If they ultimately and knowingly reject what Christ requires, no. If he dies a sincere Trinitarian, LDS doctrine does not treat death as his final opportunity (this is where we differ from mainstream) he may still accept Christ, His covenants, and proxy ordinances.
But none of that makes Galatians 1 a ban on restoration or revelation. Your argument assumes that Paul’s gospel was sola fide without required ordinances, then labels every disagreement “another gospel.” Thats the disputed premise, not a conclusion established by Galatians.
Even your formulation requires something from the person, they must receive Christ through faith. So the question isn’t whether Christ alone makes salvation possible; both of us ardently affirm that. The question is what Christ requires as the faithful response to His grace.
Faith without works is dead, after all. Or is James also another gospel now?
We’ve discussed this, my wife and I.
We would maybe cover some things for them, like tuition (and maybe just for a set period, like two semesters or something).
Or maybe establish co-goals. “You save up $ X amount by X date and we will match” or something.
They’re not getting freebies from me though.
@getheroik@Manhattva@Truth_matters20 You actually have all of this information accessible to you for free on the Gospel Library app.
You could then realize that God speaks, not spoke. Nor is He limited to the words of one book that even mainstream Christians can’t agree on.
@cheesefries73 Side Dish - this is selective BS. One image is of a dumpster fire program in USC kicking off against a crappy opponent.
The other is well before kickoff at the Big12’s premier brand and 3-yr current Holy War winner.
@utahfootballgm@Killinmebigs@saltcitysportut He’s getting bodied so his potty mouth comes out… classic
Gave up permission when he posted it in the public domain. 🤷🏻♂️
Look, admit it - you tried to troll and failed. It’s all good.
A “simple ‘my bad’” makes this all go away
@Killinmebigs@utahfootballgm@saltcitysportut Exactly. He just was using big words to try and scare me.
GPT is pretty clear on this. How is this any different than sharing from LI to X the same post?
Sorry, but not doxing:
No—not in the normal meaning of “doxxing.”
The post screenshots a public LinkedIn post with the author’s public name, photo, and professional headline. It doesn’t reveal a home address, phone number, private email, family information, or anything uncovered from a private source. Doxxing generally means publishing someone’s private or identifying information to expose them to harm or harassment. CISA’s glossary uses essentially that definition.
What LaVell’s Laptop did is more accurately described as publicly mocking or blasting someone by name. You could argue that was unnecessary or risks directing harassment toward him—but calling it doxxing stretches the term beyond usefulness.
If the account had hunted down the anonymous poster’s identity, employer, address, or contact information and published it, then the accusation would have teeth. Here, Ryan voluntarily attached his real identity to the original public LinkedIn post.