Shelly200

For one thing, it is important to note that non-LDS do not use Person and Being interchangeably. This is what is so confusing. To us, if something is three beings, then it is three separate things: you are a being separate from me, and I am a being separate from you and also from the president, who is also separate from the two of us. You can't be me or the president, I can't be you or the president, and the president cannot be either me or you; we are three separate, unique, complete beings. (No matter how perfectly we agree with each other.) This is why, point blank, any non-LDS who hears an LDS member say the Godhead is three separate Beings will automatically claim polytheism. We are viewing the word "being" in a way that *would* make the LDS church polytheistic. Now, if the LDS church is using the word to mean something else, then that's another issue altogether. There is also apparently a differing definition of "one" between the two groups. With the LDS members saying that the "one" in the Bible refers to a oneness of unity, as in, the Godhead is a single unit, who are similar in purpose. The non-LDS members feel this is a stretch (is it possible for the word "one" to be interpreted to mean "oneness in purpose?' Well, I guess so, but since I don't have the Greek in front of me right now, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Let's just leave it at: LDS interpret it one way and non-LDS interpret it another.), and simply take the word "one" to mean "one:" there is one God. As to the Trinity: Like I said before, while it is something very easy for non-LDS members to believe, it is more difficult to explain (especially to those who not only simply don't understand it, but specifically believe something contrary to it). So, in the idea of time saving, I'm going to list some quotes from other people and a link. Here is a thorough definition:: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity And some quotes:: "But in the one true God and Trinity it is naturally true not only that God is one but also that he is a Trinity, for the reason that the true God himself is a Trinity of Persons and one in nature. Through this natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and in the Son. None of these is outside any of the others; because no one of them precedes any other of them in eternity or exceeds any other in greatness, or is superior to any other in power." - Fulgence of Ruspe "...who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach in accord with the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance constituting a divine unity with an inseparable equality; and therefore there are not three gods but one God, although the Father begot the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity" - St. Augustine of Hippo "[T]here is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ, whom we likewise to confess to have always been with the Father—before the world’s beginning. . . . Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe . . . and who has poured out on us abundantly the Holy Spirit . . . whom we confess and adore as one God in the Trinity of the sacred Name." - St. Patrick of Ireland "There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced" - Gregory the Wonderworker "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" - Pope Dionysius I hope the quotations and the link provide some light on the doctrine of the Trinity.

Thank you for all your answers! I must admit that I thought Spirit Prison and Outer Darkness were the same thing. Can you explain a little more about the two? I wasn't aware that Spirit Prison was temporary... could it be compared to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory? Because that is kind of what it sounds like to me. (The Catholic Church has an idea of spirit prison in which the prophets prior to Christ went until His death.) Also- who exactly goes to the Telestial Kingdom? From what I could figure out, it's not very good people? People who "are thrust down to hell." How is the Telestial Kingdom different, then, from Outer Darkness?

For some reason I didn't see your previous post, sorry. But I'm confused on a couple of points simply in the first paragraph you wrote. From my reading of the BofM, a group of Jews comes to South/Central America across the Atlantic and begin civilizations. So, wouldn't their civilizations look, if not identical to, at least extremely similar to the Jewish cultures of the Holy Land? And since they multiplied into great numbers, then there would be evidence for large cities modeled after the Old World cities that the Jews knew? How would they not understand Old World imagery, if they came from the Old World? I'm a little rough on some parts of the BofM, so I can't remember if the Americas were supposed to already have been inhabited when the Jews got there. If so, wouldn't there be a very evident difference in ancient Indian culture and the new Jewish culture? And the BofM also mentions things that aren't found in ancient America, like steel, horses, honeybees, and elephants. Those are just my thoughts from the start. I will try to look over some of your links soon, and I thank you for posting them for me.

This was a very informative answer, thank you (even though I didn't ask the question...)! I have a question about your comment on Gods, angels, and men being of the same race in different stages: what is the LDS view, then, of angels? I thought angels were the LDS members who never married, or never married in the temple? Is that right? Are there other types of angels? (Could people living in OT times be exalted, since Christ had not yet come? Is this where ordinances from the dead come into play? What were these people doing for the thousands of years before the ordinances started?)

Well, if one doesn't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then it wouldn't matter to them if you could see places where he lived. But yes, it does prove *that* he lived and *where.* That's the point: you can prove that Jews lived in the Holy Land undoubtedly, but there's little, if any, evidence that they lived in the Americas. Once again: that I know of. If someone could point me in the direction of evidence I am missing, I am interested in looking at it.

Yes, in the end I think it all comes down to Joseph Smith and the modern prophets. In one way, the LDS church is similar to the mainline Protestant churches: both groups believe that there was a lap of time in which false doctrines were handed down for generations. The Protestants believe everything was taken care of during the Reformation. As I understand it, the LDS church believes that they were on the right track, but not quite there (maybe why they also use strictly the KJV of the Bible). As a Catholic, I do not hold to this belief, believing that Christ's Church continued through the ages unscathed, and continues to this day. We believe that the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ have shown themselves to individuals through private revelation (the Church does not demand any member believe these appearances, since the revelations were private, but the Church does investigate them and can say if something supernatural probably occurred), though we don't believe they have given any doctrinal changes or that they speak through people as through prophets. (And we don't believe God the Father can ever show Himself to anyone, since we don't believe He has a physical body.) But it's interesting, because Protestants don't believe in appearances by any in Heaven to those on Earth. Just a different view of things I guess. Does the LDS church teach that all of the prophets have the ability to receive prophecy from God? Have they? I wonder why the church doesn't continue adding to the D&C all of the revelations of the prophets down the line? I was told that this is similar to what the Ensign does... that when the prophets speak at the conferences it is (or is like?) revelation, and it is written in the magazines. Is that right? And have the Father and/or Son and/or Apostles made appearances to any of the other prophets, or just to Joseph Smith?

Thank you for clarifying for me! I have heard this before, but didn't know if it was true or not: that the LDS worship only the Father, and not the Son or Holy Ghost. Is that what you are saying in this explanation? Also- is this also saying that Christ wasn't always God with the Father? How did He become God? In the same light: since the Holy Ghost is also in the Godhead, how did He become God as well? As far as the description of Christ being begotten, not made: it is confusing to explain, but it's funny, because it's easy for most people to believe. I think it's similar to the way that those who believe in the BofM get a feeling that it's true; in the same way, those who believe in the Trinity frequently don't even think about it, they just know it. Suffice it to say that we think Christ's conception and birth to be a miracle, something only God could do, not something physical. That's the basic concept.

In the end you are wrong on one major point: I no longer want to interact with you. Feel free to ignore everything I say from now on. I'll simply interact with those who want to have valid debate without being catty or condescending.

Snow -- You are right. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the word "Trinity." I understand that, and so does everyone else. As a Catholic, I believe in that Christ left the Deposit of Faith while on Earth to His Church. The Church's job is to explain (but never add to or take away from) that Deposit. This is why the Trinity is so very well explained in the Nicene Creed; the Church was taking the Deposit of Faith and expounding it for the masses. But the doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical, for reasons I've already shown (there is one God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God; the Father isn't the Son, the Son isn't the Father, and the Spirit isn't either; they remain One in Being, not separate Gods), all of which are derived from the Bible. Verses aren't taken out of context, but exactly read *in* context; in the context of the whole Bible together. This isn't something that "uninformed and naive" people who "haven't studied the Bible" believe; this is something that billions of people, from the youngest and unread to the oldest and wisest believe. It's presumptuous and, honestly, kind of mean to say that only the uninformed or unread believe in the Trinity. Not to mention that it's strictly false. So I'm not going to get anyone to agree with me on the doctrine of the Trinity. That's fine, and wasn't my overall goal to begin with. But it doesn't do the LDS side any good to simply write the idea off as belonging to those uninformed and naive. However, I would still like a breakdown of the LDS position, since I seem to obviously have it completely and totally wrong. 3 doesn't equal 1, but 3 doesn't equal 3 either, and so now I'm confused. Please help me out.

No one's faith in God is based on going to the Holy Land. And I never said that. I said that we can see physical evidence of the Jews living in Biblical places, and can't see that evidence in the Americas. 1.) Not everyone believes in a physical Eden. 2.) Heaven is not on Earth, so we wouldn't be able to see a physical place for it. So both of those arguments are moot. But it is grounds for concern for many people that there is plenty of archaeological evidence for Jews in Biblical places, but not in America.

Okay, so I get an argument when I try to say that 3=1... and now I'm also wrong when I say that 3=3? So maybe I am arguing under a false understanding here... what exactly does the LDS church teach about the Godhead? If it's that there are three distinct beings that make it up, then I don't see how that doesn't equal three gods. If it's that there is one being that makes it up, then I don't see how that isn't the same as the Trinity doctrine. What is the official teaching?

Wow, Vort, way to handle it! So... my above comment was incorrect? How so? I'd hate to go around giving out false information about what the LDS church teaches.

Yes, this is one big leap for non-LDS to take when learning about or considering the Mormon church. The problem is that we can go to the places listed in the Bible and see where it took place, see the artifacts that remain from those times. In America it is very hard to see evidence of Jews ever inhabiting these continents. If someone has anything on this topic that is written out and not too long (preferably in points rather than essay-style) I'd be very interested in looking into this topic.

Hala401-- From what I have been told, the LDS view is that we are all of the same "species" you could say of God and Christ. We are all spirit children of Heavenly Father (and Heavenly Mother, who for some reason no one talks about), and therefore are His literal children and Jesus' literal siblings. The non-LDS position is that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit have always existed since the beginning of everything, and that God does not have spirit children (and there is no mother in heaven with him, nor are there any other gods in existence). So we are sons and daughters of God through adoption; our baptism into the Church makes us God's adoptive children. This is essential to the very essence of what makes God God and what makes us humans. The LDS church teaches that we are pretty much the same, or at least that humans have the potential to become gods like God through exaltation in the celestial kingdom. The non-LDS churches teach that no one can become a god; God is God alone, always and forever. When we die, we can go to Heaven and live with Him, and "become like Him" in a sense, but not become gods. We become like Him through a new knowledge we will gain, and through our living in Heaven with him from death to eternity. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I added words in to explain my point - hence, the parentheses. The correct verse states: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." To me and to the other Catholics and Protestants out there, this clearly shows that God has always existed, since the beginning. Not since the beginning of this time, but since The Beginning of everything. Can it be interpreted differently? Sure, since that is how the LDS church interprets it, but we feel we don't need to take that extra leap (for, to us, that *is* and extra leap) and (in our opinion) *add* meaning to something that isn't stated. But in the end, my adding words to explain my point is moot, since you do the same. Let's continue. The same as above would apply to Genesis. Since the Bible says "In the beginning..." we take it to mean "In the beginning..." Anything else (once again, to me and my fellow Catholics and Protestants) is either A.) trying to force the Bible to fit into an already conceived notion, or B.) simply unnecessary. And when looking at the Bible in its entirety (which is the proper way to interpret it), it makes most sense to say that God has always existed since the beginning of all time, ever, since He is continuously called eternal and the Creator. No other creators are ever mentioned. So we take that to mean that God has always existed (eternal), and that no one created Him (*He* is the Creator, no one else). In the end, since none of us was there when God created everything, *ALL* of us are assuming what the Scriptures mean. Non-LDS assume Genesis refers to the beginning of everything. LDS assume it refers to the beginning of one particular eternity cycle. We are all going to go in a circle; you saying I assume suchandsuch, and I saying you assume suchandsuch. Well... it's true. I am, and you are. I have never had God come to me and explain His ways, and I'm pretty sure He hasn't to you either. What we rely on is our respective churches to explain to us what Scripture means. I believe in my church because I believe it is the church Christ created while He was on Earth. I don't believe in the Great Apostasy, because I believe that Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church; that it would not go into grave error. And that it wouldn't leave the Earth (to me it makes no sense for Christ to establish His Church and then allow it to die out and have all of His followers living contrary to His will). You believe what your church says to be true, through the man Joseph Smith and his successors. You believe your church is the true church (and that I am a member of the Great Abominable Church... oh well for me, I guess?) that Christ created on Earth, that left entirely and had to be reinstated by JS. For me, God is not human and, therefore, doesn't have to be subject to our rules. That's why 3=1 makes sense. For humans, 3 can't equal 1. For God, 3 can equal 560, or 900, or 27. We do, however, believe that all three Persons of the Trinity are "one in purpose," because we believe them to be One. The Bible has many accounts of God being God alone, of there being only one God, which means there must be one Being who is God. In the LDS context, the Godhead has three beings...even if they are one in purpose, they are still three beings, which goes against all of the OT verses saying there is one God. If it is so difficult to believe that 3 Persons can make 1 God, then it should be equally difficult to believe that 3 beings equal 1 God. To use the family analogy that I saw floating around here earlier: a husband, a wife, and a child all make up a family. They are three beings in one family. They can all agree on everything all of the time. But when it comes down to it, they are still three distinct beings. There will be three plates at each meal, three seats at the table, three deaths at the end. When you speak to the husband, you are not speaking to the wife, or the child, or all three at once. You are speaking only to the husband. They are three separate, distinct beings. Their family is a unit comprising three different, distinct beings. This, to me, explains the LDS Godhead. A Godhead (family) that has three distinct beings (Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Holy Ghost). If all of them are God, then they are God in and of themselves; three gods. Would this be a valid way to describe it? Why not say that? Why not say that you worship three gods who make up one unit? And, come to that, how is the Godhead worshiped and why? Are Christ and the Holy Ghost worshiped the same as the Father is worshiped (I have read somewhere that only the Father should be worshiped). And how did Christ and the Holy Spirit become part of the Godhead anyway? Wasn't Jesus a spirit child of Heavenly Father, the same as Lucifer and everyone else? Is He a member of the Godhead strictly because of His role as Redeemer? And if His role was to show us the way to ultimate salvation, why didn't Jesus ever marry? Or the Apostles? If the only way to the highest degree of the highest kingdom of Heaven is through eternal marriage, why did Christ not demonstrate that while on Earth, and why did none of the Apostles follow suit? On a side note, about the offspring thing: I never got into that before. God has a Son who was not created through physical means, and who always existed in eternity with Him. (He was "eternally begotten of the Father... begotten, not made") We do not say He was created; He "was incarnate through the Virgin Mary." "...He (God) is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to His Father..." We do not believe that Christ is God's Son in the human sense of the word -- that a man and a woman created a male child through physical means.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

I didn't make this idea up, if that's what you mean. And it does make sense. God cannot be subject to His creation. We, as humans, as God's creations, cannot tell God what to do. He cannot be subject to our laws, our time, our minds, our definitions. He is above, and outside, all of that. The only time God has been subject to our laws of nature was when the Second Person of the Trinity - Christ - took on a physical body and lived on Earth among us. Even now He has a perfected, transfigured body in Heaven. Ultimately, God is not the same as us, and we are not the same as God. His realm trumps ours. We are subject to His laws, but He is not subject to ours. He will not be subject to something He created (unless He specifically allows it; unless He specifically puts on our humanity, comes down to *our* level).

I am so confused by this. You asked that before: if this was my opinion or God's. Then I sited multiple instances from the Bible which support my statement. But instead of trying to debate those points, you just once again ask if this is my opinion. I don't know what more I can do to answer the question aside from site holy Scripture. And no. We *don't* all agree that God is one. Trinitarians believe that God is one. The LDS church believes that God is three. Three beings. Three beings who have a common purpose are *still* three beings, not one. That's my opinion. That's just fact. You and I are two separate beings. If we agree on everything there is to agree on... we will still be two separate beings, not one. I don't understand why the LDS church doesn't just call a spade a spade and admit that they believe in a Godhead that is comprised of three separate beings who work in harmony, instead of trying to say that three separate, but harmonious beings are really one being. It doesn't make sense. And once again, I request: I have listed Scripture verses that I believe back up my position. Instead of just saying my position is incorrect or doesn't make sense (which, to me and billions of other people over the past 2,000 years, it does), site some Scriptures to both refute my position and support your own. I understand that there are different ways to interpret Scripture. If I was not a Trinitarian, then I would probably interpret Scripture in the way the Oneness Pentecostals interpret it (you can look them up on Wikipedia). But the LDS view would still not make sense to me unless the church admits that they believe in a three-being Godhead and worship all three separate beings. But believing one thing, and then trying to make it fit into a different description doesn't work.

1.) I see once again you use Christ praying to the Father as an example to disprove the Trinity. But I have spoken before about how it is possible for person of the Trinity to speak to another, while still remaining one Being. 2.) I do not believe God was "created or born." I don't know where you got this idea. I have said repeatedly that God is the first Creator: nothing created Him; He has always existed, He is the First and the Last. 3.) I have sited many verses to help explain the Trinity. I *have* said that the Trinity is a mystery, but have also given examples. Too numerous to post again. 4.) The only thing I will say again is: The Bible (OT, NT), as well as the BofM, frequently and continuously make mention of God being the *only* God, being God *alone.* Therefore, He would have to have one Being. If He were three Beings, He would be three gods. 5.) To me, this is human language. Point blank. Three beings = three gods. If this is what God meant and, as you keep mentioning, God doesn't want to confuse us but use language we can understand, then why has He never mentioned even ONCE that He is three gods with one purpose? He doesn't. Because that's not who He is. 6.) Men can have eternal life after death. How? Because God grants it. God created us here on Earth (not before) through God-like means (not through physical sex with a heavenly mother), and will judge us according to this life. If we have been tainted with sin and not repented, then we will go to Hell. If we have been reconciled to God, but still have the taint of venial sin, we will go to Purgatory to be purged of that sin (for nothing unclean can enter into God's presence), and then go to Heaven. If we are lucky enough to have been reconciled to God and die in a state of grace, then we go to Heaven for the rest of eternity. (Protestants deny the doctrine of Purgatory, but other than that the idea is the same.) 7.) We do not believe we existed before this life on Earth. We believe that we can live forever after death. Now, as to what Heaven looks like or what our intellects will be like, we don't know. Will we be able to see all time? I personally think so. Will we be able to know more? I personally think so. Will we be outside of time? I think so too. But our outside of time and God's outside of time I believe will be different. Because God has always existed, and we have not. It is only through God that we can gain eternity, not through our own existence. I believe we will be able to *see* all of time, but not *exist* in all time. Kind of like, You can live for eternity from this point on-type thing. 8.) As always, I am not a professional theologian. And I'm pretty sure no one on this board is either. I, and everyone else, might not be able to explain everything the way a professional theologian could. And anyone's silence or ignorance of something doesn't mean that their respective churches don't have an answer for a question, or don't have evidence for their reason for believing something. I will try to defend my faith as well as I can, but please don't mistake me for an expert. I will do the same for everyone else. 9.) Now, if you look at your explanation for man becoming eternal, and then apply it to God, that would make sense. Except that in that case you are bringing God down to your level instead of understanding that He is above us. If the Bible had only ever described God as "eternal" then you might have a better case. But the Bible says God is the First and the Last (the First Being ever). Not the First *in this eternity,* but *the First.* The very first verse of the Bible says "In the beginning..." the beginning of what? Why assume it is the beginning of this eternity? It doesn't say that. It says in the beginning. There's no reason to add more to the verse. If God were trying to use our language and not confuse us, why would He want these verses stated, and then have us make the jump from "In the beginning..." to "In the beginning... of this cycle of eternity, because, really, God hasn't always existed *literally* since the beginning; but was a man on another world somewhere else that just happens to never be mentioned in this book ever, and so we're talking here about God creating this Earth in the beginning of this cycle of time." To me *this* is the bigger leap. The much bigger leap. 10.) There are still two issues aside from this that, in my opinion, lead the LDS church into a problem. A.) The LDS church, even aside from the doctrine of the Trinity, is polytheistic anyway. Even if this Earth should only worship one god, the church still believes that other gods exist. B.) The OT, NT, *and* the BofM frequently make mention of God as being unchangeable, the same from first to last. How can God be constant and unchangeable if He has not always been God, but was once a man like you or me on a world somewhere out in space, and then *became* God later on? And on *that* note, who was the first god? If this is just one long cycle of men becoming gods... wouldn't there have to be an eternal first god to get the ball rolling? The cycles can't have existed on their own without some help. Why not worship that first god, since he would have to be the eternal, all-powerful one?

Snow - Other than the "made in God's image" verse, I'd like to see some verses that prove God the Father has any kind of physical body. Most of the verses I've seen explain the Father as being the "invisible" God... not the visible, physical God.

Can someone explain what the Celestial Kingdom is supposed to be like? If there are three degrees, are they separated from each other? Are the "angels" mentioned as being in the second degree the same "angels" that are mentioned in the Bible? And what is going on in the other two kingdoms? Who gets to go to each kingdom? Is spirit prison a real place, like the kingdoms of heaven? If God and Christ have tangible bodies, where are they in heaven? Are they in the same kingdom? Do they move about them all? Why exactly was Christ sent to Earth? I have been told that He was sent to show us the plan of salvation. If that's the case, why didn't He marry while on Earth, since that is the plan of getting to the highest degree of the highest kingdom? Why would He show us the way to return to God, but not show us the way to be exalted?

Maureen -- I explained the doctrine of the Trinity in the same way, using the God is Love explanation. It works very well. Not completely off topic, as it pertains to the Holy Spirit (or the Holy Ghost I guess I should say ... do LDS members always refer to the Spirit as the Holy Ghost?): Can someone explain to me a little about the idea of personal revelation? I have heard this phrase frequently, but don't exactly know what it encompasses. Is it revelation in the Joseph Smith/prophet sense (i.e.- can anyone in the church receive revelations such as Smith got in the D&C?), or is it something else? I have frequently heard it mentioned in reference to Bible study. Is revelation the way that the HG helps us understand things? How does someone receive a revelation?

What I'm saying is that if God is three *beings* then He is three Gods. Period. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity works: because God is one Being, with three persons *within that one Being.* If God were three separate, distinct, complete-within-themselves beings, then He would be three separate, distinct, complete-within-themselves gods. And yes, thank you, I *have* read the Old Testament (the Catholic OT, which includes the 7 deuterocanonical books)... *and* the New Testament, *and* the Book of Mormon, *and* half of the Doctrine & Covenants. The first three (OT, NT, BOM) frequently make mention of God being the only God. It is only in later writings of Joseph Smith that the idea of the Godhead in the LDS sense gets started. A few examples (out of many):: Isaiah 45:18: "I am the LORD, and there is no other." Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no god." 2 Kings 19:19: "...that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O Lord, art God alone." Isaiah 45:21: "Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior..." James 2:19: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder." Ephesians 4:6: "... one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." Romans 3:39-30: "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one" 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords" -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." Note that in 1 Corinthians, the other gods elsewhere spoken of are called "so-called" gods; therefore when the OT speaks of there being "other gods" to the Jews, it doesn't mean that those things were actually gods. So the Commandment given to the Jews to worship no other gods but God makes more sense in the light of the Oneness of God -- God is I AM WHO I AM. (He is existence Himself.) Note also that Isaiah 44 mentions that God is the "first and the last," meaning that God has always existed and will always exist. No one created Him; He is the first and ultimate Creator. God is the Creator. The Creator of space and time. To say that God occupies space is to render Him NOT the Creator. He would be rendered subject to His creation. Therefore, we believe that God the Father does *not* have a tangible body. The person of Christ *does* have a tangible (perfect, transfigured) body. And yet, God can still be with those who are gathered ("where two or three come together in my name , there am I with them" - Matthew 18:20), because He can be with them in other forms, in the other persons of God, exactly because He is not bound to the limits of humanity. That is how Christ can be present in the Eucharist (as taught by the Catholic Church), and still stay in Heaven. And having a God that is bound by the laws of physics (i.e. - having God the Father have a tangible body) means that He *can't* be all-knowing, or outside the realm of time and space. But that is strictly refuted in Luke 12:6-7; Psalm 90:4; and 2 Peter 3:8 -- verses which explain that God knows everything and is outside the realm of time. For me, it is much easier to wrap my mind around there being one God in three persons -- having one Being, with three persons within that Being -- than it is to say that God is one, but also has two other Beings -- that there are three separate, distinct, complete beings of God (such as you, I, and my friend are three distinct beings) that are still one God... they're just one God in purpose. For me, the second notion is polytheism (which the LDS church claims to be anyway...), and the first notion is monotheism. And since the Bible repeatedly says there are no other gods beside God, it seems to me that monotheism is the way to go. But with the LDS doctrine of the Godhead (among other doctrines), the LDS church cannot be monotheistic.

I did mention that the egg example is used for children. So, no, it's not the best example in the world. It's very basic and simplistic. On another note- I don't think God purposely confuses us, as you keep stating. The problem is that we try to fit God into our box, our mind, our explanations, our language, when God is outside all of that. God also has existed, and will exist, for all eternity, but humans cannot fully grasp that concept, since we live in time. God is outside of all time, which is a human invention, but not having time is something humans can't fully grasp because we live in a world in which we count time. So we use our own words to describe or explain God, even when they might not fully encompass all He is; we have no other way. This doesn't mean that God is confusing us. It means that we are not God. If we knew everything, if we could explain everything, if we could fully see all of God's world, then we would be God too. And having a God who fit into time, space, matter, language, the material world would mean that He is not God, but Man. If God can fully be explained with and through humans means, if He exists in a human way, if He can be confined to space and time... well, then, He's not really an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful, can-do-anything-He-wants-to God. And, therefore, is not, in my opinion, worthy of my worship, honor, or praise. This is one issue many people run into in the LDS doctrine of beliefs: that God is an exalted man, who lived just like we do now. This idea goes contrary to what Catholics and Protestants teach about the very essence and qualities of God. God is eternal. God has always existed; He is the first Creator; no one created Him, because He is existence itself.

Since there are a lot of denominations, with a lot of churches, with a lot of pastor and teachers and deacons, it's easy for things to sometimes be misunderstood and misconstrued. But any denomination that believes in the Trinity in the orthodox sense believes that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one being with three persons. They might not have been able to explain it properly, but in their heads, this is what they believe. (It's sometimes hard for people to explain the Trinity, because it's not a very human, earthly quality, so it's hard for humans to explain it in human terms.) And yes - some people mistakenly fall back on the "God's ways are mysterious" explanation if they can't figure out how to explain something. God's ways *are* mysterious, but we can still explain the doctrine of the Trinity. Here is a breakdown of the doctrine I've seen before:: 1.) There is one God. (Isaiah 45:21-23; 2 Kings 19:19; James 2:19; Romans 3:29-30; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6) 2.) God the Father is God, God the Son is God, God the Holy Spirit is God. (Acts 7:59-60; Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 1:8; John 20:28; Matthew 28:9) 3.) God the Father is not God the Son. The Holy Spirit is distinct from Both, even though He proceeds from Both. (Luke 23:46; Genesis 1:2; Acts 10:19; Acts 8:16; Acts 16:6-7; 1 Thessalonians 4:8) 4.)Nevertheless, they remain "One in Being," not separate Gods. (John 10:28-30; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Jude 1:20-21) 1 John 4:8 also describes God as Love itself. There is a good description I've seen in which it is explained that, in order for God to *be* Love, He must, at the same time, be both Lover and Beloved, *within Himself.* In order for God to be three distinct, separate *Beings* there would have to be three Gods. Those Gods might work in harmony together, but if their beings are separate, then they are separate : three different, distinct, separate Gods. (But the Bible is frequently and continuously clear that there is only *one* God.) Non-LDS also believe that, though Christ has a tangible body (through his unique *person* of the divinely God and Man role in salvation history), that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit *do not* have tangible bodies. John 4:24 states: "God is spirit." Hebrews 2:14-18 explains that God "partook of the same nature" (flesh and blood) as his children through the person of *Christ.* God the Father did not partake of that nature. Colossians 1:15 says that God is "invisible" and that Christ is the image of the "invisible" God. Christ, in his human nature, took on a body of flesh while God the Father did not. Another simpler way to explain the Trinity-one that is used for children, as is the triangle analogy - is that God is like an egg. There is the yolk, the white, and the shell. But they are all an Egg.