"If you believe all this, then why are you a Mormon?"

Because of my gratitude and understanding for the merciful blessing of repentance, I could speak about it all day and night, and never get tired of it. It's always at the forefront of my thoughts and my teaching. (I teach Sunday School.) It's not only a key to my gospel study, but gospel living. It's such an essential principle of the gospel, along with faith in Christ—fundamental--especially if our faith in Christ leads us unto repentance.

I like how the Bible Dictionary in the LDS scriptures talk about repentance. (The Bible dictionary is not scripture itself, but it's a great study help). It states: "The Greek word of which this is the translation denotes a change of mind, i.e., a fresh view about God, about oneself, and about the world. Since we are born into conditions of mortality, repentance comes to mean a turning of the heart and will to God, and a renunciation of sin to which we are naturally inclined. Without this there can be no progress in the things of the soul’s salvation, for all accountable persons are stained by sin, and must be cleansed in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Repentance is not optional for salvation; it is a commandment of God."

I would venture to say that it's also one of the most positive aspects of the gospel, or "good news", of Jesus Christ. This is how we lay claim to Christ's mercy!

Obviously, our repentance, or whatever other works we manage to do out of love for God and our fellow man, is not what saves us. Christ saves us. That’s why we call Him the Savior. No knowledgeable Mormon will ever tell you that Mormons believe they can save themselves. That is a myth.

It is clear in the Bible, and even in The Book of Mormon, that "redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else". (2 Nephi 2:6-7)

The Atonement of Jesus Christ is so core, central, and fundamental in our faith and in our scriptures. This is why Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

Ultimately, I believe that none but the penitent, who have a broken heart and contrite spirit, are saved. This is how the great Plan of Salvation (also referred to by the Latter-day Saints as the great Plan of Mercy, the Plan of Happiness, the Plan of Redemption) is brought to pass, through exercising "faith unto repentance." (see Alma 34:13-17 in the Book of Mormon). Naturally, Jesus Christ is central and key to the Plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made the above comment on another blog run by a Christian not of our faith. She had written some excellent thoughts about sin, daily repentance, and forgiveness. I sensed that she thought she was sharing something that would be strange to me, as a Mormon. She then asked my thoughts, and I told her that what she had said was not only beautiful, but true. And then I took some time to share my above thoughts about repentance, Jesus Christ, and the Plan of Salvation. But the line that seemed to sum up the fact that Mormons are still misunderstood by so many people of other faiths was what she said in response to my comment:

"I really appreciate your kind words about my writing and explanation of continual repentance. If you believe all this, then why are you a Mormon? I know you say you know what Mormons believe, and surely you do, but you ignore what the Mormon church has taught and what the leaders believe and have believed in the past."

Why is this a common misconception by evangelicals? The doctrine hasn't changed. The scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, have always said this. Any thoughts?

What Is Official "Mormon" Doctrine?

Due to several conversations both with members of the LDS Church and with several people not of the Mormon faith, I felt it would be important to clarify what exactly constitutes “what Mormons believe”, or in other words, “official doctrine”. Some do error if they actually think that the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie is actually doctrine for the “Mormon” church. That’s a clever name for a book, but it's not actually the (official) truth. Those were his opinions. He was certainly very knowledgeable, and yes, he did become an apostle, but that doesn't make the book official doctrine. (And we all know he had to change some of his opinions as he learned more.) Some general authorities have even expressed opinions that run contrary to general Mormon belief. No worries, we’re not bound by speculation.

I think a quote from my former professor and mentor Stephen Robinson would be helpful here. He makes so many important points that seem to hit several nails right on the head:

“So what constitutes genuine Mormon doctrine? What is the LDS equivalent of “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur”? What do the Latter-day Saints believe? Can something be said to be “Mormon” doctrine if any Latter-day Saint anywhere believes it? If my LDS grandmother believed that frogs cause warts, or that the earth is flat, does that make those ideas LDS doctrine? If some LDS missionary somewhere believes that the earth is hollow and that the lost ten tribes are hiding inside, is his or her belief therefore LDS doctrine? Of course not.

“Virtually every religion has procedures for distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the church, and so do the Latter-day Saints…

“B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS church, summarized the issue perhaps as well as anyone has:

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”

“Of course it is true that many Latter-day Saints, from the Presidents of the Church and members of the Quorum of the Twelve down to individual members who may write books or articles, have expressed their own opinions on doctrinal matters. Nevertheless, until such opinions are presented to the Church in general conference and sustained by vote of the conference, they are neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church. The critics of LDS doctrine seldom recognize this vital distinction. Rather, if any Latter-day Saint, especially one of the leading Brethren, ever said a thing, these critics take it to represent “Mormonism,” regardless of the context of the particular statement and regardless of whether any other Latter-day Saint ever said it or believed it. Often the Latter-day Saints themselves are guilty of this same error and search through the Journal of Discourses as if it were some sort of Mormon Talmud, looking for “new” doctrines not found in the standard works and not taught in the Church today.

“Usually the critics insist that the Latter-day Saints must defend as doctrine everything Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or any other General Authority ever said. But the LDS concept of doctrine simply cannot be stretched this far. The Latter-day Saints allow that sometimes the living prophet speaks in his role as prophet and sometimes he simply states his own opinions. This distinction is no different than that made in some other Christian denominations. For example, even though Roman Catholics believe in “papal infallibility,” they insist that the pope is infallible only in certain clearly defined circumstances –when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Cannot the Latter-day Saints be allowed a similar distinction? The LDS view was expressed succinctly by Joseph Smith himself: “I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”

“Non-Mormon critics, on the other hand, often insist that the Brethren must speak and write prophetically at all times. This absolutist expectation usually flows out of an extreme inerrantist view of prophecy and of scripture that is held by the critics, but not by the Latter-day Saints. The critics’ belief in the Bible as absolutely perfect, without error and inspired in every word, leads them to make the same demands of anyone claiming to be a prophet. They would impose their inerrantist view on the Latter-day Saints and their prophets.

“But the Latter-day Saints have no such inerrantist views, neither of the scriptures nor of the prophets. The scriptures are the word of God, but only as far as they are translated [or transmitted] correctly; and prophets sometimes speak for the Lord, and sometimes they express their own opinions. Certainly, if the Latter-day Saints were radical inerrantists, such a view as the foregoing would be a contradiction and a scandal, but since we are not inerrantists, the view scandalizes only our inerrantist critics. B. H. Roberts expressed it in this way:

“It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, “But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so,” or “Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him.” But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially?

As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is–What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.”

“In their encounters with anti-Mormon critics, quite often the Saints seem to feel constrained to defend too much. For example, the fact that Orson Pratt may have said such and such on this or that occasion does not make it a proposition that needs defending. Elder Pratt was very outspoken in his opinions, which sometimes disagreed with the opinions of other General Authorities. He was frequently instructed to make clear to his hearers or readers that his views were his own and not the doctrine of the Church; and on at least one occasion he was instructed by the President of the Church to recant publicly opinions he had represented as doctrine.

“Yet time and again the private opinions or even the half-serious speculations of Orson Pratt and others are presented in the literature of the anti-Mormons as mainstream LDS doctrine. The problem is compounded by some enthusiastic Latter-day Saints who themselves will not observe this distinction and insist on teaching the personal opinions and speculations of past leaders as though they were the official doctrines of the Church.

“Now, none of this should be taken to mean that in matters of administration within the LDS church the General Authorities are not inspired or that they must submit every policy decision to the members for a sustaining vote. The revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, already accepted as binding by the Church, along with the ordination to their callings give the Brethren the keys and authority to administer the affairs of the Church as the Lord may direct without their needing a sustaining vote for each individual decision. Thus the Church in conference sustains only the individuals who hold the keys, but does not need to sustain separately every detail of their administration. Consequently the policies and procedures of the Church are “official” and “inspired” whenever those holding the keys of that ministry unitedly declare them to be so. Similarly the revelations already accepted by the Church give to the General Authorities and to many others the right to “preach, teach, expound, exhort,”–that is, to interpret and apply existing doctrines within the context of their individual stewardships. The Brethren need no further license or sustaining vote to interpret, define, and apply the doctrines of the Church, or to administer the affairs of the Church and dictate its policies and procedures, than to be sustained in conference as prophets, seers, and revelators and as duly ordained members of their respective quorums.

“Latter-day Saints believe that the General Authorities receive inspiration and revelation from God constantly in the administration of the affairs of the Church. They also believe that individuals within the Church may receive personal revelation, even on doctrinal matters, for their private benefit. When doctrinal revelation is given to such individuals, however, the Lord commands them to keep it to themselves (see Alma 12:9). Such revelation is not for the Church generally, but for that individual alone. No new doctrine is binding as the official doctrine of the Church unless it has been received by the President of the Church and until it has been sustained by the Church in general conference.

“Finally, from an LDS point of view some things may be correct without being official Church doctrine. For example, it is probably true that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of its hypotenuse, but the Pythagorean theorem has never been sustained in a general conference of the Church. Similarly the doctrinal opinions of individual Latter-day Saints could very well turn out to be correct–and some such opinions are believed by many of the Saints –but that does not make them the official doctrine of the Church. This category of things that may be true and that are believed by some in the Church is confusing to members and nonmembers alike.

“Hence the Brethren have insisted again and again that the members avoid such speculative matters and teach only from the standard works, for only they contain the official doctrines of the Church.
For all of these reasons the only valid judgments of whether or not LDS doctrine is Christian must be based on the official doctrines of the Church, interpreted as the Latter-day Saints interpret them.”

(Stephen Robinson: “What is Official Doctrine" from the book "Are Mormon’s Christian?”)

To Our Evangelical Friends: Don't Be Suckered With "The God Makers"

The definition of a "sucker" is "a gullible and easily decieved person". Usually I'm not one to call names, but even Delbert Stapley once said "The Saints are suckers". Sometimes that's true. Unfortunately, I am astonished at how many of our evangelical friends and neighbors have been suckered into watching The God Makers (even in their own churches!) and actually believing it! Turns out there are more suckers in this religious world after all.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to blame them for believing something that is so commonly spread around evangelical circles. Why would they ever feel the need to question the motives of their well respected pastors and church leaders?

It's even more ironic that so many of them insist that we're the ones who have been deceived. If only they knew the kind of garbage they've been fed about "the Mormons." Truman Madsen has called The God Makers "religious pornography." I couldn't agree more. This kind of deception, spread not only by The God Makers but by other anti-Mormon "ministries" often takes years for unsuspecting and believing Christians to disbelieve it and recognize it for what it actually is.

Kudos to those who are courageous enough to come to a realization that they have not been given the full truth by those who they'd expect to get truth from the most. (Note to self: When wanting to learn about other churches--go directly to a practicing member of that church!) Once the lies, smearing, or half-truths have been dished out and allowed to simmer without clarification on the part of those who know better, the end result is suspicion, religious bias, and ignorance rather than true understanding, tolerance, and love.

For those who haven't heard of "The God Makers", it is an anti-Mormon film produced in 1982 by Ed Decker and Jeremiah Films. The church is "portrayed as a multi-billion dollar corporation that destroys marriages and drives members who cannot live up to its standards to commit suicide. The doctrine of the Mormon church, as portrayed by the filmmakers, involves an obsession with godhood and the population of other worlds through a process referred to as “endless celestial sex.” (Wikipedia)

A sequel was produced in 1993 entitled The God Makers II. Watching it would have been almost laughable to me if not for being so perplexed at such deliberately deceptive tactics. For example, the producers interview a "Mormon Fundamentalist" who explains how she was brought up and taught to live polygamy, without ever even explaining that "Mormon Fundamentalists" have no modern connection to the Mormon Church at all; that they're all splinter groups broken off years ago.

I'm sure the makers of this "religious pornography" don't mind one bit perpetuating the myth/misperception that Mormons are polygamists without ever mentioning that polygamy was done away with over a hundred years ago, and never practiced by the majority of Latter-day Saints anyway. It was the exception rather than the rule. Monogamy, not polygamy, has always been the standard doctrine. (Even in the Old Testament, polygamy was the exception (Abraham and his wives, etc.) rather than the rule). But polygamy is the least of the lies.

The film’s narrator adds that the temple is used for “only secret ceremonies which are reserved for an elite few,” and that temple attendance is required in order that “the worthy Mormon can become a god himself in the life hereafter, ruling over his own planet, with a number of goddess wives.” It teaches that Mormons expect to become “infinite gods” and populate planets through “celestial sex” with their “goddess wives.” And on, and on, and on.

Um, no.

Not only is it not true, but it's inflammatory and repulsive. There might very well be more suckers outside of the church that believe this than suckers inside the church.

Among other inflamatory and maliciously deceptive statements are:

*Entire Mormon "doctrine flows from this about becoming gods.”
*God the Father lives on a planet called Kolob.
*God the Father journeyed to earth “from the Starbase Kolob,” to “have sex with the virgin Mary, in order to provide Jesus with a physical body.”
*It is also stated that Jesus Christ, referred to as the “Mormon Jesus,” had a number of children through multiple wives.

What LDS Sunday School class did they attend? Not only is this stuff not true, but it sounds like something from a bad science fiction movie. And yet in all my interactions with evangelicals on other blogs and with friends I've grown up with--this is the kind of stuff that is believed and constantly brought up by them about "the Mormons"!

Little wonder why we're accussed of not being honest with them when they never hear us talking about this stuff. We don't talk about it because we don't believe it! Yet, there are some who still think we actually believe it but keep it a secret. If I were them, I'd sure be suspicious too.

Is there anyone out there who will trust that what we actually tell you is what we actually believe?! Is there anyone out there who actually wants to sincerely investigate truth for truth's sake?

Aftermath:

The film created “considerable religious controversy” in some of the communities in which it was shown and that the negative reaction came from both Mormons and non-Mormons. Rhonda M. Abrams, the Regional Director of the Anti Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith, stated:

"I sincerely hope that people of all faiths will similarly repudiate ‘The Godmakers’ as defamatory and untrue, and recognize it for what it truly represents- a challenge to the religious liberty of all."

It was noted by LDS scholars that the film deliberately “portrays Mormonism as a cult far removed from mainstream Christianity,” and that many statements that are represented as Mormon doctrine are not actual doctrine, with a particular emphasis on “those ideas which would seem most anomalous to Christians.” In particular, the repeated references to “endless celestial sex” are viewed as “absurd and profane.”

LDS respondents claim that the film portrays all Mormons as either part of the conspiracy to cover up information, or as being deluded by their leaders.

National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ) editor Max Jennings attended a showing in Mesa Arizona that was “sponsored by a group known as Concerned Christians” whose purpose was “to reach out in love to those lost in Mormonism.” Jennings reported that “If what I saw Tuesday night is love, I must have had the wrong Sunday School lessons back in that dusty west Texas Methodist Church of my childhood. I didn’t hear anyone reaching out in love Tuesday night. I heard people reaching out in hatred of another’s right to believe what he wants.”

The NCCJ committee sent a letter to “Concerned Christians” on 5 December 1983 which stated, among other things, that,
The film does not fairly portray the Mormon Church, Mormon history, or Mormon belief. It makes extensive use of half-truths, faulty generalizations, sensationalism, and is not reflective of the true spirit of Mormon faith. We find particularly offensive the emphasis that Mormonism is some sort of subversive plot-a danger to the community, a threat to the institution of marriage, and destructive to the mental health of teenagers. We are of the opinion that the film relies heavily on appeals to fear, prejudice and unworthy human emotions." (Wikipedia)


Thank heavens somebody sees through the bunk.


The Truth About "The God Makers"

Marinate Your Mind and Celebrate Your Ignorance

I recently read a fascinating post entitled "Robbery: To Be Equal With God". I've been wondering why we don't see more of this kind of discussion in LDS blogs. I've given a lot of thought to this "Becoming like God/becoming gods" debate lately, both within LDS circles and also in evangelical circles.

I enjoy reading the comments and hearing the opinions of people from all sides of the spectrum. I feel so much truth in the statement that whatever we become or attain only adds to God's glory, and that as we become one with Him, hierarchy becomes meaningless.

One helpful clarification about the idea that we can become like God was given by the Church in response to an interview by Fox News:

"We believe that the apostle Peter's biblical reference to partaking of the divine nature and the apostle Paul's reference to being 'joint heirs with Christ' reflect the intent that children of God should strive to emulate their Heavenly Father in every way. Throughout the eternities, Mormons believe, they will reverence and worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. The goal is not to equal them or to achieve parity with them but to imitate and someday acquire their perfect goodness, love and other divine attributes."

I remember hearing, as a kid, about "becoming a god of my own planet"--but not from official sources. This must have been one of those popular "folklore" ideas spread around for long enough that people started believing it. I wasn't appalled by that idea then, but I've also come to know that that is not "Mormon doctrine" and not something I really believe, but nor is it something I totally disbelieve. I'm not required to believe it, but I'm not ruling it out. But there is no way I'm ever going to think myself so important and great that I would ever cease praising and worshipping the Godhead for eternity. There is no way I could ever get over all that has been done for me. No matter what I become in eternity, I will will always (eternally) recognize I was completely and utterly dependent on God and the merits, mercy, and grace of His Son. God, my Heavenly Father, will always be my Father. God, the Son--Jesus Christ--will always be my Savior.

So I'm not going to spend much time or put any stock into things we just don't know beyond my current covenants. There are some "far out there" statements that some people have made, and some suckers both in and out of the church make the mistake of thinking that's what all Mormons must believe.

What I do believe is that we can and need to strive to become like God--not become Him or replace Him--but become like Him and one with Him. That, too me, is the plan. I don't have any greater ambition than that. So that's what I say when I go onto other blogs and try to clarify those common misperceptions--sometimes intentional misperceptions about us that are taught more in other churches about us than we ever even discuss among ourselves! But I realize that I can only speak for myself and not all Mormons as a whole since there isn't a well defined standard understanding. There's always bound to be some confusion.

On the other hand, I'm not going to rule something out if He has greater plans for us than we even realize. But I'm not one to dwell in speculation.

I tend to think that it would be better if more of us Latter-day Saints would more often celebrate our ignorance rather than pretend we have all the answers to the complexities of this life or eternal life.

I enjoy "marinating my mind" with questions a lot more than I enjoy feeling smug in thinking I have all the right answers. I take some gratification in all that I do know, but I think there should be a greater satisfaction, even an exhilaration, to realize how much potential we haven't even begun to tap into or understand waiting for us on the other side of the veil.

The Challenge of Discipleship--Developing Christlike Attributes

"Wisdom is the application of knowledge"--a thought that came to my mind as we drove home...

I gave my brother-in-law (who is living with us right now) a ride to institute this week. And since it's quite a drive I decided to stay and attend class with him. I'm so glad I did! The name of the class: "The Cost of Discipleship". The teacher was fabulous. I have had other opportunities to be trained by him a couple of times when I taught seminary. Every time I came away with special insights. We also have something else in common--we both love Neal A. Maxwell.

He shared several thoughts from Elder Maxwell's talk entitled: "In Him All Things Hold Together", a talk I highly recommend. I've since taken the time to read it in full.

Elder Maxwell was so unique in how he taught us about the development of Godly or Christlike attributes being tied to our discipleship. Discipleship was the theme of his life and the legacy of his ministry. He also used to talk of "misery prevention", which has two parts:
1. Active avoidance of evil
2. Active engagement in righteousness

In a life-style of repentance, it's not enough to simply get rid of something bad. We must substitute something good to take its place. Here's where the "becometh a saint" part comes in--along with getting rid of the natural man, in Mosiah 3:19.

"Too often when we seek to excuse ourselves, it is, ironically, 'the natural man' we are excusing. Yet scriptures inform us 'the natural man' is to be 'put off'. He certainly should not be 'kept on' because of a mistaken sense that the natural man constitutes our individuality." ("In Him All Things Hold Together")

Three key scriptures that list a chain of significant Godly attributes are:
Mosiah 3:19
Alma 7:23-24
Alma 13:27-29

The question that the institute teacher posed was: "Is the development of Godly/Christlike attributes optional?"

With an abundance of such scriptures, one need not think too long before answering that question. After all, there's no way around the command: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). The footnotes include the Greek meaning of "perfect" as "complete, finished, fully developed".

Obviously we can't keep this commandment perfectly right now, but we can try. I know I could definitely apply a little bit more "elbow grease" in the effort. It doesn't have to be daunting if we allow ourselves to be led by the Spirit and use the Atonement of Christ (as we're supposed to) to enable us to become more Christlike. I'm all about baby steps. But whatever our current state of discipleship, it's clear that possessing these cardinal qualities are not optional. And I did learn some compelling reasons as to why we ought to start now.

The prophet Joseph Smith said, "If you wish to go where God is, you must be like God, or possess the principles which God possesses, for if we are not drawing towards God in principle, we are going from Him and drawing towards the devil." ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," p. 216)

Clearly, the challenge of discipleship is the development of these Godly/Christlike attributes. (See, for example, "The Challenge To Become", another one of my favorite talks.)

When we read of God's attributes we read of humility, diligence, kindness, being full of love and being easy to be entreated, compassion, holiness, patience, temperance, knowledge, faith, virtue, honesty, meekness, submissiveness, obedience, mercy, long-suffering, and doing good continually.

Naturally, it would be important to learn what these attributes actually are. But we can also learn a lot about what these attributes are by learning what they aren't.

For example, when I think of words that are opposites of "diligence", I think of "slothful", "procrastination", and "unreliable". Then I start to recognize areas in need of more diligence--home teaching, scripture study, and temple attendance.

Opposites of "submissive" are: "resistant", "prideful", and "stubborn". I suppose I need to evaluate how submissive, or perhaps resistant, I sometimes am when attending various meetings or valuing certain standards/rules. Elder Maxwell specifically mentions not being "resistant to the Spirit, to counsel, or to life's lessons" in being submissive to God.

One attribute I often read in the scriptures but seldom give much thought to is "temperance". Elder Maxwell said that temperance means to be self-restrained, not being egoistic, not too eager for attention or recognition, and not being too talkative. I think for me it also means getting enough sleep so as not to be irritable. I'm amazed at how all these attributes are so tied together, and how God is perfectly all of those things.

We think of becoming like God as a destination--as the ultimate goal. And it is that, but the development of these attributes are also significant mile markers on the journey back.

So why ought we to work on these attributes now rather than wait if we have eternity to become perfect?
1. Attributes help us reach balance in life
2. They help us stay on the path
3. They make life's experiences (and the experiences God gives us) meaningful.

The Prophet Joseph taught: "The nearer man approaches perfection, the clearer are his views, and the greater his enjoyments..." Certainly we gain more of a "fullness of joy" as we become those things. Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf gave a conference talk in which he called Christlike attributes "the wind beneath our wings".

One last Elder Maxwell quote: "The Lord loves each of us too much to merely let us go on being what we now are, for he knows what we have the possibility to become! It is all part of the journey of going home. Developmentally, we are all prodigals. When we really "come to" ourselves, spiritually, we, too, will say with determination, "I will arise and go to my father" (Luke 15:18).

"This true celebration of the risen Lord...is one of emulation as well as of adoration for him. Since he is risen from the grave, let us not be dead as to the things of the Spirit! How can we celebrate the empty tomb with empty lives? How can we celebrate his victory over death by being defeated by the world?"

A Mormon Maverick in the Texas Hill Country--Elder Lyman Wight

A couple weeks ago my family decided to go camping in the beautiful Texas Hill Country. Based on past experience with stereotypes, I'd say most people have no idea that Texas has so much geographic variety and diversity. Here are a couple of pictures we took from the side of the road as we were driving through the Hill Country northwest of San Antonio:





On our drive we came to a really neat little town named Bandera. As we approached I saw a historical marker off to the side of the road, and being the "history buff" that I am, I decided to stop. I was surprised when I recognized the name of Lyman Wight. I had only been somewhat familiar with him and I knew he had some influence in the early history of the Church and then later in breaking off and establishing some settlements in Texas. This historical marker isn't far from the beautiful park we stopped at along the Medina River.









We had a wonderful time camping as a family and seeing some beautiful country. And I decided that I wanted to learn more about Lyman Wight and do a little homework when I got back. I began my little quest to learn more about his role, as well as early Mormon influence, in my new home state. Boy did I find a story.

Lyman Wight was an early convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with Sidney Rigdon and others in the Kirtland area. He had actually fought as a 17-year old in the War of 1812. He participated in Zion's Camp, and was extremely loyal to the prophet Joseph Smith. He was called to fill a vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles caused by the death of Elder David W. Patten. Before Joseph was killed, there were plans made about possibly taking the Saints to Texas. Lyman Wight was the guy who was going to do this. But after Joseph was killed the rest of the Brethren decided not to go to Texas, but instead head out to the Rocky Mountains. Lyman had a recalcitrant attitude toward Brigham Young. The same loyalty Wight had for Joseph Smith didn't ever transfer over to Brigham Young, as head of the Twelve Apostles. In March of 1845, and against the Twelve's advice, Lyman headed off to Texas anyway with a group of about 21 families (some polygamist) who would come to be known as the Wightites. Here they would try to practice their own version of their Mormon beliefs.

Over the next decade this group would make their own unique contributions to Texas history and settlement in various locations. One of the last was in Bandera county, which they came to in March of 1854. The entire group, numbering between 200 and 250 people, eventually settled a few miles below the town of Bandera at a place called "Mountain Valley", and which is now covered by Medina Lake. For a time they manufactured tables, chairs, and other furnishings, which they sold in San Antonio. But for various reasons, the colony began to have setbacks, and eventually it was decided to head back to Independence, Missouri and join up with the rest of the breakaway Mormon groups. Wight died the day after they set out on the trip, and was buried about four miles outside of Fredericksburg at the site of a settlement they called "Zodiac" which they had built along the Pedernales river, and which no longer exits.

Early on Brigham Young sent representatives to persuade Lyman to come to Salt Lake City. But, they reported, he told them that "nobody under the light of heavens except Joseph Smith or [Patriarch] John Smith, the president of the Fifty, could call him from Texas to Salt Lake City, and that he had as much authority to call one of the Twelve, or rather Eleven, to Texas, as they had to call him to Salt Lake City." But more than this seeming insubordination, it was probably the publishing of a pamphlet in open opposition to Brigham Young and the Utah Church that led to the decision in December 1848 in which Lyman was disfellowshipped and later excommunicated.

I always like to find some personal application in the lives of others. My enduring question is, "What can we learn from Lyman Wight?" I like LDS historian David Bitton's summation, enough to quote it at length, from The Ram and the Lion: Lyman Wight and Brigham Young. (Parenthetically, Bitton once taught at the University of Texas at Austin):

Most basic is the narrow understanding of obedience in the parlance of Wight. He took second place to no one in putting his life on the line, in responding to the different calls placed on him. But his obedience was to his prophet, Joseph Smith. He never saw his position in the Twelve as requiring the same obedience to Brigham Young. Others made the transfer rather easily, seeing obedience to Smith and then Young as quite compatible and unidirectional. After the martyrdom, they came to see Young as the heir, deserving of the same kind of allegiance earlier granted to Joseph Smith. But Lyman Wight, his own man now that the Prophet was dead, did not intend to be clay in the hand of any potter named Brigham Young. From the beginning Mormon missionaries had chastised those who readily accepted dead prophets (the Bible) but showed no willingness to listen to a living prophet (Joseph Smith). Ironically, in a way he would not have recognized, Wight was facing the same challenge.

I do not wish to claim that Brigham Young handled everything perfectly. What if he had responded with even greater magnanimity? A letter to Wight might have been worded something like this: "Dear fellow apostle. We follow with great interest your company and your colony. Any success you have we know has the sanction of our beloved brother Joseph. As you know, he instructed us to move to the Rocky Mountains. Your brethren of the Twelve are all with us. We should work in concert. We know you will rejoice in our successes, as we rejoice in yours. Keep us informed. Perhaps we can be of assistance. We remember the old days as we preached the gospel and faced the bullets in Missouri. Let us carry on the work."

Or, when it became obvious that Wight, not realizing that he had been dropped, attached supreme importance to the Council of Fifty, one might imagine an addendum: "We are enclosing a brief letter from Uncle John Smith, president of the Fifty." Such a letter might well have instructed Wight to continue his efforts, to report on his activities to the church leadership in Salt Lake City, and perhaps, with the failures in Texas, to come to Utah.

But on the whole Brigham Young deserves high marks. Of course he was irritated at Wight's insistence on leading his colony to Texas, especially after sending a forthright appeal through Samuel Bent in 1845. But through the difficult years of 1845, 1846, 1847, and most of 1848 Young had patiently waited. He gave Wight the benefit of the doubt. Not knowing what was in Lyman's mind, Young sought information through messengers, allowing Lyman full opportunity to express goodwill or loyalty. No such expression was forthcoming. Only when Lyman threw down the gauntlet by publishing his pamphlet, did Brigham take decisive action.

Even then efforts to win Lyman Wight back did not cease. He must have had visits from different Mormon missionaries and letters from his nephews in Utah. In 1855, he received and responded to a long letter from Sanford Porter. In 1857–58 he exchanged letters with Wilford Woodruff. Before he had received Woodruff's second letter, he died.

If Brigham Young's patience can be attributed to the advice of those close to him, he deserves credit for listening to them. It was especially Heber C. Kimball, Young's close friend and counselor, who defended Wight as "noble hearted" and counseled patience. We do not have all the comments made about Lyman Wight, but thanks to the faithfulness of Wilford Woodruff in keeping a detailed journal we can eavesdrop on one conversation held in 1859. Wight had died the previous year, but the word may or may not have yet reached Utah. In any case, here is what Heber C. Kimball said: "I always believed Lyman Wight would be saved. I never had any but good feelings about him."

The parallel lives of Lyman Wight and Brigham Young are instructive in many ways. That their respective authority claims were ultimately incompatible seems clear enough, but just how early Wight locked himself into immovable opposition is more questionable. Some would define the problem as largely one of communication. Others would emphasize the personalities—the two strong egos that could not play on the same stage. I see tragedy in the blasted hopes of the "wild ram". I also see a profound truth in Young's succinct warning: "All that want to draw away a party from the church after them, let them do it if they can, but they will not prosper."
If you're interested in learning more, here are some good resources:

My Private Texas and Lyman Wight's
by LDS historian Davis Bitton

The Ram and the Lion: Lyman Wight and Brigham Young, also by David Bitton

Lyman Wight: Wild Ram of the Mountains, from "Saints Without Halos"

Lyman Wight (Wikipedia)

Lyman Wight, General Authority

"Lyman Wight and the Mormons on the Texas Frontier", a scholarly and respectful blog post by a Catholic I do not know.

Dreamers and Schemers: Lyman Wight's Mormon Colony in Texas

The Devil Made Me Post It

Fantastic article in the Mormon Times yesterday entitled "The Devil Made Me Post It". A very clever way, a la "The Srewtape Letters", to get a most important point across.

One quote: "We want the opposite of what Robert L. Millet, another BYU professor, would call a good post on the Internet: "A positive expression of what I believe and what I feel strongly about and invite others to ask me questions and then respond as kindly and as generously and as openly as I can -- recognizing there are things about which we disagree. And that's OK; that's OK if we disagree. We don't have all the answers and no one does."

Millet's ideas are dangerous. He actually has said, "We live in a world that begs for people to better understand one another and that just isn't accomplished by contention and confrontation." He even sees the possibility that people can get to know each other: "There is so much need to better understand one another and to get to know people better. It is very difficult to demonize someone you know well. It is very difficult to marginalize someone who is your friend." As if there is something wrong with demonizing someone! Ha!"

Discipleship: The Ride of a Lifetime

Jesus summarized the greatest commandment in this simple statement: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 22:37-39)

The question that has been ruminating in the back of my mind recently is this: What is my "all"? And how do I know if I'm truly giving my all?

Lest anyone misunderstand that Latter-day Saints believe in a "works based salvation"--I've already blogged about that and how we know that it is Christ's merits, mercy, and grace that we rely on--not our own--for our salvation. So I'm not questioning how much my "all" is in order to merit the gift of salvation (because we can't). I'm questioning what my "all" is so that I can better love and serve and follow Christ.

Borrowing from Brother Robinson's "Parable of the Bicycle", no matter how much we bring to the table, whether a dollar, sixty-one cents, or a penny--our own efforts fall far short of the perfection required to enter the kingdom. That's why we ought to be so deeply grateful that because of our baptismal covenant we're judged as one with Christ, and not on our own merits. That's quite a partnership!

But knowing that doesn't mean that we can kick up our heels and treat this life like one long vacation. He still expects our heart--ALL of it--loving God and each other. He demands the best we got--our whole soul, might, mind, and strength. We can't hold anything back. We must give every single cent we have to Him. That's the catch. We actually have to give our ALL---our whole 100%. I suppose learning to do that is the lifetime lesson of discipleship.

"There is good news and bad news here. The bad news is that he still requires our best effort. We must try, we must work--we must do all that we can. But the good news is that having done all we can, it is enough--for now. Together we'll make progress in the eternities, and eventually we will become perfect--but in the meantime, we are perfect only in a partnership, in a covenant relationship with him. Only by tapping his perfection can we hope to qualify." (from "Believing Christ: A Practical Approach to the Atonement"

If I only have 25 cents to offer, that's fine, but I can't be content to hold back and only give him part. If you happen to have a whole dollar, that's great, but you still have to give 100% of it--not half, but ALL of it, without keeping the change and without asking for a receipt. This is a total effort.

The struggle for me is knowing what my personal ALL is. I don't worry about anybody else, because nobody can rightfully judge what another persons' "all" is. (See the parable of the divers in Robinson's book "Following Christ").

I feel very confident in Christ's ability. I'm less confident in knowing or using my ability and talents to give my own personal 100%. How do I know what all I have to give? What is my personal ALL? What actually constitutes "all that we can do" ? (2nd Nephi 25:23).

If we give our all and we give our best to God, how is that reflected in how we give our best to others?--in our families or in our callings?

One thing is certain: We serve God by serving others. "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God" (Mosiah 2:17). We love Him best by loving others back--the way He loves us.

Another thing is certain: I don't always do this. And therefore, ongoing repentance ought to be a way of life for me. Repentance--turning our wills over to God--must be an ongoing process of conversion and discipleship.

The hymn "There Is a Green Hill Far Away" has a line in it that says: "Dearly, dearly has he loved! And we must love him too, And trust in his redeeming blood, And try his works to do".

I actually don't have a problem with trusting in his redeeming blood, or believing Him. I feel confident in Christ and I rejoice in Him. My problem is wondering whether I'm really trying sufficiently to do his works, or repenting when I don't, rather than being indifferent. I want to be doing my best to follow him by walking the walk and not just talking the talk. I certainly try and trust, but I wonder whether I am really doing so with "all" that is in me.

I don't worry so much about what I can't do; I worry about doing all I actually CAN do. I know I can give more than I'm presently giving. I know I can be more than I currently am. In other words, I'm not worried about the "being saved" from death and hell aspect of Christ's grace, because I trust in Jesus. I'm worried about the exaltation aspect of grace because I feel like I have a lot to offer/give and I'm not quite sure if I am truly expending my "own best efforts" (Bible Dictionary, p. 697).

Sometimes it might seem like He requires a lot by requiring ALL of our heart, soul, and mind without being able to ease up or hold back. But then I only need to think of the alternative and that thought goes away quickly. In fact, thinking of the price He paid makes me want to give more.

I must never forget the price that was paid. I must never forget how I've wept out of gratitude for His great love, especially as I read His most compassionate command and plea born out of Gethsemane and the cross: "Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest..your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men." (D&C 19:15-19)

Repentance is one of the most merciful aspects of the gospel. Repentance can sometimes be a painful process. It can also be a very joyful process. Sometimes repentance requires a lot of work, perhaps involving service that never seems to be convenient. Maybe some discomfort on our part is a good thing. This quote by C. S. Lewis from "Mere Christianity", makes me think a little bit differently about repentance as an ongoing lifestyle involving some internal reconstruction, recommitting to God, and turning our hearts and wills to Him:

"Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on: you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of–throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself."

Talk about a "conversion process"! When I was a kid my dad and I would sometimes go look at new cars and vans. My favorite were the "conversion vans" that had really been made into something luxurious. As I climbed in I'd get excited about thinking that this could be ours. Sometimes they had added a lot more than I could have imagined a van could have. Our conversion to Christ might well be thought of in a very similar way.

I suppose this goes more along with the enabling power of the Atonement as well as the redeeming power of the Atonement.

All I know is that I must be fully committed to the "ride of a lifetime" we call discipleship, including learning to give ALL I have and am.

"What can I give him,
Poor as I am?
If I were a shepherd
I would bring a lamb;
If I were a wise man
I would do my part;
Yet what I can I give him -
Give my heart."
-words, Christina G. Rossetti

Mormons Are Non-Traditional Christians (and other interfaith dialogue)

I really can't get enough of LDS-Evangelical dialogue. I've learned so much through the process--it's like "a whole new world...I never knew". (My daughter and I just finished watching "Aladdin" and the song is stuck in my head!) :)

I'm all for increased dialogue. It's a win-win, if only both sides are committed to the process of mutual understanding instead of perpetuating "more of the same" closed minded dismissals. I applaud the efforts of those who are interested in more effectively communicating with those of different faiths. See, for example, "Summa Theologica", which does an amazing job at promoting mutual understanding.

Great links were brought to my attention today here, including an article in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled "Mormon-Evangelical dialogue could clarify misperceptions of doctrine" and an article posted on Beliefnet by one of the leaders in LDS-Evangelical dialogue, Richard Mouw. Mouw serves as president of the respected Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena.

Here are three links to some "must reads" both for Latter-day Saints AND Evangelicals:

A New Opportunity for Mormonism?--Richard Mouw's advice to Mormons. One quote: "As an evangelical who has publicly called for a friendlier dialogue with Mormons, I know something about a deep anti-Mormon bias in American life."

We Have Sinned Against You--Richard Mouw
I'd heard of this talk in the news right after it was given but I'd never actually read it until now. I'm so glad I did. One quote: "We evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe."

"Let’s Call Mormons ‘Nontraditional Christians’"
Finally a "Christian" title both sides can live with! Mormons will gladly accept "Non-traditional Christians". A wonderful essay by LDS author Orson Scott Card on Beliefnet's Blogalogue debate about "Are Mormons Christians?" This one's a must read. One quote: "Instead of saying that we are “not Christian,” which is an obvious falsehood by any rational, widely accepted definition of the word Christian, let us agree that Mormons are “nontraditional Christians.” We’ll live with that label quite happily, because it’s true. We are Christians, but nontraditional ones. And if we ever become traditional, we’ll have no reason to exist as a separate religion!"

I'm encouraged by the progress being made in this area of inter-faith understanding and dialogue. I'm inspired by it, whereas many who have had bad experiences in times past have given up and are now missing out on some awesome opportunities.

Happy Birthday America!

I feel extremely blessed to live in the United States of America. I know there are troubles all about us. They shouldn't be ignored. But there is also so much that is so right about America. That shouldn't be forgotten.

A Bottle of Wine and a Book of Mormon

I just might have made history! I have possibly become the first person to have given away a bottle of wine and a Book of Mormon at the same time to the same person! Looking back on my experience today actually seems a little bit funny and ironic at the same time.

We had a very nice, humble, Christian man come to our house to install new ceiling fans. He's come before and we enjoyed conversing with him, as well as the fact that he's very reasonable in terms of pricing. So we called on him again.

Well, long story short, we've had this bottle of Chardonnay sitting in our pantry ever since our anniversary. When the folks at the Marriott found out it was our anniversary, they very graciously surprised us in our room with chocolate covered strawberry's and an ice cold bottle of Chardonnay wine. We called to thank them for the gesture, and gently explained that we actually don't drink, so perhaps they would like to take the bottle back. (We thought maybe they'd switch it out for sparkling cider.) They just said, "Oh, that's okay, take it home with you and give it away". So we packed it away and enjoyed the strawberries.

Today as we conversed with our ceiling fan installer he mentioned something about he and his wife drinking wine, and we realized that here was the perfect person to give away the one and only bottle of wine to have ever graced our home! I thought he'd especially appreciate it since he was already giving us such a great deal on the installation of the ceiling fans. Plus, it wouldn't cost me any extra!

Well, an hour or two later he brought up the topic of religion. He asked if I was Christian (presumably because of all the pictures of the Savior hanging in our home). That got us started on another great conversation and I enjoyed learning about his experience with finding a church, but lamented with him about how he still feels confused. I took the opportunity to share some thoughts and some of my beliefs with him--specifically how we can go to God directly in prayer and the method of how God answers us. His faith has been growing as he's experienced this kind of prayer. I shared some thoughts that Alma shared in chapter 32 of the Book of Mormon about how we can experiment with certain aspects of the gospel, like prayer (or with the scriptures), and how our faith begins to grow, helping us to be less confused and to have a more sure knowledge. He was genuinely intrigued with comparing the word to a seed, trying the experiment to see if it is a good seed, and then how, if we nourish it, it begins to grow; then we know that it is a good seed. I realized that here was somebody who would be open and happy to receive a Book of Mormon.

He also agreed that it made perfect sense that Christ would have had prophets among other lands to teach His gospel to His "other sheep". He asked me to show him that scripture in John 10:16 after I quoted the Savior and explained that the people in the Book of Mormon were among His "other sheep". So I got out my Bible as well. It felt so good to have somebody interested in what I had to offer instead of not being interested at all, or interested only in debating! Here we were standing in the kitchen talking about Jesus and about our beliefs--and it was great!

As he gathered his things up to leave, I paused to take in the funny picture of a bottle of wine, a Book of Mormon, and his cash payment sitting together along with his tools. He's one of the most humble, nicest, and most interested guys I've met here. The ceiling fans work great, and today he went home glad and with a little bit more than he expected. And I have to smile as I think of the Spirit that was there--along with a bottle of wine and a Book of Mormon.

June 18th--Happy Anniversary!

Too often in wanting to write a love note to my wife I let my fear of failure get in the way from trying. It's not really that I fear imperfect writing, but that my words wouldn't be sufficient to express how great she really is or do my love for her justice. Then I usually end up lamely lacking any love note at all. So today, June 18th, our anniversary, I've decided to cast my fear aside and try to say a very sincere "thank you" and "love you" at the same time...


Dearest Sara,
I can't imagine life without you. My greatest joy and yet my hardest challenge is to live worthy of you. I love you so much. Thank you for your true love and for believing the best in me. You deserve perfection in a spouse, and yet I'm unable to give it. Thanks for loving me anyway. You'll never know how much you mean to me. And I really mean that.

It's true that I too often resist getting "sentimental" or "romantic". Why do I do that? Is it fear of failure? Fear that I wouldn't measure up to what I wish I could give you? Forgive me. I'll try to have more faith. I'll try to learn to do better.

I also too often take for granted the marvelous spiritual journey that brought us together. That's one more thing that I'll try to include with all the other scriptural mandates to "remember"--because it's certainly one of the most powerful, poignant, and pivotal turning points in my personal "eternity".

You are so easily filled with joy. You genuinely are filled with light. Thank you for sharing in the journey of life with me. You are my everything and I'm blessed to be married to you.

I marvel when I watch you with our girls. You are the perfect mother. Our daughters don't even know how blessed they are. You're daily efforts often go unnoticed by mortals, and mostly me, but I know heaven smiles down on you and it fills me with gratitude and joy.

You're not only incredibly beautiful, but you're brilliant. And I love it when you sing. Your voice is almost sacred to me. I don't talk about it often because I don't want it to change how pure and angelic you sing. But I love it, and I love you!

This thing called life just wouldn't be fulfilling without you. I'm so glad that because of sacred promises and covenants made, we will always be together-forever. I'm so grateful to our Savior who makes that hope a reality.

So much to learn, live, love, and experience together. I can hardly wait to get started on the rest of our forever.

Here's to much fun, faith, and a fulfilling life in the years to come! Happy Anniversary! (The flowers made me think of you.)

What are the highlights from your blogging experience?

Reflecting back on the first six months of my blogging experience is a lot of fun. I'm "well pleased" that it has been such a great experience. I've learned a lot and I've gained a lot from the discussions and conversations I've been a part of, not only on this blog but on others. Here's a look at some highlights from my posts over the past six months:

My post Craig Jessop-Why this way? garnered the most comments on my blog and provided a forum to share thoughts and feelings as we all came to grips with the surprising announcement. It continues to get "hit" on daily by people all over the country still doing a google search for "craig jessop".

My Paradigm Shift-"Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling" marked a "coming out party" of sorts, for the first time using a blog to work through and share conclusions I had come to after becoming more "enlightened" by reading the landmark book.

"Pessimists do not contribute, unbelievers do not create, doubters do not achieve" sets the tone I'd like to take as I live my life as a faithful, educated, Latter-day Saint.

Recent posts have been inspired by specific conversations on other non-LDS blogs about Mormons. How they have the time or desire to spend so much time trying to discredit the Church I have no idea. But I reach out to them in the spirit of Christ-like love trying to really seek understanding and perhaps alleviate misunderstanding (an ambitious goal, I know). Really, it's more for my own benefit.

For the most part, these conversations have been very stimulating for me as I think of how to articulate my faith both to believers and non-believers. In the process, my confidence and faith grow too. The first of these posts was I am a Mormon. I am a Christian, followed by Finding an Oasis of Understanding in a Desert of Criticism, A "Works Based Gospel"? You're badly mistaken, Worshiping Jesus differently does not equal "a different Jesus", Are you telling the truth about the Bible?, and the follow-up: "Upon Further Review": Faith and Works BOTH play a part.

I appreciate feedback and dialogue. It helps me not to feel like I'm just talking to myself. :)

What are the highlights from your blogging experience?

"Upon Further Review": Faith and Works BOTH play a part

After getting the chance to clarify that Latter-day Saints believe in salvation by grace and not that our own works save us, several people (one LDS and one from another faith) have questioned whether I'm giving the full story. Something that I originally felt was pretty clear cut can come across to others as more complex, and some actually accuse us of dishonesty as if we're holding something back.

In making the case that Latter-day Saints believe in salvation by grace I never said we don't have to do any works--that's obviously false. My whole premise was who's works should we rely on for salvation? That's obviously Christ. It's His merits (works), mercy, and grace that we rely on--not our own. However much we bring to the table, whether a dollar, fifty cents, a quarter, dime, or penny--it falls far short of the perfection required to enter the kingdom. God can't tolerate even a tiny bit of sin. Thus, we rejoice in the message of Redemption that comes only through Christ and his infinite atonement.

A la Stephen Robinson, I sometimes think of it as a mathematical equation in which I am a negative number and Christ is a positive infinite number. What is a negative number plus a positive infinity sign? A positive infinity, of course. (-x + infinity=a positive infinity). So we teach of coming unto Christ and forming a covenant relationship with him through baptism (by Priesthood authority, of course) so that when we are judged, we are not judged individually, but judged as one with Christ. In other words, we are made perfect in Christ. Our faith in Him leads us unto repentance.

A "works based gospel" that our critics accuse us of seems to denote that we can practically save ourselves once we've finished checking off all the "boxes" of obedience. Again--blatantly false.

Granted, he has still made it very clear that we must enter into covenants and ordinances with Him--that covenant relationship with the Savior is fundamental. The ordinances allow us to access Christ's full grace; to actually form the covenant relationship. I've already been promised the Celestial Kingdom because of my covenant relationship with Christ--on the conditions that I continue to keep, or stay in, the covenant--being willing to follow Him as best I can.

When Latter-day Saints take the Sacrament each Sunday to renew our baptismal covenant with Christ, we promise that we are "willing" to keep His commandments, not that we actually keep all His commandments. I would be a hypocrite if I promised that I always keep His commandments. ("If ye love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15). But I can in good faith say that I am definitely willing to do so! My heart is in the right place. I truly hunger and thirst after righteousness. I strive to love Christ more than anyone or anything else.

So He expects much more than belief in Him--He expects faithfulness to Him. Both Paul and James made that clear, though with alternate definitions of "faith". (Paul's definition of "faith" includes "works", ie: "faithfulness", where James' definition of faith was closer to "belief", hence the need to add that "faith (or belief) without works is dead".

We do works BECAUSE of our faith in Christ and BECAUSE of our love for Him--he has already blessed us with grace beyond measure. We DO NOT do works in order to merit his grace and to ultimately be "saved". Nobody merits or deserves his grace--that's what is so marvelous about the gospel, or good news, of Christ.

Then there's the whole perspective that only Latter-day Saints understand, that being "saved" is not the ultimate goal. Exaltation--the kind of life God lives--is the ultimate goal. But even that wouldn't be possible except through Christ.

It seems to be enough for some Christians to just get on the train--to be "saved"--but we want to ride the train all the way to the end of the tracks. As the "offspring" of God, we want to be "joint heirs" and become like Him. He wants us to become like Him too--we are his work and glory! (Moses 1:39). Now that is grace indeed!

So we also do works in order to become like Him--to close the gap--and to posses the same attributes of goodness and godliness and love. Again, that too is only possible through the atonement and grace of Jesus Christ. Our critics seem to want to jump to false conclusions and read into that far more than is even taught in Church. Mostly, I feel people rush to judgment based on their own limited understanding instead of setting aside judgement in order to reach a more full understanding.

In the interest of full disclosure, the question that a fellow LDS blogger asked me was:

"So when you say that nobody deserve's his grace, does that mean that his grace is universal - regardless of our behavior or choices? Thus all will be saved? I guess my point is to say that things are really not so simple sometimes. When we Mormons are asked:

Are we saved by grace?
Are we saved by works?

Simple yes or no answers do not give the whole story. The plan of salvation as we understand it is a lot more complex than how others understand it."

My response was:

"I understand what you're saying about not having simple yes or no answers. Of course, to be able to answer the question you have to first understand if we're talking about universal salvation from physical death (the Resurrection), which would be "yes", or universal salvation from spiritual death, which would be conditional. (Of course, that's another discussion unto itself, ie: faith, repentance, baptism--the first principles and ordinances of the gospel).

I would imagine that this isn't a clearly understood point by a majority of Christians today--and perhaps even among many of our own."

As for the salvation by grace or works--that's not even a question. It's not one against the other, because "both" have a role--they're two sides of the same coin. If anyone believes that they can be saved without any effort, obedience, commitment, or response on our part, then we would disagree. And a life of good works will naturally follow being consumed by the grace of Christ. In other words, not every one that says "Lord, Lord" will get into the kingdom, but he that "doeth" the will of the Father (Matthew 7:21)--or at least do our best while relying on Christ. That's "all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). The good news is that whatever we manage to "do", it's done while we're already safe in the gospel harness.

The Bible is very clear on faith and works. In fact it seems so obvious to me that I can't understand how there can be so many different interpretations. (FYI: The phrase that we are saved "by grace alone" doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible). Both faith and works play a role. When Paul says that by "faith alone" we are saved--he's right, but its also clear that his definition of faith is not "belief alone" but "faithfulness". Both Paul and James were right. Both were apostles.

Just as a marriage covenant requires faithfulness to each other, so the gospel covenant requires faithfulness. Sure, I might not make the bed all the time (or at all), and I might forget to put the toilet seat down--I might even say a curse word once in awhile. But that doesn't end the marriage covenant. In other words, I don't have to be perfect alone, I just have to be faithful to my covenant relationship with Christ--"perfect in Christ" (Moroni 10:33-34)--loving him more than anyone or anything else.

Mercifully, there's always the blessing of repentance.

Are you telling the truth about the Bible?

Someone not of our faith recently asked me a question I was glad to answer. He was under the impression that LDS people believe the Bible had been corrupted and wanted to know "just exactly how the Bible has been corrupted". I appreciated him for asking the question and for having the chance to respond.

My response is based off of my New Testament class notes with Stephen Robinson while I studied at BYU several years ago. He was a master teacher and his areas of expertise were Biblical Studies (New Testament, Christian Origins, History of Christianity), as well as LDS studies. He reads Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, and Coptic—so he’s done his homework. Based off that class I learned some things about the Bible I didn’t know previously—some of which I used to try to answer the question and clear up any misunderstanding.

Our present New Testament dates back to about 367 A.D. when the books of scripture were organized. Sometime between 50 A.D. and 100/175 A.D. some “plain and precious” things were taken out. They were NOT edited or altered (corrupted?). They were just lost. Comparing the books of scripture to a file cabinet—some files were just taken out and lost completely. They weren’t edited—just lost. (For example, 1st Corinthians 5:9—that epistle was lost. Try to picture a letter to Loudicious, or a letter .5 to the Corinthians, versus the first letter that we know of.)

Now, in the copying of the copies of the biblical manuscripts, accidental scribal mistakes were made--that's just historical fact. Also, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, "scribes occasionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views." Most of these alterations were relatively minor and did not affect fundamental Christian doctrine.

We ought to be thankful the monks preserved that which we have. That which we have (our present Bible) is largely correct—and apostolic. We testify of the miracle of the Holy Bible.




The second century church Hellanized the Bible. (They tried to make it fit into Greek theory). Now there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. No two are alike. And there is no such thing as “the original Greek”, only scholarly reconstructions of what we think Paul must have written.

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, and Greek as a second language. (One side note that I find interesting is that the word always translated “carpenter” in Greek means “architect, builder, contractor”. The Greek “Tekton” means builder. Thus, the “Builder” of the Universe was a builder by profession. (Jesus would have worked in wood and stone).

But the Bible as we know it today is largely correct. The truer LDS understanding is that there were completely lost books--like a file was just deleted from the computer and never was included in the Bible that we have today. Now certainly there are a few things that got changed up in the translations and in the copying of the original scripts, but the truth is we can’t know for sure how much or how many. So I thank God that we have what we have in the Holy Bible--I love the Bible--as well as the further “plain and precious” things contained in the Book of Mormon.