Replies

I Said: but that he confirms the Book of Mormon as his word! I guess if you spin long enough everything starts looking circular. You imaged... ”circular”

it's not very circular, more trapezoidal, circles are round. never the less, it ignores the point I haver made back every time that the testimony comes from God

Here is this "Circular process with the "new" information included.

God says To try the spirits to see if they are of him (First John 4:1-3)

Joseph smith says he is a true prophet of God and translated the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon says that God will verify it as his word.

Read the Book of Mormon.

Pray about the Book of Mormon.

God testifies The Book of Mormon is true, and the answer conforms to
what the Bible says it must in order to be from him (First John 4:1-3).

Since the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph is a prophet of God.

So much for circular... More like linear.

U Said: More lying for the Lord there Delphi???

This is a heinous charge, as if God would allow anyone to lie on his behalf.

The answer is no, I try to strive fro complete truthfulness even when it will hurt my point.

U Said: Per Brigham Young there I’d say you’d BETTER be praying to J. Smith or denounce the LDS. And I’d also say that pretty much sums it up that you’re lying and you do indeed focus on Joseph Smith. This of course is a pious fraud argument given the above quote from one of your ‘prophets’.

I don't know whose site you are getting your quote mining material from, wait, this is from the tanners site still isn't it, LOL! Well all the newbie anti's seem to start there. It's taken out of Context, this particular quote gets thrown into maybe half the threads on Mormonism by some anti or another, I have personally seen this upwards of fifty times. IIRC, Brigham young was talking on the duties of a judge in Israel, and how they will testify (as ecclesiastical leaders) either for or against people from their flock when those people are judged of God. Besides, the JOD is just a collection of sermons, not Canonized scripture (surely the tanners told you we would say that) and as such, I can disagree with it completely and still be a Mormon in good standing. (So much for the you'd better aspect of your post) which means you have now lied about my process of coming to know the Book of Mormon is true, and accused me of "Lying for the Lord (an interesting concept to be sure), and now you yourself are lying (by omission) parts of my process that I have stressed when you left them out before, are you Lying for the Lord" as you have accused me of? I Said: If God testifies of it

to which you add "Bla blah blah" I am amazed that anyone who wishes to be considered an accurate conduit to Christ would so easily and disrespectfully dismiss any communication from God. U Said: then you give me links to Jeff Lindsay again (ROFL) and yet more Mormon sites, LOL.

Why not send you to Jeff Lindsay, you appear to be continuing to leech from the Tanners without even attributing. Tell me truthfully, did you read the Journal of Discourses, or use someone else's work to find this quote? If you used someone else's work, why didn't you attribute your source?

U Said: At the very least this would be “Argument by Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseum)” and more probably is a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact since you’ve never demonstrably proven anything.

While this is funny, I have, Actually, Among the many things I have proven is:

The Bible speaks of Multiple gods in many places, but only of one God whom we should worship.
Anti's use each other's work without attribution and often it is based on fallacious techniques that the "current poster" may not even know about.
Anti's employ double standard for if the reasoning (to use the term loosely) of their attacks on Mormonism were applied to their own beliefs they would not fare any better than ours. (thus as a rule, anti's are hypocrites)
As a rule, anti Mormons are more interested in the destruction of the LDS faith even if they have to mislead and lie to do it than in saving our souls.
The test of the Book of Mormon by seeking confirmation from God is Biblical, and that my answer meets all the tests supplied by the Bible for being an answer from God.

Of course you will vehemently deny these, but anyone who has been reading our posts will see I am speaking the truth. U Said: (Mormon sites don’t count due to BIAS).

Then none of your posts, or sites count due to bias. (didn't you state earlier that you were dedicating yourself to the destruction of my church? I can find it for you if you wish...) And I do find it interesting that you, being the one attacking are accusing me of Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseum), you are the one completely in control of this discussion, you attack, I defend, stop attacking, I'll stop defending, you are actually guilty of Argumentum ad Baculum, or trying to win by force of numbers and size of postings. IIRC, you are retired and have a tons of time, Godzilla is a professional theologian and seems to consider this "activity" part of his job, I have a job, and a family, I participate of FR because I can't stand for the lies inaccuracies and slanders to go unanswered.

If you've seen national treasure, he who can do something has the responsibility to do it. I can and do make you look silly when you attack my church, so it is my responsibility to do it. U Said: And once again we’re back to:

A flawed and dishonest rendition of events...

U Said: As to the link to the southern Baptist minister, first off, anyone who is a member of that church should leave immediately as the man is following a false prophet.

Apparently you did not see Godzilla's post, she did, the link I followed was out of date and said she was a practicing Baptist minister. I did not look up a bio, Godzilla did, and she has left.

U Said: Secondly, its an Argument by Generalization or more specifically an Argument by Selective Observation or more to the point: ‘cherry picking’.

Oh, this is rich, you post a "quotation" from the JOD that is at odds with the rest of the talk, then accuse us of "cherry picking", do you even know what irony is? LOL! U Said: Would you like a comprehensive list of Southern Baptist churches who DON’T share this man’s viewpoint and call Mormonism what it is, a cult???? Ooops there goes your ad hominem attack accusing me of lacking logic huh?

While your posts have been full of Ad Hominem attacks, actually you are right about the word cult, you see, any religion with a name, basically falls under one or the other definitions of the word cult, Catholics, Baptists, methodists, scientilogists, Buddhism, you name it, if it's got a name and it's even close to a religion, it can be called a cult. That is what is so tricky about calling us that, technically your right, but most people see it as a pejorative term, meaning of the occult, which would be incorrect.

U Said: And then we’re back to spouting off evidences for the BOM (when there are none) and spouting off again that a prophet of God ‘may be flawed’ blah blah blah – LOL! Back to Argument Ad Nauseum again are we?????

It's hard to spout nothing, try it in your next post, LOL!

Lets try a bit iv syllogism here:

A) All men are sinners.
B) The prophets in the Bible were all men.
C) The prophets were all sinners.

While it's fun giving you these little lessons in logic, it's hardly my mission in life.

U Said: Well, if you are going to do this so shall I…I repeat…..DNA evidence concretely proves the BOM to be false – deal with it.

I have dealt with it, it's a flawed study assuming a genetic purity where there is none and the "study" breaks down right there. even if we just go to historical records The Indians in historical times were happy to inter marry with Spaniards, and vikings and Europeans. They kept no records of Genealogy, so find for me a pure sample of Indian DNA today, and then here's the tricky part, prove it. You simply can't. We know that Portuguese and Vikings to name just a few found America at some time and then lost it again, The only argument you can make against the The Los Lunas Hebrew Inscription is that it's fake (IT would have been impossible to fake a carving in a dead language that was not understood until a hundred years after the stone was found and documented) or that some Hebrews found the Americas (with this as the only evidence) but yet were not the peoples of the Book of Mormon. LOL! I could list more, but that's been done, and you still didn't see the truth that was staring you in the face.

Your analogy for this is a group of Genetically pure peoples who would not marry outside of their group who were traced to the Jews with Genetics. Again, the problem is that the American Indians have been genetically promiscuous, and we know it. Not only that, but the assumed genetic purity from the Beginning is not there because they took non Hebraic people with them and married them in, and joined with "Others in the land", your Genetic profiling just can't be accurate, so who cares what it says?

U Said: And please don’t go posting another Jeff Lindsey URL – he’s been debunked, trashed, and thrown out in the garbage by every reputable scientist.

Well, you asked for it...

As for having been debunked, so have you...

Reputable Scientists, ROTFLOL!! Like that ones that support Darwin? or Global warming?

Do you know what site you are on? Scientists don't exactly garner a lot of respect here, they have been "used" to further obviously flawed causes too often.

I can't find an entry for Argument ad humorous anywhere, but this qualifies...

U Said: As to your archeological proofs – lol – you are aware that NONE of these provide one statement attesting to even so much as one city named in the Book of Mormon,

So? When the Crusades took place, the walls at Jerusalem didn't say "Welcome to Jerusalem" on them. archeology is seldom so neat that we find something with a name we laymen would know on it. This is funny, ancient Hebrew written on a big rock in America has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon which talks about ancient Hebrews coming to the Americas. Yeah, it's actually proof against, since it wasn't signed by Lehi.

U Said: or one name of any one person named in the Book of Mormon????

You like this kind of humor, read The Book of Lemuel, actually, it's funny, your rants are not.

U Said: And how about that Hill of Cumorah eh? Not one skeleton ever unearthed even though there was a large battle there and thousands died?????

Do you have any idea what it takes to preserve a skeleton? IF they are left out in the open, there are these animals who will drag them off, if just buried, they will rot, and if you didn't read the BOM, you might not have known that when there were too many to bury, they commonly threw them in the river, next? U Said: Please……..I would submit this continued assertion the BOM has been proven archaeologically when it most definitely has not would be an Argument by Pigheadedness.

I never said it was "proven true" I said there was undeniably evidence for it. Speaking of Argument by Pigheadedness. I Said: Now you were there when I was told by God that Joseph was a prophet?

U Said: I don’t have to be,

Then you don't know what God told me or how.

U Said: shall we go into the Greek construction of I John 4 again?????

It wasn't embarrassing enough last time? Greek by numbers is painful to watch, besides, there are reputable interpretations straight from the Greek and they read almost the same as my KJV with no differing meaning, so who cares what your "special" interpretation reads? not me.

U Said: No spirit of God would attack true, genuine Christology as Joseph Smith did, and no true prophet is going to issue false prophecies, and no true prophet is going to live a life of bad fruit.

"True Christology"? That's the point, that was lost when in 325 AD the whole church declared a false version of Christology now known as the Trinity.

False prophecies, like Moses, John the Beloved and let's not forget Jonah, your post would be funny if it wasn't clear you believe this stuff.

Joseph's life was one of Undeniable fruit, he stated a religion that now numbers in the millions, Founded a city which in it's day was one of the largest in the US, and inspired a migration that largely settled the inter mountain west. What have you done o great oracle of godliness, oh font of good deeds what have you done as fruit? Posted on this board? There is an old saying, those that can't do Teach, those that can't do or teach critique. You may find meaning there, or not

U Said: And yes I’ll keep bringing this up as all of these are the positive test that we are to make regarding him.

Ah, the Treat of continued posting = Argument Ad Nauseum + Argumentum ad Baculum , LOL! I will not bow to your oppression sir, you'll have to pry my Book of Mormon from my cold dead hands! (Cue a picture of Charlton Heston with a Book photo shopped in where the Rifle was) LOL!

U Said: For you to continue to assert this with no biblical proof or support is commit the Wishful Thinking fallacy.

If you think that I think that anyone can "Prove" the Book of Mormon true by the Bible, then you don't know what I am am thinking, you only think you know what I am thinking, LOL!

However, there are many places the Book of Mormon is prophesied of in the Bible: Ezek. 37: 15-17

15 ¶ The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, 16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

What does this prophecy mean? To non Mormons it is an unfulfilled prophecy in the Bible, To Mormons this was fulfilled when the Church began printing "Quads" or Books containing the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants all Cross referenced (become one) and bound together in one binding (one in my hand). To us this was literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy. I don't expect you to accept that as proof, it was not designed to be, it is a faith promoting event for the faithful, and we understand it as it was intended.

John 10: 16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Now there are some who say the Other sheep are the Gentiles, (which makes no sense because Jesus said repeatedly they would not her his voice, he was sent unto the house of Israel) But, OK, where are the records of him visiting the Gentiles personally? I this was just talking about he coming missionary work then why say he was going? Orthodox Christianity does not understand the Bible they revere because of the loss of the understanding of the true nature of God, the "Christology" you spoke of earlier.

are these "proof" no, but they prove the bible was not intended to stand alone. U Said: And yes we’re back to:

Argument Ad Nauseum

U Said: Hardly. There is no assumption here.

Sadly, I believe you believe this.

U Said: He has PROVEN he is not a true prophet, you just refuse to see the evidence for it. Thus you commit the Argument Contrary to Fact or we could simply go back to the ‘Wishful Thinking’ fallacy, whichever you prefer.

There is no such proof. There are all sorts of flawed attempts, but each such attempt falls of it's own weight.

Let's look at some of the Attempts that have been tried by you.

Joseph committed some sin (Lying, adultery, polygamy, etc.)	Many Bible prophets committed sin if this disproves a prophet, the Bible just got smaller, worse, since it was compiled by men who claimed to be inspired, they are now shown to not be inspired, and that means the Cannon of the bible is worthless, worse yet, this is the same church that created the doctrine of the Trinity, it falls too.
Joseph prophesied of things that have not yet come to pass, or had prophecies that were not fulfilled.	Many Bible prophets that have not yet come to pass, or had prophecies that were not fulfilled if this disproves a prophet... See above. Moses Jonah, and John the Beloved are a few who will have to be thrown out of the Bible by this standard.
Joseph produced Bad fruit.	This is a highly subjective argument, and from my perspective, the fruit is excellent.
Some other prophet said X or the church taught Y, or Scientists say Z	Contradictions and inaccuracies are found in the Bible (X dies here or all the bible suffers again) Many things have been purged from the Church in the Bible by the prophets and apostles charged with keeping the church pure. we have done the same, and those have been removed, so? (Y dies here or all the Bible suffers again) Scientists have also said that men can't walk on water and Water cannot be turned into wine by pouring it from one pot to another, women don't have virgin births and men don't raise themselves from the dead. Science is a poor refuge for one religion to use as an attack on another, glass houses come to mind... (Y dies here or the Bible suffers the same fate)

I could go back through all your posts, and make such a table... Nah, nobody'd read it. At first you were an excellent foil to show the mendacity and pugnaciousness of our attackers upon, but when you just won't learn, well it gets as old as the two year old who has learned this new word "Why"

U Said: When you build a building do you continue to lay a foundation upon a foundation upon a foundation? No. Ditto with prophecy and prophets. It says so right here.

When a building is destroyed, you dig up the foundation and lay a new one, The Bible is the story of repeating this process over and over, (Calling people to repentance after they and the church have strayed... laying again the foundation of Jesus and building up the church on knowledge of him) it's funny you didn't get this from actually reading the bible.

Chuckle, you quote from Hebrews 1:2 Let's read the whole chapter, shale we? Hebrews 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall awax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Your very quotation refutes the Trinity!
In verse 2 they talk about Jesus just having been there and talking to them. It does not say he will never talk again which is what you infer from it. Your inference is wrong.

in verse three, Paul discusses how alike the Father and the Son are. This makes no sense if they are of the same substance, which is why most "orthodox" Christians avoid these scriptures like the plague and see no meaning in them.

In verse four Paul talks about how Jesus inherits the kingdom, and the angels don't

Verse six, verse six is very interesting, First begotten? Jesus is the only begotten in the flesh, how then is he the First Begotten? Mormons believe that Jesus was the First begotten of the Spirits that God the father of Spirits Fathered, thus in the Beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and (as soon as he became a member of the Godhead) the Word was God. Since Jesus, the First begotten was chosen By God the Father to be the savior of all mankind, not just on this world, but on all the worlds where God the Father's children live, he was charged with Building the universe to hold those worlds. Since Jesus was Begotten first, he predates us and has to us always been. Since he will exist far after all these creations have been destroyed, he will always be. He is God and our older brother, who loved us so much that he came down into this existence and suffered for our sins, yea, he Died for us, and thus we have the opportunity to return and live with him and our Father in heaven again being Co-heirs with him of all that the father hath.

This verse plugs in neatly and completely into Mormons doctrine, for "Orthodox" Christians however, it is poison to their doctrines, so they ignore it.

In verse Eight, God the Father Crowns Jesus as God and king over us his brethren.

In verse Ten he speaks of Jesus' creative role in this universe.

U Said: Because we have Christ and HIS WORD prophets and prophecy have been done away with, that’s what Scripture teaches.

No, it's not what the scripture teaches, if you read the whole thing in context. Mormons shouldn't be surprised then you Quote mine us, you've been doing it to the Bible for a long time.

U Said: Yet one more PROOF Smith is false and you follow him at your own peril.

That's not a proof at all, but there are none so blind as those who do not see.

U Said: you commit the Argument Contrary to Fact or we could simply go back to the ‘Wishful Thinking’ fallacy, whichever you prefer.

I prefer the truth, and that is what I have been stating. You are the one who said there was no evidence to support the Book of Mormon or it's views, I presented some, you were wrong, and that's a fact.

Now you want to say that Corinthians says there will never be any more prophecy, Sigh, Revelations speaks of Prophets prophesying right before the savior comes and there are other prophecies prophesying of prophets, so now your interpretations have the Bible contradicting itself again just so you can claim it precludes the Book of Mormon, again. Some people never learn...

Now you talk about Against one Noetus, Noetus was a modalist which means he was a believer in the same substance of God, just not three persons, to him God was more of a shape shifter. Hippolytus destroys the very scripture used to support the trinity with earlier logic and that ruins the whole modern church.

Yes, God and Christ are on, yes they are in each other, just like all the other places in the Bible where husbands and wives are commanded to be one in each other, and just like we are commanded to be one in Christ, just like the apostles are commanded to be one. I have read this in more than just a cursory fashion as quote miners do, and I am the one who linked you to the text, get it? Read the whole thing, it says what i said it does for I have studied it carefully (which puts the lie to your earlier statement that I could not study anything out side the Cannon of my own church BTW)

Let me quote from your ending quotation: If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power.

Notice what you underlined, it is specifically the part that says He did not say this and then quotes it. Here is what I would underline: If, again, he allege His own word when He said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power. you stop too soon and take the emphasized part out of context, it specifically means the opposite of what you got from it. This is actually funny that you would do this while "refuting me" consider yourself owned PWND or whatever.

Then you go to my citation of Book X of a refutation of all heresies, again, this is funny.

U Said: Now once again to demonstrate Delphi’s cherry picking argumentative and arrogant debate style, this is what he deliberately LEFT OUT (Or in other words the above quote is the CONCLUDING address which cannot be fully understood without studying the PRECEDING part of the address!):

A couple of points before I continue with your tirade, I included the link, which precludes the art of cherry picking which requires the quotation to be obscure and difficult to find and therefore difficult to refute. I did not say it was a concluding address, but I did not say it was not, just that it is a passage likely to make you upset, apparently I was correct, you actually started to follow my links, cool.

U Said: The Logos alone of this God is from God himself;

So, the logos is separate from God the Father, Got it.

U Said: wherefore also the Logos is God,

So the Logos is a member of the Godhead, got it.

U Said: being the substance of God……

So the Logos is a child of God's, Got it.

U Said: This Logos the Father in the latter days sent forth, no longer to speak by a prophet, and not wishing that the Word, being obscurely proclaimed, should be made the subject of mere conjecture, but that He should be manifested, so that we could see Him with our own eyes.

So Jesus was sent forth from he Father, to speak for himself, manifesting himself so no one could say he didn't exist.

U Said: This Logos, I say, the Father sent forth, in order that the world, on beholding Him, might reverence Him who was delivering precepts not by the person of prophets, nor terrifying the soul by an angel, but who was Himself—He that had spoken—corporally present amongst us…….

So, Jesus went forth from the Father so the world would revere Jesus instead of God the Father, he delivered his message personally.

I see nothing in this carefully read passage to contradict what he says in his summation, nor to contradict Mormon doctrine at all.

U Said: What Delphi SHOULD HAVE DONE

This is gonna be good, in a bad way...

U Said: was pay attention to Hippolytus when he began his dissertation of the types of Gnostic heresies. He should have paid particular attention to the following ones:

So, to use your metaphor, i should have cherry picked these instead? No matter, Hippolytus is so in tune with the Gospel I'll go through those now, having already read all his extant works front to back that are on this site six times, let's go!

Please remember, you picked these...

Chapter 9. Valentinus - For some of them maintain that (the Father) is solitary and generative; whereas others hold the impossibility, (in His as in other cases,) of procreation without a female.

So some people think God is all alone at the Top and others think he is asexual both are wrong, Got it.

They therefore add Sige as the spouse of this Father, and style the Father Himself Bythus.

So some people think decided to call God "Bythos" which is a Greek name for kind of a Father nature, and that is wrong, Got it. Sige, or Basically a Greek name for the primal silence is his spouse and that's also wrong, Got it. Don't rename God after Greek Gods or Primal forces because that's not him, Got it.

From this Father and His spouse some allege that there have been six projections,—viz., Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, —and that this constitutes the procreative Ogdoad.

So re-making the Godhead into Greek mythology is wrong, Got it.

U Said: [Sound familiar Mormons???? God the spirit Father and His wife procreating other spirit children on the planet Kolob???]

Not even remotely, one is God, remade into a Greek story so he can fit in with their other gods, the other is a twisted representation of what we believe, which is the truth. Would you like to actually discuss what we believe, or would you rather just keep misrepresenting it?

Chapter 16. Apelles -But Apelles, a disciple of this heretic, was displeased at the statements advanced by his preceptor, as we have previously declared, and by another theory supposed that there are four gods. And the first of these he alleges to be the "Good Being," whom the prophets did not know, and Christ to be His Son. And the second God, he affirms to be the Creator of the universe, and Him he does not wish to be a God. And the third God, he states to be the fiery one that was manifested; and the fourth to be an evil one.

U Said: [Hmmmm sounds eerily similar to Mormonisms pantheon of the Father Elohim, the unnamed goddess mother of all the spirit children wife of Elohim, the Holy Spirit, Christ the Son, and Lucifer the evil one brother of Christ the Son].

It doesn't sound familiar to me, the God head has three Entities, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Fiery one is God's wife? LOL? Again they are mixing pagan Gods into the Gospel, and that's not us. However, I can see how you might misconstrue things, Constantine thought the difference between same substance and similar substance was a "question of little import", I guess you are as familiar with these issues as he was with those of his day.

Chapter 18. Ebionaeans - They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified.

U Said: [Hmmmm kind of like the works based salvation of Mormonism].

We don't believe in being saved by works (and if you have red my page, you know that.) We do however, read the whole Bible instead of just cherry picking from it, including:

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Thus, I say unto you, Show me thy faith without thy works and I will show they my faith by my works.

Chapter 20. Melchisedecians - And others also make all their assertions similarly with those which have been already specified, introducing one only alteration, viz., in respect of regarding Melchisedec as a certain power. But they allege that Melchisedec himself is superior to all powers; and according to his image, they are desirous of maintaining that Christ likewise is generated.

U Said: [Wow, the whole Mormon focus of the Melchizedek Priesthood right here].

Mormons do not have any belief that Melchisedec is superior to Jesus, where do you get this off the wall inaccurate stuff? Melchisedec was indeed a great high priest, So? we don't worship him, the priesthoods complete name is "the priesthood after the order of the son of God" the Melchisedec priesthood for short. No one is preeminent over Jesus for God the father has given him "all power". U Said: Is it any wonder Delphi cherry picked this out????

Um, I linked the article, that's why it was easy for you to find this "stuff" you think is damning, I don't think it's relevant, that's why I didn't quote it, however, since I do indeed think the whole thing supports us I was not afraid to post the link to the whole thing, unlike your Quote mining... U Said: So now we can all see that Delphi is deceptive,

By linking the Source? LOL! By only quoting the points that I thought were germane Are you seriously saying I should either quote the pieces that have no bearing on the discussion, or the whole thing instead of excerpting? If that is your standard, have you posted quotes from the JOD while not quoting those parts of the JOD that support our claims? If so, you are then Deceptive by your own standards (see how your "Standards" for us condemn you? I see them as clear evidence of hypocrisy on your part, YMMV) U Said: he’s argumentative, not to mention obsessive compulsive,

It's a debate forum, if your not argumentative, Go somewhere else...

Also, is it your contention that you are not argumentative (chuckle)

OCD, it comes with the autism, what's your excuse?

U Said: he’s arrogant and presumptive,

And you I suppose setting in judgment on others is not presumptive? Only Jesus can judge a man's soul, your willingness to do so as well is not a resume enhancement.

U Said: he engages in the Lying for the Lord doctrine as well,

I do not, I have never lied to you, you have repeatedly lied about my beliefs and about my statements.

U Said: but most of all he is lost in darkness.

Funny, I feel very enlightened by the lord, well, the lurkers can decide for themselves.

U Said: At this point in time I am fed up with you,

I am sorry to hear that, I was hoping you'd see the light eventually.

U Said: if you post to me again, I will not answer you.

That is your option, however, if you continue to post about my church you will hear from me, respond or not, your call.

U Said: I refuse to continue in a debate with a lying pompous A$$ (your words, not mine, but they do fit don’t they?)

Yes, they look good with the pompous you are wearing (inside joke to those who haven't been following along)

U Said: P.S. As to your pompous statement I am not to judge your false prophet so you can continue to deflect and protect him,

An attack against the Man (Ad Hominem ) attack is not good form especially when the man is dead. You don't appear to want to debate the actual tenets of our religion, but slander a dead man, a man who was Martyred for his faith and a prophet of God.

U Said: I Corinthians 14:29 KJV – “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge….NASV – “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” NIV - ”Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.”

Many prophets have spoken since Joseph and they have testified of him.

Moses was called first on the Mount, then came fellow testifiers (like Aaron and Miriam). Joseph Smith, was similarly called, had similar supporters and is just as much a prophet as Moses truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear.

U Said: Thank you, but I’ll obey GOD over a brainwashed heretic any day of the week.

GREAT! I have not commanded you to do anything, I have invited you to come unto Christ, I have invited you to Pray. I have encouraged you to ask God. I have commanded nothing, I have not asked anyone to believe me alone, I have asked no one to do anything without a confirmation from God.

CG, Go with God, if you don't wan to post to me, then fine, if you want to then Fine, as you wish, and if you stay off of my religion, I will not point out the flaws in your logic elsewhere, good luck, God bless, and please stay conservative.