Eleven

Salvation

by Kevin W. Graham

The concept of Christian salvation has endured numerous variations through the centuries. Even among our most fervent critics, American Evangelicals, we find a constant struggle between two major schools of thought: Calvinism vs. Arminianism.¹ Among the Arminians we find a smaller, yet equally significant quarrel over the role or requirement of works, and this can be identified as the "Lordship vs. no-Lordship" controversy. So, while recognizing the enigmatic state in Christendom, as pertaining to a one unified doctrine of salvation, I couldn't help but find our critics guilty of calling the kettle black.

McKeever and Johnson speak of Christian salvation in a rather misleading manner when they speak as though there is only one doctrine. In reading Mormonism 101, it is not at all clear which side of this controversy our authors espouse. Nor is it clear that our authors are even aware that such controversies exist. What we do know is that McKeever and Johnson believe there to be one single universal doctrine of salvation that can be effectively deemed "Christian." Unfortunately, in providing their own eisegesis of scripture, they offer us very little to work with by way of ascertaining how this doctrine is to be identified, to say nothing of how this should be used as a standard to judge all other forms of soteriology as non-Christian. Despite the complexity of their claim of one Christian doctrine of salvation, their argument against the LDS faith is fraught with simplicity: the LDS doctrine is unbiblical, therefore the LDS doctrine is not Christian--case closed.

But why should the case be open and closed so easily when they stand on shifting ground themselves? It is true that Latter-day Saints lay closer to the Arminian camp, yet have been consistently denied the Christian label for reasons that will be detailed in this review. It will be further demonstrated that the LDS concept of salvation has just as much claim to Christian as any other variation that is scattered throughout Christendom.

This examination will reveal that some of their own sources, LDS and non-LDS, disagree with the message they are trying to represent as the LDS position--an error not too uncommon among LDS critics. The problems in their methodology are legion, but none are more manifest than the use of the straw man argument; a technique that has caught our attention throughout the whole of Mormonism 201. McKeever and Johnson habitually cite LDS leaders out of context, all the while ignoring pertinent data that either resolves the concern they raise or refutes the arguments they propose. Due to the monotonous misrepresentations of LDS doctrines, and the vitriolic manner in which they are presented, fatigue is, more often than not, what one feels after reading a chapter like this. Likewise, this response will keep pace with their presentation point by point, and as a result, reflect some of the same monotony they present. Be that as it may, salvation remains to be a serious issue that needs to be dealt with thoroughly, and it is the hope of this author that this review will serve as an eye-opener for the fallacious methods and frivolous arguments used by LDS critics today.

Grace Under Fire?

Do Latter-day Saints, in fact, attack the concept of grace? McKeever and Johnson are confident in this well rehearsed accusation as they boldly run to the defense against "Mormonism's Attack on the Doctrine of Salvation by Grace." One could hardly script a title any better, in their determination to show that the LDS faith is not only non-Christian, but indeed anti-Christian. Within LDS circles, we are forced to wonder how Latter-day Saints could possibly attack a particular tenet if they believe it is, perhaps, the most crucial element to LDS salvation. This starting point which they chose was misleading for several reasons. It begins primarily with an assumed thesis that it has set out to prove, yet the proof remains to be found nowhere in the chapter. Furthermore, our authors would have been more accurate if they had spoken in terms of our rejection of their particular doctrine of salvation: by grace alone. The title they chose communicates a message that implies Latter-day Saints are anti-grace altogether. In a true LDS mind-set, nothing could be further from the truth. As was elucidated in an LDS magazine, Latter-day Saints clearly believe in salvation by the grace of Jesus Christ:

How are we saved? That is, how are we saved from death, and how are we saved from the effects of sin? To answer this question, let us consider two other questions: Is it only through the name of Christ that we are saved from both death and sin? If so, are we saved by the grace of Christ? The answer to both these questions is a resounding yes. We are saved only through the name of Christ, and we are saved only by the grace of Christ²

Our authors carry on with this argument by asserting that the Mormon "mind-set" recognizes a need to do something in order to receive salvation in the fullest sense. I would say that this is fairly accurate, however, our authors have problems with this concept because it clearly contradicts the soteriology they are trying to pass off as the exclusive Christian doctrine. Conversely, the question should be whether or not the LDS mind-set contradicts the Bible, and to be sure, it most certainly does not. While it is true that "doing something" is necessary, we do not agree that it should take primacy over the grace of Christ. This seems to be their misdirection that leads to erroneous conclusions.

In an attempt to insinuate this doctrine to be unique only to Latter-day Saints, they cite Nephi 25:23 from the Book of Mormon. Yet, this passage only states that after everything we can do, it is the grace of Jesus that saves us. In other words, in spite of what we can do, we are still saved by grace. If our author's interpretation is different, why should it outweigh that of Latter-day Saints? And if the Book of Mormon is the primary source for this doctrine, how do McKeever and Johnson account for the various Evangelical groups who also believe works are necessary?³ This idea is biblically interpreted in a similar manner by many others outside the LDS faith. Are these Christians reading the Book of Mormon behind closed doors? Clearly the Book of Mormon cannot be the primary source for this doctrine.

Next, McKeever and Johnson contend that Latter-day Saints stereotype Evangelicals for teaching that works are not important, however they offered no support for this generalization. The accusation of antinomianism⁴ went unsupported. Personally, I have met many sincere Christians who believe works are indeed important for sanctifying oneself. But even so, they do not acknowledge works as necessary for salvation. Ergo, given the question before us (Do we really have to do something to be saved?), I think it is safe to say that this can be, at the least, properly applied to our authors. After all, if we don't need to actually do something then doing something isn't necessary for salvation.

Before we delve into this further, it should be made perfectly clear that the LDS Church doesn't teach, "We can work our way to heaven," as our authors imply.⁵ Too often our critics will demand one of two possibilities:

They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the false dilemma, by asserting that there are only two possibilities. If one is true, the other must be false. They set up these confines without reason or explanation. As a result, our critics would demand that we have all or nothing; either we do absolutely nothing or we have to actually do everything. LDS doctrine, however, proposes a third option that has completely escaped our critics: we are required to do something, and we do this because of the grace of Christ. The question that must be asked is whether or not grace can apply with action on our part. Does the Bible truly teach that grace is completely separated from obedience? Can one only exist without the other? A common misunderstanding by our critics demands such a conclusion, but we shall see that this is flawed. A strict concept of grace alone is no more biblical than sola scriptura.

Latter-day Saints have always been taught that it is by grace that we can be saved, and that Christ's atonement was made because we cannot do everything necessary to save ourselves: "We cannot save ourselves by our own works. Ephesians 2:8-9 reminds us that 'by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.'"⁶ However, if there was ever an overall message from Jesus' teachings, it was get up and do something.

Latter-day Saints have always been taught that it is by grace that we are saved, and that Christ's atonement was made because we cannot do everything necessary to save ourselves. As the Ensign stated above, Paul was correct when he said we were saved by grace.⁷ However, if we must interpret Ephesians 2:8-9 to mean that we are saved by grace alone, as our critics interpret it in the most absolute sense, then what do we do with other verses with the same sentence structure. Compare the following verses and notice the same parallel:

"For by grace are ye saved..."(Eph 2:8)

"For we are saved by hope..."(Rom 8:24)

"...the gospel...by which also ye are saved..."(1 Cor 15:1-3)

"we shall be saved by his life" (Rom 5:10)

Does hope, grace, the gospel or the life of Jesus save us? The way Ephesians 2:8 is commonly interpreted by our critics, only one would be required and only one could apply. If the strict understanding of only should be read into the verse referring to grace, and not the rest, then let our critics justify the clear case of special pleading. Until they do, the Bible itself clearly provides a diversity of instances of "saved by..." to nullify the false dillema.

To further the argument, they offer some comments from former LDS Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie. However, as we shall see, much of the relevant context was discarded in Mormonism 101. The highlighted portion is all that can be found in their book:

Since all good things come by the grace of God (that is, by his love, mercy, and condescension), it follows that salvation itself -- in all its forms and degrees -- is bestowed because of this infinite goodness. However, one of the untrue doctrines found in modern Christendom is the concept that man can gain salvation (meaning in the kingdom of God) by grace alone and without obedience. This soul-destroying doctrine has the obvious effect of lessening the determination of an individual to conform to all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel.⁸

Of course, without the surrounding context one might actually be convinced that McConkie was attacking the doctrine of grace. In so doing, they embellish a partial quote (which is an art of persuasion not too uncommon among LDS critics) and avoid context. However, McConkie simply points out that it is a doctrine of salvation without obedience, which can be described as "soul-destroying." With this statement Latter-day Saints are in full agreement, since grace is not efficacious without obedience.

But is this really an "attack" on grace itself? Of course, this brings us back to the original question: Do we really have to do anything in order to be saved? In order to better determine if McConkie is guilty of "attacking" grace, let us read more of what he had to say on this issue:

Man cannot save himself. He cannot be saved by the works of the Mosaic law; he cannot be saved by the works of the gospel. Man cannot resurrect himself; neither Mosaic works nor gospel works can bring him forth from the grave. The resurrection comes by the grace of God; all men are resurrected, and in that sense all are saved by grace alone. And further: No man can raise himself unto eternal life; he cannot create a state of salvation and provide the means to obtain it. Man cannot create the kingdom of God, nor can he save himself in such a kingdom. If it were not for the grace of God, as shown forth in the redemption of his Son, there would be no eternal life. Neither the works of the Mosaic law nor the works of Christian righteousness, standing alone, without the grace of God as manifest in the sacrifice of his Son, could save a man. Salvation does not come into being by the works of men; it comes because of Christ and his atonement. Because there was such atonement, man can have faith, perform the works of righteousness, endure to the end, and 'work out [his] own salvation with fear and trembling.⁹

According to McConkie, everything is because of Christ. Whatever glory we receive, it all boils down to the simple fact that all good originates with Jesus. Given the context of McConkie's perspective, one is almost compelled to inquire, how our authors could have missed this LDS teaching. Are we to assume that McKeever and Johnson, having twenty plus years of Mormon studies under their belt, have failed to read one of their popular LDS references in its entirety? As they frame McConkie's comments to appear anti-grace, McConkie clearly states that "Christian righteousness" cannot save man "without the grace of God." In short, McConkie's position, which makes grace the utmost of importance, is completely opposite from what McKeever and Johnson imply.

Our authors then offer us another out of context citation from former LDS Apostle, James Talmage: "Redemption from personal sins can only be obtained through obedience to the requirements of the gospel, and a life of good works..." Yet, had they continued with the following sentence in that paragraph, we would see that even our obedience, according to Talmage, is through the atonement of Jesus Christ: "The transgression of Adam being infinite in its consequences, those consequences cannot be averted, except through an infinite atonement."¹⁰

Why would they not share with their readers what Talmage said in context? Then they jump two pages ahead to quote Talmage again, "...the sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil....(and that is was) ...a pernicious doctrine."

Of course, the deleted context clears up this matter as well. First of all, Talmage was referring to how the doctrine of "faith alone" was exercising an influence for evil. Talmage then lists several references that put into context what he was talking about. For example:

The idea upon which this pernicious doctrine was founded was at first associated with that of an absolute predestination, by which man was foredoomed to destruction, or to an undeserved salvation......Fletcher, End of Religious Controversy, p. 90, illustrates the vicious extreme to which this evil doctrine led, by accusing one of its adherents with having said: 'Even adultery and murder do not hurt the pleasant children, but rather work for their good. God sees no sin in believers, whatever sin they may commit. It is a most pernicious error of the schoolmen to distinguish sins according to the fact, and not according to the person. Though I blame those who say, let us sin that grace may abound, yet adultery, incest, and murder, shall upon the whole, make me holier on earth, and merrier in heaven.¹¹

Talmage cited a non-LDS book which illustrated how this doctrine of "faith alone" had clearly "exercised an influence for evil." When people use this doctrine as a stepping-stone for the evil, and for believing adultery or murder can not have an effect on one's salvation, then how much more "pernicious" can it get? It should be further noted that the concerns of the dangers of "faith alone," is not uncommon outside the LDS Church. For instance, Rev. Greg Litmer from the Northern Kentucky Church of Christ, stated in his correspondence course, lesson 7, "We are saved by faith but not by faith alone...It is a dangerous doctrine that teaches a man can be saved by doing only a part of the things God requires."¹² This is entirely consistent with the example shared by Talmage. Furtehrmore, two pages earlier Talmage also stated that, "...there could be no forgiveness of sin without the atonement of Christ,"¹³ clearly implying that Christ is at the forefront of our salvation.

McKeever and Johnson appear to be scanning LDS works and picking out sentences which contain strong terminology. They then divorce them from their context and use these sentences for shock value. To be sure, Mormonism 101 doesn't separate itself from the anti-Mormon norm. This chapter was just loaded with one misquote after another. With their next exercise of misrepresentation, they proceed with a quotation from LeGrand Richards, but only the highlighted portion is found in their book:

This false doctrine would relieve man from the responsibility of his acts other than to confess a belief in God, and would teach man that no matter how great the sin, a confession would bring him complete forgiveness and salvation. What the world needs is more preaching of the necessity of abstaining from sin and of living useful and righteous lives, and less preaching of forgiveness of sin. This would then be a different world. The truth is that men must repent of their sins and forsake them before they can expect forgiveness. Even when our sins are forgiven, God cannot reward us for the good we have not done.¹⁴

Richards stresses the necessity for obedience, but he wasn't "attacking grace" any more than McConkie and Talmage were. He cautioned that the strict understanding of grace alone would "relieve man from the responsibility of his acts." This was clearly demonstrated in the reference provided by Talmage, so the concern is very real indeed.

Mormonism teaches that man can do nothing to save himself, but this doesn't relieve us of the necessity of accepting the grace of Jesus. Although Mormons believe this acceptance certainly involves more than a mere verbal confession, it cannot be accurately stated that Latter-day Saints believe they can "save themselves." The truthfulness of this doctrine has been elaborated with endless examples, as a dependency on Christ reaches a climax in LDS thought:

Without the atonement of Christ and without the glory that only God can place on the physical body, we too are nothing.¹⁵

There are those who become so obsessed with their own 'works-righteousness,' with their own goodness, that they do not look to Christ as the true fountain of all righteousness. Men and women must rely 'wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.'¹⁶

Without the atonement of Christ that removes guilt as well as pays its penalty, we can never receive the innocence necessary to dwell in the presence of God.¹⁷

And it was Christ who brought about the resurrection. He is its Author. It was his death, his sacrificial offering that gave vitality to the gospel plan and rendered effectual. Man's faith and works in his own behalf. Without the atonement, to offset and nullify the fatal effects of the original transgression, all man's self-help would count for nothing, and the very Gospel itself would be mere machinery without the power.¹⁸

What does it mean to rely wholly on the merits of our Savior? It means that no man or woman can receive eternal life without the atonement of Jesus Christ being fully efficacious in his or her life.¹⁹

Without the atonement there would be no hope of eternal life.²⁰

How anyone could study LDS doctrine for more than a year, let alone three decades, and come to the conclusion that Mormons believe they can save themselves and reject grace, is nothing short of a mystery.

Nevertheless, our authors continue, "According to LDS teaching, salvation by grace is synonymous with mere resurrection from the dead, which is given to the entire human race..." Although this statement is not entirely incorrect, it would have been better said, again, that salvation by grace alone is synonymous with resurrection from the dead. Mormonism does not teach a doctrine of salvation on any level, without grace.²¹ Grace plays an important role across the board, not only for the resurrection.

Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ overcame two obstacles for us in this life. The first obstacle was physical death, which entered the world with the fall of Adam. The second obstacle was spiritual death, which occurred once sin entered the world. Once the reader understands this basic LDS teaching, one can better comprehend the true LDS doctrine of salvation. All men will be resurrected because Jesus Christ overcame physical death. This is a fact that very few, if any, Christian denominations would challenge. Speaking on the resurrection, Paul taught, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."( 1 Cor 15:21-22) In other words, all mankind, whether good or bad, faithful or faithless, believing or unbelieving, will be "made alive," or in another sense, "saved" from physical death. And according to the Apostle Paul, there will be a resurrection of the just and unjust. (Acts 24:15)

In citing McConkie and Rex Lee who emphasize the resurrection, or the "general salvation" offered to everyone, it appears perfectly clear that at least the Apostle Paul agreed. We simply view his statement, "in Christ all will be made alive," as being synonymous with "salvation from physical death"--or simply put, the resurrection. Why have our authors failed to mention the connection Latter-day Saints make between this doctrine and Paul's teaching? Surely they must be aware of this common LDS response.²²

On page 151 they say exaltation in Mormonism, "means keeping all the commandments as instructed by the LDS Church for a person's entire life." Although this is true, we will discover soon enough that "keeping the commandments" in LDS and biblical thought, does not carry with it the same meaning that our critics have presumed. The Bible is clear that keeping the commandments is something that must be done throughout a person's entire lifetime.²³ Jesus Christ said, "If ye love me, Keep my commandments," (John 14:15,21;15:10) and we take this to mean all of them. The only logical alternative McKeever and Johnson can offer us is to suggest that what Christ really meant to say was that we should try to keep some of the commandments, or none of them. Of course, such interpretations are patently false, as He explicitly commands us to keep all of them! These are all issues that will be soon dealt with in detail. However, it should be noted that our critics have failed to provide the "Christian" interpretation of the same phrase that exists in both LDS references and the Bible. They narrow their argument to the bald assertion that we are wrong, and then move on without explaining or demonstrating the true biblical meaning.

As we have witnessed, it is clear that Latter-day Saints believe in a strict reliance upon the saving efforts of Jesus Christ. It is unfortunate that McKeever and Johnson did not share this beautiful doctrine with their readers, as it has always been taught among Latter-day Saints of every generation. Our authors failed to represent LDS doctrine accurately, and this "attack on grace" sideshow, is only the first of many steps they take towards redefining LDS doctrine.

Celestial Law: Mission Impossible?

In the next segment our authors pretend to explain the LDS concept of the Celestial Law. "While they (Mormons) admit that they must obey all of God's commandments, many Mormons find it offensive when they are accused of believing that works are required for salvation." This is a very curious statement, as it would have been better stated that perhaps some Mormons feel offended when they are told that they reject Jesus or His grace, simply because they do not accept the modern-day No-Lordship²⁴ rendition of "grace alone." On the next page I assumed they were providing a citation that would support this implication, but let us analyze this quotation carefully. The citation comes from 19th century Apostle, Francis Lyman:

All the requirements of the Lord must be accomplished if we would attain to all that is to be obtained in the celestial kingdom of our Father. And every Latter-day Saint has started out for that the obtaining of eternal life, and the greatest degree of glory that can be obtained in the celestial kingdom. Then to obtain this I say that the full and perfect law of the Father must be observed. We are to be rewarded for our works. We must earn what we obtain.²⁵

Simply put, these comments do not convey the message our authors have assumed. Certainly all the requirements for salvation must be met, but the information provided by McKeever and Johnson doesn't tell us what these requirements really are. They assume "all requirements" is synonymous with "never in your life break a commandment," yet, nowhere does Elder Lyman say this is the case. On the contrary, he said that we must observe the commandments, and I must wonder why our authors did not see the clear parallel with the Bible: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."(Matt 28:20) As far as earning what we obtain, this clearly refers to the rewards from our works. I wonder if it has completely escaped our authors that this is practically a direct quote from Matthew 16:27: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Do they expect their Christian audience to be so unfamiliar with the Bible that they would be unable to make the obvious connection?

Now that they have constructed the straw man, they begin tearing it down with more citations. They ask, "Is this possible to accomplish?...Joseph Fielding Smith sounded pessimistic regarding the chances of many LDS entering this glory when he said, 'that if we save one-half of the Latter-day Saints, that is, with an exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God, we will be doing well.'"

I am not sure exactly why they cite Joseph Fielding Smith in conjunction to Lyman. If they trying to suggest that these two LDS leaders disagreed with one another, then it should be brought to their attention that Smith was actually quoting Elder Lyman in this instance. Smith continues, "Not that the Lord is partial, not that he will draw the line as some will say, to keep people out. He would have every one of us go in if we would; but there are laws and ordinances that we must keep."²⁶

If McKeever and Johnson's argument should stand true, then Smith must have implied that half of the Church was actually 100% obedient--as defined by our critics. Such a proposition would be too unrealistic for us to accept. This belies LDS thought in a manner that is almost humorous. If their argument had any merit at all, then they should be able to produce at least one citation that clearly says 50% of the LDS population has never broken a commandment. I submit that they will never find it. Indeed, they will never find a citation that grants 100% obedience to any one individual, aside from Jesus Christ himself. The reason being, of course, is that their recreation of LDS obedience is a fantasy that serves only as a weapon against the Church. The comments from Smith essentially tear down the intended argument.

Smith elaborates further, "If we do not observe the law we cannot enter. Many come into the Church, like fish that are gathered into the net, that have to be sorted and thrown out again or put into piles where they belong. And so it will be with us."²⁷ Two important contextual sentences were left out, which speak of "keeping" and "observing" the commandments. These concepts of observing and keeping the commandments are important to keep in mind, as these will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs. Acknowledging the difference between the two concepts are essential in order to properly understand LDS and biblical teachings. To keep, observe or abide by the commandments, quite simply, does not denote the implication of absolute perfection that our authors project into LDS thought. Our critics may continue to ask themselves the silly question, "Is it really possible to be perfectly obedient?" but any Mormon in the vicinity would shout "No, of course not. Not without Jesus!"

Furthermore, all LDS leaders, including those cited in Mormonism 101, believed and taught the doctrine of repentance because perfection without Christ's gift of grace and repentance is not possible. This doctrine will be discussed shortly, but repentance alone disqualifies their interpretation of what LDS leaders meant by, "living/abiding by" or "keeping/observing" the Celestial Law. If perfect obedience is possible, then what purpose would repentance serve? Common sense demands a different conclusion than the one our critics have assumed.

The only fairly decent argument in this chapter corresponded to a quotation from Orson Whitney, which referred to the "fullness of obedience." However, this phrase is misunderstood in the same way, as "fullness of the gospel"²⁸ is commonly misunderstood. Elder Whitney was defining the Celestial Law when he said:

It does not mean any one thing; it means all things. It is the fullness of obedience: it is living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. If today, you are keeping those commandments that are now in force, you are living a celestial law, and your chances are good for celestial glory.²⁹

According to my research, this unique phrase exists nowhere else in any LDS work except in instances where it is quoting Elder Whitney's initial comments from 1910. From its absence in LDS literature, one could argue that it wasn't well accepted by others. Yet, even this unique phrase is coupled with the qualification of keeping of the commandments.

It is obvious that our authors' confusion is due to their own misunderstanding by what is meant in keeping the commandments. But I must ask myself again, why our authors needed to travel back 90 years before they could find a definition for the Celestial Law? Why did they ignore one of their favorites, Bruce R. McConkie? A far more contemporary source, Mormon Doctrine doesn't provide ambiguous terminology that could be manipulated into a misrepresentation. McConkie elaborates that the Celestial Law,

Qualifies men for admission to the celestial kingdom because in and through it men are 'sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost,' thus becoming clean, pure, and spotless. (3 Ne. 27:19-21.) And they who are not 'sanctified through the law which I have given unto you, even the law of Christ,' the Lord says, 'must inherit another kingdom, even that of a terrestrial kingdom, or that of a telestial kingdom. For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.' (D. & C. 88:21-22.) Those who have the companionship of the Holy Ghost and are guided thereby in their lives are 'able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom.³⁰

Here again we see consistency with the same terminology. McConkie said we could abide the Celestial Law only if the Holy Ghost, clearly indicating the work of God, guides us. To abide something means to endure. In no real sense can the definition of "complete obedience" or "Christ-like perfection" be ascribed to the word abide. McKeever and Johnson's interpretation of Elder Whitney begs the question, "Does 'fulness of obedience' really mean being 100% obedience without ever doing anything wrong?" Honestly, I can see why a casual onlooker would immediately interpret this phrase in such a way, but no serious student of the LDS faith could make this mistake. As we could assume, the context of Whitney's teachings will clarify this issue rather easily. Elder Whitney said that anyone living this law would have a "good chance" for Celestial glory. Therefore, this cannot be describing people who are 100% obedient. After all, according to our critics, 100% obedience in LDS thought virtually guarantees a place in the celestial kingdom, since we are supposed to believe we are earning it on our own. Suffice it to say, the context of these citations undermines the conclusions drawn.

Seventeen years later, the Improvement Era cited Elder Whitney again, and it gives us no reason to believe McKeever and Johnson's interpretation carries any merit. It fact, his comments clearly conform well to the more accurate interpretive paradigm I propose, when he says that the fullness of obedience means:

To live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God--that is the celestial law. It stands for the utter abnegation of self. Those who live it in fulness, love their neighbor as themselves, and do all things with an eye single to the glory of God.³¹

Just as the phrase, "fulness of the gospel" doesn't comprise every possible truth, doctrine and commandment ever given by God, neither should "fulness of obedience" be understood as involving a lifetime of 100% pure Christ-like obedience. And as was elucidated above, living a life of obedience means to observe all the commandments that have been given, and "to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

Repentance is also part of the celestial Law, so it logically follows that perfection is hardly expected. One cannot be perfect by never sinning. One can only become perfect by overcoming sin via the atonement of Christ. In this way, perfection is attained by experiencing sin and repenting of it. In essence, faithlessness and disobedience are requirements for salvation since they precede faithfulness and obedience.

One cannot repent of something unless he or she has broken a commandment. What do LDS leaders teach about repentance and it's relation to the Celestial law? Orson F. Whitney, three months earlier made a statement that is very telling: "Faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost are indispensable parts of the celestial machinery; but of what avail, if the power were not turned on?"³²

Bruce R. McConkie buries this issue for good when he elaborates:

I do not know that there is anyone among us, unless he has sinned away the opportunity of repentance, who is not capable of starting from this point and going forward in righteousness and truth and gaining the celestial kingdom of heaven. The gospel course is either hard or easy, depending upon whether we love the Lord. If we do not love the Lord it may seem hard and the course may seem rugged. If we love the Lord and desire to keep his commandments, then his yoke is easy, and his burden is light. We can have peace and joy and satisfaction and solace and rest here and now in this life. We can have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we can make our calling and election sure for eternity on the one premise of keeping the commandments of God.³³

So what can we conclude from this section? Repentance is a crucial part of the Celestial Law, and despite the fact that every one of us has sinned, we can take advantage of the gift of repentance which is provided us only because of the grace of Christ. In doing so we are actually "abiding by/living by" the Celestial Law by "observing" and "keeping" one of the most important commandments of renewing oneself. The phrases that have been addressed in this section carry a more passive meaning than "never ever make a mistake," which is what our authors have erroneously presumed in the text. We live, we sin, we repent, and we renew ourselves by putting "on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Eph 4:24) The "inward man is renewed day by day."(2 Cor 4:16) These LDS teachings are in perfect harmony with the Bible.

They continue to draw support for this straw man by addressing phrases such as "perfect obedience" and "complete obedience." As we have seen, perfect obedience as our authors understand it, is indeed impossible for any of us to accomplish without Christ. This is explicitly taught in more recent LDS works from LDS leaders, but we can guess why our authors needed to stay fixated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for their ammunition. It is far easier to slice and dice comments from deceased persons who expressed themselves differently, who come from a different genre, a different way of expression and who are no longer around to correct you. I think it is unfortunate that our authors decided to ignore the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in this instance. It destroys every ounce of credibility that they gave to their argument (emphasis mine):

All mortals individually need to be justified because they fall short of perfect obedience to God, becoming 'carnal, sensual, and devilish' through transgression (Moses 5:13; Mosiah 16:3), are "cut off" from God, and are in jeopardy of becoming "miserable forever" (2 Ne. 2:5). In this plight, they of themselves cannot be justified through subsequent obedience to the law and cannot change their own nature to become obedient. Furthermore, they are severed from the source of the divine power that can change, or sanctify, them (2 Ne. 9:5-9).

However, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, when men, women, or children have faith in Jesus, are truly penitent, call upon his name, and are baptized, they become eligible for the redeeming grace extended through Jesus Christ. In this sense they become justified. This is given as a gift by grace, since fallen man must rely "alone upon the merits of Christ" (1 Ne. 10:6; Moro. 6:4). The faith by which one receives this grace manifests itself in an active determination to follow Christ in all things. It is demonstrated by obedience to the commandments to repent and be baptized, followed by a life of submission, obedience, and service to God and others³⁴

It requires very little deduction to realize why these comments are not found in Mormonism 101. Notwithstanding the various works that refute their nonsensical and incoherent rendition of Mormon salvation - even the same works from which they cite - our authors finalize this straw man massacre with the following pontification: "For any Mormon to think that he or she can consistently obey every law commanded by God is to demonstrate the epitome of prideful arrogance."³⁵

They then begin citing passages that criticize the concept of pride. This is simply amazing. Are they trying to widen the divide between Mormons and Evangelicals as much as possible? After they take such an approach at ridiculing Latter-day Saints, they criticize them for something they don't even believe. To further add insult to injury, they demonstrate the epitome of hypocrisy when they preach against arrogance by closing with:

Despite the smiles many Mormons wear, it should not be assumed that all is spiritually well in their personal lives. Strapped with the heavy requirement of perfection placed on them by their faith, such a countenance may hide deep-seated feelings of guilt and failure. Because of the unreasonable demand put on them, these people may live their daily lives with the guilt of never being good enough for celestial exaltation.³⁶

Given their uncharitable take on LDS beliefs, and the emotionally charged polemics such as these, is it any wonder we refer to them as anti-Mormon?

The next segment, which covers procrastination, was a complete waste of space since the argument is based on, again, what our authors believe "some Mormons" believe. They assert baldly that many Mormons maintain a reliance upon the "I can do it later" excuse. No references are given as usual, and they dedicate five quotations that beat this straw man into the ground. It is amazing how their research covers the answer correctly as they come up with five LDS sources that will only serve to prove our point, but McKeever and Johnson are more concerned about what "some Mormons" believe, and have chosen to expound and embellish on this instead of taking the five points of refutation for what they are.

Even if some Mormons did believe they could simply "do it later," then their supply of five LDS refutations proves that the LDS leadership isn't to blame for such misunderstandings. In fact, this is evidence that the LDS leadership has gone through great efforts to correct some misunderstandings of doctrine, whether they exist within or outside the Church. Such is the case here, and McKeever and Johnson have, albeit inadvertently, proven this to be so. While they attempt to put the blame on the LDS leaders for certain misunderstandings, they turn around and show several LDS leaders correcting such misunderstandings that these "some Mormons" supposedly espouse. McKeever and Johnson want it both ways, but these mystery Mormons, if they truly exist, do not misunderstand LDS leaders for the same reasons our critics do. Our critics read LDS discourses through an Evangelical lens at best, and an anti-Mormon lens at worst. Either way, their perception becomes flawed. Furthermore, they have a propensity for reading dissected commentaries instead of absorbing the overall context. This precarious combination will result in misconception and preclude proper understanding every time, as is indicative in Mormonism 101.

What of Repentance?

I was glad to see the title of their next segment because it showed promise to addressing a real LDS doctrine. This involved the process and necessity of repentance. They start off by saying, "When Mormons are confronted with the fact that they cannot keep all of the commandments..." First, let us clarify that if Mormons are "confronted" with this fact, it is within the walls of an LDS Church. McKeever and Johnson tend to flatter themselves by assuming their misguided conclusions are providing an astonishing news flash for Latter-day Saints. They continue, "many find refuge in their ability to repent. Repentance, they say, erases the transgression and makes everything all right." Are our critics admitting that the Mormons they encounter agree with the premise that nobody can be perfectly obedient? This seems to go against everything they have, thus far, presented as LDS doctrine and belief.³⁷ The only inconsistency here comes from our critics' own polemic against LDS doctrine.

Repentance, of course, means to turn away from. In this case, repentance means to abstain from a particular sin. Repenting opens the door to forgiveness, but it cannot honestly be said that it "makes everything alright," since we still have to deal with future sins. As we shall see, McKeever and Johnson have over simplified this issue for a reason. Our authors begin to implement their own interpretation of repentance when they say, "repentance of personal sins might sound like the logical remedy, except that repentance is a verbal admission of a violation of God's law or laws."

Do our authors really believe that repentance is only limited to "verbal" admission? To be sure, this interpretation of repentance is a minority view, even among the Protestants. It is also far from being the Orthodox Christian view. Our authors do nothing to substantiate their opinion on this matter, and they offer no scriptural support whatever. Ironically enough, one of their own Evangelical sources, from which they continuously quote, disagrees with what they just said. Edward T. Jones, reviewer of Mormonism 201 Chapter 10, related to me in an email:

"One of McKeever and Johnson's favorite 'Christian theologian' authors in Mormonism 101 is Leon Morris. In one of his books Morris deals with the same topic being discussed here, but comes to a rather different conclusion: different from McKeever and Johnson, but similar to LDS. He writes:

"Jesus did not call on men to lead a 'good' life in this sense. He did not point them to a law and ask them to keep it more often than not. He never suggested by word or deed that man's whole duty is to perform a certain quota of good deeds. He demanded perfection(Matt 5.48). And if men came short of perfection in even the slightest degree, He demanded repentance. Which means that He demanded repentance of every man. Men must make a complete break with every evil thing. So long as they have evil about them they cannot enter God's heaven or be numbered among God's people here on earth. Sin is a serious business indeed." (Morris, The Cross in the New Testament (1999; 1st 1965): 21-2.)

Morris has taken a stand as firm as any LDS author, canonized or otherwise; but like them, he realizes that all have come short of the goal. That is why God implemented repentance. If McKeever and Johnson seek to divide the latter-day prophets against each other, they are going to have to decide on which side to place their fellow Evangelicals. Some of them are clearly going to look awfully 'mormonish' to them. It also appears that Morris would take a somewhat firmer position on the necessity of keeping the commandments, i.e., doing good works. But then, most of the authors cited by McKeever and Johnson (whether LDS or evangelical) posit other positions that contradict the direction they would have them go. Again, McKeever and Johnson simply hope that no one reads their sources."

The LDS position is rather simple. Forgiveness only comes through Jesus Christ and this occurs when a person exercises faith in Christ and sincerely repents. Forgiveness is the end result of true repentance. These two concepts are related, and biblically speaking, always within the same vicinity. This is clearly demonstrated in various biblical passages:

"He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Luke 3:3; Mk 1:4)

"Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him" (Luke 17:3-4)

"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:31)

"Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee" (Acts 8:22)

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light....that they may receive forgiveness of sins." (Acts 26:18)

From repentance and turning to God, the repentant sinner must then perform deeds worthy of repentance (Acts 26:20). One must modify human behavior. Sin is not accidental; it proceeds from the conditioning of the mind. The mind becomes set in long term memory, which is a physio-chemical reaction in the brain. That is why it is difficult for people to battle with sin. They must alter the very processes of the mind. This is the basis of the text: Give your works to God and He will establish your thoughts. This is expressed in the RSV as: Give your works to the Lord and he will establish your plans (Prov. 16:3) So limiting the act of repentance to a mere verbal confession, is doing a terrible injustice to the real biblical message. Repentance is actually "doing something,"³⁸ and it is a life long process that we must endure.

The Church in Ephesus was called on to repent and remember what it was from which it had fallen, and to do again the works it did at first. (Rev 2:5) These were the same Ephesians who were told many years prior that they had "been saved." Likewise, the Church at Pergamum was called upon to repent (Rev. 2:16); so also was the Thyatiran Church (Rev. 2:21-22) which had apostates thrown onto a bed with the false religious teachers. The Church in Sardis was also called on to repent, or Christ would come on them like a thief in the night and they would not know what hour he was coming (Rev. 3:3). Those who Christ loves, he reproves and chastens. He demands that they repent (Rev. 3:19). Repentance is thus ongoing for all the Churches of God, being the responsibility of all (James 5:19-20). Many Christians prefer to view repentance as a one-time deal, but this goes against everything the Bible has said. Again, we have several Churches of believers that were in need of repentance, even after they became Christian.

What is for certain is that the LDS position is biblically vindicated. So now we must go back to the initial questions asked by our authors, "does one really need to do anything?" According to the Bible, and the doctrine of repentance, yes! Our author's oversimplification of repentance is not taught anywhere in the Bible, and therefore, it cannot be assumed that repentance is not a necessary action or merely a one-time event in Christian life.

They continue, "to be sure, many of the same leaders who insist that complete obedience is the requirement for exaltation have also spoken on the need to repent." This is precisely the point! Again, their own problem has been solved already when they realize that repentance was taught by all of the aforementioned LDS leaders. But instead of accepting the plain truth, they instead try salvaging their straw man by blaming the LDS for being too "inconsistent." In other words, LDS leaders are to blame because our authors failed to read the context of their teachings. Our critics' problem lies in their tenacity to nit pick and criticize to a predetermined end. To be frank, their preferred recourse is to blame the LDS leaders for their own ignorance, and this becomes the underlying theme for the rest of the chapter.

The Blame Game: LDS Leaders or Ignorant Readers?

They move on with a dissection from the LDS book, Believing Christ. Stephen E. Robinson was referring to his younger students when addressing some confusion that exists with the interpretation of "keeping the commandments," but he did, however, finish by stating the correct meaning of this phrase. Whether some of the younger or even older LDS might be confused, isn't really of consequence. Most of it, as Robinson mentioned, is a result of modern day interpretations of "keeping the commandments," in light of the popular anti-works paranoia that exists in Protestant Christianity. It is possible that some younger Mormons are confused because they fall into the trap of interpreting their own LDS teachings with Evangelical visors. Believe it or not, we actually do live in a society where the predominant Christian paradigm is closer to Evangelical thought, and many among our younger generation have fallen prey to such interpretive premises. I know that when I joined the LDS faith, I initially had a problem reading LDS terms with Protestant definitions, but just because some of the younger LDS might have misunderstood the exact meaning of "keep the commandments," this hardly indicates a clear LDS "mind-set" as a whole. The LDS faith is a learning process as is any other religious faith, and oftentimes one is not exposed to the meat of LDS doctrine before one reaches adulthood.

Robinson offered a precise and detailed explanation of this sometimes-misinterpreted phrase, and for this reason I will provide the brunt of his commentary. After reading the first paragraph it should be obvious why McKeever and Johnson ignored the context. Only the bold portion will be found in Mormonism 101.

Can anyone besides the Savior obey all the commandments all the time? If our only hope of inheriting the celestial kingdom lies in keeping all the rules, obeying all the commandments, and living all the principles perfectly, then you and I blew our chances long ago. It is true that the gospel provides repentance, forgiveness, and atonement, but these are remedies for disobedience rather than rewards for obedience.

Many members of the Church confuse the long-term goal of individual perfection with the short-term necessity of perfection-in-Christ, mistakenly concluding that they must perfect themselves by their own efforts before they have hope of receiving the kingdom of God. Elder Bruce R. McConkie referred to this idea as one of the deadly heresies of the modern Church. If it were possible to perfect ourselves, to make ourselves worthy of the kingdom of God by our own efforts, we wouldn't need Jesus Christ at all: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by [keeping] the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 2:21.) If we could be justified by our own efforts, then we wouldn't need a savior at all, and Christ's infinite sacrifice would have been all for nothing...

We generally say 'keeping the commandments' when what we really mean is 'trying real hard to keep the commandments and succeeding most of the time." Defined in this way, "keeping the commandments" is both possible and necessary; that is, trying to keep the commandments, doing the best we can at it, is a requirement of the gospel covenant, even though succeeding right now in keeping all of the commandments all of the time is not. This is why the gospel covenant offers repentance and atonement in addition to commandments

If we insist on fine points, "keeping the commandments" means not breaking them--not any of them, not ever. It means keeping them perfectly, and in reality no one does this. Technically, you can't claim to keep the commandments in this sense so long as you break any of them at all. This is what James means when he says in James 2:10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

The ambiguity between the traditional meaning and the customary LDS usage of "keeping the commandments" has caused Latter-day Saints and other Christians to talk past each other on occasion and led some who don't understand our theological vocabulary to accuse us of believing in salvation by works. It has also caused some in the Church to conclude incorrectly that perfect performance is a requirement of the gospel covenant, even though the real bottom line is being committed to the proper goals and doing all we can to achieve them. In fact, the whole purpose of the atonement of Christ is to provide a way whereby those who have not kept, do not keep, and probably will not all the time can still be exalted in the celestial kingdom of God--where they will continue to make progress in eternity until they are perfected--provided that they genuinely hunger and thirst after righteousness.

In the New Testament, when Paul talks about keeping the commandments or being justified by works, he means obeying all the commandments all the time. Therefore he rightly concludes that no one can "keep the commandments" in this sense, that our failure to keep the commandments perfectly condemns us, and that we must look somewhere else for a means of salvation. Strictly speaking, then, it doesn't matter which commandments you keep and which ones you break; if you don't keep them all, you are a transgressor and guilty rather than righteous or just. When the terms are defined in this way, clearly whoever would claim to be righteous on the basis of "keeping the commandments" must keep all of the commandments all of the time. Good luck.³⁹

Evangelicals reading the above, in context, should relate to this. It sounds like a common anti-works/pro-grace sermon. No wonder our authors ignored it. For them to present context would be detrimental to their argument, and would at the very least confuse their readers. They quote Robinson only because they found a Mormon referring to something in Mormonism as "troublesome," but they stop right there and let their readers' imaginations draw their own conclusions. They refuse to continue on with the same page that demonstrates how Robinson was agreeing with what our critics have been saying about grace. Robinson recognized this common misunderstanding that has caused LDS and non-LDS to talk "passed each other," but apparently his endeavors have gone in vain since our critics have no interest in realizing the crux of the matter, which is detailed in Robinson's explanation of the true position. Apparently they prefer to keep talking past the LDS and head straight towards their intended audience: uninformed Evangelicals.

Robinson hit the nail right on the head when he said that the issue has "led some who don't understand our theological vocabulary to accuse us of believing in salvation by works." Robinson clarified the LDS vocabulary for them, but they refused to even acknowledge it. This would be the equivalent of a self-professing Egyptologist, who trashes the Rosetta stone because he has already made up his mind about the Egyptian language. How could McKeever and Johnson, two self-professing Christian ministers to Latter-day Saints, ignore, let alone suppress such pertinent information from their readers?

McKeever and Johnson are secure in their position that, because some of the younger LDS generation have not fully understood the true meaning behind "keeping the commandments," that "certainly the LDS leaders are to blame." But why should the LDS leaders take the blame for the ignorance of our critics, or even certain younger Latter-day Saints? Their failure to understand the gospel fully is the real problem; not the gospel itself. The LDS leaders teach clear truths, but they cannot force the members to listen and understand perfectly. If its adherents can misinterpret such teachings, then how much more can we expect our critics to misinterpret, whether intentionally or inadvertently?

Given McKeever and Johnson's accusation, one must feel compelled to ask if the trinity should be faulted because the younger generations of Evangelicals sometime confuse it with Modalism? They claim to have no trinitarian teachers from whence this doctrine came, and all Christian claim only one source for the trinity: the Bible. So, given the standard of scrutiny designed by our authors, should we then blame the Bible for the confusion among trinitarians, which is clearly not confined to the younger generation?

Our authors, in their zeal to criticize the LDS leadership, obviously hold a double standard for their own teachings. For example, on the Bible Answer Man Show, our authors were asked questions from certain callers. The following is the exchange between Eric Johnson and a Christian caller:

Caller: Oh, hi, how is it going?

Johnson: Good.

Caller: Um, yeah, I have a question. I am dating a Mormon girl right now. And uh, we have been talking a lot about the differences between our faiths. And um, the one thing that she has that I really don't have an answer to, as if Jesus and God the Father are the same, then why did Jesus have to pray to the Father when he was on earth. Like, why didn't he already know, um... why didn't he already know everything?

Johnson: Well, I think that, um, Greg, that's one of the biggest problems right there. Your friend has a misunderstanding of what the Trinity really is.

Caller: Um

Johnson: Many times they make comments like that. When you say that Jesus and the Father are the same, well I don't know of any person that would actually say that.

Caller: Well, um....

Johnson: Now there is a teaching that is called Modalism which is a heresy, but that is certainly not orthodox

Caller: Um, ok.

Johnson: Yah, so in that respect we wouldn't have a problem with that as a Trinitarian.⁴⁰

It is interesting to note that the Latter-day Saint is accused of ignorance on the proper understanding of the trinity. However, it was a Christian Trinitarian who had a problem explaining or even understanding it. If this were merely an LDS straw man argument, then why did the caller not recognize it as such? Clearly the caller interpreted the trinity one way, while Eric Johnson interpreted it another way. When the concern was brought up, Mr. Johnson simply told the caller that if he were a real Trinitarian (by extension, a real Christian?), then he would have to accept the version of the trinity as McKeever and Johnson express it--without using so many words or insulting his caller.

Mr. Johnson seems to think the LDS had no reason to interpret the Trinity in that manner whatsoever, but for obvious reasons this Trinitarian dilemma resurfaces because other Christians, such as this gentleman on the phone, understood it in the same manner. The fact that Eric Johnson doesn't know of anyone who would say this could reflect his sheltered theological position, even within his own Evangelical sphere. Being a former Southern Baptist myself, I can say that this position--Jesus is the Father on Earth--was held by most, if not all of my Sunday school classmates. We were just kids who were getting "milk before meat" apparently. Nevertheless, if we adopt McKeever and Johnson's critique without applying a double standard, we must then assume the Trinitarian ministers are the ones guilty of teaching "inconsistent" doctrine--to say nothing of the Bible's inadequacy in teaching one clear Trinitarian position.

Consistency of LDS Doctrine

As demonstrated, the LDS leaders have taught a very consistent doctrine of keeping, living by, abiding by and observing the commandments. They have coupled this with another unambiguous doctrine that says none of us are capable of attaining true perfection in this life. The result is obvious. Contra McKeever and Johnson, "keeping the commandments" cannot mean, in any real sense, "never being disobedient." Keeping the commandments can be better understood as observing the commandments. This is exactly what the Bible says when the phrase is used. In the Hebrew, shamar means to observe or guard. In Greek, the term used is tereo, which means the same exact thing. The fact that the LDS interpret keep as synonymous with observe is demonstrated in LDS scripture:

But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not. (Mosiah 4:30)

And as our authors have mentioned, the Book of Mormon does not preach a required doctrine of complete and strict obedience to every single commandment when it says, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23) It doesn't say after we have obeyed perfectly, every single commandment by God. Ezra Taft Benson said that, "After all we can do, includes extending our best effort."⁴¹ Nowhere is it taught that our best effort is synonymous with 100% obedience. By presenting this passage they have inadvertently refuted their own argument with canonized LDS scripture. I wonder how many of their readers caught on to this.

The Book of Mormon compliments this phrase in the Bible, and it has been used in LDS teachings ever since the Book of Mormon came to light. Clearly, if the true LDS position was 100% obedience (or else you cannot possibly be exalted), then they never would have chosen the more passive method of expressing this commandment. Elder Hyrum Smith said: "We should more fully observe the commandments. "⁴² Now if "observe" is synonymous with 100% obedience, then how does it make sense to say that we should be "more fully" than 100% obedient? In Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith was presented a question:

Kindly explain what James meant when he said: 'For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all'? (James 2:10.) This appears to be a very severe doctrine, to say a man is guilty of breaking all of the commandments if he has only broken one. To some of us this appears an injustice.

To which Smith responded:

In order to understand the significance of this saying, one should be familiar with all that James said. He was making a plea to the members of the Church to be faithful in all things. This epistle is one of exceeding excellence in the presentation of the question of full obedience to the commandments of the Lord. He points out many of the weaknesses of men and pleads for a better and more faithful observance of the laws of the Lord, which are so essential to our exaltation. He names many of the commandments, and admonishes all to be "doers of the word, not hearers only." In that day, as in the present, there were many who failed to hearken to and observe the commandments the Lord had given them. Every member of the Church today, as it should have been when James wrote, should be "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath," and lay aside "all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls," for the doers of the word, not the hearers only shall be saved.⁴³

What follows is a list of various comments from LDS leaders who delineated "observing" the commandments, as opposed to the McKeever and Johnson interpretation of strictly obeying:

It is necessary for us to observe the commandments of God⁴⁴

These are the blessings that will follow if we faithfully observe the commandments of the Lord.⁴⁵

Let us repent now; let us observe the commandments of the Lord; let us do our duty from this moment on; let us be honorable and honest before God and men.⁴⁶

I know the Gospel is true. I know this is the Church of God; and inasmuch as we will observe the commandments of the Lord we will be blessed, and His Spirit will be with us to help us in all our endeavors to do right.⁴⁷

What would be the result if this whole Nation were to observe the commandments which the Lord gave to the Prophet Joseph?⁴⁸

If we will observe the commandments of our Heavenly Father we will not suffer for the necessities of life, beyond what we can bear, we will not lose the faith, we will not fall into darkness, but the light and joy of the testimony that comes from our Heavenly Father will fill our souls. That it may do so, I humbly pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.⁴⁹

There is a spirit in man but it requires the inspiration of the Almighty to give it understanding, and if we want that understanding we must live for it. There will be no doubt about it if we observe the commandments of God.⁵⁰

I hope that you are having family prayers, morning and evening, that your children are taught by example and by precept to observe the commandments that are so precious and so sacred and mean so much to our salvation in the kingdom of God. The Lord said in a revelation given to the Church in 1831: "And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God.⁵¹

These are the conditions that confront us today, the time when we are to observe the commandments of the Lord and accept of the word of the Lord⁵²

Gather around us the family circle, and encourage the family to observe the commandments of the Lord during the day⁵³

We are sent into this world to accomplish a great purpose, and to fulfill the object of our creation we must observe the commandments of God.⁵⁴

When we obtain that spirit and observe the commandments of the Lord, walking in holiness before him, then the lives of those whom we touch will be changed and they will be motivated to live lives of righteousness.⁵⁵

These quotations are only a handful from literally thousands, which demonstrate a consistency amongst the LDS leadership for nearly two centuries. In my search I was unable to find one instance where the phrase "observe the commandments" was used to express a strict obedience that allows a forfeiture of salvation by one error. This is the accusation laid before us, and McKeever and Johnson have failed in providing evidence for this assumption. The burden remains on their shoulders. Each and every citation they provide is explained by its own context.

Abusing Kimball's Book

Continuing, they begin quoting Spencer W. Kimball: "The repentance, which merits forgiveness [is the kind which]... the former transgressor must have reached a 'point of no return' to sin wherein there is not merely a renunciation but also a deep abhorrence of the sin-where the sin becomes most distasteful to him and where the desire or urge to sin is cleared out of his life."⁵⁶

Our authors believe President Kimball suggested that if we commit any sin, after we repent of one particular sin, then it wasn't true repentance for that particular sin. This proposal is easy to believe if you don't have Kimball's book in front of you, and I am beginning to wonder if our authors have even read this book at all. They continue to build the straw man, "While penitent people should understand the seriousness of their sin, we doubt that any human has the ability to clear the desire or urge to sin out of their life." Of course, no Mormon leader has ever insinuated such nonsense--including Kimball--and our critics should be ashamed of this blatant misrepresentation.

President Kimball made it abundantly clear that, "All are Sinners."⁵⁷ But they skipped over this while ignoring the first half of the book. They appear to have skimmed through the pages until they could find sections to meet their straw man needs. They ignored pages and entire chapters that would have answered their questions for them, yet they present none of this information to their readers.

"If this is what is really required to achieve forgiveness," they assert, then "no Mormon will ever receive it, because all humans struggle with their sin nature" Here, they are preaching to the choir again. They persist, "Kimball also declared that those who thought frequent repentance was a means of getting right with God must straighten out their thinking. He taught:

"To return to sin is most destructive to the morale of the individual and gives Satan another handhold on his victim. Those who feel that they can sin and be forgiven and then return to sin and be forgiven again and again must straighten out their thinking. Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load. Thus when a man has made up his mind to change his life, there must be no turning back. Any reversal, even in a small degree, is greatly to his detriment."

As we could have guessed, the ignored context of this commentary gives us a clearer understanding of what Kimball was really teaching. When Kimball spoke of a "returning to sin," he was not referring to any sin, as our authors would like to believe. Instead, he was specifically speaking in reference to the same exact sin that was supposedly repented in the first place. Had our authors continued with the next sentence, this much would have been cleared up: "The reformed alcoholic who takes 'just a little sip' again may have lost all the ground he has gained. The pervert who relaxes and returns to old companions or situations is in grave danger again."⁵⁸ The fact of the matter here is that Kimball was speaking of sin and then returning to the same exact sin!

So in other words, if you cheat on your wife, repent from it, and then turn around and commit adultery the next day, then according to what Spencer W. Kimball was really saying, your repentance didn't mean anything because it obviously wasn't a true "turning away" from that particular sin. It meant nothing. I can't think of one Evangelical, aside from McKeever and Johnson, who would disagree with this!

Kimball never said, hinted or implied that if a person sin an unrelated sin in the future, (which he already said was inevitable) that all of their previously repented sins come back to them. In other words, a failure to properly repent of adultery doesn't mean one must rerepent of every sin prior to this. If that were what Kimball was saying, then perhaps our critics would have an argument worthy of serious consideration. However, since Kimball was speaking of something entirely different, their failure to understand context and comprehend his clear message results in another swing and miss criticism for Mormonism 101. In the process they make a devestating blow to their credibility by misusing Kimball in a manner that is clearly intentional.

As we can also see, their attempt at setting up several dead LDS leaders against one another was clever, but callous to say the least.⁵⁹ Kimball is referring to repentance in this context, while the other previous quotations are referring to observing the commandments. No contradiction or inconsistency can be found unless it is first wanted, and even then it must be sought after with a blind eye turned towards pertinent data.

Robinson warned us that many non-LDS would misunderstand our position when they read it from their own perspective, and despite the fact that our authors have read the detailed LDS teachings that clarify these misunderstandings; they remain resilient in their refusal to accept them. In so doing, they ensure their readers will have to go somewhere else for an accurate rendition of LDS soteriology, since Mormonism 101 fails on all counts.

"Be Ye Therefore... Almost Perfect?"

The next section is nothing short of amazing. McKeever and Johnson present a citation from Marvin J. Ashton that completely refutes the position they have been arguing for this whole time. But after reading this explanation, they remain confident that they have interpreted LDS doctrine correctly, and therefore, must assume that Elder Ashton is just too dim-witted to see the so-called "mixed signals" that they have been alluding to this whole time. Ashton elaborates:

We need to come to terms with our desire to reach perfection and our frustration when our accomplishments or behaviors are less than perfect. I believe that one of the great myths we would do well to dispel is that we have come to earth to perfect ourselves, and that nothing short of that will do. If I understand the teachings of the prophets of this dispensation correctly, we will not become perfect in this life, though we can make significant strides toward that goal.⁶⁰

Our authors respond to Ashton's comments by, basically ignoring everything he just said which corrected their erroneous conclusions.⁶¹ Instead, they tip their hand and reveal an agenda by opting to magnify the commentary about the "myth." They then proceed to blow it out of proportion to score a few rhetorical points. Their neglect of Ashton's message is telling, but it also begs the question,"Are we to believe that any large organization should never find itself confronted with various myths created by its adherents?" Is non-LDS Christianity impervious to such lore? I find this ironic since their presuppositions on perfection and repentance are quite literally "myths" themselves, since many Evangelical scholars disagree with their conclusions. Also relevant to this is the aforementioned radio broadcast where saw what McKeever and Johnson might deem a "myth" concerning Modalism within a Trinitarian community.

They continue to protest that the LDS have used Matthew 5:48 "as a rally cry for personal perfection," and are "using this verse as a springboard." Yes, as it was for Jesus Christ, Leon Morris, C.S. Lewis and the Church Fathers. The question that should be asked, however, is whether they can show us how we are all wrong.

The fact that there are Latter-day Saints who might not properly grasp Church doctrines, is, if anything, evidence that we have something in common with Christianity. Contrary to their assertion, the citations by Robinson and Ashton indicate that the LDS leadership is actually making a concerted effort to correct these myths and misunderstandings within LDS circles. Yet, by their own logic, we could again blame the Bible for the many false religions that claim to be following it. After all, is it the messenger's fault (Bible), or the people receiving the message (humans)? Do our critics want to apply the same standard across the board, or do they request special pleading for their side? Are not Latter-day Saints free to interpret as well as misinterpret LDS teachings as imperfect humans naturally would? McKeever and Johnson want to blame this "myth" on the LDS leaders themselves, and try to use this as evidence that they are giving "mixed signals," but this is not proven by showing that some LDS have misunderstood. This only proves that such misunderstandings do indeed exist. The culpability for the misunderstanding, which is really the heart of their criticism, does not lay at the feet of LDS leaders. Therefore, the accusations of our critics are without merit..

Next, we are confronted with two more quotations from Hinckley and Kimball. These are also used to show discrepancies between their interpretation of Matthew 5:48. It is asserted that after Hinckley's talk, Apostle Eyring demonstrated the "confusion" among our leaders when he cited 1 Nephi 3:7, which says God would prepare a way for us to obey. They conclude that, "If Mormons believe personal perfection is what Jesus is stressing, it would seem logical that Mormons should be able to achieve it."

I see no conflict at all and obviously the LDS leadership doesn't either. God will prepare a way for us to be obedient, and that way involves the atonement of Jesus Christ. While they were citing commentary on Matthew 5:48, they could have mentioned a few more comments from their own side of the fence that concur. As noted before, at least one popular Christian scholar, Leon Morris, disagrees with them on the issue of repentance. However, there are many others who would find themselves in the same cult frying pan for also disagreeing with our authors on this verse of scripture. Take for instance the comments from, arguably the most popular Christian author of our time, C.S. Lewis (emphasis added):

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him--for we can prevent Him, if we choose --He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.⁶²

Our critics may respond with something along the lines of, "That is Jesus making us perfect, not us doing it ourselves." However, Mormons can use this same argument since it applies perfectly. However we do not divorce our own responsibility from the change Christ makes in us. If there was ever a single LDS doctrine that developed from this passage, it was the fact that none of this is possible without Jesus Christ in our lives. President Kimball made this perfectly clear, but again, for our authors to mention this would mean certain doom for the straw man they had in mind, and it would make the LDS appear more Christian if their readers were to find an LDS Prophet teach the following (emphasis added):

Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more... When a true consciousness of guilt finally settles down upon the one who has sinned and he feels the heaviness of it its throttling force and crushing power only then can the sinner begin to realize how powerless he is on his own to rid himself of his transgressions. Only then can he begin to understand how futile are his unaided efforts to wash away the stains so indelibly stamped on his life and character. In his anguish he must come to lean heavily upon the Lord and trust in him, acknowledging "With God all things are possible.⁶³

In our search to enlist the cooperation of others, or in our insistence to do things ourselves, we often overlook the assistance that the members of the Godhead can provide. As declared in the scriptures, "With God, all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26; Mark 10:27.) Heavenly Father's help, along with Christ's direction and the Holy Ghost's inspiration, will give us great power to succeed in all our noble endeavors. In fact, all divine goals are impossible without their help.⁶⁴

In an article entitled Relying upon the Merits, Mercy, and Grace of Christ, Robert L. Millet demonstrates how this doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon:

Paul taught: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12; italics added.) And there it is--the commission to work out our salvation by ourselves. But not so fast. The next verse is quite instructive: "For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13; italics added.)

Are works unimportant, then? Doesn't it matter what we do? Of course works matter. Of course it matters what we do. But the scriptures attest again and again that it is not our works that save us. Our works--our reception of the ordinances of salvation, our acts of goodness and benevolence, and our contribution to the work of the kingdom--are necessary, but insufficient. As Elder McConkie pointed out, our works, no matter how many or how good, are not enough. Our works do not save us. Some people say that we are saved by the grace of Christ but exalted by our works. That also is false. Our works evidence our faith in Christ and our desire to follow him and rely upon his atoning grace. But there are simply not enough loaves of bread to bake or home teaching visits to make or meetings to attend to save me from the woes of sin; such requires the mediation of a God. The strangest matter of all is that it is his works--the works of Christ--that save us. Thus Lehi declared to Jacob: "Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer." Indeed, as Lehi went on to say, "There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah." (2 Nephi 2:3, 8; italics added; compare Alma 22:14.)

The issue is not whether we are saved by grace or works. That is the wrong question, one that has alienated people for too long. It is, as C. S. Lewis observed, "like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary." (Mere Christianity, p. 129.) The real questions to be asked are; In whom do I trust? On whom do I rely? Do I trust in my works? Do I rely on my goodness? "And now, my beloved brethren," Nephi proclaimed in a discussion of the doctrine of Christ, "after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save. " (2 Nephi 31:19; italics added.) Wholly means absolutely, completely, and perfectly. Is this not the same message that Moroni delivered when he spoke of the Nephite Church? In speaking of those who had come into the true church and begun the process of spiritual growth, Moroni wrote: "And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith." (Moroni 6:4; italics added.)⁶⁵

Furthermore, the LDS Church News provided the following teachings from the Bible and Book of Mormon:

Paul, speaking of those who through the gospel have covenanted to do the will of Jesus, said, 'For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do.' (Philip. 2:13.) Paul further stated, 'Where unto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.' (Col. 1:29.) The works which we do of ourselves are not sufficient to exalt us. In the words of King Benjamin, 'I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.' (Mosiah 2:21.) It seems you and I can do little of ourselves, but through Christ we can do all things. (See Philip. 4:13.) Therefore, when we do well we are receiving credit for His works. In the words of Nephi, we are 'relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.' (2 Ne. 31:19.) Moroni echoes the same theme when he says people of the Church were 'relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.' (Moro. 6:4.) Then the Master tells us how we can make His atoning sacrifice effective in our lives and get credit for His works of righteousness. 'And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end'--and I would add in repentance, including obedience and forgiveness--'behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.' (3 Ne. 27:16.)⁶⁶

McKeever and Johnson demonstrate further neglect for Kimball's comments when they isolate an analogy he presented, and then try making it the overall theme of his book:

An army officer called a soldier to him and ordered him to take a message to another officer. The soldier saluted and said, "I'll try, sir! I'll try!" To this the officer responded: "I don't want you to try, I want you to deliver this message." The soldier, somewhat embarrassed, now replied: "I'll do the best I can, sir." At this the officer, now disgusted, rejoined with some vigor: "I don't want you to try and I don't want you to 'do the best you can.' I want you to deliver this message." Now the young soldier, straightening to his full height, approached the matter magnificently, as he thought, when he saluted again and said: "I'll do it or die, sir." To this the now irate officer responded: "I don't want you to die, and I don't want you merely to do the best you can, and I don't want you to try. Now, the request is a reasonable one; the message is important; the distance is not far; you are able-bodied; you can do what I have ordered. Now get out of here and accomplish your mission."⁶⁷

They follow up with, "Kimball's kick-in-the-tail pep talk hardly allows for failure. When Mormons insist they are trying...Kimball's analogy doesn't allow for this possibility. There certainly appears to be some theological schizophrenia among LDS leaders when it comes to this subject. On the one hand, members are told that they must 'be ye perfect,' but on the other, they are told they cannot ever achieve perfection."

This is simply wrong. We are told that we cannot achieve perfection in this life, nor can we achieve perfection by relying on our own works; we must rely on Jesus Christ to work in them. Does Kimball really expect 100% obedience without ever sinning? As mentioned before, if one reads the entire page, let alone the entire book, one could not possibly come to this conclusion.

The preceding paragraphs make clear his intent, but our authors take it upon themselves to distort his teaching as if he was referring to successful attempts at obeying every commandment of God. He wasn't. He was strictly speaking of repentance, and how some people might think that "trying" to quit smoking, or "trying" to forsake adulterous activity, or "trying" to stop abusing their children, would amount to real repentance. It doesn't. Kimball's message is quite simple. Sin will not disappear because we simply "try" repenting. That is like saying I "try" to have faith. You either have faith or you don't. You are either renewed or aren't. One cannot be a little repentant anymore than one can be a little pregnant. When the LDS speak of "trying," in reference to being good enough, they are referring to obedience in general, whereas Kimball is specifically referring to repentance. Again, no inconsistency is found within context. When it comes to repentance, you either repent sincerely or you do not. The story cited by our authors, is preceded by the following message - which is again ignored in Mormonism 101:

There is one crucial test of repentance. This is abandonment of the sin. Providing that a person discontinues his sin with the right motives-because of a growing consciousness of the gravity of the sin and a willingness to comply with the laws of the Lord-he is genuinely repenting. This criterion has been set by the Lord: "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them." (D&C 58:43. Italics added.) Desire Is Not Sufficient. In other words, it is not real repentance until one has abandoned the error of his way and started on a new path. Someone has said that there is only one way to quit a bad habit and that is to stop. The saving power does not extend to him who merely wants to change his life. True repentance prods one to action.

One must not be surprised that effort is required, and not merely desire. After all, it is work that develops our moral as well as our physical muscles. Ralph Parlette puts it this way: Strength and struggle go together. The supreme reward of struggle is strength. Life is a battle and the greatest joy is to overcome. The pursuit of easy things makes men weak. Do not equip yourselves with superior power and hope to escape the responsibility and work. It cannot be done. It is following the lines of least resistance that makes rivers and men crooked. Trying Is Not Sufficient Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin. To try with a weakness of attitude and effort is to assure failure in the face of Satan's strong counteracting efforts. What is needed is resolute action. A story will perhaps illustrate this.⁶⁸

So what are we to conclude? Our authors play a nifty shell game by intermingling the various teachings of repentance, obedience, keeping the commandments, becoming perfect etc., in order to confuse the readers and create a storyline that supports their arguments. Although their book creates an illusion of "Mormon confusion," it is clear that the only authors of confusion are McKeever and Johnson themselves. When it all boils down to it, none of the aforementioned LDS leaders disagree on any of these matters. Despite their uncharitable claims, there is no "schizophrenia", nor is there a case of "mixed bags," nor is there an "inconsistency" amongst the LDS leadership. McKeever and Johnson have indulged this fantasy long enough and they have done an amazing work in recreating history and insulting those men who have passed on. For this they should feel ashamed.

Justification

And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true (D&C 20:30)

McKeever and Johnson divide up the concept of salvation into three levels: justification, sanctification, and glorification. Referring to Justification they cite Acts 13:39, which refers specifically to the Law of Moses. Mormons will agree that the Law of Moses justifies no one, and the LDS commentary provided in this review has confirmed this. They then cite Romans 3:28 and 5:1, which again, refers specifically to the "deeds of the Law" (Law of Moses). Mormons believe this as well, but we do not believe that "once justified, always justified." If this were true, then logically there would be no reason for anyone previously saved to later repent. Evangelical Protestantism, for the most part, has adopted the idea that justification is a one time deal that takes care of your past, present and future sins. If our critics had read Romans 3 in context, they would see that justification actually refers to sins that have already been committed. Paul revealed the principles of justification in great detail in his epistle to the Romans, beginning with Romans 3:21-26, which reads (emphasis added):

But now the righteousness of God without the law [of Moses] is manifested, being witnessed by the law [of Moses] and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Observe that Paul referred to sins that are past. If this justification had a universal application to all past, present and future sins, then he could have simply said "remission of sins," or "remission of all sins." Yet, he specifically mentions sins that are past. Therefore justification by faith, according to Paul, only involves one's past sins. However, justification for all sins, including all future sins involves a life-long enduring faith. Not a dead faith, but a working faith. Some Evangelicals may consider this axiom (working faith) to be an oxymoron, but we shall see that this is exactly what the Bible teaches.

What does it mean to "Believe"?

In the next section, they assert, "belief equals salvation," and that "one of the toughest concepts for anyone, especially Mormons, to understand is that faith, not works, justifies a person before God." I have supplied plenty of LDS quotations that explicitly demonstrate this to be a fabrication on their part, so it can hardly be considered a "tough concept" for us to grasp if it is a common LDS teaching. Of course Mormons believe that one is justified by faith. But we do not believe a man can be justified by "dead" faith. This is where the crux of the mater lies, and it is little wonder why our critics always seem to ignore the teachings of Jesus and James concerning this issue. It is a common tendency for our critics to cite a few Pauline passages and then declare, "That's the biblical message." This method should ring a bell for us since this is exactly their method in misrepresenting LDS doctrine. The problem here is not only context, as it was in their misrepresentation of LDS leaders, but also the tendency that Evangelicals have in interpreting the comments by Jesus and James, in light of Paul's comments. In contrast, Latter-day Saints interpret Paul in light of Jesus and James. The real issue should then be, "which position is correct?"After James preaches on dead and workless faith being unable to save mankind, he says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."( James 2:24)

This is precisely what Latter-day Saints believe. Many of Paul's sermons evolve around a rejection of the works of the old Law of Moses. They must be understood in that context, and this is, perhaps, what James intended to clarify.

From 1 Peter 3:13-16 we read,

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Was this the misconception that Peter was referring to when he said many were not understanding Paul's teachings correctly? He also stated that their failure to comprehend was related to their ignorance. This goes without saying, but could their ignorance be directly related to their refusal to understand Paul in light of the Savior's teachings? It should also be made clear that Paul was never downgrading the need for works. In fact, he uses the term ergon eighty-two times in his writings; it is translated "work" and sometimes "deed," mostly in the positive sense of asking the Saints to produce good works. Those books confronting the Judaizers are the exception and use "works" negatively in a limited context. Hebrews is an example, contrasting the "dead works" of the superseded temple (Heb 9:14;6:1) with the "good works" expected of every true Saint (Heb 10:24;13:21) Excluding the note to Philemon, every other letter of Paul expects the performance of good works from the baptized members.⁶⁹

Evangelicals tend to make sweeping generalizations about what it means to "believe." This is clearly exemplified in Mormonism 101's oversimplification: "belief equals salvation." If we assume there are truly no conditions on belief and all belief is equal, then one could argue that the demons are also saved since even they "believe."(James 2:19-20) In all probability, our critics will not support this proposition either, so I think it is safe to say we are in agreement that there different types of "belief." Therefore, we must determine what "kind" of belief is necessary. Latter-day Saints submit that it is a "working" or an "active" belief that comes from sincere, repentant followers of Christ who exercise faith in him. Simply saying, "belief is all that is needed," doesn't do justice to the real doctrine taught in the Bible, and this phrase certainly doesn't negate the necessity of obedience and works. A true believer is a believer because he obeys the commandments. His faith has been made complete through works (James 2:22).

The relationship between works and faith seem to completely escape our authors. They inform us that their position is proven biblically since Acts 16:31 says, "Believe...and thou shalt be saved." However, if they would continue reading they would see that in verse 33 we are told that the jailer was baptized. This is an action which is clearly in harmony with Acts 2:37-38:

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Paul taught that converts should repent (doing something) and be baptized (doing something) before the atoning blood of Jesus would be effective. When he later refers to mere "belief" in Jesus, these necessary actions were already implied with that term, as evidenced in Acts 16:33.

We need to consider, or better, our authors need to consider, the context of the references they cite for us. Beginning with Acts 16.30, about the jailer. First Paul stayed up all night singing hymns ('to Christ as to a God' is how the Roman official Pliny put it). This would have impressed the jailer. Secondly, and most important, after being told that believing on Christ would save the jailer, Paul then "spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." He then baptized the whole family. The jailer then took Paul and Silas to his house and fed them, and they "rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house" (Acts 16.31-34). Why does McKeever and Johnson not mention all of this?⁷⁰

A Blast from the "Christian" Past

Notwithstanding the contextual exegesis of Paul's comments, McKeever and Johnson continue assuming a dichotomy between "believing" and "obeying." They fail to grasp the concept that they are one in the same, or as C.S Lewis stated,

It does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary...If what you call your 'faith' in Jesus Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not faith at all.⁷¹

Likewise, A.W. Tozer commented,

The promise of pardon and cleansing is always associated in the Scriptures with the command to repent... Brethren, I would point out that obedience is taught throughout the entire Bible and that true obedience is one of the toughest requirements of the Christian life. Apart from obedience, there can be no salvation, for salvation without obedience is a self-contradictory impossibility.⁷²

The great German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, said,

Good works then are ordained for the sake of salvation, but they are in the end those which God himself works within us. They are his gift, but it is our task to walk in them at every moment of our lives.⁷³

And John Wesley stated,

I allow, not only faith, but likewise holiness or universal obedience, to be the ordinary condition of final salvation . . . Do not say, 'I can do nothing'. If so, you know nothing of Jesus Christ; you have no faith.⁷⁴

In A Farther Appeal in 1745 he wrote:

I allow, not only faith, but likewise holiness or universal obedience, to be the ordinary condition of salvation." In his tract Working Out Your Own Salvation, in 1788, he reiterated: "God works in us- therefore man can work. Prevenient grace is accorded to all. God works in you--therefore you must work. You must work together with Him, or He will cease working.⁷⁵

Given the history of great Christian minds who saw contrary to McKeever and Johnson, I find it hard to believe that our authors could be presenting the "Historic Christian" viewpoint on which they pride themselves. The relationship between faith and works, according to the aforementioned authors, appears to be no different than the LDS understanding. They attempt to prove their case further when they say, "The New Testament is replete with examples of how belief alone, not one's own works, justifies a person before God." Yet all of their examples cite passages that simply say, "believe and be saved." Of course, as it was in Acts 16, the duties of saving obedience are already implied with this term.

If one truly believes in a teacher, one will naturally obey the teachings. Christ spent years teaching commandments to his audience, therefore nobody can really claim to believe in Him if they do not follow the teachings. To delete works or obedience from true faith is to adopt the wrong kind of belief. It would be as if someone professed a perfect faith in their schoolteacher, yet refused to obey any of the principles that were taught. They threw their own homework out the window and expected an A in the class because the teacher offered them grace. Grace simply provides the opportunity to obey. This much is free, and none of us deserve even the opportunity to obey, repent and become perfect in Christ. He will not assign perfection on those who do not obey Him. Nowhere is this concept supported in the biblical texts, and it remains an open challenge for our critics to prove otherwise.

Biblically Refute the False Dilemma

The chapter continues still, as our authors cite the same passages that I have already provided from LDS leadership ( Eph 2:8-9/ Titus 3:5-6). Latter-day Saints are not in disagreement with anything these verses have to say. They say works of righteousness do not save us, and with this we would completely agree. McKeever and Johnson can't seem to fathom more than two explanations: Salvation by grace or salvation by works. They fail to see the doctrine of salvation by grace through obedience to Christ's commandments. If belief is merely a "verbal" confession, as our authors seem to limit repentance, then what do they do with several other Bible scriptures:

• Matthew 7:21-27 "Not everyone 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."
• John 14:15-21.."if ye love me, keep my commandments"
• Matthew 24:13, " he that endureth till the end, the same shall be saved."
• John 8:31-32 if we continue then are we his disciples
• 1 John 2:3-4,17..we know God only if we obey him.
• 2 John 6.. Love is walking after the commandments.
• 1 John 2:24-25,29.."If it remains with you, you will have eternal life."
• Luke 6:46-49, He is not your Lord unless you obey him.
• 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 to not obey God is to not Know God

Apparently, they ignore them or reinterpret them . They are quick to take advantage of Acts 16:31, which relates a man asking Paul what he should do in order to be saved. Then they jokily suggest that if Paul were a Mormon, he would have responded with a list of works. In reality, the LDS missionaries respond in the same fashion, as did Paul in chapter 2: "...repent and be baptized for the remission of sins!" But they completely dodged the opportunity to cite the only biblical instance where this very same question was asked of Jesus Christ, as Matthew 19:16-7 relates the story. In reference to salvation in the kingdom of God, a man asked Jesus Christ himself how he can attain it. How does Jesus respond? "Keep my Commandments!" We can easily turn the tables here and suppose that if Jesus were a modern-day Protestant, He would have simply responded with, "Just believe in me, don't do anything because your deeds are just filthy rags. Trust me to do it all for you," or better yet "accept my grace alone, it is all you need!"

But no, this is not what we find in Jesus' reply. Instead, He offered a very Mormon reply that the man should keep His commandments. That means he had to actually do something.

Why do our critics condemn us for believing the same exact thing Jesus taught in Matthew 19:16-17? Why have they completely ignored the words of Jesus Christ in favor of their own misinterpretations of what Paul taught? Paul spoke of "belief" as a means towards salvation,