Replies

a singular God that has a plurality.

A HA! so you are a polytheist! </Anti mode>

Lurkers will note – Du consistently abuses the Greek definition of the word for ‘Godhead’ (theotes) yet refuses to justify his use – other than his ‘say-so’.

Boy, is this going to be fun...

So, here is a link now, before you go all "supporting "bad" sites" on me, I only read the one article, and I don't even agree with all of it, but it does have links and quotations from Concordances and lexicons and I don't want to cut and paste without attribution...

Thus, lexicons give expressions such as: divinity, deity, godhead, divine nature, divine being. But what do these expressions mean? An examination of some English dictionaries reveals that the meanings of these words is considerably broader than some Trinitarians would like them to be.

So, I'm not alone, now I'm sure my critics will jump all over that this is a Jehovah's Witness site, but hey, they expected me to go read an anti Mormon site, right? so fair is fair, go read it and deal with it as an argument, not as a "non-christian" site.

Ahhh - Payback

You might also enjoy this: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Godzilla, note that to me "one God" does not denote a singular being, "God" does not denote to me a singular being.

Lets take the word "Clergy" Clergy is generally considered to be a plural word, we speak of the clergy of the church, and mean everyone, I have also heard it used to mean the local pastor, singular. Chinese has words that mean one or more, so does English. I could talk to you, meaning one or more people. I could "get some wood" and come back with one piece. I could have experience which means I have done something at least once before.

God means one or more members of the Godhead. It really does not matter, they are all "one"...

It's a concept that cannot be forced upon you, and apparently, you don't want to get it...
As for your comment on standards, I thought the RM said not to talk about that anymore. I do note that you'd rather talk about that, or anything else for that matter, than the reality of the Bible's support (or lack thereof) for the Trinity.

do you know what word culminate means?

Delph You can't have it both ways, either we believe in being saved by works (your assertion in earlier posts) or we believe all men are saved regardless. You can't say we believe both. (In fact we believe neither, but that's not my problem, I know what I believe you seem to be guessing.)

GZ It is not my fault that mormon doctrine is schizophrenic when it come to the use of the word “salvation”.

We are not confused, obviously if you don't understand it well enough not to be confused by it, you should be reading, not writing, but so far it seems you think you are an expert in everything. (Ancient metal working, Greek, Latin, archeology, Geology, genetics, map making... just a few things you have tried to "educate" me on that turned out badly in the past.)

GZ A general salvation to all, courtesy of the atonement, just meaning everyone will get a body at the resurrection.

OK, let's see what the bible says: 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It's a simile, I know you have a problem with those, so let me translate for you.

Adam brought death into the world, so a man, Jesus Christ, brought resurrection into the world. There is no condition listed here, all will be resurrected. Don't believe me, fine, we'll argue about it after we're both resurrected. If one of us in not there to argue, I'll concede your point immediately.

GZ The more specific use is individual salvation commonly associated with exultation.

There is a reason we have different words for Resurrection, and salvation... ever wonder why?

GZ While exultation is made possible by the necessary merits of Christ and blessings of his atonement, it is all based upon your works.

Read the Bible much? Revelations 20:12-13

Please explain to me just exactly what is meant by that scripture in the Bible, since you say the Bible is inerrant, and complete, I expect nothing but Bible references, good luck, you'll need it not to agree with us, and not to contradict those verses (which would make one of them an error).

Delph So, it is your contention that Paul does not think we need to keep the commandments he is giving us? BwaHAhaHA!

GZ My contention is that Paul clearly taught that commandments/works were not necessary to qualify or make oneself ‘worthy’ for salvation.

Please cite your reference for where Paul "Clearly Taught" (You can't interpret unclear scriptures, it has to say it) that the commandments did not need to be kept to be saved. (Crickets)

Easy DU, you will end up confusing yourself again.

Your projecting... For individual salvation, Paul taught that salvation was by grace (UNMERITED favor) through faith and not of works.

See my challenge above, I believe you need Faith and Grace, shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works Please show where Paul says you don't need works to be judged by. (Remember revelations above and don't contradict it!)

Paul also taught that ‘works’ would be the result of the changed life of the believer and a work of God in that life as well.

So, let me unwind your spin here. Grace is all that's needed. Grace comes from Faith. Faith results in Works. You don't need "works" to be saved, even though the Bible says you will be judged by your works, got it.

For mormonism I’m just stating what your doctrine states – salvation MAY be possible only by following the laws and ordinances (works) – your AOF 3, supported by the teachings of your prophets (already cited) and your bom.

LOL! thanks, but you're having enough trouble with the Bible, leave the interpretation of our doctrine to those of us who study it more. First you need faith in Jesus, then the work of Baptism should follow, then comes the Gift of the Holy Ghost. More study of the Gospel, increasing in faith, which is followed by works, then as you keep the laws you learn, you are justified by Jesus, and when you die, being on "the right track" (since perfection in this life is impossible for you) that's all you can do, Jesus applies Grace and you are saved.

One of the things you leave out of your equation is that Mormons only believe you are responsible to obey the laws you know.

"Orthodox Christianity" damns innocent babies who die unbaptized to hell and rewards degenerate murderers with salvation because they received the last rites.

This is not justice. This is not Jesus' plan.

Delph You said we believed only in salvation for the righteous, I agreed, and so would Paul.

GZ Lurkers it would be interesting to see if DU can find an actual reference that quotes Paul saying that one must become righteous BEFORE qualifying for salvation. Were Du to actually study the matter, he would find that righteousness is automatically imputed by God to the individual at the same time the person is saved (see above), ie righteousness FOLLOWS salvation – not as a precursor as is demanded in mormonism.

Romans 2:1-6

1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Therefore thou art inexcusable O Godzilla whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Applies rather nicely doesn't it, oh don't forget this part "Who will render to Godzilla according to his deeds"

Are you comfortable with that? I am when I put my name in there. You see Paul did believe in judging by deeds or Works as it is rendered elsewhere.

Do you ever tire of being wrong about the Bible? Just curious.

Speaking of Satan Godzilla said: Yet you celebrate his deception in the garden in your temple ceremonies.

So, you think Satan should be stricken from all religions exposition? How then are the next generation to know and avoid him? We do not celebrate Satan in the Temple ceremonies, he is a historical figure, part of the story of Adam and Eve, indeed, he tells everyone there that if they do not keep the commandments of God they will be in his power.

Hardly a celebration...

you accuse me of intellectually dishonest, actual dishonesty, I'm just glad you didn't get around to marital dishonesty, or my wife might start posting and then you'd be in for it!!!

I'm not even going to bother with your intellectually dishonest accusations that I am intellectually dishonest.

LOL, Lurkers will notice the continued squirming on this point. Instead of showing that the material on the non mormon site was incorrect or distorted (hard to distort a scanned copy of the pages from the actual book), just more attempts to poison the well.

Not going to even look, the JOD online link has been sent to you several times, there must be a reason you don't want to go to an authoritative source, as for poisoning the well, it's an anti Mormon site! We are discussing Mormon beliefs there is no need to poison the well of objectivity there, the dead bodies floating in the water will do nicely.

Delph snippet: or, in this case, and abundance of people quoting the same scriptures...

GZ And come to the same conclusion

I don't care how many people you have saying the earth is flat, that just won't make it so. the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not up for a vote, or he'd have lost the last time he was here! (the Sanhedrin were unanimous after all.)

then you launch in your polytheist name calling again...
<SNIP>
Waist of time, it's been covered... a lot.

Atonement -- Yep, reconciliation with God, so? I know you think this is big, but I knew that atonement was based on reconciling with God, apparently, you see a problem I don't, maybe it's your interpretation stuff getting in your way again.

Godhead and Atonement, in the Bible, Trinity and saved by grace alone no works needed, not in the Bible.

Lurkers may wonder – why didn’t DU present the mormon definition instead of a dictionary reference? Perchance because the mormon definition is what I’ve been stating all along.

Because I've been scolded before for going to our definitions for things (in fact, didn't you just do that a minute ago in your post? I cut that part out because it was boring, but anyone who cares can go back and look.)

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES
God, Godhead

There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost. We believe in each of them (A of F 1: 1). From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, without flesh and bone (D&C 130: 22-23). These three persons are one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine (John 17: 21-23; 2 Ne. 31: 21; 3 Ne. 11: 27, 36).

Really good stuff there, anyone who is actually interested, go red it, it's way clearer than what Godzilla's been saying and the links are live from it too.

Godzilla complained that I had responded too fast to have read the sites I reminded him that I can speed read.

Speed reader perhaps, speed comprehension dubious.

Actually, you don't know that speed reading actually increases comprehension, I have been tested and have a measured comprehension rate of 98%@ 1500 WPM on new material that I have not read before.IIRC, one of my tests was on bees, the proper care, and harvesting of beehives and honey, extraction from a honey comb using a centrifuge, and the temperature at which honey would flow and the wax not melt was above 70 F and below 80 F (you could go to 90 if you were not centrifuging it)

Fascinating book, read it in just a few minutes, have never looked at honey in quite the same way ever since. I was in the fourth grade.

Further questions About speed reading?

Lurkers will note the failed nature of this statement. One site I recommended had about 700 scripture citations.

Bee honest, many of the citations were repeats...

Another that DU couldnt bother himself to study has extensive sections responding to pushbacks by readers in addition to addressing competing interpretations in great detail. Being a speed reader is no good if you fail to READ the contents of the materials presented.

A novel you can speed read, a well written book you can speed read, comments broken up by web markups and pictures, not so much. I never said it was a panacea. You never said to read all the comments, you said to read the articles, I did.

What kind of degree did you receive for the few weeks you attended the monastery DU you never really answered that question was it something beyond a certificate of attendance?

I have a certificate of graduation, and a wallet card that identifies me as a Buddhist seminary graduate. they would be recognized by other monasteries in Taiwan, and that's about it. Both had his Chop stamped over his signature, and make great souvenirs.

Lurkers will note just from the above comparison of what DU passes off for a definition of the mormon godhead, and what Ive been presenting on the same pretty well says it all. Lurkers will also remember that DU also protested not too long ago that the King Follett sermon was not taught by the church, until confronted with it in Gospel Principles. In fact, I have yet to see any real mormon doctrine presented to support HIS view of mormon doctrine. Oh well.

See, GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES
God, Godhead higher up.

Lurkers will note, DU leaves out the part to pray with a sincere heart with real intent for God to testify of Jesus and ask God to reveal the Truth of the Trinity. Lurkers would also note that DU’s FIRST response (before the zot) came less than a DAY after my post and DU has admitted to NOT studying the materials on those sites. Honest study or blowing it off?

I did not blow it off, I had already prayed about this as a youth, I have an answer. Did you not understand that? Maybe you should learn to read faster.

Right, only ‘authorized’ sources huh du – don’t want to have to go to those anti sites and confess you’ve been there to your bishop during TR renewal eh?

I have have been saying Authoritative, not authorized... as for my TR interview, just had one, it'll be awhile and they already know I do apologetic work on line... not a problem with my Bishop, it's a problem with me, I don't want to waste time there.

The only ‘testimony’ relates to the so-called ‘truth’ of mormonism. No evidence to date has been presented that you have sincerely and earnestly prayed about anything else.

I really don't care if you find "evidence", you are not my judge. but JFTR, I pray about "everything" I can think of to pray about, and that includes the Trinity, did that as a youth. Not good enough for you , tough.

Du completes his bleat with his canned advertisement for mormonism. Would you want to follow a religion where its members cannot even provide their doctrine of the ‘godhead’, but rely rather on a dictionary?

You didn't like my personal defintion, remember?

And for an apology that relies on a dictionary for its theology – the same rejects the dictionary definition of polytheism

It's the definition of one God, that we disagree on. and there is a bid difference between believing that more than one god exist and worshiping more than one God. The Bible itself speaks of other Gods and I explained that IMHO, Football, or a sports star, or money could be considered some people's Gods. Do you believe in money?

when both articles of the definition find agreement with the doctrine and teachings of the same religion. Would you want to follow a religion that has such shallow scholarship that it cannot even evaluate the ‘correct’ translation of a passage – relying only upon apostates who translated the KJV, using even BASIC tools?

You mean like all the protestant religions out there? They use the KJV, and they split off from the Catholic Church because it was considered apostate by them...

Do you really want to follow a religion where you have to prequalify for worthiness before receiving God’s grace and salvation?

Prequalify for worthiness? ROTFLOL!

God's grace is available to all everywhere, it's like prayer, you can't restrict it, so I have no idea what you are saying here.

Or would you rather follow Jesus Christ of the Bible (and not of joseph smith)

If you are insinuating the we worship Joseph smith then I have to say in the strongest terms allowed by this site that you are misrepresenting, misstating, misleading and all around not being honest about the true state of affairs.

True God, who became a man to reconcile man to himself out of his abundant love and grace (unmerited favor) to those who believe by faith alone, and who at that very same moment makes us righteous before God.

So unmerited, meaning no faith or works needed? or just faith (in spite of the fact that the Bible says you need both)

No secret temple ceremonies, no special underwear, no oppressive rules, regulations, laws and ordinances - just grace and grace alone.

No further light an knowledge, special clothing, you mean like a ya-mica, or prayer shawl, or the collar the priests wear, or the habit a nun wears?

No rules! Yes, salvation for everybody! hey steal! Lie! cheat! kill! It's all good just say you believe once, and then go about your life, God doesn't care, you said the magic words, you don't need to change the commandments are there for people who need that kind of stuff, but you don't actually have to OBEY them! LOL salvation is free!!!!!!

Godzilla, you've out done your self, and that's saying something.

So Grace is all you need, lurkers, if you believe that, then whatever you do, don't click HERE.

Delph

So, here is a link now, before you go all "supporting "bad" sites" on me, I only read the one article, and I don't even agree with all of it, but it does have links and quotations from Concordances and lexicons and I don't want to cut and paste without attribution... Thus, lexicons give expressions such as: divinity, deity, godhead, divine nature, divine being. But what do these expressions mean? An examination of some English dictionaries reveals that the meanings of these words is considerably broader than some Trinitarians would like them to be.

Not surprising you duck into a JW site – bias anti-Trinitarian. I see you are parroting their argument and while your attempt may appear to you to be valiant, your ignorance on the teachings of JWs is apparent (I am an equal opportunity anti and JWs are an area of study besides mormonism) If you took a moment to look, the only translation of “divine quality” is from the NWT and if you are not aware of it, the New World Translation is the JW edition of the bible. None of the Lexicons they cite refer to “divine quality”. Their dictionary ‘definitions’ only fined ‘quality’ the third iteration down – not inherent to the original Greek word. Throw in some other misdirections and THEY infer that divine “quality” is preferred.

Face it DU, you are borrowing someone else’s theology to try to disprove mine. Is the lack of scholarship within mormon realms that poor that you have to rely on JWs? Further, even a JW ‘divine quality’ argument works against the mormon definition of the Godhead.

Dealt with it above. You’ve now made it perfectly clear that mormon scholarship is so lacking that it must rely upon a competitor in the cult market for its arguments.

You might also enjoy this: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Wonderful source – both JWs and mormons take a pounding. Godzilla, note that to me "one God" does not denote a singular being, "God" does not denote to me a singular being.

Lets take the last reference you gave to the Apologist Bible Commentary. While you can ‘think’ what you like, that doesn’t necessarily change what the Greek words and their usage in the Bible refer to. Nor does it change mormon doctrine. The point is made clear -

The standard Geek lexicons - both classical and Biblical - define theos as an individual God or god
BAGD, Louw & Nida, Thayer, Moulton & Milligan, LSJ.

Lets take the word "Clergy" Clergy is generally considered to be a plural word, we speak of the clergy of the church, and mean everyone, I have also heard it used to mean the local pastor, singular.

And ‘moose’ can mean one or more moose. But it becomes apparent that in those instances, the numerical quantity (singular or more than one) is derived from the context of the passage. Further, if the word form is not like clergy or moose, then the spelling is changed to reflect that there is more than one. Since we are dealing with Greek in this instance, the plurality of the words used is known. As stated above, theos is an individual (singular) God or god, if referring to plural would be the plural form, which it is not in these passages.

God means one or more members of the Godhead. It really does not matter, they are all "one"...

Sorry Du, flawed logic as well as poor Greek. Theotēs is not a plural form, nor does the context support a plural interpretation. Since I see that you are struggling with the basic concept of theotēs you have another hurdle to over come – that is the fullness (plērōma) of the theotēs resided in Jesus. Pleroma brings with it the fullness or abundance. Thus you must further from the greek provide proof that the mormon concept of the ‘godhead’ which at that moment during Jesus’ life the fullness or abundance of the father (composed of flesh and bone) as well as the Holy Ghost could dwell at the same time WITHIN the body of Jesus

As for your comment on standards, I thought the RM said not to talk about that anymore. I do note that you'd rather talk about that, or anything else for that matter, than the reality of the Bible's support (or lack thereof) for the Trinity.

You have made an issue even earlier regarding ‘scholarship’ and ‘sources’. The issue is no longer the site in question, but is symptomatic of ‘scholarship’ presented to me in general now. Just look how you have to go to a JW site to challenge the use of theotes. Consistent symptom of a persistent problem.

We are not confused, obviously if you don't understand it well enough not to be confused by it, you should be reading, not writing, but so far it seems you think you are an expert in everything. (Ancient metal working, Greek, Latin, archeology, Geology, genetics, map making... just a few things you have tried to "educate" me on that turned out badly in the past.)

LOL, far more than you have displayed so far DU.

GZ A general salvation to all, courtesy of the atonement, just meaning everyone will get a body at the resurrection.
[du] OK, let's see what the bible says: 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
It's a simile, I know you have a problem with those, so let me translate for you.

LOL, this ought to be interesting.

Adam brought death into the world, so a man, Jesus Christ, brought resurrection into the world. There is no condition listed here, all will be resurrected. Don't believe me, fine, we'll argue about it after we're both resurrected. If one of us in not there to argue, I'll concede your point immediately.

Easy to see where you diverge.

There is a reason we have different words for Resurrection, and salvation... ever wonder why?

I have many thoughts, from ad hoc development of theology to obfuscation on becoming gods and points inbetween.

Read the Bible much? Revelations 20:12-13
Please explain to me just exactly what is meant by that scripture in the Bible, since you say the Bible is inerrant, and complete, I expect nothing but Bible references, good luck, you'll need it not to agree with us, and not to contradict those verses (which would make one of them an error).

I read the bible – do you bother to read my answers? Lurkers will note: this is shooting ducks in a barrel. I won’t even have to leave the chapter in Rev.

Rev 20:4 KJV - And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 KJV - But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 KJV - Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Notice DU that the bible in Rev 20 is speaking about two resurrections. From vs 5-6, the first resurrection involves all of the righteous from all time (blessed and holy). Now remember the highlighted phrase regarding the ‘second death’. A thousand years pass then -

Rev 20:11 KJV - And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 KJV - And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 KJV - And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 KJV - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:5-6 is the first resurrection, then what is listed in Rev 20:11-14 is a second resurrection. So the ones in the first resurrection are not included among those here.

Rev 20:15 KJV - And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Any evidence of those resurrected being “blessed”? No, all in this resurrection are condemned to the lake of fire. No verses contradicted, Bible upheld, DU’s mormon interpretation fails once again.

Please cite your reference for where Paul "Clearly Taught" (You can't interpret unclear scriptures, it has to say it) that the commandments did not need to be kept to be saved. (Crickets)P> Lurkers will note the persistent fail to comprehend the bible.

Eph 2: 8* For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 3: 27* Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28* Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Ro 3:21* But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Ro 3:22* Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Ro 3:24* Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Ro 5:8* But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Ga 2:16* Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ga 3:2* This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga 3:5* He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga 3:10* For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Your projecting...

Observing your posts.

See my challenge above, I believe you need Faith and Grace, shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works

Again, what comes first works or faith. If works, then there is no grace. If faith, then works display a true faith as an outgrowth – not commandment.

Please show where Paul says you don't need works to be judged by. (Remember revelations above and don't contradict it!)

Already done, salvation is independent of works. Revelation already confirms – because they are not in the book of life at that SECOND resurrection of the damned. A lot of good their ‘works’ did for them.

So, let me unwind your spin here. Grace is all that's needed. Grace comes from Faith. Faith results in Works. You don't need "works" to be saved, even though the Bible says you will be judged by your works, got it.

Once again Lurkers will note the bogus comparison on the subject. DU is the one that insists upon contradicting the scripture. Here it is once again -

Eph 2: 8* For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

LOL! thanks, but you're having enough trouble with the Bible, leave the interpretation of our doctrine to those of us who study it more. First you need faith in Jesus, then the work of Baptism should follow, then comes the Gift of the Holy Ghost. More study of the Gospel, increasing in faith, which is followed by works, then as you keep the laws you learn, you are justified by Jesus, and when you die, being on "the right track"

Lurkers will note the incredible spin put out here and AOF 3 bouncing on the road in front of the bus. What does AOF 3 state again -

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 

Lurkers will note once again that this salvation is conditional (may be saved) and what is the prerequesite – obedience to the laws and ordinances (ie works). DU even confirms that it is by the law you are justified. Once again that gospel of the Bible speaks against this mormon doctrine -

Ro 3:20* Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Ro 3:28* Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Ga 2:16* Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ga 3:11* But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Ga 5:4* Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(since perfection in this life is impossible for you) that's all you can do, Jesus applies Grace and you are saved.

Lurkers one again should note – this is not what mormon doctrine teaches -

MORONI 10:32: “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.”

Lurkers will note – DU is slopply with his explanation of the application of mormon ‘grace’ when compared to mormon doctrine. According to the doctrine above, you must have removed ALL ungodliness from your life – THEN Jesus can apply the grace.

Lurkers will also note DU avoids the use of the term “repentance” from his discription as well – which under mormon doctrine is the COMPLETE abandonment of sin from one’s life.

One of the things you leave out of your equation is that Mormons only believe you are responsible to obey the laws you know.

LOL, what a loop hole big enough to drive a truck through. Do mormons like DU fully and totally follow the 10 commandments – basic law? Betchya DU has snuck some looks at well endowed ladies throughout his life – and as James states “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (JAMES 2:10). Mormons also won’t tell you its doctrine states -
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.”

I dare say that it is impossible for anyone, let alone mormons, to keep even the laws they know, let alone the ones they don’t.

Ro 3:20* Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

"Orthodox Christianity" damns innocent babies who die unbaptized to hell and rewards degenerate murderers with salvation because they received the last rites.

Bearing false witness is one of the commandments.

GZ Lurkers it would be interesting to see if DU can find an actual reference that quotes Paul saying that one must become righteous BEFORE qualifying for salvation. Were Du to actually study the matter, he would find that righteousness is automatically imputed by God to the individual at the same time the person is saved (see above), ie righteousness FOLLOWS salvation – not as a precursor as is demanded in mormonism.

DU then cites Rom 2:1-6. Lurkers will note that there is absolutely NOTHING wihin the passage that shows one must be righteous BEFORE salvation. Instead he attempts to use the passage as a personal attack – will it work?

Romans 2:1-6 1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

LOL, Lurkers will note the blatant pulling out of context this is. Du, I feel real bad for you having to stoop to twisting the scripture in this fashion to use against me. For starters Paul was addressing Jewish prejudice against Gentiles – read Chapt 1 – its that context thing again.

Are you comfortable with that? I am when I put my name in there. You see Paul did believe in judging by deeds or Works as it is rendered elsewhere.

Lurkers will note – the challenge was to PROVE works were necessary for salvation. What does this show ? Were DU to show evidence of biblical scholarship, he would have also read in Romans -

Rom 3: 19* Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20* Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21* But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22* Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23* For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24* Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25* Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26* To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27* Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28* Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

One must ask – where now are all these works and following the law that DU touted above as being necessary before salvation? Paul destroyed that claim and then some.

Do you ever tire of being wrong about the Bible? Just curious.

Lurkers will note – as with the above example, just WHO is wrong about the bible? It has been said that just about any quirky doctrine can be created by citing scripture out of context. That is exactly what DU did above. In fact, just about EVERY scripture du has thrown out here is out of context and generates a false interpretation when the scripture is placed within just the simplest of contexts. Is this deliberate or just ignorant? I don’t know, but it has been brought to Du’s attention many, many times now, so you’d think he’d learn something by now.

We do not celebrate Satan in the Temple ceremonies, he is a historical figure, part of the story of Adam and Eve, indeed, he tells everyone there that if they do not keep the commandments of God they will be in his power.

Lurkers can be reminded here of what mormon doctrine reveals about satan’s deceptions

"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy". (11 Nephi 2:25)
"Blessed be the name of God, for because of my [Adam's] transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God” (Moses 5:10)
“Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11)

Come on DU, mormons refer to this as the “fall upward” don’t they.

Hardly a celebration...

"Properly understood, it becomes apparent that the fall of Adam is one of the greatest blessings ever given of God to mankind" (McConkie, NWAF, p. 87).

you accuse me of intellectually dishonest, actual dishonesty, I'm just glad you didn't get around to marital dishonesty, or my wife might start posting and then you'd be in for it!!! I'm not even going to bother with your intellectually dishonest accusations that I am intellectually dishonest.

Ever look at a woman in a lustful manner? See Mt 5:28

Not going to even look, the JOD online link has been sent to you several times, there must be a reason you don't want to go to an authoritative source, as for poisoning the well, it's an anti Mormon site! We are discussing Mormon beliefs there is no need to poison the well of objectivity there, the dead bodies floating in the water will do nicely.

LOL, if Lurkers desire, they can go back upthread and see that I gave DU the link (and had used it) PRIOR to ‘getting’ it from Du. Of course DU will avoid sites like MRM – contrary arguments that DU can only avoid.

I don't care how many people you have saying the earth is flat, . . .

Red herring

then you launch in your polytheist name calling again...

Since the shoe fits. . . . .

Atonement -- Yep, reconciliation with God, so? I know you think this is big, but I knew that atonement was based on reconciling with God, apparently, you see a problem I don't, maybe it's your interpretation stuff getting in your way again.

Lurkers will note – still nothing showing any scholarship.

Godhead and Atonement, in the Bible, Trinity and saved by grace alone no works needed, not in the Bible.

Lukers note – these things have already been dealt with. I don’t know what bible du is using, but it must not contain most of the NT

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES God, Godhead

Been there, linked it. Says nothing more than I’ve already been stating- a group of three gods forming a committee. I’ll wait for DU to deal with Theotēs from above.

Actually, you don't know that speed reading actually increases comprehension,

Still waiting to see evidence of comprehension in our discussions

A novel you can speed read, a well written book you can speed read, comments broken up by web markups and pictures, not so much. I never said it was a panacea. You never said to read all the comments, you said to read the articles, I did.

What part of STUDY did you fail to “comprehend”, woops, speed reading was suppose to improve that huh.

I have a certificate of graduation, and a wallet card that identifies me as a Buddhist seminary graduate. they would be recognized by other monasteries in Taiwan, and that's about it. Both had his Chop stamped over his signature, and make great souvenirs.

Course of study being?????? Receivable in a couple week period???? Yep souvenir all right.

I did not blow it off, I had already prayed about this as a youth, I have an answer. Did you not understand that? Maybe you should learn to read faster.

Lurkers will note – no evidence of earnest effort, not a question of clarification – only obscure websites of dubious nature.

I have have been saying Authoritative, not authorized...

Will be nice to see you follow your standard in light of recent posts.

as for my TR interview, just had one, it'll be awhile and they already know I do apologetic work on line... not a problem with my Bishop, it's a problem with me, I don't want to waste time there.

Hardly an endorsement.

I really don't care if you find "evidence", you are not my judge. but JFTR, I pray about "everything" I can think of to pray about, and that includes the Trinity, did that as a youth. Not good enough for you , tough.

So why throw out the challenge to ‘prove’ the trinity? You’ve had you ‘revelation’ (what ever in the world that was – a spicy burrito?).

You didn't like my personal defintion, remember?

No, I said yours was contrary to mormon doctrine. Personally, it was a belly laugh.

It's the definition of one God, that we disagree on. and there is a bid difference between believing that more than one god exist and worshiping more than one God. The Bible itself speaks of other Gods . . . .

Lurkers will note – where ever these other ‘gods’ are spoken of in the bible – the context is very clear, they are FALSE gods. Now tell us DU, do you believe that Baal, Ishtar, Anat, and Molech (just to name a few) are real gods? They meet your standard – spoken of in the bible.

You mean like all the protestant religions out there? They use the KJV, and they split off from the Catholic Church because it was considered apostate by them...

LOL, Lurkers will note – Luther didn’t HAVE a KJV bible at the time. Incase history or speed reading has passed it by, Luther was German, KJV was a English production much past Luther’s time. Yep, that mormon Jesus must have spoken in KJV English eh?

Prequalify for worthiness? ROTFLOL! God's grace is available to all everywhere, it's like prayer, you can't restrict it, so I have no idea what you are saying here.

It is available but lurkers will note from earlier (MORONI 10:32) that it only becomes available AFTER becoming perfect (godly).

If you are insinuating the we worship Joseph smith then I have to say in the strongest terms allowed by this site that you are misrepresenting, misstating, misleading and all around not being honest about the true state of affairs.

Come on Du, grow up. If mormons worshipped smith today it would be a big turnoff to mass marketing. That said, Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Prophet Brigham Young, Apostle George Q. Cannon and Apostle Orson Hyde strongly indicate something different.

So unmerited, meaning no faith or works needed? or just faith (in spite of the fact that the Bible says you need both)

Reading comprehension again DU. What is the definition of ‘unmerited? What have I cited Paul writing over and over again here (Lurkers will note the increasing density on some obvious subjects here.) Unmerited means you don’t do any work for it. Pretty simple concept, once you through the chains of mormon dogma away.

No further light an knowledge, special clothing, you mean like a ya-mica, or prayer shawl, or the collar the priests wear, or the habit a nun wears?

Lurkers will note the depths of absurdity of this argument. Mormon undies – special magical clothing never to be removed is compared to these articles of clothing. Come on get real Du.

No rules! Yes, salvation for everybody! hey steal! Lie! cheat! kill! It's all good just say you believe once, and then go about your life, God doesn't care, you said the magic words, you don't need to change the commandments are there for people who need that kind of stuff, but you don't actually have to OBEY them! LOL salvation is free!!!!!!

Lurkers will note that DU throws out another red herring that dishonestly represents what I’ve posted so far. Even Paul agrees with me. However, in an effort to deflect from his epic fail du has posted this. Perhaps his bishop should pull him off the apologetics to give him time to really learn what the bible stays – but then if that happened DU would realize the snake oil he has been sold – so I don’t expect that to happen either.

Thanks DU, your bleats have been as challenging as shooting ducks in a barrel. Now take some time to learn about context – even in daily life – you’ll be better for it.