Faith is Works

General Conference 2025 changed my life, I was active but lazy, I have been called for more! I created this account to help change old habits and adjust my personal algorithm to see more christ oriented content. I want to follow all Latter-Day Saints. 🙏

@gregstier Read it.

What Mormons Believe vs. What the Bible Teaches: Mormonism (LDS) • Church: The Church of Latter-day Saints is the only true church, restored through Joseph Smith after all others became corrupt • God: God was once a man who became God; has a physical body, along with a Heavenly Mother • Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate beings (three gods) • Jesus: A separate god from the Father; created as a spirit child and considered the “elder brother” of all people. His body was created as a result of a sexual union between God the Father and Mary. His death on the cross does not pay for the sins of all people • Scripture: Bible is accepted “as far as it is translated correctly,” along with the Book of Mormon and other LDS writings • Salvation: Faith in Christ + obedience and good works → exaltation (becoming like God) • Afterlife: Most people go to one of three kingdoms of glory; only a few go to outer darkness Bible (Christian Teaching) • God: Eternal, self-existent Creator—never created, never a man (“I AM”) • Trinity: One God in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit • Jesus: Fully God and fully man; conceived by the Holy Spirit, not created. He died for the sins of all humanity on the cross and proved he was God in the flesh through his resurrection • Scripture: The Bible alone is God’s complete and authoritative Word • Salvation: A free gift of grace through faith in Christ alone, based on his finished work on the cross—not earned by works • Afterlife: Eternal life with God for believers; separation from God for those who reject Him in hell Things to Remember When Talking With a Mormon • Be loving, kind and truthful. Many LDS members may not know or fully agree with official teachings • They often use familiar Christian terms—but define them differently • Stay focused on understanding, not just debating, then share the simple Gospel as laid out in John 3:16 Helpful Questions to Ask • “What do you mean by salvation?” • “Who is Jesus?” • “Do you believe faith alone in Christ alone is enough to save?” For more information on Mormonism and other worldviews check out dare2share.org/worldviews

@Lydia5321181048 Culvers is really good, had it for the first time recently! Unfortunately there aren't any near me :(

@Faith_is_Works I love how they call their ketchup “fancy ketchup”. Another controversial opinion is Whataburger is okay… I think there is better. Culver’s is amazing!

Ketchup. No one over the age of 8 😉should be eating ketchup on anything especially hotdogs.

@jonathanplumb You can do this brother, regardless if it's tonight or years from now. I have faith the Lord will guide you 🙏 We all have our trials, we fall and get back up!

About 6 months ago, I attempted to quit using medical marijuana. I asked for prayers for strength, and many of you responded positively. But after two days, I had a pretty powerful spiritual experience that told me the time would come for me to quit, but that time hadn’t come yet. While I might not read impressions perfectly, I felt strongly that I still had more to learn from it before the Lord would empower me to overcome it. Now, I want to try again, but I’m not sure still if it’s time. But there are employment opportunities I have been looking at that require being abstinent from marijuana for at least one year. I am not asking for prayers this time. Rather, I am simply posting this as an acknowledgment of the start date of this attempt. And if it be God’s will, then I will finally be free. If it be not His will, then I must still suffer for a season as a consequence of my own choices. Time will tell. Either way, here we go!

@FreeSparrowLife @stackerco You don't understand, people thought it was a sin. Handbook says whenever possible. People would literally either not take it or go out of their way to use their broken right arm to take it because they thought it was a sin to use their left.

@Faith_is_Works @stackerco Handbook Section 18.9.3

Some of 80’s Mormonism Jacob has obviously forgotten. Jacob has sat with apologetics too long and is like a lobster in hot water not realizing he’s boiling: Native Americans, Central Americans, South Americans, and Polynesians were all Lamanites We could become Gods and create worlds Less people leaving the church No magical worldview of the 19th century Joseph translated Book of Abraham from papyri (no long scroll of catalyst theory) Temple throat cutting penalties 3 hour church Scouting program Multiple first visions, seer stones, Joseph occult practice, polyandry, etc were all anti Mormon Gold plates translated by Urim and thummim, not stone Catholicism is the abominable church Homosexuality was an entire sin across the board Race curse with blacks was still doctrine despite priesthood ban lifted Church spoke against evolution Premortal valiance determined your state of life now, including race. You will be polygamous in the next life

If Joseph Smith was deceiving people, how do you explain the testimony of Martin Harris? If anyone had reason to expose the work as a fraud, it was Martin. Martin Harris was the first convert to the restoration outside of the Smith family. He was not a poor or desperate man. He was a successful farmer, respected in his community, and financially secure. He was motivated and built his wealth through hard work and ingenuity. He had everything to lose. Before Martin ever met the Smith family, he had attended at least five different denominations and said the Lord showed him there was no true Church on the earth, and that an angel would come to restore the gospel and bring forth a record. Because of that experience, when he heard about Joseph Smith and the gold plates, he was intrigued. But he didn’t accept it blindly. He questioned, investigated, and prayed. He said God showed him it was true, and he made a covenant to help bring it forth. When new opportunity for additional prosperity came for him with the expansion of the Erie Canal, Martin abandoned his worldly pursuits of additional wealth to assist in the work. He gave money freely. He helped fund Joseph so that Joseph could have time to translate the record. He traveled to New York City to show the characters from the gold plates to scholars. After meeting with Charles Anthon and Dr. Mitchell, Martin came away convinced the record Joseph had was authentic. He traveled to Harmony, PA and for two months he sat beside Joseph and scribed 116 pages that Joseph dictated from the Book of Mormon. But the respected Martin Harris struggled, because his wife, relatives, and the Palmyra community at large thought this quest was foolish. They did not believe, and they wanted proof. He desperately needed evidence. He wanted to show others to restore his good name, to demonstrate that he was not being fooled or the victim of a con. He plead with Joseph, asking to take the manuscript home, for that was the evidence he believed would convince the doubters. He knew the text that Joseph dictated, that he wrote down, was the word of God, the word of an ancient people who were taught the covenants of God. Eventually, he was trusted with the manuscript and took it to Palmyra. But he did not stay true to this covenant to show it only to a few people. And he lost it. 116 pages gone. When he realized what had happened, he cried out: “I have lost my soul.” This was a man who knew the weight of what he was handling, who had spent weeks taking part of the spiritual process transcribing the words of the Lord. Martin was publicly rebuked in revelation, told of his pride, wickedness, and failure. Told that he needed to humble himself. If this was a fraud, wouldn’t this be the moment to expose it? After months of effort, financial sacrifice, and public reprimand, this is when people turn bitter and speak out. Instead, Martin humbled himself. The translation of the Book of Mormon continued without him. And then came the moment everything hinges on. Martin became one of the Three Witnesses. But he didn’t just see the same vision and angel in the same experience as Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer. After feeling the weight of his own lack of humility and sincerely praying, sincerely seeking repentance, Martin and Joseph together had a shared witness and experience where the angel appeared. He saw the angel. He saw the plates. And he said: “’Tis enough; ’tis enough; mine eyes have beheld.” That testimony never wavered. Then came the ultimate test and sacrifice. Printing 5,000 copies of an unknown book by an unknown author in 1830 was astronomically expensive, and Joseph had no other friends who could help finance this. Martin Harris pledged his farm, his livelihood, to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon. $3,000. If it failed, he lost everything. And he did. He sold 151 acres of his farm to pay for the printing. His reputation suffered. His marriage was strained. He was mocked, ridiculed, and pitied by his neighbors. If Martin's motive was financial, if this was part of a con and he lost everything with nothing in return, this is where he exposes it and sues Joseph Smith and the Church for ruining him. No one sacrifices that kind of wealth and security for something they know is false if there is no gain for them. But even that wasn’t the end. When Joseph instructed the early members of the Church to gather to Ohio, Martin not only left his prosperous home and farm in Palmyra. In 1831 he donated $1,200 to help build Zion in Missouri. If you've already been scammed by something you know is a fraud and lost everything, you don't double down and do it again, especially when in this case there is not any potential for a return on investment. Martin did not hold high positions in the Church. He was not one of the apostles or in the First Presidency. If his goal was power or position, his sacrifices brought no return in that regard. If that had been his motive, he would have had every reason to feel betrayed by Joseph Smith after all he gave. Martin was a wise businessman and knew that Joseph was not. He let his pride overcome him, feeling that he knew better about financial matters than Joseph, and because of this, Martin left the Church when the Kirtland Safety Society collapsed in 1837. He had lost confidence in Joseph. He disagreed. He struggled. But he was still spiritually committed. Still convinced that the Book of Mormon was true and that he was called as a witness. He associated with other religious groups, trying to find where the truth was, but ended up dissatisfied with all of them. During the 1850s and 60s, he moved back to Kirtland where he became a caretaker for the Kirtland Temple. People would come to see it, and while not being affiliated with the Church, he would proudly share his witness of the Book of Mormon and his testimony that an angel had appeared to him, and related the thrilling sacred experiences that happened in the Temple in 1836. For decades, he lived outside the Church, but he never denied what he saw. Critics questioned him. Ministers challenged him. People tried to persuade him to recant. But he didn’t. Even when he lost everything. Even when he was poor. Even when he was outside the Church and far away in an area filled with those opposed to the Church. He kept saying the same thing. “I saw the angel.” “I saw the plates.” “I heard the voice of God.” Late in life, at nearly 90 years of age, he made the journey west to rejoin the saints. He was rebaptized and moved to Cache Valley. He spent the final four years of his life testifying over and over again to anyone who would listen. At the end of his life, he bore this final witness as his dying breath: “I did see the plates… I did see the angel; I did hear the voice of God.” If it was a fraud, why was Martin so steadfast in his testimony and so eager to share it, even after sacrificing so much without any worldly benefit?

Many Christians are baffled that Latter-day Saints can study the same Bible they do, and often know the Bible better than they do (Pew Research, 2010), yet hold such a "radically" different theology. This is the "fish don't know they're in water" principle. Here's a great case study: "'Mormons' believe in a Great Apostasy. Jesus said in Matthew 16 that His Church would never fall away. They must think Jesus lied!" Let's unpack that. When someone looks at the same text I do and comes away with a different conclusion than I did, it is tempting to assume the other person is evil, brainwashed, deceived, or just an idiot. That is very rarely the case. Instead, it's better to presume the other party is also logical and turn my accusation inward, asking myself: "What differences in lenses, assumptions, and interpretations do we have that cause us to reach different conclusions? What premises am I taking for granted in my logic?" Let's start with the text of the verse @JtheFree is referencing-- the words of Jesus to Simon Peter: "Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." His interpretation, which seems understandably obvious to him, is that Jesus promised that there would be no Great Apostasy. Therefore, Mormons are wrong, case closed. Let's ask, what assumptions does this interpretation rest on that a Latter-day Saint does not share? 1. Biblical Inerrancy Jesus likely spoke that text in Aramaic. The author remembered those words to the best of his ability when he wrote his Gospel several decades later. His original Gospel was likely written in Hebrew, so even if he could remember the Aramaic, he had to translate it to Hebrew. Then the manuscript was copied over and over again by hand, and eventually translated to Greek by a third party, then copied over and over again. Matthew's account is the only Gospel to record those words. So the best source we have of Jesus's words is a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of another translation of a copy of a copy of yet another translation of a decades-old memory attributed to (but not definitively from) someone who observed the event. So we have the first assumption: biblical inerrancy. Many Christians adopt that premise because they think the Bible implies it; Latter-day Saints don't see any such implication, and therefore don't rest their faith on that. If we found Dead Sea Scrolls part 2 and it had an original Aramaic version of Matthew without that verse, that's fine. Or if it had that verse and it matched exactly, that's fine, too. No sleep loss for me. 2. Interpretation But let's assume it really was a perfect translation to English. Well, even then we have a problem because English isn't precise, and each person reads it differently based on his or her biases and lenses. We all acknowledge there is some wordplay around "rock" and different-sized stones and Peter's new name. But beyond that, there are several questions the reader needs to answer to understand this verse: * What is the rock Jesus speaks of? * What is the church? * What is the "it" that the gates of hell cannot prevail against? * What are the gates of hell? * What does it mean to prevail? This is where hermeneutics comes in. Different readers with different worldviews will answer these questions in different ways. For example: The Catholic reading is to interpret the rock as Peter, the church as the authorized institution with priesthood authority, the "it" as that priesthood institution, the gates of hell as all forces aligned against that institution, and prevail as the cessation of that authoritative line. The Catholic translation, then, is: "Upon you, Peter, I will establish the institution of the priesthood and no evil force will interrupt that institutional priesthood line." Many Protestants, by contrast, interpret the rock to be the act of confessing Jesus's Lordship as Peter did, the church as the general body of believers (Origen took this view), the "it" meaning Christianity as a whole, the gates of hell as Satan, and prevail meaning a spiritual win. A Protestant translation, then, is: "Christianity is based on confessions of faith and Satan cannot spiritually win the souls of those who come to such faith." There are hundreds of variations on this theme: * Could prevail mean only a permanent victory? Could the gates of Hades/hell have a political/military meaning? * Could the promise be for the souls' welfare, not for the destiny of the church itself? * Could the rock maybe even refer to Jesus Himself (as Augustine believed)? * etc All good questions. Here is one potential interpretation you might find your Latter-day Saint friends hold: Jesus is commending Peter for seeking personal revelation from God. That divine, confirming witness is the foundation of a testimony and the bedrock of anyone who would follow Christ (the informal church). The gates of Hades, being a place of horrific pagan sinfulness, may be a symbol of outside forces from which Christians will be safe as long as they seek that personal witness from God. And persecution from outside forces did not prevail against the institutional Church-- the Church rotted away from the inside due to "itching ears" syndrome. Or perhaps the church mentioned by Jesus really is the institutional Church and the word "prevail" means only a permanent victory? In which case an 1800-year period is but a small blip on the eternal scale-- certainly within the definition of "quickly" and "soon" the Lord used to describe His Second Coming. Do you see the complexity of this problem? The Bible is ambiguous—there are dozens of potential interpretations of that verse. Context from surrounding verses, the early manuscripts, etc., all help clarify, but do not definitively answer. 3. Prooftexting We Christians often treat Bible verses like Pokémon cards-- we assemble our favorites to form a formidable team. And that's good-- it's the scriptures together that help to cut through much of that ambiguity I talked about. But then we make a little Pokemon army and line them up against the cards our neighbor has. Remember, if you're going to assemble six verses that (to you) suggest there can't be an apostasy, your opponent can just as easily assemble six verses that (to him) suggest an apostasy wasn't just possible, but predicted in advance. For example: * Acts 20:29–30 * 2 Thessalonians 2:3 * 1 Timothy 4:1–3 * 2 Timothy 4:3–4 * 2 Peter 2:1–3 * Amos 8:12 * And many more We could go through the same exercise together of dissecting each verse and battling them, only to find that there are legions of possible interpretations to these verses, and we each bring assumptions and lenses to the text that influence how we choose to interpret it. That's why, ultimately, Joseph Smith went to the woods to pray. He took the same verse of scripture to a handful of preachers, and none could agree on what it meant. So he went to the One with all the answers. And that's what we invite everyone to do today: Consider that the verses our critics love to shout at us ad nauseam may not mean exactly what they claim they mean. Consider the lenses you're unknowingly reading the Bible through. Consider the possibility that God has answered much of this ambiguity through more of His word. Study it. Then take it to Him and ask Him directly if it's true. Or you can keep playing with your Holy Bible Pokémon cards, I guess. But don't overestimate the HP on your Galatians 1:8 and Revelation 22:18 cards-- everyone overplays them stronger than they actually are. 😉

@BAYCBoshi @mattbnelson @HansFiene "Gets called out for being wrong." -Proceeds to attack and be wrong again. What a pleasant person. 🙄

@mattbnelson @HansFiene Enjoy your cult of pedophiles and racists.

Mormon physiognomy is a real thing. Having grown up in Utah, I can spot a Mormon at 50 yards. I did this on my honeymoon. My wife and I were holding the cruise ship elevator for a couple coming down the hallway and I told my wife "they're Mormons" and she said "how do you know," and I said "by looking at them" and she said "you can't tell if someone is Mormon just by looking at them" and I said "yes I can" and then they got in the elevator and I asked where they were from and they were from Utah and he had just finished his mission.

@MarcusFidelicus @prockwellbg

@prockwellbg There is just SO much bullshit about Smith and mormonism it's hard to know where to start. Or Stop 🤣🤡 But do go on about the seer stones and the pissed off angel that took away the magic glasses after the 116 pages incident So mean to take the magic glasses away!

What's more believable: That a barely educated 23-year-old farmboy with just a few years of schooling somehow: - Accurately mapped Lehi’s family’s journey out of Jerusalem along the ancient frankincense trail (unknown in detail at the time), including the exact burial place “Nahom” (matching the later-discovered NHM site tied to a man named Ishmael), - Produced an intricate, consistent narrative with 188 names of plausible Semitic origin (several later confirmed in ancient texts), flawless dictation over long sessions without notes or reminders, complex Hebraic literary structures like chiasmus, and over 200 details once dismissed as anachronisms (with more than 75% later supported by discoveries), - All without any external books or research materials, - Convinced 11 honest witnesses (including family and skeptics) that they physically saw and handled gold plates—three of them shown by an angel—such that lifelong threats, persecution, excommunication, and family pressure never made them recant, - And inspired thousands with reported miracles, healings, angelic visitations, and a theology that has endured and transformed lives for nearly 200 years (including personal experiences of priesthood authority, visions, and confirmations of Christ), **or that the Book of Mormon is true?**

@mavilier @jacelala @MattTestifies Exactly, one in purpose. Not one in the literal sense.

@Faith_is_Works @jacelala @MattTestifies When a woman marries a man — she doesn’t become a man. You are one in but different. You are not are not and cannot be a God.

Mormons never actually refute the trinity using the bible.

John 17: 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: So in your opinion he wants us and the apostles to be literally one with him. Or else you claim the definition of "one" changes. One in purpose is the only logical way to read it. Notice the end. "Even as we are one"

@jacelala @MattTestifies Colossians 2:9 In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. John 10:30 I and my Father are one Deuteronomy 4:35 The LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.

@debate_4Truth @ThoughtfulSaint You link a spaces with a title "rage bait" no thanks. Contention is of the devil.

@Faith_is_Works @ThoughtfulSaint x.com/debate_4Truth/…

One of the most insane claims ever made in the world of religion is that the Bible is inerrant. And I say this as someone who loves the Bible and believes it is scripture and reliable for doctrine and understanding the mind and will of God. But the Bible is a collection of books. No where does the Bible define what books belong in the Bible (hence a fallible canon) and nor do any of the books in it claim inerrancy.

@debate_4Truth @ThoughtfulSaint Your paid pastor tell you that?

@Faith_is_Works @ThoughtfulSaint oh, I understand Joseph Smith is a false prophet obviously

@debate_4Truth @ThoughtfulSaint Ah, very christ-like behavior. You know an atheist would say you are in a cult right? Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you should be a bigot.

@ThoughtfulSaint ah, the Mormon cult

@Samuraijrussell @ThoughtfulSaint I've known about the seer stones since day 1. And it was discussed every year of seminary, for me at least.

@ThoughtfulSaint How many times were you taught about the seer stone in seminary, or that it was the exact rock Joseph Smith used for his treasure hunting endeavors? Never.

I am now in my 40s. You did not grow up in an entirely different religion. Stacker confuses his personal experience with culture and religion.

@gorwoodcb @stackerco They wouldn't recognize the world let alone any denomination. This is why modern revelation is important, because people and the world constantly change.

@Faith_is_Works @stackerco If you took people in the church from the 60’s and time traveled them directly to 2026, those people would not recognize the church in its current form. The church has always evolved.

These younger Mormon apologists are coming from a completely different environment. A different Mormonism really. They’ve grown up shaped inside apologetics and polemics, so these reinterpretations feel normal to them. They haven’t really experienced lived Mormonism as it was, what you might call Bruce R. McConkie Mormonism of certainty and hard claims. They haven’t lived through the church calling things anti Mormon that turned out to be real history. Instead, they’ve inherited something thinner, more flexible, more abstract, more surface level where they can ignore deep doctrines and past teachings and prophets that teach things they don’t like. And that’s all they know. They are trained to creatively resolve problems instead of confronting them. Their informative years were based on “doubt your doubts” while we were raised with Hugh B Browns’ “We must be willing to give up cherished beliefs if evidence and truth require it.” So when contradictions show up, the instinct isn’t to question the system like it was for many of us Gen Xers. Their instinct is to reframe it. That’s what they believe is the best way to find truth. The Stick of Joseph podcast is an example. A couple guys in their 20s. If you watched that interview with John Dehlin, it’s hard to miss the combination: confidence without context and arrogance. But it’s not just indoctrination. This social media thing has given them more incentive. In-group platitudes and shallow statements get likes and views and praise. Their identity, platform, and status are tied to defending the system so their reasoning is motivated, not neutral. They haven’t had a chance to think for themselves. And now with social they cannot. You can see these apologetics have changed from guys like Hugh Nibley to apologetics that just try to soften problems. Ward Radio, Stick of Joseph, all these shows have zero depth. They’ve shifted from Hugh Nibley claims to how do we create ambiguity so anything could be allowed to be true? It’s the only way to survive modern scrutiny, by making everything unfalsifiable. So now they’re arrogant. They think they’ve figured it out better than us old guys. Because they’re “more nuanced” and “intellectually mature” than the past generations. They don’t get caught up in minor things like polygamy, race in the priesthood, anachronisms, Book of Abraham translations like us old idiots do. And it’s our fault we didn’t research this stuff and just believed the church when we were growing up. Really the generations have grown up in entirely different religions and cultures. And while we may have been trained to think more black and white, the younger generation has been trained against thinking critically.

@stackerco That's really a non answer. Anything he learned in the 60s would be anecdotal anyway. Either he knows more or he doesn't.

@Faith_is_Works He knows more about the church in the 60s than I do. Absolutely

@stackerco So your dad knows more than you do right? See the flaw in the logic?

@Faith_is_Works Well it’s true. Someone who’s been in it for 50 years vs 20 generally knows more. This is obvious.