Discovering the God of Christianity

142 Responses to Discovering the God of Christianity

1. Andy Watson says:

   May 27, 2009 at 1:52 am

   Shem,

   Michael P did an excellent job of explaining to you why we (Christians having dialogue with Mormons) are here. Discussions of these issues gets to the central core of what one believes and the wrong choice/option has detrimental eternal consequences. For those Mormons that are hyper sensitive to the built-in, “knee-jerk” reaction of the LDS spirit of contention at the slightest mention of anything that makes them uncomfortable or disturbs their mental process that requires them to do some serious investigating, then they have successfully isolated themselves into an LDS “bubble” which is where Joseph Smith wanted the Mormons to be when he inserted that phrase and the source of it in 2 Nephi 33:5; 3 Nephi 11:29. Quite frankly, it’s a cop-out. This is a respectful, civil dialogue. I would urge you to read about Paul arguing and disputing with the Jews and pagans in Acts chapters 17-19. We are timid here compared to Paul. If Paul were here today he would just tell the Mormons that they are “anathema” (Gal 1:6-9) and probably walk away.

   In regards to Gen 1:1, Young’s Literal Translation is not recognized by the LDS Church – the KJV is the recognized translation. Nobody uses the YLT for good reason – it’s a poor, sloppy translation of the Scriptures. Young had no formal training in the ancient languages. He was self-taught. Either way, the result is the same: God created ALL things. This doesn’t exclude matter or intelligence as the LDS scriptures state. Christianity doesn’t put Almighty God into a box by limiting Him in what He cannot do. You are reading Genesis 1 with D&C 93 & 131 in mind. It’s backwards.

   Zechariah 12:1 shoots down the preexistence. You are free to define “formed” the way that you like it, but that doesn’t make it biblically correct. That is the delima with LDS theology: humans, plants, animals, fish, birds, dinosaurs, etc., all had to exist in spirit form before the world was created thus nullifying what God said in Genesis 1.
2. Andy Watson says:

   May 27, 2009 at 1:53 am

   By the way, here is my reference:

   “Man and all forms of life existed as spirit beings and entities before the foundation of this earth were laid. There were spirit men and spirit beasts, spirit fowls and spirit fishes, spirit plants and spirit trees. Every creeping thing, every herb and shrub, every amoeba and tadpole, every elephant and dinosaur – all things – existed as spirits, as spirit beings, before they were placed naturally upon the earth.” (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, page 16).

   Kolob must have been quite a place with all this spirit activity and beings with only the Mormon god and his wife/wives having physical form. Why didn’t your god just bring it to physical form and enjoy his creation right there on Kolob? Everything must make sense in the mind of the Mormon for him/her to accept it. How do you do it with this?

   According to D&C 77:2 animals have spirits. Joseph Smith taught that these animals spirits will also be saved through the atonement of Christ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.291-92).

   When you look at your pets (dog, fish, cat) do you see them in this view? Do you see them sharing in the atonement of Christ because of the creation? Do you treat your dog like he is going to be with you in your hopeful gain of eternal life on your planet? This view of animals is non-biblical and has hints of hinduism.

   I disagree with your conclusion of Job 38:7. The “sons of God” mentioned there are not preexistent spirits, but are angels. I am aware that the LDS Church has their own definition of “angels” and there are many different meanings. However, in Christianity and in biblical context the Mormon position of angels being preexistent spirits of men is an argument that only Mormons can prove from their own scriptures, manuals or unwritten revelation. Job 38:7 when compared to Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 it is referring to angels. It’s in how you want to define it. Mormons accept Joseph Smith’s defintion – Christianity doesn’t.
3. Ralph says:

   May 27, 2009 at 2:34 am

   MichaelP,

   What do I want from you (plural)? 2 things – 1) I sincerely want to know how these scriptures and logic (as I pointed out above) can be disregarded by or explained by anyone here. As I pointed out, RickB proposed a reasonable answer to the co-equality. However his answer still leaves a few questions and opens a few more, but I do not expect any one to have all knowledge and understanding about God.

   2) I am using your (again plural) ‘tactics’ against you. You take few sentences or scriptures from our (LDS) standard works and manuals and teaching aides, whether doctrinal or not, which seemingly contradict our current faith/doctrine, and then ask us to qualify what you have found and if we can’t then it must prove that we are incorrect. And the qualifications you want from us are by your standards, not ours. This, as I have said many times in the past, does not work. As I said to RickB, his answer matches with a Trinitarian view so I will accept that, BUT it does not answer my question from an LDS perspective because of the differences between our beliefs. If I use the usual tack here then I would not accept RickB’s answer and ask him to try again.

   (TBC)
4. Ralph says:

   May 27, 2009 at 2:43 am

   (cont’d)

   If you want an example – the Isaiah verse where it says that there are no gods other than God Himself. We LDS have answered that question many times according to our beliefs and it fits and makes sense – but you do not accept the answer because it does not fit your belief and it never will. So you keep harping on about it. That’s very frustrating. We believe in one Supreme being over all of this creation – we call Him Heavenly Father and we have given Him the title God as He is the only supreme being over this creation.

   We are His children (whether adopted – Ev; or spirit – LDS) and we are joint-heirs with Jesus (Romans). Jesus inherited all power and authority from God which is also what we will inherit. Revelations says that those who endure will sit on God’s throne with Him. So there is a ‘hint’ in the Bible about our belief that we can become like God. From this there is a logical reasoning that we will be able to create our own worlds and populate them. and in reverse the logic points to a possible Father of our Father etc. We have received modern revelation about these last things, so logic aside they are true. BUT we will not worship anyone else except Heavenly Father as God. So that verse in Isaiah is talking about only one God over this earth and creation and there were none before and will be none after – which is true and fits our doctrine. Can’t you see that it makes sense and fits with our doctrine? It does not have to fit your doctrine otherwise we LDS should hold that your answers to our questions about your theology ahould fit our doctrine.

   Only one of our views about God and the Bible is correct – I have said that a number of times. Only one of these views will lead to an eternity in Heavenly Father’s presence. That is the goal in this life – to go back and live with Him. What the rewards are (ie becoming like Him and creating our own worlds, living a peaceful existance forever, etc) are secondary to this.
5. Andy Watson says:

   May 27, 2009 at 5:03 am

   Ralph,

   I’ll do my best in this format with it’s limitations to answer the questions that you have put forth. What I cannot cover or needs further explaining I’ll email it to you.

   First, I would ask you to scroll back up and read carefully again what I have said about the humanity of Christ. Second, look at the references that I gave that point to the deity of Christ in that He is God – divine in nature. Third, some of the verses that you have mentioned I have gone into great depth in trying to explain (John 14:28). Let’s talk a little more about the divinity and humanity of Jesus. A good text is Philippians 2:6-9.

   In verse 7 it says, “…took upon him the form of a servant”. The Greek in this verse says Jesus “emptied himself”. He didn’t empty himself out of his deity because He remained in the form of God (v.6). Jesus emptied Himself of the right to independently exercise His attributes of deity. He never acted as the Father, the Father acted through Him and by the Holy Spirit. His knowledge was supernaturally imparted to Him. The works that Jesus did were from the Father. He was totally dependent on the Father. When Jesus left heaven it was as if Jesus said to the Father and the Holy Ghost:

   “The right to act as deity I empty into your jurisdiction and I enter the world – true humanity and true deity. I will depend completely on You.”

   Jesus took up at the resurrection what He voluntarily laid down at the Incarnation. Jesus was in the form of God (divinity) and equal as well (v.6). He never ceased being equal to God. He took on the form of a servant (humanity) to be made in the likeness of men (v.7). He had to humble Himself to be willing to die like a man (v.8).

   Jesus has two natures. He is divine and human. He always will be. He is the God-man. What He temporarily gave up to come here He did it on His own. What Jesus did, claimed & accepted while on earth left no doubt to those around Him that He was God in the flesh and in nature/essence.
6. Andy Watson says:

   May 27, 2009 at 5:04 am

   Your first question was about the omniscience of Jesus. How can He be omniscient when we have Matthew 24:36?

   While Jesus was on earth having a human mind and human soul and made lower than the angels for the suffering of death, there were some things that He did not know. He didn’t know because He voluntarily laid that specific detail or attribute aside to come here. When He was touched in a crowd He asked, “Who touched me?” – not “You touched me”. That is all true.

   Look at the text in Matthew 24 – the Olivet Discourse. Look at all that Jesus did know about the end times. It’s very detailed. In His human nature the Father kept from the Son when the Son would return. What would we think if Jesus would have said, “All these things will take place and I will return on the date of —-“? Would that fit with what Jesus was now going to teach in the parables in Matthew 25? No, it wouldn’t. We aren’t going to know all things and some things belong to the Lord to know (Deut 29:29). Date setting would not fit in God’s Word and quite frankly, God is smarter than that to tell mankind when He will end all this here on our planet because what would mankind do if they knew the date and Jesus said it in that text? I believe it’s obvious. Jesus, post-resurrection, I believe knows when He will return. You get that impression from reading Revelation where Jesus is the Alpha & Omega – Firt and Last.

   While on earth, Jesus did display acts of omniscience. Here is a short list: Matt 26:21-23, 34; Mark 2:8; John 1:48; 2:25; 6:64: 16:30. Again, read what I wrote earlier about the humanity of Jesus above. He had to learn all the things that we did as a child/youth/adult. After the resurrection, Peter said, “You know everything” (John 21:17). If Jesus wasn’t equal with God He never would have been able to say what He did in Matthew 24:1-35. Jesus has all power and that includes omniscience since the resurrection…exactly what He had before He came here (John 17:5).
7. Andy Watson says:

   May 27, 2009 at 5:04 am

   Ralph,

   Your second question was about the omnipresence of Jesus Christ. How can He be omnipresent with a physical body? In all honesty, I struggled with this one myself thinking the same thing you are right now. Actually, it wasn’t that long ago either. I asked the question, “Apart from the Trinity, how can Jesus Christ be omnipresent when He has a body of flesh and bones? In a physical body it is not possible for Him to be omnipresent. Is He or is He not?”

   I thought about this, studied it and I’m sure I prayed about it. I received guidance and instruction from the Holy Spirit suddenly when it came to me the flaw in my question, “Apart from the Trinity”. That was the problem. Jesus Christ CANNOT separate Himself from the Godhead/Trinity. He couldn’t before the Incarnation, at the Incarnation (earthly ministry) and He surely cannot now. He is One with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

   Confirmation of this truth came in Matthew 18:20 (Jesus looking forward to the time the church would be established) and then after the resurrection in Matthew 28:20. If two astronauts are believers in Christ and join in prayer between earth and the moon – Christ is there with them. Christians in China can worship and pray to Christ and He is there with them just as He is with believers in America or Australia because of the Godhead. They are not separate and couldn’t separate themselves in NATURE/ESSENCE from one another. It is impossible.

   The difference with Mormonism is that it is taught that these persons of the LDS godhead are three separate gods and that none of them are omnipresent. (Let me know if you’d like the references.)
8. Andy Watson says:

   May 27, 2009 at 5:05 am

   Ralph,

   Your third question was about the Son being equal to the Father when it appears to you that He is being subordinate which would make him not to be equal.

   In an earlier post I covered in great detail from verse John 14:28 what the word “greater” and in Hebrews 1:4 the word “better” meant in Greek. I can’t emphasize enough the importance of this explanation. Failing to seriously look at it is to not understand what is being taught by the writer of this gospel and epistle. “Greater” means office and “better” means nature.

   Keep in mind what has been said up until this point about the humanity of Jesus coupled with his divinity while in His earthly ministry. He was made lower than the angels for the suffering of death (Heb 2:9). He “emptied himself” in Phil 2:7, but He never ceased to be God. The Father was in a greater position while Jesus was on earth, but Jesus voluntarily gave that up. You can’t give up what you don’t possess. Jesus could have “pulled the plug” and bailed out of the Crucifixion, but He didn’t. After all, Jesus said He had the power to give up his life and take it back again (John 10:17-18).

   Jesus was not subordinate to the Father. Jesus shared the same nature with the Father thus not subordinate with the Father IN BEING/NATURE. Jesus never stopped being God in nature just because He came here.

   Why is this? Jesus was God at the Incarnation (Matt 1:23). Jesus allowed and accepted worship from people from His birth all the way to the Crucifixion (Matt 2:2,11; 14:33; John 9:38). This is only reserved for God (Luke 4:8). Jesus said that He was Jehovah God (John 8:58) – a title for the Father in Exodus 3:14. Jesus said that if one is looking at Him they are looking at the Father (John 14:9). Jesus allowed people to call him God and blessed them for it (John 20:28). For Jesus to do any of this and NOT BE GOD would be blasphemy. Jesus was without sin. Jesus was equal to the Father in nature then, now and forever more. Amen!
9. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

   May 27, 2009 at 11:30 am

   Shem asked “Where in the scriptures does it say that spirits are neither male nor female?”

   …in Matt 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

   But, even more problematic for the LDS position is that God is neither male or female.

   We refer to Him conventionally as male, because its better than “it”, and female deities had very negative connotations in ancient eastern mediterranean cultures.

   If you don’t believe me, consider Zephaniah 3:17 “The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing”. Zephaniah simultaneously describes God as both virile, male warrior (mighty to save) and affirming, comforting mother (..quiet you with his love…with singing).

   Or, consider the parable of the Prodigal Son. Westerners gloss over it, but when the “Father” runs to meet his returning son, he is actually acting like a woman, in terms of ancient middle-eastern culture.

   Or, consider the fact that both male and female are made in God’s image (Gen 1:27). The alternative view, that females are not made in God’s image, is unthinkable.

   We could talk about this further, but the LDS position that God is quintessentially male and there are some invisible female ‘gods’ out there popping his spiritual babies for eternity is utterly alien to the Bible.

   Rather, the Bible teaches that God needs no collaboration in His creative efforts, and that our maleness and femaleness derive from Him as part of His creation of His image in us.
10. falcon says:

    May 27, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Very good job Andy.
    I know it must get frustrating for the Christian posters to do the hard work and scholarship associated with this serious topic and then get treated to a dose of Mormon scholarship and logic. Mormons will never get to the place where they can accept what has been conclusively and consistently proven regarding the nature of God being Triune because they don’t believe in or use a systematic approach to interpreting the Scriptures. They also have zero apprecaiation for the tradition of the Church which supports this view of the nature of God.
    Mormonism survives on an “unsystematic” view of the Scriptures, a lack of understanding of the early history of the Church and the changing tide of continuous revelation which can render even their own doctrines null and void and the utterences of their own past prophets dismiss(able) in light of “new” revelation. In that way, there is no accountability within Mormonism for the past within their own religion.
    So as Christians we work and do the heavy lifting of research and scholarship, present the Church’s position using a logical, systematic approach to the Scriptures, dig through the early history of the Church and present the facts to provide context and what do we get in return (?), comments and arguments that are the equvalent of something coming out of the movie Napoleon Dynamite (“Hay Don, why don’t you go home and tell your mother to shut-up”).
    So these are things that stand in the way of Mormons getting a grip on the true nature of God; an unsystematic approach to interpreting the Scriptures, a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the early history of the Church, their own death-grip on the belief that they will themselves become gods and finally their giving of themselves over to a spirit of delusion that blocks their pathway to truly being born again in Christ.
11. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    May 27, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    I’m with Falcon here – Andy’s done a great job of laying it out on the table.

    We could keep this up forever. Well, the orthodox Church has been musing on this for 2000 years, so it won’t go away any time soon.

    So, here’s another angle;

    The more I study the Bible, the more I am convinced that there is a binary decision to be made. By binary, I mean there’s only a “one or the other” type of solution – all other alternatives (e.g. the lengthy list of “heresies” surrounding the early church) have been exhausted and discounted. Its this;

    Either the Bible teaches the Trinity, or its authors were hopelessly confused.

    I know our LDS posters may disagree, but every alternative that has so far been suggested has fallen foul of some verse or other in the Bible.

    And don’t give me that trash about having no hope of understanding what the Biblical authors really meant – its an LDS cop-out designed to prevent folks from trying to understand scripture. Its also inexcusably lazy – just smile, shrug your shoulders and let the church “prophets” tell you what you should believe.

    No, let’s at least credit the Biblical authors with the ability to know their own minds on the matter and the ability to articulate their thoughts in words that made sense to them and their intended audience.
12. Rick B says:

    May 27, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    Ralph,
    You said LDS have answered the question of, God saying I am the only God and us Christians choose not to believe your reply. That simply is not true, your reply according to what God said cannot be true.

    The Bible teaches that God cannot Lie. If God cannot Lie how can God honestly say, I KNOW OF NO OTHER GODS BESIDES ME, Yet in the Pearl of great price, God says, I sat in the counsel of the gods and we created the earth.

    If God sat with other gods then He lied. If the LDS godhead of 3 separate gods is true, then truthfully God the Father should not say, I know of no other gods. He should say, I know of Jesus my son the god, and the holy spirit the god since we all form the godhead.

    Or How could JS teach in the JoD VOL 6 The King Follet Discourse and teach millions of gods exist? JS know that millions of gods exist, Yet God the Father knows of no other gods? Strange how that works.

    Ralph, If your view is correct that those verses really mean we LDS worship no other gods but God the father only, then I would think God the father would simply say, I am the only God of this creation to be worshiped, Not I am the only God to ever exist.

    Again, if LDS are correct and God the father has a father who is/was a god himself, then God the father Lied. Why is it if I were to tell everyone here I do not have a father, and I meant by that, I simply somehow appeared here on earth apart from any father, then you guys would claim I am lying.

    Truth and logic would show I need a father to be born and be here, so I would know of my father, even if I never spoke with him again. So if God has a father, then God lied if He claims I am the only God their is no others apart from me. Rick b
13. falcon says:

    May 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    We have rightly focused on the divinity of Jesus and how the Church, believing Jesus to be divine, explained His divinity-based on the scriptures and the teaching tradition of the Church-while maintaining the monotheistic position of the Jewish religion. Mormons have to embrace polytheism in order to get to their own pecular twist on the Arian heresy.
    Not being overly concerned about Scripture, Mormons base their view regarding the nature of God, on the “revelations” of their “prophets”. Ignoring a systematic look at the Scriptures and having no real tradition for the teaching of multiple gods and men progressing to gods, Mormons must rely on the musings of men they deem as “prophets”. These men, in addition to their creative ideas about the nature of god and man, made other comments that causes one to not only doubt their ideas about God, but often to doubt their sanity.
    Mormons step far away from the monotheism of the Jewish faith, from which Christianity flows, and adopt a polytheism that has more to do with early paganism than it does with anything else. Joseph Smith’s entry into religon was through the doorway of the occult. He jettisoned the Bible for necromancy, i.e. communicaiton with spirits of the dead. What emerged were ideas of God that can only be described as a polytheistic nightmare.
    As Christians we believe that in all the universe there is but one God and within the nature of the one God are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. From the Old Testament we learn that God is one, He is infinite, He is eternal, he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. In the NT we learn that Jesus is omniscient: Revelation 2:18-19, John 1:48, 2:24; Jesus is omnipotent; Revelation 1:18, 21:5-7, 22:12-13, 16; Jesus is omnipresent: Mat 18:20, 28:20.
    In the Bible Jesus is called God, He is worshipped and He is the Creator. All the attributes of the Father are ascdribed to Jesus and likewise, every attribute of God is reserved for the Holy Spirit
14. falcon says:

    May 27, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    I’ve said often on this blog that if someone shows up with a “new revelation”, I test it. In deed it seems that about every other day, I have to run someone’s “revelation” through my decision making grid. And this is within the realm of evangelical, Biblical, orthodox, pentecostal Christianity.
    Mormonism, with it’s bizarre notions regarding the nature of God, is about the easiest dismissal there is. First I compare the teachings of Mormonism with the teachings of the Church fathers as revealed in the Scriptures and the teaching tradition of the Church. Then I take a look at the character and personal history of Mormon founder Joseph Smith. And finally, just for fun, I look at what happened after the death of Smith and the various factions of Mormonism that emerged in the immediate post Smith era. It’s very instructive to see what contemporary Mormons of Smith’s concluded about his post Book of Commandments teachings and practices. Someone was definitly apostasizing within the Mormon religion and many declare it was Smith himself and then Brigham Young.
    Reading what the prophet Young wrote and taught is, in a sick sense, quite entertaining. When it comes to the nature of God, BY had his own creative twist on the topic turning God into Adam. Whew, these fellas where sure some great Biblical thinkers.
    The tragedy of course is the fact that the Utah Mormons just keep playing follow the leaders, believing, wrongly, that these guys actually know something. What they know is that they need to keep the “little share holders” sending in their ten percent and jumping at the crack of the whip.
15. falcon says:

    May 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    As Christians we don’t hide the fact the Church wrestled for almost four hundred years with the question of the nature of God and the topic of Jesus’ divinity. We have the historical records of how the Church finally concluded what it concluded. All Christians asserted that Jesus was God and worshiped Him as such. There was an understanding articulated in an early second-century sermon known at II Clement. It stated “brethren, we ought to think of Jesus as we do of God.” The baptismal creeds from the local churches said simply: “of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary” but they didn’t serve to explain the mystery.
    So the questions remained:
    How could the Son, who was born a human being, suffered and died, also be God in relation to God the Father? Which Bible passages were speaking about the Son’s divinity and which were about the Son’s humanity? There are verses where Jesus declares his dread of the “cup” before him and verses where he claimed he didn’t know when he would return. These things could be applicable to his human nature, but how did they relate to his divinity? It was recognized that Jesus suffered for us but did that mean he was different from God who being God (immutable and eternal) can’t suffer?
    So it became inevitable that the early church would have to require a universal statement of faith like the Nicene Creed. A creed’s purpose was to be a confesson of the faith by God’s people reflecting what the churches were confessing. Upon examination, the Nicene creed appears most closely related to baptismal declarations in use in both the churches at Caesarrea and Jerusalem. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote “it appeared to us to coincided with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have previously preached.” Athanasius in “On the Definition of the Nicene Creed”, made the claim that the creed and its controversial terms were a theological extension of New Testament teaching sbout Christ.
16. falcon says:

    May 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    (cont)
    Because of challenges to the faith, new theological language was necessary to meet the current theological needs (i.e. defending against heresy). Athanasius said that the creed served as a result of what the Church was preaching and Biblical exegesis. It can easily be assumed that when the bishops signed the decree they did so believing that it was a fitting summary of biblical teaching.
    Now here is a point not previously made during our discussions. The Church learned an important lesson during the Arian controversy. That lesson was that in order to achieve doctrinal orthodoxy the church could not interpret the Bible from the Bible alone. What? That means that the church needed a vocabulary and a conceptual frame work that came from the Bible but were also outside of the Bible. Sounds dangerous, right? What this simply means is that sooner or later, some way of interpreting the text of the Bible would be required. Hence the creeds were deliberately constructed to reflect/explain the biblical message. In fact Augustine taught, “For whatever you hear in the Creed is contained in the inspired books of Holy Scripture: (Sermon 212.2). In fact Christianity borrowed terms like person, substance, essence and others from a philosophical background that predated Christianity. The terms were borrowed permanently for the purposes of the Christian faith.
    The bottom line is that in the end the purpose of the creeds was not to reproduce the Bible but to help Christians understand what the Bible is saying. It was necessary for the Church to proclaim it’s central convictions that God is one and Christ is God. This was left to the Church during the fourth century. It crafted a creed corresponding to the intention of the tradition of the Church and biblical priciples.
    Charles Williams said the following about the Christian faith encapsulated by the Nicene Creed; “It had become a Creed, and it remained a Gospel.”
    (Adapted from the work of D.H.Williams)
17. Ralph says:

    May 27, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    OK Andy,

    I think I am understanding the distinction of coequal and omniscient from your and RickB’s answers. I still do not fully understand the omnipresent answer. If Jesus is reliant on being part of the Trinity to be omnipresent then He cannot, Himself, be omnipresent. I can’t find the description of the Trinity that I have read but if I remember correctly it states something like all three are God together and individually and hold the characteristics together and individually. If I understand that correctly then Jesus has to also be omnipresent as an individual as well as together with the other two.

    But your statement about Jesus cannot be seperated from the Trinity opens a different question. How can Heavenly Father ‘forsake’ Jesus on the cross if they are inseperable in substance? If the ‘bond’ was broken then for a time what does that say about the Trinity at that point in time? Yes I know it says nothing about the Spirit, but there was still a seperation of Father and Son, which from the definition of the Trinity should not be possible.

    If you don’t know the answer I’m fine with that because as I said, I don’t expect anyone to know everything about God. I am just trying to understand/learn about your ideology.
18. Rick B says:

    May 28, 2009 at 1:04 am

    Ralph,
    Paul Harvey if you know who he is, told a story on the radio, It went something like this.

    A guy’s wife went to church on Christmas day but the guy stayed home. He owned a huge barn and it was a brutal winter, that day it was really cold and snowing. The guy saw a bunch of birds freezing to death.

    The guy tried running out and showing them into the barn, but they were scared, he tried all sorts of things to get the birds in the barn.

    It finally hit him, If he could be a bird he could save them, he broke down and cried and the church bells rang.

    Story means, Jesus could not save us since we would be scared if He came as a spirit, or simply opened the heavens and said, listen to me. In order for us to really understand and believe, He put on human flesh and walked among us, He became like us.

    Jesus was and is still God, just God in flesh. This does not mean the trinity cannot be real since you dont understand it.

    Gravity is real, yet I cannot see, feel, taste it or understand it. Hope that helps. Rick b
19. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    May 28, 2009 at 2:52 am

    Ralph questioned the idea that “all three are God together and individually and hold the characteristics together and individually. If I understand that correctly then Jesus has to also be omnipresent as an individual as well as together with the other two.” The objection, if I understand it is that the Gospels portray a Jesus who is limited in his knowledge, therefore he cannot be omniscient in the same sense as the Father.

    Its a really good question, but Andy has already addressed it. Its also gets good treatment in the novel “The Shack” by William Paul Young (see
    http://theshackbook.com/) (I recommend the book to anyone wanting to explore issues of the Trinity and suffering).

    As has been demonstrated above, the NT consistently and doggedly portrays Jesus as being fully and wholly God, yet he adopts the limitations of our human nature in becoming fully and wholly human. Andy has touched on this in his discussion about Jesus voluntarily limiting himself such that he becomes dependent on the Father and the Holy Spirit, just like us.

    William Paul Young, in his novel, addresses this in terms of adopting a limitation but not being defined by it. His metaphor is of a bird that chooses not to fly. It remains a bird and the fact that it does not fly does not disqualify it from being a bird. In the same way, the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14), but being flesh does not disqualify it from being the Word.

    I’ll grant that this kind of stuff makes my head hurt. However, what I need to know from first principles is that this is how the Bible treats the subject, therefore it must be true. Only after I’ve accepted this “revelation” should I start to figure out how it works.
20. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    May 28, 2009 at 3:03 am

    Ralph also questioned how Jesus could be “forsaked” by God if he were fully God (Matt 27:46).

    There are a number of possibilities, but I suggest that before we get into any of them, we need to establish the first principle that if the Bible says it, then it must be true. Only after we have accepted this can we possibly start to figure out what was actually going on.

    Another useful approach is to discount some “alternative” theories (read “heresies”), in particular adoptionism and Gnosticism. My time here is limited, but the above discussion provides some excellent material in considering this approach.
21. Andy Watson says:

    May 28, 2009 at 4:23 am

    Ralph,

    Once again, thanks for hanging in there. We are definitely in the “meat” when we are discussing these matters. These issues are hard for most Christians who have been in the faith for many years to understand, much less our Mormon friends who are trying to grasp these concepts and biblical truths in light of what Mormonism teaches. After studying Mormonism for many years I can sympathize with the mental flurry that must be going on in your mind. Let’s talk about the questions that you raised. You said:

    “How can Heavenly Father ‘forsake’ Jesus on the cross if they are inseperable in substance? If the ‘bond’ was broken then for a time what does that say about the Trinity at that point in time? Yes I know it says nothing about the Spirit, but there was still a seperation of Father and Son, which from the definition of the Trinity should not be possible.”

    First, where are you getting the word “forsake” from regarding what supposedly took place between the Father and the Son? The Father did not forsake the Son. What the Father did was put the sin debt of mankind on the Son because only the Son could be the perfect sacrifice (He’s God in the flesh, remember?) to atone for our sins because animal sacrifices simply won’t “cut it” with the Father (Heb 10:4).

    This may sound cruel to us, but “it pleased the Lord to bruise him (Jesus); he hath put him to grief” (Isaiah 53:10). Why is that? Almighty God is a holy God and He requires/demands that sin be atoned for. Animal sacrifices which could not atone for sins in the OT was a temporary “fix” as a forerunner so the Jews would look forward to the Messiah to come and be the perfect atonement for them. Unfortunately, the Jews rejected the Messiah. Jesus Christ is perfection and was sinless. He is God in the flesh so He is the only one qualified to meet the sin debt (Heb 10:10,14).

    The Father had to put the sin of the world on the Son to meet the holy requirements of the Father to give us reconciliation.
22. Andy Watson says:

    May 28, 2009 at 4:24 am

    Did this mean that the Father was enjoying this and laughing it up? No, it doesn’t. Isaiah 53:10 says it “pleased” Him. Why? It’s called justice. God means what He says and His word will not change because He cannot change (Mal 3:6). That is one of the fundamental truths that all Christians know and it gives us great security knowing that our God keeps His word at all times even when it comes to His requirement for sin to be paid for.

    The Father loved the Son and it was necessary that He place that sin debt on Him. That is why it pleased the Father. Jesus Christ came here for only reason: to die on the cross for our sins and save us [sinners] (1 Tim 1:15). It “pleased” the Father because Jesus Christ had humbled himself to take on human nature in conjunction with his divine nature and die a humiliating death on the cross. Why? The Father loves us so much (John 3:16) and Christ demonstrated that on the cross (Romans 5:8).

    Next, “the bond was broken for a time” is an incorrect statement. Jesus never ceased being God at any point in time. Just didn’t hand over His divine nature when He was raised up on the cross. Nowhere does Scripture say that.

    The Father and the Son were still one in nature and essence all the way through the Crucifixion. Why and how can I say this? Please look at 2 Corinthians 5:19 where it says, “To wit, that God [the Father] WAS IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto HIMSELF (singular in nature – see?). The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost cannot separate themselves from each other.

    Jesus is omnipresent with a physical body because of that fact. How can Jesus say this in Revelation 3:20 and enter into our heart [soul] if He has a physical body? He does it by the Holy Spirit. When the Father sees me (my soul), He sees the Son who justifies me (Rom 5:1) and has made me perfect NOW (Heb 10:14).

    In Mormonism, the LDS godhead is three gods that are only united in purpose – not nature/essence – not omnipresent: big difference!
23. Ralph says:

    May 28, 2009 at 5:42 am

    Martin,

    I think you have the question mixed up. I was questioning about ‘omnipresence’ not ‘omniscience’. Yes I agree, Andy and RickB have given reasonable answers for the ‘onniscience’ and ‘co-equal’ questions.

    Andy,

    Sorry maybe I should have given a bit more information. When Jesus was on the cross He said “My God, My God. Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46). That is what I meant. I understand what you are saying about the ‘rest of the time’ of Jesus’ mortal life. But this appears that at one point in time during the crucifixion there was a seperation. Read the translation that you gave me for 2 Corinthians 5:9, it does not say exactly what you are implying it to say.

    For any ‘skeptics’ out there. many here have said that we LDS have arguments based on flawed information. I am trying to learn and understand which is why I am asking. I still do not agree with the Trinity, but this discussion is helpful.

    As far as our God being omnipresent and having a physical body – I have my theory (note MY theory). God knows everything and in the Bible it says that He is mindful of everything. He also is outside of time as we know it. I also know that we humans do not use very much of our brain power, Einstein was said to have used the most at less than 11%; normal people are about 3-5% if I remember correctly. I think God can sense everything that is going on in His creation, from the smallest fusion of atoms in stars to collisions of galaxies. He knows everything that is happening at anyone time everywhere, just like a blind person can be aware of what is happening in a room even though he cannot see. This in a sense is omnipresence as He is everywhere at once within the power of His mind. Its a little difficult to explain, but I know what I am saying.
24. Ralph says:

    May 28, 2009 at 5:45 am

    RickB,

    I hope you can ‘feel’ gravity. Although it would be nice sometime to be weightless.
25. Rick B says:

    May 28, 2009 at 9:49 am

    Ralpf, Gravity does effect me, like you said it holds me down, But I cannot “Feel” it in the sense I can touch it like water, or smell it like flowers or taste it like coffee. Same with oxygen. I breath it, it the wind blows I feel the air, but if it is a really still day, I cannot feel it. Certain gases can kill you, the problem is, they are tasteless and colorless. Rick b
26. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    May 28, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Ralph said ” I was questioning about ‘omnipresence’ not ‘omniscience’.”

    OK, the voluntary limitation of the Word (or the Divine Logos) to our human nature still applies, whether you’re thinking of omnipresence or omniscience.

    Regarding Jesus’ omniscience, consider Hebrews 1:3 “…and upholding all things by the word of his power…” (KJV). Hebrews 1:3 is talking about the Son, and it says that the Son “sustains all things by his powerful word” (NIV). In order to “sustain all things”, He has to be “in all things”, and that’s what we mean when we talk about omniscience. It make sense when you consider that the Divine Logos, or underlying and sustaining cause, of the cosmos has set things up, or continues to be involved with things carrying on the way they do.

    The revolutionary message of John’s Gospel, in particular, is not so much that there is a Divine Logos (that was already established in Greek Philosophy), but that the Divine Logos “became flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). The Greek Philosophers would have thought it unthinkable that the underlying cause, or wisdom, that brought creation into being, would actually appear as a human being. They would have been scandalized by the idea that the One who had unlimited power and freedom of choice would have voluntarily submitted Himself to death on a cross (Phil 2:8).

    As noted above, in the incarnation, the Word voluntarily surrendered his rights, privileges and powers for our sakes. The True Gospel calls us to follow Him in surrendering our rights, privileges and powers for His sake. In so doing, we find that life triumphs over death and the reciprocation of love, which is the modus operandi of the Kingdom of God, prevails.
27. Andy Watson says:

    May 28, 2009 at 11:46 am

    Ralph,

    The verse I cited in my post is 2 Corinthians 5:19 (19) not v.9. As always, I am using the KJV Bible with the LDS stamp on the binder. I figured that Matt 27:46 would come up my next. My friend that I wrote about above wondered about the same thing. Here is what I wrote to him:

    Where do I see the Trinity in Matthew 27:46? First, I take into account all the verses that I have listed above and my understanding them…scripture interprets scripture. Second, speaking specifically on Matthew 27:46 I want you to look very closely at this verse:

    Zechariah 12:10 – “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for HIM, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”

    Look very closely at those pronouns of “ME” and “HIM” and let it sink in. Who is talking here? Is this “double talk”? Is this the same person? It is God the Father speaking of His beloved Son- second Person of the Trinity who is speaking about the event that is going to take place on the cross as it will actually be done to Him too because the Father and the Son are of the same nature/essence – God! Think about those pronouns. What is going on here? At first, you think it’s the Son talking (“they shall look upon ME”), but then the speaker says, “they shall mourn for HIM”. It is both the Father and the Son. Wow! This is a powerful text! This completely flows with who Jesus is: God in the flesh, the second person of the Trinity – God the Son, His oneness with the Father in purpose, nature and essence (Gal 4:8), Jesus’ acceptance of worship as God, etc.
28. Andy Watson says:

    May 28, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Part 2 – Matthew 27:46

    What else can we gather from these Scriptures? First, based on the points made earlier about the deity of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament and New Testament, Jesus Christ was God when He was placed on the cross. He didn’t stop being God just because He was being crucified. Second, we need to understand what was taking place on the cross and why did Jesus say what He did in Matthew 27:46?

    1. Jesus was quoting a Messianic psalm when He said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This is recorded in Psalm 22:1.
    2. Jesus felt separation and forsaken by the Father for the first time with this event on the cross. The reason for this was because Jesus, who had no sin, had to be made sin so that we could receive imputed righteousness and perfection through Him. (2 Cor 5:21; Hebrews 10:10, 14)
    3. The blood of bulls and goats does not atone for sin (Hebrews 9:12-13). The animal sacrifices given in the Old Testament never satisfied the demand of God for the forgiveness of sin because those sins were not perfect sacrifices like the perfect Son of God. If the blood of bulls or goats would have sufficed, then what need of the Savior to come here to atone for our sins? If some other person could have died for the sins of the world (Abraham, Isaac, etc.), then why didn’t it happen instead of Christ having to come here? The answer is obvious: man has a sin nature and is born with original sin (Romans 5:12) and cannot be that perfect sacrifice that fulfilled the law of God perfectly. There has to be the shedding of blood for remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22).
29. Andy Watson says:

    May 28, 2009 at 11:53 am

    Part 3 – Matthew 27:46

    4. God the Father put the sin of mankind – past, present and future – on the Savior at that point on the cross (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:28). Can you imagine what that felt like? To have that plus the feeling that Christ had in that the Father had forsaken Him was overwhelming. That feeling of sorrow, pain and anguish of the separation of fellowship that He had with the Father plus the burden of the sin debt literally made the heart of Jesus burst as was evident when He was pierced and blood/water mix poured out (John 19:34). This also fulfilled Messianic prophecy in Psalm 22:14.
    5. Jesus did feel the outpouring of the Father’s wrath because of the sin debt of mankind as stated in Isaiah 53:10-11.
    6. Jesus Christ, God the Son, physically felt the wrath of the Father because of this sin debt and the emotional separation from the Father, but the Scriptures tell us that the Father had not withdrawn from Him for the following reasons: First, Jesus did not stop being God in the flesh because the sin debt had been put on Him because of He had no sin (2 Cor 5:21). Second, God the Father was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:19), which completely explains Zechariah 12:10!

    Ralph, until you accept the God of the Bible, which is not the same god of Mormonism, you are not going to understand the concept or teaching of the Trinity. This begins with an understanding of what Christianity is and that is monotheism: the belief in only one God – anywhere and everywhere. Mormonism is polytheism. Look it up in the dictionary. If one believes that there are other gods out there even if they don’t worship them, then that is still polytheism. One has to embrace monotheism of the Bible FIRST before one can tackle the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one in nature/essence.
30. Andy Watson says:

    May 28, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    Ralph,

    Notice points #2 and #6 above.

    Jesus may have felt forsaken by the Father on the cross when the Father put the sin debt of the world on him. Once again, we have to understand the human nature of Christ and what He emotionally felt. Jesus had human emotions, feelings, a human mind and a human nature. Jesus had no sin, but the sin debt of mankind was put on him and when that happened Jesus felt obviously felt the emotional separation that He had with the Father, but the Scripture is clear (2 Cor 5:19) that the Father was there the whole time in the divine nature that the Father and the Son shared that could never be separated. What Jesus felt as a human in his human nature was not exactly what was taking place in Jesus’ divine nature. The sin debt was so great that it caused Jesus’ heart to literally burst inside of him. I imagine that feeling would outweigh just about any other feeling that one could have. It had to be done so that we could be reconciled to the Father. Isn’t that amazing what Christ did for us?
31. falcon says:

    May 28, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    WOW Andy and Martin, you guys have been busy! I just hope our Mormon friends take the time to actually read what you two have written. What an excellent explanation of the atonement and why God elected to die for us. I think the points regarding monotheism vs. polytheism were also very good. I want to just make the point that in order to believe in one, eternal, everlasting God, Mormons would have to give-up on the idea of becoming gods. Mormonism cannot be a Christian religion because to be Christian is to believe in one God.
    Norman Geisler in the book “Christian Apologetics” makes the following excellent points:
    *Orthodox Christianity claims that Jesus was God in human flesh. This doctrine is absolutely essential to true Christianity. If it is true, then Christianity is unique and authoritative. If not, then Christianity does not differ in kind from other religions.
    *The New Testament is a historically reliable record of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    *Jesus taught that he was God Incarnate.
    *Jesus proved to be God Incarnate by fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, by a miraculous life, and by rising from the grave.
    *In healing the paralytic Jesus forgave him of his sins. The scribes were angry because they knew that only God had the power to forgive sins. (Mark 2: 10, 11)
    *Jesus claimed the power to raise and judge the dead, a power only God posesses. In the face of orthodox Jewish belief that God alone could resurrect the dead, Jesus not only boldly proclaimed his ability to bring the dead back but also his right to judge them. The Scriptures reserved for Jehovah the right to judge men (Joel 3:12; Deut. 32:35).
    *Jesus claimed to be the “Messiah God”. Isaiah speaks of the Messiah as the “Mighty God” (Is. 9:6) The psalmist wrote of the Messiah, “thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever” (Ps. 45:6 quoted in Heb. 1:8).
    *In short, the OT not only predicted the Messiah but also proclaimed him to be God.
32. falcon says:

    May 28, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    It is one thing for a first crntury Jew to claim to be god, but it is quite another to get other monotheistic Jews to believe it. Both Jesus and the disciples knew the Jewish Shema very well: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mark 12:29). Paul stated the Jewish belief well when he wrote, “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth…yet for us there is one God” (1 Cor. 8:5,6) Both polytheism and idolartry were abhorrent to a Jew, and yet these first century Jewish disciples of Jesus found it necessary to attribute deity to Jesus of Nazareth in many ways. (attribution to Norman Geissler, “Christian Apologetics)
    Actually, as Christians, until we can accomplish the task of getting Mormons to fess-up to the fact of their polytheism, all other discussions are pointless. Mormons understand the term “plurality of gods” and this is what makes them polytheists. Anyone that believes that there are millions and billions of gods is a polytheist. Orson Pratt said that if you worshipped one of the many gods, you worshiped them all. This is not Christianity.
    The Christians here have systematically demonstrated over and over again from the Scriptures that there is one God. We have also demonstrated how the early Church, from the Scriptures and her teaching tradition, taught that there is One God.
    Mormonism is a religion of Joseph Smith’s own making. It cannot bring salvation to Mormons. In fact, Mormons don’t even believe in salvation in the same way as orthodox Christians do.
    There is a clear choice for Mormons. Follow the path of Smithism to eternal distruction or follow the God of the Bible to salvation.
33. shematwater says:

    May 28, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    MICHEAL P

    What I think makes the discussion rediculous is not that it is not civil, because it is. It is also polite, and everyone is giving to the discussion very well. All this is as it should be.
    What is rediculous is the fall back of “its not Biblical” because both sides can use the text in the Bible to support their beliefs. Neither side can truly say that they have the truth by an appeal to the Bible, and claiming to do so is rediculous.
    As I said, you can explain anything you want, and give all the Biblical references you want. I can also do the same. If we keep at this, and instead of simply stating “That can’t be right because its not Biblical” we ask the other side to show the evidence, and then present our own, the discussion would be great.
    I do think teh LDS do fall back on certain phrases when they are having a hard time thinking things out, but so do the mainstream Christians. For either side to do so makes the discussion rediculous, and for either side to do so and deny they do is also rediculous.

    I will also admit that this particular discussion is better than most, and my first comment was more about what generally happens. However, I have seen hints of this same attitute on this thread.
34. shematwater says:

    May 28, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    Nothing about the LDS doctrine contradicts Genesis 1: 1. I have, in my life, created a set of shelves. Does this mean that the wood that I used did not already exist, or the screws? Of course it doesn’t.
    As the dictionary puts it – Create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. The world could not form on its own, so God caused it to come into being. It is unique in its existence. It was created. But it was not created out of nothing.

    As to the Pre-existence, let me offer a few Biblical references that support the doctrine.
    Job 38: 4-7 – Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
    The sons of God (or us as we are his offspring – Acts 17: 28) were there at the time of the creation and shouted for Joy.
    Ecclisiastes 12: 7 – Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
    If the spirit was not with God before this life how could it return?
    John 9: 2 – And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
    How could this man sin before he was born if he did not exist in some form (and notice that Christ treats this as a legitimate question, when he could have simple told the Apostles that the one option was not possible.
    Romans 8: 29 – For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate….
    Ephesians 1: 4 – According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world….
    He knew us before the creation.

    These references show a clear understanding that spirits existed before the creation of the Earth, and that they were known to God.
35. shematwater says:

    May 28, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    MARTIN

    I like it. Your evidence that God is neither male nor female is that he is described as having emotions and yet he is called the Father. My father sang to me, he loved me, he had all these qualities. For a man to have emotion does not make him any less of a man.

    I prefer to take the Scriptures literally when they are speaking literally. Prophecies, parables, and poetry have symbols. The plain doctrine does not. Therefore, when it tells me that God is the Father of spirits (Hebrews 12: 9) I believe that he is quite literally the Father of spirits. When it says that we are his offspring (Acts 17: 28) and that we are the children of God (Rom. 8: 16; Psalms 82: 6) I believe he is my literal father. As I have a father logic tells me I have a mother. Thus the human race was made in the image of God.
36. falcon says:

    May 29, 2009 at 3:00 am

    The problem with our Mormon friends is that since they aren’t Christians, they don’t “think Christian”. What do I mean “think Christian”?

    First coming to an understanding of the Christian view of the nature of man and sin (i.e. “the fall”). Christins hold to the Augustinian position that says that becuse of the unity of the human race in Adam, man’s sin therefore is imputed to his posterity. So, corrupted nature begets corrupted nature. This view is the only position which is amply supported by the Scriptures. For example, (Romans 5:18, 19; I Corinthians 15:22) When Christians talk about “sin” it’s seen as the root of man’s problems and it’s a reference to his corrupted nature which we receive from Adam.
    Mormons don’t get this and it leads to a lack of understanding of God’s grace (that He extends to sinners)and salvation as a gift offered by God to man to atone for sin. So in the mind of a Mormon, if a person can work their way to perfection they can become a god and become a god they are “eternal” just like god. This is not Christianity.
    So these little discussions we have here are somewhat entertaining and I for one do it hoping that some Mormon will pass by here who perhaps in a contemplative state of mind might start considering the Christian position. But actually that’s the job of the Holy Spirit to draw people to Christ. What we do, basically, is make ourselves available to Mormons who have come to the point where they realize that there’s something wrong with the Mormon system and they know there’s a way to eternal life that they’re not currently experiencing.

    Now there’s no point in my Mormon friends arguing with me because what I’ve done here is present the Christian position. Mormonism is a religion that doesn’t acknowledge the traditional, orthodox Christian view of the nature of man, the nature of God, grace and salvation. So for you Mormons in the contemplative stage, keep seeking. God will lead you to Himself.
37. Ralph says:

    May 29, 2009 at 5:04 am

    Hei Andy,

    Sorry about the typo on the 2 Cor reference. I did mean verse 19.

    Thanks for answering the questions I asked. I am understanding more about the Trinity now and its ‘functions/logistics’ (for want of a better word). One of your scriptures was an interesting one and has given me a question that I need to answer now. Its about the subject I mentioned in one of my emails to you.

    Martin,

    those verses you used state that everything is ‘sustained by the power of His word‘. This does not mean that He needs to be omnipresent, it just means that everything is here because He wills it to be. What He says goes. For instance if He said to the earth to move to an orbit out near Pluto, it would – by the power of His word, not because He is omnipresent. Thus He also gives life (ie sustains) by the power of His word.

    But enough about this, Andy has done a very good job at helping me understand as well as others chipping in.
38. shematwater says:

    May 29, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    I do wish to apologyze for earlier remarks I have made. They were based more on what others have said in other threads, and not this one.

    I do think Andy has done a good job at explaining the Trinity.

    FALCON

    I can think like a Christian, and I do understand most of what they teach. However, even though I understand it, and can even see the logic in most of it, there are too many questions, and a few contradictions that I do see unanswered. On the other hand, I have yet to see a contradiction in the doctrine of the LDS church as it has been taught to me, and there are very few questions left unaswered. It is because I understand both sides that I have chosen to remain in the LDS church, not because I can’t.
39. Rick B says:

    June 1, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    Martin From Bisbane,
    Follow Acts 17:11 and search this out your self, But you told Ralph to read the Book the “Shack”

    The Shack author openly stated he DENIES BIBLICAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT.

    I saw Falcon quoted from Norman geisler, Norman does talk about the shack and how it is false.

    Pastor Gino Geraci from Calvary south Denver put together info on the book and I quote him saying,

    The Shack in npt a precious Gem, but a broken piece of glass that should be labeled, HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED.

    Mary Danielsen of http://www.thethings2come.org
    Minstry said,

    And Remember, every rat trap has real cheese in it

    and lastly a group called “lighthouse trails research put out info on this book.

    You guys might want to do as Acts 17:11 says and search the scriptures, I choose to read only the Bible, I rather hear from God himself, than what Man thinks God said, or A man that heard from an angel of Light but is really and angel of darkness, Thats how JS started Mormonism, and look, be it the shack or the BoM, they are both false and will only lead people astray. Rick b
40. rbgage says:

    July 14, 2009 at 6:05 am

    Boy, Oh Boy ….. After reading a whole bunch of the posts on the nature of God in this blog I’m coming to realize how simple being an atheist makes things.

    For what it’s worth, as an atheist, I’ll vote for the Jewish view of God, but being an atheist, I’m probably not allowed to vote.

    Cheers!

    Rick g (not to be confused with Rick b)
41. Andy Watson says:

    August 17, 2009 at 5:52 am

    Hank/Richard,

    Here is my personal invitation to you to join me here on this thread and we will discuss the nature of God and the Trinity for as long as you’d like. This thread has been open for three months and appears it will remain open just for situations like this. Please “put your money where mouth is” and come on in. The “water” is nice. Failure to do so on your part will be obvious to all here and shows that you really aren’t serious in discussing the issues. I look forward to your arrival. Thanks!
42. setfree says:

    August 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    I’m going to share something over here today too, as it seems to fit the category.

    Last evening, for some reason I ran across my ex-sister-in-law on facebook. We had an hour-and-a-half long conversation, and when it was over, I felt as though I had been dragged down a memory lane that I hoped to never revisit.

    I knew that the memories of my ex and my first marriage would bother me all night long if I didn’t deal with them. So I did.

    Just before I went to bed, I talked to my Father God.

    I told Him (of course, He already knew, but this is how I do when I talk to Him) that the issue was bothering me, and I asked Him to help me.

    The answer was immediate, as I could clearly see that, how, and why He had removed me from the hell that was my first marriage. I fought Him so hard at the time, but from where He has brought me, my new perspective, I can look back and see the greatness of His love for me.

    And I was overwhelmed by His love, right there as I started to pray, and couldn’t help but tell Him “I love you, I love you, Thank You so so much for Loving Me”. And then I felt so much love that I continued “Please show as much love to these people that are dear to me…”

    In those couple of minutes, God renewed in my heart the desire that my ex and several others would also be saved by God from the wrecks we make of our lives.

    So, in one short moment, in my small talk with God, He reminded me of His work in my life, Filled me with love and forgiveness for someone who I would hate without Him, and gave me peace in my mind and soul so that I wouldn’t get bogged down by the fresh memories of misery.

    My God, My Father God, is the most awesome, wonderful, beautiful thing I have ever known. He has taken my crappy little life and changed it, cleaned it up, and used it. I thank God for God, and for His magnificent love for us.

    That is who my God is. He knows everything, has all power, loves beyond reason. He’s amazing!