Trinity Revisited

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you, PC. I always appreciate your clear, concise explanations. Now I understand better why other Christians are so appalled at thinking that God could have been a man.

Will you point out some scriptures (please forgive me if this has been done in that other thread, but frankly, I didn't want to go through hundreds of posts to find it) that show why those who believe in the Trinity believe that God is of a difference essence than man?

The most evident example would be Genesis 1. In the beginning God created...

We take that to mean that God brought everything into existence at a point in time known as the beginning. Therefore, only He is eternal. In the New Testament it is revealed that this creation was done through his Son. So Jesus is also eternal.

It really is that simple for us. We have no teaching of premortal existence. For us, the world absolutely begins with the creation. Further---God does not need creation to exist. Everything that exists is for and at his pleasure.

[prisonchaplain]

Could you explain what you mean by "God cannot create a pure substance, like himself." I don't think God can create any "substance" anyways. I thought most LDS believe that matter is neither made or lost. This would also apply to spiritual matter. He organizes matter. He can put it within realms that make the matter behave in certain ways but can He actually "create" matter or "substance"?

Draven is right. Ram was explaining non-LDS teaching. We absolutely believe God did and does create substance. "Creation out of nothing" is a historic Christian teaching that LDS reject.

[Seminarysnoozer]

But we are made in his image. We are the highest of his creation. The Bible records that we do have a special relationship with him. We have souls.

This does not follow at all. Scripture is a poetic, powerful telling of the special relationship we have with our Father God. However, he is our Father because he created us. Since he made us and placed his image within us, He loves us.

History is my proof on this. Neither Judaism, Islam, nor historic Christianity have ever taught that we are the same species as God. Yet all teach that God gives us special attention. All proclaim that our souls make us unique amongst God's creation.

So, you believe nothing else has a soul?

You said, " However, he is our Father because he created us." But He created all things.

And I guess I need to know what you mean by "image". Sorry, if you have stated it before.

When talking about species, I think it is important to realize that we are mostly talking about the species of our soul, our spiritual relationship with God. If you are saying that God has a soul and He gives us a soul and nothing else has a soul, then to me, that really sounds like you are saying we are of the same species, at least spiritually. If you say that the "soul" is some force, as is electricity, that gives life then I would think it would be in all life. I know I might have a different view than some on this forum, but I tend to agree that "man" is not the same species as God and that the mortal body is only created in His image. But I do believe our spirits are His species.

And if God gave us a soul as He did our body then it really doesn't belong to me anyway. If He gave me a soul that desires evil, why did he give me that soul? It would be out of my hands. I could easily say that is the way He made me. (I don't think that, by the way)

I believe our "souls" are ours by way of our pre-mortal existence and the considerable amount of time we had to be valiant or not in His teachings. So, I own my soul. I am really responsible for my choices.

[Justice]

History is my proof on this. Neither Judaism, Islam, nor historic Christianity have ever taught that we are the same species as God.

Proof is a strong word. It all depends on who you read and who you choose to believe.

[Justice]

"Creation out of nothing" is a historic Christian teaching that LDS reject.

But, wasn't a universally understood teaching until after the council at Nicea.

[rameumptom]

History is my proof on this. Neither Judaism, Islam, nor historic Christianity have ever taught that we are the same species as God. Yet all teach that God gives us special attention. All proclaim that our souls make us unique amongst God's creation.

I would agree with this essentially. At the same time, I would note that the Bible also does not proclaim that we are of a separate species from God. We must figure it out from silence or modern revelation.

In John we read that God is [a] Spirit. And Paul calls him the Father of our Spirits. So, perhaps there is an indirect tie like that for being the same species. But as you note, there is no direct statement.

[rameumptom]

Trinitarians believe that this problem is solved by the doctrine of the "hypostatic union". Basically, Christ has two natures (or two "essences"). Christ is therefore one with the Father in His divine essence, which is not affected by his human essence.

I understand that there is a teaching from the Council of Chalcedon regarding the duality of Christ. But I still do not understand it. Just because there is a creed saying there are two essences for Christ (a non-Biblical teaching, btw), does not make it understandable.

Occam's Razor suggests the easiest path, and that would mean there is one Christ without duality. This is explained in Mormonism by the concept that humans are in the family of God, and so a resurrected Christ can be perfect and pure and equal with God with no changes nor creeds required to attempt an explanation.

Just as the acorn grows to become an oak, or the caterpillar metamorphoses into a butterfly, so we change from Intelligence to Spirit to embodied mortal to resurrected Being akin and kin to God. No duality required, as Jesus is resurrected with his body in perfect form, just as God is, and just as we will be. Once again, we believe that God can create children who can become perfected as He is.

[rameumptom]

It really is that simple for us. We have no teaching of premortal existence. For us, the world absolutely begins with the creation. Further---God does not need creation to exist. Everything that exists is for and at his pleasure.

Which is also an interesting discussion in itself. Is God the "Unmoved Mover" of Calvin, or is he the "Most Moved Mover" of LDS and process theologians?

Either God needs us or he does not. In traditional Christianity, he is not moved by our joys or cries. He just is and does whatever he will "at his pleasure." For those who take this to the extreme (Calvinists), it means he saves whomever he will for whatever reason he will. You can live a righteous life and be tossed into hell, while another can be a mass murderer and God will save him in heaven. God does not care if we do good or bad, because we actually mean nothing to him (in the extreme sense of the Unmoved Mover).

Meanwhile, for LDS and process theologians, we believe that God DOES need us. Moses 1:39 tells us that God's work and glory is all about us. Note, that includes his glory! He wept before Enoch in sending the Flood. He wept at Lazarus' tomb. He wept with the Nephites. He is moved by our joys and sorrows. The Bible tells us that God loves, hates, is jealous and angry, etc. These are either symbolic of an unfeeling God, or they are literally the feelings of a God who is engaged in his children's lives. For a God without feelings, parts and passions, this means he really cannot care one way or the other for us. So it becomes in interesting conflict in faith for the traditional Christian to believe in an Unmoved God, yet also believe that we are God's treasured creation. God cannot treasure anything if he has no feelings nor concerns, and this is especially true in the Calvinist sense.

For the Unmoved Mover, he needs no creation. It really isn't his work and glory, but just something to experiment upon. And for Calvinists who believe in pre-destination, it means that we are saved or damned at God's pleasure, as we have no free will of our own (I know that PC believes in free will). He cannot be a loving God, for he does not love or hate. He just is.

For the Most Moved Mover, God must have children and strive to save them. It IS his work and glory. He truly loves them. He loves their good works and faith, and hates their evil actions. He seeks to provide them with the maximum blessings and minimum punishment. He weeps when they reject him. They literally are his children, and as a human parent will give his life for his children, so Christ came to save us.

[beefche]

If PC doesn't mind, I'll jumpstart the answer to this one:

God's essence, just like God's existence is revealed through inductive reasoning.

Non-LDS Christians believe that man was created by God in a very literal sense - therefore, man cannot be eternal/omnipresent/omniscient, etc. etc.

But, there are a zillion scriptures that show God is:

Omnipotent - Genesis 18:14

Omnipresent - Isaiah 57:15

Omniscient - Isaiah 48:5

Immutable - Malachi 3:6

Eternal - Genesis 21:33

... while man is not.

I'm sorry, I still don't quite understand. I understand that if we are literal creations and are not omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., then we are not God. What I don't understand is how that thought relates to scriptures that say we are "children" of God and that we will inherit all God has. As a creation, I can see how the thought He is our Father, but at least to me the scriptures indicate a true Father/child relationship rather than a Creator/product relationship.

So, why is it that a Omnipotent God cannot create a being that has the potential to be as He is? If He is our Father, why doesn't it stand to reason that we have inherited some qualities that He has?

I'm still unclear about how "essence" came into being if the thought of the Trinity is based on scriptures. What I'm seeing (from you and others) is that there are no scriptures to document the thought of "essence" being different.

Help?

And I want to say, in fear that my post reads this way, that I don't mean to be disrespectful. I honestly am just confused on this thinking.

[Traveler]

I have a very big problem and objection when individuals try to use terms out of context. The term “species” is a term invented by man and has specific implications. There is no comparable term used in any revelation ever given to man by G-d recorded in any scripture. If we are going to compare terms we should take into account the entire extent of meaning and explorer all possibilities.

We are told in sacred scripture that man by his creation is “like” G-d - even to the exact point of being male and female.

If we are to consider any comparable scriptural concept that may parallel the human concept of species; we must look for some means in scripture to apply the definition. I would point out that the ability to produce non-sterile offspring proves by the very scientific definition of species that entities are the same species. Therefore to say man is not the same species as G-d is in essence a denial that Jesus was actually a man and the Son of G-d.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Scripture tells us that the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. That each is a person, and so is distinct. And...there is only one God. These statements are biblical.

It's what we do with that--how we reckon it works out that we are discussing. LDS have added revelations that bring them to some different conclusions than have been drawn by historic Christian thought. However both perspectives are grappling with biblical ideas. Both are trying to find explanations that have, at minimum, a basis in Scripture.

That neither side can provide overwhelming, clear, concrete proof from the text that we agree is scripture (the Bible), we are left with explaining as best we can. I doubt either side is offering "non-biblical" or "non-scriptural" concepts. Rather, our explanations employ extra-biblical ideas and thoughts to help clarify. How successful our efforts are is another matter. :-)

[Guest]

I'm sorry, I still don't quite understand. I understand that if we are literal creations and are not omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., then we are not God. What I don't understand is how that thought relates to scriptures that say we are "children" of God and that we will inherit all God has. As a creation, I can see how the thought He is our Father, but at least to me the scriptures indicate a true Father/child relationship rather than a Creator/product relationship.

So, why is it that a Omnipotent God cannot create a being that has the potential to be as He is? If He is our Father, why doesn't it stand to reason that we have inherited some qualities that He has?

I'm still unclear about how "essence" came into being if the thought of the Trinity is based on scriptures. What I'm seeing (from you and others) is that there are no scriptures to document the thought of "essence" being different.

Help?

And I want to say, in fear that my post reads this way, that I don't mean to be disrespectful. I honestly am just confused on this thinking.

Okay, explain to me what "true" Father/Child relationship is...

Also, from a Trinitarian standpoint... without the Pearl of Great Price... there is also no scriptures to document the thought of "essence" being the same. Everything is gathered via inductive reasoning. Godhead or Trinity...

Because... the concept of pre-mortal existence do not exist in the Bible. Or - yes, it does - but Trinitarians and Mormons don't have the same interpretation of the "angels warring in heaven".

Edited January 25, 2011 by anatess

[Traveler]

Scripture tells us that the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. That each is a person, and so is distinct. And...there is only one God. These statements are biblical.

It's what we do with that--how we reckon it works out that we are discussing. LDS have added revelations that bring them to some different conclusions than have been drawn by historic Christian thought. However both perspectives are grappling with biblical ideas. Both are trying to find explanations that have, at minimum, a basis in Scripture.

That neither side can provide overwhelming, clear, concrete proof from the text that we agree is scripture (the Bible), we are left with explaining as best we can. I doubt either side is offering "non-biblical" or "non-scriptural" concepts. Rather, our explanations employ extra-biblical ideas and thoughts to help clarify. How successful our efforts are is another matter. :-)

The point that I intended to make is - if we say that Jesus was a man and that he was the Son of G-d then there is no other possible assumption or any other scientific description that aligns with the definition of species than the say that Jesus being a man and the Son of G-d is proof by the definition of species that man and G-d are indeed the same species.

I do not contend with anyone's beliefs - that is their privilege. But I do insist that if we are to use common terms that we use them properly and not change the very essence and definition of the terms being used in the middle of using them. Thus my point is that ether Jesus was not a man or not the Son of G-d or Jesus was a man and the Son of G-d and therefore man and G-d by definition are the same species.

I do not object to a differentiation between man and G-d - I question any attempt use species as a means to differentiate man from G-d

The Traveler

BTW - where in scripture are we told the Holy Ghost and the Father are specifically persons?

Edited January 25, 2011 by Traveler
add a question

[rameumptom]

I truly appreciate this discussion. PC and other non-LDS involved are wonderful to patiently explain and also hear from us, and I'm grateful for it.

I appreciate him agreeing that Trinity and Godhead as we both believe it are partially Biblical and partially extra-Biblical. After all, LDS get their main understanding of the Godhead from the D&C and the First Vision. Traditional Christians get their current understanding of the Trinity from the Councils of Nicaea (Trinity and homoousios [one essence]) and Chalcedon (duality of Christ).

It definitely comes down to whether there was a Restoration or not. It also comes down to whether such distinctions of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are necessary for our salvation or not (I don't believe it is for salvation, but perhaps for exaltation).

There is value in both beliefs. The Trinity explains the concept of "one God" in the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon). The Godhead explains "one God" in a different sphere, and better explains God's anthropomorphism found in the Bible, as well as Jesus' resurrection (without needing duality of nature). The Trinity explains God in a more omnipotent and powerful means than does the Godhead, where God may seem weaker to some for requiring his children for his "work and glory". An anthropomorphic God with passions and feelings goes literally well with the Bible, but the Trinity fits in well on a symbolic level.

I think when we get to the next life, all of us Christians will find that at least some of our thinking regarding God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is very different than we've understood it here on earth. We may find that our descriptions of God have failed us, that he/they may be physically separated beings, yet more One than we could ever imagine at the same time. That while he may in some ways be the Unmoved Mover, he is also the Most Moved Mover. He may have emotions, but they may be very different than our rash passions can understand. He may think, but as Isaiah was told, his thoughts and ways are higher than ours.

It will definitely be interesting how it all plays out. We know that He is a just God. I only hope that God is as merciful as we all hope he is. Nay, even more merciful. I hope he overlooks our mistakes and misconceptions of who He really is, and embraces us through Christ's atonement that we may all rejoice with Him in that last day.

[prisonchaplain]

I found an interesting source that will likely give both sides fotter.

JewishEncyclopedia.com - CREATION:

The article suggests that this discussion of God as Creator (by speaking) and God as shaper started well before the church councils of the fourth century. Further, it was the Greeks who found creation out of nothing difficult to fathom--thus dispensing with the canard that Christian doctrine is largely built about Greek philosophical constructs.

On the other hand, the belief in eternity of matter does have an ancient, if somewhat minority following as well.

[prisonchaplain]

The point that I intended to make is - if we say that Jesus was a man and that he was the Son of G-d then there is no other possible assumption or any other scientific description that aligns with the definition of species than the say that Jesus being a man and the Son of G-d is proof by the definition of species that man and G-d are indeed the same species.

Or not. Philippians says he humbled himself, becoming a little lower than the angels. To me, this suggest that we are different species, and that the incarnation was a greater act of sacrifice than we can possibly imagine.

I do not contend with anyone's beliefs - that is their privilege. But I do insist that if we are to use common terms that we use them properly and not change the very essence and definition of the terms being used in the middle of using them. Thus my point is that ether Jesus was not a man or not the Son of G-d or Jesus was a man and the Son of G-d and therefore man and G-d by definition are the same species.

You insist that the incarnation, by definition, means that God and man are the same species. However, the historic Christian teaching is that this act was a tremendous humility for the Son--a great degradation. With the resurrection, Christ was exalted. And yet, he remains incarnate. Perhaps his was a sacrifice we will not fully appreciate until we see him face to face. He was not one of us. He became one of us.

BTW - where in scripture are we told the Holy Ghost and the Father are specifically persons?

They are described in ways that only persons can be...have characteristics, expressing emotion, being offended, and even blasphemed. None of those descriptions would be fitting of an impersonal force.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have a very big problem and objection when individuals try to use terms out of context. The term “species” is a term invented by man and has specific implications. There is no comparable term used in any revelation ever given to man by G-d recorded in any scripture. If we are going to compare terms we should take into account the entire extent of meaning and explorer all possibilities.

We are told in sacred scripture that man by his creation is “like” G-d - even to the exact point of being male and female.

If we are to consider any comparable scriptural concept that may parallel the human concept of species; we must look for some means in scripture to apply the definition. I would point out that the ability to produce non-sterile offspring proves by the very scientific definition of species that entities are the same species. Therefore to say man is not the same species as G-d is in essence a denial that Jesus was actually a man and the Son of G-d.

The Traveler

I think I would even be careful with some of those definitions because Adam and Eve as they were created were sterile. And we do not know if Jesus was sterile or not.

Jesus had a different body then us in this life. I think I would agree with not using Jesus as similar to our condition.

Also, let's not forget that the natural man is an enemy to God. I do not see man as the same 'species' as God if we are just talking about our bodies here. Our spirits yes, bodies no. We are told somewhere, I believe, that man alone cannot become like God by himself, even if he were to go on and on in this type of existence. It is only through a transformation at the end of this life that we become God like.

I also believe that one cannot compare the "species" or bodies of Adam and Eve's to ours currently as the same, in that sense. We were given the ability to reproduce after the fall.

[Justice]

Philippians says he humbled himself, becoming a little lower than the angels. To me, this suggest that we are different species, and that the incarnation was a greater act of sacrifice than we can possibly imagine.

There's no doubt it was a great condescension for the Lord to be born mortal. Nowhere is this made more plain than in the Book of Mormon. But, caste systems exist on earth, and it would be right in those systems to say one is higher or lower than the other, while they are the same species.

Angels are beings who are servants of God and are not yet exalted. Man is still mortal, and not in the presence of God. To be born mortal is to become lower than an angel because you are no longer in God's presence. It isn't definitively saying man cannot become as an angel, or even higher than an angel, just that when mortal you are in a state considered not as high as an angel.

You insist that the incarnation, by definition, means that God and man are the same species. However, the historic Christian teaching is that this act was a tremendous humility for the Son--a great degradation. With the resurrection, Christ was exalted. And yet, he remains incarnate. Perhaps his was a sacrifice we will not fully appreciate until we see him face to face. He was not one of us. He became one of us.

You insist that because it is a historic teaching that makes it true. That the earth is flat was also a historic teaching.

You say Christ was exalted when He was resurrected, but do you believe it? Don't you believe that He is not our race and was God while He was yet mortal? How would being resurrected change Him in that regard?

I believe Christ was one of us. He was born on earth because He, too, needed a body, and indeed was exalted after his spirit and body were joined eternally, just as we cannot be until that happens to us. He forgot His pre-earth existence when He was born just as the rest of us. He had to learn from grace to grace. That is what makes His perfect life so remarkable. He bled; He suffered; He hungered; He died just like the rest of us. But, He rose above it all and showed power over all mortal things, while we did not. If He was "different" an any remarkable degree at birth, and did not have to learn and grow as the rest of us, His perfect life would not be as remarkable.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Justice

[Justice]

I think I would even be careful with some of those definitions because Adam and Eve as they were created were sterile.

All indications are that Adam and Eve had perfect bodies. The scriptures allude to the fact that it was probably knoweldge they lacked and not physical attributes.

Edited January 25, 2011 by Justice

[Traveler]

Or not. Philippians says he humbled himself, becoming a little lower than the angels. To me, this suggest that we are different species, and that the incarnation was a greater act of sacrifice than we can possibly imagine.

You insist that the incarnation, by definition, means that God and man are the same species. However, the historic Christian teaching is that this act was a tremendous humility for the Son--a great degradation. With the resurrection, Christ was exalted. And yet, he remains incarnate. Perhaps his was a sacrifice we will not fully appreciate until we see him face to face. He was not one of us. He became one of us.

The problem is that species is a scientific term that is not used anywhere in scripture. Science defines the same species based on two possible species in question generating offspring. I am simply stating that if Jesus was the Son of G-d and if Jesus was a man that by the scientific definition of species, G-d and man are the same species. That is how species are defined. The fact that there was condescension of G-d is irrelevant. If we define a duck as something that goes quack than what ever goes quack is a duck. Since that is how we define a duck then just because something goes quack that we do not want to call a duck - we do not just change the definition. If we do such a thing no one will ever be to communicate truth because the definition of it keeps changing.

My point is that if a particular religion does not like the definition of species - then they should not use it. Use whatever term you want - just be consistent with the definition.

They are described in ways that only persons can be...have characteristics, expressing emotion, being offended, and even blasphemed. None of those descriptions would be fitting of an impersonal force.

As to your references to the definition of person. Would you say a severely retarded human qualifies as a person? Is an unborn child a person. Would you say an intelligent ape (in particular Coco - that has exhibited intelligence higher than many retarded humans or typical humans under the age of 6) is a person?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

The problem is that species is a scientific term that is not used anywhere in scripture. Science defines the same species based on two possible species in question generating offspring. I am simply stating that if Jesus was the Son of G-d and if Jesus was a man that by the scientific definition of species, G-d and man are the same species. That is how species are defined. The fact that there was condescension of G-d is irrelevant. If we define a duck as something that goes quack than what ever goes quack is a duck. Since that is how we define a duck then just because something goes quack that we do not want to call a duck - we do not just change the definition. If we do such a thing no one will ever be to communicate truth because the definition of it keeps changing.

My point is that if a particular religion does not like the definition of species - then they should not use it. Use whatever term you want - just be consistent with the definition.

The Traveler

Jesus' body being part human and part God endowed, He did not have a body exactly like ours. It was probably just as different as Adam and Eve's from ours now in this fallen state. You've established well that God and Jesus are related to, I'm sure, most of our satisfactions but I think it is a bit of a jump to say that Jesus had the same kind of body as ours. Yes, He had many features and it is convenient to call Him 'man' but really He was part man. Even with that, we don't know how much 'man' He was, 50%, 1% or .00001%?

If Jesus had children then we could follow your premise to the next step but we don't know that.

Why is it not sufficient enough to say that we are spiritually the same 'species'? ...regardless of what outfit we have on at the moment.

If some alien many light years away were to take snap shots of several humans on this planet, he might take one with scuba equipment on under the water, another flying in an airplane and another in a bed with a tube down his windpipe attached to a machine to help him breath. If one were to look at the descriptions of those three humans without knowing anything else of what happens in between they might conclude that there is no way that those three could be related as one is under the water and one flies and the other doesn't move at all. It may seem to us that angels are different from God or from Jesus or from us based on the limited snapshots we have.

[mordorbund]

My point is that if a particular religion does not like the definition of species - then they should not use it. Use whatever term you want - just be consistent with the definition.

In PrisonChaplain's defense, he (and others here explaining the Trinity) consistently used the word "essence". When others asked for further clarification, analogies started coming out. "Species" only came up as an analogy because it shows well the "otherness" of God's essence. Like all analogies it shows a similarity but is not the actual principle.

The 2nd Coming is nothing like a thief in the night. It is not illegal, it is not morally wrong. Jesus is not going to break in to someone else's planet. A night thief doesn't announce during the day that he's going to come and rob the place. But to help us understand how swiftly his return will be upon us, Jesus said he comes as a thief in the night. And we accept it with little confusion.

[Justice]

Jesus' body being part human and part God endowed, He did not have a body exactly like ours. It was probably just as different as Adam and Eve's from ours now in this fallen state. You've established well that God and Jesus are related to, I'm sure, most of our satisfactions but I think it is a bit of a jump to say that Jesus had the same kind of body as ours. Yes, He had many features and it is convenient to call Him 'man' but really He was part man. Even with that, we don't know how much 'man' He was, 50%, 1% or .00001%?

He was different in that He demonstrated power over element. He commanded the wind and sea and they obeyed Him. This was not because His body was different, but because He was different. Power such as this was endowed by God on others as well.

He was born of a mortal mother, which meant He was born as a mortal man. He was different than Adam before the fall in that regard. Adam's body did not have blood until after the fall.

I lean toward thinking that any differences in His body over ours was "acquired" over time as He showed obedience to God and power over the elements (the same elements that made His body).

I still go back to my original premise in this thread. I think this gap can be settled by settling what spirit is. Since it cannot be seen or measured, we'll just have to wait. Those of us who have modern scripture with more modern answers have some insight that others who reject that scripture just don't have. I don't think this will be solved by defining any other word. Spirit is the key.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

Job 32 could also be evidence that he was trying to say something similar:

18 For I am full of matter, the spirit within me constraineth me.

Answer "What is spirit?" and this discussion can move forward.

[Justice]

I believe--and I would venture that most non-LDS Christians believe--that when Moses wrote, "In the beginning..." he meant it quite literally. The universe began at a specific point, which marked the beginning of time.

So, throughout all eternity, up until the moment God created the physical universe, He existed alone. He had never created a physical universe before throught all eternity.

Have you ever wondered what made Him decide in that moment to create a physical universe, as to where He never considered to; wanted to; thought to before?

That is one of the biggest flaws with the Trinity theory to me, and that "in the beginning" in the Bible means the first and ultimate beginning (the two beliefs seem to go hand in hand).

No. We are promised a new one.

So, this great idea He had to create a physical universe was just to make this one earth, and He will remake it and then, throughout all eternity (think about that) He will only create 2 earths? Think how long eternity is, and think about this earth, and whatever He will remake it into, and consider how small in His timeline this earth is. It will appear as a very small blip in an infinite area of 3d space.

It doesn't make sense to me that this is the only earth He will create. If He will create another after this, then why not more before? Do you know how many times He could have created a universe with a sinlge earth? An infinite number of times! But, only 1 time? That is something I cannot believe.

What there was prior to that is anyone's speculation. The only safe answer is God. Only he is eternal.

This is where "Is this the only earth (or even universe) He ever created?" comes into play. If this is the first and only, then there was nothing with Him, as is generally understood among most Christians. But, if He created others throughout eternity, then those beings would have also had to exist with Him when He made this "beginning."

Explain your thoughts on how or why God would just now create an earth or universe after an eternity of existence. That's just so hard for me to wrap my brain around. If God is unchanging, then this would have to be something He's always done, or He never would have done it this time. Do you see what I'm not understanding?

Edited January 26, 2011 by Justice

[Guest]

So, throughout all eternity, up until the moment God created the physical universe, He existed alone. He had never created a physical universe before throught all eternity.

Have you ever wondered what made Him decide in that moment to create a physical universe, as to where He never considered to; wanted to; thought to before?

That is one of the biggest flaws with the Trinity theory to me, and that "in the beginning" in the Bible means the first and ultimate beginning (the two beliefs seem to go hand in hand).

So, this great idea He had to create a physical universe was just to make this one earth, and He will remake it and then, throughout all eternity (think about that) He will only create 2 earths? Think how long eternity is, and think about this earth, and whatever He will remake it into, and consider how small in His timeline this earth is. It will appear as a very small blip in an infinite area of 3d space.

It doesn't make sense to me that this is the only earth He will create. If He will create another after this, then why not more before? Do you know how many times He could have created a universe with a sinlge earth? An infinite number of times! But, only 1 time? That is something I cannot believe.

This is where "Is this the only earth (or even universe) He ever created?" comes into play. If this is the first and only, then there was nothing with Him, as is generally understood among most Christians. But, if He created others throughout eternity, then those beings would have also had to exist with Him when He made this "beginning."

Explain your thoughts on how or why God would just now create an earth or universe after an eternity of existence. That's just so hard for me to wrap my brain around. If God is unchanging, then this would have to be something He's always done, or He never would have done it this time. Do you see what I'm not understanding?

Justice, there are as many things TODAY that doesn't make much sense, LDS or otherwise. How many times have we speculated on the Flood?

Now, when all you have is the Bible, you take it for what it says. If it doesn't make sense, you look for answers in the same scriptures that you are reading with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. You don't make up explanations out of thin air to make more sense out of it.

So, think of it like a Trinitarian - Where in the Bible does it say that there is another earth before this one?

Also, if God is all powerful, why is it inconceivable that he made this earth and then will make another one for his perfected children? What does TIME have to do with anything? Eternity is only long to you. It may just be a blink of an eye to God.

Yes, God is unchanging - but that doesn't mean that creating this earth is a "change" in His nature - you just have a different perception of eternity than God.

I was very comfortable being a Trinitarian. It made sense to me. Being LDS didn't disqualify what I understood as a Trinitarian. It did nothing else but ADD to it. So that, my understanding of God has "expanded" as an LDS, not "changed".