I’ve grown tired of Bible bashing Joseph Smith was right: "In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? ..... the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." No matter how good your Bible bashing is, it will not change the fact that our strongest questions of the soul find their best answers in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Eternal families - Baptism for the dead - Premortal life - Eternal progression - Living prophets - Personal revelation - The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ There is no other church that even comes close

I think the second coming will be soon based the signs written in scripture and my own personal experience "In that day...seven women will fight for one man, saying, 'Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name...'"

Yeah but when you consider all the child support, $1 Trillion is not that much

They’re not actually trying to convince us we’re demonic. They’re trying to convince themselves.

I don't know what's going on with the algorithm, but there's a bunch of French a**holes in my comments lately Also, what does "Tu quoque" mean?

Religious freedom is the cornerstone of peace in a world with many competing philosophies. We were privileged to represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the Canterbury Medal Gala hosted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—a fitting venue for celebrating religious liberty. I was honored to offer the invocation at this event. Moral agency, the ability to choose right from wrong and to act for ourselves, is essential to God’s plan of salvation. Religious freedom ensures that people can exercise their agency in matters of faith. We are grateful to be associated with so many wonderful people of faith who we stand with to advocate for religious freedom.

Because the god you give them is evil and you call it Christianity.

I'm begging Calvinists to explain this

Translation: "I reject everyone's fallible interpretation except my own."

This has never happened before. What do I do?

Jeff Durbin is a master of biblical eisegesis and circular reasoning 😂 First, Durbin keeps repeating that "the Bible is clear" but simply declaring a passage clear doesn't make your interpretation correct. Every Calvinist, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox Christian, and Catholic claims the Bible is clear when it supports their theology. The question is not whether Durbin feels the text is clear. The question is whether the text actually teaches what he claims. Take Psalm 90:2. Durbin quotes, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God," as though that settles the debate. It doesn't. The verse says God is God throughout all ages. It says absolutely nothing about divine embodiment, divine progression, creation ex nihilo, timelessness, immateriality, or any of the philosophical baggage Durbin smuggles into the text. He is pretending the conclusion is already in the premise. Then we get John 4:24: "God is spirit." Again, Durbin simply assumes that "spirit" means an immaterial, bodiless metaphysical essence. Where does the text say that? It doesn't. The passage is about worship, not ontology. Durbin reads centuries of post-biblical metaphysics into a single sentence and then congratulates himself for finding it there. Even worse is his appeal to Luke 24. Jesus says a spirit does not have flesh and bones as He does. Notice what that actually proves: resurrected persons have bodies. Congratulations. Latter-day Saints agree. The passage says nothing whatsoever about whether the Father possesses a glorified body. Durbin is answering a question the text never asks. What's especially ironic is that Durbin constantly accuses Latter-day Saints of rejecting Scripture while he spends most of his time defending concepts that are nowhere stated in Scripture. Divine simplicity? Not in Scripture. Pure actuality? Not in Scripture. Timelessness? Not in Scripture. An immaterial essence without body, parts, or passions? Not in Scripture. These are philosophical conclusions inherited through later theological development, not straightforward biblical teachings. Durbin also wants everyone to believe the Bible is so crystal clear that disagreement is inexcusable. Yet Protestantism itself is fragmented into thousands of competing interpretations. Calvinists can't agree with Arminians. Baptists can't agree with Presbyterians. Reformed theologians debate other Reformed theologians endlessly. Apparently the Bible is only "perfectly clear" when Jeff Durbin already agrees with the interpretation. The reality is that Durbin is not comparing Joseph Smith to the Bible. He is comparing Joseph Smith to a particular Reformed reading of the Bible. Those are not the same thing. The fundamental weakness in his argument is that he never demonstrates that Scripture teaches classical theism. He assumes classical theism, reads it into every verse, and then declares victory. Embarrassing.

There is one reason, and one reason only, a man emphasizes being related to church leaders And that is to distract you from the fact that he is retarded

I think reading scripture with this degree of inflexible philosophical precision is a mistake, and you should get tested for autism

You're answering a question about gratitude when the discussion is about praise. I'm grateful for oxygen. I don't sit around composing sonnets about oxygen's moral excellence. And your Les Misérables example makes the opposite point that you needed it to. The bishop is admirable because he COULD HAVE turned Valjean in and chose mercy instead. That's the entire point of the scene 😂 If the bishop were metaphysically incapable of doing anything else - he wouldn't be a moral hero - he'd be more like a Roomba following factory settings. Then you pivot to creation... Again, that's gratitude. If a vending machine started dispensing free money - would I admire its virtue? Would I praise it for faithfully executing its programming? Ridiculous 😂 The whole issue is whether logically necessary "goodness" can be morally praiseworthy. Your response never addresses that question. It just points out that we can appreciate benefits we've received. So the challenge still stands: if God literally cannot do wrong, praising Him for not doing wrong seems about as meaningful as praising a triangle for having three sides.

@JordanBraginton Yes, I think God has moral agency. If God is capable of love, mercy, justice, and covenant faithfulness, then those seem to involve genuine choices rather than automatic behavior. But I don't think it follows that moral law is some authority standing over God. Consider this: if there are objective truths about logic, does that mean logic is a being greater than God? Not really. Logic isn't a person, a ruler, or an object of worship. It's simply part of reality. Likewise, if there are objective moral truths, they don't become a god just because they're true. So if moral law exists independently of God's will, the question becomes: what kind of thing is moral law? If it's an abstract truth about how persons ought to relate to one another, then it isn't something you can worship. It doesn't love, create, forgive, save, or enter into relationships. That's why, even if moral truths are eternal, we worship God rather than moral law. We worship God because He is the perfectly good personal being who fully understands, embodies, and lives those truths. Moral law may describe what goodness is, but God is the living person who perfectly manifests goodness. In fact, I'd turn the question around: if God has no moral agency and goodness is merely whatever He happens to command, then in what sense is God good? We could say He is powerful, but calling Him morally good would seem to lose much of its meaning. God's goodness becomes most meaningful if there is a real distinction between good and evil and God freely and perfectly chooses the good. So my answer is: Yes, God has moral agency. Yes, moral truths can be objective without being a rival authority over God. No, we do not worship moral law. We worship God because He is the supreme personal embodiment of goodness, not because He arbitrarily defines goodness.

Why does that have to be low-key. Just say the thing regardless of the key. The key doesn't matter.

🚨 Breaking 🚨 Trump meets with the Three Nephites ahead of America 250 celebrations

Can you imagine having $1 TRILLION? Man, I'd say "yes" to guac every time