What's new

Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

I've never heard anyone give a good rebuttal to James 2 in regards to the whole faith vs works debate. It is as clear as can be and everyone I've been in aa discussionwith anyone they always say, in effect, "nuh uh" repeat that grace alone saves then skip the whole thing. I would be really interested in hearing someone's opinion of how you reconcile some so clearly written as James 2 with grace alone saves.

Saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ, if I've truly been saved and transformed into His likeness, then I am equipped for good works.

James 2 is talking about "Doing from your being" not, "being from your doing".

It is not what I do that affects my identity as a child of God (I've been adopted into sonship Romans 8:15-16), it's my identity as a child of God that should affect everything that I do.

PS: I'm in Nürnberg, Germany right now. It's amazing! Where do you live in Germany?
 
Mormons can explain this. How do you reconcile that with:

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

In Mark 16:16 Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Seems pretty damn clear to me and trumps your anecdote. . .

Simple.

Paradise and the Celestial Kingdom (Heaven) are two different things for Mormons.

After death but Prior to the final judgement one goes through a mini judgement phase dividing people into prison or paradise. Paradise is for those who demonstrated faith. Prison is for those who didn't demonstrate any faith or who had zero knowledge of opportunity to hear the gospel.

So if you're an evil doer Utah fan who spilled beer on Max Hall's mom, you're for sure going to prison. But alas, you might have an opportunity there to meet Mormon missionaries (complete with ties and name tags) teaching you the gospel. This will prepare you to accept the Mormon temple ordinances such as baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

If you refuse, then your progression is damned.

So in the book of Mark, he's referring to spiritual progression. If you have faith, continue to accept gospel ordinances (like baptism) and continue along the path then you're progressing. Those who reject Christ, reject his commandments, don't get baptized, act like classless Utah fans, etc their progression is then damned or stopped.

Hence, why Mormons practice their post death baptisms in temples thus solving the baptism dilemma. Why should someone who died without the opportunity to be baptized have their spiritual progression stopped or damned?

If those who lived before without any prior knowledge of the gospel died without any opportunity to hear about the gospel, they can be taught in spiritual prison and advance to paradise. If they choose to accept the baptism and other ordinances done in Mormon temples then they're scoring points that will look good for their report guard at the final judgement. I'm being kinda funny here, but theoretically, completing all of these ordinances aren't merely to receive a stamp on some spiritual report card. Theoretically, they're turning people into spiritual and faith filled people. Often times, people talk about their baptisms or competition of certain temple ordinances as being motivations into being better people. So IMO, if a dead person is hearing the gospel and accepting Christ into their lives in prison and accepts the baptism performed for them in a Mormon temple, they're probably turning into better people which will enable them to process to a higher kingdom of glory that they would not have otherwise progressed to.

At the final judgement everyone will be divided into 1 of 3 kingdoms or degrees of glory. Celestial, terrestrial, and telestial (Cor 15:40-42).

When Christ told the man dying alongside of him that he'd be in paradise it wasn't saying necessarily that he'd join them in heaven. But that he would be with him in paradise and not spiritual prison. Had the man been baptized before? Had the man even heard the gospel before? Who knows?

Hence, why Mormons may regard the bible as incomplete. What is known is that the sinner demonstrated faith in Christ which propelled him to paradise and not prison. Now is it enough to advance him to the highest degree of glory for the final judgement? Probably not. The additional factors need to be weighted in... Such as life circumstances, knowledge, whether or not temple ordinances are accepted, etc.

Something shady and unclear (in my studies at least) in Mormon doctrine is what the dead are doing right now. Many teachings demonstrate that there are missionary efforts underway in the spiritual world. People aren't just pulling a trout and fishing up in the clouds and enjoying themselves. Yes, you're free from physical labor (you have no physical body). But no, that doesn't mean that you aren't working in some spiritual capacity to improve upon your knowledge, attitude, and overall final report card. how that works? I'm not sure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the point is you can go too far in both directions and that is what both were getting at. Faith by itself is dead. Works cannot get you into heaven without faith. 2 sides of the same coin.
 
Basically it has been translated over and over and over and over....and as a result man has made mistakes and small changes add on small changes...

Well, I'll disagree. That's commonly what is believed by LDS members due to the 8th article of faith but the word "translated" in Joseph Smith's time meant "conveyed" as much or more than it meant "rendered in a different language". See here: https://sorabji.com/1828/words/t/translate.html. So I think a more accurate way to look at the 8th article of faith is to say that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it has been conveyed to us correctly. Errors that have crept in may be from a variety of reasons, not just due to changing languages.

You get the general idea. But Mormons believe in the bible and use it constantly in their teachings.

For example: Seminary. High school kids can attend a seminary class every school day for about an hour a day for 4 years. Every year they cover a Mormon text (Bible, Book Of Mormon, D&C). One year is the Old Testament and one year is the New Testament.

Good point. My experience has been that Mormons know the Bible much better than adherents to (pick random Christian religion here).
 
Not to speak for Bentley, but I feel one of the most significant differences between Mormonism and Christianity is the doctrine of grace vs works.

(Apologies if I'm misinterpreting things here, but I'm writing this reply based on the assumption that you are saying Mormons aren't Christians due to views on grace vs. works.)


So Catholics aren't Christians, then?

How about Jesus? Was he Christian? Where in the Bible did he *ever* talk about grace as being more important than works? A major point of the parable of the sheep and the goat was to teach that people will be rewarded based on their actions.
 
Not addressed to me, but I think Christians think Mormons believe "it's all about works" and Mormons think Christians believe, "it's all about us grace."

First, Mormons are Christians.

Honestly, Christians are unfair in their portrayal of Mormon making it ALL ABOUT WORKS as if they simply discount grace.
And the exact opposite is true as far as how Mormons view Christians as LIVE HOWEVER YOU WANT BECAUSE GOD's grace is enough.

Each are equally offensive to the other.

Agreed.

*i do not mean to offend when I say Christian vs. Mormon. I think it's just a lazy way of communicating.

Please don't do it then. It is indeed offensive.
 
First, Mormons are Christians.



Agreed.



Please don't do it then. It is indeed offensive.

It is not offensive. He should have simply said other Christians, he never meant that "mormons" aren't Christian. "He who take offense when none is intended is a fool" or something like that.
 
It is not offensive. He should have simply said other Christians, he never meant that "mormons" aren't Christian. "He who take offense when none is intended is a fool" or something like that.

Whether or not I personally am offended (I'm not), PKM should understand that saying "Mormons believe X but Christians believe Y" is indeed offensive language, and there will be those who DO get offended by it.
 
"He who take offense when none is intended is a fool" or something like that.

Really? Because it seems like nowadays everyone is actively seeking opportunities to find offense, and find plenty of it where none is intended.

It's pretty much our new national pastime.
 
Back
Top