"WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?"

Justification and Sanctification are two extremely important concepts to understand, even though they are not everyday words. But they are more than concepts; justification and sanctification help us make sense out of the world, ourselves, and God. In other words, they are not simply "up there" but very relevant to "down here." These concepts are practical.

Justification is the teaching that God declares us right in Jesus Christ. Paul writes in Romans, "For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, though the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (3:22b-24). God declares us right in his sight through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Now, while this might not seem like much, pay attention to what Paul wrote about who we were before Christ: we were sinners who fell short of the glory of God. Paul tells us elsewhere that we were children of wrath, under God's wrath, apart from Christ. By his grace, however, he gave us the gift of Christ whose blood satisfies and atones for the wrath of God, making us children of God. Therefore, we were children of wrath, but now in Christ we are children of God. We were declared sinful and destined for hell, but in Christ we are declared right and destined for glory.

Justification is not our work at all. It is a gift, as Paul writes in Romans 3. It is a perfect gift. Nothing can be added to our justification, for Christ is perfect. For those in Christ, when God the Father looks at you, he sees his perfect Son.

Think of justification as a legal status. Once we were children of parents who didn't want us, but now God has adopted us into his family. We are legally his. There is nothing that can be added to declare us more his. It is done. It is finished.

Sanctification is the teaching that God makes us right through the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul again writes in Romans, "I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." God makes us right -- sanctifies -- through the Holy Spirit.

What's the difference between justification and sanctification? Think about that same analogy of adoption. Legally, an adopted child is a member of that new family. It is a done, perfect deal in the eyes of the law. Nothing can be added to declare it more perfect. However, the child now experiences the new family. He grows to know what it means to be a member of this new family. He changes and becomes more like that new family. This is sanctification.

Whereas justification is a perfect deal done once on the cross by Christ, sanctification is an imperfect process done by the Spirit and us. Whereas justification is a legal status, sanctification is an experience. Whereas justification was done apart from us, sanctification is done in us to make us more like a member of that family.

How does this matter to our daily lives? Well, we easily confuse these two, basing our righteousness on our sanctification, by how good we've been, rather than on the perfect righteousness of Christ. We become either anxious or self-righteous, then. We don't see ourselves as worthy because we aren't focusing on the worthiness of Christ. Or, we think we don't need to do anything to grow because Christ has done it all, forgetting that sanctification is a work between the Spirit and us.

Know the difference between these two concepts. Remind yourself of these every day. One grants us a peace and joy that the world cannot offer. The other gives us purpose in battling indwelling sin and putting on Christ.

Godzilla, I've proven your contextual issues over and over and even on this thread.

Hardly - except in the shadows of your mind.

C.S. Lewis

Same CS Lewis who's faith and teachings of Christianity repudiates mormonism core.

All your babbling here does not change the truth of the gospel nor affect my faith. It does affect your soul, may God have mercy on you for your negativity and tactics here, they are not of Christ.

LOL, negativity. Sorry du, doesn't play in Peoria.

Common knowledge?

Having problems with mormon doctrine again eh du?

Damned to hell with a body to feel with is actually a worse fate than just being sent there with no body to feel with. as for nihilism, where in the world did that come from? Never mind, I don't want to know how your mind works.

LOL, mormon doctrine of hell eh? Probably a topic for another day.

WOW! what a strong doctrinal position you take, well in this story about forgiveness and acceptance they didn't require more work therefore... (insert assumption and man made doctrine here.)

Nope, the only 'insertions' are on the part of mormons du. Find for me from the bible the additional 'works' he was required (crickets)

You know all the saves by grace alone are completely in context with what I said, for we are saved by grace, god just asks us to do things to prove us, not to prove him.

Nice propaganda try again du. As I've shown time and time again, your doctrine, apostles and prophets state otherwise. You receive that 'grace' ONLY after all you can do and removing completely all ungodliness.

It seems our disagreement boils down to you wanting to say "I Believe" and be judged in that instant and be saved and go through your life knowing you are "saved" with no need for further action on your part.

That is Biblical du, crack open your bible and look it up sometime. Should you be incapable of that simple study, let me know an I can supply the passages for you.

I am saying we need to believe, and start keeping the commandments and keep believing and increasing in faith and works brought by that faith until we die and when we are judged Jesus applies his grace and saves us.

If one could be saved on the merits of one's works, Jesus didn't need to die. Again, your prophets, apostles and doctrines state clearly you are to attain perfection in this life time - trying is not sufficient. Principle from Miracle of Forgiveness IIRC.

So, Godzilla, do you still sin? If so it's not a very good "New Person" that was created now is it?

Biblical standpoint, when God looks at me he sees Jesus. 1 John makes it clear we still sin and have not been made perfect - yet the bible teaches that my salvation is complete in Jesus. Unfortunately for you, mormon scriptures turns you into a Sisyphus, always “repenting” for your sins (DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 82:7: “And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.”

My works don't increase what God is willing to give me, it qualifies me for salvation by showing my compliance with Jesus through faith,

Gasp, you may be starting to get it du. After all, I’ve been saying, you’ve finally echoed it - it is what I've been saying all along - you must pre-qualify in order to get that "grace" that your works come before salvation. It QUALIFIES you – meaning you have to EARN IT.

Granted for you your ‘works’ also go towards assigning which level of the celestial kingdom you earn – but that is for another day.

James 2:14-26

Again du - the works James is speaking of come AFTER salvation, as a RESULT of salvation. You just got done saying that you must DO works BEFORE salvation. Big difference du.

If I offer you a billion dollars,

Again, you prove that mormonism is a religion of works. This really puzzles me because this is exactly the point I’ve made from your scriptures du – you have to do all this ‘stuff’ BEFORE there is grace or salvation. So why did you quibble so much over the Moroni and Nephi passages – you are just reinforcing my interpretation of them.

That's not how it works. Jesus gave commandments, you either keep them or you don't, but don't complain when they were given for a reason and you thought you could be saved by grace alone and Jesus says "Did you think the commandments were for my benefit?"

Since you used quotation marks, I would like to see the passage from the bible where Jesus said that (crickets). The Apostle Paul repudiates this statement du (if you were to honestly take the whole bible) – ROMANS 11:6: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”

Jesus doesn't save the qualified, he qualifies the saved.

GZ - How many ‘prophecies’ of smith were fulfilled?
du - All of them.

Once again du – you accuse me of dishonesty, or is it more likely the case that you haven’t investigated the epic failure of smith’s prophecies. Take this simple collection – from your doctrinal writings and their failure

• INDEPENDENCE, MO TEMPLE: Temple in Independence, Missouri was to be built in Joseph Smith’s “generation” (D&C 57:1-3; D&C 84:3-5). Temple Lot is a vacant lot to this day.

• ZION ESTABLISHED IN MISSOURI: Zion was to be established in Independence, Missouri and would not be “moved out of her place” (D&C 57:1-3; 97:19-20; 101:16-20). Mormons were driven out of the area and moved “Zion” to Salt Lake City, Utah.

• ZION’S CAMP TO REDEEM ZION: Once driven out of Independence, Joseph Smith was commanded to raise an army of people to “redeem” Zion by physical “power.” The operation completely failed as a plague swept through the army before they reached Independence, MO. (D&C 103; History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 114-116)

• FAR WEST, MO TEMPLE: Temple in Far West, Missouri was to be built, beginning in 1838. Mormon were commanded not to cease working on the temple until it was complete. (D&C 115:1, 7-8, 10, 12) They got as far as laying the corner stones (still visible today), but were driven out of the area and the temple was never built.

• MISSION OF APOSTLE DAVID W. PATTEN: Patten was to accompany the twelve apostles in performing a mission “over the waters” in the spring of 1839 (D&C 114; 118:4), but Patten died in October 1838 defending Mormon territory in the Mormon Missouri War. Some Mormons try to excuse this false prophecy by claiming that Patten was somehow unworthy, but Joseph Smith proclaimed that Patten died as “a very worthy man” (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 171).

In these cases, smith is 0 for 5 on the prophecy count. It only takes one false prophecy to make him a false prophet according to the bible. There are more false prophecies, just not enough room to document them here.

GZ -Once again du, still ignorant of the scriptures. Again, the salvation is already provided for – by faith, and nothing can add to that salvation. Did you not pay attention to the verses preceding it? All that Jesus said before (vv. 1-5) and following those verses should discourage us from doing this. False prophets eventually give evidence that they are not faithful prophets. However, it is impossible for onlookers to determine the salvation of professing believers (vv. 21-23) and those who simply receive the gospel without making any public response to it (vv. 24-27).
du - Do you think you will win logically for your much speaking? this was already addressed, brevity GZ, brevity.

Obfuscated – yes, addressed, no. At best your ‘addressing’ was myopic, at worst a complete detachment from the context of the passage.

Really, so all the visions of Adam (he was dead by then), were demonic, and John's visions of the future of the world.. Demonic, Revelations where John saw the dead, small and great, demonic.

LOL, typical mormon dicing and slicing of definitions to blur the point. Words have meaning, and I made the meaning clear – necromancy involves actively seeking to consult the “spirits” of the dead – a practice forbidden by the bible. Visions of ‘Adam’ (not documented in the bible) and prophetic revelations (God brings the message – John wasn’t conjuring those ‘dead’ nor communicating with them). However, mormons historically sought to contact the dead in their temples and receiving demonic responses disguised as their dead IS necromancy.

So, Jesus' work was unique and we should not be asking ourselves what Jesus would do? No, so Jesus' work was unique so we should not be trying to be like him? No that doesn't work either. I know Jesus' work was unique so only ignore it when I tell you to.

Show me from the bible where Jesus did any of the other ‘proxy’ work performed by tbm’s today du. Mormon apostles sit in costly suits, padded chairs and receive adoration of the masses of tbms – yet that is not the way it was in the first century church – that in itself shows mormons are not following Jesus or the Apostles.

Proxy work is a principle which either is valid or invalid, Laws either are or aren't. You don't get to tell gravity when to work and not work although when you are falling you might hope so.

Once again – show me from the bible where Jesus commanded these other ‘proxy’ ceremonies du.

Godzilla your position of proxy work being evil is just not supported by the Bible.

I never said it was evil du, check you facts first. JFTR, mormon ‘proxy’ work is not supported by the bible.

Consider Malachi 4:5-6
. . . . God is sending Elijah back to Earth to complete a mission he started in life (no demonic stuff there). Gee, if that's valid...

Shaking my head du at such gross ignorance once again. Elijah never died for starters but was taken directly to heaven. Secondly, Jesus himself said that John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy in Matthew 11:14 and Matthew 17:12-13. Finally, verse 6 was fulfilled when many people repented after hearing the message of John the Baptist. People turned back to the ways for their godly forefathers, and they taught their children to do so. Unfortunately, everyone did not listen to John the Baptist, as Luke 7:29-35 shows.

Now I guess your going to impugn the Bible or even though I'm not interpreting it, my interpretation of it... LOL!

I’ve just shown you what the BIBLE as well as Jesus Himself said regarding this passage. It is a far different message than you are trying to present here.

Either you don't know what Black magic is, or you have no idea what goes on in the temple, or you are a liar. I am not going to try to discern which, but having dealt with black magic in Taiwan as a missionary (It really frustrates them when with a word you can still all they have animated) and having been inside a temple, and participated in the ordinances of God performed therein, you are so wrong you have just about come full circle.

“Black” magic comes in all forms – all associated with demonic activity du. How it manifests in Taiwan may or may not be the same as in the 1800’s (or even 2000s) America. Yet you still refuse to address the basic facts I listed earlier. Pratt stated in most clear terms that necromancy was practiced in the early mormon temples, wrote and entire section in JoD on it alone. Smith wore a Jupiter talisman charm. The smith family was deeply embedded folk magic before mormonism. In fact, it was smith’s practice of necromancy that got him kicked out of the Methodist church (yep, he joined one of those he was forbidden to join).

Lurkers will note that there are two forms of necromancy - evoking the spirit of a dead man through ritual only, and working directly with the corpse to enliven it to speak. Smith was well versed in the first. There are numerous incidents recorded in mormon history of such events in temples. Are you denying all history? LOL! Wow can you even see the truth from where you are?

Evidently you are still deficient on the term being used. Though it could be argued that necrodunking is a form of necromancy, actual contacting of spirits and communications were a common practice in early mormonism. So much so that another MORMON wrote a book about it in the ‘70s.

Joseph smith was not a spiritualist, you know, for a 14 year old to do all the things you attribute to him would be a more fantastic story than the truth.

LOL, bless your simple soul du, ignoring the simple facts of history doesn’t help. It is well documented that smith practiced occultic forms of folk magic. The most undeniable is the practice of scrying, a form of divination in which a "seer" looks into a crystal, often called a seer stone, to divine esoteric knowledge. Witnesses say that Smith practiced crystal gazing by placing a stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block out all the light, and then divining information from the stone. This was the method smith’s scribes tell us he used to ‘translate’ the bom. Talisman charm has already been mentioned. The smith and cowdrey families were also know to use divining rods/sticks to look for buried treasure. Lucy Smith describes (documented in numerous books) that the smith family as a family participated a lot in magic. With this background – it is HIGHLY likely smith was a spiritist – or at least a budding one when ever he had (if he had) a vision.

Jesus, angels, both pre mortal and post mortal, can appear any time God wills them and men of faith can request the assistance of Angels.

LOL, yes, yes mormon progression definitions in effect. Sorry du, angels are not and never were related to humans. But notice what you wrote – God wills, not conjured by man. Look it up in the bible du, such is condemned by God.

Now, I did a little Googling to see where you were getting this "stuff", and the only site that came up for 'temple "so that living may communicate with the dead"' was The Berean call, a site that has a single page on this topic. they say the reference they pull it from is the JOD 2:46, so I went to the JOD on-line and searched for their quotation, it's not there, however, I did find this little gem.

There are a lot more sources of similar information out there du, your search was not exhaustive, but your example is more than adequate. My reference to JoD 2:46 was referenced from another source. I had earlier set up a link to the JoD for you du – could have saved yourself some time and effort.

The fact of spiritual communications being established, by which the living hear from the dead - being no longer a question of controversy with the well informed, we drop that point, and call attention to the means of discriminating or judging between the lawful and the unlawful mediums or channels of communication - between the holy and impure, the truths and falsehoods, thus communicated. The words of the holy Prophet in our text, while they admit the principle of the living hearing from the dead, openly rebuke, and sharply reprove, persons for seeking to those who have familiar spirits, and to wizards that peep and mutter, and remind us that a people should seek unto their God for the living to hear from the dead!

For lurkers sake, du selected a paragraph from page 45, here is a link to the whole chapter . Reading the whole section, it is clear that Pratt thanks the spiritualist movement of the Nineteenth Century, for aiding the cause of the LDS church. But that the only ones who can legitimately do it are mormon priests.

Skipping down past Parley P Pratt talking about modern revelation and having angels speak...

Angels are only mentioned in the entire chapter 5 times, three of which are after the above citation on pg 45. Pratts discourse has the spirits of departed humans separate from angels – to Pratt from this discourse they are not the same.

We get to this
Thirdly, Jesus Christ is the only name given under heaven, as a medium through which to approach to God. None, then, can be lawful mediums, who are unbelievers in Jesus Christ, or in modern revelation; or who remain in their sins; or who act in their own name, instead of the name appointed.

Lets pause and consider this. Du, do you know what a medium is? According to Pratt is equating Jesus with someone like Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and that the only sanctioned necromancy is through mormon priesthood.

Godzilla, did you use information from a website without vetting it? I think this puts to bed forever the question of whether or not you take things out of context and / or use questionable sources to try to discredit the church you seem to so hate.

Ok, apparently those quotes are not entirely verbatim in JoD (and no, the quotes came from another site), but they are not out of context. The first - “so that living may communicate with the dead” should read “That the living may hear from the dead." – noting the change from ‘communicate’ to ‘hear’. The second - “acting as mediums through which the living can hear from the dead” should read “as a medium through which the living can hear from the dead.” Note the changes to the first three words.

Godzilla, you stand convicted in this public court of Verbal Larceny in the first degree, Unfounded assertion in the second degree, and of pride in the first second and third degrees. you are hereby sentenced to having your nose rubbed in it every time you post for as long as you shall post.

Actually, before you pass that judgment – which you will anyway, its what mormons always do – do those errors deny what Pratt was teaching in the JoD,or make the JoD an unreliable source as you claim? No, not in the least, for the greater context from which those passages were erroneously copied still carry the same force.

For the first -
Editors, statesmen, philosophers, priests, and lawyers, as well as the common people, began to advocate the principle of converse with the dead, by visions, divination, clairvoyance, knocking, and writing mediums, &c., &c. This spiritual philosophy of converse with the dead, once established by the labors, toils, sufferings, and martyrdom of its modern founders, and now embraced by a large portion of the learned world, shows a triumph more rapid and complete—a victory more extensive, than has ever been achieved in the same length of time in our world.

A quarter of a century since, an obscure boy and his few associates, in the western wilds of New York, commenced to hold converse with the dead. Now, vision, new revelation, clairvoyance, mediums, oracles, &c., are talked of and advocated as far as the modern press extends its influence, or steam its powers of locomotion.

An important point is gained, a victory won, and a countless host of opposing powers vanquished, on one of the leading or fundamental truths of "Mormon" philosophy, viz.—"That the living may hear from the dead."

But, notwithstanding these great victories of truth over error, ignorance, and superstition, in certain points of spiritual philosophy, yet much remains to be done, ere pure, uncontaminated truth will reign triumphant, and darkness and error surrender their last stronghold on the earth.

The fact of spiritual communications being established, by which the living hear from the dead—being no longer a question of controversy with the well informed, we drop that point, and call attention to the means of discriminating or judging between the lawful and the unlawful mediums or channels of communication—between the holy and impure, the truths and falsehoods, thus communicated.

This passage from page 45 makes it very clear – Pratt is equating smith’s necromancy to that of the spiritists of the era. He just tries after this to prove that mormonism does it better.

As far as the second come a few paragraphs BEFORE on pg 44-

Who revealed to him the plan of redemption, and of exaltation for the dead who had died without the Gospel? and the keys and preparations necessary for holy and perpetual converse with Jesus Christ, and with the spirits of just men made perfect, and with the general assembly and Church of the first-born, in the holy of holies? Those from the dead!

Again—How do the Saints expect the necessary information by which to complete the ministrations for the salvation and exaltation of their friends who have died?

By one holding the keys of the oracles of God, as a medium through which the living can hear from the dead.

Shall we, then, deny the principle, the philosophy, the fact of communication between worlds? No! verily no!

Once again, Pratt is equating smith’s communications with the dead to those of Spiritualism of the era.

You may deny the exact wording my partially erroneous citations du – however you cannot deny that essence of those statements in the overall context of the writing du. Part of Pratt’s summary is as follows -

Ye Latter-day Saints! Ye thousands of the hosts of Israel! Ye are assembled here to-day, and have laid these Corner Stones, for the express purpose that the living might hear from the dead, and that we may prepare a holy sanctuary, where "the people may seek unto their God, for the living to hear from the dead," and that heaven and earth, and the world of spirits may commune together—that the kings, nobles, presidents, rulers, judges, priests, counsellors, and senators, which compose the general assembly of the Church of the first-born in all these different spheres of temporal and spiritual existence, may sit in grand Council, and hold a Congress or court on the earth, to concert measures for the overthrow of the "mystery of iniquity," the thrones of tyrants, the sanctuaries of priestcraft and superstition, and the reign of ignorance, sin, and death.

So du, you can and will attempt to smear me, but it doesn’t discredit the fact that early mormonism practiced and in fact endorsed their form of necromancy in the temple.

Again, it's a timing thing you are asserting that you are "saved" from the moment you "believe" no works needed. the Bible clearly states otherwise. Your funeral awaits.

LOL, du already want to plant me into the ground? How kind of you. Unfortunately you fail epically to show from the bible the requirement for works to be saved. You’ve agreed that works FOLLOW salvation, but you seem not to grasp that salvation is completely independent of works.

"He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:3-7) du, all those works you claim are in the bible are missing.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16) Please du – where does it say here that works are needed?

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” –(Ephesians 2:8,9 ) – Hey du – still looking for those “works” you say are required.

12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— (John 1:12 (NIV)) Still don’t see these works du – are you using the same bible as me?

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:28–29 (NIV)) – oh is this the work you were talking about du? Doesn’t sound anything like what you’ve been spouting here.

We were talking about what the church teaches, it was taught in my church, so it's what the church teaches, this may seem to be circular reasoning to you, but I consider it just having no loose ends. as for your quotations of former prophets and apostles, every time I chase one of these down for you, it ends up being a Pratt fall for you, in that the quotation doesn't exist, or is out of context or it's misquoted

LOL, just like you sending me off to ufo sites and having other cults carry your water for you. The facts are that you dismiss even the clearest doctrinal teachings of your apostles and prophets with the old worn out ‘its their opinion’ or ‘its not written in our doctrine’ or ‘it hasn’t been voted upon’, etc. So you expect everyone now to believe a no-named ‘bishop’ (not even a 70) to speak authoritatively on doctrine? Oh, so as long as the warm body taught it IN your church it is valid – riiiight.

So, your a geologist, who can tell from a photo or a movie if iron ore can be found nearby, except for when you say it can't and then it is.

And other geologists working the region repudiate the so-called finding as well

and a scriptorian who won't discuss Paul's use of "mia gune" (one or more, at least one, or more than one and was translated as "one" when one and only one would have been written as "gune", "mia" is only added in Greek when there is more than one possible) for bishops in relation to polygamy.

ROTFLAICGU. Please du, don’t sin by making false statements like that. I’ve shown your ‘interpretation’ to be incorrect many times over, so to say I ‘won’t discuss’ is not truthful.

and a programmer who can convert scripture to a series of if then statements that define righteousness.

I didn’t have to covert anything, just picking out the structure from the structure of the sentence as well as the context. Besides du, you’ve already confirmed my interpretation earlier in your post to me :)

We are all truly awed by your grate-ness.

As well you should be.

OK, be honest here, if I took a verse from revelations (just one) and then said to put it in context you needed to put it with a verse from Exodus (the second book of the Bible), would you even read it before you started laughing and telling me I had no idea what context was?

Fine, lets be honest. If both hypothetical passages are speaking about the same subject, it is doable. But I’ll continue to play along with your scenario

2 Nephi is the second book in the Book of Mormon, Moroni is the last they are separated by (~580BC-~AD 421) add in Christ's life of 33 years and you get over 500 years between when the two were written, then add to the mix that Nephi was born in Jerusalem, and Moroni lived his entire life on the run in the America from Lamanites that wanted to kill him, and you get context? Seriously, I never even read the verses you were trying to quote, because it was too funny.

At face value, there is not a single shread of evidence that the bom story is real to begin with, so any difference is pseudo time. So, playing pseudo time, absent the “Reformed Hieroglyphics” that the bom was divined from (oops ‘translated’) to clarify any so called ambiguity between the two passages, one is left with the subject and the immediate context of both passages (and how does the greek word “Christ” get translated from reformed hieroglyphics anyway – before the greek was developed). However, since BOTH passages were written in “reformed hieroglyphics”, then the definitions and use of the word “grace” should be consistent between the two. The immediate understanding –one which you confirmed to me above – is that you must do works to prove yourself worthy to receive salvation. 2 nephi talking about that you receive the grace “after all you can do” (ie do all those prerequisite works you said have to be done to become worthy of salvation). In Moroni it is talking about coming to Christ (there is that greek word again) as well as talking about a requirement for ’grace’ to be sufficient for you. The pivotal point of each is essentially the same – you have to do something to earn grace in order to get salvation. In nephi it is ‘after all you can do’, while in moroni it is more specific in the total removal of ungodliness from your life.

That works is required before grace and salvation has been confirmed by you earlier and is the same principle is recorded in your AoFs. The same principle is recorded by the teaching of your prophets and apostles, who refer to these passages in the same manner.

So lets be honest here du, you have already affirmed the linkage doctrinally on your own to me earlier – mormonism teaches that you must prove yourself worthy before you can receive grace and salvation. I am interpreting these passages in the same manner – in agreement with you. So why are you fighting it so much?

Are you a lawyer too? If so remind me if I am ever on trial for anything and you are assigned to me that I have the right to represent myself!

Well, you’ve made yourself out to be a judge

God does not want men to rest on their "assured salvation" from being "saved" and do nothing at all. Idle hands are the Devils playground. God gave you commands for a reason, get going.

What commands du – you are getting yourself confused again. You said these works must be accomplished before grace and salvation, now you are implying that they are not? Please! This doesn’t appear to be a cart before the horse issue with you anymore, but you can’t even figure out which is the cart and which is the horse.

I'm going to tell you how to be perfect now. To be perfect as Mathew tells us is really very simple, forget all the do's and don'ts for a minute, and think about where god wants you to be and what he wants you to be doing. Go There and Do That. you will find that you keep all the commandments of God and you are happy doing it. Be is a very specific word, and it's repeated in the book of Mormon when we are told to Be Perfect it's even more specific. Be as in in state of Being. Be happy. Be obedient. Be nice. Be Perfect.

To be perfect as Jesus in Mt 5’s Sermon on the Mount tells us is to achieve a standard that no one can attain – and shows that acts of self righteousness and religion can not earn you a place in God’s kingdom. Are you perfect right now du? The passage states BE perfect, not BECOME perfect, you are commanded to be perfect right now.

I on the other hand AM perfect du – without all your works and commandment keeping and the sort. Hebrews 10:14: “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”. Notice the past tense du. Jesus has already made those perfect who come to Him by faith, trusting in His finished work of redemption. As a Christian, I am one of them and that is by HIS work, not mine that my perfection comes to me.

Jesus wants us to repent of our sins because we need to in order to forsake them, but the repentance process is not for God, He'll forgive us for the asking, we however need a bit more process, and then once we have repented, forsaking the sin is the last step.

Of course Jesus wants us to repent, but Jesus also knows that as you say, there is a time for change. Unfortunately for you, your doctrine cuts you no slack. Again, your doctrines state that to know that you have really repented – you will no longer sin (DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 58:43). There is no process allowed du. Am I misrepresenting this du? Prophet Kimball stated that the true test of repentance is the abandonment of the sin. Further, repentance is not just trying to abandon sin, but the complete abandonment. DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 25:15 states that one must “Keep my commandments continually . . . “ – is there room within the definition of ‘continually’ to NOT keep the commandment according to mormonism.

Godzilla, I am perfect now, for I am doing what God wants me to right now. Now for secret number two, all I can do is be perfect. I can't change the past, I can't control the future, but I can do what God wants me to do right now. and if I am sinning, all I have to do is check, where does God want me to be? what does God want me to do? and go there and do that and.. I'm perfect. I'm dong all I can do. It's simple and it's done all the time.

Are you completely and continually keeping ALL parts of the sermon on the mount? Do you continually keep all the commandments at all times? Are you completely without sin? If you answered no to any you are not perfect by the standard Jesus gave in Matthew 5. BTW, there is no biblical support for being perfect just by an amorphous ‘doing’ du.

I’m sure that you as a good mormon are concerned with sin in your life, and given that when you do sin DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 82:7 states that ALL your past sins get put back on your account. And as long as there is sin in your life, you have not truly repented according to mormon doctrine. You are still in your sins du, and as such, your doctrine states that you cannot be saved in your sin (ALMA 11:37). And if you are still sinning, it is apparent that you have not done all that you can do in your life. You have ungodliness in your life because of sin – can his grace sufficient for you? According to your doctrine, God cannot look upon sin with the least bit of allowance? Though you claim to be “perfect”, you still sin, indicating that you are not fully repentant nor are keeping God’s commandments “continually”, can you in that state claim to be forgiven by God and have his grace?

Just a question, so do you owe Christ anything? and if you do, then how can you not have an obligation to keep his commandments?

I owe Christ my total love and gratitude. Jesus said the two commandments were to love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself and the only work was to believe in the one God sent. All else springs out of love for Jesus – not obligation as you put it.

I find your version of the atonement to be overly simplistic, and heavily weighted in your favor but most of all, I find your version to be out of step with the Bible.

But the true gospel is simple du and you will never glean that from the bible as long as you read it through the filters of joseph smith and mormonism.

According to your way of interpreting it, It sounds to me like you think Jesus' commandments to men are suggestions of nice things we can do out of appreciation and love for him, when we are not too busy, or not too involved in more pressing matters, I mean he already saved you, and requires nothing of you, so you'll do "stuff" for Jesus when you get around to it.

Those are your mormon ‘filters’ du. We don’t need to earn Jesus’ favor as in mormonism, we already received it “while we were yet sinners”. It is knowing that the grace was freely given that Christians can live a life for Jesus – not through a drudgery of endless works trying to earn God’s grace and favor. It is a life of dynamic works across the board, not endless priesthood meetings, endless ‘callings’, WoW or other non-biblical ‘stuff’.

I just think it's a bit to convenient, to man centric, to not have been tampered with down through the centuries.

To be ‘man centric’ is to think that you – oh man – can perfect yourself, become sinless yourself and be a shiny enough person to warrant the grace and salvation of Jesus.

Found this quote from True to the Faith – A Gospel Reference “Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can receive forgiveness for our sins through sincere and complete repentance.” Are you sinless du? Or has Jesus made you sinless in his sight?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -- C.S. Lewis

Diminish God's glory? Hey, I'd be astonished if I could locate a Mormon FREEPER who would openly criticize W. Cleon Skousen, one of Glenn Beck's fave authors, for saying that God could potentially cease to be God!

You see, Skousen, quoting the Book of Mormon, Alma 42, wrote:

"This is what Mormon and Alma meant when they specifically stated that if God should change or act contrary to truth and justice ‘He would cease to be God.’ Our Heavenly Father can do only those things which the intelligences under Him are voluntarily willing to support Him in accomplishing” (The First 2,000 Years, pp.355-356).

(DU, that's like saying, "It seems our disagreement boils down to you wanting to say 'I do' to your bride and be judged as a groom in that instant and be married and go through life knowing you are 'married' with no need for further action on your part as a husband.")

What a ludicrous conclusion to make about the Christian life...as if our loving "good deeds" toward our spouses are brownie points we have to do in order to remain married. Obviously, I believe a person can become divorced from God, just like a person can become divorced from our spouses. But since we have the perfect faithful spouse, do you know how difficult -- and radical -- that is?

Well, if I were you, DU, I wouldn't let your "honey" see this attitude of yours about her "honey-do" list -- that you are motivated to do some "nice things...out of appreication and love...when" you're "not too busy, or not too involved in pressing matters."

Why, it's good to see you have such a high priority for her!!! /sarc Now what did the apostle John say in 1 John, that if you can't love somebody you can see, how are you going to love somebody you can't see? If you can't make it a priority for God-empowered works in our lives for our spouses, how are you going to show a little more respect and priority for His works in our lives for HIM???

Well, if you want to reduce acts of love toward a spouse as some kind of nice "system" points reward...well, "good luck" with that!

The whole "Saved by grace upon confession of Christ" is a misinterpretation of the scriptures. The act of being forgiven by Christ and having the atonement applied in your life is not the act of saving you. the salvation part comes later.

Let's let Jesus define eternal life, shall we? Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

Q1, oh math wizard one: How many "true gods" does Jesus say there are? One? Two? Three? Four? Five? Thousands?

Q2, Can you "know" this only true God and Jesus Christ this side of the spirit world? (And if your answer is "no," why do you actively militate vs. Jesus' words and make Him out to be some fool who doesn't know what He is talking about?)

Q3, When did you "know" your bride, DU? At some point in the future when she thinks you've finally accrued enough brownie points? [Obviously, this was a rhetorical Q -- not one I expect a literal response to...but you see my point..."knowing" is spiritual intimacy...and Jesus says we don't have to "wait" on that...eternal life jumpstarts upon knowing Him in a living trust relationship...]

Jesus, BTW, again emphasized that in John 11...when Martha thought the resurrection was only somewhere down the line...and Jesus had to remind her that HE was the resurrection and that life! That he who believed would never die! (Meaning that the "new life" already began this side of heaven!)

...do you owe Christ anything? and if you do, then how can you not have an obligation to keep his commandments?

Wrong Question, DU. It's not that we don't owe Christ anything! It's that the debt you & I & Godzilla have racked up is bigger than our government spending in the eyes of an all-holy, all-perfect God!

DU, what if I thought I could somehow partially "pay God back?" And what if I thought by doing all that, I could bump myself into a higher glory? At what point does a "good work" become a "selfish" self-boomerang work done partially for the benefit of another & partially for my own benefit? How can our motives be 100% pure for doing something when we are trying to accumulate godhood by them? They can't!

That's why the blood of Christ and trusting in His righteousness becoming ours is so liberating!!! We're "free" from having to do something for others so that we'll derive the supposed legalistic ultimate big benefit package from it!!!

Bottom line, DU: We owe so much, there's no way our puny perfunctories done for self-boomerang motivated reasons are gonna muster God's approval in order to live with such a perfect being!

I'm sure, DU, that you've read the Mormon Times' columnists from time to time. Mormon columnist Jerry Earl Johnston had this interesting Jan. 6, 2010 column:

Over the years, Stephen E. Robinson's "Parable of the Bicycle" has become almost as well-known in Mormon circles as the recipe for s'mores. It tells how a young girl wants a bicycle but doesn't have enough money for it. So her father tells her to put in what she can, and he'll make up the difference. As it turns out, she puts in a pittance compared to what her dad pays. The premise of the parable is simple. When it comes to salvation, we contribute and the Savior contributes, but we can't fathom how much more he gives than we do. So taking any pride in our contribution would be folly...Now comes author Brad Wilcox with a fresh take on the notion. In his new book "The Continuous Atonement," Wilcox writes: "I think of the Atonement more like this: Jesus already bought the whole bike. The few coins he asks from me are not so much to help pay for the bike, but rather to help me appreciate it, value it and use it correctly." I like that a lot.
Source: Humility only real response to salvation

DU, Jesus ALREADY paid the whole price. The words He spoke from the cross, "It is finished" doesn't translate well in the idiom of our day vs. His...but in Jesus earthly days, that was a common phrase for an economic transaction that meant, "It is paid in full"

It wasn't a "debt reduction program"; we're 100% HIS!

When the apostle Paul told the Corinthians that we've been "bought with a price" it doesn't mean that Jesus just put us on "layaway" and we now have to squirrel away to pay what we can.

As Johnston says, we don't help pay for the bike...I, too, as does this Mormon columnist, "like that a lot."

"So, lets put this to bed once and for all, the quotation you listed here on this thread..." [LdS poster Delphi User, believing he finally has a "gotcha" moment re: poster Godzilla...thinks he can quickly "tuck this one away," eh without anybody else noticing his own exposed inattentiveness to MANY key details?!]

Not so fast, prancin' & dancin' DU!

I realize posters' readin' time may be short...but please read this post...great entertainment value!)

Heart of post important...after all, it involves the very disputed words about what the ancestor of Mitt Romney claimed was happening between the "dead" and the "living" in Mormon temples. Shouldn't ALL FR politically-interested posters wonder what Mitt's ancestor taught about the linkage LdS temples hold for communicating with the dead? Since Mitt said in December 2007 that he embraced the faith of his fathers (plural), does this mean Mitt believes the occultic stuff his family heritage has taught him?

DU: We owe you mucho thanks...with this post of yours, you're calling more attention to these classic Mormon occultic comments that's been festering for over 150 years now in the Romney clan!

What's at issue here?

Cuttin' to the chase before I analogize:
Within a couple of cited sentences, Godzilla messed up. QHow many out-of-place letters did 'Zilla "mess up" on?

A (22)

Q How many misquoted words?

A (5)

Q Did any of these change the meaning of what was quoted?

A No. NONE of them changed the meaning of what was quoted! (In fact, had Godzilla simply dropped the quotations on one quote and moved them on the other, he'd been fine paraphrasing what Parley Pratt said!)

Q Please describe Delphi User's "bazooka" reaction.

A DU accused Godzilla of being...
..."unseemly"...
...& of engaging in "Verbal Larceny in the first degree, Unfounded assertion in the second degree, and of pride in the first second and third degrees. you are hereby sentenced to having your nose rubbed in it every time you post for as long as you shall post...
...among many other overreactions covered below.

You see, by comparison, Lds apologists like Daniel C. Peterson have tried to defend conflicting statements Joseph Smith made about what the "First principle of the gospel was" -- claiming that just because Joseph Smith might have made "similar (and similarly conflicting) statements from him and others" [that] "could easily be found," that still "We should not try to make him an offender for a word, but should try to understand (and, in the case of believers, to apply or use) what he was attempting to get across."
Source: Peterson response to Bowman critique

In other words, Lds professional apologists beg for significant latitude for how we are to read Joseph Smith's inconsistent "stuff." (And here we'd think that if anybody's gonna get it exactly right, it'd be a "prophet" of God)

Yet if a FREEPER non-Mormon poster gets the gist exactly right re: a pair of Pratt quotes -- but fumbles on five words on those quotes, not only do Mormon wannabe apologists like Delphi User make FR poster Godzilla out to be some grand "offender for (misplaced) words" within those brief statements, but he can't help but exhibit his gleeful merrier "than a schoolboy" response -- almost as if he was Scrooge waking up on Christmas Day!

The specific three issues addressed in this post:

(1) Did Godzilla badly mangle -- or barely worth fussin' about -- citations of Lds "apostle" Parley P. Pratt's April 6, 1853 sermon? Did Mormon poster Delphi User then have a right to jump all over Gozilla with both feet for that?

(2) In Delphi User's further explanatory comeback, is DU guilty of cherrypicking partial Pratt quotations -- or even significantly misrepresenting what Parley P. Pratt uttered on April 6, 1853?

(3) Which leads to #3: Does the Parley P. Pratt sermon of April 6, 1853 correspond on its own with a Biblical definition of "necromancy" -- communicating with the dead?...And, if this communication indeed takes place in Mormon temples, does it even matter which party (the dead or the living) initiates such communication? [For more on this, read the extended summary below the ******** break]

DU challenges Godzilla's alleged "quotes" re: Mitt Romney's ancestor, Parley P. Pratt:

Q Which posts did this involve?

A Posts #94 & #128

Q What did Godzilla cite?

A Godzilla mentioned three supposed Pratt citations from Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pp. 44-46

Q Did DU overreact?

A All posters...lurkers...see for yourself! (Extremely embarrassing for DU!)

Q Did DU then go on to even misrepresent the points 'Zilla made by only highlighting two cherrypicked quotations from Pratt--all the while ignoring six extremely relevant quotations from pp. 44-46, including one 'Zilla cited on post #94?

A Keep reading...certainly what DU said might be worth one...maybe two sentences max...an "encouragement" for 'Zilla to get the exact quotes right... certainly, DU then proceeded to sidestep contextual comments made by Pratt that fully reinforced the full "flavor" of Godzilla's points.

Q What exact quotations did DU challenge?

A
Post #128(a) Quotation “so that living may communicate with the dead”
Post #128(b) Quotation “acting as mediums through which the living can hear from the dead”

Q What quotation did DU leave unchallenged -- one that had he read more carefully, would have seen that at least the Post #128(a) quotation was by all standards "close" to actual verbiage?

A Post #94 Quotation "Editors, statesmen, philosophers, priests, and lawyers, as well as the common people, began to advocate the principle of converse with the dead, by visions, divination, clairvoyance, knocking, and writing mediums, etc., etc. This spiritual philosophy of converse with the dead, once established by the labors, toils, sufferings, and martyrdom of its modern founders, and now embraced by a large portion of the learned world, show a triumph more rapid and complete — a victory more extensive, than has ever been achieved in the same length of time in our world. " An important point is gained, a victory won, and a countless host of opposing powers vanquished, on one of the leading or fundamental truths of "Mormon" philosophy, viz. — "that the living may hear from the dead."

Q Was DU right? Are these quotes from post #128 inaccurate -- word-for-word?

A (Yes, DU was right to highlight that the actual quotes were not word-for-word correct; as you can further see, he jumped the shark on trying to use these minor miscues to take an attempted bite out of 'Zilla...yet it's now backfired on him!)

Q Can you put side by side the misquotations with the real quotations so we can see how trivial it was?

A Post #128(a) quotation: If you change out the words "communicate with" and replace it with "hear from"...delete the word, "so" -- and what do we have? "that the living may hear from the dead." (p. 45 of Pratt's message) Compare again to what DU was going "schoolboy" over: “so that living may communicate with the dead” (slight misquote) vs. "that the living may hear from the dead" (actual quote) ... Anybody see anything worth going nuclear over? Anybody see any difference of meaning?

Q What about Post #128(b)?
A Godzilla wrote “...acting as mediums through which the living can hear from the dead” (misquote). The actual quote? "...one holding...as a medium through which the living can hear from the dead." (p. 44 of Pratt's message)

Source: Journal of Discourse, Vol. 2, pp. 44-45...doesn't matter if you go here:
Source: Journal of Discourses/Volume 2/Spiritual Communication or here: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, pp. 44-45 ... they both read the same...the first link is a little easier to access and read/wade through.

Q Can you more fully describe DU's overreaction?

A Well, here Godzilla used the word "acting" instead of "holding"; pluralized "medium"; added a "so" word on the other citation & changed "hearing from" to "communication with"...and that prompted DU's ensuing reaction?

DU, post #148: Now, I did a little Googling to see where you were getting this "stuff", and the only site that came up for 'temple "so that living may communicate with the dead"' was The Berean call, a site that has a single page on this topic. they say the reference they pull it from is the JOD 2:46, so I went to the JOD on-line and searched for their quotation, it's not there...So, lets put this to bed once and for all, the quotation you listed here on this thread...is not true. Lurkers who want to verify this, it's simple, copy the text from inside of Godzillas statement, open a new tab or browser and go to http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-02/ (the journal of discourses online) and paste the so called "quote" into the find box. you will find that it comes back with none found, for the quote is an interpretation that I have only been able to find on The Berean Call website. Godzilla, did you use information from a website without vetting it? I think this puts to bed forever the question of whether or not you take things out of context and / or use questionable sources to try to discredit the church you seem to so hate. Godzilla, you stand convicted in this public court of Verbal Larceny in the first degree, Unfounded assertion in the second degree, and of pride in the first second and third degrees. you are hereby sentenced to having your nose rubbed in it every time you post for as long as you shall post. You go on trying to capitalize on your fake Pratt quotation and it's very unseemly, so I'll skip down to the next interesting thing...You know, without the quote from Pratt that didn't exist, I would not have spent the time to respond, but that was jut too funny Pratt fall after Pratt fall. You made my day...BTW, anyone who wants to know what a Pratt fall is, Pratfall which I have rendered Pratt fall because Godzilla was quoting a quotation that just didn't exist while lecturing me on proper research techniques and being more "scholarly" which made it extremely funny from my perspective.

WOW! DU!

I have trouble putting into words what a laughing stock you have made of your response over four out-of-place words and one pluralization by Godzilla!

Again, the pluralized word was essentially correct...'Zilla added an "s"...
...of the other four, one unnecessary imported word was "so";
...yet another word had the "ing" ending correct but was "holding" -- not "acting";
...and to wrap it up, DU somehow thinks that "communication with" vs. "hearing from"...is yet another posting felony!!!

To summarize DU's overreaction to these trivial miscues, he accuses 'Zilla of:
* "...tak[ing] things out of context"? [Certainly no meaning was...in fact YOU were guilty of that, as I show below!]
* "convicted in this public court of Verbal Larceny in the first degree, Unfounded assertion in the second degree, and of pride in the first second and third degrees. you are hereby sentenced to having your nose rubbed in it every time you post for as long as you shall post." [YOU are the one who I would suggest you apologize to for your grand overreaction]
* being "unseemly" [no, DU, it's "unseemly" for Mormons to "hear from the dead" in Mormon temples!]
* "too funny" and "extremely funny" [Yes...but sorry...you may want to resign your amateur "apologist" training status "Dr. B" & his bunch are giving...]
* "made" your "day" [well, this certainly "made my night!"]
* guilty of a "Prattfall" [Just reading again the second bullet above, can you say, 'Zilla that DU's overreaction was on the misguided "Prideful" side?]

Q How was DU guilty of cherrypicking/misrepresentation?

A DU was guilty of this by ONLY highlighting these two p. 45 quotes from Pratt: DU: ...I went to the JOD on-line and searched for their quotation, it's not there, however, I did find this little gem.
The fact of spiritual communications being established, by which the living hear from the dead - being no longer a question of controversy with the well informed, we drop that point, and call attention to the means of discriminating or judging between the lawful and the unlawful mediums or channels of communication - between the holy and impure, the truths and falsehoods, thus communicated. The words of the holy Prophet in our text, while they admit the principle of the living hearing from the dead, openly rebuke, and sharply reprove, persons for seeking to those who have familiar spirits, and to wizards that peep and mutter, and remind us that a people should seek unto their God for the living to hear from the dead!
Skipping down past Parley P Pratt talking about modern revelation and having angels speak... We get to this
Thirdly, Jesus Christ is the only name given under heaven, as a medium through which to approach to God. None, then, can be lawful mediums, who are unbelievers in Jesus Christ, or in modern revelation; or who remain in their sins; or who act in their own name, instead of the name appointed.

Q Why do you consider that cherrypicking/misrepresentation? Doesn't it seem to provide an excellent context for what Pratt was discussing -- that use of "mediums" is "unlawful...channels of communication" and that "Jesus Christ is the only name given under heaven, as a medium through which to approach to God"? Doesn't this appear to actually confirm DU's accusation of 'Zilla that 'Zilla took meanings out of context within this message?

A No. And here's why. If you keep reading, you'll see that DU selected some cherrypicked "gems" while ignoring the real gems undergirding 'Zilla's points:

The 'Mormon question' of whether using "mediums" (beyond Jesus Christ) is "unlawful": (Is it?...Or, is it "A-OK" for Mormon "apostles" to call Joseph Smith a "medium"?)

REAL Gem A: "Who communicated with our great modern Prophet, and revealed through him as a MEDIUM, the ancient history of a hemisphere, and the records of the ancient dead? Moroni, who had lived upon the earth fourteen hundred years before." (Pratt, p. 44)

REAL Gem B: How do the Saints expect the necessary information by which to complete the ministrations for the salvation and exaltation of their friends who have died? By one holding the keys of the oracles of God, AS A MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH THE LIVING CAN HEAR FROM THE DEAD. Shall we, then, deny the principle, the philosophy, the fact of communication between worlds? No! verily no! The spiritual philosophy of the present age was introduced to the modern world by Joseph Smith. The people of the United States abandoned him to martyrdom, and his followers to fire, and sword, and plunder, and imprisonment, and final banishment to these far-off mountains and deserts, simply because a MEDIUM of communication with the invisible world had been found, whereby the living could hear from the dead. (p. 44)

Q If DU read down and cited two quotes from p.45, why didn't he see these two above p. 44 quotes???

A DU? Care to answer on your cherrypicking?

Q Didn't the original volley of exchanges on this issue 'tween 'Zilla & DU focus on activity of the "dead" communicating with Mormons in LdS temples?

A Yes...and that's actually what makes "Gems C & F" cited below quite interesting (gems ignored by DU).

In post #94, 'Zilla said: ...there is a book that recounts many visits from the dead to LDS members titled, "Spirit World Manifestations Accounts of Divine Aid in Genealogical and Temple and Other Assistance to Latter-day Saints", written by Joseph Heinerman, 1986. Going to one of those arcane resources P Parley Pratt taught: "Editors, statesmen, philosophers, priests, and lawyers, as well as the common people, began to advocate the principle of converse with the dead, by visions, divination, clairvoyance, knocking, and writing mediums, etc., etc. This spiritual philosophy of converse with the dead, once established by the labors, toils, sufferings, and martyrdom of its modern founders, and now embraced by a large portion of the learned world, show a triumph more rapid and complete — a victory more extensive, than has ever been achieved in the same length of time in our world. " An important point is gained, a victory won, and a countless host of opposing powers vanquished, on one of the leading or fundamental truths of "Mormon" philosophy, viz. — "that the living may hear from the dead." (Journal of Discourses, Volume II, pages 44-46.) Too old du? Other LDS sources indicate that spirits often make contact with the living to give counsel, offer comfort, obtain or give information, or to prepare men for death. (Duane S. Crowther, Life Everlasting (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1988), page 151) Needless to say, I chose my words carefully and specifically. [Godzilla, post #94]

DU then responded that Necromancy...has never been practiced in any temple [Post #101]

And then the post that got DU into a frizzy...part of that post said: LOL, Pratt spent a whole message in JoD describing the practice in MORMON TEMPLES – your history...Lurkers will note that there are two forms of necromancy - evoking the spirit of a dead man through ritual only, and working directly with the corpse to enliven it to speak. Smith was well versed in the first. THERE ARE NUMEROUS INCIDENTS recorded in mormon history of SUCH EVENTS IN TEMPLES. Are you denying all history?...[Elipses here already covered in upper part of post above] The JoD is a mormon friendly source, Pratt was a preeminent apostle – are you saying that he was presenting a FALSE teaching du?

Q So, how do we know Pratt was specifically referencing communication with the "dead" in Mormon temples?

A
REAL Gem C: ...all the most holy CONVERSATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH God, angels, and SPIRITS, shall be had only in the sanctuary of His holy TEMPLEon the earth, when prepared for that purpose by His Saints; and shall be received and administered by those who are ordained and sealed unto this power, to hold the keys of the sacred oracles of God (p. 46)

REAL Gem D: (Similar to C): ...the Lord has appointed a Holy Priesthood on the earth, and in the heavens, and also in the world of spirits...and has committed to this Priesthood the keys of holy and divine revelation, and of CORRESPONDENCE, OR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN angels, SPIRITS, AND MEN (p. 45)

REAL Gem E: ...an obscure boy and his few associates, in the western wilds of New York, commenced to hold CONVERSE WITH THE DEAD...ONE OF THE LEADING OR FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF "MORMON" PHILOSOPHY, viz. - "That the living may hear from the dead." (p. 45)

REAL Gem F: Ye are assembled here to-day, and have laid these Corner Stones, for the express purpose that the living might hear from the dead, and that we may prepare a holy sanctuary, where "the people may seek unto their God, for the living to hear from the dead"... (p. 46)

Q What makes all this Mormon temple activity "occultic" as Pratt is describing it?

A Note the last quote...Pratt isn't discussing how the "dead" are to "hear from the living" -- how Mormons tend to try to frame baptism for the dead -- that deceased Lds missionaries will go into the spirit world to present the gospel to the dead there...No, just the reverse...the "living," says Pratt, are to "hear from the dead" -- and, in fact, he goes further by claiming:

FACTOID: The "Corner Stones" of Mormon temples are "for the express purpose that the living might hear from the dead"...ALL: What does "express purpose" mean to you???

FACTOID: Commencing "to hold CONVERSE WITH THE DEAD"...[is] "ONE OF THE LEADING OR FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF "MORMON" PHILOSOPHY -- and that this "conversing" involves "the living may hear from the dead." (p. 45)

Also, here DU's been having a "fit" about 'Zilla using the words "communication" and "mediums" to describe this occultic activity, yet Pratt uses the word "medium" twice on p. 44 to describe Joseph Smith...plus on BOTH pp. 45-46, Pratt talks about "conversations and correspondence with...spirits...-- and on p. 46 says this happens "only in the sanctuary of His holy temple". DU, what is "communication" if not "conversations and correspondence with" these spirits? And note where 'Zilla has pointed it out to be over & over on this thread: In the "temple"!!!

***************************************************

EXTENDED SUMMARY: Q3 mentioned above: Does Pratt'S 4/6/1853 sermon correspond on its own with a Biblical definition of "necromancy" -- communicating with the dead?...
...And, if this communication indeed takes place in Mormon temples, does it even matter which party (the dead or the living) initiates such communication?

A Before answering, what has DU said about this thus far on this thread?
* Just for the record, visitations by the dead prophets of days gone by like Elijah are not necromancy by any stretch of the imagination. Necromancy is black magic, which has never been practiced in any temple. [DU, Post #101]
* In the temple, there is no necromancy evoking the spirit of the dead. none, zip zero Nada. We do perform ordinances for and on behalf of someone who is dead. They are no asked to speak, there are no crystal balls, no mediums, no spiritualists, bright light and clean decor with spaciousness and openness of architecture. this is the antithesis of what you describe. Joseph smith was not a spiritualist... [DU, Post #148]

Yet please answer this, DU: If Smith was not a "spiritualist" as you claim, then why did Pratt THRICE reference him as a "MEDIUM" on p. 44?

What is especially noteworthy is that no Mormon can say that Pratt was utilizing the term in a way distinct from how we know it today...Why can I say that? Because eight times in the message, Pratt uses the word "medium" in a negative, occultic manner!

Pratt talks of...
...An "unholy" medium on p. 46...
...An "unlawful" medium on p. 45...
..."Some one 'familiar with spirits'" on p. 43...
..."writing" mediums on pp. 43, 45, 46...
...and two other negative references on pp. 43, 45

Since spiritism rose up in the 1850s, of course Pratt would be addressing its rapidly rising occultic linkages!

Hence, here's what you missed DU as you perused Pratt's message:
(a) Pratt was hinting here that he believed mediums themselves were neutral -- mediums who could accessed by unholy spirits -- or by supposed deceased spirits in need of a good Mormon dunking...as if it didn't cross his mind that demons can masquerade as such deceased spirits:

Pratt: The spirits who are ignorant, uncultivated, and who remain in error, can communicate through the same medium as those better informed. (p. 43)

(b) But the real clincher for the case that Pratt was avidly presenting Smith as a "medium" is what he says at the top of p. 45. If you read those first two full graphs together, and especially digest that 2nd graph, Pratt is essentially saying that Smith himself was the portal -- the original door-opener for the widespread conversing with the dead going on in the various cultures...he came along & was the originator! Look at this quote yourself!

Editors, statesmen, philosophers, priests, and lawyers, as well as the common people, began to advocate the principle of converse with the dead, by visions, divination, clairvoyance, knocking, and writing mediums, &c., &c. This spiritual philosophy of converse with the dead, once established by the labors, toils, sufferings, and martyrdom of its modern founders, and now embraced by a large portion of the learned world, shows a triumph more rapid and complete—a victory more extensive, than has ever been achieved in the same length of time in our world. A quarter of a century since, an obscure boy and his few associates, in the western wilds of New York, commenced to hold converse with the dead. Now, vision, new revelation, CLAIRVOYANCE, MEDIUMS, oracles, &c., are talked of and advocated as far as the modern press extends its influence, or steam its powers of locomotion. (P. 45)

You see that? Pratt says once Smith commenced conversing with the dead (necromancy) well, hey, now all the rest were doing it too...through visions, new revelations, clairvoyance, mediums, oracles...the doors, Pratt claims, became wide open, sums up Pratt!!!

Ah, Mormon necromancy.

For further reinforcement, I covered this last October:
...the Greek word from which "mancy" comes is manteia, which also means "prophesy." And prophesy is both foretelling the future AND forthtelling the present. (See p. 132 of Brewer's online book: re: Biblemancy entry on p. 132): Manteia Greek word for Mancy And you'll see at this Web site how "mancy" is used for both divination and prophesy: Types of 'Mancy' The other aspect of Webster's definition is that it always puts the ball in the summoner's court -- that they conjure up a spirit. You'll see in Isaiah 8:19 that another word for "seek" (King James word) is "consult": 19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Source: They See Dead People? [post #34]

Fact is, DU, that Lds in their writings COMMONLY reference tapping into these spirits as genealogical consultants! I've seen it in BYU courses...I've seen it an LDS Church Sunday School lesson! I've seen it in books & Powerpoint presentations by popular Mormon authors (John Heinerman and Duane Crowther)

I also added last October:
After consultants have taken the initiation to introduce themselves, sometimes those who use them take the initiative. And even then, let's say we could say with certainty that such spirit consultants assumed the initiative 100% of the time, so what?...what would it matter if these consultants were the 100% initiators? The bottom line would be the same: You've got Mormons consulting the dead for information, for comfort, for counsel, for guidance, etc. -- even if we agreed that these consultants were the initiators. We have hundreds of Mormon incidents where they have consulted the dead -- even if don't use terms like "summon" or "conjure" to describe the dynamics of what occurred. Responsive consultations -- demons acting as ghosts -- is not exactly any behavior any church trying to associate with the name of Jesus Christ should be actively promoting, which the Mormon church is doing.

Pratt also wasn't the only 19th century LdS "apostle" to highlight what's being covered on this thread: "The living are thus authorized, under prescribed conditions, to act for the dead, and the fathers and spirit world look to the children in the flesh to perform for them the works which they were unable to attend to while in the body.... This glorious doctrine... regulates the COMMUNION OF THE LIVING WITH THE DEAD....The TEMPLE where the ordinances can be administered for the dead, is the place to HEAR FROM THE DEAD."(38) (lds "apostle" Charles W. Penrose, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, Utah: Juvenile Instructor's Office, 1888), pages 40-41

Q Can you provide a real example where a top Mormon leader said he "heard from the dead?"

A I could go into a slew of them...since this post is way long...I'll settle on one: I went to the exact message given by Woodruff on Sept. 16, 1877 -- vol. 19, pp. 229-230 of the Journal of Discourses, vol. 19:

...it is our duty to rise up and build these Temples. I look upon this portion of our ministry as a mission of as much importance as preaching to the living; the dead will hear the voice of the servants of God in the spirit-world, I will here say, before closing, that two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. SAID they, "You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God." These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights.

DU, here you say in this post re: "someone who is dead" that "they are no[t] "asked to speak," -- yet both Lds "prophet" Wilford Woodruff and two Lds "apostles" say otherwise?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.