Conference tecrus::mormonism

While doing some research over the weekend, some questions occurred to
me which I would like to raise here. I truly, dearly hope that these
questions do not create any 'contention' here. If the discussion that
ensues creates 'contention', I will ask the moderators to delete this
note. My wish is simply to understand some different points of view,
and that wish is sincere. 

I'll use myself as an example. My question is this: If non-Mormon
Christians believe that a person is 'saved' upon sincerely confessing
Christ as his/her Lord & Savior, then am I 'saved' in their view even
though I am a happily-practicing Mormon? 

Before I started looking for a Church, I had an experience exactly
like what is commonly described by various Christians as being a
're-birth' (My conversion story in note 2.1 contains further details).
My conversion was first to Jesus Christ, and then later after looking
for a Church to join, I was baptized a Mormon. 

Now, as I understand it, various Christian denominations believe that
no matter what happens after a re-born Christian has his/her saving 
experience, and no matter what sins they may commit, they are still
saved. I have heard some ministers say this quite plainly. Even so,
there are probably some exceptions to this. Is joining the Mormon
Church an exception to this? 

It seems to me that a non-Mormon Christian should be satisfied - more
than that: overjoyed! - if he/she comes across a Mormon who confesses
Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior. Traditional denominations of Christians
can discuss differing points of view about, for example, scriptural
interpretation, as common disciples of Christ without calling into
question each other's 'saved' status. What is it - if anything - about
Mormons or the Mormon faith that disqualifies us from this same
privilege? Do there exist some denominations that accept Mormons as 
'saved'? Do some denominations differ on this point? On what basis do 
they differ?

Again, I'm not looking to provoke a Yes-I'm-Saved-No-You're-Not 
argument. I just want to explore other points of view - calmly, 
rationally, and honestly.


Thanks,
/kevin

    
    Hi,
    could I just add the corollary question ? ie, do Mormons see born
    again Christians (of the non Mormon flavour) as saved too ?
    
    Paul V

RE: < Note 121.1 by IOSG::VICKERS "Baruch haba ba shem Adonai" >

>    Hi,
>    could I just add the corollary question ? ie, do Mormons see born
>    again Christians (of the non Mormon flavour) as saved too ?
>    
>    Paul V


Good Stuff! I'd be delighted to get into that one too. I have some 
info on that subject that we can talk about.

Perhaps, though, it would be best to put that question in a separate
topic, mainly because the answer would be defined in Mormon
terminology, while the question in 121.0 was posed in a traditional-
Christian context. 

Does that seem logical? In the meantime, any comments on 121.0? 

/kevin 

Note 121.1 by IOSG::VICKERS "Baruch haba ba shem Adonai"

>    Do Mormons see born
>    again Christians (of the non Mormon flavour) as saved too ?

I thought this question deserved its own topic, since it must be 
answered in a Mormon context, whereas my original question in 121.0 
was asked (and will hopefully be discussed) in a traditional-Christian 
context.


/kevin

    Re: Note 121.1 by IOSG::VICKERS 

    Hi Paul,
        
    Different people use the term "saved" to mean different things. We view
    it a bit differently than some do. Some say that all one must do is to
    acknowledge Christ as their personal Savior to be "saved". We believe
    there is more to it than that. 
    
    We believe that ALL mankind will be "saved" from physical death and
    will be resurrected. We also we believe that to be "saved in the
    Kingdom of God", or to receive the gift of Eternal Life and to dwell
    with God, one must be obedient to the principles and ordinances of the
    gospel, and endure faithfully to the end of their mortal life. Thus,
    one's salvation remains dependent upon his choices subsequent to being
    'born again'. 
    
    The principles and ordinances of the gospel include faith, repentance,
    baptism by one having authority, the laying on of hands for the Gift of
    the Holy Ghost, and obedience to God's commandments. 
    
    Not all Mormons will be saved in this latter sense, since not all
    'endure to the end' in faithfulness to the commandments. Will some
    non-Mormons be saved in this latter sense? We believe that God will
    fairly give every person who has ever lived a chance to accept the
    principles and ordinances of the gospel, some in this life, and some in
    the life to come. Those who choose to accept are promised Eternal Life.
    Those who do not do not have this promise. 
    
    We believe that the only church that has the authority to perform the
    necessary ordinances of the gospel is currently the Church of Jesus
    Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some object to this belief, because it
    says that authority is necessary and that other Christian faiths do not
    have this necessary authority. 
    
    Please understand that it is not our intent to discredit those who have
    a sincere faith in Christ. Rather, we humbly acknowledge what God has
    proclaimed by direct revelation to prophets and apostles in our day. We
    invite all to investigate these things and to ask God if they are true. 
    
    Your brother in Christ,
    Rich
                                                                 

    Re: Note 121.0 by IPOVAX::OSSLER
    
    Hi Kevin,
    
>It seems to me that a non-Mormon Christian should be satisfied - more
>than that: overjoyed! - if he/she comes across a Mormon who confesses
>Jesus Christ as Lord & Savior. 
    
    I've wondered the same thing. It seems that some apply a different
    standard to Mormons than they do to themselves. On the one hand, they
    say "accept Christ as your personal Savior and you are saved". On the
    other hand they say, "Mormon's are not saved, because <insert here one
    of several different reasons that are sometimes used>." 

    Some of the reasons that are used include:
    
    - Mormons do not accept the orthodox view of the trinity. 
    
    - Mormons believe in other scriptures, besides the Bible.
    
    - Mormons believe obedience to God is necessary for salvation, in
      addition faith in Christ.
    
    - Mormons accept the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles.
    
    Mormons who are living their religion do "accept Christ as their
    personal Savior". The fact that we differ in other points of doctrine
    with other Christians does not change this fact.

    Your Brother in Christ,
    Rich    
        

As a suggestion to those not LDS, if you have not already read notes
4.61, 4.63, and 4.65, please do so; they will help you understand our
perspective to the discussion in this note.

     4.61   Many Mansions
     4.63   The Three Degrees of Glory
     4.65   Hell


Section 76 of the D & C states that the only ones not redeemed will be
the sons of perdition.  Thus, all persons except the sons of perdition
will be "saved" to one of the three kingdoms (degrees) of glory.  This
does not mean that they are all with God the Father or with Jesus Christ.

I think that in general non-LDS think of "one heaven" and they think of
being saved to that heaven or being lost to "one hell".  In contrast, we
think of "three heavens (kingdoms of glory)".  Latter-day saints do not
use the term "saved" as much as it is used outside the church, because
that term implies "one destination" and we believe in "three destinations."
Sometimes LDS will use the term "salvation" to refer to the resurrection.
Sometimes we will use it to refer to any of the three kingdoms.  Sometimes
we will use it to refer to the Celestial kingdom.  The context of the
conversation usually clarifies what is meant.  In contrast, the term
"exaltation" is only used to refer to the highest part of the Celestial
kingdom.

As summarized in note 4.63, those who achieve the Celestial kingdom are
baptized members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who
have sincerely accepted Christ and are faithful in obedience to God and
who "endure to the end".  Those who achieve the Terrestial kingdom are
(a) baptized members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
who have sincerely accepted Christ but who were not fully faithful in
obedience to God but were faithful in living the moral law of the Gospel,
(b) non-LDS who sincerely accept Christ and live his moral law but who
refuse baptism into the LDS church.  Those who achieve the Telestial kingdom
are the wicked of the earth who do not sin to the point of becoming sons
(and daughters) of perdition.  In all three cases, they are all redeemed
by the atonement of Christ, having repented of their sins and been washed
clean by the blood of Christ (as John recorded in Revelation, "death and hell
delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man
according to their works.")

Allen

Two other groups that are 'saved' (achieve a higher kingdom) according
to the Mormon faith, who have not been baptized as Latter-day Saints: 

Children who die not having attained the age of responsibility will
automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom, and live with Heavenly
Father. All such children have not been baptized as members of this
Church, by definition. 

Another point: Mormons believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is simply the *contemporary* expression of the
Church of Christ, and that there have been other, prior dispensations
(this is the seventh and final dispensation) in which the keys of the
kingdom were on the earth. Does it not then follow that members of any 
of these previous churches could be just as 'saved'? After all, the
reason we use the term 'of Latter-day Saints' in the title of the
Church is simply to distinguish this particular dispensation. The term 
'the Church' refers to more than the contemporary dispensation.

/kevin 

Thanks, Kevin, for the clarification on the status of children and the
church members who lived in prior dispensations.

Allen

Dear Brother Rich, (RE: < Note 121.3 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" >)

The reasons you offered as being often used are interesting. They are 
all doctrinally based, but in actual *practice* are not really
differences at all. Here's what I see from my own point of view:

>    - Mormons do not accept the orthodox view of the trinity. 
    
What denominations *agree* on the trinity doctrine? In fact, haven't
differences over details of the doctrine of the trinity been a reason
for schisms in the past? I would say that disagreement with other 
denominations on the nature of God was something we had in *common*
with other denominations. 

>    - Mormons believe in other scriptures, besides the Bible.
    
Catholics believe the Bible to be composed of a list of books
different from most Protestant denominations. They list an extra six
books as "other scriptures, besides [what Protestants consider to be]
the Bible." That doesn't make Catholics non-Christian, does it?

>    - Mormons believe obedience to God is necessary for salvation, in
>      addition (to) faith in Christ.
    
Again, if we have the "faith in Christ," then we *are* saved according 
to traditional thought. So what if we are deluded into thinking we 
have to do good works too? How does that negate the "faith in Christ?"

>    - Mormons accept the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles.
    
Yes, we do believe in continuing revelation, as given to living, mortal 
humans on the earth today. But again, how does that negate our faith 
in Christ? Even if all the Mormon leadership were hopelessly corrupt, 
would that prevent individual Mormons from being 'saved?' I can think
of a few highly visible contemporary examples of corrupt leaders of
traditional Christian churches, but surely no one is going to argue
that any traditional Christian has ever had his/her salvation revoked
because their *church leaders* fell into hopeless corruption. 

>    Mormons who are living their religion do "accept Christ as their
>    personal Savior". The fact that we differ in other points of doctrine
>    with other Christians does not change this fact.

Right! This is the essential point. I thought that it was OK among 
traditional Christians to differ on points of doctrine, so long as 
they "accept Christ as their personal Savior." Why isn't the same true 
of Mormons?


Brother Kevin

 	Let me attempt to briefly state a few of the differences from
    a non-MORMON point of view.
    
	Compared to what I believe, the LDS teach doctrines that:    
    
    1.  Reduce the character and uniqueness of God.
    2.  Exaggerate the nature and potential of man.
    3.  Reduce who Jesus is and what He accomplished.
    4.  Offer a false hope to those who desire to become righteous
        through their own efforts (good works).
	
	What it all boils down to is:

        "Whosoever...abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ, hath not
    	God." (2 John 9).

    
    Ah, so if I read you right, I'm going to the same place as a lot
    of Mormons who didn't quite make it to the first level ?
    Thanks for your help,
    
    God bless,
    Paul

    This question keeps popping up all the time and there is one reference
    I don't believe I've seen before that may shed some light to all,
    and you lifers ought to take note here:
    
    Section 137:7-9 D&C
    
    "Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died
    without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if
    they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial
    kingdom of God;
    
    Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who
    would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of
    that kingdom;
    
    For I, the Lord, will judge all men men according to their works,
    according to the desire of their hearts."
    
    "knowledge of the gospel" is not defined, but having knowledge of
    something is is usually more than just knowing it is there.  I think
    many in the church do not have knowledge of the gospel, they just
    come for other reasons than to learn.
    
    I think many members are to quick to say we are the only ones that
    will be there.  My view is that I will be not be surprised to see
    many more there in the kingdom.  I know as a father I often judge
    my kids not by their actions or the results, but by what their ability
    and desires are.  I don't think our Father is going to do any less
    and the above Scripture confirms that to me.  In fact I think that
    those with the gospel may find they are judged with much more because
    of the knowledge they had.  I for one am not as smug as some just
    because I am a member of the church.  In fact some days I think
    it would be easier to get to the celestial kingdom if I were not.
    
    Anyway, the above quoted Scripture takes care of a lot of things
    for me that have to do with opportunity by birth, environment, and
    circumstance. 

    So Paul, don't take offense by what you sometimes read.  The
    exclusionist are not in charge of the judgment and you are not
    condemned by the Lord.  Be strong in the desires you have in your heart
    and true to them, and when the time comes you will be where you
    have desired to be, not where others desire you to be.  

    I don't have references handy or a whole lot of time, but here are
    some of my thoughts. 
    
    First, from the Mormon point of view the I'm-saved-and-you're-not
    question is moot.  Nobody gets saved (including Mormons) unless
    they repent and live the law of Christ (which includes baptism by
    one called of God).  Brigham Young once made comments along these 
    lines.  The Church is a framework and is not the same as the Gospel.  
    The Church has a beginning and will have an end.  The Gospel is
    eternal.  The purpose of the Church is to draw people unto the Gospel, 
    or in other words, to draw people unto the good news of Christ.  When 
    one is baptized, they also join the Church, but are not yet saved.  
    Let me back up a bit here.  By saved, I refer to eternal life.  All 
    are already given a gift of salvation through Christ from mortality.  
    That is, we all will be resurrected.  But, eternal life (comments are 
    in other notes, I believe) is something that must be worked for.  As a 
    reference to these comments, one might view the video 'Man's Search
    For Happiness'.
    
    So, in response to the original question, Mormons don't view
    themselves as saved, nor do they pass judgement on others as to
    whether or not they are saved.  True, they hold a belief that other
    churches are not of God, but the same does not hold for the members
    of those churches as they are all God's children.  Only on the Day of 
    Judgement when each of us accounts for our lives before our Maker will 
    each of us be pronounced saved or not.  My own personal feeling is that
    when each of us stands before our Maker we will in all honesty know
    our true state.  Mormons (or the Church) do all they can to help all 
    men to prepare for that day.
    
    But do other born-again churches need to view Mormons as saved since
    they meet the apparent born-again's minimum requirments?  Nope.
    That was a struggle within my family for a number of years since
    our religion is split along those lines (my immediate family being
    Mormon).  For all their arguments, my dad felt that in their book
    they shouldn't even worry about him since he met (even exceeded)
    their requirements.  My uncle got a call on the phone to talk 
    about the sad state of my father's children and about how they were
    not being raised to live Christian lives.  During the conversation,
    my uncle, who is a music teacher, played a song and read the words
    to the song.  It was a song about the Savior and about repentance.
    He asked how the caller liked the song.  The caller liked it and
    thought it was very Christian.  Then, my uncle told the caller that
    I wrote the song and the words.
    
    As a side note, I want to mention my own feelings about other churches.
    It pleases me when my friends are active participants in their own
    churches, even if the churches are not Christian.  For example,
    I have a friend who is devout in the Muslim religion, I think.  He 
    practices many correct principles such as honesty and compassion.
    He prays every day.  He is so sincere in his beliefs and lives a
    very Christ-like life.  I have shared my beliefs with him, and he
    has not yet accepted them, but I have not lost hope that some day
    he might embrace Christianity.  For him, it would not really be
    a drastic change in his lifestyle or his attititude.  He would,
    however, come to know more accurately about the God he prays to.
    I believe he will be rewarded for the good that he does, and I cannot
    say that he will be saved or that he will not be saved.  It is 
    Christ-like to recognize the virtue that people have, regardless of 
    religion, in my opinion.

    
    Steve

    Re: .7
    
    You raise some very good points. 
    
    Judgment is God's, and not ours. Our concern should be primarily about
    our own individual choices, and to make sure that the choices we make
    are in line with God's will. Others have to make their own choices.
    
    God's judgment is just. He is neither capricious nor arbitrary in His
    judgment, but will judge men by what is in their hearts. You are
    entirely correct that those who would have received the gospel with all
    of their hearts will receive a celestial reward.

    Your Brother in Christ,
    Rich    

    
    re .7
    
    Thanks for the kind thoughts, however, I have never taken offence
    at what has been presented within this conference. I have sometimes
    been very suprised at some of the views espoused, but never offended
    and I thank you all for that.
    
    God bless,
    Paul V

    
    The question posed is one which I have often pondered. At first
    sight it seems that Mormons meet the 'requirements' for salvation
    in that they invite Jesus to be personal saviour etc etc. On the
    other hand, they seem to hold views which appear to be blatantly
    unbiblical. But does this negate the relationship they have with
    Jesus ? After all, I'm sure I hold some views which are not scriptural.
    But, I trust that God will bring these stumbling blocks in my life
    out bit by bit and show me the right view. So why, if Mormons are
    simply misguided Christians does not Jesus show them the 'error
    of their ways' ? Or how does the Spirit affirm the truth of the
    Book of Mormon to them but affirm the *un*truth of it to main line
    Christians ? How do both non LDS Christians and Mormons have living
    prophets (oh yes, we have them too), spiritual gifts (tongues, healing,
    knowledge, interpretation, hospitality, evangelism etc etc) etc
    when one group is wrong and the other right ? Perhaps Mormons believe
    the Mormon gospel because they *wanted* to believe it, or that non
    Mormons don't believe it for the very same (but inverse) reason.
    Perhaps Mormons don't want to accept the 'untruth' of the Mormon gospel,
    but God uses them just the same (nb all the Old Testament prophets
    seemed to be pretty disobedient chaps).
    I don't know the answers to these yet.
    
    Paul V a non-Mormon with a future ministry of prophecy.
    
    Ps, I would just like to say that the above views are in no way
    meant as attacks, just questions I have (and I'm sure many others
    have too).

We think this note can be a valuable contribution to this conference, but we
feel a caution is in order.  If we understand the intent of the base note
correctly, Kevin would like to better understand the non-LDS viewpoint of our
religion.  We feel that all LDS can benefit from such understanding.  We are
concerned, as Kevin was in starting the note, that the discussion might 
quickly become contentious.

We feel that the key to keeping this note in harmony with the Gospel is
UNDERSTANDING.  Through this note we are inviting non-members to share their
viewpoints with us.  Let us all be careful that in responding to them, we do
not attempt to defend our views.  Let us be careful that our questions and
comments are to gain clarification of their viewpoints not to rebut them.

The reason we are posting this reminder is concern we have had since this
note was created, not because we are upset with any of the replies which 
have been posted thus far.

  -- the moderators

    
    RE;  What makes us different?
    
    One Christian calling another "unsaved" or discussing how one Christian
    is or is not saved reminds me of the medieval discussion of "How
    many angels can dance on the pin of a head?"
    
    In answer to what make Mormons different, I would say basically
    2 things:
    
    1. An open mind and heart willing to believe in the  principle of
       continuous  and contemporary revelations from God (both at the
        personal and General Church level)
    
    2. Tolerance of other people from different faiths, acknowledging
       their importance to God, his love for them, and that their spiritual
       development and progress is valid and important to them.
                                                 
    There are certainly other things making us different such as:
    
    1. Our abstinence from tea, coffee, alcohol
    2. Emphasis on family
    3. Large families
    4. Tithing
    5. Church structure, lay clergy
    6. Temples
    7. Clannishness
    8. "Fair and delightsome" 
    9. Achievement orientation
    10.Emphasis on education and self-development
    11.Missionary system/work
    12.Emphasis on genealogy
    13.Large numbers of Mormons in the Western states
    14.Unusually large numbers of Mormons in high office, political,
       educational, industrial settings
    15.Conservative orientation
    16.Our strong stand concerning sex and abortion
    17.Our welfare system
    
    
    There are certainly many more, but that's enough for now.  
    
    All if these characteristics come from a basic understanding of
    
    Where we came from
    Who we are
    Why we are here
    Where we are going
    
    Regards to all,
    
    Paul

Re .5

Roger,

Thank you for sharing your feelings with us.  You listed four results of
LDS teachings, as seen from your viewpoint.  From conversations I have had
with non-member friends, I think I understand what you meant in the first
two and the last one.  I don't think I understand what you were saying in
the third one, "Reduce who Jesus is and what He accomplished."

I'm wondering if you would be willing to elaborate and explain in more detail
what you meant?

Allen

    
    We all are able to know and feel Gods spirit,no matter what our
    beliefs are.We all can know his spirit,and,it doesnt matter what
    we call him,for,those who truly are in tune to his spirit and will,
    can know what he wants for his children.It is when we tune him out
    and listen to the evil one,that we get into trouble.His message
    is clear and simple,the foundation of religions through-out the
    Earth.We all will answer to the same God,individualy,personally.
    God loves all religions,which are founded by those people who have
    tuned to his spirit.Our brother,Jesus,has interceded for us,for
    all who have lived or will live.It is then up to us to follow the
    will of our Father.It is simple,but not easy.All of mankind must
    work together.All of those souls who recognize Gods will,and works
    to do it,will break all barriers,and do as God has asked,to Love
    one another.We must get back to the basics and unite as followers
    of the same spirit.The evil one is strong,and clever.He is getting
    more followers than ever.It is Him that we must unite against,not
    ourselves.We must direct our attention to helping our fellow souls
    in the fight against the evil that is growing.Within the next 2
    years i believe that the Anti-Christ will be born,who will lead
    so many away.We must beware and stay faithful.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

RE: < Note 121.7 by IOSG::VICKERS "Baruch haba ba shem Adonai" >

Dear Paul,

Thanks very much for your reply. It is good to know that these
questions exist among non-Mormon Christians as well as Mormons. 

>    Ps, I would just like to say that the above views are in no way
>    meant as attacks, just questions I have (and I'm sure many others
>    have too).

It is difficult to see how your reply could be interpreted as an 
attack. I'm glad the questions are there, and that you presented them. 
I don't have the slightest idea what the answers are. Let's see what
we can do to arrive at some answers. Together.

First off, when you say:

>    How do both non LDS Christians and Mormons have ... etc etc etc
>    when one group is wrong and the other right ? 

is it necessarily true that one is wrong and one is right? Could there 
not be some truth in both camps, as well as some error in both camps? 

I remember someone once explaining this by comparing various religions 
to pianos, with the keys representing elements of truth. Some pianos
have more keys and some have missing keys. Therefore some pianos can 
play some songs and some can't. Similarly, the more 'true' a religion
is, the more you can do with it, the more you can build upon it, and
the more complete your understanding can be. How do you feel about 
this analogy? Can't there be elements of truth on both sides?

As for me, I see a lot of good being done in this world, both 
spiritual and temporal, by many religions other than my own (LDS). I
find this inconsistent with the idea that you're all deluded and on a
toboggan-slide to hell.  ;-)

If this logic appeals, then could it not also be applied to Mormons?

Praying for understanding,
/kevin

    RE:.11
    Hi Mike,
    
    I too feel that there is much to be gained by focusing on the 
    similarities rather than the differences.   Your call to unite
    in fighting the evil one is a good one that I hope all will 
    take to heart.    
    
    This is probably better said in another note but I would like to
    hear why you feel the Anti-Christ will be born in the next two
    years.    

 With Love in Christ,
    -gary

    
    re .12
    
    Hi Kevin,

>is it necessarily true that one is wrong and one is right? Could there 
>not be some truth in both camps, as well as some error in both camps? 

    Yes, there is truth in both camps and error in both camps (you show
    me a perfect church and I ain't joining it 'cause I would spoil
    it.)    

    However, the questions in my mind are not about other religions
    but about differing views of Christianity. I don't see other religions
    as offering salvation (Jesus said He is '*the* way' not '*a* way').
    
    God bless,
    paul v

    
    
       Religions do not offer salvation.Sounds like a sales pitch.Jesus
    is the Savior of All,reguardless of our beliefs.When we pass on,He
    will be the one we will answer to,according to our actions.All of
    mankind is saved through his grace.No religion has more to offer
    when it comes to the principle of salvation.Our place with the lord
    will be determined by our actions.
    
    
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    
    
      Hi Gary,
    
    All i can say about my statement concerning the Anti-Christ,is,that
    i have a gift of vision,and,it is through this gift,that i received
    the knowledge.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    I guess then the Book of Mormon must be incorrect when it states
    the following:
    
    "And Amulek hath spoken plainly concerning death, and being raised
    from this mortality to a state of immortality, and being brought
    before the bar of God, to be judged according to our works...For
    our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condem us..And
    now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death,
    which is a spiritual death;  then is a time that whosoever dieth
    in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual
    death, yea he shall die as to things pertaining unto
    righteousness...their torments shall be as a lake of fire and
    brimstone...forever and ever...for they cannot be redeemed according
    to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more
    corruption."  [Alma 12:16-18]
    
    "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an
    enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal
    soul...And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that
    man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment."
    [Mosiah 2:38-39]
    
    "And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold,
    I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest." [Alma
    12:35]
    
    "And this is my doctrine....And whoso believeth not in me, and is
    not baptized, shall be damned..."  [3 Nephi 11:32-36]
    
    "For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God;
    yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their
    labors...Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis,
    that I will repent, that I will return to my God.  Nay, ye cannot
    say this; FOR THAT SAME SPIRIT WHICH DOTH POSSESS YOUR BODIES AT
    THE TIME THAT YE GO OUT OF THIS LIFE, THAT SAME SPIRIT WILL HAVE
    POWER TO POSSESS YOUR BODY IN THAT ETERNAL WORLD....and this is
    the final state of the wicked." [Alma 34:32-35]
    
    Read also, Moroni 8:22-23, 2Nephi 9:25-26 and especially Mosiah
    15:26-27: "But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye
    ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against
    him and die in their sins, yea even all those THAT HAVE PERISHED
    IN THEIR SINS EVER SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN...these are they that have
    no part in the first resurrection...For salvation cometh to none
    such, yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny
    himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim."
    
    According to the Book of Mormon, you have the same spirit in death
    that you had in life and there is no chance for redemption afterwards.
     So how can you progress in the hereafter?  So why should you baptize
    for the dead?  Jesus himself cannot even redeem such because that
    would be denying His justice!  How do you explain these scriptures
    that are in total contradiction to the D & C?
                                                                        
    

    Jesus said it plainly in Luke 13:3 - "I tell you, Nay: but, except
    ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
    
    There is more to salvation then just believing Jesus was.  Anyone
    can believe that.  Just like we believe that George Washington was,
    or that Abe Lincoln was.  Jesus said, "believe on me and thou wilt
    be saved", many many times.  But when our translation of believe
    is in hebrew it really means, to adhere to, trust in and rely on.
     In other words, give over our lives to him.  The difference between
    being saved and not-saved is:  with one you believe - with the other
    you serve.  And since we cannot serve two masters, we must either
    serve Jesus or we serve satan.
    
    Jesus said, "I AM the way, the truth and the life... No man cometh
    to the Father but by me."
    
    To me, as a non-Mormon, my salvation means that I put my trust solely
    in Christ.  That I test all things against the scriptures (the Bible).
     That the Holy Spirit that dwells within my heart speaks to me and
    leads me to the path of righteousness.  That I seek first the kingdom
    of God and His righteousness.  In Romans it says I am not ashamed
    of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation
    to every one that believeth.  The just shall live by faith.  But
    even if I did nothing for God but believe on Him, my faith is counted
    for righteousness. [Romans chpt. 3 and 4]
    
    If I were to die tonight, I know that I would go to heaven, and
    be face to face with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy
    Spirit (comments on the trinity excluded for now - this is how I
    believe).  That I would dwell with the Lord forever as mentioned
    in Rev. 21:7.   So, in this context I am saved.  Saved from eternal
    damnation.
    
    I guess, in the end, only God can determine who goes to heaven and
    who goes to hell.  Maybe this might be a determining factor:  in
    my denomination (Assembly of God - and yes we have our fallen "angels"
    as it were but it is written "judgement begins with the house of
    God") the church does not save me - Jesus saves me.  The church is
    only a place to assemble and learn about God.  To worship and sing
    his praises.  To hear a word from Him (which we do in almost every
    service).  If I were to leave the church to go to another, I would
    still be saved.
    
    But in some churches it is taught:  that only their church performs
    the saving ordinances.  That if you leave that church, you cannot
    hope to obtain eternal life.  I don't agree with that.  I also do
    not believe I will ever become a goddess (and not because I am not
    a Mormon).  
    
    But again, only God can judge in the end.  But I think it is important
    that we be concerned with who we serve.  Just my opinion.
    
    Leza
    

The Book of Mormon does not rule out baptism for the dead.  And, baptism of the 
dead does not supplant a wicked life.  We will still all be judged by our 
works and the spirit that leaves this earth is the same.  Baptism for the dead 
is principally for those who had no opportunity to accept baptism in life.  
As with other eternal or sacred ordinances, it can only be done in the correct 
place by those with authority that is also eternal (not just of man).
As we cannot judge men according to whether they have had sufficient 
opportunity, we attempt to baptize for all dead so that this ordinance which 
Christ indicates is necessary for salvation need not keep righteous people 
from the kingdom of heaven for lack of opportunity.  It is the responsibility 
of every accountable person to accept or reject baptism and all it implies and 
our responsibility to afford all the opportunity of accepting baptism by those
in authority.  

Currently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only church 
on the earth today that has this authority.  In Christ's day and before, this 
authority was held only by a select few, including John the Baptist.  Today, 
this authority has been extended to a relatively large percentage of the
population.  It's pretty pious and conceited to make such claims if they are 
not true.  But, if they are true it is most vital that such claims be made.

The concept of eternal progression and the role of baptism has been discussed 
in other notes.  There is no contradiction in the scriptures.  Aside from the
flaws of the authors, only lack of understanding causes one to find 
contradiction in the Word of the Lord as found in the scriptures.  For Mormons, 
detection of contradiction signals the need for more prayer and study of the 
scriptures, not a signal that the Lord's words are untrue.


Steve

Let us take a closer look at the verses that Leza quoted from the Book of
Mormon.

    "And Amulek hath spoken plainly concerning death, and being raised
    from this mortality to a state of immortality, and being brought
    before the bar of God, to be judged according to our works...For
    our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us..And
    now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death,
    which is a spiritual death;  then is a time that whosoever dieth
    in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual
    death, yea he shall die as to things pertaining unto
    righteousness...their torments shall be as a lake of fire and
    brimstone...forever and ever...for they cannot be redeemed according
    to God's justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more
    corruption."  [Alma 12:16-18]

Amulek said that those "whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death,
shall also die a spiritual death".  That is, those who have not repented from
their sins by the time they die will be separated from God, that is, suffer
a spiritual death.  Both the Bible and our LDS scriptures teach that repentance
is necessary.  Jesus said, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
(Luke 13:3,5).  As Amulek said, repentance is absolutely necessary.

Amulek said nothing about whether persons could repent in the life to come or
not, and we have to be careful that we do not read things into his words that he
did not say.  He only said that those who die in their sins would be separated
from God, and he is right.  This was discussed in detail in note 4.57.

Amulek also said that those who die in their sins "cannot be redeemed according
to God's justice".  This is another way of saying that repentance is necessary.
Jesus does not redeem those who do not repent; if he did he was lying in the two
verses from Luke 13.

    "Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an
    enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal
    soul...And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that
    man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment."
    [Mosiah 2:38-39]

    "And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold,
    I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest." [Alma
    12:35]

This is further elaboration on repentance being necessary.

    "And this is my doctrine....And whoso believeth not in me, and is
    not baptized, shall be damned..."  [3 Nephi 11:32-36]
    
Baptism being necessary, and repentance being a prerequisite for baptism, was
discussed in detail in note 4.29 and 4.30.  Also, keep in mind that the word
"damned" means that one's progress is stopped.

    "For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God;
    yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their
    labors...Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis,
    that I will repent, that I will return to my God.  Nay, ye cannot
    say this; FOR THAT SAME SPIRIT WHICH DOTH POSSESS YOUR BODIES AT
    THE TIME THAT YE GO OUT OF THIS LIFE, THAT SAME SPIRIT WILL HAVE
    POWER TO POSSESS YOUR BODY IN THAT ETERNAL WORLD....and this is
    the final state of the wicked." [Alma 34:32-35]
    
That is one of my favorite scriptures from the Book of Mormon!  Amulek is
telling us that death does not change our relationship with God; death does
not change our attitudes; death does not change our habits; death does not
change our personalities.  Those who were selfish when they died will be
selfish in the spirit world.  Those who were loving when they died will be
loving in the spirit world.  That is, death is as a door way in which we go
from one room (mortality) to another room (the spirit world to await the
resurrection; see notes 4.57 through 4.60).  Because death does not change
our relationship with God, we should not procrastinate our repentance thinking
that we will repent later on.  If we do not want to repent now we will not
want to repent later on.  However, just as we have the opportunity and also
the ability to repent in this life, so will we have the opportunity and
also ability to repent in the next life; hence the reason for our doing
proxy work in our temples (see note 4.62).

We all should heed the words of Amulek:  "that same spirit which doeth possess
your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have
power to possess your body in that eternal world".  Let us all repent now and
emulate Jesus in our lives, so that the spirit which we have at death will be
a sweet and loving spirit.

Leza referred to Moroni 8:22-23.  In those verses Mormon explains that because
of the atonement of Christ, children and those adults who do not have the law
of Christ do not need baptism because they have not sinned; they have been
cleansed by the atonement.

She also referred to 2 Nephi 9:25-26 in which Jacob taught the same principle
that those without the Law of God will not be judged by the Law of God,
because the atonement of Christ made full atonement for them.

The final scripture referred to by Leza is from Mosiah.

    "But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye
    ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against
    him and die in their sins, yea even all those THAT HAVE PERISHED
    IN THEIR SINS EVER SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN...these are they that have
    no part in the first resurrection...For salvation cometh to none
    such, yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny
    himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim."
    (Mosiah 15:26-27)
    
As explained in note 4.59, those who follow God will come forth in the first
resurrection, while those who sin will wait until the second resurrection.

The Nephites lived the Law of Moses and looked forward to the coming of Christ
as the Messiah.  Their prophets emphasized that this life is the time to prepare
to meet God; this life is the time to learn obedience and repentance; this life
is the time to serve God through service to others.  We have to be careful that
we do not make the careless mistake to assume that because the Nephite prophets
did not specifically speak of proxy work for the dead they did not know of such
things.  In reading the Book of Mormon (as well as the Bible) we must take what
is there and assume nothing about things not mentioned; things not mentioned
are thus undefined as far as those books are concerned.  That is, the absence
of certain doctrines in the Bible or Book of Mormon does not imply that such
doctrines are false.

Because we live in a different dispensation that those of the New Testament and
Nephite disciples, we have been given greater knowledge and clarifications about
things of God.  This knowledge is not contradictory with the Biblical or Nephite
scriptures because those scriptures do not discuss (in detail at least) those
doctrines.  This knowledge is an expansion on the Biblical and Nephite
doctrines.  This is the advantage of having living prophets--one is not
completely dependent on the writings of ancient prophets but is dependent on the
revealed word of God in all ages!

Allen

    ALLEN:
    
    First, you are correct - all these scriptures pertain to WHY you
    should repent and be baptized.  Because, the flip side is, if you
    don't repent and get baptized, you go to hell.  
    
    To clarify:
    
    In Mosiah 2:36-39:  the final comment is "his FINAL doom is to endure
    a never ending torment."
    
    In Almah 34:32-35:  "...there cometh the night of darkness wherein
    there can be NO labor performed...for behold, if ye have procrastinated
    the day of your repentence even until death, behold ye have become
    subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his...and
    this IS THE FINAL STATE of the wicked."
    
    Alma 12:16-18:  going back to 13, "if we harden our hearts against
    God then will our state be awful, for then we shall be condemed."
    
    Verse 27:  "but it was appointed unto men that they must die; and
    after death, they must come to judgment, even that same judgment
    of which we have spoken, which is the end...."  then in Verse 32:
    "that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second
    death, which was an EVERLASTING DEATH.." then in Verse 35
    & 36: "And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity,
    behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall NOT enter into my rest.
     And now, my brethren, behold, I say unto you, that if ye will harden
    your hearts ye shall NOT enter into the rest of the Lord...yea
    according to his word in the last provocation as well as the first,
    to the everlasting destruction of your souls; therefore, according
    to his word, unto the last death, as well as the first."
    
    But 2nd Nephi 9:15-16 clearly sums it up:  "And it shall come to
    pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto
    life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before
    the judgement seat of the Holy One... And assuredly, as the Lord
    liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word,
    which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous
    still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore,
    they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall
    go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment
    is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever
    and ever and has no end."  Dropping down to verse 23:  "And he
    commandeth ALL men that they must repent, and be baptized in his
    name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Isreal, or THEY CANNOT
    BE SAVED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD."  Continue to verses 32-38:    "Wo
    unto the liar for he shall be thrust down to hell.  Wo unto the
    murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die.  Wo unto them
    who commit whoredoms, for they shall be thrust down to hell...And
    in fine, wo unto all thos who DIE IN THEIR SINS; for they shall
    return to God, and behold his face, and remain in their sins."
                                             
    Allen, you too must be careful that you do not read what is not
    there.  I take the Book of Mormon literally and for ONE reason.
     There are NO golden plates in which to compare to.  There is no way to
    prove if the translation at this point is correct.  There is no
    mention here of "working your way" to an higher heaven.  It is clear:
     when you die, if you were not repentant and baptized before your
    death, too bad.  You die in your sins and you are cast into hell.
     The night of darkness has arrived and you can no more labor.  To
    wit I agree with the Book of Mormon.  
    
    I have repented of my sins and I have been baptized.  Therefore,
    I am saved from hell.  The point is, no where does the Book of Mormon
    teach progression after death - which would eliminate baptism for
    the dead.    And believe it or not, the Bible does not advocate
    or teach baptism for the dead..  Let's look close at Pauls statement:
    
    1st Corin. 15:29: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for
    the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  Why are they then baptized
    for the dead?"
    
    If you go back to the beginning of this section, Paul is talking
    to the believers about the resurrection.  He is telling them that
    Christ arose from the dead.  And since they are believers, they too
    will be raised from the dead.  Infact ALL who believe in Jesus Christ as
    Lord and Saviour will be resurrected.  In verse 24 it says, "then
    cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to
    God...the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."  They did
    not, at this time, have complete belief in their own resurrection
    because of some of the false teaching going on.  So, in verse 29,
    Paul was in essence asking, "hey, if you don't believe that the
    dead will be raised, why are they bothering to baptize for the dead?
     They don't believe they are going to be resurrected anyway!"  Notice
    that Paul uses the word "THEY" to discribe who is doing the baptizing
    for the dead.  He is not talking about believers.  He is talking
    about the pagan rituals that were going on during that time, where
    groups were baptizing for the dead.   They were causing doubt among
    the believers.
    
    So, from my viewpoint, both the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach
    that if you do not accept Jesus as your savior, you will go to hell.
    
    This does contradict current Mormon theology and makes one wonder
    why there is such a big gap from a God who supposedly never changes
    his precepts or commands.

    Re: .12
    
    Hi Leza,
    
    Here's a question for you.
    
    As a hypothetical case, let's say there is a person who lives in
    China in the year 50 A.D. This person is a good person, has lived
    a good life and has always tried to love his fellow man. He dies
    without hearing of Jesus Christ, without accepting Him as his Saviour,
    without repenting and being baptized.
         
    Now the question:
    
    In your view, what will be this man's fate? Will he go to heaven or
    will he go to hell? 
                     
    Regards,
    Rich

    In my opinion, there has been nothing presented where the
    Book of Mormon and the D. & C. disagree - only points where one
    may have information or perspective that the other does not have.  
    Were the Book of Mormon authors aware of baptism for the dead?  I 
    haven't found evidence of it in the Book of Mormon.  Does that make 
    it an incorrect principle or mean that they did not understand this
    principle?  No.  The Book of Mormon is not, nor does it pretend to be 
    comprehensive.  In fact, given that it is a companion to the Bible, 
    that it is an abridgement, that both of these records indicate the
    presence of other records, and that all scripture testifies of a 
    living God and of revelation, it seems odd that one should call a
    teaching false because it is contained in one set of scriptures or 
    revelations and not even mentioned in another.
    
    
    Steve

RE .13

>    As a hypothetical case, let's say there is a person who lives in
>    China in the year 50 A.D. This person is a good person, has lived
>    a good life and has always tried to love his fellow man. He dies
>    without hearing of Jesus Christ, without accepting Him as his Saviour,
>    without repenting and being baptized.
         
>    Now the question:
    
>    In your view, what will be this man's fate? Will he go to heaven or
>    will he go to hell? 
                     

	Although not addressed to me, let me give you a Scriptural answer.
    
    First of all the Bible assures us that the God of the universe is
    an absolutely fair judge.[1]  Because He  literally is love,[2]
    there is not a person who has ever lived who is more merciful 
    than He.  Secondly, the Bible says that every human being can see
    evidence of God's existence in His magnificently ordered and beautiful
    creation.[3]  Thirdly, The Bible talks specifically about people
    who have never heard about God's standards.  God will judge them
    according to the understanding they have.[4]
    
    [1] I Peter 1:17
    [2] I John 4:8
    [3] Romans 1:20
    [4] Romans 2:14-16

    122.15 by Rinesmith
    
    I am sure there will be a few responses to this question about the
    fate of those who die having never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    In studying this question I have heard several Christian sects
    give such as answers as a place called Limbo, or some have said
    that such a person would be damned.
    
    But the Mormons provide a different answer.  All adult persons when
    they die, go to a place called the Spirit World, where they will
    be taught the Gospel of Christ in its fullness and entirety.  They
    will be given their free will to accept or reject the teachings.
    
    The Biblical precedent for this in in 1 Peter 3:18-19 wherein Christ,
    after his death and before his resurrection, went to the spirits
    in prison and preached to them.
    
    This teaching of the LDS Church shows how all of humanity has
    access to God's truths and is embraced by a loving and just God
    because he has provided a way for all of his children to hear his word.
    
    Regards to all readers,
    
    Paul
    

    re: the last few
    
    I believe that the scriptures in the Bible indicate that a way is
    provided for those who have no chance to hear the Gospel, as is
    indicated in 122.15.  Baptism for the dead is that missing piece as
    to how the Lord will do this without contradicting the other
    commandments regarding baptism.  I feel that baptism for the dead was 
    a principle that was understood by the New Testament writers and the 
    some portions of their writings regarding this practice were either 
    deleted from original texts or not included except for the reference 
    in 1 Cor. 15:29.  I don't have a copy of the Apocrypha, but I seem to 
    recall that there is some direct or indirect mention of it there.
    And, I believe there is reference to it in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
    
    Steve

To those who have not already done so, I would suggest that they read notes
4.57 and 4.62.

         4.57   The Spirit World
         4.62   Latter-day Revelation: Salvation for the Dead

Those notes discuss in detail our beliefs that those who die without hearing
the Gospel will hear it after they die.  It is interesting, as I pointed out
in those notes, that the Rev. Dummelow in his Commentary basically agrees with
our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 and 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Allen

    Hi
    
    I'm just taking a peek into this conference for the first time mainly
    because of commercials I've recently seen by the Mormons on television.
    These commercials are pleasingly different from most religion-inspired
    messages one finds on TV. I personally have belief in God but do not
    subscribe to any particular religion or manuscript. But I liked the
    "attitude" of the commercials that I saw - enough to arouse my curiosity
    in this file. It's nice to see such positive human messages from an
    established religion on such too-often shallow a medium. Mormon or not,
    we all benefit from such good work. Thank you Church of LDS! 
    
    - Phil 

    In answer to Rich's question:  what about the Chinese man who died
    in 50 A.D.
    
    First, the reply from 122.15 was good.  If I may add to that just
    a bit.
    
    Let's go back to Genisys.  
    
    In the beginning was God.  And God fellowshiped with Adam and with
    Eve.  They knew who God was.  All their children knew who God was.
     And all their children knew who God was.  (For all have the knowledge
    of God inside of them.)  But because of rebellion they wanted things
    there own way.  So they created their own gods.  They decided to
    turn their backs on the very God that created them and worship false
    gods.  What is their excuse?
    
    Yes, God is very merciful.  If the chinese man in A.D. 50 was truly
    seeking God, I believe he would find God.  God says "if you will
    diligently seek me then I will hear you, I will be found of you,
    Will protect, etc."  If this mans heart attitude was to seek the
    true God, then I believe God in his mercy allowed him to go to haven.
    Let me explain.
    
    God knows all of our hearts.  Look at the story of Lazarus.  The
    rich man would not even feed Lazarus, a begger, crumbs from his
    table.  Lazarus died and went into the bosom of Abraham (paradise).
     The rich man died also, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being
    in torments and cried to Abraham for Lazarus to have mercy on him.
     But because of his cruelty to Lazarus, he was given no relief.
     The rich men then asked if Lazarus would be allowed to visit his
    living brethren so that they would not be sent to the same place
    he was, the reply:
    
    "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,
    neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
    Luke 16:19-31.
                  
    So I believe this:  if a person, who has NEVER heard the gospel
    of Jesus Christ is truly seeking God, and does not worship other
    gods, (idols) but really wants to believe in God, then I believe
    they would go to heaven.  Because if Jesus or someone else had preached
    the gospel to them, they would have accepted him to begin with.
     But I believe there are those who died without the knowledge of
    Jesus and went to hell.  This would be because they had such hard
    hearts (such as the pharisees) that they wouldn't believe in Jesus
    even if they heard it from a ghost.
    
    I don't believe little children (and also maybe retarded people)
    go to hell.  But I cannot speak for God.  He is just, but He is
    merciful. I think many of us will be surprised in heaven and just
    who is and who isn't there.  It's a heart attitude.
    
    But today, we have no excuse.  The Bible is very clear on that.
    With the media and books and missionaries, we can all know about 
    Jesus Christ.  Our salvation today, is based on a relationship with
    Him.  For He is the Way the Truth and the Life, No man cometh to the 
    Father except by Him.  I say, let God take care of all those who
    lived and died in the past.  Rather, let us be concerned about our
    own salvation!
    
    We humans don't want to suffer consequences.  We don't want to be
    accountable for our decisions.  DON'T GIVE ME NO HELL STUFF.  We
    delude ourselves.  The bible says, for the wages of sin is death,
    but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.  It also
    says, all our righteousness is counted as dung, there is none
    righteous.  And the Bible also says, if you say you have no sin,
    you lie.
    
    So, I admit that I am a sinner who needs the saving grace of Jesus
    Christ.  And that because of his death on the cross, I have eternal
    life, with Him.
    
    As I have said before, I am safe either way.  According to Mormon
    theology, I will go to a heaven.  And someone will preach to me.
     Because I love Christ now, and discovered then that I was wrong,
    then I would definately accept him in the hereafter.  So, either
    way, I go to heaven.
    
    But if you believe in what the Bible teaches, then those who did
    not love and serve God through Jesus will go to hell.  If you believe
    in a false doctrine and in false Gods, then you are not exempt.
     No matter how good you may be.
    
    One other thing (I know I am very long winded) in regards to Jesus
    preaching to the spirits in prison.  I believe that was a one time
    effort.  God in his mercy was willing to give all those who died
    without the knowledge of Jesus, one last opportunity to turn their
    lives over.  But all others after the death and resurrection of
    Jesus - no.
    
    And, as far as baptism for the dead.  We will have to agree to disagree
    on this one.  My interpretation (as well as hundreds and thousands
    of other Christians) of 1 Corin. 15:29 will just have to be different.
     I do not hold the comments of one man, Rev. Dummelow, worth anything.
     We will all understand it in the by and by.
    
    Leza

    	I had something happen to me the other day which I'm still in total 
amazement about. I had mentioned to a friend of mine, who is a "born again 
Christian", that I would not be attending a meeting that his group would be 
conducting. I told him that my family and I would be flying to California 
to see my father who is critically ill. He showed great concern and had 
asked for my fathers name which he put on a personal prayer list. I felt 
that this person had the real spirit of Christ. But then later on he asked 
if I had talked to my father about being saved.  I said that he is a 
devout Catholic and would probably not respond to such an approach. I 
responded that he was also raised in the "Catholic tradition". He also said 
that he had a grandmother who is Catholic and it was too bad that my father 
would be condemned too.

	My question is; Is it a belief of most "born again Christians" that 
those who accept Christ as their savior through the teachings of the Catholic 
church are condemned? I have real problems believing that someone who claims 
to believe in Christ, would think that that same God would not love all of 
his children and deny them salvation based on what church they REGULARLY 
worship in. It makes me wonder how many Christians attend the church of 
"Holier than thou".

	Being LDS I know that everyone will be given the chance to accept 
Jesus as their savior, whether it's on this earth or in the life after. 
I've had some aunts and uncles who've indicated to me in the temple that 
they were grateful for the work that had been done for them so there is no 
doubt in my mind that the gospel is also being taught on the other side of 
the veil.

Frank Mueller
    

RE: Note 225.0 QBUS::MUELLER 

>	My question is; Is it a belief of most "born again Christians" that 
>those who accept Christ as their savior through the teachings of the Catholic 
>church are condemned? 

I realize I am putting words in the mouths of others, but, speaking as 
a former Catholic subjected to such anti-Catholic silliness, I can
tell you that yes, it is a belief of a significant numbers of BAC's
that Catholics are on a toboggan slide to hell. 

The essence of this belief is that since so many Catholics worship 
ritual (and many do) instead of Jesus Christ, that they do not fulfill 
the basic BAC requirement to confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. 
Again, speaking as a former Catholic, it's conceivable that one can live 
one's whole life as nominally saved by Catholic standards, yet not 
have a clue about the Biblical Jesus.

Of course, on the other hand, it is only recently that Catholic 
tradition accepted non-Catholics as Christians; that unless you're 
baptized a Catholic then *you're* the one on that toboggan slide.

So there's lots of "holier than thou" to go around, not excluding 
Mormons, of course. Anyone, whether Christian or Catholic, Mormon or 
Martian, who translates Christ's message that "I am the way, the truth
and the life" as being "I found Christ so my way is the only right
way" is missing the whole point of Christ's ministry: that He came to
save *all* mankind, and He accomplished that mission. To assert
otherwise is to assert that Christ was a failure. 

Of course, Jesus told us that there are some things we need to *do* 
while we're in this life. We're here to learn and grow and progress, 
obey Christ's commandments, and accomplish divine purposes. Condemning
others for their religious affiliation is flatly *not* one of those
purposes. 

"I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me; confused at the grace 
that so freely He proffers me." It does not matter that I am a sinner;
He *came* for sinners. How such an immensely profound and eternally
loving truth can be negated by being, of all things, a Catholic, is 
beyond my poor powers of reason. 

/kevin

                         -< Prereq. for being saved? >-

>	My question is; Is it a belief of most "born again Christians" that 
>those who accept Christ as their savior through the teachings of the Catholic 
>church are condemned? I have real problems believing that someone who claims 
>to believe in Christ, would think that that same God would not love all of 
>his children and deny them salvation based on what church they REGULARLY 
>worship in. It makes me wonder how many Christians attend the church of 
>"Holier than thou".
>
>	Being LDS I know that everyone will be given the chance to accept 
>Jesus as their savior, whether it's on this earth or in the life after. 

        Frank,
        
            First you  must  understand from the Non-LDS point of view that
        there is no  second  chance  in an after-life.  The second thing is
        that in John 3  Jesus  says  that one MUST be born again to see the
        kingdom of God.
            I  am  not going to speak for every Catholic, but I have  never
        met  one  who  believed  that they MUST be Born Again, nor did they
        claim to have  been.    It  seems  reasonable  to  me  from  Jesus'
        discussion that for a  person  to  be Born Again would mean that he
        believes what Jesus said and  had experienced it.  Thank goodness I
        am not the judge, but I  can  observe  what the Bible says and what
        the Catholics I have met say, and  from  that  conclude  that  this
        Biblical condition for salvation has not been met.
        
        - Ed
        

    We cannot reliably determine who will be condemned and who will not, 
    who is righteous and who is not (D.&C. 10:37).  That is for the Lord to 
    decide (D.&C. 64:9-11) while we are required to forgive all.  
    That's what Mormons are supposed to believe, though some may not
    live completely by this standard.  Note that, for example, Mormons
    perform ordinances for the dead by proxy based on evidence of birth, 
    death and so forth.  They do not require evidence of good works or 
    of valiant faith on the part of the deceased.  Rather, they render to 
    all the benefit of doubt, leaving it to the Lord to judge while
    hopefully and lovingly providing opportunity for all to accept
    Christ's name and to be born again.
    
    Steve

RE: < Note 225.3 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN >


Excellent points, Steve. 

/kevin

>	My question is; Is it a belief of most "born again Christians" that 
> those who accept Christ as their savior through the teachings of the Catholic 
> church are condemned? 
    
    I was a Catholic for many years before I became a Christian. I know
    that this sounds a little strange, but it is not. Many people consider
    themselves Christians who are "nominal" (in name only), by virtue
    of membership or attachment to an organization, usually called a
    "church". Their Chistianity is associative. The New Testament makes
    it plain that Christ "dwells within" each true Christian, and that
    the true Church is the "body of Christ" (those in whom Christ dwells),
    not an earthly organization. While it is true that groups of people 
    on earth gather under the auspices of "this or that" Church, it is 
    merely the representation of an earthly gathering, and in no way
    imparts any spiritual status to the earthy members thereof, nor
    can it. Technically, anywhere the members of the body of Christ
    gather is "church".
    
    The scripture has clear guidelines on how gatherings of Christians
    ought to handle their organizational, administrative, and disciplinary
    affairs on earth, but this is for each gathering (associated by
    mutual agreement) not the world-wide body of Christ as a unit. This 
    is demonstrated in Revelation when Christ gives specific messages for 
    "the Church" at different locations; Ephesus, Philadelphia, Laeodocia, 
    etc.
    
    If I seem to have diverged, it was only to make the point that most 
    people confuse earthly membership in a church with true spiritual 
    regeneration. If someone truly accepts Jesus Christ, whether through 
    the teachings of the Catholic Church, or the 700 Club, or whatever,
    then they are not condemned, for they have received the salvation
    that Christ offers. If they trust in their membership in a church, 
    then they are lost. This is clear enough to anyone who reads the New 
    Testament. Some people don't like it, but it's pretty plain.

    Regards,
    
    Ed    
    

RE: Note 225.3 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN

>    We cannot reliably determine who will  be  condemned  and who will not,
>    who is righteous and who is not (D.&C.  10:37).

      Again I will say that I am  glad  it  not I that makes the judgement,
      but the Bible DOES teach that it is  POSSIBLE  to  KNOW  if  we  have
      eternal life and to discern the same in others based on scripture.
      
      I John 5:12-13
      "He who has the Son has life;  he  who  does  not have the Son of God
      does not have life.  I write these things to  you  who believe in the
      name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW  that  you  have  eternal
      life."
      
      Isaiah 9:19-20
      "When  men tell you to consult mediums and spiritist, who whisper and
      mutter,  should not a people inquire of their God?  ...  To  the  law
      and  to  the testimony!  If they do not speak according to THIS word,
      they have no light of dawn."      

>    Note that, for  example,  Mormons  perform  ordinances  for the dead by
>    proxy based on evidence  of  birth,  death  and  so forth.  They do not
>    require evidence of good works  or  of valiant FAITH on the part of the
>    deceased.                                      
    
      I find  this  comment  interesting  in  light of what Paul says about
      being born again...
      
      Colossians 2:11-12
      "In him YOU were  also  circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful
      nature, ..., having been buried  with  him in baptism and raised with
      him through YOUR FAITH in the  power  of God, who raised him from the
      dead."
      
      This is also interesting because Paul specifically says that not only
      is it the person's faith that is important,  but  also indicates that
      it was THE person who was baptized whose faith  it  had  to be!  This
      not only does away with the validity of Catholic infant  baptism, but
      I don't see how this can be reconciled to your belief  of baptism for
      the dead!
      
      -Ed

    
    re: .3
    
    Good comments Steve! I just wanted bring up a story that demonstrates
    what you mentioned on withholding judgement on those who are baptised
    by proxy. There was a story going around a while ago that Adolph
    Hitler's temple work had been done. In our High Priest's group it
    made for an intereseing discussion of whether one of us would be
    willing to do the work if we were given such a name at the temple.
    Anyhow, it shows that we withhold judgement and allow the Lord to
    cake care of matters such as these.....
    
    Kevin

    
    We do not have the capacity in general to judge the righteousness of 
    others reliably.  (I say 'in general' to distinguish from when a
    Bishop may act as a judge representing the Church, for example.) Who
    would contest that one can feign to be righteous, fooling many but not 
    fooling God (Matt. 6:1-4, 7:15-23)?  Likewise, one can be judged
    wicked by believers in God and actually be righteous.  This was
    obviously the situation with Christ who was called a deceiver 
    (Matt. 27:63), a sinner (John 9:24) and a blasphemer (John 19:7)
    by believers in God, many of whom prided themselves on their knowledge 
    and application of the the scriptures.  

    I had a friend who committed suicide after committing murder and
    attempted murder, all by violent means and within a period of
    minutes during a fit of passion.  He was probably guilty of
    fornication just prior to this.  According to some, he is going
    straight to hell.  Me, I don't know.  I don't think he was in his
    right mind at the time.  As kids, we were good friends and attended 
    different churches.  He did go to Church and had belief in God and the 
    Bible.  He did a lot of good in his life, the final situation being 
    curiously atypical of him.  I don't know what his judgement will be, 
    but I know that Christ will judge him.  I know that he will be judged 
    by one who loves him more than any other and who understands his 
    situation better than any other.  He will have to account for his 
    mistakes.  But, he will be judged personally and with fairness that
    will probably be far and above what others here might render him.
    

    Steve

    Y'all are probably getting tired of me.  Thanks for your patience!
    
    re: .7
    
    Adolph Hitler?  THAT must have been some intersting dicussion! 
    :-)
    
    re: reconciling the faith issue with baptism for the dead
    
    Baptism, as practiced by the Church, does not assure anyone a place in 
    heaven.  But, nobody gets there without it.  It may be accepted or 
    rejected by the living or the dead.  And, being baptized does not 
    override final judgement by God since we are to be judged according
    to our faith and our works.  So, we make no such judgements about the 
    faith of the deceased and perform baptisms for all deceased, hoping
    for acceptance by the deceased and application in the final judgement.
    This is, of course, being discussed in other notes.  
    

    Steve

    Re .0:
    
    This question is probably one of the most divisive in Christianity
    today. You can find proponents both ways and both groups will quote
    Scripture to prove their particular points.
    
    Although I left the Catholic Church some 20 years ago, I can empathize
    somewhat with those of Traditional Catholic upbringing because for
    years they attended the "true" church and practiced the "true" faith
    (everybody else was outside the mainstream). I think to put
    pre-conditions on prayer for someone in need is not in keeping with
    Christian principles - we should care about anyone in need, not
    just a select few.
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark

    	Thanks to all for the replies. I truly learned quite a bit.
    I too would not want ot be in the judgement seat and I'm grateful
    that someone who has so much love for each of us is the one who
    is going to be doing the judging. I'm off to California for a week
    so I won't be able to monitor the conf.
    
    		But, another friend of mine who is a BAC and I were
    discussing who will be doing the judgement, Jesus, or the 12 apostles,
    or the 12 apostle of the bible for the jews and the 12 Nephite apostles
    for the people of the Americas, or some combination of the above.
    The scripture that really makes me think that it will be Jesus and
    the 24 apostles is in Rev 5:4. 
    
    Take care,
    Frank

This is a pamphlet that is being circulated.  I contacted the author and he
said it was okay to post it so long as I include the necessary info at the
bottom.  He was, by the way, very friendly and cordial.  He is a full-time
minister for a group in Arlington, Texas and is willing to have correspondence 
with those who have interest.  

We were mutually disinterested in HEATED discussion.  I expressed my concern 
that the pamphlet may not be expressing Mormon beliefs accurately.  He felt 
that it did not express exactly what he wanted to express, so he will be 
sending me a more detailed letter.  I expect to respond after I read his letter
and do some analysis of the pamphlet.

My first impressions include that the claims about disagreement of Mormonism 
with the Book of Mormon are weak.  Another impression is that Mr. Walker did 
not accurately represent Church doctrine regarding works, faith, obedience and 
grace.  These have been discussed in other notes and I expect the differences 
to be apparent to noters.

My father, who drew my attention to this pamphlet, demonstrated to me that the 
concepts of Godhead to which Mr. Walker is in disagreement can be readily 
expressed (albeit interpreted in different ways) using the Bible.  The 
references and discussion my father presented are familiar to many noters and 
most of them have been discussed and posted elsewhere, so I don't plan to 
repeat them here.

The contents of this note may add to the discussions concerning the bodies 
of God the Father and of Christ.  It may also add to discussions concerning
how complete and easily understood the Gospel is as contained in the Bible.  
My impression is that it presents an interpretation of the Bible and
understanding of the physical forms of Christ and of God that may differ from 
that of noters, Mormon and non-Mormon.  

I believe this is an accurate representation of the pamphlet, but I may have 
made errors.  My copy of the pamphlet is unclear in some places.  Where it is 
unclear, I have included my assumption in square brackets ("[" and "]").  I 
have also capitalized where emphasis was indicated.

I am including the pamphlet as a reply to this note.

Steve

			I BEAR YOU MY TESTIMONY
			-----------------------

I bear you my testimony that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joseph
Smith was a true prophet of God and that The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints is the only true church on the earth today.

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I shared this
testimony with hundreds of people.  You see, I was born into an LDS home.
My father's side of the family had been members of the Church for four
generations.  

After receiving a testimony, I was baptized at the age of eight and received
the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Growing up, I was
actively involved in my Ward's Boy Scout programs.  As an adult I tithed and
attended Priesthood, fast and testimony, and Sacrament meetings.  I also
performed my duty in our Family Home Evening and Home Teaching.  Later I
obtained my temple recommend and entered the Salt Lake City Temple to perform
baptism for the dead, which was the high point of my life.

As my commitment increased, a good friend of mine, who was not a member of the
Church, became concerned about me.  He had been researching and shared some
facts on the Church I didn't know about.  These facts didn't disturb me,
however, because I had prayed about the Church and had a testimony of the
truthfulness of our gospel.

But in time I did begin to question my personal salvation.  "Why SHOULD my
Heavenly Father take me to the highest degree of heaven?"  The Third Article of
Faith says, "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may
be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."  And although
I was in good standing with the Church, I was not sure I was keeping all the
laws.  There were 613 lwas just in the Old Testament.  I didn't even KNOW all
of them.

I also read in 2 Nephi 25:23, "... it is by grace that we are saved, after all
we can do."  If I was honest with myself, neither I nor any of my LDS friends
were really doing ALL we could do.

I thought I had been trusting in CHRIST as my personal Savior.  Really I was
trusting MY testimony and MY good works for salvation.  I finally knelt down
and admitted to my Heavenly Father that even on my best days I was not perfect. 
I, like everyone, was a sinner (Romans 3:23).  It was hard, but I told God I
was no longer going to trust in my own good works or any church for eternal
life.  From that time on, I was going to trust His Son Jesus Christ alone to
save me from my sins, just like the Bible said (Acts 4:12).

Then I was ready to seriously investigate some of the facts my friend had tried
to show me years earlier.  There was one truth that stood out above all others. 
The god I worshipped as a Latter-Day Saint was totally different from the God
of the Bible.

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, in his book Mormon Doctrine (p. 270), admits that
many people worshiping God by the right names are really worshiping false gods. 
He states:  "The mere worship of a god who has the proper scriptural names does
not assure one that he is worshiping the true and living God."  I had worshiped
"God the Eternal Fatehr, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost" (First
Article of Faith).  The names were right but the god was wrong.

The god that I worshiped as a Latter-Day Saint had a body of flesh and bone
(D&C 130:22), was a glorified, exalted man (Gospel Through the Ages, Milton
Hunter, p. 104), and was one of many gods (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie,
pp. 576-577).

The God of the Bible does not have a body of flesh and bone.  "God is a Spirit
..."  (John 4:24);  "A spirit hath not flesh and bones"  (Luke 24:39).

The God of the Bible is not a man who was promoted to godhood.  "God is not a 
man ..."  (Numbers 23:19);  "Professing themselves to be wise, they became 
fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image like to
corruptible man ..."  (Romans 1:22-23).

The God of the Bible is the only true God.  "I am He:  before Me there was no
God formed, neither shall there be after Me"  (Isaiah 43:10);  "I am the first,
and am the last;  and beside Me there is no God"  (Isaiah 44:6).

Ironically, the Book of Mormon agrees with the Bible and disagrees with
Mormonism, even though I no longer believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of
God.  The Book of Mormon says God does not have a body of flesh and bones (Alma
[18:2]6-28),  He isn't an exalted man (Moroni 8:18), His is the only true God 
(Alma 11:28-29).  How could I believe Mormon doctrine when its own books 
taught to the contrary?

It was not until years later I realized many other religions also pray and gain
testimonies of their religion.  But I bear you my testimony that, according to
the Bible, the only true Gospel is that Christ died for my sins, was buried,
and rose again for my personal salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).  I [tho]ught I
could earn Celestial exaltation, but [r]ead I needed to trust Christ ALONE as my
Savior.  The Bible says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not 
of yourselves;  it is the gift of God:  not of works, lest any man should 
boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

I urge you to come to the God of the Bible, the only true God (Deuteronomy
4:35).  He loves you and sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for your sins (John
3:16).  Admit to God that you are a sinner (Isaiah 53:6) and today trust Christ
alone as your Savior (Romans 10:9-10).

"And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life; he who does not
have hte Son of God does not have life"  (1 John 5:11-12).


					James K. Walker


If you have any questions about what you have read, you can contact James
Walker at:

			(817) 277-0023
			P.O. Box 13251
			Arlington, TX 76013

									B70
American Tract Society - Box 462008 - Garland, Texas 75046-2008
Canadian Tract Society - Box 203, Fort Credit - Mississauga, Ontario LSG4L7

Photography: C. David Edmonson	Copyright 1985		Printed in U.S.A.

That's an interesting pamphlet; much milder than some I've read!

One of the primary reasons I wrote note 4 was to answer the critics of the
Church.  Most of the points brought out by Mr. Walker are discussed in that
note.  Following is a list of the replies that are directly related to the
comments of Mr. Walker.  In addition, I would recommend reading the full
note to get a wider perspective of what Mormonism teaches about Salvation.

   4.1    The Godhead
   4.2    The Form of God 
             Discusses "God is a Spirit".
   4.24   Faith
   4.25   Christ is the Gift! 
             Discusses Eph. 2:8-9 & Romans 10.  Eph. 2:8-9 is one of
             the most beautiful scriptures in the Bible, but unfortunately
             it is misunderstood by both LDS and non-LDS
   4.26   Salvation is Conditional
   4.27   Faith and Works
   4.28   Love
   4.29   Repentance
   4.30   Baptism
   4.31   The Holy Ghost
   4.32   Obedience to God
   4.44   The Fall of Adam
   4.45   Born in Sin
   4.46   The Atonement of Jesus Christ
   4.60   The Judgment
   4.67   The Plan of Salvation
             Discusses Isaiah 43 & 44

As a background to using only the Bible as a source of information

   4.6    The Bible as a Source of Truth
   4.7    Answers to Prayer
          

Mr. Walker said he grew up in the Church trusting on his testimony and on
the Church for salvation, and that he finally reached the point where he
turned to Christ.  I'm concerned that a lot of LDS may be making the same
mistake that Mr. Walker did, that is, trusting on their testimonies and the
Church for Salvation.

The Church has always taught, and the Bible and LDS scriptures teach, that
salvation comes only through Christ.  Our good works do not save us.  The
Church does not save us.  Only Christ saves us through his atonement.

If I were to live a perfect life and commit no sins at all, I still would not
be able to return and be with God.  Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon make
it very clear that Jesus had to perform his atonement, and without that, there
would be no salvation at all.  I assume that everyone understands that when I
use the word "salvation", I am not just talking about the resurrection, but I
am talking about salvation in the context of the atonement--salvation from
death and salvation from sin.

Allen

	It would indeed be a shame if the LDS people only trusted on their 
	testimonies and the Church for Salvation.  They must come to an
	understanding that these things are only guidelines that help keep
	them on the strait and narrow path.  As mortals we can fall even
	after being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.  We must always
	remember that all types of any way you want to define salvation
	comes by the grace of God.  That no matter what we do and how good
	or charitable we are, we are still in debt to God.  Only in and
	through Jesus Christ can we have any hope for salvation at all.

    Ok, so if he was trusting in his testimony and that's what caused him
    to leave the LDS church, what is he trusting in now?

Boy, that's a thought-provoking question.  He works as a full-time minister now
and I suppose he feels that he is much like Paul, having an about-face as far
as his beliefs go.  I think that the pamphlet does not give enough information
about what it is he now believes in.  I anticipate that this will be clearer
in the letter he is sending.   For example, I do not know how he believes that
Christ and God are related.  I think his approach is fundamentalist and possibly
non-denominational.  I agree with his assertion that putting faith in ones
works for salvation is folly.  (I always figured that good works was a logical
multiplier.)  And, I agree that a personal relationship with God is requisite
for salvation and that you can't just rely on a Church to save you. 

Steve

    Coincidences abound!  Lately I've been hearing/reading quite a bit
    from various sources about the importance of having a personal
    relationship with God and the Savior.  God is our Father and the
    Savior is our eldest brother - there's the relationship, as personal
    as we want to make it.
    
    aq
    

    I must confess I am delighted to see this note in this file. I agree
    with Mr Walker as do at lease 6 of the 7 other responses. I am confused
    as to what the meaning/intent of .7 was. 
    Jesus said " I am the way and the ytuth and the life. No one comes
    to the Father but by me". and " For God so loved the world that
    he gave His only Son so that whoever would believe in him would
    not perish but have Eternal Life" I believe what Paul sys in Romans.
    I believe John in 1John 5 that we are told these things so that
    we may KNOW we have Eternal Life. 
    I trust Jesus as my personal savior. He died so that I may live.
    John 3:3 says that unless a man be BORN AGAIN he will not see the
    kingdom of God. 
    
    I KNOW I am saved by The Grace of God thru Faith in Jesus. 
    
    My question to you all. 
    
          Why would I want to be a Mormon if I am already assured of
    my eternal salvation. It is a gift of God, NOT of works, so that
    no one can boast. 
    
    The CHURCH (any church) doesn't save you.
    Good works don't save you! 
    
    As I close my eyes to this world I will immediately  open them
    in the presence of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. To be in His
    presence forever. I am Born Again! How can being a Mormon improve
    on that?
    
    Regards,
    
    Mike Buczynski an_eternally_Born_Again_believer   HALALUIA!!!! 

Hi Mike,

Nice to hear from you again!

>    Jesus said " I am the way and the ytuth and the life. No one comes
>    to the Father but by me". and " For God so loved the world that
>    he gave His only Son so that whoever would believe in him would
>    not perish but have Eternal Life" I believe what Paul sys in Romans.
>    I believe John in 1John 5 that we are told these things so that
>    we may KNOW we have Eternal Life. 
>    I trust Jesus as my personal savior. He died so that I may live.
>    John 3:3 says that unless a man be BORN AGAIN he will not see the
>    kingdom of God. 
    
We agree!  Mormons believe very strongly that salvation comes only through
Jesus Christ, by his grace.


>    My question to you all. 
>    
>          Why would I want to be a Mormon if I am already assured of
>    my eternal salvation. It is a gift of God, NOT of works, so that
>    no one can boast. 
    
In .2 I gave pointers to replies in note 4 that explain what Mormons
believe about Salvation.  Based on your question to "us all", I'm guessing
you haven't read those replies; just as a suggestion for your consideration,
it will help you to better understand what and why we believe as we do if
you read them.  If you've already read them, please forgive me for giving
this suggestion.

Mormons believe that Salvation does come only through the grace of Christ.
Nothing we can do will bring salvation.  As you said, the church doesn't
save us and good works don't save us.  Only Christ through his atonement
saves us.

I think, Mike, the difference between you and us is that you believe that
acceptance of Christ is sufficient for Salvation, while we believe that
more than acceptance of him is needed.  As I explained in note 4, we believe
that Christ himself requires good works before he will allow his atonement
to cleanse us from our sins; our good works do not save us, but they are
a necessary condition before Christ will save us.  You believe that
acceptance of Christ is a necessary condition but that the acceptance itself
does not save us.  We say that in addition to acceptance as a necessary
condition, repentance and obedience to God are necessary conditions before
Christ will save us; we both believe there are necessary conditions to be
fulfilled before Christ will save us, but we differ on what those conditions
are.

Incidentally, you referred to Eph. 2:8-9, but I think you have misunderstood
what Paul is saying.

>    It is a gift of God, NOT of works, so that 
>    no one can boast. 

As I explained in 4.25, Paul is not saying that salvation is a gift of God,
not of works, so that no one can boast (that is, salvation does not require
good works as a necessary condition).  He is saying that the atonement was a
gift of God himself (that is, Christ gave himself as a gift to us), and that
the atonement is not of our works but was performed by God.  The word "gift"
in that verse is "doron" which means a gift in the sense of an offering.
Paul is referring to Christ as the gift and his atonement being not of works,
not to salvation being the gift and not of works.  

Allen

	RE: .8

>    Good works don't save you! 
    
	RE: .9

>    As you said, the church doesn't
>save us and good works don't save us.  

	I don't necessary want to take this down a rat hole, but the concept
	of voicing a belief or faith in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation
	just does not fly - at least in my mind or from what I can read in the
	Bible.  The point is more like Allen says in '.9'.

>As I explained in note 4, we believe
>that Christ himself requires good works before he will allow his atonement
>to cleanse us from our sins; our good works do not save us, but they are
>a necessary condition before Christ will save us.  

	The "grace" of God is not free.  It must be earned by "works".  I
	base this on the following :

	Luke 6:46 "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things
		   which I say?"

	Matt 25:40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I
		    say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of
		    the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

	James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, 
		    deceiving your own selves."
	      2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
	       :20 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works 
		    is dead?"
	       :26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith 
		    without works is dead also."

	1 John 3:18 "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in
		     tongue; but in deed and in truth."

	Rev 20:12 "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God;
		   and the books were opened: and another book was opened,
		   which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out
		   of those things which were written in the books,
		   according to their works."

	plus the living testimony of the works of Jesus Christ.  The "WORKS"
	of the Law of Moses do not save, but the "WORKS" of the gospel are
	a definite requirement : 1 Cor 13.  Now, the great conflict is how
	to reconcile the two concepts into a person's character.  Just voicing
	belief or faith in Jesus Christ will not save you, but by doing His 
	will and keeping His commandments.

	Charles
	

    Re. 8 and .9
    
    I can only partly agree with your arguments. Salvation is by grace
    (unwarrented free gift from God) thru grace. The works are simple
    the FRUIT of our salvation. NOT the means. If I may let me paraphrase
    most of the complete New Testament into a few sentences;
    
    We need to have faith in Jesus payment for our sins. We MUST accept
    Him as our personal Savior. Knowing Him is not enough. Satan knows
    Him and he trembles!  Good works do not save us. Romans tells us
    that salvation is by Grace from beginning to end. Ther law is written
    to tell us we have sinned. For all have sinned and fall short of
    the glory of God. If works saved us in any stretch we must uphold
    the law perfectly. Romans 4,5,6,7, make these points clear. Hebrews
    11 tells us how the prophets of old were sanctified because they
    BELIEVED, yet they all sinned, all failed.  Jesus said, they will
    all say to me LORD, LORD, have we not performed miracles in your
    name, etc? But they did not put their faith in HIM and HIM alone!.
    They relied on their good deeds to win favor. I agree we must do
    good works a s a sign of our faith, NOT as a vehicle to salvation.
    The goods work we do are a result of our "attitude of gratitude"
    to Christ and what HE has done. 
    
    It is by GRACE from beginning to end!  The horse is before the cart.
    
    We must test all thing (1 JOHN). We must not be swayed by another
    gospel (PETER, THES, TIMITHY) Christ died ONCE for ALL. 
    We must repent for our sins and not continue in them. BY GRACE ALONE.
    
    Christ said "the trurth will set you free". The simple truth of
    the GOSPEL.
    
    Please, these are not flames. They are messages of love. 
    ROMANS 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it
    is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to
    the Jew first and also o the Greek."
    
    This simple truth still confounds the wise.
    
    -Mike

Hi Mike,

What I would like to suggest for this discussion is that we clarify each
point of doctrine that we agree on, so we don't spin our wheels explaining
things that we all agree on anyway.  If this acceptable to you, Mike, then
I think that those so inclined can have an interesting discussion about
salvation.  (Mr. Walker brought up the topic of salvation in his pamphlet,
so I feel this discussion is appropriate for this note.)

If I understand your comments correctly, then we agree that salvation is
by the grace of God, and that good works do not save us.  It's good that
we agree on that point, because it is the basis for Christianity!

Next, we LDS believe that Christ's atonement is conditional, that is, that
salvation is not given as a completely free gift to everyone.  We do believe
that the resurrection is a completely free gift to everyone, but we do not
believe that forgiveness of sin is a completely free gift.  I'm not sure,
Mike, what your beliefs about the resurrection are, but let's put that topic
aside and concentrate on salvation from sins.

I think you agree, Mike, that salvation from sin is conditional, because I
think you agree that persons who do not accept Christ will not receive
forgiveness.  That is, a condition for salvation is acceptance of Christ.
Am I correct in assessing your beliefs, Mike?  If so, then we
can continue and discuss if there are any other conditions that Christ has
imposed if we are to receive forgiveness of sin.  If I'm not correct in
assuming you agree that salvation from sin is conditional, please clarify
your beliefs for me.  For the moment, I'm not addressing the question of
what conditions have been imposed by the Savior, only that there is at least
one condition (acceptance of him), allowing us to conclude that salvation
from sin is not a completely free gift given to everyone but is conditional.

Allen

    Allen,
    so far we agree that the condition for salvation is acceptance of
    Jesus and His atonement for our sins. ALL sins for EVERYONE. 
    Peter said the Christ died ONCE for ALL. There is NO sin that has
    ever been committed That cannot be forgiven. There is one unforgiveable
    sin which is debateable as to what it means; blasphemy of the Holy
    Spirit. That is beyond the scope of our discussion here. 
    Acceptance of Christ must be from the heart and sincere (redundant?).
    Only He is able to judge that. He says "if you love me you will follow
    my commandments." This is proof of our sincerity, if you will. 
    Good works themselves are not a condition af salvation but a result.
    Acceptance.  
    
    Repentance is a "work" that attests to our salvation. NOT a condition
    of. As is baptism. 
    
    Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. 
    I do not believe that there are any other conditions for salvation.
    
    -Mike

Hi again,

>    so far we agree that the condition for salvation is acceptance of
>    Jesus and His atonement for our sins. ALL sins for EVERYONE. 
>    Peter said the Christ died ONCE for ALL. There is NO sin that has
>    ever been committed That cannot be forgiven. There is one unforgiveable
>    sin which is debateable as to what it means; blasphemy of the Holy
>    Spirit. That is beyond the scope of our discussion here. 

We agree with you about this!  Christ died for the sins of everyone!

You didn't mention faith as being a condition for salvation, but you did
speak of acceptance of Christ being from one's heart and sincere, so I
assume you would include faith as a condition.  If I'm wrong on this
assumption, please correct me.

You spoke, Mike, of good works being a result of salvation rather than a
condition for salvation.  We agree partially with that.  We believe that
good works are a result of one's conversion, i.e. if one is truly converted
to Christ, good works will follow (of course none of us are perfect so we
continue to sin after being converted to Christ, but true conversion will
bring about a change in one such that good works will follow).

We do believe, however, that good works are also conditions that Christ has
stipulated we must observe before he will allow his atonement to cleanse us.
For example, consider repentance.  Jesus said

    Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3,5)

When those at Pentecost asked Peter what they should do now that they were
converted to Christ, Peter said

    Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
    out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the
    Lord; (Acts 3:19)

It seems to me, those statements seem pretty explicit that repentance is
a necessary condition for salvation from sins.  Again, let me repeat for
emphasis, we believe repentance is a condition we must observe before Christ
will cleanse us via his atonement, but the cleansing comes from Christ not
from our repentance.  Our repentance does not save us.  Christ said we must
repent or perish.  If we do, then he removes our sins.  If we don't then
he doesn't remove our sins, and we perish.

I'm wondering, Mike, how you feel about the Savior's statement in Luke 13?

Allen

Charles,

>	That is correct--man is inherently sinful.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by man being "inherently sinful".
Your use of words sounds like you are referring to the false creed of the
depravity of man in which the sectarian world believes that man is sinful
due to his nature, i.e. it is part of him, rather than due to his choices.
People are born as sinners, due to their nature as mortals.  Infant baptism
resulted from this belief.

The Gospel teaches that man is born clean and free from sin, and that he
sins due to making choices, i.e. he isn't sinful by nature but by choice.

Perhaps you can clarify your statement?

Allen

	RE: Note 365.19

	Allen,

>I'm not sure I understand what you mean by man being "inherently sinful".
>Your use of words sounds like you are referring to the false creed of the
>depravity of man in which the sectarian world believes that man is sinful
>due to his nature, i.e. it is part of him, rather than due to his choices.
>People are born as sinners, due to their nature as mortals.  Infant baptism
>resulted from this belief.

>The Gospel teaches that man is born clean and free from sin, and that he
>sins due to making choices, i.e. he isn't sinful by nature but by choice.

	Would you please share these scriptures with us?

>Perhaps you can clarify your statement?

	I would be happy to.  First I would like to point out that some truth
	exists in all of the devils misconceptions.  My main scriptures are

	1 John 1:8,10	"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and 
			 the truth is not in us."
			"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar,
			 and his word is not in us."
	and D&C 49:8	"Wherefore, I will that all men shall repent, for all
			 are under sin,..."
	and Gal 3:22	"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, ..."
	and Mosiah 16:3	"For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has
			 power over them; ..."

	The wording "inherently sinful" means being sinful by nature or 
	settled habit.  This is what man is; it is an intrinsic part of the
	mortal body.  Now, the spirit which inhabits the mortal body is pure
	and free from sin.  In fact, a person is not *accountable* for sin
	until they reach the age of accountability, which is eight for normal
	people.  In your definition of the "depravity of man" there is some
	scriptural basis for this thought, and this is the truth part.  The
	false part comes from the conclusion.

	Sins due to making a choice, or not making a choice (omission), are a
	part of our progression, BUT only after we have the *law*.  The
	scriptures teach us that if parents do not teach the children, then
	the sins of the children are upon the heads of the parents.  So we
	have stewardship, accountability, and knowledge of the law to consider
	in applying the atonement of Christ to God's children.  This is where
	the falseness comes in.  Man must choose whom he will serve for the
	atonement to wash away his sins.  But this is another topic seen 
	elsewhere, and my answer here is just to say that, yes, we are born
	into this mortal world under sin and have to be accountable for that
	condition by the choice we make *when* we receive the law.

	Charles

RE: <<< Note 365.22 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" >>>

>	The wording "inherently sinful" means being sinful by nature or 
>	settled habit.  This is what man is; it is an intrinsic part of the
>	mortal body.  

How can this be? Jesus Christ had a mortal body (He had to be since he died 
for our sins), yet was sinless (He had to be in order to be a perfect 
sacrifice). He had neither a sinful nature nor a settled habit, yet He had 
a mortal body. 

I think Allen is correct; our sinfulness comes from our imperfect 
willingness to be obedient, not from our imperfect bodies. It seems to me 
to be almost by definition that if some or all sins are not totally our 
responsibility, then neither accountability nor repentance for those sins
has any meaning. 

A major fallacy in the traditional doctrine of man being inherently sinful 
is that it therefore becomes "OK" if we sin somewhat. It never is OK. All 
sin, by definition, is transgression, and carries a cost. By virtue of the 
atonement, we can have that cost paid by Jesus, but there is a cost 
nevertheless.

/kevin

	RE: <<<Note 365.23 by MILPND::PERM "Kevin R. Ossler">>>

>How can this be? Jesus Christ had a mortal body (He had to be since he died 
>for our sins), yet was sinless (He had to be in order to be a perfect 
>sacrifice). He had neither a sinful nature nor a settled habit, yet He had 
>a mortal body. 

	You forgot about Christ having an immortal father, and that he 
	inherited some characteristics from him.  All other people have
	had both parents be mortal.

>I think Allen is correct; our sinfulness comes from our imperfect 
>willingness to be obedient, not from our imperfect bodies. 

	Then the scriptures are wrong?  No, I do not think so.  But I do
	believe that we should separate the inherent sin of our mortal
	bodies and the consequences of denying the atonement through not
	being obedient.  When sinfulness remains, then that is done by choice.

>It seems to me to be almost by definition that if some or all sins are not 
>totally our responsibility, then neither accountability nor repentance for 
>those sins has any meaning. 

	We are responsible for all our own sins.  Adam's sins or our parent's
	sins are not our responsibility.  Don't confuse what is "the nature
	of the beast" with responsibility.  Just because we are carnal as the
	natural man does not mean that there is not a way to escape.  Start
	to remember other scripture and don't dwell on what we can't change.

>A major fallacy in the traditional doctrine of man being inherently sinful 
>is that it therefore becomes "OK" if we sin somewhat. 

	I am not aware of this doctrine.  I do not agree with it in any case.

>It never is OK. All sin, by definition, is transgression, and carries a cost.
>By virtue of the atonement, we can have that cost paid by Jesus, but there is
>a cost nevertheless.

	Sin and transgression are different, but maybe that is another topic
	for discussion.  In either case, you are right: each carries a cost.
	Even the benefits of Christ's atonement costs us something.

	/Charles

I like to think that the references to inherently sinfulness of mortals
might be from the fact of our limited knowledge not that we have an
inherently sinful nature. 

Consider how often we have hurt another person or comitted some 
other transgression because we didn't anticipate the results of our actions.

I think that our limited understanding of laws and eternal principles and
of relationships with other people is an inherent attribute of our mortal
state and causes us to sin. This may be what the scriptures refer to.

To think that something of our nature causes us to willfully sin seems to
me to be a little bit like not taking responsibility for our actions. I 
think that anytime a person justifies him/herself in willfully comitting
that same sins repetitively they are taking a dangerous step that leads
away from God. I fear that implicating such behavior to our mortal natures
is a way of trying to say it out of our control therefore somehow excusable.

I must admit that all too often I comit the same sons repetitively, and 
sometimes with some degree of excusing myself for doing so. But when I
think about it afterwards, I like to think of what tinkgs I might have let
influence me to do so and plan ways to change that rather than just pass
such behavior off to human nature.

For what it's worth,

Len

          Well, Charles, it seems to me that the Book of Mormon is pretty
          clear that Christ atoned for the Sin of Adam and that it has no
          effect upon us today except for the fact that we will suffer
          physical death.

              And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which
              grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there
              should be disputations rise among you.

              For, if I have learned the truth, there have been
              disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little
              children.

              And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently,
              that this gross error should be removed from among you; for,
              for this intent I have written this epistle. 

              For immediately after I had learned these things of you I
              inquired of the Lord concerning the matter.  And the word of
              the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:

              Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and
              your God.  Behold, I came into the world not to call the
              righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no
              physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little
              children are whole, for they are not capable of committing
              sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me,
              that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision
              is done away in me.

              And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word
              of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is
              solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little
              children.  (Moroni 8:4-9)

          That is a pretty clear statement that the "curse of Adam" is
          taken away due to the Atonement and that children are born clean
          and hence need no baptism.  Mormon repeated in later verses that
          children were clean in Christ, i.e. due to the Atonement of Christ.

          Mormon went on to say who did need baptism, that is, who was not
          clean.

              Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye
              teach--repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable
              and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they
              must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their
              little children, and they shall all be saved with their
              little children.

              And their little children need no repentance, neither
              baptism.  Behold baptism is unto repentance to the
              fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
              (Moroni 8:10-11)

          So there we have it.  Children are born clean because the
          effects of Adam's Sin were removed by the Atonement.  But, those
          who use their agency to commit sin are not clean.

          Since children are born clean, then the "nature of the beast"
          is not a sinful race but a clean race.  Mortal people are 
          naturally clean due to the atonement of Christ.  If Satan were
          not present, everyone would naturally choose to follow God.  But,
          Satan is here, and everyone chooses to follow him at times in
          their life.  God allows Satan to be here so we will have
          opposites, as Lehi expressed it, and will have to use our agency
          to choose.

          It seems to me that if children are born clean then there is no
          inherent sinfulness of man.  Of course, everyone chooses sin
          during their life because they do not have perfect self
          discipline, and I think this is what the scriptures are
          referring to when they speak of man being sinful--not naturally
          sinful but sinful because all mankind chooses sin due to not
          being perfectly obedient to God.  Yes, all have sinned and come
          short of the glory of God--not because they inherited a sinful
          nature but because all have used their agency to choose sin.

          For those who may not have read it, I've discussed this in more
          detail in note 4.

               4.44  The Fall of Adam
               4.45  Born in Sin
               4.46  The Atonement of Jesus Christ
               4.47  What Happens to Children who die
               4.48  The Book of Mormon Teaches the Salvation of Children

          Allen

	RE: Note 121.25

>          Well, Charles, it seems to me that the Book of Mormon is pretty
>          clear that Christ atoned for the Sin of Adam and that it has no
>          effect upon us today except for the fact that we will suffer
>          physical death.

	Only as far as children under the age of accountability are concerned.
	----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Because we are still in a fallen state, the effects of Adam's
	transgression is still with us--the only thing that has changed is
	that we have a redeemer which allows us to escape the results of
	that transgression.  This is where choice comes in.

>          That is a pretty clear statement that the "curse of Adam" is
>          taken away due to the Atonement and that children are born clean
>          and hence need no baptism.  Mormon repeated in later verses that
>          children were clean in Christ, i.e. due to the Atonement of Christ.

	There was an abomination of doctrine of infant baptism that was
	addressed here, and nothing more.  Why take it out of context?
	Besides, the scripture (verse 10) says nothing of children being 
	born "clean" but "whole."  There is a difference.

>          So there we have it.  Children are born clean because the
>          effects of Adam's Sin were removed by the Atonement.  

	I do not see where the effects of Adam's sin were removed from man
	by the atonement, but that the effects of Adam's Sin were OVERCOME
	by the Atonement.  Verse 10 also states that "repentance and baptism
	unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin" is
	what God wants.  I do not agree with your conclusion.  And one wrong
	conclusion brings more wrong conclusions.

	The concept of infant baptism is an abomination before God.  This is
	also addressed in the D&C.  But do not confuse, or take out of context,
	what is really being said. (See also D&C 74:6-7)

	D&C 29:46-47	"But behold, I say unto you, that little children are
			 redeemed from the foundation of the world through my
			 only begotten;
			 Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given
			 unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin
			 to become accountable before me;"

	Any child that dies before the age of accountability is redeemed from
	the effects of Adam's transgression--they are saved unto God and have
	no need of baptism.  But both Moroni (really Mormon) and the Lord have
	made it quite clear that there is a point, or age of accountability,
	which is required for all mankind to be baptized at.

	D&C 18:42	"For all men must repent and be baptized, and not only
			 men, but women, and children who have arrived at the
			 years of accountability."

	D&C 20:71	"No one can be received into the church of Christ
			 unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability
			 before God, and is capable of repentance."

	D&C 68:25-27	"And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion,
			 or in any of her stakes which are organized, that
		 	 teach them not to understand the doctrine of 
			 repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God,
			 and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the
			 laying on of hands, when eight years old, the sin be
			 upon the heads of the parents.
			 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion,
			 or in any of her stakes which are organized.
			 And their children shall be baptized for the remission
			 of their sins when eight years old, and receive the
			 laying on of the hands."

	I believe these scriptures are quite clear about the concept of
	accountability, and what the age of accountability is.  Also, if
	children are born "whole," then why are they "baptized for the 
	remission of their sins when eight years old" if they have no sin?
	For the same reason Christ was baptized--to fulfill all righteousness.

	No, I do not agree with your conclusions.  I may not be correct with
	mine, but you have not shown me something better.  Once the age of
	accountability is met, then we are, as Paul puts it, carnal and
	sensual.  A good example may help.

	As a baby, we enter this world and are quite selfish.  Those of us who
	happen to be around children under 8 years old know that they can and
	do things which would be considered "sinful."  However, they are not
	held accountable for these things, and it is up to the parents to teach
	them correct principles.  We start as babies and continue throughout
	our lives being selfish.  Be honest with yourself (generally speaking)
	Really examine the purpose for our actions.  When it gets down to the
	final analysis; it is selfishness.  This is where the test comes in.
	Do we follow this carnal nature, or learn to be like God?  Just exactly
	what is charity, or the pure love of Christ (Moroni 7:45-48)?  It does
	not come to us through birth, but through careful choices we make
	throughout our lives.

	Because we all here have reached, and passed, the age of accountability,
	those concepts which apply to children under that age do not apply to
	us.  We must now rely upon the atonement through repentance.  We should
	really listen to the words of the sacrament blessing and consider our
	actions and the choices we are making.  We should not despair because
	of what is what, but must look forward with a heart full of hope that
	the conditions the Lord has set for us to return to him are correct
	and that we will choose correctly.  If we do not, then repentance is
	possible, but there is the price we must pay.  The scriptures are for
	our benefit in coming unto Christ and his rest, and I pray we may use
	this conference to build upon each others knowledge, testimony, and
	brotherhood and sisterhood in the family of God to help one another
	met together in the presence of whose work we do, even the Lord
	Jesus Christ. Amem.

	Charles

Hi Charles,

I think this is an interesting and important topic, and I'm enjoying reading
and trying to understand your view.

>	Because we are still in a fallen state, the effects of Adam's
>	transgression is still with us--the only thing that has changed is
>	that we have a redeemer which allows us to escape the results of
>	that transgression.  This is where choice comes in.

I agree that we are still in a fallen state.  

    The immediate result of the Fall was the substitution of mortality,
    with all its attendant frailties, for the vigor of the primeval
    deathless state.  Adam felt directly the effects of transgression in finding
    a barren and dreary earth, with a relatively sterile soil, instead of the
    beauty and fruitfulness of Eden.  In place of pleasing and useful plants,
    thorns and thistles sprang up; and the man had to labor arduously,
    under the conditions of physical fatigue and suffering, to cultivate the
    soil that he might obtain necessary food.  Upon Eve fell the penalty of
    bodily infirmity; pains and sorrows, which has been since regarded as
    the natural lot of womankind, came upon her, and she was made subject
    to her husband's authority....Upon both the man and the woman was visited
    the penalty of spiritual death; (James E. Talmage, "The Articles of
    Faith", pp. 67-68.  For those not familiar with Talmage, he was an
    Apostle back at the turn of the century, and his books are among the
    classics of Mormon literature)

Through Adam, man fell from a state of immortality to a state of mortality.

>>          So there we have it.  Children are born clean because the
>>          effects of Adam's Sin were removed by the Atonement.  
>
>	I do not see where the effects of Adam's sin were removed from man
>	by the atonement, but that the effects of Adam's Sin were OVERCOME
>	by the Atonement. 

I agree that the effects of Adam's sin weren't removed in the sense that
we are still in mortality.  I was speaking from the context of sin, that
from the viewpoint of sin, the effects of Adam's sin were removed, that is,
Christ atoned for Adam's sin and we are not held responsible for it.  We
still suffer mortality, but if we could live our mortal life and commit
no sin through our agency, we would be cleansed by the Atonement with no
actions such as repentance on our part needed.

>	I believe these scriptures are quite clear about the concept of
>	accountability, and what the age of accountability is.  Also, if
>	children are born "whole," then why are they "baptized for the 
>	remission of their sins when eight years old" if they have no sin?
>	For the same reason Christ was baptized--to fulfill all righteousness.

I believe that children are born clean (of such is the Kingdom of Heaven).
Any mistakes they make (called sins by the world, but I think "mistakes"
is a better word) are removed by the atonement.  However, they reach the
point where they become responsible for those mistakes, now properly called
"sins", and now they do need baptism.  The very fact that they don't need
baptism while a child is strong evidence that they were born clean due to
the atonement.

>	A good example may help.
>
>	As a baby, we enter this world and are quite selfish.  Those of us who
>	happen to be around children under 8 years old know that they can and
>	do things which would be considered "sinful."  However, they are not
>	held accountable for these things, and it is up to the parents to teach
>	them correct principles.

I like your example, Charles.  I agree that children have personality traits
such as disobedience and selfishness, traits considered "sins" by the world.
The Book of Mormon is clear that these "sins" are removed by the atonement
and the children are not held responsible for them.  And I agree that it is
the "nature" of young children to be that way, since they are immature in
their physical, mental, and emotional states.  If this is what you mean,
Charles, by man being inherently evil, then I would agree with you.  However,
there is a doctrine in the sectarian world known as the Depravity of Man that
teaches man is inherently evil and that doctrine means something more.  I
will address that doctrine in my next reply.


>	Because we all here have reached, and passed, the age of accountability,
>	those concepts which apply to children under that age do not apply to
>	us.  We must now rely upon the atonement through repentance.

I agree very strongly!

Allen

There are doctrines in "orthodox" Christianity that state that man is
inherently evil.  In this reply, I will briefly discuss those beliefs.
In doing this, I will refer to specific churches, and in so doing, I am not
trying to belittle or persecute those churches in any way; they are
mentioned only as examples of the sources of these doctrines.

I think it is important for us to understand if we are inherently evil or
not, because this affects our image of ourselves and hence our 
self esteem.  In addition, these doctrines led to the adoption by
"orthodox" Christianity of other false doctrines such as infant baptism and
a belief that Mary had an "immaculate" conception.

I'm going to quote from Bruce R. McConkie, not because he was a General
Authority, but because he discussed this topic in a nice way.

******************************************************************************

In contrast to the doctrines of free agency and personal accountability for
sin, modern Christendom has the false doctrine of 'original sin'.  Although
the scriptures abundantly show "that men will be punished for their own sins
and not for Adam's transgression"...the common view is that all men are
tainted with sin and denied blessings because of Adam's fall.

"Original sin," according to Catholic theology, is "the hereditary stain with
which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam...Original
sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of
Adam.", and it can only be "effaced by baptism." ('Catholic encyclopedia',
vol II, pp. 312-315.) Infant baptism, therefore, is a necessary corollary to
the doctrine of original sin.  Since "those who die in original sin are
deprived of the happiness of heaven" ('Catholic Encyclopedia', vol 2,
pp. 258-274), according to their view, it is easy to see why they think infants
must be baptized.  One false doctrine begets another.

Protestant views about so-called original sin are similar.  the Church of
England, for instance, teaches that original sin "is the fault and corruption
of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of
Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his
own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the
spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth
God's wrath and condemnation."  This "condemnation" is removed only "for them
that believe and are baptized."  ('Book of Common Prayer', The Anglican
Church of Canada, pp. 662-663)

-- Bruce R. Mcconkie, 'Mormon Doctrine', p. 550

Re .23

>	RE: <<<Note 365.23 by MILPND::PERM "Kevin R. Ossler">>>
>
>>How can this be? Jesus Christ had a mortal body (He had to be since he died 
>>for our sins), yet was sinless (He had to be in order to be a perfect 
>>sacrifice). He had neither a sinful nature nor a settled habit, yet He had 
>>a mortal body. 
>
>	You forgot about Christ having an immortal father, and that he 
>	inherited some characteristics from him.  All other people have
>	had both parents be mortal.

Yes, Christ had an immortal father, but the fact still remains that
he had an immortal mother, and if that mother suffered from "original sin",
that is, she was inherently evil, then Christ would have inherited that
condition from her.  In order to get around this problem, the Catholic
church has the doctrine of the "immaculate conception of Mary" that
says that Mary was not tainted by the stain of original sin and therefore
could not pass it on to her son.

"Orthodox" Christianity teaches that man is inherently evil, worthless,
depraved.  Mormonism teaches that man is a child of God, born clean
due to Christ Atoning for Adam's sin, and that he or she sins through his
or her use of free agency.

Quite a contrast in viewpoint!

I've been doing some more reading from McConkie about sin, and I need
to clarify my use of the word "sin".

McConkie says it is proper and a scriptural pattern to speak of Adam's
"transgression" but not Adam's "sin".  Sin requires a knowledge of good
and evil, and Adam and Eve didn't have that until after they partook of
the fruit.  Thus, they "transgressed" but did not "sin" while in the
Garden.  I should be speaking of the Transgression of Adam not the Sin
of Adam.  The result of Adam's transgression was the changing of the world
to mortality.

Interesting use of words....

Allen

	Allen,
		I am glad you brought out that reference on Adam's
	*transgression* instead of *sin* because I had not gotten 
	around to it yet.  In my mind, it clears up a lot of secular
	misunderstandings about Adam.

		Another misconception I want to clear up is that I did not
	say, imply, or otherwise mean, that man was inherently *evil.*  I 
	said he was inherently *sinful.*  Maybe even that was the wrong 
	word; the more correct and proper word would be *carnal.*

		Carnal is the correct condition for mankind after the fall.
	The correlation is seen in Mosiah 27:25 when the Lord is talking
	about how man can overcome their "... carnal and fallen state,...."
	The proper order is seen in Moses 5:13 when "... man began from that
	time to be carnal, sensual, and devilish" (again in Mosiah 16:3).

	More references to this condition can be found in the Bible at 
	Romans 3:10, 3:23, 5:12, 7:18, 8:6; 1 Cor  1:26, 2:14, 3:3; Gal 4:29; 
	Eph 2:3; and 2 Pet 1:4.  In the Book of Mormon at Mosiah  3:19,
	16:3 (also Alma 42:10, D&C 20:20, Moses 5:13, 6:49), 16:5, 27:25; 
	Alma 26:21, 36:4, 41:11.  In the D&C at 29:41, 67:12, 121:39.  
	In Moses 6:5 (Isa 1:4, Alma 5:7).

		Now, all I said was that man is inherently sinful.  Period.
	That's it.  I did not expand upon that statement.  I guess I should
	have.  All it means is that man is in a particular condition or state
	because of the fall of Adam.  It is interesting the sequence given of 
	first carnal; second sensual; and third devilish.  This is the chain 
	of progression for the natural man.  There is nothing anyone can say 
	to change it--that is the nature of man.  King David will make an 
	excellent example of this sequence.  First he was carnal by being a
	man and not being happy with what he had.  This then led to the sensual
	part of coveting and adultery, which then led to the devilish part of
	murder.

		God has, however, provided a way for the natural man to 
	escape or overcome this condition.  He must become spiritual or
	"born again."  Now, I do not mean to just verbalize it, but to
	show forth the good fruits of the spiritual man.  And these good
	fruits must endure to the end.  Even though King David did a lot of
	good in the name of the Lord, he failed in the end.  Just as Saul
	found out, it is better to be obedient.

		So just because I pointed out the true nature of man does
	not mean that I condemn man to that nature, but that the nature is
	there and we must constantly be on our guard to escape it.  And I do
	believe we are capable of escaping it with God's help.  Besides, that
	is his whole plan for us if we but accept it.

	Charles

	RE: Note 121.24 SULTRY::LENF

	Len,
		Just some of my thoughts on your comments.

>To think that something of our nature causes us to willfully sin seems to
>me to be a little bit like not taking responsibility for our actions. 

	Not exactly what *I* said or meant, but I think the world will try
	to use this as an excuse.  Just because man is predisposed to sin 
	does not mean that is an excuse.  Each man can follow his 
	inclinations or he can choose not to.  But in any case, the whole
	responsibility of his actions rests with the person.

>I think that anytime a person justifies him/herself in willfully committing
>that same sins repetitively they are taking a dangerous step that leads
>away from God. I fear that implicating such behavior to our mortal natures
>is a way of trying to say it out of our control therefore somehow excusable.

	I agree completely with your first sentence, but do not in any way
	condone the behavior in your second.  All people are responsible for
	all their actions.  I always try to remember that there is nothing--
	not one thing--that anyone can make me do as long as I am ready to
	accept the consequences of my decisions.

>I must admit that all too often I commit the same sons repetitively, and 
>sometimes with some degree of excusing myself for doing so. But when I
>think about it afterwards, I like to think of what things I might have let
>influence me to do so and plan ways to change that rather than just pass
>such behavior off to human nature.

	Your nature will be to rationalize unless you *choose* to make it 
	do otherwise.  Just because we are a certain way does not mean we 
	have to stay that way.  The gospel of Jesus Christ has changed many
	lives.
	
	Hang in there, and with the help of God we can all change from the
	natural man to the spiritual man.

	Charles

Re .32

Hi Charles,


>		Another misconception I want to clear up is that I did not
>	say, imply, or otherwise mean, that man was inherently *evil.*  I 
>	said he was inherently *sinful.*  Maybe even that was the wrong 
>	word; the more correct and proper word would be *carnal.*

Yes, I agree that "carnal" is the proper word.  Man is inherently carnal,
and (to me at least) that is quite different from being inherently sinful.
If a man is inherently sinful, he sins due to a tendency inherited from
Adam; this is the false doctrine of "original sin".  On the other hand, if
a man is inherently carnal, then he has natural instincts that pertain to
his physical senses.  Examples of carnality would be our strong appetites
for food and sex, jealousy, moodiness, etc.  We all have these because we
are mortal, a condition we inherited from Adam.  However, being carnal does
not imply that we automatically sin, because we can (and hopefully will)
overcome our carnality and conquer our appetites.  All of us, of course,
have and will sin, but that is due to our choice.  We inherited the conditions
of mortality and carnality from Adam, conditions that provide opportunities
for sin, but the sins themselves are due our freedom of choice and not to
the conditions that we inherited.


>		Now, all I said was that man is inherently sinful.  Period.
>	That's it.  I did not expand upon that statement.  I guess I should
>	have.

Your statement that man is inherently sinful brought to my mind the false
doctrine of "original sin" and that is what I thought you meant, because your
words said that man sinned because of his inheritance from Adam.


>       All it [man is inherently sinful] means is that man is in a particular
>        condition or state because of the fall of Adam. 

I guess that to you that is what it means, but to me those words mean that
man sins due to his inheritance rather than due to his choice.  Such is
communications through the written (and often the spoken) word.  Our words
mean one thing to us because we are reading between the lines with our
preconceived notions of what we want say, but they mean different things to
our readers.

It's nice that we can talk back and forth without taking offense and
clarify what we meant and what we think the other is saying.

Allen

	RE: Note 121.27 CACHE::LEIGH 

	Hi Allen,

		I am glad you are trying to understand my view because I am
	completely aghast if I understand yours correctly.  Let me explain.

>I was speaking from the context of sin, that from the viewpoint of sin, 
>the effects of Adam's sin were removed, that is, Christ atoned for Adam's 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>sin and we are not held responsible for it.  

	For some strange reason, you have come to the conclusion that the
	atonement of Christ *removes* sin.  It does nothing of the sort!
	The atonement of Christ *redeems* man from sin.  Redemption is the
	correct word--not remove.

>We still suffer mortality, but 
>if we could live our mortal life and commit no sin through our agency, 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>we would be cleansed by the Atonement with no actions such as repentance on 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>our part needed.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	This kind of thinking removes our agency and is the reason Satan lost
	his first estate.  This is totally the wrong kind of thinking and it
	is against the basic concepts of the gospel.

>I believe that children are born clean (of such is the Kingdom of Heaven).
				  ^^^^^

	This is your interpretation!  The scriptures (Moroni 8:10) say that
	children are whole not clean; that children are sanctified (D&C 74:7) 
	and redeemed (D&C 29:46) through the atonement of Christ and that the
	devil has no power over them until they become accountable (D&C 29:47).
	Because of this there is no need for infant baptism if the child dies 
	before the age of eight!

>Any mistakes they make (called sins by the world, but I think "mistakes"
>is a better word) are removed by the atonement.  However, they reach the
		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	No, no, no.  *Removed* is the wrong concept.  *Redeemed* is correct.


>point where they become responsible for those mistakes, now properly called
>"sins", and now they do need baptism.  The very fact that they don't need
					^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>baptism while a child is strong evidence that they were born clean due to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the atonement.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	See above.

>The Book of Mormon is clear that these "sins" are removed by the atonement
						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and the children are not held responsible for them.  

	No it does not; the D&C and the Bible make it clear that sinners
	are *redeemed* through Christ's atonement.



	Your concept of what the atonement is and does is incorrect.
	(At least in the concepts we are talking about here.)  Mormon 
	Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, Second edition, pgs 60-66 are on 
	the "Atonement of Christ."  A New Witness for the Articles of 
	Faith by Bruce R. McConkie, pgs 107-162, talks about the third 
	article of faith and the atonement.  The Ensign issues of July,
	August, September, and October have "The Atonement of Christ" by
	Hugh W. Nibley.

	The atonement of Christ is a redemption from the sins of this world
	so we may be brought back into the presence of God.  We have our 
	garments cleansed when the atonement overcomes or pays off the price
	for those sins AFTER we have repented (or through grace, which would
	be another topic).  The fourth article of faith would be null and
	void if the atonement *removed* sins without anything done on our
	part.

	Charles

>I guess that to you that is what it means, but to me those words mean that
>man sins due to his inheritance rather than due to his choice.  Such is
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>communications through the written (and often the spoken) word.  Our words
>mean one thing to us because we are reading between the lines with our
>preconceived notions of what we want say, but they mean different things to
>our readers.

	I like "man sins due to the conditions or nature of his inheritance."
	Anything that would not allow man to excuse his sinning due to what
	he thinks can not be overcome or that he has no choice in the matter.
	We must always strive to overcome our natural "inheritance."  As I
	pointed out, the carnal nature is what we are really talking about,
	but Paul uses the word "sin" a great deal when talking about that
	nature, and I just picked up on that.

>It's nice that we can talk back and forth without taking offense and
>clarify what we meant and what we think the other is saying.

	Hi Allen,

		Yes, absolutely.  I agree it is nice that we can discuss 
	these topics.  I am not really versed in secular doctrines like 
	"inherently evil" and so it is good for me that others preconceived 
	notions of certain words are brought out and we can discuss and grow.
	It also helps me to better understand what I think I understand when 
	I have to express it.  Especially when I have to go back to the 
	scriptures and verify what I think they said.

	Charles

Re .35

Hi Charles,

I wonder if we're not communicating very well because we have different
definitions of our terms?  You're talking about sins being redeemed, and
I'm talking about the effects of sin being removed.  I suspect we're saying
the same thing but with different words.


>>I was speaking from the context of sin, that from the viewpoint of sin, 
>>the effects of Adam's sin were removed, that is, Christ atoned for Adam's 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>sin and we are not held responsible for it.  
>
>	For some strange reason, you have come to the conclusion that the
>	atonement of Christ *removes* sin.  It does nothing of the sort!
>	The atonement of Christ *redeems* man from sin.  Redemption is the
>	correct word--not remove.

Please note, Charles, that I said the *effects* of Adam's sin were removed
though Christ's atonement.  I didn't say that the sins were removed.

Yes, redemption is the key word.  Christ redeemed Adam, that is, he paid the
price required by justice for Adam's transgression.  But, the result of that
redemption is that the effect of Adam's transgression is removed in the sense
that we will not be held accountable for it at the time of judgment.  Obviously,
the effect of Adam's transgression hasn't been removed in terms of the
conditions under which we live (see my reply in .34 about carnality), but
from the viewpoint of judgment, the effect has been removed.  All of this
is due to Christ's redemption.  I think both *removed* and *redeemed* are
applicable when used in the proper context.  Redemption is the cause and
removal is the effect.


>>We still suffer mortality, but 
>>if we could live our mortal life and commit no sin through our agency, 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>we would be cleansed by the Atonement with no actions such as repentance on 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>our part needed.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	This kind of thinking removes our agency and is the reason Satan lost
>	his first estate.  This is totally the wrong kind of thinking and it
>	is against the basic concepts of the gospel.

Charles, I don't understand your comment, so if you could elaborate, it would
be helpful.  In addition, please read my statement again.  I said that *if* we
could live *without* committing sins via our freedom of choice, then we 
wouldn't need repentance.  Christ's atonement in which he redeemed us by
paying the penalty required by justice would be sufficient.  The emphasis in
my statement is the condition that we had committed no sins through our
freedom of choice.  Children before the age of accountability are in this
condition.  If they die, they need no repentance.  My opinion is that adults
who are mentally ill such that they are not accountable for their actions are
also in that category.


>>I believe that children are born clean (of such is the Kingdom of Heaven).
>				  ^^^^^
>
>	This is your interpretation!  The scriptures (Moroni 8:10) say that
>	children are whole not clean; that children are sanctified (D&C 74:7) 
>	and redeemed (D&C 29:46) through the atonement of Christ and that the
>	devil has no power over them until they become accountable (D&C 29:47).
>	Because of this there is no need for infant baptism if the child dies 
>	before the age of eight!

I hope we're not getting hung up on word definitions, Charles.  You use the
word *whole* and I use the word *clean*.  To me they are the same.  Regardless
of the word used, the fact is that if an infant child dies, he or she will
inherit the Celestial kingdom, and since no unclean thing can inherit that,
I conclude the child was born clean (or "whole" if you prefer).  The child
is born that way because it was redeemed by Christ.


>>Any mistakes they make (called sins by the world, but I think "mistakes"
>>is a better word) are removed by the atonement.  However, they reach the
>		       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	No, no, no.  *Removed* is the wrong concept.  *Redeemed* is correct.

Christ redeemed us by paying the penalties required by justice.  The effect
of that redemption is that "mistakes" made by children prior to being
accountable (e.g. a temper tantrum) are not held against the child, the
child is clean in the sight of God, and it can enter the Celestial kingdom
if it should die before becoming accountable.  These "mistakes" are 
transgressions not sins, and Christ's atonement redeems such transgressions.
Sins, however, are a different matter since they come from our use of our
free agency; we must repent from our sins before we can be redeemed.  The
only people who will not eventually do this are the Sons of Perdition.


>	The atonement of Christ is a redemption from the sins of this world
>	so we may be brought back into the presence of God.  We have our 
>	garments cleansed when the atonement overcomes or pays off the price
>	for those sins AFTER we have repented (or through grace, which would
>	be another topic).  The fourth article of faith would be null and
>	void if the atonement *removed* sins without anything done on our
>	part.

Please keep in mind, Charles, that the context for my comments in the
reply you're responding to was children who die before they become
accountable.  I wasn't discussing the condition of people who are
accountable.  I agree that these latter people receive Christ's redemption
AFTER (and only after) they repent.

Allen

I've been thinking about King Benjamin's statement that regardless of how
righteous we might become, we would still be unprofitable servants.  We
still need the grace of God and the love of Christ to compensate for our
weaknesses and failings.  We have the promise that if we sincerely repent
from our sins and do the best we can under the circumstances we are under
at any given time, the atonement of Christ will enter our lives and make
up the difference.

I'm grateful for Jesus Christ as the Savior!

Allen

    I see the first and last entry I made was 15 Mar 1989.  Well I'm still
    here!!  and glad to have this resource available.
    
    A few Christians in my building have started a discussion group.  I
    went along to the last meeting one lunchtime.  Only four of us there
    because some people away on holiday and one chap driving a truck load
    of welfare products to the needy in Bulgaria.
    
    There was an Anglican, a Baptist, a breakaway-Pentecostal, and  myself. 
    These guys are sincere and have a sweet spirit, but it was oh so
    frustrating to not be able to share the light and knowledge that we
    take for granted.  Maybe in the future I will have a chance to talk
    about the doctrines that we have, but at the moment they only recognise
    the Bible as scripture, and they were all using their own versions!
    
    They are fairly recent converts to Christ (2 to 3 years) and regard 
    themselves as Born-again Christians.
    
    The frustrating part was to have to be quiet when they annunciated
    their belief that acceptance  of Christ as their Saviour was sufficient
    to be 'saved'.  That we are saved by grace alone, and accepting Christ
    is all that is required to obtain that grace.
    
    I didn't say much, as I was already guilty of introducing a small
    degree of contention.  But is there enough in the Bible alone to
    clarify this subject?  I'm not sure that "Faith without works is dead"
    is enough to carry the issue.  There are plenty of references to
    'grace' in the TG, but they mostly seem to confirm the idea that "my
    grace is sufficient for thee".
    
    We are so blessed to have the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelation!
    
    I will attend one or two more of these meetings, but I fear the
    frustration will be too harrowing to allow me to continue.  These
    people are seeking after truth, and I have it, and can't share it with
    them!  Aaaagghhh@@@!!*!iiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaghh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    (Translation:
    
     Aaaagghhh@@@    = Boy, am I
     !!*!iiieeeeeeee = frustrated
     eeeeeeeagh      = or what!
     h!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! = times one googalplex  )
    
    BTW.  Several other niggly points were :
    
    		- it doesn't matter what God is like; it's a personal thing!
    		- there is no need for a Priesthood, and there isn't any!!
    		- there is only heaven and hell (and since we don't expect
    		  to be going to hell, we're alright Jack!!!)
    
    D&C 4:4.  How? Tell me, how?
    
    Theo

>    I didn't say much, as I was already guilty of introducing a small
>    degree of contention.  But is there enough in the Bible alone to
>    clarify this subject?  I'm not sure that "Faith without works is dead"
>    is enough to carry the issue.

Note 4 has several replies about faith and works.  One reply gives what I
think is the correct interpretation of Eph. 2:8-9, an interpretation that
isn't understood by either "born-again" Christians or LDS but an
interpretation that comes from the Greek meaning to the words used in those
verses.

If you do a DIR/KEY=SALVATION you will get pointers to other notes that
discuss these things.

One thing to keep in mind is that we *are* saved by grace.  Our works do not
save us.  Christ's atonement does save us and that came through his grace.
Nephi explained that we are saved by grace after we've done all we can do.
King Benjamin explained that regardless how righteous we might be, we would
still be unprofitable servants and that salvation came from Christ.  Christ
completely paid the price of sin, and that payment had nothing at all to do
with our being obedient to him or or righteousness.  That payment had 100% to
do with Christ taking our sins upon him and paying the price required by
Justice, a price that was so heavy that he bled from every pore and almost
couldn't handle it (see D&C 19).

Once he had paid the price of sin then we was in a position to specify under
what conditions he would allow his atonement to have an effect in our lives.
He has stipulated that we must repent and change our lives and be obedient to
him before he will allow his atonement to cleanse us, but we must always
remember that the cleansing itself does not come from our good works; the
cleansing comes from Christ's living a perfect live, without sin, and then
voluntarily suffering for all sin, i.e. paying for sins he did not commit,
and this is all through his grace, his love for us.  As King Benjamin said,
we obey God and he immediately blesses us.  We obey him again and he
immediately blesses us.  Thus, we are still in debt to him and are and will
always be unprofitable servants, not really worthy of all the blessings we
receive.

King Benjamin explains the proper sequence of salvation, a sequence that we
Mormons usually have backwards.  He explains that we come to Christ, accept
him and his atonement, are born again of the Spirit, and *then* we go out and
do good works.  Many of us LDS think that we must obey him first in order
to have a close relationship with him and that being born again of the Spirit
comes afterwards.  For example, King Benjamin would say that we develop a
sincere love of Christ as our Savior and then go do our Home/Visiting Teaching
because we love both Christ and those people and want to show our love by being
of service.  The traditional LDS view, however, has been that we go do our
home teaching because we are obedient to our Priesthood leaders and that our
love of the people comes later on.  It is true that our giving service will
help us develop greater love for people, but King Benjamin's advice was to
have the love first and the obedience second.

Allen

One more comment.

Mormon in his epistle to Moroni (Moroni 8) explained that babies are born
into the world clean due to the Atonement of Christ.  This means that when we
were born we were already saved!  We were clean and free from any sin at the
time we were born.  This illustrates the obvious fact that our works have
nothing to do with cleansing from sin.

If we could live a live without sin then we would remain in our saved
condition, not because of our lives without sin but because of Christ's
paying the price required by Justice.  However, as Paul explained, all of us
have sinned and therefore have lost our saved condition.  Thus, we try and
regain that condition, and Christ requires that we repent and change our lives.
As we do that, his Atonement cleanses us from our sins.  Again, it is very
important to recognize that the cleansing comes from Christ's Atonement via
grace and not from the fact that we have changed our lives to be free of sin.

From a more general view, D&C 76 explains that all except the Sons of Perdition
are redeemed (or saved).  The three degrees of glory are kingdoms of salvation.
All people except the SoP will eventually be saved in one of those kingdoms,
because all persons except the SoP will eventually repent and allow Christ's
atonement to cleanse them.  Thus, Christ will triumph over sin and redeem
all except the SoP.

Allen

    To Theo Bartley:
    
    I tried the same thing, i.e. attending a Bible study group with
    a mix of traditional and fundamentalist Christians.  When they prayed
    to "know more" and said how interested they were in knowing more about
    the Gospel, I took their attitudes literally.  I had the same reaction
    you have had.  According to them, knowing more means knowing more as
    long as it fits within pre-defined guidelines (which are simple to
    remember: 1)The Bible is the  ERRORLESS word of God, 2)God
    has given us all truth and there is no more needed.)
    
    With these two tenets as their foundation, my experience was that
    anything contradicting them was "Satanic".  After almost 2 years of
    trying to show something different,  I gave up.  
    
    My advice is: 1)Under no circumstances, argue, debate, contend with
    them, rather listen and ask questions of clarification, 2)When their
    thinking has led them to some "dead end" (which it inevitably will)
    ask a question that leads them to explore their reasoning.
    
    For instance:
    
    	Such people as noted above are avid believers in the 3-in-1 God. They
    also believe that Jesus took his body to "heaven".  Thus, because their
    3 Gods are 3-in-1, and because Jesus has a body, it follows that God
    the Father is not spirit, but has body, because Jesus resides in him. 
    Or, does the Father reside in Jesus' body? 
     
    	I also can testify that by exhibiting an attitude of trying to
    understand their beliefs, not belittling them and by trying to suggest
    or teach (when ready) our beliefs, a much more pleasant and less
    argumentative experience will result for both sides.  Such a procedure
    is what I learned from watching the missionaries. Their gentle manner
    reaps more rewards than other more aggressive ones do.
    
    Good luck,
    
    Paul
                                           

I've had the same experiences that Paul described, having attended Bible
study classes at the Maynard Mill and in college.  My suggestions would be
to form a relationship based on our common acceptance of Jesus Christ and
use the study class to learn together about the Savior rather than debating
our differences.  There are many wonderful, spiritual Christians in the world,
and if we want to we can have positive and uplifting experiences with them.

/Allen