Cherub = G-d

[yaanufs]

But the danger on this type of interpretation (this coming from an amature in theology mind you...) is that technically every time someone is doing the will of God, we are "acting" like and "being" like God.  This could lead some to cease worshipping God and worshipping man.  My take anyway...

I'm not going to try and get involved in the main thrust of your discussion with Ray, I'm happy to sit on the sidelines and watch.

However, I had to pick up on a couple of points, the above quote was the one that jumped out at me the most. To me it sounds like your amature theology is actually claiming that people shouldn't do good works in case some people are foolish enough to start worshiping the person perfoming the good deeds in prefernce to God. I'm sure you don't actually really mean that, but it certainly comes across that way.

Perhaps we should only perform any labours of love and follow them up with a small disclaimer, like advertisers often are required to do. "This Christ like act of service I have performed was not soley undertaken by the person performing the deed, but with background support from God. Although the act gives the apperance that the person is in fact becoming more Christ like, this is in no way intended to indicate that Christ should not be recognised in this act"

I do not accept a pre-existence.  To me, belief in the eternal existence of the soul would make irrelevant the Resurrection.  If I always existed, as you believe, without God, then God could not destroy me.  This limits the power of God, and He is no longer Omnipotent.  In other words, what do I care if I have a body or not, as long as i still exist, what does it matter?  What will I do with a body that I cannot with a Spirit/Soul?

I don't think LDS do teach that we always existed. As far as our limited understanding of time is concerned our spirit personalities and characters have existed since organisation/creation/spiritual birth by Heavenly parents, but it was such a long time ago that the only real way of describing it is to call it eternity. What we do teach though is that matter (both physical and spiritual) and unorganised intelligence is literaly eternal. Technically God could destroy (unorganise your intelligence) you if he wanted to. If I'm way off track here perhaps some of the other LDS folk would like to correct me on this issue.

The issue of why you would want a body is perhaps best discussed by a weak analogy, best I could come up with in the time scale I'm afraid. A man has legs (spirit being), they allow him to move around easily, to travel and to carry things from one plce to another. Why would you want a pickup truck(perfected being)? Do you not want to get around faster and be able to carry more things? Okay, it's a crap analogy, but maybe someone else can throw one in, or I'll think of a better one later

I'd be interested in why you think we have a body now, if the ultimate goal is to just be a spirit? Why would God create a spirit at the last second before placing in a body with the ultimate plane to dump the body? Why not just skip the body part and just have the spirits he created remain as such?

You state as fact, sir, what you cannot prove.  Dangerous thinking in my view...

It actually came across as you stating a position as fact and Ray stating a more compromised view.

That's why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us.  That's my argument for Catholicism.

Doesn't every church claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

What point is there in having more than one all powerful God?  Does God really need YOU to help him create worlds without end?

Perhaps God doesn't need us, perhaps he would just want us to be like him and to help him. Much like any parent wants their offspring to be at least equal, or more commonly, better than they were.

I don't consider the "philosophies of men" to be of the devil

Again I'm not sure you really mean how this comes across. I think you mean you don't consider the philosophies of men you agree with to be of the devil, although the philosophies of men you disagree with are clearly of the devil.

[Ray]

Jason:  Geez Ray, if I would have known you were writing a book..... By the way, I've removed some of the redundant stuff...

I thank you for that, but don’t believe that I feel obligated to respond to everything you say. I’ll quit talking about this as soon as I see that what I’m saying isn’t doing any good.

Ray:  So in other words, you think John was saying Jesus was with Himself in the beginning?  Interesting idea, but are you sure you have reached a correct conclusion?

Jason:  Let me correct myself here. I’m afraid I might have misled the readers here on the interpretation of the Trinity. With what I've posted, I basically defined tri-theism as opposed to the Blessed Trinity. So, I'll clarify what I mean. The Trinity is one essence with three beings. Whereas tri-theism is three essences with one being. On the other hand, Mormonism teaches that there are three essences with three beings. If that makes sense to you, you’re doing better than most!

That should help clarify most of what I've posted in the past, and my understanding of it all.

I think we will only complicate things if we begin using other words to classify God, so let’s consider the words “essence” and “being” as a reference to the same thing, shall we? When you consider this “essence”, you’re considering a “being”, aren’t you?

So to put your words in other words, “The Trinity is one being with three beings. Whereas tri-theism is three beings with one being. On the other hand, Mormonism teaches that there are three beings with three beings.”

If what you mean by “essence” is not a being, then please clarify what you are talking about.

Now to further modify what I think you are saying:

The Trinity is one classification of being consisting of 3 beings, whereas tri-theism is 3 beings consisting of one being. On the other hand, Mormonism teaches that there are 3 beings consisting of 3 beings. Is that a fair representation of what you mean?

Now I’ll try to modify your understanding to be more consistent with my own.

The Trinity consists of 3 beings, and each one of these beings is God. They are in unity as one, but they are not one being, at least not any more than Man is one being. They are, however, one classification of being, and that classification of being is also known as God. Hence, God is a word that has more than one meaning. God is a word we use to refer to a classification of being, or to a specific being. The Trinity is 3 of those beings.

Ray:  Let’s talk about the word “God” for a moment. What do you think that word refers to?   I say that word refers to EITHER a specific being who can be classified as God OR all beings who can be classified as God."

Jason:  Using my definition of the Trinity as described above, I have no problem with this....

If I correctly understand your description, then I don’t either.

Ray:  When we refer to a specific being, though, we use a capital “G”.

Jason:  This is where I differ. Although the Greek New Testament uses nothing but Capitol Letters, we use capital "G" to denote the true God from the lower cased "g" of false gods.

I’m not talking about true vs. false gods or Gods here. I’m talking about singular vs. plural.

We can disregard this point if you like, because after thinking about it some more I realized that that “rule” doesn’t always apply.

And as you may have noticed, I sometimes use a capital “M” in Man when referring to all of mankind as well as when using it to define a specific Man.

Ray:  In the first chapter of John, for instance, the word God is being used both ways, and if we were to substitute some words for other words we would have:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with our heavenly Father, and Jesus was God.

Jason:  I can see why you would do that. Here's how I might do it:

"In the beginning there was the Being, and the Being was part of the Essence, and the Being is the Essence."

Whew...that'll stretch your mind a bit...

Do you consider this “Essence” to be a “Being” or not?

Now try this interpretation:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

You should at least be able to identify Jesus with “The Word”, so keep that in mind if you want to try again.

Ray:  I say you interpret John 14 more literally than I do, so you arrive at a different conclusion.  You say that Jesus was saying that He was and is literally the Father, our heavenly Father.

Jason:  Again, I hope I've clarified the difference between the Blessed Trinity, and Tri-Theism. Sorry for the mix-up.

Whatever word you use to classify God, I think we’re talking about the same thing.

Ray:  I say that Jesus was saying that He was and is essentially our heavenly Father, because they are the same classification of being and essentially the same.

Jason:  This is where I'd pipe in with the same "essence" different "being". See Ray, you're not so far removed from a belief in the Trinity as you think.

Or how about the same “classification” of Being, vs. a “specific” Being.

As I have said, there is only one classification of Being known as God, and I have no problem considering God as a distinguishable classification.

Ray:  "...They also have the same powers and attributes, yet our heavenly Father is or at least was greater than Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said that."

Jason:  Some deep theology in that sentence. This is where we define the "human" from the "God" natures of Christ. He was both fully Human and fully God. Was it his human side speaking or his divine side? Probably not something we can know for sure.

We can know that, but I won’t get into that now since it really doesn’t relate to the main issue here.

Ray:  Jesus did what He had seen our heavenly Father do...

Jason:  Well....you know our differences on this....

I’ll assume you’re saying that you don’t take that statement from Jesus literally either.

Ray:  …and in fact, Jesus carried out our Father’s will, so when looking at Jesus we can see our heavenly Father through Him. This conclusion is obvious to me in light of Jesus’ references to how we come to the Father, how Jesus was going to the Father, and how the Father was greater than Jesus. How else would Jesus be able to show the Father to someone other than by being like Him?

Jason:  But the danger on this type of interpretation (this coming from an amateur in theology mind you...) is that technically every time someone is doing the will of God, we are "acting" like and "being" like God. This could lead some to cease worshipping God and worshipping man. My take anyway...

A possibility, I suppose, but since God has told us that we should do His will and be perfect as He is, I think we should obey Him regardless of what anybody else thinks or does.

Ray:  Again, you understand things differently than I do, the reasoning from both of us is logical, but only one of us has a correct understanding on this issue.

Jason:  ok.

Is that the sound of crickets I hear? It is an obvious truth, isn’t it.

Ray:  Correct, but again, we disagree on our understanding of these issues....And yes, God is a Spirit, clothed with a body . It would not be correct to say that God is a Body. In this way we are like Him, except that His Spirit is perfected and His body is glorified."

Jason:  Well....you know I disagree...

Which part do you not agree with, and why? Will you at least admit that Jesus has a body, and that Jesus is God? Oh, nevermind, you probably figure He discarded His body sometime after He was resurrected with it… another conclusion that doesn’t make any sense to me.

Ray: Do you believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?

Jason: That's what Jesus taught. So, yeah, I believe it.

Ray:  Again, I say Jesus taught that He was essentially our heavenly Father, not literally. They are two separate beings, each in unity with each other.

Jason:  And for myself, I hope that I've clarified myself with the difference between the Trinity and Tri-theism.

I don’t see that you’ve clarified anything by the use of the word “Essence”, since you’re basically saying the same thing with just another word.

Ray:  Correct, Jesus was not brought into existence in the womb of Mary. Jesus has always existed, just as you and I have always existed, except that you and I are not perfected like He is.

Jason:  I do not accept a pre-existence. To me, belief in the eternal existence of the soul would make irrelevant the Resurrection.

What relevance does the resurrection have if we’re merely going to discard our bodies? Oh, I see, you think your body pretty much sums up everything you are, so that without it you don’t exist.

Jason:  If I always existed, as you believe, without God, then God could not destroy me. This limits the power of God, and He is no longer Omnipotent. In other words, what do I care if I have a body or not, as long as I still exist, what does it matter?

You sound like a little kid who thinks your Daddy can do anything, but we all have limitations. Newsflash: There are lots of things that God cannot do.

For instance, God cannot make you do anything. Why? Because God said He wouldn’t. If God were to force you to do something, that would then make God a liar. But God cannot lie.

God also cannot simply dismiss the consequences of your actions, because justice must prevail. If not, God would not be a just God, which would also make God unpredictable. But God cannot be unpredictable.

That means that God also cannot grant mercy to us unless justice if satisfied, which was accomplished through the atonement of Jesus Christ. God said that He would provide the means to satisfy the demands of justice so that we could obtain mercy, and He did. We must now accept the terms and conditions offered by Jesus, who has paid the price for our sins, or God will yet again be unable to redeem us. God will not be offering any other means to save us, so God must condemn us to justice if we do not accept the terms and conditions of the gospel. For a just God, there is no other choice.

Jason:  What will I do with a body that I cannot with a Spirit/Soul?

Want to wait and find out?

Ray: And since you brought it up, I also do not accept the theory that God the Father had sex with Mary to impregnate her, but I do know that Jesus is a begotten son of our heavenly Father.

Jason:  Well...I just brought that up to be difficult. I know most LDS think Brigham was full of baloney when he taught that....

Can you provide the reference for that please? I’d like to see for myself what he actually said, and whether or not he was only stating a personal belief.

Ray:  I find it interesting how you veer off into blatant speculation at this point, by saying that the Genesis narrative was plagiarized by the “Hebrews”. I concede that some people have that understanding and that it is a possibility, but it is not correct.

Jason: You state as fact, sir, what you cannot prove. Dangerous thinking in my view...

Heh, you aren’t serious, are you? You stated as fact that the Hebrews plagiarized that story from other cultures, yet you do not know that to be true. I, on the other hand, do know that the story is true and that it originated from the people who received revelation from God. No, I can’t prove it to you, anymore than you can prove your position, but I know the truth.

Ray:  I also find it interesting how you don’t accept this passage literally, while I do, yet you accept some other passages literally, while I don’t. Heh, reverse your thinking and we’ll both agree.

Jason:  I view the creation as an allegory. Science has clearly proven that the Genesis myth is just that, a myth. I see it as a way for God to teach an illiterate, ignorant people how the world came to be. Today, God has blessed us with greater intelligence and knowledge, so that we now better understand how the world came into being.

I’m guessing this is something else you won’t know to be true until you find out otherwise.

Ray:  True, there is no mystery when you understand the truth, but how do you know the difference between knowing the truth and knowing what you think is true?"

Jason:  I pray and ask for God's guidance. I imagine you do the same.

Yea, but how do you know when you are receiving revelation from God and when you are only relying upon your own understanding?

Ray:  My understanding of this issue isn’t limited to the words “yahed” and “ehad”, but words are important, don’t you agree?

Jason:  Absolutely.

Glad to hear it.

Ray:  Can’t you see an advantage to looking at source documents instead of how other people interpret or translate what was said?

Jason:  Of course. The problem is how did the writer convey his thoughts with words that may have changed meaning? For example, take the word Gay. Now if Joseph Smith had written: "Man is that he might be gay." You'd have a heck of a problem on your hands, right? Words themselves can changes meanings. That's why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us. That's my argument for Catholicism.

Heh, yes, without a correct understanding of what someone meant, we can come up with all kinds of different interpretations, which is exactly the problem we’re facing here. And yes, that is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us. I’m glad to hear you say that. :)

Ray:  Yes, Christ is God, but Christ is not our heavenly Father, as people often use the word God to refer to our heavenly Father. Christ is God, Christ is Jesus, and Christ is Jehovah, but Christ is not the person we commonly refer to as our heavenly Father. And yet even that is debatable, because Christ becomes our Father as we are born again through Him, and since He is also in heaven, with our heavenly Father, He can also be referred to as our heavenly Father. Interesting, huh."

Jason:  Definitely. And believe it or not, the above agrees pretty well with the Trinity. Even more interesting huh?

Yes, I have known for quite a while that we are in agreement more than most people realize. :)

Ray:  I’ve already given you my understanding on this issue. Where does your source information come from? I don’t happen to know much about the word “Kirabu”, but I’m interested in learning more.

Jason:  That's from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Go to newadvent.com.

When I have the time. :)

Ray:  I was saying that God’s offspring can be classified into different orders of being, distinguished by what I believe to be different stages of development.

A computer is not the offspring of man, so that hardly qualifies as an appropriate example."

Jason:  I disagree. I don't believe that the Father is a man. Or ever was a Man, or ever will be a man. So the example actually is appropriate.

Trying looking into the future for a moment. Can you see yourself in heaven and living with God? Will you be like Him? More and more like Him as time or eternity goes on? What classification would you use to describe who and what you are? You will be more glorified than you are now, don’t you think? You will be one way, and God will be one way, and you will both either be the same classification of being, or not. If not, that works too.

As eternity rolls on, God will continue to create worlds, and there will then be God in heaven, you in heaven (we both hope), and other beings on other planets like Earth. You will concede the idea that God will continue to do what He does, won’t you?

So there will then be 2, possibly 3 classifications of beings, 2 in heaven and 1 on a planet like Earth. No matter what words you use to refer to those classifications of beings, this will happen, don’t you agree?

Jason: There is only One God. There is no need for more than One God. Why do you think we even need more than one Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient being in the universe?

Ray: To answer your question about why we might need more than one being known as God, you tell me, why do we need more than one classification of being known as Man? Or do we?

Jason:  That doesn't answer my question. I know there are different types of men. But there is only One God. Please, think about this. What point is there in having more than one all powerful God? Does God really need YOU to help him create worlds without end?

Heh, of course God does not need me. And God doesn’t need you either. But He loves us anyway, and He wants to help us to be happy. Will you agree with that? And just how happy do you think God wants us to be? Do you think He will place a limit on how happy He will help us to be? Do you think there’s a limit on how much He will help us to accomplish?

Ray:  How do you define a philosopher? Seems to me that you and I can both come up with the philosophies of men all day long, but how are we ever going to know the truth?

Jason:  I believe that philosophy is useful for understanding God and the mysteries of the Gospel. I don't consider the "philosophies of men" to be of the devil. Your own Mormon revelations declare that the Glory of God is intelligence. I believe that God has given us this intelligence to better understand Him and His ways.

Yes, He has, but He will not force us or compel us to use it, or to do anything else that we do not want to do, other than accept responsibility for our own actions. He will inspire us, and He will help us to know the truth, but He won’t change your mind or increase your intelligence against your will. I suggest that we all try to rely on Him and learn from Him as much as we can.

[porterrockwell]

First off, God does need us, we are his children, that is how he is glorified. Divine Stewardship. What good is the power to create something if you are not gonna use it to fullfill Celestial Law. Eternal Progression is such a beautiful thing, and I don't personally feel that God doesn't need us, there is a love and a new level of understanding we gain through stewardship, without that, in what way is he Omnipotent???? I think Eternity would be miserable if we did not have the ability to create and care for those intelligences we endow with mortal tabernacles. Anyway, that is just me.

Here are a few things purtaining to "philosophy" and intelligence.

"The intelligent man glories in righteousness, not only does he KNOW truth, but WISELY applies it in all his actions"

"The Glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one."

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

"Satan has great knowledge and therefore power, but he has no intelligence, or light of truth, which is the Spirit of Christ.....If he had intelligence, or light of truth, which comes only from God, he could not possibly be the adversary of all righteousness"

These are all quotes from "The Way To Perfection" by Joseph Fielding Smith. This is definately one book that I believe would answer a lot of questions that people have on here(if the book of mormon and praying haven't already).

[Ray]

First off, God does need us, we are his children, that is how he is glorified.

An interesting idea, but I believe God would be a glorious being even if none of His children worshipped Him. If you’re talking about receiving appreciation or praise, consider the fact that parents are usually the ones to praise their children while the children hardly notice, so our parents aren’t sustained in who they are merely by what they receive from us.

Divine Stewardship. What good is the power to create something if you are not gonna use it to fulfill Celestial Law.

Could you apply this question to the topic at hand? I could try to figure out what you’re saying but it seems a little too vague.

Eternal Progression is such a beautiful thing, and I don't personally feel that God doesn't need us.  There is a love and a new level of understanding we gain through stewardship.  Without that, in what way is he Omnipotent????

Please elaborate on what you are talking about in regards to stewardship, and how that makes God omnipotent. I feel that God loves me too, but I know he doesn’t need me. All I can offer Him that He doesn’t already have is my love, and in contrast to the love I receive from Him it’s practically nothing.

I think Eternity would be miserable if we did not have the ability to create and care for those intelligences we endow with mortal tabernacles. Anyway, that is just me.

If you’re saying that Eternity would be miserable without children, I can almost agree. For me, though, my greatest joy comes from spending time with my wife, and I imagine that it will always be that way throughout eternity. Any children we have or may have are only a byproduct of our relationship together. Yes, I want them to be happy, and I will do all I can to help them, but if they choose to live in a way that I don’t agree with, they are allowed to influence the relationship between my wife and I only so much. A house filled with rebellious children would not be a good home for us.

Here are a few things pertaining to "philosophy" and intelligence.

"The intelligent man glories in righteousness, not only does he KNOW truth, but WISELY applies it in all his actions"

"The Glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one."

"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

"Satan has great knowledge and therefore power, but he has no intelligence, or light of truth, which is the Spirit of Christ.....If he had intelligence, or light of truth, which comes only from God, he could not possibly be the adversary of all righteousness"

These are all quotes from "The Way To Perfection" by Joseph Fielding Smith. This is definitely one book that I believe would answer a lot of questions that people have on here(if the Book of Mormon and praying haven't already).

A book by any prophet of God is worth reading, but even they don’t have all of the answers. And even when they do have an answer to something, the way they phrase things sometimes makes the issue hard to understand. Yes, we should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help with that, but the Spirit also touches us when we read or hear words from anybody.

In other words, it can be an advantage to hear from people who speak or write like we do, and being able to ask questions from our peers helps a lot too. I suppose that’s why lots of people come to a website like this, instead of only reading good books and praying.

[porterrockwell]

What I am saying is, from what I read, from what I have learned, is that the Lord is glorified in his obedience to Celestial Law and his understanding of it. And that what good is the ability to create something, if you never use it. I'm not saying that my existance is in someway equal to that of God's.

But from what I have felt after praying and searching the divine principles he has set forth, he wouldn't be as happy without Divine Stewardship. He is the Father of countless intelligences, imagine how happy it makes him when his children even through trials and imperfect tabernacles follow that which is Celestial Law. What we sometimes forget is he still has a work..."For this is my work and this is my glory, to bring to pass the immortalality and eternal life of mankind". He is perfect and will not fail, but part of his Celestial progression is his Divine Stewardship...."God is that man might be", that's all I am saying.

I personally cannot wait to have kids, and being of the same substance of my Heavenly Father won't that yearning for pro-creation and rearing through Celestial Law exist as an eternal and divine principle by which we are governed and glorified??? I don't know, just my thoughts, I'm also very young too, so if any of this sounds philosophical or blasphemous, let me know, because that is the last thing I want to be.

[Jason]

Yaanufs,

"I don't think LDS do teach that we always existed. As far as our limited understanding of time is concerned our spirit personalities and characters have existed since organisation/creation/spiritual birth by Heavenly parents, but it was such a long time ago that the only real way of describing it is to call it eternity. What we do teach though is that matter (both physical and spiritual) and unorganised intelligence is literaly eternal. Technically God could destroy (unorganise your intelligence) you if he wanted to. If I'm way off track here perhaps some of the other LDS folk would like to correct me on this issue."

I believe you have correctly described the LDS theory. However, Christians reject even the idea that as matter we existed before birth, simply because God created everything, and to say that God only "organized" us would be denying both Scripture and reducing God's infinite power.

"I'd be interested in why you think we have a body now, if the ultimate goal is to just be a spirit? Why would God create a spirit at the last second before placing in a body with the ultimate plane to dump the body? Why not just skip the body part and just have the spirits he created remain as such?"

I don't believe I said that the ultimate goal was to have a spirit. Hope I didn't come off that way. Rather that we couldn't have existed before birth because that would mean we were co-eternal with God. Being co-eternal places us in a position of equality with God. Something that reduces His power and glory to say the least.

"Perhaps God doesn't need us, perhaps he would just want us to be like him and to help him. Much like any parent wants their offspring to be at least equal, or more commonly, better than they were. "

I believe you're taking the "parent" role too literally here. God is our father in that He created us, but not in the same sense as you describe. We are joint-heirs with Christ in that we are Human, and will be resurrected like Christ. But in matters of power and glory, we will never attain that which God now has in his possession.

" I think you mean you don't consider the philosophies of men you agree with to be of the devil, although the philosophies of men you disagree with are clearly of the devil."

I still wouldn't say that. The philosophies that are incorrect are just that, incorrect. That doesn't mean that they are of the devil.

[Jason]

Ray,

"I think we will only complicate things if we begin using other words to classify God, so let’s consider the words “essence” and “being” as a reference to the same thing, shall we? "

Im afraid that is not possible. Philosophy has given us these two terms to help us comprehend the incomprehensible. Therefore, seperating them would make things much more difficult.

"If what you mean by “essence” is not a being, then please clarify what you are talking about."

Ok. How's this: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are Consubstantial. Consubstantial is the equavalent to the greek term Homousia. Homos = same, while ousia = essence. Another term employed in describing the Trinity is Hypostasis which means person. Ousia and hypostasis have been used to describe the trinity, especially the relation between the Father and the Son. So the Trinity are of the same essence (Ousia) while having distinct persona (hypostasis).

"Now to further modify what I think you are saying:

The Trinity is one classification of being consisting of 3 beings, whereas tri-theism is 3 beings consisting of one being. On the other hand, Mormonism teaches that there are 3 beings consisting of 3 beings. Is that a fair representation of what you mean?"

No. The Trinity is one essence with three beings. St. Patrick used the three leafed Clover to describe the Trinity. Ponder on that for awhile, and you'll understand what I mean. (Other's have used a Triangle to describe the Trinity. It works just as well.)

"Now I’ll try to modify your understanding to be more consistent with my own.

The Trinity consists of 3 beings, and each one of these beings is God. They are in unity as one, but they are not one being, at least not any more than Man is one being. They are, however, one classification of being, and that classification of being is also known as God. Hence, God is a word that has more than one meaning. God is a word we use to refer to a classification of being, or to a specific being. The Trinity is 3 of those beings."

That is consistent with Mormon theology, but is not Orthodox.

"I’m not talking about true vs. false gods or Gods here. I’m talking about singular vs. plural."

In the Christian view, singular vs. plural IS true vs. false.

QUOTE

Ray: …and in fact, Jesus carried out our Father’s will, so when looking at Jesus we can see our heavenly Father through Him. This conclusion is obvious to me in light of Jesus’ references to how we come to the Father, how Jesus was going to the Father, and how the Father was greater than Jesus. How else would Jesus be able to show the Father to someone other than by being like Him?

Jason: But the danger on this type of interpretation (this coming from an amateur in theology mind you...) is that technically every time someone is doing the will of God, we are "acting" like and "being" like God. This could lead some to cease worshipping God and worshipping man. My take anyway...

"A possibility, I suppose, but since God has told us that we should do His will and be perfect as He is, I think we should obey Him regardless of what anybody else thinks or does."

My concern on this point, is that we take away the glory of the good deed from God, and take it unto ourselves. Look at it this way, Jesus performed a miracle, and commanded that the receipient tell no one that He did it. Why? So that all might glorify God, not the instrument in God's hand. That's where Im going with this.

QUOTE

Ray: Correct, but again, we disagree on our understanding of these issues....And yes, God is a Spirit, clothed with a body . It would not be correct to say that God is a Body. In this way we are like Him, except that His Spirit is perfected and His body is glorified."

Jason: Well....you know I disagree...

"Which part do you not agree with, and why? Will you at least admit that Jesus has a body, and that Jesus is God?"

Ok. God the Father is a Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a Spirit. Jesus has a spirit and a resurrected body. There's the difference. And while Im thinking of it, the Holy Spirit seems to be an anomoly to Mormon teachings. Here we have a God that has no body, and yet is co-equal with the Father and the Son. How do you reconcile this with Mormon teachings that you must be a resurrected being to be a God?

"What relevance does the resurrection have if we’re merely going to discard our bodies? Oh, I see, you think your body pretty much sums up everything you are, so that without it you don’t exist."

We are not going to discard our bodies. Im not sure where you're coming from here.

"You sound like a little kid who thinks your Daddy can do anything, but we all have limitations. Newsflash: There are lots of things that God cannot do."

I disagree. That would render God impotent. If God is omnipotent, then how can you make such an assertion?

"For instance, God cannot make you do anything. Why? Because God said He wouldn’t. If God were to force you to do something, that would then make God a liar. But God cannot lie."

That still doesn't mean that God cannot make me do something. He can, but chooses not to. There is a difference. Don't you agree?

QUOTE

Ray: And since you brought it up, I also do not accept the theory that God the Father had sex with Mary to impregnate her, but I do know that Jesus is a begotten son of our heavenly Father.

Jason: Well...I just brought that up to be difficult. I know most LDS think Brigham was full of baloney when he taught that....

Can you provide the reference for that please? I’d like to see for myself what he actually said, and whether or not he was only stating a personal belief.

He gave it in a General Conference talk: Journal of Discourses 1:50.

QUOTE

Ray: I find it interesting how you veer off into blatant speculation at this point, by saying that the Genesis narrative was plagiarized by the “Hebrews”. I concede that some people have that understanding and that it is a possibility, but it is not correct.

Jason: You state as fact, sir, what you cannot prove. Dangerous thinking in my view...

"Heh, you aren’t serious, are you? You stated as fact that the Hebrews plagiarized that story from other cultures, yet you do not know that to be true. I, on the other hand, do know that the story is true and that it originated from the people who received revelation from God. No, I can’t prove it to you, anymore than you can prove your position, but I know the truth."

How can you assert that you know the truth when you cannot prove it? If you want to start a new thread dealing with this issue, I'd be happy to participate.

QUOTE

Ray: I also find it interesting how you don’t accept this passage literally, while I do, yet you accept some other passages literally, while I don’t. Heh, reverse your thinking and we’ll both agree.

Jason: I view the creation as an allegory. Science has clearly proven that the Genesis myth is just that, a myth. I see it as a way for God to teach an illiterate, ignorant people how the world came to be. Today, God has blessed us with greater intelligence and knowledge, so that we now better understand how the world came into being.

"I’m guessing this is something else you won’t know to be true until you find out otherwise."

Im still trying to understand how you can be so certain of it's veracity, without any way of proving it?

QUOTE

Ray: True, there is no mystery when you understand the truth, but how do you know the difference between knowing the truth and knowing what you think is true?"

Jason: I pray and ask for God's guidance. I imagine you do the same.

"Yea, but how do you know when you are receiving revelation from God and when you are only relying upon your own understanding?"

I believe that God will continue to mold my understanding. And that possibly I will never fully understand while on this earth. I can only assume that when you state that you know something is true, without any way to demonstrate why it's true, that you're relying on the "burning in the bosom" feeling. Surely you must concede that Satan can trick your feelings and manipulate you just as well.

"Trying looking into the future for a moment. Can you see yourself in heaven and living with God?"

I hope so.

"Will you be like Him?"

No. I will be worshipping Him. I will forever be subject to Him. I will never be God. Nor even a god.

"More and more like Him as time or eternity goes on?"

No. I can only hope to grow in perfection insofar as I adore Him.

"What classification would you use to describe who and what you are?"

Good question. I suppose a child of God. That's as good as it gets.

"You will be more glorified than you are now, don’t you think?"

If what you mean by glorified is that I will become more like God, in assuming His glory, then no.

"You will be one way, and God will be one way, and you will both either be the same classification of being, or not. If not, that works too."

I'd say not. God is a God. Man is just that, a man. A dissimilar classification in my view. God is our "father" in so much that He created us. Just like George Washington is called the "father" of our country. It is a title of creation, not of paternal generation.

"As eternity rolls on, God will continue to create worlds, and there will then be God in heaven, you in heaven (we both hope), and other beings on other planets like Earth. You will concede the idea that God will continue to do what He does, won’t you?"

Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that God has created man in other places. Though there is no reason to suppose that He has not created Man in other places. That doesn't exactly answer your question, but that's all i can concede.

"Heh, of course God does not need me. And God doesn’t need you either. But He loves us anyway, and He wants to help us to be happy. Will you agree with that?"

Ok.

"And just how happy do you think God wants us to be? Do you think He will place a limit on how happy He will help us to be? Do you think there’s a limit on how much He will help us to accomplish?"

Since the Bible teaches us that God is not a Man, but a Spirit, God can wish for us to be happy to the extent that we were created. Nevertheless, that does not imply that God has willed that Man change into [a] God.

[Ray]

Jason,

You still somehow can’t see that essence and being are pretty much the same thing, and I’m now to the point that I can see that further explanation won’t help you too much. But I will try again, one more time.

Consider your example of the clover. The clover is only one “thing”, or “being”, or “essence” or whatever word you want to use to classify it. There are not 3 clovers, but one clover. Regardless of whether that one clover has 3 leafs, or 4 leafs, or however many leafs you want to imagine on that one clover, that clover is only one “thing”. That is “yahed”.

My perception of God, and the perception of most LDS concerning God, is that God is not “yahed”, but “ehad”. At least when using the word God when referring to more than one “person”. Remember, as I have told you, the word God has more than one meaning. The word God is used to refer to more than one “person”, and the word God is also used to refer to only one “person”. Thus, when a person uses the word God, it is helpful to understand whether or not that person is referring to more than one being or only one being.

For instance, when I say God, I could be talking about Jesus, or our heavenly Father, or the Holy Spirit, so a person won’t always know which “person” I am referring to if I only say “God”. That is because that word may be used to refer to more than one person, and not only to one person specifically.

Anyway, this is the end of my efforts in trying to help you understand this issue. You have the right to believe anything you wish to believe, and I was only trying to help you see and understand things as I do.

As a final statement, I will say that I know that our heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are 3 separate and distinct persons, and each one of them is God. I will also say that I know this just as much as I know that you and I are separate and distinct persons, and each of us is Man. Hopefully someday we’ll all be one.

[Jason]

"You still somehow can’t see that essence and being are pretty much the same thing..."

Not to philosophers or theologians.

"and I’m now to the point that I can see that further explanation won’t help you too much."

Does that mean that you're not open to further light and knowledge?

"Consider your example of the clover. The clover is only one “thing”, or “being”, or “essence” or whatever word you want to use to classify it."

There is one clover, with three leafs. That's what the trinity is, Ray. One Essence with three persons. Not three clovers, Ray, but ONE clover. There are not Three God's, Ray, there's only ONE God. Not one Classification of God, with the possiblilty of many God's, but ONE GOD. Period.

Your polytheism is exactly what the original Apostles fought hard against. It's what many a Christian died for, was the fact, undeniable, that there is only one God. Mormonism has resurrected the ancient pagan belief that there is room for more than one God. Not only is it an insult to God to believe in more than He, but it's a slap in the face of Christianity. That's why it's wrong, Ray. But one day, perhaps, God willing, you'll be prepared to hear that great message.

"...Remember, as I have told you, the word God has more than one meaning. The word God is used to refer to more than one “person”, and the word God is also used to refer to only one “person”. Thus, when a person uses the word God, it is helpful to understand whether or not that person is referring to more than one being or only one being."

Same goes for "elohim". But the mutiplicity of "elohim" does not mean that there's more than ONE God. That means that there is one Essence, with three hypostasis. It's the Trinity. It's a bit of a mystery, but it's a beautiful mystery, Ray. It's not the neo-paganism that your religion has. It's called Christianity. Look into it.

"Anyway, this is the end of my efforts in trying to help you understand this issue. You have the right to believe anything you wish to believe, and I was only trying to help you see and understand things as I do."

Trust me Ray, I already know what you believe. I've been there. But Christ has rescued me from the pseudo-christian belief system that is Mormonism. I can only hope that one day, you will be ready to see the light.

[porterrockwell]

I think it is time to cut Jason loose, clearly he has the ability of an infant to grasp the truth. Don't come on here and spew that Christ saved you from Mormonism. Gimme a break, your reasoning is as faulty as the foundation you stand on. Good luck with the rest of your life dude, what a joke. You rely on such abominations for your guidance...such error. WE ARE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, WE ARE HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE. How bout joining your apostate brothers over on christianity.com or one of those other lost parties. Wow, I'm so sick and tired of such ignorance.

[Jason]

Porter,

"I think it is time to cut Jason loose, clearly he has the ability of an infant to grasp the truth."

An infant? Porter, if I have somehow misunderstood something, then by all means correct me. That should be your duty. But thusfar you have not stated that I incorrectly understood anything pertaining to the LDS position. If that's the case, then why say that I don't understand? Are you somehow implying that I don't or can't comprehend mormonism? If that is true, then show me how, or tell me what I don't understand.

"Don't come on here and spew that Christ saved you from Mormonism."

But He did. Is that so bad? Besides, it was Ray's typical "out" that brought it on. As much as I like the guy, when he no longer see's a way to prove his point, he does what most mormons do, and bear's his testimony. I was replying in kind. Was that effective? Only time will tell. But it sure seemed to get your goat.

"Gimme a break, your reasoning is as faulty as the foundation you stand on."

Now you're getting somewhere. If you really believe this, then why don't you prove it. What is it about my reasoning that you see is flawed? Do you believe that essence (ousia) and person (hypostasis) are in fact the same thing? If so, then tell me why?

"Good luck with the rest of your life dude, what a joke."

Which part is the joke? Are you just going to insult me now because I reject what you believe? What bothers you the most: That I know as much or more than you do regarding Mormon theology, or that I reject it openly with this knowledge?

"You rely on such abominations for your guidance...such error."

Yeah. That whole praying and asking for God's intercession...what a crock! I believe in a 2000 year old church that claims to have Christ as it's founder, with leaders who claim their authority comes from the 12 Apostles. Yeah, only a fool would believe in such nonsense.

"WE ARE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, WE ARE HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE.

First, you're implying that of all the churches that claim authority from Joseph Smith, that yours alone is the true one. Then, your saying that my church, The Catholic Church, which is 2000 years old (going back to the actual lifetime of Christ) is false, or became false through apostasy? Then, of course, you're implying that of all 1 Billion Christians in the world, that there are only 12 million of them who are "really" God's chosen people?

"How bout joining your apostate brothers over on christianity.com or one of those other lost parties."

No thanks. I like it here just fine. I have many friends here, port, and I respect nearly everyone here. Heck, I was even beginning to respect you.

"Wow, I'm so sick and tired of such ignorance."

Ignorance? Of what? If you're implying that I don't understand Mormonism, then please show me where I've mistakenly described your beliefs?

[Ray]

Jason,

The main point I hope you will get from our discussion is that an appeal to the Bible is not enough to satisfy our disagreement, and since we both agree that we both need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to properly understand the Bible, and all other truths for that matter, the best we can do is hope and pray that we will both receive that guidance.

And btw, in case you’ve forgotten or never picked up on it, I have “checked out” your perception of “Christianity” and can also say that I “have been where you are now” too. I simply testify that I have received more light and knowledge concerning God and the gospel in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than I previously received while I was a member of another “Christian” church, and that I can understand the dilemma preventing all of us from seeing and understanding the truth.

p.s. Just before posting this message I noticed your response to Porter and it seems that you still may not even understand the main point of our entire discussion, so to summarize it as quickly as I can, for any and all followers of this thread, I will say that our discussion was about “yahed” vs. “ehad”.

You believe that God is “yahed” while I believe that God is “ehad”, at least when using the word “God” to refer to our heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, who are 3 beings as “one”. I then clarified that the word “God” also refers to each of these beings, which means that the "word" God has more than one meaning. I further clarified that Jesus is “yahed” with Jehovah, because Jesus and Jehovah are the same being, the being known by the name “Jesus” after His birth on Earth and by the name Jehovah before His birth on Earth. Jesus is not “yahed” with His Father, however, because Jesus and His Father are separate and distinct beings.

Got that? I’m not asking you to agree with my understanding, I’m simply asking you to understand what we have been talking about. I hope that is not asking too much.

And btw, I ended this discussion and closed with my testimony because all I can do is try to help you understand what I understand. I cannot make you believe what I believe so further discussion beyond sharing my understanding with you won't do any good.

[Jason]

"...it seems that you still may not even understand the main point of our entire discussion, so to summarize it as quickly as I can, for any and all followers of this thread, I will say that our discussion was about “yahed” vs. “ehad”. "

I took this thread to deal with Cherubs and whether or not Cherubs are gods. The terms "yahed" and "ehad" were brought in relatively late. I'd be happy to focus on those terms, if that will somehow open up the dialogue again. In fact, I'll start a thread about it, ok?

[Ray]

Heh, okay by me, but I've already shared everything I know about both of these issues already.

To refresh your memory I said that as far as I know, cherubim are a classification of Angel as much like God as possible while still a being referred to by a word other than God. Use of the word “cherubim”, other than use of the word “God” or “god”, makes it appear to me that these beings are somehow different than God. As I stated, though, I have yet to receive a firm assurance from God to assure me that I have a correct understanding on this.

[Jason]

"...I have yet to receive a firm assurance from God to assure me that I have a correct understanding on this."

And I assume you mean a "burning bosom"? If not, then please tell me.

[Ray]

I meant that I have yet to receive a firm assurance from God to assure me that “cherubim” is a word that refers to a classification of Angel, which is a classification of God, as much like God as possible without being exactly like God, or a “true” God like our heavenly Father.

And yes, when I receive a firm assurance from God to assure me that something is true, I do receive a feeling in my bosom, but that doesn’t adequately describe what it feels like to receive a firm assurance from God.

When I receive a firm assurance from God to help me know that something is true, that “burning” feeling in my bosom is accompanied by an “enlightening” feeling in my mind.

The “burning” in my bosom is a warm feeling that goes through the core of my body, helping me to feel at peace and secure in my knowledge that God is alive and that He loves me.

The “enlightening” feeling in my mind feels almost literally as if a light has come on to help me clearly see and understand things as they really are, or were, or are yet to be. It’s the same feeling I get, that I imagine everybody gets, when they finally figure out how something makes sense, making me wonder why I couldn’t see things that way before.

I do have a firm assurance regarding some aspects of the issue about “cherubim”, but No, I don’t have a full understanding of it yet.

I do know that Jesus and our heavenly Father are separate and distinct persons, though, because I have received a firm assurance from God on this issue.

But why are you asking me about this anyway? You believe it is important to receive guidance from the Holy Spirit too, don’t you? What does it feel like to you when you receive that guidance?

[Jason]

"But why are you asking me about this anyway? You believe it is important to receive guidance from the Holy Spirit too, don’t you? What does it feel like to you when you receive that guidance?"

Good question. I used to feel much of what you are describing, and believed it was the Spirit. I think we've covered this before, but I've ultimately decided that the "burning" feeling was unreliable at best. Even though it was a good feeling, and sometimes I still feel that, I don't consider it a reliable indicator of truth.

Now, I ultimately rely on what Scripture and Catholic Tradition teach, and see if that squares up right with what Im learning. I pray that God will teach me what I need to learn, and believe that while I study, God guides my learning. Interestingly enough, if I come to a "stupor of thought" I try and work through it, as opposed to discounting it entirely.

It's a bit different from the "mormon" angle of inspiration, but by and large much the same.

[Ray]

Jason,

There must be something different about what we do, and what we receive, otherwise we would both be one.

Don’t you agree?

What made you decide that the “burning” feeling was unreliable, and what do you now think the “burning” feeling signifies? Did you understand that I meant that the “burning” feeling mainly only helps me to feel in tune with God? I also continue to work through a “stupor of thought” when I have one, as I am continuing to try to work through this issue concerning “cherubim”, but what do you think it will take before we both work through this issue? And once we do, what do you think we will think or feel to help us know whether or not the conclusions we have reached are true?

Personally, I think I will feel what I felt before when I found out that something else was true, because I can still feel that feeling when I look to God for more guidance. I think about how it felt and still feels to know that God loves me, and when I connect with that feeling I know that God is still there to guide me. I also think about how it felt and still feels to know that Jesus is the Christ, and that He is a being that actually lived on Earth and died for me. And about how it felt and still feels to know that Jesus is still alive and wanting to help me overcome my weaknesses.

I also think about how it felt and still feels to know that my understanding on other issues is true in matters in which there can be no doubt. About how it felt and still feels to obey the teachings of Jesus and prophets in the scriptures, knowing that I feel more peace and joy in my life when I follow that counsel. And about how it felt and still feels to see simple truths in the scriptures from words of wisdom and general counsel, helping me to know that the wisdom of God exceeds the wisdom of all the people in the world who try to get along without Him.

Without these feelings, I would only be doing what makes sense to me while still wondering if my thoughts are in agreement with God, but with these feelings, I know that God and I are one on these issues. Hopefully, someday I’ll be one with Him in everything.

[Jason]

"There must be something different about what we do, and what we receive, otherwise we would both be one. Don’t you agree?" (Ray)

I don't know. I've often wondered about that. Perhaps God in his infinite wisdom, has allowed us to believe what we do, as long as it doesn't necessarily endanger our salvation? For example, speaking with my local Parish Priest on the issue, he states that he believes that many Mormons will go to heaven, based on what is termed the baptism "of desire". Meaning that those who really felt they were following Christ will be accepted somehow into His Kingdom, regardless of an actual "proper" baptism. So as long as your not doing what could be termed something "evil" per se, God's ok with it? Besides, if HE put you where you are, Im sure that HE will not condemn you for it. (Unless you subscribe to Calvinist thought, in which case you are a mormon because you were created to be d@mned! )

"What made you decide that the “burning” feeling was unreliable, and what do you now think the “burning” feeling signifies?"

I believe it's unreliable because I could ask a variety of doctrinal questions, and all the options were ok. I did that with a number of Mormon doctrines, and it seemed that God was rather impartial. He didn't seem to care if I belonged to the SLC LDS Church, the Independence Mo Church, or one of the polygamist Churches. What good is the "feeling" if it's that impartial?

"Did you understand that I meant that the “burning” feeling mainly only helps me to feel in tune with God?"

No, you didn't. That's very interesting. Not sure how to fit it in with what I wrote above though.

"I also continue to work through a “stupor of thought” when I have one, as I am continuing to try to work through this issue concerning “cherubim”, but what do you think it will take before we both work through this issue?"

I can only guess that God will lead us to a greater understanding of this. Eventually bringing us to the same conclusions. (Though it may be years, decades, or even lifetimes to reach the same conclusion.)

"And once we do, what do you think we will think or feel to help us know whether or not the conclusions we have reached are true?"

Again, I can only guess that God want's us to believe the same. Therefore, somehow, we eventually will.

"Without these feelings, I would only be doing what makes sense to me while still wondering if my thoughts are in agreement with God, but with these feelings, I know that God and I are one on these issues. Hopefully, someday I’ll be one with Him in everything."

Well Ray, I know that God's guiding me. I don't accept nor care about the "bosom" feeling in particular, but I believe that Im still guided by God. How you may ask? Because He promised He would. I accept that as sufficient. Nothing in Scripture indicates that anyone ever felt the burning bosom feeling in order to know God. Therefore, I see no reason for it now.

Is there confusion in Christiandom? Yes. But there is confusion in Mormonism as well. While this feeling does make you feel secure in your knowledge, I feel just as secure without it.

What else can we say?

[porterrockwell]

Let's not forget that the Lord said not to run faster than ye are able. The Jews got to wrapped up in knowledge and forgot the basic precepts of intelligence. Intelligence is the Glory of God, but knowledge without the application and subjection to intelligence is useless in the kingdom of God and adverse to the Glory and light thereof. The Lord makes known the things of his kingdom through plain and simple manner.

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 19 2004, 04:42 PM

"There must be something different about what we do, and what we receive, otherwise we would both be one. Don’t you agree?" (Ray)

I don't know.  I've often wondered about that.  Perhaps God in his infinite wisdom, has allowed us to believe what we do, as long as it doesn't necessarily endanger our salvation?  For example, speaking with my local Parish Priest on the issue, he states that he believes that many Mormons will go to heaven, based on what is termed the baptism "of desire".  Meaning that those who really felt they were following Christ will be accepted somehow into His Kingdom, regardless of an actual "proper" baptism.   So as long as your not doing what could be termed something "evil" per se, God's ok with it?  Besides, if HE put you where you are, Im sure that HE will not condemn you for it.  (Unless you subscribe to Calvinist thought, in which case you are a mormon because you were created to be d@mned!    )

"What made you decide that the “burning” feeling was unreliable, and what do you now think the “burning” feeling signifies?"

I believe it's unreliable because I could ask a variety of doctrinal questions, and all the options were ok.  I did that with a number of Mormon doctrines, and it seemed that God was rather impartial.  He didn't seem to care if I belonged to the SLC LDS Church, the Independence Mo Church, or one of the polygamist Churches.  What good is the "feeling" if it's that impartial?

"Did you understand that I meant that the “burning” feeling mainly only helps me to feel in tune with God?"

No, you didn't.  That's very interesting.  Not sure how to fit it in with what I wrote above though.

"I also continue to work through a “stupor of thought” when I have one, as I am continuing to try to work through this issue concerning “cherubim”, but what do you think it will take before we both work through this issue?"

I can only guess that God will lead us to a greater understanding of this.  Eventually bringing us to the same conclusions.  (Though it may be years, decades, or even lifetimes to reach the same conclusion.)

"And once we do, what do you think we will think or feel to help us know whether or not the conclusions we have reached are true?"

Again, I can only guess that God want's us to believe the same.  Therefore, somehow, we eventually will. 

"Without these feelings, I would only be doing what makes sense to me while still wondering if my thoughts are in agreement with God, but with these feelings, I know that God and I are one on these issues. Hopefully, someday I’ll be one with Him in everything."

Well Ray, I know that God's guiding me.  I don't accept nor care about the "bosom" feeling in particular, but I believe that Im still guided by God.  How you may ask?  Because He promised He would.  I accept that as sufficient.  Nothing in Scripture indicates that anyone ever felt the burning bosom feeling in order to know God.  Therefore, I see no reason for it now.

Is there confusion in Christiandom?  Yes.  But there is confusion in Mormonism as well.  While this feeling does make you feel secure in your knowledge, I feel just as secure without it. 

What else can we say?

Jason,

From this post it appears that you believe GOD is guiding you apparently only because you have trust that the scriptures were inspired by Them and therefore, anything contained in the scriptures is true. That sounds like good logical reasoning to me, but it doesn't sound like Faith. To receive Faith is to receive an assurance that God is speaking to YOU, personally, and you appear to be admitting that you are NOT receiving that kind of guidance.

Am I not interpreting your words correctly?

Btw, I'm referring to GOD as Them because I'm referring to God our Father, His son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. When I'm only referring to our heavenly Father, I'll refer to Him as God.

[Jason]

Jason,

From this post it appears that you believe GOD is guiding you apparently only because you have trust that the scriptures were inspired by Them and therefore, anything contained in the scriptures is true. That sounds like good logical reasoning to me, but it doesn't sound like Faith. To receive Faith is to receive an assurance that God is speaking to YOU, personally, and you appear to be admitting that you are NOT receiving that kind of guidance.

Am I not interpreting your words correctly?

Btw, I'm referring to GOD as Them because I'm referring to God our Father, His son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. When I'm only referring to our heavenly Father, I'll refer to Him as God.

Ray, Im tired of this.

Yes I have faith. If I didn't I couldn't trust those Catholic Bishops who canonized the scriptures centuries ago. I have faith that what I read was inspired by God.

I believe that God directs me through prayer and faith.

Ok? Im done now.

[Ray]

Okay, that will be all. Take care and I hope you enjoy your life. :)