"WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?"

:-)

No, I want a serious answer. Here’s the scenario:

Middle-aged woman with grown children and a Christian husband.

She becomes a Mormon, her husband and adult kids refuse.

She has no means to tithe.

So she does the best she can, attending all the meetings, accepting a calling, etc.

She can never be worthy to work in the temple. She will never be eligible to attain exaltation in the celestial kingdom.

What’s the best she can get in the next life? The middle kingdom, what’s that, the Terrestial? And how is that better than the Tellestial?

I know your religion has taught you to doubt the bible so I guess I can't expect you to beleive it.

Are you willing to do for the truth what the cults do for a lie? If you REALLY want to know about mormonism..click here

Brought to you by the Holy Bible and the FR Flying Inmans.

I know your religion has taught you to doubt the bible so I guess I can't expect you to beleive it.

Are you willing to do for the truth what the cults do for a lie? If you REALLY want to know about mormonism..click here

Brought to you by the Holy Bible and the FR Flying Inmans.

Weird.

Both those posts posted at exactly the same time and show up in reverse order in my posting history.

After the hundreds of quotes that lds must earn their salvation, (because their jesus is not sufficient) there are lds who still argue that it is not true that lds teach this - place marker.

I guess my ‘puter stuttered at “post”.

Godzilla, I've proven your contextual issues over and over and even on this thread. Truly it has been said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Just because you refuse to admit the logic of an argument does not mean it failed.

"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

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.

Salvation – lol du wasting a lot of ‘milk’ here aren’t you. It is common knowledge that mormons separates their form of ‘salvation’ into two categories – from physical death and spiritual death. Are you denying that Jesus’ death according to mormonism grants universal resurrection of the body to eternal life? AFA mormon ‘eternal life’, please, are you now espousing nihilism of JWs for your doctrine?

Common knowledge? you're down to that Godzilla? Yes we believe that as in Adam all men die so in Christ shall all men be made alive. 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 such big words from you du. Example was given by Jesus himself via the prodigal son parable. The father in the story required no pre-qualifying works of righteousness before accepting him back, required not subsequent works upon his return. For the rest, scripture states that:

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.)

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.

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. 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. It's a time and place argument that you seem to want to couch in terms of works not being required. I think it's a timing issue.

Once again you display ignorance of the function of Grace within true Christianity du. When one becomes saved through Christ, Jesus creates a new person. One seeking to ‘steal’ salvation cannot claim the atonement as you say, because they fail to make Jesus the Lord of their life. Therefore you’ve constructed a strawman argument based upon this ignorance. AFA Rev 3:15-22, please note that Jesus still loves them in the rebuke and chastisement.

Not all that disagree with you are ignorant, you might want to check your assumptions.

So, Godzilla, do you still sin? If so it's not a very good "New Person" that was created now is it? 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. We are just never going to agree on this that does not make me ignorant, I completely understand your position, I just disagree with it. on the other hand, you keep misstating my position, so that might mean you are ignorant, and projecting.

LOL, trying to get a good preach on eh? There is nothing, not a single work that we can do to add to our salvation du. You will never become a god through mormonism, Jesus was already eternal God (ie he didn’t ‘become’ a god – read John 1:1 again), and mormonism claims heavenly father to be your ‘god’ (AoF #1) - (now that could be Adam, unless you declare Young to be a false prophet)

You really don't understand what we believe do you? 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, go reread James 2:14-26 James is not saying you need to work your way to heaven, he's saying you need to work to show you have faith and increase your faith, thus qualifying you for the salvation Jesus is offering you as a gift.

If I offer you a billion dollars, and I say that in order to receive the billion dollars, you A) need to have a bank account at one of ten banks to deposit the check in, and you need to have your tax structure in place before I'll send it to you, oh you need to be married, and you need to be current on your taxes, etc... does that diminish the gift of a billion dollars? no can you make a billion dollars yourself? maybe, that is the flaw in any analogy with Christ's gift to us. his gift that we cannot obtain any other way for there is no other name under heaven that can offer salvation. Jesus set the conditions. he chooses who to save. He set the conditions. No mere man can say "There, I've qualified, I'm done, I'm saved, Whew! now it's time to PARTY!". 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?"

How many ‘prophecies’ of smith were fulfilled?

All of them.

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).

Do you think you will win logically for your much speaking? this was already addressed, brevity GZ, brevity.

Scripture clearly states that such a visitation is demonic in origin. However, you clearly don’t understand the meaning of “necromancy” do you du (dictionary not working?), it has nothing to do with bringing a dead body into the temple, but everything to do with actively seeking to consult the “spirits” of the dead – a practice forbidden by the bible.

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.

you make these blanket statements that just are not borne out in reality that it's actually funny.

Delph No, I said the Atonement set the standard of belief in proxy work which it does. Another burning straw man Godzilla?

Godzilla No, because Jesus’ work was unique as he is unique. The nt contains no teaching or evidence that the apostles or other believers doing any such ‘proxy’ work – your only source is the false prophet smith.

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.

Jesus is the type and exemplar of Christians. All men would be better off by trying to live their lives like he lived his. Jesus gave his life for his fellow men. We should give our lies in service to our fellow men. 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.

Godzilla your position of proxy work being evil is just not supported by the Bible. Consider Malachi 4:5-6

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

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

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

LOL, Pratt spent a whole message in JoD describing the practice in mormon temples – your history. Yes, it is black magic, as too was the magic associated with smith’s peep stone which he used for ‘translating’ the bom, as too was the Jupiter Talisman he wore.

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.

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? 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, 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.

BTW, for the record, Jesus as God can appear on his own to whomever, part of the privilege of being God du, and never was Jesus “summoned” as done in necromancy – unless you condone the practice.

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.

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.

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.

So, lets put this to bed once and for all, the quotation you listed here on this thread saying"Remember, it was Pratt who said that mormon temples, were specifically built “so that living may communicate with the dead”, and that the temple-going mormons are to be “acting as mediums through which the living can hear from the dead” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2:44-46)" 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...

Delph (It turns out the next interting thing was you quoting me...) So, Godzilla, how do you reconcile being commanded to do works and the Bible saying you will be judged by your works with the "no works needed" philosophy you espouse here? No I am not going to go drag lexicons in here, the scriptures say what they say, and I quoted you scriptures and all you want to do is look away from them. If you don't want to follow the whole Bible, it's your funeral, literally.

Godzilla LOL, you are one to talk about the ‘whole Bible’ eh du – since you can’t tell me which part have been ‘translated correctly’. Alas, I’ve explained the passage in Revelations to you numerous times and won’t waste my time embarrassing your exegeses skills again. I’ve looked into them du, and not away from them as mormons do. As stated earlier and in the thread article, our salvation is complete in Jesus, our works cannot provide or add anything to it. Our works are an outgrowth of that salvation (not the root) done out of love, not obligation, not ‘paying off a debt’ as mormons would have it. The judgment of ‘works’ takes many contextual forms in the bible, but you are too closed minded to go into detail at this point. Suffice it to say, my ‘judgement’ occurs at the first part of the chapter – not the last. And that judgment is based upon whether I’ve accepted Jesus as my Savior by faith or not.

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.

Let me see, a simple ‘bishop’ provides this as a ‘teaching’. Who is to say that this isn’t just his ‘opinion’ eh du? How is his authority greater than your apostles and prophets on the same subject, recorded in accepted lds publications? Lets see – a recognized lds apostle/prophet and written mormon doctrine or a simple unknown ‘bishop’ and his little stories?

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. Read stuff Godzilla, it won't hurt you. Prayer won't hurt you either... ever.

FYI, I also hold a minor in computer sciences and computers are essential to my work. But then again, little wonder, even though I put the cookies at your level. Context is just a weakness of yours apparently.

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 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. and a programmer who can convert scripture to a series of if then statements that define righteousness. We are all truly awed by your grate-ness.

Delph Project much? You are the one who took one verse from one book, and another verse from another book and said that provided the context when the verses immediately surrounding them provided the opposite context.

Godzilla As was shown, Moroni was not out of context. Further, since both Moroni and Nephi were talking about pre-conditions required for grace to be received, the linkage was valid. Are you now saying that those conditions, clearly stated in your doctrine, are false?

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? 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. Please keep trying to make the case for this, it's yet another Pratt fall for you.

Bumper crop of straw eh du? Must account for the evidenced inability to use lexicons by mormons. Cutting and pasting predate computers du – where do you think the phrase came from in the first place (facepalm)

Got tired of chasing your incorrect assertions to the ground long ago, lexicon, JOD quotes that don't exist, context from opposite ends of a book of scripture by prophets centuries apart, never mind the verses surrounding the one being quoted, look over there! (Squirrel! -- Up reference)

I doubt that I'll waste time on another one of your slanderous, embarrassingly childish huge posts, but by all means embarrass yourself and waste Jim's Bandwidth with a "witty" comeback to the truth.

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.

Godzilla You can’t handle the truth du, as you post proves to all. A mormon cannot honestly say that they have done “all [they] can do” in regards to their salvation. Unless they can sincerely make that claim, - and who has done EVERYTHING they could, the promise of mormon “grace” does not apply to them.

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!

All you can do is not a maximum effort all your life long, God does not require that men run faster than they have strength, however, 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.

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.

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. Be perfect, start now. Your history is irrelevant to God, your actions now are not, your future actions are determined in large measure by your current actions... Be perfect. Do it now. Start Now.

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.

Being perfected, now that is another story, that will probably take me millenia to accomplish and sometimes I despair of reaching it at all, but I know that with God all things are possible, but that is not what is required of me in this life.

The good news is that God is not waiting for you to do your best. God stepped in while you were yet sinners. God sent Jesus to save us BECAUSE of our failure to do our best. God accepts us on that basis. Christians can be secure in God’s love, forgiveness and acceptance, freeing us to do works of love, not obligation or debt repayment, for all that God has done for us in Christ.

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 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.

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.

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

Godzilla, I hope you have a great day, I know I've enjoyed your Pratt falls here, and I hope others will bother to read this Godzilla sized post to see what and why your arguments failed.

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.

Godzilla, I truly hope this will be an opportunity for you to divest yourself of the pride I see in your posts, and to humble yourself before the Lord, seek his will and go and do what he wants, in short be perfect in Christ.

Delph

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.

That statement makes me shutter, place marker.

**You’re talking to a Calvinist, brother. 8~)**

I was Calvinist for the first 28 of my 56 yrs, until God opened my eyes to his very simple plan of salvation.

Death, burial, and resurrection.

death to the sinful self will=repentance.
buriel=buried with Him in baptism.
resurrection=the Spirit is life.

The Lord taught this conversion to his disciples, commanding repentance, baptism, and the need to receive the ‘promise of the Father’ (Holy Ghost). Paul would later say, “..if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his”. To Peter, Jesus said: “when thou art converted, strengthen the brethern”.
He told them that if he didn’t go away, the Comforter (Holy Ghost) would not come.

Do you think you can consider yourself predestined for salvation, when you disregard his command to baptized in his name FOR the REMISSION of sins?

If so, that seems to be a serious case of opposing one’s self, brother. [:^)

Delph, you idiot they’re fighting FOR YOU!

LOL!

I'd rather fight on my one thanks these guys fight like Woody Allen "First, I hit him in the fist with my jaw ... Then, I hit him in the knee with my stomach."

Second, you realize that God told me the Book of Mormon was true in the same answer to the same prayer where he told me Jesus was my Savior and died for me.

I am pretty darn sure God told the truth both times, but there might just be unintended consequences if you managed to convince me God lied to me...

Do you really think making me an atheist is better than me being a Mormon?

Food for thought, I am telling the truth about my answer to prayer, but I am not going to deny god's testimony to me, so no worries, just what if...

Delph

I know your religion has taught you to doubt the bible so I guess I can't expect you to beleive it.

Now you are just being insulting. I do not doubt the Bible. I do interpret it differently than you do however. Make no mistake, we both interpret it, we have no choice, it wasn't written in English.

Delph

But you have consequences for not wearing your garments.

A loss of spirituality, and the knowledge that I am breaking a covenant with God. The church does not punish me in any way.

Delph

So what happens during the LDS rapure-of-a-different name.

The same thing that happens in the protestant rapture, people being changed int eh twinkling of an eye, flying up to meet Jesus in the clouds as he comes again to earth... the rapture is just a bit flowery for us.

Delph

I'm sorry, I can't accept that. It's not possible.

Matthew 19:26

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Now who's doubting the Bible...

Never speak in absolutes...

Delph

The baptism for the remission of sins is the baptism by the Holy Spirit who cleanses us by washing away the stain of sin and brings us into the community of Christ's church. Baptism confirms what God's grace has accomplished and is accomplishing. It's a sign and seal of God's promise made to all believers and their children.

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39

Here's a nice explanation I find to be Scriptural...

"We generally do not approach each text mentioning baptism and ask "what sort is this?" Now, the context in some places may be clear whether there is a particular emphasis (Spirit or water) but basically, the Reformed camp follows the historic church attitude, and sees one thing: baptism, and understands it to have two aspects, an inward and an outward.
They are not SO connected as that the Spirit may not baptize where men do not; nor that wherever men baptize, the Spirit does invariably baptize, either in close temporal proximity or farther away. So, there may be people who are outwardly baptized who never have true faith, and vice versa.
Obviously the Nicene Creed is thinking of baptism in its ideal consideration. One baptism, which is a Spiritual work, and which is spiritually connected to the activity of the church in the world. Water does not wash away sins, but the church is making a statement about what God does for those who have faith in Christ.
Now, we happen to think that we have replicated the apostle's teaching actually better than perhaps even the Fathers who were formulating the Creed, if we suppose they were already taking the sacraments too far. They were following the Apostles doctrine, to be sure, but already were running ahead of them, in our opinion, attributing far more independent efficacy to the physical washing than would be appropriate.
IOW, there was the essential statement of the doctrine, which surely was derived from the Bible, and good traditional teaching; however, they were taking the basic language and reading new content into it. The additions later came to have the force of doctrine (in commandments of men) and it took the Reformation to clear away much of that error, to get back to Apostolic doctrine that predated the era that formulated the Creed.
Now, for example, I would say that the Anglicans and Lutherans did no more than get back to the doctrine of the actual Nicene and post Nicene Fathers (if that). For that reason, we can understand a bit better how they can believe in a "baptismal regeneration" effected by the sacramental act. They may not assume (perhaps to the same degree) the opinions perpetuated by Rome and EO, but we do think that the Reformed went back to a more pristine and biblical and truly apostolic doctrine of baptism." -- Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan, ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI

I see from your homepage you're from Illinois. Me, too. What happened to the Bears? And in Soldiers' Field, no less.

Make no mistake, we both interpret it, we have no choice, it wasn't written in English.

Even if it had been written in English or, conversely, even if your native languages were the ones in which it was written, you'd still be interpreting it.

The same thing that happens in the protestant rapture, people being changed int eh twinkling of an eye, flying up to meet Jesus in the clouds as he comes again to earth... the rapture is just a bit flowery for us.

Going solely on the basis of "being changed in the twinkling of an eye" and "meet[ing] Jesus in the clouds as he comes," how do you figure that's "protestant" when it was written over 1400 years earlier than Luther's posting his 95 theses? The apostle Paul is "just a bit flowery" for you?

The three Nephites were allowed to stay and work with the righteous, they were here for 400 years, after the church in the Americas fell into apostasy, they were not seen very often.

All of them.

So; if we shown just ONE that wasn't; you'll no longer be a MORMON?