are not designed to give readers warm fuzzy feelings in their hearts, but to give them the truth that the Holy Spirit uses to transform them by the renewing of their minds (see Romans 12:1-2).

You wrote:

I've said all this before, you have yet to address it at all - including everything Jesus said about scholars.

Your appeal to what Jesus said about scholars defeats your own claim. You are asking me to use my mind to think about what Jesus said in the Scriptures so that I can conclude with you that the Scriptures are not to be understood using the mind.

Jesus did not criticize scholars for using their God-given intelligence to understand the Scriptures. He criticized the scribes for abusing their God-given intelligence to distort the Scriptures.

You wrote:

You have ignored the real meat of this conversation and opted to address just these items. I totally understand having time constraints, I appreciate you taking the time to engage on these topics and hope that you will go back and address the many points that have now been lost in this discussion.

No, I think I have addressed the core issues quite thoroughly. Much of what you assert cannot be intelligently discussed as long as your stance is an anti-intellectual one that dismisses the use of reason in engaging what Scripture teaches.