Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Vance]

I am sure he would do a great job as a religion teacher at BYU, especially Book of Mormon 101.

He would have to read it cover to cover first.

[cassieblanca]

So in short there is nothing we an do to please God. Why worship him then?

I don't remember saying there is nothing we can do to please God. I think our good works do please Him. I think it would displease Him to sit on our thumbs and do nothing but say "I believe, therefore I am saved." There is no way that our works can ever save us, but not doing anything can keep us away from Him. What matters is what's in our heart, and we show that by our works. If we love the Lord, we should show Him that by keeping His commandments. To me it doesn't make sense any other way.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

But you do...and we have read you comments elsewhere when you did not need to be polite.

I do what? And to what comments are you referring?

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

I believe you are sincere in your belief that Mormons are not Christian.

Good grief. I don't say "Mormons are not Christians." I have repeatedly said this is not how I would state things. Why are you and so many other Mormons continuing to put these words in my mouth?

You wrote:

I believe your primary concern is for the ministry and not your paycheck. I do suspect that making a living off of your ministry does include the risk that your investment could limit your objectivity in a way that a believing Mormon does not have to worry about (to what extent I cannot judge).

And I think being a believing Mormon may limit your objectivity. I might also add that being a member of the faculty of BYU might limit the objectivity of a Mormon in that position. But raising this "suspicion" about a Mormon in the way that you did your suspicion about the supposed limits of my objectivity, would be a clear ad hominem.

[Rob Bowman]

You wrote:

You're stipulating that the proper understanding of the terminology "to be saved by grace" does not allow for the inclusion of the requirement of works of righteousness.

That contradicts the words of Jesus who said, "this DO and thou shalt live."

How hard can it be?

The only resolution is to understand Paul's words to mean that the atonement itself is not the result of our works of righteousness, not that works of righteousness are not a requirement for salvation.

Indeed salvation if it means anything at all is the quality of becoming righteous as God is righteous. You cannot be saved in your sins. You can only be saved from your sins.

Is it your position that human beings can "do this" sufficiently in this mortal life to merit eternal life by fulfilling that requirement? Are you "doing this" sufficiently to merit eternal life?

[urroner]

And I think being a believing Mormon may limit your objectivity.

Does being anything limits ones objectivity? Does being either a man or a woman limits ones objectivity? Does believing in God limits ones objectivity? Does having or not having a job limits ones objectivity?

Rob, do your beliefs limit your objectivity?

[urroner]

You wrote:

Is it your position that human beings can "do this" sufficiently in this mortal life to merit eternal life by fulfilling that requirement? Are you "doing this" sufficiently to merit eternal life?

Have you ever heard any Mormon say that we can be saved by our works alone, that we don't need the grace/atonement of Christ?

[Rob Bowman]

Cassieblanca,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:

I've always been confused that born again Christians seem to think that not only can we not think of being saved by works (which we don't, if we really understand our religion), but we cannot even combine works with faith and think that pleases the Lord.

Evidently, there are some Mormons here that don't really understand your religion, since they are arguing for that very conclusion of being saved by works.

You wrote:

Doesn't the Bible say that faith without works is dead? I believe that works without faith are also dead. But don't you believe that faith is required to access the Lord's grace? Can you receive His grace without having faith in Him?? If so, I need someone to explain that please.

In evangelical theology -- and I would also say in the Bible's teaching -- one must have faith in Christ to receive salvation by grace. The reason this is so is simple: before you can accept a gift you must be willing to trust the person who is giving it to you. Faith is accepting the gift. It is receiving the gift. That gift is reconciliation with God the Father and the promise of eternal life in his kingdom of love, righteousness, and peace. It is impossible to accept the gift of God's grace without faith, because faith is the response to the offer of the gift, a response of trustful acceptance.

You wrote:

In my opinion, faith is an action word. Faith is not just something you think - it's something you do.

Yes, in a sense, but it's a different kind of "doing" from obeying commandments like "don't steal" and "be holy." Faith means trusting in God to do what we cannot do for ourselves. It means depending on him to save us despite our sinfulness. Such faith requires letting go of the illusion that we can make ourselves good enough for God and reaching out to God in humble acknowledgment of our helplessness (see Romans 5:6-8 ). Faith is not working hard to keep all of the commandments and to make ourselves as good, holy, loving, faithful, and obedient as we can possibly make ourselves. Faith is gratefully and humbly accepting Christ's death on the cross for our sins as the payment for our failure to do and be all those things. Faith is accepting God's gift to us of Christ's goodness, holiness, love, faithfulness, and obedience, in which he is all of those things on our behalf. God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the sin offering on our behalf, taking our sin upon himself, allowing himself to be punished for the sin that we committed as if he were the guilty one instead of us, so that in turn we might, by our faith relationship with Christ, be considered by God perfectly righteous in his sight (2 Corinthians 5:21). Faith accepts and holds on to that gift. In a sense, it is an "anti-work," a disposition of trust in God's mercy and grace that frees us from the impossible task of trying to make ourselves righteous by our works.

You wrote:

Hasn't the Lord given us commandments? Why would He give us commandments if He didn't want us to keep them?

Yes, of course the Lord has given us commandments, and of course he wants us to keep them. But he does not expect us to qualify for eternal life in his presence on the basis of our performance in keeping those commandments. If that were the standard, none of us would make it, because all of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glorious standard (Romans 3:23).

You wrote:

And if I profess to have faith in Him, how is that faith worth anything if I ignore His will? To me, if I have faith in the Lord, then I do my best to keep His commandments and live the way I think He wants me to live. Does that mean I am thinking that every time I do good works, I am saving myself? NO!! It means that as unworthy as I am, at least I can do my piddly little best to show Him my faith.

I agree with what you say here. In mainstream LDS doctrine, however, as taught by the General Authorities and as laid out in official LDS Church doctrinal curriculum manuals, doing good works is part of attaining individual salvation.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

Does being anything limits ones objectivity? Does being either a man or a woman limits ones objectivity? Does believing in God limits ones objectivity? Does having or not having a job limits ones objectivity? Rob, do your beliefs limit your objectivity?

So many questions!

Everything human beings experience and have factors into how they view life. There is no such thing as pure, hard objectivity in human thought. We all have perspectives, we all have points of view. We all have some limitations in terms of what we have and have not read, what we do and don't remember, as well as what sorts of explanations or ways of understanding make sense to us. However -- and this is a big "however" -- human beings have the capacity to look at matters from points of view other than their own. They are capable of learning they were wrong. They are capable of rising above their default view of things. If they could not do this, they would never change their beliefs; but as we know people change their views on issues large and small all the time.

I don't claim to be purely objective in the sense of hard objectivism, which denies any perspective or subjective dimension to the act of knowing. None of us can be absolutely objective in that way. But I do claim that I can (and that I actually do) think openly and fairly about viewpoints that differ from my own, and that I put my assumptions and beliefs to the test in various ways and far more frequently than most people do. That is because doing so is a matter of high value for me. I actually want to reexamine my beliefs and subject them to testing from serious challenges originating from other points of view. I do this because I know it is a highly efficient and rigorous way to learn. Do I do this perfectly? Pshaw. I don't think I do and I don't think there would be any way for me to know that I do. But I know I succeed to a great extent because I have changed my beliefs on various issues over the years as a result of that process, and even when my beliefs have remained basically the same I have learned a great deal that I could probably not have been learned in any other way.

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You asked:

Have you ever heard any Mormon say that we can be saved by our works alone, that we don't need the grace/atonement of Christ?

No. Nor have I suggested that any Mormon thinks this is so.

[Rob Bowman]

JarMan,

You wrote:

Rob, so you don't take issue with Mormons self identifying as Christians, but you disagree with some fundamental Mormon doctrines concerning the nature of Christ, among other things. Is that a fair assessment?

Yes. And I should add that those Mormon doctrines, from my perspective, pose serious impediments to a saving relationship with Christ.

[urroner]

urroner,

You wrote:

So many questions!

Everything human beings experience and have factors into how they view life. There is no such thing as pure, hard objectivity in human thought. We all have perspectives, we all have points of view. We all have some limitations in terms of what we have and have not read, what we do and don't remember, as well as what sorts of explanations or ways of understanding make sense to us. However -- and this is a big "however" -- human beings have the capacity to look at matters from points of view other than their own. They are capable of learning they were wrong. They are capable of rising above their default view of things. If they could not do this, they would never change their beliefs; but as we know people change their views on issues large and small all the time.

I don't claim to be purely objective in the sense of hard objectivism, which denies any perspective or subjective dimension to the act of knowing. None of us can be absolutely objective in that way. But I do claim that I can (and that I actually do) think openly and fairly about viewpoints that differ from my own, and that I put my assumptions and beliefs to the test in various ways and far more frequently than most people do. That is because doing so is a matter of high value for me. I actually want to reexamine my beliefs and subject them to testing from serious challenges originating from other points of view. I do this because I know it is a highly efficient and rigorous way to learn. Do I do this perfectly? Pshaw. I don't think I do and I don't think there would be any way for me to know that I do. But I know I succeed to a great extent because I have changed my beliefs on various issues over the years as a result of that process, and even when my beliefs have remained basically the same I have learned a great deal that I could probably not have been learned in any other way.

"Empathy" might be the word that describes what you are talking about. From the earlier post, you seemed to be saying, from my POV, that a typical Mormon might have less empathy towards others than those whom you consider to be a typical Christian. I hope I am mistaken by this assumption?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

The apparent dilemma you pose is worth addressing. A more precise way of stating the matter is that the LDS Church's doctrine teaches "another Jesus," so that if someone fully and consistently believes everything that the LDS Church teaches about Jesus Christ then as best we can tell such a person would not be saved. But as this forum amply illustrates, Mormons are quite capable of interpreting their church's teaching in a variety of ways. There are also people from orthodox Christian church backgrounds who join the LDS religion and don't understand everything about LDS doctrine and even some who just don't accept everything the LDS Church says (however they rationalize the matter). So there are a number of ways in which a Mormon might be saved despite the false views about Jesus Christ taught in the LDS Church.

I doubt you'll like this answer but hey, you asked.

The usual accusation against Mormons made by Evangelicals is that we worship a "different Christ"- if that was the case it would not be EVER possible for a Mormon to be "saved" according to an Evangelical.

We hear repeatedly that the Christ we worship is the brother of Satan etc and therefore is not even the "same Christ" that EV's worship, and so it is impossible that we could be "saved"

If Evangelicals admit that even ONE Mormon could be saved, then it must not be the case that we are worshiping a "different" Christ- since only Christ is the source of our salvation.

So either that EV position is incorrect, or Mormons worship more than one Christ, some worshiping the "correct" one. You can't have it both ways.

So which is it?

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

"Empathy" might be the word that describes what you are talking about. From the earlier post, you seemed to be saying, from my POV, that a typical Mormon might have less empathy towards others than those whom you consider to be a typical Christian. I hope I am mistaken by this assumption?

Yes, you're mistaken; no, that's not what I was saying. I was simply responding to Kevin, who called my "empathy" as you call it into question because of my employment. My point was that while I could play the same kind of game and call Mormons' open-mindedness into question on this or that basis, in the end trying to discredit someone's viewpoint in this way is fallacious.

[Bill Hamblin]

Mr. Bukowski,

The apparent dilemma you pose is worth addressing. A more precise way of stating the matter is that the LDS Church's doctrine teaches "another Jesus," so that if someone fully and consistently believes everything that the LDS Church teaches about Jesus Christ then as best we can tell such a person would not be saved. But as this forum amply illustrates, Mormons are quite capable of interpreting their church's teaching in a variety of ways. There are also people from orthodox Christian church backgrounds who join the LDS religion and don't understand everything about LDS doctrine and even some who just don't accept everything the LDS Church says (however they rationalize the matter). So there are a number of ways in which a Mormon might be saved despite the false views about Jesus Christ taught in the LDS Church.

I doubt you'll like this answer but hey, you asked.

No, Rob, you teach a different Jesus. We teach the same Jesus.

Gee, what an easy argument! That sure clarifies matters!

[urroner]

I have met Protestants who were considered to be Christians by the Evangelists I work with and this Protestants believed that works were an important part of their salvation, that without works, they couldn't be saved. Should they be lumped into the same class of "those who believe in a different Christ?"

[urroner]

urroner,

You wrote:

Yes, you're mistaken; no, that's not what I was saying. I was simply responding to Kevin, who called my "empathy" as you call it into question because of my employment. My point was that while I could play the same kind of game and call Mormons' open-mindedness into question on this or that basis, in the end trying to discredit someone's viewpoint in this way is fallacious.

I was only able to read part of this thread and didn't see that post by Kevin. That's a problem with coming into the middle of a conversation.

[KevinG]

Good grief. I don't say "Mormons are not Christians." I have repeatedly said this is not how I would state things. Why are you and so many other Mormons continuing to put these words in my mouth?

Oh. I was under the distinct impression you were on the side of Mormons are not Christians. Forgive my lack of comprehension.

From now on I can say Rob Bowman believes Mormons are Christians. Nice to know.

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

Hi again. Thanks for your gracious comments. I'm truly grateful for your repeated displays of kindness toward me.

As a young adult, I definitely felt "called" by God, but I should make it clear that I don't consider that calling to be as an evangelist; that is, the focus of my work is not on trying to bring people to conversion, whether from Mormonism or from any other religious background. (This doesn't mean I would turn away from an opportunity to share my faith with someone.) Instead, to be honest, I see my calling as that of a scholar/theologian/apologist. That calling originally had nothing directly to do with Mormonism. When I was still only 18 years old I got heavily involved in researching the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I eventually came to the conclusion that their doctrines were not biblical and that they were in fact heretical (opposed to essential Christian doctrines). I also spent a lot of time in college wrestling with more general questions about the truth of Christianity -- questions about the reliability of the Bible, about the historicity of the Gospel accounts, about the scientific credibility of the biblical creation narrative, and so on. By the time I finished my undergraduate studies I was on a clear path to pursuing scholarship, which I saw then and still see as an important adjunct to the evangelistic and discipleship ministries of the Christian church. Good Christian scholarship is needed because there is so much scholarship out there attacking Christian beliefs and values, and the scholarship helps to equip the non-scholar to have a solid grasp of what he believes and why he believes it.

In dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, my main concerns theologically were regarding their rejection of the eternal deity of Jesus Christ and of the doctrine of the Trinity. I didn't start out assuming these orthodox doctrines were correct -- far from it. I really didn't know. What I worked hard to understand was whether these doctrines, or those taught by the Witnesses, were faithful to the teachings of the Bible. This concern drove me into the study of hermeneutics and theological method. I found that there were people who knew a lot about the Jehovah's Witnesses but not much about exegesis and hermeneutics, and others who knew a lot about exegesis and hermeneutics but not much about Jehovah's Witnesses, but almost no one who knew a lot about both. I came to see my special calling the work of bringing sound exegetical and hermeneutical method along with sound theological reasoning to the task of engaging the arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses and similar groups against the essential doctrines of orthodox Christianity (and more specifically evangelicalism, a subset of orthodox Christianity).

I soon found out that the LDS Church had its own take on these doctrinal issues and that its views of orthodox Christianity were in many ways quite similar to those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I also came to the conclusion that my special interest in bringing biblical and theological scholarship to bear on answering the anti-Trinitarian, anti-evangelical arguments of heretical groups was especially needed in the area of Mormonism. For many years, however, I did comparatively little in this area. Frankly, Mormonism is a far more complex subject than Jehovah's Witnesses or almost any other group I can name. The many twists and turns in LDS history, the heated controversies over practically every element of Joseph Smith's story, the lengthy works of the Book of Mormon and D&C and the complicated issues of how they relate to one another and to subsequent LDS doctrine, the diversity of opinions even among contemporary Mormons as to how all of this is to be interpreted -- it was a big task to sort through all of it. But I wanted to pursue it because I saw a need. I thought, and I still think, that I can make a useful contribution that will help evangelicals understand and address Mormon claims more fruitfully and that will help Mormons who are open to reexamining what they have been taught. For me, as for many evangelicals, "calling" is found simply in recognizing a need that one can fill, stepping out to meet it, and finding that God gives us special gifts or blessings and various confirmations that what we are doing is a divine calling. I started putting a lot more time into this area of study perhaps six or seven years ago, and four years ago I had an opportunity to work at an organization where Mormonism was the main focus of attention. I was happy to do so and am still at that organization (the Institute for Religious Research).

That may have been more than you wanted to know, but in any case thanks for asking.

I'm touched, and I hope that others here are touched by your long-term devotion to a very tough ministry to the Mormons. I imagine that you and your family might find it more rewarding to be in a pastorate over a nice evangelical congregation somewhere (even in Utah), or to have a teaching position in a congenial Baptist seminary somewhere. Instead you chose a harder path. So, thank you for putting up with all the guff on this board. Any of us would no doubt love to have you as our neighbor, and we would certainly enjoy serving with you on a local interfaith council of some sort. Of course you must know that doctrine is almost never the reason for conversion . . .

Aside from the "bad theology" which you think we exhibit, was there at one time a key reason why you felt "called" to minister to the Mormons? How did the call come?

[Vance]

There is nothing amiss with attempting to do good and righteous things.

That is good to know. Some EVs I know claim it is a sin to try to do good. I am glad you are not like them.

There is nothing wrong with trying to be as righteous as you can.

That is good to know. See above.

The error (or more accurately one error of direct relevance here) is in thinking that one's efforts to be righteous or to do good are conditions for attaining salvation.

The words of Jesus, Peter, John, James and Paul disagree with that statement. I'll take their word for it thank you very much.

Trying to do good works is good, but trying to attain salvation by works, or by a combination of works and faith, is bad,

Again, the words of Jesus, Peter, John, James and Paul disagree with that statement.

. . . because trying to be saved even in part by works negates the character of salvation as a gift, as the undeserved favor ("grace") of God.

No, it doesn't. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom. 11:6 KJV).

Paul is using "grace" here to mean the Gospel of Jesus Christ and "works" to mean all of the (man-made) rules the Jews had added.

Since you bring up Paul:

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometime (Notice the past tense) foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after (Notice the differentiation here) that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:1-7 KJV).

YES!!!! It is OBVIOUS that the KINDNESS AND LOVE of God toward man didn't come by works of righteousness of man.

And YES!!!! According to his (that is GOD's) mercy He saved us, by baptism (washing or regeneration) and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost through the gift of the Holy Ghost.

So, YES!!!! we agree with those verses.

The problem is you present the strawman that we believe it is our works of righteousness ALONE that saves us. That is NOT our position at all. Even this verse in D&C 14:7 makes it clear. "And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God."

So, NO!!! you can't work your way to (the highest) heaven. But, according to Jesus, only the righteous/obedient are given the gift.

And what are a few of the things Jesus said about righteousness?

Matt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Again, Paul was not saying, and evangelicals do not say, that there is no need to do works of righteousness,

Clearly he wasn't. Because that would be in disagreement with Jesus, Peter, John, James and Paul.

And clearly some EVs do.

but that doing works of righteousness is not a precondition or prerequisite to receiving God's mercy and grace to save us.

The words of Jesus, Peter, John, James and Paul disagree with that statement. I'll take their word for it, thank you very much.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Vance

[Flyonthewall]

...

I agree with what you say here. In mainstream LDS doctrine, however, as taught by the General Authorities and as laid out in official LDS Church doctrinal curriculum manuals, doing good works is part of attaining individual salvation.

If you want to compare apples to apples, the individual salvation that you say LDS General Authorities speak of would be comparible to what traditional christianity would say is the reward each are given when we are judged by our works.

As I understand it, traditional christianity has only a pass/fail concept of "salvation". LDS, as you should already understand, have many different concepts that the term "salvation" can be applied to.

http://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng

I can certainly understand why it would confusing for non-LDS to keep the different concepts straight when trying to compare doctrine.

[GingerRed]

JarMan,

You wrote:

Yes. And I should add that those Mormon doctrines, from my perspective, pose serious impediments to a saving relationship with Christ.

So what exactly are these 'serious impediments'?

Please give YOUR definition of this 'saving relationship with Christ'. Be specific. I'd like to see why it differs.

Where does repentance come into play? I've hardly ever seen you mention it much.

What is your belief of what the Atonement is all about?

If I'm correct, I think you've said in the past that you don't believe in our Pre-Exsistence and that we are literally spirit children of our Heavenly Father, yes? If so, then I would guess that's part of why you think we worship a 'different Jesus'. We believe He is our elder Brother and He lived with us in the Pre-Exsistence.

Red

[shalamabobbi]

Rob,

see post #345 with which I agree.

Many of the Joseph Smith inspired changes to the New Testament have to do with the concept of repentance as not continuing in sin. IOW the atonement is a means of forgiveness for those who choose to leave sin behind and change. It is the ability to let go of past mistakes and burdens with a covenant not to continue making those same mistakes into the future. Otherwise we make Christ the minister of sin.

Have I stolen? Then I will repent and steal no more though the temptations at times may be great. I will make restitution if I am able.

Have I lied maybe to accomplish the sale of a used car? Then I will repent and vow never to lie again though at times the temptation may be great to do so.

You see the pattern..

"If ye love me, keep my commandments" are not the words of LDS general authorities.

Have you any friends that are involved in a 12 step program? If so you might read through that program and see that what the people want that are involved in that program is personal change, not an assurance that they are OK as they presently are. They want to know that they can conquer themselves and overcome addictions and everything which would bring them shame and sorrow.

In that repentance process we trust in the Savior to wipe the slate clean of past mistakes that we cannot fully rectify. The grace of God makes real personal change possible. Weaknesses can become strengths. That is the work of salvation.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" are not the words of LDS general authorities.

Then when struggling with tears, on ones knees and pleading with the Lord for mercy and forgiveness one receives the visitation of the spirit and the burden is lifted, one lives a new life, a different life. The man of sin is buried to rise no more. Are you not aware of this symbolism of baptism? Have you parred away many plain and precious components of the gospel of Jesus Christ so that you can ride your hobby horse of debating the meaning of the word grace until nothing is left to you but a false assurance that you are part of the club so that your sins, past, present and future, no longer matter?

Then you have the temerity to come onto this board and lecture saints, real saints, about their lack of allegiance to their Lord and Master because they acknowledge the necessity to obey their Master? What a crock!

"It's ok, sin a little, it won't matter, after all you're saved." Whose voice is that?

Not my Savior's..

[zerinus]

No, Rob, you teach a different Jesus. We teach the same Jesus.

Gee, what an easy argument! That sure clarifies matters!

Nice one!

[Robert F. Smith]

Have you any friends that are involved in a 12 step program? If so you might read through that program and see that what the people want that are involved in that program is personal change, not an assurance that they are OK as they presently are. They want to know that they can conquer themselves and overcome addictions and everything which would bring them shame and sorrow.

It might be more effective to point out that the 12-step program depends on participants admitting up front their dependency on this or that drug, that they cannot stop on their own, and that they need to depend on a higher power. They need to be humble and to find a helpful sponsor who has been there and knows the problem first-hand. This is also the road to success for the hopeful convert to Christ. It is active and repentant -- with fear and trembling, but also with great joy.