Who Says that Jesus Christ is Not Enough?
I was giving somebody a ride recently when he volunteered that they had been to Temple Square in Salt Lake City where he learned about the Mormons. Then he said, "One thing I didn't like is the idea that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross and His Resurrection was not enough for salvation."
My mind raced to memories of Temple Square. I couldn't recall any exhibits with labels like, "Jesus: The Inadequate Messiah," "Why Jesus Christ Doesn't Cut It as Savior," "Why You Don't Need Jesus: How to Resurrect on Your Own," or "Do-It-Yourself Eternal Life." But could there be something new in the missionary discussions for visitors to Temple Square? "Hi, welcome to Temple Square. We'd like to tell you why Jesus really isn't enough for salvation."
Resisting the instinct to hit the passenger-side ejection button (a cool custom feature on my 1998 Toyota Camry), I asked where he got such a notion. Didn't get much of an answer to that question, but I'm confident that this "Jesus is not enough" argument isn't based on anything he learned at Temple Square, but from the spin of someone who is not trying to be fair and honest about the Church.
The real objection, it turns out, was the idea that we need to follow Jesus by doing what He said - i.e., the hideous concept of "keeping the commandments." I took a few moments to explain that Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation, that His infinite Atonement truly is enough for all of us and is what we all truly need, etc., and that, yes, we feel that we need to follow Jesus in a covenant relationship to gain access to the full blessings of His Atonement - not that we can "earn" one iota of our salvation by anything we do. I also reminded him that the objection may be more an issue of semantics than a real divide in our thinking, since we both insist that man must believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, and we both agree that human behavior will change to comply with the teachings of God as a result of that belief.
Though time was limited and I didn't want to press, I did remind my friend that there are several passages in the Gospels where Jesus was asked how one gains eternal life, and in response, he said things like, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. 19:17). I asked if it would make sense to condemn a religion as non-Christian for accepting this basic teaching of Christ?
I hope he heard a few of these words.
posted @ 7:21 AM [Permalink]
178 Comments:
I wonder if some of the reticence to acknowledge Christ's admonition to seek Eternal Life by obeying His commandments and following Him stems from the fact that it isn't always easy.
As G. K. Chesterton put it, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
Jeff, something I don't understand about the Mormon faith is why extraneous things are necessary. For example, temple ordinances. According to some of the LDS prophets, they are necessary for exaltation. I thought Christ was all you need?
Can you clarify?
Ordinances that bring us into covenant relationships with Christ are not extraneous, but are part of following Him. Take baptism, for example. He set the example for all of us by being baptized, and then told us that no man can enter into heaven without that ordinance (John 3: 3-5). Baptism doesn't save us per se - though Peter said "baptism doth also now save us" in 1 Peter 3:20-21 - but accepting the covenant of baptism is part of the process of coming unto Christ and accepting the blessings He offers. Thus, it should be no surprise that Christ sent his disciples into the world to teach and baptize.
Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is part of the process of following Him. Partaking of the bread and wine/water in memory of Him is part of renewing covenants to follow Him. And the Temple brings us higher covenants to follow Him and receive the fullness of His Gospel. Christ is all we need - but He has given us a variety of tools to help us come unto Him and receive of the fulness of His blessings. We don't put on the divine nature in just one sudden step, but must progress and endure in the faith, as Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1.
Excellent question, Kathleen. I would say that ordinances that bring us into covenant relationships with Christ and that strengthen our relationship with Him are not extraneous, but are part of following Him. There is a strait and narrow path - not just one gate or one step, but a path that we are called to follow.
Take baptism, for example, which in my view occurs early on the path of following Christ. He set the example for all of us by being baptized, and then told us that no man can enter into heaven without that ordinance (John 3: 3-5). It's essential for our salvation. Baptism doesn't save us per se - though Peter said "baptism doth also now save us" in 1 Peter 3:20-21 - but accepting the covenant of baptism is part of the process of coming unto Christ and accepting the blessings He offers. Thus, it should be no surprise that Christ sent his disciples into the world to teach and baptize.
Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is part of the process of following Him. Partaking of the bread and wine/water in memory of Him is part of renewing covenants to follow Him. And the Temple brings us higher covenants to follow Him and receive the fullness of His Gospel. Christ is all we need - but He has given us a variety of tools to help us come unto Him and receive of the fullness of His blessings. We don't put on the divine nature in just one sudden step, but must progress and endure in the faith, as Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1.
Hmm, I don't think my last comment went through.
Jeff, I'm not sure I understand yet :). I don't see why more covenants are necessary if Christ's atonement covered us "once and for all". Or are they just for obedience and have no bearing on one's eternal destiny and state?
I am reminded of Naaman, in 2 Kings ch. 5, who goes to Elisha to be healed of leprosy. He is told to wash in the Jordan River seven times. Naaman became angry at hearing this from a mere messenger; he was expecting Elisha himself to come to him and simply call on the name of the Lord and touch the spot of leprosy and he would be healed (which he certainly could have done). Heaven forbid that he should be commanded to do anything himself. Fortunately he was persuaded by his servant and went to wash in the Jordan and was healed.
In the final analysis, it is always by the grace of God that we receive any blessing, including salvation. However, we must demonstrate our faith by keeping his commandments and in our actions. We are always required to obey -- can the grace of God save us without obedience? Consider the man who came to Jesus and asked what he must do to obtain eternal life. Jesus' answer concluded with "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (See Matt 19:16-26) This man had already been keeping the commandments but this was not enough, he failed (unless he repented later) to obtain eternal life because he would not obey in all things.
No, ordinances and observances do not save us, but we must show our faith by obeying the commandments of the Lord and by following Him. Part, if not all, of following Him is to do His will and we believe that it is His will that we observe all the ordinances He has given us to perform.
Kathleen, do you feel that the Atonement of Christ covers everybody without conditions - a universalist approach? Or are there conditions for accessing the blessings He offers?
From my perspective, there are absolutely conditions. For example, Acts 2:37-38 and other passages tells us that we must have faith, repent of our sin, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost. And then there are strict commandments from Paul and others against certain sins that can keep us out of the kingdom of God, if we do not repent. Christ also tells us that we must endure to the end to be saved (Matt. 24:13). Receiving salvation requires that we follow Jesus, and we do this by entering into a biblical covenant relationship with him. The covenants of baptism and the temple are tools to bring us more fully unto Christ, and are part of how we access the grace He has made available to us once and for all (meaning that no more sacrifice is needed, no other savior is needed - He has done everything for us, and now we just need to accept it and follow Him).
I'm definitely not a universalist! I guess I believe that it is those who have faith in Christ who will be saved, and true salvation results in obedience...which is simply a fruit of faith. When you talk about coming "fully unto Christ", I presume that is conditional upon your obedience?
Are "the blessings He offers" separate from the grace and salvation He brings?
And would one who follows the ordinances have a greater reward/be more "exalted" than one who is simply "saved"?
Food for thought!
I had another thought on this subject of comparing grace and orinances to a refrigerator (or some similar object). A refrigerator will not work without electricity.
The purpose of a refrigerator is to preserve food by keeping it cold but without the electricity putting food in it will not preserve it, in fact it the results may be worse than not putting the food in there at all. Conversely, electricity may be available but without a refrigerator the food will not be preserved. It is only by the two working together that the food can be cooled.
Think of the electricity as Grace and the refrigerator as the ordinances of the Gospel. Electricity certainly provides the power to preserve the food but without the channel (the refrigerator) to make that power effective, it can do nothing. The ordinances of the Gospel are the means by which the Grace of God are make effective in our lives.
As a side note, even the Born Again christians require that you accept Jesus Christ through a prayer, doesn't that qualify as an action (read ordinance) we must perform? My observation is that no matter the religion, there are certain things (however simple they may be) that one must perform in order to make that religion effective in their lives -- and please disabuse me if I'm wrong.
Kathleen,
Let me turn the question around a little - do you think all should receive the same reward? A rich young man, apparently a believer, asked the Savior what he should do to receive eternal life. When told that he should give his riches to the poor and follow Christ, he went away sorrowing. Should he receive the same reward as Peter, who did give up all and served Christ to the end of his life?
Bassooner gives an excellent analogy about the relationship of grace and works. I would add only two things.
The first is that Christ, having atoned for our sins and having fulfilled the demands of justice, is in a position to require of us anything he desires. He could ask nothing of us, which is precisely what he asks of us in regard to the physical redemption, which is the resurrection.
In terms of a spiritual reward, what he asks of us is that we participate in a seemingly-impossible project, that of changing our natures. Of course, it is impossible for us to change our natures unaided to any great degree (and even if we could it would not buy us salvation). Christ can change our natures, but he will not do it against our will or without our participation.
The second point, then, is that covenants are a formal commitment from us that we will endeavor to change our natures. His part of the covenant is that he will provide the means to actually effect the change in us. The blessing that accompanies the baptismal covenant, for example, is the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the continuous sanctifying companionship of a member of the Godhead.
If we do not make and keep those covenants, we will not benefit from those mechanisms that God has established to change our natures, it's as simple as that. We can still be saved and enjoy a kingdom of glory. Christ, by virtue of his atonement, offers a greater reward to those who will make and keep specific covenants, and who thereby experience such a change in their natures that they are both worthy and capable of greater glory.
[A third point, which I will only mention, is that the specific covenants or saving ordinances must necessarily be administered by authorized agents of Christ - how could it be otherwise?]
Kathleen:
In LDS teachings, it is very clear that "exaltation" includes, but goes far beyond mere "salvation."
The missionaries teach this in their standardized presentations.
Investigators and recent converts are taught this in the "Gospel Essentials" Sunday school class.
The manual used in that Sunday school class is called "Gospel Principles, and can be read online here.
You can also buy a copy here.
Of, if you visit Sunday services at an LDS chapel, they'll give you a free copy in the actual Sunday school class.
I'm impressed. You're asking all the right questions! Keep going!
Thanks for the friendly dialogue, all :).
Bassooner, nice analogy! Do you believe this to be biblical? Would you share your references?
Pops, good point about rewards. The Bible does say that we will be rewarded according to our works (Rev. 1.6, 22.1), not saved though. Where do you get the idea that covenants are commitments from us? In Scripture, they are often unilateral, where it is done by God. Genesis 15 is a good example.
Bookslinger, your name is fitting ;). Somewhere I thought Jeff said that salvation and exaltation were basically the same. Would you define the difference for me, please? (And thanks for the GD link!)
I don't think there is anything in the definition of the word "covenant" that makes it inherently unilateral.
God sometimes does make unilateral covenants, such as his promise to Noah that he would not again flood the earth, or the promise of the resurrection made unconditionally to everyone.
Other covenants require some action or commitment on our part. Do you suppose the promises would have been made to Abraham if he were not obedient to the commandments of God? Would they not have been revoked if he had later rejected God?
It is unreasonable to assume that God would be so careless as to open heaven's gates to the unrighteous through the making of rash promises.
Kathleen: others have explained the difference between exaltation and salvation much better than I can. See chapters 45, 46, and 47, of the Gospel Principles manual.
Jeff Lindsay (Mormanity) also has
good explanations about Exaltation versus Salvation here and here. In the latter link, Jeff goes over 5 definitions for "salvation", where one type of salvation is exaltation.
Jeff talks very plainly about humans become gods (exalted) here.
Surprisingly enough, the early christian fathers prior to the Nicene creed, also believed in exaltation. This was something that the early christian fathers plainly taught, that was later lost through what we call The Apostasy. Jeff gives quotes and links to some of those writings on the "theosis" page link.
I like Kathleen's questions.
From my perspective (as a non-Mormon), this whole thing about ordinances, temple recommendations etc. is what Paul seems to be talking to the Galatian church about...
I'm sure I have hammered this subject hard enough for all of you to remember:
grace + works = false gospel.
Anyway, sorry if this is beginning to sound like old hat =)
Kathleen:
Well, at least in the Christianity of Early America, covenants were not only seen to be reciprocal but also multilateral. If a person broke the covenant (see Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson or, for that matter, the king), then that person ought to be ousted from the covenantal relationship. Especially helpful is this article by Michael McGiffert's article on the "covenant of works" in early Puritan thought (http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/03610160/di008227/00p0536o/0.pdf?backcontext=page&dowhat=Acrobat&config=jstor&userID=80a3e517@uky.edu/01cce44060f45b115815f8ecb&0.pdf) (though I do not legitimize by beliefs based on this appeal; I only cite it as a common reference point). You can also read Michael Walzer's Revolution of the Saints for more information on how Puritans, because of their uncertainty concerning the will of God, made the most zealous of Saints, even revolutionary in their times.
As far as the biblical origins of a bilateral covenant, the Jews saw themselves as not only the inheritors but also the enactors of the Abrahamic covenant. If they didn't believe it involved a commitment, then there would have been fretting over keeping 617 some commandments.
And as far as the difference between salvation and exaltation, as a believing member, I actually find the difference to be arbitrary, more intended for easy digestion than for dead-on accuracy. If a person does not/cannot receive the fulness of God's blessings, then they are damned--a damnation, I would argue, they inflict upon themselves.
Thank you for the direct and polite questions. Unfortunately, some people start out this way and then later prove themselves to be deceivers who are attempting to get a rile out of the sometimes easily riled Mormons. :)
And NM...if I've said it once, I'll say a 67 times--it's grace plus nothing. You might not believe me, but we are actually more similar than you want to believe (granted, I'm not a Calvinist who believes in utter human depravity--but that's another can of worms). Baptism would mean nothing to me if Christ did not command it. Any "good" work would mean nothing (esp. since Christ said that even he should not be called good...heavens, if that's true, then what am I?).
Just a thought :)
Christ himself must have taught a false Gospel:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." [Matthew 7:21]
Well, that was sarcasm. Christ did not teach a false Gospel. He taught that a man must obey his commandments if he wished to receive salvation. The power to save is through the atonement - it is grace. Works do not have the power to save, they only qualify one to receive grace. They are necessary, but not sufficient, if you understand that sort of thing.
Christ could save us all and require us to do nothing if he wished to do so. But he doesn't. He repeatedly stressed the importance of works - obedience, service, and sacrifice. He even taught that bad thoughts would disqualify us.
Is that a false Gospel?
NM, which false-gospel cultist said this: "If thou wilt enter into [eternal] life, keep the commandments."
a) Joseph Smith
b) Jeff Lindsay
c) Gordon B. Hinckley
d) Tony Blair
e) Britney Spears
or maybe Someone Else?
Hint: Matt. 19:17.
Russell: "Grace plus nothing" is exactly what evangelicals find so amazing :).
Regarding covenants, they tend to be done by God. He asks for faith, and he does the rest. In Gen 15, He walked b/w the pieces--Abram was asleep. A covenant does not have to be unilateral, but in Scripture they frequently are. Which leads to the question, "Is having faith 'doing' something?"
Any thoughts on my other questions?
We can just sit and do nothing, either good or bad, and we will be given the gift of eternal life. It is given freely to everyone because of Christ's Atonement. However, true 'exaltation' requires that we should do certain things: love our neighbor, do good to them who have despitefully used us, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, be honest with each other (do not steal, or bear false witness, or kill, honor our parents, etc) and follow Christ by doing what we have seen him do-- by accepting baptism, by taking the sacrament in remembrance of what he has done for us. These are the 'works' we are expected to 'do.' And G.K Chesterton was right. It isn't always easy, but it is necessary. Or, we can just sit and do nothing, and take Christ's gift of life because we are loved. But much more is expected of us.
What if one accepts Christ as saviour and then goes and murders someone or steals?
PS Even the most slothful servant will be 'saved,' as well as every prodigal son, and everyone who buries his talent and then just sits on it. But it is the son who stayed by his father's side and helped him all those years who is given "all" that his father has, the servant who takes the talents given to him and actually uses them who benefits the most.
Like the Beatles said: and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.... :)
You said it yourself: Trust those promises and obey those commands. Wait. The rewards are sweet.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kathleen:
Your continued civility is always appreciated. The world would do better with it.
Hmmm...which questions? Perhaps more on the covenant...esp. why we participate in "more" covenants, so called?
Simply put, you are right on a key point--Christ's covenant does cover us...entirely. When we talk about "keeping our covenants," we members might do well to be more precise. Really, we should specify that we are keeping a particular part of the overarching "new and everlasting covenant," Latter Day Saint terminology for Christ's condescension to us in our "lost and fallen state"(don't sweat about the "new" word--that word is one meant to merely instruct us that we are in the latter days and that the covenant has been renewed with us). Yet Christ gives us commandments--commandments he knows we will fail in keeping entirely. The commandments are not there as a checklist; they are there to help us become more disciplined, become more humble. Hence, grace is inseparably entwined with our concept of obedience. To speak of one without the other is to be myopic.
You discuss how obedience is merely the fruit of faith and also mention that we need to define faith more clearly. Since we believe that grace and obedience are intertwined, it is difficult for me to say which proceeds the other. Sometimes what I do helps confirm what I believe ("Commit thy works unto the lord and thy thoughts shall be established"). OTher times, it works just the opposite, where I remember the spiritual highs of my life and let those be my driving force.
NM--
It's a whole other can of worms, but let's just say that I do not believe an infant to be entirely depraved as Augustine argued. IN fact (and do not confuse this with universalism--not at all similar), I believe that the atonement cleanses all of us at birth from the curse of Adam...thus enabling us to make free choices, "act and not be acted upon" (see 2 Nephi chpt. 2 and Moroni chpt. 8--they really cut the Gordian knot about the accountability of infants). Now are we, adults who are fully accountable depraved? Such a nasty word, but I certainly do believe that the "natural man" is alive and well in each of us. But since we are the offspring of God (Acts 17:28-29), we also have capacity for goodness...even if that goodness is a relative goodness during this life only. We will be rewarded according to our works in the afterlife but when it comes to entering God's presence, no baptisms or bake sales will cut it with out Christ's explicit approval.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Russell, your civility is appreciated, too. :) The questions were actually directed to bassoner, bookslinger and Pops. The comment is dated Oct 8 @ 10:42AM. Some general questions are were also asked @ 7:23AM.
Also, I have more questions over at Jeff's Trinity post (below).
Happy thinking!
Reminder: this is not the place to post links to your favorite video and audio content. I'll generally delete them.
Kathleen asked: "What if one accepts Christ as saviour and then goes and murders someone or steals?"
The short answer is they have some repenting to do.
Pops, I'm laughing (sort of).
Here's a question for anyone to answer. Which of the following do you believe to be true?
faith+works=salvation
faith=works/obedience+salvation
faith=salvation
Hi Jeff,
Hmmm, I think the way to go around this is for me to post the links from my make-shift blog.
The John Piper sermons that mentioned were:
1. Demonstration of God's Righteousness parts 2 and 3
2. Absolute Sovereignty of God.
My intention of sharing the link to the first two sermons were to show the argument that it is by grace alone and faith alone that we are able to attain salvation =)
And the intention of sharing the link to the third sermon was for Russell to have a listen to for him to share his thoughts with me with regard to man's free will/not having 'free' will.
So, for people who might be remotely interested, I'll post it on my make-shift blog =) Thanks Jeff.
Kathleen,
I forget which post, or even which blog, I mentioned it on, but this is in line with Jeff's point on Ringtones.
Paul wrote about 3 kinds of "works".
So when you're using the word "works" in these discussions, you're actually using a shortcut that could describe many other things. We mormons tend to lump "works" in with "obedience", and we all seem to agree that believers should obey the Lord's commandments.
The 3 broad categories of "works" as mentioned by Paul are:
1. Works of the Law. Specifically sacrifices and rituals of the Law of Moses. The sacrifices and rituals of the Mosaic law were done away with. But the moral code and behavioral standards of the Mosaic law (10 commandments, etc) were NOT done away with. It's still a commandment to honor parents, not lie/steal/murder, not take Lord's name in vain, not break sabbath, etc.
2. "Dead Works". From reading alternate translations other than the KJV, I've come to learn this meant basically "sins". "Dead works" are sins: adultery, etc.
3. "Good Works". Paul constantly admonishes us to do "good works" in just about all his letters. In fact, he encourages "good works" more often than he emphasized faith over "works of the Law".
From my reading of the NT, I'd say that the only works that Paul condemned were "works of the (Mosaic) Law" and "dead works."
Paul never condemned "good works" in the NT.
So this whole "faith versus works" argument is kind of silly.
Book,
In a way, I agree. This 'grace+works' thing can get silly, if one is not careful and becomes flippant about what grace really entails.
The warning is not to make light of this subject, everything hinges on our understanding about what Jesus has done for us, which is free. His sacrfice by propitiating God's wrath, so that we might be righteous in His sight is an awesome subject. It's just sad that when people pay lip-service to it when it is somehow misunderstood, when it is intellectualised for the sake of making it an intellectual exercise.
For all of us here who know what Jesus has done: we run the risk of merely having it as head-knowledge - not affected our proverbial hearts =(
Maybe what we need to do is to pray to this merciful God to break us - so that we might truly know how to depend on Him - and on Him alone. =)
For those who have been taught that salvation is by "faith alone" or "faith only," it may be instructive to look at the only place in the Bible that uses this term.
Just in case you're curious.
May we all make sure our faith is rooted in scriptural truth.
Bookslinger,
Interesting point! I hadn't thought of it that way before. Do you find this to be Scriptural? (ie does the Gk have different terms for different types of works?) Would you share your references, please?
Jeff,
Also an interesting point--and you are right, too. What is the LDS response to verses such as Rom 3.28 and 5.1, Gal 3.24, and Eph 2.8-9, then?
I am thoroughly enjoying this question-promoting dialogue!
Or is this the equation (if there is one)?
faith+obedience=salvation
Kathleen:
Re: your previous comment (about if works save), I've given my opinion that works should really be subsumed under grace and that any good "work" is ultimately traceable to the Savior's example. (see LDS scriptures 2 Nephi 25:23 and Alma 26:22--notice the similar phrase "all we can do" and how it is applied in the second reference) Without him, we would not have repentance--which is really the only "work" we can do in the end. See the well-trodden verses of James chpt. 2 (esp. verse 14) where it is indeed suggested that works have a role in salvation.
The response to these verses? We accept them of course.
How do I understand them?
Well, my response to all of them is really the same: we must understand "faith" as an term synonymous with our engagement with Christ's new covenant, not merely as another way of describing conviction. As should be noted, he often contrasted "faith" with the Mosaic law or "the law." Therefore, "grace through faith"
becomes another way of saying "all we can do" which itself is another phrase for "repentance.
As I've said elsewhere, of all the differences between evangelicals and Latter Day Saints, this is the most manufactured of the differences. I've yet to meet a Latter Day Saint who really believes in a "do-it-yourself" gospel (we've been accused of that). The differences are real, but this is, on the main, not one of them.
I think the equation should look something like this, if there is an equation.
faith = salvation (meaning immortality and a reward of heaven)
works (obedience) = reward (meaning level of heaven)
faith + works = exaltation (meaning to work for the highest degree one can be offered)
What we are trying to share with people is why settle for less then first prize?
What I should have mentioned is that works by them selves won't do anything whereas faith by itself will at least get you there.
I don't have any simple mathematical formulas here, but I think that we have to careful when we talk about "faith" to indicate what we mean by that word. It seems pretty clear to me that in James 2:24 the writer is talking about mere intellectual assent. But in general, the New Testament Greek word for "faith" carries with it the idea of trusting reliance. It seems to me that faith as understood that way entails some sort of action. I don't know if it's always true, but often when the New Testament speaks of people having faith it involves some sort of action. See Hebrews 11 for a series of examples.
And to answer part of Kathleen's question, I find it interesting how the "faith only" people like to bring up Ephesian 2:8-9. But to understand the text, you can't stop at verse 9. The thought continues in verse 10: "For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them." Paul seems to be saying that the purpose of faith is to fulfill our destiny, which is doing good works.
I see faith and works as so intertwined that they're inseparable.
Eric,
I like your above comment. Faith AND works are intertwined. Faith DOES provoke action, which is why the book of James is what it is. The book was addressed to those who were professing faith, yet produced no or little fruit. The book of James stands as a warning and a rebuke to those who profess faith, yet pursue idols like money, power etc.
As a side-note, people like Charles H. Spurgeon HATED the book of James because of its emphasis on works. To those who are not versed with the Bible and if by chance they happen to pick one up and start reading James - they get the WRONG IDEA of what Christianity is. =( In its proper context with grace, works is an amazing thing!
So works DOES have a place in Christianity, otherwise it would not be mentioned. =)
As I said, the trick is to put things into context: WORKS is a result of someone having been lavished by grace! Let me re-iterate: WORKS is a response to having been shown shown love and forgiveness when one deserves death, hell, punishment etc.
The 'work' bit is VERY EASY to do - it's easy when one takes the position of having been bankrupt in the first instance. 'Grace' is so unbelievably absurd that the person affected by it will only WANT to do 'good works!' =D So, because the person experiences God's forgiveness, he too will also WANT to forgive =)
Do you see where I'm coming from with this?
This is why it is SO important to have our theology correct - good theology breeds good doxology! =D
If our theology about 'grace' is skewed, we end up striving for salvation; we end up thinking that we should strive for perfection - when this is COMPLETELY WRONG! =)
Our standing before God does not depend upon us! The way God views us depends on somebody else who has already done the work! And who is this amazing person that has done all the work? We all know who He is.
And please note that I don't just bring this issue up about grace and works here in Jeff's blog, I openly discuss this subject with the people I go to church with! It frightens me when even those who read the same Bible as I do and listen to the same sermons, sing the same songs that I do and what not, get the wrong idea about grace!?
People who do not know grace end up having to strive to do things. And where does it end up? Burn-out. In our strivings, we end up failures - which is exactly what we are.
Instead the prerequisite of grace demands that we view ourselves AS failures. We must understand that we have NOTHING to give to God. All we can do is RECEIVE.
It is both ABSURD and the most liberating news I have ever heard! Jesus' death and resurrection is ABSURD! That is why it is the good news! =D
Teranno leaves. NM comes back. Hmmmm.
Dear Bookslinger,
I can still be here if you would like me to comment under invitation (and on-topic Jeff). I have been enjoying the questions raised by Kathleen too - very thought provoking.
I am not NM if that is what you are insinuating again. I can see many Biblical truths, but also I read some flawed with error and self-interpretation.
Jeff at last has said something sound that I 100% agree with in his meaning :
"For those who have been taught that salvation is by "faith alone" or "faith only," it may be instructive to look at the only place in the Bible that uses this term. (James 2:24)
Just in case you're curious.
May we all make sure our faith is rooted in scriptural truth."
One correction Jeff - this is not the ONLY scriptural evidence that points to works - see Rev 20:13. What works didn't the wicked do that causes them to lose their salvation? See also Matt16:27 , Rev2:26 - do you need any more texts ...?
In summary - I hink that the guidance that you all need is found in Titus 3:
1Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
2To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Grace can only be received after the renewing of the Holy Ghost (Spirit if you prefer), and that then leads us to following naturally with good works. This can only occure when the Holy Spirit leads us 100% - not 99% it must be 100% in God's instructed path.
Good topic,
Teranno4x4
sorry - I know that occur doesn't have an 'e' - typo !
Good Afternoon,
I've been following some of this dialogue, and thought I'd interject my two cents on the topic. Just in case I stray off topic, I'll apologize in advance.
What I find interesting about the question posed by kathleen, and by this dialogue, is that the answer really lies in what does one believe to be Christ's commandments, and who is the one who recieved those commandments. I make that point, because if you're LDS, then you're concept of what ordinances are necessary for salvation is going to be entirely different than those of us who are non-mormon.
Kathleen, I think you're asking the right questions, but you're not looking in the right place for your answers. You see as well intentioned as the direction given by the LDS side of the argument, the answer you're getting is skewed by the LDS perspective on who has the truth.
However, that said, the answer you're going to get from the non-LDS perspective on the truth, isn't any less slanted. In fact, both sides are going to put their slant on what the truth of Christ's commandments are.
I would encourage you to do as Jeff suggests if you're really interested in learning about the LDS teachings. Attend services, talk to missionaries and members and learn about their faith. But along those lines, I would encourage you to do something LDS members won't encourage you to do, and in fact will discourage you from doing. Read all the literature about the LDS faith, both the pro-mormon as well as the anti-mormon literature before you subscribe to the mormon teachings on Christ. Keep in mind while you're doing that though, that neither side is telling the complete truth.
The other thing I would encourage you to do, Kathleen, is ask the hard questions to those in whatever ward you attend. Ask about polygamy. Ask about Brigham Young's teachings on Adam/God. Ask about the Mark of Cain. Ask about the negative aspects of Joseph Smith. You see, you won't learn about those things in the Sacrement Meetings or the Gospel Principals Classes.
Read Brigham Young's journal of discourses, as well as those of the other church prophets. Read your history books, read about tangible evidence pertaining to the book of Mormon. Question the veracity of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon as well as the veracity of Joseph Smith. Examine Joseph Smith's actions as they relate to his works. Decide for yourself if there's contradiction there.
Kathleen, after you've done all of that, then examine your own belief about what Christ taught. Examine your own experiences with the Holy Spirit. Consider whether you've been blessed with the Spirit, without the sacred ordinances the LDS church says you need in order to have the Holy Spirit in your life. Pray about it, and listen to your conscience, not just the burning in your breast. I assure you that if you do all of this, and really pray about it, you'll find the answer you're looking for. The truth is you won't find that answer on the internet, in this blog space, in LDS Sacrement Meetings, Missionary Discussions, Prayer Meetings or anywhere else outside yourself. The truth about faith, and ordinances or sacrements if you call them that, actually lies within your own relationship with God. Not here.
Sincerely
Catholic Defender
Catholic Defender:
It's good that you encourage Kathleen to read and investigate.
But after doing all that reading (you mentioned probably several thousand pages worth of reading) the question still stands, "Who's right?"
And the next question, "Ok, I've read all that, how do I find out who's right?"
Studying and reading is good for getting information. But how does one discern what is right and what is wrong among all the things one had read?
Many people of many faiths have supposedly read all those things you've recommended. And guess what. Most remain committed to their own faith, whatever it was.
Moreover, many extremely intelligent people have read all that and come out with different conclusions and decisions about what they believe. In other words, not all the "smart people" concur. There's no consensus.
What Jeff often proposes, what the LDS church teaches, and what I support, is after one has read and studied as much as they are comfortable with, is to pray for spiritual guidance.
The Apostle Paul taught that "spiritual things are spiritually discerned". The word "discern" there doesn't mean "learned." I think it means closer to "realize" or "decide," as in "how do I realize/decide which is right/correct (out of all that I have learned) ?"
One can spend a lifetime learning what all the various religions, creeds and denominations believe. One could theoretically memorize it all and "know" it all. But that still leaves the person not knowing which creed is correct, or the closest to the truth.
God knows what the truth is. So after the studying, one must eventually go to God, in prayer, and seek guidance.
I have gone to God in prayer, and received a very powerful, unmistakeable and clear spiritual communication as an answer. The answer penetrated to the very core of my being, and burned itself into every fiber of my soul.
The two things that were confirmed to me via that experience were:
1. Joseph Smith did see God and Jesus.
2. The Jesus of the Book of Mormon is the same Jesus of the Bible, and he did visit those people called Nephites.
Ten years prior to that experience that happened while investigating the message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I had a related and somewhat similar experience when I investigated generic "Christianity" without regard to which church may have been "officially" God's. My question at that time was whether there really was a God or a "Savior."
During that prior investigation into Christianity, I also prayed to know if there was a God and a Jesus, and when I got a very powerful answer, I decided to follow Christ at that time.
Shortly thereafter (a few weeks maybe) I experienced a miraculous outpouring of the Spirit which confirmed my belief in God. Due to that miraculous outpouring, I no longer merely believed in God, I knew God existed, because the knowledge of his existance was burned into me, and I became spiritually alive to a degree I never thought possible before.
Then 10 years later, the same Spirit which "caused me to know" that God and Jesus exist, then "caused me to know" those two important things about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
It was the same voice and same Spirit, ten years apart.
It was the same Spirit of love, power, glory, fire, pure intelligence, etc.
It was the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit. And he was testifying that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph, just as he had previously testified to me that there _is_ God the Father and, God the Son.
The third member of the Godhead was doing what Jesus promised He would do, testify of the other two members of the Godhead, and "teach us all things".
I haven't been taught "all" things yet, but I know that the role of the Holy Ghost is such that he can teach all things because he knows all things that God knows.
I hope you also investigate, read, study, ponder, and most importantly pray to know if the information presented as the Gospel by the LDS church is correct or not.
It's also interesting, and a bit frustrating, to see Evangelical believers pick nits and argue against LDS teachings.
Having attended and studied at evangelical-type churches when I first discovered God/Christianity, I can see the huge overlap in evangelical and LDS beliefs that we have in common.
Evangelicals and Mormons ought to be celebrating the things we do have in common, especially how the Holy Ghost operates, which essentially puts Mormons and Evangelicals in the same theological camp. Those things we have in common, also seem to divide us from the mainstream "white-bread" Christians who don't believe the Holy Ghost can be an active force in our daily lives.
I was somewhat amused to see that all my questions automatically caused y'all to assuming I was thinking of learning about/converting to the LDS religion. Just for clarification, I have already read a lot about Mormonism--yes, on both sides-- and attended services etc, but naturally, being a curious and questioning type of gal (who happens to have a lot of LDS friends), I keep asking. And yes, there ARE valid points on both sides. My love of learning about this stuff and challenging previously held beliefs continues! I asked question after question in order to make the Christians think and the Mormons (yes, I know you believe you are Christians too :) defend their point of view.
In light of all that, here is another question--somewhat related to the "deciding what is right" topic:
If God--not the Scriptures--is the ultimate authority, as Jeff writes somewhere on his sight, and He speaks to you by the Spirit, but you cannot be confident it is the Spirit speaking without the Scriptures to confirm it, how do you ever know what God says?
Catholic Defender, I assume that you would also encourage people investigating Christianity to read Hustler, Playboy, and the rantings of Stalin, Mao, Dawkins, and every other atheist out to smear Christianity, as well as to dig into all the sins of famous Christians, the atrocities of the Inquisition, the crimes of popes in centuries past, etc., etc., and then to decide if there are any problems with the claims of Christianity?
Kathleen wrote: "If God--not the Scriptures--is the ultimate authority, as Jeff writes somewhere on his sight, and He speaks to you by the Spirit, but you cannot be confident it is the Spirit speaking without the Scriptures to confirm it, how do you ever know what God says?"
And if you don't turn to God for the answer, then whose interpretation of the scriptures do you use? Which church out of the thousand or so? And if none of them, then how/why do you trust your own interpretation?
The 1000 churches all use the Bible differently, and interpret it differently to back up their own justifications for starting their own churches.
To use a geometry analogy: The Bible is like a point in space through which a zillion lines have been drawn.
Another point is needed to define the true line.
Do you just draw the line that you like, as long as it intersects the Bible? If so, then why do you reject someone else's line?
Why stop at the nature of the Trinity/Godhead for determining who is a "real" Christian?
Why not add the zillion other things that denominations differ on? Such as speaking in tongues? Some churches say it's necessary, some say it's possible but not necessary, and some say it's impossible. All can't be right.
If the Bible were sufficient for determining authority, then there'd be only one obviously "true" church, and all Bible scholars would adhere to it.
The Bible has not been sufficient to determine true beliefs.
Why are there so many credentialling authorities for ministers? Who has God's true authority for credentialling a minister? Why don't they all recognize each other's credentials? Is one credentialling authority "better" than another.
And who authorizes the credentialling authorities? Who gave them authority to credential someone? Was there a vote? Who voted? Did God get to vote? Did those who vote ask God?
If they did ask God, then why are there so many credentialling authorities that contradict each other?
If God said something, then it doesn't matter what the majority votes, since God trumps everyone else.
Does it matter? Of course it matters. Because if one church is going to call another church "not christian", then by what authority is the call made? If there is no authority invested in the accuser, then it's all a matter of semantics, interpretation of scriptures, and plain argument.
Without authority, all the "We're Christian and you're not" accusations and "We are too!" counter-accusations are just name-calling.
You've opened a can of worms there BookSlinger. I'd love for you to answer some of those questions =)
The issue isn't so much to do with which church is right, at least not in the way that Mormons might view the importance of 'a-one-true-church', but rather: who in this 'one-true-church' are those that God has chosen to glorify Him in spirit and in truth =) It is these individuals who are part of the 'invisible' church.
Just as there are MANY people who think they have salvation in the evangelical church: do not - there are also many in the LDS church who think they do - when they also do not. The same goes for the Methodists, Baptists and so on and so forth. =)
Your line of questions (which is all that they were) hasn't really offered much resolution. I think it's fair to say (especially in our post-modern society) that we live and breath the air of 'subjective truth' - the notion of: "What's true for you is ok, and what's true for me is ok too - just don't push your truth on me."
We all have truths and opinions about certain things. But the way that society (particularly Western society) has progressed, we have mistaken subjectivism for lazy-thinking.
This 'My truth, your truth' doesn't cut it in the court-room. In fact it's absurd. When have we ever heard of a judge who pardons a rapist who clearly did rape the young girl, because of a feeling that he had? Outrageous.
God embodies absolute truth. The fact that the universe is governed by laws is a reflection that God is constant, He does not change and irrespective of what we might feel about who He is, He is there.
Mormon theology just doesn't cut it. This 'extra testament' as it were, which claims to reveal something of who God is and what Jesus has done does not correlate with what we already know of Him in the Bible =( *expects Jeff to delete this comment*
There are many organisations who claim extra revelation here, there and everywhere. Believe me, Mormonism, in my mind is not alone and is just one of many that I can think of. JWs are the ones who straight away come to mind, the Unification Church is another one that claims to have a prophet, Christian Science - with their extra revelations, the Spiritualist churches etc. So where does Mormonism stand in amongst all of these other organisations?
I'd be interested as to what you guys (Mormons) think of these other factions like the Unification Church. When you look into their theology, do you think, "Man, what in the world are they all talking about now?!"
BookSlinger, I know that you know that the study of the scriptures is such a difficult task. I thank the reformists and the protestants who made one of the first moves to break away from 'the church' who seemed to control which truth to be declared in order to keep hold of power - in order that we all might know who He truly is. God is most glorified when we know the real truth of who He is. In the end the main goal of everything He has created is: God ENJOYING God. Wooohoo!!! Our salvation is not the end goal...it is only a means.
God is sovereign and it is He who chooses "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy..." (Romans 9). Thank God; it is Him who justifies =D
"The issue isn't so much to do with which church is right,..."
You've certainly accused certain churches of not being right.
And you've also accused certain individuals, even naming some names (and who weren't even Mormons), of "not having salvation".
You and Teranno have been mouthing words and concepts from someone else. Words and concepts that you are not getting from the Bible. But you've been twisting the Bible to support your concepts. You take quotes from the Bible and turn them upside down.
In other words, you're using the interpretation of other humans. Who are they? Who's, or what church's interpretation are you using? You certainly didn't come up with all that on your own.
Here's an example of something you wrote that's not in the Bible:
"God is most glorified when we know the real truth of who He is."
Who wrote that? That's the person I think you're copying. Your writings are full of quotes like that. They're not even from the Bible. You're pulling bits and pieces from other sermons and things you've read. And then throwing them at us.
You're reading right out of someone's script or play-book, and it's very obvious. Yet you've both steadfastly refused to say which church you go to and who your paster/preacher/teacher/leader is.
You've obviously chosen a church. What makes that church "right" for you? Why? Other churches believe in the Bible, so why did you choose _that_ church?
You've obviously chosen to listen to, learn from, and copy a certain preacher/teacher or group of them. Why? What makes them different from the thousands of other preachers/teachers you could listen to?
You've been quoting so many evangelical-style sound-bites, that I don't think you were converted by studying the Bible on your own. Because your mish-mash of sound-bites causes me to think you've allowed some preacher to brain-wash and bully you into accepting _his interpretation_ of the Bible.
And now that you've adopted it as your own, you're trying to brainwash and bully others into accepting his (and now your) interpretation of the Bible.
Well, what worked to brainwash/convert/bully you isn't necessarily going to brainwash/convert/bully others.
I got an answer from God about which church is right. And all your crazy notions and mis-interpretations of the Bible, and your insults, and your verbal bullying can't change that.
You praise the Bible, but you aren't really using the Bible, or a biblical style here. You're just trying to exercise the same arguments and verbal bullying tactics on us that were used on you.
Verbal bullying is not the way to share one's message.
I'm sad that you're following an example of bullying by your preachers/teachers. I hope you can someday join a Church (any church, it doesn't have to be the same as mine) that has love as a rule, and not bullying; that uplifts, instead of denounces.
But if you're happy where you're at, stay there as long as your happy and fulfilled.
Book,
My gut instinct tells me that you have received what I have written with much hurt. Can I just say that my intention is not to hurt =)
I make mistakes all the time. I overstep the mark on many occasions with Jeff deleting some posts, which are deemed inappropriate.
I think part of the reason why tempers get high is the fact that the nature of what we discuss hold personal weight. We are after all, not discussing things like engineering and what not.
If I have caused you any personal offense, then I apologize. I appreciate what you have to say; and believe it or not - I do digest the things that you do say.
I do not intend to bully. I am shocked that what I have been writing is perceived this way =(
Please know that I am just very passionate about God's word and His sovereignty. The use of capital letters does not mean that I am shouting...it just accents the fact that I am VERY EXCITED about something =)
Again, I apologize.
Mormonism believes in salvation that is partitioned into the outfield bleachers, second deck reserved, and field box seats.
If you don't have the ordinances (read tithing, temple work, marriage, callings, etc) you end up in the bleachers.
If you are a middlin Mormon you end up in second deck reserved.
If you do your home teaching 100% (along with other make-work activities) - you get field box seats.
Emanuel Swedenborg meets George Steinbrenner.
NM,
It's not a matter of capitalization. I suggest taking a good representation of your "stronger" posts, copying/pasting them to a word processor, printing them out (just your posts, not others' responses) and showing them to your pastor.
He might be able to give you pointers about how you can get your points across with less contention, bullying, and arrogance.
I'm confident that Jeff and the regular commenters here on this blog have heard all your points before. I have heard your points for many years.
But you're just not delivering your message, or showing yourself, in a favorable light.
And it's not just a matter of me, or others, not accepting your points. You've seen how willing and eager that many have been here to engage you in discussion.
Trying to browbeat (bully) people into agreeing with you just doesn't cut it in polite society.
And as Jeff pointed out, your "freedom of speech" ends as soon as you step foot on someone else's property. This blog is Jeff's property.
And what is even worse than using the Bible to justify meanness and arrogance, is to twist Bible verses into something they don't say.
It's kind of ironic to claim Mormons don't fit in with traditional or well-accepted post-Reformation Christian interpretation of the Bible, when your extreme-fringe evangelical bent or take on the gospel doesn't even fit in with traditional or well-accepted post-Reformation Christian (ie Protestant, and Protestant-like) interpretation of the Bible.
And the above is not to say that fringe evangelicals are devoid of truth. LDS and evangelicals have plenty in common. Maybe that's why Satan stirs up so much enmity between evangelicals and LDS, is because if evangelicals actually used the Spirit or their spiritual gifts to investigate the LDS church and its doctrines, they'd find out it was true.
The many types of Protestant people whom you've denounced as "not having salvation" far outnumber you and your particular church, whatever it is.
Yet you've neglected to claim by what or whose authority your particular sub-division of post-Reformation Protestantism is operating under. You've neglected to claim who gave you the teaching or instructions to say what you've said.
If you're going to speak in your own voice here, who gave you your credentials? Where'd you get those non-biblical one-liners you like to throw out? If you're not going to divulge your church or your pastor, then you should at least divulge your credentialling authority. (I have a friend who is a minister who was credentialled by Liberty Fellowship, you can google them.)
I'm trying to go by what I've been taught in the LDS church. Again, which church or credentialling authority have you been schooled in? It really does matter.
I think it is not only the subject matter but also all we see is the words without the context of the persons personality, body language, vocal tone, ect. Because of this if you don't approch it from a smoother angle then it is easly misinterped. I normally type it out on word then work on it for a day or so be for I explode with such feelings.
NM, I finally followed the link from your profile to your Blogspot blog and watched part of the video of pastor/evangelist John Piper of "Desiring Good".
If you have time, I would like to suggest that you go to the recent LDS conference page and scroll down to Elder Holland's talk, that he gave last Saturday, Oct 6th, at General Conference. Scroll down about one screen's worth, and you'll see his hame.
Then click on one of the "watch" options on the right to view the talk.
Elder Holland seems to have a lot of gravitas, as they say. Elder Holland seemed as enthusiastic and as spiritually moving, but more dignified than Mr. Piper. What do you think?
Hi Book,
I'm in the middle of downloading the talk now. I'll spend an hour (or however long it is) looking at it, then I'll give you my opinions?
Thank you for your response by the way. I appreciate our discussions.
At this point in time, it might be worth me mentioning that I do go to an evangelical church and that I align myself with reformed theology. Some of my personal favourties are people like Jontahan Edwards, Spurgeon, J Packer, the Dr (Lloyd Jones), I read A.W. Pink etc. etc. The only reason I mention Piper all the time is that his material is most accessable. There are many contemporaries that I could point to but I think Mr. Piper is one of the best at defending the Sovereignty of God and declaring Him for who He is.
Why makes you say that I am a bully? What (specifically) have I said that has caused you offence? Book can I ask that you be specific ? That way I can learn from this experience. =)
NM,
I went back to look, and your comments that I had the most problems with were in the time frame when you were commenting as "nathanielmacrae".
But the egregious ones, both under your full name and NM, you already deleted (or Jeff deleted.)
So, for the last few weeks, your comments under NM, at least the ones that are still online, have been politer. (Though I now forget whether it was you or T4x4 who was accusing some individuals of not having salvation. )
I keep thinking that you and Teranno4x4 are the same person (not 100% sure, but still suspect), so I may have been conflating/combining your posts with his.
I found again your blog on livejournal. Did you delete all your posts there, or did you just make it friends-only?
Do you still speak any Tagalog or other Filipino dialects?
Dear Bookslinger,
I use no 'bully boy' tactics. My words have been all my own work and written after careful and reverent prayer for God's loving guidance.
If you find 'hurtful' reproach in my words, then I apologise, but a feeling of discomfort must be felt sometimes before a willingness to learn. I assure you that I hold no animosity. Sometimes a heart can also be hardened against 'Biblical truth'
Whatever - when the Bible text is there in black and white in the most accepted and accurate versions that we have today in our own language - how can you dispute it because it doesn't fit your own understanding? This is not bullying - it is attempting to assist your Biblical learning. How your perceive the information is the only way that you can arrive at your conclusion? But the Bible will not change because of your discomfort.
Personally I like what NM has been saying because I believe that his words to you have been also prayerfully considered. He isn't trying to rub you up the wrong way - so how can you assume that ? Just like I am not trying doing that either ! If you feel anger in this way or that we are brainwashing, bullying or twisting your truth, then why do you log on to read the comments.
Does your anchor hold in your own foundational Rock that is Jesus Christ ?
Please take all Biblical references that I have made both here or in the past. Expand the whole chapter and not only the verses given and explain to me in any instance how it was taken out of context or 'twisted' using your own word. I take my Bible as the authority in getting to know God better as I continue to love Him out of my own personal choice - not one of any denomination - that is what matters most! Similar like-minded believers make up the 'invisible church' that NM describes so well.
Kathleen : your answers can be found here in the central verse of the whole Bible, Psalms 118
8It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
and here Proverbs 3 :
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
The Bible truly is a wondrous gift from God.
Teranno4x4
My head hurts from being hit the head with the bible. A bible, a bible I already have a bible. God please save me from you followers.
Hi Book,
I'm pretty sure that the ones that Jeff have deleted are because of inappropriate links to anti-mormon sites - or any links to videos that cannot be straightway be vetted. I have always responded to Jeff's response with a