Justice

I'm speaking of logic and reason, independant of what is written anywhere. Your belief in the flood doesn't change anything, but a belief about who God is changes everything. I presented logical questions that one can choose to ponder on "why?" I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer. If one wishes not to ponder on such questions they certainly aren't forced to just because I asked the questions. I'm genuinely curious to know what those who believe in the Trinity have to say about such logic.

So, throughout all eternity, up until the moment God created the physical universe, He existed alone. He had never created a physical universe before throught all eternity. Have you ever wondered what made Him decide in that moment to create a physical universe, as to where He never considered to; wanted to; thought to before? That is one of the biggest flaws with the Trinity theory to me, and that "in the beginning" in the Bible means the first and ultimate beginning (the two beliefs seem to go hand in hand). So, this great idea He had to create a physical universe was just to make this one earth, and He will remake it and then, throughout all eternity (think about that) He will only create 2 earths? Think how long eternity is, and think about this earth, and whatever He will remake it into, and consider how small in His timeline this earth is. It will appear as a very small blip in an infinite area of 3d space. It doesn't make sense to me that this is the only earth He will create. If He will create another after this, then why not more before? Do you know how many times He could have created a universe with a sinlge earth? An infinite number of times! But, only 1 time? That is something I cannot believe. This is where "Is this the only earth (or even universe) He ever created?" comes into play. If this is the first and only, then there was nothing with Him, as is generally understood among most Christians. But, if He created others throughout eternity, then those beings would have also had to exist with Him when He made this "beginning." Explain your thoughts on how or why God would just now create an earth or universe after an eternity of existence. That's just so hard for me to wrap my brain around. If God is unchanging, then this would have to be something He's always done, or He never would have done it this time. Do you see what I'm not understanding?

He was different in that He demonstrated power over element. He commanded the wind and sea and they obeyed Him. This was not because His body was different, but because He was different. Power such as this was endowed by God on others as well. He was born of a mortal mother, which meant He was born as a mortal man. He was different than Adam before the fall in that regard. Adam's body did not have blood until after the fall. I lean toward thinking that any differences in His body over ours was "acquired" over time as He showed obedience to God and power over the elements (the same elements that made His body). I still go back to my original premise in this thread. I think this gap can be settled by settling what spirit is. Since it cannot be seen or measured, we'll just have to wait. Those of us who have modern scripture with more modern answers have some insight that others who reject that scripture just don't have. I don't think this will be solved by defining any other word. Spirit is the key. Doctrine and Covenants 131: 7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; Job 32 could also be evidence that he was trying to say something similar: 18 For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me. Answer "What is spirit?" and this discussion can move forward.

Elder Oaks spoke about this a little in an address he made to Harvad Law School's students and faulty. Very interesting words considering he was speaking to one of the higher institutes of learning... Fundamental to Our Faith - Ensign Jan. 2011 Many factors contribute to the predominant shallowness on the subject of religion, but one of them is surely higher education’s general hostility or indifference to religion. With but few exceptions, colleges and universities have become value-free places where attitudes toward religion are neutral at best. Students and other religious people who believe in the living reality of God and moral absolutes are being marginalized. It seems unrealistic to expect higher education as a whole to resume a major role in teaching moral values. That will remain the domain of homes, churches, and church-related colleges and universities. All should hope for success in this vital task. The academy can pretend to neutrality on questions of right and wrong, but society cannot survive on such neutrality. It's definately a good read, especially if you're looking for something to share with a non-member friend you have religious conversations with.

All indications are that Adam and Eve had perfect bodies. The scriptures allude to the fact that it was probably knoweldge they lacked and not physical attributes.

There's no doubt it was a great condescension for the Lord to be born mortal. Nowhere is this made more plain than in the Book of Mormon. But, caste systems exist on earth, and it would be right in those systems to say one is higher or lower than the other, while they are the same species. Angels are beings who are servants of God and are not yet exalted. Man is still mortal, and not in the presence of God. To be born mortal is to become lower than an angel because you are no longer in God's presence. It isn't definitively saying man cannot become as an angel, or even higher than an angel, just that when mortal you are in a state considered not as high as an angel. You insist that because it is a historic teaching that makes it true. That the earth is flat was also a historic teaching. You say Christ was exalted when He was resurrected, but do you believe it? Don't you believe that He is not our race and was God while He was yet mortal? How would being resurrected change Him in that regard? I believe Christ was one of us. He was born on earth because He, too, needed a body, and indeed was exalted after his spirit and body were joined eternally, just as we cannot be until that happens to us. He forgot His pre-earth existence when He was born just as the rest of us. He had to learn from grace to grace. That is what makes His perfect life so remarkable. He bled; He suffered; He hungered; He died just like the rest of us. But, He rose above it all and showed power over all mortal things, while we did not. If He was "different" an any remarkable degree at birth, and did not have to learn and grow as the rest of us, His perfect life would not be as remarkable.

Yeah, in that story the people had just VOTED not to have a king. The majority of the people spoke, and the people who wanted a king should have went with the majority. That's why the fact that they still wanted to establish a king was wrong, and not just that they tried to use force.

I know what I wrote is long, but I really wish you would read it slowly and try to understand as you go. I think you would find it intersting if you could follow along.

But, wasn't a universally understood teaching until after the council at Nicea.

Proof is a strong word. It all depends on who you read and who you choose to believe.

PC, do you believe this earth is the first earth He created? Do you believe it will be the only earth He creates? Do you believe anything was with God before He created this earth?

I've talked about this before, but I love the subject so I don't mind doing it again. I know there are some that disagree with parts of what I believe in this area, but I'm going to be careful to only paraphrase my understanding of scriptures and then post the scripture so you have the reference. If you want the very short answer, jump straight ahead to the bold paragraph. Mormon 6: 6 tells us that Mormon is growing old in years, and he knows the battle about to take place on Cumorah will be the last struggle of the Nephites. He also knows that Moroni will survive the rest, or most of the rest. As you know, Mormon was commanded to not let any of the records which had been passed into his hands to fall into the possession of the Lamanites, because they would be destroyed. With these two pieces of knowledge, Mormon abridged the Large Plates of Nephi from Lehi to 4th Nephi so he could give them to Moroni. This was done by commandment, but also so Moroni would have the scriptures to read, while preserving all the original plates by burying them. So, Mormon tells us he is almost finished with his abridgement and is about to give it to his son, Moroni. 6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni. Make sense? Apparently, he said he buried them, but hadn't sealed the door yet, or just made the place where he was going to bury them. Because near the end of this great and last battle, he writes more. So, let's move to Words of Mormon to see what he wrote, and why he placed it before the writings of King Benjamin: Words of Mormon: 1And now I, Mormon, being about to deliver up the record which I have been making into the hands of my son Moroni, behold I have witnessed almost all the destruction of my people, the Nephites. 2And it is many hundred years after the coming of Christ that I deliver these records into the hands of my son; and it supposeth me that he will witness the entire destruction of my people. But may God grant that he may survive them, that he may write somewhat concerning them, and somewhat concerning Christ, that perhaps some day it may profit them. OK, now for the why: The record he had been making was from the Large Plates of Nephi, which as you know, was more of a secular record up until King Benjamin wrote in them (the Large Plates). The Large Plates were passed down from king to king until King Benjamin received them. The Small Plates were passed from prophet to prophet until Amaleki gave them to king Benjamin, that's why they were of a more spiritual nature. Jacob 1: 1 For behold, it came to pass that fifty and five years had passed away from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; wherefore, Nephi gave me, Jacob, a commandment concerning the small plates, upon which these things are engraven. 2 And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi. 3 For he said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation. 4 And if there were preaching which was sacred, or revelation which was great, or prophesying, that I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates, and touch upon them as much as it were possible, for Christ’s sake, and for the sake of our people. Amaleki was the last of the prophets to write on the Small Plates of Nephi (end of Omni). Omni: 24 And behold, I have seen, in the days of king Benjamin, a serious war and much bloodshed between the Nephites and the Lamanites. But behold, the Nephites did obtain much advantage over them; yea, insomuch that king Benjamin did drive them out of the land of Zarahemla. 25 And it came to pass that I began to be old; and, having no seed, and knowing king Benjamin to be a just man before the Lord, wherefore, I shall deliver up these plates unto him... So, Amaleki gave the small plates to king Benjamin, who already had possession of the Large Plates. At that point the Small Plates were full. Omni: 30 And I, Amaleki, ... am about to lie down in my grave; and these plates are full. And I make an end of my speaking. Mormon doesn't even know the Small Plates existed, as he says he didn't even find them until he was about to give Moroni his abridgement of the Large Plates: Words of Mormon: 3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. He is now writing in the Small Plates of Nephi which was the record held by the prophets. Amaleki said they were full, but my guess is that Mormon used one of the plates he made and added it on to the back of the Small Plates (it's the only thing that makes sense). If you read this verse closely, it sounds like he added Words of Mormon during the middle of making his abrdgement of the large Plates, before he abridged king Bejamin's words. But, with what we already know about what he previously worte in Mormon 6, that doesn't make sense. I belive what he was saying: after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin ..is that "even though I had already made an abridgment of this time period." What he goes on to say is that he found the Small Plates, which he liked more than the record of the Large Plates, and his abridgement of it, over that time period, from Nephi to King Benjamin. More evidence is that we know that Mormon's abridgement also contained the Book of Lehi. D&C section 10 heading: ...Herein the Lord informs Joseph of alterations made by wicked men in the 116 manuscript pages from the translation of the book of Lehi, in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Lehi was the 116 lost manuscript pages. So, if you go on to read the rest of the Words of Mormon you will see that it is Mormon's attempt to bridge any gap that may exist between the Small Plates record and the Large Plates record when making the transition between the two from Amaleki to king Benjamin. Also, I propose that the wording suggests that Mormon did not include both his abridgement of the Large Plates from Nephi to king Benjaim AND the Small Plates record that covered that same time period. If read closely you will see that he is describing "choosing" or "preferring" one over the other. I believe he removed his Large Abridgement record that covered the same time period as the Small Plates. He removed his abridgement from Nephi to king Benjamin, leaving Lehi, because Nephi did not include a book of Lehi in the Small Plates. This also explains how we have some of Lehi's writings in our Book of Mormon today since the Book of Lehi was lost. It is reasonable to assume that, since Nephi made a Book of Lehi in the Large Plates, that he did not repeat any of his father's teachings or visions (like the tree of life) in any of his own (Nephi) writings in the Large Paltes. Had Mormon not made this switch, we would have lost Lehi's writings. Nephi did write some of his father's prophecies and vision on the Small Plates because he did not make a Book of Lehi on the small plates. Also, read anywhere in the Book of Mormon from Nephi to Amaleki (Omni) and you will see first person writing. Mormon did not abridge the Small Plates. Now, compare that to Mosiah through 4th Nephi, where Mormon did abridge. The only first person writing is when Mormon interjects something, or when Mormon actually quotes what someone said. The Small plates start: "I, Nephi..." The Large Plates start: "And now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people who belonged to king Benjamin," Very different writing styles. There is a lot more to this topic, but I've already babbled on long enough. I hope you take the time to read around the passages I posted and think about what must have been going on at the time. There really is enough written for us to piece together a clear picture of what happened.

Not as clearly as the above passage.

Don't you love how the Book of Mormon solves some issues that the Bible doesn't even touch? :)

Mosiah 2: 21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. 22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you. 23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him. 24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

I'm not answering your question, I know. However, I had to respond to this. In actuality, there are very few who claim they are like the New Testament church, fewer who claim they are a continuation, and even fewer yet who claim they are a restoration. Most Christian churches aren't structured like the New Testament church; nor do they have the same leaders/titles, the same authortiy, and even claim there is no more revelation. I have always found it interesting that the people who belong to those churches don't seem to care. I mean, if you don't believe there is any more revelation, why belong to or attend church at all? It would have nothing to offer. Who are these many churches you have found making these claims? Sorry, just had to express that... back to the topic.

It is easy to say you believe they are 3 distinct beings, yet they are one being, just to satisfy scripture. But, they are words that even those who profess to believe them can't understand.

It is talking aboout this earth, because God told Moses (and I presume other prophets) that He only gave an account of this earth. There would be no reason to have a history lesson on any other earth. I believe there were 3 sides or divisions in the pre-mortal spirit world, but I don't believe in the exact same divisions most do. To answer your question you would first need to figure out who the 3 sides consisted of.

Amen.

Well, I found it. I could offer commentary, but I'm just going to post it. This is referenced in this article: A New Approach to the Book of Mormon: The Restored Covenant Edition - Brian Hauglid - FARMS Review - Volume 12 - Issue 2 RCE = Restored Covenant Edition of the Book of Mormon, published by the Zarahemla Research Foundation or ZRF (which I think is associated to the RLDS Church). Read the article linked before you pass judgement. excerpt: Author of the article: The third purpose for the RCE, dealing with the spiritual name of the Book of Mormon, also follows from the ZRF views on the covenant relationship. According to the introduction to the RCE, the actual name of the Book of Mormon can be symbolically or typologically understood from the incident at the Waters of Mormon, in which a group of people under Alma the Elder's leadership entered into a covenant relationship with the Lord (see LDS Mosiah 18). From the Introduction of the RCE: From that time forward, the name Mormon reminded the people of the restoring of their covenants in the Land of Mormon. Its impact is seen even generations later when Mormon, the chief editor of The Book of Mormon, was named after the Land of Mormon where this restoration took place. Therefore, the name, The Book of Mormon, symbolically means The Book of the Restoration of the Covenant. (pp. v—vi) What it says is certainly true, but whether or not a direct link can be made is for you to decide.

I'm going to have to rattle my memory... and do a few searches.

1 Nephi 5: 10 And after they had given thanks unto the God of Israel, my father, Lehi, took the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, and he did search them from the beginning. 11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents; 12 And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah; 13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah. 14 And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph;

I liked what I read recently about the word Mormon. I had always just assumed that the Book of Mormon was so named after the principle abridger, Mormon. I read that Mormon was named after the place where Alma was first told to baptize and organize the church. The called the place Mormon because it mean "re-establishing a covenant." So, whether the Book of Mormon was named after Mormon the person or Mormon the place, it's name signifies "Book of the re-establishing of the covenant." D&C 84:57 implies this as well (quoted above).

I have enjoyed the recent thread about the Trinity. It is something I have tried to understand for most of my life. I have a friend at work who sits in my office at lunch and we discuss religion. He believes in the Trinity, I do not. So, I have followed the other thread with great interest. Last night, as I sat pondering the topic, I think I came to an understanding of what it would take to believe in the Trinity. I was looking at it wrong, and trying to find the error in the wrong place. The difference isn't in who or what we believe God is, because both sides believe He is everything mentioned in the Bible. To say, "Well the Bible says.." in response to someone else is nothing but a jab or shot intending to imply the other person has misinterpreted the words. Last night, I backed up a bit, before you even open the Bible. What do Trinitarians believe "spirit" is? What do "LDS" believe "spirit" is? You will find that these answers will drive how the words are interpreted. If you believe spirit is not matter, and that it exists as more of a thought than a body, then the logical outcome of reading the Bible will be the Trinity. If you believe spirit is matter, and that God's spirit body is matter; confined to a location as a Being, then the logical outcome for you will be that He is a different Being than the Son. I am convinced this is the root of the difference.

Jehovah was born mortal and took upon Himself a mortal body. In doing so He changed. I don't think those are the kinds of changes the scripture is referring to.