71 comments

1. When I went to primary school at 5 I was persecuted for my preaching of Jesus Christ. Even those who went along to church and professed a belief in him denied him before others. I have had mock crucifixions and been threatened with death if I wouldn’t deny him. So I understand persecution. And I empathise with those LDS who come from Utah and have heard the horrors of the past persecutions by those professing belief in Christ. However I still stand for the truth boldly as I have in the past. I must speak those things that I know to be true.

   I totally agree with you Todd that our religions are absolutely nothing alike. Your god and ours are almost extreme opposites. Yours only needs(?) to make sense to himself, for starters. The list of differences is endless.

   But on the other hand modern Protestantism is on this run of “as long as you believe in Christ”. So from their perspective we are right there. This is one area that I have long felt is so silly in the arguments against us. If Protestantism accepts each sect as being correct in spite of the differences, why not us? – remember if answering this that many Protestant Baptists churches DON’T believe in the trinity.

2. I will take you at your word that you truly do desire the seven things you list in your first paragraph. To that end, I observe that in the semiannual gatherings of an informal group of Evangelical and LDS scholars, slightly fluctuating in terms of who participates but with several of us who have been in since the beginning, there is no topic or doctrinal passion that is off limits and there has been no lack of evangelistic conversation on both sides. Second, I don’t quite understand the list of underlined names, but I can assure you that Paul White, Bill McKeever, Aaron Shafovaloff, James White, John MacArthur, Nathan Busenitz, and Steven St. Clair have not participated in our conversations. Several of these names I don’t even recognize. But James White and Bill McKeever have actually been very harsh critics of our meetings and, while John MacArthur did once meet Greg Johnson and Bob Millet when they came to Grace Community Church, he made it very clear his disagreement with the LDS. Third, the only things Craig Hazen or any other evangelical in the group have to keep quiet publicly are those things certain LDS individuals have asked us not to make public for their sake, but to let them disclose in their circles in their time. If you really are concerned for truth, light, love and humility you will say a lot less about things you are not in a position to have accurate knowledge of and make far fewer assumptions about what is going on.

3. Craig, I don’t think he was trying to formally affiliate the names in the list with each other (for instance, knowing something of Aaron Shavofalov’s ministry I really doubt he has too much affiliation with the sort of dialogue you’ve been conducting or that he even shares any similarities at all with your approach). I think Todd was simply listing individuals in the intermountain region who have shown a general interest in tackling the Mormon-Evangelical divide – whatever their approach.

4. Todd, I was also quite confused by the names listed. Then I realized that these aren’t names of people who are engaging in conversations between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals, these are people that you perceive are involved in a larger “debate” over the legitimacy of the Mormon/Evangelical dialogue, with those you perceive to be for dialogue on the one hand (I believe you got most of these names from the list of presenters at the National Student Dialogue Conference in 2007), and then a list of names of people who you perceive to be against the dialogue on the other hand.

   However, I think it bears mentioning that it is often unclear exactly whether these criticisms are accurate. Much of the disagreement, I am convinced, is as a result of misunderstanding and misconceptions about the intentions of those involved.

   I personally haven’t been involved in these specific meetings, as discussed above, although I read what these authors have written, and listen to audio where its been made available. I have only recently become acquainted with some of these individuals through my blog, and it’s been wonderful to meet others who are interested in these topics. Like many others, I have followed these developments with interest because of my own background. After having conversations and discussions with friends of different faiths I wanted to better understand my friends and I also hoped to find the best ways to convey my own perspectives which didn’t just make sense to me, and didn’t just sound winsome to me, but which were actually effective and which would make sense to those with whom I was speaking, not for the purpose of vanquishing my opponent in a war of words, but for the purpose of better understanding my friend and having them better understand me. Much of this has been learned by trial and error and evaluating what actually works. To that end, I would encourage you to consider adding an 8th element to your list, especially as it relates to communication with others: (8) communication that is effective.

5. Todd: I think this is the least charitable thing I have seen from you and there is no heart in it; it is full of head.

6. Craig, I am not assuming that you necessarily believe statements that I hear from other evangelicals about emergent, missional dialogue and worship and mormonism. Of course, when you are more vocal and open about your opinion on troublesome issues, I think this alleviates false assumptions. It would certainly help me.

   As I am not going to just stay out of the picture here in the LDS I-15 corridor, let me say this – I sincerely don’t want to misrepresent you (just as surely I would think that Bill McKeever would not want you to falsely misjudge his heart motives).

   Aquinas, Are you trying to get me to purchase the book, How To Win and Influence People? 🙂

   Blake, I wouldn’t say that. My heart (mind, will, emotions) are completely wrapped up in this evangelical/LDS heart issue. You reject my God because He displays sovereign wrath. The accusation – the heart issue – goes beyond me. You accuse my Yahweh of not being charitable.

   So you seek to place me between a rock and hard spot? Am I uncharitable every time that I follow the course of bringing up scriptural phrases that are neither authentic, authoritative, nor agape to you about God and his holy jealousy in the Bible?

   As long as you are alive, Blake, there is hope for you to embrace my God. So as an insignificant nobody in S.E. Idaho, I will continue to evangelistically pursue your heart and other LDS friends.

   I would love to see you turn the whole corridor upside down for the glory of God.

7. Todd: My friend, I am not accusing either Yahweh or “your god” of anything. It is you that I charge with lack of charity. It is uncharacteristic of you because you are generally a good hearted man whom I love. It is you who I call to account — not God. This post is uncharitable and unworthy of you.

   Further, you have crossed a line that no human ought to approach. Who are you to judge me as if you are God? I have embraced God with all my heart — however humanly and failingly. I will leave it to God to judge between thee and me.

8. “But James White and Bill McKeever have actually been very harsh critics of our meetings… If you really are concerned for truth, light, love and humility you will say a lot less about things you are not in a position to have accurate knowledge of and make far fewer assumptions about what is going on.”

   Craig, ironically, it sounds like you need to have a dialog with Bill so that you don’t publicly misrepresent him like you just did. His office phone is:

   (801) 572-2153

   And his e-mail is:

   bill@mrm.org

   I have never heard Bill McKeever speak ill of the private dialogs between evangelical and Mormon scholars. His criticism has been directed toward the public interactions between Robert Millet and Greg Johnson, especially those held in Christian churches.

9. knowing something of Aaron Shavofalov’s ministry I really doubt he has too much affiliation with the sort of dialogue you’ve been conducting or that he even shares any similarities at all with your approach

   No, I’m not locked in an ivory tower having dialogs with Mormons academics 🙂

   I wouldn’t consider myself being a part of the world of academia to begin with. I’m called by God to speak to more of the common Mormon (who can often hardly be compared to Robert Millet or Blake Ostler). I think it’d be arrogant to project academic standards of irenicism on everyone else. The dialogs I am regularly engaged in range from passive and irenic to passionate and polemical. There’s a time and a place for all of that.

   It would be unfair and misrepresentative to characterize the countercult community as anti-dialog. What we’re against is a certain kind of dialog, the kind that “neutralizes” the Christian community from saying the hard, “piercing” things. The kind that shackles the Christian and demands that eternally significant, penetrating truths only be communicated after a friend of trust is well established. Not being constrained or chained by one particular group’s standard of academic irenicism allows us to interact with people in all sorts of ways, tailored to personality and context. We have a freedom to engage what our neighbors actually believe (and what they say they are willing to believe), rather than some abstract, impersonal standard of what one group thinks is “official” Mormon doctrine.

   We’re so busily engaged in dialog with Latter-day Saints that it comes as a surprise that we are accused of opposing dialog. It just sounds like one group is trying to take ownership of that term and narrow it.

10. A question Aaron.

    Do you think that the hearts and beliefs of the “man on the street” are the only valid or useful way to measure a religion?

    And how does your religion stack up in that regard?

11. I was a little confused by your post on the topic of LDS-Evangelical Dialogue and your take on its participants. The comments of Aquinas helped me sort this out and provide a more careful interpretation of your post.

    When we refer this dialogue I think we need to be careful to recognize the breadth of it, that it is taking place in academic and more popular forms, and share any positive and negative concerns that are directed at a specific form of it. I assume by your post that most of the concern you state about “interfaith dialogue” (which is not a term used by those involved in many forms of this particular context), that you are primarily referring to academic and student dialogues involving those in some way connected to Standing Together. But regardless, I think we need to more carefully articulate the various strands of the dialogue and those things related to it, such as your concern over prayer and worship together. While these elements are worth of careful reflection, they should not dismiss the appropriateness of these dialogue efforts in totality.

    On the part of those involved in the dialogue I am still calling for a public definition of the dialogue process, and a set of “ground rules” as to what the dialogue is about. For the critics, I’d like hear how their concerns fit in with accepted forms of interreligious dialogue between Christianity and various world religions, and how they see dialogue as appropriate in some ways in the LDS context. I’m hearing a lot of critique, but not a whole lot of balanced and holistic reflection.

    My two cents. Thanks for the post.

12. Do you think that the hearts and beliefs of the “man on the street” are the only valid or useful way to measure a religion?

    No, but a holistic approach will necessarily take into account the general beliefs of the actual people. I have an article forthcoming on this issue.

    To make it clear, “measuring a religion” or an institution as a whole isn’t our highest goal. Our goal is to engage individuals with the truth of Jesus Christ and his gospel, and to prepare others to do the same. When most of the common Mormons we engage on a regular basis are out of touch with BYU neo-orthodoxy and Milletian rhetoric, it is hardly compelling to get on the bandwagon of viewing Mormonism through Robinsonian/Milletian rosy glasses.

    Grace and peace,

    Aaron

13. Hi John,

    On the part of those involved in the dialogue I am still calling for a public definition of the dialogue process, and a set of “ground rules” as to what the dialogue is about.

    Though I fail miserably at times, I need to bow my heart to any and all ground rules that God sets forth in Scripture.

    Yet when it comes to a broad, broad ‘dialogue’ umbrella with other religious movements, how would the ancient prophet Isaiah communicate at times? Satire? Sarcasm? Stinging rebuke? Preaching? Weeping? All of the above in different seasons?

14. Aaron, I’ve never objected to the idea of a “working-man’s ministry.” It actually seems like a sensible enough idea given the stated goals of conversion to Christ, etc. What I do object to is when this approach is then taken to apply to the entire religion as a whole.

    I don’t mind that you want to claim that the average Mormon on the streets believes X, Y, and Z. But I do mind when it is insisted that this be what the religion is defined as – even to the exclusion of other authoritative sources.

    Are you the type of person who would walk up to the prophet Elijah and say – “just look at what your people are doing! Judaism* is an idolatrous religion!” Is that fair to ancient Israel? Well, it might be a fair description of ACTUAL Israelites living at the time. But it’s not a good indicator of the religion itself since the idolatry then was due to a pretty rough spot Israel was going through.

    Or do you approach the Southern Baptist Convention and accuse them of being tri-theists, simply because that’s what the “Baptist on the street” actually believes? My grandmother – a lifelong Methodist – thinks that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and both have bodies. And she isn’t alone. Is it fair of me to hold Methodism to that standard and claim they are tri-theistic with an embodied God?

    I don’t object to your assertions that Mormons on the street believe certain things, or in your speaking out against them. Take the idea of Christ’s grace for example. I’d probably agree with you (to a point) that grace is not enough emphasized in church. I’d even welcome you calling the Utah Mormon population to the mat on the issue. It would likely be of some benefit to the community.

    But the problem is that, as far as I’ve seen, you don’t stop there. You don’t leave it at the lay membership level. Or, in the case of church manuals, you don’t leave it at the level of church bureaucracy. You take these flaws and deficiencies in the religion and try to weave them into a broader narrative of why the Mormon religion IN ITS ENTIRETY is a false and misguided religion. Then whenever someone tries to point out elements within the religion that call into question that narrative you’ve crafted, you accuse them of being irrelevant or out of touch with what Mormonism really is (correct me if I’m wrong).

    But Aaron, this simply won’t do. If your goal is ONLY to minister to lay Mormons and confront common errors in your community, your approach works. But when you try to refute Mormonism itself, it completely falls apart.

    No cop-outs here Aaron. If you want to start making the case for why Mormonism is a false religion (not a false tradition, not a false people – a false RELIGION) you need to engage and refute its strongest arguments. You cannot simply pick its weakest elements and then claim easy victory.

    So quote the Journal of Discourses till you’re blue in the face. Point to heresies in the population if you wish. Pull out all the anecdotes you want. De-construct the latest teaching manual. It is not enough to obtain the sort of narrative I’ve seen you working at. It is not enough to discredit a religion – any religion.

    In short, keep to your own turf, and I’ve got no beef with you. Wander outside of it, and I think people are quite right to claim that you’re being sneaky.

    * I think Elijah was actually Northern Israel – so “Judaism” is probably the wrong word.

15. That said Aaron, it’s entirely possible that I have misrepresented what you are doing. Perhaps your goal is, indeed, more of an immediate and practical ministry and not a broader theological refutation of a competing faith. But that is not the impression I’ve gotten from your blog.

16. I’m wondering why I happen to be the first name that came to mind in that list of yours. I hardly deserve that kind of recognition. =)

    Also, I become highly agitated when our conversation and feelings for one another become a more sacred pursuement than the true worship of the one and only God.

    I agree with you there and I find it a delicate line to walk at times and one in which I don’t wish to cross over.

17. In summary, I would put the engagement of both individual and institutional Mormonism within the scope of our work.

    But I do mind when it is insisted that this be what the religion is defined as – even to the exclusion of other authoritative sources.

    Fair enough, but as my forthcoming article will outline, these issues are not simple as some try to make them out to be. It would be a mistake to claim that Mormonism is only defined by a historical-grammatical reading of its canon, etc. If that were the case, “Mormonism” would be Trinitarian, modalistic, and tritheistic all at the same time.

    If you spend enough time with us, you will probably be thoroughly annoyed by the amount of modern authoritative references we appeal to. I heartily wish my more missionally liberal brothers in Christ (the Christ who created matter out of nothing), who see Mormonism through the rosy glasses of Milletian/Robinsonian rhetoric would regularly read all the Ensigns, read all seminary and institute manuals, read all the priesthood manuals, and read all the General Conference messages. They are correlated Salt-Lake-smelling-salts for those drunk off the misleading rhetoric of Provo’s neo-orthodoxy.

    Well, it might be a fair description of ACTUAL Israelites living at the time. But it’s not a good indicator of the religion itself since the idolatry then was due to a pretty rough spot Israel was going through.

    The problems of idolatry and (often spiritually abusive) theologies of mercy-earning and eternal-life-meriting are not merely present at the “bottom” of Mormonism. They are problems that are institutionally fostered and perpetuated.

    My grandmother – a lifelong Methodist – thinks that the Father and the Son are two separate beings and both have bodies.

    I’m sure that people like this exist in every religion, but the kinds of problems I mostly run into with Mormons are that they are either A) believing something their institution has explicitly or implicitly promoted or B) believing something their religion finds tolerable with the scope of acceptable beliefs. Hence, it is not merely an individual problem, but an institutional problem.

    I’d probably agree with you (to a point) that grace is not enough emphasized in church.

    As long as you see this problem as something that can be solved with a kind of new “emphasis”, I won’t be convinced that you understand the gravity of the soul-destroying doctrines involved. What we are calling for is not a mere change in emphasis, but a fundamental shift away from the Mormon worldview to an evangelical worldview where eternal life and justification are immediately and permanently received by faith apart from works or meriting or earning or worthiness (even that which is brought about by gracious assistance). This involves shifts in one’s view of the nature of God, the purpose of life, and the afterlife. All of these worldview-components are woven together and give not only flavor, but substance and content and meaning to “grace”.

    You take these flaws and deficiencies in the religion and try to weave them into a broader narrative of why the Mormon religion IN ITS ENTIRETY is a false and misguided religion. Then whenever someone tries to point out elements within the religion that call into question that narrative you’ve crafted, you accuse them of being irrelevant or out of touch with what Mormonism really is (correct me if I’m wrong).

    You’ll have to be more specific. Too vague so far.

    So quote the Journal of Discourses till you’re blue in the face

    Much of what makes my face turn alarming colors comes from modern, correlated church publications and recent General Conference talks that influence millions of people.

    I’m not about to characterize modern Mormonism as teaching and believing Adam-God, but last time I checked, religions weren’t excused from having false prophets who have said outrageously heretical things at events like General Conference, no matter how old the statements are. When Jesus said of true and false prophets, “you shall know them by their fruits”, he implicitly called people to examine the history of any religion which claims a chronological succession of ordained authority. When I examine the fruits of Mormon leaders, that should involve an examination of the old “chestnuts” that Mormonism wishes would be forgotten. And those things frequently have a positive effect on drawing people out of Mormonism into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ (the one who created all worlds and all universes and all dominions and all realities).

    Point to heresies in the population if you wish.

    As FAIR apologist Craig Ray told me yesterday at Temple Square, there simply is no true concept of heresy within Mormonism. Any “heresies” you are thinking of aren’t usually functionally treated as heresies by Mormonism to begin with (such as the belief that God the Father was possibly a heinous sinner in the past).

    Seth, it sounds like you need to increase your view of the scope of institutional responsibility and accountability. 95% of what heresy (using the term coming a Biblical, evangelical worldview) the common Mormon believes has been fostered by the historic and modern leadership of the church. That the LDS institution does not take a more pro-active role weeding out false beliefs makes it morally culpable in the sight of God for all this mess.

    If a historic Mormon understanding is false, it morally behooves the Mormon Church to explicitly and unequivocally correct it, and forthrightly denounce the statements of past leaders who have promoted such things. Otherwise, there is a lack of integrity in the institution and a perpetuation of confusion among Mormon members. And God is keeping tabs of all this. Unless your leaders repent, they will face judgment for this.

    Grace and peace,

    Aaron

18. re # 7, like preaching to Mormon teenagers at the Manti temple pageant? Sure, it’s a good way to leverage a natural rebellious instinct against one’s parents that is common among teenagers but whether it is an honest approach is another question entirely.

19. I meant to refer to Aaron’s comment # 9, not Blake’s comment # 7.

20. re # 17, What we are calling for is not a mere change in emphasis, but a fundamental shift away from the Mormon worldview to an evangelical worldview where eternal life and justification are immediately and permanently received by faith apart from works or meriting or earning or worthiness (even that which is brought about by gracious assistance).

    But that’s not Biblical. Why are you trying to persuade people to convert to un-Biblical principles?

21. re # 17, When I examine the fruits of Mormon leaders, that should involve an examination of the old “chestnuts” that Mormonism wishes would be forgotten.

    How could fruits matter to you? It doesn’t matter that Jesus talked about fruits in the New Testament (fruits, by the way, are very important to Mormons) considering that you import Calvinist heresies that are nowhere to be found in the Bible into the biblical text.

    Remember, under your worldview, “eternal life and justification are immediately and permanently received by faith apart from works”, thus rendering any discussion of fruits irrelevant and even heretical, as you judge Mormons.

    Of course, you often omit from these discussions the fact that you believe that eternal life and justification actually are not received by faith either, since God predestines who will be saved or not before they are even born, meaning also that God has already chosen who will be damned before they are even born. Thus, one person’s choice of faith is irrelevant in this view because God chooses and not the individual. And, if there is even one soul in hell, it is because God chose it to be there and wanted it that way. Naturally, this is nowhere to be found in the Bible and is, actually, damnable heresy.

    I would refer here to discussions at Mormon Coffee except that any comments reflecting negatively on your Calvinism were deleted from those discussions under the disingenuous pretext that they were not in issue.

22. John F,

    You have so fundamentally misrepresented my theology in multiple ways that I’m not sure where to start. In summary I would argue that the only valid fruits that please God come from a heart permanently forgiven by faith apart from works and assured of eternal life. As for predestination and the role of human decisions, I would challenge you to study the basic concept of monergism, which instead of rendering faith irrelevant, renders faith certain.

    I’d invite you to check out some articles at Theopedia:

    http://www.theopedia.com/Lordship_salvation

    http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism (booooo)

    http://www.theopedia.com/Calvinism

    http://www.theopedia.com/Monergism

    … as well as this article from a preacher I revere:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

    As for discussion of Calvinism on Mormon Coffee, no, we don’t give you the freedom to hijack threads onto the topic of Calvinism. Obviously you’re still bitter about this? If you want to discuss anything like that, feel free to Skype me at “aaronshaf”. I don’t use MRM venues to explicitly promote theology like that, as we more broadly represent evangelicalism and work with both Calvinistic and Arminian Christians.

    Grace and peace,

    Aaron

23. #16 – (laughing) I was wondering what you would be thinking about my name order, Tim.

    Really, there is not much of any logic to the arrangement.

    In the world of internet, I first met Blake. Several months after, I met you.

    https://heartissuesforlds.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/gordon-b-hinckley-on-fundamentalism/

    Aaron, I do tend to think that S.E. Idaho LDS farmers swing and lean a little closer to traditional Mormonism than the citizens of upswing Utah. And perhaps some of Idaho’s closed conservatives are not altogether trusting of Utah’s seeking/speculative scholars. I think these observations should have weight when an evangelical scholar-in-dialogue proposes to the public their own ideas of what LDS in general believe.

    John f. – If any opened up to me, would I converse aggressively with an older teenager about God and the gospel? You bet. And if a friend converted to biblical, traditional Christianity, may he or she be the most loving and obedient example to those LDS parents.

    Would I seek to strike up spiritual conversations with pre-teens and children? Not without their LDS parents permission. As expressed in scripture, I think there should be displayed an active respect for parental authority.

    Would I seek to win over LDS single mothers and LDS elderly to the Christ of historical Christianity? Absolutely. Christ, not my church, is the ultimate satisfaction. And I would encourage them to let their bishops join in on the discussion, if it continued. (And of course, I would appreciate LDS bishops and young elders talking to the elderly and single mothers in my church family to invite me along for their initiated chatting.)

    Guess what? Two eager missionary elders just knocked on my parent’s door this weekend, encouraging them to listen to the Conference.

    I believe there was a short, kind conversation; and my dad gave them my http://www.heartissuesforlds.org business card.

    I don’t ban anyone in my church from watching Conference, but I wonder if this website is banned from LDS missionary perusal in S.E. Idaho.

    thinking of heart issues . . .

24. I think any LDS bishop or stake president that would ban this website is clearly overreaching. I think the appropriate quote would be from Joseph: “I teach them correct principles and allow them to govern themselves.”

25. “It would be a mistake to claim that Mormonism is only defined by a historical-grammatical reading of its canon, etc.”

    Would it be a mistake to define your faith only by a historical-grammatical reading of your cannon?

    “The problems of idolatry and (often spiritually abusive) theologies of mercy-earning and eternal-life-meriting are not merely present at the “bottom” of Mormonism. They are problems that are institutionally fostered and perpetuated.”

    A flat-out misstatement of Mormon doctrine in ANY age of LDS history. Mormon doctrine has always asserted that eternal life and mercy are free gifts to all regardless of merit. In fact, we’re actually a tad more generous with Christ’s gifts than you are, since we don’t require a person to even confess or believe in Christ to gain this wonderful free gift from our Savior.

    “the kinds of problems I mostly run into with Mormons are that they are either A) believing something their institution has explicitly or implicitly promoted”

    Whereas Protestant problems are never institutional?

    “or B) believing something their religion finds tolerable with the scope of acceptable beliefs.”

    Yup, we tend to be pretty open-minded that way. The idea of damning someone simply for sincerely believing an incorrect doctrine is your own happy little innovation.

    “I won’t be convinced that you understand the gravity of the soul-destroying doctrines involved.”

    You’re right, simply because they aren’t “soul-destroying doctrines.” In fact they happen to be doctrines the Savior himself preached – something that Evangelicals who seem unaware there are any books besides Romans in the New Testament have a hard time understanding.

    “What we are calling for is not a mere change in emphasis, but a fundamental shift away from the Mormon worldview to an evangelical worldview where eternal life and justification are immediately and permanently received by faith apart from works or meriting or earning or worthiness”

    Nice sentiment, but doctrinally we happen to already be there (as explained above).

    “You’ll have to be more specific. Too vague so far.”

    Aaron, I still have a really bad taste in my mouth from my brief stint at Mormon Coffee. I’d really rather not re-read it all to find you examples.

    “last time I checked, religions weren’t excused from having false prophets who have said outrageously heretical things at events like General Conference, no matter how old the statements are.”

    While I see this as problematic, I don’t see it as half as problematic as you seem to. Part of having living human prophets, means that your theology is going to be something of a work in progress. This is true of prophets in any dispensation. The reason you don’t see this, is that your religion has been busy polishing the coffins of dead prophets and no longer sees clearly what they are or what they mean. Instead of the true and living oracles of God, you have instead constructed a bunch of faith-promoting caricatures who no longer really resemble Abraham, Moses, or Peter.

    Ideas of innovation, trial-and-error, correction from the Lord – and from the Church, are all an integral part of what living prophets mean. Orthodoxy can often prove an anathema to a true and vibrant faith when it tries to crush the life out of prophesy, and stifle the ongoing dialogue and debate that God conducts with His children. Too often, orthodoxy leads to idolatry – when the church begins to worship its own pet doctrines more than the living God who still speaks openly.

    This religion is living and in-motion. That may look sloppy and messy to you. Perhaps a taxidermist also prefers his animals silent and posed rather than walking in the forest. I do not.

26. Todd wrote:

    “Though I fail miserably at times, I need to bow my heart to any and all ground rules that God sets forth in Scripture.

    Yet when it comes to a broad, broad ‘dialogue’ umbrella with other religious movements, how would the ancient prophet Isaiah communicate at times? Satire? Sarcasm? Stinging rebuke? Preaching? Weeping? All of the above in different seasons?”

    My call for a definition of dialogue refers to my workshop at the 2007 Student Dialogue Conference workshop where I suggested that the definition of interreligious dialogue presented by John Stott might serve as a good definition for a process that those involved in it seem to understand in one way, while its critics assume another, perhaps more apologetic definition.

    My reference to ground rules referred to my suggestion in the same workshop that perhaps something like a modified form of Leonard Swidler’s infamous “Dialogue Decalogue” might be helpful in laying down ground rules for those involved as well as participants.

    Of course Scripture should provide guidance for us, as should the history of Christian mission and interreligious dialogue. But I fear that much of our theolgy and accompanying assupetions that form the critique of this dialogue need to be revisited as we are treading on new ground. The church has dialogued with world religions but has little experience with the new religions. By all means let us use diverse approaches and aspects to dialogue, but let’s try to do so after fresh theological, cultural, and missiological reflection that challenges not only our dialogue partners, but us as well.

27. Furthermore Aaron, the idea that you’ve got Evangelicals on one side believing they are “saved by unearned grace” and Mormons on the other believing they “work their way into heaven” is a gross caricature of the positions of both camps.

    Evangelicals most certainly do believe in good works and Mormons most certainly do believe in unearned grace. If you care to see an example, “Pen and Parchment” has a post on the subject right now by the president of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries – C. Michael Patton. Here’s the link:

    http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/04/06/how-do-i-fit-rewards-into-my-grace-centered-theology-a-theology-of-rewards/

28. Sorry, accidentally hit “submit” before I could clean up the link. His thesis is that scriptures such as Matt 6:19-21; 1 Cor 3:12-15; Luke 19; and Rev 4:10 clearly show that works are to be rewarded. He outlines that salvation is free through Christ’s grace, but rewards in heaven actually are premised on good works. Basically, he makes a distinction between salvation and heavenly rewards. Not really incompatible with the LDS view of a layered heaven actually – though I doubt he’d go that far.

    In actuality, Mormonism is not far removed from how Protestants have viewed the grace vs. works divide for most of Protestant history. The focus on free grace to the exclusion of all other doctrinal concerns is, as far as I can tell, a very recent innovation of 20th century Protestantism. I doubt Luther or Calvin would really agree with modern Evangelicals’ take on free grace.

    In reality, I doubt Mormon views on grace are really all that far off the beaten path.

29. “”For example, some of our friends can’t see how our Atonement beliefs relate to our beliefs about becoming more like our Heavenly Father. Others mistakenly think our church is moving toward an understanding of the relationship between grace and works that draws on Protestant teachings. Such misconceptions prompt me to consider today the Restoration’s unique Atonement doctrine” (Bruce Hafen, “The Atonement: All for All,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2004, p.97).

    “Each of us has been sent to earth by our Heavenly Father to merit eternal life” – Robert D. Hales, “Personal Revelation: The Teachings and Examples of the Prophets”, October 2007 General Conference

    “The demands of justice for broken law can be satisfied through mercy, earned by your continual repentance and obedience to the laws of God…” – Richard G. Scott, “The Atonement Can Secure Your Peace and Happiness,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 40–42. From General Conference, October 2006.

    Seth, would you be willing to unequivocally denounce as heresy what Robert D. Hales and Richard G. Scott taught? You’re not going to find any respected evangelicals saying that we can earn mercy or merit eternal life.

30. Would it be a mistake to define your faith only by a historical-grammatical reading of your cannon?

    That’s a great question. The short answer would be “no”. If you want to summarize Christendom and its teachings, you should first look at what we are teaching, saying, and promoting. In other words, you should listen to what preachers are preaching, popular authors are writing, and what our Sunday school curriculum says. And then you should get a realistic grasp of what the common Christian actually believes and take that all holistically into account.

    Then you could look at a historical-grammatical reading of the Bible (which we seek to embrace) and analyze whether Christendom accords with it. Just because we say we base our religion off a historical-grammatical reading of the Bible doesn’t make it so.

    This same sort of thing goes with Mormonism, its extra-canonical literature, and then a historical-grammatical reading of its canon, but the distinction is even more important because traditionally in Mormonism members are taught that canonical interpretation is the province of the leaders of the church.

    A flat-out misstatement of Mormon doctrine in ANY age of LDS history. Mormon doctrine has always asserted that eternal life and mercy are free gifts to all regardless of merit.

    Well, take a look at the above quotes I have provided. Let me add some more quotes that I am calling you to unequivocally denounce as heresy:

    “Thus, brothers and sisters, along with the great and free gift of the universal and personal resurrection there is also the personal possibility of meriting eternal life.” – Neal A. Maxwell, “Apply the Atoning Blood of Christ” Ensign, Nov 1997, 22; message from October 1997 General Conference

    “They taught us the importance of being kind to one another, obeying the commandments, and how to receive a fulness of joy and merit eternal life. They have pleaded with us to live more Christlike lives, to emulate the Savior in all we do, and to qualify ourselves to be worthy of the saving and exalting blessings available only in the holy temples of the Lord.” – Robert D. Hales, Hear the Prophet’s Voice and Obey, Ensign, May 1995, p.15

    Of course, this kind of teaching isn’t new:

    “Immortality is assured to all of us through the atonement of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. But eternal life is a personal responsibility we must earn and be worthy of.” – Delbert L. Stapley, “The Path to Eternal Glory”, Ensign, July 1973, p.99

    If you have a true allegiance to the doctrine of receiving eternal life by faith as a gift apart from merit, worthiness, works (even those brought about by necessary gracious assistance), you will have the integrity to publicly denounce what your leaders have taught concerning the meriting of eternal life.

    While I see this as problematic, I don’t see it as half as problematic as you seem to. Part of having living human prophets, means that your theology is going to be something of a work in progress.

    There is simply no moral freedom for true prophets to publicly promote deadly, damnable heresy at an event like General Conference. People like that are false prophets, and becoming a Mormon for me would mean dramatically lowering the bar for prophets, something I’m not willing to do. So I will continue bringing up things like Adam-God, while you will unsuccessfully look for examples of Biblical prophets publicly promoting heresy at events which share the degree of importance of General Conference.

    Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the unearned, freely received gift of eternal life (apart from worthiness or even graciously assisted works) be upon you and upon your posterity,

    Aaron

31. “Seth, would you be willing to unequivocally denounce as heresy what Robert D. Hales and Richard G. Scott taught? You’re not going to find any respected evangelicals saying that we can earn mercy or merit eternal life.”

    Nope, because if you actually read the rest of the talks and looked at the rest of the messages about Christ during those general conferences, you’d find that the leadership most certainly is advocating salvation by the Atonement.

    First you’ve got semantical problems. Mormons and Evangelicals aren’t speaking the same language. Furthermore, Mormon leadership is not composed of trained theologians and they aren’t always as careful with their terminology as they could be.

    The problem is that too often Evangelicals take Mormon rhetoric regarding entrance into the Celestial Kingdom, and assume that we are talking about the same thing they are when they speak of “salvation.” Not so, the Evangelical view of “salvation” is actually closer to the Mormon view of the Terrestrial Kingdom.

    It is an emphatic and repeated doctrine of the LDS faith that the resurrection is universal. Period. End of story, regardless of merit. It is also an emphatic doctrine that everyone (except the Sons of Perdition, but let’s stay focused here) is going to a better place – again, regardless of merit.

    None of the statements you quote above challenge that position in the slightest.

    However, the Celestial Kingdom is premised on certain requirements. Namely, the sacred ordinances of the Gospel properly sought after and attained.

    Quit trying to conflate your view of heaven with the Celestial Kingdom. They really aren’t the same thing.

32. Of course Mormonism says the resurrection is universal and free (apart from even receiving it at all).

    But the leaders I quoted weren’t speaking of mere resurrection, they were speaking of going to be in the presence of God the Father, among other things.

    In this sense, Mormonism absolutely teaches that eternal life merited.

    If what your leaders have taught about earning mercy and meriting eternal life is true and good and worth promoting in a public setting, then you need to explain how. Otherwise, you’re just hedging.

33. *is merited, I meant

34. You’re stuff on mercy and merit deserves more thought, so I’ll get to it in a bit.

    “There is simply no moral freedom for true prophets to publicly promote deadly, damnable heresy at an event like General Conference.”

    I’m not even sure Brigham Young’s statements on Adam-God qualify as “damnable heresy” – even if he did proclaim them from a venue equivalent to General Conference – which I’m not entirely convinced of. Certainly, nothing in the more recent conferences even comes close to “damnable.” I think you’re just grandstanding on this one.

    But on the other hand, let’s look at your faith.

    Yes. It would be a mistake to define YOUR religion only by a “historical and grammatical reading of its canon.” Because a lot of what you’re pushing is not to be found in a historical-grammatical reading of the Bible. In fact, some of your most emphatically stated theological assertions are extra-biblical, coming instead from traditions, creeds, and current conventional wisdom. Neither are mainline Christian leaders always in line with the Bible as I see it. For example, I think the common Evangelical version of “the Rapture” is a fair piece of extra-biblical invention, and also a dangerous doctrine leading to all sorts of excesses among American Protestants. And we haven’t even gotten into Joel Osteen’s “prosperity gospel,” the “emerging church” and the subordination of Protestantism to the false religion of American culture. All things that are not only sins of the masses, but also sins of the clergy.

    Real big of you Aaron, to demand that Mormons be judged by more than their own canon, when you deny that your religion should be judged by the same criteria – in spite of the fact that your faith tradition has been making stuff up for the last 2000 years. If you want to judge Mormons by a certain standard, it’s only fair that you subject your own faith to the same standard of scrutiny.

35. I’m not even sure Brigham Young’s statements on Adam-God qualify as “damnable heresy” – even if he did proclaim them from a venue equivalent to General Conference – which I’m not entirely convinced of.

    He integrated the teaching at the Lecture at the Veil in the St. George Temple. The rabbit hole goes pretty deep on this one.

    Mormonism has a hierarchical system of ordained authority which it claims allegiance to. I can distance myself in heartbeat from the teachings of someone I think teaches heresy, but Mormonism puts you into a more precarious situation. My religion is a body of beliefs, Mormonism is more so an authoritative hierarchy.

    I equivocally denounce the teachings of Joel Osteen on the prosperity gospel and the teachings of Brian McLaren of the emergent church (concerning pluralism and homosexuality, etc). Are you willing to unequivocally denounce the teachings of your leaders on earning mercy and meriting eternal life?

36. Seth, perhaps you’ve already heard of it, but I’d recommend:

    Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, by Gary James Bergera

    It provides a lot of the context for the Adam-God controversy, among other things. Adam-God is by no means a few scattered quotes. The quoted primary evidence is in this book is overwhelming.

37. I can’t type… Tom, you might consider a WordPress plugin that allows a person to make corrections to their comment within a two-minute span after posting. 🙂

38. I meant “Todd”, of course… Haha

39. “I can distance myself in heartbeat from the teachings of someone I think teaches heresy, but Mormonism puts you into a more precarious situation. My religion is a body of beliefs, Mormonism is more so an authoritative hierarchy.”

    I’m well aware that Protestantism is organizationally dysfunctional. Makes it awfully convenient for people who want all the benefit of having a “Church” without any of the accountability that goes with being an actual “Church.”

    Much as you’d like to, you cannot distance yourself from these elements Aaron. You claim to belong to the true Church. You have taken that designation on yourself. That means, you get the baggage that goes with it. Are you a part of the Body of Christ or aren’t you? The hand doesn’t get to say to the foot “I have no need of thee.” Once upon a time, you guys decided that centralized authority wasn’t the way to go. You figured that “Church” ought to instead mean a loose confederation of the faithful.

    Now eat the consequences of that decision.

40. Makes it awfully convenient for people who want all the benefit of having a “Church” without any of the accountability that goes with being an actual “Church.”

    If my pastor taught that we could earn mercy or merit eternal life, he’d be removed that week if he was unwilling to recant.

    Does Mormonism hold its leaders accountable for teaching that mercy can be earned or that eternal life can be merited?

    It’s freeing not to be a part of a giant hierarchy, especially when I can freely denounce false teachings. My allegiance is to Christ, his word, and his body—but not to a giant human oligarchy.

41. Yes, yes. But you have almost zero control over anyone outside your little enclave. But by your own doctrine, they are a part of your “Church.” And you are unable to disown them. Your faith deliberately made the organizational choice that they be allowed to carry on as they wish.

    You are no more able to pass the buck on the “Thank God for dead soldiers” crowd by retreating to your own isolated congregation than I am able to abdicate my responsibilities as an American citizen simply by retreating to my basement. Protestant doctrine holds that these people are of the “Body of Christ.”

    Now own them. And own up to the fact that your institutional choices are responsible for their existence. The unwillingness to take responsibility for the ugly part of your Church reflects a lack of maturity as a member of a broader community.

    You think because you shopped-around for good pastor that you get off Scott-free on taking responsibility for skeletons in your closet? You think you get a free pass on taking pot-shots at religions who’ve actually attempted to be institutionally responsible for their Church? Maybe the LDS Church hasn’t always gotten it wrong. But at least we’re trying to own our history – however slowly.

    If you’re comments here are any indication, you haven’t even come close to attempting anything of the sort. Protestant history isn’t a Chuck O’ Rama, where you can pick the stuff you like, and pass over the stuff that isn’t so appetizing. Joel Osteen’s history IS your history. His Church is your Church. And no amount of irresponsible institutional smoke-and-mirrors changes that.

    You’re not passing the buck on this one. Those guys ARE your Church. It’s a part of the founding assumptions of the entire Protestant movement that those guys are a part of your Church.

    And keep that in mind while you chuck rocks at other peoples’ glass houses.

    Kay?

42. “Maybe the LDS Church hasn’t always gotten it right” I mean.

43. Actually, I probably shouldn’t say it’s part of the “foundations of the entire Protestant movement,” because that’s not really fair to the Anglicans.

44. Seth, it seems like you’re reading your Mormon worldview of “church” and “organization” into my evangelical worldview. Perhaps reading a book on the general evangelical views of church government would help. We are not a giant oligarchy but a loose network of local congregations. That kind of association is a world apart from a top-down hierarchical way of doing things. You can’t pin the teachings of Brian McLaren on me because I’m not organizationally or ideologically connected to him, especially in any sense of allegiance. But because of the nature of LDS church government and priesthood authority, I can reasonably call Mormons to account for their allegiance to professed apostles who teach that we can earn mercy and merit eternal life.

    You guys really need to get on Skype!

45. “We are not a giant oligarchy but a loose network of local congregations. That kind of association is a world apart from a top-down hierarchical way of doing things.”

    I’m well aware of that Aaron. A close reading of what I wrote would show that I was operating from that understanding. I was simply repeating what I’ve heard from Evangelical scholars as they try to reconcile their mode of worship with the New Testament. The New Testament clearly calls for “a Church.” This entity is also titled the “Body of Christ.”

    Now, for a Catholic, these verses are easy. You want a “Church” (deliberately capitalized) – you got it. The verses are also easy for Orthodox, or Anglicans, or Mormons. But they are quite problematic for Evangelicals – who are premised on more of a free-form sort of worship without any Priesthood (or social accountability, it seems).

    Now, how do you reconcile these verses to the fact that you don’t seem to have an overarching Church? And who gave you the right to redefine “Church” as “anyone who reads the Bible correctly”?

46. The New Testament clearly calls for “a Church.”

    In the Greek “ekklesia” usually generally refers to an “assembly” or “gathering”. Where does the NT demand that this be one giant overarching hierarchical institution?

    To say that an evangelical, local church fellowship—even those that aren’t connected to a denomination or organization network of churches—doesn’t have any accountability is incorrect. If a local church is healthy it will have elders for accountability.

    Hence, if my pastor taught, as Hales and Scott taught, that mercy can be earned or that eternal life can be merited, he would be called to account for his teaching before the elders.

    Again, does Mormonism hold its leaders accountable for teaching that mercy can be earned or that eternal life can be merited? It sure doesn’t look like it.

47. Woops, I posted that anonymously.

48. Also, I meant to quote you on the first sentence.

49. “Again, does Mormonism hold its leaders accountable for teaching that mercy can be earned or that eternal life can be merited? It sure doesn’t look like it.”

    Nope. And I don’t see that as a huge problem really. Such sermons are well within the pale of acceptable reading of the scriptures – including the Bible. I don’t personally agree with the emphasis (and yes, it is a matter of emphasis Aaron), but that’s not huge cause for concern for me.

    I don’t buy your argument on accountability. I’m not saying your own localized congregation doesn’t have structure or checks and balances or whatever. That was never my point.

    My point is that it is this very loose, informal and unaffiliated nature of modern Evangelism that ENABLES all of the excesses and abuses that I’ve mentioned. These misguided ministries, these false preachers, these hateful people gain the legitimacy of falling under the “Evangelical” rubric precisely because you are an unaccountable confederacy with no way to police your own ranks. You are enablers. It is precisely your hands-off, not-my-problem sort of attitude that is the cause of the problem to begin with.

    This is your own faith tradition, and yet you refuse to be held accountable for it. Which I suppose makes sense when you consider that it is easier to make the kind of sweeping accusations you make, from a position of smug superiority.

    This approach will come back to bite you Aaron. In fact, it already has. My experience is that ministries that attack the Mormon faith tend to do a much better job at creating new atheists than they do at creating new “Christians.”

    You think a mere technicality is enough to shield you from the same sort of dirt that gets thrown at Mormons and Catholics. I don’t think it’s enough.

50. As for your arguments on “ekklesia”…

    No need for me to go into that with you. There have been plenty of Catholic scholars much smarter than me who have already made my arguments on this point for me. If you’re interested, I suggest you go look them up.

51. My point is that it is this very loose, informal and unaffiliated nature of modern Evangelism that ENABLES all of the excesses and abuses that I’ve mentioned.

    Any form of church government can be abused. The question is which one is biblical. Mormon soteriology, coupled with its view of church government, effectively makes for massively institutionalized spiritual abuse. And by abuse I mean, among other things, contributing to the prevention of receiving permanent assurance of eternal life (in the here and now) by grace through faith apart from works and permanent, immediate, comprehensive justification and forgiveness by faith apart from works.

    If you want to promote the Mormon view of church government, rooted in some form of priesthood authority, then make an argument from the Bible. Usually when Mormons try to convince me of the legitimacy of ordained Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood as a basis for leadership today they have to appeal to an alleged successful conspiratorial removal of references to it from the New Testament in the first century or two.

    And that’s not persuasive. Mormons have absolutely no right or authority to tell people they are of the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood has been set aside and made obsolete, and the one high priest with whom Christians have to do is Jesus Christ, who is analogously speaking (like Hebrews teaches), after the order of Melchizedek, not having a genealogy, and being much superior to the sons of Levi. Mormons males aren’t generally even sons of Levi to begin with. If Mormonism wanted to put its genealogy work to good use, it would weed those not of the lineage of Levi out of the professed “priesthood” altogether.

52. Woops, I only meant to block quote the first paragraph.

53. Aaron, that argument only works if you chuck the Old Testament. Which I know a lot of Christians are doing, but I don’t think they have an incredibly strong argument for doing so. Yeah Christ appeared.

    So what?

    He never said anything about ending the Priesthood one way or the other. I don’t have to invoke any sort of conspiracy theory. Pure absent-mindedness would do just fine, or any number of explanations with far less sinister overtones. The mere existence of the Roman Catholic hierarchical structure is evidence enough for me that this wasn’t a novel idea.

    Nor do I think you have much of an argument for chucking the ecclesiarchy, but Protestants have been going the rounds on this one with the Catholics for centuries, so I doubt we’re going to make much headway here. You think what you think. But that doesn’t mean you’re argument is particularly impressive and it certainly isn’t airtight.

54. The Old Testament only puts a hundred more nails into the coffin of the idea that those outside the lineage of the Levites can be of the Levitical, Aaronic priesthood.

    I would of course refer to Hebrews (especially chapter 7) on this issue of the “setting aside” of what is “weak and useless” and “obselete” (I’m using the language of Hebrews here…), i.e. the Law and its associated priesthood.

55. Yup, you’ve got your own read on that Aaron.

    But really, we’re drifting from the point. My point from the beginning has been that when I apply the exact same standards for engaging your religion that you apply to mine, the results are pretty ugly. You have always tried to attack Mormonism from a position of unearned moral superiority. A moral superiority that is only made possible because you irresponsibly refuse to take ownership of your own people and your own history.

    That’s not how the community of Christ works. And that’s not how real life, with real people works. Until you realize that, you’re just another smart kid in high school who has read a few good books, felt a few passions and indignations, and feels this gives him the right to show contempt to everyone and everything that fails to live up to his fantastic and unrealistic expectations.

56. Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I’ve said my piece. If you’ve got anything else to add, you’re welcome to say it. I’m done.

57. Seth, one of my standards is that true prophets cannot publicly promote outrageously false views of God and salvation at events with the importance and impact of General Conference. Those who do so are false prophets. If you can find any of my own prophets who have done that, I’d be glad to listen. Otherwise, I’m going to call you to account for claiming a priesthood which you have no right to hold, and for maintaining allegiance with alleged apostles who teach that mercy can be earned and eternal life merited.

    If you want to continue this conversation, Skype me at aaronshaf.

    In him who justifies the ungodly by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-8),

    Aaron

58. Are you willing to unequivocally denounce the teachings of your leaders on earning mercy and meriting eternal life?

    Why would any Mormon want to do that? Those principles are Biblical.

    Even you believe that you must earn those things by accepting Jesus in your heart. Absent taking that step, no eternal life for you.

59. Aaron, when you speak of damnable heresy, you put yourself, as a Calvinist, in a very precarious position, considering the extreme heresy that Calvin read into the words of our Savoir, who is full of grace and truth and not election to salvation/damnation.

    There is an irony when someone who is steeped in the damnable heresy that God damns people or chooses them to be saved before they are even born and that an individual cannot choose God accuses people who take the Bible at its word (Latter-day Saints) about the nature of God and his relationship to his children (he loves them and has endowed each of them with no small degree of human dignity) of damnable heresy. When someone like you preaches, contrary to the plain text of the Bible, the damnable heresy of humanity’s complete and utter depravity and entire lack of free will (one of God’s greatest gifts to his children), it emphasizes that there is nothing of the religion of Jesus Christ supporting those beliefs.

    Only the most strained and tortured reading of isolated, proof-texted verses from Paul, completely out of harmony with the words of Jesus himself in the Gospels and with the words of the other Apostles in the New Testament, can conceivably inform the sinister doctrines that you preach.

    Latter-day Saints believe that they must choose God and accept Jesus Christ in order to accept the Atonement that Jesus Christ performed for all and offers freely to all. This is true biblical doctrine and it is the substance of the quotes by Elders Maxwell and Hales that you selected above in comment # 30 and demanded that Mormons denounce them. That is like someone who died Christ’s physical incarnation demanding that the Apostle John recant his teachings on the subject.

    Only by choosing Christ can any individual “merit” becoming one with God as Jesus enjoins all people to do, just as He is one with the Father. This is the only way that one can become one with God — by choosing to accept Jesus Christ through baptism by those holding the proper priesthood authority. This is entirely Biblical.

    But the fact that Calvinists even foist such repugnant views on people in the first place, which are entirely at odds with the religion that Jesus Christ established while on the earth, demonstrates in full the absolute necessity of the Restoration of Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth. A better testimony of the utter apostasy of Christ’s Church could scarcely exist than the fact that such a splinter group such as the one that you promote reads and interprets the Bible in the manner seen here.

60. Speaking of heretical doctrines on grace vs. works, I saw a very interesting article here that gives a very convincing explanation of how (according to the Bible) Jesus says that your actions towards the poor are a critical factor for salvation:

    You see, Judgement Day is described in three places in the Bible. In the false churches of the false gospel, they teach and preach extensively on one of them, 1st Corinthians chapter 15. They talk about Revelations chapter 20, but they don’t quote it completely or accurately. But there’s a third place where Judgement Day is described, and in rather more detail than in either of those places. What’s more, it’s described by the one who’s going to do the judging. Wouldn’t you think that that would be the interesting place to study Judgement Day? I’d certainly be more interested in the explicit, complete description of how the dead shall be judged that comes from the Judge Himself than one that came from any apostle, however inspired. And indeed, they can’t completely make this description go away. But they have a false and fatuous explanation of it, one that encourages people to forget what they just read and go back to believing that lie about how all they had to do was pray, “God have mercy on me, a sinner.” Here’s what Jesus had to say, in His own words, in Matthew 25:31-46, when His followers asked him what the end was going to be like:

    (see the article linked above)

61. C.L.Hanson, how on earth did you wind up here?

62. C.L. is welcome as well here.

    “God have mercy on me, a sinner.” Check out the Greek verb on that text, sometime.

63. Ok I am a Mormon and I am a little annoyed that non Mormon experts keep saying what Mormons believe. Mormonism is not exact in its belief on many things. It is an evolving religion. You can quote Mormon scripture. You can say this Mormon leader said this or that but to say all Mormons believe this or that is fantasy land. Mormons are complex. There are fifth generation Mormons, converts, third world Mormons, Utah Mormons, Danish Mormons of San Pete County, BYU Mormons and I haven’t even mentioned the offshoots. If you want to promote the trinity or some other doctrine and try to convert Mormons or other that is fine, but please do not tell me what all Mormons believe. That is like saying all Baptists or all Catholics or whatever. We are a group of millions of members not some cult of ten people. We are about 200 years old. We argue among ourselves. Get real.

64. We argue among ourselves.

    Living among LDS almost all my life, I would agree. 😉

    And I need to add a lot more to the categories of Mormons in HI4LDS sidebar.

    For only 200 years, it is incredible all the array of interpretations within the LDS Church professing, let alone all the little spinoffs that tore off from the movement.

65. Larry: “We argue among ourselves.”

    Todd: “Living among LDS almost all my life, I would agree.”

    I’ll take y’all’s word for it, and I’m sure you are right, since disagreements are inevitable; however, at the same time, none of this arguing takes place out in the open. Consider General Conference, where the level of public debate is roughly equivalent to that of the respective parliaments of Cuba, China, and North Korea. In all these cases, everything is decided in advance, behind closed doors.

    Todd: “For only 200 years, it is incredible all the array of interpretations within the LDS Church professing, let alone all the little spinoffs that tore off from the movement.”

    I’m not sure about that, Todd. What was the state of Protestantism in the early 18th Century, some two hundred years after Martin Luther sparked the Reformation?

66. “I’ll take y’all’s word for it, and I’m sure you are right, since disagreements are inevitable; however, at the same time, none of this arguing takes place out in the open.”

    No offense Greg, but it’s nobody’s business who isn’t a Mormon. If we want to air our dirty laundry in private, that’s our affair.

67. “No offense Greg, but it’s nobody’s business who isn’t a Mormon. If we want to air our dirty laundry in private, that’s our affair.”

    Fair enough, Seth, but it is impossible to have it both ways. Does the LDS want to be seen as/to be diverse (Larry) or a monolith? If the debates (as opposed to “dirty laundry” which implies something else altogether) are not at least to some extent open and public, the LDS will at least be seen as monolithic, even if that is not actually the whole story, and therefore, its members will be subject to the sort of perceptions against which Larry is protesting.

68. Historically Mormons are divided into the New England, English from Western England and the Danish and of course the Tongans and now the Hispanics, Brazilians and Nigerians and the whole world. The New Englanders love to argue but they got taken over by the English who pretend to argue but really are choreographed. The Danes argue politely. We leave the media up to the English so it is boring what the world sees of us. Our family fights are more of a New English style and if we really need to win we call in the smooth Danish P.R. types. If everything else fails we have a Tongan beat them up or have a convert speak for us and insist we really are diverse. Face it Mormonism is an evolving culture. You can not characterize it because it really has no fixed culture. It is not liturgical, creedal or fixed. It is dynamic. So to say this or that is Mormon is impossible as it changes daily.

69. The problem is that there is a big difference between the Mormon Corporation and the Mormon People. The Mormon Church is stuffy and English because they do not want to be sued. The Mormon people on the other hand argue quite a bit amongst themselves. TV Mormonism is monolithic. Vistit a Mormon Church some day and sit in on a class room discussion and you will see the diversity of opinion.

70. Larry: And, of course, the Norwegians. Can’t forget the Norwegians. Cultural diversity is one thing, but theological diversity, both in terms of belief and practice, is another. (Although, frankly, the disparate ethnicities aside, looking in from the outside, I’m not sure that the LDS Church is as culturally diverse as you suggest; there are some who argue that in the Intermountain West at least, the Mormon community is becoming a distinct ethnic group in and of itself.) But, for the sake of the discussion, I will for the moment concede that what you say may be entirely accurate; given that, is it possible that y’all could, sooner or later, end up being more like, say, the Community of Christ than the current iteration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Personally, I doubt it, but what do you think?

71. I hope not. We didn’t go through all we went through just to become another flavor of Protestantism.