LDS Mormon Requirements for Eternal Life

[Rescued One]

After what I can guess are many hours worth of conversation with Jane Doe on a variety of diverse topics relating to Christian and Mormon theology, I can attest to the fact that she really does seem interested in conversation. I'd be lying if I said I was always satisfied with the answers given to my questions about Mormonism (I'm very much a "show me what you believe in your tradition's prayers and liturgy" kind of guy, since I am Orthodox and this is how we measure what is believed by any particular church, including our own; this is hard to do with Mormonism because their 'liturgical worship', such as it is, is in their temples, not their weekly meeting houses, and they refuse to discuss the details of what goes on in the temple, or provide examples of it or texts to study), but I feel like most of the time, anyway, she does try to listen and answer questions. Ultimately, many conversations have had to end by concluding that we are simply too far apart in theology and practice to have common ground, but that in itself is still instructive, so I do appreciate it.

(I should also say, for the sake of presenting a more balanced picture of my experience thus far with Mormons here, there is a fair bit Mormon posters making statements about how they believe mainstream Christianity believes or practices that is not backed up by anything other than the Mormons' sense of how churches outside of their own are or must be, which is something I'd like to see less of, but whatcha gonna do, y'know? )

I write all this because I think our Lutheran friend might fare better in discussions with Mormons if things were presented in the format of "traditional Christianity/Lutheranism/my tradition interprets XYZ scripture or event in the following way; how does that differ or not differ from the Mormon interpretation of the same?" There are lots of things I learned about Mormonism here (that I still don't agree with, but at least now I know them!) by presenting the traditional Christian case for (e.g.,) creation ex nihilo, the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the reliability of scripture and the actual history of its writing and canonization, etc. We say our peace and then let the chips fall where they may, confident that our faith is rooted in not just the scriptures, but in the great men and women of whatever tradition we are a part of who have interpreted it and lived it in the ancient times until today. And then Mormons also have a chance to say "Well, our church says ____, based on _____." You'll hardly ever agree (Mormon eisegesis is...well, eisegesis), but at least then no on has the feeling of being talked at, which nobody likes.

These are good points. I have so much trouble communicating with words. I always wanted to display a picture.

 

[Rescued One]

Is a Methodist worthy of eternal life if he rejects your prophets?

The answer to this would be helpful to everyone.

 

[Rescued One]

You've not listened to my words, so I'll explain using your words, step by step. LDS *do* believe:

1. God extends forgiveness to all people and is based entirely on Christ’s work.
2. People receive instead of earn the forgiveness of sins by placing their trust and confidence in the completed work of Christ.
3. Faith is the only instrument that accepts the gift of full forgiveness from God. All believers in Christ are fully reconciled with God and deemed worthy of eternal life.

Are you following me thus far?

Isn't full forgiveness for Adam's transgression in Eden? That forgiveness guarantees resurrection, not eternal life with Heavenly Father, correct? There are requirements for exaltation, yes or no?

"Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected. Our bodies and our spirits will be reunited in a perfect, immortal state. An understanding and testimony of the resurrection can give us hope and perspective as we experience the challenges and triumphs of life."
What is the resurrection?

 

[twin.spin]

I'm so sorry. I just wanted people to know that we are expected to walk in the light after God releases us from the darkness.

Ephesians 5
8For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Biblical Christianity teaches:
We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus alone (Eph. 2:8-9).

God sent His Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14). He made salvation possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice. A believer receives full credit for His perfect obedience by trusting in His completed work. Believers receive assurance for their salvation because Christ has done it all.

It is in that light (Eph. 2:8-9) \ (1 John 4:14) in which we walk.

 

[Rescued One]

Biblical Christianity teaches:
We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus alone (Eph. 2:8-9).

God sent His Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14). He made salvation possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice. A believer receives full credit for His perfect obedience by trusting in His completed work. Believers receive assurance for their salvation because Christ has done it all.

It is in that light (Eph. 2:8-9) \ (1 John 4:14) in which we walk.

I agree.

 

[Dale]

You've not listened to my words, so I'll explain using your words, step by step. LDS *do* believe:

1. God extends forgiveness to all people and is based entirely on Christ’s work.
2. People receive instead of earn the forgiveness of sins by placing their trust and confidence in the completed work of Christ.
3. Faith is the only instrument that accepts the gift of full forgiveness from God. All believers in Christ are fully reconciled with God and deemed worthy of eternal life.

Are you following me thus far?

Is a Methodist worthy of eternal life if he rejects your prophets?

Years ago I belonged to a Methodist singles group. We had a series of programs on other religions, other denominations. We invited a couple of Mormon missionaries to talk to our group, in a Methodist church. I actually called the Mormon Bishop myself to make this request.


These missionaries told us that Jesus visited the Americas after the resurrection. During a question period, someone asked them if there is salvation outside the Mormon church. The missionaries told us that people outside the LDS church have the opportunity for salvation. That is, they have the opportunity to join the LDS church. In other words, there is no salvation outside the LDS church.


That's a long way from unconditional forgiveness and salvation for everyone who accepts Jesus Christ as Savior. It's a long way from "faith is the only instrument" of salvation.

 

[twin.spin]

After what I can guess are many hours worth of conversation with Jane Doe on a variety of diverse topics relating to Christian and Mormon theology, I can attest to the fact that she really does seem interested in conversation. ...

I write all this because I think our Lutheran friend might fare better in discussions with Mormons if things were presented in the format of "traditional Christianity/Lutheranism/my tradition interprets XYZ scripture or event in the following way; how does that differ or not differ from the Mormon interpretation of the same?" ....
" You'll hardly ever agree (Mormon eisegesis is...well, eisegesis), but at least then no on has the feeling of being talked at, which nobody likes.

I appreciate your sensitivity to what appears as my approach being harsh.

The alternative approach as you suggested often times leaves the parties talking past one another ... which accomplishes nothing. The fact is LDS theology uses many of the same words found in Biblical Christianity yet LDS theology has a very different understanding of the word. We know this to be the case when one takes into account the accumulative statements from well known sources from LDS like (to name a few)

• "Miracle of Forgiveness" ~ Spencer Kimball (a LDS prophet)
• "True to the Faith" ~ small book published by the LDS Church
• "Ensign" ~ monthly magazine published by the LDS Church

When I decide to engage in a conversation with a LDS person, it is with the intent to speak in terms they understand then contrast it with what God revealed in the Bible. That is the same approach which Paul used in Athens and the Bereans used.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't doubt any of that. My only point is you might get a different/more receptive reaction by phrasing things in a comparative or more open-ended way. "How does this interpretation compare or not to the LDS interpretation?", or "What do you mean when you say X?", or something similar.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I appreciate your sensitivity to what appears as my approach being harsh.

The alternative approach as you suggested often times leaves the parties talking past one another ... which accomplishes nothing.

FYI: Talking past a person is exactly the approach you're describing: because you have no interest in listening *to* the other person. It also completely sabotages any attempt to "use terms the other person would understand". Paul never used this approach, and it only accomplishes turning people away.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Years ago I belonged to a Methodist singles group. We had a series of programs on other religions, other denominations. We invited a couple of Mormon missionaries to talk to our group, in a Methodist church. I actually called the Mormon Bishop myself to make this request.

I love Methodists! My best friend / sister-in-law is Methodist and I have attended her church with her many times. They are most wonderful. This last Easter I had the privilege of witnessing my baby niece's baptism there.

These missionaries told us that Jesus visited the Americas after the resurrection. During a question period, someone asked them if there is salvation outside the Mormon church. The missionaries told us that people outside the LDS church have the opportunity for salvation. That is, they have the opportunity to join the LDS church. In other words, there is no salvation outside the LDS church.

That's a long way from unconditional forgiveness and salvation for everyone who accepts Jesus Christ as Savior. It's a long way from "faith is the only instrument" of salvation.

Clarifying here:

LDS *do* believe that Christ alone saves: salvation is a gift of grace. Salvation only comes through Him.

We do *not* believe that a person can 'earn' salvation by any means. For example, being baptized does not earn you salvation- a person could get baptized all day long and without Christ they've only accomplished getting wet.

While we never earn salvation, LDS do believe that a person must *accept* Christ's gift of salvation. We accept by having faith in Him, repenting, and making covenants. This is not us earning salvation, but accepting Him & His gift.

The first of these covenants in baptism, when we formally accept His name. This baptism must be done correctly: the baptizee having faith & repentance in Christ & desiring baptism, and the baptizer having authority from God. While I enjoyed attending my niece's baptism, in LDS theology is was not done correctly: my niece was 3 months old so didn't really have the needed faith in Christ (she was mostly preoccupied with eating her dress), and the baptizer (their Methodist pastor) didn't have authority from God as the Methodist church is not God's own Church. That's not to say they don't love Christ (they certainly do!), but they have not formally accepted upon His name via the covenant of baptism.

Now does that mean every Methodist is doomed to a fate of eternal burning? Heck no! Not is the slightest! For example, my friend loves Christ deeply, and I have no doubt that she'll gladly formally accept His name when the time is right. It may be during or after this mortal life, but I have no doubt she'll fully embrace Him.

 

[twin.spin]

I don't doubt any of that. My only point is you might get a different/more receptive reaction by phrasing things in a comparative or more open-ended way. "How does this interpretation compare or not to the LDS interpretation?", or "What do you mean when you say X?", or something similar.

When I do say ... "What do you mean when you say X?" ... it when people like Jane_Doe says for example:

We do *not* believe that a person can 'earn' salvation by any means.​

that's simply a shell-game of words when "after all you can do" is 'earning' salvation aka "works".

Does this from the former prophet Spencer Kimball sound like what Jane_Doe wants you to believe:

Heavenly Father has promised forgiveness upon total repentance and meeting all the requirements but that forgiveness is not granted merely for the asking. There must be works - many works - and an all-out, total surrender, with a great humility and "a broken heart and a contrite spirit." It depends upon you whether or not you are forgiven, and when. It could be weeks, it could be years, it could be centuries before that happy day when you have the positive assurance that the Lord has forgiven you. That depends on your humility, your sincerity, your works, your attitudes.​

Truth is that under the banner of "forgiveness", life with God in the celestial kingdom (Biblical Christianity equivalent to heaven\paradise) is 'earn' aka works 'by any means'.

​

 

[twin.spin]

FYI: Talking past a person is exactly the approach you're describing: because you have no interest in listening *to* the other person. It also completely sabotages any attempt to "use terms the other person would understand". Paul never used this approach, and it only accomplishes turning people away.

Which is why your approach doesn't get past me.

FYI: Many people turned away from Paul ... which is why he was in jail more than once, beaten many times \ left for dead, wrote to the Galatians asking who bewitched them?
Ok, you want to be asked "How does this interpretation compare or not to the LDS interpretation?",
Ok

How does (Galatians 1:8-9) compare to Mormonism with it's striving and making covenants when God reveals that every one is cursed to outer darkness for failing to continue in all things which are written in the book of the law (Galatians 3:10) ?

" For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
​

 

[Jane_Doe]

Are you going to say I don't understand Mormonism? ... I'm 'lecturing' ?

A lecture is defined when one person talks about another without any honest interest/respect/intend on listening to their thoughts- thoughts when are by definition not the speakers.

Do you have any honest interest, respect, or interesting listening to my thoughts? Not parroting your thoughts, but MY beliefs.

 

[dzheremi]

When I do say ... "What do you mean when you say X?" ... it when people like Jane_Doe says for example:

We do *not* believe that a person can 'earn' salvation by any means.​

that's simply a shell-game of words when "after all you can do" is 'earning' salvation aka "works".

Does this from the former prophet Spencer Kimball sound like what Jane_Doe wants you to believe:

Heavenly Father has promised forgiveness upon total repentance and meeting all the requirements but that forgiveness is not granted merely for the asking. There must be works - many works - and an all-out, total surrender, with a great humility and "a broken heart and a contrite spirit." It depends upon you whether or not you are forgiven, and when. It could be weeks, it could be years, it could be centuries before that happy day when you have the positive assurance that the Lord has forgiven you. That depends on your humility, your sincerity, your works, your attitudes.​

Truth is that under the banner of "forgiveness", life with God in the celestial kingdom (Biblical Christianity equivalent to heaven\paradise) is 'earn' aka works 'by any means'

Well that is ideally when the discussion is supposed to happen. Your interlocutor says something, then you bring something from their tradition and ask them to explain in it light of what they have already said that they believe.

One thing I have noticed with Mormons, even Mormons on this message board (which is significant, as there aren't many who actively participate in discussions), is that there is far less theological uniformity among them than there is among Christians who claim the same confession (say, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox, or whatever). I don't know if that would extend to matters of soteriology, but for instance in one thread I have discussed matters of basic Mormon theology with three different Mormons and gotten three answers (with regard to whether Mormonism is henotheistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic). So you can't necessarily assume that any particular Mormon you're talking to is going to share the same interpretation of Kimball's words -- or any of their leaders. Maybe some have an understanding of Kimball's words that make sense (for them) within whatever framework they've already presented.

 

[twin.spin]

A lecture is defined when one person talks about another without any honest interest/respect/intend on listening to their thoughts- thoughts when are by definition not the speakers.

Do you have any honest interest, respect, or interesting listening to my thoughts? Not parroting your thoughts, but MY beliefs.

I have been listening to you, we have an sincere interest in you answering "How does this interpretation compare or not to the LDS interpretation?" when what you parrot is contrary to what God revealed in the Bible ... let alone contradicts official LDS teachings \ printed material and LDS church leaders views .

So again, are you going to answer these two questions:
1) How does (Galatians 1:8-9) compare to Mormonism with it's striving and making covenants when God reveals that every one is cursed to outer darkness for failing to continue in all things which are written in the book of the law (Galatians 3:10) ?

2) When comparing YOUR beliefs (as stated in the 'clarify' post#130) to Spencer Kimball (LDS prophet) and other official LDS sources ... your beliefs deny the teachings of the LDS Church and or it's leaders.

You are expected to upholding the teachings of LDS highest authorities ... not parrot YOUR thoughts \ interpretations or beliefs.

We'll await any honest two-way conversation other than your parroted lectures like ... we don’t understand Mormonism when your own beliefs differ from that of official LDS teachings.

 

[twin.spin]

Well that is ideally when the discussion is supposed to happen. Your interlocutor says something, then you bring something from their tradition and ask them to explain in it light of what they have already said that they believe.

One thing I have noticed with Mormons, even Mormons on this message board (which is significant, as there aren't many who actively participate in discussions), is that there is far less theological uniformity among them than there is among Christians who claim the same confession (say, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox, or whatever). I don't know if that would extend to matters of soteriology, but for instance in one thread I have discussed matters of basic Mormon theology with three different Mormons and gotten three answers (with regard to whether Mormonism is henotheistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic). So you can't necessarily assume that any particular Mormon you're talking to is going to share the same interpretation of Kimball's words -- or any of their leaders. Maybe some have an understanding of Kimball's words that make sense (for them) within whatever framework they've already presented.

Mormons are expect to know and uphold the teachings of LDS highest authorities ... not parrot their thoughts \ interpretations or beliefs.

It is not my problem if any particular Mormon doesn't share the same interpretation as LDS leader, who Spencer Kimball was at one time a LDS prophet ... those Mormons who don't uphold are in violation of not keeping to their own standards which God revealed "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

 

[Rescued One]

When I do say ... "What do you mean when you say X?" ... it when people like Jane_Doe says for example:

We do *not* believe that a person can 'earn' salvation by any means.​

that's simply a shell-game of words when "after all you can do" is 'earning' salvation aka "works".

Does this from the former prophet Spencer Kimball sound like what Jane_Doe wants you to believe:

Heavenly Father has promised forgiveness upon total repentance and meeting all the requirements but that forgiveness is not granted merely for the asking. There must be works - many works - and an all-out, total surrender, with a great humility and "a broken heart and a contrite spirit." It depends upon you whether or not you are forgiven, and when. It could be weeks, it could be years, it could be centuries before that happy day when you have the positive assurance that the Lord has forgiven you. That depends on your humility, your sincerity, your works, your attitudes.​

Truth is that under the banner of "forgiveness", life with God in the celestial kingdom (Biblical Christianity equivalent to heaven\paradise) is 'earn' aka works 'by any means'.

I have pointed this out several times. A Mormon who claims otherwise is ignoring the LDS scriptures as well as the LDS leaders' own teachings. No Mormon who posts to any forum on the internet can tell you what all LDS believe; neither can I. We have to rely on what they teach and a lot of what they teach can be read at lds.org.

We can politely ask questions and not receive a single answer or sometimes receive an answer that contradicts the church's teachings.

 

[dzheremi]

The point is not whether or not a Mormon will accurately relate what they're 'supposed' to according to their faith. The point is to recognize that they don't all agree with one another, so it's better to treat them as individual people.

I was watching a YouTube video a few weeks ago by a Christian evangelist who had come to Utah to attempt to win Mormons to Christianity (I can't remember, but he might've even been an ex-Mormon himself), and he made the point that the responses he got from Mormons when he brought up controversial points of Mormon belief tended to vary according to the age of the person he talked to, with younger Mormons denying outright the things that older Mormons (e.g., people in their 60s and 70s) had no trouble acknowledging that they do in fact believe. You could say that the younger ones are not doing as good a job of sticking to everything as they're supposed to, but I figured it was probably more a matter of how much effort the Mormon religion has over the past few decades into appearing in the eyes of Christians to be a form of Christianity. Following that initiative, there are probably things that are de-emphasized now at least among rank and file Mormons (who, let's not forget, if they haven't been to the temple may not have experienced all the things that other, more experienced Mormons have) that may account for variations in theology found among them without it being a matter of them being less fidelitous to what they have actually been taught.

 

[Rescued One]

I love Methodists! My best friend / sister-in-law is Methodist and I have attended her church with her many times. They are most wonderful. This last Easter I had the privilege of witnessing my baby niece's baptism there.

Clarifying here:

LDS *do* believe that Christ alone saves: salvation is a gift of grace. Salvation only comes through Him.

We do *not* believe that a person can 'earn' salvation by any means. For example, being baptized does not earn you salvation- a person could get baptized all day long and without Christ they've only accomplished getting wet.

I've listed the LDS requirements for eternal life. Baptism is only one of many requirements. But your posts seem to suggest that everyone is saved regardless of whether or not they meet those several requirements. That is when you use the word saved to mean resurrection. Even those who will be sent to outer darkness will be resurrected.

While we never earn salvation, LDS do believe that a person must *accept* Christ's gift of salvation. We accept by having faith in Him, repenting, and making covenants. This is not us earning salvation, but accepting Him & His gift.

People don't need to do x, y, and z to receive a gift. Doing x, y, and z is earning and the gift is no longer a gift.

The first of these covenants in baptism, when we formally accept His name. This baptism must be done correctly: the baptizee having faith & repentance in Christ & desiring baptism, and the baptizer having authority from God. While I enjoyed attending my niece's baptism, in LDS theology is was not done correctly: my niece was 3 months old so didn't really have the needed faith in Christ (she was mostly preoccupied with eating her dress), and the baptizer (their Methodist pastor) didn't have authority from God as the Methodist church is not God's own Church. That's not to say they don't love Christ (they certainly do!), but they have not formally accepted upon His name via the covenant of baptism.

Now does that mean every Methodist is doomed to a fate of eternal burning? Heck no!

Even LDS scriptures speak of damnation, hell, and burning. But none of those words has the definition that non-Mormons understand. For instance:

23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.
24 For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.
Doctrine and Covenants 64

Not is the slightest! For example, my friend loves Christ deeply, and I have no doubt that she'll gladly formally accept His name when the time is right. It may be during or after this mortal life, but I have no doubt she'll fully embrace Him.

She loves Christ deeply you say, yet, according to you, she still needs to fully embrace Him!

 

[Dale]

I've listed the LDS requirements for eternal life. Baptism is only one of many requirements. But your posts seem to suggest that everyone is saved regardless of whether or not they meet those several requirements. That is when you use the word saved to mean resurrection. Even those who will be sent to outer darkness will be resurrected.



People don't need to do x, y, and z to receive a gift. Doing x, y, and z is earning and the gift is no longer a gift.



Even LDS scriptures speak of damnation, hell, and burning. But none of those words has the definition that non-Mormons understand. For instance:

23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.
24 For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.
Doctrine and Covenants 64



She loves Christ deeply you say, yet, according to you, she still needs to fully embrace Him!

How is baptism conducted in a Mormon church?

One book I've read told of a girl being baptized as a Mormon at the age of 12. She was baptized by immersion in the church basement in a bathing suit with only a few family and friends there. An elder was there as an observer to examine the baptism and make sure it was legally valid.

Baptists and other evangelicals baptize by immersion but it would always be done in a church service. This is partly because baptism is supposed to be a public event and partly as an example to others who need to be baptized.