Faded

Welcome! Pop a post into general discussion and tell us what you have so far and we'll see about clarifying and explaining things. I presume that you're Muslim? Sufi, Shi'a, Sunni or other?

The interesting tidbit is this: We're fairly confident that Christians won't hunt him down and kill him. But there's a pretty good chance that Muslims will try to hunt him down and kill him if this is widely spread by the Arabic and Muslim news media. It plugs into what Dove was really up to: Trying to prove that Islam is a religion of violence by intentionally provoking them. But in this case, it's more like a side-by-side comparison of the two religions and how violently they react when offended. Agreed with Pam though. Some people are idiots.

Addressing John chapter 5 separately: The dilemma I'm seeing for the Nicean position is something that is best said in John 5 but also referenced in numerous other parts of the 4 gospels create: Jesus repeatedly says "I have done and will do nothing except that which I saw my Father do before me." How can Christ be doing what He saw God the Father do beforehand if God the Father does not have and presumably never did have a body? What can it all add up to other than that the Father lived a mortal life, gained a body and did the same work of atonement and salvation that Jesus Christ did here on this earth? John 5:17-27 "17 My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." My reading of this passage tells me this: Jesus Christ is telling us that God the Father showed Jesus his own mortal life. In that mortal life, God the Father's mortal ministry and mission was the same as Christ's here on this earth. It does not say where the Father's mortal life took place of course, and it leaves many unanswered questions, but as any Latter Day Saint would say, "That's why we have modern revelation." Since we have few details about God the Father's mortal life beyond what Jesus said on the matter, we don't focus on it much. We focus on the mortal life of Jesus Christ because that is where salvation comes from for us. What we do know is that it was not on this world that God the Father lived his life as a mortal and a Savior and Messiah. Logically it couldn't have been in this Universe either. We don't go to any great efforts to theorize further because we don't have many details. It is not revealed because it's not important for us to know anything further on the matter. So it's not something that is going to be taught in your typical Sunday School lesson. What is the Trinitarian take on these verses though? As I said, I don't like creating a debate of things, nor is that my intention. But I do know that the Nicean Trinitarian has a work-around for "created in our image, after our likeness." in Genesis. So I have to assume the same is true for John chapter 5. What is Christ saying in this passage?

Depending upon what is meant by "separate from his creation" we might agree or we might not. Is God above all things in the Universe? Yes, He certainly is. Separate? I think it's obvious that he must be. But every passage of scripture that I'm aware of declares got to be above his creation. I don't recall the word "separate" being used. I'm sure you already know but for the benefit of other readers, Latter Day Saints have always maintained that Yaweh or Jehovah and Jesus Christ are one and the same. His Father is not Jehovah but stands above him in precedence. God commands Jesus Christ, and Christ speaks to mankind. God the Father stands aside and leaves the guiding and directing of the people of the earth to His Son. Under the direction from the Father Jehovah spoke to humankind before His earthly ministry, and thus Jesus Christ is the God who spoke to mankind in Old Testament days. Under the direction of His Father, Christ came to earth ... etc. We might say that overemphasizing their separateness is missing the point. The three are interconnected and stand united in every way. It goes far beyond human comprehension because their unity and oneness are a thing of the infinite. Emphasis of their existence as separate persons and beings -- this doctrinal stance is the piece of the puzzle that comes under constant attack by traditionalists in Christendom, and because we have to constantly defend this one aspect of our belief about God, the separateness of God becomes more pronounced in the minds of many. This is unfortunate because one of the most important messages that the Godhead has been trying get to through to mankind for all of history is how one and unified they truly are.Arianism and some of the Gnostics came to the same general conclusion as we do about the Godhead, so it's not 100% correct to say that we are completely unique. Arians and Gnostics drew a lot of incorrect conclusions after concluding that "they are three separate and distinct beings." Those further conclusions make a terrible mess of things. I'm beginning to see where you and Maureen are coming from on one point. Truth be told, when going from Traditional Christian doctrine to that of the Latter Day Saints, the Godhead does not change in power and status at all. The more significant change this: God remains equal in power, glory, authority, etc. Humans become something greater though. I suppose this is why many Christians seem to mistakenly think we define God as less powerful and great than they think He is. By teaching that we are literally His children whose destiny is to become what he is now, the reaction is, "You're diminishing God." when we really aren't. So I what we find is this: While the logistical details about God are different when comparing Nicene Trinity to LDS Godhead, the biggest difference comes down to this: Going from Trinity to Godhead, God 's status remains the same, but humankind becomes something greater. Going from Godhead to Trinity, God's status remains the same, but humankind becomes something less. It is an interesting concept within Nicean Trinitarian thought. The Trinity is compose of three persons, Father who is a Spirit, the Holy Ghost who is a Spirit, and Jesus Christ who is body, soul and Spirit. Trinity = Same + Same + Different.

Is this an ideal move? No, BYU wanted into either the PAC 10 or the Big 12. They didn't get either. The PAC 10 -- PAC 12 now -- has had more than ample opportunity to invite BYU. The truth of the matter is quite simple: There is a coalition of anti-religion sentiment in several of the PAC 12's bay area schools. Those schools, Berkley being foremost, will absolutely pitch a fit at any suggestion of inviting any religious school to the PAC 12. BYU they hold as especially unsavory. That is why BYU is not in the PAC 10/12 today and that is why they never will be. Notre Dame's exposure to the world is too good for them to stay bad indefinitely. And that is what this move is all about. The MTN network might be great stuff to some programs, but for BYU and Utah it's like throwing a blanket over them to hide them. The MTN is not available nationwide, only in the Inter-mountain West. The contract with the MTN kept BYU off of ESPN, off of BYU-TV and out of the national spotlight. When a top football player is looking for a University to play at, one of his biggest considerations is exposure to NFL scouts. With this move, BYU will be on ESPN for six games in a year. Notre Dame has praised that move and offered up a 6 games series in 6 years. That automatically puts one game per year on NBC. Games with Texas will be nationally televised. Games with Utah won't end and that too will be nationally televised. This move makes BYU more visible to NFL scouts and therefore draws better players. And the big four networks can court showing BYU games if they like. Ultimately, this move becomes either a brilliant move or a terrible move in the long run based 100% on how well BYU plays. To greatly simplify things: I'm a BYU fan and I live in the Chicago-land area. I have no means to watch any BYU games except the few that are on ESPN and such. This move puts games on BYU-TV which I already get. So whether it's live or on replay, I go from missing all but one or two games all season to being able to watch every single game all year! So yeah, I'm all in favor of it!

I don't quite follow how Jesus of Nazareth actually proved the Scribes and Pharisees wrong per se. Jesus was a great innovator in religious observance, yet the only proof that His mission was a mission of truth was for the listener to hearken to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit and ultimately to ask God if it was truth. From the Jews point of view, Jesus is just another prophet and miracle-worker sent from God, and they believe that his disciples corrupted his words and turned him into a God after his death. What proof did Christ and His Apostles offer them against such these lies passed on by their fathers? What proof did any of the prophets and apostles offer those they taught that they were sent from God other than telling the people that they were sent from God? Proving and measuring truth by size. growth and popularity does not really prove a religion true nor false. By current growth, you could make a very compelling argument that Islam is the truest religion on earth. I could be mistaken, but I believe that Islam is growing faster than Christianity right now. Is that proof that their message is true? It is interesting to me that against an uphill battle of religious bigotry, mass-distribution of misinformation about our beliefs, of the constant resistance, our religion has grown as much as it has. Our growth in such a short period of time is nothing short of remarkable. But we are not the fastest growing religion in the world today -- and the fact that we are not does not invalidate our message by any means. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is exactly what you'd expect it to be if we use Christ and the apostles as a measuring stick: Unpopular with traditional religions of our day, sometimes teaching things that contradict long-held practices and teachings. Unconventional and even controversial when compared to the old religions and traditions. Trying to be diplomatic, but stepping on toes in spite of their best efforts. That sounds exactly like the Church of the Apostles and Christ to me. Ultimately what I'm saying is that "maintaining the status quo" is exactly why the Jews failed to recognize the Messiah when he came to them. Is the status quo really the best course?

Both the Latter Day Saint and the Nicene Trinitarian are both condemned as "polytheists" by your Unitarian Jewish and Muslim believers. Fair to say that the Latter Day Saint viewpoint is a move further towards the polytheistic, but the very Triune nature of God that we both accept in separates us both from pure monotheism in the strictest sense. Interestingly enough, the plural nature of the Hebrew word "Elohim" is used by LDS and Nicean apologists alike to demonstrate the plural nature of God as factual and perfectly legitimate. Ultimately, both viewpoints are conclusions that can be drawn from the scriptural records. I tend to favor the opinion that the Bible is overwhelmingly in favor of our viewpoint if properly understood -- but I can also accept that this is due to my own doctrinal bias. I see the same bias phenomenon with those raised with the teaching of the Trinity. What I'm getting at is that the Biblical wording in and of itself is not helpful for distinguishing one from the other. Most of the preferred wording for either tries to stay ... well, Biblical sounding. What does seem to occur to me is this: The more Biblical the description, the less it draws any distinction between us. While explaining God's relationship to humankind is helpful, it doesn't offer any short answers. But perhaps you're on the right track. "Latter Day Saints believe that God is literally our Father in Heaven. Trinitarians believe God's Father/Child relationship with humankind is only metaphorical. Latter Day Saints believe that each of us is eternally existent and while infinitely inferior, Latter Day Saints believe that we are of the same species or category of being as God the Father. Trinitarians believe that the Triune God is a being apart from all creation, completely different from humankind and all other creations. LDS teachings state that if you saw God the Father, you would see a perfected and exalted man of incomprehensible glory and light -- two arms, two legs, two hands, two feet, two eyes, etc. In the Trinitarian view, God the Father has no actual body nor form, but can appear in any form he chooses." It's a start. It's also very long and doomed to grow longer and longer the more you explain. A bit of a sticking point would be the fact that Jesus Christ does still have a human-appearing body of flesh and bones if I understand the Trinitarian view correctly. Does this make him superior to the other two -- because he possesses three natures to the Father and the Holy Spirit's only possessing one? Or does it make him inferior? I would guess you would say that it makes him neither superior nor inferior. Either way, it makes Christ very different and distinct from the other two. I'm making a concerted effort to not make this another Trinity debate (if I can help it), but I don't understand how a disembodied Father can be fit into the context of fifth chapter of John (among other passages.) But our purpose is to understand rather than debate. John 5 and similar passages might be something you could PM me on so I can sort how it works in Trinitarian thinking.

Actually I was referring to the usage of "three beings in One God" vs "three persons in One God." Just ribbing the two of you a bit, I know that the two of you are agreed in your understanding of the Trinity. No intent to offend either of you. It's always struck me as very interesting -- it's a very thorny path to tread when talking about the Trinity because correct wording is very important to its adherents. Whether you phrase it "three persons in One God" or "three beings in One God" -- either way, you're not really distinguishing the Trinity from the LDS idea of the Godhead. Your more knowledgeable Latter Day Saints know that the word that gets translated into "God" is the same word used to refer to the Godhead and that the word denotes plurality. "Three beings in one Godhead" and "Three persons in one Godhead" would accurately describe LDS belief, and the tendency in is to assume/insert "Godhead" where "God" is obviously referencing all three members. So the dilemma remains: How do you explain the Trinity in a fairly brief statement and make the distinction between the Trinity and the LDS Godhead obvious? It seems that there must be a better way to explain it.

LOL, see jaiotu's post right above yours. You two need to get on the same page, LOL.

Posted this on another thread, but if it's useful to anyone, here you go: MOST IMPORTANT: Get a copy of the New International Version of the Bible or some other modern version in modern English (to help you better understand). If you must, copy and paste if from here: Hosea 1 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com . There are a TON of amazing metaphors in this book and you're going to miss virtually all of them if you insist on trying to dig them out of the archaic wording of the King James Version without help. If you doubt me just read both versions of chapter three. Important things to note when introducing Hosea: 1.) This is the story of "the Prodigal Bride" -- very much like the Prodigal Son in the New Testament, but the symbolism is even more appropriate. Being somebody's son does not involve making a Covenant with them. Being their spouse does. It also means you that you know one another much better than mere friends or siblings or parents or children. If you marry in your 20's and live an average lifespan, you'll spend the vast majority of your life with your spouse. Parents, siblings and children will come and go. Your spouse is the one constant that is with you till death and beyond death as well. 2.) This story is the story of Ephraim specifically, and every tribe other than Judah: Ten tribes plus half the tribe of Benjamin. In short, this story is about you. This is about your ancestors and your own personal heritage. 3.) Hosea was the last prophet sent to the Northern Kingdom of Israel -- so this is the Northern Kingdom's Jeremiah. In other words, he is the prophet sent with the bad news from the Lord: "You're so buried in sinfulness that you're beyond all hope and I have no choice left. I will let a terrifying nation over-run you, destroy you and you will be scattered to the four winds." 4.) This is a love story. 5.) There is some debate whether God commanded Hosea to go marry a prostitute, or somebody who has repented but used to be sexually promiscuous. It might very well be neither -- but that she had already abandonned her husband Hosea by the time the Lord speaks to him about it (as it does mention her as already having had her children the very first time that she is mentioned in the book.) The Characters of the Story: (All of them are types and shadows of God and his relationship with Israel and what will happen with them.) Hosea = (Jehovah Will Save): Different variations on translation for the same name -- Yeshua or Yehoshua. Forms of the same name found in the Bible: Josiah, Joshua, Hosea and Jesus. Hosea plays the part of Jesus Christ in this story. He Marries Gomer = "Complete." According to the Talmud (Jewish tradition), "Gomer" is the ancestor of the Northern Germanic nations (referenced in Genesis 10). Every compass direction has a root meaning for something in addition to just being a direction.The compass direction "North" has reference to destruction, scattering and dispersal. Gomer plays the part of all Israel, and each of us individually in this story. I think it's fun to point out that the Bible is a pretty lousy resource if you're looking for a wide selection of really pretty names for your newborn baby girl. Seriously, who names a girl "Gomer"? Such cruel parents. Children of Hosea and Gomer: 1.) Jezreel - "God sows or God plants" (Jezreel Valley) Foretells the end of the line of Jehu, the then current and longest line of kings in the Northern Kingdom. Israel's strength will be broken in the Valley of Jezreel. (It's probably worth mentioning that the town of Megiddo is located in the borders of the Valley of Jezreel. The the future "Battle of Megiddo" or "Har Megiddo" is rendered "Armageddon" in the New Testament. This is the site of a great many disatrous battles in the history of Israel and Judah.) This is also a reference to scattering the Ten Lost Tribes like scattering seeds. The Ten Tribes were scattered among all the nations of the world, and their affinity for the Gospel message grows and bears fruit when the Gospel finds its way to them. All members of the Church of Jesus Christ are the fruit of this sowing by the Lord anciently. 2.) Lo-ruhamah = "Not Having Obtained Mercy" or "Not My Loved One" 3.) Lo-ammi = "Not My People" The substance of the story happens in the first three chapters. A.) Gomer bares three children. Their names have specific meanings to tell Israel what God is about to do with them. B.) Gomer abandons her husband Hosea, leaving him to go be with her adulterous lovers. C.) The Lord tells Hosea that this is just like his relationship with the children of Israel -- they started out well, but ended up abandonning Him for false gods and the things of the world. D.) The Lord tells Hosea to go find his wife and take her back and love her as he loves Israel. E.) In Chapter 3, when Hosea finds Gomer and buys her for 15 shekels of silver. This is not explained well, but if you understand what you're reading, then you realize what has happened to her. When Hosea finds her, she is a slave and is for sale. The almost certain conclusion: Gomer's lovers sold her into slavery and abandoned her. This is a perfect representation of what Satan does to us when we follow him instead of the Lord. He sells us into slavery and abandons us. It is also very symbolic, foreshadowing Christ being sold for 20 pieces of silver. F.) It is worth noting -- according to the Law of Moses, Gomer is an adultress. That means the Law demands that she is to be executed by stoning. G.) Hosea does not have her put to death. He does not keep her as his mere slave. He takes her back and makes her his wife again and loves her. Unworthy though she is, he takes her back fully and completely. Hosea 2:16 -- "In that day," declares the LORD, you will call me "my husband'; you will no longer call me "my master." To represent this change, I crossed out the "Lo" from the names of two of the children on the chalkboard. By crossing out "Lo" and you get: Lo-ruhamah --> Ruhamah = "Having Obtained Mercy" or " My Loved One" Lo-ammi --> Ammi = "My People" This is the end state of Israel. God saves us and takes us back and makes us His people again. He grants us his mercy and calls us his Beloved. He calls us "my people" and loves us.

On that one I'm seeing the same thing as you. On the other one, I was seeing some headings in English but all text was in Arabic.

I went to the link and THE ENTIRE SITE -- it's all in Arabic. I'm browsing with Google Chrome and so I was prompted "do you want to translate into English" and I clicked "Translate." Then I ran a search on the page and found your Kraugh reference.Is your browser auto-translating or something?

It's interesting, but doesn't really hurt the underlying point I'm making, since we would say that "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is one eternal God without end" is a perfectly valid statement. The confusion of phraseology is largely why "Godhead" ended up coming into common use for Latter Day Saints. Three Gods, one Godhead, and the word that is used to describe denote individual members of the three or all three together in the Bible is Elohim which ends up being translated "God." So to ease some of the confusion, Latter Day Saints will refer to all three as "The Godhead." Any of the three of them can and is referred to individually as "God" though the general usage favors using "God" only to refer to the Father. Again, the point is to alleviate confusion. While all three are Gods, if we limit "God" to the Father, "Christ" to the Son and "The Spirit" to the Holy Spirit, then we can better keep track of who we're talking about. "Godhead" makes grammatical sense in English, while "Gods" often doesn't. "One eternal Godhead without end" instead of "One eternal Gods without end" for example.As the link points out, they make the assumption that the plural word Elohim is supposed to be singular based upon adjectives and verbs. But it's presupposing either Trinitarianism or Unitarianism to be correct by doing so. It does not allow for the intended meaning to be "the collective body of the Gods" for which verbs and adjectives would be singular of course. We would simplify "the collective body of the Gods" to "the Godhead." It seems to me that there's a very good reason that a plural is used to denote God in the Bible. In Latter Day Saint jargon, it would simply mean "one or more members of the Godhead." It is interesting how it is used: Always retaining remembrance that "the Godhead is not one but it is three." So even if all members are not present within the context of the verse, all are represented and remembered in wording. You might find it interesting to note that the word Elohim originally meant "collective body of the gods" to the Canaanites. Elohim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It seems logical to me that this usage would have continued on in the Biblical record, but used in reference to the true collective body of Gods.

"Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." <-- This is what you're disagreeing with. I got that already. The only thing I said is that you're claiming this statement is false. What I'm saying is that unless you can actually make sense out of the Trinity, then the statement is pretty much correct. And I said that earlier about the Trinity: "God is a logical paradox, and an impossibility that you just have to accept as fact." Maureen seemed quite accepting of this statement, and if I might put words in her mouth, "That's the beauty of it." (If I'm wrong in this presumption I'm sure she'll correct me.) Do you agree that God as defined by the Trinity is a paradox and a logical contradiction that is impossible for the human mind to make sense out of? If you agree that this is a fair statement, then the statement, "it cannot make sense" on mormonwiki is justified, isn't it? (Bear in mind I'm taking your word for it, if you want me to read the actual statement on Mormonwiki, I'll need a link to it.) In my experience, it can be explained, but never understood. The Biblical and common statements of Christ being in us and the Holy Spirit being in us is helpful, but it is also non-helpful for the very reason you point out: I don't become God by having the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit in me, so we must be talking about something quite different. It bears mentioning that that LDS doctrine accepts the metaphorical description of "being in Christ" "the Spirit in me" and things like that -- but in the strictest sense, we do not believe that any of them literally dwells inside us anymore than we view Christ as an actual lamb. We would view it more like sunshine -- it shines everywhere and you can feel it, but that doesn't mean that the Sun itself is inside you. The Sun does not have to be inside you provide all of it's benefits. I can have a lot of my dad in me, but it doesn't mean that my dad is actually "inside me." It just means that we think alike and look alike and act alike and so on. The Godhead would involve much of that sort of thing. The Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Son has a lot of his Father in Him, so much so that they are exactly alike in every possible way. Etc. Metaphorically they are certainly in each other just as they are in each of us that believes in them and seeks after them. The Godhead makes perfect sense in conjunction with your statement about one Supreme Court but nine justices. Of course it would require the justices to each be omnicient, omnipotent and to always be in perfect agreement with one another at all times. I think we'd have a lot less nonsense coming from the Supreme Court if they were a tad more like that. The Trinity seems to be something else altogether though. Making sense out of it has been a goal of mine for years now, and I do appreciate the attempt to help me understand it. Now if we consider the requested rephrasing "three beings, one God" I think that's a perfectly reasonable request. The problem is, it doesn't differentiate between the Trinity and the Godhead. That phrase is also a good summary description of the Godhead. So any reader might incorrectly assume we believe in the same thing. I'm all in favor of accuracy, but how would you suggest solving that dilemma?

I don't think Islam baptizes new converts. I'd go with your first thought. "Kraugh" is probably just Google screwing up the translation of a name. Possibly it's a name that it's trying and failing to spell out based on phonetics. I have slight familiarity with the Qu'ran. The part that is pretty much impossible to swallow: Either Mohammed or those that came after him seemed to be trying to create a "one size fits all" religion. In the process of this, since they apparently they didn't have any of the details about the life of Jesus Christ on hand, they made up a bunch of details. The account of Jesus in the Qu'ran bears zero resemblance to the account in the New Testament. It is interesting that Islam tries to incorporate Jesus into their religion -- as a major prophet, but not as a Messiah/Savior figure. According to the Qu'ran, Jesus never actually died. It's quite odd. And apparently, the popular notion is to blame Paul for corrupting the true history of Jesus, but the Qu'ran contradicts the accounts of every Apostle we have writings from. This makes it impossible to accept Mohammed as a true prophet without first discarding everything you've been taught as a Christian. For the most part, the Qu'ran reads like a revamped and simplified version of the Old Testament, only more prominence is given to Ishmael. It teaches all the same sorts of good things from my reading of it, though it seems to seek to increase Arabic relevance in the Old Testament. "Islamic belief holds that the angel Gabriel spoke the Qur'an to the prophet Muhhamad and was ordered to recite (because he could not read or write). Muhammad later taught the Qur'an to the followers he gained shortly thereafter, who wrote these teachings on anything they could find, such as bark or leaves, or paper if available. After Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr compiled these teachings to form the original Qur'an which was copied and spread by the Muslims." Read more: Who wrote the Qur'an? | Answerbag Who wrote the Qur'an? | Answerbag

Your combined wish is granted. A 1920's Coca-Cola was basically cocaine + a massive dose of caffeine + carbonated water. If they were to bring back the 1920's formula, it would be outlawed pretty much instantly.

Blow people up? No, no, no, you've got the wrong tool for the job! A hand gun will only put a rather unimpressive hole in a person. If you want to actually blow people up you want these kinds of things:

Just for accuracy's sake, there's a bit more to it than that. Translators of the Bible are consistent about one thing that they probably shouldn't be consistent about: Disregarding words that denote plurals when referring to God. The root words vary. Elohim, Eloheim, etc. They are generally forms of that. Hebrew Elohim in English translations of the Bible is usually rendered as gods when referring to pagan deities, and as God when referring to the God of Israel. But the underlying problem this: Who said it was right and proper to take a plural word from Hebrew and convert it into a singular word in English? Elohim ends up being translated as "God" but it would be more accurate to translate it as "Gods." What you end up with is, "there is only one Gods." and "One Eternal Gods without end." and things like that. It actually makes a lot more sense out of the creation story in Genesis since "God" keeps referring 'Himself' in the first-person plural. "We" and "us" and "our" etc. It muddles the absoluteness of the Trinity just a bit. It doesn't prove either point of view right or wrong, but it's good food for thought. I suppose you tend to stick with what you know. Since God has never been a paradox for me, then trying to wrap my head around a paradox and still consider it God just doesn't work out very well. Obviously the reverse is also true.

Knowing how the Muslims of the world tend to react, this could actually be a good thing. I'm never one for death and massacre, but it's not me doing it after all. I can see the headlines now: "Leadership of Westboro Baptist Church Burned Alive!" "More Members of Westboro Baptist Church Found Dead!" "Last Surviving Westboro Baptist Church Member Placed In Protective Custody." Probably won't happen, but it would certainly eliminate a huge nuisance.

I'm not going to say that he wasn't loved. He was. But his mansion was absolutely enormous! Loved or not, I think that's misuse of the tithes and offerings. And if he wasn't loved he'd have never brought in nearly the amount of money needed to live in a giant mansion, right? I knew that couldn't be the right house. Way too small.

The extra-dimensional thought bit is just me overanalying and overthinking things. It's not LDS doctrine, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up. It's just an interesting theory of mine. If you haven't dabbled in extra-dimensional theory, it's not worth even bothering thinking about. The question on Christ is mostly for clarification sake. There was no reason for me (being raised Latter Day Saint) to imagine that God the Father did not have a body in other people's beliefs. Then later, I learned that most Christians believe that the Father has no body. The real reason for asking boils down to trying to piece together the Trinitarian explanation that I'd heard about how, "Let us make man in our own image ..." works within the scope of Trinitarian thought. The explanation was that man was created with three parts: Spirit, body and soul. What I was trying to work towards was if there was only a weak correlation or a very strong one for when God created man "after our likeness." If Christ was the body, and the Father was the "soul" and the Holy Spirit was the Spirit -- then it would kinda make sense, since God would have three aspects. But for it to really work, it seems that it would require Christ to only be a body, otherwise "in our image and after our likeness" would seem to involve 5 aspects instead of 3 (Father the Spirit + Body of Christ + Spirit of Christ + Soul of Christ + Holy Spirit). Once again, that's me overthinking things as usual. I guess that what I would come back to though is this: I can explain my own belief in God readily enough. It only becomes complex when you tack on "infinite and eternal" but the basics are very simple to conceive. Three beings acting in perfect unity and harmony, end of story. Very simple and not hard to explain even to a very young child. But I most definitely can't explain the Trinity with any great ease. The moment that you concede that it's just too complicated and just not something that can be understood, it contradicts what jaiotu's was saying. He is claiming that, "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." is a false statement. See the problem? He appears to be making the case that it's all very easy to understand or that it's all very logical. Well ... I'm just not getting that. Not at all. If the very foundational concept of the Trinity -- that three beings are one being while somehow retaining their separateness and distinctness: Well, the idea is either easy to understand or it is not. I'm not getting where it's simple at all. But am I missing something? Bear in mind, I'm not saying that Simple=Right and Complicated=Wrong. But the statement, "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." seems like it would remain true unless somebody can at least make sense out of it. All that I've been able to glean of Trinitarian thought thusfar in my life boils down to, "God is a logical paradox, and an impossibility that you just have to accept as fact." My brain rebells more and more against the concept the more I try to understand it. I'll have to admit that when jaiotu seemed to imply that it was very easy to understand, I got pretty excited. But at the moment all I've accomplished is giving myself a headache.

I follow the bit about how we view humankind differently. The LDS view of the premortal state of humankind is pretty unique in comparison to most of Christianity. In light of this difference it is easy to see one of the bigger hurdles standing in the way of understanding. From one viewpoint, we are very similar to God. In another viewpoint we are nothing like him. We wouldn't call Premortal Jesus Christ "created" but rather "begotten." The basic definition of "begotten" gets confused as well, for the Trinitarian would view conception in the womb as a creation of body, spirit and soul from inanimate material. To us, conception and birth are transitional and only creational of the body, not the spirit. We don't fully understand how a spirit is begotten exactly but we do know that it doesn't involve making something out of nothing. Not all things have been revealed and we know enough for the time being. Now one thing that bears remembering: We would also say that God has always been God, Christ has always been Christ, etc. It has not been fully explained, but here's my take on that. How can both eternal progression and an eternal status as God be possible? In the words of Doctor Brown, "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally ..." If we conceive of a being for whom time is no longer relevant (which we both agree is part of what God is) then you're talking in terms of 4th or 5th dimensional thought. Impossible to fully comprehend of course. The essential piece of the puzzle in relation to the subject at hand. If a fifth dimensional being dyes his hair blue, then it has always been blue and it will always be blue. The 5th dimensional being's concept of time is one great whole, seen from beginning to end. So if you are something now, you always were that something. This is more the field of scientists and theorists than religion, but it fits very well into religion IMHO. And hopefully that didn't completely confused and bewilder you. It's my own way of understanding things, not official Church doctrine. Your idea of humankind being created (body soul and spirit) certainly does help differentiate between God and man. But it doesn't solve the problem of 3=1. If I have three eggs, I have 3 eggs. If I have three apples, then I have three apples. If I attempt to look for any item that has three parts composing a whole like an egg, then I've successfully recreated Unitarianism. If I conceive of something that changes between three forms like a chameleon, then I've successfully recreated Modalism. In both cases, I know that I've just recreated what Nicene Trinitarians view as "damnable heresies." The problem is conceiving of three separate and distinct beings, and then trying to wrap my head around them being one being at the same time, all while not relinquishing their separateness. Three parts of the greater whole of God is what we both already believe in. We just appear to mean something different when we say it. But how is it different? I'm just focusing on what God is right now, not past and not future. One related question though: Does Jesus Christ have a body and a soul and a spirit according to Trinitarian teaching?

Ah, sorry, misread on my part.

One a side note: "priesthood holder?...for non-LDS, think 'priesthood of all believers' " Considering that every worthy male member of the church is a Priesthood Holder, there is not a huge amount of difference between the foundational concept of "Priesthood Holder" vs "Priesthood of All Believers." Both fulfill 1 Peter 2:9. Anyways, that's a side topic.

I assume we're talking about this passage: If that is the case, then priestcraft is reference to leading people in false practices, false doctrines and making accommodation with paganism at it's most vile -- the worship of Baal and the "sacred prostitution" involved therein. It seems to me that the thing the Lord was the most upset about was that the priests and false prophets of the Northern Kingdom were keeping the people of Israel blinded to the better truth. What we know of the Northern Kingdom is that King Jeroboam apparently created a corrupted version of the worship of Jehovah. It seems that the golden calf idols at Dan and Beth-el were put in place as corrupt form of worshiping Jehovah. It just happened to do so in direct violation of the commandments given by Jehovah to Moses. So it includes what Tarnished said about taking more than what is necessary certainly, but there is more to it than that.