Lately I came across [What are Christian responses to the atheistic argument that God is an unnecessary and overly complicated extra step?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/100680/what-are-christian-responses-to-the-atheistic-argument-that-god-is-an-unnecessar) and posted [an answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100704/65150) to it. Although I wrote my post in response to the question, it was a bit out of place as it didn't exactly answer the question. So I rewrote things (quite) a bit and now post my own question. I think we can say that nowadays the main challenge for apologetics is justifying faith in the face of atheism. In fact, there are two challenges. One is justifying faith for ourselves. The other is justifying faith for others. The goal of justifying faith for ourselves is to protect our own faith. We can't avoid being confronted with arguments against God's existence. But we want to keep our faith plausible. So for each of those arguments, we must find a satisfying counterargument. Finding satisfying counterarguments may be hard, but we only need to satisfy our own intellect. The goal of justifying faith for others is to help them overcome their objections and accept faith. Then it often won't do to just take certain arguments against God's existence and counter those. One must engage in dialogue, listen carefully, try sincerely to understand their objections, and try to see where those objections come from, what's behind them, and what's driving them. Only then one can address their objections in a helpful way. Allow me to explain. I think many atheists would claim their view is based on objective facts and rational arguments. Now facts in themselves may be objective, but how we search for them and how we filter, interpret, and explain them is very subjective, as that depends on certain deeper convictions in ourselves. In the same way, our rational arguments also depend on our deeper convictions. This counts for atheists and believers alike. We all live with such deeper convictions. They feel so familiar though that we're hardly aware of them until perhaps confronted with incompatible convictions. We have many deeper convictions based on character, culture, upbringing, experiences, or whatever. These convictions also determine how we look at God. For some people, a deeper conviction might be a strong longing for autonomy. They would be less inclined to submit to some god dictating to them what (not) to do. Other people may long for security. They would be more inclined to hope for some god protecting them. With that in mind, I'd not be surprised if large parts of atheism are rooted in (perhaps valid) resentment against church and religion and religious upbringing. Some atheist arguments could just be rational expressions of the underlying resentment. Or perhaps more precisely, some atheist arguments may serve to rationally dissociate oneself from the underlying resentment. The strongest way to dissociate oneself from resentment against religion is by denying God himself. Now if we'd only bothered countering rational atheist arguments, then we'd satisfied our own intellects but failed to see what's behind those arguments. Once we see the deeper convictions driving atheism, however, it becomes clear that it doesn't help so much to carry a debate by scientific or philosophical arguments, unless you first check your own deeper convictions as well as the convictions of your atheist opponents. So here's the question: should apologetics **focus on rational arguments only**, or should it **take into account deeper convictions behind rational arguments as well**? After @SuperFlash's [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/103830/65150) down below, I realized I need to make my question more specific. My question is not whether apologetics should find a rational argument for or against any possible personal conviction or experience or feeling. It's more whether apologetics should take into account the role of deeper convictions in general. So let's make my question more specific: 1. Should apologetics **acknowledge the plain possibility that there might be deeper convictions driving rational arguments**? Regardless of what specific convictions may look like? 2. If so, should apologetics also **incorporate reasoning how deeper convictions in general may drive rational arguments about God**? Or perhaps more accurate **how rational arguments may serve to justify deeper convictions with relation to God**? 3. And again if so, should apologetics also **identify certain universal deeper convictions**? Like longing for autonomy or security?

Latter-day Saints sometimes talk about "putting a name on the prayer roll" at their local temple. This practice is mentioned in Church magazines and on LDS.org, but is never explained in detail. What is the purpose of the prayer roll at an LDS temple, and how is it used? When did this tradition first come about?

Research shows that human beings can be pretty easily manipulated . This manipulation can be effectively done by ordinary humans with no special powers. Why, then, is Devil (who is generally believed to be a better manipulator than an average human) so impotent at his evil deeds? Why doesn't he manipulate humans into doing something sinful, or just something that will lead towards sin later down the line? Is there a Biblical answer to these questions?

Why did Joseph Smith condone, or perhaps even encourage polygamy? What scriptures, if any, support this practice?

So after reading the comments here . I got curious. I see non-mormons citing the Journal of discourses all the time, but have never heard a mormon cite them. Wikipedia tells me where they come from and what they are, but why do modern mormons not use them and not consider them scripture?

Since the dawn of humanity, our life expectancy has greatly increased . It went from 30 to 80 years in developed countries. What if we collectively manage to eradicate all diseases (like cancer for example)? Humans will still be dying from accidents and murders, just not from diseases. Does Bible allow us to cure all diseases if it is done ethically? Or should Christians be protesting against any attempts to improve our medicine (like cancer research)? I've heard an argument that all attempts at life extension is "playing God" and most medical advances in one way or another extend our lives. I wonder if it is correct.

Many Christians say that a couple shouldn't live together before they get married, even if they are not having sex with each other. What is the Biblical basis for this position? Are there certain passages of Scripture that speak against it? Or are there aspects of Church tradition that speaks against it? Or is there something else that has prompted Christians to view this as wrong?

According Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., *The Trinity and God the Creator* , ch. 2, q. 28 "The Divine Relations", § "Philosophical Notes on the Idea of Relation and Its Division", p. 111: >Real relations are divided into transcendental and predicamental. A transcendental relation is the order included in the essence of a thing as, for example, the soul’s transcendental order to the body, that of matter to form, essence to being, accident to the subject, science to its object, etc. All these things have these relations by their very essence, and the transcendental relation perdures even when the term disappears. With this said, are the personal relations in the Blessed Trinity transcendental relations as defined by Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.?

The LDS church recognizes, among other writing, a book called *The Pearl of Great Price*. What is the origins of this work and how did it become accepted as Scripture by the LDS church? Also, do any other groups recognize this work as Scripture?

I saw a post recently asserting that LDS missionaries are specifically instructed to stay away from bodies of water and are discouraged from swimming at all. [Does Satan rule water? - Ask Gramps - Q and A about Mormon Doctrine](https://web.archive.org/web/20140419153849/askgramps.org/3597/is-our-world-the-most-wicked-does-satan-rule-water) : >… >As you know, missionaries serve under regulations that would be considered rather severe by those who are not acquainted with the work. >However, as they are called on the Lord’s errand, and their service is so vital to the eternal salvation of our Father’s children, they are encouraged to dedicate all their time and talents to the work of the Lord. >A weekly preparation day is provided, however, so that essential duties not primarily related to the missionary work itself may be accomplished. >This is not primarily a recreation day, although conservative recreational activities are permitted and even encouraged. > >However, not only is swimming prohibited, but also other activities that may be either dangerous or not within the spirit of their calling. >Missionaries should be particularly circumspect about activities “on the waters,” as there is indeed both scriptural and historic precedent for avoiding unnecessary exposure. >… I had never heard anything like this before. Is this true? If it is, is it just applicable while a person is serving as a missionary? What is the basis for this instruction?

At what date did the LDS church begin teaching the Word of Wisdom? What circumstances led to the introduction of the Word of Wisdom and what publications cover that period of time in LDS church history? How did the members of that time period receive the teaching?

I'm used to seeing young missionaries travel in pairs, talking to people and visiting them, but I don't typically think of them as serving their missions online (as evidenced here ) or doing other types of activities. What kinds of missionaries (or missionary services) are there in the LDS Church and what do they do?

I understand that there is a difference between being a Mormon and being a Temple Mormon (one who has gone through the Temple Ceremony at least once and maintains Temple worthiness). I also understand that it is quite similar to the Masonic Temple Ceremonies and that Joseph Smith was himself a mason. Where exactly, then, did this Temple Ceremony come from? Has it changed throughout the years and, if so, how specifically has it changed?

So here are the reasons I've come up with why we are commanded not to curse or swear. 1. Some curse words have vulgar and awful meanings. 2. Culturally it is seen as unprofessional, unintelligent and impolite. On the issue that some curse words have vulgar and awful meanings. I fully understand why these shouldn't be used. But most swear words do not have awful meanings. As for it being a cultural issue, I agree, you do seem less professional and intelligent. But that all depends on who you are around and how serious of a word it is. For example, using the word Heck as an adult rather than Hell in some settings can be seen a childish, unprofessional and unintelligent. Also, most adults don't find it impolite to swear when something serious has just happened. Also, why is it not ok to say a swear word, but is ok to say a replacement word that means the same exact thing and is used in the same exact situations. Just like the word crap and the the "s" word. I've been researching what swear words actually are and why society even created them and I found that the reason society has swear words is a way to convey lots of emotion. For example, the seldom times I hear my dad swear, I know he means business and what he is swearing about is serious. Also, when I was younger and in school, whenever the class was rowdy and the teacher couldn't get our attention, they would swear and the whole class would immediately be quiet. I understand that overuse of a swear word is wrong because then it defeats the purpose of being used to convey emotions. But when the alternative to swearing is raising your voice, I see swearing as useful. I'm not referring to taking the Lords name in vain or to words that have dirty meanings. I'm talking about why is it bad to occasionally use a swear word that has a perfectly appropriate definition, and to use it at times when trying to convey emotion with a group of people where they don't perceive what you said as impolite. Society created the idea of certain words being curse words. Nothing is inherently wrong with the words themselves. So when your either by yourself or your around a group of people where it is socially acceptable to use a certain curse word in a certain situation, why should you still not use it?

Given that [proponents of *Textus Receptus* Only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) are still influential today and that the majority of Bible translations today are using the [*Nestle-Aland* edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) , I wonder whether there are Bible translations that cater to **both** Greek editions by *consistently* providing the original Greek text **as well as** the translation of the variant *not* used in the main text. **CONSISTENTLY** is the operative word here, so that [*Textus-Receptus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) only Bible readers can benefit from non-KJV translations to help them understand Scripture better (by using a modern translation) **while trusting** that the *Textus Receptus* manuscript version is always present to them. It makes sense from the Marketing perspective. Although of course one could consult *Wikipedia* or a list of differences in a [web article](https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs) , or use a tool such as *BibleGateway* to display it side by side, it is a lot more user-friendly to see the variant as a footnote that is available **offline**. My preliminary research shows that alternate manuscript footnotes are sporadic, not consistent. For example, for [Matt 19:16-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A16-17&version=KJV,YLT,CSB) CSB only shows the *mss* variant in v. 17, but not in v. 16, and *not* show the Greek itself. [*Bible Hub*](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/19-16.htm) *does* have links to alternate manuscript but it's not indicated in the main text as an alert. Given that such a dual-manuscript translation is not available easily today, what is the easiest way to read the Bible **and be consistently alerted** when a *Textus-Receptus* variant exists? I know I can use tools like the [Logos software](https://www.logos.com/) to do side by side interlinear translations of both CSB and KJV/YLT, but it's not that easy to spot a variant. So I will also accept an answer that can provide a recipe for using a software like this to read a Bible normally but has footnote, color codes, etc. to alert me that a **meaning-altering** *Textus Receptus* variant exists. ----- **NOTE** (after feedback in comments). Of course I wouldn't want any variants that don't make a difference in meaning. My Question has to do with making sure that the 3 text traditions (let's also add the Eastern Orthodox text tradition whose OT is based on Septuagint) are well represented in footnotes that **should include a judgment from within each tradition on how that variant is likely**. Each translation based on a particular text tradition already winnowed out meaningless variants BY THAT tradition, so in my ideal Bible those variants don't need to be mentioned at all. So I just want the 3 tradition text critic (TR, NA, and EO) to do their job well *within their text-tradition*, and the Bible publisher would present their 3 works in a single Bible volume with the main text coming from one of the 3 (the rest is in the footnotes). **So 3 Bible committees consulting their respective text-critic experts, and 1 publisher.**

There were several Sacred items that were buried with the Plates of Gold by the prophet Moroni: > "Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under > the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I > looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, **the Urim and > Thummim, and the breastplate**, as stated by the messenger. The box in > which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of > cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the > box, and on these stones lay the plates **and the *other things with > them*.**" (JS–H 1:52) > Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, saw these items at Fayette, New York, in June 1829 (see Doctrine and Covenants Section 17 ) > > "Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you > do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, > and also of the **breastplate**, the **sword of Laban**, the **Urim and Thummim**, > which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he > talked with the Lord face to face, and the **miraculous directors *(Liahona)*** which > were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red > Sea." (D&C 17:1) According to the LDS church, where are these items now?

What are we allowed to discuss or ask questions about outside of the temple? What things exactly are too sacred to discuss outside the temple, and which things can we talk fairly openly about?

Did Michael Servetus and Oneness Pentecostals have the same beliefs about the Trinity? Edit: I did some additional research and this came up on Copilot: >In summary, while there are similarities in their rejection of the Trinity, Oneness Pentecostals have a distinct set of beliefs that go beyond Servetus’s unitarian perspective. They emphasize the singular nature of God and the personal manifestations of that oneness.

So, I'm on vacation in Utah (and still compulsively thinking C.SE!), and so I attended an LDS service. In the morning, I heard a reading from one of the Presidents of the church during the "Quorum of the Elders," then went to Sunday School, and finally witnessed the Sacrement of the bread and water. (I guess it makes sense there was no wine, but it did make me go "Huh!") After that, there were testimonies from missionaries and some music - but nothing that struck me as a sermon. Was I missing something, or was this an atypical service? I guess I was trying to understand what the "pastor"s role in the service was supposed to be - or again, is it just that Mormons are even more Baptist than baptists? If someone could explain how instruction and exhortation are primarily conferred in the LDS church Id appreciate it.

I was reading Wikipedia about exaltation , and found a reference to people who are physically immortal but who do not advance to heaven. Where do they live? Are they on the Earth?