If Mormons would acknowledge that their own doctrine teaches that salvation is by grace and exaltation is by works this argument would disappear.

That’s not exactly the way I would put it; it partly depends on how you define the terms in the sentence. But it’s accurate to a certain extent. (I would add at the very least that works that make an eternal difference aren’t possible without grace behind them, and that ultimately it isn’t what we do that matters, but what we become.)

In some ways the LDS belief isn’t all that different from what some evangelicals believe in this regard. Although he obviously doesn’t speak for all evangelicals, überpastor Rick Warren, in his famous book, said something to the effect that grace is what gets us to heaven, but our works determine what we do once we get there. To me, that doesn’t seem much different saying, as Mormonism teaches, that there are various degrees of glory that are tied in some way to what we do in our mortal existence.

I think that puts a very key concern quite succinctly. So thanks for that. I think this needs to be clarified by Mormon scholars and leaders.

You should write a post about it on 9M.

I agree that Jesus was teaching about changing our hearts and making a choice to follow him, and that the transformation he was talking about was essentially supernatural in nature, not a result strict adherence to some code.

“But Christlikeness in the inner being is not a human attainment. It is, finally, a gift of grace”

I think Mormons should be able to agree with most of what Willard said. The problem in the context of this dialogue, however, is that many Evangelicals do not recognize that the spiritual transformation is possible for Mormon who do not share “orthodox” teachings about God.

I think that Evangelicals rule out the possibility of Mormons getting this gift and explain their spirituality and religious practice as being primarily based on compliance with rules. I think Evangelicals often feel like they have to deny that some Mormons get this gift of spiritual formation since to acknowledge it would be to call into question the hostile stance they have taken to Mormonism.

I think Mormons do not generally know how to explain this clearly, but I don’t think Evangelicals generally accept that thsi is Mormon belief.

Thing is Tim… that’s sounds an awful lot like something that would pass muster in almost any LDS ward. No one in the LDS Church that I know of thinks that fasting is still going to be required in the hereafter, for instance. All LDS commandments would be considered a “means” to the end of becoming like God.

“If Mormons would acknowledge that their own doctrine teaches that salvation is by grace and exaltation is by works this argument would disappear.”

I think that puts a very key concern quite succinctly. So thanks for that. I think this needs to be clarified by Mormon scholars and leaders.

Yes! Exactly! The converted don’t naturally do what’s right. Only the those who become disciples and go through the accompanying discipline start to naturally do what’s right. And only transformed hearts naturally do what’s right. If our hearts aren’t transformed, then it doesn’t matter what code of behavior we conform to, our hearts are still wicked.

As far as Jesus’ teachings on how we should live; I think if you went back over all of those teachings you would see that the theme of those teachings always focus on what kind of heart we should have. He isn’t ever giving a new list of things to avoid. The Pharisees had already perfected obeying a list of rules and expanding on them.

For instance, when teaching on adultery, he doesn’t add “don’t lust” to the commandment on adultery. He teaches that a heart that doesn’t lust won’t commit adultery. “Stop lusting” because God is the thought police is a burden. “Learn to hate lust” is an invitation to freedom.

Could it be he was teaching us how to transform our hearts by practicing outward behaviors? When it comes to transformation/conversions and “works”, there does seem to be a bit of a chicken-egg thing going on. At least from my perspective. Is there really any way to separate them? Is it even necessary? Do they go naturally hand in hand to help form us into the kind of people Christ would have us be?

I recommend two books to you. “Celebration of Discipline” by Richard Foster and “The Spirit of the Disciplines” by Dallas Willard. Simply put; yes, discipleship requires hard work. The act of spiritual disciplines transform us but they are a means not an end. At the end of our journey we should no longer need prohibition, fasting, solitude or meditation.

And as far as it being a straw man, I would like to believe it. But I struggle to, having been so often lambasted by evangelical friends and strangers for the mere fact that my church dares to mention works at all as a part of being a follower of Christ. If you don’t really believe outward behaviors are irrelevent, then I would suggest you as a group (evangelicals) need to work on presenting your message more clearly and effectively.

This again is Mormons and Evangelicals talking past one another. If Mormons would acknowledge that their own doctrine teaches that salvation is by grace and exaltation is by works this argument would disappear. How often do I bring it up now that I know the subtleties of Mormonism better than the LDS missionaries who try to teach them to me?

And I agree that Evangelicals talk too often about “just” being saved and little more. (is anyone from Calvary Chapel listening?)

There’s a difference between saying “outward behaviors” are not the central point, and saying they are entirely irrelevant.

To which Tim responded:

And it’s a straw man when it’s argued that Evangelicals think they are irrelevant.

You’re certainly right. But there are evangelicals who think that way; I have known some. And when my son was serving as a missionary, he heard that frequently from Protestants.

I’m not sure that either evangelicals or Mormons can claim immunity from not understanding what their own churches teach.