LDS 2 Nephi 25:23

[Jane_Doe]

How can it be my duty to be "honest" in what they are when according to you I don't understand them?

Being honest is part of one's duty as part of any Abrahamic faith: thou shall not bear false witness. (And most non-Abrahamic faiths have a similar tenet).

If you do not understand something, the ethical thing to do would be to 1) not act like you do, and 2) if you still want to talk about said subject, learn/listen and get your facts straight, and 3) report the facts honestly.

Your confusion over the Christian concept of a Triune God is one primary instance. You fail to comprehend it.........You've said it often enough in many posts.

You are correct in that I find the Trinitarian view of God not comprehensible. I do not pretend to understand it, and have openly admitted my incomprehension many times. This is honesty. I do not pretend to understand them, claim "you believe this", refuse to watch/read explanatory material, or pretend that you don't believe it and find it to be very important. Again, this is honesty.

I do not dismiss them, or try to explain them like I understand them, or dismiss them as irrelevant to you/your beliefs. Therefore, your accusation in post 346 in unfounded.

 

[withwonderingawe]

How can it be my duty to be "honest" in what they are when according to you I don't understand them? For instance, I believe your articles of faith state mormonism takes the stand that God's Word "might" be corrupted, despite it failing to show where or even how that could possibly be true, it being divine. Yet I'm the one.... not understanding what it plainly states? What else do I need to "understand" in order to accept the fact that mormonism sets JS's word above a holy God's Word, who also has divine truthful statements of His own claiming that His word is divine, and the divine cannot be corrupted.... being divine? One of those "HUH???" moments in mormonism.

Your confusion over the Christian concept of a Triune God is one primary instance. You fail to comprehend it, therefore you don't accept it, yet you attempt to discredit something you don't understand. No need for numbers, Jane. You've said it often enough in many posts.

Tic; “What else do I need to "understand" in order to accept the fact that mormonism sets JS's word above a holy God's Word….”

There are a couple of points here;

Because someone interprets the Bible differently than you do doesn’t mean they set the Word of God as naught. In my home town there was the Eastside Church of Christ and the Westside Church of Christ standing across the street from each other. They disagreed on several points of doctrine, it didn’t mean one group was more Biblical than the other just that they understood it differently. Mormons simply understand the Bible differently than you do.

When Paul was writing he quoted from the Old Testament repeatedly, I’m sure that other Jews were incensed at the way he used the passages to support his new gospel message.

All prophets have face opposition from the establishment, they are sent to shake things up, to call people to repent, to call them back to the truth of God’s word. Like Paul Joseph shed light on the Bible to open it up and help mankind to see it in the way it was intended instead of the way 2000 years of non prophetic commentary has twisted it.

Tic; “For instance, I believe your articles of faith state mormonism takes the stand that God's Word "might" be corrupted, despite it failing to show where or even how that could possibly be true, it being divine.”

Let’s start with a list of missing scriptures
took the book of the covenant: Ex. 24:7 .
book of the wars of the Lord: Num. 21:14 .
book of Jasher: Josh. 10:13 . ( 2 Sam. 1:18 . )
Samuel … wrote it in a book: 1 Sam. 10:25 .
book of the acts of Solomon: 1 Kgs. 11:41 .
book of Samuel the seer: 1 Chr. 29:29 .
book of Nathan the prophet: 2 Chr. 9:29 .
book of Shemaiah the prophet: 2 Chr. 12:15 .
acts of Abijah … in the story of the prophet Iddo: 2 Chr. 13:22 .
book of Jehu: 2 Chr. 20:34 .
written among the sayings of the seers: 2 Chr. 33:19 .
spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene: Matt. 2:23 .
I wrote unto you in an epistle: 1 Cor. 5:9 .
as I wrote afore in few words: Eph. 3:3 .
read the epistle from Laodicea: Col. 4:16 .
when I gave all diligence to write unto you: Jude 1:3 .
Enoch also … prophesied of these: Jude 1:14 .

*“Writing as early as the third century AD, Christian theologian Origen recorded, “The differences among the [New Testament] manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” (Fair) Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15:14, in Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: Harper Collins, 2005), 52.

So let’s add just a few known mistakes;

* 1 John 5:7 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That was added to the Bible!

* Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

The words “without cause” is not found in the oldest manuscript it was added later, it has been added in and out again over the centuries. ***(something Joseph Smith would not have known as he was translating the Book of Mormon. When Jesus appears to the people of the Book of Mormon he repeats his Sermon on the Mount and the phrase ‘without cause’ is not there.)***

*John 4:24 “ God is a Spirit”

Most new translations leave out the ‘a’, the concept of the nature of God is built on that faulty wording!

*John 1 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

The word ‘things’ is not found in the original Greek. One reading the passages is suppose to know ‘all’ of what Jesus made by the wording. In this case ‘all men’.

“ All (men) were made by him; and without him was not any made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

John never intended to say Jesus made all ‘things’ right down to the last atom. The 'something from nothing' doctrine is built on a faulty reading of the Bible.

And that’s just three examples.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Tic; “What else do I need to "understand" in order to accept the fact that mormonism sets JS's word above a holy God's Word….”

WWA, let's try to keep the topic focused on 2 Ne 25:23, rather that going down the Trinity/nature of God rodeo for the millionth time.

 

[Rescued One]

2 Nephi 25:23 “Grace”

“One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. . . .One passage in the Book of Mormon, written perhaps to stress and induce appreciation for the gracious gift of salvation offered on condition of obedience . . . . is particularly enlightening: “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe ibn Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23; italics added.) . . .
Book of Mormon Student Manual, 1989, 1996, page 36

The italics are in the manual.

 

[fatboys]

2 Nephi 25:23 “Grace”

“One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. . . .One passage in the Book of Mormon, written perhaps to stress and induce appreciation for the gracious gift of salvation offered on condition of obedience . . . . is particularly enlightening: “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe ibn Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23; italics added.) . . .
Book of Mormon Student Manual, 1989, 1996, page 36

The italics are in the manual.

And?

 

[withwonderingawe]

WWA, let's try to keep the topic focused on 2 Ne 25:23, rather that going down the Trinity/nature of God rodeo for the millionth time.

I know I know, just every we make a point they attack Joseph.

 

[tickingclocker]

="withwonderingawe, post: 69974148, member: 380387"]Tic; “What else do I need to "understand" in order to accept the fact that mormonism sets JS's word above a holy God's Word….”

Everything.

There are a couple of points here;

Because someone interprets the Bible differently than you do doesn’t mean they set the Word of God as naught. In my home town there was the Eastside Church of Christ and the Westside Church of Christ standing across the street from each other. They disagreed on several points of doctrine, it didn’t mean one group was more Biblical than the other just that they understood it differently. Mormons simply understand the Bible differently than you do.

It's not that I “understand the bible differently than mormonism promotes” (which is more accurate). Not at all. Suggesting God has no control over His own Word essentially demeans the perfect righteousness and divinity of the Lord, making Him weaker than humanity’s strong perchance toward sin. Here in the US, we have control over our words. If someone abuses our words, we have every right to sue them for libel. Mormonism doesn't even afford that right to God. JS essentially made God ineffective as a divine Being when he announced that the bible is corrupted. So why should anyone believe in any god who cannot be the god he says he is, who cannot keep their word and bond, whether in mormonism or Christianity or anything else? Do you assume I am the only one who sees this problem with the fallacy of God's Word being somehow "corrupted"? Not one mormon has addressed this issue so far. Why not? Oh, that's right. Because its not 'on topic'. Since when has that ever stopped any one of you before? But it does now.

When Paul was writing he quoted from the Old Testament repeatedly, I’m sure that other Jews were incensed at the way he used the passages to support his new gospel message.

Good point. I’m sure some were. Didn’t invalidate the truth of the Gospel message, however, no matter how people felt about it or about Paul for that matter. Facts are facts. Feelings are not considered facts.

All prophets have face opposition from the establishment, they are sent to shake things up, to call people to repent, to call them back to the truth of God’s word. Like Paul Joseph shed light on the Bible to open it up and help mankind to see it in the way it was intended instead of the way 2000 years of non prophetic commentary has twisted it.

The way JS intended it to, for his own agenda. Not to help mankind, but to help support what he claimed was God’s truth. The old bait and switch game. A classic if there ever was one. Try again.

Tic; “For instance, I believe your articles of faith state mormonism takes the stand that God's Word "might" be corrupted, despite it failing to show where or even how that could possibly be true, it being divine.”

Let’s start with a list of missing scriptures:

Apples and oranges: “missing scriptures” is not what I’m talking about here, and I think you know that, but are attempting to either derail the question or be facetious.

There is no biblical, historical, or archeological support whatsoever for what JS said in his “translation”.... anywhere, except in his own mind. There is nothing “missing” to God. He knows what happened to every one of those “missing scriptures”. JS did not, and neither does anyone else. He didn’t “discover” these missing scriptures, then rightfully seek out an authenticating process to add them to the bible. Did he? Instead, JS made up whatever he wanted/needed "God" to say, made no attempt to authenticate what words of his he put in God’s mouth. But only to Mormons. No one else believes any part of JS’s faked translation (and apparently neither does the LDS or any other mormonism-based church, because his additions remain as footnotes even today).

*“Writing as early as the third century AD, Christian theologian Origen recorded, “The differences among the [New Testament] manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” (Fair) Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15:14, in Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: Harper Collins, 2005), 52.

You know what never fails to strike me as odd? Why do Mormons always jump on the bandwagon to believe early (or modern) Christians when they negatively comment AGAINST Christianity’s established doctrines, but fail to jump on and believe them when early (or modern) Christians positively comment FOR Christianity’s established doctrines? It's so creepy! And much too obvious a ploy to overlook. You of all people can’t stand it when “anti” websites do such things, yet here you are.... doing precisely the exact same thing. Imagine that. Pretty obvious why, so I wouldn’t try that again if I were you.

So let’s add just a few known mistakes;

* 1 John 5:7 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. That was added to the Bible!

Prove that. Do you expect us to simply swallow your opinion as fact? My, my. 1 John 5:6 precedes your “addition”, basically stating the same thing. The 7th verse simply clarifies the former. So is the entire chapter of 1 John 5 also “an addition” to you, because its nowhere near being a non sequitur. Two of my Catholic bibles suggest verse 8 may have been a later addition for clarity purposes, but not verse 7. So, why is verse 7 viewed as the “addition” to you? Because it blows mormonism’s “three distinct Personages” out of the water. That’s why. We can see that.

* Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

The words “without cause” is not found in the oldest manuscript it was added later, it has been added in and out again over the centuries. ***(something Joseph Smith would not have known as he was translating the Book of Mormon. When Jesus appears to the people of the Book of Mormon he repeats his Sermon on the Mount and the phrase ‘without cause’ is not there.)***

So therefore its not God’s Word, simply because JS didn’t mention it in his imaginary talks with God and Jesus? As you can tell, I don’t believe JS ‘talked’ with any divine being. Ever. So you can never hold my attention by using his at best highly suspect witness. I don’t accept every tale he told as instantly genuine like you do. Can you understand that? Try again using valid instances. Like, which “oldest manuscript” are you referring to here? How nice to insert a vague term like “oldest manuscript” to seemingly authenticate your witness. Is that like, “I’ll be home soon”? Soon can mean anywhere from the next five minutes to five years from now. All depends upon the speaker’s intent, not the hearer. Try again.

*John 4:24 “ God is a Spirit”
Most new translations leave out the ‘a’, the concept of the nature of God is built on that faulty wording!

I’ve got three new translations and every one says:
God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24)

You are taking this "a" from the KJV, which does say “a spirit”. It’s not a “newer translation” by any means. (The JW’s NWT bible also says “a spirit”, btw.) All my other bibles, both old and new say “God is Spirit”. Much more accurate as there is only one Spirit. The KJV is the official bible version of the LDS. Not my fault. Take it up with your leaders, not me.

*John 1 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

The word ‘things’ is not found in the original Greek. One reading the passages is suppose to know ‘all’ of what Jesus made by the wording. In this case ‘all men’.

“ All (men) were made by him; and without him was not any made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

John never intended to say Jesus made all ‘things’ right down to the last atom. The 'something from nothing' doctrine is built on a faulty reading of the Bible.

Who are you to say what John “intended”? Do you have any supportive evidence to back such an arrogant, slanted statement up??

My Greek text bibles all say "things" was there in the original text and succeeding bibles, yet I’m supposed to drop all the centuries of scholarly work to believe what you claim?? Really?

If Jesus is God's Word as the bible says He IS--in many places, then by Him everything that is was indeed made by Him. Just as it states. I happen to believe God's Word. You may not. But keep in mind, you can no more separate your words from yourself than anyone else can, including the Lord. Your thoughts alone create your spoken words. I cannot speak for you, you cannot speak for me. We are entirely different people. That's why the concept of a Triune God fits perfectly here. But you don't accept that because you fail to understand it, being taught how to avoid the truth of it. So we can easily see why this bothers you.

The bible does not say "all 'men'", even in the Greek. That would be a chosen fallacy for mormonism's agenda. Despite the obvious here, correctly interpreting scripture means interpreting through other verses as well. You really should never go by just one verse in scripture anyway. There are always others to rightfully back each other up. God's "fail safe" method I've heard it called, so there will never be any excuse before Him:

...yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:6)

He was in the world, and the world was created by Him, but the world did not recognize Him. (John 1:10)

For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever! Amen. (Rom 11:36)

For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:16)

I don't expect any “Gee, I never saw those things before!” from you. Don't worry. However, most Christians are probably now nodding and smiling in agreement. Spirit does answer to Spirit, after all.

 

[Deadworm]

tickingclocker? "Has it occurred to you yet that I didn't happen to agree with the content of the video? Does that offend you?"

You could simply have said that you watched the video--but you didn't. So no, that never occurred to me.

tickingclocker: "Why is it I therefore must be a liar, or else I must be completely dense?...You tell me."

First, I never called you a liar; I just posted the vital question to you--and you ducked it. Second, if the video's topic was Einstein's theory of relativity, and you dismissed it without elaboration, I would suspect that you either didn't watch it or didn't understand it. The same applies to the Wilcox video.

tickingclocker: "Mormons are not my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ...If you do [consider them such] , then you must answer to God for it. Not me. Consider that my response to your video. Why would I change it now?"

Now I'm convinced that you never watched the video. Mormon's believe is salvation by grace through faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross. Their response is not to try to earn their salvation, but to express their "appreciation" or gratitude to God by the loving and reverent way they live and serve Him. Their salvation is a fait accompli, but also a process because (1) the Greek word for "faith" also means "faithfulness" and (2) because they agree with most Christians that they can forfeit their salvation if they live a life of unrepentant disrespect of God's grace and commands. That's enough for Paul, but it's not enough for you. Nor is it enough for the guardians of this site, because they have chosen to locate Mormon debates in the "Non-Christian Religion" section of their site.

OK, so you won't watch or discuss their video. Let me ask you why I should believe that you yourself are saved. Let me explain. Jesus said: "With the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matthew 7:2)." So God judges you by the standards you apply to Mormons. Thus, if your own beliefs on divine revelation and doctrine prove to be significantly flawed (say, on eschatology), might you not forfeit your own salvation, even if your understanding of the Gospel is basically correct? I'm content to let God be their judge and thus to give Mormans the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Rescued One]

tickingclocker? "Has it occurred to you yet that I didn't happen to agree with the content of the video? Does that offend you?"

You could simply have said that you watched the video--but you didn't. So no, that never occurred to me.

tickingclocker: "Why is it I therefore must be a liar, or else I must be completely dense?...You tell me."

First, I never called you a liar; I just posted the vital question to you--and you ducked it. Second, if the video's topic was Einstein's theory of relativity, and you dismissed it without elaboration, I would suspect that you either didn't watch it or didn't understand it. The same applies to the Wilcox video.

tickingclocker: "Mormons are not my brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ...If you do [consider them such] , then you must answer to God for it. Not me. Consider that my response to your video. Why would I change it now?"

Now I'm convinced that you never watched the video. Mormon's believe is salvation by grace through faith in Christ's atoning work on the cross. Their response is not to try to earn their salvation, but to express their "appreciation" or gratitude to God by the loving and reverent way they live and serve Him. Their salvation is a fait accompli, but also a process because (1) the Greek word for "faith" also means "faithfulness" and (2) because they agree with most Christians that they can forfeit their salvation if they live a life of unrepentant disrespect of God's grace and commands. That's enough for Paul, but it's not enough for you. Nor is it enough for the guardians of this site, because they have chosen to locate Mormon debates in the "Non-Christian Religion" section of their site.

OK, so you won't watch or discuss their video. Let me ask you why I should believe that you yourself are saved. Let me explain. Jesus said: "With the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matthew 7:2)." So God judges you by the standards you apply to Mormons. Thus, if your own beliefs on divine revelation and doctrine prove to be significantly flawed (say, on eschatology), might you not forfeit your own salvation, even if your understanding of the Gospel is basically correct? I'm content to let God be their judge and thus to give Mormans the benefit of the doubt.

You either failed to do an indepth study or you have myopic vision.

 

[Ironhold]

You either failed to do an indepth study or you have myopic vision.

Orrrrrrrrrrrr it could be that Deadworm has done in-depth study of church history and theology.

 

[Ran77]

Anyway, I did apologize for some of said stupidity. This guy is now quoting scripture on judgement to some else. There is no sorrow for anything that person said. It is meant to cause division after many of us have been working for 6 months on relationships to strengthen understanding.

My intent is to bring this to everyone's attention. If you are Christian and wanting to reach out and share the gospel to others, then you need to be careful in your communication. (And I mean the generic you, not you specifically.) It is easy to insult a person without meaning to. I encourage everyone to take some time and look your posts over. Make sure it is about the topic or even an action the person has taken and leave out all the colorful observations about them as a person. It isn't helpful and it isn't appreciated.

 

[Ran77]

Orrrrrrrrrrrr it could be that Deadworm has done in-depth study of church history and theology.

Could be.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I will leave. CF is becoming increasingly wicked. I can find hate on any street so I'd rather enjoy the great weather. Maybe I'll come back when it's so cold and there is nothing better to do.

I'll delete my posts from today and last night and leave you to fight it out.

Toodles.

 

[Deadworm]

ToBeLoved: "What a sick statement to make. That anyone of Christ's beloved would like to see anyone damned."

I reported honestly the perception that drew me to this thread. Mormons, like gays, widely sense hatred directed their way by evangelicals. And some evangelicals have actually expressed their loathing of gays to me. Mostly, though, the loathing seems unconscious and is implied by aversion behavior. Effective evangelism is relational and is based on establishing a foundation of loving affection and mutual respect. I see no sign in these posts of respect shown to our Mormon sisters and brothers; more importantly, they don't seem to feel that respect.

As an aside, I pastored one UMC church that did not support gay sexual conduct, and yet, gays sometimes flocked to that church because of the loving acceptance they felt. When asked why they didn't instead attend much closer churches in Rochester that were open and inclusive, they replied that those churches seemed motivated by political correctness, whereas they much preferred the type of acceptance that results from loving personal encounters. Our gay music director led a jazz band; and the conservative elderly women from our church loved Jon enough to drive 45 miles to Rochester to support his band's performance in a gay bar! That gesture freaked out the gay patrons, but it just melted Jon's heart, and he became a devout evangelical.

If you care whether people are saved or damned, you first establish a warm relationship with them that then entitles you to effectively share your faith. To me, many evangelicals would rather be "right" than lovingly attentive listeners and friends to those with radically differnent beliefs.

"I am so glad you chose not to become a minister of Christ's gospel and found a vocation better suited to who you are."

Wrong! I was a theology professor for 12 years and a pastor since 1994. Ex-Mormons attended my church.



\

 

[Hammster]

Yes, this part of the teaching of 2 Ne 25:23, a teaching largely agree upon with mainstream Christianity.

Really? Believing one has to give their full self to God, believe in Him, be reconciled with God, and be saved by grace = being lead to Hell?

Well, there will be much company there: including Martian Luther and majority of mainstream Christianity.


There is no failure of 2 Ne 25:23. Why would I abandon a God of love, grace, forgiveness, and giving all of yourself to? That is the God of 2 Ne 25:23.

I'm also really big on truthfulness and honesty, in myself and God. By your refusal to be honest about what LDS really believe (favoring your non-sensical straw man)... no. I don't see that honesty/truthfulness I so praise in God, and try to cultivate in myself. I have no interest in a belief system that relies on straw man. You have driven me further away from your beliefs.

@Deadworm has been a much more successful witness of Christ: yes, she disagree with LDS beliefs (adamantly), but she does not fear, and she worships/converses in truth.

Just to be clear, I have not refused to be honest about what you believe. That's not the issue here. The issue is the inconsistency of your scriptures and not actually addressing what they say.

 

[Hammster]

You seemingly advocate less than 100% repentance (done with God's grace). This does not make sense to me, but it appears to be your position.

I was going to ask you to show me where you came up with that, but I've made similar requests that's have been ignored. So I'll just say this. Believers should lead a life of repentance.

Hopefully that's cleared up.

 

[Hammster]

You seemingly advocate less than 100% repentance (done with God's grace). This does not make sense to me, but it appears to be your position.

I was going to ask you to show me where you came up with that, but I've made similar requests that's have been ignored. So I'll just say this. Believers should lead a life of repentance.

Hopefully that's cleared up.

 

[Hammster]

Now remember we're talking about the difference between being saved from sin and the spiritual death that causes/being separated from God and exaltation or the reward one receive for good works.

Actually, that's not what this thread is about.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Actually, that's not what this thread is about.

Well can I help it everyone keeps getting off topic?

 

[Jane_Doe]

I was going to ask you to show me where you came up with that, but I've made similar requests that's have been ignored. So I'll just say this. Believers should lead a life of repentance.

Hopefully that's cleared up.

I thought I had made the origin of my impression clear, I apologize if it was not so.

LDS belief that a person should repent of ALL their sins (done with God's grace, of course). You seem to adamantly disagree with this belief, resulting in my impression that you are advocating for less than 100% repentance.