This question is important to an on-going topic on CSE-Meta as to whether the biblical-basis tag has become obsolete. I understand that Latter-day Saints, in using the term Scripture, include not only biblical texts but also The Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (if I have excluded any I apologize). Would a Latter-day Saint ever be comfortable (or is it allowed) to refer to one of these other writings as the Bible?

I have often heard historical arguments like the following against the use of musical instruments: > Neither he [Paul] nor any other apostle, nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred years, used instruments. This too, in the face of the fact that the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity and that the Greeks and heathen nations all used them in their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems there cannot be doubt but that the use of instrumental music in connection with the worship of God, whether used as a part of the worship or as an attraction accompaniment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated prohibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the commandments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and unholy, counts the blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son. > > — David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers by David Lipscomb, pp. 226-227, and Gospel Advocate, 1899, pp. 376-377. Taken from jasonsbibleblog.com . The argument is that the original Christians did not use musical instruments—even though the Jews and all other religions at the time did use them. Therefore, the argument goes, Christians should not use musical instruments in worship. Does the quote above accurately portray early church history? I am not asking for the validity of the conclusions, only for whether Lipscomb gets the history right.

I have been reading some history about the largest standing amphitheater in the world, *The Colosseum.* I read that **Pope Benedict XIV** consecrated the structure because many Christians were supposedly martyred in it despite there being no historical evidence to support that claim. It is natural to conceive the idea that Rome was originally hostile to Christians centuries before its first-ever Christian Emperor, **Constantine**. Is it true that the Romans put Christian converts in Rome inside the Colosseum alongside wild animals to be eaten alive? Their crime being **failing to pay reverence to Roman gods** Many graphic depictions of this have been done and most allege that the Roman emperor Nero did it. ![Illustration of the Colosseum with Christians about to be attacked by lions, and other animals ][1] In the case of Polycarp, who was burned alive, the people of Smyrna are even said to have joined in enthusiastically to find wood for the fire.

This well referenced article chronicles the history of a 12 year long contention which arose in the early days of the LDS Church between Apostle Orson Pratt and (then) first president Brigham Young. While there are tangential aspects associated with this contention, the main thrust centered upon the state or condition of God's knowledge: Whether God is perfect or complete in knowledge (Pratt) or ever growing in knowledge (Young). Pratt insisted that God could not be God without perfect omniscience whereas Young insisted that such a perfection in God renders eternity a meaningless concept. While the contention became quite intense it is to Young's credit that he continuously endeavored to maintain brotherhood and fellowship with Pratt, which thing his religion holds in very high esteem. Ultimately, Pratt acceded to the authority of the First Presidency and, although he never changed his mind about God not being God unless his knowledge was absolutely complete, he did agree to never again publish such an opinion in any LDS literature unless it was confirmed by the Presidency and he publically approved of the collection and destruction of whatever he had published which was contrary: > I, therefore, embrace the present opportunity of publicly expressing my most sincere regret, that I have ever published the least thing which meets with the disapprobation of the highest authorities of the Church; and I do most cordially join with them in the request, that you should make such disposition of the publication alluded to, as counsel- led in their proclamation. Towards the end of the article it is noted that, after Brigham Young's death, vehemence against Orson Pratt's ideas waned and now such influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith find favor with Pratt's ideas: > "I believe that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not 'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." What is the current, official LDS doctrine regarding the state or condition of God's knowledge, whether it be perfect and complete or ever growing? Note- All of the quotations here are taken from the linked article.

**According to Catholicism, why are there so few miraculous healings of amputees, if any?** This question is inspired from another post on this site: [What are Christian apologetics refutations of the objections posited by the site "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/92780/what-are-christian-apologetics-refutations-of-the-objections-posited-by-the-site) I would like to have a Catholic response to why God does not heal amputees? Perhaps he has, but they are ever so few. Why? Doubt I will get a canonical answer for this, but a well researched response would be greatly appreciated.

According to experienced Christians, "If anything, a focus on General Revelation should correlate with more experience focus, as people relish in the signs of God." It is so true that when the Faith of a person is thoroughly establish, the pathway to intimate experience with God is enhanced! But when there is less known about the strong Apologetic foundation of Christianity, it seems that the average Christian must rely on experiences he has encountered, to maintain his faith. Would this dilemma tend to cause church services to be more audio/visual (which is appealing to the younger set in the church)? This question is based on 35 years of teaching Apologetics in a Christian high school. The dearth of information evidenced from a questioning of students from the diverse churches, revealed that General Revelation (and Apologetics in general) was non-existent in the Discipleship classes of those churches! Discipleship class manuals contained the usual topics of Baptism, communion, tithing, family, charity, prayer, etc. These are the **what's of Christianity**. But the **why's of Christianity** were left out. Or were referenced to para-church orgs such as Cru, Intervarsity, Got Questions, and the like outside the local church. The satisfaction the students showed when they realized that the Christian worldview provided **reasons and answers** that the average mind sought after, was amazing! The response of the surprised parents was off the charts! This class filled a huge gap that was in the Discipleship efforts of their churches. So is this the reason why church families that do not have access to great Apologetic teaching, are relying on audio/visual emphases in Sunday morning churches, or youth group meetings with emphasis on "a good time"? Experiential emphasis? And does it also lend to a tendency for Believers to want and seek some physical manifestation in their walk with God to increase or sustain their Faith in God Would a foundation in General Revelation teaching (Apologetics) provide a surer foundation and basis for any experience they may encounter?

There has been recent discussion on the site regarding monotheism, henotheism, and polytheism. A recent question sought to clarify who or what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worship. However, the question was1 focused on a definition of Deity that is not accepted by the church, limiting the scope & utility of the discussion. I'd like to parallel that question with the opposite question, and focus on the broader matter at hand that many site members expressed a desire to discuss on the twin question: how do Latter-day Saints respond to the claim that Latter-day Saints are *not* monotheists? *** *** Related: - Is the LDS's view of Trinity/Godhead considered monotheistic or polytheistic? - Do Latter Day Saints / Mormons consider themselves to be henotheists? - How does LDS doctrine reconcile monotheism with men becoming gods? 1 - The post in question has since been edited to acknowledge that a quotation provided in the original question is not an accepted position of the church. This commitment to transparency & sincere inquiry is gratefully acknowledged.

The site: [Why Won't God Heal Amputees?](https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/) Relevant quotes: > #### Is God real, or is he imaginary? > Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself. > > If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance. > > On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional. > > But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary? > > Since we are intelligent human beings living in the 21st century, we should take the time to look at some data. That is what we are doing when we ask, **"Why won't God heal amputees?"** > > If you are an intelligent human being, and if you want to understand the true nature of God, you owe it to yourself to ask, "Why won't God heal amputees?" > > ([source](https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)) > **Explaining the case of amputees** > > Just for a moment, I would ask you to consider the possibility of > another explanation. If you believe in God, then this explanation will > initially appear to be complete nonsense. However, it is interesting > in light of the conversation we will be having in this book. > > One explanation for the evidence that we see before us is this: > > God exists, and God answers prayers, but for some reason God chooses > to ignore the prayers of amputees. We don't have a good explanation > for why God acts this way, and it does seem to contradict what Jesus > teaches about prayer in the Bible, but clearly God has his divine > reasons. **Now let's look at the situation with amputees from another** > **point of view. This explanation is more straightforward**: > > **God is imaginary**. Let's look at what happens when we consider this > explanation and see how it stacks up. Assume that God is imaginary. > **The beauty of this explanation is that it fits the facts perfectly. In** > **the case of amputees, it is a valid way to explain the reality that we** > **see in our world. The logic goes like this:** > > **If God is imaginary, then he does not answer any prayers. Therefore,** > **the prayers of amputees would go unanswered too. The thing that is so** > **appealing about this explanation is that there is no hand waving.** > **There are no contradictions. It is completely fair. There is no** > **paradox. This explanation makes complete sense in light of the** > **evidence we see in our world.** [...] > > ([source](https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm)) Feel free to visit the site to read the author's full exposition of their arguments. **Question**: Have any Christian apologists published refutations of the objections posited by the site "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"? If so, what are the most common counter-arguments? **Note**: answers just sharing links without summarizing the main counter-arguments from notable Christian apologists are discouraged. ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89886/how-do-christians-rebut-matt-dillahuntys-objection-that-the-resurrection-of-jes

Assuming that most Christians would pray for help in time of need, is there any statistical evidence for better outcomes among Christians compared to other groups? For example, a Christian would presumably likely be praying to get well, get healthy, be happy, get a better job, pray for a sound marriage, etc. Yes, I know they would pray for other things too, but I'm asking about things that can be measured in statistics, mortuary tables, etc. I've just looked at a Pew Research study **Religion’s Relationship to Happiness, Civic Engagement and Health Around the World** which suggests perhaps better civic participation, but > after adjusting for differences in age, education, income and other factors, there is no statistical link between being actively religious and being in better self-reported overall health in any of the 26 countries and territories studied except Taiwan, Mexico and the United States. > >Even in the U.S., the strength of the linkage between religion and health varies, depending on measures and datasets used. For example, in some years, the General Social Survey has shown that religiously affiliated people who go to church or other religious services at least once a month are particularly likely to report that they are in excellent overall health, while in other recent years this has not been the case.

They base this teaching on Job 38:7, "When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy." The LDS prove this plan based on their own writings, not from the Bible. They quote from the Book of Abraham at Abraham 3:27 and from the Book of Moses at Moses 4:2. This story is explained here from their own books/writings: [Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-3-jesus-christ-our-chosen-leader-and-savior?lang=eng) . >Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27). >Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). >Jesus said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2). So again, where in the Holy Bible is this plan explained?

[***Anima Christi***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_Christi) , the famous prayer of St Ignatius Loyola has this verse: > "Blood of Christ, inebriate me". Clearly, it is not the physical inebriation, but the spiritual one that Loyola had in mind. This prayer is found in the very first page of his famous [*Spiritual Exercises*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Exercises) book (1522-1524). [English translation by Louis J. Puhl, S.J.](https://archive.org/details/spiritualexercis0000loui/page/n17/mode/2up) (1959): >Soul of Christ, sanctify me Body of Christ, save me **Blood of Christ, inebriate me** Water from the side of Christ, wash me Passion of Christ, strengthen me O good Jesus, hear me Within Thy wounds hide me Permit me not to be separated from Thee From the wicked foe defend me At the hour of my death call me And bid me come to thee That with Thy saints I may praise Thee For ever and ever. Amen. My question is: **Did Loyola borrow his idea of spiritual inebriation from the Scriptures?**

The Presentation of the Lord is celebrated exactly 40 days after Christmas, yet Christmas ends on the Baptism of the Lord, which is the beginning of Ordinary Time. Why is the Christmas season short when compared to the Easter season, which is celebrated for 50 days? How was it decided that the day celebrating the Lord's baptism marked the end of Christmas?

Going by the List of Popes at Catholic Encyclopedia one finds that the name John has been most popular among the incumbents to the position. But what is intriguing is that no Pope after the first one adopted the name Peter which in fact, had been given to Simon by the Lord himself. Is there any reason for the same?

I was checking out the list of [pope names by frequency](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_name) on Wikipedia in search of minutia to defend my assertion that Pope Francis was the [first new Pope name a long time](http://christianity.blogoverflow.com/2013/03/14/5678-pope-francis-starts-with-a-clean-slate/?cb=1) and noticed that there were two popes named Pelagius ([I](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pelagius_I) and [II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pelagius_II)) but there's also a [Pelagian heresy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagian_heresy) that predates their pontificate. So, why Pelagius? Or didn't the Popes think that hard about their names back then?

As might be well-known to some, and perhaps especially to Catholics, the name of [Saint Malachy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Malachy) , a former Archbishop of Armagh, is often associated with the [Prophecy of the Popes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes) . Much of the recent interest in this prophecy appears not to come from within Catholicism itself. Is there a general consensus from within Catholicism on this seemingly important issue?

After the Baptism of the Lord, there’s the second Sunday of Ordinary Time. What happened to the first Sunday of Ordinary Time?

This may seem like a stupid question (ie. why would someone need to be ordained to their own priesthood order?). However, I can't seem to find reference to Him being ordained or to Him not needing to be ordained. I know He had the Priesthood - many references call Him a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. I'm wondering though if He went through any sort of ordinance where He became ordained (ie. He wasn't ordained before the ordinance). I know that the Priesthood is eternal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was born automatically ordained to the order of Melchizedek. Like I've said in a comment on one of the answers, what I'm envisioning is Jesus as a teenager or young adult being ordained to the priesthood the same as any other boy/man of his time. Whether or not that ordination was as meaningful or needful for him as it was for his contemporaries isn't the point of this question, the question is - do we have evidence that an ordination ceremony of some sort happened during his mortal life, or do we have evidence that whoever would have ordained him understood that Jesus didn't need to be ordained? For the sake of my question, I'm interested in an LDS perspective. However, if the answer to the question isn't necessarily an LDS one and I just totally missed something obvious (ie. He was ordained and here's the Bible reference), I'd accept that too. EDIT: As I'm studying more and seeing some answers that are coming in (which have been really helpful - just not quite what I was looking for), I'm realizing that this question is not as simple as I was thinking. So, first of all, **moving forward I'm only interested in the LDS perspective**. Second, here's some background on why I'm asking (which I hadn't thought was relevant initially): Alma 13:2 says: >And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, **in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption** Verse 16 mentions something similar: >Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on th Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord. There doesn't seem to be any interpretation available to what this means. I got to both of the same conclusions that [this article's section on verse 2](https://clearldsdoctrine.neocities.org/ltltbom/alma/13.html) got to (writing it out would take too much space here). Referring to that article, in my mind the first suggestion seemed right (but too easy of an answer), and the second suggestion felt really interesting to pursue whether or not it has any ground to stand on. In my mind, the first question to ask in determining whether or not the second suggestion could possibly hold any water is "Was Jesus ordained?". If not, then the second suggestion can't possibly be correct. I couldn't think of a time in the New Testament where Jesus gets ordained - but I also couldn't think of any mention in any of the LDS Standard Works suggesting that he didn't need to be ordained. He needed to be baptized, so maybe he also needed to be ordained. Like one of the commenters below suggested, I considered the Transfiguration, but Jesus was using the Priesthood before the Transfiguration. I've also been reading that some other Christian denominations consider Jesus' baptism to be the moment he was "ordained" (ex. [the 'When was Jesus ordained' section of this article on a Catholic website](https://ronconte.com/2012/10/26/when-was-jesus-ordained-a-priest/)) . That idea makes sense to me, but I haven't seen any LDS writings suggesting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees or disagrees with that.

Are there saints who chose the wrong vocation—i.e., entered into a certain state of life without having any attraction to it?

A follow-up to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/what-is-the-mormon-doctrine-regarding-becoming-a-god) , if the LDS church teaches that men can become gods, how does it reconcile this with the concept that there is only one God? [Isaiah 45:5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045:5&version=NIV) : > I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, [Exodus 20:3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:3&version=NIV) : > “You shall have no other gods before me.

What does it mean when Christians say that God is a person? (Representative example [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6702/do-miracles-violate-the-laws-of-physics#comment17892_6702).) Does this mean that Christians believe that God is human? My experience is with Judaism (in Judaism, God is not referred to as a person).