Who is Jesus?

[estradling75]

Thanks. I'll try again.

Your new account looks good now

[SteveVH]

To be a God, He has to be a God of something. He has to have dominion over something. Either God has always had dominion, i.e. - there have been things around that are co-eternal with God, or there was a time where God was not really a God as there was nothing He was over. To be a Kingdomless God is not very logical either.

That would be as logical as a King who is by himself with no kingdom or subjects or family history or family. That person alone would have no right to any title by themselves. Why did He take on the title of God, why not "the eternal dentist" as a title, it wouldn't make any difference. He is only God the moment He has within His dominion things that are co-eternal. That is the only logical conclusion.

"God" is not a title, or a position, or an office. God is a divine being and there is no other. "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..." (Isaiah 45:5) He does not need us or anything else in order to be God. He is God from all eternity, before anything else that exists. His creation shows forth his glory, but does not add to his glory. He has always possessed all the power, authority and glory that he will ever possess, even before creation, and that power, authority and glory is infinite. We were created out of nothing but gratuitous love, not because God needed us for anything. He has always existed, not as a solitary being, but as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To believe that God "became" anything, again, contradicts his omnipotence. One who is dependent upon anything or anyone else to accomplish something is not "all-powerful". Again, you belive in a God who changes, who "becomes" something greater than he once was. This conflicts even with the Book of Mormon: "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18). I would agree 100% with that statement. This places you in a position of holding two contradictory beliefs in your mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

[SteveVH]

Your new account looks good now

Thank you so much for your help.

[SteveVH]

So....God is....created? Or uncreated?

Uncreated.

He has a body or is incorporeal?

Both. Jesus, obviously, has a glorified human body, yet remains divine. Therefore he is not limited by time and space and is eternally present with the Father and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that the Father has a body of flesh and bone and I don't think there is any argument that the Holy Spirit is incorporeal.

Is he a Spirit and is everywhere or not a spirit?

He is spirit and is omnipresent. Even Christ's glorified body is a spiritual body, no longer subject to corruption or the limitations of the physcal world. He walked through a locked door and yet they were able to touch him.

The Trinity IS comprehensible? (changed from unknowable)

No. The nature of God is not comprehensible. But we can know God by knowing Jesus Christ who came to us in the flesh; "God with us." We can know that we have a loving Father who loves us so much that he gave his only Son in order that we might enjoy eternal life with him. We have a God who gave his very life for us. We can know love and when we know love, we know God. We can know that we have a Father in heaven who is the perfect Father, all loving and all merciful. As to God's divine essence, we will only fully know that when we are joined with him in heaven. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Cor 13:12)

[SteveVH]

It doesn't seem like you're here to try and understand anything. You're trying to prove a point. That's fine, that's how everyone has responded to you as well. You take the Catholic model for religion and apply it to Mormonism, then blame Mormonism for not meeting the standards of the Catholic model. We haven't done that to you though, we just question the standards used in the model itself.

It is a little difficult to try and understand the Mormon view without comparing and contrasting it with the Christian view that has been held for 2000 years.

No one can explain the Trinity clearly. That's the point. It doesn't make sense to us, but it doesn't make sense to you either and that's what I don't understand. So the "mystery of faith" gives you a free pass. Would you accept that answer from a Mormon regarding ANYTHING found in Mormonism? Why are we held to different standard than you?

The fact that we cannot fully grasp the nature of the one, true God does not mean that it does not make sense to me. I do not fully understand the human mind, nor do you. That doesn't then mean that the human mind does not make sense to either of us. We cannot fully understand ourselves. Why would you imagine that we could fully understand the One that created us?

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

"In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four centuries only". - New Catholic Encyclopedia.

That's what happens when you take something out of context. Dogma's were officially defined only when they were questioned and the Church had to step in to defend the faith that had always been believed by the Church. In addition, there is nothing strange about a living, growing Church arriving at a deeper understanding of a truth long held.

I like I asked earlier, in what instance of Mormon doctrine, history or theology would you accept an answer like: "it's a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible."

Or like "I know its true because I received a testimony from the Holy Spirit, therefore history is irrelevant"? That is the answer I received from a Mormon bishop when we were discussing the "Great Apostasy".

[Traveler]

Let me try one more time. There is only one God. God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; three distinct "persons" only in relationship with each other, but the same divine being. God, in his essence, is a family. The Father is eternally the Father to the Son. The Son is eternally the Son to the Father. The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son which is so real that it constitutes a distinct person. Where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy SPirit is, there also are the Father and the Son. They are one being. God cannot be thought of in human terms. He is divine, we are not. God is not solitary, but rather a Trinity of persons in relationship with each other. The Father does not act independently from the Son or the Holy Spirit. The same is true for the Son and the Holy Spirit. They have one divine will (not three divine wills in agreement with each other) and consist of one divine essence. God is the only being that possesses the divine essence as his nature. We do not.

....

Let me try a different point because you do not seem to understand the problem. If we are to say that a marriage is comprised of 2 or more persons (allowing for polygamy such as with Abraham, Moses and others) - then I agree that we can identify that although there are multiple persons that there is only one marriage. The proper term in ancient Hebrew is “ehad” and that is the only term used to designate one G-d. But if we define one marriage of many persons then for sure it is improper to say or designate one unique person as the marriage. Sally is one marriage is improper grammar and use of terms. Thus if there is one G-d of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (or Spirit) then there is no such thing as G-d the Father, or G-d the Son. Any reference to the Father or Son, which are persons as G-d would be flawed, wrong or if you will a lie.

Just for your information the ancient Hebrew word for a single sentient (or as you would say - conscious) being is “yahed”. Also of note - never in Hebrew scripture is the oneness of G-d given as yahed - even in reference to a single person individual. The problem I have is that even though a marriage is one marriage comprised of one or more persons - a marriage is not a living sentient being even if we say that certain corporations are really living and sentient because of the special relationship of the corporate entity or that G-d could do that if he wanted to. It is not a paradox but a rhetorical conflict that disproves the possible premises. The other way of saying rhetorical conflict; is that it is a lie. It is like saying all odd numbers are prime and ignoring the number 9.

Your view of G-d is different than mine. I do not believe it is his nature to do whatever he chooses - I believe his nature is better understood as a disciplined nature willing to forgo “pleasures” or things that may be pleasing in the moment - but to sacrifice such immediate pleasures for the greater good. I believe this is a very important principle that has always been taught and expected of G-d as part of divine nature.

You are correct. It is not. Man was not created in a fallen state. Our fallen state is the result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. However, every person subsequent to Adam and Eve are born into a fallen state. The state of the world around us is proof of that. Human nature changed from the state in which it was first created, and not only nature, but all of creation.

Things are not always as they appear, especially when influenced by what we want to believe or have been taught to believe. That goes both ways.

Do you believe a just G-d allows the disobedience of one to create the consiquences for others? For the record - I do not. I do not believe that is the nature of a just G-d.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

"God" is not a title, or a position, or an office. God is a divine being and there is no other. "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..." (Isaiah 45:5) He does not need us or anything else in order to be God. He is God from all eternity, before anything else that exists. His creation shows forth his glory, but does not add to his glory. He has always possessed all the power, authority and glory that he will ever possess, even before creation, and that power, authority and glory is infinite. We were created out of nothing but gratuitous love, not because God needed us for anything. He has always existed, not as a solitary being, but as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To believe that God "became" anything, again, contradicts his omnipotence. One who is dependent upon anything or anyone else to accomplish something is not "all-powerful". Again, you belive in a God who changes, who "becomes" something greater than he once was. This conflicts even with the Book of Mormon: "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18). I would agree 100% with that statement. This places you in a position of holding two contradictory beliefs in your mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

How do you know "God" is not a title or a position?

If He possesses all that He will ever possess than our existence is in vain, it serves no purpose to God, it means nothing at all to God. Even if it is just "show(ing) forth His glory" like you said, who is He showing forth His glory to? Himself? Why would He do that, doesn't He already know His glory? In other words, there is no meaning to our existence at all if our existence does not relate to His glory in some way or fashion. We then become a whimsical creation that serves no purpose and I would not worship a God that just created me on a whim or randomly without some intention. I don't believe in a God that does things without intention.

So, if nothing adds to his glory, then giving glory to God is really giving Him nothing?

If nothing existed before God, who created Satan?

[skippy740]

***MODERATOR ALERT***

This is a topic that can either be argued... or discussed. Let us all please be polite and respectful of ALL points of view. We can either LEARN or "debate" this topic.

Let us all remember not to tear down other people's faith. This board isn't here for that purpose.

I have not been following the thread at all. But here's my own contribution to the topic: We have been given additional light and knowledge on this topic through additional scripture and revelation. It is through this, and with confirmation by the spirit, that we understand the nature of the Godhead. If it could've been 'proven' through the Bible alone... it would have been resolved 2,000 years ago and it wouldn't even be an issue today.

[SteveVH]

How do you know "God" is not a title or a position?

If He possesses all that He will ever possess than our existence is in vain, it serves no purpose to God, it means nothing at all to God. Even if it is just "show(ing) forth His glory" like you said, who is He showing forth His glory to? Himself? Why would He do that, doesn't He already know His glory? In other words, there is no meaning to our existence at all if our existence does not relate to His glory in some way or fashion. We then become a whimsical creation that serves no purpose and I would not worship a God that just created me on a whim or randomly without some intention. I don't believe in a God that does things without intention.

So, if nothing adds to his glory, then giving glory to God is really giving Him nothing?

If nothing existed before God, who created Satan?

The word "human" is not a title or a position. It describes a being with a certain, unique nature. Canine describes a living thing that happens to be of a certain, unique nature, different than human. The same could be said for every species that exists. God is that unique being with a divine nature, as opposed to human or any other nature. Now, I realize that you believe that man and God are the same in their nature and you do not distinguish between human and divine, and that is the problem when trying to understand our meaning of God or a divine nature. It is also our problem in trying to understand your position. We begin from completely different viewpoints.

[SteveVH]

***MODERATOR ALERT***

This is a topic that can either be argued... or discussed. Let us all please be polite and respectful of ALL points of view. We can either LEARN or "debate" this topic.

Let us all remember not to tear down other people's faith. This board isn't here for that purpose.

I have not been following the thread at all. But here's my own contribution to the topic: We have been given additional light and knowledge on this topic through additional scripture and revelation. It is through this, and with confirmation by the spirit, that we understand the nature of the Godhead. If it could've been 'proven' through the Bible alone... it would have been resolved 2,000 years ago and it wouldn't even be an issue today.

Point well taken. It's very easy to cross the line when discussing things that mean so much to each of us. It can become personal very quickly. If I have crossed that line, I am truly sorry. I have not come here for that purpose.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The word "human" is not a title or a position. It describes a being with a certain, unique nature. Canine describes a living thing that happens to be of a certain, unique nature, different than human. The same could be said for every species that exists. God is that unique being with a divine nature, as opposed to human or any other nature. Now, I realize that you believe that man and God are the same in their nature and you do not distinguish between human and divine, and that is the problem when trying to understand our meaning of God or a divine nature. It is also our problem in trying to understand your position. We begin from completely different viewpoints.

I think if in place of every time you try to use the word 'man', replace that with the 'spirit of man', then we can have a conversation.

The problem comes from you not being willing to see that we believe Human = corrupted, fallen body plus eternal spirit combined. If you want to talk about the corrupted, fallen body we can talk about that. Or, if you want to talk about the eternal nature of our spirits we can talk about that. But we cannot talk about the eternal nature of "human" because by using the word "human" you are also including the corrupted, fallen body.

We believe that the spirit of man is different than any other species on the planet. It is the only one with the power of reason and therefore can partake in free agency and responsibility. No other species on the planet has responsibility. Do you know of one? That responsibility comes from the divinity of our spirits, with no contribution from the fallen, corrupted body. If God created my reason to respond in a certain way given certain circumstances then how could I be held responsible for such choices, God made me that way. We are responsible because our spirit is divine. There would be no other source for responsibility.

So we do distinguish between human and divine, to be human = body and spirit, is not divine in that state. The spirit can rise above this state through the grace of Christ and if we are worthy inherit all. We have to have a new body, a different type of body to be raised as the one we are temporarily using is not divine. This is all hard for you to understand, I believe, because you have a hard time understanding how the spirit of man is different from the nature of human beings. For us, the natural man is an enemy to God. Our carnal nature from the body is different than the nature of the spirit.

[Gramajane]

1 Corinthians 2:11

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

[SteveVH]

The problem comes from you not being willing to see that we believe Human = corrupted, fallen body plus eternal spirit combined.

I believe this as well. It is both physical body and spiritual soul that makes us human. I have never said anything different.

If you want to talk about the corrupted, fallen body we can talk about that. Or, if you want to talk about the eternal nature of our spirits we can talk about that. But we cannot talk about the eternal nature of "human" because by using the word "human" you are also including the corrupted, fallen body.

Why, then, will we be reunited with our bodies? Why will there be a resurrection? It is because we cannot separate the human body from the human soul and still remain human. Our physical bodies, which were subject to corruption, will be glorified and transformed into incorruptable, glorified bodies. So, the nature of a human being is both physical and spiritual. It's sort of like making a cake. A cake is not just made from flour. If you do not incude the other ingredients, it is not a cake. If you separate the body from the soul, we are no longer human. If this is not the case, then why don't we just shed our bodies forever and live as spirits? Why does God reunite our bodies with our souls on the last day?

We believe that the spirit of man is different than any other species on the planet. It is the only one with the power of reason and therefore can partake in free agency and responsibility. No other species on the planet has responsibility.

I agree completely.

That responsibility comes from the divinity of our spirits, with no contribution from the fallen, corrupted body. If God created my reason to respond in a certain way given certain circumstances then how could I be held responsible for such choices, God made me that way. We are responsible because our spirit is divine. There would be no other source for responsibility.

I agree that the gifts of "reason" and "intellect" are attributes of being created in the image and likeness of God. That is why we are responsible for what we do. But this has nothing to do with divinity, other than we share the attributes of reason and intellect with God. If we were divine we would have no need for a Savior. It is God who lifts our human nature (both physical and spiritual) to a divine state. Divinity is not an inherent part of being human. We must be transformed by God in order to share in his divinity.

So we do distinguish between human and divine, to be human = body and spirit, is not divine in that state. The spirit can rise above this state through the grace of Christ and if we are worthy inherit all.

Agreed.

We have to have a new body, a different type of body to be raised as the one we are temporarily using is not divine.

We will always have the body we were born with, but this body (not a new body) will be transformed into a glorified body which is no longer subject to corruption because it has been lifted from the natural to the supernatural (above nature) state. We may be saying the same thing.

This is all hard for you to understand, I believe, because you have a hard time understanding how the spirit of man is different from the nature of human beings. For us, the natural man is an enemy to God. Our carnal nature from the body is different than the nature of the spirit.

Its not hard for me to understand at all. I just think you are incorrect in your conclusions. The spirit of man is part of our human nature. We are not "human" without it. Our bodies are part of our human nature as well. We are are not "human" wihout them. Body and spirit are what make us humans which is the very reason that we will be rejoined with our bodies at the resurrection. I would completely reject the notion that the natural man is an enemy of God. When man was created God said that it was not just "good", but "very good". Adam and Eve's disobedience just kind of turned things upside down. We were created so that our spirit informed our will which controlled our flesh. After the fall our flesh began controlling our will which had been weakened and we have been struggling with this ever since. But sin comes from the spirit (heart) of man which succumbs to the desires of the flesh because of the weakening of our will. In the end, our spirits will be sanctified and our bodies, glorified. We will be a "new" creation, transformed from our fallen nature, which affected both body and spirit, or our entire nature.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Why, then, will we be reunited with our bodies? Why will there be a resurrection? It is because we cannot separate the human body from the human soul and still remain human. Our physical bodies, which were subject to corruption, will be glorified and transformed into incorruptable, glorified bodies. So, the nature of a human being is both physical and spiritual. It's sort of like making a cake. A cake is not just made from flour. If you do not incude the other ingredients, it is not a cake. If you separate the body from the soul, we are no longer human. If this is not the case, then why don't we just shed our bodies forever and live as spirits? Why does God reunite our bodies with our souls on the last day?

I personally do not want to be resurrected back to a Human. I think most LDS would agree. I think this is our point. We are "human" temporarily during this, what we call, a probationary state. Do you take a test to remain in the testing state forever? No, you take a test so that you can pass on to higher learning in a different state of being. Remaining in a fallen state, "nature of a human being", was never the goal of our existence. I do not have a "human soul" and I hope in the end I am not accused of having one, you may say that my body has a "human soul" and so it has it's own nature. To us, the natural man (Human soul) is an enemy to God. But again, you fail to see that we believe the spirit of man came from God not from corruption. The spirit of man, as you are trying to describe it, is not "human nature", it is spiritual. Spiritual nature and human nature are not the same thing. You have over simplified our current situation, you are just looking at the corrupted nature alone not the divine nature of our being. In a very specific way, you are denying one of God's most divine works, our spirit being by trying to say it is the same thing as being "human".

A resurrected, perfected body is needed not a human, corrupted body to once again live with our Heavenly Father. Again, as Moses said, after seeing the bigger more detailed picture, man (i.e. - being human) is nothing. I am not striving to be nothing.

To try to say this specifically, the spirit individual within man is not the same thing as "human nature". Those are two separate natures that exist in us now during this temporary, probationary state. "Human" is not who we really are. There is a common phrase amongst LDS, "remember who you are". Many people in this world have forgotten who they really are.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[SteveVH]

I personally do not want to be resurrected back to a Human. I think most LDS would agree. I think this is our point. We are "human" temporarily during this, what we call, a probationary state.

And this would be another diffference in our beliefs. We will always be what we were created to be (human), but transformed from our fallen state so that we share in God's divine state. This divine state is not something we possess naturally. Our human nature will be transformed into a divine nature by God himself.

Do you take a test to remain in the testing state forever? No, you take a test so that you can pass on to higher learning in a different state of being. Remaining in a fallen state, "nature of a human being", was never the goal of our existence.

This would be true only if one first accepts the Mormon position that we, in a pre-mortal life, chose to come to earth and undergo the trials and tribulations of earthly life in order to progress to a final state of divinity. But the traditional Christian (Catholic) view is not that our destiny is to remain in a fallen state and I would agree completely that this was never the goal of our existence. The goal of our existence is to share in the life of God for eternity. Our destiny is to be transformed from our fallen state to a state in which we share in the divinity of God. This is accomplished by turning away from sin (repentance), accepting the gift of redemption through belief and faith in Jesus Christ, and being made a "new" creature, but a "new" human creature, nevertheless.

I do not have a "human soul" and I hope in the end I am not accused of having one, you may say that my body has a "human soul" and so it has it's own nature. To us, the natural man (Human soul) is an enemy to God. But again, you fail to see that we believe the spirit of man came from God not from corruption.

Well, I don't believe the spirit of man came from corruption either. It came from God at the moment he created us. And when I speak of the soul, I am not speaking of man's physical body, but rather his invisible spirit. It is body and soul together that make us who we are.

The spirit of man, as you are trying to describe it, is not "human nature", it is spiritual. Spiritual nature and human nature are not the same thing. You have over simplified our current situation, you are just looking at the corrupted nature alone not the divine nature of our being. In a very specific way, you are denying one of God's most divine works, our spirit being by trying to say it is the same thing as being "human".

A resurrected, perfected body is needed not a human, corrupted body to once again live with our Heavenly Father. Again, as Moses said, after seeing the bigger more detailed picture, man (i.e. - being human) is nothing. I am not striving to be nothing.

I have already explained my postion here but will try once again. A human being is more than flesh walking around on a planet. It includes our spirit and without our spirit we are not human. Our nature necessarily includes both physicl body and spirit. When you say the "The spirit of man, as you are trying to describe it, is not "human nature", it is spiritual." you are mixing terms. It is human nature for the simple reason that we would not be human without it. Indeed, we would not be living beings, much less human, without our spirit.

To try to say this specifically, the spirit individual within man is not the same thing as "human nature". Those are two separate natures that exist in us now during this temporary, probationary state. "Human" is not who we really are. There is a common phrase amongst LDS, "remember who you are". Many people in this world have forgotten who they really are.

This is one Mormon notion that is not new. It is really nothing more than a twist on gnosticism. Gnostics believe that the soul is divine, but fallen and entrapped in the physical world. The body is basically evil and becomes an imprisonment of the divine soul. Yet scripure refutes this idea:

1st Corinthians 3:16-17

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

1st Corinthians 6:18-19

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

We believe that at the resurrection, our complete humanity, both body and soul, will be transformed and lifted from its fallen state; a sanctified soul and a glorified body.

[Justice]

Why does God reunite our bodies with our souls on the last day?

Even though the terms are used interchangably in scripture, we learn through modern revelation that the body and spirit of man joined together become a soul. We do not, technically, use spirit and soul as synonymns as many do.

[SteveVH]

Even though the terms are used interchangably in scripture, we learn through modern revelation that the body and spirit of man joined together become a soul. We do not, technically, use spirit and soul as synonymns as many do.

Thanks. That would certainly make a difference in understanding each other. We actually separate spirit from soul as well, but I have been using the terms interchangeably for the sake of simplicity. We believe the "spirit" is that life giving force that animates a body. Even animals have a spirit, a life giving force that animates their bodies, but they do not possess a soul which would include the will, reason and the intellect of man. Thanks for making the distinction.

[Justice]

We believe the spirit gives life to the body as well. But, instead of describing it as a "force," we have been taught that spirit is matter. It is not the same matter as physical matter, but a spirit has a spirit body. It exists in one place and can move from place to place. Our bodies are in the express likeness of what a man's spirit looks like.

I can see where a living "force" or "thought" would not be able to have children. But, since we believe God is also a dual Being of a spirit body and a body of flesh and bone (though glorified and perfected) we are like Him.

I hope this helps to explain why we see God as Father, and we as His children... in a very literal sense.

[Seminarysnoozer]

1st Corinthians 6:18-19

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

We believe that at the resurrection, our complete humanity, both body and soul, will be transformed and lifted from its fallen state; a sanctified soul and a glorified body.

Well, that is just funny. You give me a scripture that says, you are not your own in an attempt to tell me that we are our body.

The body is our stewardship. We should not defile the stewardship we are given, that is part of the test. I don't see how those scriptures say anything different than what I was saying.

I totally disagree with your last statement, our spirit will remain our spirit at resurrection. I have never heard that the spirit will change at resurrection as well. Sanctification is a process of being removed from sin and away from it, it is not a state of changing the "nature" of the being, it is not a state of changing the nature of the spirit. It is a process that takes place while here as well by living righteously, finalized at death when we are no longer exposed to the buffetings of Satan.

To be human is to have a human body which is one that is driven towards carnal things. If the body we have at resurrection is not driven towards carnal things, then we are no longer "human".

I agree with Vort, if you want to discuss LDS theology this is the place, if you just want to point out what you believe then there are likely several other web sites to do that. If your response to what LDS believe is "I don't believe that" then there is no discussion. I understand that you think the nature of our spirit is to crave carnal things just like the human body does, but LDS do not believe that, we believe the spirit is a child of God and pure. This is exemplified in our believe that those that die before the age of 8 are still pure. I can see why, with your believe that one would want to baptize a baby if one believes that our carnal body is who we really are. I am scared to think of what your perception of those with trisomy 21 or 18 are. Or those with manic-depressive disorder, or psychosis or schizophrenia etc. Those poor people must be doomed by their natures within the confines of your belief. I cannot imagine the Down's syndrome child going to hell, sorry, I just can't swallow that. What about a person that has a seizure and kills 3 people while driving and had a seizure? If the body and the spirit are the same then the spirit must have chosen to do that in your estimation right? The only way to reconcile that is to understand that our body is not who we really are, that is not the spirit of those individuals nor any of us as none of us have a perfect body.

[SteveVH]

I agree with Vort, if you want to discuss LDS theology this is the place, if you just want to point out what you believe then there are likely several other web sites to do that.

Then I won't bother you anymore. Thanks for putting up with me as long as you did.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Then I won't bother you anymore. Thanks for putting up with me as long as you did.

If you want to answer how Down's syndrome is that persons "soul nature" then we certainly can have a conversation, as at least our religion accounts for these situations. (Which is the same situation we are all in as none of us have a perfect body right now)

[mormon88]

Jesus is the Firstborn of God in the Spirit. See Col. 1:15, and Doctrine and Covenants 93:21.

Jesus Christ was the un-incarnated Jehovah of the Old Testament (or the God of the Old Testament). In Exodus 3:14, Jehovah tells Moses that He is that “I Am”. Later, in John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I Am. (See also 3 Nephi 11:14, Doctrine & Covenants 110:1-4).

Christ was foreordained to be the Savior. See Peter 1:19-20.

One of the best places you can look for answers to these questions is, The Doctrinal Exposition of the Father and the Son, by the First Presidency of the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It has many references from the Bible, and it is an official statement from the first presidency on what Mormons believe. Here's the link: The Father and the Son - Ensign Apr. 2002 - ensign

Here is a quote from there: "God is not the Father of the earth as one of the worlds in space, nor of the heavenly bodies in whole or in part, not of the inanimate objects and the plants and the animals upon the earth, in the literal sense in which He is the Father of the spirits of mankind. Therefore, scriptures that refer to God in any way as the Father of the heavens and the earth are to be understood as signifying that God is the Maker, the Organizer, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father,” and even “the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth” (see passages before cited and also Mosiah 16:15). With analogous meaning Jesus Christ is called “The Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6; compare 2 Ne. 19:6). The descriptive titles “Everlasting” and “Eternal” in the foregoing texts are synonymous.

That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, chapter 4 [by James E. Talmage]. Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called the Father of heaven and earth in the sense explained above; and since His creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth."

Another good link is a talk by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, called, The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent, The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent - general-conference

Christ is called the “Father of Heaven & Earth”, but never called “Father in Heaven”.