Trinity

[Vance]

What preexisting elements are those? And why would you think God didn't create these elements when the Bible teaches God is the creator of all things. What makes these elements excluded from this teaching?

I was thinking of the elements as we know them. You know Hydrogen and Oxygen, etc. Things that would have been impossible to see with the naked eye.

The Bible is rather clear that the "waters" in Gen 1:2,6,7 were pre-existent.

Come, let us reason together. You can't logically create yourself, right?

That doesn't address the issue. IF you want to take "all" to literally mean every possible thing, then God is included. Now that you have excluded something (God), then "all" doesn't mean every possible thing, but something else.

Here, a list is provided. Now, why provide a list if "all" means every possible thing (excluding God, of course)?

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

What? No "elements"! No "minerals"!

[Vance]

Say God is infinite in "being" can there be another, in your mind?

Sorry, I am not going down that rabbit hole.

If God has always existed (thus making Him infinite in time), then what is to preclude my existence infinitely in time? Answer, nothing!

If God, the Father has always existed (thus making Him infinite in time) and if Jesus Christ, has always existed (thus making Him infinite in time) and they are separate persons, then logically there are at least TWO infinite beings.

Now that we have established TWO infinite beings, then what is to preclude the existence of more?

Of course God sustained Hitler and Stalin's life, just like he does everyone.

That doesn't answer the question, "Was He in Hitler's (or Stalin's) heart?"

Again, you are avoiding the real question here. Let's reword it so as to nail you down.

"Was God in Hitler's (or Stalin's) soul?

I also noticed that you avoided the question, "So, is God in Gehenna?"

Edited July 26, 2011 by Vance

[Hughes]

LDS believe that God is omnipresent, but not in the same way that you do. In the Psalm you quoted, it explains how:

God is able to be everywhere present by the power of His Spirit. God is a corporeal being (think of Jesus), therefore he cannot be physically everywhere present. But He has a Spirit that proceeds from Him by means of which He is both able to be present everywhere (and be conscious of everything), as well as be able to exercise power and influence over everything. In other words, it is by means of that Spirit that He is able not only to be omnipresent, but also omniscient and omnipotent.

The Gospel of John says that Jesus was the light that lights every man that comes into the world. It is by means of that same light, or Spirit, that God is able to be omnipresent as well as omnipotent and omniscient. What does it mean to be "present" somewhere anyway? It means that you are able to see the situation at all times, interact with it if need be, and influence it as you please. Well, if God has a power, an influence, or a Spirit emanating from Him that enables Him to do that everywhere and always, that makes Him omnipresent without being physically in that location. That is how omnipresence is defined in LDS theology.

Thanks, and the only thing I see no evidence for is the idea that God has a physical body.

Does it mean that God is present everywhere? Of course, that's what the scripture says.

No one here claims that anything existed before God. We are saying, as the Hebrew tells us, that the material out of which God created everything already existed prior to the creation (forming, fashioning, shaping) of the heavens and the earth. "Create" (HEB: bara) means to fashion, to shape, to form, to cut out. It does not not mean creatio ex nihil (which is, itself, an oxymoron).

Since you base your position on a false premise, you have little or no chance of being correct in your conclusions.

Lehi

CFR where in the Biblical text does it explicitly state that Matter is Eternal.

[LeSellers]

CFR where in the Biblical text does it explicitly state that Matter is Eternal.

You erroneously assume we should base our understanding on the same limited set of scriptures you do. Ours is a much larger (and growing) canon.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Thanks, and the only thing I see no evidence for is the idea that God has a physical body.

Of course He does. Jesus is God, and He has a body, doesn't He? He is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, no? And He can't be everywhere present with His physical body, right? Therefore He must do it in some other way, No?

Does it mean that God is present everywhere? Of course, that's what the scripture says.

Sure He is everywhere present, but as I have described, not as you have philosophized.

[Hughes]

Hughes, I submit that you are in fact avoiding the questions. Once again, "let us reason together" through this issue:

You claim that God is literally in all places, and that we cannot go anywhere to avoid His presence. That would mean that God would be present in h***. However, if that were the case, then h*** would not be h***, since those in h*** are separated from the presence of God, as the scriptures so clearly tell us. H***, therefore, cannot contain God's presence in any form, which would mean that God cannot have created h***. It would then follow that h*** is, as the Latter-day Saints declare, a lack of a place completely where God does not send us, but where we send ourselves when we choose, by our own free will, to separate ourselves from Him. Your position contradicts itself.

Please address these points directly instead of dismissing my reasoning and saying that I'm simply making presumptions. Argue with me like you mean it.

Where does it state that h*** doesn't contain God's presence in any form?

Fact remains that David (a prophet) states that we can't go anywhere to escape God's presence.

Now you state that the LDS believe that God didn't create h***? And that it's a place devoid of his presence?

If there is actually a place that is devoid of God's presence, that would mean God is not omni-present at all, correct? Which would mean he's not actually God.

And I am of the impression that you don't know what you are talking about, and what is worse, you don't care either. You don't know what it means to be "infinite in his being," neither do I, nor does anybody else. Neither has God declared any such thing about Himself, in scripture or anywhere else.

It seems to me that, just as it is logical that only one finite being can fit into one finite space (the size of one being), it is also equally logical that only one infinite being would fit in one infinite space.

I was under the understanding that God is not pieced out. God's pleasure cannot be left behind. Everything that IS God stays with Him. God IS love, so God cannot leave His love behind.

Those that are sent to he11, are excluded from the presense of God...now you are saying that God is in he11 also. Isn't God's presence what makes heaven different than he11? If God is in both places, then one is not different than the other.

Haven't you read where Moses only saw part of God's Glory?

Or where the Rich man pleaded with Abraham (God) to let him tell his brothers, how would such a conversation occur if God weren't present? Yet, the rich ruler certainly wasn't experiencing God's love now was he?

and they are separate persons, then logically there are at least TWO infinite beings.

Now that we have established TWO infinite beings, then what is to preclude the existence of more?

That doesn't answer the question, "Was He in Hitler's (or Stalin's) heart?"

Again, you are avoiding the real question here. Let's reword it so as to nail you down.

"Was God in Hitler's (or Stalin's) soul?

I also noticed that you avoided the question, "So, is God in Gehenna?"

Of course, God's presence is everywhere, as David stated.

What isn't established is that two separate persons are two infinite beings, that is your assumption.

IF in fact, that is what you believe, then are you admitting that you believe that two infinite beings exist?

As to Hitler and Stalin, of course God was present with them. To what degree? I have no idea. I can say that they didn't follow God's commands/teachings.

[Hughes]

You erroneously assume we should base our understanding on the same limited set of scriptures you do. Ours is a much larger (and growing) canon.

Lehi

Thanks. It's not in the Biblical text.

Of course He does. Jesus is God, and He has a body, doesn't He? He is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, no? And He can't be everywhere present with His physical body, right? Therefore He must do it in some other way, No?

Sure He is everywhere present, but as I have described, not as you have philosophized.

Jesus does have a body now, yes. A body doesn't limit his omnipresence however.

[LeSellers]

It's not in the Biblical text.

And that's proof that is is not true?

Lehi

[ChristKnight]

And that's proof that is is not true?

Lehi

Especially when nothing in the Biblical text states that all beliefs must be found in the Biblical text.

[Vance]

Of course, God's presence is everywhere, as David stated.

And JESUS stated that He is in heaven. So you are placing the words of the adulterous murderer in preeminence above the words of the Son of God. Nice to know where you stand.

What isn't established is that two separate persons are two infinite beings, that is your assumption.

Show me were two separate persons are not to separate beings. (Surely you can find that in the Bible since you believe the Bible sufficiently declares your doctrine.)

IF in fact, that is what you believe, then are you admitting that you believe that two infinite beings exist?

Oh, more that two infinite beings/persons to be sure.

As to Hitler and Stalin, of course God was present with them. To what degree? I have no idea. I can say that they didn't follow God's commands/teachings.

So, are you saying that evil exists in the presence of God?

[Vance]

Jesus does have a body now, yes.

So, an infinite being/person can have a body of flesh and bones. Nice to have that established.

[altersteve]

Hughes, I don't think you even realize it, but your arguments fell apart a long time ago. I don't know why we're even still having this discussion.

[Hughes]

And that's proof that is is not true?

Lehi

It was stated that Ex nihilo was in error because it's not explicitly stated in the Biblical text.

I'm simply pointing out that the LDS position that Matter is eternal, is also not explicitly stated in the text, making that argument irrelevant.

And JESUS stated that He is in heaven. So you are placing the words of the adulterous murderer in preeminence above the words of the Son of God. Nice to know where you stand.

Show me were two separate persons are not to separate beings. (Surely you can find that in the Bible since you believe the Bible sufficiently declares your doctrine.)

Oh, more that two infinite beings/persons to be sure.

So, are you saying that evil exists in the presence of God?

Jesus stated that the Father is in Heaven, and nothing he said is contradicting David the prophet's statement (why do you continue to call him adulterous murderer and not Joseph Smith?).

As I stated earlier, if you don't understand it, therefore it must not be true. The trinity is derived out of the implicit teaching of the Apostles, where God is one being, yet three persons.

If it's true as you state, that there are more than two infinite beings (gods), then why do you oppose the term polytheist?

It's far to simplistic to say that "evil exists in the presence of God."

The answer is yes of course (as any infinite being would necessarily exist everywhere), but one has to understand that when the Infinite God decided to create man, he knew that it would result in evil, but that the resultant evil would be a small price to pay for the amount of good created.

It would be more accurate to say that evil doesn't escape God's presence, nor his judgement.

[altersteve]

It was stated that Ex nihilo was in error because it's not explicitly stated in the Biblical text.

If it's not in the Bible, then why do you believe it? Did you receive a revelation from God telling you it's true? Do you accept the people who teach it as being authorized or inspired by God to do so? Would that mean that the Bible is not as complete as you seem to believe it is?

why do you continue to call him adulterous murderer and not Joseph Smith?

Because Joseph Smith was neither an adulterer nor a murderer. David was both. And before you try to use Joseph's practice of polygamy as proof of his "adultery," maybe you should learn what adultery means: to have sexual relations with someone other than your spouse. So even if Joseph had sexual relations with any of his wives other than Emma, it would not be adultery, now would it? I'm not even commenting on the fact that you seem to think he was a murderer, because that's absolutely absurd.

As I stated earlier, if you don't understand it, therefore it must not be true.

That's not why it's not true. We don't believe it's true because that what God has told us.

Edited July 27, 2011 by altersteve

[Storm Rider]

It was stated that Ex nihilo was in error because it's not explicitly stated in the Biblical text.

I'm simply pointing out that the LDS position that Matter is eternal, is also not explicitly stated in the text, making that argument irrelevant.

Jesus stated that the Father is in Heaven, and nothing he said is contradicting David the prophet's statement (why do you continue to call him adulterous murderer and not Joseph Smith?).

As I stated earlier, if you don't understand it, therefore it must not be true. The trinity is derived out of the implicit teaching of the Apostles, where God is one being, yet three persons.

If it's true as you state, that there are more than two infinite beings (gods), then why do you oppose the term polytheist?

It's far to simplistic to say that "evil exists in the presence of God."

The answer is yes of course (as any infinite being would necessarily exist everywhere), but one has to understand that when the Infinite God decided to create man, he knew that it would result in evil, but that the resultant evil would be a small price to pay for the amount of good created.

It would be more accurate to say that evil doesn't escape God's presence, nor his judgement.

The implicit teachings of the apostles is a stretch. The Trinity, by admission of the Catholic Church, was not taught until much later. To me there are verses that do support the concept; however, there are just as many that make the Godhead focus more on three beings or persons. That is what makes this so difficult.

My two cents on the on-going less-than-important argument: God withdraws his spirit from some areas. He and the Holy Spirit purposely withdraws from those who seek to do evil. It makes sense to me that he withdraws from all evil. It is not that he cannot be present, but that evil cannot stand to be in the presence of God; they both withdraw from each other. Light and dark do not coexist in the same location at the same time; it is either light or it is dark.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not comprehensible. If anything, it is a philosophical point that allows Jesus to be divine while still maintaining the facade of monotheism. What is most dissappinting is that this 4th century teaching has somehow become the most important teaching in Christianity. It is even more important than belief in Jesus; were it not so, Mormons would quicly be recognized as Christians. Since they are not, it is evident that what is most important to orthodoxy.

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive for Hughes - http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormon_view_of_the_Creatio_ex-nihilo

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[altersteve]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive for Hughes - http://en.fairmormon...eatio_ex-nihilo

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Here's a better link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Ex_nihilo

[Anakin7]

Here's a better link: http://en.fairmormon.org/Ex_nihilo

Awesome display my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Brother in Christ Jesus. May True Grace and The Priesthood be with you.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited July 27, 2011 by Anakin7

[jo1952]

The implicit teachings of the apostles is a stretch. The Trinity, by admission of the Catholic Church, was not taught until much later. To me there are verses that do support the concept; however, there are just as many that make the Godhead focus more on three beings or persons. That is what makes this so difficult.

My two cents on the on-going less-than-important argument: God withdraws his spirit from some areas. He and the Holy Spirit purposely withdraws from those who seek to do evil. It makes sense to me that he withdraws from all evil. It is not that he cannot be present, but that evil cannot stand to be in the presence of God; they both withdraw from each other. Light and dark do not coexist in the same location at the same time; it is either light or it is dark.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not comprehensible. If anything, it is a philosophical point that allows Jesus to be divine while still maintaining the facade of monotheism. What is most dissappinting is that this 4th century teaching has somehow become the most important teaching in Christianity. It is even more important than belief in Jesus; were it not so, Mormons would quicly be recognized as Christians. Since they are not, it is evident that what is most important to orthodoxy.

As I see it, this theory has become doctrine which is being taught as a commandment of men. It excludes any who do not accept it. To me, I don't think it matters that we have God's "true nature" figured out or not. What is important is do we believe in Christ, the Son of God. Are we following His example and keeping His commandments; especially the greatest two commandments. Do we have a good relationship with the Holy Ghost guiding our lives. When the Trinity gets thrown in, then confusion, strife, derision; and in the past, death resulted if you did not accept this theory. Thus, man has usurped Christ's privilege and right to Judge the souls of men. God is not the God of confusion.

Regards,

jo

[Storm Rider]

As I see it, this theory has become doctrine which is being taught as a commandment of men. It excludes any who do not accept it. To me, I don't think it matters that we have God's "true nature" figured out or not. What is important is do we believe in Christ, the Son of God. Are we following His example and keeping His commandments; especially the greatest two commandments. Do we have a good relationship with the Holy Ghost guiding our lives. When the Trinity gets thrown in, then confusion, strife, derision; and in the past, death resulted if you did not accept this theory. Thus, man has usurped Christ's privilege and right to Judge the souls of men. God is not the God of confusion.

Regards,

jo

I agree completely with you. However, it is just so strange when the topic is the Trinity; belief in this single doctrine is required before one can merit the label Christian. Somehow this single doctrine has become so important that it even more important than belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind. When did the blood of Christ become so cheap? When this doctrine became the measuring stick of being a Christian. This type of standard is a sign to me of the apostasy imposed by men; when the doctrines of men become more important than the Son of God.

[zerinus]

Jesus does have a body now, yes. A body doesn't limit his omnipresence however.

Exactly. And how can Jesus be everywhere with His physical body, except by means of His Spirit?

That is how we understand the omnipresence of God, as I had explained above

[LeSellers]

It was stated that Ex nihilo was in error because it's not explicitly stated in the Biblical text.

If it's not in the biblical text, then you have no business believing it. We could, if it were true. As it is not, we reject it. You can't believe it because your only source doesn't support it.

I'm simply pointing out that the LDS position that Matter is eternal, is also not explicitly stated in the text, making that argument irrelevant.

The statement is in uniquely LDS scripture, though, so we are fully justified in beieving it, teaching it and knowing it is true.

The argument, "if it's not in the Bible, it can't be true", only works against your position, not ours, so it remains completely relevant.

Lehi

Edited July 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[Hughes]

If it's not in the Bible, then why do you believe it? Did you receive a revelation from God telling you it's true? Do you accept the people who teach it as being authorized or inspired by God to do so? Would that mean that the Bible is not as complete as you seem to believe it is?

Because Joseph Smith was neither an adulterer nor a murderer. David was both. And before you try to use Joseph's practice of polygamy as proof of his "adultery," maybe you should learn what adultery means: to have sexual relations with someone other than your spouse. So even if Joseph had sexual relations with any of his wives other than Emma, it would not be adultery, now would it? I'm not even commenting on the fact that you seem to think he was a murderer, because that's absolutely absurd.

That's not why it's not true. We don't believe it's true because that what God has told us.

I see your agenda driven post from a mile a way.

When something is implicit in the Bible, it is indeed *in* there implicitly.

As to your last statement, where in the Bible does it say that the trinity isn't true?

The implicit teachings of the apostles is a stretch. The Trinity, by admission of the Catholic Church, was not taught until much later. To me there are verses that do support the concept; however, there are just as many that make the Godhead focus more on three beings or persons. That is what makes this so difficult.

My two cents on the on-going less-than-important argument: God withdraws his spirit from some areas. He and the Holy Spirit purposely withdraws from those who seek to do evil. It makes sense to me that he withdraws from all evil. It is not that he cannot be present, but that evil cannot stand to be in the presence of God; they both withdraw from each other. Light and dark do not coexist in the same location at the same time; it is either light or it is dark.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not comprehensible. If anything, it is a philosophical point that allows Jesus to be divine while still maintaining the facade of monotheism. What is most dissappinting is that this 4th century teaching has somehow become the most important teaching in Christianity. It is even more important than belief in Jesus; were it not so, Mormons would quicly be recognized as Christians. Since they are not, it is evident that what is most important to orthodoxy.

I don't think it's logical to posit more than one infinite being. Making monotheism the only logical choice.

The reason that Mormons aren't recognized as Christians is probably a more complex question than just the matter of the trinity. Although I do see that point though. When someone has the nature of God mixed up, then the identity of that being is also in error. Just as if I was to say that my best friend was from India, yet he's actually from Sweden. He would think that I didn't know him, and mis-identified him.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Hughes

[Hughes]

If it's not in the biblical text, then you have no business believing it. We could, if it were true. As it is not, we reject it. You can't believe it because your only source doesn't support it.

The statement is in uniquely LDS scripture, though, so we are fully justified in beieving it, teaching it and knowing it is true.

The argument, "if it's not in the Bible, it can't be true", only works against your position, not ours, so it remains completely relevant.

Lehi

Indeed, just as the trinity is implicitly found in the Biblical text, so also is creation Ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Since, the doctrine for eternal matter is found only in LDS scriptures, the matter is settled. It's not supported by the Biblical text.

[Anakin7]

Not so Hughes, you have not responded to the scholarly assesments in the links above. Try again Please.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT