I'm not making the assertion that Mormonism is either better or worse than my own doctrine, I'm simply noting my displeasure at individuals who professed to consider themselves "better" still conduct themselves in a more uncivil fashion.

From a doctrinal stand point, there is a vast difference between cannon and apocraphal religious text. In Christiondom, the difference usually is broken down based on a measure of verifiablity of the author and historical verification of the origin of the text. Something else that that is requried for a text to be considered cannon is how it agrees with other cannon text.

The Book of Mormon is, to the best my ability to explain, apochraphal for these reasons:
- Alteration of original cannon text
- These changers are usually taught or explained with the reasoning that the original text were wrong, mistranslated, or there is a new age which makes the old meaning purposeless.

- Conflicts with original on points of Jesus of Nazareth's being the Son of God.
- Theologicially, this is an essential element of why scripture even works for the salvation of mankind in any way. By changing this concept in any way, the entirity of salvation is compromised.

.....

As a direct response to the comment above mine. That is a direct personal attack on indivituals that disagree with you, and not a valid answer to a theological challenge.

Rude or polite as some people may be, it doesn't make them right or wrong.

.....

If you want to go point by point through a comparison of the Book of Mormon and cannon scripture. I can do so this evening after work.

I was merely making my opinion known about individuals that are not open to discussion. If somebody is quite civil with me I wouldn't care if they are completely antithetical to my beliefs.

I would appreciate that, thank you

Thanks for helping to keep it civil Smurf. As a Mormon I can address Equilibrium’s points. Can I ask what changes or conflicts you’re referring to on the points of Jesus being the Son of God?

I am currently in a class and saw screaming and yelling in here, so I decided to try and speak some peace into the discussion. I can discuss after work, which is in a bout 8 or so hours.

I should be free then

👍

Lol mormons

@corny🌽🌽 I am going to remind you once to read the channel description. I do not want to receive any more complaints about you attacking other religions.

<:KEK:726877368601411624>

I hope everyone has a blessed day

Ask Arthur. Last I heard, he's chilling in Avalon.

Or Brian.

Arthur's Jewish incarnation.

👋

👊

Is being gay a sin?

Having an attraction to a man, as a man, is not necessarily a sin. It is the acting upon it. One could argue that homosexual attraction is a chemical imbalance or some other type of bodily corruption.

Though people make the argument that the whole being gay is a sin is a mistranslation, but I don’t buy that

Yes it’s sexually immoral

What I can't abide by, is an argument that, "it gives me happiness. How can I kind and loving God not want me to be happy? It must have just been some prudes that put that in the Bible. It can't be a good God's word." To act upon it and to justify it is a sin. Letting our desires stand as a rival to God is expressly forbidden. "If one does not hate his mother, his father, his wife and children, and even himself, he cannot be my disciple." The word "hate"in this context does not mean literally hate. It means to put it in its place. Not above its station. God commands that we do not hide the guilty from the law. I may have an obligation to my brother as he is my brother, but I cannot let that love for him stand in the way of me doing the right thing if he committed a horrific act. If my wife came down with a terrible illness, I must not rob a bank to get money to pay for her medical bills. I have no right to impose upon someone else. Homosexual behavior, or more specifically the toleration and justification of it, seeks usurp God's authority over love in the romantic sense. He bestowed upon us the gift of the transcendental manner in which a joining of humans can take us. If He gave the gift, he can also tell us what to do with that gift.

Or the proper manner in which to use the gift.

So the government enforces us from doing sins like robbing and stealing, so should we add gay to the list

That is where it gets tricky. Homosexual behavior causes less of a material damage, but more of a spiritual damage. Much of my moral sensibilities balk at the idea of a government institution imposing upon somebody's private life. Yet, did Christ not say "Give unto Caesar what is his, and give unto God what is God's".

If there are laws of the land that stand as direct contradiction to God's law, are we not compelled to defy them? This country was built upon defiance of unjust behavior.

Please don't take what I'm saying to personally. This is a rather uncomfortable subject for me as I feel like I'm being pulled in two directions ethically.

yes this is the problem with being a libertarian. It doesn't always mix well with religious laws

Precisely.

What do you choose, Freedom over morailty

I generally pick freedom as God gave us free will, and we should provide the same to the rest of the nation. It would also be a victimless crime and exceedingly hard to enforce

If a moral codex of laws instituted by the government were to be enforced harshly, are the people who are following these laws virtuous by following them? Even if it is out of fear that motivates them, not righteousness? Nothing in the Bible ever demands that you follow God. it simply tells you what would happen if you defy him. You can choose to perfectly well not believe that he exists. Then, you have nothing to lose if you engage in behavior that is otherwise forbidden. only through the freedom of will can we ever know are true resolve of being virtuous people that try to live a christ-like life.

If I helped a homeless man, not expecting to get any pat on the back for doing so, would I be more virtuous than if I did it simply so I could stop my mother from demanding that I do so? Do I do it out of selfishness, or selflessnes?

So In summary, Being attracted to men not a sin, but sexual actives with him is.

At least in my own opinion.

Sexual activities would also expand to lusting after him. As it requires intent.

I sure it might, but the reason why you do it don't effect the effect, if someone sees or doesn't, the homeless man is still get going to help. In this case the reason don't change the effect

I think, we should look more about the effects of something, than if its Morally "good" because maybe at the end of the day, their is no god. I don't think you should do something with the goal just to please god, you should the motive to help your fellow man, because that what Jesus did. Jesus didn't die for our sins because the father said so, he did it because he loves us

@White Feather The reason I used that analogy, is that if I only ever did objectively good acts for selfish means, what happens when I can levy help towards somebody but would get absolutely nothing out of it? I've tainted my soul with selfish desire.

If I wanted to force others to do good acts against their will, I would be committing a great horror on them. If they said no to it, but I demanded, and imposed otherwise, I have inadvertently bestowed upon myself the power of some moral busybody, caught up in the mad scramble of doing good acts to satiat some base hunger for God to consider me good. I may be closer to Heaven in my own eyes, yet be much closer to crafting a hell on Earth.