Trinity

[saemo]

Nice presumption you've got there.

It is a serious question.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

John 17:20,21

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..

Anyone reading John 17 and these words who does not understand what "one" is...is not paying very much attention. Trinity doctrine implies one being manifest in three persons. Therefore they must be on "one mind and will", our doctrine clears up the muddy waters and lets in the light from the darkness. Also it helps us to understand why prayer must be directed to the Father, and Christ and mediator. It cannot be any clearer. Trinitarian doctrine is (or was) a means of creating a church (an apostate one) and to exclude all who did not believe. Once this doctrine became the minority it was used to persecute the minority and led to many atrocities such as the inquisition. Many gave their lives for believing the scriptures as written, rather than as dictated. Thus the need for a restoration, instead of a reformation.

[saemo]

Anyone reading John 17 and these words who does not understand what "one" is...is not paying very much attention. Trinity doctrine implies one being manifest in three persons. Therefore they must be on "one mind and will", our doctrine clears up the muddy waters and lets in the light from the darkness. Also it helps us to understand why prayer must be directed to the Father, and Christ and mediator. It cannot be any clearer. Trinitarian doctrine is (or was) a means of creating a church (an apostate one) and to exclude all who did not believe. Once this doctrine became the minority it was used to persecute the minority and led to many atrocities such as the inquisition. Many gave their lives for believing the scriptures as written, rather than as dictated. Thus the need for a restoration, instead of a reformation.

There is so much misinformation in there, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Perhaps with, Jesus promised to never leave us orphans, and do you think He lied?

[zerinus]

"Eternity" is a description of time. Time is not an extension of this description. Infinity is a description of space (not time).

Frankly I couldn’t make sense of that. Time is a chunk cut out of eternity. It is a limited portion of eternity. Eternity is time extended infinitely into the past and into the future. If God created time, then He also created eternity; and if He created eternity, He couldn’t be eternal because He couldn’t be a part of His own creation—by your own logic.

The word "God" is not a description of time. Eternity itself is not time, it is a description of time, meaning, without beginning or end, which is Biblical.

Again, more meaningless assertions. Perhaps that makes sense to you, but I assure you it doesn’t to me—and I doubt if it does to anybody else either. See above.

God made us as reasonable and rational creatures. To use what God gave us is not an offense against God. Philosophy is not used to probe God, it is used to reason what He has revealed. You are attempting to do the very same in this post I am responding to.

Fine! That is exactly what I am doing in the above arguments; and you haven’t found an answer to it that makes any sense.

A difference in philosophy?

No, but based on revelation. In modern scripture it is revealed that the laws that govern the universe were determined by the power and Spirit of God:

D&C 88

:

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

No philosophical speculations here, I assure you.

[altersteve]

Not sure I follow. Nature exists ex nihilo?

If something "exists ex nihilo," that means that it was created out of nothing. But nature wasn't created.

[saemo]

Frankly I couldn’t make sense of that. Time is a chunk cut out of eternity. It is a limited portion of eternity. Eternity is time extended infinitely into the past and into the future. If God created time, then He also created eternity; and if He created eternity, He couldn’t be eternal because He couldn’t be a part of His own creation—by your own logic.

You have it completely backwards.

Again, more meaningless assertions. Perhaps that makes sense to you, but I assure you it doesn’t to me—and I doubt if it does to anybody else either. See above.

Fine! That is exactly what I am doing in the above arguments; and you haven’t found an answer to it that makes any sense.

I don't mean this as rude, or any other thing but just the statement for what it is.... This is foundational philosophical, scientific, mathematical education. I get the sense that you're making stuff up.

BTW, we haven't even gone down the scientific thesis that time does not exist.

No, but based on revelation. In modern scripture it is revealed that the laws that govern the universe were determined by the power and Spirit of God:

D&C 88

:

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

No philosophical speculations here, I assure you.

I see this as the philosophical speculations of Joseph Smith, or perhaps people/writings that influenced him, not divine revelation.

Edited July 25, 2011 by saemo

[Vance]

It is a serious question.

Then I suggest you reword it.

Perhaps, "Does nature exist ex nihilo?"

Then the answer is easy, NO! Nothing exists ex nihilo.

[zerinus]

I see this as the philosophical speculations of Joseph Smith, or perhaps people/writings that influenced him, not divine revelation.

I see it (indeed know it) to be a revelation form the Lord. The rest of your post does not require further comment.

[Hughes]

So the LDS don't hold the doctrine of omnipresence? And what is the other false doctrine?

David couldn't be more clear. He isn't talking about influence or his guilty conscious, rather he is specifically referring to God's presence.

1. Another point on

your cubic box analogy. You are using one false doctrine (omnipresence) to justify another.

2. Regarding Psalms, not only do we find "wings of the dawn", we also find the right hand of the Lord holding him fast. If you wish to use this, you must also find evidence that the Lord is in human form, that we truly were created in His image. If you agree that the "right hand" is not physical, then the presence is not physically (spiritual or otherwise) filling the universe. He is merely stating that we cannot escape his hand nor his influence.

He speaks and the universe responds, no matter how far away from Kolob. Christ demonstrated that principle that by healing the son while he was in a distant village.

[saemo]

Then I suggest you reword it.

Perhaps, "Does nature exist ex nihilo?"

Then the answer is easy, NO! Nothing exists ex nihilo.

Then who/what created "natural law"?

Edited July 25, 2011 by saemo

[saemo]

I see it (indeed know it) to be a revelation form the Lord. The rest of your post does not require further comment.

None of my posts require comment, but, if you can't back up your redefining of basic concepts, I guess that is where it has to go.

Have a good afternoon.

[Hughes]

Did my first light-bulb increase in my analogy? If so, how? But instead of increasing the light, perhaps I should have asked if there would be space in the room for the light from the second bulb.

Your analogy seems to assume that multiple "infinite beings" could both fit in one space. I would like to understand how you think this is possible.

[LeSellers]

The who/what created "natural law"?

It depends on what one means by "natural law", but, in general, and in this context, we mean the laws of physics, especially those laws related to matter: gravity, inertia, the speed of light, etc. They are inherent in matter and energy (another form of the same thing or vice versa), nothing made of matter can exist independently of these laws.

As God did not create matter ex nihilo, He did not create these laws, either.

In addition, however, the laws of morality exist independent of anyone or anything. Right is right, and it has always existed, as have good and its necessary counterpart, evil, just as light and darkness have always existed in opposition.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Your analogy seems to assume that multiple "infinite beings" could both fit in one space. I would like to understand how you think this is possible.

Unless you confound "infinite" with "infinitely dense" no explanation is needed. The example of two (or 2,222) lights in a single room is a very good analogy.

Lehi

[saemo]

I see now why LDS don't believe God is omnipresent, it would be logically impossible in a belief where there is something that has exists outside, or before (?), God. I don't see this "god' as Biblical.

Peace.

[LeSellers]

I see now why LDS don't believe God is omnipresent, it would be logically impossible in a belief where there is something that has exists outside, or before (?), God. I don't see this "god' as Biblical.

And we do.

Since our intellects are every bit as good as yours, the issue of seeing it in the Bible is moot. As Joseph Smith said, any appeal to the Bible does little or nothing to resolve any dispute of this nature.

Lehi

[altersteve]

So the LDS don't hold the doctrine of omnipresence? And what is the other false doctrine?

David couldn't be more clear. He isn't talking about influence or his guilty conscious, rather he is specifically referring to God's presence.

Of course Latter-day Saints believe God is omnipresent, just not in the way that you obviously do. We do not believe that He, a physical being with a tangible body, is literally in all places. That would be impossible. He is, rather, present through His influence, His creations, His love, His light, and His Spirit. The scriptures couldn't be more clear on this point. But you are, yet again, avoiding the questions I asked you. Let's reason through this:

If God is literally everywhere, then He must be in h***. But if He is in h***, then it isn't h***, because h*** is place where we are totally separated from God. Right? So that would mean that He is not present in h***, which would mean that He did not create h***, since God is present in all places that He created. Still following me? This gives strength to the LDS view that h*** is a lack of a place, where one is totally isolated from the love, light, influence, and creations of God, where we feel nothing, hear nothing, do nothing, say nothing, taste nothing, and are nothing.

I didn't think LDS doctrine was that hard to understand.

Your analogy seems to assume that multiple "infinite beings" could both fit in one space. I would like to understand how you think this is possible.

Wait, weren't you the one who said that humans are infinite beings? And yet there are obviously multiple humans, so there are multiple infinite beings. How do you believe this is possible?

Edited July 25, 2011 by altersteve

[Hughes]

Is that really the implication?  Did God answer the question?  The fact that David couldn't escape his own guilt doesn't require God to be omnipresent.

So, God occupied Hitler's heart?  He occupies h***?  If God's presence is heaven, then there is no h***.  If He occupies the heart of every man then whence cometh evil?

You continue to avoid the questions because the answers destroy your theology.

Nah! Just your misinterpretation of it.

First I haven't avoided any questions nor do any of these questions destroy my theology, as I said in the beginning of this thread, there is no problem with the Trinity.

Second, David is using what is called a Rhetorical question, where the answer is obvious to the hearers. So if you honesty disagree, and think that he is not referring to God's presence, then consider this an CFR as to where in the question, "where can I go from your presence?" does it say anything about his guilty conscience.

Third, does the fact you don't understand how God's presence could also be in h*** (Sheol) mean that it therefore must be incorrect?

[saemo]

And we do.

Since our intellects are every bit as good as yours, the issue of seeing it in the Bible is moot. As Joseph Smith said, any appeal to the Bible does little or nothing to resolve any dispute of this nature.

Lehi

I don't believe the Bible to be moot, though, LDS intellect, possibly.

Peace.

[altersteve]

First I haven't avoided any questions nor do any of these questions destroy my theology, as I said in the beginning of this thread, there is no problem with the Trinity.

Second, David is using what is called a Rhetorical question, where the answer is obvious to the hearers. So if you honesty disagree, and think that he is not referring to God's presence, then consider this an CFR as to where in the question, "where can I go from your presence?" does it say anything about his guilty conscience.

Third, does the fact you don't understand how God's presence could also be in h*** (Sheol) mean that it therefore must be incorrect?

You are avoiding the questions. I have yet to see you even address any of the ones I have asked you.

And if you think h*** and Sheol are the same thing, then you are mistaken.

[Vance]

Then who/what created "natural law"?

Why assume that it must have been created?

[Vance]

Your analogy seems to assume that multiple "infinite beings" could both fit in one space. I would like to understand how you think this is possible.

An infinite being only needs to be infinite in one dimension to be infinite (say time for example). There is no requirement for an infinite being to be infinite in all possible dimensions.

[Vance]

God. I don't see this "god' as Biblical.

Well, this "God" is Biblical. Jesus, on numerous occasions, taught that the Father/(God) was in heaven, not everywhere. If God was everywhere, Jesus was obligated to teach it.

[Vance]

First I haven't avoided any questions nor do any of these questions destroy my theology, as I said in the beginning of this thread, there is no problem with the Trinity.

Second, David is using what is called a Rhetorical question, where the answer is obvious to the hearers. So if you honesty disagree, and think that he is not referring to God's presence, then consider this an CFR as to where in the question, "where can I go from your presence?" does it say anything about his guilty conscience.

Third, does the fact you don't understand how God's presence could also be in h*** (Sheol) mean that it therefore must be incorrect?

You keep wanting to take "h***" to mean (Sheol) rather than Gehenna. Why is that?

So, is God in Gehenna? Was He in Hitler's (or Stalin's) heart?

Also, as I mentioned just above. Why did Jesus teach that God was in heaven, instead of teaching that He was everywhere?

[LeSellers]

And we [see our concept of God as biblical].

Since our intellects are every bit as good as yours, the issue of seeing it in the Bible is moot. As Joseph Smith said, any appeal to the Bible does little or nothing to resolve any dispute of this nature.

I don't believe the Bible to be moot <snip gratuitous insult, "softened" by a "smiley">.

If you re-read my statement I said nothing about the Bible's being moot. I said it was the issue of intepretation that is moot.

It helps when one responds to the words at hand, rather than an assumed message that has nothing to do with the writer's thought.

Lehi

Edited July 25, 2011 by LeSellers