Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!wales
From: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Mormonism (2nd reply to anti-Mormon tract)
Message-ID: <5065@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 27-Apr-85 14:04:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5065
Posted: Sat Apr 27 14:04:34 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 07:19:58 EDT
References: <997@vax135.UUCP>
Reply-To: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (Rich Wales)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 161

Ken Swanson's third article contrasting the teachings of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Mormon" or "LDS" church) with
those of evangelical Protestantism contains numerous misunderstandings
of the LDS viewpoint which I would like to try to clarify.

There are, to be sure, some genuine differences between "Mormonism" and
evangelical Protestantism.  These fall into at least four separate (but
intricately interconnected) areas:

(1) The nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind.

(2) The conditions under which forgiveness of sin is available to man;
    or, stated another way, what (if anything) a given person must do in
    order to be "saved".

(3) The role, if any, of a formal church organization in the life of a
    believer in (and/or follower of) Jesus Christ.

(4) The way in which one may come to a realization and understanding of
    religious truth.

I will discuss each of these three areas in turn, in three or four sep-
arate articles (since a single article covering everything would be far
too long).  My motive in doing this is to attempt to supply correct
information regarding the LDS Church from the standpoint of a believing,
practicing member (namely, myself), on the assumption that such info
would be interesting to at least some of the readers of "net.religion".

If, in this or another article, I misstate the position of some other
church, I hope anyone who knows better will forgive my honest mistake
and set me (and the net) straight.

Where I cite passages from the scriptures (either the Bible, or the
other books which we consider to be scripture as well), I am doing so
only to show examples of where various points are discussed in scrip-
tural writings.  The verses cited are usually not the only (and maybe
not even the best) examples of the points I am making, and it is most
certainly not my intent to engage in the highly risky practice of
"proof-texting" (i.e., trying to prove something via a single verse, or
handful of verses, quoted without regard to context).

Further, as I have mentioned before, many LDS teachings are not ade-
quately documented in the Bible, and our beliefs in many cases differ
from traditionally accepted interpretations of the Bible.  We believe
the Bible to be a sacred record of God's dealings with man, but we do
not believe that it contains everything that God has ever revealed to
man.  Most Protestants -- particularly evangelicals -- undoubtedly feel
such a position to be inherently self-contradictory, but we don't.

Finally -- though I plan to discuss this in more detail later on -- I
should mention that members of the LDS Church do not (or, at least, are
continually urged not to) rely on intricate scholastic arguments as the
basis for their beliefs.  We believe heavily in understanding religious
truth through direct revelation from God -- both to specially appointed
messengers or "prophets", and also to each individual member as he seeks
to learn the truth and live his own life in accordance therewith.

With that in mind, here goes.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

It is the teaching of the LDS Church that the transgression of Adam and
Eve in the Garden of Eden -- namely, their partaking of the fruit of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil -- had two principal effects on them
and their posterity:

(a) They became mortal.  (Genesis 3:19)

(b) They became isolated or separated from God.  (Genesis 3:24)

We frequently refer to these two effects as "physical death" and "spiri-
tual death", respectively.

I should also mention, by the way, that "spiritual death" itself encom-
passes two somewhat distinct concepts in our view:

(a) We believe that all mankind existed as spirits and lived with God,
    our Heavenly Father, before we were born here on earth.  As an es-
    sential part of our earthly experience, our knowledge and memory of
    specific events of our pre-earth life have been temporarily masked
    or suppressed, and we are no longer in the face-to-face presence of
    God; hence, we are forced to live by faith rather than by direct
    knowledge of God.  This kind of temporary "spiritual death" is, in
    our belief, a critically important element in our eternal growth.
    (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:25)

(b) To the extent that a person knowingly rebels against God by acting
    contrary to his own knowledge and understanding of right and wrong,
    that person isolates himself from God.  This aspect of separation
    from our Heavenly Father is something that each of us brings upon
    himself by his own actions.  As I stated in my previous article, we
    do not subscribe to the theory of "original sin" (the belief that,
    as a result of Adam's transgression, each of us is automatically
    guilty of sin from the time of birth).  (Articles of Faith #2)

Jesus Christ's atonement for mankind reversed these two "deaths" in the
following way:

(a) The "physical death" has been overcome for everyone, without any
    exceptions.  (I Corinthians 15:21-22)

(b) The "spiritual death" has also been overcome, but only for those
    who accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour and follow Him.  Those who
    refuse to follow Christ as their Redeemer will not be forgiven of
    their sins and will remain separated from God.  (Acts 10:42-43;
    Doctrine and Covenants 19:16-17)

The anti-Mormon tract quoted in Ken's article asserts that we do not
believe that Christ's atonement (symbolized by His blood shed on the
cross) paid for man's personal sins.  This flawed understanding of our
position apparently came from a misreading of a talk given by Brigham
Young in 1856 (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pp. 243-249; tract cites
page 247), in which he explained how those who sin (and, implicitly, do
not subsequently repent of their actions -- a point undoubtedly under-
stood by those listening to the talk, by the way), will have to pay for
their own sins -- the blood of Christ will not atone for them.  This
perspective on the Saviour's atonement is explained still further in a
revelation which He gave to Joseph Smith in March 1830:

    "For behold, I, God [in this context, Jesus Christ], have suf-
    fered 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 [i.e., wish or desire]
    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 [i.e., He completed His atonement for the
    sins of mankind]."  (D&C 19:15-19; see also Luke 22:44, as well as
    Mosiah 3:7 in the Book of Mormon.)

Alternatively, the point of disagreement here may have to do with the
question of whether mere belief in Christ -- irrespective of the quality
of life lived after said belief starts -- is sufficient to save someone.
I will discuss this issue in more detail in a later article.

Ken's tract also states that "Christ paid for sin in His body on the
cross" and takes exception to the LDS idea that the Saviour's experience
the night before in the Garden of Gethsemane was instrumental as part of
His atonement.  The tract's authors have apparently gotten the notion
that we Mormons consider the Atonement to have been complete after Geth-
semane, and His death therefore to have been an extraneous frill.

While it is true that we do believe Jesus's agony in Gethsemane (Matthew
26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46) was a crucial step in His taking
our sins upon Himself, it would be a grave misinterpretation for someone
to suppose that we consider this incident so preeminent as to make His
subsequent death unimportant.

In actual fact, most LDS theologians whose writings I am familiar with
consider the entirety of Christ's sinless life, suffering, and death to
be part and parcel of His Atonement.  I assume this perspective is
shared by many other Christian writers as well -- though I am aware that
some Christians do emphasize the Crucifixion and downplay other events
of Jesus's life to an extent I would consider inappropriate.
-- 
Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683
	3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA
	wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA        {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!wales