So here is a list of things we need to do. The consequence of that statement is therefore that following his teachings are essential to salvation, it is not simply through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, as stated in Helaman. This includes baptism (not to mention the big checklist given in chapter 47 of Gospel Principles).

I agree that those who accept Jesus as their Saviour will, more often than not, want to be baptised as a public declaration of their commitment. But clearly this is not done as something that they need to do to receive the full effects of the atonement. This would contradict the acceptance that Jesus IS ALREADY their Saviour. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks a lot,
Steve

This is the best example that I can think of and it’s from the Book of Mormon.

Helaman 5:9, O remember, remember, my sons, the words which king Benjamin spake unto his people; yea, remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, who shall come; yea, remember that he cometh to redeem the world.

I think that baptism is a commandment. The Savior told His disciples to go unto all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. So we just can’t ignore His commandments. How that plays out in the hereafter is not clear. I would think that all those who accept Jesus as their Savior would want to be baptized as the public expression of their commitment. It’s not part of a check list that must be completed before God accepts us. It is a natural consequence of our acceptance of Him.
-Ned

I have to keep this brief I’m afraid, so I just want to pick up quickly on two aspects of what you said.

Firstly, when I claimed that Mormonism doesn’t teach that “through demonstrating faith in Jesus, we are cleansed by his blood. Through this faith, we are justified in God’s eyes. We can not add anything to this in order to satisfy God since we have taken Christ’s loving sacrifice and free gift on ourselves.” your response was that you disagreed. I’d be interested to look at some good Mormon quotes that back up the view that Mormonism does indeed teach this.

Secondly, you said that, “Like baptism. The ordinance is the outward expression of our internal commitment.” Presumably though, the ordinance is essential too in your view, since baptism for the dead is seen as necessary for the eternal progression of those who have been taught ‘the gospel’ after they have died.

Thanks,
Steve

(Ned) I agree.

Mormonism doesn’t teach this.

(Ned) I disagree.

It teaches that once we have fulfilled the requirements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then the atoning sacrifice of Jesus comes into play so that one may be accepted into the celestial kingdom, thereby satisfying the demands God places on us.

(Ned) Entering into coveants and keeping them is part of our good works. We are saved unto good works (our token efforts) not saved by them. Like baptism. The ordinance is the outward expression of our internal commitment. Without the internal commitment the ordiance means nothing. Being changed by the Savior’s grace (regeneration as you would state it) will infuse us with the desire to perform good works.

You may want to review the book “Odds are you are going to be Exalted” by Alonzo Gaskill or listen to my podcast interview with Dr. Gaskill about this book.

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/02/27/mormon-fair-cast-203-odds-are-you-are-going-to-be-exalted/

One more thing. Did you read the reference I gave you concerning Brigham Young?

I don’t desire a confrontational dialogue or debate of gospel teachings. I believe debate does not generate charity, the pure love of Christ, resolve conflict or estabilish truth.

If you would be interested I would extend a intvitation to be interviewed on my podcast concerning your membership in the LDS Church and your subsequent change of heart.

-Ned

I think it would be fair to say that we understand very differently what it means to be cleansed from all sin. I would argue that the Bible teaches us that through demonstrating faith in Jesus, we are cleansed by his blood. Through this faith, we are justified in God’s eyes. We can not add anything to this in order to satisfy God since we have taken Christ’s loving sacrifice and free gift on ourselves. Mormonism doesn’t teach this. It teaches that once we have fulfilled the requirements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then the atoning sacrifice of Jesus comes into play so that one may be accepted into the celestial kingdom, thereby satisfying the demands God places on us. Do you believe in one of these interpretations or do you believe in something else?

I would love to hear more from you on this.

Steve

The use of ellipsis’s or selecting varies verses to make a point is common and was not used in this case to cherry pick scripture to distort the teachings of the gospel. President Kimball’s use of these selected verses was a illustration of the need for repentance not that our repentance cleanses us but allows the cleansing blood of Jesus as you put it to cleanse us. I think this is just a misunderstanding in the usage of terms to explain salvation and the Savior’s redemptive power.

You may want to consider the following in reference to the so called doctrine of blood atonement.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Blood_atonement

-Ned

Funny to see myself referred to as Brother Livings. I have officially not been ‘Brother Livings’ for 4 years, but spiritually speaking I would say that I stopped being ‘Brother Livings’ around 17 years ago.

Anyway, to address your comments about this post, I think that your explanation of the Holy Ghost cleansing us in the process of sanctification contradicts the Bible verses I quoted which state that it is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from all sin and all unrighteousness. Sanctification is an ongoing process for believers who have already accepted the cleansing of all sin by Jesus’ blood. The Holy Spirit acts in a life-changing way that we call sanctification, but the cleansing from all sin, has already happened.

Do you not find it significant that Kimball omits the verses that address the cleansing from all sin by Jesus’ blood? I see these typical omissions and altering of the original teachings, and it is these ways of using the Bible which may lead you to sense some anger on my part. I find it manipulative for an organisation which claims to be the one true church on the face of the Earth not to use the writings of the Early Church leaders in context. Particularly when the way those verses are used means that the idea that the blood of Jesus cleansing all sin is omitted. Yet, while I disagree with such misuse of the Bible, at the same time, it does not surprise me since we know well that Brigham Young, the ‘Lion of the Lord’, openly taught that the spilling of one’s own blood was required for some sins.

I could respond to each and every point that Stephen makes but that would defeat the purpose of my reply. I would like to address the final paragraph though because that is the crux of the matter. The point President Kimball is trying to make is that repentance in essential for all of us because we don’t walk in the light the way the Savior walks in the light. He is perfect and the only way for us to become perfect is through our repentance. By offering Him a broken heart and a contrite spirit the Holy Ghost (Spirit ) cleanses us in the process of sanctification where at some point in the future we will become perfect even as the Savior is perfect. Brother Livings interprets Presidents Kimball’s remarks as the ‘impossible gospel’ of the LDS Church. No one can cleanse themselves of sin. The only way to receive this cleansing is through the Saviors atoning sacrifice. There is no other way. This is what Spencer W. Kimball meant in this book. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding on this issue.

-Ned