Born spiritually dead

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Why don't YOU?

Jeff do you really believe that you do works in order to earn faith?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff do you really believe that you do works in order to earn faith?

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith? How does one EARN faith, anyhow? It's not part of LDS doctrine, so you musta picked up that phrase in your anti-LDS training camp.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith? How does one EARN faith, anyhow? It's not part of LDS doctrine, so you musta picked up that phrase in your anti-LDS training camp.

You must be confusing your anti-Christian local ward with anti-LDS training camps. We don't have anything even remotely like that, since we don't need them. You see, the Bible alone debunks Mormonism right on its first page.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Why don't YOU?

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

If you aren't doing these kinds of things, then you have no faith, and definitely no good works. So you have nothing and you won't be saved.

And that is directly what I do as directed by the Holy Spirit.. DIRECTLY.. I look after the orphans and widows in their distress. Have you ever heard of "Food for the Poor" and the work they are doing in Haiti and have done for over 50 years.. And the LDS what have they done there? Is there even 50 Months of work they have had anything to do with there? How many of your missionaries have been murdered as they bring comfort to those in the center of a War ravaged area of the world. If you review FOX BOOM OF MARTYRS you will see thousands of Christian missionaries that were killed as they took their Lord's message to the world. And those not from the distant past but from 2013 as well as that distant past.. While my actually given is SECRET (Matthew 6:3) is is a good thing to tell the world of some wonderful agencies that allows me to keep the teachings of James 1:27.. So look at Food for the Poor and see what they are doing to keep that commandment.. Look at the work being done for the forgotten of this country being accomplished at St Labre Indian School. Some of their children have just been dropped off by their parents and left for the Christians at that school to care for year round. many an Indian child has been saved by their good works. Then look who, in the name of Jesus, is always there to aid and support those effected by disaster, Samaritans Purse. This is a Billy Graham ministry. A physical James 1:27 manifestation of the faith of thousands of Christians all working together to aid those touched by disaster.. Each of these agencies exists ONLY for humanitarian reasons. They are the feet and hand of the Lord as His mercy is spread out over the whole world. Each is putting over 90% of their income toward that work and 100% of their effort is that pursuit. And what does Mormons do is keeping that commandment? Less than 1% of their income and 10-20% efforts. More effort is spent on doing work for the dead.. That is hardly seeing to the orphans and widows in their distress now is it.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith? How does one EARN faith, anyhow? It's not part of LDS doctrine, so you musta picked up that phrase in your anti-LDS training camp.

I hate hippocracy don't you? It's much better when a person sees his error then faces them, modifying his ways to conform to the truth of God instead of spinning self indulged lies to cover up his actions.

Speaking of those you have labeled as the Anti-LDS the ones I call Christians They are taught in the book they hold to be scripture to Love their neighbor, While the LDS are taught this is their scripture:

JSH19
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This isn't just the feelings of one man, this is a attack on my faith that is written right into LDS Scripture. Oh sure tell me that this was the words of Jesus BUT Smith reported no such things in his earlier report of this "Vision".. Did he really forget TO REPORT THE answer to what today's LDS church teaches was the whole reason he retired to the grove? "What church should I join".. The whole episode smacks of being an man made invention growing piece by piece as Smith's invented religion took form. This wasn't an attack on one man but on all the churches of Christendom.. Then what do you do? Do you actually sit back like a cry baby and saying "their picking on me"? I am sorry you see it that way. What we are "picking on" are the lies of Smith that he wrote into his own invented religion's scripture and called truth.

Yes there are those that would look at you as being the source of the lies we can see so clearly in the LDS church. You are not that source. That source is the heart and mind of another, one Joseph Smith. You have been deceived. Your sin like Eve's before you is to believe such a deception. May God provide you the grace and the faith to reject lies and turn to Him and Him alone in faith and be gifted everlasting life. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith?

You believe that you have to add works in order to have faith. That is earning faith Jeff.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You believe that you have to add works in order to have faith. That is earning faith Jeff.

That's just retarded reasoning. If living faith CONTAINS obedience to Jesus' commandments (which includes charity, also called doing good works), then there's no "EARNING" involved.

We know that living faith contains obedience in the form of charity because that doctrine is found in the Bible, in the book of James.

Plus, I thought you agreed that dead faith is no faith. Did you get amnesia, or are you just lying now by pretending that you don't remember that?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That's just retarded reasoning. If living faith CONTAINS obedience to Jesus' commandments (which includes charity, also called doing good works), then there's no "EARNING" involved.

We know that living faith contains obedience in the form of charity because that doctrine is found in the Bible, in the book of James.

Plus, I thought you agreed that dead faith is no faith. Did you get amnesia, or are you just lying now by pretending that you don't remember that?

Please Jeff TRY to follow the rules of the forum.. using words such as ANTI, Retarded, Liar (Or saying someone is lying) is not allowed here.. Ok you disagree that doesn't mean someone else has a different opinion and holding and commenting from that diverse opinion doesn't come up to the lying.. PLEASE.. LDS in their creed say they believe is being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. It is not good to call someone a liar for believing different than you do.. Teach what you have believed to be true. Attack those teachings we hold are true all tat is fair.. The same goes for us. We will question your beliefs as we try to point you to the truth.. What you admit we have in common is the Bible so use that common resource and show us how mormonism can be God's truth.. You believe that the Bible the BofM the D&C and the PofPG to be God's truth so we can use all of them to show problems in mormonism.. That is fair isn't it? We stand by the Scripture as we know it and you stand by yours.. Oh one more source you consider to be equal in authority with scripture are the words of your prophets.. You will be required to stand behind those or reject the prophets that taught doctrines you believe are not true..

Ok as for obedience being a evidence for true faith.. I look at Paul who said that sin lives in him and the sin he commits is because of that sin and not because of who he is (Romans 7:19-20). Therefore Paul admitted his disobedience and yet he still claimed his salvation.. Obedience is only able to be lived in the grace of God though Jesus. In His love and grace for those who believe, He became sin in our place so that in our faith we can be made the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21).. Living faith has no requirement of obedience. It has a requirement yo Love both God and our fellow man, and to believe Him.. In that there is evidence of living faith and salvation by His grace.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Please Jeff TRY to follow the rules of the forum.. using words such as ANTI, Retarded, Liar (Or saying someone is lying) is not allowed here..

Really? So no one is allowed to speak of the doctrine known as antinomianism, or of the USA's efforts in anti-terrorism, or of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism?

And no one here is allowed to do like Billy has been doing--accusing people of lying about what he believes?

Have you broken the news to Billy yet? How'd he take the news?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Really? So no one is allowed to speak of the doctrine known as antinomianism, or of the USA's efforts in anti-terrorism, or of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism?

And no one here is allowed to do like Billy has been doing--accusing people of lying about what he believes?

Have you broken the news to Billy yet? How'd he take the news?

No, there is no need to show off your vocabulary with such wording.. You deny the theology behind it anyway.. Just use the wording the bible uses to say that believers are freed from the law by the righteousness of Jesus.. Billy has been addresses here haven't you seen that.. He can read.. Watch his posts and see, he will correct his wording.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

No, there is no need to show off your vocabulary with such wording.

I wasn't trying to show off my vocabulary. I was trying to show you how banning the word "anti" from this forum would be a mistake.

Billy has been addresses here haven't you seen that.. He can read..

Yeah. I can read, too, that's how I know he has been accusing another poster of lying.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That's just retarded reasoning. If living faith CONTAINS obedience to Jesus' commandments (which includes charity, also called doing good works), then there's no "EARNING" involved.

We know that living faith contains obedience in the form of charity because that doctrine is found in the Bible, in the book of James.

Plus, I thought you agreed that dead faith is no faith. Did you get amnesia, or are you just lying now by pretending that you don't remember that?

So do you believe that the thief on the cross had faith despite not having works?

And what about a person who comes to Christ and places his faith in Him prior to having any works. Is this faith or do you believe that a person has to add works in order to earn faith?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Yeah. I can read, too, that's how I know he has been accusing another poster of lying.

And it isn't just "another" poster, you are guilty as well particularly when you know what I believe yet you misrepresent it.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

And it isn't just "another" poster, you are guilty as well particularly when you know what I believe yet you misrepresent it.

You mean when you misrepresent LDS doctrines for years, it's okay, but if we were to BEGIN to misrepresent yours, it's a BAD thing? How can that be, unless there was a double standard being used all those years?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You mean when you misrepresent LDS doctrines for years. . .

Can you give me a couple of example of how I misrepresented LDS doctrine?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Can you give me a couple of example of how I misrepresented LDS doctrine?

Telling the truth is one of the misrepresented doctrinal problems. Most LDSinc, and none LDSinc. Persons have no idea the LDSinc. use the same language as Christians, but have a different dictionary. Here is one example, the word Saved. To most Christians it means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible, and to the TBM it means to be exaltated to the hightest of Joseph Smith jr. promises, ie Godhood.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Can you give me a couple of example of how I misrepresented LDS doctrine?

"LDS believe that salvation is BASED on works."

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Here is one example, the word Saved. To most Christians it means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible, .

Is that really what most Christians think the definition of "saved" is?

I am a-callin' "BS" on that ***ertion.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Is that really what most Christians think the definition of "saved" is?

I am a-callin' "BS" on that ***ertion.

I can show you that death is not part of the Christians future. That is salvation.. It come to all those that Believe in Him. This is manifest though the love they show to their fellow man..
And that you call "BS".. And you tell us that you are offended by us when we say that mormonism was invented in the mind of a man?

I am happy to see you using original 1830 BofM translation syntax to give us that opinion (See "As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred ..." 1830(page 249) modern[Alma 10:7])
IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I can show you that death is not part of the Christians future. That is salvation..

But RFH claims that

"To most Christians (saved) means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible."

But you claim 'saved' means that death is not part of the Christians future--that is salvation, and 'It come to all those that Believe in Him.'

And that you call "BS"

No, I am saying that I question the claim that most Christians define the word "saved" as "to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible'' when it's more likely that most Christians define "saved" as something like "spending eternity in heaven."

I am happy to see you using original 1830 BofM translation syntax to give us that opinion (See "As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred ..." 1830(page 249) modern[Alma 10:7])
IHS jim

"As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house."

It's a good verse, but what has it to do with the definition of "saved" that is actually used by most Christians?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

But RFH claims that

"To most Christians (saved) means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible."

But you claim 'saved' means that death is not part of the Christians future--that is salvation, and 'It come to all those that Believe in Him.'


No, I am saying that I question the claim that most Christians define the word "saved" as "to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible'' when it's more likely that most Christians define "saved" as something like "spending eternity in heaven."



"As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house."

It's a good verse, but what has it to do with the definition of "saved" that is actually used by most Christians?

The problem with you, Jeff, and other Mormons, is that you WILL not understand the Gospel because you are spiritually dead to it.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

The problem with you, Jeff, and other Mormons, is that you WILL not understand the Gospel because you are spiritually dead to it.

What on earth are you talking about now? The essence of the gospel is so simple to understand, even a Calvinist should be able to comprehend it:

It's the Good News that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah and only way to salvation, who atoned for the sins of all sinners in the world, which makes salvation possible and available to any sinner who wants to be saved.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;146108]But RFH claims that

"To most Christians (saved) means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible."

But you claim 'saved' means that death is not part of the Christians future--that is salvation, and 'It come to all those that Believe in Him.'

That is the same thing!!!!! Good grief you expect us to use the same woring as we explain our faith.. We don't plagiarize each other. So you get the message in different wording it is the same message,,

No, I am saying that I question the claim that most Christians define the word "saved" as "to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible'' when it's more likely that most Christians define "saved" as something like "spending eternity in heaven."

And that means the same thing!!!

"As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house."

It's a good verse, but what has it to do with the definition of "saved" that is actually used by most Christians?

Not my point.. I see the context of the p***age, I do have some doctrinal issues with it but it was the way it was first written and approved by Smith. The hillbilly syntax that would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T. Read it in the language of the 1830 edition ""As I was a journeying...). Yes it was changed to reflect a more educated profile still this was given, said Smith, by the gift and power of God through direct revelation word for word through the Urim and Thummim and not by or through his own mind in any way.. At least that is the way those that witnessed the process of translation said it was accomplished.. Since neither of us were there we will have to go by those who were. Even Emma agreed that Joseph placed the seer stone in a hat and there in that stone one word at a time was given and stayed visible unit it was read back to Joseph correctly. therefore all the errors in the first edition were the very hillbilly talk that God uses.. That Jeff, my friend, is blasphemy.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Now Jim, I challenge your claim that "hillbilly syntax... would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T."

The reason I am challenging your claim, is that your claim amounts to an attack on the Bible and, indirectly on God Himself. And I won't allow that on this site without taking exception to such an attack.

Open your Bible, preferably the KJV, and read Ezekiel:

"...Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat,...
As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead..."
And the cherubims were lifted up.""

Only a hillbilly I DIOT would say "cause they BELLY to eat" ?

Or "an adamant harder than flint" ?

Or say cherubims when the plural of cherub is really cherubim?


Or in Exodus 34:

"...and they go a whoring after their gods"

Sounds pretty hillbillylike.

Yet you claim that such "hillbilly syntax... would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T."

So you are saying that the HOLY BIBLE makes God out to be an illiterate I D I O T?

I disagree with your opinion.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Now Jim, I challenge your claim that "hillbilly syntax... would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T."

The reason I am challenging your claim, is that your claim amounts to an attack on the Bible and, indirectly on God Himself. And I won't allow that on this site without taking exception to such an attack.

Open your Bible, preferably the KJV, and read Ezekiel:

"...Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat,...
As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead..."
And the cherubims were lifted up.""

Only a hillbilly I DIOT would say "cause they BELLY to eat" ?

Or "an adamant harder than flint" ?

Or say cherubims when the plural of cherub is really cherubim?


Or in Exodus 34:

"...and they go a whoring after their gods"

Sounds pretty hillbillylike.

Yet you claim that such "hillbilly syntax... would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T."

So you are saying that the HOLY BIBLE makes God out to be an illiterate I D I O T?

I disagree with your opinion.

Mormons do "go a whoring" after their gods...........and goddesses.