Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Maybe you are right, Mark, since you have dealt with him here over a long period. During that time has he made any attempt to be more accommodating? Even in the short time I have been here, he seems more accommodating and understanding.

He does state that he has been reading more of our scholarly literature, and he has recognized the difficulty of dealing with the broader array of Holy Writ in our canon. And he is, after all, an evangelical missionary to the Mormons, not an academic historian like Jan Shipps. We might want to make allowances, and maybe even love our enemies.

As to the appearance of sacred temple content on his website, I think that is a serious problem, but he needs to see the problem from our point of view. Even as a matter of academic integrity, some things should be off limits, but he needs to come to that realization on his own. My best friend got his PhD in anthropology from Cornell studying and writing about a very complex and civilized tribe in Africa. He spent two years at it (he, his wife, and children living with that tribe), and learned a great deal about their sacred, esoteric rites. However, he deliberately left that out of his dissertation out of respect for that tribe. Academic integrity was very important to him. At some point, Rob may come to understand that and remove the offending material from his site. After all, that sort of scurrilous approach is readily available elsewhere anyhow, isn't it?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

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.

Then let me rephrase: people who represent themselves as EV's invent ad hoc doctrinal tests for the purpose of excluding Mormonism from Christianity.

There, will that do?

Furthermore, any such doctrinal test is one that evangelicals accepted as valid tests before Mormonism came along.

Really?

So you would argue that, circa 1819, EV's were saying things like, "Anyone who believes they can become like God isn't a Christian?"

You wrote:

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.

Isn't it though?

Oh, I'm sure that Calvinists don't actually think of heaven as a grimly sterile place; they just describe it that way. Just like they don't actually come out and say that the only reason God created the billions He has absolutely no intention of saving was just to entertain the Saved with their suffering; but what they do say pretty much amounts to that. I've been firmly informed that God created those who are predestined for damnation to demonstrate His justice, so that the recipients of His mercy will feel suitably grateful. Evidently the only way to generate such gratitude is to create billions of flawed beings and them damn them for the flaws with which their creator intentionally endowed them.

And furthermore, while I did on one occasion reduce a Calvinist to gibbering with incoherent rage when I pointed out that, logically, those damned in Calvinism are not damned for their sins, but only for being not-elect, the only counter-argument he had was to dogmatically assert that no, they are damned for their sins.

He was refusing to face the reality of what his TULIP really means.

So you're right; it's a good thing we don't attack the faith of others or misrepresent their beliefs. Especially when something like Calvinism presents such an easy target.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

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.

No, as usual you misquoted me. What I actually said was this (emphasis added):

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.

I was very clearly speaking of YOUR conception of perfection here, which I took to be the usual Neoplatonic idea that if something is deficient in any respect in comparison to something "perfect", that which is deficient cannot be termed "perfect". Those with a lesser reward would be deficient compared to those with a greater reward and therefore they could not both be equal in perfection.

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.

I am SO glad to hear you say that. In fact that is exactly what we believe- that some can be immortal and sinless in lesser kingdoms without having to be all together in one equal kingdom, or in your words "equal in the rewards they receive.

Then I see you agree with us completely.

The just will have different rewards, and be rewarded according to their works, though we are all saved by grace.

When would you like to be baptized?

[zerinus]

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?

Possible but unlikely, if past experience is anything to go by. Rob already knows far more about Mormonism than any potential investigator is likely to know. He may even already know that it is true, but choosing not to acknowledge it. There is not a lot more that he needs to know.

Do you think that such can occur with the enmity which many on this board exhibit toward Rob?

You sound naive. Nobody is exhibiting enmity towards Rob. We give him as good as we take from him. That is the nature of debate.

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.

Those are ridiculous claims. Nobody is treating anybody as a pariah. A fighting spirit is part of the cut and thrust of debate.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

I didn't say he was a Jew, I said he was a "proselyte," which is the term we use to designate someone who is in the midst of a long conversion process. They are referred to as "God fearers." The same is true of the centurion in Luke 7, who even built the local synagogue. Even today, the process of conversion to Judaism is long and involved, ending with a rabbinical court, baptism, and circumcision. For the Essenes, the process was even longer and more involved.

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?

At the close of WW II, a young Marine Lieutenant, a Mormon, received an audience with the Pope. It was crucial that he was able to do so, as it gave him credibility with the German Catholics of Bavaria. It was very important that the unit he commanded be able to create a viable and democratic West Germany with a solid constitution during the initial phase of the allied occupation. That he was successful was in no small measure due to the absence of bigotry in him and in the Germans he dealt with. Suppose he had been obsessed with Roman Catholic perversion of the Gospel, instead of showing respect for the many very sincere RC believers? Indeed, the man who got him that audience with the Pope was an important man recently released from a Nazi concentration camp, a man who had been in on a plot to kill Hitler. Had that former missionary to Germany (who spoke fluent German) been rigid and narrow, he would not have been successful. What would that have meant for young Dieter Uchtdorf? What we do has consequences.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Maybe you are right, Mark, since you have dealt with him here over a long period. During that time has he made any attempt to be more accommodating? Even in the short time I have been here, he seems more accommodating and understanding.

He does state that he has been reading more of our scholarly literature, and he has recognized the difficulty of dealing with the broader array of Holy Writ in our canon. And he is, after all, an evangelical missionary to the Mormons, not an academic historian like Jan Shipps. We might want to make allowances, and maybe even love our enemies.

As to the appearance of sacred temple content on his website, I think that is a serious problem, but he needs to see the problem from our point of view. Even as a matter of academic integrity, some things should be off limits, but he needs to come to that realization on his own. My best friend got his PhD in anthropology from Cornell studying and writing about a very complex and civilized tribe in Africa. He spent two years at it (he, his wife, and children living with that tribe), and learned a great deal about their sacred, esoteric rites. However, he deliberately left that out of his dissertation out of respect for that tribe. Academic integrity was very important to him. At some point, Rob may come to understand that and remove the offending material from his site. After all, that sort of scurrilous approach is readily available elsewhere anyhow, isn't it?

We have had multiple entire THREADS dedicated to getting him to remove temple content, to no avail.

Recently he has posted this, indicating that he does not even understand what our problem is with those links, though he has been told again and again:

Quite some time back, the moderators imposed a restriction on me providing a link to any of the hundreds of pages on the website of the Institute for Religious Research, where I work, because one page on the site contains temple ceremony material. Later I was not even allowed to provide a link to our blog, The Religious Researcher, which is an entirely separate website. I have never understood these restrictions (and the moderators as I recall never offered any rationale) because the forum rules specify (to this day) only that one may not provide links to temple content. Nevertheless, this is the moderators' decision, and I have acted in accordance with it by not providing hyperlinks or URLs to any of IRR's websites. Ironically, LDS posters here have been permitted to post messages in this forum criticizing IRR's website.

Furthermore he recently posted this:

Hmm. On the one hand, if I don't read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism, you will condemn me for failing to do due diligence in engaging what Mormons say they believe and the reasons Mormons give in support of their beliefs.

On the other hand, if I do read LDS apologetic literature, discuss Mormon claims and beliefs with Mormons on forums like this one, and publish material critical of Mormonism that engages what Mormons say they believe and the reasons they give in support of their beliefs, you will condemn me for doing this due diligence only so that my criticisms of Mormonism will be improved.

Obviously, nothing I do can possibly please you, short of shutting up.

Don't hold your breath.

Note that the only two possibilities both include publishing material critical to Mormonism with no acknowledgement that he might actually find something complimentary or worthwhile in Mormonism.

Others here will attest to the same beliefs about him.

I would honestly like to be wrong about him, but unfortunately I don't think I am. Maybe others can link to the discussions we had on removing the offensive links from the IRR site. There were many many such discussions, and he has never moderated any of his opinions that I have seen.

In my opinion he is neither a theologian nor a scholar, but a professional anti-Mormon pure and simple. But I hope I am wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

Possible but unlikely, if past experience is anything to go by. Rob already knows far more about Mormonism than any potential investigator is likely to know. He may even already know that it is true, but choosing not to acknowledge it. There is not a lot more that he needs to know.

You sound naive. Nobody is exhibiting enmity towards Rob. We give him as good as we take from him. That is the nature of debate.

Those are ridiculous claims. Nobody is treating anybody as a pariah. A fighting spirit is part of the cut and thrust of debate.

Well, may the force be with you, jedi zerinus. Meantime, have you considered that rabbi Saul of Tarsus knew a great deal about Jewish Christianity before his moment came on the road to Damascus?

[mfbukowski]

Well, may the force be with you, jedi zerinus. Meantime, have you considered that rabbi Saul of Tarsus knew a great deal about Jewish Christianity before his moment came on the road to Damascus?

Good point and I only can pray that you are right about Rob.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall,

You wrote:

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.

True, it does say: "In my Father's house...", but if you really want to go that direction, how many houses do you know of contain mansions within them? This can include wings of the house that the Master does not visit, but only sends His servants to maintain.

LDS doctrine does not contradict any of this, but fleshes it out in more detail.

The Father's house would include all kingdoms of glory. Each kingdom of glory would be a different mansion.

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.

A simple overview of this verse, is that it describes different glories individuals are resurrected to depending on their reward.

Verse 42 refers back to verse 41, so the description does not begin in 42, but the verse it refers back to.

Previously, verse 23 & 24 show there is an order to the resurrection...what is this order based on?

Hebrews 11:35 speaks of a "better" resurrection...better than what?

Rev 20:6 speaks of a "first" resurrection...can't be a first without a second, otherwise it is simply the only resurrection. Who would be in the second resurrection?

Most of the rest of 1 Cor 15 presents that resurrected bodies will be different from mortal bodies, in that they are perfected and immortal, but 41 gives more detail.

[zerinus]

I didn't say he was a Jew, I said he was a "proselyte," which is the term we use to designate someone who is in the midst of a long conversion process. They are referred to as "God fearers." The same is true of the centurion in Luke 7, who even built the local synagogue. Even today, the process of conversion to Judaism is long and involved, ending with a rabbinical court, baptism, and circumcision. For the Essenes, the process was even longer and more involved.

there is no evidence for that either, in either case. The centurion in Luke 7 loved the Jews and built them a sinagogue, that does not mean he was a proselyte. There are Mormons posting here who live in the Middle East, and express love and respect for the Muslims; that does not mean that they are proselytes to Islam.

At the close of WW II, a young Marine Lieutenant, a Mormon, received an audience with the Pope. It was crucial that he was able to do so, as it gave him credibility with the German Catholics of Bavaria. It was very important that the unit he commanded be able to create a viable and democratic West Germany with a solid constitution during the initial phase of the allied occupation. That he was successful was in no small measure due to the absence of bigotry in him and in the Germans he dealt with. Suppose he had been obsessed with Roman Catholic perversion of the Gospel, instead of showing respect for the many very sincere RC believers? Indeed, the man who got him that audience with the Pope was an important man recently released from a Nazi concentration camp, a man who had been in on a plot to kill Hitler. Had that former missionary to Germany (who spoke fluent German) been rigid and narrow, he would not have been successful. What would that have meant for young Dieter Uchtdorf? What we do has consequences.

You are sermonising, not debating. I don't respond to sermons, beyond saying that I reject the insinuations you are making therein.

Edited September 10, 2012 by zerinus

[Robert F. Smith]

We have had multiple entire THREADS dedicated to getting him to remove temple content, to no avail.

Recently he has posted this, indicating that he does not even understand what our problem is with those links, though he has been told again and again:

Furthermore he recently posted this:

Note that the only two possibilities both include publishing material critical to Mormonism with no acknowledgement that he might actually find something complimentary or worthwhile in Mormonism.

Others here will attest to the same beliefs about him.

I would honestly like to be wrong about him, but unfortunately I don't think I am. Maybe others can link to the discussions we had on removing the offensive links from the IRR site. There were many many such discussions, and he has never moderated any of his opinions that I have seen.

In my opinion he is neither a theologian nor a scholar, but a professional anti-Mormon pure and simple. But I hope I am wrong.

What is important to me is that we get well away from the old Walter Martin milieu in which any lie or misstatement of fact is O.K. as long as Mormons are the target. We need to raise the level of discussion by cultivating good relationships with evangelicals (such as Pres. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary, who shows considerable respect for Mormonism. Here is a piece the Rev. Mouw wrote Oct 9, 2011, online at http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/09/my-take-this-evangelical-says-mormonism-isnt-a-cult/

By Richard J. Mouw, Special to CNN

Some prominent evangelical pastors have been telling their constituents not to support Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidential nomination. Because Romney is Mormon, they say, to cast a vote for him is to promote the cause of a cult.

I beg to differ.

For the past dozen years, I’ve been co-chairing, with Professor Robert Millet of Brigham Young University – the respected Mormon school - a behind-closed-doors dialogue between about a dozen evangelicals and an equal number of our Mormon counterparts.

We have talked for many hours about key theological issues: the authority of the Bible, the person and work of Christ, the Trinity, “continuing revelations” and the career of Joseph Smith, the 19th century founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), better known as the Mormon Church.

We evangelicals and our Mormon counterparts disagree about some important theological questions. But we have also found that on some matters we are not as far apart as we thought we were.

I know cults. I have studied them and taught about them for a long time. It’s worth noting that people have wondered whether I belong to a cult, with a reporter once asking me: “Evangelicalism, is that like Scientology and Hare Krishna?”

Religious cults are very much us-versus-them. Their adherents are taught to think that they are the only ones who benefit from divine approval. They don’t like to engage in serious, respectful give-and-take dialogue with people with whom they disagree.

Nor do they promote the kind of scholarship that works alongside others in pursuing the truth. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, haven’t established a university. They don’t sponsor a law school or offer graduate-level courses in world religions. The same goes for Christian Science. If you want to call those groups cults I will not argue with you.

But Brigham Young University is a world-class educational institution, with professors who’ve earned doctorates from some of the best universities in the world. Several of the top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have PhDs from Ivy League schools.

These folks talk admiringly of the evangelical Billy Graham and the Catholic Mother Teresa, and they enjoy reading the evangelical C.S. Lewis and Father Henri Nouwen, a Catholic. That is not the kind of thing you run into in anti-Christian cults.

So are Mormons Christians? For me, that’s a complicated question.

My Mormon friends and I disagree on enough subjects that I am not prepared to say that their theology falls within the scope of historic Christian teaching. But the important thing is that we continue to talk about these things, and with increasing candor and mutual openness to correction.

No one has shown any impulse to walk away from the table of dialogue. We do all of this with the blessing of many leaders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of whom have become good friends.

While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.

I find Mormons to be more Christ-centered than they have been in the past. I recently showed a video to my evangelical Fuller Seminary students of Mormon Elder Jeffrey Holland, one of the Twelve Apostles who help lead the LDS church. The video captures Holland speaking to thousands of Mormons about Christ’s death on the cross.

Several of my students remarked that if they had not known that he was a Mormon leader they would have guessed that he was an evangelical preacher.

The current criticisms of Mitt Romney’s religious affiliation recall for many of us the challenges John Kennedy faced when he was campaigning for the presidency in 1960.

Some well-known Protestant preachers (including Norman Vincent Peale) warned against putting a Catholic in the White House. Kennedy’s famous speech to Houston pastors clarifying his religious beliefs as they related to his political leadership helped his cause quite a bit.

But the real changes in popular attitudes toward Catholicism happened more slowly, as Catholic Church leaders and scholars engaged in a new kind of dialogue with each other and representatives of other faith groups, most dramatically at the Second Vatican Council during the early years of the 1960s.

Cults do not engage in those kinds of self-examining conversations. If they do, they do not remain cults.

Those of us who have made the effort to engage Mormons in friendly and sustained give-and-take conversations have come to see them as good citizens whose life of faith often exhibits qualities that are worthy of the Christian label, even as we continue to engage in friendly arguments with them about crucial theological issues.

Mitt Romney deserves what every politician running for office deserves: a careful examination of his views on policy and his philosophy of government. But he does not deserve to be labeled a cultist.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Richard J. Mouw.

The Editors - CNN Belief Blog

[zerinus]

Well, may the force be with you, jedi zerinus. Meantime, have you considered that rabbi Saul of Tarsus knew a great deal about Jewish Christianity before his moment came on the road to Damascus?

Actually no, I don't think that Saul knew as much about Christianity as Rob knows about Mormonism. And in any case, I don't see what that has to do with rejecting Evangelical false doctrines. I reject Evangelical false doctrines regardless of whether Rob is going to have a "Saul moment" at some stage in his life or not.

Edited September 10, 2012 by zerinus

[spartacus]

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.

And How! And How? - That is, you've definitely hit on a crucial point, but the other is "how" they get to live in the presence of God

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.

The LDS definition of "eternal life" does seem to be admittance into the Celestial Kingdom (whatever that is exactly) and "becoming like Heavenly Father" (which seems to mean being able to have spirit babies and having "living" descendants "eternally", spiritual generation after spiritual generation).

However, I believe, it is the LDS who define "saved" or the fruit of grace to be "living forever" or immortality. Traditional Christians and some Jews seem to assume eternal existence as part of being made "in the image of God". Traditional Christians believe that "eternal life" is living with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in spiritual intimacy, the very Life of God Living within and through each of us.

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.

I almost wondered if this was a statement referring to LDS theology it is so easily directed toward it. Rewards for faithfulness sure. But I see more of a problem for LDS theology when it comes to "sinless" and "perfect" "within their specific spheres". See, as I understand it, based on their works many will find themselves in the Terrestrial K and many more, by their works, in the Telestial K. The problem would be, how do these people become "perfect" or "sinless"? I have only heard LDS teachings about punishment but nothing that explains how these people become "perfected" or "sinless" after death. Punishment results neither in perfection (of any kind) nor sinlessness. So where do they get it? It must be from God, but then they must be working for it (under force or at least without incentive, no earning is going on just fixing in order to fit into the respective kingdom) or God must be giving it to them - which sounds too much like traditional Christian idea of Grace. If God can just make them "perfect" and "sinless" (even "within their specific sphere) than why not all the way to the Celestial Kingdom?

I believe traditional Christians believe that they will be "sinless" because they will live in and live by the power of God or Eternal Life of God. The Holy Spirit's indwelling of each born again person will have its perfect fulfillment. I also believe that traditional Christians believe that they will be "perfect" in the sense that they will be "perfect" humans living with the LIfe of God in them - perfect, as God means them to be.

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.

I agree with you, but in a totally different way. It depends on the context in which they are "equal". Obviously, if some are given rewards and others not then they are not "equal" in the context of rewards, however, within the context of "citizenship" in the Kingdom of God, there is "equality" (as opposed to unequal levels of LDS Heaven.) I think "equality" at least describes how everyone will be living in the Kingdom of God, and that they will all be living by the Life of God by the perfected indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, traditional Christians believe there will be rewards because the Word of God mentions them (very sparingly and with no detail). So, I suspect that traditional Christians don't know exactly how this all will work. But they trust God's Goodness. This is a place where traditional Christians, I believe, accept that there are multiple descriptions of the same thing (what the afterlife will be like) in the Bible and either trust God with the details or fall into the temptation to speculate.

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?

mfbukowski, now come on! The last 5 sentences are (with my comments in these):

1) Different rewards means not equal (obvious in the context of rewards)

2) 1) indicates that all can't be called perfect if some are more perfect than others (also obvious that unequal perfect is not all perfect, but doesn't connect to 1) at all)

3) I think that is inconsistent theology (more like inconsistent writing, if not thinking 1 & 2 are not connected)

4) all cannot live with the father if all are not equal. (this isn't true in whatever sense you take perfect, except moral, which I don't know given the inconsistent writing)

5) those who are not completely perfect cannot live with the Father (we lost consistency between 1) and 2) rendering 5 completely bereft of meaning)

I'm going to chalk this up to sleep deprivation or some other distraction because I've read your posts before. But 1) and 2) simply do not connect. Perhaps we're running into some LDS worldview interference. [i do understand I am butting into a conversation, but even if someone said that Christians believe everyone will be equal in Heaven, this could only be true outside of rewards (works), since we will all be saved and perfected and sinless through Grace according to Trad. Christianity and as opposed to LDS theology] Traditional Christians, if I understand them, believe that by Christ's sacrifice we will all be equally citizens of the singular level of the Kingdom of God - we will all have access to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus we will be "equal". Also by the merit of Christ we will be perfected - perfected "us"-es or perfected humans or perfected beings as God intends us to be. Thus we will each be "perfect". And then there are some sort of rewards that will be given based on our earthly faithfulness, not our heavenly perfected faithfulness. There is no inconsistency here. There are certainly details missing, but no inconsistency. Just perfected humans living in the same kingdom with differing "rewards" of some type.

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

As stated above, the LDS Church doesn't seem to answer how adulterers and murderers can become "perfect" and "sinless" at all, even if by "within their own spheres" you mean that they will just be perfect for that kingdom. I hope you don't mean that, because that sounds like sin will be allowed in a kingdom of God. Or, more charitably, perhaps it just mean that, rather than still being sinners, they will just not sin (absence of negative) but not be righteous either (also absent of positive). But that still seems problematic.

It is true that LDS answer the problem of rewards, but they do so at the expense of the problem of perfection. Christians answer the problem of perfection, of how sinners will become "perfect," and leave rewards in the vagueness that God left it in His Word. If perfection is by Grace, then we know how all will become perfect and sinless, but we don't quite understand rewards, but God was vague about it anyway. If salvation to a kingdom is by works, then we know how the rewards work (each kingdom is the reward), but we don't know at all how sinners become non-sinners, let alone the righteous population that would seem necessary to qualify any place as “heavenly”.

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

As stated above, the LDS Church doesn't seem to answer how adulterers and murderers can become "perfect" and "sinless" at all, even if by "within their own spheres" you mean that they will just be perfect for that kingdom. I hope you don't mean that, because that sounds like sin will be allowed in a kingdom of God. Or, more charitably, perhaps it just mean that, rather than still being sinners, they will just not sin (absence of the negative) but neither will they be righteous (absence of the positive). But that still seems problematic.

It is true that LDS answer the problem of rewards, but they do so at the expense of the problem of perfection. Christians answer the problem of perfection, of how sinners will become "perfect," and leave rewards in the vagueness that God left it in His Word. If perfection is by Grace, then we know how all will become perfect and sinless, but we don't quite understand rewards, but God was vague about it anyway. If salvation to a kingdom is by works, then we know how the rewards work (each kingdom is the reward), but we don't know at all how sinners become non-sinners, let alone the righteous population that would seem necessary to qualify any place as “heavenly”.

May God bless all LDS and Christians with what the they truly need. And may we receive it sooner with less pain, rather than later with more pain. In Jesus the Christ's Name, Amen.

[zerinus]

By Richard J. Mouw, Special to CNN

Some prominent evangelical pastors have been telling their constituents not to support Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidential nomination. Because Romney is Mormon, they say, to cast a vote for him is to promote the cause of a cult.

I beg to differ.

For the past dozen years, I’ve been co-chairing, with Professor Robert Millet of Brigham Young University – the respected Mormon school - a behind-closed-doors dialogue between about a dozen evangelicals and an equal number of our Mormon counterparts.

We have talked for many hours about key theological issues: the authority of the Bible, the person and work of Christ, the Trinity, “continuing revelations” and the career of Joseph Smith, the 19th century founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), better known as the Mormon Church.

We evangelicals and our Mormon counterparts disagree about some important theological questions. But we have also found that on some matters we are not as far apart as we thought we were.

I know cults. I have studied them and taught about them for a long time. It’s worth noting that people have wondered whether I belong to a cult, with a reporter once asking me: “Evangelicalism, is that like Scientology and Hare Krishna?”

Religious cults are very much us-versus-them. Their adherents are taught to think that they are the only ones who benefit from divine approval. They don’t like to engage in serious, respectful give-and-take dialogue with people with whom they disagree.

Nor do they promote the kind of scholarship that works alongside others in pursuing the truth. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, haven’t established a university. They don’t sponsor a law school or offer graduate-level courses in world religions. The same goes for Christian Science. If you want to call those groups cults I will not argue with you.

But Brigham Young University is a world-class educational institution, with professors who’ve earned doctorates from some of the best universities in the world. Several of the top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have PhDs from Ivy League schools.

These folks talk admiringly of the evangelical Billy Graham and the Catholic Mother Teresa, and they enjoy reading the evangelical C.S. Lewis and Father Henri Nouwen, a Catholic. That is not the kind of thing you run into in anti-Christian cults.

So are Mormons Christians? For me, that’s a complicated question.

My Mormon friends and I disagree on enough subjects that I am not prepared to say that their theology falls within the scope of historic Christian teaching. But the important thing is that we continue to talk about these things, and with increasing candor and mutual openness to correction.

No one has shown any impulse to walk away from the table of dialogue. We do all of this with the blessing of many leaders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of whom have become good friends.

While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.

I find Mormons to be more Christ-centered than they have been in the past. I recently showed a video to my evangelical Fuller Seminary students of Mormon Elder Jeffrey Holland, one of the Twelve Apostles who help lead the LDS church. The video captures Holland speaking to thousands of Mormons about Christ’s death on the cross.

Several of my students remarked that if they had not known that he was a Mormon leader they would have guessed that he was an evangelical preacher.

The current criticisms of Mitt Romney’s religious affiliation recall for many of us the challenges John Kennedy faced when he was campaigning for the presidency in 1960.

Some well-known Protestant preachers (including Norman Vincent Peale) warned against putting a Catholic in the White House. Kennedy’s famous speech to Houston pastors clarifying his religious beliefs as they related to his political leadership helped his cause quite a bit.

But the real changes in popular attitudes toward Catholicism happened more slowly, as Catholic Church leaders and scholars engaged in a new kind of dialogue with each other and representatives of other faith groups, most dramatically at the Second Vatican Council during the early years of the 1960s.

Cults do not engage in those kinds of self-examining conversations. If they do, they do not remain cults.

Those of us who have made the effort to engage Mormons in friendly and sustained give-and-take conversations have come to see them as good citizens whose life of faith often exhibits qualities that are worthy of the Christian label, even as we continue to engage in friendly arguments with them about crucial theological issues.

Mitt Romney deserves what every politician running for office deserves: a careful examination of his views on policy and his philosophy of government. But he does not deserve to be labeled a cultist.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Richard J. Mouw.

The Editors - CNN Belief Blog

Sermonising again--at the expense of someone else.

[mfbukowski]

What is important to me is that we get well away from the old Walter Martin milieu in which any lie or misstatement of fact is O.K. as long as Mormons are the target. We need to raise the level of discussion by cultivating good relationships with evangelicals (such as Pres. Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary, who shows considerable respect for Mormonism. Here is a piece the Rev. Mouw wrote Oct 9, 2011, online at http://religion.blog...sm-isnt-a-cult/

The Editors - CNN Belief Blog

Agree completely I read that when it came out.

But funny you should mention Walter Martin- I don't know if you know Rob Bowman's history:

Bowman is the oldest of seven children, the son of Robert M. Bowman, a scientist and former colonel in the United States Air Force. Raised in the Roman Catholic Church, Bowman converted to Evangelicalism in college. He received the M.A. in Biblical Studies and Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary in 1981, and was married the same year to Catherine Lyon. They have four children: Beth, Robbie, John, and Maria.^[1]

In 1984, Bowman began working as a researcher and editor at the Christian Research Institute, at the time headed by Walter Martin and located in Southern California. From 1988 to 1990 he pursued a Ph.D. in Historical and Theological Studies at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, by early 1992 completing all of the requirements, although the seminary did not accept his dissertation. In 1990 he returned to CRI, this time under Hank Hanegraaff, who had succeeded Martin when he died in 1989. A falling out with Hanegraaff led to Bowman being ousted in early 1992.^[2] For most of the next fourteen years Bowman worked as a full-time author and as an adjunct instructor, specifically at Luther Rice Seminary (1994-99) and Biola University (2001-2005). In 2002 he became the president of Apologetics.com and hosted their weekly radio broadcast on 99.5 KKLA in Los Angeles. From 2006 to 2008 he was the manager of Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism for the North American Mission Board (based in Alpharetta, Georgia), an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention.^[3] Since 2008 he has worked at the Institute for Religious Research, first as Executive Director and more recently as Director of Research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bowman,_Jr.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Research_Institute

Of course that does not mean he holds those views today- yet I have never seen him repudiate Walter Martin's views. As far as I can see, indeed he is carrying on the tradition. This is why I see him as neither a scholar nor theologian.

But as I have said, I am waiting to be shown to be wrong, and as many know here, when I am wrong I admit it readily.

[Robert F. Smith]

there is no evidence for that either, in either case. The centurion in Luke 7 loved the Jews and built them a sinagogue, that does not mean he was a proselyte. There are Mormons posting here who live in the Middle East, and express love and respect for the Muslims; that does not mean that they are proselytes to Islam.

Usually you read biblical text more carefully. Take a look at Acts 10:2 "devout . . that feared God"; 22, "Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews." These are dead giveaways to his formal status in the process of conversion to Judaism. Take a look at the remarks of Paul Stuehrenberg in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:184 about the meaning of "devout" "righteous" "God fearers" in such a context. Same for the Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford, 2011). Even Tacitus, History 3.24, comments on the tendency of Roman soldiers to adopt local religions. Josephus spends a lot of time speaking about such converts.

You are sermonising, not debating. I don't respond to sermons, beyond saying that I reject the insinuations you are making therein.

I did not insinuate. I was blatantly direct. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[mfbukowski]

And How! And How? - That is, you've definitely hit on a crucial point, but the other is "how" they get to live in the presence of God

The LDS definition of "eternal life" does seem to be admittance into the Celestial Kingdom (whatever that is exactly) and "becoming like Heavenly Father" (which seems to mean being able to have spirit babies and having "living" descendants "eternally", spiritual generation after spiritual generation).

However, I believe, it is the LDS who define "saved" or the fruit of grace to be "living forever" or immortality. Traditional Christians and some Jews seem to assume eternal existence as part of being made "in the image of God". Traditional Christians believe that "eternal life" is living with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in spiritual intimacy, the very Life of God Living within and through each of us.

I almost wondered if this was a statement referring to LDS theology it is so easily directed toward it. Rewards for faithfulness sure. But I see more of a problem for LDS theology when it comes to "sinless" and "perfect" "within their specific spheres". See, as I understand it, based on their works many will find themselves in the Terrestrial K and many more, by their works, in the Telestial K. The problem would be, how do these people become "perfect" or "sinless"? I have only heard LDS teachings about punishment but nothing that explains how these people become "perfected" or "sinless" after death. Punishment results neither in perfection (of any kind) nor sinlessness. So where do they get it? It must be from God, but then they must be working for it (under force or at least without incentive, no earning is going on just fixing in order to fit into the respective kingdom) or God must be giving it to them - which sounds too much like traditional Christian idea of Grace. If God can just make them "perfect" and "sinless" (even "within their specific sphere) than why not all the way to the Celestial Kingdom?

I believe traditional Christians believe that they will be "sinless" because they will live in and live by the power of God or Eternal Life of God. The Holy Spirit's indwelling of each born again person will have its perfect fulfillment. I also believe that traditional Christians believe that they will be "perfect" in the sense that they will be "perfect" humans living with the LIfe of God in them - perfect, as God means them to be.

I agree with you, but in a totally different way. It depends on the context in which they are "equal". Obviously, if some are given rewards and others not then they are not "equal" in the context of rewards, however, within the context of "citizenship" in the Kingdom of God, there is "equality" (as opposed to unequal levels of LDS Heaven.) I think "equality" at least describes how everyone will be living in the Kingdom of God, and that they will all be living by the Life of God by the perfected indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, traditional Christians believe there will be rewards because the Word of God mentions them (very sparingly and with no detail). So, I suspect that traditional Christians don't know exactly how this all will work. But they trust God's Goodness. This is a place where traditional Christians, I believe, accept that there are multiple descriptions of the same thing (what the afterlife will be like) in the Bible and either trust God with the details or fall into the temptation to speculate.

mfbukowski, now come on! The last 5 sentences are (with my comments in these):

1) Different rewards means not equal (obvious in the context of rewards)

2) 1) indicates that all can't be called perfect if some are more perfect than others (also obvious that unequal perfect is not all perfect, but doesn't connect to 1) at all)

3) I think that is inconsistent theology (more like inconsistent writing, if not thinking 1 & 2 are not connected)

4) all cannot live with the father if all are not equal. (this isn't true in whatever sense you take perfect, except moral, which I don't know given the inconsistent writing)

5) those who are not completely perfect cannot live with the Father (we lost consistency between 1) and 2) rendering 5 completely bereft of meaning)

I'm going to chalk this up to sleep deprivation or some other distraction because I've read your posts before. But 1) and 2) simply do not connect. Perhaps we're running into some LDS worldview interference. [i do understand I am butting into a conversation, but even if someone said that Christians believe everyone will be equal in Heaven, this could only be true outside of rewards (works), since we will all be saved and perfected and sinless through Grace according to Trad. Christianity and as opposed to LDS theology]

I think you misunderstood the post- I was juxtaposing my understanding of traditional Christian theology with Mormon theology. I admit perhaps it was confusing the way I did it.

I believe it is traditional Evangelical doctrine that everyone is equal in heaven once one is "saved" by believing in Christ. If you add that into your assumptions you see that according to my understanding, it would be consistent to believe that on one hand everyone is equal in heaven and yet that some receive more rewards than others.

That really was my only point.

Of course Mormons do not believe that everyone is equal in heaven- indeed there are at least 3 and arguably up to 5 kingdoms of glory, since there are 3 levels of the Celestial kingdom, and then there is outer darkness for a very very few.

My point was that believing that there are multiple rewards in heaven is a belief that apparently Rob shares with Mormons.

Edited September 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Sermonising again--at the expense of someone else.

I should have thought that you would be pleased that a dozen Mormon professors and a dozen evangelicals have been carrying on talks for a dozen years, as described by Rev. Mouw. I'm not sure whether that takes place at someone's expense, unless you are so filled with ire toward evangelicals that any rapprochement is off limits.

[Robert F. Smith]

But funny you should mention Walter Martin- I don't know if you know Rob Bowman's history:

http://en.wikipedia...._M._Bowman,_Jr.

See also: http://en.wikipedia....earch_Institute

Of course that does not mean he holds those views today- yet I have never seen him repudiate Walter Martin's views. As far as I can see, indeed he is carrying on the tradition. This is why I see him as neither a scholar nor theologian.

But as I have said, I am waiting to be shown to be wrong, and as many know here, when I am wrong I admit it readily.

Yes, I was aware of the connection, but I would like to think that Rob was eventually kicked out by Hanegraff due to Rob's objections to the lies and distortions he had to deal with there. From what I have read here, Rob doesn't seem to employ the sort of nonsense Walter Martin did.

[zerinus]

Usually you read biblical text more carefully.  Take a look at Acts 10:2 "devout . . that feared God"; 22, "Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews." These are dead giveaways to his formal status in the process of conversion to Judaism. Take a look at the remarks of Paul Stuehrenberg in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:184 about the meaning of "devout" "righteous" "God fearers" in such a context. Same for the Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford, 2011). Even Tacitus, History 3.24, comments on the tendency of Roman soldiers to adopt local religions.  Josephus spends a lot of time speaking about such converts.

I don't see any of that as a valid argument at all. Let me turn the question round to you. Do you think it is impossible for a pagan to be devout, to pray to God, to give alms to the poor, to seek to please God, and his alms and prayers to be acceptable to God? I don't think so. The quote I gave earlier from Paul's epistle to the Romans indicates that Paul didn't think so either.

I did not insinuate. I was blatantly direct.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

Yes you were. You were insinuating that we were being rigid and narrow towards Rob, or the Evangelicals. I reject that entirely.

[zerinus]

I should have thought that you would be pleased that a dozen Mormon professors and a dozen evangelicals have been carrying on talks for a dozen years, as described by Rev. Mouw.

Sure I am pleased about it; but what has that to do with what we are talking about here?

I'm not sure whether that takes place at someone's expense, unless you are so filled with ire toward evangelicals that any rapprochement is off limits.

More false insinuations again, unworthy of further reply. You were sermonising at someone else's expense, not them.

Edited September 10, 2012 by zerinus

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't see any of that as a valid argument at all. Let me turn the question round to you. Do you think it is impossible for a pagan to be devout, to pray to God, to give alms to the poor, to seek to please God, and his alms and prayers to be acceptable to God? I don't think so. The quote I gave earlier from Paul's epistle to the Romans indicates that Paul didn't think so either.

The first time I heard about the use and meaning of such technical terms was during Prof. Robert Patch's introductory New Testament class at BYU in 1963. That doesn't require that you accept it, or any of the standard academic sources I cited. Often, evangelicals take the same circular approach to the biblical text that you do -- the English words are self-interpreting.

Yes you were. You were insinuating that we were being rigid and narrow towards Rob, or the Evangelicals. I reject that entirely.

O.K. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

[zerinus]

The first time I heard about the use and meaning of such technical terms was during Prof. Robert Patch's introductory New Testament class at BYU in 1963. That doesn't require that you accept it, or any of the standard academic sources I cited. Often, evangelicals take the same circular approach to the biblical text that you do -- the English words are self-interpreting.

O.K. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.

Your debate is rapidly degenerating into nonsensical gibberish, and I don't see why I should continue replying to it.

Edited September 10, 2012 by zerinus

[shalamabobbi]

shalambobbi,

Thank you most kindly. I accept your gracious apology.

Alright. When you guys get around to having a group hug, let me know. I wouldn't want to miss out..

[Calm]

Your debate is rapidly degenerating into nonsensical gibberish, and I don't see why I should continue replying to it.

Strange, it seems totally understandable to me.