Latter-day Saints, like many Christians, are encouraged to not use phrases like "Oh my God!" because they are seen as violations of the commandment to not take the name of God "in vain." However, in some languages (e.g. Arabic), God's name appears frequently in common phrases and is not considered offensive by most. Has an LDS leader ever commented on the application of this commandment in other cultural contexts? Has an exception ever been made for cultures, like Arab culture, where it is so common? (I am asking this in an LDS context specifically, although I understand this issue is applicable more broadly as well.)

**Scope: I'm seeking answers from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.** The concept of a "personal relationship" is fairly natural and intuitive when we think of the interactions between two human beings, like friends, spouses, or parents and children. However, attempting to extrapolate this intuition and understanding to a relationship between a human and God isn't immediately obvious. Let me explain why I think this. In human interactions, we can dissect a "personal relationship" into several core components: - **Awareness** or **Perception**: In a personal relationship between two individuals, each person must be *aware* of the other's *presence*. Put simply, they must be able to *perceive* each other's existence and acknowledge their presence. It doesn't seem logical to claim that A has a *personal relationship* with B if A isn't aware of B's existence or cannot perceive B's presence. There must be a means for both parties to perceive and be aware of each other's presence for a genuine personal relationship to exist. In human interpersonal relationships, this perception and awareness is possible through our natural senses and a well-functioning brain capable of sound cognitive processing. This combination enables us to decode and interpret sensory input into meaningful concepts, like perceiving another person's presence. - **Communication**: In a personal relationship between A and B, communication is essential. A should be able to convey coherent messages to B, and vice versa. Moreover, A must recognize when B initiates communication and vice versa, which ties closely to the previous point on awareness and perception. A needs to be able to distinguish between moments when B is speaking and moments when B is not, making it possible for A to have reactions such as "Ah, B is addressing me now" (and vice versa). - **Interactivity**: Beyond communication, it should be possible for A and B to engage in many other forms of interaction. While communication is crucial, human interaction can extend to many more activities. For instance, A and B can play a game of chess together, play table tennis together, practice synchronizing moves in a dance routine (like tango) together, take turns driving a car together, and so forth. Notice how these specific examples require fairly equal involvement from both parties. I might be overlooking some features, but the ones I've mentioned appear to be quite fundamental, particularly in human interpersonal relationships. Regarding the concept of a "personal relationship" between a human and God, do the features I outlined (*awareness* or *perception*, *communication*, *interactivity*) retain their importance? Are there additional crucial aspects? Are there interactions that are possible between two humans but are not possible between a human and God? Conversely, are there interactions that are possible between a human and God but that are not possible between two humans? In short, is there an established list of essential attributes in the LDS Church defining a "personal relationship" between a human and God? References to official or reputable LDS sources are encouraged.

It is my opinion that the demand or challenge to point to explicit deity claims by Jesus in the Bible began in very recent times—possibly not until the 20th century, by groups that denied his deity. If this challenge didn't begin in the last century, then it definitely must have gained popularity recently because it seems to have become a focal point among recent Christian apologists. Is there any evidence for such a trend at any particular time or place, such as in the United States in the 20th century?

**Scope: I'm seeking answers from Catholicism.** The concept of a "personal relationship" is fairly natural and intuitive when we think of the interactions between two human beings, like friends, spouses, or parents and children. However, attempting to extrapolate this intuition and understanding to a relationship between a human and God isn't immediately obvious. Let me explain why I think this. In human interactions, we can dissect a "personal relationship" into several core components: - **Awareness** or **Perception**: In a personal relationship between two individuals, each person must be *aware* of the other's *presence*. Put simply, they must be able to *perceive* each other's existence and acknowledge their presence. It doesn't seem logical to claim that A has a *personal relationship* with B if A isn't aware of B's existence or cannot perceive B's presence. There must be a means for both parties to perceive and be aware of each other's presence for a genuine personal relationship to exist. In human interpersonal relationships, this perception and awareness is possible through our natural senses and a well-functioning brain capable of sound cognitive processing. This combination enables us to decode and interpret sensory input into meaningful concepts, like perceiving another person's presence. - **Communication**: In a personal relationship between A and B, communication is essential. A should be able to convey coherent messages to B, and vice versa. Moreover, A must recognize when B initiates communication and vice versa, which ties closely to the previous point on awareness and perception. A needs to be able to distinguish between moments when B is speaking and moments when B is not, making it possible for A to have reactions such as "Ah, B is addressing me now" (and vice versa). - **Interactivity**: Beyond communication, it should be possible for A and B to engage in many other forms of interaction. While communication is crucial, human interaction can extend to many more activities. For instance, A and B can play a game of chess together, play table tennis together, practice synchronizing moves in a dance routine (like tango) together, take turns driving a car together, and so forth. Notice how these specific examples require fairly equal involvement from both parties. I might be overlooking some features, but the ones I've mentioned appear to be quite fundamental, particularly in human interpersonal relationships. Regarding the concept of a "personal relationship" between a human and God, do the features I outlined (*awareness* or *perception*, *communication*, *interactivity*) retain their importance? Are there additional crucial aspects? Are there interactions that are possible between two humans but are not possible between a human and God? Conversely, are there interactions that are possible between a human and God but that are not possible between two humans? In short, is there an established list of essential attributes in Catholicism defining a "personal relationship" between a human and God? References to official or reputable Catholic sources are encouraged.

"Hugh of Saint-Cher († 1263) was the second Dominican Master of Theology in Paris, and the first Dominican cardinal" (n. 39) who, "through the persuasion of Master [St.] Albert [the Great]", convinced "John of Vercelli, Master General of the [Dominican] Order" to accept St. Thomas Aquinas into "the Baccalaureate at the Order’s studium in Paris." (*William of Tocco’s Life of St. Thomas Aquinas* pp. 61-62). "Hugh is celebrated for his prodigious theological and exegetical works, particularly the monumental commentary on the entire Bible (*Postillæ in totam Bibliam*) that he composed with a team of friars." (*ibid.* p. 62n39). Does an English translation of Hugh of Saint-Cher's *Postillæ in totam Bibliam* exist?

My question is how to compare and contrast the contents of The Apologetics Study Bible and The Apologetics Study Bible for Students . It is clear from the title that the latter is targeted toward students, but my understanding was that the average Christian adult is no better versed in subjects such as apologetics, philosophy of religion, natural theology, etc., than the average Christian student. I want to know why a potential buyer/reader would choose one over the other, apart from their age or schooling status. The above link offer a small clue. From the standard edition: > More than 100 articles relate biblical truth to science, history, archaeology, psychology, philosophy, and other critical subjects. Strategically placed alongside the text of Scripture. From the student edition: > In addition to the complete HCSB text and dozens of articles collected from today’s most popular youth leaders, including general editor Sean McDowell, this new study Bible also includes:
Two-color design-intensive layout on every page for the visual generation
Sixty “Twisted Scriptures” explanations
Fifty “Bones & Dirt” entries (archaeology meets apologetics)
Fifty “Notable Quotes”
Twenty-five “Tactics” against common anti-Christian arguments
Twenty “Personal Stories” of how God has worked in real lives
Twenty “Top Five” lists to help remember key apologetics topics
However, it is very difficult to find any more specific information, as it seems few people have read both editions. How does the Biblical commentary in each edition of The Apologetics Study Bible differ, in terms of scope (the number of topics addressed), depth (how thoroughly addressed topics are explored, i.e., does one go further into point->counterpoint->countercounterpoint->etc. than the other), focus (are some types of topics a heavier focus in one than the other), etc.? Does one include more non-apologetic commentary than the other to fill the space of whatever content it lacks?

In a Christian worldview, is Satan the main force behind atheism? If so, how exactly does this occur? I'm intrigued by this conundrum because if Satan actively influences individuals to adopt atheism, he must achieve two objectives simultaneously: 1. He (or his demonic agents) must intervene in the physical world somehow to convince a person to embrace atheism. 2. He must execute this influence in a masterfully subtle manner, ensuring the individual remains completely unaware of the spiritual manipulation prompting their atheistic beliefs. Think of notable atheists, such as [Richard Dawkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins) , and notable agnostics, such as [Carl Sagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) . If Satan indeed played a role in shaping Dawkins' atheism and Sagan's agnosticism, this would suggest a sophisticated mastery of subliminal manipulation. Because both Dawkins and Sagan never acknowledged any Satanic influence behind their beliefs, and in fact, if they were presented with the hypothetical manipulation scenario I'm entertaining, they would likely dismiss it with a laugh, seeing it as nothing more than a far-fetched thought experiment. How do Satan and his demons manipulate individuals into embracing atheism (or agnosticism) while remaining completely undetected? What are the mechanisms behind this imperceptible and subconscious manipulation, and is there a means within Christianity to unveil and expose this influence, bringing it to the individual's conscious awareness?

I've gone past a mormon church near my house quite a few times now and I'm keen to give it a visit. However I am prevented by the fact that I can't find any website which lists their service times or any other related information. This got me wondering, what do mormons actually get up to? I'm not even sure that they actually have a Sunday (or other day) service which is comparable to mainstream evangelical churches. After a bit of research, I've discovered that mormons have a variety of liturgies and sacramental rituals which they perform in special circumstances, and it all seems rather secretive. What I'm wondering about, is if they have some sort of "anyone is welcome" regular meeting similar to mainstream protestants. If so, what happens during this meeting? For example does it follow the usual evangelical format of - song - bible reading - sermon - (optional) Communal confession - (optional) apostles/nicene creed - (optional) lords supper - song - announcements - conclusion - song - informal mingling, doughnuts and coffee/tea and biscuits"?

From a Christian perspective, atheists are regarded as holding mistaken beliefs concerning the existence of God and spiritual truths. It is believed that they are deceived by Satan, an evil entity whose existence atheists typically also deny. Despite this, atheists remain oblivious to the spiritual realm and Satan's influence within it. The challenge then arises: how can atheists become aware of this deception and break free from it? According to Christian apologetics, how can atheists awaken to the reality of spiritual deception, particularly concerning Satan's influence in promoting false beliefs, including atheism itself? --- **Supporting Scripture** 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ESV > 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Psalm 14:1 ESV > The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

In the LDS faith, the offices of the Aaronic Priesthood are Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Bishop. Current practice in the LDS church is to ordain most teenage boys in the church to the first three offices as they progress through their teenage years. Do LDS Aaronic Priesthood Teachers have actual teaching duties in a practical sense in the 21st century, or are they teachers in an abstract or theoretical sense (e.g. if all priesthood holders except for 15 year old Billy were killed or incapacitated, he would be allowed to take over classrooms, but until then, he is expected to be quiet and let the adult professionals do the actual teaching)? Do they design curricula, lecture, hold office hours, grade papers, administer exams, evaluate students, or otherwise engage in practices associated with professional educators nowadays? Do Aaronic Teachers have divine *authority* to teach a wide variety of courses, content, or curricula but in practice *don't* because there are usually more qualified, professional teachers available at whatever level is being discussed (e.g. college, high school, etc.), or are their actual teaching competencies sharply limited in both theory and practice (e.g. they are authorized only to teach Sunday School, and that only for Grade 5 and below, anything else requires a further ordination, and/or a non-priesthood teaching certification).

[Reformed Egyptian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Egyptian) is the language that Joseph Smith claimed the Golden Plates (or the Book of Mormon) was written in. But this seems to be a problem considering that there are no [non-LDS scholars that accept it as a legitimate language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon#Native_American_language-development) . So how do Mormons defend this language as real using actual evidence, rather than "just take it on faith?"

I apologize for the length of this question, but it requires establishing some premises that refute the most common response, being that the purpose of suffering is for us to learn and grow, and be tested . > Abraham 3:25 - And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;. I've been thinking about this a long time and have been unable to find satisfactory answers. Please point out any flaws in my logic or research. According to the LDS Institute Doctrines of the Gospel manual : > Earth life, though brief, is crucial to us in our quest for eternal life. Here we receive bodies of flesh and bones and are tested in all things. Those who learn obedience and gain self-mastery will return to live with God the Eternal Father. In the 1977 April Ensign, Elder Bruce R. McConkie teaches that children who die before the age of accountability will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom: > Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom? > >To this question the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other.... They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. This leads to another question then, which McConkie answers also. Will they be saved into the highest possible Celestial Kingdom (in other words they are not worse off in any way for dying young)? > "Will they have eternal life?" > > Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives.... In the providences of Him who is infinitely wise, the answer is in the affirmative. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Further down in the same page , the question of "Will children ever be tested?" is answered: > Absolutely not! Any idea that they will be tested in paradise or during the millennium or after the millennium is pure fantasy. At this point, it seems logical to wonder, given the immense amount of suffering that people face in this world, would you not be better off to die young? McConkie seems to anticipate this logical progression: > Are those who die better off than those who remain in mortality? > > We may rest assured that all things are controlled and governed by Him whose spirit children we are. He knows the end from the beginning, and he provides for each of us the testings and trials which he knows we need. President Joseph Fielding Smith once told me that we must assume that the Lord knows and arranges beforehand who shall be taken in infancy and who shall remain on earth to undergo whatever tests are needed in their cases. This accords with Joseph Smith’s statement: “The Lord takes many away, even in infancy, that they may escape the envy of man, and the sorrows and evils of this present world; they were too pure, too lovely, to live on earth.” (Teachings, pp. 196–97.) It is implicit in the whole scheme of things that those of us who have arrived at the years of accountability need the tests and trials to which we are subject and that our problem is to overcome the world and attain that spotless and pure state which little children already possess. All of this seems to suggest that: 1. It is possible to reach the highest levels of Salvation/Exaltation without going through mortal life and all the suffering it entails. 2. God can know our hearts and our purity without testing us in mortality (otherwise he could not know that those who die before the age of accountability are worthy of exaltation) 3. The test (and growth) in mortality is therefore unnecessary, which means that mortal life is unnecessary. 4. If mortal life is unnecessary than so is all of the suffering in the world. So my question is, what is the purpose of suffering? It is not a requirement for us to learn and grow and be tested, otherwise kids who die before the age of accountability could not be saved (yet they are). Why would an all-loving (omni-benevolent) Heavenly Father subject us to unnecessary torture (in many cases)? Logically, it also seems that one of the best things a parent could do for their children would be to hope they die prior to reaching the age of accountability. This is obviously a disturbing thing to say and will no doubt create an emotional reaction (it's difficult to even type for me), but it does seem logical. By having your children grow, you are risking their exaltation and rolling the dice (they might grow up and reject the faith). If you love them enough to let them die, they could be guaranteed eternal exaltation. If that is not correct, where is the flaw in the logic?

According to the Book of Mormon itself, it was written by many ancient prophets. The authors of this study made the assumption > that the writers of each verse, or partial verse, could be identified according to information given in the text. The authors of the study found their assumption accurate. > Through the process of assigning each quoted segment a source, we identified over one hundred authors or originators. Unfortunately the study was conducted in the infancy of the internet and I haven't been able to locate the database of verse-author assignments. What available resource provides the author of each verse according to internal authorship statements?

This other question discusses the Mormon doctrine of pre-existence prior to conception. The highest rated answer quotes from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism that says, on the page "Pre-Existence (Pre-Earthly Existence) " that (emphasis added): > It is Latter-day Saint doctrine that living things existed as > individual spirit beings and possessed varying degrees of intelligence > in an active, conscious spirit state before mortal birth and that the > spirit continues to live and function in the mortal body. **The > revelations teach that premortal spirit bodies have general > resemblance to their physical counterparts.** I wanted to ask some questions about the part that the "premortal spirit bodies have general resemblance to their physical counterparts" (to get an understanding of the reasoning behind this): 1. When it comes to people born with physical deformities (weirdly shaped limbs, missing body parts, both male and female genitalia, etc.), are these deformities then also present on that persons spirit body? 2. If they are present in their spirit body, why would that be the case? (i.e. shouldn't the spirit body be created perfect or is there some reason why it would not be?) 3. If they are **not** present on the spirit body, why would they be on the physical body if there is an expectation of general resemblance between these two?

Gender is a hot topic as of late, with a seemingly small but very vocal minority preaching that gender is fluid, non-binary, and that people may choose to identify with whatever gender they wish. What is the official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter?

> Elder Mark E. Petersen (1900–1984) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that the physical body and our spirit are similar in appearance: “Every one of us is a spirit, and our spirit occupies a body of flesh and bone. The spirit is the real person. Our spirit resembles our body, or rather our body was ‘tailored’ to fit our spirit. The spirit bears the image and likeness of God, and the body, if normal, is in the image and likeness of the spirit” (The Way of the Master , 124; see also 1 Nephi 11:11). From this, the spirits of those who have dies _should_ look like the individual as they lived; however, it is also taught that our spirits were adults _before_ this life began. As I understand it, this earth is also the world which is inhabited by those who have died. Assuming that ghosts are those spirits of those who currently do not have a body (either due to death or as one of Satan's host), why would ghosts ever appear as children?

I was reading Psalm 88 : >**1** Lord, you are the God who saves me; day and night I cry out to you. **2** May my prayer come before you; turn your ear to my cry. **3** I am overwhelmed with troubles and my life draws near to death. **4** I am counted among those who go down to the pit; I am like one without strength. **5** I am set apart with the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you remember no more, who are cut off from your care. **6** You have put me in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths. **7** Your wrath lies heavily on me; you have overwhelmed me with all your waves. **8** You have taken from me my closest friends and have made me repulsive to them. I am confined and cannot escape; **9** my eyes are dim with grief.I call to you, Lord, every day; I spread out my hands to you. **10** Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do their spirits rise up and praise you? **11** Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction? **12** Are your wonders known in the place of darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion? **13** But I cry to you for help, Lord; in the morning my prayer comes before you. **14** Why, Lord, do you reject me and hide your face from me? **15** From my youth I have suffered and been close to death; I have borne your terrors and am in despair. **16** Your wrath has swept over me; your terrors have destroyed me. **17** All day long they surround me like a flood; they have completely engulfed me. **18** You have taken from me friend and neighbor— darkness is my closest friend. I was left wondering and had conflicting thoughts. Question: **Is the God that this psalm refers to the same God as our Christian God, i.e. Christ's father in heaven?** I am asking because this psalm projects an image of a God that abandons his children and could care less about them being fruitful and having support etc., which is not the "Heavenly Father" image that we have in the New Testament. **Do we Christians read the Old Testament as a historical artifact only, or more than that?**

As the title asks, what does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach its members about the responsibility to defend themselves and others?

Can Jesus encourage someone to commit sin? And furthermore, can Jesus hasten someone to commit a sin? In John 13:27 it reads: > And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, > That thou doest, do quickly.

Young Earth Creationists often argue that denying a young age for the Earth amounts to adopting the naturalist/materialist perspective prevalent in secular science. They suggest that this denial disregards a straightforward reading of Genesis, which they argue is the most natural interpretation of the text, thus denying the reliability of God's Word and essentially portraying God as untruthful. However, since God cannot lie, proponents of YEC maintain that it logically follows that God cannot be deceptive in Genesis, leading to the conclusion that the Earth must indeed be young, that is, if we concede that a plain reading of Genesis is arguably the most natural and rational way of approaching the text. In response, how do Christians who hold differing views on the age of the Earth address this argument? --- The following [article](https://answersingenesis.org/answers/feedback/let-god-be-true-and-every-man-a-liar/) , published on *Answers in Genesis*, should serve as a good illustration of what I'm talking about: > ## “Let God Be True and Every Man a Liar.” > > “Many Christians believe in evolution because they figure the vast majority of scientists can't be wrong, or that they wouldn't lie -- I was one of those.” > >> I just read your article online, “A Young Earth—It’s Not the Issue!”. > The thrust of Ham’s argument in this article reflects my own > experience with the evolution/creation debate. Many Christians believe > in evolution because they figure the vast majority of scientists can’t > be wrong, or that they wouldn’t lie -- I was one of those. This forced > me to conclude that the creation account in the bible was symbolic, > which then led me to question many other passages -- the collapse of > the walls of Jericho,the parting of the Red Sea, and whether Lazarus > was really dead. “is this real? or merely symbolic? If it’s only > symbolic, what does it mean?” >> >> Many christians have rejected a former belief in evolution by the > efforts of creation science organizations which expose the scientific > flaws in evolutionary theory. They come to question the science of > evolution, then declare a belief in the word. >> >> My path was different. I was firmly persuaded of the scientific > evidence. The problem was that what I believed contradicted the > plaintext of bible, and I had to choose one or the other. For me, the > decision to believe the word came first, and the validation of the > word by scientific evidence came later. >> >> In light of the irreconcilable conflict between evolution and the > word, I decided simply to accept the Genesis creation account as true, > and review all I had previously believed about evolution in that > light. In other words, I had to reject what I believed, accept what I > had firmly rejected, and reframe and restructure my understanding of > the word and of science. >> >> Why? What prompted me to do this? Consider the vast amounts of > information in the world -- from encyclopedias to construction > diagrams to the Internet -- and now consider just how little, how very > few words are contained in the bible. And yet, in this extremely > concise record of the history of God’s interaction with his people, > one of the things he chose to tell us was how he made the world. He > must have considered it very important. And here I was, rejecting that > account as untrue because I believed men rather that God. The same > people who deny the creation account on scientific grounds also deny > the resurrection of Christ, and yet I had chosen to believe that. >> >> So I simply rejected the word of men, without waiting for supposedly > logical or scientific reasons to do so. “Let God be true and every man > a liar.” [Romans 3:4] >> >> It was extremely unsettling, but over several weeks, through prayer, > research, and faith that God would lead me, I found my faith affirmed. > Moreover, accepting God’s word as being factually correct has opened > doors for my faith that I had never known were there. >> >> Can God save Christians who reject his account of the creation? I’m > sure he can. But they deny themselves the riches of fully trusting > God, and knowing their faith pleases him, as did Abraham’s. >> >> And most critically, those Christians overlook the harm done to the > next generation of Christians who are taught not to take God’s word > too seriously. It’s tragic, and they should know better. >> >> – Manuel Edwards, USA --- See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101322/61679