Who is Jesus?

[schpoogie]

As a christian, I love Jesus. What he did, what he said, everything about him is well, quite amaizing. He is very inspiring indeed...an example of his amaizing teachings:

"love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, lend without expecting anything in return"

My question to all is; who is Jesus?

Is he God?

Is he a God?

Is he the litteral Son of God?

Is he symbolically the Son of God?

Is he Eternal? Was he made?

Is he divine?

Just reaching out for some opinions,

-Tim

[john doe]

The answer to most of your questions is: Yes.

[Connie]

If your interested on how LDS people view Jesus, here is a good link. LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Jesus Christ

[HiJolly]

As a christian, I love Jesus. What he did, what he said, everything about him is well, quite amaizing. He is very inspiring indeed...an example of his amaizing teachings:

"love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, lend without expecting anything in return"

My question to all is; who is Jesus?

Is he God?

Yes.

Is he a God?

Yes.

Is he the litteral Son of God?

Yes.

Is he symbolically the Son of God?

Yes.

Is he Eternal? Was he made?

Yes; as are we. Sort of. All of us begin as eternal sparks of intelligence, substance of God Himself. Then the Father forms our spiritual bodies, with that spark at the core.

This is a profound difference between the Mormons and the rest of Creedal Christianity. We claim that Angels, Gods, Devils, Demons & men are all of a kind. All with substance of intelligence from God. As God's children we have much potential - one way or the other.

Is he divine?

Yep. All have the spark of divinity. The difference is what we do with it.

HiJolly

[Vort]

My question to all is; who is Jesus?

Is he God?

Yes.

Is he a God?

Yes.

Is he the litteral Son of God?

Yes.

Is he symbolically the Son of God?

Yes.

Is he Eternal? Was he made?

Yes and yes*.

Is he divine?

Yes.

* I realize this whole "made" business is a huge deal for traditional Christians, though I don't really understand why. I believe it has to do with the false "ex nihilo" idea of creation, wherein God created everything "from nothing" -- a patently non-Biblical doctrine, I might add. This idea, based on neoplatonistic philosophy, suggests that God alone is "self-existent", and that everything else was "created" (read "poofed into existence") by him. The irony here is that the same neoplatonism holds that matter is corrupt by its nature, meaning that God's poofed-into-existence creation is corrupt -- an impossibility, according to this same philosophy.

In any case, the hang-up appears to center in the idea that, if Christ had been poofed into existence like everything else, then logically he couldn't be God, who is the only self-existent being.

This breathtakingly incoherent view can be savaged six ways from Tuesday, though I am not particularly interested in deconstructing anyone else's views of God. Suffice it to say that if God is "all-powerful" in the way that most Christians suppose, then God can indeed create a being equal to himself. If he can't, then he's not "all-powerful", is he? So the whole house of cards immediately collapses.

For myself, I believe Christ is eternally self-existent. But then, I believe I am, too. I also believe that God is all-powerful, but not in the "I Dream of Jeannie" sense that many other denominational Christians seem to think. I believe God is all-powerful in the sense that God can do anything that is doable. But there are plenty of word combinations that describe impossible things, and no, God CANNOT do them. Because they are nonsense. For example, can God:

• make a thing exist at a location and simultaneously not exist at that location?
• make a rock so big he can't lift it?
• save a man in his sins?

The answer in each case is: Of course not. The "thing" described is self-contradictory, impossible by definition. This does not limit God's power in any sense; rather, it acknowledges that our language is sufficiently flexible that it can be misused to describe impossible, self-contradictory things. See Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid for more amusing meditations on the idea of self-negating systems.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For myself, I believe Christ is eternally self-existent. But then, I believe I am, too.

For myself, (just to say that there are some LDS that believe this way - not to disagree with Vort) that I am a child of God, spiritually and at no time was I not a child of God as I wasn't self-existent until I became a child of God. And I believe Christ falls into that same category as He is our older, spiritual, brother with the same Heavenly Parent. The intelligence material used in that formation is eternal but the self-existent description of myself started with my spiritual birth as it did with Christ, in my opinion. (I would really open a can of worms if I said the same thing about God, so I won't say that this time)

[schpoogie]

Wow i'm pretty happy I got some answers!

Some quite intersting answers, I can see a unity in belief.

The answers to all my questions were yes! I did not expect that LoL

My problem, in Mormonism, if you believe Jesus is a God then that makes mormonism a polytheistic religion. Because you deny the trinity.

So maybe someone can clear that up for me.

Vort, how do you say the universe was created?

keep in mind it says in Genesis 1:1 - In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth

What you wrote just confused me lol

-Tim

[Vort]

My problem, in Mormonism, if you believe Jesus is a God then that makes mormonism a polytheistic religion. Because you deny the trinity.

The "Trinity" doctrine is itself a violation of monotheism. Ask any Jew or Muslim.

I'm not too concerned about whether someone perceives Mormonism as monotheistic or not. We are monotheistic. Period.

Vort, how do you say the universe was created?

keep in mind it says in Genesis 1:1 - In the beggining God created the heavens and the earth

What you wrote just confused me lol

As you quote: God created the universe. But God did not create space, or matter, or intelligence. These things are eternal and self-existent, as is God himself.

[schpoogie]

The "Trinity" doctrine is itself a violation of monotheism. Ask any Jew or Muslim.

How exaclty is it in violation of monotheisum? Christians worship one God, but He is unified in three persons.

How can you say that the trinity isnt monotheistic and then say "(mormonism) is monotheistic. Period"

The Trinity makes complete sense. Jesus is God no doubt, it says so in Philippians 2 - "Your attitude should be that of Christ Jesus: who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage"

But it also says in Deut 4:35 - "You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other"

So there is only one God and there is no other, and yet Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God as you read Acts 5 - "Then Peter said, 'Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God"

The trinity is only logical.

If you believe Jesus is God (or a God) then that makes 2 Gods....God the Father and God the Son.

Think about this, I believe God is Love and so do you right? In the beggining, before He created the heavens and the earth, if He was by Himself then He would have had no one to direct His love out to....He would only have Himself. And we all know that loving oneself is sinful. God had to exist in three persons so that he could truely be a Loving by nature God. If he had to create something for Him to love then He wouldnt be a self-sustaining God. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all equally eternal and have been with eachother eternally

God did not create space, or matter, or intelligence. These things are eternal and self-existent, as is God himself.

That is an intersting perspective

[volgadon]

The "Trinity" doctrine is itself a violation of monotheism. Ask any Jew or Muslim.

A statement from one of the foremost philosophers of the medieval era, a powerful influence on Aquinas.

It is not rare that a person aims to expound the intent of some conclusions clearly and explicitly, makes an effort to reject doubts and eliminate far-fetched interpretations, and yet the unbalanced will draw the reverse judgment of the conclusion he sought to clarify. Some such thing occured even to one of God's declarations. When the chief of the prophets wished by order of God to teach us that He is One, without associates, and to remove from our hearts those wrong doctrines that the Dualists propound, he proclaimed this fundamental: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone [Deut. 6:4]. But the Christians utilized this verse to prove that God is one of three, teaching that Lord, our God, the Lord makes three names, all followed by one, which indicates that they are three and that the three are one. Far be God from what they say in their ignorance. If this is what happened to God's proclamation, it is much more likely and to be expected to happen to statements by humans.

-Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam or Maimonides, in his The Essay on Resurrection, trans. Abraham Halkin in The Epistles of Maimonides: crisis and leadership.

[Justice]

Think about this, I believe God is Love and so do you right? In the beggining, before He created the heavens and the earth, if He was by Himself then He would have had no one to direct His love out to....He would only have Himself. And we all know that loving oneself is sinful. God had to exist in three persons so that he could truely be a Loving by nature God. If he had to create something for Him to love then He wouldnt be a self-sustaining God. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all equally eternal and have been with eachother eternally

Wow... this is hard, if not impossible, for me to wrap my brain around.

Consider this: I'll list 3 foundational beliefs you have because of the Trinity, and then show you the contradiction. Feel free to point out if any of the 3 things I list and attribute to you as beliefs are, in fact, not your beliefs.

1. God is eternal, and must mean He has always existed.

2. God is unchanging. Since He is all-knowing, and always has been, He cannot learn something that will change His mind.

3. God's pre-eminent quality is love, and this is the reason He created man.

Here is where we begin, knowing that all other truths must be based on these things, if the Trinity is the correct description of God (whatever it may be). So, let's throw out the rest of scripture for now, and begin with these 3 things in mind.

According to the Trinity belief: God exists for an eternity (word it however you will) before He "creates" a physical universe or man, since this is the beginning of man, as it says in the Bible (according to your view). If He created another universe with man before this one, then man would have existed before we were created here (unless He destroyed all prior creations). That would make the first verse in the Bible, according to your definition, wrong. This wouldn't be the beginning. So, it must be that God existed alone (3-in-one or however)

Why, after an eternity, does God create man? What did He learn to believe creating a physical universe and man was a better way than He existed for eternity prior to? If He always knew creating man was the better way, which if our foundational beliefs are true then He always did know, He would have been doing it for an eternity, and then matter and space would have existed before the beginning spoken of in the Bible.

This God contradicts the foundational beliefs of the Trinity, and therefore we cannot proceed to the Bible with this belief in God.

Recap:

If He knew creating a physical universe and man was the best way, or was what He was going to do, then He would have always been doing it, because not doing it, then doing it, is a fundamental change in His existence.

Was He not perfect and complete before He created man? What did man add to Him that He did not have prior? If it does not add anything, why do it? If it adds something, He was not complete prior to.

Before I move on to other matters and contradictions, I'll wait for your response to this one.

The only logical conclusion is that God (whatever or whoever that may be) has always created man. We are intelligent enough to deduce that on our own, with the limited intelligence we have. For you to believe everything you do about God (basically even just the 3 things above) there could not have been a "time" or existence where God did not create man. If there was, then number 2 above cannot be true.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Justice

[schpoogie]

Interesting post Justice,

I think we should not disgard what the scriptures say, i mean we both believe in the bible.

I understand what you're saying but i don't think it contradicts the trinity.

You can't just say "Why, after an eternity, does God create man?" and expect me to give a all explaining answer. Afterall you yourself said that we have a limited intelligence. First of all God is outside of time. Time is a created thing, our perception of eternity is completely different to God's. Because God excisted before us doesn't mean he changed his mind or learnt something new, it just means he created us.

God was perfect before he created man, i already stated that in the trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were in relationship for eternity. Man didn't add anything to Him that he didnt have, He created us because he loves us. Because God is outside of time he knew us even before he created us.

I assume your position is that God has always created man eternally? So are you saying that we are eternal as is God?

This is not what the bible teaches, it says we are made

[Justice]

All we have to do is apply some basic thought and reason.

I think we should not disgard what the scriptures say, i mean we both believe in the bible.

Yes, I believe the Bible, and the difference between you and I is not of belief verse unbelief, but of interpretation. I believe the same words you do.

I understand what you're saying but i don't think it contradicts the trinity.

You can't just say "Why, after an eternity, does God create man?" and expect me to give a all explaining answer. Afterall you yourself said that we have a limited intelligence.

OK, here is where we need to slow down.

First of all God is outside of time.

Think about this. Let's see exactly what is true concerning this statement.

When God created "In the beginning," He did so by steps. The different verses of Genesis describe different parts of the creation. In fact, God even separates the creation process by "days."

Schpoogie, it's very important for you to see that God exists as a Being, in both time and space. What is missing from God's existence is not "the elapse of time" but the aging that accompanies time here on earth. God does not grow old. He does not weaken with age. God will not die. But, He does move, and have being. He travels, He moves, He is. He exists in a location. He is not the universe. Time elapses when He speaks.

It may be in a very different way than it does for us, but my point is the same. He exists; He loves; He moves.

Time is a created thing, our perception of eternity is completely different to God's.

Mortality is a created thing, but God did not create it. Man chose it. Man chose to die. God did not create man in a condition where he would die. But, God walked and talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Time elapses as He walks and talks with adam.

We measure time by how long it takes the earth to revolve around the sun. To God, the earth still revolves around the sun. Days pass into night. God is not immune to time or living, but to growing old and death.

Because God excisted before us doesn't mean he changed his mind or learnt something new, it just means he created us.

But, you miss my point. In the view of the Trinity, God existed alone for an eternity. Just now, in this moment of eternity He created the physical universe and man, both of which did not exist before. That is not an unchanging God. That is a God who had a profound change in His existence. Now, He sends part of Himself (Trinity) to atone for man because they sinned. This is something God would never have done before man existed. This is a profound change in His existence and purpose.

God was perfect before he created man, i already stated that in the trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were in relationship for eternity. Man didn't add anything to Him that he didnt have, He created us because he loves us. Because God is outside of time he knew us even before he created us.

This just adds more questions.

He created us because He loves us? That can't be entirely accurate. You might say God created us so He could love us, since we did not exist yet. God created us because He wanted to love us, in your view. He could not "love us" enough to send "His Son" to atone for us until He created us. He never sent His Son to atone for man that did not exist. Do you get where I'm going?

It's a profound and fundamental change to His purpose and being.

I assume your position is that God has always created man eternally? So are you saying that we are eternal as is God?

This is not what the bible teaches, it says we are made

We are "made." Do you believe God when He says we can have eternal life? yes, I know you do. Yet, we had a beginning (according to Trinitarian beliefs). So, if we had a beginning and can be eternal, why can't God have had a beginning and still be eternal?

You truthfully apply the definition to one, but change it for the other because it does not fit your beliefs. You say, "God cannot be eternal if He had a beginning, but we can."

I'm just asking you to think logically. The scriptures and truth are logic. God is a God of reason. He makes sense. He has given us a degree of intelligence. We can figure this out.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Justice

[schpoogie]

You post is interesting, an i appreciate your time and effort in typing it all up haha

Well its a bit confusing, you're a good thinker, philosophy isnt really my thing.

But you're trying to disprove the trinity by saying that God is unchanging and if he creates man after an eternity then he is changing, and that he needed to create man to be perfect.

I don't necessarily agree but it could be. God making us after an eternity doesnt necessarly mean that he changed his mind, or learnt anything.

I'm confused on what your position on this is, do you believe humans are eternal?

Or do you believe we have been made and remade eternally?

As for Jesus saying we will have eternal life if we believe in him...well i dont think you can just take a dictionary meaning of that. In the KJV it says 'everlasting' life,

im no scholar, i cant really say much,

But if the bible wanted us to know that we had no beggining it would have said so.

So yeah, i'd like to know your position on the matter

[sister_in_faith]

Forgive me for getting back to the original post, and, remember I'm a convert, so I'm don't have as much teaching to fall back on, but isn't Jesus the 'spirit child' of Heavenly Father (aka God). I never understood that Jesus WAS a God. What am I missing?

[Guest pogi]

schpoogie,

You have some great questions and ideas. While I agree with Justice that God has given us a degree of inteligence, I disagree in that we can just "figure this out", on our own anyway. We cannot just "figure out" the nature of God, it must be revealed. A study of Joseph Smith's experience in the sacred grove would go a long way in understanding our convictions of the nature of God, then apply James 1:5 to find out for yourself if we know what we speak.

But if the bible wanted us to know that we had no beggining it would have said so.

If the bible wanted us to know everything, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

There are clearly mysteries of God not found in scripture. That is what prayer and faith are for. Best wishes!

Edited October 3, 2011 by pogi

[Justice]

pogi, I was talking about figuring out the answer to the question I asked him, not figuring God out.

In any case... more tomorrow.

[Guest pogi]

My bad!

[Soninme]

it's very important for you to see that God exists as a Being, in both time and space. What is missing from God's existence is not "the elapse of time" but the aging that accompanies time here on earth. God does not grow old. He does not weaken with age. God will not die. But, He does move, and have being. He travels, He moves, He is. He exists in a location. He is not the universe. Time elapses when He speaks.

Hello Justice

To clarify, I'm unsure of the LDS view but the Bible says God is Omnipresent. (present everywhere)

The Father (1 Kings 8:27)

The Son (Matt 18:20) (28:20)

The Holy Spirit (Psalm 139:7-10)

But, you miss my point. In the view of the Trinity, God existed alone for an eternity.

The Father is from eternity. (Ps. 90:2)

The Son is from eternity. (Micah 5:2)

The Holy Spirit is from eternity. (Heb 9:14)

They were not alone.

Just now, in this moment of eternity He created the physical universe and man, both of which did not exist before. That is not an unchanging God. That is a God who had a profound change in His existence. Now, He sends part of Himself (Trinity) to atone for man because they sinned. This is something God would never have done before man existed. This is a profound change in His existence and purpose.

Since God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient, why would exercising His attributes make Him change? Surely an eternal all-knowing God would know from eternity what would happen to eternity. How would He be more or less God before or after creating the heavens and the earth and all things in them?

Malachi 3:6 “I the LORD do not change.

Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?”

We are "made." Do you believe God when He says we can have eternal life? yes, I know you do. Yet, we had a beginning (according to Trinitarian beliefs). So, if we had a beginning and can be eternal, why can't God have had a beginning and still be eternal?

We can have eternal life because God has given it to us. If God had a beginning then it was given to Him by a god He says does not exist. If God had a god, had a god etc. there would still need to be, somewhere in eternity past, the One God who is Himself uncaused. The uncaused cause of the universe. I believe He is the One spoken of in Psalm 90:2; " Before the mountains were brought forth,

Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,

Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

Thanks

[schpoogie]

@sister_in_faith

It's imporssible to deny that Jesus is God, it says so in the bible countless times

John 1:1

John 10:30-33

Titus 2:13

Phillipians 2:6

2 Peter 1:1

[jdf135]

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 8:5 - 6)

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [Jesus?] are all things, and we by him" (underlining and parenthesis added).

In regard to the deity of Jesus ....

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, consider there to have been more than one being involved in the creation of this earth. The Hebrew (I just got done looking this up for a church lesson) "elohim," as used in the original Hebrew Genesis 1:1, refers to the plural of "el" or "ayil" or singular God. In other words, in Genisis 1:1 the words should read the "gods" created the heaven and the earth."

However, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ we acknowledge God the Father (the Hebrew "El") as the supreme being ("but to us there is but one God, the Father," 1 Corinthians 8:5) and we focus our worship primarily on him just as Jesus did.

From a central book of teachings in our church we read "God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is 'the Great Parent of the universe,' and He 'looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard' (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 39 as quoted in the book Gospel Principles).

We believe Jesus Christ is our "Lord" or overseer, and pray in his name. Nevertheless, we also believe in Jesus' premortal involvement in the creation ("by whom [Jesus?] are all things ...."1 Corinthians 8:6) and therefore the term God, as a creator, could apply to him.

In addition, the Hebrew definition of "el" or singular "god," is likely shortened from the Hebrew "ayil" which also has the conotation of "strength; as adjective mighty; especially the Almighty" (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary). Given this definition, Jesus Christ, in my understanding, is an "almighty" being and has been given "all the father hath" (New Testament | John 16:15) and, having been given all the father hath, is an inheritor of godhood on those terms.

In regard to the trinity:

The above described Hebrew term elohim (gods) as well as the visions of Stephen, John and Joseph Smith all testify that God the Father and his son Jesus Christ are separate and distinct personages to whom we give reverence as "...all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him (New Testament | John 5:23).

Might also want to check out Matt. 3:17, Gen. 1:26 (God said, Let us make man in our image), 1 Jn. 5:7as well as other scriptures referencing the relationship of Jesus to his father.

Does this make members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints polytheistic? I think it depends on your interpretation of the term. Personally, I don't think it matters what categorization one chooses use as long as we understand the relationship of Jesus and ourselves to our mutual Father.

In this light I hope you will see that we are, regardless of your definition of god(s), worshippers of God the Father and his divine son Jesus Christ as creators of our eternal beings.

[Blackmarch]

As a christian, I love Jesus. What he did, what he said, everything about him is well, quite amaizing. He is very inspiring indeed...an example of his amaizing teachings:

"love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, lend without expecting anything in return"

My question to all is; who is Jesus?

Is he God?

Yes but he is distinct From God the Father

Is he a God?

Yes

Is he the litteral Son of God?

yes

Is he symbolically the Son of God?

yes

Is he Eternal? Was he made?

Yes to eternal, and potentially yes to "Made" depending how you define it.

If it means as made from non-existence then no (neither any of the other of God's children). IF it means to be given a physical vessel, to progreess from one state to another, as well as to be taught and increased then yes.

Is he divine?

absolutely. the only being I know of that surpasses him in glory and majesty is his Father.

Just reaching out for some opinions,

-Tim

NO prob, here are my opinions

^.^

[Soninme]

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 8:5 - 6)

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [Jesus?] are all things, and we by him" (underlining and parenthesis added).

In regard to the deity of Jesus ....

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, consider there to have been more than one being involved in the creation of this earth. The Hebrew (I just got done looking this up for a church lesson) "elohim," as used in the original Hebrew Genesis 1:1, refers to the plural of "el" or "ayil" or singular God. In other words, in Genisis 1:1 the words should read the "gods" created the heaven and the earth."

Hello jdf135

What is your understanding of Isaiah 43:10?

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,

“and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

and 44:6-8 “ Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. And who can proclaim as I do? Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me, Since I appointed the ancient people. And the things that are coming and shall come, Let them show these to them. Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.’”

I am not aware of any reputable translation that renders Genesis 1:1 as "the "gods" created the heaven and the earth"?

Thanks

[spamlds]

The question(s) posed here are a rhetorical trap. The author is making a comparison to a sectarian creed and is looking for an excuse not to believe in the Restoration. We see this approach used a lot at the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism.

Specifically this is tactic #3 on the list:

1. Use of non-authoritative sources and out-of-context quotations

2. Attack the story of the Book of Mormon's origin, not its contents

3. Distort Mormon doctrines by comparing them to the unscriptural teachings of Christian creeds

4. When all else fails, lie!

5. Use slander, personal attacks, and character assassination

6. Accuse your opponent of doing the very thing you are doing

What the person usually does with a series of questions like the original post contained is to make a list of qualifying characteristics that are derived from some sectarian creed or doctrinal statement of faith. Then the individual waits for any item that disagrees with the list/creed. If there is disagreement, the individual wrongly concludes that Mormonism isn't true.

The correct approach is to research the scriptures prayerfully and see what they have to say on the questions. When that is done diligently, without prejudice, one comes to the understanding the list of questions is based on an erroneous concept of God to begin with, ergo the truth will not be a match. If more Christians would simply read the Bible and believe what it says, they'd come a lot closer to the truth than they do from using lists, creeds, or some web site that attacks Mormons.

The answer lies in obtaining a testimony of the First Vision. If a person will read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and ask God if it is true, he will receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost. From that moment on, he can place trust in the revelations God gave to Joseph Smith. He will have confidence that God appeared to Joseph Smith and that Joseph knew first-hand what God was and is.

The other option, of toying around with man's interpretations of the Bible takes years and can lead a person into many conflicting doctrinal paths. Why not do it the Lord's way and get the answer for oneself by personal revelation?

Edited October 3, 2011 by spamlds
added comment.

[Justice]

To clarify, I'm unsure of the LDS view but the Bible says God is Omnipresent. (present everywhere)

If God exists everywhere, then He exists no where. God is a living Being, with body parts as mentioned in the scriptures: a face, hands, feet. He is omnipresent because His presence is felt everywhere. He influences everything. But, that does not mean He exists as the universe. The sun influences the entire earth and keeps it alive, but hte earth is not the sun. The sun does not exist on the earth. Yet, we feel it's warmth and light, and rely on it. The earth revolves around the sun.

Since God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient, why would exercising His attributes make Him change? Surely an eternal all-knowing God would know from eternity what would happen to eternity. How would He be more or less God before or after creating the heavens and the earth and all things in them?

For God to exist for an eternity, then create man, would require a change. It is different that the eternity He existed prior to creating man. If you don't admit to seeing this then we really can't discuss much else. To exist alone (as 3) then to create a physical universe and man for the first time is a fundamental change.

I believe God does not change. If creating a physical universe and man was His eventual destiny, He would have known it and done so prior to existing for an eternity.

We can have eternal life because God has given it to us. If God had a beginning then it was given to Him by a god He says does not exist. If God had a god, had a god etc. there would still need to be, somewhere in eternity past, the One God who is Himself uncaused.

So, God can't have a beginning if He is eternal, but we can be eternal and have a beginning?

The point being here is that there is no beginning to God. There never was a first and there never will be a last. It is an eternal regress, and eternal progress, things we simply cannot fathom, and that is why other interpretations arose. Either you claim not to understand eternity, or God. Your view is that we can't understand God. Mine is that we can't understand eternity.