RonL, I don’t know if Jack is here anymore, but if there are others with his type of beliefs perhaps they could answer. From my view:
1. I don’t think there is one. Jack was obviously basing his view of a “typical Mormon” off of his own experience (which we all do). Perhaps some research is in order, lol.
2. It cannot, imo.
3. The crowns sound like rewards to me… oops, did I just suggest that we can earn anything? Sorry about that.
4. I personally believe that doctrines play very little (they are probably not central, imo) in our salvation.

I have enjoyed reading your dialogue – you both sound sincere in your faith in God. Several issues that have been discussed have sparked honest questions in my mind, which I would like to discuss with Jack:

1. What is a typical Mormon?
2. How can the Bible be free from private interpretation without church authority?
3. Paul talks about earning crowns in Heaven – what are these crowns? Do they bring us closer to God?
4. What role does doctrine play in our salvation?

blessings

I appreciate your candor. But, really, you are not the typical Mormon. I have just about had it with this blog, anyway. The reason the divide is too big is because, as you state, LDS believe in a God that is a perfect man. I believe in a God who has always been God. The goal of bringing people closer to God as some sort of joint effort is truly unrealistic because of the differences we have regarding the nature of God. I just want to close our dialog with this, because I believe it accurately describes my feelings about Mormons:
“Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Mormons is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they do not know the righteousness that comes from God and seek to establish their own, the do not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:1-4).

God bless you, adamf. It has indeed been a pleasure dialoging with you. You have been very respectful, honest, and cheerful. I wish there were a way to give you my email address without it being accessible to everyone. It would be great to talk to you about other things besides this great divide. I have come to like you, and I do respect your views. I respect the LDS people; that’s why I left the temple ceremony out of the discussion. It’s sacred to you, and I don’t want to be as other former members who want to tear down everything sacred. But, I cannot refrain from pointing out LDS doctrine that goes against sound biblical teaching. I know, that’s my opinion. Again, thank you for dialoging with me.

“I pray the Spirit will work in your heart and mind to bring you the true Christ of the Bible.” – Once again, I appreciate your prayer here. In fact, considering you believe that I won’t enter God’s presence if I don’t accept what you believe, then I would be offended if you didn’t pray for me.

Re: “intellectual argument” – My point here was that it is impossible to prove the truth of anyone’s beliefs. One cannot “prove” that the Bible is “God’s word,” nor can I prove anything to you. You state that everything you need to know to enter God’s presence is found in the biblical text, but you cannot prove it, nor can I. You continue appealing to the Bible, and saying that your beliefs are correct, but there is no proof outside of subjective spiritual experience, which cannot be proven to another. That is why I love to “intellectually” discuss and share beliefs, but get tired of debating. I’m beginning to think the “divide” really is too wide.

Re: “apostasy” and “I’m not being facetious but merely making an observation, right or wrong.” I would say wrong, lol. Jack, I think you are putting your stuff on me here (i.e. your view of Mormons and your own experience with it). Obviously we don’t know each other, and there are severe limits to these types of discussions. And if I remember correctly, Joseph Smith said to gather up all the good in the world in order to become a true Mormon, and David McKay quoted literature more often than the scriptures…

Re: “liberal” I really don’t like labels… here is some of what I believe: In God who is our father and a perfect man, I believe Christ is literally God’s son and the Savior of all, in continuing revelation, that the Book of Mormon and the Bible contain much of God’s teachings (but certainly not all—and I have had spiritual experiences with both books), that the Holy Spirit inspires people inside and outside of the Mormon faith, including you, and Buddha, and Muhammad, and all types of other people. I don’t believe God limits His influence to just the LDS church. And no, I have never heard any leader say that reading anything outside of LDS canon/publications will lead to apostasy, nor has the Spirit confirmed the truth of that idea to me.

I don’t mind continuing this, but I really don’t think it’s going to go anywhere fruitful. You are still going to believe what you believe, and I’m still going to believe what I believe, and neither of us will be very enlightened. Have a nice evening yourself.

I happily limit myself to the Bible. Believing the Bible is insufficient works from the premise that God is not sovereign enough to protect His word. Everything needed to know to enter God’s presence is found in the biblical text.

As for being motivated to bring you to “my” Christ seems to state that you believe there are different Christs. There is only one Christ, and one learns about Him in the Bible. As for my true motives, absolutely, I pray the Spirit will work in your heart and mind to bring you the the true Christ of the Bible.

As for intellectual argument, what other kind of argument is there? Everything we do is intellectual to a degree, especially when talking about God’s word. Do you think we come to a knowledge of God without intellectual and spiritual discernment?

I’m not trying to be facetious with my next comments, adamf, but at times it sounds like you’re not LDS at all. Is there such a thing as a liberal Mormon? I think traditional members might fear that you were beginning to apostatize, especially when you say that you don’t limit yourself to the LDS canon. Again, I’m not being facetious but merely making an observation, right or wrong. As for LDS prophets not limiting you on what you can read and study, if I remember correctly, reading anything outside the LDS canon and Church publications is dangerous because it leads to apostasy.

Anyway, this is my last post for the day. Have a blessed evening!

“Ordinances don’t do anything, really.”
I already assumed you thought that, lol.

“Service doesn’t perfect believers”
I agree. That’s not what I meant. For an example, if I accept God’s grace and then don’t do anything, I don’t progress. If I do take action (as you pointed out from James), then I will progress, because of grace.

“Works are the natural outcome of our faith in Christ. They are our response to what Christ has done in our lives.”
I believe that is the highest motive for works, but it is not the case with everyone.

“The first thing I learned when I converted from Mormonism to Christianity is that the only thing I could ever merit for myself is death.”
I agree that we can do nothing on our own. Works without faith are dead?

“It’s the Spirit that accomplishes this task and not anything we do.”
I agree with this too, and I think you agree that while the Spirit accomplishes the work, if we don’t do anything we’ll lose it. Maybe you don’t.

“I think you ought to be concerned with church doctrine, especially when it espouses beliefs contrary to the biblical text.”
This is an old argument now, as we both know the bible contains contradictions of itself. Perhaps we have different views on what exactly “the Bible” is. If that is the case I think we can agree to disagree and move on.

“As far as not much doctrine in the LDS Church, everything you believe is based on church doctrine. LDS church doctrine is all around you.”
Then we have to get into the “what is doctrine” argument, which is, again, subjective. For me anyway. My beliefs are not limited by what BY or GBH or St. Augistine or Buddha or St. Paul or anyone else.

“Regarding BY, I’m just glad I no longer have to struggle to defend his erroneous teachings.”
I was fortunate to have a father who taught me that I never had to defend erroneous teachings, and I realize that many struggle with this.

“What “stuff” are you referring to that is being taught, today, that just might not be correct or incomplete in the future?”
Anything could be incomplete, of course. I don’t believe we have a complete understanding of anything.

“This line of thinking begs the question: what’s the purpose of modern-day revelation if it’s not going to be correct or complete tomorrow?”
Good question. What’s the purpose of revelation at all if we have all the truth? Now were getting into stuff I like thinking about…

“A “prophet” today can’t trump a “prophet” of yesterday. Is this the kind of stuff that just happens to line up with your own thinking and personal beliefs?”
The can’t? Says who? A prophet? Perhaps I have a different view of prophets. Really, Moses killed a man. Abraham and Joseph (Smith) were polygamists. BY was racist. So it goes. They’re all far from perfect, and not everything they taught was true, regardless of who says what “doctrine” is.

“For the LDS, the Church is an organization–an entity– through which God saves people, i.e. baptism, temple endowment, marriages performed in the temple, etc. For Christians, saved people make up the Church and become the body of Christ.”
I disagree with the former, and agree with the latter. The “church” is many things to me, although according to you, many LDS see the church as an organization.

“There is nothing biblical that teaches we will have opportunity in the after-life to accept Christ.”
Okay. But you are limiting yourself to the Bible, which is totally fine, according to your beliefs. I do not, which is fine for me.

“The BOM doesn’t teach this, either. Read 2 Nephi 9:38, Mosiah 16: 5 &11, and Alma 34. The view you express comes straight from D&C 137: 1-5.”
And I don’t limit myself to the BoM, nor the D&C. And as far as I’m aware, LDS prophets do not tell us to limit ourselves either.

Jack—thanks again for the conversation. I am worrying a little that you are engaging in this with the purpose of bringing me to your Christ (which in and of itself I have no problem with—I even have a great respect for your motives), but intellectual argument is not going to do it. That being said, I do enjoy the discussions.

I will think more about some of your comments and respond later, but for now just a little:

“I am confused that you don’t think anyone could know what God is saying in any passage.”

Yeah, I think I need to be more clear. I think one can know (as much as they can know anything in this life) what “God is saying,” but only for themselves. I don’t think one can know for someone else, AND THEN try to use it in an intellectual debate.

For you to suggest to me that you are “alerting” me, and that you have “the truth” holds no water in an intellectual debate. I AM interested in sharing beliefs, and I appreciate your desire to convert me to “the Christ of the Bible,” as you believe Him, but I don’t believe people are converted by debates, and I don’t think people can appeal to any authority–God, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, prophets, etc. in a debate. It’s like my Catholic friend telling me the Book of Mormon isn’t true because God said it wasn’t, or a Muslim friend telling me there is only Allah. What purpose does that serve? None in a discussion, and probably ineffective in proselyting.