Mormons Again and again and again

[auggybendoggy]

ok heres a link to look at.

 

I tend to read their view as being the same of the protestant when trying to balance.

 

While I do see error in this article I see error in protestants view as well.

 

I must be a JW kidding.

 

Auggy

 

mormonism

[auggybendoggy]

man, I just see them as being very much like protestants on this issue.

 

I see them using James (the book) and Jesus as stating "if you love me you will obey and keep the commandments".

 

Is this different than protestants (conservative).

 

My opinion differs from protestants in that I think no ritual or ceremonial deed is worth anything....this includes baptism with water and laying on of hands...communion ceremony...

 

I see these things as symbols and not realities.

 

My disagreement with mormons here (along with many conservative protestants) is that obeying commandements is not synonmous with keeping a fixed set of rules. Rather I see obedience unto God as obeying the law of Love.

 

For example a rule of law of lying is that one should not bare false witness. but I feel it is a good thing if executed properly. Rahab is an example of someone who lied and is commended for her faith in the book of hebrews. Her faith made her disobey the "written rule" but she showed love and mercy to others meaning she was in complete obedience.

 

It is impossible for us to be tempted beyond what we can bear. Neither will God not supply us a way out of any temptation. If indeed lying is always wrong then the german hiding jews from the nazis is a lose lose situation (ofter said, the greater of two evils) and this would violate scripture. God will not put us into a situation that we MUST sin.

(this also is a problem for calvinists who think God makes us do all things including sin)

Thus Rahab lied and it was right.

 

Mormons see baptism as some spiritual event grafting us to God. I see it as a symbol. But what about repentance as stated in this article.

Do protestants really believe repentance is not necessary? I don't think so. They see it as a result of salvation not as a requirement for salvation. But I feel w/o faulting the mormons scripture does use such language.

 

with that said my main point is that I see mormons stating (in this article) that true faith is made real by good works and that they both accompany true salvation.

 

I find the passage of James problematic for us protestants when James reads "so we see that no one is justified by faith alone for faith without works is dead".

 

Any thoughts,

 

come on playaa i know you got some.

 

My other thoughts (which I'll go into later) on mormons is that they do seem to fail to read about election and pre-destination passages and don't equate these into the system of theology. Could be problematic.

 

Aug

[ConGregation]

I didn't read the link yet. And I admit that I know little about the Mormon faith. I know some but that is it.

 

About a month ago I spent quite some time talking to the 'missionaries' that knocked on my door. Neither of us made a dent.

 

My main argument with these two gentlemen was on the doctrine of the Bible. I am of the opinion that God gave us the Bible and that is all we need. He inspired it. He preserved it. And there is not going to be any further Revelation in this Age. The Mormons of course do NOT believe this. Not only accepting the writings of J. Smith as equal with the Bible but also many other books and even 'prophecies' by some head 'prophecy guy'. As a Bible believer I have a problem with that. Expecially when you look at the life of J. Smith. The whole foundation of their faith is based on one man's testimony.

 

And then you have the far out doctrines of earning 'godship' and occupying other planets, etc.

 

About James... No one IS justified by faith alone, EXCEPT before God (capitols only used for emphasis on particular words, not to be shouting). My works justify my salvation before man. May faith justifies me before God. Again, he said 'I will SHOW YOU my faith BY my works. An evident faith proclaimed to the world by works.

 

That is my interpretation and it fits with all scripture, at least I feel it does

[auggybendoggy]

Cong,

On the bible I totally agree. I too had a conversation about a year ago and could not come to reason with much of what they say.

I find they are as dogmatic as protestants (which is why I say they are as in trouble).

 

To these 2 missionaries they believed baptism was some sacred ritual you had to complete in order to obtain salvation. They claim becuase of love; that is if you Love God and Jesus you will obey (the james reaoning). But I tend to see scripture as saying none of these things are important, rather Love is what counts.

 

On the works issue. I don't believe you are correct on translating James as being "justified before man" since James seems to state...Can such faith save a man? He is not stating can such faith save a man in the eyes of man. He is flat out stating salvation. When he states I will show you my faith...He is clarifying to them that their intellectual belief is not enough but that their lives must follow.

This point is furthered when he says "so you believe in one God...so do the demons and shutter"

This is why he states faith w/o works is dead and my works perfect my faith. To state simply cause of this one line his reason of salvation has nothing to do with works makes no sense to his whole subject.

James is CLEARLY (not shouting) not concerned with these people looking good before men but is concerned with how they live their lives as believers. His conclusion is that if they don't have the works then their TALKED faith cannot save them.

 

I think as we discuss this we'll find there are semtantics involved. I tend to think this is the difference of the mormon and protestant doctrines on salvation by grace alone.

 

I see this issue as both sides being true. Much like calvinism and arminiesm I find they both are true. Like a great many things I find two things can be true in scripture.

 

My concern with protestantism is that it is so dogmatic to not allow the language used by the apostles themselves. Such as Paul telling timothy "if you do these things you will save yourself and your hearers". In our time paul is committing heresy by telling timothy he can save himself. Or Peter saying "do everything to make your calling and election sure"

 

I wonder about our protestantism when we read in Hebrews

We have come to share in christ IF we hold till the end the confidence we first began...

I tend to understand it as saying our salvation is a constant event that is never completed till we maintain it till our end. MEANING none of us are saved till we finish the race of our life. BUT even I have difficulty with this interpretation in that "AM I SAVED NOW?" I think so.

so I find election and free will both true.

 

I tend to see this issue the same but I still grant the mormons and JW;s that if the language is used that works must accompany then we can use the language too.

 

In the article cong, what is your take on the statement...

"Jesus did not say just believe and thats all you gotta do don't bother giving up things, or following or obedience."

 

I see their logic on the same plane as protestants here that is protestants I've been raised with would say "these things will come if you truly believe" which is what I believe the mormon is saying in this article. I hear him stating "if you obey it's cause you truly are a follower"

 

Aug

[Playaa]

I sorta agree with you Aug...but not totally...let me say what I believe and then see how it compares.

I believe that salvation isn't something we can buy or work harder to get. I believe it is a gift given to us (and I have no idea on how I feel on "giving that gift back"). I believe that James is saying something along the lines of "Why in the world wouldn't you do what Christ asked you to do since you believe in him? I mean he IS your God and all...stupid."

In reading through James 2 the other day, I came to realize...I think it's the perfect passage in the Bible...it's just plain great.

 

take this passage in reference to Homosexuality (and many other things)

10  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet (19) stumbles in one point, he has become (20) guilty of all.

11  For He who said, "(21) DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "(22) DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

12  So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by (23) the law of liberty.

13  For (24) judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

I see that passage as something that Christians today just plain don't get. James is basically saying that all "transgressions" of the law are equal in God's eyes. So when little Billy lies to his mother...in God's eyes it's the same as 2 men committing a homosexual act. In humans eyes one is worse, but not to God...they're both equal.

Now something that I don't think comes across well is in what way those things are "bad" to God. Most people see a sin in the light of breaking a law of the government. They see it as a straight cut right/wrong issue with a clear punishment. I see it more along the lines of a broken promise. I see it kinda like if I have a friend who is always picked on and made fun of at school, and I tell him that I will stick by him when times get tough...but the next time he's being beat up and mocked I stay with the crowd and mock him too and punch him and kick him. As humans I'm sure we all know that the betrayal of a friend is more painful than those punches and kicks. I think that's how God sees it. He's hurt and dissappointed that we would break a promise to him.

Also in that passage it says in the end basically that mercy is better than judgement. Christians today are definatly more judgemental than merciful...and in my mind that's as much a "sin" as many of the things they judge. Now keep in mind that mercy can sometimes come across as judgemental. Example: a teenager who's messed up and is wasting away their life on drugs and other things. The parent or school counselor who calls the cops or takes them to a rehab clinic against their will is being merciful, but to the teenager they're being judgemental. But those Christians who stand outside an abortion clinic screaming at unwed mothers or the owners of godhatesf@gs.com...they are not in any way doing God's will...they're harming God's plan basically.

 

Now the other part of James 2 that I think is so wonderful (and so often ignored) is this part:

1  (1) My brethren, (2) do not hold your faith in our (3) glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of (4) personal favoritism.

2  For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in (5) fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in (6) dirty clothes,

3  and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the (7) fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,"

4  have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges (8) with evil motives?

5  Listen, (9) my beloved brethren: did not (10) God choose the poor of this world to be (11) rich in faith and (12) heirs of the kingdom which He (13) promised to those who love Him?

6  But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally (14) drag you into court?

7  (15) Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?

8  If, however, you (16) are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "(17) YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.

I know that Christians all the time talk about Love and showing Christs love...but again this I think is something that ISN'T properly represented by Christians today. In reality it's alot along the lines of the mercy vs. judgement idea. The parent who spanks their child to teach them obedience to me is showing love. They're teaching their child how to obey someone who understands the world more. The child just sees it as them being caused pain, but the parent sees it as them keeping their child from danger: say the kid was trying to climb on top of the fridge to get to the cookies, the top of a fridge isn't a safe place for a little child but all they understand is the desire for the cookies...so the parent must do something the child doesn't want to teach the child to obey them even though the child might not understand WHY they need to obey them.

The love issue also goes into homosexuality and many other issues currently hotly debated. Christians today go out of their way to show hatred of a sin and often times it comes across as hatred of the sinner (and in reality may BE hatred of the sinner, which is clearly wrong).

Matthew 9:

10  Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples.

11  When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "(15) Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?"

12  But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not (16) those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick.

13  "But go and learn (17) what this means: '(18) I DESIRE COMPASSION, [1] AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for (19) I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

We all know that a LARGE portion of Christians today don't follow love and that makes me question whether they ARE Christian...This flows into what James said (also in James 2 oddly enough) about faith vs. works. Those who call themselves Christians, and turn around and spout hate and anger from their mouths rather than love...are they really Christians?

19  You believe that [1] (34) God is one. (35) You do well; (36) the demons also believe, and shudder.

20  But are you willing to recognize, (37) you foolish fellow, that (38) faith without works is useless?

I honestly don't know if they're Christians...but I do know that what they're doing doesn't please God. So basically, I sure ain't gonna do it.

 

Interesting note: Origionally (i.e. in the decades after Christ's death) Christianity was just called "The Way". I'm very tempted to just take on that that title rather than Christian for my life...seeing as how "Christian" has been slandered and ruined by countless false christians.

 

 

this has been Chapter 1 of "Rantings by Playaa". You can purchase the whole book for $14.95 at your local bookstore.

[gOOters]

they kinda lose me on the whole moving amongst different planets thing...

[auggybendoggy]

hahaha $14.75 man thats a great discount from the normal shelf price of 350.00 bucks.

 

Playaa, I do agree with your wisdom but yet again my problem is the fact that protestants (of which I am one) tend to read into the text of James.

 

Again, I feel Martin Luther was a bolder man than many. I agree with him on James that James is not only saying your interpretation but he uses the language "we see a man is justified by what he does" and "our faith is perfected by our works".

 

The porblem for us protestants I feel is this flys in our reasoning with mormonism and JW when we say "grace alone, faith alone".

 

Paul clearly states "APART from works".

 

James clearly states "faith is dead WITHOUT works" so the tension is there.

 

If James would not have said we are justified by what we do then I would totally agree with you but the fact that he says this obviously means he is ENCOURAGING people to ACT (WORKS) on theif faith. He then goes onto say that if you DONT then your faith is DEAD and it cannot save you. Thus he ties WORKING to liven your faith.

 

The mormons would agree with us. The will say if you don't get baptized ( a commandment ) it's becuase your faith is dead and you don't love God. then they quote "if you love me you will obey my teachings" and they quote countless passages of obedience to God's commands.

 

So are they any different than the protestant.

 

we see them as "doing works" to get saved. They see it as "we do works cause we love and want to show our love to the world".

 

They see us as "making excuses to not obey" we see it as "no matter if we sin we are forgiven"

 

but the later flys in the face of James.

 

perhaps perfection is the issue as playya is pointing to on big sins and little sins?

 

Auggy

[Playaa]

see I STILL don't see a problem with Paul and James and comparing the passages. The main point for me is that James says we are Justified by our works. Justification: " To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid". James is saying that works prove our faith to be valid and he's saying that it proves it in man's eyes. Paul is saying what matters in God's eyes.

In the end though, my answer is: "I don't know".

All I know is that I know barely anything...

[auggybendoggy]

playaa,

doesnt james ask a rhetorical question

 

"can such a faith save a man"

 

his point is not only that it proves it....but it perfects it. In my opinion luther is right. James is pushing the grace alone doctrine to the other side.

 

Romans 4:2

if in fact abraham was justified by works he had something to boast about.

 

James 2:21

Was not our ancestor abraham considered rightouess for what he did when he offered issac on the altar. You see that his faith AND (not apart) were working together and his faith was MADE complete by what he did.

 

so was Abraham righteouss for doing it? Can he boast before God?

 

You don't see a tention...

 

even under your interpretation of "just" it doesnt stand.

 

Now granted I havent read martin luthers exposition on this book but if indeed it is true he wanted it out of the canon then I understand why.

 

Here Paul is tying justification as a part in salvation.

 

Is James not doing the same thing when he states:

What good is it my brothers if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

 

James is also tying these works which complete our faith as part of our salvation.

 

to be justified is to be saved. read luke 18.

 

I feel if indeed our view of Grace alone is correct then James would have never said what he said. Thus I agree either agree with luther or agree with mormons and JW's.

 

I actually stand a bit more on this with mormons and JW's. Cause what I have read and spoken to they do not claim they are not saved by grace but rather they are saved by grace and their works follow.

 

the book of mormon says "...after all that you have done" is BUNK!

 

now even though I see James' point as being conflicting with paul I don't see either of them saying Deeds ARE ALL THAT MATTER. I see them both in agreement that it is love that is the issue. James is questioning the heart of people obviously.

 

So again playaa, I don't think you are being objective to James.

 

I feel you are doing what most do and that is read what you need to in order to keep this book formulated.

 

I am not trying to be mean or nasty I just feel thats what protestants do and thus cast judgement on others. for example

 

if we meet a mormon who cares about his enemies and puts others before himself and despretley wants to please God but is of the mormon faith I tend to understand from our doctrines that he is not saved.

 

I now am questioning this.

 

I tend to think he's more saved then the protestant who intellectually agrees with the protestant doctrines (salvation by grace alone, redeeming blood of Jesus, death and ressurection of Christ) but hates others and puts himself before others and seeks his own glory.

 

if the mormon has the fruits of the spirit but the protestant does not than what am I to say? Can a bad tree bear good fruit?

 

Thus I am starting to think this docrtine is not as much a absolute indicator of whos saved and whos not.

 

Please don't misunderstand I am not arguing it is wise to teach people their works save them. I tend to think its disasterous. But I do see a value in keeping with james and Jesus that what we do does matter and our behaviour does matter.

 

Even protestants (contradictingly) agree that our behaviour matters. for is we do not behave then we do not love. : )

 

Auggy

[Playaa]

I'm pretty sure I don't disagree with you.

And I'm pretty sure this is what James is talking about. You will know a man is a Christian not JUST by his words (and equally not JUST by his actions) but by his words and actions combined.

but in the end, it's all between them and God. I will only go so far in pestering someone about their faith. Because if someone just plain doesn't want to accept it, or just plain believes differently, I don't have the power to change their mind.

[auggybendoggy]

playya, I totally agree with that last statment.

 

I've talked to mormons till I'm blue in the face and to no avail.

 

I don't come at them with "your going to hell" or something like that I simply say we should all be true to the scriptures. Then in sharing I let them know I was compelled to not become a mormon when I realized they denied plain reading of the text.

 

Such as eternal marriage. Jesus clearly states there will be no marriage in heaven but that we'll be like angels. They always say

"no marriage at the ressurection" is not no marriage in heaven.

and they never explain what "you will be like angels" means.

 

so I find I can only be real and true and try to encourage others to

do the same.

 

Aug

[Playaa]

as far as mormonism goes....well the first few lines of the Book of Mormon say it pretty plainly to me.

I can't seem to find it on the web, but I read a translation once that pretty much said: "These are my words that I'm writing down so you can remember them." and it seemed to stress "my words"...I don't know, it just seemed as if the writer was trying to get across that there wasn't anything holy about the book...it was just one mans writing.

[auggybendoggy]

sounds a bit unfair.

 

I don't recall paul ever writing...these are the words and instructions of God. I think he just comes out and trys to encourage people.

 

But as much as I think it's unfair it's right on the money...

 

they simply provide no proof about Jesus in the Americas.

 

Auggy.

[Playaa]

you'd hafta see the translation I saw...and it was about 2 years ago so maybe I misread or remember differently. But it seemed very obvious that the writer was going out of his way to clarify that the book was HIS words and only his words. That's not the same as not saying "these are God's words" like Paul did (that was an utterly confusing sentence).