I perform ordinances as an outward symbol of an inner covenant; they perform them as an outward symbol on inner grace? Again I wonder, what’s the big deal?

But I also realize that just as I am concerned that “they” reject my Christianity, so I need to find a way to allow them to worship how, when or what they may.

The idea that ordinances are necessary for salvation is considered by many Protestants to be a return to reliance on “the works of the law,” and a turning away from Christian liberty.

Historically speaking, ordinances (and the power to administer them) have been the critical foundation for abuse of ecclesiastical power: Withholding communion became an instrument of coercion, by which corrupt ecclesiastical leaders tried to impose their will in matters that went beyond religion’s proper sphere. I can see why Protestants (who came into existence precisely because of those abuses) would be suspicious of the idea that ordinances administered by authorities are necessary for salvation: Power corrupts, and they saw it corrupted.

#19 DB — your concern over semantics among Mormons (expressed slightly differently by others) is also something I’ve noticed. Sometimes we draw the distinction between salvation and exaltation, but the Book of Mormon, for instance, doesn’t seem to.

#21 Mr Q&A — you have crystalized the questions my evangelial friends ask me, too. But I still maintain that the differences are not as great as they seem, particularly as it relates to the importance of works (or the order in which they come).

The McConkie quote seems to me to be an effort to guard against assuming we don’t need to obey commandments to return to (or live with) God. There’s no disputing that Paul in the New Testament also advocated keeping the commandments!

I suppose denominations might quibble, but the fact that we are commanded to participate in ordinances seems also true for Christians of other faiths.

So again I find myself scratching my head an wondering what all the fuss is about.

Correct, and they must be able to abide the Telestial Law in order to be resurrected to Telestial Glory.

Your comment “We can enter the Telestial Kingdom without our repentance” suggest you can enter the Telestial Kingdom without us repenting. I am saying this is not true. You have to be able to live the Telestial Law in order to receive Telestial Glory, which requires repentance and obedience to Telestial laws. If you cannot repent, then you will receive NO Glory, which brings up the issue of space and other kingdoms — not necessarily outer darkness. This section of the D&C (88) teaches about an infinite number of kingdoms without glory.

If you must have the last word, I won’t feel the need to respond for my last word. I can end it here. Peace.

Mormons do exactly the same, to be “exalted” you have to accept the LDS view. Whilst fighting is futile, I understand the passion behind defending a personal view of God.

It wasn’t meant to be an analogy, exactly. (Although Rastas do believe that Selassie is the same Christ/God as in the Bible, but incarnated as a living man. He’s the “Second Coming,” more or less.) What I was trying to get at is that two different religions’ views of “Christ” can be different enough that reasonable people will question whether they’re referring to the same thing.

Comparing Rasta beliefs with the mainstream, the difference is large enough to at least make most people consider that they might not be the same thing. The distinctions that Evangelicals draw seem much finer. It’s the same idea though: the differences are so great that (in evangelical opinion) it’s questionable whether what Mormons worship can be considered “Christ.”

I don’t agree with the Evangelical argument, BTW. I think it’s “lame,” as you say. At it’s heart, I don’t even think it’s as much about theology as it is about power. Some Evangelicals love to set themselves up as arbiters of who is and isn’t a Christian and what is and isn’t Christianity. They do that by portraying themselves as the true Christians with the true Christianity and only admitting people with highly similar beliefs into the club. They try to claim the right to define Christianity even though they’re just one branch of it.

Evangelical’s (lame) argument that Mormons worship a “different Jesus” is actually the idea that Mormons and evangelicals believe different things about Jesus’ attributes — for example, his relationship with his Father (ontological or social oneness? Inferior or equal?)

Can you have a mistaken conception of a person’s attributes, and still be thinking of the same person as one who has a correct understanding of those attributes?

DB,

Rastas believe that Haile Selassie (Ras Tafari) is Christ. (Everybody else believes that he was just some guy who was the king of Ethiopia, and that he died 35 years ago.) They worship him as Christ and believe that he saves them.

Since Selassie isn’t really Christ (so we all assume), what does their worship mean? Are Rastas Christians? Are they something else because they worship someone who isn’t really Christ? If worshiping Christ saves people, are they saved? Are they OK because they get the name (Christ) right, even though they direct it at the wrong person? Or do they have to find the right “target” for worship?

Back in my lifeguard days, I ran across a Vietnamese kid floundering in the surf, clinging desperately to a tennis ball in panic. He wouldn’t take my rescue buoy, despite that the tennis ball wasn’t really working out for him as a floatation device. I think that’s the comparison evangelicals would make.

If I were an evangelical honestly reading Paul’s writings, I would distinguish between the “works of the law” — the ritual commandments that have no connection with “love thy neighbor as thyself” and basic personal integrity — and the basic moral requirement to try to be a decent person. To the extent Paul warned against turning away from Christian liberty into the bondage of the Law, the text and context of his writings strongly suggest that he’s talking about ritual commandments — like circumcision, abstaining from meat offered to idols, Sabbath observance, Jewish dietary laws and rules against associating with Gentiles — not personal righteousness, which he repeatedly urges.

I can be absolved of Guilt through the Grace of Christ repentance is a part of that, but the work Christ requires is a broken heart and a contrite spirit, whilst I have that I’m in full confidence of where my eternal soul will reside. Whilst I have that Broken heart and contrite spirit I’m striving to overcome the natural man by doing those things that bind the natural man Service, Tithing, Covenant making, obedience to leadership. Whilst not one of those things saves me or exalts me they aid in humbling my natural tendencies overcoming the natural man, I also believe that God provides similar experiences for the majority of mankind to help them become humble, child like, meek and submissive if they will listen.

1st Mormonism is a polytheistic religion, they don’t worship the Christ that True Christians Worship.

2nd They don’t recognise the true divinity of God (saying God was once a man)

3rd When Mormons focus on works as a means to gain “exaltation” they put the proverbial cart before the horse, they are not saved because they remove the focus from the Atoning blood of Christ and place it upon there own works (“because I’m sealed to my family we can live together forever in the presence of Heavenly Father”).

DB I think with all the misunderstanding that is tossed too and fro between the Evangelicals and the Mormons, I can see where they are coming from.

One major factor in this debate is of course that Evangelical and all other Christian doctrines have a much more limited view of the after life than our own. When heaven and hell are the only choices available, it’s really difficult to understand how works fit in. The scriptures clearly teach that mankind is saved by grace alone. If grace gets you into heaven and the only other choice is hell, what’s the point in works? I think all Christians know that good works are important but there’s really no place to fit them into their doctrine. It must be very frustrating for them – maybe that’s where the antagonism towards Mormonism comes from. Mormon doctrine also teaches that mankind is saved by grace alone but because we have an expanded view of the after life, our doctrine is able to accommodate works. Grace saves us from hell (we won’t be banished to Satan’s realm for all eternity) but beyond that our ultimate destination will be determined by the choices we make here (all of which is available because of Christ and are received through Christ).

Semantics is another factor in this debate that Mormonism has never solved. What exactly does it mean to be saved? Ask a hundred Mormons this question and you’ll get a hundred different answers. For non-Mormon Christians it’s easy – saved means you go to heaven instead of hell. I think this is a major contributor to the grace vs. works debate among Mormons. If we don’t have a common definition for salvation we’ll never have consensus on whether grace, works, both, or neither are required to obtain it. When one Mormon says that works are required to be saved and another says that we are saved by grace alone, are they disagreeing with each other? Only in their definition of what it means to be saved.

Thanks, as always, BiV.

I googled Jacob’s Ladder symbolism and found some interesting quotes from St Jerome, a Christian Priest born in the late 300s. In the work “Letters of St Jerome, there are a few references to Jacob’s ladder. The first is very interesing from the LDS perspective:

“Lucifer, who arose in the morning, is fallen from heaven; and he who was reared in the paradise of pleasure deserved to hear: Though thou be exalted as an eagle, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord. For he has said in his heart: I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven, I will be like the Most High. That is why God daily says to those who descend by the ladder while Jacob dreams: I have said: you are gods and all of you the sons of the Most High. But you like men shall die and shall fall like one of the princes. For the devil fell first and when God stands in the assemblage of the gods and publicly passes judgment on gods, the Apostle writes to those that cease to be gods: For when there are among you contentions and envyings, are you not men and walk according to man?”

So in this usage, St Jerome seems to suggest that the ladder is the means of communication from God with the messengers instructing the recipients to cease walking according to man and become sons of the Most High…or “gods”. This follows the general pattern that BiV showed was the teaching of the early Christian fathers.

In another letter, he uses the ladder symbol in a different way:

“Bonosus, your good friend, rather–he is my friend too–our good friend, is now climbing the ladder foreshown in Jacob’s dream. He is bearing the cross. He takes no thought for the morrow. He does not look back. He is sowing in tears, that he may reap in joy. Adopting the symbol of Moses, he has hung up the serpent in the Wilderness.”

Here he equilibrates climbing the ladder with bearing the cross. If I knew more about Bonosus, then it would make more sense. It sounds like he is in the service of the Lord, making sacrifices of personal comfort for the cause, perhaps. In so doing, he is becoming more like Christ, which is resulting in an ascent. Still a lot of emphasis on works or repentance.

I also like this quote I found on another site from a work that is unfamiliar to me:

“Ladders are considered places where heaven and earth or humans and gods can meet. Some legends relate that such a ladder existed in the Garden of Eden which God descended daily in order to walk with Adam and Eve. Its removal at the Fall represents the loss of easy communication between Adam and his God. Christ and the Cross are our ladders. Through these we regain access to our God and our heavenly home. In Christ heaven and earth meet. He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” There is no way to approach the Father except through Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Jesus used the symbolism of Jacob’s ladder to describe His intercessory role to Nathanael when He said, “hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man” (John 1:51 NKJV). The monastery, and the Church are considered ladders as they assist people in the attainment of heaven. Sometimes Cisterian and Carthusian religious houses called themselves “Scala Dei” or “Ladder of God.” In the Byzantium Church, the Virgin Mary is considered a ladder since through her God descended to become a Man and through her intercession He grants sinners the graces necessary to reach heaven. St. John Chrysostom taught that the Mosaic Law was like a ladder which allowed God’s people to ascend to the position of spiritual adoption and freedom they currently enjoyed in Christ. Having reached the top of the ladder, the climber no longer required it to attain his goals (The Commentary and Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Galatians, Philippians, Homily 11 – Philippians 3:7-10).”

I think this is a good way to connect the two faith traditions. The ladder is a meeting of Heaven and Earth through Christ. Christ’s atonement encompasses the ladder as the way, the repentance process, and sanctification in order to draw near spiritually and receive divine teaching.