basic questions

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

Just had a theologocal debate with a JW and asked some questions he had no answers to. Then couldnt rememeber much of what had once made so much sense so need to refresh my brain (and/or faith)

Please correct me where mistaken / fill in the blanks

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong, tempted by the snake/enemy, but this was part of God's plan for us, so we could grow.

Wasnt there also a tree of life, or was that the same tree?

The enemy was opposed to free agency for mankind? why? or was he jealous of man being preferred over the angels with this gift? I forget.

Then theres the whole trinity thing that i still find baffling but thats another story... hopefully it wont come up on our return debate.

I tried mormon.org but their chat is closed, i assume too many people have been asking them about magnets...

Thanks in advance for your patience in explaining. Ive been inactive/lurking so long ive forgotten most everything it seems.

[Jamie123]

I've been to mormon.org a few times. I find the people there responsive if you want to engage in engage in general chit-chat about the Church, though they usually steer the conversation round to "reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it" or else arranging for local missionaries to come and see you. However it's no use asking them any deep theological questions. Their more gracious response is to steer things away from the topic by asking oblique questions back. Their less gracious response to give you a website to read about it and then cut you off without even saying goodbye. (Of course I don't really blame them for wanting to cut things short - most of these guys are probably in the middle of 10 different conversations at once!)

[mnn727]

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong, tempted by the snake/enemy, but this was part of God's plan for us, so we could grow.

Wasnt there also a tree of life, or was that the same tree?

Different tree, wasn't clear to me either unttil I went though the Manti Temple

The enemy was opposed to free agency for mankind? why? or was he jealous of man being preferred over the angels with this gift? I forget.

His plan was to force everyone backto heaven through denial of agency

Then theres the whole trinity thing that i still find baffling but thats another story... hopefully it wont come up on our return debate.

There are differing views on the Trinity throughout the Christian world, some people believe as we do, others don't. If you ask 3 Christians from 3 different denominations you'll get at least 4 differnt definations of the Trinity.

[apexviper13]

Just had a theologocal debate with a JW and asked some questions he had no answers to. Then couldnt rememeber much of what had once made so much sense so need to refresh my brain (and/or faith)

Please correct me where mistaken / fill in the blanks

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong, tempted by the snake/enemy, but this was part of God's plan for us, so we could grow.

Wasnt there also a tree of life, or was that the same tree?

The enemy was opposed to free agency for mankind? why? or was he jealous of man being preferred over the angels with this gift? I forget.

Then theres the whole trinity thing that i still find baffling but thats another story... hopefully it wont come up on our return debate.

I tried mormon.org but their chat is closed, i assume too many people have been asking them about magnets...

Thanks in advance for your patience in explaining. Ive been inactive/lurking so long ive forgotten most everything it seems.

Yes. The reason Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden isn't because they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were cast out so they wouldn't eat from the tree of life because if they did they would have lived forever. You'll find that in Genesis 3:22.

The opposition to free agency was simply Satan wanted everyone to follow him without having a choice. In other words, we'd live as slaves our entire lives.

Don't worry so much about the trinity doctrine. This originates from the Anathasian, not Nicene, Creed. It also says anyone who's not Catholic isn't saved. The trinity teaches this: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God. However, if you ask people of Judaism they'll tell you trinitarianism isn't monotheistic and I think Jews would know about that subject. The doctrine of the trinity creates a problem within itself. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Since, by trinity standards, all three is one God that's saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (himself), and the Holy Ghost. If they say it's just referring to God the Father then they're breaking up that trinitarian belief. I don't get why they had to have a council on the divinity of the Godhead, the biblically correct term. Many will try to reference John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If you read that you'll see the second part makes it clear that God the Father and Jesus Christ are 2 distinct beings.

God the Father: the only true God as Jesus himself said in prayer

Jesus Christ: the Son of God and our Lord our God. He's called our Lord our God because he's our connection to the Father

Holy Ghost: Spirit of God

It doesn't take council to know the nature of the Godhead when you have scriptures.

[rameumptom]

Please correct me where mistaken / fill in the blanks

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong, tempted by the snake/enemy, but this was part of God's plan for us, so we could grow.

Wasnt there also a tree of life, or was that the same tree?

Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Major difference between "Good/Evil" and "Right/Wrong". They were tempted and fell. It was part of God's plan, which is why he prepared for a Savior prior to the Garden of Eden. There was/is a Tree of Life, which is a different tree. In 2 Nephi 8-15, it represents the love of God shed forth by his fruit, Jesus Christ.

The enemy was opposed to free agency for mankind? why? or was he jealous of man being preferred over the angels with this gift? I forget.

Satan does not want us to have freedom of choice. He wants to force all of us to worship him. In the premortal existence, God brought forth His plan for us, which included an earth life where we could gain a physical body and learn faith and obedience. He asked for a Savior. Both Jesus and Satan volunteered. God chose Christ. Satan rebelled and was cast out of heaven. His desire as Savior was to force all to be saved, and in a manner wherein he would get all the glory.

Then theres the whole trinity thing that i still find baffling but thats another story... hopefully it wont come up on our return debate.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity. They believe the Father and Jesus are two separate beings. The Holy Ghost is more of a power, like electricity, through which God works.

When you are not sure of answers, you can also refer to the full time missionaries or ward mission leader in your area. They can help you explain things to your friend, provide you literature and pamphlets to share, and show videos that explain our beliefs.

[Jbdf]

Just had a theologocal debate with a JW and asked some questions he had no answers to. Then couldnt rememeber much of what had once made so much sense so need to refresh my brain (and/or faith)

Please correct me where mistaken / fill in the blanks

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of right and wrong, tempted by the snake/enemy, but this was part of God's plan for us, so we could grow.

Wasnt there also a tree of life, or was that the same tree?

Different tree - see Genesis 2:9 ("In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil")

The enemy was opposed to free agency for mankind? why? or was he jealous of man being preferred over the angels with this gift? I forget.

As I read the LDS version of that story, Lucifer failed to appreciate how crucial free agency is for growth and flourishing.

Don't worry so much about the trinity doctrine. This originates from the Anathasian, not Nicene, Creed. It also says anyone who's not Catholic isn't saved. The trinity teaches this: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God. However, if you ask people of Judaism they'll tell you trinitarianism isn't monotheistic and I think Jews would know about that subject. The doctrine of the trinity creates a problem within itself. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Since, by trinity standards, all three is one God that's saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (himself), and the Holy Ghost. If they say it's just referring to God the Father then they're breaking up that trinitarian belief. I don't get why they had to have a council on the divinity of the Godhead, the biblically correct term. Many will try to reference John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If you read that you'll see the second part makes it clear that God the Father and Jesus Christ are 2 distinct beings.

God the Father: the only true God as Jesus himself said in prayer

Jesus Christ: the Son of God and our Lord our God. He's called our Lord our God because he's our connection to the Father

Holy Ghost: Spirit of God

It doesn't take council to know the nature of the Godhead when you have scriptures.

Some of this is a bit less than accurate. The 'Athanasian Creed' (originally known as the Quicunque vult from its first two Latin words) was a later fifth- or sixth-century document that was not endorsed by any ecumenical council and in fact is not used by the Eastern Orthodox Church because it explicitly affirms a point about the Holy Ghost that they deny. When the 'Athanasian Creed' says that one must remain true to the catholic faith in order to be saved, it means that one has to accept the universally held faith of the entire church, which was believed to be inherited from the apostles and ultimately from Christ himself. (So this is analogous to a Latter-day Saint saying that in order to be exalted, one must be a member in good standing of the Church which means following the Prophet.) The 'Athanasian Creed' is also not the source of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Latin word trinitas was already being used to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the third century AD, even before the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed was a statement of faith meant to counter a belief that essentially said that Jesus had been created out of nothing and was not 'on the same playing field', as it were, with the Father. (The Council of Nicaea also resolved a few other controversies, such as when to celebrate Easter/Pascha, and Latter-day Saints technically follow its decisions on that matter just like Protestants and Roman Catholics do; Jehovah's Witnesses, however, reject what the Council of Nicaea said about that too.)

Also, the word "God" can be used to refer to the Trinity as a 'whole' or to any of its members; the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and they are one God rather than three gods. So when Jesus is called the 'Son of God', that has never been intended to mean that Jesus is the Son of the Trinity; it has always been intended by Trinitarians to mean that Jesus is the Son of the Father, who is the one God (though not in such a way as to exclude Jesus from also being the one God). This is by no means "breaking up that trinitarian belief", since it's exactly what Trinitarians have been saying for well over 1500 years. What John 1:1 shows is more properly that the Father and the Son are two persons, which is completely compatible with what Trinitarians believe. The Father is not the same person as the Son. It's best to avoid the word "being" entirely these days, I think, since that word is being used quite differently by many people these days than it was once.

As for the term "Godhead", that is an English word and also does not translate any Hebrew or Greek word that refers to the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost taken together, whether or not we've come to use it that way; so to say that 'Godhead' is the "biblically correct" term is not quite right. After all, let's not forget that even an early LDS periodical said that it is "of great weight and moment" to "understand and believe" the "doctrine of the Trinity" (The Evening and the Morning Star, July 1832, p. 19). And whether or not contemporary rabbinic Jews would agree that Trinitarianism is monotheistic (Trinitarianism is either monotheistic and coherent or else monotheistic and incoherent, but definitely monotheistic in either case), I would personally add that Trinitarianism fits quite well with Second Temple Jewish monotheism (since Trinitarianism is ultimately the very Jewish affirmation that YHWH is the one God with his Word and his Spirit), but that's a bit of another issue.

As for Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs about the 'Godhead' are as Rameumptom described. (I'd add that they also bear a very close similarity to the incorrect teachings that the Council of Nicaea officially rejected.) For Jehovah's Witnesses, who are unipersonal monotheists, there is only one true God, Jehovah, the Father. Jesus Christ, the Son, was his first and only direct creation out of nothing. The Father then used the Son as an instrument through whom to create everything else that exists. Before coming to earth, Jesus was known as the archangel Michael. At the right time in history, the archangel Michael's "life-force" was transferred into the womb of Mary to be henceforth known as Jesus. After Jesus was 'impaled on a torture stake' (Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe these days that there was a crossbar on the device on which Jesus was executed), he was later 'resurrected', by which they mean that after completely ceasing to exist after death, he was re-created as an immaterial spirit without a body, just as Jehovah's Witnesses believe that he was before he came to earth. So for Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is technically no longer a human person, but rather a 'spirit-creature'. (They also believe that 144,000 devout believers have been chosen to similarly be 'resurrected' as 'spirit-creatures' and taken to heaven, whereas all other Jehovah's Witnesses look forward to having a bodily resurrection and remaining on earth in a paradise state.) For Jehovah's Witnesses, the Holy Ghost (for them, "holy spirit") is just a way of talking about God's power and "active force"; this 'holy spirit' for them isn't a person, but rather God's power, akin to electricity.

[apexviper13]

Some of this is a bit less than accurate. The 'Athanasian Creed' (originally known as the Quicunque vult from its first two Latin words) was a later fifth- or sixth-century document that was not endorsed by any ecumenical council and in fact is not used by the Eastern Orthodox Church because it explicitly affirms a point about the Holy Ghost that they deny. When the 'Athanasian Creed' says that one must remain true to the catholic faith in order to be saved, it means that one has to accept the universally held faith of the entire church, which was believed to be inherited from the apostles and ultimately from Christ himself. (So this is analogous to a Latter-day Saint saying that in order to be exalted, one must be a member in good standing of the Church which means following the Prophet.) The 'Athanasian Creed' is also not the source of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Latin word trinitas was already being used to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the third century AD, even before the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed was a statement of faith meant to counter a belief that essentially said that Jesus had been created out of nothing and was not 'on the same playing field', as it were, with the Father. (The Council of Nicaea also resolved a few other controversies, such as when to celebrate Easter/Pascha, and Latter-day Saints technically follow its decisions on that matter just like Protestants and Roman Catholics do; Jehovah's Witnesses, however, reject what the Council of Nicaea said about that too.)

Also, the word "God" can be used to refer to the Trinity as a 'whole' or to any of its members; the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and they are one God rather than three gods. So when Jesus is called the 'Son of God', that has never been intended to mean that Jesus is the Son of the Trinity; it has always been intended by Trinitarians to mean that Jesus is the Son of the Father, who is the one God (though not in such a way as to exclude Jesus from also being the one God). This is by no means "breaking up that trinitarian belief", since it's exactly what Trinitarians have been saying for well over 1500 years. What John 1:1 shows is more properly that the Father and the Son are two persons, which is completely compatible with what Trinitarians believe. The Father is not the same person as the Son. It's best to avoid the word "being" entirely these days, I think, since that word is being used quite differently by many people these days than it was once.

As for the term "Godhead", that is an English word and also does not translate any Hebrew or Greek word that refers to the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost taken together, whether or not we've come to use it that way; so to say that 'Godhead' is the "biblically correct" term is not quite right. After all, let's not forget that even an early LDS periodical said that it is "of great weight and moment" to "understand and believe" the "doctrine of the Trinity" (The Evening and the Morning Star, July 1832, p. 19). And whether or not contemporary rabbinic Jews would agree that Trinitarianism is monotheistic (Trinitarianism is either monotheistic and coherent or else monotheistic and incoherent, but definitely monotheistic in either case), I would personally add that Trinitarianism fits quite well with Second Temple Jewish monotheism (since Trinitarianism is ultimately the very Jewish affirmation that YHWH is the one God with his Word and his Spirit), but that's a bit of another issue.

Not exactly. Read the Nicene Creed and then read the Anathasian Creed. I've read the Nicene Creed and have yet to find anything in there that points to trinitarianism. In fact it seems to teach closer to our, LDS, beliefs than trinitarianism seeing how it shows God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct and separate beings. While the Nicene Creed did come first, it's not the creed that established the trinity doctrine. If it somehow does then it does a really poor job.

"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and they are one God rather than three gods"

Which creates a problem when you look at that. If you say "God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is one God" then you'd have a better ground but dividing them up individually and saying each is God and then turning around and saying they're not three gods makes a contradiction since in fact you'd be implying they are 3 gods. "Godhead" translates into deity which is the same thing. And what I mentioned about what their true nature is is correct seeing how it comes from the scriptures rather than creeds.

[Maureen]

..."the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and they are one God rather than three gods"

Which creates a problem when you look at that. If you say "God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is one God" then you'd have a better ground but dividing them up individually and saying each is God and then turning around and saying they're not three gods makes a contradiction since in fact you'd be implying they are 3 gods....

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are collectively and individually God. The three persons of the Trinity cannot be three gods since the Trinity is very specific in saying that there exists only one God.

M.

[HiJolly]

The Book of Mormon says there is only One God, a couple of times.

HJ

[rameumptom]

Maureen,

Try and convince a Jew or Muslim of that logic. It just won't work.... You can call a rose by some other term, but it still smells like a rose.

[Maureen]

Maureen,

Try and convince a Jew or Muslim of that logic. It just won't work.... You can call a rose by some other term, but it still smells like a rose.

Jews or Muslims do not believe in the Trinity, and that's fine. But trying to understand the Trinity means you need to know what it is and what it is not.

M.

[Jbdf]

Not exactly. Read the Nicene Creed and then read the Anathasian Creed. I've read the Nicene Creed and have yet to find anything in there that points to trinitarianism. In fact it seems to teach closer to our, LDS, beliefs than trinitarianism seeing how it shows God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct and separate beings. While the Nicene Creed did come first, it's not the creed that established the trinity doctrine. If it somehow does then it does a really poor job.

"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and they are one God rather than three gods"

Which creates a problem when you look at that. If you say "God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is one God" then you'd have a better ground but dividing them up individually and saying each is God and then turning around and saying they're not three gods makes a contradiction since in fact you'd be implying they are 3 gods. "Godhead" translates into deity which is the same thing. And what I mentioned about what their true nature is is correct seeing how it comes from the scriptures rather than creeds.

I have read both the Nicene Creed and the Quicunque vult many times - in Greek and Latin respectively, as well as in translation. I have also studied patristics so as to have a background against which to understand the development of such creedal formulations. Again, the English word "beings" is singularly unhelpful here. The Nicene Creed does allow that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, but also affirms that they are homoousios, which within a strongly monotheistic framework is an affirmation of the particular constitutive components that were under challenge in the Arian controversy. (If you're indeed saying, as you seem to be, that the Nicene Creed is actually incompatible with Trinitarianism, then I fear you may wish to do more extensive research on what Trinitarianism actually is.)

As for the alleged post-Nicene origins of the doctrine of the Trinity, it may help you to be aware that in the third century, Novatian wrote a treatise called... On the Trinity. Similarly prior to the Council of Nicaea, Gregory Thaumaturgus' Declaration of Faith affirms a "perfect Trinity - in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged". And, of course, in the third century Tertullian wrote his treatise Against Praxeas, in which he spoke of the one and only God as being both 'Unity' and 'Trinity', saying that the three persons Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are nevertheless one God. All of this occurred decades before the Council of Nicaea. I never said that the Nicene Creed established the doctrine of the Trinity. What I said was that the Council of Nicaea made clarifications in philosophical terminology and was mainly concerned to explicitly rule out a rising misconception of the Trinity - namely, the Arian distortion.

You seem to have tacitly granted that "Godhead" is not the biblical term for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit taken together, though the few times I know it to be used in biblical translations, it frequently renders words like theotetes, which refers to the state of being divine, and not to the three persons of the Trinity as a collectivity. As for your critique of the Trinitarian formula, well, you may need to articulate it a bit more clearly and grammatically. It seems that you're making a charge of contradiction. I would disagree, as would hundreds and hundreds of incredibly astute philosophers and theologians from the past 1700 years. Nevertheless, you're quite free to think it incoherent if you like, but what ought not to be done is to misrepresent the facts.

[apexviper13]

I have read both the Nicene Creed and the Quicunque vult many times - in Greek and Latin respectively, as well as in translation. I have also studied patristics so as to have a background against which to understand the development of such creedal formulations. Again, the English word "beings" is singularly unhelpful here. The Nicene Creed does allow that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, but also affirms that they are homoousios, which within a strongly monotheistic framework is an affirmation of the particular constitutive components that were under challenge in the Arian controversy. (If you're indeed saying, as you seem to be, that the Nicene Creed is actually incompatible with Trinitarianism, then I fear you may wish to do more extensive research on what Trinitarianism actually is.)

As for the alleged post-Nicene origins of the doctrine of the Trinity, it may help you to be aware that in the third century, Novatian wrote a treatise called... On the Trinity. Similarly prior to the Council of Nicaea, Gregory Thaumaturgus' Declaration of Faith affirms a "perfect Trinity - in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged". And, of course, in the third century Tertullian wrote his treatise Against Praxeas, in which he spoke of the one and only God as being both 'Unity' and 'Trinity', saying that the three persons Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are nevertheless one God. All of this occurred decades before the Council of Nicaea. I never said that the Nicene Creed established the doctrine of the Trinity. What I said was that the Council of Nicaea made clarifications in philosophical terminology and was mainly concerned to explicitly rule out a rising misconception of the Trinity - namely, the Arian distortion.

You seem to have tacitly granted that "Godhead" is not the biblical term for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit taken together, though the few times I know it to be used in biblical translations, it frequently renders words like theotetes, which refers to the state of being divine, and not to the three persons of the Trinity as a collectivity. As for your critique of the Trinitarian formula, well, you may need to articulate it a bit more clearly and grammatically. It seems that you're making a charge of contradiction. I would disagree, as would hundreds and hundreds of incredibly astute philosophers and theologians from the past 1700 years. Nevertheless, you're quite free to think it incoherent if you like, but what ought not to be done is to misrepresent the facts.

I haven't misrepresented anything. All I've done is stated facts. It doesn't take a council to determine the nature of God. That's something else I don't understand. Why follow a belief that had to come from a council of people not of God?

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Early beliefs - FAIRMormon

[bytebear]

I once spoke to a nice JW woman who came to my door. They come around often, I think because their church is right down the street, and I am generally friendly to them.

Anyway, her message was about Adam and Eve, and how we can return to Paradise and how the fall caused us to lose that. I basically told her my beliefs on the garden and why and how it came to be. Basically I gave the LDS beliefs on the topic. She kept saying "wow, that's interesting" and although she was more being agreeable than agreeing, she really was amazed at "my interpretation" and kept asking, "How did you come up with these ideas?" Finally I couldn't claim credit for such insight, so I answered, "I believe in modern prophets who have given more insight on the subject." It really strengthened my testimony of modern prophecy.

[Maureen]

I haven't misrepresented anything. All I've done is stated facts....

Not true on both accounts.

...The doctrine of the trinity creates a problem within itself. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Since, by trinity standards, all three is one God that's saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (himself), and the Holy Ghost. If they say it's just referring to God the Father then they're breaking up that trinitarian belief. ...

This statement right here tells me you don't understand the Trinity doctrine. Like mentioned before the Trinity doctrine states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are collectively and individually God. So when Christ is described as the Son of God he is indeed the Son of the Father. The Trinity doctrine is very much intact.

What's interesting to me is that someone like yourself who doesn't believe in the Trinity, is trying to tell Trinitarians what their doctrine means.

M.

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

Im aorry to sound ungrateful but ive resolved to not try and 'understand' the trinity through the internet. It is my experience that too many truths are out there. While some are more detailed versions of the same truth, i think i will hold off on this until im face to face with someone.

People get too worked up trying to explain their truth. Sorry to have brought it up.

[rameumptom]

Maureen,

No one understands the teaching of the Trinity. It is a mystery. The difficulties with it that are being brought forth are not because people are lying or misrepresenting anything. It is because they are trying to use logic to explain the Trinity, which is "incomprehensible" in its own description.

[Guest]

Maureen,

No one understands the teaching of the Trinity. It is a mystery. The difficulties with it that are being brought forth are not because people are lying or misrepresenting anything. It is because they are trying to use logic to explain the Trinity, which is "incomprehensible" in its own description.

Rame... the mystery of the Trinity is not in the understanding of the relationship... the mystery is in the "substance" of Triune God. Because, this substance is not something available to our current senses.

There's no mystery in the Godhead because, God is literally of the substance of our spiritual self.

So that, when a Trinitarian admits the Trinity is a mystery, it is not that he doesn't understand the one-in-three concept. It is that one can't quite explain what that one-in-three is exactly physically made of.

Make sense?

Edited May 13, 2011 by anatess

[rameumptom]

All I know is that I probably understand the Trinity better than many Trinitarians. Many try to describe the Trinity to me, but end up describing modalism (which is a heresy from the traditional Church).

I understand the Trinity and its mystery as far as anyone can understand things which are incomprehensible. I also understand the duality of Christ, which came forth from the Council of Chalcedon, because the Nicene Council left many questions/arguments over how Jesus could both be resurrected Son of God AND homoousious with God.

While I can never begin to understand it as well as Maureen or Anatess, I have had discussions with priests who have agreed that much of the idea behind the Trinity IS a mystery that we cannot begin to understand.

[Jbdf]

I haven't misrepresented anything. All I've done is stated facts.

And in this instance, several of your 'facts' have been corrected with information gleaned from serious study of the patristic period.

It doesn't take a council to determine the nature of God. That's something else I don't understand. Why follow a belief that had to come from a council of people not of God?

That simply isn't a faithful representation of what happened. The council did not simply make something up arbitrarily. They did not manufacture the nature of God. A challenge had been raised to the faith by the beliefs of a church elder from Egypt; bishops gathered to investigate the issue, hear the arguments from both sides, and discern what accorded best with the faith that had been handed down to them. One can believe that they judged rightly, or one can believe that they judged wrongly. My studies have led me to affirm that they indeed judged rightly.

Nor, for that matter, are 'from a council' and 'from God' mutually exclusive, any more than 'from the First Presidency' and 'from God' are mutually exclusive. (If God can speak through a prophet, why can't he, in principle, speak through a council? And if he speaks through a council, why should anyone be faulted for listening to the council?) And, as I've repeated several times before and demonstrated clearly, some form of the doctrine of the Trinity was definitely already around before the Council of Nicaea. What needed to be done was to add further clarity in such a manner as to clearly exclude alternative ways of fleshing out or distorting the church's teaching. For my part, I accept it not merely on the basis of the council's authority, but by taking the respective positions and comparing them with the Scriptures to see what holds up best, with a proper translation from one conceptual idiom to another.

All I know is that I probably understand the Trinity better than many Trinitarians. Many try to describe the Trinity to me, but end up describing modalism (which is a heresy from the traditional Church).

I understand the Trinity and its mystery as far as anyone can understand things which are incomprehensible. I also understand the duality of Christ, which came forth from the Council of Chalcedon, because the Nicene Council left many questions/arguments over how Jesus could both be resurrected Son of God AND homoousious with God.

While I can never begin to understand it as well as Maureen or Anatess, I have had discussions with priests who have agreed that much of the idea behind the Trinity IS a mystery that we cannot begin to understand.

It's true, most ostensibly 'orthodox' Christians do not have a clear idea of what the doctrine of the Trinity really is. Even more unfortunately, neither do some clergy. The Trinity is indeed a mystery, in a certain sense. First, because it is something that is revealed to us at last under the New Covenant but was seen at best dimly and from afar before. And second, it is one of the "wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend" (Evening and Morning Star, July 1832, p. 19); insofar as God's ways are beyond ours, so we lack the capacity to fully understand him as he is, though we may partly understand him through reason in addition to that which he has revealed. So we can indeed begin to understand it, I would argue, but we must do so humbly and with an awareness that on this side of the age to come, there's no chance any of us can finally dust of our hands with the exclamation, "Well, glad we finally understand God as well as he understands himself!"

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

His plan was to force everyone backto heaven through denial of agency

heaven as in: celestial kingdom?

What confuses me though, is if at first the enemy was trying to force us all into the celestial kingdom, why is he now trying his hardest to stop us from getting there? These motives seem quite contrary to eachother.

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

Yes. The reason Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden isn't because they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were cast out so they wouldn't eat from the tree of life because if they did they would have lived forever. You'll find that in Genesis 3:22.

To me this reads: man was never meant to live forever. To perpetuate, man was always meant to procreate.As such the drive to procreate would have already been in man - meaning adam and eva would have had relations even before the apple (?). That said they would have been 'innocent' in an animalistic way: knowing no right and wrong.

I had always understood that they were innocent as children, not innocent as animals.

What also puzzles me in Genesis 3:22 is:

"22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "

as one of us ? us!? is this pluralis majestatis or is God talking to others beside Adam and Eve?

[rameumptom]

Satan's plan would have reinterpreted the term "heaven". His heaven would have been imposed upon people. Since none would be able to be like Heavenly Father, they would need a new being to look up to as the head God, which is why Satan insisted on having God's honor. Isaiah 14 states that Lucifer wanted to kick God off his throne, turning people into his minions. Without agency, we could not learn compassion, patience, nor the other attributes of godliness. As Jacob states, we would have become "devils to the devil" (Jacob 9), unable to be saved into a true kingdom of heaven.

[Seminarysnoozer]

To me this reads: man was never meant to live forever. To perpetuate, man was always meant to procreate.As such the drive to procreate would have already been in man - meaning adam and eva would have had relations even before the apple (?). That said they would have been 'innocent' in an animalistic way: knowing no right and wrong.

I had always understood that they were innocent as children, not innocent as animals.

What also puzzles me in Genesis 3:22 is:

"22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "

as one of us ? us!? is this pluralis majestatis or is God talking to others beside Adam and Eve?

Eating of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" (in other words 'the tree of death') is the same thing as saying that they did not want to eat of the tree of life. In the situation they were in, the Garden of Eden, those two choices are mutually exclusive. If we say they were kicked out so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life that is the same thing as saying they were kicked out because they ate of the tree of death. These "trees" are symbolic. They are symbolic of wanting to have a probationary period to be tested versus staying under the watchful eye of Father and Mother without the chance for individual success or failure.

If an 18 year old wants to move out of the house and live independently from Mom and Dad for a while to prove that she can do it on her own, then that means she does not want to live under the 'completely provided for' roof of her parents. In honoring her decision, the parents may say, "okay, then you are on your own for a short period of time, lets see how you do, this will allow you to grow and learn". "If you really need help, just ask and we will help you." Heavenly Father allowed this to happen because there already was a plan in place for a Savior, knowing that we really couldn't 'do it on our own'.

Satan's plan was one of saying from the beginning that he could do it on his own and that he didn't need help from anyone, which is a lie. He wants us to still think that we don't need a Savior, which is a lie.

Eternal life is to share in the successes of everything and everyone that is successful. Then, to have an attitude of being able to do it on one's own, by definition is evil. This life is a test to show our true attitude, one of dependence (shared glory) versus one of independence (I will earn any glory on my own and it will be all mine). If we show that we prefer to do it on our own, then God will give us that just like Satan got exactly what he wanted, to be on his own.

To value dependency requires a bit of sense of what dependency is (a knowledge of good and evil). My 14 year old thinks she can live on her own today, that is "innocence" not knowing all it takes. She will later appreciate all her parents do for her when she finally does move out and then really develop a sense of dependency. Then she can truly find joy in all that her parents have done for her. Just like now, we can better appreciate the sacrifices and love of our Heavenly Parents, having gone through this life, then share in their glory forever.