Claiming Christ (The Book): A Mormon-Evangelical Debate

[evangelical]

Dear PapilioMemnon, You have said, "An intelectual/scientific approach is not helpful in trying to understand something spiritual." That is what worries me. Perhaps you can see my point of view better through a story. Before I begin, though, may I ask you a question? If we are not using our mind to evaluate Mormonism as though, for example, one were a potential convert to Mormonism, what are we using? Our heart? You told me before that it is not just a matter of our feelings. Now you seem to be saying that we do just rely on our feelings. Which is it? Or did I misunderstand you?

Here is my story:

A little boy is born into a loving LDS family. He grows up being being taught all the right things. He interprets the Bible and other Standard Works in all the right ways. He grows to adulthood. One day while enjoying a donut at the local donut shop he gets into a conversation with a very friendly person. He is shocked to here that this person is not an LDS person. He asks the man, "why should I believe as you?" The man tells him, "I feel it is right. Also, I prayed about it and God told me that this is right. Would you pray about it and see if you feel God is telling you to leave the LDS faith?" Our hero agrees to pray about it. What harm could just praying do anyways? After a while he feels God is telling him that LDS is not the right way but this other way is correct. He converts to a different faith. The people from his Ward, after hearing the bad news are shocked. They try to persuade him not to leave the fold. They quote passages from the Bible and try to reason with him. All to no avail. He looks at them and says, "that is not how the prophets of my new faith interpret that and this is all spiritual anyways so you cannot really prove that I should remain a Latter-Day Saint. I think we'll have to agree to disagree." And then he has his name removed from the rolls and lives the rest of his life as an apostate. Thus ends this tragic story.

Now imagine that instead of growing up LDS, he grew up evangelical. Why should he believe what the Mormons tell him? Perhaps you, as a Mormon, would be happy with me remaining an evangelical in this life but there must be some standard of truth we can both appeal to, to decide on religious truth claims. Every religious person can say, "I feel this is right for me," but that does not mean that their faith really is true. I believe a certain body of doctrine. You believe a different, though overlapping at points, body of doctrine. We do not have to agree on whose doctrine is right. But what we cannot do, it seems to me, is isolate our religion from objective analysis. It is not, on my view, "just faith" or spiritual thus immune to rational examination. It may turn out that I am wrong in my religious views and you right in yours. But we both ought to be able (within our own minds) to examine, intellectually, the others faith to see if it squares with reality. When we isolate our faith from such analysis we are in real trouble. Why? Because a hundred different people, with a hundred different faiths, are already doing that. If I were an agnostic I would have no reason to choose any particular faith over any other. Mormonism is just one of many that some people feel has the truth and many others feel does not have the truth. There is nothing to commend it to me that all the other faiths, when isolated from rational analysis, do not already have. It remains a matter of which prolytizer happens to reach me first. It may or may not be LDS missionaries.

So then, this is my perspective. I tell you it as background to a question I would like you to answer for me. Please and thank you. That question is, what is wrong, on your view, with this perspective?

[evangelical]

Greetings all! I can't seem to find the post now but I do recall that somebody here asked me to give my interpretation of Isaiah 44. I read it (which is dangerous to do without also reading the surrounding chapters for context) and would have to say, off the top of my head, that its main theme is stressing the fact that there is only one God that exist.

[PapilioMemnon]

Dear PapilioMemnon, You have said, "An intelectual/scientific approach is not helpful in trying to understand something spiritual." That is what worries me. Perhaps you can see my point of view better through a story. Before I begin, though, may I ask you a question? If we are not using our mind to evaluate Mormonism as though, for example, one were a potential convert to Mormonism, what are we using? Our heart? You told me before that it is not just a matter of our feelings. Now you seem to be saying that we do just rely on our feelings. Which is it? Or did I misunderstand you?

....

So then, this is my perspective. I tell you it as background to a question I would like you to answer for me. Please and thank you. That question is, what is wrong, on your view, with this perspective?

Yes... I do believe we have a "communication" issue.

There's nothing wrong with receiving information, and "studying that out in your mind," it should definitely be done, then ask of God; the feelings are the confimation of God through the Holy Ghost that I talked about being the "fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23,' and by the feelings that we feel, we can easily determine which influence are we under (The Lord's or not).

D&C 9

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must astudy it out in your bmind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your dbosom shall eburn within you; therefore, you shall ffeel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a astupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; ...

This is how we understand the answers of the Lord (Personal Revelation): We study things out, think about them, ... come to a conclusion/decision, then we go to Him, and ask if what we understood is right. he says if it's right He will help us feel something (It does not always come so strong as to feel a warm, burning sensation within us, but this also definitely happens as well), the Lord also answers us with feelings that are the "fruits of the Spirit,' His Spirit.

If it's wrong (Our conclusion or decision), He will cause us to have uneasy thoughts, confusion, to the conclusion we achieved. We will have feelings that are manifested as distress, confusion, uncomfortable, restlessness ... We won't experience the "fruits of the Spirit" or the "burning in the bosom."

With regards to learning about people, other's view, etc...:

If I am going to learn about something from someone, it's helpful to "put aside" my views so that I can learn the other person's perspective on the subject.

A person can't come to understand another if the same keeps trying to see through his/her own perspective. The same principle applies to learning about anything.

Trying to understand somone's view or behavior through my perspective is not going to give me the true picture of someone's view or behavior because I'd be interpreting it, him/she through my eyes, beliefs, perspective,.../I].

Now, please make a note that I'm saying clearly that I'm talking about people who want to learn about how others view something that they might already have an opinion about.

No one is trying to convince you that you must, should, view the way we do... but everyone who has pinched in this thread is simply trying to state our views and beliefs on the topic.

What I mean by that was that to approach spiritual things in this manner only won't be helpful, and I explained my view it in the words of Paul, 1 Cortinthians 2.

What I'm finding difficult in this communication is that a question comes, and we state things, answer, but it's not understood, our view on it it's not understood, and then we are told what we believe.

Then, several principles are mixed,... now I'm explaining you the principle of revelation when we were talking about baptism and our view on it that you said our view was unbiblical. I'm almost sure by the time you respond it, something else will be pulled out from what I wrote, and questioned again...

Did you read anything else past the second line of my previous post about what I wrote regarding what we believe about baptism and the Atonement of Christ?Did you hear the talk by Elder McConkie?

If you haven't, please do! Elder McConkie nails it! He talks exactly about the things you question: Baptism, salvation, faith, works, etc... I can't do better than he...

Interestingly enough, you made absolutely no comments on them, but my only comment about approaching spiritual things in a specific manner which is less significant than the whole thing about baptism I tried to explain.

Does that mean that you understood what we believe about Baptism? That we are nothing of ourselves because we believe in faith, are obedient, do the works, but those will not save us?

Depending on your next comments and answer,'I'll see if I will continue this communication or not; I feel that Elder McConkie's explanation is quite thorogh.

Maybe I'm not being and don't know how to be clear enough on what our views are with you (Someone else had similar questions about ourview of baptism and I answered along with other people, and the person understood what I wrote; it seemed to me that this person was genuinely interested in learning our view on it), and maybe someone else will join to answer your questions/comments who can possibly communicate better with you.

I can't keep explaining over and over the same things... and just because I fail to mention one thing that is connected with another when I'm trying to explain another, it doesn't mean they are not connected (Feelings & thinking, logic & reason)

So...

D&C 6

5 Therefore, if you will aask of me you shall receive; if you will knock it shall be opened unto you.

May the Lord assist you in your learning and searching; He is the ONLY one who can give you what we cannot. remember to put into context your motivations for learning about "Mormonism;" I believe it can be extremly helpful to you and to the answer that you'll arrive at.

Peace!

Edited July 15, 2008 by PapilioMemnon

[evangelical]

Will somebody here please tell me how the personal testimony, after prayer about the Book of Mormon etc., is any different from what every other faith offers? Some of the people here are getting annoyed with me but I have not really gotten what seems to me an answer addressing the question. This is a legitimate question. Do you have a legitimate answer for me? I am told to pray or to read what somebody else has to say on the matter or to be less contentious. As a Mormon, surely you believe you have more of the truth than other Christians (because of additional revelations, for example). Do you have anything to offer more than just "pray and you will feel it is right"? Isn't that what all religions, considered more or less false by Mormons, say? Again, the question is, how is the personal testimony of Mormonism different from similar personal testimonies of other faiths to commend Mormonism to potential converts over said other faiths?

[evangelical]

Dear PapilioMemnon, I am now in the process of downloading the talk on the atonement by McConkie. I like your suggestion to focus our discussion on a single topic. How about for right now, we focus on the atonement? The talk shall serve as a good springboard for that, I think. Finally I must thank you for your Job-ish patience.

[evangelical]

So I just finished listening to the talk PapilioMemnon. It was very clear to me that the speaker did not understand the view of grace alone. Grace alone does not mean that a person merely believes then does whatever. That would be unbiblical to the nth degree. Rather, the evangelical view is, a person believes (becoming saved by grace through faith) then follows the Lord. Sometimes "salvation" is just the initial moment of faith but that faith is lifelong. So if a person is truly of the faith, they will be doing good works. It is not the good works that initially saved them and it is not the good works which keeps them saved. And when they get to Heaven God will not look at there good works. He will only look at His grace on them (though there is a judgment of works to determine the rewards of Heaven). So the talk did not accurately represent "the second greatest heresy of Christendom." Now about the doctrine of grace alone, properly understood. I always saw that as a discovery, in the Bible, by Martin Luther and others before, during, and since. Not an invention of him. That may have been implied by the talk. At any rate, I do have a couple of questions for you. Did the speaker say that grace alone implies calvinism? Why would he think that, if yes? My next question is related to a verse in II (I think) Nephi. Salvation is by grace alone after all we can do. How do we know when we have done enough?

[drjme]

Will somebody here please tell me how the personal testimony, after prayer about the Book of Mormon etc., is any different from what every other faith offers? Some of the people here are getting annoyed with me but I have not really gotten what seems to me an answer addressing the question. This is a legitimate question. Do you have a legitimate answer for me? I am told to pray or to read what somebody else has to say on the matter or to be less contentious. As a Mormon, surely you believe you have more of the truth than other Christians (because of additional revelations, for example). Do you have anything to offer more than just "pray and you will feel it is right"? Isn't that what all religions, considered more or less false by Mormons, say? Again, the question is, how is the personal testimony of Mormonism different from similar personal testimonies of other faiths to commend Mormonism to potential converts over said other faiths?

Hi there evangelical,

Jumpy discussion, but I will try to address this a bit by asking you a few questions.

have you read the Book of Mormon?

if yes, prior to reading it did you already doubt that it could be more of the word of God, because 'the bible is all the word we need, and God has no need to communicate to man any further'. (which would be you limiting God's ability to give you answer because your mind is already made up)

if no, Is your mind already made up that it is false or do you believe God can reveal more to His children? (having faith in Christ and an openmind to lead you and answer your prayers)

Beginning with these different states of mind will in most cases affect what answer will be given.

But like most evangelicals I know, they say 'you can't trust your feelings, because the heart of man is evil...look it says that in the bible, don't trust your feelings!'

So then, How do you differentiate between emotion and feelings, and the Holy Ghost?

How does your witness of the truth that Christ lives and that HE is THE way, differentiate from my witness that He is Saviour, Lord and King?

Probably not much. Truth in any religion is truth. Christ IS the way. Is God going to deny a witness to that truth, to an honest, open seeking heart because they might go to a different church? I say no.

What lead to your conversion? the 'evidences' of the bible? Or a reassuring power that you could not deny, that Christ lives and his Gospel is the way. If you have experienced the power you cannot deny, you can clearly differentiate between 'feelings' and the Holy Ghost. And so you would believe in continuing revelation.

If the bible is all there ever was and needs to be, and If He has revealed all to us that we need to know, what good is personal revelation (if you believe in it) and how can you tell what is personal revelation and what is not?

I have seen people when they recieve their witness of truth, they cling to it, protect it, and defend their position as if what they had learnt to get their witness is all there really is to it. They have it now, all they need to know and close their mind because probing further for truth will require even more Faith.

But as we know the Answer comes AFTER the trial of your faith.

I say this because I have Christain friends who will not even look at the BOM. They will not even trial their faith in Christ to recieve their answer. Why not? what happened to that same spirit of enquiry and faith that led them to investigate the Gospel, which they then realised the truthfulness of Christ AFTER they exercised faith to know.

Some say they have an uneasy 'feeling' and choose not to read the BOM, others just say no. I will say that God has Never given me an answer through a negative 'feeling'. Who uses feelings of negativity? the adversary is the author of Doubt and confusion, not the Holy Ghost. What better way does the adversary discourage the search for truth, than not even letting the trial of faith begin.

And so they believe that 'no answer' = 'no truth' yet not even exercising their responsibilty to act first.

so to answer you question:

how is the personal testimony of Mormonism different from similar personal testimonies of other faiths to commend Mormonism to potential converts over said other faiths?

Lets see how our personal testimonies compare:

I know that Christ Lives. I know that He suffered and died for me personally, to make it possible to return to my Father in Heaven. I thank my Heavenly father for His Love , His Guidance and His protection and for influencing and affecting my life in more ways than I could know. I know it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is the path that leads to eternal life. I know the Church Of Jesus Christ of latterday saints contains the fullness of the Gospel and that much has been revealed, and that God will reveal much more as he sees fit.

Probably not much different apart from the last bits.How can I claim this as truth, when all other religions will want to claim theirs as 'the only way'?

It is between me and God. the Gospel is learnt line upon line, precept upon precept. My understanding and knowledge is based on truths learnt incrementally by continually trialing my Faith to recieve my answer. Each new 'line' or 'precept' requires another trial of faith. I know I can completely and absolutely trust God to lead me to truth. I can differentiate between feelings and the Holy Ghost because I look for the same 'feelings' as when I recieved my first witness.

So what does mormonism offer more than other religions? for me, an understanding and belief that continually grows, and hence a necessity to keep an open mind. A source of growth from the scriptures, personal revelation and a prophet to act as the mouthpeice of God, giving us more information for our benefit as we need it. for me, other beliefs take away the basic building blocks of the Gospel, that understanding cannot be built up because you cannot establish a firm foundation (eg the faith/grace/works 'evangelical' arguments similar to the one in this thread contradicts itself and many, many scriptures, so you get stuck argueing what is a basic gospel principle and you cannot build off it.)

And the main thing is.....we have eternity!.......we are only at the beginning! Mormonism recognises this in it's doctrine. modern Christianity in ways, does not.

[Islander]

So I just finished listening to the talk PapilioMemnon. It was very clear to me that the speaker did not understand the view of grace alone. Grace alone does not mean that a person merely believes then does whatever. That would be unbiblical to the nth degree. Rather, the evangelical view is, a person believes (becoming saved by grace through faith) then follows the Lord. Sometimes "salvation" is just the initial moment of faith but that faith is lifelong. So if a person is truly of the faith, they will be doing good works. It is not the good works that initially saved them and it is not the good works which keeps them saved. And when they get to Heaven God will not look at there good works. He will only look at His grace on them (though there is a judgment of works to determine the rewards of Heaven). So the talk did not accurately represent "the second greatest heresy of Christendom." Now about the doctrine of grace alone, properly understood. I always saw that as a discovery, in the Bible, by Martin Luther and others before, during, and since. Not an invention of him. That may have been implied by the talk. At any rate, I do have a couple of questions for you. Did the speaker say that grace alone implies calvinism? Why would he think that, if yes? My next question is related to a verse in II (I think) Nephi. Salvation is by grace alone after all we can do. How do we know when we have done enough?

Friend, I have been following and answering most of your posts since you came onto the site. I am still, I must confess, mystified by your presence in the site. Many, as you say, have expressed the view that you tend to be somewhat contentious and argumentative in your posts. Assuming that we reject the generalization, at least you would have to contemplate the notion that there has to be some truth in that statement.

What seems to be the norm is that you ask a question in juxtaposition to a certain LDS doctrinal element. Often 3-4 people answer with multiple examples and explanations of it. Your reply is always in opposition and espousing a preconceived theological view according to your brand and sectarian take on Christianity. You defend this view vociferously rather than search and study the foundation for the LDS view. I, in particular, have suggested many times for you to sit and read certain definitions as to familiarize yourself with the LDS frame of reference. You obviously have not done so.

Well, what can I say in regards to prayer? The essence of God is truth and light, it is intelligence. ALL truth belongs to him and has been created by Him to remain unencumbered by man. We do not discover anything, we become aware of that which God has set up from the beginning in its own sphere. If we aspire to know God's truth, after we have searched diligently the things that we have been given, we must pray to Him to confirm thru the Spirit if these things are true. Spiritual things require spiritual discernment. For us it is not, it can not be, just an intellectual pursue. That may seem like a foreign concept to you but that is how we arrived to a testimony of the truthfulness of Gospel.

There are no originals for the biblical texts but you seem to have taken them at face value and added your own theological spin to what the text actually say. Either it is an exercise in social conformity or you have prayed and received a witness that the bible is a true account of the things of God. It is no different for us. We have read and studied the Book of Mormon and have received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the things contained terein are true, that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God and that God caused the revelation that brought about the restoration of things previously known but lost over time. How else would you know?

The choice is yours. If you are truly trying to learn and understand you MUST first study, search, ponder and then pray with the intent of knowing the truth. Scholarly research will never result in a testimony. Actually most biblical scholars are not necessarily religious people. Go figure.

Beyond that, look into your heart and ask yourself why you are here in this site and devoted so much time to this activity. It will reveal many things, especially bout yourself.

[PapilioMemnon]

.... Do you have anything to offer more than just "pray and you will feel it is right"? Isn't that what all religions, considered more or less false by Mormons, say? Again, the question is, how is the personal testimony of Mormonism different from similar personal testimonies of other faiths to commend Mormonism to potential converts over said other faiths?

There's nothing above the power of prayer & the testimony of the Holy Ghost of truth to communicate with our Heavenly FAther and receive answers to our questions; you might fast as well though; once you receive it, you'll know for yourself and how distinct it is from anything else you might have ever felt in your life!

John 14

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

2 Nephi 32

8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the devil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.

2 Nephi 33

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man bspeaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

The Holy Ghost carries it "unto the heart,' but not "into the heart," unless the heart is open to His promptings, teachings.

D&C 50

14 To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforter which was sent forth to teach the truth.

----------------------------

LINK: The Power of a Personal Testimony

"A testimony is the sure knowledge or assurance from the Holy Ghost of the truth and divinity of the Lord's work in these latter days. A testimony is the "abiding, living, [and] moving conviction of the truths revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ" (Marion G. Romney, "How to Gain a Testimony," New Era, May 1976, 8; emphasis added).

How Do We Get a Testimony?

We all know that it is easier to talk about a testimony than to acquire one. The process to receive one is based on the law of the harvest: "For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7). No good thing comes without effort and sacrifice. If we have to work hard to obtain a testimony, it will make us and our testimony even stronger. And if we share our testimony, it will grow.

A testimony is a most precious possession because it is not acquired by logic or reason alone, it cannot be purchased with earthly possessions, and it cannot be given as a present or inherited from our ancestors. We cannot depend on the testimonies of other people. We need to know for ourselves. President Gordon B. Hinckley said, "Every Latter-day Saint has the responsibility to know for himself or herself with a certainty beyond doubt that Jesus is the resurrected, living Son of the living God" ("Fear Not to Do Good," Ensign, May 1983, 80).

The source of this sure knowledge and firm conviction is divine revelation, "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10).

We receive this testimony when the Holy Spirit speaks to the spirit within us. We will receive a calm and unwavering certainty that will be the source of our testimony and conviction irrespective of our culture, race, language, or socioeconomic background. These promptings of the Spirit, rather than human logic alone, will be the true foundation upon which our testimony will be built.

The core of this testimony will always be the faith in and the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His divine mission, who in the scriptures says of Himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

So how do we receive a personal testimony rooted in the witness of the Holy Ghost? The pattern is outlined in the scriptures:

First: Desire to believe. The Book of Mormon encourages us: "If [you] will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, . . . even if [you] can no more than desire to believe" (Alma 32:27).

Some may say, "I cannot believe; I am not a religious person." Just consider, God promises us divine help even if we have only a desire to believe, but it has to be a true and not a pretended desire.

Second: Search the scriptures. Have questions; study them out; search in the scriptures for answers. Again, the Book of Mormon has good advice for us: "If [you] give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart" through diligent study of the word of God, the good seed "will begin to swell within your breasts" if you will not resist with unbelief. This good seed will "enlarge [your] soul" and "enlighten [your] understanding" (Alma 32:28).

Third: Do the will of God; keep the commandments. It is not enough to enter into a scholarly debate if we want to know for ourselves that the kingdom of God has been restored upon the earth. Casual study is also not enough. We have to get in on the action ourselves, and that means learning and then doing God's will.

We need to come to Christ and follow His teachings. The Savior taught: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:16–17; emphasis added). And He said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

Fourth: Ponder, fast, and pray. To receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost, we must ask Heavenly Father for it. We must trust that God loves us and that He will help us to recognize the promptings of the Holy Ghost. The Book of Mormon reminds us:

"When [you] . . . read these things, . . . remember how merciful the Lord [has] been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that [you] shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

". . . Ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are . . . true; and if [you] . . . ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 10:3–4).

And the prophet Alma said:

"I testify unto you that I do know that these things . . . are true. And how do [you] suppose that I know of their surety?

" . . . Behold, I have fasted and prayed . . . that I might know these things of myself. And . . . the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation" (Alma 5:45–46).

My dear brothers and sisters, Alma received his witness by fasting and prayer more than 2,000 years ago, and we may have the same sacred experience today. "-----------------------------------------

I hope this helps! I'm sorry for my Job-ish patience; it's definitely an area I need to be better; we have been exchanging ideas even before this thread.

May the Lord assist you in your search and give that "which no man can give you."

Edited July 16, 2008 by PapilioMemnon
Colors

[evangelical]

drjme, thanks for your response. To answer your questions, well, here goes.

I have read and/or listened to much of the Book of Mormon (and plan to continue to do so-ditto for the other Standardy Works). I am open to the possibility of further revelation from God (beyond the Bible) but the Book of Mormon, or more precisely current LDS doctrine as a whole, cannot be further revelation, I would say, if, and this is a big if, it contradicts the Bible.

Our feelings are states of heart that come and go. They often do not have any correspondent reality but often they do. An example of the former would be if we are feeling depressed and, when asked what is wrong, respond with "I don't know, I am just feeling a bit blue today." An example of the latter would be when our best friend 'stabs us in the back' and that hurts our feelings. In contrast, I think, the Holy Ghost normally would operate by leading us into the truth. So we come to the Bible, for example, as agnostics. We then examine the various lines of evidence for it. We see objectively that it does say the same things today in English that it originally said in Greek. We see the many things people have said against it but how it vindicated itself. We look at its historical and prophetic accuracy. Eventually we come to a place where we make a conscious decision to believe it as the word of God because we plainly see it as a trustworthy document. So the Holy Ghost has led us through this first stage. Then as we continually study the Bible throughout our life, as a Christian, the Holy Ghost shall help us to understand the meaning of the Bible more and more and help us to become more and more sure that it is reliable. I think it is a mistake to say that we should just pray and recieve a feeling the Bible is true. That seems very dangerous to me.

How do our testimonies about Jesus differ? Well, first, mine is based on evidence and yours is based, it seems, on feeling. Second, according to McConkie's talk "What Think Ye of Salvation by Grace Alone" the Jesus you believe in is apparently different from the Jesus I believe in. And I think most evangelicals would agree with that statement. So we believe in different persons (both called Jesus) and for different reasons. But I must say that you are right when you say that truth in any religion is truth.

When I first came to the Lord, I just sort of knew it was true. However, I later struggled with many doubts and found good answers to them. It would have been better, perhaps, if I had gotten the reasons first. And of course, since I firmly believe what I do believe, I am not able to believe something else which is contradictory unless I first change my mind about what I first believed. So if I got a feeling that evangelicalism is true then later I get a feeling that Mormonism is true I would have to reject evangelicalism (because there are differences of doctrine between the two). But this would imply that we cannot trust our feelings. I would be happy to get into specific areas of conflict between LDS and evangelical teachings if you'd like.

Personal revelation, in an evangelical context, is something I have thought about for a fair amount of time. I used to attend a denomination where it was common for the minister to say, "God told me..." Often this was in the context of what he should preach on that Sunday. Where I stand on the issue now is that probably there is some personal revelation today, perhaps moreso amongst pastors of chruches than amongst the general Christian population, but also that the vast majority of claims of personal revelation is probably not really from God. But a claim to personal revelation is certainly not from God if it contradicts other revelation from God for true revelation cannot contradict true revelation. That is one test of a claim of revelation, whether it is consistent with prior revelation. So then, today God apparently speaks to us primarily through the Bible. It seems like it may be a waste of time to, say, pray about which girl one should marry or which school one should go to etc. We have general guidance in the Bible and human reason and that seems to be enough most of the time.

Your next point is more of a comment then a question but I'll answer it anyway. I do have a spirit of inquiry. I am very curious to learn all I can about Mormonism. The problem is, the more I learn about it, the more sure I am that it is, in my opinion, false.

One of the last points you make, recognises the importance of getting the gospel right. You are quite correct when you say that we cannot build on the foundation if we continually debate its meaning. Would you not also agree that if we start off with the wrong gospel we cannot really build on it either? Perhaps I have taken away, as an evangelical, or perhaps you have added, as an LDS, but I think it is absolutely essential that we both get it right at the beginning (whatever is right). Your thoughts on this?

I hope I answered you questions adequately. Goodbye for now.

[evangelical]

Dear PapilioMemnon, I was not being sarcastic when I thanked you for your patience. Rest assured, you are being patient with me and I am sincerely thankful for that.

Here is a quote you gave me:

A testimony is a most precious possession because it is not acquired by logic or reason alone, it cannot be purchased with earthly possessions, and it cannot be given as a present or inherited from our ancestors. We cannot depend on the testimonies of other people. We need to know for ourselves. President Gordon B. Hinckley said, "Every Latter-day Saint has the responsibility to know for himself or herself with a certainty beyond doubt that Jesus is the resurrected, living Son of the living God" ("Fear Not to Do Good," Ensign, May 1983, 80).

What role, then, does logic play in the attainment of a testimony?

[evangelical]

Dear Islander, Greeatings once again. You wrote:

"There are no originals for the biblical texts but you seem to have taken them at face value and added your own theological spin to what the text actually say. Either it is an exercise in social conformity or you have prayed and received a witness that the bible is a true account of the things of God. It is no different for us. We have read and studied the Book of Mormon and have received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the things contained terein are true, that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God and that God caused the revelation that brought about the restoration of things previously known but lost over time. How else would you know?"

While we do not have the original Bible we do have copies of it. Textual critics have been able to reconstruct, from the many manuscripts, what the original Bible said. They are not sure about every word on every page but more or less they have reconstructed the original. More specifically, three pages of the New Testament and 50 of the Old are in doubt. But these pages have no bearing on cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith as non-Mormons see it.

I try to let the text of the Bible speak for itself. For example, my church practices infant baptism but I do not allow that to persuade me that the practice is biblical (I reject infant baptism). Ideally it is the Bible which determines my theological spin, not my theological spin which determines my interpretation of the Bible.

My acceptance of the Bible as being from God is based in part on objective evidence. This is neither social conformity nor prayer followed by a feeling.

So then, apparently what you are telling me, is that you prayed about it (the Book of Mormon) then got a feeling that it was right. Are you willing to base your eternal afterlife on a feeling? What if certain other Christians are right when they say that Mormons go to Hell? I would want to be very sure about the feeling if it were me if so much were possibly at stake.

[Islander]

Dear Islander, Greeatings once again. You wrote:

"There are no originals for the biblical texts but you seem to have taken them at face value and added your own theological spin to what the text actually say. Either it is an exercise in social conformity or you have prayed and received a witness that the bible is a true account of the things of God. It is no different for us. We have read and studied the Book of Mormon and have received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the things contained terein are true, that Joseph was indeed a prophet of God and that God caused the revelation that brought about the restoration of things previously known but lost over time. How else would you know?"

While we do not have the original Bible we do have copies of it. Textual critics have been able to reconstruct, from the many manuscripts, what the original Bible said. They are not sure about every word on every page but more or less they have reconstructed the original. More specifically, three pages of the New Testament and 50 of the Old are in doubt. But these pages have no bearing on cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith as non-Mormons see it.

I try to let the text of the Bible speak for itself. For example, my church practices infant baptism but I do not allow that to persuade me that the practice is biblical (I reject infant baptism). Ideally it is the Bible which determines my theological spin, not my theological spin which determines my interpretation of the Bible.

My acceptance of the Bible as being from God is based in part on objective evidence. This is neither social conformity nor prayer followed by a feeling.

So then, apparently what you are telling me, is that you prayed about it (the Book of Mormon) then got a feeling that it was right. Are you willing to base your eternal afterlife on a feeling? What if certain other Christians are right when they say that Mormons go to Hell? I would want to be very sure about the feeling if it were me if so much were possibly at stake.

My friend with all due respect, the "evidence" for most of what the bible says actually happened in that narrow, dry and priori, inhospitable stretch of land, we call Israel is so slim that archeologist remains at odds with where such and such city was located even today. There is but a handful of extra biblical accounts noted here and there throughout the ME but that is about it. There is no evidence, none, of any of the prophets of the bible. Todate, most archeoogists believe the the exodous never took place since they have found NOTHING that could support that a million plus people lived and traveled together for 40 years in a relatively small region.

So, your assertion that you rely on evidence I think is not well founded. The "evidence" is sparse and controversial to say the list. You must, therefore rely a lot more on what the Spirit reveals to you than "evidence."

[jimuk]

evangelical, We do not just go with a feeling/think that something is correct, these "feelings" are completely different from "knowing" with the spirit of the holy ghost that it is correct, being filled with the spirit is not just in your head it is throughout your whole body, a feeling of warmth, happiness, love, charity, forgiveness all rolled into one throughout your whole body, when you have the holy ghost residing with you, you have no need for "evidence" he will guide you through truths and lies. Below is a small example of what the holy ghost can do for you.

When my wife and i first fell in love with the church of jesus christ of latter day saints, all was fine until we announced to our families we were going to be baptized, then all hell broke lose literally, my wifes family turned into what i can only describe as devils helpers, they had no christian beliefs yet they were almost foaming at the mouth with hate trying to stop us being baptized, why would you think they would act in such a way, they knew nothing about LDS, but all this hate did not work, it made me so much filled with the spirit , that was litrally fighting in my corner that my beliefs were even stronger.

I do not have money to go to bible college to read the bible, anyway that would only make me knowledgeable of that book, it would not make you know the truth. No, it is in your heart, your whole being, whether god exists, once you have the holy ghost with you, it is up to ones self to work on keeping him there.

I do have a testimony of the church, i do not hope, i know with a surety that my father in heaven exists, and the great things he does for us, i may not always appreciate them, but he does them for a reason.

Another thing that the spirit gives me knowledge of and makes me know that the gospel has been restored is the fact that he (Such a simple thing) will not send our babies away because we have not had them baptized, he wouldent send them to hell, what sort of father would do that, and to think they do need baptizing would be denying his love for us.

I am so glad to have met the missionaries, because so many negative things happened to me in the time before being baptized it just made the spirit so much stronger.

I know you may be thinking this has nothing to do with the subject at hand but i think it does as it is showing that by the spirit you know the truth, and not by arguing about what the bible says and means

So ask god in prayer if the church is true, or any part of, dont go to him hoping for him to help you win an argument it won't happen lol.

[happyday]

In matters of theology there comes a point in which I must admit I am not adequate at defining God and his nature myself, even with the extensive study of scripture.

When defining God and his role wouldn't it be better to let God define himself. He promises in scripture after scripture in the new and old testiments as well as in the book of mormon that if we pray he will answer. With that answer God will let you know, personally, who he is. You just need to want to hear it.

[evangelical]

Thanks for the kind words jimuk!

[jimuk]

Our father in heaven is not just looking out for those, that can afford to pay to study the bible and use big words, this does not make anyone i repeat anyone an authority on god, i know what god expects of us,by doing the things he loves and not doing the things that i do which do not please him through the spirit, the bible is there for everyone that can read it, or is prepared to listen to it being read, the learned and the unlearned, thats all, nothing more.i do not think it was meant to be argued over, but i ere to the not to be argued over, you either believe its the word of god or you dont, if you argue its because you dont like some of the things in it.

This is my personal views anyway, i am not pointing a finger at anyone.

[drjme]

Our feelings are states of heart that come and go. They often do not have any correspondent reality but often they do. An example of the former would be if we are feeling depressed and, when asked what is wrong, respond with "I don't know, I am just feeling a bit blue today." An example of the latter would be when our best friend 'stabs us in the back' and that hurts our feelings. In contrast, I think, the Holy Ghost normally would operate by leading us into the truth. So we come to the Bible, for example, as agnostics. We then examine the various lines of evidence for it. We see objectively that it does say the same things today in English that it originally said in Greek. We see the many things people have said against it but how it vindicated itself. We look at its historical and prophetic accuracy. Eventually we come to a place where we make a conscious decision to believe it as the word of God because we plainly see it as a trustworthy document.

how is the abolute truthfulness of the Gospel revealed to you though? It is not the text of the book that convinces you is it? By your own understanding you may deduce that it is PLAUSIBLE, but not absolute truth.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Simon walked with Christ, lived with Him, Learnt from Him, Believed in Him, But it was not the understanding of the 'flesh' by which the truth was known, it was by the Father via the Holy Ghost. For us to think it is our own understanding or 'conscious decision' that brings us 'enlightenment', seems to me not in alignment with scripture as a witness from the Holy Ghost. Simon's first hand account, witness of miracles, the ministry of Christ, was not the witness, in Jesus's own words. So how can we be expected to deduce that witness of absolute truth from -forgive my wording, I love the Bible and completely believe it- the second/third/forth hand, translated text from 6000-2000ish years ago, when someone who was actually there is being told the truth was revealed to him not by what he saw and experienced, but by some other power? It is by Heavenly Fathers witness, by what you will call a 'feeling' or a new experience not of our making that the truth is known, No amount of our own understanding or judgment would compare or can be called the same.

So the Holy Ghost has led us through this first stage. Then as we continually study the Bible throughout our life, as a Christian, the Holy Ghost shall help us to understand the meaning of the Bible more and more and help us to become more and more sure that it is reliable. I think it is a mistake to say that we should just pray and recieve a feeling the Bible is true. That seems very dangerous to me.

I think you make a mistake by relying too much on your own understanding, which is even more dangerous. Let’s look at the scholars of the Word in Ancient times, the Pharisees etc. They knew the Law in and out, the prophecies, the scripture, but it counted for nothing, they did not even see the Christ as he stood before them and performed many miracles, fulfilled the prophecies etc. Their reliance on their own understandings and interpretations led them completely off course.Where one prefers to rely on their own understanding and abilities over what is God’s ability to communicate to us, seems to me more of the mistake. In a sense we limit and exclude him by our own choice, by not calling upon his aid and clarification in every matter that we can.

How do our testimonies about Jesus differ? Well, first, mine is based on evidence and yours is based, it seems, on feeling.

What sort of evidence? Biblical evidence? This conversation was had with another 'evangelical' on another thread (unfortunately there are many events of the bible that apparently have no evidence, but can also be found to be possibly unlikely to have happened according to the 'evidence'). What is your evidence? Were you there to witness the things you read about? Can you confirm that everything in the Bible happened literally and exactly as it was written? Can you substantiate all claims made by the bible?

I would be happy to get into specific areas of conflict between LDS and evangelical teachings if you'd like.

Nah, It’s ok. I already have friends who spend their time trying to tell me why my beliefs are wrong and theirs are right and how different mine are to theirs. :)

One of the last points you make, recognises the importance of getting the gospel right. You are quite correct when you say that we cannot build on the foundation if we continually debate its meaning. Would you not also agree that if we start off with the wrong gospel we cannot really build on it either? Perhaps I have taken away, as an evangelical, or perhaps you have added, as an LDS, but I think it is absolutely essential that we both get it right at the beginning (whatever is right). Your thoughts on this?

My thoughts…. It depends on how determined a person is, to hold on to what they believe, despite what else they may learn. Is it fear? Is it pride? Natural human tendencies, or barriers, that hold us back from what we can potentially become. Why else are we told to shun such characteristics? Because they slow our growth, our understanding. I am not implying that you have these attributes, I apologise if you thought so. I am just stating a fact that these are characteristics that we all have. But as you said earlier, It could be required that you discard everything that you have already learnt and believe to embrace something new, and Christ asks us to do that in our search for his truth, 'that a man may lay down his life'. How would the Muslim feel converting to Christianity? what life would they have to lay down? family, friends? beliefs? A great deal of faith on their part would be required to step into something so vastly different to what they believe, religiously, culturally, socially and sometimes politically.

Now back to topic, you could present something ‘new’ to me. I will evaluate it against:

-the source (eg bible/BOM)

-try to understand to the best of My understanding

-word of the prophets and my beliefs

-What I have already received a witness of

-take it to God in Prayer and expect an answer.

So, don’t get me wrong now, I am not a blind believer born into the church. I don’t just believe what is fed to me. I investigate, open my mind and try my hardest to study with humility. There are many aspects of life and religion I don’t understand. Does that mean that it is false? No, it just means I don’t understand it YET. My beliefs don’t contradict the bible, they just contradict your interpretation of the bible. When we understand a fundamental we can move on from it. I will use the ‘grace argument’ from this thread as an example. You say only grace is required to be saved. Step one evaluate against the source. Many scriptures say grace of Christ saves. But many others say that Baptism is required to enter the kingdom of heaven. So, from my own understanding, I am inclined to believe that both are necessary especially when Jesus submits himself to baptism ‘to fulfil all righteousness’.

Words of the prophets ancient and modern say baptism is necessary, not because we are saving ourselves but because we are showing we are making a commitment symbolically, kind of like the ‘handshake that begins an agreement or dealing’.

I have already received a witness of the truthfulness of the ordinance of baptism. I have a calm, peaceful -dare I say- feeling about this and so I accept it, but other times it may be an overwhelming presence that you cannot deny. That is the process of evaluation somewhat. and involving God right from the start is the best thing too. that should be on the list twice :)

[evangelical]

Dear drjme, I am curious about somenting. Would you be willing to fly on an airplane whose pilot did not learn at a flight school how to fly with qualified intstructors? Who openly admited to praying about how to properly fly and then recieved a feeling? How about a brain surgeon? "Just look at all the different medical schools," he replies, "I recieved a burning in my bosom which confirms to me they are all an abomination in God's eyes, teaching for medical science the doctrines and commandments of men." Now, when it comes to the much more serious matter of where one would spend eternity, it seems to me the situation is the same, only more so. Please do not misunderstand me. Prayer is vitally important to the Christian life. And there is a spiritual component to religious matters which is abscent from "secular" science. But I think the analogy I am suggesting here is a valid one. Please think about this.

I think it is debatable to suggest the Pharisees did not understand Who Jesus was. Regardless of that fact, I would have to agree with you that we are to rely on God and not our own understanding. And what has God communicated to us? One thing was that if an angel tells us to believe another gospel from that of the New Testament, he is accursed. Therefore, if an angel says, "here is a different gospel from the one you are used to hearing (in Protestant churches)," wouldn't it make sense to at least take a moment to reflect on which one is the New Testament one and which one is "another gospel"? Perhaps the Protestanst such as myself have got the different one so I too need to examine. A different example might be as follows. Suppose there is something at the store that I really want but cannot at present afford. What am I to do in such a situation? I know that the Bible teaches "Thou shalt not steal." Do I pray, earnestly desiring to know God's will, whether I should steal the thing or not? God has already said, "thou shalt not steal," so there is nothing to pray about. Imagine that I am open to further revelation beyond just the Bible. I pray, sincerely desiring to hear the true revelation of God. I say, "God, please tell me if you want me to steal this thing." I then get a burning in the bosom. Well that settles it, I am to steal. How is what you are telling me any different from this?

You have asked about biblical evidence. I can not point to an apodictic argument for every event recorded in the Bible and no, I was not there as you rightly point out. But here is some of the evidence you asked about. Note that it is objective which means everyone has access to it (unlike your personal testimony which only you have access to):

1. The Bible is generally regarded as generally reliable in general history. This is true even amongst atheist historians I am told (they will of course deny the miracles).

2. The Old Testament was meticulously copied by trained scribes. When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, comparison of it with the oldest (prior to the discovery) text was almost identical.

3. There are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. Textual critics have used them to recreate all of the New Testament with the exception of three pages. These three pages do not effect significant doctrine and are more or less variant spellings of proper names.

4. The Old Testament was translated into Greek in the intertestamental period. Within the Old Testament are prophesies about Jesus which were fulfilled in New Testament times.

5. There are other prophesies in the Bible. Sometimes people who want to disbelieve the Bible will date a book later than the events prophesied to get around the problem. This is hard to do with Daniel because it was translated into Greek before the advent of Roman rule. Roman rule is one of the prophesies.

6. There is apparently advanced scientific evidence in the Bible. An example of this is that in the Mosaic law, cooking dishes were to be cleaned. Why clean in the absence of knowledge about germs? Another example is that, I am told, during the Black Plague, people started applying laws about the unclean to the sick. In this way (i.e. quarinteen) the Black Plague was defeated.

7. Jesus said, in the Gospels (written by either an eyewitness or the disciple of an eyewitness) that the Old Testament was the Word of God. He said that not a jot or tittle can pass from it until all is fulfilled.

Maybe your friends are on to something? In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word is established?

Jesus never asks us to give up the truth to embrace something different. For example, as I read the Bible I see that baptism is not necessary for salvation. This brings us to your next point. Let us evaluate that idea from what we already (i.e. prior to embracing the LDS faith) know. If Bible verse A says: Grace will save you and verse B says: those who have grace and baptism are saved, how are we to take these? The plain meaning of A is that grace saves. Notice it is not grace and baptism or grace and anything else. Just grace. So then, we have established that the Bible teaches "if grace, then salvation." Does the second verse contradict this? It cannot. Does it further elaborate, or flesh out, verse A? It cannot do that for A plainly says grace saves (as opposed to grace and baptism). Let us look more carefully at B. If a person has grace, according to A, they are saved. What if a person has grace and a balogna sandwich? They will still be saved. What if they have grace and a brother from another mother? They will be saved. What if they have grace and the first hundred decimal places of pi memorised? They will be saved. If we have grace and anything else we are saved because we have the only thing which is necessary (or helpful) for salvation and that is grace. So of course if a person has grace, and also happens to be baptised, since they still have the one essential, grace, they will be saved. That is all B is saying. You see, there is no conflict here. It is not that A teaches p and B teaches not-p and we ignore the blatant contradiction and hold both true simultaneously. That would violate the law of non-contradiction. If p (grace alone) is true then not-p (grace plus something else) simply cannot be true. This is an undeniable fact.

Before ending this post I wish to make one thing very very clear. I have no ax to grind with LDS individuals. I do not hate Mormons or wish to cause them any anger, distress, or even simple annoyance. What I do hope, however, is that you, drjme, will take some time to seriously consider what I have said. Please think about this.

[drjme]

Dear drjme, I am curious about somenting. Would you be willing to fly on an airplane whose pilot did not learn at a flight school how to fly with qualified intstructors? Who openly admited to praying about how to properly fly and then recieved a feeling? How about a brain surgeon? "Just look at all the different medical schools," he replies, "I recieved a burning in my bosom which confirms to me they are all an abomination in God's eyes, teaching for medical science the doctrines and commandments of men."

hmmm. It would imply here that you think we don't read the bible, that we just believe without any study? that we just pray and recieve a feeling? I'm sure you didn't mean that :) like I said you have to do the work or study to recieve an answer. the analogy is not accurate. I'm sure you are not saying that because I don't believe what you do, means that I don't read the bible.

I think it is debatable to suggest the Pharisees did not understand Who Jesus was. Regardless of that fact, I would have to agree with you that we are to rely on God and not our own understanding. And what has God communicated to us? One thing was that if an angel tells us to believe another gospel from that of the New Testament, he is accursed. Therefore, if an angel says, "here is a different gospel from the one you are used to hearing (in Protestant churches)," wouldn't it make sense to at least take a moment to reflect on which one is the New Testament one and which one is "another gospel"?

The problem when making a comment like this is that you are coming from a specific viewpoint or religious interpretation. Of course it make sense to do that. but what is the 'other Gospel'? 'your' interpretation or 'mine'? How would you know? study, pray and evaluate.

it comes across that you assume that I haven't taken the time to analyse my beliefs, to compare and evaluate. I have, Honest. :)

Perhaps the Protestanst such as myself have got the different one so I too need to examine. A different example might be as follows. Suppose there is something at the store that I really want but cannot at present afford. What am I to do in such a situation? I know that the Bible teaches "Thou shalt not steal." Do I pray, earnestly desiring to know God's will, whether I should steal the thing or not? God has already said, "thou shalt not steal," so there is nothing to pray about. Imagine that I am open to further revelation beyond just the Bible. I pray, sincerely desiring to hear the true revelation of God. I say, "God, please tell me if you want me to steal this thing." I then get a burning in the bosom. Well that settles it, I am to steal. How is what you are telling me any different from this?

Trialing your faith is requested of you, breaking the commandments is not. Seeking truth is a responsibility.

You are not asking God if you can break his Law by searching for truth. this analogy is inaccurate too.

It assumes that what you are investigating is already wrong, and that you are asking God to confirm truth in something that is false. in relation to investgating the gospel it would show that that person would either know completely and utterly that it is against the word of God, or they are investigating with a preconcieved outcome already decided.

You have asked about biblical evidence.

Sorry it was rhetorical. Don't worry. I believe the Bible is the word of God. There was another thread on here I think started by snow or traveller with regards to Jericho. I could find it but if someone would like to post the link to it........ :). I was more trying to push the point that if major events of the bible were scientifically refuted, would you still have faith in Christ? If a testimony was determined on the 'evidences' of the bible and those 'evidences' were refuted, would the testimony still stand?

would the faith of that believer endure? this is what I mean, that there is a higher realization of truth that does not come from our own understanding, that see's us through the storms. Were it not so we would get 'tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine'. This would also apply to the BOM as well.

Maybe your friends are on to something? In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word is established?

Ha, I like you, You're funny

Jesus never asks us to give up the truth to embrace something different.

completely agree there

For example, as I read the Bible I see that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

'As you read the bible'.......see, we just read interpret it differently. I'm more inclined to follow the example that Jesus himself showed us.

The main issue with your argument is, at what point does the grace save? you may say at the change of heart is the acceptance of grace. we may say otherwise. There is a point that we must choose to accept Christs offer. For us it is at baptism that the covenant or committment is made. We exercise our agency to be saved. If we did not, we would have no choice in the matter, and that was the plan of the adversary. Yes Grace saves and we cannot save ourselves, but we can choose to accept or reject.

[Connie]

But after thinking long and hard about the question, it has become plain to me that baptism is after salvation, not necessary to produce it. Apparently, on your view, this is a misinterpretation. But it is based on the Bible itself and a result of much consideration. Again, Christians need to get baptised. But it, baptism, is for the already Christian, not for the about-to-become Christian. That is, that is how I understand the issue.

quote from evangelical

I'd just like to say that we believe that baptism by immersion by one who has authority is the gate that a person enters to make a covenant with God after having faith, and repenting, and then, qualifying to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hand by one who has authority.

quote from PapilioMemnon

Is it possible that the same thing is being said here?? Maybe it would be a good idea to define the word "salvation" as we see it. I think we all need to be less argumentative here.

I have known some really great evangelicals that i greatly admire for walking up to the light and truth they have in their life and who are better at it than a lot of LDS people i know.

And, by the way, i have a sister who has decided to join the Catholic church. I have not rejected her for that decision. I maintain that i would rather see her a good Catholic than a less-than-good Latter-Day Saint.

[MrNirom]

I maintain that i would rather see her a good Catholic than a less-than-good Latter-Day Saint.

I would too. The less she knows... the less she will be held accountable for.

[brother01]

I am not sure if this is the best place to post this. Anywho, as an evangelical Christian I am in complete agreement, more or less, with all of the many other evangelical denominations. We all agree on the essentials (as defined by us). The Trinity, salvation by grace alone, infallibility of the Bible, etc. There are some relatively minor disagreements on non-essential issues, however. But, between evangelicalism and Mormonism there seems to be very vast differences of doctrine. Polytheism, baptismal regeneration, plain and precious truths removed from the Bible, etc. What am I to make of these differences? The traditional response, within evangelical circles, has been to reject Mormon doctrine as unbiblical. However, Mormon people that I have talked to have vigorously maintained that their beliefs are biblical (perhaps even more biblical than evangelicals' beliefs). So then, whence arises the vast dissimilarity between Mormons and all other Christian groups?

My web site about the teachings of Jesus Christ is the conclusion of my thoughts on the things that divide between Evangelicals and Mormons and every other Christian for that matter. Listed above as necessary are 'Trinity, salvation by grace alone, infallibility of the Bible, and the all too used 'etc.' This is as opposed to 'Polytheism, baptismal regeneration, plain and precious truths' etc.' Dang those 'etc.':-)

Jesus said we will be judged by the words He gave, which He said had been received by the disciples, which He said those who abide in them will be glorified with Him and one with Him as He is one with God the Father. Yet, by His teaching, the very words from God, not His own doctrine, we cannot find some things of the Evangelicals and some things of the Mormons. In fact I have never found a Church that takes the great commission to heart so much as to say their doctrine is to believe and do whatsoever Jesus taught!

I'm still looking though, and hoping:-)

One Disciple to Another

[evangelical]

But after thinking long and hard about the question, it has become plain to me that baptism is after salvation, not necessary to produce it. Apparently, on your view, this is a misinterpretation. But it is based on the Bible itself and a result of much consideration. Again, Christians need to get baptised. But it, baptism, is for the already Christian, not for the about-to-become Christian. That is, that is how I understand the issue.

quote from evangelical

I'd just like to say that we believe that baptism by immersion by one who has authority is the gate that a person enters to make a covenant with God after having faith, and repenting, and then, qualifying to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hand by one who has authority.

quote from PapilioMemnon

Is it possible that the same thing is being said here?? Maybe it would be a good idea to define the word "salvation" as we see it. I think we all need to be less argumentative here.

I have known some really great evangelicals that i greatly admire for walking up to the light and truth they have in their life and who are better at it than a lot of LDS people i know.

And, by the way, i have a sister who has decided to join the Catholic church. I have not rejected her for that decision. I maintain that i would rather see her a good Catholic than a less-than-good Latter-Day Saint.

Sorry for the ridiculously long time between posts.

My own definition of salvation might go something like the following:

1. Humankind having both a sin nature, and hence personal acts of sin, are estranged from the one and only, triune, holy, unchanging, eternal God.

2. God is very loving and so does not want us to experience eternal Hell (i.e. the natural and ultimate consequence of our sin). But He is also very just and our sin deserves punishment.

3. The cost of our sin is too great for us to pay ourselves. In fact, we can do nothing at any time to merit reconciliation with the one and only God. That would be, of course, contrary to the whole notion of biblical grace. It is "a free gift" and "not of works lest any man should boast". Rather, by very definition, grace is unearned "else it be not of grace but of works".

4. The first Person of the Trinity sent the second Person of the Trinity to be our substitute. Only God Himself, or Jehovah, or Yaweh, or Elohim, or Jesus Christ (whatever name you wish to use) could pay such an extreme debt. Again, we are impotent in contributing to this in any way at the beginning of our life as a biblical Christian but also throughout our Christian lives.

5. This Jesus came and lived a sinless life as a human being, without giving up His deity. He then died on a cross in our stead.

5. The first Person of the Trinity poured out His just wrath on Christ at that time. It is not that Christ sinned. Rather, He was punished for our sin.

6. In similar fashion, the sinlessness of Christ (or His holiness or righteousness) is laid upon us when we believe in what He did for us on the cross and begin to follow Him. This following is a lifelong act as oppossed to merely a one-time thing. Of course, if we are truly following Jesus, we are not simultaneously sinning.

7. When we become sinless in God's eyes (though probably not in our actions, immediately, if ever in this life) the relationship with God is restored. All of our sins-past, present, and future-are erased from the memory of God, in a manner of speaking. We begin the process of total deliverance from sin, as well, at this time.

8. At whatever time we die, we go to Heaven (or the New Earth or whatever) to live with our Saviour for all eternity.

This is the biblical view of salvation, as I read the Bible, at least.

Now, I do not think that we are saying the same thing at all, though, of course, there are certain similarities. According to the Book of Mormon, as I understand it, I belong, quite frankly, to the Church of the Devil. I believe the doctrines and commandments of men, as opposed to those of God (though, of course, I do perhaps get some of it right). I have removed plain and precious truths from the gospel. This is not 'anti-Mormon propaganda'. Rather, if the true gospel has been restored by Joseph Smith, as you believe, from the corruption of the great falling away, in which I am ensnared, then I am wrong and you are right. In other words, there is no possible way in which you as a Mormon and I as an Evangelical, can honestly say that we agree on the issue of salvation. I see no point in suger-coating things so that the impression is created that everybody believes exactly the same way, that there are no important doctrinal conflicts between various sects, and we all ought to hold hands and sing songs together while hugging a few trees. We can certainly be civil with one another. I even count you a friend (if internet associates may be called 'friends'). But, it seems to me that we really ought to honestly recognize where both of us stand. Again, I do not mean to drag you into a verbal fight or anger you. And you (and the other Mormons at lds.net and that I've met in person) have been very curteous to me in spite of my heretical views. I thank you for it. But neither of us is really going to learn anything, I think, if we pass out flowers and sing Kum-Ba-Yah.

But let us return, after brief digression, to my view of salvation (your view comes in your subsequent post?). As I say, it is based on the Bible. Nowhere do we find the exact formulation in the Bible of what I have written above. But that does not mean that it is a mere teaching of men. It is taught in the Bible by necessary implication. The above 8 points may be summarized under 3 headings which find support spread throughout the Bible as a whole. Those three points are a. Trinity, b. Incarnation, and c. sola gratia. Romans and Galatians nicely establish the doctrine of grace alone and/or faith alone. Other books brought in to supplement this like James (Faith without works is dead.) or Acts (If you believe and are baptised for the remission of sins, you shall be saved.) have other, and I would say more plausible, interpretations than those given to them by Mormons denying point c above. I'll leave that issue aside for now but we may return to it later if you so wish. I think that I am right in saying that you more or less agree with some sort of incarnation (b) but deny that Jesus is ''part'' of a Trinity. If God really is a Trinity (which you deny, I grant) then the God that saves is a Trinity. If that is the case, then the God we go to for salvation is a Trinitarian God. In other words, if we want to be saved, on my view, we basically must believe in the Trinity.

So the doctrine of the Trinity is very important with respect to my understanding of the atonement. Why suppose there is a Trinity? I answer that because the Bible itself teaches as much, though not explicitly in any one verse. While it is all too common for a proffessing believer in the doctrine of the Trinity to misunderstand it, I do not think I have ever heard someone who disbelieves in the doctrine, give an accurate explanation of it. I do not say this to insult you or brag about how smart I like to think I am. No. The point is simply that the doctrine is complex and ought to be clearly explicated before one, I suppose, accepts or rejects it. I want us to get our definition straight at the outset, in other words.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the teaching that there is only one God, and that one God exists as three co-equal Persons.

Even amongst Trinitarians, there are two common mistakes. Sometimes a person shall say that God is like a man in a sense. Namely, a man can be a father, a son, and a husband. Three in one or trinity. That is not a trinity. That is a single man (among many others) who is a single person. This is the very thing the doctrine is trying to deny. Another mistaken view of the Trinity is that since Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, there are three Gods. This is the other thing the Trinity doctrine is denying. Three Gods is not "only one God".

The Bible teaches from beginning to end, it seems, that there is only one God. Not only one God for us but other gods on other planets or more gods comming in the future. Only one God without qualification. Precisely one God throughout all of time. One verse is in Isaiah. Thus sayeth the Lord, before me there was no God formed and after me there shall be none. Furthermore, it teaches that the Father is God. This is beyond dispute. Jesus claimed to be God implicitly. For example, when He said, "before Abraham was born, I AM (or YHWH). The Jewish leaders got the "pun" and where going to stone Him for blasphemy. Besides, I think you can agree that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each God. So then, there is one God only, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God. They are certainly not the selfsame Person. Jesus prayed to the Father, for example, and spoke of sending another comforter. Take all of this paragraph together and you have the doctrine of the Trinity.

Note that we have not appealed to Gnosticism or Greek philosophy or Pagan mythology. Only the Bible. As a Mormon, perhaps you shall find a different interpretation for the passages I take to mean that there is only one God. But that is surely a plausible interpretation of the verse, barring prophetic authority from a living prophet, don't you agree? I am really hoping that you will see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical doctrine (though perhaps based on misinterpretation). That is the main point. The second main point is that you understand precisely what is, and what is not, meant by 'Trinity'. You need not believe that God is that way, but I hope you understand, now, if you did not before, how I understand God.

And as I said, this is crucial (no pun intended) for my understanding, as an evangelical, of 'salvation'.

[jimuk]

I would like to ask something about this " Grace alone " i know to most it is a simplistic type of question, but i am a simple human being.

Right if man is saved by Grace alone, then what is the day of judgment for.

And then would Jesus again be answerable for our sins. (Just a thought that popped into my head.)