Trinity Revisited

[Traveler]

The best demonstrated understanding of species is that interbreeding producing fertile offspring defines a species. To better understand definitions and concepts there are nine classifications as follows:

1. Life

2. Domain

3. Kingdom

4. Phylum

5. Class

6. Order

7. Family

8. Genus

9. Species

This list describes all life as we have experienced. Thus the first classification is life. The 3rd classification is Kingdom. In general all life as most of us understand resides in ether the plant or animal kingdom. Because G-d tells us that he is a living G-d we do know that G-d meets the classification of life. Snakes are classified as a family. Within that classification is the Boa genus and the Boa constrictor species. Sometimes between two particular genuses there is a possibility of interbreeding that produces infertile offspring. To further classify this subset within the genus classification we have created the distinction of sub-species.

There are other ways to determine species other than by breeding. The question of Adam and Eve as life forms in Eden is somewhat speculation but one must be prepared to argue that if they were not the same species as we are now that their species was changed with the fall. This would be very difficult in that G-d instructed them to multiply and replenish prior to the fall. I hope that we all agree that mankind is the fertile offspring of Adam and Eve. This, by definition makes us the same species as Adam and Eve. Luke 3:38 tells us that Adam was the offspring of G-d just as Seth was the offspring of Adam.

So it is that we have two expert witnesses in scripture that man is the same species as G-d. First being that Adam was the same species being offspring of G-d. And the second witness is that Jesus was the offspring of G-d (consider 1Timothy 2:5) Jesus is a man and 1John 5:10 that Jesus is the Son of G-d. So that Jesus was the same species as we are and Jesus is the same species as our Father in Heaven - being his son.

My point is when we use terms - we must have common understanding as to what those terms mean. If we ask the question - How is man related to G-d? Are we both classified as life? If we believe the scriptures we are accurate - that G-d is a “living” G-d then we are related at least by that classification. My point is - that if we believe the evidence given in scripture then man and G-d is the same species. I will entertain other arguments that perhaps we are the same family but not species or even the same kingdom but not same species. But what I do not accept are statements of contradiction and I do not accept seemingly authoritative statements without supporting evidence. And if scripture is considered the authoritative evidence - then let us examine the scriptures together.

The doctrine of the Trinity includes the Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost as persons. I believe that man also is and should be classified as persons. Is this enough of a relationship to place us with G-d in the same “family”. Would it be too much of a push to say that our Father in heave, The Son and the Holy Ghost are the same species? Even under the doctrine of the Trinity?

And now the final question. If our Father in heaven, The Son and the Holy Ghost are one and they are persons of the same species - when a righteous man (person) is exalted in the resurrection and such a person is one G-d in the same manner that Jesus is one G-d as our Father in heaven and Holy Ghost (even according to the doctrine of the Trinity) - will not at least our person be the same species as the person of our Father in heaven and The Son? If we are not - how can we be one?

The Traveler

Edited January 26, 2011 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

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).

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

If you say that His body was no different in the beginning of His life here then there really is no reason for Him to be the Only Begotten. I think you might be devaluing the fact that He is the Only Begotten in this life. You don't think there are any additional powers of abilities bestowed by that fact?

[Maureen]

...And now the final question. If our Father in heaven, The Son and the Holy Ghost are one and they are persons of the same species - when a righteous man (person) is exalted in the resurrection and such a person is one G-d in the same manner that Jesus is one G-d as our Father in heaven and Holy Ghost (even according to the doctrine of the Trinity) - will not at least our person be the same species as the person of our Father in heaven and The Son? If we are not - how can we be one?

Hopefully I'm understanding correctly, but the problem with this is that according to the Trinity doctrine, when man is resurrected and receives his glorified body he will not become divine like God. With mainstream Christianity only God is divine. So another way to look at the word "species" is by using the word "nature" or even "essence". Only God has a divine nature or essense. Man's nature is of course human. Even after the resurrection man will still be of a different nature than God. Only God has a divine nature, that's what makes him God. Our oneness with God will not be a physical (nature) oneness but a spiritual, family oneness.

M.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Maureen

[Traveler]

Hopefully I'm understanding correctly, but the problem with this is that according to the Trinity doctrine, when man is resurrected and receives his glorified body he will not become divine like God. With mainstream Christianity only God is divine. So another way to look at the word "species" is by using the word "nature" or even "essence". Only God has a divine nature or essense. Man's nature is of course human. Even after the resurrection man will still be of a different nature than God. Only God has a divine nature, that's what makes him God. Our oneness with God will not be a physical (nature) oneness but a spiritual, family oneness.

M.

How can we be "one" (see John 17: 21-23) if we are a very different nature or essence? Please note that we are one in the same manner Jesus and The Father are one - thus it they are one in essence and nature - then ether we are also are one in the same manner or Jesus paryed falsely.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hopefully I'm understanding correctly, but the problem with this is that according to the Trinity doctrine, when man is resurrected and receives his glorified body he will not become divine like God. With mainstream Christianity only God is divine. So another way to look at the word "species" is by using the word "nature" or even "essence". Only God has a divine nature or essense. Man's nature is of course human. Even after the resurrection man will still be of a different nature than God. Only God has a divine nature, that's what makes him God. Our oneness with God will not be a physical (nature) oneness but a spiritual, family oneness.

M.

This is why, at least I think for most LDS, we separate our being into two; the body and the spirit. In this current existence our body is different than a glorified body. When we talk about "man" it is important to differentiate between the body of man versus the spirit of man. Sometimes, in the scriptures, "man" is just referring to the more specific "natural man" which is the corrupted body. Sometimes, "man" is referring to both, body and spirit. In the Bible, I think, the earthly body is sometimes referred to as just "corruption", like putting on this corruption, taking off this corruption. The spirit can become corrupted by this existence but it doesn't have to be, that is why we follow the gospel of Christ to keep it clean and pure. Then our real "essence" can be made white as snow, as divine and as pure as it started. Adding that to a purified, glorified body with the resurrection can put us in the same category (species, whatever you want to call it) after a glorified body unites with a purified, redeemed spirit as God and Jesus currently are in.

[Justice]

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?

I'm speaking of logic and reason, independant of what is written anywhere. Your belief in the flood doesn't change anything, but a belief about who God is changes everything.

I presented logical questions that one can choose to ponder on "why?" I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer. If one wishes not to ponder on such questions they certainly aren't forced to just because I asked the questions.

I'm genuinely curious to know what those who believe in the Trinity have to say about such logic.

[Justice]

With mainstream Christianity only God is divine.

I posted a scripture (from the Bible) a while back that refuted this idea. You did not respond.

[Guest]

I'm speaking of logic and reason, independant of what is written anywhere. Your belief in the flood doesn't change anything, but a belief about who God is changes everything.

I presented logical questions that one can choose to ponder on "why?" I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer. If one wishes not to ponder on such questions they certainly aren't forced to just because I asked the questions.

I'm genuinely curious to know what those who believe in the Trinity have to say about such logic.

You may not believe in the logic, but the Trinity is logical to Trinitarians. PC has stated 5 million ways how it is logical. I tried to explain how it is logical (even though I'm LDS now). The "mystery" of the Trinity is not the understanding that God is of a different "essense". The "mystery" is in how all-encompassing that "essence" is - what it truly implies. As an LDS convert - that still remains a mystery. It is something we accept as something that will become clearer after we die.

The millions of Christians out there who are Trinitarians are not just a bunch of lemmings. Most of them ask the same questions you are asking and found answers in the Trinity.

[Justice]

If you say that His body was no different in the beginning of His life here then there really is no reason for Him to be the Only Begotten. I think you might be devaluing the fact that He is the Only Begotten in this life. You don't think there are any additional powers of abilities bestowed by that fact?

His body had blood. He suffered. He hungered. He walked on two feet. He spoke as a man.

I think those who believe Jesus was a different type of Being than man miss these obvious points. He lived as a man for 30 years, unnoticed, before He claimed to be the Son of God.

The fact that He was born of a mortal mother should identify His "race" or "species." He is man; even Son of Man.

God was the literal Father of His body, yet He still walked and talked and bled like a man, He even looked like a man. I don't know how much more plain it gets.

I do believe He was different, but exactly how I do not know. I believe the difference was more of who He was than what kind of body He had.

Whether or not His body was different, I don't know. I know that being the Only Son of the Father in the flesh made Him different somehow. But, don't forget that He was born mortal, of a mortal mother, even if His Father was immortal.

I happen to believe that a body takes on more of the characteristics of the mother's body, and that explains how Adam was born immortal. It also explains why Satan tempted Eve, and not Adam. It also explains why Christ had to be born of a mortal mother and not a mortal father. It also explains why men hold the Priesthood and not woman. It explains a great many other things as well.

I think the differences may not have been as great as many think.

He was the Firstborn long before He was born here. Which brings up another interesting question: If there were no other spiritual offspring, why was He not called the Onlyborn?

In any case, yes, being born of an immortal Father did make Him different. I believe His body was different. I just don't believe He was as different as many think. I belive He lost His memory and had to learn and grow just like the rest of us.

[Guest]

His body had blood. He suffered. He hungered. He walked on two feet. He spoke as a man.

I think those who believe Jesus was a different type of Being than man miss these obvious points. He lived as a man for 30 years, unnoticed, before He claimed to be the Son of God.

The fact that He was born of a mortal mother should identify His "race" or "species." He is man; even Son of Man.

God was the literal Father of His body, yet He still walked and talked and bled like a man, He even looked like a man. I don't know how much more plain it gets.

I do believe He was different, but exactly how I do not know. I believe the difference was more of who He was than what kind of body He had.

Whether or not His body was different, I don't know. I know that being the Only Son of the Father in the flesh made Him different somehow. But, don't forget that He was born mortal, of a mortal mother, even if His Father was immortal.

I happen to believe that a body takes on more of the characteristics of the mother's body, and that explains how Adam was born immortal. It also explains why Satan tempted Eve, and not Adam. It also explains why Christ had to be born of a mortal mother and not a mortal father. It also explains why men hold the Priesthood and not woman. It explains a great many other things as well.

I think the differences may not have been as great as many think.

He was the Firstborn long before He was born here. Which brings up another interesting question: If there were no other spiritual offspring, why was He not called the Onlyborn?

In any case, yes, being born of an immortal Father did make Him different. I believe His body was different. I just don't believe He was as different as many think. I belive He lost His memory and had to learn and grow just like the rest of us.

And Trinitarians will agree with you on that. Except for all the mother-stuff... I'm always careful in explaining away things according to my own small mind. Too much speculating and it starts to confuddle the brain on what is true doctrine and what I just came up with myself...

P.S. In the Trinitarian concept - Jesus was Begotten - not made. Which makes him the ONLY begotten of the Father. Remember, Trinitarians don't believe in pre-mortal existence.

[Justice]

The millions of Christians out there who are Trinitarians are not just a bunch of lemmings. Most of them ask the same questions you are asking and found answers in the Trinity.

I'd like to see the logic in the answers to those questions I asked because those are the ones I'm struggling with. I really am trying to understand. I'm not asking just to make anyone's beliefs look silly. I'm seeking to understand, and in order to do that I have to ask the questions I don't understand, or present the logic (or lack thereof) as I see it and hope someone can help me understand.

For instance, it's my understanding that most (if not all) Trinitarians belive marriage does not last past death.

God said it is not good for man to be alone, and created a woman for Adam to be with. Just like me, I have a wife whom I love very much. For God to say "you can no longer have that relationship after you die" seems like a sick joke to me. I miss my wife when she's out of town just a couple of days.

Why does He say to love your wife and cleave to her and none else, have me build a relationship of love with her, and then say, when you die you can no longer have that relationship?

It all goes back to the same belief in God and who and what He is.

If He is a spirit, meaning no tangible body, then this idea could make sense.

If He has a spirit body, is married Himself, and we are His children, and He is trying to perfect us so we can enjoy the same happiness He enjoys, then this idea is foreign.

Again, it falls back on what we think spirit is. But, I can use logic to help determine the answer. So, I ask those questions. I'd like to see them answered.

[Justice]

P.S. In the Trinitarian concept - Jesus was Begotten - not made. Which makes him the ONLY begotten of the Father. Remember, Trinitarians don't believe in pre-mortal existence.

I realize this. So, if He is the Only begotten (spirit or otherwise) child why is He called Firstborn and not Onlyborn, was my question. Had it only been in reference to His physical birth it could have been Onlyborn. Firstborn implies there were others.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Justice

[Guest]

I'd like to see the logic in the answers to those questions I asked because those are the ones I'm struggling with. I really am trying to understand. I'm not asking just to make anyone's beliefs look silly. I'm seeking to understand, and in order to do that I have to ask the questions I don't understand, or present the logic (or lack thereof) as I see it and hope someone can help me understand.

For instance, it's my understanding that most (if not all) Trinitarians belive marriage does not last past death.

God said it is not good for man to be alone, and created a woman for Adam to be with. Just like me, I have a wife whom I love very much. For God to say "you can no longer have that relationship after you die" seems like a sick joke to me. I miss my wife when she's out of town just a couple of days.

Why does He say to love your wife and cleave to her and none else, have me build a relationship of love with her, and then say, when you die you can no longer have that relationship?

It all goes back to the same belief in God and who and what He is.

If He is a spirit, meaning no tangible body, then this idea could make sense.

If He has a spirit body, is married Himself, and we are His children, and He is trying to perfect us so we can enjoy the same happiness He enjoys, then this idea is foreign.

Again, it falls back on what we think spirit is. But, I can use logic to help determine the answer. So, I ask those questions. I'd like to see them answered.

So, you want to do this without scriptural references right? Just logical analysis?

Okay, I can tell you why it made sense to me.

When I was Roman Catholic, I believed that our mortal life starts in mortality and ends in death. We know we get resurrected because Jesus showed us we can be. But, there is no scriptural anything that says we have a Heavenly Mother. And there is no scriptural anything that says Jesus has a wife - neither mortal nor eternal. Therefore, the conclusion for a Trinitarian is that, marriage is required for the propagation and care for children - established as the organization unto which man becomes co-creators with God. There is no need for creation past death. Therefore, marriage is not a necessary organization after death. Your love for your wife does not end just because you died. And, you don't have to be "married" to continue to love each other in heaven because you are going to become as God is - in perfect love with each and everyone in heaven, and not just your wife.

Very simple. Very logical.

[Maureen]

I posted a scripture (from the Bible) a while back that refuted this idea. You did not respond.

I may not have seen your question. You'll have to re-ask it. :)

M.

[Guest]

I realize this. So, if He is the Only begotten (spirit or otherwise) child why is He called Firstborn and not Onlyborn, was my question. Had it only been in reference to His physical birth it could have been Onlyborn. Firstborn implies there were others.

You are applying your LDS concept to the word "first born".

First-born doesn't imply literal birth or a place in time or a pre-existence. First-born comes from "prototokos" (a complex greek term) to mean Jesus has authority over all of God's creation. The word first-born is also used by God to refer to Israel. It doesn't mean that God gave birth to Israel, nor does it mean that Israel is the first nation on earth (for sure Egypt came before). It only means that Israel holds the highest place before God.

[Guest]

What's really weird about this thread is that I'm having to go back to what I knew then...

This really impresses upon me the importance of my Catholic upbringing in bringing me to a better understanding of the restored gospel... I am truly blessed. God, in His infinite wisdom knew exactly what I needed to embrace His Plan for my Salvation.

[beefche]

Thank you to everyone for the civil tone and replies in this thread. I really am learning alot and I appreciate those who are taking the time to explain and ask questions.

[Traveler]

You may not believe in the logic, but the Trinity is logical to Trinitarians. PC has stated 5 million ways how it is logical. I tried to explain how it is logical (even though I'm LDS now). The "mystery" of the Trinity is not the understanding that God is of a different "essense". The "mystery" is in how all-encompassing that "essence" is - what it truly implies. As an LDS convert - that still remains a mystery. It is something we accept as something that will become clearer after we die.

The millions of Christians out there who are Trinitarians are not just a bunch of lemmings. Most of them ask the same questions you are asking and found answers in the Trinity.

Anatess,

I want to thank you for your input. I have read and enjoyed many of your posts. I am and engineer and scientist; I love and enjoy logic. I am not a well rounded person - very much a geek.

I have worked for over 25 years consulting in artificial intelligence. I get the logical side of things. I know many think that the Trinity is logical. But the constructs of logic are so violated I am concerned that the Trinity is even tried in the arena of logic. I understand that some things are believed on faith. It is okay with me if someone believes based on faith. I understand someone can accept the Trinity on faith but the Trinity is not logical.

I encounter other scientist and engineers on a daily basis in my work. Many are atheists (I think that most scientist and engineers are atheists or leaning towards atheism) but of the atheists I encounter few were born atheists. I would say that 90% of the atheists I encounter were raised up Trinitarian Christian. Once they became trained in logic they realized that the Trinity is not logical. Because they had been told from childhood that it is logical when they realized that it is not - they have rejected all religion is not logical. They are so surprised when I use actual logic to explain religious principles they do not even know how to react. Just within the last week I had a scientist say that in 40 years they have never had a logical discussion with a Trinitarian. It is not just me.

Let me give one example of a logical paradox in the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity says that G-d is indivisible - without parts. But in the next statement Trinitarians tells us that G-d is 3 persons. I am not saying such a thing is impossible - even quantum mechanics deals with the illogical based on remote possibilities. Just because a mathematical proof is flawed; it does not mean the principle is false. What it means is that following the logic presented you cannot accept the result. You just cannot be honest and say the proof is valid. There are things in LDS theology that are not logical - the atonement is not logical. My point is that if we say we are using logic then be honest and accept any flaws that logic uncovers.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I realize this. So, if He is the Only begotten (spirit or otherwise) child why is He called Firstborn and not Onlyborn, was my question. Had it only been in reference to His physical birth it could have been Onlyborn. Firstborn implies there were others.

The firstborn was the child who would be head of the home. He conducted funeral and rememberance observances, usually inherited the lion's share of the family estate, and maintained responsibility for family cohesion. It did not always indicate chronological birth order. In the context of the letter we find this in, it speaks to Christ's honored role, not his subordination.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

While angels clearly have more powers than humans, traditional teaching is that we are all who we are forever. There is no transition from human to angel to deity. That said, humans are actually deemed of a superior order than angels. Ultimately, we will judge the angels.

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

I don't "insist," I suggest. Historic teachings have weathered the test of time, and take a higher burden of proof to be overturned. So, you can do it. It's just harder.

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?

Christ became flesh. He became human. He remained God, and yet was fully human. While on earth he willingly gave up his power as God, and became a little lower than the angels. With his ascension he regained his powers as God. Further, became the "worthy Lamb" of Revelation, who's honors are sung in the heavens.

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.

Is this LDS teaching--that Jesus forgot his premortal existence, and NEEDED a body? I find that astounding. My understanding is that God needs nothing, and that Christ understood his identity. In particular, in John 8:58 Jesus says that before Abraham was, "I AM." In so doing, He is declaring himself to be Yahweh...and they tried to stone him for blasphemy, as a result.

[Dravin]

Is this LDS teaching--that Jesus forgot his premortal existence, and NEEDED a body?

We believe a body is required to receive a fullness of joy.

If the Father possesses a body and we are all commanded to become like him (obviously Christ has a leg up there) then it stands to reason that Christ to be perfectly obedient would require one as well. LDS make note that in the New Testament that Christ commands us to be perfect like his Father (who possesses a perfected body), but in the Book of Mormon when he possesses a perfected body he commands to be perfect like him or his Father are perfect. There is significance to a perfected body.

Obviously if you don't believe God has a perfected body such a requirement doesn't make sense. Likewise if you consider them to be identical in every way except they are different beings then the idea doesn't flow so well.

and that Christ understood his identity.

I'm not seeing how JAG's comment claims otherwise. It's a question of did he gain an understanding of his identity during his life or if he was otherwise born with a full and complete understanding of it complete with memories of his pre-mortal existence?

Edited January 27, 2011 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hi

I do believe He was different, but exactly how I do not know. I believe the difference was more of who He was than what kind of body He had.

I think the differences may not have been as great as many think.

In any case, yes, being born of an immortal Father did make Him different. I believe His body was different. I just don't believe He was as different as many think. I belive He lost His memory and had to learn and grow just like the rest of us.

Well then if you think even it was a little different, why was it different? It is because it needed to be different to complete His mission on this Earth.

This is what gospel principles says; "Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. That is why He is called the Only Begotten Son. He inherited divine powers from His Father. From His mother He inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death. No one could take the Savior’s life from Him unless He willed it. He had power to lay it down and power to take up His body again after dying. (See John 10:17–18.)"

He inherited divine powers from His Father as a function of Him being the Only Begotten in the flesh. He is the only one in this world who was given those divine powers through physically inherited means. And that is why He had to be the Only Begotten. Specifically, one of those powers obtained at His mortal birth, therefore, not from His spiritual birth, was that of an ability to lay down His life and take it up again. That is what He inherited by way of Him being the Only Begotten. In other words, He didn't inherit it at the moment He was born spiritually and it wasn't anything that He did Himself to His own body as He lived here, He inherited it from the Father as a function of being the Only Begotten, the only physical offspring of God, not from being a spiritual offspring of God.

If it was a function of His spiritual inheritance then Jesus could have been born to two mortal beings and still completed His mission here. So, you have to ask yourself how the Only Begotten status changed His body in comparison to the rest of us.

If there is no one on the Earth that can do that, lay down their life and take back up that body than I would say Christ' body here on Earth was a lot different than everone elses. That is not a little difference.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[Guest]

Anatess,

I want to thank you for your input. I have read and enjoyed many of your posts. I am and engineer and scientist; I love and enjoy logic. I am not a well rounded person - very much a geek.

I have worked for over 25 years consulting in artificial intelligence. I get the logical side of things. I know many think that the Trinity is logical. But the constructs of logic are so violated I am concerned that the Trinity is even tried in the arena of logic. I understand that some things are believed on faith. It is okay with me if someone believes based on faith. I understand someone can accept the Trinity on faith but the Trinity is not logical.

I encounter other scientist and engineers on a daily basis in my work. Many are atheists (I think that most scientist and engineers are atheists or leaning towards atheism) but of the atheists I encounter few were born atheists. I would say that 90% of the atheists I encounter were raised up Trinitarian Christian. Once they became trained in logic they realized that the Trinity is not logical. Because they had been told from childhood that it is logical when they realized that it is not - they have rejected all religion is not logical. They are so surprised when I use actual logic to explain religious principles they do not even know how to react. Just within the last week I had a scientist say that in 40 years they have never had a logical discussion with a Trinitarian. It is not just me.

Let me give one example of a logical paradox in the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity says that G-d is indivisible - without parts. But in the next statement Trinitarians tells us that G-d is 3 persons. I am not saying such a thing is impossible - even quantum mechanics deals with the illogical based on remote possibilities. Just because a mathematical proof is flawed; it does not mean the principle is false. What it means is that following the logic presented you cannot accept the result. You just cannot be honest and say the proof is valid. There are things in LDS theology that are not logical - the atonement is not logical. My point is that if we say we are using logic then be honest and accept any flaws that logic uncovers.

The Traveler

No, I'm neither a scientist nor a geek. So, I'm just your plain old human. Well, I'm a programmer, so in that sense, I understand logic.

I agree with you on this one...

I posit that ALL RELIGION is illogical - including the LDS (like you stated).

Therefore, when I said, Trinitarians find the Trinity logical - I only meant they found it as the one that makes the most sense when put in the entire body of the scriptures.

Remember, they don't believe Pearl of Great Price nor the D&C are of God and they don't look for answers in scientific experimentation. The Godhead only logically makes better sense than the Trinity if you accept those as biblical. The only reason why you're not an atheist is because you accept those as truth. Because, if you rely on logic to decide the truth of God, then you're going to end up atheist.

That's why I said - that it may not make the best logical sense to (you to) accept the Trinity - but without a spiritual manifestation of the truth of the restored gospel - it's the best one available. And you can't just embrace the restored gospel because it "makes sense", unfortunately.

Edited January 27, 2011 by anatess

[Justice]

He inherited divine powers from His Father. From His mother He inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death.

All I'm saying is the divine powers He inherited aren't spellled out. He showed power over death by just speaking. He raised others from the dead, and will pass the resurrection on to all men. This doesn't necessarily mean His body was different. I agree it may have been... I'm just saying I don't know.

[Justice]

I may not have seen your question. You'll have to re-ask it. :)

M.

It wasn't a question at all. It was a scripture that refutes what you claimed about men and divine nature.

2 Peter 1:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.