What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

[Nic]

You haven't given serious dialogue. I asked a question, you did not answer it. Do you want me to ask the questions again?

You must be too busy to notice. This is my last response to you until you demonstrate an attitude more like what I've seen from Aaron.

 

[Magdalena]

I think the key word is "try". I have no doubt, many people "try" to have enlightening discussions. Yet, IMO the fail ratio is extremely high.
For me, the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.

Ok. So long then.

 

[Magdalena]

It's easy to pick on the person who no one has the answers to the questions he's asking. It seems that all this would be avoided if you all would just answer the questions instead of playing games about how a person responded, counting the number of sentences he chooses to make a reply to or trying to dictate when he should respond in a public forum.

May I remind you all, that the OP

Provides this verse and that makes it the topic. Now children, I suggest you stop bickering and fighting and just answer the questions.

Games... a subject you’re familiar with. Unlike mormon doctrine.

Speaking of unanswered questions, there a few dozen around here waiting for coherent responses from you.

 

[Theo1689]

I see. The scriptures say all have sinned, and so an infant who was aborted by its mother has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

You see, you reject Scripture, and you engage in worthless rationalization to try to justify rejecting Scripture. Ironically, you're like the pro-abortionists who appeal to pregnancy due to rape, to try to justify murdering ALL babies before they are born.

Okay, let's go with your rationalization, and see where it leads us:

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

It says ALL have sinned.
It doesn't say, "infants not included".
It doesn't say, "There are different rules for abortion".

It simply says, "ALL have sinned".
Does "all" have a different meaning in SLC, than in the rest of the world?

What did Scripture say a few verses earlier?:

Rom. 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

According to you, shouldn't it say, "Wait, there are SOME righteous, infants are righteous"? Shouldn't it say that, according to you? No, it says NONE righteous, and emphasizes that with, "NO, not ONE" (ie. no exceptions).

Rom. 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

According to you, shouldn't it say, "Wait, there are SOME that doeth good, infants can do good"? Shouldn't it say that, according to you? No, it says NONE doeth good, and emphasizes that with, "NO, not ONE" (ie. no exceptions).


But hey, that's only God's Scripture, so it's worthless to you and other Mormons, right? So what was your replacement rationalization?

You want to claim, "An infant who has been aborted by its mother is sinless".
Okay, first of all, I can't find that teaching ANYWHERE in Scripture.

So you're saying that if someone is murdered, that means they're sinless?
So Sharon Tate and Abigail Forger, victims of the Manson family, were sinless, according to you, because they were murdered?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how being murdered makes you sinless.

Care to try to come up with a better rationalization than this, if you're intent on throwing away Scripture?

You swallow that cow without even thinking about it.

Nope... It looks like it's YOU who is the one "without even thinking about it", to come up with such a hare-brained rationalization.

But when it comes to baptism being a requirement to enter the kingdom of God, you have a new version of it. It can't possibly mean that.

Why are you changing the subject?
The topic is "who has sinned?", not "requirements to enter the kingdom of God".

You claim that the Bible teaches that faith alone saves,

You bringing this up again?
Fine, we'll simply show you even MORE Biblical passages Mormons throw away:

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.

2Tim. 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom. 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

but this child that was aborted never got a chance to have faith. The 3-year-old, never got a chance to have faith, to even know who to have faith in.

Well, first of all, we don't know what an unborn baby can do. So you have no basis for making the claims you're making. Further, NOTHING in the Bible teaches that God is obligated to "give everyone a chance to have faith".

So again, you're engaging in rationalization, instead of sticking to the Bible.

I think God is perfectly capable of controlling who gets faith (as He is the one who gives it in the first place, Eph. 2:8, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 Cor. 4:7, etc.), and I don't think you need to "rationalize" specific situations which are not revealed in the Bible, in order to try to "help" God.

They are sinners and have fallen short and they can't possibly have faith. That demise is not their fault, it was God's fault.

No, their demise is their OWN fault, through SINNING.
And yes, I'm okay with God justly punishing sinners.

You DEMANDING of God (!) that God is allegedly OBLIGATED to give EVERYONE "the opportunity to have faith", would be akin to you demanding your state governor give every murderer the "opportunity" to have a complete pardon.

Are YOU okay with THAT?!

You need to stop "rationalizing", and start believing the Bible.

And you are okay with that?

I'm okay with God justly punishing sinners, yes.
Why wouldn't I be?

You're okay that that sinner got the shaft from God and can never be saved because he never had faith.

Sinners aren't "ENTITLED" to have faith.
Faith is an act of GRACE by God.
Not some "entitlement" demanded by the sinner.

Sorry Theo, I don't believe children can sin.

Then you don't believe God.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

"All".

"All".

"ALL".

They are born with the taint of Adam's transgression. The only consequence of that transgression is physical death and that's the only burden they have to carry. It's a burden we all have to carry.

Completely unBiblical.

 

[brotherofJared]

You must be too busy to notice. This is my last response to you until you demonstrate an attitude more like what I've seen from Aaron.

Do you mean until I cow down to your rule?

Writing frivolous platitudes instead of answering the question isn't really responding. I believe you stopped responding long ago.

 

[Nic]

Do you mean until I cow down to your rule?

Writing frivolous platitudes instead of answering the question isn't really responding. I believe you stopped responding long ago.

We can all play games. God knows I need a break yet I'm going to pick gravel out of my tires while you change your bait or harass someone else.
Mind reading isn't your forté, is it?
And you may have the last word. I'm done playing your games. I'm going pick up my toys and go home. 🙋‍♂️buh-bye!

 

[brotherofJared]

You see, you reject Scripture, and you engage in worthless rationalization to try to justify rejecting Scripture. Ironically, you're like the pro-abortionists who appeal to pregnancy due to rape, to try to justify murdering ALL babies before they are born.

Okay, let's go with your rationalization, and see where it leads us:

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

You just can't get out of the box you're in, can you? It is impossible for a baby to commit any sin whatsoever, especially a child under the abuse of an adult. I suppose you could say that a baby in a frying pan is committing a sin because he isn't reverent and isn't honoring his parents.

Just tell me what sin that baby really committed and I'll be quiet. Surely you must have some kind of reasoning to support your belief. I suppose a baby who steals a pacifier from another baby should have his hand cut off. The parent would be totally justified in doing that, especially if he's saved, right?

It says ALL have sinned.
It doesn't say, "infants not included".
It doesn't say, "There are different rules for abortion".

It simply says, "ALL have sinned".
Does "all" have a different meaning in SLC, than in the rest of the world?

What did Scripture say a few verses earlier?:

I know, I know. Like sheep you can bleat your way to justification. It says it in the book so it must be true. So, if it is, tell me, what sin could a child who is being sexually abused by an adult have committed. What sin could a child that was aborted in the womb have committed. Surely, they must have explained this in your school of the false prophets. I'm waiting. I doubt you'll say anything, but if you did, I bet it would really be good.

Rom. 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

According to you, shouldn't it say, "Wait, there are SOME righteous, infants are righteous"? Shouldn't it say that, according to you? No, it says NONE righteous, and emphasizes that with, "NO, not ONE" (ie. no exceptions).

Uh huh. Are we talking about righteous babies now?

Let's try to keep it on sin. Now babies are depraved. That two-month-old was probably trafficking the 3-year-old and they are both sinners. The two-month-old for pimping the 3-year-old and the 3-year-old because he likes it. Is that it? I would say that's not righteous for sure. But that's not what this segue is about, is it?

But hey, that's only God's Scripture

But hey, so far, that's the only support you have. You can't tell me what sin these children did. There's no explanation for it. You accept a lie just because a book said it.

You want to claim, "An infant who has been aborted by its mother is sinless".

Yes. I do. I seriously do want to claim that a baby that was aborted at birth has not committed any sins. Don't you want to?

Okay, first of all, I can't find that teaching ANYWHERE in Scripture.

It's pretty much common sense. In fact, it makes so much sense, I bet you can't explain what sin they committed, the ones that were snuffed out.

So you're saying that if someone is murdered, that means they're sinless?

No. I'm saying that babies can't commit any sins.

So Sharon Tate and Abigail Forger, victims of the Manson family, were sinless, according to you, because they were murdered?

Were they babies?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how being murdered makes you sinless.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you got the idea that I said anything like that.

Care to try to come up with a better rationalization than this, if you're intent on throwing away Scripture?

Care to come up with any kind of rationalization besides, God said so? Are you intent on throwing away dead babies?

Nope... It looks like it's YOU who is the one "without even thinking about it", to come up with such a hare-brained rationalization.

Sorry, believing babies have sinned just because a book says they have is about as hair-brained as it gets.

Why are you changing the subject?

No. But you have, twice now. Once, you claimed that I claimed that being murdered makes a person sinless. And once, you decided that no one is righteous, "no not one". If that had anything to do with sins, you didn't draw the connection.

The topic is "who has sinned?", not "requirements to enter the kingdom of God".

I see. You can do it, but I can't. Figures.

You bringing this up again?
Fine, we'll simply show you even MORE Biblical passages Mormons throw away:

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.

2Tim. 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom. 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Even more? These are the same dead horses you've been beating all along.

Well, first of all, we don't know what an unborn baby can do.

Whatever that means. We know what he can't do. He can't sin.

So you have no basis for making the claims you're making

Yes. we do. The basis for my claim is that you say that ALL have sinned. That's the basis. You may not know what unborn babies can do, but we do know what living babies can do which amounts to nothing, about the same as unborn babies. So, tell me what sin they have committed.

NOTHING in the Bible teaches that God is obligated to "give everyone a chance to have faith".

But we do have verses that claim that God is a just God and that's not just.

So again, you're engaging in rationalization, instead of sticking to the Bible.

I call it common sense, you call it rationalization. If the Bible says it, there must be an explanation. So, I'm waiting. What's the explanation?

I think God is perfectly capable of controlling who gets faith

I'm sure you do, but if God is controlling it, I don't want to have anything to do with it. I'd prefer to be among people who control themselves.

 

[brotherofJared]

No, their demise is their OWN fault, through SINNING.

If you believe that, right after you suggested that God is controlling who gets faith and who doesn't, then you obviously don't understand the argument. God decided when and were they would be born, the person didn't decide it. If God is controlling it and decided who gets born when and were, then their circumstances are God's fault. They had no control over those circumstances.

And yes, I'm okay with God justly punishing sinners.

Then you have no problem with God punishing you. After all, we have all sinned, including you. Right?

You DEMANDING of God (!) that God is allegedly OBLIGATED to give EVERYONE "the opportunity to have faith",

Yes. You clearly don't understand the argument. Justice is obligated to judge everyone by the same standard. God is no respecter of persons. No one gets favoritism. He's not going to excuse one person's sin because of who they are, all will be judged by the same standards. So, if believing in Christ is a prerequisite for salvation, then yes. I believe everyone must come to know Jesus Christ and decide for themselves if they will believe in him or not. So, it not just the opportunity to have faith, but to have faith and know who they have faith in.

would be akin to you demanding your state governor give every murderer the "opportunity" to have a complete pardon.

Yes. If he gave one murderer an opportunity to have a complete pardon, I believe to be just, he would have to give all of them the same opportunity. Otherwise, he's playing favorites which is especially bad because he decided that they would have no chance of having that opportunity in their life.

Are YOU okay with THAT?!

Yes.

You need to stop "rationalizing", and start believing the Bible.

You need to start thinking about what you believe. If you can't explain it or define it, then perhaps you don't really know what it is you believe at all. People who just follow because someone wrote it in a book are sheep. And what you just said you believe tells me the shepherd your following is not a good shepherd.

 

[brotherofJared]

Sinners aren't "ENTITLED" to have faith.

Again, you don't understand the argument. It is horribly wrong that you, as a sinner had the opportunity to have faith and you're saved and another sinner never had the opportunity because God put him where he was at the time he put him there, so it was God who kept him in the dark, that makes it God's fault. So, this sinner not only never had the opportunity to have faith but God actively prevented him from being able to obtain it. Not only that, he actually went out of his way to put a child in harm's way that he might be killed just so he wouldn't have that opportunity. It wasn't the child's fault. I was God's.

That's bad. That's evil. The right thing to do is to teach everyone and let them decide. That's good.

Faith is an act of GRACE by God.

No, it's not. "Faith is an act of Grace". Is that like a definition of what Faith is or something?

Not some "entitlement" demanded by the sinner.

Well, the entitled on here is the born-again Christian. It doesn't matter what happens to anyone else, you guys are saved. But the child, who never heard of Christ but was snuffed out by his captors. He might have a different idea about that.

hen you don't believe God.

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

"All".

"All".

"ALL".

Wow, did you get a chance to clean the foam and spittle off your lips after you lost it there? You seem really intent to see little children burn in hell and everyone else, for that matter except you. How entitled can one get?

Completely unBiblical.

That was completely Biblical. Every word of it.

 

[Aaron32]

Do you mean until I cow down to your rule?

I would hardly say I "cow down" to anybody. I can simply recognize what productive discussion is, and what it's not, and choose to only respond to what is productive. (Not that I'm claiming that I've hardly been perfect in that regard, but that's what repentance is for, right?)
Yielding to the Holy Spirit means being meek, submissive, and humble (Mosiah 3:19). And "if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach." (D&C 42:14)
So, what exactly are you seeking to accomplish? trying to prove a gospel that you bear no fruit of? I think you've borne your witness verbally. No further clarification is required. Per your own argument, show your faith in deed by doing what it says:
3 Nephi 11:
28 "...And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."

 

[brotherofJared]

I would hardly say I "cow down" to anybody.

Haha. Is this you butting in on a public forum discussion?

I can simply recognize what productive discussion is, and what it's not, and choose to only respond to what is productive.

That's fine. You don't have to reply to anything you don't want to.

I realize that my approach is often abrasive. The person bailed on a simple question. I simply pointed out that he was avoiding answering the question, just like he later avoided my questions. This is typical of our critics who refuse to address obvious problems their theology poses for the Bible's message (which isn't faith alone). You posed one and then claimed, along with our critics, that we don't have to keep any of the commandments, we just have to have faith.

As I said, with the light comes on, the roaches flee for cover. I guess my approach isn't a simple light switch, it's a flame thrower and you got jumped into it to save your lullaby. I've had people who are a lot better than you or me save me from a catastrophe when the other person wouldn't answer what I believed was a simple question. I recognize that there is a better way and I also recognize that I don't know how to get to that better way. I alienate a lot of people. I know that. I have never been able to understand how a person when given a point-blank question where there is no escape, will not answer it. If the answer was a snake, they'd be dead already, but it happens all the time. At first, I believe they just don't understand the question, but after a short period of time, very short, I realize they are doing it on purpose and that taints the character of the person. A civil discussion cannot exist when the other person is playing games. Apparently, playing games doesn't bother you.

So I know where you stand on this topic though, please tell me, do you really believe that we are saved by faith alone? Works are not necessary? If you do, then that isn't our theology. I know you still can believe the church is true and all, but your theology creates a conflict. If you don't, you haven't explained it very well.

Along the lines of necessary works, absolutely necessary, is baptism. This would be legalism as I understand what you said from your earlier post. So, Is baptism absolutely necessary for children over the age of 8, regardless of everything else they do in life, no matter how perfect they are, is baptism necessary to enter the kingdom of God? First, what do you think about that and Second, what you think the church teaches and then explain the conflict if there is one.

(Not that I'm claiming that I've hardly been perfect in that regard, but that's what repentance is for, right?)

Uh. I don't think recognizing productive conversation, or failure to, requires repentance.

Yielding to the Holy Spirit means being meek, submissive, and humble (Mosiah 3:19). And "if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach." (D&C 42:14)

Teaching requires that there be someone present who can or will learn. Otherwise, you're just talking to a wall. I'm not here to teach any of these critics. They have their ideas and philosophies and they aren't going to change from anything I say and learning is the process of change. I am here to present a correct idea of what we believe. Those who are seeking to know what we really believe will see that. I know that my abrasive approach will put them off, but the fact is, resistance is always abrasive, even if gentle. I believe the honest seeker of truth will be able to see through the abrasive approach and see that there is an alternative to the critic's narrative. You don't think being accused of running away or told that we don't believe the scriptures or even worse, that we hate the scriptures, is not abrasive? There isn't friction there? Do you believe the honest seeker of truth won't see through such silly antics? These critics are little children stomping about, demanding we must believe what they teach solely on the basis of "because I said so, it's true". Do I not back up my ideas with reason? The idea that it must be in the scriptures to be true is absurd and the idea that everything is the way our critics interpret the scriptures must also be true is even more absurd. It comes down to this, believe what I tell you or you're going to hell. Accept my religion or you will never see heaven.

Logically, if every person in the world is not saved, then those who are must have done something that those who aren't didn't do. You call that legalism and it may be, but it's still a fact. Now, you have joined the ranks of our critics in refusing to answer what that difference is even though that's what the is thread is about. And you guys accuse me of derailing it.

So, I'm not here to teach. I'm here to tell my side of the story as I understand it and on this subject, I understand that if you aren't following Jesus, you cannot possibly be saved. It's that simple. That takes work. Some people believe that if you're born again, it takes less work, but it's just silly to think that it doesn't matter if you slip up and it's even more silly to think that because you're born again, you can't slip up. You can and people do all the time. They use this kind of theology to excuse themselves, this time and the next and the next until they get caught and then all the people who believe that once saved always saved will turn on you and rend you limb from limb... so much for being saved...

The very fact that a person is trying to live a good life based on a moral standard - wherever they got it from - is following Christ. He is the moral standard. Some people don't know what that moral standard is, but if they have one, it came from God and as long as they follow that standard, which is all they can do, then I'm confident that a just judge will accept their sacrifice and receive them into his kingdom (but they still have to be baptized - that's a legal requirement - the very same as it is a legal requirement to have the priesthood before one exercises that priesthood).

So, what exactly are you seeking to accomplish?

I've explained it.

trying to prove a gospel that you bear no fruit of?

You're not the judge of the fruit I bear, nor do you know anything about my fruit. Don't presume you know anything about me simply because I butted into this public forum. You and I disagree on many things. I've told you that when I do, I will tell you about it. On this particular issue, I wasn't aware that we had a disagreement. I see that we do now, but I was responding to a post where they chose not to answer the question. I find it odd that you'd pick a verse that suggests that we need to keep the commandments and then try to explain that we don't need to. But, oh well. I didn't see that one coming.

Here's the situation the way I see it. I tried to help and you got all bent out of shape, then attacked me, telling me that my help isn't needed or wanted. You derailed your own thread by doing so and then you accuse me of not bearing the fruit of the gospel. Your frustration led to where we are now, not mine. I am not your child that I should receive any discipline from you. Do not try to put me in a corner and tell me to be quiet while the adults play.

I think you've borne your witness verbally. No further clarification is required. Per your own argument, show your faith in deed by doing what it says:
3 Nephi 11:
28 "...And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."

Yes, Judge Aaron32.

 

[Theo1689]

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

You just can't get out of the box you're in, can you?

I believe Scripture.
I'm sorry that you don't.

It is impossible for a baby to commit any sin whatsoever, especially a child under the abuse of an adult.

So you say.
God says you're wrong:

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Why do you refuse to discuss what "all" means in Rom. 3:23?

Just tell me what sin that baby really committed and I'll be quiet.

So it's not good enough for you when God tells you, "ALL have sinned"?
I'm sorry you think God's a liar.
I believe God.

Surely you must have some kind of reasoning to support your belief.

Yep.
"God said it."
"I believe it."
"That settles it."

I believe God.
You think God's a liar.
It's pretty simple.

I suppose a baby who steals a pacifier from another baby should have his hand cut off. The parent would be totally justified in doing that, especially if he's saved, right?

Now you're conflating "sin" with what the penalty should be.
Do you agree that stealing a pacifier is a sin?
You see, you seem to KNOW that even babies can sin, since you find it very easy to give an example!

It says it in the book so it must be true.

So you think the Bible is an unreliable book containing a bunch of lies?
Thank you for providing the MORMON perspective.

So, if it is, tell me, what sin could a child who is being sexually abused by an adult have committed.

I'm not sure what "being sexually abused" has anything to do with anything.
You keep bringing up irrelevant side-factors.
Let's look at Scott Peterson, for example. He murdered his wife and unborn son.
Can we agree at least that HE sinned?!
He's in prison right now.
So if another convict sexually abused Peterson, does that mean he's NOT a sinner (anymore)?

Again, what does "being sexually abused" have to do with ANYTHING?

What sin could a child that was aborted in the womb have committed.

Ask God.
But you see, unlike you, I believe God.
When He says, "ALL have sinned", I believe him. (You don't.)
YOU disbelieve him, and say, "No, God, I don't believe you. I don't think All have sinned. YOU need to JUSTIFY yourself to me, and YOU have to explain to me how infants can sin. And then I will tell you if I accept your justification."

Surely, they must have explained this in your school of the false prophets.

<sigh>
I'm sorry you think the Bible is written by "false prophets".

But no, the Bible doesn't list every single sin as it applies to every single individual, or to every single age group. It's enough that God has told us, "ALL have sinned."

I'm waiting. I doubt you'll say anything, but if you did, I bet it would really be good.

Since you don't believe GOD when HE says, "ALL have sinned", there would be no way that you would believe me if I tried to tell you "what" sins infants committed. You don't believe God. That kind of ends the conversation full-stop.

Uh huh. Are we talking about righteous babies now?

Well, they're either "righteous", or "unrighteous" (sinners).
Do you think there's a third category?

Let's try to keep it on sin. Now babies are depraved. That two-month-old was probably trafficking the 3-year-old and they are both sinners. The two-month-old for pimping the 3-year-old and the 3-year-old because he likes it. Is that it? I would say that's not righteous for sure. But that's not what this segue is about, is it?

I don't believe mockery is a Christian virtue.
So when you're done the mocking, and ready to continue reasonable discussion, please let me know.

You accept a lie just because a book said it.

Wow.
So you think the Bible is a "book of lies".
Thank you for sharing the Mormon perspective.

So why do you use a "book of lies" to try to defend "plural gods" (1 Cor. 8:5)?
So why do you use a "book of lies" to try to defend baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29)?
So why do you use a "book of lies" to try to defend "works salvation" (James 2)?

Yes. I do. I seriously do want to claim that a baby that was aborted at birth has not committed any sins. Don't you want to?

No, I do not want to "claim" ANYTHING that God has said is false.
My allegiance is to GOD.

It's pretty much common sense.

And God tells us NOT to determine truth by "common sense"

Prov. 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the way to death.

God tells us to determine truth by SCRIPTURE:

2Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

In fact, it makes so much sense, I bet you can't explain what sin they committed, the ones that were snuffed out.

God hasn't revealed that to us.
It was sufficient to Him to reveal to us that "ALL ... ALL ... ALL have sinned."

It's like a prison guard, who has no need to know "what" crimes the inmates have committed. All they need to know is that the inmates are convicted criminals. It's up to the Judge, not the prison guards, to know the specific crimes ("sins").

No. I'm saying that babies can't commit any sins.

And not only do yo have no evidence for your assertion, your claim is CONTRADICTED by God, in His word.

"ALL have sinned..."

Care to come up with any kind of rationalization besides, God said so?

No, not really.
"God said so" is perfectly sufficient for me.

Are you intent on throwing away dead babies?

Um, a bizarre question...
It would probably be more appropriate to bury them.

Sorry, believing babies have sinned just because a book says they have is about as hair-brained as it gets.

So you don't believe the Bible.
Got it.

No. But you have, twice now. Once, you claimed that I claimed that being murdered makes a person sinless.

That was your bizarre argument about a baby being aborted (ie. murdered) by its mother. If you want to retract that bizarre argument, you are free to do so.

And once, you decided that no one is righteous, "no not one".

No, GOD has "decided" that. It's in the Bible, that book you call the "book of lies":

Rom. 3:10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom. 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom. 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.”

Yes. we do. The basis for my claim is that you say that ALL have sinned.

No, GOD has claimed that:

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

You simply don't believe God.

 

[brotherofJared]

I believe Scripture.

It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.

 

[Theo1689]

Again, you don't understand the argument. It is horribly wrong that you, as a sinner had the opportunity to have faith and you're saved and another sinner never had the opportunity because God put him where he was at the time he put him there, so it was God who kept him in the dark,

So you're saying GOD is wrong?

Again, you don't understand the argument.

Your argument is like mass murderers in a prison on death row. The state Governor has the power to grant a pardon to whoever he wants. If he grants one convict a pardon, YOU are claiming that He "has to" offer EVERY SINGLE inmate a pardon, or else it's "not fair".

Sorry, it IS perfectly fair.
Every convict who remains in prison, and has to serve out his sentence, is JUSTLY paying for the consequence of his crime. The convict has no "right" or "demand" of a pardon.

And in the same way, the sinner has no "right" or "demand" of God's grace to be saved.

that makes it God's fault.

No, it's the sinner's fault for sinning.

So, this sinner not only never had the opportunity to have faith but God actively prevented him from being able to obtain it.

"Prevented him"?!
Your dishonest wording makes it sound like faith was on its way to the sinner (it wasn't), but that God "blocked" it. No, faith was never given to the sinner. The sinner has no "right" to it.

That's bad. That's evil. The right thing to do is to teach everyone and let them decide. That's good.

Huh?
"teaching" is NOT the same as "faith".
I have no clue what you're talking about, because YOU have no clue what you're talking about.

No, it's not. "Faith is an act of Grace". Is that like a definition of what Faith is or something?

No, it's a definition of how faith is given out.
Faith is not given to everyone, it is given to Whoever God DECIDES to give it to. Faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29, Rom. 12:3, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 Cor. 4:7, etc.)

It is a gift.
And nobody's "entitled" to receive a gift.
It is given according to who God DECIDES to give it.

If God decides to give faith to Andrew, Bob, and Charlie, then that doesn't mean Almah, Ammon, or Dallen is going to be given it.

Well, the entitled on here is the born-again Christian. It doesn't matter what happens to anyone else, you guys are saved.

No, I'm not the least bit "entitled".
I was given faith as a gift, unmerited favour. I wasn't (and aren't) "entitled" to it.

And don't act like I don't care what happens to anyone else.
I'm simply not the one in control.

Case in point, I've spent decades presenting the gospel to Mormons such as yourself. But you reject it, and throw God's word in the trash. That's outside of my control.

Wow, did you get a chance to clean the foam and spittle off your lips after you lost it there?

<sigh>
Worthless insulting rhetoric.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
But of course you won't be.

You seem really intent to see little children burn in hell and everyone else, for that matter except you. How entitled can one get?

<sigh>

Why do you dishonestly project evil motives upon me?
I don't wish to see ANYONE harmed.
But I don't have any control over things.
I'm simply the messenger.

That was completely Biblical. Every word of it.

Oh, so it came out of that source you call the "book of lies"?

 

[Theo1689]

It looks to me like you believe what you're told without even knowing why.

Yes, God has no obligation to answer to me.

If the Sergeant says, "Jump!"
The private doesn't say, "Why should I?"

If God says, "ALL have sinned".
The sinner doesn't say, "PROVE it!"

I believe God.
You don't.
And that's the bottom line.

 

[brotherofJared]

I'm not sure what "being sexually abused" has anything to do with anything.

I'm sorry you can't see the conundrum this presents, but okay. Maybe you don't understand the context. In this thread so far, I have associated this sexual abuse with death, they were abused until they died. What sin did they commit while being used to commit a horrible sin that the child had no control over. God put him there. And now you're going to tell me that the child is a sinner? What was his sin? Being born?

 

[Markk]

I'm sorry you can't see the conundrum this presents, but okay. Maybe you don't understand the context. In this thread so far, I have associated this sexual abuse with death, they were abused until they died. What sin did they commit while being used to commit a horrible sin that the child had no control over. God put him there. And now you're going to tell me that the child is a sinner? What was his sin? Being born?

Your conflating a specific sin, with mans nature. The Bible reads we are born children of wrath. Sin, literally means to fall short, or miss the mark…every person whether they committed a specific sin or not, like the unborn child, are still by nature a sinner.

BoJ…Innocent children don’t teach us not to lie and steal…we teach them, or at least we should. One of the first things I child learns to say is “mine.”

 

[Aaron32]

Haha. Is this you butting in on a public forum discussion?

My name was mentioned. Thus, I jumped in to defend myself.

You posed one and then claimed, along with our critics, that we don't have to keep any of the commandments, we just have to have faith.

What statement of mine are you looking at to think I believe that?
I'm pretty sure in my OP I stated having faith leads to keeping all the other commandments.

I have never been able to understand how a person when given a point-blank question where there is no escape, will not answer it.

When our critics ask point blank questions I don't answer, it's usually because the question has a fallacious question. Do you want answers to questions or do you want understanding?

So I know where you stand on this topic though, please tell me, do you really believe that we are saved by faith alone? Works are not necessary? If you do, then that isn't our theology. I know you still can believe the church is true and all, but your theology creates a conflict. If you don't, you haven't explained it very well.

Do you really want my answer? I'm not sure if you do. If you did, you would have read Alma 5 as I stated in my previous response which says:

10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?
11 Behold, I can tell you—did not my father Alma believe in the words which were delivered by the mouth of Abinadi? And was he not a holy prophet? Did he not speak the words of God, and my father Alma believe them?
12 And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true.
13 And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved.

I know I can't keep all the commandments, but I try to. My trust is in the true and living God, not my works. My faith leads me to my works. Is my faith perfect? No. But I have faith enough to take the sacrament every week.

Along the lines of necessary works, absolutely necessary, is baptism. This would be legalism as I understand what you said from your earlier post. So, Is baptism absolutely necessary for children over the age of 8, regardless of everything else they do in life, no matter how perfect they are, is baptism necessary to enter the kingdom of God? First, what do you think about that and Second, what you think the church teaches and then explain the conflict if there is one.

Answer to 1st question: As I think about it, baptism for 8-year olds is more for the parents than the children. (D&C 68:25)
Answer to 2nd Question: No. I think people can enter the kingdom of God before receiving the ordinance of baptism:
“I saw Fathers Adam and Abraham, and my father and mother, my brother Alvin, that has long since slept, and marvelled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set His hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.” (D&C 137:5–6)

Joseph did not doubt the truthfulness of the vision, but he “marvelled” at it: His parents were still alive in Kirtland, Ohio, and Alvin, who had been dead for thirteen years, had never been baptized for the remission of his sins. Alvin had, in fact, died seven years before the Church was organized.

Responding to the Prophet’s inner bewilderment, the Lord explained: “All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God.” (D&C 137:7) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org...mith-reminder-of-the-fairness-of-god?lang=eng

The conflict - there is no conflict if you believe faith is the basis of salvation. Again, that's salvation, not exaltation. Exaltation is collective - where Jesus Christ becomes your Father, and you join your brothers and sisters in Christ.

I know that my abrasive approach will put them off, but the fact is, resistance is always abrasive, even if gentle. I believe the honest seeker of truth will be able to see through the abrasive approach and see that there is an alternative to the critic's narrative.

I believe it doesn't matter what you believe when your duty has already been given to you:
D&C 121:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile

No amount of blaming the victim will hold you any less accountable for someone that would have received the gospel if you hadn't been so "abrasive". Impressions matter - Don't play a part in giving Mormons a bad name.

You don't think being accused of running away or told that we don't believe the scriptures or even worse, that we hate the scriptures, is not abrasive? There isn't friction there?

They're men with darkened minds. Why should I care?

Do you believe the honest seeker of truth won't see through such silly antics?

If both sides are participating in silly antics, I don't think they're going to see anything of worth.

These critics are little children stomping about, demanding we must believe what they teach solely on the basis of "because I said so, it's true".

....because "He started it" is always a mature response.

Do I not back up my ideas with reason?

Everything has a reason - good or bad. On the battlefield of ideas, perception is reality.
Have you ever heard the expression "People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care."?

Logically, if every person in the world is not saved, then those who are must have done something that those who aren't didn't do.

I agree with your premise - I think it's the "something" that we have differences over.
Consider this:
Luke 18:
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

What did the heathen to that the Pharisee did not?

So, I'm not here to teach. I'm here to tell my side of the story...

Yeah, we all know. Maybe saying it AGAIN will make it more convincing.
We agree...it's been said. Now honor men's free agency as God does, and just watch it play out.

You're not the judge of the fruit I bear, nor do you know anything about my fruit.

You're right - I'm not. But you represent my side. If my teammate keeps fumbling the ball over things he can control, I'm going to tell him about it.

On this particular issue, I wasn't aware that we had a disagreement. I see that we do now, but I was responding to a post where they chose not to answer the question. I find it odd that you'd pick a verse that suggests that we need to keep the commandments and then try to explain that we don't need to. But, oh well. I didn't see that one coming.

I think we are in general agreement. But sometimes things can get over-defined and then the true meaning gets lost. (aka. "looking beyond the mark")
Sometimes, less is more.

Here's the situation the way I see it. I tried to help and you got all bent out of shape, then attacked me, telling me that my help isn't needed or wanted.

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended you. But seriously, there's a couple (I believe) well-intended Christians that I've never conversed with (Charismatic Lady and Nic) that I'm conversing with, and then you "abrasively" stomp in on the exchange. I've addressed you in PM a couple times previously. This time, I thought it was important publicly distance myself from your remarks (as I view your behavior giving Mormons a bad name - something I wish our critics would do more of to their own side). In those instances, you weren't helping anybody.

It's ok though. I've had my fill of this forum for a while. Everyone on both sides seems to agree they're not interested in any real discussion. I think after I leave you'll be the last Mormon standing. If you stop posting, just watch - the posts aren't much different as if you posted. It becomes an echo chamber. If I didn't know any better, I'd think they're AI bots.

 

[Theo1689]

BoJ…Innocent children don’t teach us not to lie and steal…we teach them, or at least we should. One of the first things I child learns to say is “mine.”

And, "no".

 

[Theo1689]

It's ok though. I've had my fill of this forum for a while. Everyone on both sides seems to agree they're not interested in any real discussion.

I know for a fact that Bonnie, Magdalena, and me are ALL interested in "real discussion".
The fact that you would misrepresent us by falsely claiming otherwise is just sad.

But it makes sense that Mormons will do anything to try to sabotage sincere discussion. I've seen it for decades.

I think after I leave you'll be the last Mormon standing. If you stop posting, just watch - the posts aren't much different as if you posted. It becomes an echo chamber. If I didn't know any better, I'd think they're AI bots.

More insults by you.
Does Mormonism teach you to be this insulting?