God in mormonism

[Prestor John]

Anything I cannot find in the scriptures, that coins new ideas or terms, is needlessly complex to me.

I would argue that all of the things we have discussed can be found in the scriptures.

I made a chart comparing my scriptural understanding with your scriptural understanding.

I understand and I remember your chart.

Would you mind sharing how this chart helped you come to the conclusion that you could not reconcile what I shared with the scriptures?

I only ask because I am not having that issue.

I’m thinking of other differences. Water baptism is an ordinance, for example, but not a necessity for salvation, as I understand the scriptures.

You are technically correct.

Even though baptism is classified as a “saving ordinance”, it is not necessary for salvation.

However, in order for a person to take upon themselves the name of Christ (Adoption) and for the Lord to remember their sins no more (Justification) that person needs to be baptized by water by one who has the authority and then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands.

Basically, baptism is the “fruit” of repentance and a person cannot repent of their sins without being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Needless to say, but if a person is neither Adopted by Jesus Christ the Lord nor considered Justified, that person cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom and eventually become Sanctified.

Sorry for confusing the issues. If Jesus is Savior, then we can exert an effort toward exaltation, but not salvation.

The Lord Jesus Christ is our Savior.

How do you feel about the beginning of Romans 4 in this regard?

Abraham was considered “righteous” due to his his faith only before he performed his circumcision.

Yet, did not the Lord require him to perform his circumcision in order for him to receive the promised blessings?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would argue that all of the things we have discussed can be found in the scriptures.

I’m not saying you don’t have scriptural justification. But I would point out how many thousands of different Christian sects find different doctrines in the scriptures, contrary to (some) LDS doctrines.

Would you mind sharing how this chart helped you come to the conclusion that you could not reconcile what I shared with the scriptures?

I only ask because I am not having that issue.

I think the summation of the chart is “Evangelicals believe Jesus saves, LDS believes that Jesus starts us on a road to salvation that we must walk.”

However, in order for a person to take upon themselves the name of Christ (Adoption) and for the Lord to remember their sins no more (Justification) that person needs to be baptized by water by one who has the authority and then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands.

But there are numerous other Bible verses, and in both testaments, about alternate ways to have one’s sins forgotten. This is Paul’s point in Romans 4:

*** David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7

“Blessed are those

whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

8

Blessed is the one

whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” ***

Paul could say, “baptism is a work”.

Abraham was considered “righteous” due to his his faith only before he performed his circumcision.

Yet, did not the Lord require him to perform his circumcision in order for him to receive the promised blessings?

There were blessings due to the circumcision. But Paul is speaking both of Abraham and us when he writes:

“Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.”

We cannot work for salvation. I think I’m hearing you say, “We agree we cannot work for salvation, but if we don’t work, we show we’re not worth salvation…”

I read Romans 4:4-5 above as “To the person with ZERO works, ever, during their lifetime, their trust is credited for salvation and justification as righteousness.” I find this section of Romans most striking!

 

[Prestor John]

I’m not saying you don’t have scriptural justification. But I would point out how many thousands of different Christian sects find different doctrines in the scriptures, contrary to (some) LDS doctrines.

I would claim that this is proof of the Apostasy that entered into the Church which began during the ministry of the original Apostles.

I think the summation of the chart is “Evangelicals believe Jesus saves, LDS believes that Jesus starts us on a road to salvation that we must walk.”

No. This is wrong and I’m sorry but I don’t know how to be any clearer about this. You keep returning to this idea in spite of what I have shared with you.

We believe that everyone except those who commit the unpardonable sin will receive salvation. We consider this life to be a test and that salvation is simply not failing this test. It is the lowest of blessings offered to us by the Lord Jesus Christ through His atoning sacrifice.

The correct summation should be, “LDS believes that Jesus saves and that He also adopts, if we so choose, justifies, if we so choose, sanctifies, if we so choose and He can start us on the road to exaltation that we can walk if we remain faithful to His commands.”

But there are numerous other Bible verses, and in both testaments, about alternate ways to have one’s sins forgotten. This is Paul’s point in Romans 4:

*** David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

“7 Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” ***

I will remind you again that in order for us to understand what Paul is saying in this epistle we have to consider the audience to which he writes.

He is not writing to you. He is not writing to me. He is not writing to any random person or group of people, past, present or future. He was writing to “all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7) at that time.

He was not writing to the entirety of the city of Rome. Only to those who were “beloved of God” and “called to be saints”, which Paul also claimed were those “called of Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:6).

I interpret this to mean that Paul was writing to the members of Christ’s Church in Rome, which membership was received through baptism.

In chapter 6 of this epistle Paul spoke on how those who were baptized would “walk in newness of life”, receive a “likeness of His (the Lord’s) resurrection” and “not serve sin” (Romans 6:1-6).

Many of the promises offered by the Lord and mentioned by His Apostles were given on the condition of baptism.

Paul could say, “baptism is a work”.

Would you mind quoting where Paul said that?

I do not classify baptism as a “work”. I consider it an “act of faith”. You are acting upon your faith, due to your desire to repent and be forgiven of sin, and your willingness to be obedient to the commandment of God.

There were blessings due to the circumcision. But Paul is speaking both of Abraham and us when he writes:

“Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.”

I need to mention this again (because this is critical) that Paul was not writing this epistle to “us”, as in you and I. He was writing to the baptized members of the Church that lived in Rome at that time.

They were baptized because of the faith they had in the Lord Jesus Christ and they had a desire to repent of their sins and follow Him.

We cannot work for salvation. I think I’m hearing you say, “We agree we cannot work for salvation, but if we don’t work, we show we’re not worth salvation…”

I don’t know where you got that from.

What I have said is, “We don’t work for salvation. All save those who commit the unpardonable sin will be saved, but we must be obedient to His commands and follow His example if we desire to be adopted by Him, justified by Him, sanctified by Him and eventually exalted.”

If someone is saved, that does not necessarily mean they are adopted, or justified, or sanctified. You can be saved and still not receive these things because you were not obedient in life.

I read Romans 4:4-5 above as “To the person with ZERO works, ever, during their lifetime, their trust is credited for salvation and justification as righteousness.” I find this section of Romans most striking!

I have seen no reason to believe that Paul, or anyone else, ever considered baptism to be a “work”, as you interpret it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I would claim that this is proof of the Apostasy that entered into the Church which began during the ministry of the original Apostles.

I’ve had Catholic friends say the same about my not adhering to Catholic doctrines. I’ve had Jehovah’s Witness friends say the same about their doctrines. There are groups besides the LDS that are claiming descent of apostleship, apostolic ministry and revelation, all of which could lead to confusion. However, the passages in the NT that warn of apostasy and point to specific apostasies also indicate things like:

1. We can still know truth from the scriptures
   
   
2. We have the ability to discern truths and errors
   
   
3. We can take specific steps to help ensure we are not in apostasy, doctrinally or in any other fashion
   

No. This is wrong and I’m sorry but I don’t know how to be any clearer about this. You keep returning to this idea in spite of what I have shared with you.

We believe that everyone except those who commit the unpardonable sin will receive salvation. We consider this life to be a test and that salvation is simply not failing this test. It is the lowest of blessings offered to us by the Lord Jesus Christ through His atoning sacrifice.

The correct summation should be, “LDS believes that Jesus saves and that He also adopts, if we so choose, justifies, if we so choose, sanctifies, if we so choose and He can start us on the road to exaltation that we can walk if we remain faithful to His commands.”

I think I see now. So Jesus does saves everyone. But doesn’t save everyone to take them to the Celestial Kingdom—Heaven? Isn’t that salvation?

I will remind you again that in order for us to understand what Paul is saying in this epistle we have to consider the audience to which he writes.

He is not writing to you. He is not writing to me. He is not writing to any random person or group of people, past, present or future. He was writing to “all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7) at that time.

He was not writing to the entirety of the city of Rome. Only to those who were “beloved of God” and “called to be saints”, which Paul also claimed were those “called of Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:6).

I interpret this to mean that Paul was writing to the members of Christ’s Church in Rome, which membership was received through baptism.

In chapter 6 of this epistle Paul spoke on how those who were baptized would “walk in newness of life”, receive a “likeness of His (the Lord’s) resurrection” and “not serve sin” (Romans 6:1-6).

Many of the promises offered by the Lord and mentioned by His Apostles were given on the condition of baptism.

But not all mentions of baptism in the NT are water baptism. Baptism means immersion. We can take Matthew 28, for example, as “Go therefore and immerse them in all I’ve taught you…”

But if baptism is necessary for some blessings, I don’t see in their scriptures where me baptizing someone is more or less effectual than you baptizing someone.

Would you mind quoting where Paul said that?

I do not classify baptism as a “work”. I consider it an “act of faith”. You are acting upon your faith, due to your desire to repent and be forgiven of sin, and your willingness to be obedient to the commandment of God.

A work is something we do in response to law or command. A work cannot save. Paul couldn’t remember certain people he baptized, because it was of little consequence to them or to him.

Baptism is for believers after they have repented, and after they have been forgiven of sin. Baptism is a step of obedience also, yes.

I need to mention this again (because this is critical) that Paul was not writing this epistle to “us”, as in you and I. He was writing to the baptized members of the Church that lived in Rome at that time.

They were baptized because of the faith they had in the Lord Jesus Christ and they had a desire to repent of their sins and follow Him.

Thank you, but my point from Romans 4 was that Paul is very plainly saying “No works are required for salvation, but the person who trusts Christ is saved.”

I don’t know where you got that from.

What I have said is, “We don’t work for salvation. All save those who commit the unpardonable sin will be saved, but we must be obedient to His commands and follow His example if we desire to be adopted by Him, justified by Him, sanctified by Him and eventually exalted.”

If someone is saved, that does not necessarily mean they are adopted, or justified, or sanctified. You can be saved and still not receive these things because you were not obedient in life.

I understand better now. Thanks for being patient with me.

I have seen no reason to believe that Paul, or anyone else, ever considered baptism to be a “work”, as you interpret it.

That may be because we are now discussing two kinds of acts, acts of works and acts of faith. Romans 4 is clear that to a person, with neither an act of works nor an act of faith, who responds to the prompting of Jesus is saved. John 1:12 is another good example of this.

 

[Prestor John]

I’ve had Catholic friends say the same about my not adhering to Catholic doctrines. I’ve had Jehovah’s Witness friends say the same about their doctrines.

I don’t mean to speak ill of Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth.

There are groups besides the LDS that are claiming descent of apostleship, apostolic ministry and revelation, all of which could lead to confusion.

To be clear, the LDS Church does not claim a “descent” of Apostleship, but rather a Restoration of Gospel truths and Priesthood keys from heavenly Beings to Man.

We preach that there was an apostasy from the truth, a “falling away”, that caused the Lord to remove His pearls from the world until a future time when He saw fit to restore them to the Earth once again.

Just so that my position is even clearer still, apostolic ministry and revelation was the system that the Lord Jesus Christ put in place during His mortal ministry and He reaffirmed it after His Resurrection.

If that is His preferred system of governing the affairs of His Kingdom upon the Earth, who are we to say that it is faulty or leads to confusion?

However, the passages in the NT that warn of apostasy and point to specific apostasies also indicate things like:

1. We can still know truth from the scriptures
2. We have the ability to discern truths and errors
3. We can take specific steps to help ensure we are not in apostasy, doctrinally or in any other fashion

I agree with this, as far as I understand it, but would you mind quoting some of those verses that you believe teach these things?

I think I see now. So Jesus does saves everyone. But doesn’t save everyone to take them to the Celestial Kingdom—Heaven? Isn’t that salvation?

Yes and No.

It is comparable to what the Master said to Nicodemus,

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:3-6 – Bold and italics added)

We believe that the Lord is making a very clear distinction between those who will only see the kingdom of God and those who will actually be able to enter His Kingdom.

This gets us into the “Degrees of Glory” that I spoke to you at length about earlier. The glories comparable to the sun and moon and stars which were mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

We interpret “the kingdom of God” in this instance to be the Celestial Kingdom. This is the kingdom and glory of those who received and accepted all that the Lord has revealed in its fullness and were obedient to His commands in this life. This is where God the Father dwells for it is the highest of kingdoms and glory.

The lowest Kingdom is the Telestial Kingdom. This is the kingdom and glory that those who did not seek repentance in this life will enter after having first suffered the punishments of their own sins in Hell. These will be administered to by those of the Terrestrial Kingdom, which is the kingdom and glory above their own.

This higher Kingdom, although not as high as the Celestial Kingdom, will be inherited by those who will minister to those in the Telestial Kingdom on behalf of those in the Celestial Kingdom. These are they who sought the Lord in life, but received and accepted only portions of His truth because they were blinded by the doctrines of men. They had a desire for repentance, but denied the authority of God.

Those who are merely “born again” will be able to see the kingdom of God, but only those who are also “born of the water and of the Spirit”, which are the baptisms of both water and fire (the Holy Ghost), will be able to enter.

So, it is true that a person does not need to be baptized in order to be “saved”, because all those who enter into any of these three kingdoms would have been “saved” from sin and death, but only those who accepted God’s authority on Earth (or in the Spirit World) and were obedient to His commandments (like baptism) will be able to return to live with the Father again in the Celestial Kingdom.

I spoke about the requirements to enter the Celestial Kingdom before – such as a person needs to be perfect in order to enter – however because no one will be perfect at the time of their Final Judgment a person would need to be adopted by Christ, justified by Him and sanctified by Him in order to enter. His Atoning Sacrifice allows us to enter even though we would be unworthy.

None of these things could occur if that person was not first “saved” by Him, but being “saved” does not mean that a person gets to enter the kingdom of God (i.e. the Celestial Kingdom) However, being adopted, justified and sanctified require obedience to Christ’s Gospel Plan, which includes baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost given by one who has His authority.

But not all mentions of baptism in the NT are water baptism. Baptism means immersion. We can take Matthew 28, for example, as “Go therefore and immerse them in all I’ve taught you…”

The LDS Church uses the King James Version of the Bible and those verses in Matthew 28 of that version read,

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (verses 19-20)

Other than the water immersion, the word “baptism” also coincides with the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, or “baptism of fire” (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33).

I would consider your attempt to equate “baptism” with “teaching” to be very dangerous and an example for why apostolic ministry and revelation is needed today. Without these things, people can be tossed to and fro upon any wind of doctrine.

 

[Prestor John]

But if baptism is necessary for some blessings, I don’t see in their scriptures where me baptizing someone is more or less effectual than you baptizing someone.

Acts 19 gives two great examples of the need for Priesthood authority in order to perform ordinances and miracles.

“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (verses 1-6)

Paul encountered some disciples of John who had been baptized by water, but had not received the baptism of fire, or the reception of the Holy Ghost. John had the authority to baptize by water, but not to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore when these disciples of John heard the entire truth (which they should have known already if they had paid any attention to John’s sermons) and gained a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, they were baptized both by water and fire by Paul, who had the authority to do so.

Their earlier baptism, which had only been partially completed by one who had the lesser priesthood (Levitical), afforded them nothing and they needed to be baptized by one who had authority of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to become members of Christ’s Church, to repent, to be adopted, to be justified and to begin the process of sanctification.

“And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
¶Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.
And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds.
Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.” (verses 11-20)

Paul, through the authority that had been given him by the Disciples of Christ, performed many miracles. Certain Jews thought that because they believed on Paul’s words that they themselves had gained some authority and could therefore command an evil spirit to depart. Unfortunately, the evil spirit did not recognize their authority, because they had none, and the possessed person attacked them. This display convinced many of the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, because only His authorized servants, like Paul, could perform such miracles. This caused them to destroy their books that contained “curious arts” (I’m thinking something along the lines of divination or other claim to supernatural authority) because they knew it was all nonsense.

Both of these events recorded in Acts 19 showcase how essential Priesthood authority is. Only those who have been commissioned of the Lord Jesus Christ can perform Gospel ordinances and miracles.

A work is something we do in response to law or command.

Then, by that logic, wouldn’t having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ be considered a “work” because it is something we do in response to His command? Does He not command us to have faith?

A work cannot save.

I agree, but I disagree with what you would consider a “work”.

I believe that Paul’s reference to “works”, when he spoke to the Gentiles, was in reference to cultural aspects of those people. For example, they had epic poems that spoke of great heroes going on quests, battling monsters and retrieving sacred items in order to "please the gods". I believe that he was referring to these and other such things to tell the people,

“You cannot save yourselves. Nothing you do can save you. You must do what the Lord commands you to do so He can save you. You must have faith in Him, repent of your sins, enter into the waters of baptism to receive His name upon you and then He shall bestow upon you His Holy Spirit. I am His authorized servant and I can guide you, perform these ordinances for you and help you endure in the faith until the very end so that you can return to live with our Father in Heaven once again.”

Paul couldn’t remember certain people he baptized, because it was of little consequence to them or to him.

I believe you are jumping to conclusions. Paul never said that baptism was of “little consequence” to him or anyone else. In fact, in Romans 6, Paul taught that baptism was crucial for a person to repent, resist sin and to receive a Resurrection like the Lord’s.

Let’s go over what Paul actually said,

“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” (1 Corinthians 1:12-17)

Paul was called to be an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and Apostles are called to testify of the literal Resurrection of the Lord and the truth of His Gospel Plan. Their main duty is not to baptize it is to preach and testify.

It is the duty of Priests and Elders to baptize. However, the Apostles performed baptisms in the early days of the Church because in order to call new Priests and Elders, they must first be baptized and only the Apostles had the authority to baptize at that time. After the Apostles baptized men and then called them to be Priests and Elders, these men received the authority to baptize from the Apostles.

The Apostles today also generally do not baptize. That is not their calling, although they do have the authority to baptize.

Baptism is for believers after they have repented, and after they have been forgiven of sin. Baptism is a step of obedience also, yes.

We believe in order for a person to receive a remission of their sins they must be baptized, because it is the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost (that they receive after baptism) that cleanses them of sin. This “fire” cleanses them. After baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost, every time they repent the “fire” will burn in them and cleanse them anew.

“Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Nephi 31:17)

“And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;” (Moroni 8:25)

Thank you, but my point from Romans 4 was that Paul is very plainly saying “No works are required for salvation, but the person who trusts Christ is saved.”

You have not adequately demonstrated that Paul would consider baptism a “work”.

Those who are baptized do so because they have faith in Christ and trust in Him. They trust Him so much that they are willing to do as He has commanded them.

I understand better now. Thanks for being patient with me.

No problem. I’m here to help.

That may be because we are now discussing two kinds of acts, acts of works and acts of faith. Romans 4 is clear that to a person, with neither an act of works nor an act of faith, who responds to the prompting of Jesus is saved.

I hate to contradict you, but Romans 4 does not mention “salvation” or being “saved” at all.

John 1:12 is another good example of this.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”

This verse does not mention “salvation” or being “saved” either. It talks about how the Lord gave “power to become the sons of God” (which I interpret to be Priesthood authority and keys) to those who received Him.

That’s it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don’t mean to speak ill of Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth.

But, with respect, at times, they speak ill of you and of me. There are many groups all saying every other group is wrong. It is to the scriptures that we must look. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with certain of the LDS revelations. They seem—to my understanding—to contradict the Bible.

To be clear, the LDS Church does not claim a “descent” of Apostleship, but rather a Restoration of Gospel truths and Priesthood keys from heavenly Beings to Man.

We preach that there was an apostasy from the truth, a “falling away”, that caused the Lord to remove His pearls from the world until a future time when He saw fit to restore them to the Earth once again.

Just so that my position is even clearer still, apostolic ministry and revelation was the system that the Lord Jesus Christ put in place during His mortal ministry and He reaffirmed it after His Resurrection.

If that is His preferred system of governing the affairs of His Kingdom upon the Earth, who are we to say that it is faulty or leads to confusion?

The scriptures are clear that the scriptures are what are needed and necessary. The scriptures warn of adding to them.

I agree with this, as far as I understand it, but would you mind quoting some of those verses that you believe teach these things?

Jude writes that we are to contend for the faith delivered once for all, and already.

Isaiah writes, “To the Law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, they have no light in them!”

Most of 1 John describes specifically how to know if someone is speaking truth. 1 Tim 4:1-4 gives specific signs accompanying false teachers.

These are the first four places that came to mind from memory, however, it would not be an exaggeration to say that much of the NT and hundreds of OT verses are on this subject.

Jesus said you have to do two things to remain in truth. Trust Him and then adhere to His Word.

I would consider your attempt to equate “baptism” with “teaching” to be very dangerous and an example for why apostolic ministry and revelation is needed today. Without these things, people can be tossed to and fro upon any wind of doctrine.

I’m not equating baptism with teaching, I’m citing its use, “immersion”. You can be immersed or baptized in water or in fire or in other things. You’ve cited water and fire above, showing that baptism doesn’t solely mean “water” but “fire”. Because it means “immerse”.

I have an issue with the concept that only LDS men may baptize, correctly, under correct authority. That is not what I’ve found in the scriptures.

I want to know what we have to say from the Greek, historical context and the scriptures. I’m leery—from experience—of people saying theirs is the correct apostolic teaching—because it’s not just LDS but a variety of groups that do so. You are saying “apostolic ministry and revelation is needed today” and I agree—however, I believe apostolic teaching and revelation is available to the larger body of Christ.

Both of these events recorded in Acts 19 showcase how essential Priesthood authority is. Only those who have been commissioned of the Lord Jesus Christ can perform Gospel ordinances and miracles.

And the laying of hands conferred some of these things, and not always water baptism. And Paul said to teach a few faithful men who would continually teach others in turn. I’ve seen miracles and been empowered to perform miracles.

Then, by that logic, wouldn’t having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ be considered a “work” because it is something we do in response to His command? Does He not command us to have faith?

Then no one can be saved, because we are saved by faith apart from works (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.).

“You cannot save yourselves. Nothing you do can save you. You must do what the Lord commands you to do so He can save you. You must have faith in Him, repent of your sins, enter into the waters of baptism to receive His name upon you and then He shall bestow upon you His Holy Spirit. I am His authorized servant and I can guide you, perform these ordinances for you and help you endure in the faith until the very end so that you can return to live with our Father in Heaven once again.”

You put the above in quotes. I don’t know the reference, but from the scriptures, something is wrong. The above has an order—first have faith in Him, then repent of sins, then be baptized in water, then receive the Spirit. Yet the apostle said, “these have received the Spirit and are speaking in tongues [first]. Should they not also [now] be baptized [in water]?”

Their main duty is not to baptize it is to preach and testify.

I agree wholeheartedly. However, baptism cannot carry the weight LDS and other groups ascribe to it, because Paul forgot whom he’d baptized.

It is the duty of Priests and Elders to baptize.

John, his followers, and Jesus’s disciples baptized people, but not all of these were priests or elders. Jesus told over 600 followers in Matthew 28 to baptize, and most of them were not church elders. You said Matthew is referring to water baptism.

We believe in order for a person to receive a remission of their sins they must be baptized, because it is the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost (that they receive after baptism) that cleanses them of sin. This “fire” cleanses them. After baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost, every time they repent the “fire” will burn in them and cleanse them anew.

I believe, respectfully, that I was cleansed once for all, not when I repent. I’m not dirty when I sin before I repent, although sin is dirty and carries consequences.

I hate to contradict you, but Romans 4 does not mention “salvation” or being “saved” at all.

“How blessed are those whose sin is forgiven” is not a salvation reference?

“To him who works, his wage is what is due, to him who does not work, his faith is credited as righteousness” is not a salvation reference, even though Romans 6 says “the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life”?

“How then was it credited [to Abraham]” is not a salvation reference?”

Romans 4:

1. Abraham has found something
   
   
2. Abraham was justified by something, not works
   
   
3. The scripture said Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness
   
   
4. He who works has no grace. He has a debt owed.
   
   
5. The one who has faith in Jesus has a faith credited as righteousness
   
   
6. (and 7) David says they are blessed who sin is covered
   

1. Blessed is the man whose sin God does not take into account
   

KJV – John 1:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

They aren’t saved, but they are now the children of God, who have been born [again] of God?

Prestor John, I apologize for making us go all over the place, but the main takeaway I have today is that the entire chapter of Romans 4 and John 1:12-13 is absolutely about salvation, and how to be saved. I find myself again in a place where a brother is saying some doctrine or doctrines is truly scriptural, but to support their stance has to also say that very clear scriptures that millions of people in a thousand denominations—including Greek scholars, both Christian and atheist Greek scholars—doesn’t mean what it means when read at plain face value. This is very uncomfortable for me.

I’m glad I’m learning about LDS doctrine. I was misunderstanding LDS salvation, baptism and baptismal authority. But the simplest possible gospel, “trust Christ”, is now “trust Christ to get started, than be sure to be baptized by the right people in the right church in the right way, and when you stumble, keep on repenting and believing the right things in the right way to prove yourself worthy, so you don’t fail the test.”

My gospel is “trust Christ”. No ands, ifs, buts. Not “trust Christ and…” or “trust Christ but…”.

I’m a Jewish believer and I grew up with and in a culture of add a bunch of stuff to pure faith in God to be “saved”.

The Jewish way is to trust God, love God, and do a bunch of works. Then the gospel is to trust Christ. Now I’m coming to understand that there were pearls that God hid during times of great apostasy to trust Christ as the beginning of doing a bunch of works. I don’t get it.

Or maybe I do. I do Christian works because I’m already saved, already loved. I don’t do them because God is testing me or to get better rewards, though God tests us and gives better rewards.

Sorry for rambling on. Perhaps you can help me make sense of the gap between evangelical and LDS beliefs.

 

[Watchmen]

I don’t mean to speak ill of Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth.

Speaking ill of Catholics and the Watchtower is exactly what you intended to do. You just referred to them as Satan's "arsenal." That's pretty offensive to Christ-believing folks.

 

[Desert Snake]

Speaking ill of Catholics and the Watchtower is exactly what you intended to do. You just referred to them as Satan's "arsenal." That's pretty offensive to Christ-believing folks.

That's only /necessarily offensive to JW's and catholics

 

[Watchmen]

That's only /necessarily offensive to JW's and catholics

No. I found it offensive and I'm neither.

 

[Katzpur]

That's only /necessarily offensive to JW's and catholics

No. I found it offensive and I'm neither.

So did I.

 

[Prestor John]

Speaking ill of Catholics and the Watchtower is exactly what you intended to do. You just referred to them as Satan's "arsenal." That's pretty offensive to Christ-believing folks.

I did not refer to Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses as Satan's "arsenal". Learn to read.

What I said was that all Satan had in his arsenal were "imitations of the truth".

I did not wish to speak ill of Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses (the people), but my opinion concerning their beliefs and doctrines is that they are "imitations of the truth".

I know and respect many Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses and I would never speak ill of them. However, I do not consider their beliefs and doctrines to be the truth.

Do not try to misquote me again.

 

[Prestor John]

So did I.

Then I would encourage you to reread my comment carefully.

I did not say what Watchmen claims I said.

 

[Katzpur]

Then I would encourage you to reread my comment carefully.

I did not say what Watchmen claims I said.

Let's look specifically at what you did say: "I don’t mean to speak ill of Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth." Would you have found it offensive if a Catholic or a Jehovah's Witness had said, "I don't mean to speak ill of Mormons, but all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth"? In all honesty, I would have found that statement offensive. Likewise, I can see why either a Catholic or a Jehovah's Witness would have found your statement offensive. I'm just trying to put the shoe on the other foot, and, when I do, it's not very comfortable.

 

[Watchmen]

I did not refer to Catholics or Jehovah's Witnesses as Satan's "arsenal". Learn to read.

What I said was that all Satan had in his arsenal were "imitations of the truth".

I did not wish to speak ill of Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses (the people), but my opinion concerning their beliefs and doctrines is that they are "imitations of the truth".

I know and respect many Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses and I would never speak ill of them. However, I do not consider their beliefs and doctrines to be the truth.

Do not try to misquote me again.

Give me a break!

You identified "Satan's arsenal" as "imitations of truth," immediately after referencing Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses in the same sentence!

In your rebuttal to my post, you once again state your opinion that their beliefs and doctrines are "imitations of the truth," and in the paragraph before that you once again confirmed that such imitations are "Satan's arsenal."

So, you are speaking ill of Catholics and JWs by connecting their beliefs/doctrines to imitations of truth, which you further connect to Satan's arsenal.

My reading comprehension is fine, and now you've spoken ill of Catholics and JWs twice.

Pathetic!

 

[Prestor John]

Let's look specifically at what you did say: "I don’t mean to speak ill of Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses, but all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth." Would you have found it offensive if a Catholic or a Jehovah's Witness had said, "I don't mean to speak ill of Mormons, but all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth"?

No, I would not have found it offensive.

As I have told you numerous times, I tend not to become offended, especially over the internet. And most especially when the other person is merely voicing their opinion.

However, I do tend to respond with a little “bite” if I feel that the other person was trying to offend me.

The asker specifically claimed that he/she had no intention to, "speak ill of Mormons" meaning that they had no desire to insult, offend, or say anything negative about "Mormons" (the people). So, if it was not his/her intention to offend, why should I get offended?

Also, by saying, "all Satan has in his arsenal are imitations of the truth", the asker is merely sharing their opinion that they do not consider the "Mormon" religion to be true. They consider it to be an "imitation of the truth" and they correctly lay the blame for the existence of any imitation upon Satan and not upon any “Mormon”.

I may ask them for examples of how the "Mormon" religion is an "imitation of the truth" and I’ll maybe try to help clear up any misconceptions they might have, but nothing much other than that.

I'd see no reason to become offended by their opinion of my beliefs when it was not their intention to offend me.

In all honesty, I would have found that statement offensive.

I see no reason to be offended by someone's opinion of my beliefs. I am not in that business.

I would not react with any “bite” unless the person was trying to offend me or if they were being belligerent in some way.

Likewise, I can see why either a Catholic or a Jehovah's Witness would have found your statement offensive. I'm just trying to put the shoe on the other foot, and, when I do, it's not very comfortable.

I understand that you wish to be offended on the behalf of other people, but I want to make it clear that I did not say what Watchmen claimed I had said.

I did not say that Catholic or Jehovah’s Witnesses (the people) were Satan’s “arsenal”. He was the one to say that, not me.

I very clearly stated that Satan’s arsenal contained “imitations of the truth”. A person cannot be an imitation of the truth, only ideas, doctrine or beliefs can be “imitations of the truth”.

I know that you believe that the fullness of the Gospel has been restored and that revelation is being received by apostles and prophets today. If you believe that the LDS Church has the truth, then you must also believe that all other religions “have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof”, or rather, they have only “imitations of the truth”.

If you do not believe that Catholics or Jehovah’s Witnesses have the “truth”, then you must believe that they have “imitations of the truth”.

Satan should be rightly blamed for the existence of said “imitations”.

Do you believe that the LDS Church is the only true and authorized Church of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the Earth today?

 

[Prestor John]

You identified "Satan's arsenal" as "imitations of truth," immediately after referencing Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses in the same sentence!!

Right after claiming that I did not wish to speak ill of Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. You shouldn't leave that out.

In your rebuttal to my post, you once again state your opinion that their beliefs and doctrines are "imitations of the truth," and in the paragraph before that you once again confirmed that such imitations are "Satan's arsenal."

Yes, that is my opinion of their beliefs.

So, you are speaking ill of Catholics and JWs by connecting their beliefs/doctrines to imitations of truth, which you further connect to Satan's arsenal.!

Disagreeing with someone's beliefs does not mean that you are "speaking ill" of a person.

We can disagree with one another and still regard each other with love and respect.

Do you honestly believe that someone who disagrees with you about something somehow does not like you or cannot voice their opinion about your beliefs without "speaking ill" of you?

My reading comprehension is fine, and now you've spoken ill of Catholics and JWs twice.

I suppose you can read, but you are applying a very naïve and immature world view to what you read.

Pathetic!

I'm not really surprised by your inability to discuss our differences in opinion without you getting offended.

It is very pathetic and small of you.

 

[Watchmen]

Right after claiming that I did not wish to speak ill of Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. You shouldn't leave that out.

Yes, that is my opinion of their beliefs.

Disagreeing with someone's beliefs does not mean that you are "speaking ill" of a person.

We can disagree with one another and still regard each other with love and respect.

Do you honestly believe that someone who disagrees with you about something somehow does not like you or cannot voice their opinion about your beliefs without "speaking ill" of you?

I suppose you can read, but you are applying a very naïve and immature world view to what you read.

I'm not really surprised by your inability to discuss our differences in opinion without you getting offended.

It is very pathetic and small of you.

Just admit your error! Trying to parse it out just makes you look foolish. Saying "I'm not going to speak ill of you, BUT ......" means you ARE speaking ill.

 

[Prestor John]

Just admit your error! Trying to parse it out just makes you look foolish. Saying "I'm not going to speak ill of you, BUT ......" means you ARE speaking ill.

I have committed no error. I said what I said and I stand by what I said.

Your assumption that we cannot talk about another person's opinion/belief without speaking ill of that person is not founded in reality.

 

[Prestor John]

But, with respect, at times, they speak ill of you and of me. There are many groups all saying every other group is wrong. It is to the scriptures that we must look. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with certain of the LDS revelations. They seem—to my understanding—to contradict the Bible.



The scriptures are clear that the scriptures are what are needed and necessary. The scriptures warn of adding to them.



Jude writes that we are to contend for the faith delivered once for all, and already.

Isaiah writes, “To the Law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, they have no light in them!”

Most of 1 John describes specifically how to know if someone is speaking truth. 1 Tim 4:1-4 gives specific signs accompanying false teachers.

These are the first four places that came to mind from memory, however, it would not be an exaggeration to say that much of the NT and hundreds of OT verses are on this subject.

Jesus said you have to do two things to remain in truth. Trust Him and then adhere to His Word.



I’m not equating baptism with teaching, I’m citing its use, “immersion”. You can be immersed or baptized in water or in fire or in other things. You’ve cited water and fire above, showing that baptism doesn’t solely mean “water” but “fire”. Because it means “immerse”.

I have an issue with the concept that only LDS men may baptize, correctly, under correct authority. That is not what I’ve found in the scriptures.

I want to know what we have to say from the Greek, historical context and the scriptures. I’m leery—from experience—of people saying theirs is the correct apostolic teaching—because it’s not just LDS but a variety of groups that do so. You are saying “apostolic ministry and revelation is needed today” and I agree—however, I believe apostolic teaching and revelation is available to the larger body of Christ.



And the laying of hands conferred some of these things, and not always water baptism. And Paul said to teach a few faithful men who would continually teach others in turn. I’ve seen miracles and been empowered to perform miracles.



Then no one can be saved, because we are saved by faith apart from works (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.).



You put the above in quotes. I don’t know the reference, but from the scriptures, something is wrong. The above has an order—first have faith in Him, then repent of sins, then be baptized in water, then receive the Spirit. Yet the apostle said, “these have received the Spirit and are speaking in tongues [first]. Should they not also [now] be baptized [in water]?”



I agree wholeheartedly. However, baptism cannot carry the weight LDS and other groups ascribe to it, because Paul forgot whom he’d baptized.



John, his followers, and Jesus’s disciples baptized people, but not all of these were priests or elders. Jesus told over 600 followers in Matthew 28 to baptize, and most of them were not church elders. You said Matthew is referring to water baptism.



I believe, respectfully, that I was cleansed once for all, not when I repent. I’m not dirty when I sin before I repent, although sin is dirty and carries consequences.



“How blessed are those whose sin is forgiven” is not a salvation reference?

“To him who works, his wage is what is due, to him who does not work, his faith is credited as righteousness” is not a salvation reference, even though Romans 6 says “the wages of sin is death but the free gift of God is eternal life”?

“How then was it credited [to Abraham]” is not a salvation reference?”

Romans 4:

1. Abraham has found something
   
   
2. Abraham was justified by something, not works
   
   
3. The scripture said Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness
   
   
4. He who works has no grace. He has a debt owed.
   
   
5. The one who has faith in Jesus has a faith credited as righteousness
   
   
6. (and 7) David says they are blessed who sin is covered

1. Blessed is the man whose sin God does not take into account

KJV – John 1:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

They aren’t saved, but they are now the children of God, who have been born [again] of God?

Prestor John, I apologize for making us go all over the place, but the main takeaway I have today is that the entire chapter of Romans 4 and John 1:12-13 is absolutely about salvation, and how to be saved. I find myself again in a place where a brother is saying some doctrine or doctrines is truly scriptural, but to support their stance has to also say that very clear scriptures that millions of people in a thousand denominations—including Greek scholars, both Christian and atheist Greek scholars—doesn’t mean what it means when read at plain face value. This is very uncomfortable for me.

I’m glad I’m learning about LDS doctrine. I was misunderstanding LDS salvation, baptism and baptismal authority. But the simplest possible gospel, “trust Christ”, is now “trust Christ to get started, than be sure to be baptized by the right people in the right church in the right way, and when you stumble, keep on repenting and believing the right things in the right way to prove yourself worthy, so you don’t fail the test.”

My gospel is “trust Christ”. No ands, ifs, buts. Not “trust Christ and…” or “trust Christ but…”.

I’m a Jewish believer and I grew up with and in a culture of add a bunch of stuff to pure faith in God to be “saved”.

The Jewish way is to trust God, love God, and do a bunch of works. Then the gospel is to trust Christ. Now I’m coming to understand that there were pearls that God hid during times of great apostasy to trust Christ as the beginning of doing a bunch of works. I don’t get it.

Or maybe I do. I do Christian works because I’m already saved, already loved. I don’t do them because God is testing me or to get better rewards, though God tests us and gives better rewards.

Sorry for rambling on. Perhaps you can help me make sense of the gap between evangelical and LDS beliefs.

Sorry about these interruptions.

Watchmen seems to be trolling me now since Clear owned him on another thread.

Want to take this somewhere else?