Dymmesdale

It was God's will that his Son suffer and die, so that Man might be saved. He did NOT suffer eternally. Perhaps you chose your wording poorly, and do not really believe that Christ is suffering eternally, but if you do, I would advise you to read the accounts of His resurrection, and ascension to Heaven. If God had forced everyone to follow his laws and live perfect lives, true, there would be no need for redemption, but there would also be no demonstration of His holiness or goodness. We would know only of His power. He created us, we exist, that's the end of it. He is glorified all the more by the real state of things, because he has shown us his mercy, his holiness, his goodness, and his love. As for your last comment, allow me to repeat myself. If God had allowed the doing-away of the separation between himself and man, being tainted by sin, God would be defiled. Since that cannot happen, he was left with two options: The first is that he could have allowed us to continue existing under Mosaic Law, sacrificing animals as atonement for sin. The second is that he could send his Son to be a sufficient sacrifice to atone for all the sins of the world. That, as we know, is what he did. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, ordained of God, and his translation of the golden plates came from an angel of the Lord, and he claimed that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church of JC of LDS, Vol. 4, p. 461), then one would tend to think that it is a pretty solid book. Why, then, have there been 4,000 changes between the original 1830 version, and the version we have today? Why is revision necessary, if it was translated directly by the voice of God, in 1830, and the King James Bible, which LDS tend to believe is the most accurate, or most correctly translated, was published in 1611? I will not go into the many contradictions between the BoM and the Bible; that is something for another thread. I only humbly ask what the reasons are for the numerous revisions to the original version translated directly from the golden plates.

I just thought that there might be someone who found that illustration helpful. I will be the first to admit that it not anywhere near a perfect analogy for the Trinity. In fact, I do not believe that a perfect illustration of the Trinity exists. It's just too much for our minds to handle. It's like the fish trying to understand what makes the tender of the aquarium tick. Not going to happen.

I found a useful illustration on wikipedia...(I know, how original of me) "God is seen like a person tending an aquarium which represents the entire universe. Too large to fit inside the aquarium, a man can slide his hand inside the aquarium. The fish will see a hand in one place in the water. The man can also put his face into the water, and the fish will see a face in an entirely different place. The fish will think the hand and the face are two entirely different beings, which look nothing like each other. The fish may also become dimly aware that outside the aquarium a larger being tends to their needs, spreading food in the water regularly. Thus intelligent fish would perceive three different beings from their perspective – even though in fact these three manifestations come from one, single being beyond their comprehension." From the Trinity entry on Wikipedia

I think I am beginning to understand where our points of view begin to differ. When Christ atoned for the sins of man, the Law of Moses was fulfilled. God did not do this because he was subject to a greater, celestial law. Rather, because of his great mercy. The Law of Moses was created for Man, by God, so he cannot be bound by it. He was not obliged to anything at all about the problem of sin, but he sent his Son because he is merciful.

Very nicely put. I could not agree more.

They say than bacon is a gateway meat. Mmmm...bacon...

I would imagine that that could apply to any kingdom or social construct, celestial or otherwise.

God having to Send Christ to die on the cross was not submission to any law. Rather, it was in keeping with his own nature, so as to not be tainted by sin, and still be glorified by Man. Certainly he could have simply NOT sent Christ, in which case Mankind would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But that would deny any glory brought to him by Man, nullifying the very reason he created us. God cannot act contrary to his own nature. If you wish to call that a law, fine; otherwise, he is not subject to any law.

A common way to describe the Trinity is that God exists is three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. this is not to say that God the Father is a person as the word is used commonly today, rather that there are three "personalities", if you will, that are God in unity. I believe that it is far beyond our human ability to conceive of the full nature of a triune God, and the term, "persons" is used in an effort for people to begin to comprehend the Trinity. Jesus Christ was fully man, but was also fully God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, by whom all things were made. He is one substance with the father, but was sent by him for a time to dwell on the earth, made of flesh and bone, but preserving his divinity.

Hemidakota, I have to disagree with you here. God is the author and creator of matter and intelligence. Nothing existed before God, because he exists from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2). He exists outside time and space, because time and space are both finite concepts. If God is eternal, then he cannot exist within the bounds of time and space.

I would just like to weigh in here. I believe that God is eternal, existing from everlasting to everlasting, that he created the Law, and the concept of law in general. He is not subject to laws that he himself made. He created Man in order to bring glory to himself, because he is perfectly righteous. He created the Law for man to follow, but when they did not, that sin created a separation between God and Man. This is because he is holy, and because the chief end of Man is to bring glory to him. If there were no separation even after Man had become tainted by sin, because God cannot sin it would be contrary to his nature. I believe that God's own nature is the only "law" that he is subject to. Certainly not any natural law, or celestial law, since all natural and celestial laws are subject to the Everlasting God. He had to send his Son to suffer death upon the cross in place of Man, offering himself as a sufficient sacrifice to redeem those who believe in him.this is because the nature of God is to abhor sin, to have nothing to do with it, not because there is some law higher than God that says he had to.

Hi, I'm new here...looking forward to some lively discussions.