Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

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

Papers you publish about Mormons elsewhere...I understand why you do it, so no big deal.

[zerinus]

I agree mfb. Evangelicalism isn't one of the biggest perversions and corruptions of the gospel that has ever been devised. I can think of a lot more things that are much worse, a hell of a lot worse than that. Jonestown of 1978 is so bad that Evangelicalism doesn't even approach it, not even from a far, far distance. Almost all Evangelicals i know love the Lord and are doing what they believe is their best.

We can not always tell what is in another's heart and why they do what they do. It is not our place to declare to God that another person is evil because we can not tell what is in their heart and we are told to be merciful and forgiving. I may not agree with somebody's beliefs or even their action, I may even consider their actions wicked, but I am not allowed to judge whether that person is or isn't wicked.

I was referring to Evangelical doctrine not evangelical people, and I reaffirm that statement. Evangelical theology (essentially Protestant) is one of the biggest perversions of the gospel ever devised..

[DBMormon]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea that there are no "Mormon Claims"- just a fairly vague set of doctrinal guidelines about which which we are invited to discover for ourselves that they work in our lives, precisely as stated in Alma 32.

In that respect, seeking after "Mormon Claims" is seeking after 17 million individual understandings of what the spirit has taught each individual. Good luck on that.

What do y'all think of this idea? Yea or nay?

I like it..... though some basic doctrinally truth would have to be set and getting people to even agree on that would be impossible

[Robert F. Smith]

They are both necessary and have merit. Ultimately God judges people by their works, and they are justified or not accordingly. Let's take a look at how Cornelius the Heathen was approved of God:

Acts 10:

1 There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Here we have a heathen man who is “praying to God always”. So which God is he praying to? It wouldn’t be Jesus, and it wouldn’t be the Jewish God either. According to the Evs, he would be praying to “another God,” a false god, not the true God. And we find that the true God heard his prayers and answered them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

So Cornelius was approved (and justified) of God because of his works. That is what led to everything else. He first did the works, before anything else happened which took him a stage further. It is by works that we are approved of God, not faith alone; and ultimately it is by our works that we are judged. Evangelicalism is one of the biggest perversions and corruptions of the gospel that has ever been devised; and they will receive their just reward when the day of reckoning comes.

Cornelius, as with the centurion in Luke 7, was evidently a proselyte to Judaism, so that the God he prayed to was indeed the God of Israel.

As to evangelicalism, we ought to consider ourselves friends of any who try sincerely to obey God, spread his good news. and adopt his Gospel plan, even if we disagree on particulars, and even if some of them consider us to be heretics. Let us be kind to them, but allow God to deal with them in his own way (I think that he will be very kind to them, and that they will repent of the wrong they have done)..

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You told The Grimace:

False dichotomy. There are other choices between defining a Christian without any doctrinal test at all and defining a Christian as someone who meets an arbitrary doctrinal test.

Perhaps so, but that is an abstract question. Every doctrinal test invented by EV's for the purpose of excluding Mormonism from Christianity is completely arbitrary.

Although I doubt you are going to be receptive to my position on this issue, I will try to answer. According to your doctrine-free definition, Mormons are Christians. And so is the liberal Episcopal who professes to follow Jesus and who claims that the way to do this is to deny that Jesus rose bodily from the grave and make tolerance of everything from abortion to same-sex marriage the highest value. And so is the Jehovah's Witness who thinks Jesus was God's first created angel, that Jesus did not rise physically from the grave but was recreated as an angel, and that to follow Jesus means (among other things) avoiding the celebration of birthdays and holidays, refusing to give or receive blood transfusions, and observing a host of other taboos. In other words, one may certainly use such a definition, but the consequence is that the term becomes so broad as to be close to valueless.

It is nowhere near "valueless," unless the only value you happen to see in the term is to enable you to distinguish "us" from "them."

As a means of classifying belief systems, your examples actually show that the term works rather well. Of course the JW is a Christian, and so is your liberal Episcopalian. Not only that, but even arrogant, censorious EV Protestants are Christian; and that even includes the Calvinists, who think God intended all along to save only them, and created everyone else for the sole purpose of supplying the Saved with the only form of entertainment in a rather grim, sterile Calvinist heaven, namely the complacent, compassionless contemplation of the never-ending tortures others suffer that they don't.

But notice who my proposed definition doesn't include. For example, under my definition, the Dalai Lama is not a Christian, although he may be a good person. (He might even be as good as his publicity; who knows?) Likewise, my definition deftly excludes a Hasidic Rabbi, a Shi'ite Imam and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, while unerringly including the local members of the Order of St. Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army band on the corner.

That, you see, is because it's not my definition. It's the standard definition everyone uses. Everyone, that is, except the aforementioned arrogant, censorious EV Protestants whose zealotry leads them to try to exclude everyone who doesn't think exactly like them.

The fact is that there are a variety of ways to define the terms Christian and Christianity. I am more interested in clarifying what people mean when they say that Mormons are or are not Christians, or that Mormonism is or is not Christianity, than in demanding that everyone agree on one definition. When the typical evangelical says that Mormons are not Christians, what she usually means is that Mormons espouse a heretical theology that is incompatible with orthodox Christianity. You are free to reject her preferred definition, but what she means is coherent and meaningful, and there is nothing bigoted or absurd about her statement.

Of course not -- to someone who shares her bigotry. But in fact her assertion is not coherent. It's actually inherently contradictory.

The assertion that some belief X is heretical actually relies upon the assumption that X deviates from a standard to which it should adhere. To dismiss something as heresy is to assert that it is Christian but defective, not that it is something else. For instance, anti-Mormonism is a heresy only to the extent that anti-Mormons profess to be Christians; atheist anti-Mormons aren't heretics and cannot be heretics, because they're not Christians.

Whether or not they are nice people, I will not venture to say.

To someone for whom devil's food cake is the only canonical chocolate cake, a German chocolate cake recipe would be heretical; a knitting pattern would not.

The corollary of this is that your "typical" intolerant EV zealot, in denying that Mormonism is Christian, cannot justify that denial by appealing to the "heretical" nature of LDS beliefs. She is more or less stuck with demonstrating that Mormonism is something objectively different -- like a knitting pattern is from a cake recipe. Trying to insist that a German chocolate cake isn't really a chocolate cake at all simply makes her look irrational.

When Mormons say they are Christians, what they typically mean is that they regard Christ as the Savior and are seeking to follow him. I accept this claim also as coherent and meaningful; that is, I accept that Mormons view themselves in this way. Trouble arises only when people equivocate or when they try to preclude others from expressing their sincere beliefs.

Equivocation is rampant in these discussions. For example, many Mormons seem to think that if they could only get evangelicals to concede that Mormons are Christians, there would be no reason for evangelicals to criticize Mormonism.

Call for references, please. I've never seen such an argument.

I have seen the rather shrewd observation that the EV ethos prevents proselyting those they acknowledge as Christians, which is probably a large part of the motivation to make the definition as narrow as possible. But I don't know anyone who supposes that you'd stop criticising us. You lot criticise everyone, including fellow EV's.

But evangelicals can concede that Mormons are "Christians" in your generic, doctrine-free sense but still think that Mormons are in need of the true gospel and of a sound doctrinal foundation. The argument that if Mormons are Christians there is nothing about Mormonism to criticize assumes a more doctrinally and religiously robust definition of "Christian" than the doctrine-free generic definition. Bill Hamblin in his recent post on his blog insists that while evangelicals may think he's a heretic he is at least a Christian heretic. As I have said, I'm perfectly happy with such a conclusion.

Finally, I notice that you used the qualification "believing"--a believing Mormon, a believing Christian. But Pahoran, to be "believing," they must be believing something.

Really? You don't say!

This means there must be some doctrinal content of relevance, whatever that might be. We will no doubt disagree about what that is, but I think at least in some ways you recognize that it is fair to attach some doctrinal test to the term Christian--hence, as I note above, your qualification "arbitrary" in referring to a doctrinal test.

Come up with a non-arbitrary test and then we'll discuss it.

To believe in Jesus of Nazareth and make a good-faith effort to follow Him requires remarkably little in the way of doctrine. The trouble is that your lot seem to imagine that you can determine who is "really" following Christ by appealing to prooftexts from Romans and Galatians.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Robert F. Smith]

The purpose, if one is served on this board, is to grow and help others to grow. If all we do is slap each other on the back in a congratulatory manner we don't do much of anything. Rob ought to know with the existence of other threads that we accept that we are saved by grace. What I am trying to point out is that this does not conflict with individual works. That work is a privilege. That both coexist under a covenant relationship.

Even Rob tries to accomplish such a purpose by being here. I don't see him afraid to offend any of us. Attitude about obedience is key. Without it any program becomes too heavy to bear. Especially in light of D&C 58:42. Who *loves* Rob more, someone who accepts him as he is or someone who wishes for him to become something more than the patron saint of mediocrity..

Do you think it possible or likely that Rob, as he immerses himself in the study of Mormonism, will come to realize the validity of the restored Gospel? Do you think that such can occur with the enmity which many on this board exhibit toward Rob? Most evangelicals have been very kind toward me, even though we have fundamental disagreements on doctrine and on interpretation of Holy Writ. I see no reason for us to treat them as pariahs. Indeed, I think that we can learn a great deal from them, and that we can be good, respectful friends. Do you disagree? Let the Holy Spirit guide.

[mfbukowski]

Do you think it possible or likely that Rob, as he immerses himself in the study of Mormonism, will come to realize the validity of the restored Gospel? Do you think that such can occur with the enmity which many on this board exhibit toward Rob? Most evangelicals have been very kind toward me, even though we have fundamental disagreements on doctrine and on interpretation of Holy Writ. I see no reason for us to treat them as pariahs. Indeed, I think that we can learn a great deal from them, and that we can be good, respectful friends. Do you disagree? Let the Holy Spirit guide.

I believe that indeed Rob has displayed enmity to us and a definite lack of respect with his website's continued display of temple content, and wonder at what point one becomes an enemy of the faith with such behavior, and thus one to be treated as an unrepentant enemy.

Is there ever a point beyond which one should stop inviting the wolf into grandma's house for the missionary discussions, without him displaying some good intent?

That is the question I always have with Rob. I'm glad you brought this up, because it is a genuine concern of mine. I really don't like being unkind to him but on the other hand, I do not see him as a friendly critic with scholarly intent. He has a long history here and continually distorts what has been said and seems to make no genuine attempt to understand us. He continually presents a confrontational stance, in my opinion.

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

Do you think it possible or likely that Rob, as he immerses himself in the study of Mormonism, will come to realize the validity of the restored Gospel? Do you think that such can occur with the enmity which many on this board exhibit toward Rob? Most evangelicals have been very kind toward me, even though we have fundamental disagreements on doctrine and on interpretation of Holy Writ. I see no reason for us to treat them as pariahs. Indeed, I think that we can learn a great deal from them, and that we can be good, respectful friends. Do you disagree? Let the Holy Spirit guide.

Alright Rob, I didn't realize that you were here to learn anything. My sincerest apologies.

[Rob Bowman]

Flyonthewall,

You wrote:

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.

I've heard this before, but it isn't correct. Traditional Christian theology does recognize some sort of differences in rewards for greater faithfulness. However, all of the redeemed, whatever differences they may have in terms of rewards, will live forever in the presence of God the Father. All will have eternal life. All will be sinless and perfect.

You wrote:

As I understand it, traditional christianity has only a pass/fail concept of "salvation".

Yes, as does Jesus Christ, according to the Gospels:

• “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13).
  
• “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:11-12).
  
• “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30).
  
• “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).
  
• “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35).
  
• “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire” (Mar 9:43).
  
• “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God…. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation” (Luke 6:20, 24).
  
• “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 14:11; 18:14).
  
• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)
  
• “…those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29).
  
• “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36).
  
• “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24).
  

You wrote:

LDS, as you should already understand, have many different concepts that the term "salvation" can be applied to.

http://www.lds.org/t...vation?lang=eng

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

I agree that non-Mormons can find it confusing. However, I don't seem to be having such confusion. I well understand the point and have written extensively about it in my series of articles entitled Gospel Principles and the Bible.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Ginger,

You wrote:

We are told to pray to Heavenly Father only.

I don't think you can show this from the Bible. Keep in mind that texts in which prayers are addressed to the Father are not stating that we must pray only to the Father and not to the Son Jesus Christ.

You wrote:

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded, “Ye must always pray unto the Father in my name” (3 Nephi 18:19). I don't know where in the Bible that Jesus says to pray to HIM only. Even Jesus prayed to the Father!

Jesus did not say we should pray to him ONLY, but he did invite us to pray to him: "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14:14). The NT has numerous texts referring to praying to Jesus Christ. John affirms in his epistle that if we ask him (Jesus, the Son of God) anything according to his will he will answer us (1 John 5:13-15). The apostles addressed their prayer to the Lord Jesus when asking him to choose someone to replace Judas Iscariot as apostle (Acts 1:21-26). The New Testament describes Christians as those who “call on the name” of Jesus Christ for salvation (Acts 9:14, 21; 22:16; Romans 10:9-14; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:22). Note that to “call on the name” of a supernatural being meant to petition him in prayer. Paul prayed three times to the Lord Jesus asking him to remove his “thorn in the flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:8-9). The earliest Christians apparently even prayed to Christ in corporate worship, as is reflected in the prayer at the very end of the book of Revelation, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20). A parallel example of this same prayer in Aramaic (the native language of Jesus’ first Jewish followers) appears at the very end of 1 Corinthians: Maranatha (1 Corinthians 16:22), which means “Come, Lord” or “Our Lord, come.” So praying to Jesus is clearly a NT teaching and practice.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I'd respond to your post, but you would dismiss anything I said as "quibbling." Besides, you're busy.

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

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

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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.

Vance, I have been an evangelical Christian for 37 years. I have been to evangelical churches all over the United States and know evangelicals in several other countries. I have NEVER met an evangelical who thought it is a sin to try to do good. I can only conclude that your statement reflects a misunderstanding on your part.

Regarding Titus 3:3-7, you wrote:

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

That is not what Paul is saying in this passage. He is saying that God saved us by his kindness and love and not by our works of righteousness. I see how you misread the KJV here, and its rendering is fine though perhaps a bit awkward for modern readers. The phrase "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy" modifies the words that follow, "he saved us." They do not modify the words "but after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared."

You wrote:

The problem is you present the strawman that we believe it is our works of righteousness ALONE that saves us.

No, I never said any such thing.

[Pahoran]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, I have been an evangelical Christian for 37 years. I have been to evangelical churches all over the United States and know evangelicals in several other countries. I have NEVER met an evangelical who thought it is a sin to try to do good. I can only conclude that your statement reflects a misunderstanding on your part.

I'm so glad to hear that. I've conversed with a number of EV's who seemed to think that "works-righteousness" was about the most revolting form of wickedness imaginable.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I've heard this before, but it isn't correct. Traditional Christian theology does recognize some sort of differences in rewards for greater faithfulness. However, all of the redeemed, whatever differences they may have in terms of rewards, will live forever in the presence of God the Father. All will have eternal life. All will be sinless and perfect.

The essential difference here between our beliefs and yours seems to be whether or not all will live in the presence of God the Father.

Our definition of "eternal life" is exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and becoming like Heavenly Father, whereas I believe to you it means something like "living forever" or immortality. We also of course acknowledge differences in rewards for greater faithfulness and that all will be "sinless" and "perfect" within their specific spheres.

But I am not really sure how all can be "perfect" in your conception or "sinless" if indeed their rewards are not equal. That seems to be another inconsistency.

The fact that there will be different rewards negates the idea that all will be equal. That indicates to me that all cannot be termed "perfect" if some are more perfect than others. I think that is inconsistent theology.

And how can all live in the presence of the Father if they are not all equal in perfection? Those who are not completely perfect can dwell with the Father?

I think we answer this question but you cannot. I see this as a major inconsistency in the EV position.

[Rob Bowman]

Ginger Red,

You asked:

So what exactly are these 'serious impediments'?

That's a big subject. I will give you some quick examples of these serious impediments. I will simply list them, not try to defend these statements. The traditional LDS view of Jesus Christ (a) denies that he is the proper object of prayer, (b) holds that he is a second, separate God from the Father, © teaches that human beings are of the same "species" as Jesus, and that he simply became a God earlier than we will (if we succeed in doing so), (d) views Jesus in his physical life as the literal son of the Heavenly Father in the flesh, (e) regards his atoning sacrifice as sufficient to give practically everyone immortality but claims that it must be supplemented by our obedience to the commandments and our moral and spiritual advancement in mortality in order for us to attain reconciliation with the Father in his eternal kingdom, and (f) teaches that such reconciliation can only happen through the fullness of the gospel taught in the LDS Church and only through its ordinances.

You wrote:

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

I'm not sure whether you're asking me to define what that relationship is or how one comes to have that relationship. But I have already pointed to one of the specific differences. Orthodox Christians actually talk to Jesus Christ in prayer; that is a basic element of a genuinely saving relationship with him.

You wrote:

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

Repentance means humbly acknowledging before God that I am a sinner, incapable of doing anything to save myself, that I will be forever separated from God unless somehow my sin problem can be overcome, and desiring to be freed from sin and its eternal consequences. Here is a definition from a classic evangelical Protestant confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments. Although repentance is not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it" (15.1-3).

You asked:

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

Atonement means the covering of sin with the result that the person in question is reconciled to God. Thus anyone whose sins are atoned is also reconciled to God.

You wrote:

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.

Yes, this is part of the picture.

[spartacus]

Pahoran,

Are you trying to speak past Rob? I would think that you would know there is a great difference between "it is a sin to try to do good" and "works-righteousness (is)... revolting...wickedness". In fact, I suspect that Vance is getting the two confused. Evangelicals do abhor works-righteousness (righteousness or salvation by works), in other words, they believe that "it is a sin to try to do good" in order to receive eternal life. This could be heard by Vance as "it is a sin to try to do good." Some charity might help the discussion be fruitful.

Vance, given the above, obviously there are crazy people in the world that call good "bad" and bad "good". So I admit you might have accurately heard, processed, and remembered other people's crazy talk. I just doubt it; it's easier to believe that you misunderstood these people's point of view based on a few statements than that even random evangelicals actually believe such. It's nothing against you, just the numbers - large mass of people so awesomely wrong about something otherwise so obviously intuitive (good is good, bad is bad) and completely foreign to any official theology or one person's misunderstanding even if repeated throughout multiple interactions with different people.

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

I had written:

"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 quoted an article on IRR's website as saying:

Mormonism cannot be accepted as Christian. There are irreconcilable differences between Mormonism and Christianity concerning the nature of Scripture, God, and Jesus Christ. The apparent similarities between the two systems quickly fade when LDS terminology is properly interpreted.

You then commented:

I love it when people in the IRR and other similar groups state that Mormonism is not a part of Christianity, then, out of the other side of their mouths, state that they don't know if individual Mormons are saved or not.

There is a difference between saying that Mormonism is not a genuine or authentic form of Christianity and saying that an individual Mormon is not a Christian in the sense that he or she cannot be saved. The first is a theological judgment about the religion as a whole, based on its official teachings and religious practices. The second would be a judgment about an individual's spiritual condition in relation to God. We can do the former, but we cannot do the latter with regard to individuals who profess to believe in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ as Savior.

You asked:

Rob, do you agree with this, that only a true believer of Christ can be saved? If so, do you believe that a Mormon can be saved without unbecoming a Mormon or do they have to deny that Joseph Smith was called of God and that the BofM is also the word of God?

In my opinion, it is possible to be saved even if one believes (wrongly) that Joseph Smith was called of God and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. But I wouldn't recommend this as a sure path. I think Mormonism turned a corner and became radically heretical when Joseph Smith became a polytheist toward the end of his life. Prior to that time Mormon doctrine had problems but nothing on that level of error.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall,

You wrote:

I've heard this before, but it isn't correct. Traditional Christian theology does recognize some sort of differences in rewards for greater faithfulness. However, all of the redeemed, whatever differences they may have in terms of rewards, will live forever in the presence of God the Father. All will have eternal life. All will be sinless and perfect.

This is all part and parcel of trying to overlay a pass/fail concept of salvation on top of a more complex set of concepts.

In an academic scenario its like a student taking a pass/fail class comparing the results of the class with someone graded with an A, B, C, D or F.

The pass/fail student may have barely passed the class, while the other student passed with 100% of the possible points. To the pass/fail student, it does not matter what was actually learned, he passed the class, and the other student passed too.

You wrote:

Yes, as does Jesus Christ, according to the Gospels:

• “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13).
  
• “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:11-12).
  
• “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matthew 12:30).
  
• “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).
  
• “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35).
  
• “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire” (Mar 9:43).
  
• “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God…. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation” (Luke 6:20, 24).
  
• “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 14:11; 18:14).
  
• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)
  
• “…those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29).
  
• “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36).
  
• “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24).
  

You left out:

• In my Father’s ^ahouse are many ^bmansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.(John 14:2)
  
• There is one glory of the ^asun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the ^bstars: for one star ^cdiffereth from another star in ^dglory.(1 Cor 15:40)
  

Both of these indicate more places in heaven than just one(pass/fail). There are MANY mansions, and there is the glory of the sun, one glory of the moon, and one of the stars. The glory of the stars indicate even a more diverse spectrum of glories within that of the stars.

You wrote:

I agree that non-Mormons can find it confusing. However, I don't seem to be having such confusion. I well understand the point and have written extensively about it in my series of articles entitled Gospel Principles and the Bible.

I have not read your series, I only have what was present here to go on.

Since traditional christianity has no equivalent to the LDS concept of exaltation, then the closest thing you have to compare is the reward given to each according to their works. As you indicate, it is not an exact match, but is the closest thing you have available.

You, as an academic, and being multi-lingual, will recognize that when one language has no direct translation to another, something close has to be used, or perhaps even multiple words or an explaination needs to be used for that translation.

I call it apples to apples, but even then, it may be more of a red-delicious/granny smith apple comparison.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

Perhaps so, but that is an abstract question. Every doctrinal test invented by EV's for the purpose of excluding Mormonism from Christianity is completely arbitrary.

Evangelicals do not invent doctrinal tests for the purpose of excluding Mormonism from Christianity. Any doctrinal test evangelicals apply to Mormonism they also apply to other heretical religious movements and sects. Furthermore, any such doctrinal test is one that evangelicals accepted as valid tests before Mormonism came along.

You wrote:

Not only that, but even arrogant, censorious EV Protestants are Christian; and that even includes the Calvinists, who think God intended all along to save only them, and created everyone else for the sole purpose of supplying the Saved with the only form of entertainment in a rather grim, sterile Calvinist heaven, namely the complacent, compassionless contemplation of the never-ending tortures others suffer that they don't.

Thank goodness that Mormons never attack other religions. Nice to know also that they would never misrepresent other people's beliefs in the way Mormons claim others misrepresent theirs.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

I had written:

"For example, many Mormons seem to think that if they could only get evangelicals to concede that Mormons are Christians, there would be no reason for evangelicals to criticize Mormonism."

Call for references, please. I've never seen such an argument.

Please notice that I said that many Mormons "seem to think" this, not that they openly made such an argument.

[Rob Bowman]

shalambobbi,

Thank you most kindly. I accept your gracious apology.

Alright Rob, I didn't realize that you were here to learn anything. My sincerest apologies.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

I'm so glad to hear that. I've conversed with a number of EV's who seemed to think that "works-righteousness" was about the most revolting form of wickedness imaginable.

"Works-righteousness" in Protestant terminology is the futile attempt to establish oneself as righteous before God on the basis of one's own works. From our perspective it is a kind of sin, but I would certainly not characterize it as the most revolting form of wickedness imaginable. It is actually one of the more subtle forms that sin takes.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

At one point you take issue with me for saying that all of the redeemed will be perfect. A few sentences later you are suggesting that I think people who are less than perfect will be able to dwell with the Father. The inconsistencies are the result of you imposing your own theological assumptions on what I said.

The redeemed can all be "perfect" in the sense of being immortal and sinless without all being "equal" in the rewards they receive for their faithful service while mortals still struggling against sin.

The essential difference here between our beliefs and yours seems to be whether or not all will live in the presence of God the Father.

Our definition of "eternal life" is exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and becoming like Heavenly Father, whereas I believe to you it means something like "living forever" or immortality. We also of course acknowledge differences in rewards for greater faithfulness and that all will be "sinless" and "perfect" within their specific spheres.

But I am not really sure how all can be "perfect" in your conception or "sinless" if indeed their rewards are not equal. That seems to be another inconsistency.

The fact that there will be different rewards negates the idea that all will be equal. That indicates to me that all cannot be termed "perfect" if some are more perfect than others. I think that is inconsistent theology.

And how can all live in the presence of the Father if they are not all equal in perfection? Those who are not completely perfect can dwell with the Father?

I think we answer this question but you cannot. I see this as a major inconsistency in the EV position.

[Rob Bowman]

Flyonthewall,

You wrote:

You left out:

• In my Father’s ^ahouse are many ^bmansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.(John 14:2)
  
• There is one glory of the ^asun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the ^bstars: for one star ^cdiffereth from another star in ^dglory.(1 Cor 15:40)
  

Both of these indicate more places in heaven than just one(pass/fail). There are MANY mansions, and there is the glory of the sun, one glory of the moon, and one of the stars. The glory of the stars indicate even a more diverse spectrum of glories within that of the stars.

John 14:2 does not partition the afterlife into different levels of salvation or of glory. It simply means that the Father has prepared many places in his eternal heavenly kingdom for all of Christ's followers to dwell. Notice more closely what Jesus says: "In my Father's house...." This clearly cannot include places where the Father never lives.

1 Corinthians 15:40 is providing analogies to the differences between mortal and resurrection bodies, not descriptions of different kinds of resurrection bodies. The actual description of the resurrection body begins in verse 42. Demonstrating this would require a verse-by-verse analysis of the whole passage from verse 35 through 54. I can refer you to an online article on the passage if you send me a private message.

[zerinus]

Cornelius, as with the centurion in Luke 7, was evidently a proselyte to Judaism, so that the God he prayed to was indeed the God of Israel.

There is no such evidence. On the contrary, the evidence points otherwise. If Cornrlius had been a covert to Judaism, he would have been circumcised and considered a Jew. But we find that Peter and his companions regard him as a Gentile. His vision in Joppa, his speech to Cornellius and his household when they arrive there (that Jews should not keep company with Gentiles), their astonishment at their receiving the Holy Ghost, Peter's subsequent speech at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) etc. all indicate that he was a Gentile, not a Jew.

As to evangelicalism, we ought to consider ourselves friends of any who try sincerely to obey God, spread his good news. and adopt his Gospel plan, even if we disagree on particulars, and even if some of them consider us to be heretics. Let us be kind to them, but allow God to deal with them in his own way (I think that he will be very kind to them, and that they will repent of the wrong they have done)..

Utterly absurd and ridiculous. I call a spade a spade. Evangelical doctrine is a perversion of the gospel, no matter how sincere the Evangelicals might be. Since when did being kind to others mean accepting their false doctrines as true?