Jesus is the Son of God

[SteveVH]

Just like all of us, a mortal body and a divine spirit. How is that different from anyone?

I think this gets into some basic differences in our meaning of the word divine. We do not believe that our spirit is divine, but we believe that it is immortal. We believe that a human being is made up of both a physical body, which is mortal, and a human spirit (soul) which is immortal. The word "divinity" or "divine" only applies to God. It is the difference in God's nature and human nature. We believe that angels are pure spirit also, but they are not divine, they are created, as opposed to God who is uncreated. The gift of divinity we receive is only after the resurrection when we share in the one divinity of God, but our souls are still immortal and, as I said in another post here, we will live forever in one place or the other; either in heaven with God or in the outer darkness without God. In other words, immortality does not translate directly into divinity. Those in hell (or the outer darkness) will not receive the gift of divinity, but they will, nevertheless, live forever without God.

The "temple" in that verse is in reference to His body, not His spirit. Or, do you think His spirit was destroyed also? See .. you already believe there is a difference between spirit and body. If the body can be destroyed without destroying the spirit, those two things are separate.

As far as the "temple" is concerned, I believe it applies to the human nature of the person of Christ. We believe that Jesus is a person with two natures; human and divine. Christ, in his human nature, died just as all of us will die. In his divinity, he could not die. In comparing our natures, we believe that our physical bodies will die, but that our souls are immortal (but not divine), as I have illustrated above.

Edited October 15, 2011 by StephenVH

[Justice]

You last statement caught my eye and so I am just asking for clarification. As always, please correct me if I have misunderstood, but I am under the impression that you believe that Adam and Eve did not have blood until after the fall as blood was necessary in order to procreate. If that is not true then the rest of my point doesn't hold water and we can stop right here. If I am right in my understanding, then how do you believe you will procreate for eternity if a glorified body does not have blood?

I don't think having blood equates to having children in the Garden of Eden story. Gaining the knowledge of good and evil is what equates to having children. So, I believe mortals and immortals can have children, so long as they have the knowledge of good and evil. Before gaining it they are innocent, and therefore uncapable of understanding how.

Gaining the knowledge of good and evil was set up through a choice of keeping one commandment or the other, when both could not be kept. It's not that simple, but I don't see a need to go into it here... that;s not really our topic.

However, the answer to your question is simply, I don't know.

Keep in mind, I am not saying that a glorified body does have blood and I've never understood why anyone would believe that Adam and Eve did not have blood from day one. But this is my understanding of your beliefs and there seems to be a conflict, at least in my mind.

Are you saying Adam and Eve had blood from the moment they were "created," even before the fall?

[SteveVH]

Because, like we have stated before, we believe He is the Only Begotten in the flesh. This view requires the prerequisite understanding of the dual nature of our being, the spirit and the flesh as two entities. Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, not the only son. If we separate the word Begotten from that statement and not realize that we are talking about the flesh then I can see where you are coming from. But that is in reference to the flesh. Our flesh is of the Fall of Adam, Jesus has the Only Begotten flesh allowing Him to be the Savior.

Please forgive me for not including the word "begotten" in my original point. I have no problem with the word "begotten". But where do you find that the word "begotten" has only to do with the flesh? He is the "only begotten" even before his incarnation. "God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him" (I John 4:9). He was the "only begotten" before he came into the world, therefore before he took on human flesh. He is eternally begotten. Yes, the "only begotten" did come into the world and take on human flesh, but "begotten" does not have anything to do with flesh, but rather the manner of coming into being. Jesus was not created, he was eternally begotten of the Father. I have seen some back and forth concerning the word "monogenes". What it means is "only" (mono) "generated" (genes). It says nothing about either flesh or spirit.

In other words the genealogy of the spirit and the flesh are and can be different, they come from different sources. This is why I tried to explain before that your argument about "man" (the combined body and spirit) not being divine is true if you include the genealogy of the body. So your only argument would have to be that the spirit of man is not divine to make any convincing statement to a Latter Day Saint. There is no place in the Bible that I am aware of, that says the spirit of man was created. It was delivered via metaphorically breathing it into the body but that doesn't say anything about its creation or birth.

Well, part of my argument is that the human spirit is not divine. Immortal, yes. Divine, no. We only attribute divinity to God and only to humans at the resurrection where our human nature (including our human spirit) is lifted above its natural human state and given a share in the divinity of God. He is the only being that possesses divinity as part of his nature. Our human nature (including our spirit) must be transformed in order to become divine. We do not possess divinity as part of our natural being, including that part of our being that is spirit.

You say that there is nowhere in the bible that you are aware of that says that the spirit of man was created. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible that says it was not created? John 1:3 tells us that "All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be."

Edited October 15, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

I don't think having blood equates to having children in the Garden of Eden story. Gaining the knowledge of good and evil is what equates to having children. So, I believe mortals and immortals can have children, so long as they have the knowledge of good and evil. Before gaining it they are innocent, and therefore uncapable of understanding how.

Gaining the knowledge of good and evil was set up through a choice of keeping one commandment or the other, when both could not be kept. It's not that simple, but I don't see a need to go into it here... that;s not really our topic.

However, the answer to your question is simply, I don't know.

Then I have been misinformed. Thanks.

Are you saying Adam and Eve had blood from the moment they were "created," even before the fall?

Yes. Why would they not? They were created as human beings. The human body requires blood in order to live. I've never understood the Mormon fixation on this. Maybe you could explain the basis of this belief. How does a human person live without blood?

[Just_A_Guy]

Then I have been misinformed. Thanks.

Yes. Why would they not? They were created as human beings. The human body requires blood in order to live. I've never understood the Mormon fixation on this. Maybe you could explain the basis of this belief. How does a human person live without blood?

StephenVH, all we've really been told (and some of us may not even take these statements literally) is that prior to the fall Adam and Eve were "quickened by the Spirit". See, e.g., here. There seems to be this idea out there that blood is fundamentally an earthy substance. Brigham Young went so far as to suggest that production of blood was a natural consequence of Adam's and Eve's eating of fruits which had been grown on this earth.

But I've never heard anything to suggest that it was the flow of blood into their veins that enabled procreation. Those of us who take the story literally are likely to recognize correlation, but not causation.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Justice]

Yes. Why would they not? They were created as human beings. The human body requires blood in order to live. I've never understood the Mormon fixation on this. Maybe you could explain the basis of this belief. How does a human person live without blood?

Adam and Eve were "created" immortal. Saying human doesn't fully describe their circumstance. They only "died" when they partook of the forbidden fruit. Had they not ate the fruit, they would have lived forever.

The story fits the description.

[Justice]

I've never understood the Mormon fixation on this.

It is the same as all our other "fixations." Either the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and Joseph Smith was a prophet, or they aren't true. Since I know both are true, then I view what they teach as being just as true as what the Bible teaches.

[LeKook]

Because of John 17 I jokingly ask my friend at work if after the resurrection if God is going to go from a Trinity to a Trillionity.

OH I wish there was a laugh button on this post, LOL!!! Great comment. :)

[SteveVH]

OH I wish there was a laugh button on this post, LOL!!! Great comment. :)

A great comment based upon a false premise. The only thing this demonstrates is a lack of understanding of the Trinitarian belief. God is unchangeable. He remains the same from eternity to eternity, just as the Book of Mormon says. How does sharing in the life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit change the nature of God? It doesn't. We do not become the fourth, fifth, sixth... person of the Trinity. We remain human even with our glorified bodies. They are glorified human bodies which have been given a share in God's divinity. This does not change God or his nature of being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is we who are changed, not God.

[SteveVH]

It is the same as all our other "fixations." Either the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and Joseph Smith was a prophet, or they aren't true. Since I know both are true, then I view what they teach as being just as true as what the Bible teaches.

So then, what is it that you believe? Do you believe the Book of Mormon which says that God is unchangeable; the same from eternity to eternity, or do you believe Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse who says that "I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (King Follett Discourse)? These are two conflicting beliefs proposed by the same man. So what is it that you believe? Was Joseph Smith wrong in the King Follett discourse, or is the Book of Mormon wrong when it states:

"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).

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles." (Mormon 9:9-10). They simply cannot both be correct.

I have heard the defense that the King Follett discourse is not considered "doctrine". That's fine. But what do you believe? Are the words in the King Follett discourse in error or is it the Book of Mormon that is in error?

[SteveVH]

Adam and Eve were "created" immortal. Saying human doesn't fully describe their circumstance. They only "died" when they partook of the forbidden fruit. Had they not ate the fruit, they would have lived forever.

The story fits the description.

I believe that the nature of our humanity changed dramatically after Adam and Eve disobeyed God. You are correct. Had they not disobeyed they would have lived forever. So we are talking about the nature of humanity both before and after the fall. It did not remain the same. Our physical nature was now subject to corruption, where before the fall it was not. Our soul remained immortal, but not divine.

[Vort]

So what is it that you believe? Was Joseph Smith wrong in the King Follett discourse, or is the Book of Mormon wrong when it states:

"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).

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles." (Mormon 9:9-10). They simply cannot both be correct.

I have heard the defense that the King Follett discourse is not considered "doctrine". That's fine. But what do you believe? Are the words in the King Follett discourse in error or is it the Book of Mormon that is in error?

I believe both are correct. The problem is that you do not understand how the Lord teaches us. When it's incomprehensible Catholic doctrine (e.g. the Trinity), you safely retreat behind the idea that "it's a mystery, so we can't understand it anyway, so don't worry!" But while we Latter-day Saints acknowledge that some things will be simply beyond our ability to comprehend in this state, we categorically reject the Catholic idea of "mystery". There are indeed things that are a mystery, but that simply means they cannot be understood by the carnal mind. Only the spiritually minded can grasp them.

This forum is called "LDS Gospel Discussion". In my opinion (and I am not a moderator, merely a forum member), it is for discussing LDS doctrine. It is not for debate or for seeking to establish the supremacy of some other doctrinal system. If you wish to understand LDS doctrine, this forum is an appropriate place for your questions. If you wish to dispute LDS doctrine, then in my view this is the wrong forum. In fact, this may be the wrong web site altogether; there are plenty of antiMormon web sites dedicated to disproving the doctrines of the cult of Mormonism. (Personally, I'm more attracted to the cult of the Blue Öyster, but there is no accounting for taste.)

[LeKook]

A great comment based upon a false premise. The only thing this demonstrates is a lack of understanding of the Trinitarian belief. God is unchangeable. He remains the same from eternity to eternity, just as the Book of Mormon says. How does sharing in the life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit change the nature of God? It doesn't. We do not become the fourth, fifth, sixth... person of the Trinity. We remain human even with our glorified bodies. They are glorified human bodies which have been given a share in God's divinity. This does not change God or his nature of being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is we who are changed, not God.

No, I understand the Trinitarian belief well enough. I understand that it is an entirely man-made doctrine and that there's no scriptural support for it - which I knew BEFORE I ever converted to the LDS faith so don't blame the LDS church for what I say here. God isn't a part of a Trinity, never said he was, and Jesus never said he was, nor implied in any way that he was, so the comment was funny. Sheesh. Moving right along...LOL!!!

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe that the nature of our humanity changed dramatically after Adam and Eve disobeyed God. You are correct. Had they not disobeyed they would have lived forever. So we are talking about the nature of humanity both before and after the fall. It did not remain the same. Our physical nature was now subject to corruption, where before the fall it was not. Our soul remained immortal, but not divine.

Again, you are talking about the body only and cannot in your writing distinguish the body from the spirit of man, which to us are two separate things, momentarily combined in this probationary period of life.

The nature of the body changed, but Adam and Eve were still Adam and Eve after the fall. Humanity as we know it now had not existed for this world and time before the fall. They would have lived forever in a state of ignorance.

[SteveVH]

I believe both are correct. The problem is that you do not understand how the Lord teaches us. When it's incomprehensible Catholic doctrine (e.g. the Trinity), you safely retreat behind the idea that "it's a mystery, so we can't understand it anyway, so don't worry!" But while we Latter-day Saints acknowledge that some things will be simply beyond our ability to comprehend in this state, we categorically reject the Catholic idea of "mystery". There are indeed things that are a mystery, but that simply means they cannot be understood by the carnal mind. Only the spiritually minded can grasp them.

This forum is called "LDS Gospel Discussion". In my opinion (and I am not a moderator, merely a forum member), it is for discussing LDS doctrine. It is not for debate or for seeking to establish the supremacy of some other doctrinal system. If you wish to understand LDS doctrine, this forum is an appropriate place for your questions. If you wish to dispute LDS doctrine, then in my view this is the wrong forum. In fact, this may be the wrong web site altogether; there are plenty of antiMormon web sites dedicated to disproving the doctrines of the cult of Mormonism. (Personally, I'm more attracted to the cult of the Blue Öyster, but there is no accounting for taste.)

If I were inquiring into the Mormon faith, I would be asking the same questions. How do you reconcile these two opposing beliefs? I am not interested in going to an anti-Mormon site. That is why I am here. I am interested in what you believe, not in what someone says you believe.

But I am not here to offend you with my questions and I do not know how to understand you without comparing and contrasting your beliefs with the beliefs I currently hold. I personally welcome questions and debate about my beliefs. I don't think I have said anything here that could be construed as "bashing". If I have, it was certainly not intentional. What is one to do when they come across conflicting beliefs? Should I just simply accept that Mormons can hold two conflicting beliefs, accepting both simultaneously, or should I bring up the question and allow a Mormon to explain?

There is also the fact that my own beliefs are misrepresented here quite often and it is my desire to correct those misrepresentations when I see them.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think this gets into some basic differences in our meaning of the word divine. We do not believe that our spirit is divine, but we believe that it is immortal. We believe that a human being is made up of both a physical body, which is mortal, and a human spirit (soul) which is immortal. The word "divinity" or "divine" only applies to God. It is the difference in God's nature and human nature. We believe that angels are pure spirit also, but they are not divine, they are created, as opposed to God who is uncreated. The gift of divinity we receive is only after the resurrection when we share in the one divinity of God, but our souls are still immortal and, as I said in another post here, we will live forever in one place or the other; either in heaven with God or in the outer darkness without God. In other words, immortality does not translate directly into divinity. Those in hell (or the outer darkness) will not receive the gift of divinity, but they will, nevertheless, live forever without God.

As far as the "temple" is concerned, I believe it applies to the human nature of the person of Christ. We believe that Jesus is a person with two natures; human and divine. Christ, in his human nature, died just as all of us will die. In his divinity, he could not die. In comparing our natures, we believe that our physical bodies will die, but that our souls are immortal (but not divine), as I have illustrated above.

Okay, thanks. I understand your definition of "divine" better.

If one defines "divinity" as only applying to God, then of course, anything that is not God is not divine.

This is one dictionary's definition, I am sure you could find many that are out there with similar definitions. (I didn't include the "verb" use of the word) :

"ADJECTIVE:

di·vin·er, di·vin·est

Having the nature of or being a deity.

Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.

Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.

Superhuman; godlike.

Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.

Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.

Heavenly; perfect.

NOUN:

A cleric.

A theologian."

Obviously, the definition, as you are doing, could be just one of those things listed but the Bible itself doesn't confine it to only one. At least in this definition, "divine" includes anything that would emanate from God, which, of course, includes us. In the Bible, "divine" the adjective, is used to describe, a sentence, power and service. Is the service itself God, or is it just emanating from God? Did it originate with God and so we can call it "divine" in that sense? If we accept that definition, that it can emanate from God and be called "divine" then we should fit into that category also, or do you think that we did not emanate from God?

Hebrews 9:1 "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." ... in reference to the Law of Moses. Clearly, in this case the word divine, in the Bible is not saying that the service itself is a deity but is used to describe something that came from or an expression of Deity.

And Proverbs 16:10 " A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment." Obviously, the sentence itself is not God but it is still divine. Hmm, there are two things, as examples, from the Bible that are not God but still called "divine". I think your narrow definition of "divine" does not match with the Bible's usage.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Seminarysnoozer

[mordorbund]

Okay, thanks. I understand your definition of "divine" better.

If one defines "divinity" as only applying to God, then of course, anything that is not God is not divine.

This is one dictionary's definition, I am sure you could find many that are out there with similar definitions. (I didn't include the "verb" use of the word) :

"ADJECTIVE:

di·vin·er, di·vin·est

Having the nature of or being a deity.

Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.

Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.

Superhuman; godlike.

Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.

Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.

Heavenly; perfect.

NOUN:

A cleric.

A theologian."

Obviously, the definition, as you are doing, could be just one of those things listed but the Bible itself doesn't confine it to only one. At least in this definition, "divine" includes anything that would emanate from God, which, of course, includes us. In the Bible, "divine" the adjective, is used to describe, a sentence, power and service. Is the service itself God, or is it just emanating from God? Did it originate with God and so we can call it "divine" in that sense? If we accept that definition, that it can emanate from God and be called "divine" then we should fit into that category also, or do you think that we did not emanate from God?

Hebrews 9:1 "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." ... in reference to the Law of Moses. Clearly, in this case the word divine, in the Bible is not saying that the service itself is a deity but is used to describe something that came from or an expression of Deity.

And Proverbs 16:10 " A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment." Obviously, the sentence itself is not God but it is still divine. Hmm, there are two things, as examples, from the Bible that are not God but still called "divine". I think your narrow definition of "divine" does not match with the Bible's usage.

Don't forget that the last book in the Bible has been titled "Revelation of St John the Divine" :)

[SteveVH]

I believe both are correct. The problem is that you do not understand how the Lord teaches us. When it's incomprehensible Catholic doctrine (e.g. the Trinity), you safely retreat behind the idea that "it's a mystery, so we can't understand it anyway, so don't worry!" But while we Latter-day Saints acknowledge that some things will be simply beyond our ability to comprehend in this state, we categorically reject the Catholic idea of "mystery". There are indeed things that are a mystery, but that simply means they cannot be understood by the carnal mind. Only the spiritually minded can grasp them.

So you believe that some things will simply be beyond your ability to comprehend but you reject me then referring to those things as "mystery". "Mystery" seems to be a four letter word in the Mormon world. My guess is that you reject it because it is a term used by Catholics, and for no other reason. Something beyond our understanding is, by definition, mystery. And again, the implication in your words that I am not spiritually minded (as apparently you are) and am therefore unable to comprehend those things that can only be understood with the spiritual mind, has come to the surface.

Would something beyond your comprehension include believing that God was once a man who changed through progression from a man to his current divine state and at the same time believing that God is unchangeable and has been the same for eternity? You say you believe both but have not explained how this is possible without throwing human reason out the window. These two positions simply cannot be reconciled. Joseph Smith was either correct in the Book of Mormon or he was correct in the King Follett discourse, (or incorrect in both) but he cannot be correct in both of these statements. They are blatant contradictions and you are trying to tell me that I just can't understand because I am not spiritually minded. The only real question this raises is that if Joseph Smith was right about God, when was he right? The answer is certainly not both.

Edited October 17, 2011 by StephenVH

[Justice]

I'm going to agree with you for now. There is an explanation, but I'll agree.

Then, I'll point out a similar contradiction in the Trinity belief about God, and see if you are willing to admit the contradiction.

From the Trinity viewpoint:

God is unchanging.

God existed prior to all things, and existed alone, because nothing is before or greater than He. God created all things, so therefore He had to exist before all things.

God, at some point in eternity, felt it better in some way to create a physical universe, and simply put, man. Now, God has to have part of Himself become mortal in order to save the man He created.

This is a fundamental change to His existence. He did not have flesh and blood prior, but will have to take it upon Himself to save man, because of a law He made.

He changed.

How do you reconcile this?

[SteveVH]

I'm going to agree with you for now. There is an explanation, but I'll agree.

Then, I'll point out a similar contradiction in the Trinity belief about God, and see if you are willing to admit the contradiction.

From the Trinity viewpoint:

God is unchanging.

God existed prior to all things, and existed alone, because nothing is before or greater than He. God created all things, so therefore He had to exist before all things.

God, at some point in eternity, felt it better in some way to create a physical universe, and simply put, man. Now, God has to have part of Himself become mortal in order to save the man He created.

This is a fundamental change to His existence. He did not have flesh and blood prior, but will have to take it upon Himself to save man, because of a law He made.

He changed.

How do you reconcile this?

Thanks for your post and you ask a very good question. The answer is that God's divinity and all that goes with it (ominpotence, omniscience, authority, glory etc.) never changed. Jesus possessed all of this in his divinity and we maintain that his divine essence did not change when he became human. In fact, his becoming human, by being born of a virgin, shows forth his divine power, it does not diminish it. We believe that Christ was 100% human while remaining 100% divine. According to the Book of Mormon you should agree with me that God is unchanging, from eternity to eternity. But then you have the King Follett discource to deal with which says the opposite.

In the Trinitatian scenario we begin with the eternal God, who possessed all that he now possesses before anything else that exists. He did not acquire degrees of divinity or progress from a lower to a higher state. He has always been who is is now. That is why he is unchanging. The fact that this all powerful God chose to become man, while remaining the all-powerful God, does not constitute a change in his divine essence or state of being. It simply means that, as the all-powerful God, he can do whatever he wishes to do. If he chooses to become human, while retaining his divinty, so be it. It does not change who he is. Had he given up his divinity to become human and then progress back to his divine state I wouldn't have an argument. But that is not what we believe.

I have been given a strong hint by a couple of posters to move to another forum if I want to discuss things in the manner in which I have been discussing LDS beliefs. Since I have not come here to offend anyone, I will take the hint and this will be my last post on this forum. Thanks to all who have been so polite and gracious. I have really enjoyed my time here and have learned more than I knew when I came here.

God bless all of you.

[Maureen]

...I have been given a strong hint by a couple of posters to move to another forum if I want to discuss things in the manner in which I have been discussing LDS beliefs. Since I have not come here to offend anyone, I will take the hint and this will be my last post on this forum. Thanks to all who have been so polite and gracious. I have really enjoyed my time here and have learned more than I knew when I came here.

God bless all of you.

That's a shame Stephen, I've been really enjoying reading your posts.

God bless to you Stephen!

M.

[Justice]

The part you didn't address was the change itself, in creating something that did not exists prior.

God exists with nothing. The, for some reason, He feels it's better to create a physical universe.

This requires a fundamental change. Were things better before the physical universe or are they better now? If before, why didn't God know that and not create it? If after (now) why didn't He create it sooner since He has always known?

It's fundamental shift or change to do this.

If you don't answer I understand.

I've enjoyed our discussions.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The part you didn't address was the change itself, in creating something that did not exists prior.

God exists with nothing. The, for some reason, He feels it's better to create a physical universe.

This requires a fundamental change. Were things better before the physical universe or are they better now? If before, why didn't God know that and not create it? If after (now) why didn't He create it sooner since He has always known?

It's fundamental shift or change to do this.

If you don't answer I understand.

I've enjoyed our discussions.

Yes, that view requires the belief that God does not benefit at all from our "creation" and therefore He does not care about what would happen to us. If He cares one little bit about us then by definition He benefits from our existence and there is something added to Him by our existence. He cannot care and not care at the same time.

[Justice]

It's been my single unanswered question about the Trinity, and I've discussed it with a LOT of people over MANY years.

My friend at work simply says "you're asking me to put God in a box..."

No, I'm not. God is reasonable and logical. It's a question of logic, not of defining God as something finite.

[volgadon]

I have been given a strong hint by a couple of posters to move to another forum if I want to discuss things in the manner in which I have been discussing LDS beliefs. Since I have not come here to offend anyone, I will take the hint and this will be my last post on this forum. Thanks to all who have been so polite and gracious. I have really enjoyed my time here and have learned more than I knew when I came here.

Frankly, they had no business whatsoever to tell you that.