LDS Atonement

[ἀλήθεια]

Do you realize how many times you've done that very same thing???!!!

Of course, I quote LDS leaders' understanding of LDS scripture! Their interpretations are being taught at every annual and semi-annual conference. And no LDS person has shown by use of LDS scripture that their leaders are mistaken in their interpretation. I have asked for LDS to show me where my understanding of LDS atonement is incorrect.

 

[Orontes]

If you knew me you would not think it odd. I am easily distracted and when I realize that a thread has gone off topic, I try to get it back on topic.

I see. These posts one and two are concerned with the thread and comments you've made. You have not responded to them.

I started this thread because Watchmen asked me to. I had no plan other than finding out whether all LDS at this forum agree or disagree with what I know about the LDS atonement. If the OP contains erroneous information please tell me what information in the OP is erroneous and give me some verification.

I see. This was my initial reply.

I've not read all the thread, but maybe I can respond to your questions. To the perhaps rhetorical question: "I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder.": correct such a person cannot have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is dependent on authority. A person may feel the influence of the Holy Ghost however. The key difference between the two is one is an abiding condition, while the other is not.

Question two: "And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?"​

​

No. There is no guarantee of exaltation for the morally culpable divorced from their own actions, will and intent. No man can be dragged to heaven against their will. Mormonism rejects the deterministic impulse as both immoral and incoherent insofar as one recognizes a moral universe and/or Deity.

As far as a Mormon conception of the Atonement is concerned, one must recall that there are two distinct elements of the Atonement. One is salvation from physical death. The other is liberation from spiritual death. The former is a free gift made by possible through Christ. All men will be resurrected. The latter requires the subject accepts Christ into their lives. Mormonism thus mirrors in many ways the general stance on the subject found in the Older Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions, the ultimate at-one-ment being exaltation, deification or theosis.​

I assume that when a person quotes a question I ask, he or she will want to answer that question. You quoted me in post #173. The question was originally addressed to Clear. Thank you for answering.

I see. Typically questions asked to another, I leave to that other to answer. Are you going to answer any of my questions?

Do the "morally culpable" need to repent before they can be baptized?

Yes. Repentance is subject specific and the subject cannot be divorced from the notion. Baptism void of a penitent soul would have no meaning. Baptism involves a covenant between the baptismee and Deity.

And what is the LDS definition of repentance?

In simple terms: a renunciation of sin and/or wrong doing.

(I can't tell if your questions are rhetorical or no.)

 

[Orontes]

LDS, how many sins does a person need to forsake for baptism and how many for eternal life with Heavenly Father? Is repentance the forsaking of some sins, several sins, or all sins?

Mormon Thought does not turn off of any taxonomy of sin nor does it turn off of mortal depravity. Mormonism rejects the Latin Christian notion of Original Sin as both an innovation and incoherent. One repents of any and all sins committed to the degree possible. Further, one embraces the good and works for its furtherance to the degree possible. Recall, from a Mormon perspective all born are already saved from physical death i.e all will be resurrected. What remains is to what extent one will reject evil and embrace the good and thereby move toward the Divine hand that is extended toward us. To the degree one does so, to that same degree they are sanctified. The pursuit of the good is its own reward.

 

[Watchmen]

Of course, I quote LDS leaders' understanding of LDS scripture! Their interpretations are being taught at every annual and semi-annual conference. And no LDS person has shown by use of LDS scripture that their leaders are mistaken in their interpretation. I have asked for LDS to show me where my understanding of LDS atonement is incorrect.

We used to, but quit doing it when we realized you would focus in on one word even to twist things around.

 

[Clear]

TO THE LDS

The endless debates between christian factions regarding the relationship of “Faith” and “repentance” and “obedience” and “Works” and “judgement”, etc. is rarely more than a listing of scriptures which the two sides interpret differently. This is why I posted the most ancient of Christian teachings outside the New Testament (though 1 Clement is in early New Testaments) in posts 183 and 184. Ancient texts do not create truth, but, merely show what was taught anciently in Christianity, in comparison to modern Christian theories.

The many correlations of ancient Christian teachings in favor of the LDS claim (i.e. that it is the ancient Christianity restored...) and teaching ancient doctrines are obvious and profound. Still, you will have some modern Christians who will claim the Ancient Christians at the time of Jesus death did not understand the doctrines as well as themselves. Some will claim the apostles had it wrong. Still, whether the ancient Christians taught the gospel Right or taught it Wrong, One can see what they taught.

I’ve wondered if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints understands the strength of their position in regards to their correlations with ancient Christianity. Despite the posturing on all sides in this debate, if the LDS doctrine of repentance is wrong, then ancient Christianity is wrong as well since they are equivalents.


REGARDING GRACE :

The earliest texts show that Ancient Christians were very aware that the doctrine of grace that underlie all other doctrines of atonement. They understood that “without love, nothing is pleasing to God” (I cl 49:5), yet they knew that “if we disobey his commandments, then nothing will save us” (2 cl 6:7). Since perfect obedience wasn’t possible, repentance was the balancing factor. Thus their daily doctrinal diet, was heavy on repentance (though a different kind than described by Alethia) and a profound movement in the direction of obedience. Grace was accessed through repentance.

For them Obedience was never separated from the principle and the process of repentance. Thus, obedience to the principle of repentance shielded them from Judgement: they taught that God's “many benefits turn[ed] into a Judgement upon all of us, as will happen if we fail to live worthily of him, and to do...those thing which are good and well pleasing in his sight.” (I cl 21:1).

The ancient Christian Claim that “without love [charity], nothing is pleasing to God” (I cl 49:5) did not mean that “with charity, ALL became pleasing” nor that “Charity” somehow becomes “sanctification” itself. The ancients understood that Charity was one of several principles underlying sanctification.

If they knew that “without love [charity], nothing is pleasing to God”, they also knew that that “if we disobey his commandments, then nothing will save us” either (2 cl 6:7). The process of learning obedience, for them, was just that, a “process”. Just as a child learns the principle of keeping his room clean gradually, the ancient saints understood repentance and obedience as processes that took time. Ignatius tells the ancient saints that they are mere “imitators of God” at best (and poor ones at that), still Clement taught that “we are being trained by the present life” (1 cl 20:2). No member was deemed perfect, but all were trying to learn to be better. Thus the martyr Ignatius addresses the ancient saints as ”fellow students” (Ig to ph 3:1).

Do the LDS understand the correlations of their doctrines with the ancient Christian Church? Do they realize the power of this position?


As I said :

“Alethia’s attempt to separate the process of repentance from obedience (as ancient saints and their theology would NEVER do), makes the principle of perfect obedience completely unreasonable. Obedience must be a relative demand where one “does the best that one can”. It is in THIS context that the ancient Christian saints are taught to “ unhesitatingly conform ourselves to his will, let us with all our strength do the work of righteousness” (1 cl 33:8) “that we may be saved while we render Obedience” (1 cl 60:4) Alethia is correct that men could never pay for their sins, but this did not keep the ancient Christians from asking : “What re-payment shall we give?” (2 cl 1:3) for their innumerable and incalculable blessings. Their answer was to “... pay him what is due.” And when Bishop clement asks the non-rhetorical question: “What is that?”, the answer is “Sincere, heart-felt repentance.” (2 cl 9:7-8)

The same pattern exists in this debate that existed in the ancient debates. There is an attempt to separate repentance and obedience from their inseparable context WITH the principle of Grace (i.e. charity). If they are separated from this context, they will become unreasonable. The ancient Christians refused to separate them from their context, and the LDS, (if they are to follow the ancient pattern), to their credit, do not seem to allow this separation either. I believe that this “unmooring”, this separation of the concept of repentance and obedience from their inseparable context to principles of grace and to each other is what makes repentance and obedience unsavory and seem inconsistent with grace in Alethian Christianities as the Alethian doctrines are compared and compete with so many other Christianities.


Does ANYONE believe that ANY Christianity is able to understand principles of repentance and obedience and Grace if that Christianity removes these principles from their contexts and connections to each other?


Clear
twtzfuac03hh

 

[Katzpur]

Do the LDS understand the correlations of their doctrines with the ancient Christian Church? Do they realize the power of this position?

Absolutely. It's a great testimony builder to me to see what the earliest Christians believed, and also to be able to see how some of the doctrines evolved over time.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

We used to, but quit doing it when we realized you would focus in on one word even to twist things around.

It depends on what you mean by condemned. They will not necessarily be condemned to Hell, but they will not be permitted to receive the blessings they might have done.

That's not true, Watchmen. I questioned that word because it made no sense and no one bothered to explain how you "do a blessing." I couldn't even figure out what word might have fit better than "done."

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Definition of Repentance according to:

In simple terms: a renunciation of sin and/or wrong doing.

(I can't tell if your questions are rhetorical or no.)

To give up by formal announcement? Or to reject? Or does it mean as the D&C states, to forsake one's sins?

Doctrine and Covenants 58
42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.


Which LDS person has forsaken all his sins before baptism? Do LDS missionaries only baptize those who have forsaken all their sins?

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Mormon Thought does not turn off of any taxonomy of sin nor does it turn off of mortal depravity. Mormonism rejects the Latin Christian notion of Original Sin as both an innovation and incoherent. One repents of any and all sins committed to the degree possible. Further, one embraces the good and works for its furtherance to the degree possible.

And what commandments do LDS teach that are not possible for LDS to obey or to keep perfectly?

“And again, every person who belongeth to this church of Christ,

shall observe to keep all the commandments and covenants of the​

church.” (D&C 42:78)

“If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them.If he

should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it

should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done.” (1 Nephi 17:50)​

“For I know that the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of

men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing​

​

which he commandeth them.” (1 Nephi 3:7) ​

 

[ἀλήθεια]

The same pattern exists in this debate that existed in the ancient debates. There is an attempt to separate repentance and obedience from their inseparable context WITH the principle of Grace (i.e. charity). If they are separated from this context, they will become unreasonable.

Grace is free. Repentance and obedience happen because God is working in that person's heart.

1 Corinthians 15
10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

The ancient Christians refused to separate them from their context, and the LDS, (if they are to follow the ancient pattern), to their credit, do not seem to allow this separation either. I believe that this “unmooring”, this separation of the concept of repentance and obedience from their inseparable context to principles of grace and to each other is what makes repentance and obedience unsavory and seem inconsistent with grace...

The only people who find obedience to God unsavory are those who have not been regenerated.

 

[Clear]

Clear said: The same pattern exists in this debate that existed in the ancient debates. There is an attempt to separate repentance and obedience from their inseparable context WITH the principle of Grace (i.e. charity). If they are separated from this context, they will become unreasonable.

Alethia said: Grace is free. Repentance and obedience happen because God is working in that person's heart.

Again, I am in agreement with your statement. The charity and love of God is freely offered to all mankind.

Clear said : The ancient Christians refused to separate them from their context, and the LDS, (if they are to follow the ancient pattern), to their credit, do not seem to allow this separation either. I believe that this “unmooring”, this separation of the concept of repentance and obedience from their inseparable context to principles of grace and to each other is what makes repentance and obedience unsavory and seem inconsistent with grace...

Alethia responded : The only people who find obedience to God unsavory are those who have not been regenerated.

Alethia, I very much agree with the statement. However, does this admission mean that you are finally willing to admit that you, like all others, must start a process of repentance to ultimately be forgiven for your sins?

Or do does your theory maintain that you may be forgiven without any type of repentance for the sins you have committed?


In explaining the doctrine of the Apostles, texts written by those who where actually TAUGHT by the apostles explain how They applied the scriptures: One does not find doctrine where “Grace renders repentance obsolete” in ancient Christianity, but there were expectations of repentance. They taught

“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father.’ This then is our reward, if we acknowledge him... But how do we acknowledge him? By doing what he says and not disobeying his commandments, and honoring him not only with our lips... Let us therefore, not just call him Lord, for this will not save us. For he says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will be saved, but only the one who does what is right.” (2 cl 3:3-4; 4:1-2)

Your theory is NOT the first time the doctrine of grace has been abused, as I mentioned, there is a great deal of historical data regarding doctrinal Schisms and “boundary shifters” that have always existed. In the same way that Moses warns against the “shifting” of doctrinal boundaries, the early Christians warn against the ultimate results of “grace renders repentance obsolete” theory in their observation of those who misused the concept of “grace” ultimately :

”abandoned the fear of God...neither walking according to the laws of His commandments nor living in accordance with his duty toward Christ”

There were other corruptions to be sure, but the consequences of the theory that “grace renders repentance obsolete” is important since those who misused such theories about the grace of Jesus continued to develop other heresies and evil behaviors that resulted from disobedience (since “grace” rendered obedience less important to many of those who adopted this doctrine). Once repentance and obedience were rendered obsolete in this early misuse of “Grace covers everything”, then many succumbed to disobedience and abandoned even the facade of repentance. They claimed to be covered by the Grace of God since they “believed” in Jesus. Ignatius warns specifically:

“Now note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of god. They have no concern for love; none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the prisoner...none for the hungry or thirsty.” (Ig smyr 6:2)

Those who misused the doctrine of "grace renders repentance obsolete" lost their care for the widows and their fellow men, they became more contentious and obstinante, more desirous of arguing to justify their theory (since it relieved them of responsibilities they did not want) and ultimately many were excluded from the Church. However, the counterfeits still called themselves "Christians" and the early texts lament that the church was mocked and derided by non-Christians once the non-christians saw the conduct of such individuals, since they claimed to be sanctified, yet their conduct became licentious and as common as the pagans.

Clear
tweitwvi98bb

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Alethia, I very much agree with the statement. However, does this admission mean that you are finally willing to admit that you, like all others, must start a process of repentance to ultimately be forgiven for your sins?

No, God saves sinners and brings them to a godly sorrow for their sins. God makes us new creatures and begins the work of sanctification when he regenerates us. The Bible does not say, "You will ultimately be forgiven or eventually be forgiven." It says to forgive one another just as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you.

Or do does your theory maintain that you may be forgiven without any type of repentance for the sins you have committed?

Are you suggesting that there are types of repentance?

In explaining the doctrine of the Apostles, texts written by those who where actually TAUGHT by the apostles explain how They applied the scriptures:

The source for God's word is the Bible. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11) Show me the scripture, Clear!

One does not find doctrine where “Grace renders repentance obsolete” in ancient Christianity,

God applies His grace first and begins the work of sanctification. For Christ' sake He forgave me. I forgive others just as He forgave me. We love Him because He first loved us. He began the good work in me and will complete it. All things work together for good to them that love the Lord and are the called.

but there were expectations of repentance.

Repentance is the result of regeneration. "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

They taught ...

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

Your theory is NOT the first time the doctrine of grace has been abused, as I mentioned, there is a great deal of historical data regarding doctrinal Schisms and “boundary shifters” that have always existed.

It is not my theory. I am not the one abusing the scriptures.

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) (Ephesians 2:5)

In the same way that Moses warns against the “shifting” of doctrinal boundaries, the early Christians warn against the ultimate results of “grace renders repentance obsolete” theory in their observation of those who misused the concept of “grace” ultimately : There were other corruptions to be sure, but the consequences of the theory that “grace renders repentance obsolete” is important since those who misused such theories about the grace of Jesus continued to develop other heresies and evil behaviors that resulted from disobedience (since “grace” rendered obedience less important to many of those who adopted this doctrine). Once repentance and obedience were rendered obsolete in this early misuse of “Grace covers everything”, then many succumbed to disobedience and abandoned even the facade of repentance.

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:1)

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.(John 14:21)

Obedience is not rendered obsolete by God's grace.

They claimed to be covered by the Grace of God since they “believed” in Jesus. Ignatius warns specifically: Those who misused the doctrine of "grace renders repentance obsolete" lost their care for the widows and their fellow men, they became more contentious and obstinante, more desirous of arguing to justify their theory (since it relieved them of responsibilities they did not want) and ultimately many were excluded from the Church. However, the counterfeits still called themselves "Christians" and the early texts lament that the church was mocked and derided by non-Christians once the non-christians saw the conduct of such individuals, since they claimed to be sanctified, yet their conduct became licentious and as common as the pagans.

Why bring up the topic of hypocrites? God hasn't made them new creatures. They haven't been saved. Reminder: This thread is about the LDS version of the atonement.

 

[Watchmen]

Athenia, is it your position that we don't have to do anything - thus, God saves who he will save? Is this a Calvinist approach?

 

[Katzpur]

Athenia, is it your position that we don't have to do anything - thus, God saves who he will save? Is this a Calvinist approach?

Watchmen, you know better than to ask a question like that. "This thread is about the LDS version of the atonement." Therefore Al doesn't need to answer any questions about her beliefs.

 

[Orontes]

Definition of Repentance according to:

Yes. Repentance is subject specific and the subject cannot be divorced from the notion. Baptism void of a penitent soul would have no meaning. Baptism involves a covenant between the baptismee and Deity.

In simple terms: a renunciation of sin and/or wrong doing.

(I can't tell if your questions are rhetorical or no.)

To give up by formal announcement? Or to reject? Or does it mean as the D&C states, to forsake one's sins?

Doctrine and Covenants 58
42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

[/quote]

Formal confession can be a part of the repentance process. It depends on the severity of the sin and the status of the subject. For example, a would be convert must go through a baptism interview where any larger sins that may exist must be declared. By formal confession I mean an act involving an ecclesiastical authority. There is also the notion of confession to any wronged and confession to Deity proper.

Which LDS person has forsaken all his sins before baptism? Do LDS missionaries only baptize those who have forsaken all their sins?

One forsakes all their sins by and through the act of renouncing what was and embracing a new relationship with Christ. One becomes dead to what was and born anew.

This remains: these posts one and two are concerned with the thread and comments you've made. You have not responded to them.

Further, you also have not explained or justified why none of my questions have been answered. This despite the fact it has been brought up repeatedly. Here is one such post: one. This is another: two. What is odd, is you called out why I had not answered a question you had asked to another, while continuing to refuse to answer my questions to yourself. I can only conclude you are either unable to answer and/or there is a simple an anti-Mormon intent i.e. a poor attempt to indict the object of your hostility. Sad.

 

[Orontes]

Mormon Thought does not turn off of any taxonomy of sin nor does it turn off of mortal depravity. Mormonism rejects the Latin Christian notion of Original Sin as both an innovation and incoherent. One repents of any and all sins committed to the degree possible. Further, one embraces the good and works for its furtherance to the degree possible. Recall, from a Mormon perspective all born are already saved from physical death i.e all will be resurrected. What remains is to what extent one will reject evil and embrace the good and thereby move toward the Divine hand that is extended toward us. To the degree one does so, to that same degree they are sanctified. The pursuit of the good is its own reward.

And what commandments do LDS teach that are not possible for LDS to obey or to keep perfectly?

“And again, every person who belongeth to this church of Christ,

shall observe to keep all the commandments and covenants of the​

church.” (D&C 42:78)

“If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them.If he

should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it

should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done.” (1 Nephi 17:50)​

“For I know that the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of

men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing​

​

which he commandeth them.” (1 Nephi 3:7) ​

All commandments insofar as they have force are theoretically possible to obey. The qualifier on repentance "to the degree possible" reflect the fact man is set in time and space and therefore things can conspire so that proper remedy may no longer be possible. For example, one who steals from another and that other then dies makes it impossible to return the stolen thing to its owner. The qualifier on pursuit of the good "to the degree possible" also reflects this same temporal fixity: a man may desire to do a host of good things, but is unable due to his responsibilities to one over another i.e. one's primary charge to their spouse and children over the needs of another on another continent.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Formal confession can be a part of the repentance process. It depends on the severity of the sin and the status of the subject. For example, a would be convert must go through a baptism interview where any larger sins that may exist must be declared.

Some sins are larger than others? The only unforgivable sin is blashpemey against the Holy Ghost. Which sins are considered larger than others to LDS? Does the candidate for baptism only have to repent of some sins? Which sins must he forsake ----only the larger ones? Must he give up his extra-marital affair, but go on drinking his gin and vodka? Must he stop gambling?

By formal confession I mean an act involving an ecclesiastical authority. There is also the notion of confession to any wronged and confession to Deity proper.

Okay.

One forsakes all their sins by and through the act of renouncing what was and embracing a new relationship with Christ.

Does this mean that the person forsaking his sins will no longer sin?

Further, you also have not explained or justified why none of my questions have been answered. This despite the fact it has been brought up repeatedly. Here is one such post: one. This is another: two. What is odd, is you called out why I had not answered a question you had asked to another, while continuing to refuse to answer my questions to yourself. I can only conclude you are either unable to answer and/or there is a simple an anti-Mormon intent i.e. a poor attempt to indict the object of your hostility. Sad.

Shoot! I can barely understand your posts! Did you think you were talking to someone with a PhD? I'm flattered. But for all your vocabulary, you aren't very good at discerning the intent of other people. I guess that priesthood power doesn't really work.

I told you that I started this thread at the request of Watchmen. It wasn't my original idea. But since I started it I thought I'd find out on which points I had an accurate understanding of LDS atonement and on which points I do not. If you want debate, let's debate whether or not I understand the topic of the thread or I suggest that you start your own thread on non-LDS atonement.

BTW, I asked why you quoted my question and then didn't answer it. I don't expect you to quote or answer questions to other posters.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

All commandments insofar as they have force are theoretically possible to obey. The qualifier on repentance "to the degree possible" reflect the fact man is set in time and space and therefore things can conspire so that proper remedy may no longer be possible. For example, one who steals from another and that other then dies makes it impossible to return the stolen thing to its owner. The qualifier on pursuit of the good "to the degree possible" also reflects this same temporal fixity: a man may desire to do a host of good things, but is unable due to his responsibilities to one over another i.e. one's primary charge to their spouse and children over the needs of another on another continent.

Will the man be forgiven if the person that he stole from died? Has he forsaken that sin or not? What if he took away his wife's virginity before they were married? How does he give it back to her? How does he get forgiveness? What if he lied to his mother? How does he undo the lie if she grounded his brother for a week as a result of his lie? This all sounds very complicated.

 

[Watchmen]

Athenia? I believe my post deserves a response. After all, in debating the LDS Atonement, it is necessary to know your position in relation to it.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

How often is it one finds anti--Islamic statements from people who have never read the Koran or Hadiths?

Beats me!

Let me make sure I'm clear here: your view is the grounds (the base reason) for saving a thing is to demonstrate the saving agent is merciful? Why?

If I've understood you correctly, why shouldn't that idea be dubbed narcissistic?

You can dub it anything you like. I don't have to answer to God for your actions. To debate the validity of the Bible though, you need to start another thread. I believe that God shows mercy on whom he will. But what I believe doesn't tell me or anyone else if my understanding of the LDS atonement is correct.

Romans 9
13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?