I testify that Jesus is the Christ. That He lives. That He loves each of us and wants the very best for us in the world and throughout eternity. I have listened to the voice of the Spirit bear record to me of this truth and nothing the world has can diminish this knowledge because it is pure light. I love the Lord Jesus. He is my salvation. He is my advocate with the Father. He is my friend.

I believe in Jesus Christ.

Weird flex. So… at least your your god doesn’t damn 1/3 of his children to eternal hell fire and brimstone …he just creates billions of sentient “creatures” and damns the vast majority of them (at least the billions and billions that don’t profess Jesus the same way you do) to eternal hell fire and damnation. Sorry. I’ll keep my God. That one sounds like Satan.

LDS: Here’s a funny instance when a critic tries to use Grok to score an Internet win and gets an L when Grok restates what he was trying to refute as true. Critic: That’s a dumb argument. It actually works against ole Joe Smith. LDS: What part? The part where Grok says that the words literally mean what we said the mean? Critic: Weird position to take. LDS: Critic: everyone knows historically that Mormonism teaches that salvation comes through grace PLUS works. LDS: That’s not even partially accurate. Critic: Again, is it a translated word for word text like Joseph claimed or not? LDS: The church has repeatedly affirmed that the translation was accomplished "by the gift and power of God" rather than through traditional linguistic translation. Joseph said he did not know Reformed Egyptian. Critic: So how did he do it? LDS: …by the gift and power of God. Critic: You expect me to believe in miracles? LDS: Critic: So even though how you’ve defined the phrase “after all we can do” as “despite/in spite of all we can do” meaning you still need Christ regardless of what effort you do… Critic: … and even though your Articles of Faith support that position… Critic: … and even though other scriptures in in the Book of Mormon support that position… Critic: …and even though your prophets, including Joseph Smith have repeatedly affirmed this… Critic: …and even after Grok proved the legitimacy of this phrase being used in this way during the time it was written, not the literal way I want to see it in 2026… Critic: …I’m still going to claim a pointless Internet win.

For all the critics that like to “Grok it up” to prove the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is wrong.

Does this guy not see the irony in his post? How many Christians literally say this garbage to LDS every day and twice on Sunday? Our faith is false. We’re not Christians. They only proselytize to us so we can be “really” saved.

Dang BYU. Terrible game.

I know it’s a lot to ask our critics to steelman someone’s argument and approach a discussion from a good faith position, but that’s hardly ever the point these days. The critic is conflating two different things that Latter-day Saints distinguish: Intelligence (the eternal, uncreated aspect of a person) Spirit birth/sonship (the organized relationship of being a spirit child of God) Unlike the critic’s claim- in LDS theology, Jesus is not said to be both "created" and "uncreated" in the same sense at the same time. On the "uncreated" side: the screenshot of the supposed “gotcha” picture of D&C 93 teaches that "intelligence ... was not created or made, neither indeed can be" and that man was "in the beginning with God." Latter-day Saints apply this principle universally, including to Christ. The underlying intelligence is eternal and uncreated. On the "firstborn" side: LDS doctrine also teaches that Jesus is the Father's "Firstborn" spirit child. Latter-day Saints believe that we are literally spirit sons and daughters of God and that Jesus Christ is the Father's Firstborn Son in the premortal existence. So the LDS claim is not: “Jesus was created out of nothing and yet was not created.” Rather, it is: Jesus' eternal intelligence was never created; His designation as the Father's Firstborn refers to His premortal relationship as God's spirit Son. Our critics may reject that distinction, but it is not a contradiction on LDS terms. A critic can certainly respond, "Scripture doesn't teach eternal intelligences," and I'd consider that a legitimate argument to engage on. LDS doctrine does not teach that Jesus is both created and uncreated in the same respect. Rather, His intelligence is eternal and uncreated, while His status as the Father's Firstborn refers to His premortal sonship. One may disagree with that metaphysical framework, but disagreement is not the same thing as contradiction nor is it a shifting definition. Nor are Latter-day Saints unique in making theological distinctions. Classical Christians similarly distinguish between Christ being eternally begotten of the Father and being created. Both positions employ categories that go beyond a simplistic "created versus uncreated" framework when describing Christ's relationship to the Father. The true disagreement is over what those categories mean, and portraying this as "Mormons shifting their definitions" substitutes caricature for engagement. It critiques a simplified version of our belief rather than the actual belief itself.

Now we’re following an imaginary Jesus. 😂

Typical Anti-Mormon on X tells you that you’re following the wrong Jesus (or insert rhetorical one-liner here). Then attempts to justify their position by only attacking you with their strawman argument, leading to a sudden escalation of Gish Galloping, before crashing on a supposed Internet win. It’s so tiresome and predictable.

“Mormons aren’t Christian” [Meanwhile] The dictionary has entered the chat.

Just got a bump surgically removed from my eyelid. New fear unlocked. Needle in the eyelid. I only cried a little bit. Dang dusty office. 😬

I see this type of response often - a request for evidence that a book of scripture is true. Usually, this request comes with an underlying assumption that claims made against the Book of Mormon are automatically true when applied to the Bible. As if any empirical evidence, such as an an archaeological site, could prove the story of the healing of a blind man in the Bible. How many Christians answer the question “how do you know the Bible is true” with “history, archaeology, and prophecy”? From the number of these types of posts, it’s more than I might realize, I guess. I am deeply grateful that my knowledge of the Book of Mormon’s truthfulness comes not from my own intellect gathering empirical evidence, but from God answering my question directly. He told me it was true. He knows it and He knows I know it. Who am I to deny God?

The Internet age has been terrible… 🤣