InCognitus

See Brant Gardner's response to you posting this same thing (under the user name telnetd) on September 1, 2013, located here.

The connection to the Western Hemisphere comes directly from revelation to Joseph Smith as given to him by the angel of God. From Joseph Smith's Wentworth Letter (published in the March 1, 1842 edition of Times and Seasons), writing about the first visit he had from the angel of God on September 21st, 1823: "On the evening on the 21st of September, A.D. 1823, while I was praying unto God, and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious promises of scripture on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a far purer and more glorious appearance and brightness burst into the room, indeed the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming fire; the appearance produced a shock that affected the whole body; in a moment a personage stood before me surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God, sent to bring the joyful tidings, that the covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled... "I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty, and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22d of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands."

The G should be "L" for light. B, M, and L.

That's a recent change to the website in an attempt to comply with the requests made of him in mediation. Check the website in the Wayback Machine (I'll let you supply the link). I just checked the January 31 2026 capture in the Wayback Machine, and it only says this at the bottom of the webpage: "© Copyright 2005 - 2026 | Mormon Stories. All rights reserved."

Hebrews 12:14-15 does not teach Christ’s grace is insufficient if a person fails of the grace of God. That wasn't the question, and you dodged the actual question (I suspected you would). For the person that doesn't follow peace with all men and holiness, so that they "fail the grace of God", is God's grace APPLIED SUFFICIENTLY to that person so that they end up not failing the grace of God? You know the answer and that's why you are dodging the question. The answer is NO (otherwise there is no danger in failing the grace of God). You keep ignoring God's APPLICATION of his grace which makes it sufficient to people in those individual circumstances. Earlier in the thread you said this: Here you seem to recognize the difference between the availability of grace and distinguish it from when it is applied, but you fail to understand that the "sufficiency" of that grace pertains to both of those situations. God's grace is ALWAYS available, no question about it. But when it is applied is based on God's rules, and all of his rules require that we do things to make the application of his grace sufficient to the application of those various purposes. For example: An atheist who denied the existence of God and Jesus all his life dies and goes before the judgement seat of Christ. Is God's grace applied to that person sufficiently so that he is saved and goes to heaven? Yes or no? This is no different than the question asked about Hebrews 12:14-15. A person who "fails the grace of God" does not have God's grace sufficiently applied to THEM to make them holy and perfected. They have "failed the grace of God". But this context goes against your entire point. In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul was "glorying" in the revelations and abundance of things he had seen and done and the things that he had suffered for Christ, and this is the exact same usage of "sufficiency" as we find in Moroni 10:32. In other words, Paul had been cleansing himself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God and denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, and living soberly, righteously, and godly, with all his might, mind and strength, but he had a "thorn in the flesh" that he had no power to remove. Paul said that the "thorn in the flesh" was what prevented him from being "exalted above measure". So just as Moroni 10:32 says, God's grace was sufficiently applied to Paul's situation so that he was perfected in Christ and sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, becoming holy and without spot. It is the exact same application and SUPPORTS the reading of Moroni 10:32-33. But none of these examples have to do with sanctification and perfecting holiness in the fear of God. That's right, because Moroni 10:32 does not portray grace as "becoming sufficient only after human perfection". This shows that you are still trying to twist the meaning. We are to "come unto Christ, and be perfected in him". We do this by denying ungodliness and worldly lusts (Titus 2:11–14), purifying oneself (1 John 3:3), cleansing oneself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit and perfecting holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1), and basically being obedient (1 Peter 1:13-17) and keeping the commandments that Jesus gave (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7). And, just like Paul, by striving to do these things God's grace is sufficiently applied to make us perfect in Christ, becoming holy, without spot, even though we may still have a "thorn in the flesh". It is only IN CHRIST that we are perfected "in him". Failing to take advantage of something that is always available and sufficient cancels out the sufficient application of that grace in that person's situation. They don't receive it and it's not sufficient FOR THEM to be perfected or made holy (in the Hebrews 12:14-15 example). In the Hebrews 12:14-15 example, the person is given a list of tools that are inadequate to fully complete the job. The tools are: follow peace with all men, and holiness, and looking diligently. People are not perfect and nor can they become perfect on their own. And if a person doesn't even begin to use those tools then they are the ones that "fail the grace of God" by not starting the job that God will finish by sufficiently applying grace to make the job complete. God does not sufficiently APPLY his grace to them in that situation.

Perhaps, but it could also be what Joseph Smith saw and recounted. If only we had the details of what he said it would help.

Very good point, and I agree.

No, the context also includes the rest of the sentence that you chopped off (which is that Lucy was talking about what Joseph was describing of what he had seen in vision) as well as the complete context of her account. In the prior paragraph she says: "We were now confirmed in the opinion, that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds; or, that would give us a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation. and redemption of the This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our family, and peace and tranquility reigned in our midst." Their joy and excitement and "amusement" had to do with their anticipation of what they were receiving from God, not Joseph's assumed story telling ability.

This is another presumption taken out of context. The "amusement" of those recitals had to do with the content of what was being related (Joseph recounting what he had been shown and told), not the performance of the "story teller". i.e. "Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <mode of> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." He had been shown them in vision. It would be like describing a movie that you had seen to someone else. Simple.

If someone is going to use "the best historical evidence" to explain the Book of Mormon, they really should use that historical evidence in the context it was given. The link you provided is to page 86 of Lucy Mack Smith's 1845 History, but going back to page 79 Lucy recounts the history of Joseph Smith's first visit from the angel Moroni on the 21st of September 1823, which led to his first visit to the hill where the plates were buried (on page 84), then on page 85 Lucy describes some of the things that the angel taught Joseph during that visit, and then explained, "The following evening when the family were all together, he made known to them all which he had communicated to his father in the field, as also his finding the record, and what passed between him and the angel, while he was at the place where the plates were deposited". She also commented that they sat up late that evening to converse upon those things together, and that they planned to hear more of what Joseph was told the evening after. Then on page 86 (the link you provided), Lucy writes concerning what transpired the next evening, "Accordingly, by sunset we were all seated, and Joseph commenced telling us the great and glorious things which God had manifested to him". Now we get to the part just prior to where ChatGPT repeats the common claim that Joseph Smith was a practiced story teller. In the last paragraph of page 86, Lucy begins: "From this time forth [from the time Joseph had his visit from Moroni, etc.], Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord; and we, to get the children together every evening for the purpose of listening while he imparted the same to the family." (Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, p.86) Then on page 87, she describes some of the things that Joseph taught them about the instructions he had received from the Lord: "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <mode of> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them." This context is essential because it coincides exactly with what Joseph Smith wrote in the Wentworth Letter about what transpired during his first visitation from Moroni on September 21, 1823. In that letter he described being given a detailed description of the ancient inhabitants of this continent during Moroni's visit: "I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent." (Wentworth Letter, “Church History,” 1 March 1842, p 707) So, people pick and choose what they want from "the best historical evidence". We could ignore all the context and skip the fact that Lucy Mack Smith explained that in their evening conversations Joseph was just recounting the instructions and things that the angel and the Lord had shown to him, and we could just assume (as ChatGPT absorbed from the internet) that Joseph was practicing a skill of "spinning sacred-sounding narrative[s]", or we could take the "best historical evidence" as a whole and understand that Joseph was simply recounting to his family the things he was shown by the Lord. It doesn't take any great story telling skills to recount the things that others have shown you.

I think this is a misunderstanding of Joseph Smith's use of "translated correctly" in the 8th Article of Faith. In Joseph Smith's day, the word "translate" or "translated" had the primary meaning of being conveyed from one place to another (as seen for TRANSLA'TE and TRANSLA'TED in the 1828 Websters Dictionary). The correct way to say it today (in my view) is "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is [transmitted] correctly" (and apparently I'm not the only one who sees it that way). So I don't think the exact translation (as we understand the word today) of the Bible is what is questioned as much as the completeness and accuracy of the texts that we have today. How exactly is this "settled"? A lot has been written on the Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon (such as this one by John A. Tvedtnes), and some of the variants match with other manuscripts of Isaiah.

Not necessarily. It simply indicates that His grace was sufficient at all times but people did not persevere until the end. Hebrews 12:14-15? "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled". Answer this question for the verse above: For the person who doesn't follow peace with all men, and holiness, and fails the grace of God, was God's grace applied sufficiently in that situation so that the person did not fail the grace of God? Yes or no? When you answer that question you will see where your logic is flawed with regard to the rest of your argument. It’s apparent you think His grace is insufficient prior to the commencement of the process. It's apparent that you are trying to twist what I am saying and conflate the sufficient application of God's grace in any given situation with the completeness of God's power as a whole. God is all powerful. How he applies his power sufficient to any given application is up to him.

I found it interesting that Adam Clarke in his commentary on Matthew 26:38 comes to the same doctrinal conclusion about Luke 22:43-44. And even though he doesn't make the same connection that you do with Isaiah 53:5, he definitely describes Christ's experience in Gethsemane as an exquisite anguish that "forced the very blood through the coats of the veins", which in my mind supports the olive press imagery. He says this in his commentary on Matthew 26:38 instead of his commentary on Luke 22:44. Here is the Adam Clarke Commentary on Matthew 26:38: In the Adam Clark commentary on Luke 22:44, he refers back to his commentary on Matthew 26:38, but also elaborates a little on the possible medical reasons for that experience.

Yes. We can fail of His grace. But the sufficiency of God's grace does not depend on what we do. His grace is already sufficient before sanctification and perfecting holiness. If we can fail of His grace, then God's grace is insufficient for us in that application and it DOES depend on what we do. Even though God is fully sufficient in all things, he obviously doesn't apply it sufficiently to us if we can "fail the grace of God". You are just arguing over semantics again. When grace is applied is when it is sufficient for that application, and it is God that chooses when to apply it and when it is sufficient for any given application. Yes. But the sufficiency of Christ's grace is not diminished or enhanced by our level of faith. But faith is still required for grace to be sufficient in application to our salvation. If we can "fail the grace of God" then something we have done really does eliminate the application of grace in our situation, and makes it insufficient to make up for what we have done in that situation. But the process of sanctification and "perfecting holiness" involves the application of Christ's grace along the way as long as we are participating with him in the process, since his grace sustains us and is applied when we make mistakes and repent of our sins and receive forgiveness, and strive to "cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God". And ultimately, if we pursue that course to the end his grace is sufficient for our sanctification, to make us holy and receive perfection in him. It makes no sense for God to declare his grace sufficient for that purpose at the beginning, since there are those who will decide not to pursue that course toward receiving the fulness of God's blessings and promises (and "fail the grace of God").

Yes. But before that, you must determine if Christ’s grace is sufficient before anything you do. As I mentioned to teddyaware, grace is relational. As believers grow in knowing Christ, they experience grace more deeply. The command to grow in grace is really a call to grow in intimacy with Christ, trust in His sufficiency, and conformity to His character. Christ’s grace is always sufficient — but not always used. You are just quibbling over semantics. Remember, the question is regarding how and when Christ applies his grace to a given situation. Earlier you brought up various situations where grace could be applied: future resurrection, inheritance, and salvation, but you left out sanctification and perfection. I also pointed out that there is salvation from death (through the resurrection), salvation from sin and the consequences of sin (through the atonement of Jesus Christ as a past event), salvation from the wrath of God or punishment, and salvation to eternal life (which is something that is “hoped for” and conditional). But in this context, we are talking about sanctification and perfection and when Christ applies his grace for us to be perfected and sanctified, and it’s not a discussion about whether God is powerful enough to do anything he pleases. The decision for Christ to apply his grace to us is his choice, not ours. Remember Hebrews 12:14-15? "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled". Why would any man fail the grace of God in this application of his grace if, as you are arguing, his grace applies sufficiently to all situations without us doing anything at all? Yes, His grace is truly sufficient. We don’t have to follow all the conditions laid out in Moroni 10:32. But do we have to follow “peace with all men, and holiness.. looking diligently” or we may fail the grace of God? (Hebrews 12:14-15). Why isn’t his grace “sufficient” (using your argument) in this verse? But now you are changing the topic to a different application of grace in relation to salvation. And remember, to be saved “through faith” still requires faith. Isn’t Christ’s grace sufficient to save us without our faith or belief? Reread my post in this thread on 01/22/2026. I posted many references in Paul’s epistles where he talked about eternal life, and in every instance he did so in the context of needing to do good works to receive eternal life and he taught that eternal life is something received in the future. See Romans 2:1-11, Romans 6:9-23, Galatians 6:7–10, 1 Timothy 6:11-12, 1 Timothy 6:17–19, Titus 1:1–2, and Titus 3:4–8. And this is often the same theme that is found in the teachings of Jesus, such as in Matthew 19:28-29, and the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46, and also in John 17:3 (because to “know” God and Jesus Christ is to keep his commandments – 1 John 2:3-6). Ultimately, His plans serve a higher purpose beyond our understanding. But we don’t have to fulfill a long list of requirements before Christ’s grace becomes sufficient for us. Again, you are throwing other applications of Christ’s grace into the same box, but you are purposely leaving out sanctification and perfection (which is what the end of Moroni 10 is about). If we are to “hope to the end for the grace that is TO BE brought unto at the revelation of Jesus Christ” as the Bible teaches, then it is not sufficient in our application of this context NOW. Earlier you said, “Hope, then, is trusting that God will finish what His grace has started, and the warnings are there because perseverance in faith matters”. If you need to “hope” that God will “finish what His grace has started” then it’s not sufficient for your application now. You must “hope” it will be in the end. However, Moroni 10:32 lists multiple conditions that must be fulfilled before Christ’s grace is considered sufficient for us. Yes, just like Titus 2:11–14, 1 John 3:3, 2 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Peter 1:13-17, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-7 and Hebrews 12:14-15. With respect to the Bible’s command to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts (Titus 2:11–14), purify oneself (1 John 3:3), cleanse oneself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit and perfecting holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1), and basically being obedient (1 Peter 1:13-17) and keeping the commandments that Jesus gave (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7), what would be the point of God having us go through those exercises if he applied his grace to perfect us before we even started the process? It’s a process. Then why do you contradict yourself? If God puts us through that process and says we must look “diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God”, then you are not being honest with what the scriptures are telling you. God’s grace is applied only after some conditions are met, as the Bible clearly teaches for sanctification and perfecting holiness.

The Bible is the authority. Awesome. So, we have no argument between us because Latter-day Saints believe everything the Bible says about God the Father and Jesus Christ. And as I’ve said before, Latter-day Saints believe in and adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the Holy Bible more completely and in greater harmony than any other religion on the planet (as far as I am aware). You claim, “the Bible is the authority”, but you are the one judging our salvation. Where does the Bible say you get to be the one who interprets the word of God correctly and judge other people and their salvation? When I read the Bible, I see verses like these: Romans 2:1–6: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds”. The Bible warns against hypocritical judgements in verses like that shown above (and in other places like Matthew 7:1-5). And how does Jesus say that we can know his disciples? John 13:34-35: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” So why are you judging our salvation? What gives you the authority to judge us? The Bible doesn’t give you that authority, so you really haven’t addressed the questions: Who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation? Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus? Didn't he "become God" in relation to us when we supposedly became his offspring, long before this plan of salvation was explained to us? According to who? I already let you know several times, but you are apparently trying to ignore what I explained so you can repeat yourself and portray your own version of “LDS doctrine”. And yes, it was all expressed within the context of the King Follet discourse. See my post on 05/26/2025 where I analyzed the King Follet discourse and Sermon in the Grove (and in several other posts). Nope. You obviously haven’t read what I already wrote on that topic. It’s all contained in the way Joseph Smith described it in his sermon. Please read and engage what I already wrote on the topic, or why is there a point in continuing this discussion? I just provide them. It's up to you to determine if they are false teachings, which lead people astray. That doesn't change the fact that nothing you provided shows that the church teaches that God the Father was a spirit child of heavenly parents. As for whether any other thing is "true" or false", there are things that are “true” or “false” that none of us will know (including you) until we shall see God “face to face”. But for now, “we see through a glass, darkly” (as Paul put it). But we do need to compare everything against the revelations and established church doctrines as determined by the council of the twelve (as it was done in New Testament Christianity as shown in Acts chapter 15). This doesn’t support your claim. This quote is referring to when a prophet “reveals the will of the Lord to us”. None of the quotes you provided were for a prophet doing that. I think Mosiah 15:1–4 and 1 Nephi 11:18, 21 are the only places in the Book of Mormon which teaches that Jesus is God incarnate. You missed several others, see below. Of course Jesus is called the Father, the Bible teaches this too (see Isaiah 9:6). But that doesn’t mean Jesus is the same being as God the Father (the scriptures make that distinction clear). Jesus Christ is "the Father" in LDS doctrine in that He is the creator of the earth (Eph 3:9, Heb 11:1-2, John 1:1-3,14). Therefore, as the Book of Mormon teaches, Jesus is considered the "Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are." (Ether 4:7.) Jesus is also called the Father of those who are spiritually "born again", since Jesus is the "Father" of salvation. King Benjamin said, "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters." (Mosiah 5:7.) Jesus is also called the Father because He is the mediator between God and man, and therefore He is our representative of the Father in all things pertaining to man on earth. Jesus speaks the words of the Father as if they were his own. God the Father has "put [His] words in his mouth" (Deuteronomy 18:18, John 8:26-29, John 12:49-50, John 17:8), so sometimes Jesus speaks in the first person as if He were the Father. This is called "divine investiture of authority" (that is, Jesus is authorized to act as if he were the Father, because in our fallen state, Jesus is the mediator, and thus He fully represents the Father). Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43), so He can in fact be called "the Father", because of his "oneness" in unity with the Father and because of His authority to act on behalf of the Father. He does only his Father's will, only that which he has seen the Father do. I think Mosiah 3:5-9 is far clearer: “5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. 6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men. 7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. 8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. 9 And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him.” And there are others: 2 Nephi 9:5: “Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.” 2 Nephi 9:20-22: “O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam. And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.” Alma 11:38-40: “Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.”

I understand your point, and it makes sense. However, it still doesn’t address my question. Is Christ’s grace sufficient on its own before someone begins pursuing perfection and holiness? Or does it only become sufficient after a person first meets all the conditions you’ve described (similar to the framework in Moroni 10:32)? In my view, God’s grace is already sufficient prior to justification and sanctification. There is never a point at which God’s grace is insufficient. It does not suddenly become sufficient only after someone satisfies all the conditions outlined in Moroni 10:32. What is your view? Obviously, Christ’s grace is sufficient for anything and everything in however he wants to apply it, now or anytime. But the key to the question is, how and when does he apply it? That depends on his purposes, does it not? Ask yourself, why does anyone need to believe anything at all to be “saved”? Isn’t Christ’s grace sufficient without belief? Isn’t his grace sufficient without faith? I would say it is sufficient. But then why does Christ require our belief or faith to save us? Why does God make us go through this life at all? Why does he not just save us right now without us going through this whole process because his grace is sufficient? It is because God has a greater purpose for us. In the context of Moroni 10:32 (and in Titus 2:11–14, 1 John 3:3, 2 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Peter 1:13-17, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-7 and Hebrews 12:14-15), God wants us to be “perfecting holiness”. He wants us to become something new; he wants us to be sanctified through his blood (partaking of his grace in the process), to become holy. Why doesn’t he just zap us and say, “poof, you are perfect and holy”? The reason is that we wouldn’t learn anything by that process. Jesus “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:11-14). Purifying unto himself a peculiar people is the process of purging out of them the impurities. Therefore, “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1). Has there ever been a time in your life when God’s grace was insufficient? Nope.

I've been wondering if the new robot filters will keep the Calvinists off the board. I suppose they could be predestined to click the right boxes, so maybe it wouldn't be 100% effective.

My first reaction (without even watching or listening to any of it) is negative because I'm getting really tired of the overuse of AI images. AND WHY! MUST EVERYTHING BE YELLOW WHITE AND RED? Is that a new AI thing too? I came across a new channel recently that was very anti-Mormon and it uses the exact same AI format, so it probably just reminds me too much of that.

Is Christ’s grace sufficient for you as you are, before sanctification, or does it only become sufficient after you meet all the conditions outlined in Moroni 10:32? Isn't that question answered in exactly the same way as you did for Hebrews 12:14-15 in your next comment? As I noted above, perfecting holiness includes denying ungodliness and worldly lusts (Titus 2:11–14), purifying oneself (1 John 3:3), cleansing oneself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit and perfecting holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1), and basically being obedient (1 Peter 1:13-17) and keeping the commandments that Jesus gave (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7). Doing those things get us closer to perfection and holiness, but it is "by his grace" that a person "may be perfect in Christ" as Moroni 10:32 says. No. One must endure to the end. Yes, Hebrews 12:14-15 says that if a person doesn't do those things he may "fail the grace of God".

If I was a robot, I wouldn't be here (theoretically) because I wouldn't be able to click the correct boxes. But it will be interesting to see how many users can no longer post here, and we can just assume by their lack of posting that those users are all robots! (Wait, no, I think that's robot logic).

Just in case anyone is wondering, I am not a robot Those "click all the squares..." things are really annoying, but I accept them with open arms if it keeps this board secure and open for new users.

Agreed, however then you mix in this.... Above you talked about resurrection, inheritance, and final salvation. But you didn't include sanctification, which is what Moroni 10:32 is about. And the same for Hebrews 12:14-15 (and many others that I listed): Hebrews 12:14-15: "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled". Do you think that a person who doesn't follow "holiness" will "see the Lord" according to this verse? Do you think "looking diligently lest any man fail the grace of God" means it's all a done deal with respect to individual sanctification? This all fits with what it says in Hebrews 10:14: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." What does this say? "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever [all Christians]?" No, it says "them that are sanctified". And sanctification includes things like denying ungodliness and worldly lusts (Titus 2:11–14), purifying oneself (1 John 3:3), cleansing oneself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit and perfecting holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1), and basically being obedient (1 Peter 1:13-17) and keeping the commandments that Jesus gave (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7).

Blake Ostler's response is included in this episode of Scriptural Mormonism with Robert Boylan (for anyone who is interested): The critique of the video in the opening post of this thread begins at the 29:13 minute mark of this video. It's a rather brief critique compared to the rebuttal video I posted earlier, and there are no surprises. Ostler thinks Than's logic is awful and also refers to it as "semantic gerrymandering".

Jehovah's Witnesses teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Would you consider that a different Jesus? And of course, you are trying to evade the question again by misdirection. In a prior post I asked this question: It's a different Jesus. Your answer was, "It's a different Jesus". THESE are the questions: [It's a different Jesus] According to who? This is the entire question, and your answer doesn't really address the question [AGAIN!]. Who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation? Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus? What does the term "Eternal God" in reference to Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon's Title page mean to you? We can talk about side issues as soon as you define your authority to condemn others and deny them their salvation through Jesus Christ. Answer the questions asked above. Are you affirming your belief that Jesus has not always been God? I'm affirming that John 1:1-3 simply says that Jesus was divine in the beginning with God the Father, but it says nothing about how long he was divine. You tried to use John 1:1-3 to claim that Jesus has always been divine, but it says nothing of the sort. I'm just pointing out that you haven't proven your case. Nobody has disputed that point other than what it means that he "became God". Joseph Smith taught that God has always been the "head God" and that he "became God" in relation to us when God proposed his plan of salvation to the eternal spirits that he was with. Nothing you provided from official church sources shows that he had a Father before him. You already know the answer to that question because I've addressed that topic many many times with you. It's in my DETAILED explanation on that subject that you ignored in my post on 05/26/2025, and in several other posts. Do you wonder why I haven't posted my already prepared response to your other posts? This is why. You don't show any intent to engage our actual beliefs and ask the same questions, over and over again. You try to evade our questions and avoid talking about the implications of your own questions to your own beliefs. And it appears your goal is only to paint our beliefs according to your own imagination as you did while pretending to be a member of the church on this board while posting under the user name TheTanakas. Be honest with us, engage with our actual beliefs, and then maybe we can talk. This is why I'm asking the questions I asked above in this post. No more nonsense. Jesus is God incarnate. Ok, the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus is God incarnate (more clearly than the Bible I might add). But where does that get us in this discussion? So I ask again (and I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer), who or what gives you the authority to judge a person’s salvation? Who or what gives you the authority to judge who is teaching a different Jesus? It seems to be your opinion and nothing more.