Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[phi39]

And after you deal with the Church of Jesus Christ you will also have to deal with your mother church, the Catholic Church, whose pope claims a direct lineage from Peter.  Both of us would state and ask:  There is no record of Southern Baptists being around, in fact, no Baptists being around as a group from the time just after Christ's crucifixion.  By what authority did your church claim to set up its own church under new doctrines?  The NT is clear that this authority cannot be assumed independently, but by laying on of hands by those already in authority.

 

When talking about authority you open up a can of worms for yourself and you will find yourself in a very small minority that think likewise.

Here is an opportunity to explain an evangelical concept of how authority can pass down to a new generation.  Baptists are not looking for evidence of first century Baptists.  Rather, we are looking at what the NT writers taught and then we try to be and to believe in that.  The protestants looked at the NT and then looked at the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church.  They concluded that the papacy had seriously departed from from NT, invalidating their authority, regardless of who laid hands on who over the centuries.  Authority depended on commitment to the NT.  Insofar as we are in harmony with that teaching handed down, so we have authority to bear witness about it and teach it.

 

This happens from time to time: a person becomes a believer simply by reading a Bible they happen to find, without direct contact with a missionary. They then go back to their village and preach the gospel.  This week my professor who is a missionary to central Asia told a story of a man who did just that.   They beat him three times before they came to accept the gospel.  All this before he made contact with any missionaries.  In recent years many Muslims have been lead to Christ through visions of Christ.  If all believers are "a royal priesthood . . . that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of [God] . . ." (1 Peter 2:9), then how can you deny their authority even though it independently sprouted up out of nowhere?  

 

If a Mormon missionary started preaching an evangelical Gospel, would he still have any authority?  I have had hands laid on me several time for various ministry tasks, but you would not acknowledge any authority in me for doctrinal/theological reasons.  When Paul justified his authority as an Apostle he emphatically denied any direct any direct link to the original 12.  He traced his authority directly from a revelation of Christ (Galatians 1:1, 1:11-18).  He saw himself as having authority before they ever had a chance to commission him to do anything.  So the authority, the possession of the priesthood, depended on one's relationship to Jesus, not human authority.

 

In the NT you will find them laying hands on people to heal, commission for some task, or appointment to the office of elder or deacon.  In Acts 8 the spirit was given through the laying of hands to the Samaritans, but after that when Peter preached to Greeks the spirit filled them the moment they believed (Acts 10:44-48), and that was the pattern going forward.

 

If to be a believer is to be a priest, and the spirit fills believers immediately, then authority can be assumed independently of those who already have authority, because it comes directly from Christ Himself.

[phi39]

The Latter-day Saints believe after the resurrection of Christ the Aaronic Priesthood was changed in function and subsumed as an appendage into the Melchizedek Priesthood, with all the functions of the Aaronic Priesthood now being functions that are part and parcel of the Melchizedek Priesthood. . . .

 

The faulty line of argumentation you espouse here is an example of what happens when misinformed critics of the LDS Church -- who haven't bothered to study things from an LDS point of view and who are too eager to find fault -- think they've got a devastating point to make when, in reality, what they're actually wielding has all the convincing power of a rhetorical wet noddle. 

Thank you that post, I found it very helpful.

 

Even though the functions of the Aaronic priesthood are different from the original, my main point is that you are still claiming the authority of a priesthood that belongs to the old covenant of Sinai, the Law, and using that claim to trump that of any other church to know and teach the fullness of truth.  But Christians are dead to the Law (Romans 7:4).  If "when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well" (Hebrews 7:12), then it is also true that a priesthood is only valid so long as the covenant/law it administers is valid. So, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).  

 

How can anyone claim the authority of an "obsolete" priesthood, especially when that takes you back to the Law and not forward to the Law of Grace?

[phi39]

Well, it certainly does not invalidate the priesthood either.

Sorry, but the word "obsolete" is not used. The word "changed" is used. The priesthood was "changed" it was not invalidated.

 

 

You will notice in my post above that the word "obsolete" is used, it is described as "vanishing away." Hebrews 8:13. Elimination and invalidation is certainly "change." 

 

...

 

ONLY by invalidating the meaning of the word "order". To have any "order" at all requires more than one.

Again, reading something that isn't there. The word "only" is not found in 1 Tim 2:5.

 

 

An order can be an order of one. It is a category, and a category can have one thing in it, especially is it is Christ who is unique unto Himself.  1 Timothy 2:5 says there is "one mediator," which is to say that there is only one and hat one is Jesus.

 

Absolutely. And, whereas I have as much authority as you, based upon your own criteria, I can safely declare that your interpretation is in error.

On this we can agree. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God was to be the last and ultimate sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And yet other types of sacrifice (associated with the priesthood) are and were to remain.

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

1 Pet 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

 

 

This is all I am saying we should do: we both believe the other has no authority, so let's just compare scripture and reason and see who is in the right.  In this post you have moved from implying I have no right to teach and supported your claims with scripture. Then we can see who is interpreting correctly insofar as that can seen.  

[wenglund]

 I believe we actually do have a responsibility judge the merit of another's faith or the genuineness of their Christianity.  

 

Within limits (righteous judgement) this is fine when a person is speaking for themselves or from a shared perspective. However, it doesn't work so well when people speak without authority on behalf of an entire pluralistic community of which they are only one divergent part.

 

By this I mean that Evangelicals have every right to define for themselves what is Christian, but they don't have authority to define what is Christian for the entire Christian community.

 

Certainly, LDS are not obliged to privilege the way in which Evangelical define what is Christian.

 

Right?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[teddyaware]

Thank you that post, I found it very helpful.

 

Even though the functions of the Aaronic priesthood are different from the original, my main point is that you are still claiming the authority of a priesthood that belongs to the old covenant of Sinai, the Law, and using that claim to trump that of any other church to know and teach the fullness of truth.  But Christians are dead to the Law (Romans 7:4).  If "when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well" (Hebrews 7:12), then it is also true that a priesthood is only valid so long as the covenant/law it administers is valid.

 

So, "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).

 

Hi there,

As I said, once the law of Moses was removed the priesthood that officiated in the ordinances of the law was changed with the former functions under the law of Moses ended. Or to use your words, "it became obsolete."

For example, the Latter-day Saints do not have an Aaronic high priest who offers up a sacrificial lamb in the holy of holies once a year on the Passover. Rather, the Aaronic priesthood of the LDS church now serves under the law of the gospel by, among other duties, serving the sacrament of the Lord's supper to the congregation every week. Again, you are allowing yourself to be confused by the continuance of the Aaronic priesthood's name/title because that's where the similarity ends. There is no Mosaic law bound Aaronic priesthood operating within the LDS Church. The old order of priesthood was subsumed into the Melchizedek priesthood as an appendage under a different law -- the law of the Gospel.

 

Here's where I believe the problem with perception lies: By your own admission, I'm sure you would agree there havs been no prophets with power and authority like Peter, James, John and Paul since the Book of Revelation. Yet you're trying to understand the words of prophets without a living prophet to guide you. Without living prophets, all that's left is educated guessing and opinion; and in the world of the living prophets, opinions and educated guesses don't cut it.

Edited July 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[phi39]

I see no indication that righteousness is "received", at least not in the way you seem to be implying.

I do see this,

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

1 Jn 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

. . .

3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

 

 

Now we're talking!

 

My username is short for this verse: Paul forsakes all things that he may know Christ and "be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Philippians 3:9).

 

So righteousness come from our own obedience--our own selves, but through faith, from God.  You are right cite to 1 John 2:29, 3:7, this righteousness from God will work itself out in your life and bring about righteous actions.  Abraham is the prime example: he was counted or declared righteous even though we know he certainly was not righteous in and of himself (Genesis 15:6), and this righteousness he received became evident, or was fulfilled/completed when he offered up Isaac (James 2:22-23). 

 

If you are taking Romans 6:16 to mean the your obedience can bring about your righteousness, then I think you are mistaken.  Verse 13 says that we have already been brought from death to life, and in 14 we are not under law but grace.  So in 16 the slave of obedience is someone who cannot fall into death.  Paul is only saying that it makes no sense for a free person to act like a slave.  The free person is already righteous at this point in Paul's argument and ought to act like it.  the obedience that is in accordance with freedom leads to yet more righteousness or "sanctification" in verse 19.

 

But if we start with a person who is still in death, a slave to sin, Paul is clear that that person needs righteousness as a gift from God and therefore he cannot muster it up on his own:

 

Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

 

To have the righteousness of Christ has a massive implication: we have the same right to be in the presence of God forever just as Jesus the perfect son does (Romans 8:14-17).  This rules out any notions of observing ordinances or living a blameless life as a way to work our way up to God's presence in the highest heaven.  Of course a Christian must strive to live in accordance with the righteousness and the sonship they have been given.  A Christian who does not pursue righteousness is no Christian by definition.

[phi39]

Within limits (righteous judgement) this is fine when a person is speaking for themselves or from a shared perspective. However, it doesn't work so well when people speak without authority on behalf of an entire pluralistic community of which they are only one divergent part.

 

By this I mean that Evangelicals have every right to define for themselves what is Christian, but they don't have authority to define what is Christian for the entire Christian community.

 

Certainly, LDS are not obliged to privilege the way in which Evangelical define what is Christian.

 

Right?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, I was going to get back to the passage in Matthew 7 about getting the log out of our own eyes before we take the speck out of another's eye.  There is an implicit command there: we really ought to try and help our brother get stuff out of his eye!  And if I think my neighbor is lost I have to tell him so, regardless of whether they share my religion.

 

That is the spirit of the NT: the gospel judges the pluralistic society around it as lost and offers Jesus instead.

[Vance]

You will notice in my post above that the word "obsolete" is used, it is described as "vanishing away." Hebrews 8:13. Elimination and invalidation is certainly "change."

Refering to the old covenant as the verse SPECIFICALLY mentions..  But it does not mention the priesthood.nor is it refering to the priesthood in any way.

 

 

An order can be an order of one.

Nope!  By definition it is MORE than one.

 

From the 1828 dictionary

OR'DER, noun [Latin ordo.]

1. Regular disposition or methodical arrangement of things; a word of extensive application; as the order of troops or parade; the order of books in a library; the order of proceedings in a legislative assembly. order is the life of business.

 

The defintion clearly REQUIRES more than one.

 

It is a category, and a category can have one thing in it, especially is it is Christ who is unique unto Himself.  1 Timothy 2:5 says there is "one mediator," which is to say that there is only one and hat one is Jesus.

Nope!

 

See above.

This is all I am saying we should do: we both believe the other has no authority, so let's just compare scripture and reason and see who is in the right.

Ok.

 

  In this post you have moved from implying I have no right to teach and supported your claims with scripture.

What I did was to use YOUR basis for authority against you in the same manner you want to use it against Mormons.  I did so, just to show you how weak your postion actually is.   I see that you did not like it being used against you.  So, how does it feel to be in our shoes?

 

I like to support my position with (Biblical) scripture.  What you don't realize is that Biblical scripture supports the Mormon position FAR MORE that you can even, at this point, imagine.

 

I suspect it is because,

1) you have yet to critically examined your own theology,

2) you have been misled about what Mormons actually believe,

3) you are less familar with what is in the Bible than you realize.

 

Then we can see who is interpreting correctly insofar as that can seen.

I look forward to having a pleasant conversation with you.

 

God bless.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Vance

[phi39]

...

 

 the Aaronic priesthood of the LDS church now serves under the law of the gospel by, among other duties, serving the sacrament of the Lord's supper to the congregation every week. Again, you are allowing yourself to be confused by the continuance of the Aaronic priesthood's name/title because that's where the similarity ends. There is no Mosaic law bound Aaronic priesthood operating within the LDS Church. The old order of priesthood was subsumed into the Melchizedek priesthood as an appendage under a different law -- the law of the Gospel.

 

 

What I am saying is that doing this makes the Gospel into a new Law.  It is not the Mosiac Law I can see, but it is just like it.  Your priesthood(s) still administer ordinances without which one cannot approach God.  But the NT Gospel would have you approach God based on the one ordinance of faith, receiving righteousness of Christ.

 

Here's where I believe the problem with perception lies: By your own admission, I'm sure you would agree there has been no prophets with power and authority like Peter, James, John and Paul since the Book of Revelation. Yet you're trying to understand the words of prophets without a living prophet to guide you. Without living prophets, all that's left is educated guessing and opinion; and in the world of the living prophets, opinions and educated guesses don't cut it.

 

Education helps, but do I not have the Spirit who leads us to all truth?  Do Prophets never err?

[Vance]

Now we're talking!

 

My username is short for this verse: Paul forsakes all things that he may know Christ and "be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Philippians 3:9).

What most Evangelicals fail to realize is that when Paul is refering to "the law" or "works" he is refering to the law of Moses, not the commandments of God (as reiterated by Christ).  And that when he refers to "faith" he is refering to obedience to Christ, and  his  "grace"  is usually refering to the of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

So righteousness come from our own obedience--our own selves, but through faith, from God.

We are imputed righteousness by obedience to God, just like Abraham.  In that we exercise faith in Christ (a work) by repenting  of our sins (a work) being baptised (a work) receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost ( a grace) enduring to the end (a work),

 

  You are right cite to 1 John 2:29, 3:7, this righteousness from God will work itself out in your life and bring about righteous actions.

To truely exercise faith in Christ, we MUST CHOOSE to DO righteous acts, this is a work also.

 

Abraham is the prime example: he was counted or declared righteous even though we know he certainly was not righteous in and of himself (Genesis 15:6),

 

He obeyed God, that was a righteous work. Because he obeyed God, his sins were forgiven and by that forgiveness he was imputed with righteousness

 

and this righteousness he received became evident, or was fulfilled/completed when he offered up Isaac (James 2:22-23).

His obedience was demonstrated by his willingness to offer up Isaac

 

If you are taking Romans 6:16 to mean the your obedience can bring about your righteousness, then I think you are mistaken.  Verse 13 says that we have already been brought from death to life, and in 14 we are not under law but grace.

Ok, but your interpretation does not automatically follow.

 

  So in 16 the slave of obedience is someone who cannot fall into death.  Paul is only saying that it makes no sense for a free person to act like a slave.  The free person is already righteous at this point in Paul's argument and ought to act like it.  the obedience that is in accordance with freedom leads to yet more righteousness or "sanctification" in verse 19.

You are confusing the intial forgiveness of (past) sins that occurs when one accepts Christ (faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost), not that you are righteous at this point, but due to forgiveness of sins you are imputed to be righteous

 

Rom 4:  8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

      •  •  •

  11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

      •  •  •

  22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

  23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

  24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

 

But if we start with a person who is still in death, a slave to sin, Paul is clear that that person needs righteousness as a gift from God and therefore he cannot muster it up on his own:

Which is imputed to him when he is converted.

 

Romans 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Exactly, 

 

Christ gives us repentance and forgiveness, (they go together).

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

 

When your sins are forgiven it is as though you had never commited them, in other words, you are imputed as righteous.  And as you continue to work in the gospel plan you change your nature and BECOME righteous fully.

 

To have the righteousness of Christ has a massive implication:

We do not need the righteousness of Christ, all we need is to have our sins forgiven, which comes with repentance.

 

(Repentance is another concept that the Evangelicals don't quite get right, but that is another conversation.)

 

BTW I find no verses in the NT that mention "the righteousness of Christ".  I think this is another concepts that isn't in the scriptures like you think it is..

 

we have the same right to be in the presence of God forever just as Jesus the perfect son does (Romans 8:14-17).

Yes, IF we are obedient to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

  This rules out any notions of observing ordinances or living a blameless life as a way to work our way up to God's presence in the highest heaven.

A clear misunderstanding of the scriptures and specifically the words of Christ.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Education helps, but do I not have the Spirit who leads us to all truth?  Do Prophets never err?

Clearly God's pattern, as demonstrated in the Bible, is to call prophets.

[coolrok7]

God doesn't call false prophets (gives warnings about not to listen to them) and in these last days has spoken to us through His Son (Hebrews 1). The foundation laid is the apostles and prophets (New Testament/Old Testament).

[teddyaware]

God doesn't call false prophets (gives warnings about not to listen to them) and in these last days has spoken to us through His Son (Hebrews 1). The foundation laid is the apostles and prophets (New Testament/Old Testament).

Tell that to the New Testament era Church members who enjoyed not only the Spirit of their redeeming Lord, but also the presence of living Apostles and Prophets who guided that Church by the Spirit of revelation. They wouldn't be able to relate to nor recognize your version of a church. Did you ever think of that? All they knew was a Church with living Apostles and Prophets standing indispensably at the head of the body of Christ.

In those days, there was not a single Christian (except for some apostates) who could have imagined a Church of Christ without living revelators firmly at the helm of leadership. Think of it, there was not one Christian alive during the New Testament period who ever attended church thinking there weren't inspired Apostles and Prophets at the head of the Church.

So why the change in Church organization if Paul taught the members of the very Church of which I speak that no part of the body of Christ can say they no need of the other parts (members), especially in light of the undeniable fact that living Apostles and Prophets who were placed by the Lord Himself first in priority and leadership?

Edited July 25, 2014 by teddyaware

[coolrok7]

Jesus had prophesied that they would be killed. We know historically that John was the only one had not been killed. The essence of what the apostles taught were recorded in what is the Scripture (the Bible). Living apostles was the norm until they were killed but the authority of what they taught still remains which for the most part is not what so-called living apostles and prophets of the MORMON CHURCH (the so-called "restoration" which was not needed) have been teaching since Joseph Smith (not that everything taught is false but at critical points are).

Edited July 25, 2014 by coolrok7

[Vance]

Jesus had prophesied that they would be killed. We know historically that John was the only one had not been killed.

Yup.  And with their death/disappearance the church crumbled and apostacized .  All of which was foretold.

 

The essence of what the apostles taught were recorded in what is the Scripture (the Bible).

Nope! Not even close.  Only a tiny fraction of what they taught is actually recorded.

 

Living apostles was the norm until they were killed but the authority of what they taught still remains . . .

Nope!  The authority they held died with them.  Scripture does not and can not convey authority.

 

. . . which for the most part is not what so-called living apostles and prophets of the MORMON CHURCH (the so-called "restoration" which was not needed) have been teaching since Joseph Smith (not that everything taught is false but at critical points are).

 

Only according to your MISinterpretation.  Not according to what it really says.

 

BTW, did you know that the way you are ragging on Joseph Smith is a fulfillment of prophecy?

Edited July 25, 2014 by Vance

[coolrok7]

Misinterpretation on your part Vance being misled by those you have put your trust in. It was not prophesied to be a "total" "complete" apostasy (not Biblical terminology) but that "some" would fall away.

 

Being faithful to the truth passed on to faithful men is a requisite as Paul taught in his letter to Timothy. Just testing the teaching of Joseph Smith as commanded in Scripture, not "ragging" on him. Also authority doesn't come from lying spirits.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

God doesn't call false prophets (gives warnings about not to listen to them) and in these last days has spoken to us through His Son (Hebrews 1). The foundation laid is the apostles and prophets (New Testament/Old Testament).

So God doesn't call false prophets. What a strawman Cool. God does call true prophets and you would have no way to know what is true or not because you are too busy living in the past.

[coolrok7]

Not living in the past presently but refer back to the past for determining the truth of what was taught Biblically to test things as it says to do.

Not a straw man argument at all, the point being God didn't call the Mormon General Authorities based on what they teach in disagreement with Biblical teaching/doctrine.

[coolrok7]

Double posr

Edited July 25, 2014 by coolrok7

[Vance]

Misinterpretation on your part Vance being misled by those you have put your trust in.

The Holy Ghost misleads?

 

Who knew?

It was not prophesied to be a "total" "complete" apostasy (not Biblical terminology) but that "some" would fall away.

We have been over this before.

 

What part of "not sparing the flock" is so difficult for you to understand?

Being faithful to the truth passed on to faithful men is a requisite as Paul taught in his letter to Timothy.

Which, of course, is what Mormonism does.

 

The Bible clearly establishes God's pattern of calling prophets to lead and guide his people.  You can not provide a single Biblical example of where God's people, when not in a state of apostasy, did not have a prophet to lead them.

Just testing the teaching of Joseph Smith as commanded in Scripture, not "ragging" on him.

You are not comparing him to scripture, but only to you false interpretation of it.  Not the same thing.

Also authority doesn't come from lying spirits.

And no one here is claiming that it does.  So, by all means, continure to flog that strawman.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Vance

[Vance]

Not a straw man argument at all, the point being God didn't call the Mormon General Authorities based on what they teach in disagreement with Biblical teaching/doctrine.

But he did, and you are not in a position to authoritatively declare otherwise.

[coolrok7]

That is your faith I get but your leadership teaches contradictory things related to the Biblical Gospel so no, God has nothing to do with the Mormonism of Joseph Smith. "After all you can do" for example.

[Vance]

The fact that you guys misrepresent what "after all you can do" really means in the context it was written doesn't support your case.

 

Mislead, misinterpret, and misrepresent, is all you've got.

 

Shall we rehash the fact that the Bible contradicts what you believe about angels?

[coolrok7]

The plagiarized statement from Ephesians 2 (in the BofM) alters what Paul wrote by adding "...it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi:25:23b). Paul teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works which is what "after all we can do" means.

 

This is not misrepresenting what Mormonism teaches when they say in a pamphlet, "Resurrection comes as a gift. . .but the highest eternal opportunities you must earn" (YOUR PRE-EARTH LIFE, p.10) . The ". . .personal possibility of meriting eternal life" per Elder Neal A. Maxwell in the Ensign magazine (1997, p.23) is not what Paul taught which is eternal life (Romans 6:23), the gift based on faith in Jesus Christ.

[halconero]

The plagiarized statement from Ephesians 2 (in the BofM) alters what Paul wrote by adding "...it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi:25:23b). Paul teaches that we are saved by grace through faith, not of works which is what "after all we can do" means.

 

This is not misrepresenting what Mormonism teaches when they say in a pamphlet, "Resurrection comes as a gift. . .but the highest eternal opportunities you must earn" (YOUR PRE-EARTH LIFE, p.10) . The ". . .personal possibility of meriting eternal life" per Elder Neal A. Maxwell in the Ensign magazine (1997, p.23) is not what Paul taught which is eternal life (Romans 6:23), the gift based on faith in Jesus Christ.

 

And a proper understanding of the Pauline concepts of grace, faith and patronage are severly lacking among many Christians and denominations today. In Koine Greek, grace, or charis, is the favour of a divine being given to a mortal. Pistis, commonly translated as faith or belief, has greater undertones of faithfulness, devotion, and submissive obedience than it does with intellectual assent. Having read the passage to which you refer in Ephesians in its original Greek, it reads far more like we are saved by divine favour through faithfulness, and not of works.

 

Paul's teachings on grace, works, and salvation have been removed from their Greco-Roman context and modernized beyond their original meaning. This stems largely from the influence of rationalism from the Enlightenment era. Paul had no problem advocating righteous conduct as part of salvation, his problem layed with Mosaic law, which he saw as removing the divine patron, Jesus Christ from the equation. It is not that he believed we could save ourselves, but that charis, or grace, enabled the Christian to repent and do good beyond his own capacity. In short, any good works done by the believer could be attributed to God, as it was the Deity who gave the believer power to do so.