InCognitus

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.

This is the primary reason I haven't posted some responses I have prepared to some of the discussions I was having with theplains (aka telnetd, GoCeltics, marineland). There's really no point if there is no real discussion. It gets old fast.

Nobody (including Moroni 10) says anything about "partial grace". That's not found in the text. But in both the examples above (1 Peter 1:13 and Hebrews 12:15), there is "hope to the end FOR the grace that is to be brought unto you", as a future realization of grace that isn't realized at the present time. How do you explain that? No, that's what 1 Peter 1:13 and Hebrews 12:15 does. Then how do you explain the "hope" for the grace that "is to be brought unto you", as a future realization of grace that isn't realized at the present time as detailed in 1 Peter 1:13-17 and Hebrews 12:14-15? 1 Peter 1:13–17: "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear". 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". If you need it to be clearer, this is the RSV translation of 1 Peter 1:13, "Therefore gird up your minds, be sober, set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

And? And....we interrupt this program to bring you an old rerun. Your regular program has been preempted by this deflection to an OLD topic.

I've already seen this episode, several times now. Reruns get old (unless it is Gilligan's Island). I'm changing the channel.

Sufficient for perfection and sanctification? The same as in 1 Peter 1:13–17 and Hebrews 12:14-15.

But Christ is not "the dead", and nowhere is he referred to as "the dead", not even in Romans 6:4. Baptism symbolizes death, burial, and resurrection. And in 1 Corinthians 15:29, the Greek word translated as "the dead" is plural, it refers to the collective "dead", not the singular "Christ": Inflected: νεκροὶ Root: νεκρός Code: A-NPM Long: Adjective - Nominative Plural Masculine Speech: Adjective Case: Nominative Number: Plural Gender: Masculine See the answer from Calm, above.

You seemed to be getting closer to accepting what the verse actually says, but then you say what you said above. This is what you said previously, and I simply can't make any sense of it in the context. Please EXPLAIN why you put Christ in place of "the dead" in this verse above. Christ is not dead, and this goes counter to Paul's entire argument. How do you view Christ as "the dead" making any sense in this verse? You could ask the same question about Christ offering salvation to everyone: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) Why did Jesus do that even though he knows that some won't accept his offering? Does Jesus pretend or hope they will accept it? Imagine this discussion. Jesus says, "I didn't atone for you because I knew you wouldn't accept it". Person responds, "How could I accept something that wasn't offered to me?" The atonement is offered to all, and likewise the ordinance of baptism is offered to all, whether the person accepts it or not. Those who participate in baptism for the dead are simply doing for others that which they can't do for themselves, which is what proxy ordinances are all about. The primary purpose of the New Testament is to testify of the greatest "proxy" of all, the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. Peter speaks of the "proxy" nature of Christ's suffering just before he makes his comments on the visit of Jesus to the spirits in prison: "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God..." (1 Peter 3:18). The whole nature of salvation is by "proxy" through Christ. (Incidentally, the Greek word "for" in the phrase, "the just for the unjust" is the exact same Greek word translated as "for" in 1 Corinthians 15:29, baptism "for" the dead). And baptism for the dead is a way that all of us can participate with Christ in the work of salvation.

You have that backward. It is Christ's grace that perfects us, we are "perfected in him" as the verses say. These verses are about sanctification, which is to be made holy and perfect, and are fully in accord with what the Bible teaches on the same topic. 1 Peter 1:13–17: "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear". 1 Thessalonians 4:1–7: "Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness." 2 Corinthians 7:1: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 1 John 3:3: "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." Titus 2:11–14: "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." 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". Seems pretty consistent to me.

Change makes a difference. Differing key details of a person means people can be mistaken for someone else. Or, it could be different details about the same person. Who gets to decide? Latter-day Saints believe in the Jesus of the Bible, and we believe everything the Bible says about him and more. Example 3: Peter: I was with Jesus during his ministry. I saw him do many miracles. Did you experience that? Paul: I never knew Jesus during his lifetime, so I never saw him do such miracles. But I did see him on the road to Damascus. Did you see that? Peter: No. You believe in a different Jesus than I do. Paul: You believe in a different Jesus than I do. Modern Christian: Do either of you believe that Jesus is “homoousious” with his Father? Peter and Paul (in unison): HUH? WHAT? What is that? Modern Christian: You don’t know about that? It is how Jesus and his Father are “one God”. If you don’t believe that then you believe in a different Jesus than I do. Peter and Paul (in unison): NO! You believe in a different Jesus, period! The LDS teachings which indicate Jesus became a God do not nullify the other LDS teachings that Jesus is currently a God. It’s nice to hear you say that. Jesus is clearly divine in Latter-day Saint teachings and we rely on him for our salvation. It's a different Jesus. According to who? This is the entire question, and your answer doesn't really address the question. 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? (And if you say “The Bible”, then see Example 3 above and the discussion below). There are many held beliefs today that the Bible does not specifically label false teachings. But this doesn’t seem to stop you from making yourself the judge of the salvation of Latter-day Saints. Why is that? Yes, there are many beliefs held by some people today that the Bible does not specifically label as false teachings, including many beliefs that are held by modern Christians, as I pointed out earlier. This is a good time for me to quote from a post I made to you on June 23, 2023, because I think it explains what I’m trying to say here the best, and to the point of how you view your purpose here on the board as a judge opposing the salvation of Latter-day Saints. Quoting as follows: You say that a “true believer” is a “sincere believer in Christ”, but then you make it all about doctrine in everything else that you say. Everyone believes in different things about Jesus depending on the information they’ve been given about him. Some of the things that people teach about Jesus may even be unbiblical, even in traditional creed-based Christianity. While I think that sound doctrine is important, I don’t think there’s anything in scripture that says having faulty doctrine disqualifies a person from being a true believer in Christ. We previously discussed Apollos and how he was a true believer in Christ even though he had an imperfect understanding of the doctrine (Acts 18:24-26). God judges us based on how we respond to what truths we’ve been given and how we treat our neighbors. Our real belief in Christ is known by our love for one another. A true Christian not only professes belief in the Savior, but a Christian lives and acts according to the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. Knowing true doctrine helps us to come to know God better. But true doctrine can only be known by revelation from God and having a correct understanding of the scriptures which can only come by revelation from God. People can come up with their own interpretation of scriptures based on philosophy and man’s wisdom and reasoning, but the end result may not be anything like what God intended. God’s wisdom comes through the Spirit of God. The one thing I like about the “Got Questions” website that you like, is that it is fairly honest and open about when some teachings aren’t biblical. For example, in this article on “Does Christ have two natures?”, it says right up front: “The Bible does not explicitly address the question of whether Jesus Christ has two natures or only one.” So why do people believe it? And if you believe that Christ has two natures, are you believing in a "different Jesus"? And in the article on What does the Bible teach about the Trinity? it says: “The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential.” And elsewhere, in the article on "How can Jesus be God if Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one?", the website defines how Jesus and his Father are "one God", and says: So the website clearly teaches that the Father and Son are not one in singularity, but rather they are two separate entities that are one in unity, in the same way as a husband and wife are to be in unity. This is exactly what Latter-day Saints teach about the Godhead as well. And apparently (according to the website), the other issues are "debatable and non-essential". Since there are so many things in traditional Christian doctrine that don't really come from scripture at all, I don't see why these are points of contention between us. The Bible affirms Jesus Christ's eternal divinity—His existence as God from all eternity, without beginning or change—in multiple passages that describe Him as the pre-existent Word, the Creator, the exact representation of God, and directly addressed as God. Key texts include John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:8, and Colossians 1:15-20. God is from everlasting (Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, Psalm 103:17, Isaiah 40:28). There is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6). No surprise, but none of the passages you reference above say anything about “Christ’s” eternal divinity. John 1:1-3 simply says that Jesus was divine in the beginning with God the Father. It says nothing about how long he was divine. Hebrews 1:8 simply has God the Father referring to the Son as “God” and stating that his throne is (present tense) “for ever and ever”. That says nothing about his existence as God “from all eternity” past, only that he has the throne going forward forever. (See similar verses in Daniel 7:13-14, Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23, Philippians 2:9-13). Colossians 1:15-20 states that Jesus is “before all things, and by him all things consist”, which is essentially the same thing as said in John 1:1-3. Jesus created the things “that were made”. But it doesn’t say anything about Jesus existing as God “from all eternity”. Then you refer to several Old Testament passages which do not specifically say they are about Jesus Christ at all, and in fact none of them say anything about God existing as God from all eternity. And we have discussed the real meaning of verses like Psalm 41:13, Psalm 90:2, and Psalm 103:17 previously. YLT: Psalm 41:13, “Blessed is Jehovah, God of Israel, From the age -- and unto the age. Amen and Amen.” YLT: Psalm 90:2, “Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou art God.” YLT: Psalm 103:17, “And the kindness of Jehovah Is from age even unto age on those fearing Him, And His righteousness to sons' sons,” YLT: Isaiah 40:28, “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The God of the age -- Jehovah, Preparer of the ends of the earth, Is not wearied nor fatigued, There is no searching of His understanding.” As for trying to claim that Jesus is being referred to in Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 44:6, why don’t you look at what the New Testament says about that? Jesus said that “the only true God” is God the Father: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3) And Paul taught that God the Father is the “one God”, and Jesus is his mediator: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). So you really don’t have any biblical support for your claims. So I ask 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? It seems to be your opinion and nothing more.

Eternal life and life eternal are exactly the same thing, but immortality is something different. All are resurrected to immortality (1 Corinthians 15:53-54), but receiving eternal life is to receive God's life, the kind of life that God lives.

Moroni 10:32 is talking about perfection, not salvation.

The topic I was assigned was "The Power of the Scriptures" (an awesome topic). The strange thing was that I had just given a talk eight months earlier in the same ward on the topic, "The Scriptures - The Most Profitable of All Study", so I had to remind the bishopric person who called me that I had just given a talk on a similar subject not that long ago, but he assured me that he still wanted me to give the talk (all I could think of at the time was the tagline to the movie, Jaws 2: "Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water..."). So I wanted to approach the topic from the standpoint of receiving revelation now based on reading the scriptures from long ago, as a catalyst to revelation, and I wanted to start out with Joseph Smith reading James 1:5 that prompted him to pray and seek an answer to his prayer. In other words, the scripture led him to receiving revelation. That was my desired approach. I don't recall the exact search words I finally typed in, but whatever I typed led me directly to a January 1995 Ensign article by Dallin H. Oaks that was exactly what I needed. It was titled, "Scripture Reading and Revelation". It seems so obvious now in hind sight (if I had only known the title of that article!), but I had a really hard time finding anything at first. I ended up using a lot of that article in my talk because it was a perfect fit for what I wanted to say. It also seems fitting that my experience played into the topic of my talk (although I didn't find the search words I had used in the scriptures!). But I'll never forget the experience and my frustration with the search engine on the church website! But it taught me a good lesson.

I was preparing a talk for sacrament meeting one time and was searching on the church website for a particular approach to my topic that I had in mind, and I was getting nothing. I tried for over an hour. I knew I couldn't have been the first person to have considered the specific approach that I wanted to take, so I was annoyed that I couldn't find anything. This is going to sound strange, but (in all seriousness) I had to rely on personal revelation (an answer to prayer) to find the exact search words to use to find information on the church website using the approach to my topic that I was looking for, and after using those search words I found a talk that was exactly what I needed. (Maybe that's the point, the church wants us to use personal revelation instead of their search engine? ) So, yes, I know exactly what you mean! I have also used the Google Advanced Search to find information on the church website, and that has been helpful as a workaround to the search engine on the website. Thank you for your comments on the video. I agree. The work the church is having done to the temple is impressive, and it's awesome that it is getting world-wide attention from a construction point of view, and that also brings attention to how the church views the importance of the temple.

It's one thing to have differences of opinion about church doctrine and history, but it's quite another thing to have an open attitude about trying to change the church itself and actively attempting to convert other members to your views. I know of several members that have quirky ideas about the church and its teachings and some even reject many of the teachings, but nobody is trying to excommunicate them. We just minister to them and smile while they express their views.

My field of work is related to construction, so I was already familiar with this channel for work reasons. But The B1M is a construction related channel on YouTube that puts out new videos every Wednesday. According to their website, "The B1M is the world’s largest, most subscribed-to (and best) video channel for construction. Over 32 million people watch our videos each month." They are based in Sydney and London, as you will be able to tell from the accent of the narrator, Fred Mills. This week they featured the renovations being made to the Salt Lake Temple. The beginning of it is rather strange, like them tying this all to the "notorious reality shows" (you can guess which ones) and saying that this "is the $2 billion dollar operation to save the world’s largest Mormon church… and the secret urban history that allowed it to exist in the first place" (they always need to get the word "secret" in there somehow). They get the name of the church right at the very first of the video, but then later they refer to the building as the "Mormon" temple and refer to its members as "Mormons", and a couple of times in the video they call us "the Church of the Latter-day Saints". They speak highly of the project, and also for the foresight of Brigham Young for his layout of the city blocks and city design in general. But most importantly, it gives a very good description of what is being done to the temple to protect it from earthquakes: These videos always have an in-video advertisement toward the middle, you can skip around that. The video also provides some world history of why this kind of renovation is needed, showing scenes from the February 2011 devastation to the Christchurch Cathedral in New Zealand. Aside from the quirky beginning, I thought they did a good job overall. And I think it's great that they are giving world-wide recognition to the foresight of this renovation and the scale of the project, and they speak highly of it.

But we are talking about 1 Corinthians 15:29, not 1 Corinthians 15 verses 14 and 17 where Paul made the point you are reiterating above. How does what you are saying above fit into 1 Corinthians 15:29? What did Paul mean by "baptism FOR (in behalf of) the dead"? <- "In behalf of" or in proxy for is the meaning of the Greek word "for" in that verse. Reword the verse to explain how what you are saying above fits into what Paul actually wrote: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)

To truly "believe" in Jesus is a work, just like "knowing" Jesus is a work. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) Compare this with John's epistle where he explains what it means to "know" Jesus: "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:3–6)

You've been corrected on this misrepresentation of that article before when you were posting as telned (in this post from me on 08/31/2024, and those that follow).

You know already (because we have discussed this), the "righteous" are defined within the context of that parable as those who followed the behavior of the Savior during their life by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick, etc. etc. "For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." (Matthew 25:35–36)

What does that have to do with anything I said in my earlier post? You need to answer the questions I asked you here. The questions on salvation and what disqualifies salvation are the most important of any other question.

That's a rather creative way of trying to get around what the verse says, but I'll say the same thing as what was posted above, the Greek text doesn't support what you are saying. See above for my discussion on the meaning of the Greek word hü-pe'r in that verse. Just to make sure I'm understanding your meaning, let me reword the verse based on what I understand you to be saying just to see if it makes any sense: "Else what shall they do [by being baptized] for the [purpose of being] dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are then then baptized [for the purpose of being] dead?". Does that capture what you are trying to say it means?