Justice

This is my point. Unity is a valid definition of the word one. The very prefix "uni" is from the root word that means one, or single. If their wills were perfect and harmonious, it is valid to say they are one. Please, slowly read John 17. Jesus describes exactly how the Father and Son are one. It is not bodily or "essence," but one in will and purpose. It's a valid interpretation no matter how many times you say it's not. John 10:30 I and my Father are one. By Jesus using "are" and not "is" He is describing more than one. I and my Father are... Those words are used to descibe 2 different things, not 1. I and my Father are... in perfect untiy, is a valid interpretation of scripture.

You added words (...Being ever) and made an interpretation. Those words only mean that if you choose to believe they do. There are other possible, even valid, interpretations of the words. I add words to clarify the meaning of the words that are there... just as you did right above these remarks. It was not an attempt to change the words of the Bible, or to misunderstand it, but to show you a different way they can be understood. Remove all my words of clarification and the words of the Bible can be understood the way I described. Why assume it was the beginning of the universe? It doesn't say that. It doesn't say the ultimate beginning of all things, even matter and the very universe itself. It says "heaven and earth," and then goes on to describe how God Himself defines what "heaven and earth" is. Hint: it's not universe or all things, it's "firmament and dry land" (see verse 8 and 10). Again, I add words so you can understand how I interpret it, not to add words to the Bible. I only need to add the words for clarification of belief, they don't need to be there in order to understand it that way. Continuing to say that these aren't valid interpretations of the words isn't getting you anywhere. They are valid, just as yours are. I'm trying to go beyond the technical definitions of the words and see if they actually make sense. Like, does saying 3 is equal to 1 make sense? Like, saying can a being who cannot have offspring have a son? I'm not saying your interpretaion of the word "one" in the Bible is invalid, just that it cannot be equal to 3. You are saying my interpretation of "one in purpose" or "unity" is not a valid interpretation for the word "one." It is (see John 17).

Interesting, though, that when, in the Book of Mormon, the people are faced with hardships and trials they turn to God. It is in the times of ease, plenty and prosperity that they foreget Him and turn from Him. Interesting if this time of ease and prosperity is the danger we're being most warned of.

Moses and others have more than a vague idea. Granted, these are speaking of seeing the pre-mortal Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, not the Father. But, the spirit body of "God" nonetheless. Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend... There are other uses of the term face to face where the Lord promised to speak to the people, like Ezekiel 20:35. We also have a very powerful story in the Book of Ether where the Lord shows Himself to the brother of Jared, and His spirit body looks much like the body He will take upon Him in the flesh.

Maybe I can answer more generically, and not focus so much on your questions. Others have done a fine job of addressing your specific questions. The Spirit of God is not to be confused with the Holy Spirit. Sure, the terms can be the same, but they also refer to specific and distinct things. The Spirit of God emmanates from His Person, to fill the immensity of space. God cannot exist everywhere at once, because He has a body. But, His spirit, power, presence, glory, or light and truth can and does exist and radiates from Him and can be felt by all His creations. The Holy Ghost is a Personage of Spirit, just as Jehovah (pre-mortal Jesus Christ) was before He was born in the flesh, and is a member of the Godhead. Because He does not have a physical body He can dwell "in the hearts of men," as to where the Spirit of God can be felt, even if He does not "dwell" in man's heart. How can they be different and unique, yet satisfy our claim that there is only One God? All are subject to God the Father. Everything happens under His direction. All Beings (Gods, angels, and men, which are but the same "race" of beings at different stages of development) are subject and subordinate to God the Father. He is Supreme. He is the One. Those on His direct errand, as Jehovah in the Old Testament, or angels sent into the world, can and do speak The Father's words in first person as if God the Father is delivering them Himself, just as a prophet might speak the words of Christ.

Yes, Vort, I admit I try hard to understand. I also have to admit that by myself, there's no way I could. Sometimes I get confused just trying to explain what I believe. It's also helpful to have the words of prophets.

John 20 raises an interesting point to this discussion also. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. How similar is He describing the relationship He has with the Father to the one we have with the Father? Similarly, how much alike is the "my God" relationship that He has with Him compared to the "your God" relationship we have with Him?

Here's the dilemma. I do see eternity as a very long time. But, when I use it I intend it as others mean it, forever. For GOd to have "always existed" it must stretch in both directions. God has always existed... is the Trinity belief, and for those comments I had my Trinity hat on. You've lost me. According to your belief, God had always existed before He created the universe and time. This means God existed for eternity before He decided to create the universe, when He always had the knowledge to do so. He could have created an infinite number of universes and times. I'm baffled how the Bible can be speaking of the ultimate beginning of all things, and not just the beginning of this heaven and earth. Hmmm interesting. I'm going to have to chew on that for a while. Creating man is God's way to show greater love. God is love. God chose to wait an eternity before He showed His love, even though this is what He is. I'm trying to get where you get, or why you can't understand my logic here. I don't understand or comprehend eternity. It boggles my mind. I can only see it as an incredibly long period of time, longer than I can imagine. That's enough "time" to create nearly an endless amount of men to increase His love.

In that case, do you have an idea what God's spirit body looks like, or is formed like?

Not me. I never said such a thing. I don't believe He could exist if He didn't have a body of some kind. I believe He has 2 bodies, a spirit body and a physical body, just like His Son, Jesus Christ does. To some degree. But, even He is bound by and to eternal law. There are as many things He cannot (or better, will not) do as He can. Rhetorical, I assume. He did. That is what you believe if you're LDS. My friend is not. Thank you for joining in. :)

My point was that God is a master teacher and master of languages. He knows our language, and He knows our definitions of words. When God says "There are three, but we are One God," He is speaking to us, and therefore to our intellect. If there is something that can't be understood by man in those words, how can we be expected to believe those words? (Unless we blindly believe) Especially when there is a way we can understand those words that fits perfectly into accepted definitions, and is explained in the Bible quite in depth in John 17 (among other places). Yes, I have been told this many, many times. What this does is place our lack of understanding on something we have been told we can't understand... eternity. How can God be 3 Beings, yet One substance? Mystery, with no examples. How can God be "Created or born" yet be eternal? Mystery. At least we have presedence. Do you believe that some men will gain eternal life? If you believe the Bible, your answer will be yes. Will that not make them eternal? Well... yes? How can that be if they were "created or born?" Not sure, but God said it. So, obviously we have "proof" that something that is "born or created" can be eternal. Does eternal mean forever? To us it does, but it may not to God. It could be that when you live outside of time, it is called eternity. One you live outside of time you will live forever. So, for that example God has given us a way to understand and compare. For 3 to be equal to 1, we have nothing to understand or compare to. It seems much more plausible to place your lack of understanding on eternity, and leave the simple definitions alone, like 1 and 3. Eternity could be made of eternal rounds, or generations. "From everlasting to everlasting," or "from eternity to all eternity." We may not be considered "eternal in this eternal round" because we were created or born in this one. But, in the next one maybe we can be. One thing is certain, something that is created or born certainly can become eternal.

You did not add John 17, where Christ gives the most clear description found anywhere in scripture of how The Father and Son are One. He states it several times, and in several different ways. I understand that examples are just examples, and sometimes if taken too far you can ruin the intended example. But, I can't help myself. Let's word your analogy in the terms we're speaking of. There is the yolk, the white, and the shell. But they are all an Egg. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But they are all God. I find it astounding that, even though 3 separate and distint things are lited, that all 3 things can be taken as one substance. For example, the white, the yolk, and the shell are NOT the same substance. If they were they would not be distinct. If the yolk had the same substance as the white, it, too, would be "egg white," and the yolk would no longer exist as yolk, making more white. The yolk is part of the egg, the white is part of the egg, and the shell is part of the egg, but they are not the same substance, nor can they be and remain unique. Now, all three parts of the egg are one in purpose, and each have a different role in their united purpose. That makes sense.

It means nothing because when you say "three is one," where one is the numerical definition, words lose their meaning. Just as saying that God can't have offspring yet He has a Son. Those words have no meaning. You can say them, and you can believe them, but if they're going to make any sense, you have to attach different definitions to them than our language offers. Either that, or you agree to not understand them, but just believe them. Falling back on "God knows more than man and can use those words if He chooses" is something there is no argument for. But, I would comment using the oppsoite logic, that God knows how we understand those words, so it doesn't make sense that He would intentionally add confusion. So, in order to get past the deficiency of the words, you claim those words are a mystery to man. In my view, when God speaks of His mysteries, He speaks of things that are more simple than man makes them. Man complicates things into words that have no meaning, while the truth remains a mystery to those who believe those undefinable things beacuse the mystery is solvable and simple, even so that man can understand, they just choose not to. To me, that's what equates to the "mysteries of God." When Joseph Smith said, "God is a glorified, perfected man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens," it solved one of the greatest mysteries held by Christianity at the time. I was genuinely curious about whether you thought Jesus Christ was literally God's Son, and how He could be if they are the same eternal being and God does not have a physical body (accounting for both natures). What I've heard so far is that it is a mystery, and in those terms (defining Son as offspring) Jesus Christ cannot be the Son of the Father spiritually or physically. I accept that as your belief. Before I filed this in the "Trinity Belief's" folder in my mind, I wanted to be sure. Son or child can mean different things, but I think offspring is too specific to interperet around. You believe He is the Son of the Father, but not the literal, begotten Son (offspring according to this discussion) of the Father. I will file it as such. If you say "literal son" or "begotten son" can mean something other than "offspring" I'll have to concede, because it seems people can believe anything they can believe 3 = 1. But, all I'm saying is it does not fit with our definition of the word. To man, "begotten son" and "literal son" are synonymous with offspring. You have to believe it's a mysterios relationship, even an undescribable realtionship, in order to claim to believe the words.

No, he does not believe this... in any shape fashion or form.

They wouldn't, and that was my point. It is your belief and that is why you posted it. It helps me understand how a traditionalist would see the logic. With my belief, the words are still true, but the logic leads down a different path because my belief in God is different. That's all I meant.

I never said there wasn't a choice or choices, or that we did not have agency... clearly we did. I think it's just a misunderstanding. I'm not explaining myself clearly. I said God never gave us permission to exericise our agency to make unwise choices until the Garden of Eden, because the plan had not been implemented far enough for us to be redeemed from those types of bad choices. When He placed man in the Garden of Eden, He said "thou mayest choose for thyself." We HAD agency in the pre-mortal existence, and choices were available, but that's very different than being given the permission to choose them because God knew the consequences of such choices in our "current" condition at the time. That's why, in my view, God said He "gave" man his agency in the Garden of Eden. Very different, if you read it slowly.

It mentions that infants who die before the age of accountability are saved into the first. I'm sure it has to do with their valiance in the First Estate.

Nowhere in scripture does it ever mention that God gave His children permission to choose, or granted them the ability to exercise their agency, in the pre-mortal existence. We don't see this until after the creation and man was in a physical body. Even in the Council in Heaven He did not offer a choice between Jehovah and Lucifer, He simply said who He was going to send. Scripture says we had agency in the pre-mortal existence, but nothing about being given the freedom to use it unwisely. The first choice God gave us was in the Garden of Eden. The improper use of agency before Adam and Eve were placed on earth meant spiritual death, with no chance at redemption, since we could not fall to a mortal state and have time granted to repent, also allowing an [blood] atonement to be made, thereby being redeemed or brought back into God's presence. Lucifer and his followers were cast out with no chance to be brought back into God's presence. They rejected the only way possible... mortality. It really is simple.

He didn't make this claim, Snow, if you want to get technical. He drew a point, then said the "point represents the Bible," so you kind of have it backwards. He's just making an illustration and using points instead of accutate drawings to represent the books on paper.

Yes, there are 3 divisions in the Celestial Kingdom, whether actual boundary lines or not is not said. But, sealing for all time and eternity with proper authority, and remaining faithful to the covenants made at that time, is what is necessary to obtain the highest degree (other than of course the obvious, having Christ's atonement applied to your sins and being washed clean by His sacrifice, and His resurrection of your body to a Celestial one).

I once heard a wise man say that if you want to love someone, don't look for a list of qualities you want in another person, but live the qualities you want in another person and you will attract a person with those very qualities. The best advice I can give you is that your journey will begin with the Book of Mormon... and it may very well end there as well.

You say children, which in some interpretaions can be "created." Some people call their pets their children. I understand this leads to different understandings, and is why I carefully used the word offspring, not children. The God of the Trinity can create living beings and call them children, but He cannot literally have offspring or that would make more than one God. There is no need for the Trinity God to have offspring. The Trinity has co-existed (Father and Son included) for eternity (for ever) and all other life forms are "created" (not offspring). No where in their doctrine does it require God to have offspring... except the interpretation of "only begotten Son," which is why I bring it up. Correct me if I am wrong. Let me clarify. Before Jesus was born in the flesh, God did not have a physical body of flesh and bone. I am unclear as to if Trinitarians believe the Son will keep His body for ever, or if at some point it will no longer be needed. He is, I assure you.

Thank you for your post, and for quoting these words. The person you quote here make a lot of assumptions along his path to logic, and he rules out many possible paths without even addressing them. He wants to lead people to think his conclusions are the only valid ones. But, they are not. There are other paths of logic that fit his initial phrase that lead in a different direction than he has chosen. But, I understand you posted it to show how you view it, and not to say all other interpretation are eliminated because you *can* arrive at these conclusions. For which, I thank you for sharing your beliefs. It does help me to undertstand them better.

The "light" or "objects" traveling at great speeds then slowing down at a ramped interval might work. What won't work is that we have witnessed events like supernovas happen. Stars don't go supernova after just thousands of years of existence. OK, let's say God created a star that was about to go supernova. Fine. The supernovas we have witnessed were hundreds of millions or even a several billion light years away as we witnessed them. That means it had to happen that long ago in order for us to witness it now (give or take some movement). If God arranged for us to see millions of years into the past like this then, again, He is tricking us into thinking the universe is much older than it is. A more logical and probable answer is that the universe is that old, or far older. Science doesn't have a problem with much of what the Bible says, only with many of the traditional interpretations. The creation of "all things" could not have happened only 12 or even 15 thousand years ago based on what we know.

"Much closer..." We're talking the diffference between thousands... 1,000 and billions... 1,000,000,000 How much of a speed difference would there need to be? If it is slowing down, what kind of "brakes" would be needed to make light travel billions of years in thousands of years of time? With the distance you're speaking of, the universe would be at a complete stop in less than the time it took me to write this post. I get what you're saying, and am trying to see where it is possible. But, the needed scale seems way too great to make much difference in my question, even exaggerating as much as I can. Give me some numbers, or some more information.