Mormonism & Raelianism?

[Romans5_1]

The following is a news report that I received from a friend today. It seems that at least one former Mormon bishop is taking the whole Heavenly Father-Mother, send the spirit children to earth, non-sense, one step further than the Mormon hierarchy would like. Given the natures of Mormon theology and cosmology, one has to wonder if this bishop's step is not necessarily that unreasonable. Enjoy.

Cult Lures Gay Bishop into Fold

New Truth & TV Extra, April 23, 2004

Wacky alien sex cult the Raelians have poached one of the world's highest ranking Mormon bishops - because he's openly gay.

And they're using the ex-bishop to lure Mormons into their weirdo cult.

Ron Boston spent 17 years with the Mormon church in New Zealand and Australia.

The cult claims the high-ranking bishop resigned from his former church last week to join their wacko movement.

The Raelians believe that humans are direct descendants of aliens.

The movement was founded by ex-motor racing journalist Rael who claims to have met his alien ancestors in 1973.

The cult also believes in genetic engineering, cloning and members take part in strange free-for-all sex orgies.


EXCITING

There are more than 80 Raelian members in New Zealand and 60,000 worldwide.

Kiwi Raelian representative Mark Woodgate says the recruitment of Boston was exciting news for the movement.

"Ron is also very interested in spreading the messages to the Mormon community and assisting other ex-Mormon Raelians in spreading to the Mormon community," he said.

About eight percent of Raelian members worldwide were ex- Mormons, claimed Woodgate.

He said Bishop joined the cult to express his homosexuality.

"He has resigned from the Mormon church, deciding to free himself from its religious constraints and live his sexuality as a gay," he said.

A spokesman for the Mormon church said it was "ludicrous" followers would join the cult.

http://www.yellowbrix.com

Ludicrous? Members of the Mormon church joined the cult of Mormonism. So, why would it be so ludicrous for Mormons to join Raelism as well? They both have much in common.

[John Powell]

Romans5_1:
Mormonism & Raelianism?

The following is a news report that I received from a friend today. It seems that at least one former Mormon bishop is taking the whole Heavenly Father-Mother, send the spirit children to earth, non-sense, one step further than the Mormon hierarchy would like. Given the natures of Mormon theology and cosmology, one has to wonder if this bishop's step is not necessarily that unreasonable. Enjoy.


POWELL:
Of the alleged 60,000 worldwide Raelian members, do you suppose there are more than 8% of them as "former" Christians (They might consider themselves to be Christian Raelians)?

The relevant question is whether the percentage of former Mormons in the Raelians is significantly more than the percentage of Mormons among the worldwide population that the Raelians are primarily taken from. For example, if the Raelian population breakdown were basically in line with the world religious breakdown (which is unlikely), but former Mormons are a whopping 8% of the Raelians (when Mormons are less than 1% worldwide) then that would be significant.

Romans5_1:
Ludicrous? Members of the Mormon church joined the cult of Mormonism. So, why would it be so ludicrous for Mormons to join Raelism as well? They both have much in common.


POWELL:
What specifically do the Raelians have in common with Mormons?

If there are more former Christians than former Mormons in the Raelians (which is likely) does that imply that Christians have even more in common with Raelians than Mormons do?

John Powell

[cbwing0]

The relevant question is whether the percentage of former Mormons in the Raelians is significantly more than the percentage of Mormons among the worldwide population that the Raelians are primarily taken from. For example, if the Raelian population breakdown were basically in line with the world religious breakdown (which is unlikely), but former Mormons are a whopping 8% of the Raelians (when Mormons are less than 1% worldwide) then that would be significant.
About eight percent of Raelian members worldwide were ex- Mormons, claimed Woodgate.
I'll go ahead and quote that once more for good measure:

About eight percent of Raelian members worldwide were ex- Mormons, claimed Woodgate.
I'm glad that you admit that that fact is significant, because it is exactly what is expressed in the article. 8% of Raelians are ex-mormons. Since mormons make up less than 1% of the world population, that is significant.

[Ric]

The following is a news report that I received from a friend today. It seems that at least one former Mormon bishop is taking the whole Heavenly Father-Mother, send the spirit children to earth, non-sense, one step further than the Mormon hierarchy would like. Given the natures of Mormon theology and cosmology, one has to wonder if this bishop's step is not necessarily that unreasonable. Enjoy.

Cult Lures Gay Bishop into Fold

New Truth & TV Extra, April 23, 2004

Wacky alien sex cult the Raelians have poached one of the world's highest ranking Mormon bishops - because he's openly gay.

And they're using the ex-bishop to lure Mormons into their weirdo cult.

Ron Boston spent 17 years with the Mormon church in New Zealand and Australia.

The cult claims the high-ranking bishop resigned from his former church last week to join their wacko movement.

The Raelians believe that humans are direct descendants of aliens.

The movement was founded by ex-motor racing journalist Rael who claims to have met his alien ancestors in 1973.

The cult also believes in genetic engineering, cloning and members take part in strange free-for-all sex orgies.


EXCITING

There are more than 80 Raelian members in New Zealand and 60,000 worldwide.

Kiwi Raelian representative Mark Woodgate says the recruitment of Boston was exciting news for the movement.

"Ron is also very interested in spreading the messages to the Mormon community and assisting other ex-Mormon Raelians in spreading to the Mormon community," he said.

About eight percent of Raelian members worldwide were ex- Mormons, claimed Woodgate.

He said Bishop joined the cult to express his homosexuality.

"He has resigned from the Mormon church, deciding to free himself from its religious constraints and live his sexuality as a gay," he said.

A spokesman for the Mormon church said it was "ludicrous" followers would join the cult.

http://www.yellowbrix.com

Ludicrous? Members of the Mormon church joined the cult of Mormonism. So, why would it be so ludicrous for Mormons to join Raelism as well? They both have much in common.

I don't see anything unusual about this. Mormonism is Science Fiction anyway!

[John Powell]

POWELL:
The relevant question is whether the percentage of former Mormons in the Raelians is significantly more than the percentage of Mormons among the worldwide population that the Raelians are primarily taken from. For example, if the Raelian population breakdown were basically in line with the world religious breakdown (which is unlikely), but former Mormons are a whopping 8% of the Raelians (when Mormons are less than 1% worldwide) then that would be significant.

CBWING0 requoting YELLOWBRIX:
About eight percent of Raelian members worldwide were ex- Mormons, claimed Woodgate.

CBWING0:
I'll go ahead and quote that once more for good measure:

YELLOWBRIX:
About eight percent of Raelian members worldwide were ex- Mormons, claimed Woodgate.

CBWING0:
I'm glad that you admit that that fact is significant, because it is exactly what is expressed in the article. 8% of Raelians are ex-mormons.


POWELL:
What did I say that led you to come to the mistaken conclusion that I admitted such a thing? You do understand the difference between "if A" and "is A," don't you?

CBWING0:
Since mormons make up less than 1% of the world population, that is significant.


POWELL:
Signicant in what way? Perhaps all it means is that the Raelians have sought more converts in areas of the world in which Mormons happened to make up an above-world-average portion of the population.

What is the percentage of ex-Christians in the Raelians? If that's also more than the world-average of Christians should we conclude that's because Christian beliefs are more wacky than, say, typical Asian beliefs?

John Powell

[cbwing0]

What did I say that led you to come to the mistaken conclusion that I admitted such a thing? You do understand the difference between "if A" and "is A," don't you?
Where? Right here:

For example, if the Raelian population breakdown were basically in line with the world religious breakdown (which is unlikely), but former Mormons are a whopping 8% of the Raelians (when Mormons are less than 1% worldwide) then that would be significant
Since this is exactly what the article said is the case, it would seem that you unintentionally admit that the fact is significant.

Signicant in what way? Perhaps all it means is that the Raelians have sought more converts in areas of the world in which Mormons happened to make up an above-world-average portion of the population.
Unless the Raelians are recruiting primarily in Utah, I seriously doubt that it is simply a concidence that mormons make up an above-average percentage or Raelian converts.

The point is not that mormons are flocking to Raelianism simply because it is "wacky," but rather that certain doctrinal similarities combined with the testimony of mormon converts make Raelianism especially appealing to mormons.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
What did I say that led you to come to the mistaken conclusion that I admitted such a thing? You do understand the difference between "if A" and "is A," don't you?

CBWING0:
Where? Right here:

POWELL (emphasis by Powell):
For example, if the Raelian population breakdown were basically in line with the world religious breakdown (which is unlikely), but former Mormons are a whopping 8% of the Raelians (when Mormons are less than 1% worldwide) then that would be significant



POWELL:
Notice I said "If . . . then that would be significant."

This is not a claim that it IS significant.

If I were a millionaire then I would have a million dollars. Is that a claim that I have a million dollars? Of course not.

CBWING0:
Since this is exactly what the article said is the case, it would seem that you unintentionally admit that the fact is significant.


POWELL:
AFAICT, the article did not SAY or CLEARLY imply that the breakdown of the Raelians was basically in line with the world distribution. Where do you think it implied such a thing? On the contrary, the information given implies that it's NOT in line with the world distribution. The number of New Zealander Raelians is roughly twice what you'd expect given the number of New Zealanders in the world. (80 to 60,000 compared with 4 million New Zealanders to 6 billion world population).

Given that China makes up about 1/6 of the world's population, are you seriously suggesting that Chinese nationals make up about 1/6 of the Raelians?

POWELL:
Signicant in what way? Perhaps all it means is that the Raelians have sought more converts in areas of the world in which Mormons happened to make up an above-world-average portion of the population.

CBWING0:
Unless the Raelians are recruiting primarily in Utah, I seriously doubt that it is simply a concidence that mormons make up an above-average percentage or Raelian converts.


POWELL:
Utah is not the only part of the world where Mormons make up a bigger part than they do overall in the world. It is merely the state with the biggest discrepancy.

I'm not claiming it's a coincidence, but that it may not imply what you think it does. The important question is whether Mormons make up about 8% of the population from which the Raelians primarily recruit or whether they make up significantly less than that. Did the article say or clearly imply the answer to that question?

CBWING0:
The point is not that mormons are flocking to Raelianism simply because it is "wacky," but rather that certain doctrinal similarities combined with the testimony of mormon converts make Raelianism especially appealing to mormons.


POWELL:
Perhaps they are, but the article does not give good justification for that conclusion.

If there are more ex-Christians that are Raelians than there are ex-Mormons (and I suspect that's the case), would that imply that the doctrinal similarities between Christianity and Raelianism and the testimony of Christian converts makes Raelianism even more appealing to Christians than it is to Mormons?

John Powell

[cbwing0]

If there are more ex-Christians that are Raelians than there are ex-Mormons (and I suspect that's the case), would that imply that the doctrinal similarities between Christianity and Raelianism and the testimony of Christian converts makes Raelianism even more appealing to Christians than it is to Mormon?
AFAICT, the article did not SAY or CLEARLY imply that the breakdown of the Raelians was basically in line with the world distribution. Where do you think it implied such a thing? On the contrary, the information given implies that it's NOT in line with the world distribution.
And now he have a very interesting situation. If the Raelians' make up matches (and how closely must it match, in your opinion?) the overall world religious distribution, then it is significant that they have a disproportionately large number of ex-mormon converts. However, if such a disproportion exists, the Raelians cannot match the religious distribution of the world. You have set forth a criterion for determining the significance of the data that is by definition impossible to meet.

Even in theory, it would be highly unlikely that the Raelians' composition would match that of the world, because the world is a big place! Most of the world is characterized by the dominance of a single faith, and few if any feature a breakdown that matches the world as a whole. For this reason, if any one minority group (mormonism, for instance) makes up 8% of their group, that is significant.

Of course there could (using the word in the broad logical sense) be states of affairs that would explain this data in such a way that it would be insignificant, but they are not likely to obtain in the actual world.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
If there are more ex-Christians that are Raelians than there are ex-Mormons (and I suspect that's the case), would that imply that the doctrinal similarities between Christianity and Raelianism and the testimony of Christian converts makes Raelianism even more appealing to Christians than it is to Mormon?

. . .

AFAICT, the article did not SAY or CLEARLY imply that the breakdown of the Raelians was basically in line with the world distribution. Where do you think it implied such a thing? On the contrary, the information given implies that it's NOT in line with the world distribution.

CBWING0:
And now he have a very interesting situation. If the Raelians' make up matches (and how closely must it match, in your opinion?) the overall world religious distribution, then it is significant that they have a disproportionately large number of ex-mormon converts. However, if such a disproportion exists, the Raelians cannot match the religious distribution of the world. You have set forth a criterion for determining the significance of the data that is by definition impossible to meet.


POWELL:
Straw man. I said "basically in line with the world distribution." I did not say or clearly imply "exactly in line with the world distribution."

If 95% of Raelians were former Christians (which only comprise about 1/3 of the world population) then that would clearly NOT be "basically in line with world population."

How close must it match? It depends on what you're trying to conclude. The Mormon distribution of Raelians needs to be significantly more discrepant from the world population than it is for other groups for this to be significant. Even if that were the case, what it would imply is still unclear.

CBWING0:
Even in theory, it would be highly unlikely that the Raelians' composition would match that of the world, because the world is a big place! Most of the world is characterized by the dominance of a single faith, and few if any feature a breakdown that matches the world as a whole. For this reason, if any one minority group (mormonism, for instance) makes up 8% of their group, that is significant.


POWELL:
Not necessarily if the minority group makes up about 8% of the population from which the Raelians primarily recruit (which could be the world at large).

CBWING0:
Of course there could (using the word in the broad logical sense) be states of affairs that would explain this data in such a way that it would be insignificant, but they are not likely to obtain in the actual world.


POWELL:
Perhaps Mormons are joining, not because Raelians have beliefs similar to Mormons, but because they have beliefs different from Mormons. Apparently, the homosexual Mormon bishop joined the Raelians partly because he didn't like the theologically-based repression of homosexuality by Mormons.

Your "combined with the testimony of mormon converts" suggestion could be one of the explanations if Mormons do make up a discrepantly larger proportion.

If a disproportionate number of Mormons joined early on (for some reasons) and they were especially active in recruiting their friends (mostly Mormons) then that would help explain the why if the numbers of Mormons is discrepantly larger than for other groups.

John Powell

[cbwing0]

:offtopic:

John Powell, I noticed that you describe yourself as an atheist (based on the icon next to your username), yet you seem to be a very active mormon apologist. If you are an atheist, what is your fascination with defending mormon doctrine? If you are a mormon, why do you list yourself as an atheist?

I realize that this is off-topic, but I was curious. :smile:

[John Powell]

:offtopic:

John Powell, I noticed that you describe yourself as an atheist (based on the icon next to your username), yet you seem to be a very active mormon apologist. If you are an atheist, what is your fascination with defending mormon doctrine? If you are a mormon, why do you list yourself as an atheist?

I realize that this is off-topic, but I was curious. :smile:

POWELL:
I was a believer in Mormonism.

I do it for a number of reasons. One is because believing Mormons aren't defending themselves and I don't want Christians to think their counter-Mormon arguments are as strong as they might otherwise think.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an agnostic athe-ist.

[cbwing0]

Fascinating...

One is because believing Mormons aren't defending themselves and I don't want Christians to think their counter-Mormon arguments are as strong as they might otherwise think
In that case I have to ask, what was it that made you stop believing in mormonism?

[Romans5_1]

POWELL:
Of the alleged 60,000 worldwide Raelian members, do you suppose there are more than 8% of them as "former" Christians (They might consider themselves to be Christian Raelians)?

I doubt it, given that Raelianism is a religious concoction of atheism and some very bad science fiction.

The relevant question is whether the percentage of former Mormons in the Raelians is significantly more than the percentage of Mormons among the worldwide population that the Raelians are primarily taken from. For example, if the Raelian population breakdown were basically in line with the world religious breakdown (which is unlikely), but former Mormons are a whopping 8% of the Raelians (when Mormons are less than 1% worldwide) then that would be significant.

Ummmm, yeah.

POWELL:
What specifically do the Raelians have in common with Mormons?

Their views on cosmology, specifically how humans got to planet earth in the first place, as well as their theologies, with the exception that Raelism out-in-out denies the existence of God, while Mormonism implicitly denies the existence of God through its doctrine of Eternal Progression.

If there are more former Christians than former Mormons in the Raelians (which is likely) does that imply that Christians have even more in common with Raelians than Mormons do?

John Powell

Christianity has absolutely nothing in common with Raelianism, whereas, as stated above, Mormonism's cosmological take on how life came to be on earth, along with its theology are quite similar to Raelianism.

[Tenshi]

I don't want to get too involved in this argument, as it seems rather silly to me. However, I would like to point out that a significant percentage of "ex"-christians join Mormonism. We are, after all, one of the world's fastest growing religions. Evidence for similiarity between Mormonism and more mainstream christianity? Not really. But neither is this. Or how about this one? About 90% of ex-mo's become mainstream christians (see exmormon.org) Is this evidence for similarity between mormons and mainstream christians? Again, not really. And finally, to respond to Romans5_1's comment:


Their views on cosmology, specifically how humans got to planet earth in the first place, as well as their theologies, with the exception that Raelism out-in-out denies the existence of God, while Mormonism implicitly denies the existence of God through its doctrine of Eternal Progression.

I don't know where you get this stuff (probably that crappy GodMakers thing), but we don't believe that we are clones of aliens (which is how raelians believe we got here) in any way, shape, or form. We believe that God created Adam and Eve, just like all other christians, and that we are their descendants, just like all other christians. We also do not "implicitly deny" the existence of God. We simply see Him in a different manner than you do (specifically, a non-trinitarian view). The similarities are not so great as some of our critics would have people believe.

[John Powell]

Fascinating...

. . .

In that case I have to ask, what was it that made you stop believing in mormonism?

POWELL:
A number of things personal and theological. Let me mention two of the reasons: the DNA evidence for an Asian, rather than an Israeli, origin for the American Indians and the fact that when I stopped paying my tithing then I consistently had more money rather than less.

John Powell

[Romans5_1]

We believe that God created Adam and Eve, just like all other christians, and that we are their descendants, just like all other christians.

This is a lie, for Mormonism believes that God was incapable of actually creating anything. Rather, Mormonism teaches that prior to God becoming God, he was some mystical intelligence floating through the cosmos with the rest of the intelligences, and that through the process of Eternal Progression, he beat everyone else to punch, became a god, and then reformed that which already existed. Christianity teaches, on the other hand, that God has always existed; is totally sufficient within himself; that he created all things out of nothing, or that physical matter is not eternal, but came into being when God spoke. So, Mormons do not believe "just like all other christians," for one simple fact: Mormons are not Christians to begin with, and hence, deny doctrines consistent with Christianity.

We also do not "implicitly deny" the existence of God. We simply see Him in a different manner than you do (specifically, a non-trinitarian view).

Quite to the contrary. For the "different manner" in which Mormonism does its theology is so extremely from biblical revelation as to result in the non-existence of God. Why? For a God who has not always been, but has to go through some cosmic whatever to become a god, is necessarily contingent upon that process for his being. The God of the Bible is not reliant upon anything or anyone for his being. He is. Period.

Taken one step further, since the Mormon god is contingent upon someone preceding him (his "Heavenly Father"), and is finite (he had a beginning), yet Mormonism advocates that this finite chain of gods extends backwards infinitely, you have a logical absurdity involved. Finite chain cannot extend backward, or forward, infinitely. They only extend as far back and forward as the first and last link in the chain. Prior to the "first" link in the Mormon chain of gods there was what? Nothing, except maybe all these so-called intelligences meandering about bumping into each other (which is equally absurd, for without a infinite Creator with perfect aseity, then just how could there be something for the intelligences of move around in?). In other words, the first necessary component to assist the first Mormon god is missing. There was no god. Therefore, there was no first god either, nor a second, third, fourth, etc. Hence, the so-called "Heavenly Father" of Mormonism does not, nor cannot, exist either.

The similarities are not so great as some of our critics would have people believe.

Once again, this is just another misleading statement without merit, or thought. For there is a huge difference between contingency and aseity. The Mormon god is contingent, in more ways than one. The Christian God possesses perfect aseity, and in no way is contingent upon anything, or anyone, other than himself, for his existence. As stated above, prior to the creation of the first god in Mormonism, no god existed, much less could have anything existed. On the other hand, prior to creation, the God of the Bible did exist, and with his spoken word, all things came into existence, which otherwise had no being (Jn. 1:3). So, the differences are extraordinary. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.


R-5:1

Accusations of lying are very serious and shouldn't be made unless there is ample reason to do so.

[Alma]

POWELL:
A number of things personal and theological. Let me mention two of the reasons: the DNA evidence for an Asian, rather than an Israeli, origin for the American Indians and the fact that when I stopped paying my tithing then I consistently had more money rather than less.

John Powell

I infrequently drop by this board and rarely post anything but I can't resist this message. John, how long did it take you to figure out that 100% was more than 90%? That has got to be one for the record books.

Secondly, since it appears that you have bought into this "Asian rather than Israeli" DNA -- I've read the papers as well and watched the video but I can't get past the one glaring error that no one seems to be willing to confront. What is "Israeli DNA" and how were they able to demonstrate no connection to Lehi's or Nephi's DNA without a sample of their DNA? Do you think these same scientists could demonstrate that my DNA demonstrates no connection to Noah? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Alma

[John Powell]

ALMA:
I infrequently drop by this board and rarely post anything but I can't resist this message. John, how long did it take you to figure out that 100% was more than 90%? That has got to be one for the record books.


POWELL:
Well, I had been taught that God would bless me financially as well as spiritually if I paid an honest tithing. I heard of numerous cases where people were struggling financially, decided to pay their tithing anyway rather than paying their other bills, and everything apparently worked out better than if they hadn't paid their tithing.

Are you persuaded by such stories, Alma?

ALMA:
Secondly, since it appears that you have bought into this "Asian rather than Israeli" DNA -- I've read the papers as well and watched the video but I can't get past the one glaring error that no one seems to be willing to confront. What is "Israeli DNA" and how were they able to demonstrate no connection to Lehi's or Nephi's DNA without a sample of their DNA? Do you think these same scientists could demonstrate that my DNA demonstrates no connection to Noah? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Alma

POWELL:
I'm no geneticist, but it's my understanding that they compared American Indian DNA with the DNA of living Jews and living Asians and others. The match was much closer to living Asians of Mongolian descent than to living Jews or any other existing group.

Does that make sense to you?

Consider another example. When those African Americans tried to prove that they were descendants of Thomas Jefferson (or a near relative) they needed to show that their DNA was sufficiently similar to that of the recognized descendants of TJ.

Does that make sense to you?

Perhaps you are the kind of "faith-despite-the facts" person, Alma, who if you thought that you were a descendant of Brigham Young, but it was shown that you had the wrong DNA, then you nevertheless would insist you are a BY descendant because science can't absolutely prove otherwise because no one has BY's DNA!

John Powell
Mormon student asking his Book of Mormon teacher and his Bishop: "Why is American Indian DNA most like Mongolian rather than Jewish DNA"?

Teacher: The Book of Mormon characters were a very tiny segment of the existing Mongolian population in the Americas.

Bishop: The DNA was changed by God to test our faith.

[John Powell]

TENSHI:
We believe that God created Adam and Eve, just like all other christians, and that we are their descendants, just like all other christians.

ROMANS5_1:
This is a lie, for Mormonism believes that God was incapable of actually creating anything.


JOHN MORMON:
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.
True or false: Mormons believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

If these are true then you are the liar, R5_1. If they are false then I am the liar.

I am a believing Mormon (actually now I'm an atheist, but I'm playing the role of my previous believing self) and affirm they are true. What evidence do you have that Mormons don't believe they are true?


ROMANS5_1:
Rather, Mormonism teaches that prior to God becoming God, he was some mystical intelligence floating through the cosmos with the rest of the intelligences, and that through the process of Eternal Progression, he beat everyone else to punch, became a god, and then reformed that which already existed. Christianity teaches, on the other hand, that God has always existed; is totally sufficient within himself; that he created all things out of nothing, or that physical matter is not eternal, but came into being when God spoke. So, Mormons do not believe "just like all other christians," for one simple fact: Mormons are not Christians to begin with, and hence, deny doctrines consistent with Christianity.


JOHN MORMON:
Both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity believe that the entity that is God always existed. Mormons allow that God has changed. Mainstream Christians don't. Mainstream Christians believe in a harder-to-comprehend God.

God is a thing that God didn't create so you're wrong when you claimed that God "created all things out of nothing." What Mormons do is allow that there is more than just God that is uncreated. If one thing can be uncreated, R5_1, why not two or three or more?


TENSHI:
We also do not "implicitly deny" the existence of God. We simply see Him in a different manner than you do (specifically, a non-trinitarian view).

ROMANS5_1:
Quite to the contrary. For the "different manner" in which Mormonism does its theology is so extremely from biblical revelation as to result in the non-existence of God.


JOHN MORMON:
Then, R5_1, are you affirming that Mormons are atheists?


ROMANS5_1:
Why? For a God who has not always been, but has to go through some cosmic whatever to become a god, is necessarily contingent upon that process for his being. The God of the Bible is not reliant upon anything or anyone for his being. He is. Period.


JOHN MORMON:
Where does the Bible say or clearly imply that God was never an intelligence?

Mormons believe that God always was something, but He didn't necessarily always have the office of God, just like Jesus wasn't always the Savior of the World. Jesus BECAME that. Just like Lucifer wasn't always God's adversary. Lucifer became that.


ROMANS5_1:
Taken one step further, since the Mormon god is contingent upon someone preceding him (his "Heavenly Father"), and is finite (he had a beginning), yet Mormonism advocates that this finite chain of gods extends backwards infinitely, you have a logical absurdity involved.


JOHN MORMON:
What Mormon scripture says or clearly implies that the entity who is God had a beginning?

What Mormon scripture says or clearly implies that the chain of previous Gods is finite?


ROMANS5_1:
Finite chain cannot extend backward, or forward, infinitely.


JOHN MORMON:
Your God is a single link in the chain. Can that one link (one is finite, right?) extend backwards or forwards infinitely? If one link can do that then why can't two or three or more?


ROMANS5_1:
They only extend as far back and forward as the first and last link in the chain. Prior to the "first" link in the Mormon chain of gods there was what? Nothing, except maybe all these so-called intelligences meandering about bumping into each other (which is equally absurd, for without a infinite Creator with perfect aseity, then just how could there be something for the intelligences of move around in?).


JOHN MORMON:
Who says their space had to have a creator?


ROMANS5_1:
In other words, the first necessary component to assist the first Mormon god is missing. There was no god. Therefore, there was no first god either, nor a second, third, fourth, etc. Hence, the so-called "Heavenly Father" of Mormonism does not, nor cannot, exist either.


JOHN MORMON:
Personally, I don't think the chain is infinite. I think there was a lot of time without a God or even consciousness, but no God remembers that time before the first God became conscious so it doesn't really matter. Time effectively began when the first intelligence became conscious. This isn't Mormon doctrine, but I don't think it contradicts Mormon scriptures.


TENSHI:
The similarities are not so great as some of our critics would have people believe.

ROMANS5_1:
Once again, this is just another misleading statement without merit, or thought. For there is a huge difference between contingency and aseity. The Mormon god is contingent, in more ways than one. The Christian God possesses perfect aseity, and in no way is contingent upon anything, or anyone, other than himself, for his existence.


JOHN MORMON:
Your God is a difficult-thing-to-comprehend. Mormons believe the truth is simpler than that.

Johnny: The president of the U.S. is a perfectly honest person who has never lied his entire adult life.
Billy: The president is surely a fallible human. He surely has lied.
Johnny: My concept is more beautiful than yours so I'm right and you're wrong.
Billy: You believe in a fantasy president who likely doesn't exist.


ROMANS5_1:
As stated above, prior to the creation of the first god in Mormonism, no god existed, much less could have anything existed.


JOHN MORMON:
As I understand it, intelligences and space existed.


ROMANS5_1:
On the other hand, prior to creation, the God of the Bible did exist, and with his spoken word, all things came into existence, which otherwise had no being (Jn. 1:3). So, the differences are extraordinary. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.


JOHN MORMON:
In other words, God created everything that God created. That does not necessarily mean that there weren't things that God did not create. That's probably speaking of the earth and the heavens associated with the earth. It likely doesn't refer to everything in the universe and all other planes of existence.

How about prior to the creation of God, did God exist? If God was uncreated then why couldn't other things be uncreated too? Logically can there be only one uncreated thing? Two uncreated things would violate logic somehow?

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an agnostic strong atheist.

Highlander: There can be only one.

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

The LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized matter, not created it, your statement is misleading, John Mormon.


True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

False, according to Brigham Young, Adam came from another planet and brought with him, Eve, one of his celestial wives.
Brigham also taught that Adam is God, which would be problematic in having Adam trying to create himself.


True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.


True or false: Mormons believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

False, the LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized already existing matter into what we call the heaven and the earth.


If these are true then you are the liar, R5_1. If they are false then I am the liar.

An accusation of lying is a very serious charge and we should avoid it unless there is compelling evidence to believe that someone has intentionally tried to deceive.

Trout

[Romans5_1]

JOHN MORMON:
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

No, it does not. For eternal matter, and the "intelligences," was supposedly already in existence prior to God reforming it.

True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

False. God conceived Adam and Eve as "spirit children" with his Heavenly Wife, and then sent them to earth to inhabit bodies that God supposedly formed out of already pre-existing materials.

True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

Irrelevent, given the fact that the question is about God's ability to create, not humanity's ability to procreate.

True or false: Mormons believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

False. See above.

If these are true then you are the liar, R5_1. If they are false then I am the liar.

You are a liar, then :-)

I am a believing Mormon (actually now I'm an atheist, but I'm playing the role of my previous believing self) and affirm they are true. What evidence do you have that Mormons don't believe they are true?

Mormon authorship.
For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy."—D&C 93:33
You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.—TPJS, 350-2.
It is an utterly false and uninspired notion to believe that the world or any other thing was created out of nothing or that any created thing can be destroyed in the sense of annihilation.—Mormon Doctrine, 169.

JOHN MORMON:
Both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity believe that the entity that is God always existed.

The deception in this statement is that Bible depicts God as always being God, which is Christian doctrine, while Mormonism advocates that at some point in time, an exalted man, who was formerly some ethereal "intelligence" floating about, became what is now known to Mormons as Heavenly Father. They are not the same being, though.

Mormons allow that God has changed. Mainstream Christians don't. Mainstream Christians believe in a harder-to-comprehend God.

Actually, the reverse is true.

God is a thing that God didn't create so you're wrong when you claimed that God "created all things out of nothing."

No, God is a person, not a thing, and the Bible is quite clear that prior to anything existing, it did not have being (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Acts 17:28; 2 Pet. 3:7).

What Mormons do is allow that there is more than just God that is uncreated.

Which is a complete falsehood, since the revelation of God states to the contrary. So, which is correct? The Mormons or God?

All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

If one thing can be uncreated, R5_1, why not two or three or more?

Because there is only one being who is infinitely eternal, and that is God. That's why.

JOHN MORMON:
Then, R5_1, are you affirming that Mormons are atheists?

Implicitly, that's the only thing a Mormon can be.

JOHN MORMON:
Where does the Bible say or clearly imply that God was never an intelligence?

Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God…. John 1:3: "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Before anything was, God already was. Plus, when you take into account God's immutability, there was never a time when God was some arbitrary "intelligence" floating about waiting to turn into something, if it would just arbitarily get around to doing it.

James 1:17 Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.

Malachi 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

Mormons believe that God always was something, but He didn't necessarily always have the office of God, just like Jesus wasn't always the Savior of the World.

Which is why Mormonism is an anti-Christian religion, for as seen above, the Bible states just the opposite. God has always been God, without variation, nor subject to change. As for Jesus always being the savior, if the plan to redeem the lost, in the person of Jesus Christ, was implemented from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), then in respect to God's creation, Jesus has always been the world's Savior. Sorry to burst your bubble again.

Jesus BECAME that. Just like Lucifer wasn't always God's adversary. Lucifer became that.

Apples and oranges, my friend, for Lucifer has not always existed, and Jesus has.

JOHN MORMON:
What Mormon scripture says or clearly implies that the entity who is God had a beginning?

Was not the Mormon god a man at one point in time? Did not Joseph Smith preach, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was Gdo from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see? (TPJS, 345)? Well, if your answer is yes to both questions, then the Mormon god had a beginning, for he was something else, other than a god, prior to his becoming one.

What Mormon scripture says or clearly implies that the chain of previous Gods is finite?

Did not Joseph Smith teach,
If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything come in this way.…Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 373; Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 8 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1950), 6:476; Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1932-51), 6:476, on IGLCD.

Or did not Joseph Fielding Smith continue by stating,
The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-6), 1:12, on IGLCD.

Now, where they got the idea that the "Father had a Father and so on" is purely speculation for Mormons, like yourself, to figure out. It is not for persons, like me, to try and guess where they got their information. The bottom line, though, is that good ol' Jo Smith and his predecessors have concocted a logical absurdity, whereby there is this supposed infinite chain of finite gods, all related to each other. I'm sorry, but once again, finite chains are only as infinite as the first and last link, meaning that they are not infinite at all. And since Mormonism refuses to acknowledge the true infinite God of Scripture, who exhibits perfect aseity, then Mormon theology is essentially atheistic, since it ascribes to a lineage of gods that cannot exist.

JOHN MORMON:
Your God is a single link in the chain. Can that one link (one is finite, right?) extend backwards or forwards infinitely? If one link can do that then why can't two or three or more?

God is not a link, or a chain, at all. God always was, is, and will be (Rev. 1:4, 8). There has never been any gods before him, nor will there be any gods after him. Those claiming otherwise are engaging in nothing but idolatrous thinking, or a complete misunderstanding of the characteristics and person of God.

JOHN MORMON:
Who says their space had to have a creator?

Well, just where would these "intelligences" abide if they had no space to float around in? And just who would create the space if it were not an intelligent Creator? Finally, if there were no being prior to God bringing even space into being, then how could these "beings" float around in that which was not?

JOHN MORMON:
Personally, I don't think the chain is infinite. I think there was a lot of time without a God or even consciousness, but no God remembers that time before the first God became conscious so it doesn't really matter. Time effectively began when the first intelligence became conscious. This isn't Mormon doctrine, but I don't think it contradicts Mormon scriptures.

It may not contradict Mormon ideology, but it certainly contradicts the Bible.

JOHN MORMON:
Your God is a difficult-thing-to-comprehend. Mormons believe the truth is simpler than that.

As stated before, it is not nearly as difficult to comprehend that if one believes in the supposed "simpler" theology of Mormonism.

JOHN MORMON:
As I understand it, intelligences and space existed.

You need to start understanding it from God's perspective, which he has revealed in Scripture. That's when you'll be truly understanding. ;-)

JOHN MORMON:
In other words, God created everything that God created. That does not necessarily mean that there weren't things that God did not create. That's probably speaking of the earth and the heavens associated with the earth. It likely doesn't refer to everything in the universe and all other planes of existence.

Quite to the contrary. Prior to God bringing ALL things into being, there was "nothing," or literally in the Greek, "not one thing was." In other words, there were no "intelligences," no non-space for the intelligences to somehow float around in, or anything eternal existing, aside from God.

How about prior to the creation of God, did God exist?

Yep.

If God was uncreated then why couldn't other things be uncreated too?

Because there is only one uncreated being from which all others things, which are created, get their existence.

Logically can there be only one uncreated thing?

God is not a thing, remember? ;-) And yes, there can be only one uncreated person, called God.

Two uncreated things would violate logic somehow?

It would make God a liar, which would result in his non-existence, and that is not logically possible.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an agnostic strong atheist.

I'm glad you left Mormonism, and I'm not surprised by the agnostic acclaim, but there is no such thing as a "strong atheist." Perhaps the epitome of a fool (no insult intended), but that is hardly something that is indicative of "strength."

[John Powell]

TENSHI:
We believe that God created Adam and Eve, just like all other christians, and that we are their descendants, just like all other christians.

ROMANS5_1 (emphasis by Powell):
This is a lie, for Mormonism believes that God was incapable of actually creating anything.

JOHN MORMON:
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

TROUTK:
The LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized matter, not created it, your statement is misleading, John Mormon.


JOHN MORMON:
Where in the definition of the English word "create" or the Hebrew word H01254:bara = create (Gen 1:1) or the Greek word G2936:ktizo = create (Eph 3:9) or G1096:ginomai = made (John 1:3) is it clearly implied ex nihilo?

POWELL (my atheist self):
Where in Genesis is it clearly implied that God created the primordial waters out of which the heavens and the earth were created? Apparently, the waters were there BEFORE God created the heavens or the earth. On day 1 God is floating above the waters and creates light, but there still is no heaven or earth. On day 2 God divided the waters from the waters to make the heavens. On day 3 God created the earth, by causing the dry land to appear.

Psalms 51:10
10. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.


JOHN MORMON:
Does this imply that God makes a heart ex nihilo or that He uses the existing heart and changes it?

2 Cor. 5: 17
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


JOHN MORMON:
Living creatures that exist today such as you and I are "created living things." Does this imply that we were "created ex nihilo" by God and when we are reborn then we're recreated ex nihilo?

Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, The LORD, The God of hosts, is his name.


JOHN MORMON:
Does this imply that the wind is being created by God ex nihilo?

When parents "pro-create" or "forward create" a child does that mean they forward create the child ex nihilo?

If you mean "create ex nihilo," Trout, then you need to add the qualifier, since "create" by itself does not necessarily imply ex nihilo.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

TROUTK:
False, according to Brigham Young, Adam came from another planet and brought with him, Eve, one of his celestial wives.

Brigham also taught that Adam is God, which would be problematic in having Adam trying to create himself.


JOHN MORMON:
Where is this taught in Mormon scriptures? I'm not bound to obey Brigham's personal opinion or something someone may have misrecorded.

Even if Adam did come from another planet that would not imply that Adam was uncreated.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.


JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.

D&C 27: 11
11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

. . .

D&C 29: 34
34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.


JOHN MORMON:
That and other scriptures are clear enough for me.

Now, show me where Mormon scriptures claim or clearly imply that we are NOT all descendants of Adam and Eve.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

TROUT:
False, the LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized already existing matter into what we call the heaven and the earth.


JOHN MORMON:
The fact that you have a mistaken view of what "create" means isn't my fault, Trout. Look it up in the dictionary.


JOHN MORMON:
If these are true then you are the liar, R5_1. If they are false then I am the liar.

TROUT:
An accusation of lying is a very serious charge and we should avoid it unless there is compelling evidence to believe that someone has intentionally tried to deceive.


POWELL:
I don't usually counter-charge someone with lying even if they accuse me of it, but in this case I worry that Romans5_1's charge that Tenshi was lying has offended Tenshi. My protective big brother instinct came into action.

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

TROUTK:
The LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized matter, not created it, your statement is misleading, John Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
Where in the definition of the English word "create" or the Hebrew word H01254:bara = create (Gen 1:1) or the Greek word G2936:ktizo = create (Eph 3:9) or G1096:ginomai = made (John 1:3) is it clearly implied ex nihilo?

Feel free to cook the definitions of words, but please explain what your definitions are so that our dialogue can be productive.
In John it says that Christ created all things, it doesn't say He reorganized all matter.

POWELL (my atheist self):
Where in Genesis is it clearly implied that God created the primordial waters out of which the heavens and the earth were created? Apparently, the waters were there BEFORE God created the heavens or the earth. On day 1 God is floating above the waters and creates light, but there still is no heaven or earth. On day 2 God divided the waters from the waters to make the heavens. On day 3 God created the earth, by causing the dry land to appear.

I think your friend John Mormon would agree with me when I say that the Genesis text isn't meant to be understood as a cosmologists disertation and defended accordingly.

JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

[quote]TROUTK:
False, according to Brigham Young, Adam came from another planet and brought with him, Eve, one of his celestial wives.

Brigham also taught that Adam is God, which would be problematic in having Adam trying to create himself.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is this taught in Mormon scriptures? I'm not bound to obey Brigham's personal opinion or something someone may have misrecorded.

Even if Adam did come from another planet that would not imply that Adam was uncreated.

Pardon me, I was of the impression that Brigham Young had authority above and beyond that which you posess, therefore obligating you to believe and trust the things he explained.

Are all the doctrines of the LDS church outlined in the Standard Works?

As far as Adam is concerned, there was never a time when his intelligence didn't exist, according to LDS thought. Therefore Adam wasn't created by God as you have said.

JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.



Neither of the scriptures you quoted said that Eve was exclusively involved in the creation of spirit children. And knowing that Brigham Young had claimed that Adam was a polygamist, it cannot be assumed that all spirits are the product of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

TROUT:
False, the LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized already existing matter into what we call the heaven and the earth.

JOHN MORMON:
The fact that you have a mistaken view of what "create" means isn't my fault, Trout. Look it up in the dictionary.


create:
1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

Glaringly obvious is the fact that reorganize is missing. Again, when you cook the words, what remains of their meaning?


POWELL:
I don't usually counter-charge someone with lying even if they accuse me of it, but in this case I worry that Romans5_1's charge that Tenshi was lying has offended Tenshi. My protective big brother instinct came into action.

Understandable.

Trout

[Romans5_1]

JOHN MORMON:
Where in the definition of the English word "create" or the Hebrew word H01254:bara = create (Gen 1:1) or the Greek word G2936:ktizo = create (Eph 3:9) or G1096:ginomai = made (John 1:3) is it clearly implied ex nihilo?

"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

The implication is that until something "came into being," it did not yet have "being." It did not exist. And while your word studies above are a start (for those unfamiliar with the biblical languages), there are much better sources when it comes to more in-depth study (for those familiar with the biblical languages). TWOT (Theological Word Book of the Old Testament) says this about bara:
The root bara' has the basic meaning "to create." It differs from yatzar "to fashion" in that the latter primarily emphasizes the shaping of an object while bara' emphasizes the initiation of the object.…The word is used in the Qal only of God's activity and is thus a purely theological term. This distinctive use of the word is especially appropriate to the concept of creation by divine flat.

The root b¹r¹' denotes the concept of "initiating something new" in a number of passages. In Isa 41:20 it is used of the changes that will take place in the Restoration when God effects that which is new and different. It is used of the creation of new things (µ¦d¹shôt) in Isa 48:6-7 and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (Isa 65:17). Marvels never seen before are described by this word (Exo 34:10), and Jeremiah uses the term of a fundamental change that will take place in the natural order (Jer 31:22). The Psalmist prayed that God would create in him a clean heart (Psa 51:10 [H 12]) and coupled this with the petition that God would put a new spirit within him (See also Num 16:30; Isa 4:5; Isa 65:18).

The word also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in several passages (Isa 43:1; Ezek 21:30 [H 35]; Ezek 28:13, 15).

It is not surprising that this word with its distinctive emphases is used most frequently to describe the creation of the universe and the natural phenomena (Gen 1:1, 21, 27; Gen 2:3 etc.). The usages of the term in this sense present a clearly defined theology. The magnitude of God's power is exemplified in creation. This has implications for the weak (Isa 40:26; cf. Isa 40:27-31) and for the unfolding of God's purposes in history (Isa 42:5; Isa 45:12). Creation displays the majesty (Amos 4:13), orderliness (Isa 45:18), and sovereignty (Psa 89:12 [H 13]) of God. Anthropologically, the common creation of man forms a plea for unity in Mal 2:10. And man is seen as created for vanity in Psa 89:47 [H 48].…The limitation of this word to divine activity indicates that the area of meaning delineated by the root falls outside the sphere of human ability. Since the word never occurs with the object of the material, and since the primary emphasis of the word is on the newness of the created object, the word lends itself well to the concept of creation ex nihilo, although that concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word.

POWELL (my atheist self):
Where in Genesis is it clearly implied that God created the primordial waters out of which the heavens and the earth were created? Apparently, the waters were there BEFORE God created the heavens or the earth. On day 1 God is floating above the waters and creates light, but there still is no heaven or earth. On day 2 God divided the waters from the waters to make the heavens. On day 3 God created the earth, by causing the dry land to appear.

It is clearly stated, not just implied, that on the first day water was a part of God's initial creative act (Gen. 1:2). So, no, the waters did not preceded God, they followed him.

Psalms 51:10
10. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.


JOHN MORMON:
Does this imply that God makes a heart ex nihilo or that He uses the existing heart and changes it?

The physical heart is already there; it's the spiritual part that is completely missing, and needs to be "created."

2 Cor. 5: 17
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


JOHN MORMON:
Living creatures that exist today such as you and I are "created living things." Does this imply that we were "created ex nihilo" by God and when we are reborn then we're recreated ex nihilo?

Once again, this passage is talking about something that does not exist prior to God's intervention. When God intervenes, on the other hand, and regenerates that which is spiritually dead otherwise, then that person becomes a "new" creature.

Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, The LORD, The God of hosts, is his name.


JOHN MORMON:
Does this imply that the wind is being created by God ex nihilo?

Notice that this is another allusion to the creation narrative. So yes, God created wind out of nothing ex nihilo as well.

When parents "pro-create" or "forward create" a child does that mean they forward create the child ex nihilo?

Now you're comparing apples and oranges, for human parents are not God, nor are their procreative actions similar.

If you mean "create ex nihilo," Trout, then you need to add the qualifier, since "create" by itself does not necessarily imply ex nihilo.

Agreed. Context is what matters. Yet, it is quite clear that when bara' is used in speaking of the creation of all things, all things were created ex nihilo.

POWELL:
I don't usually counter-charge someone with lying even if they accuse me of it, but in this case I worry that Romans5_1's charge that Tenshi was lying has offended Tenshi. My protective big brother instinct came into action.

John Powell

Well, big bro, if Tenshi was lying, perhaps it would behoove you to straighten out little bro, rather than try and protect him. ;-)

[John Powell]

POWELL:
This is a response to two posts by Roman5_1.

Response to post 21

JOHN MORMON:
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

ROMANS5_1:
No, it does not. For eternal matter, and the "intelligences," was supposedly already in existence prior to God reforming it.


JOHN MORMON:
So what? Are you someone who thinks that the English word "create" and the associated Hebrew and Greek words necessarily imply "ex nihilo"?

JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

ROMANS5_1:
False. God conceived Adam and Eve as "spirit children" with his Heavenly Wife, and then sent them to earth to inhabit bodies that God supposedly formed out of already pre-existing materials.


JOHN MORMON:

1 Ne. 5: 11
11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;


JOHN MORMON:
Now it's your turn to post a Mormon scripture that supports your claim that God did not create Adam and Eve (the claim above) and that they aren't our parents (the claim below). Keep in mind what the English word "create" means without the explicit "ex nihilo" qualifier.

JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

ROMANS5_1:
Irrelevent, given the fact that the question is about God's ability to create, not humanity's ability to procreate.


JOHN MORMON:
But Romans5_1, what does "procreate" mean? It comes from words meaning "forward create." So, if pro-create does not necessarily imply ex nihilo then it's likely that create doesn't either.

JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

ROMANS5_1:
False. See above.


JOHN MORMON:
You're wrong. See above (1 Ne 5:11) and Moses 2:1.

Moses 2:1 (Pearl of Great Price):
1 AND it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.


JOHN MORMON:
If these are true then you are the liar, R5_1. If they are false then I am the liar.

ROMANS5_1:
You are a liar, then :-)


JOHN MORMON:
Where's the beef? Where are the Mormon scriptures supporting your position that Mormons do not believe that God created anything?

JOHN MORMON:
I am a believing Mormon (actually now I'm an atheist, but I'm playing the role of my previous believing self) and affirm they are true. What evidence do you have that Mormons don't believe they are true?

ROMANS5_1:
Mormon authorship.

For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy."—D&C 93:33


JOHN MORMON:
So what? Creation does not necessarily imply "ex nihilo," Romans5_1. Why don't you look at the Biblical references I gave to Trout and see if you think that God creating a clean heart is ex nihilo and God creating the wind is ex nihilo and God creating creatures today is ex nihilo and God recreating new creatures in the spiritual rebirth is ex nihilo. Ok? (Apparently, you did below).

TROUT quoting:
You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.—TPJS, 350-2.


JOHN MORMON:
This sounds good to me. It looks like Joseph Smith had a better understanding of the Hebrew word than your people, Romans5_1.

POWELL (my atheist self):
It's quite clear to me that the writer of Genesis did not mean ex nihilo because Gen 1 has God floating above the primordial waters on day 1 when He creates light. On day 2 the waters are divided from the waters to create the heaven. On day 3 the dry land is caused to appear in the midst of the lower waters which is the creation of the earth.

ROMANS5_1 quoting:
It is an utterly false and uninspired notion to believe that the world or any other thing was created out of nothing or that any created thing can be destroyed in the sense of annihilation.—Mormon Doctrine, 169.


JOHN MORMON:
Although he said a lot of correct things, I'm not bound to believe the personal opinions of Elder/Apostle McKonkie.

JOHN MORMON:
Both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity believe that the entity that is God always existed.

ROMANS5_1:
The deception in this statement is that Bible depicts God as always being God, which is Christian doctrine, while Mormonism advocates that at some point in time, an exalted man, who was formerly some ethereal "intelligence" floating about, became what is now known to Mormons as Heavenly Father. They are not the same being, though.


JOHN MORMON:
So the concepts of God differ. That we agree about. Which concept better represents the God which exists is controversial.

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons allow that God has changed. Mainstream Christians don't. Mainstream Christians believe in a harder-to-comprehend God.

ROMANS5_1:
Actually, the reverse is true.


JOHN MORMON:
You believe in an omni trinitarian being when there's nothing close to that to compare with. Show me a reasonable example of a being who is three persons who can each go to a different place at the same time. Show me an example of an omni-thing. Do you want an example of the God Mormons believe in? Look at Jesus as Stephen did in his vision, standing next to the Father. Look at what Jesus could do: very great miracles, but Jesus was limited.

If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus, especially after His resurrection.

JOHN MORMON:
God is a thing that God didn't create so you're wrong when you claimed that God "created all things out of nothing."

ROMANS5_1:
No, God is a person, not a thing, and the Bible is quite clear that prior to anything existing, it did not have being (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3; Acts 17:28; 2 Pet. 3:7).


JOHN MORMON:
A person is a thing. Otherwise a person is not a thing a "nothing." Take your pick.

I agree that prior to existing a thing doesn't exist and prior to having a being a thing doesn't have a being. This does not imply that prior to a new child existing / having a being that the materials out of which the child is created don't exist.

JOHN MORMON:
What Mormons do is allow that there is more than just God that is uncreated.

ROMANS5_1:
Which is a complete falsehood, since the revelation of God states to the contrary. So, which is correct? The Mormons or God?


JOHN MORMON:
What revelation says that God is the only uncreated thing?

ROMANS5_1:
John 1:3
All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.



JOHN MORMON:
This likely refers to the Earth and the nearby space. Genesis appears to be a description of how the Earth and the visible heavens came to be, not how the universe and all other planes of existence came to be. The writer of Genesis does not show any indication that he knows what galaxies are.

Where does the Bible say or clearly imply that when it's speaking of God's creation that it's referring to MORE than just the Earth, the nearby part of the galaxy, and perhaps certain spiritual realms?

JOHN MORMON:
If one thing can be uncreated, R5_1, why not two or three or more?

ROMANS5_1:
Because there is only one being who is infinitely eternal, and that is God. That's why.


JOHN MORMON:
What you apparently have is an over-literal interpretation of John 1:3 and Genesis. You think that the Bible is referring to the creation of all things in the universe and in all planes of existence.

JOHN MORMON:
Then, R5_1, are you affirming that Mormons are atheists?

ROMANS5_1:
Implicitly, that's the only thing a Mormon can be.


POWELL:
I hereby challenge you to a debate, Romans5_1.

"Are Mormons theists?"

I'll begin and affirm that they are theists. You follow and affirm that they aren't. 5 rounds.

Agreed?

After I roast you in that debate we can go a second round on the question of whether Mormons are Christians.

JOHN MORMON:
Where does the Bible say or clearly imply that God was never an intelligence?

ROMANS5_1:
Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God…. John 1:3: "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Before anything was, God already was. Plus, when you take into account God's immutability, there was never a time when God was some arbitrary "intelligence" floating about waiting to turn into something, if it would just arbitarily get around to doing it.


JOHN MORMON:
That seems to be speaking of the creation of the Earth and nearby space rather than about the entire universe and all planes of existence (including the one that God existed in).

Your final statement is an argument by assertion. Where is the Biblical passage that says or clearly implies that there never was a time that the entity who is God was something other than what He is today? If God has never changed whatsoever then Jesus cannot be God, since that's clearly a change.

ROMANS5_1:
James 1:17 Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow.


JOHN MORMON:
That's an exaggeration. It's meaning to say that God does not change nearly as frequently as mortals do. God is a LOT more consistent. These aren't logicians speaking, remember, but poets. If God has never changed whatsoever then Jesus cannot be God, since that's clearly a change. If God cannot change His mind then He doesn't have free will and the city of Nineveh was destroyed just like God inspired Jonah to say it would be and intercessory prayer like David's prayer for his first son by Bathsheba is futile.

Jesus Himself said "For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1:37). Do you accept that, Romans5_1, or do you CLARIFY the exaggeration to mean "nothing logically possible shall be impossible for God"?

If you recognize that God exaggerated there then it shouldn't be so hard for you to realize that God has exaggerated in other places too when speaking of his omnibutes.

ROMANS5_1:
Malachi 3:6 "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.


JOHN MORMON:
Malachi is surely exaggerating. He's emphasizing God's consistency. Malachi is a poet, not a logician and Malachi's audience are not logicians.

Otherwise, Jesus wasn't God because God being flesh sure is a change from God being a spirit or do you think it isn't?

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons believe that God always was something, but He didn't necessarily always have the office of God, just like Jesus wasn't always the Savior of the World.

ROMANS5_1:
Which is why Mormonism is an anti-Christian religion, for as seen above, the Bible states just the opposite. God has always been God, without variation, nor subject to change. As for Jesus always being the savior, if the plan to redeem the lost, in the person of Jesus Christ, was implemented from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), then in respect to God's creation, Jesus has always been the world's Savior. Sorry to burst your bubble again.


JOHN MORMON:
All that means to me is that Jesus was chosen before the Earth was created. Big deal. Mormons believe a lot of pre-existent spirits were chosen to serve important roles before the Earth was created. That doesn't mean Jesus was the Savior of the world from the very beginning of God's existence.

Where does the Bible say or clearly imply that Jesus was the Savior of the world from the beginning of God's time.

JOHN MORMON:
Jesus BECAME that. Just like Lucifer wasn't always God's adversary. Lucifer became that.

ROMANS5_1:
Apples and oranges, my friend, for Lucifer has not always existed, and Jesus has.


JOHN MORMON:
If God, the Father and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three persons that we agree have always existed as something then why can't there be four or five or more? What logic or Biblical passage would be violated by such a thing?


JOHN MORMON:
What Mormon scripture says or clearly implies that the entity who is God had a beginning?

ROMANS5_1:
Was not the Mormon god a man at one point in time? Did not Joseph Smith preach, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was Gdo from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see? (TPJS, 345)? Well, if your answer is yes to both questions, then the Mormon god had a beginning, for he was something else, other than a god, prior to his becoming one.


JOHN MORMON:
That does NOT imply that the entity who is God had a beginning, but that the entity who is God hasn't always been God.

Did Jesus have a beginning? Yes, in the sense of having a physical body. Yes, in the sense of being a resurrected being. But, no, in the sense of previously not existing as anything. If Jesus can go from being a spirit to being a spirit with a physical body to being a spirit again to being a spirit with a resurrected body, then why couldn't His father, who Jesus was emulating, have done the same?


JOHN MORMON:
What Mormon scripture says or clearly implies that the chain of previous Gods is finite?

ROMANS5_1:
Did not Joseph Smith teach,

Joseph Smith:
If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything come in this way.…Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 373; Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 8 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1950), 6:476; Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1932-51), 6:476, on IGLCD.



JOHN MORMON:
That sounds like what Joseph taught.

That could be taken to mean that the chain is infinite because if the Father had a Father then didn't Jesus's Grandfather have a Father, etc.? On the other hand, it could be taken as a finite chain. Someone was the first God. That's my personal view, but it's not Mormon doctrine either way.

ROMANS5_1:
Or did not Joseph Fielding Smith continue by stating,

Joseph Fielding Smith:
The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-6), 1:12, on IGLCD.



JOHN MORMON:
How far back this might go and what the primordial Gods are doing today is unknown. When we die then I'll ask.

ROMANS5_1:
Now, where they got the idea that the "Father had a Father and so on" is purely speculation for Mormons, like yourself, to figure out. It is not for persons, like me, to try and guess where they got their information.


JOHN MORMON:
I know part of the answer. You would too if you had read the entire King Follet Discourse.

ROMANS5_1:
The bottom line, though, is that good ol' Jo Smith and his predecessors have concocted a logical absurdity, whereby there is this supposed infinite chain of finite gods, all related to each other. I'm sorry, but once again, finite chains are only as infinite as the first and last link, meaning that they are not infinite at all. And since Mormonism refuses to acknowledge the true infinite God of Scripture, who exhibits perfect aseity, then Mormon theology is essentially atheistic, since it ascribes to a lineage of gods that cannot exist.


JOHN MORMON:
Having generations of Gods makes as much sense to me as having generations of men. Your theology would be like believing that there is only one man who has ever lived and he has never died.


JOHN MORMON:
Your God is a single link in the chain. Can that one link (one is finite, right?) extend backwards or forwards infinitely? If one link can do that then why can't two or three or more?

ROMANS5_1:
God is not a link, or a chain, at all. God always was, is, and will be (Rev. 1:4, 8). There has never been any gods before him, nor will there be any gods after him. Those claiming otherwise are engaging in nothing but idolatrous thinking, or a complete misunderstanding of the characteristics and person of God.



JOHN MORMON:
Listen again, Romans5_1. If God is a thing that can exist eternally in both directions then why can't there be more things that do that?

If God the Son is a thing that can have a Father then why can't God the Father have a Father?


JOHN MORMON:
Who says their space had to have a creator?

ROMANS5_1:
Well, just where would these "intelligences" abide if they had no space to float around in?


JOHN MORMON:
I think they had space.

Well, gee, Romans5_1 where was God before there was anywhere for God to be and no time for God to be? Clearly God was somewhere and somewhen before He began to create the universe or things in our universe.

ROMANS5_1:
And just who would create the space if it were not an intelligent Creator? Finally, if there were no being prior to God bringing even space into being, then how could these "beings" float around in that which was not?


JOHN MORMON:
I don't think God created the space that the intelligences existed in. It was uncreated just like the intellegences themselves.

If all space requires a Creator then God could not exist before God created a space for Himself to exist in. If some space and time can exist uncreated (such as the space-time that God existed in before the universe existed) then why couldn't the intelligences exist in such an uncreated space-time?


JOHN MORMON:
Personally, I don't think the chain is infinite. I think there was a lot of time without a God or even consciousness, but no God remembers that time before the first God became conscious so it doesn't really matter. Time effectively began when the first intelligence became conscious. This isn't Mormon doctrine, but I don't think it contradicts Mormon scriptures.

ROMANS5_1:
It may not contradict Mormon ideology, but it certainly contradicts the Bible.


JOHN MORMON:
Where? Remember that when God says things like "I don't know any other gods" he was speaking of pagan gods. He was surely exaggerating. He was emphasizing that the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is the only presidency of Gods pertaining to this Earth.


JOHN MORMON:
Your God is a difficult-thing-to-comprehend. Mormons believe the truth is simpler than that.

ROMANS5_1:
As stated before, it is not nearly as difficult to comprehend that if one believes in the supposed "simpler" theology of Mormonism.


JOHN MORMON:
The trinitarian notion of God is CLEARLY more complicated than the "Son had a Father who had a Father" concept. Children accept the second concept as a fact of their own life. Where the link ends for the Gods is as problematic as how the link ends for humans. The first concept, that God is a combined being of three persons, is an odd thing they have to work a lot harder to understand since they don't have any good analogies. Perhaps the closest analogy is a fictional superhero called "rubber man" who has three brains.


JOHN MORMON:
As I understand it, intelligences and space existed.

ROMANS5_1:
You need to start understanding it from God's perspective, which he has revealed in Scripture. That's when you'll be truly understanding. ;-)


JOHN MORMON:
I understand that God sometimes exaggerates when he's using poetry-trained rather than logically-trained prophets. Do you understand that, Romans5_1?


JOHN MORMON:
In other words, God created everything that God created. That does not necessarily mean that there weren't things that God did not create. That's probably speaking of the earth and the heavens associated with the earth. It likely doesn't refer to everything in the universe and all other planes of existence.

ROMANS5_1:
Quite to the contrary. Prior to God bringing ALL things into being, there was "nothing," or literally in the Greek, "not one thing was." In other words, there were no "intelligences," no non-space for the intelligences to somehow float around in, or anything eternal existing, aside from God.


JOHN MORMON:
When the prophets speak of the things that God created, do they restrict their descriptions to terrestrial things like mountains, rivers, and trees and objects visible in our skies like the Sun, Moon, and nearby stars and things in certain spiritual realms *OR* do the prophets speak of GALAXIES and CLUSTERS of GALAXIES?

If I were to visit a garden and say "What a beautiful sight" and the gardner said "I did all this" extending his arms in all directions, should I take his meaning to be that he is the creator of the entire universe or just the garden?

When the prophets looked at the "garden" that God created did they see beyond the Earth and the nearby stars? Apparently, not.

Whether God is the creator of the entire universe is unclear in Mormonism, but I think the vast majority of members believe He's the creator of the entire universe. Well, maybe He is. On the other hand, maybe Elohim is only the creator of this galaxy or this part of the galaxy.


JOHN MORMON:
How about prior to the creation of God, did God exist?

ROMANS5_1:
Yep.


JOHN MORMON:
You realize, don't you, that you just affirmed by implication that God was created?


JOHN MORMON:
If God was uncreated then why couldn't other things be uncreated too?

ROMANS5_1:
Because there is only one uncreated being from which all others things, which are created, get their existence.


JOHN MORMON:
You essentially said: "The reason X is true is because X is true." That's a circular argument. Is that the best your theology can do?

JOHN MORMON:
Logically can there be only one uncreated thing?

ROMANS5_1:
God is not a thing, remember? ;-) And yes, there can be only one uncreated person, called God.


JOHN MORMON:
Then prove it using a sound deductive argument.


JOHN MORMON:
Two uncreated things would violate logic somehow?

ROMANS5_1:
It would make God a liar, which would result in his non-existence, and that is not logically possible.


JOHN MORMON:
You seem to believe in a highly unstable kind of God, Romans5_1, the kind who would poof out of existence if He were to lie. Mormons believe in a being who might cease to be God, but would still exist as something, just like Satan did not poof out of existence when he rebelled from the truth, but he lost his previous position of authority.

Where does Jesus claim or clearly imply that He is the only uncreated thing?

ROMANS5_1:
I'm glad you left Mormonism, and I'm not surprised by the agnostic acclaim, but there is no such thing as a "strong atheist." Perhaps the epitome of a fool (no insult intended), but that is hardly something that is indicative of "strength."


JOHN MORMON:
I am a strong atheist.

Tell me Romans5_1, which of the following statements best represents your position on Santa Claus, as usually described (north pole address, flying reindeer, magical elves, etc.)?

1. I believe that Santa Claus, as usually described, exists, but I don't know for sure.

2. I do not believe that Santa Claus, as usually described, exists, but I won't go so far as to claim that I BELIEVE that Santa Claus, as usually described, does NOT exist. I don't know for sure whether Santa Claus exists.

3. I BELIEVE that Santa Claus, as usually described, does NOT exist, but I don't know for sure.

If your view is like mine, position 3, then we are both "strong asantaists." If you replace Santa Claus with God then you'll see that position 3 is not at all impossible for me to have.


Response to post 24

JOHN MORMON (to Troutk13):
Where in the definition of the English word "create" or the Hebrew word H01254:bara = create (Gen 1:1) or the Greek word G2936:ktizo = create (Eph 3:9) or G1096:ginomai = made (John 1:3) is it clearly implied ex nihilo?

ROMANS5_1:
"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

The implication is that until something "came into being," it did not yet have "being." It did not exist. And while your word studies above are a start (for those unfamiliar with the biblical languages), there are much better sources when it comes to more in-depth study (for those familiar with the biblical languages).


JOHN MORMON:
Genesis, John, and other parts of the Bible appear to be speaking of God's creation of the Earth, the nearby stars, and certain spiritual planes of existence. Where is it said or clearly implied that the Bible is speaking of Galaxies and clusters of Galaxies and the entire universe and all planes of existence?

ROMANS5_1:
TWOT (Theological Word Book of the Old Testament) says this about bara:

TWOT:
The root bara' has the basic meaning "to create." It differs from yatzar "to fashion" in that the latter primarily emphasizes the shaping of an object while bara' emphasizes the initiation of the object.…The word is used in the Qal only of God's activity and is thus a purely theological term. This distinctive use of the word is especially appropriate to the concept of creation by divine flat.

The root b¹r¹' denotes the concept of "initiating something new" in a number of passages. In Isa 41:20 it is used of the changes that will take place in the Restoration when God effects that which is new and different. It is used of the creation of new things (µ¦d¹shôt) in Isa 48:6-7 and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (Isa 65:17). Marvels never seen before are described by this word (Exo 34:10), and Jeremiah uses the term of a fundamental change that will take place in the natural order (Jer 31:22). The Psalmist prayed that God would create in him a clean heart (Psa 51:10 [H 12]) and coupled this with the petition that God would put a new spirit within him (See also Num 16:30; Isa 4:5; Isa 65:18).

The word also possesses the meaning of "bringing into existence" in several passages (Isa 43:1; Ezek 21:30 [H 35]; Ezek 28:13, 15).



JOHN MORMON:
Notice, Romans5_1 that in these cases God is apparently using the materials already available rather than creating them ex nihilo. For example, the person's heart isn't expected to disappear, but to be changed, nor that the spirit within him would disappear, but the spirit already there would be changed.

TWOT:
It is not surprising that this word with its distinctive emphases is used most frequently to describe the creation of the universe and the natural phenomena (Gen 1:1, 21, 27; Gen 2:3 etc.). The usages of the term in this sense present a clearly defined theology. The magnitude of God's power is exemplified in creation. This has implications for the weak (Isa 40:26; cf. Isa 40:27-31) and for the unfolding of God's purposes in history (Isa 42:5; Isa 45:12). Creation displays the majesty (Amos 4:13), orderliness (Isa 45:18), and sovereignty (Psa 89:12 [H 13]) of God. Anthropologically, the common creation of man forms a plea for unity in Mal 2:10. And man is seen as created for vanity in Psa 89:47 [H 48].…The limitation of this word to divine activity indicates that the area of meaning delineated by the root falls outside the sphere of human ability. Since the word never occurs with the object of the material, and since the primary emphasis of the word is on the newness of the created object, the word lends itself well to the concept of creation ex nihilo, although that concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word.



JOHN MORMON:
Notice that they claim that the Hebrew word bara "lends itself well to the concept of creation ex nihilo" meaning it COULD mean ex nihilo which I agree with. Furthermore, they point out, as I have, that the "[ex nihilo] concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word" [bara].

On the other hand, they earlier say that the word "never occurs with the object of the material." That's absurd.

Is TWOT seriously implying that the heart is not material (create a clean heart) and air is not material (God creates the wind) and animals and plants and things aren't material (they're "creatures" or created things)?


POWELL (my atheist self):
Where in Genesis is it clearly implied that God created the primordial waters out of which the heavens and the earth were created? Apparently, the waters were there BEFORE God created the heavens or the earth. On day 1 God is floating above the waters and creates light, but there still is no heaven or earth. On day 2 God divided the waters from the waters to make the heavens. On day 3 God created the earth, by causing the dry land to appear.


ROMANS5_1:
It is clearly stated, not just implied, that on the first day water was a part of God's initial creative act (Gen. 1:2). So, no, the waters did not preceded God, they followed him.


POWELL:
No, sir, Romans5_1. What you have on day 1 is God, water, space, and time. Then God creates light. On day 2 God creates the heavens by taking the water that's already there and dividing it. On day 3 God creates the earth in the midst of the water that's already there. It is NOT clearly implied that God created the primoridal water or the space and time that God was in. Your problem apparently is that you're thinking like a round earther instead of a flat earther.

Well, this kind of talk belongs in Apologetics rather than here. If you want to continue discussing it, I'll start a post there.

JOHN MORMON:
Psalms 51:10
10. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.


JOHN MORMON:
Does this imply that God makes a heart ex nihilo or that He uses the existing heart and changes it?

ROMANS5_1:
The physical heart is already there; it's the spiritual part that is completely missing, and needs to be "created."


JOHN MORMON:
Would the "clean heart" that God created for the Psalmist include the physical heart / brain already there or would the "clean heart" that God created refer ONLY to the spiritual non physical heart / brain?

After this transformation, if the Psalmist had said "I now have a clean heart created by God" would that be referring to ONLY the spiritual part and NOT to the physical heart / brain?

JOHN MORMON:
2 Cor. 5: 17
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


JOHN MORMON:
Living creatures that exist today such as you and I are "created living things." Does this imply that we were "created ex nihilo" by God and when we are reborn then we're recreated ex nihilo?

ROMANS5_1:
Once again, this passage is talking about something that does not exist prior to God's intervention. When God intervenes, on the other hand, and regenerates that which is spiritually dead otherwise, then that person becomes a "new" creature.


JOHN MORMON:
Would the "new creature," the "new thing created by God" ONLY include the part that God added or also the old matter that's still there?

When believers say "I am a new creature" should they mean "A tiny part of me is a new creature, but the rest of me is the same matter that it was before."

JOHN MORMON:
Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought, that maketh the morning darkness, and treadeth upon the high places of the earth, The LORD, The God of hosts, is his name.


JOHN MORMON:
Does this imply that the wind is being created by God ex nihilo?

ROMANS5_1:
Notice that this is another allusion to the creation narrative. So yes, God created wind out of nothing ex nihilo as well.


JOHN MORMON:
What about when God created the wind that Amos felt that day, Romans5_1? Was that wind created ex nihilo or did God use the pre-existing air?


JOHN MORMON:
When parents "pro-create" or "forward create" a child does that mean they forward create the child ex nihilo?

ROMANS5_1:
Now you're comparing apples and oranges, for human parents are not God, nor are their procreative actions similar.


JOHN MORMON:
I'm raising the question as to whether they are similar. The etymology suggests they are similar. Mormons think they are similar. You think they aren't. If they aren't similar then why would God use the analogy of "father - son"?

JOHN MORMON:
If you mean "create ex nihilo," Trout, then you need to add the qualifier, since "create" by itself does not necessarily imply ex nihilo.

ROMANS5_1:
Agreed. Context is what matters. Yet, it is quite clear that when bara' is used in speaking of the creation of all things, all things were created ex nihilo.


JOHN MORMON:
That's the implication you see, but it's not CLEARLY implied or I would likely see it too.

POWELL:
Me too.

POWELL:
I don't usually counter-charge someone with lying even if they accuse me of it, but in this case I worry that Romans5_1's charge that Tenshi was lying has offended Tenshi. My protective big brother instinct came into action.

ROMANS5_1:
Well, big bro, if Tenshi was lying, perhaps it would behoove you to straighten out little bro, rather than try and protect him. ;-)


POWELL:
I don't think Tenshi was lying, but you misinterpreted the words. You apparently think that words like "God exists. We both have that same belief" implies "God exists. We both have the same beliefs about the attributes of God."

That two people agree as to the truth value of the proposition "God exists" does NOT necessarily imply that they agree as to the attributes of God.

John Powell

[Leroy]

POWELL:
No, sir, Romans5_1. What you have on day 1 is God, water, space, and time. Then God creates light. On day 2 God creates the heavens by taking the water that's already there and dividing it. On day 3 God creates the earth in the midst of the water that's already there. It is NOT clearly implied that God created the primoridal water or the space and time that God was in. Your problem apparently is that you're thinking like a round earther instead of a flat earther.

Well, this kind of talk belongs in Apologetics rather than here. If you want to continue discussing it, I'll start a post there.

John Powell, this may belong in another thread or forum, what are your thoughts on this?

On day 1 you have God, water, space and time. Measurable time simple begins at day one. A creator could exist prior to the creation of time, water, space & time could be created in the very same instance. There is no “T minus” prior to the creation of time. How would a creator express the relationship of events prior to the creation of time to his creation, as we can only comprehend time as it has been created for us to understand the correlation of events?

[Alma]

POWELL:
Well, I had been taught that God would bless me financially as well as spiritually if I paid an honest tithing. I heard of numerous cases where people were struggling financially, decided to pay their tithing anyway rather than paying their other bills, and everything apparently worked out better than if they hadn't paid their tithing.

Are you persuaded by such stories, Alma?



I'm not persuaded in the least. I believe that God will bless people in ways that they don't initially comprehend, but it's supposed to be a sacrifice. That means that bills don't get paid quite as quickly and that you have to make decisions about what is really important. I don't know anyone who believes that they have more money paying tithing than if they didn't pay it.

I'm no geneticist, but it's my understanding that they compared American Indian DNA with the DNA of living Jews and living Asians and others. The match was much closer to living Asians of Mongolian descent than to living Jews or any other existing group.

Does that make sense to you?

No, it doesn't make any sense. It's quite apparent that Lehi and his descendants weren't Jews, they were from the tribe of Joseph. Now, if you want to compare DNA, you need to find decendants of Joseph rather than Judah for a comparison. The chance that living Jews might share DNA with ancient Hebrews who were not Jews seems like a very sandy foundation upon which to make a decision about the Book of Mormon.


Consider another example. When those African Americans tried to prove that they were descendants of Thomas Jefferson (or a near relative) they needed to show that their DNA was sufficiently similar to that of the recognized descendants of TJ.

Does that make sense to you?

That makes great sense because there is a historical provenance for Jeffersonian DNA. There is none for Lehi so any comparison would be a complete shot in the dark. As I indicated in my previous message, you might as well claim you've compared Jews' DNA with that of Noah. It ain't possible because you don't have the necessary scientific control to tell you where Lehi's DNA might have had Old World connection. The only way there could be a connection to Lehi and modern Jews would be if Lehi or Sariah had descendants who stayed in the Old World.

Perhaps you are the kind of "faith-despite-the facts" person, Alma, who if you thought that you were a descendant of Brigham Young, but it was shown that you had the wrong DNA, then you nevertheless would insist you are a BY descendant because science can't absolutely prove otherwise because no one has BY's DNA!

Hardly. I'm quite a stickler for facts rather than pseudo science masquerading as facts. Your analogy doesn't work because BY's DNA is just as available through bona fide descendants, as with Jefferson. But what makes you think Lehi or Ishmael or any other individuals named in the Book of Mormon left descendants in the Old World? What makes you think that present day Jews are actually descendants of non-Jewish tribes of Israel?

John Powell
Mormon student asking his Book of Mormon teacher and his Bishop: "Why is American Indian DNA most like Mongolian rather than Jewish DNA"?

Teacher: The Book of Mormon characters were a very tiny segment of the existing Mongolian population in the Americas.

Bishop: The DNA was changed by God to test our faith.

Cute discussion, but I've never met a bishop who was that stupid. If you really think you know one who believes that is a legitimate answer, I'd be really interested in hearing it from him personally.

Alma

[Leroy]

I'm not persuaded in the least. I believe that God will bless people in ways that they don't initially comprehend, but it's supposed to be a sacrifice. That means that bills don't get paid quite as quickly and that you have to make decisions about what is really important. I don't know anyone who believes that they have more money paying tithing than if they didn't pay it.

I agree with you that God blesses in ways we initially may not comprehend, but I’ve ran into plenty of people that believe they have more money as a result of paying their tithe. Come on lets be honest.


Cute discussion, but I've never met a bishop who was that stupid. If you really think you know one who believes that is a legitimate answer, I'd be really interested in hearing it from him personally.

That’s not necessarily a stupid statement, I consider that the only viable answer. I’ve heard that more then once in discussions with mormons. That is the answer I always get when asking why there is no archeological evidence for the BOM.

What is your answer to the fact that there is no archeological evidence found in North America substantiating the BOM? Will you use the “God took it away” response, as with the Golden Plates.

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON (to Romans5_1):
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.


TROUTK:
The LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized matter, not created it, your statement is misleading, John Mormon.


JOHN MORMON:
The LDS church teaches that Christ created the Earth by organizing the matter that was already there.


JOHN MORMON:
Where in the definition of the English word "create" or the Hebrew word H01254:bara = create (Gen 1:1) or the Greek word G2936:ktizo = create (Eph 3:9) or G1096:ginomai = made (John 1:3) is it clearly implied ex nihilo?


TROUTK:
Feel free to cook the definitions of words, but please explain what your definitions are so that our dialogue can be productive.
In John it says that Christ created all things, it doesn't say He reorganized all matter.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, if Christ created all things then He must have created Himself too, huh?

What does "create" mean in English, Trout? Does it necessarily mean "ex nihilo"? No. Although Mormons are blamed for changing the meanings of words in the Bible, this accusation concerning "create" seems especially misguided.


POWELL (my atheist self):
Where in Genesis is it clearly implied that God created the primordial waters out of which the heavens and the earth were created? Apparently, the waters were there BEFORE God created the heavens or the earth. On day 1 God is floating above the waters and creates light, but there still is no heaven or earth. On day 2 God divided the waters from the waters to make the heavens. On day 3 God created the earth, by causing the dry land to appear.


TROUT:
I think your friend John Mormon would agree with me when I say that the Genesis text isn't meant to be understood as a cosmologists disertation and defended accordingly.


JOHN MORMON:
Right.

In a recent Sunday School class I attended which was discussing the creation, the teacher basically said that the only really important thing about the creation accounts is that God did it. How God did it is unknown and not essential to our salvation.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

TROUTK:
False, according to Brigham Young, Adam came from another planet and brought with him, Eve, one of his celestial wives.

Brigham also taught that Adam is God, which would be problematic in having Adam trying to create himself.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is this taught in Mormon scriptures? I'm not bound to obey Brigham's personal opinion or something someone may have misrecorded.

Even if Adam did come from another planet that would not imply that Adam was uncreated.


TROUTK:
Pardon me, I was of the impression that Brigham Young had authority above and beyond that which you posess, therefore obligating you to believe and trust the things he explained.


JOHN MORMON:
Your impression is mistaken. I'm only bound to obey the prophet when he speaks as the prophet. These alleged views of Brigham Young are not considered church doctrine by the church so I'm not bound to obey them. If Brigham Young really believed it then apparently he was just wrong. If he was right then I'll find that out later.


TROUTK:
Are all the doctrines of the LDS church outlined in the Standard Works?


JOHN MORMON:
Pretty much.


TROUTK:
As far as Adam is concerned, there was never a time when his intelligence didn't exist, according to LDS thought. Therefore Adam wasn't created by God as you have said.


JOHN MORMON:
Adam's intelligence was not created by God, but existed eternally. Adam's spirit body, however, was procreated by Father and Mother in Heaven (one of them?). Adam's physical body was created by God. Our physical bodies are created by God and procreated by our parents out of the available materials.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.

. . .


TROUT:
Neither of the scriptures you quoted said that Eve was exclusively involved in the creation of spirit children. And knowing that Brigham Young had claimed that Adam was a polygamist, it cannot be assumed that all spirits are the product of Adam and Eve.


JOHN MORMON:
None of the spirits are the product of Adam and Eve. They are products of Father and Mother in Heaven. All of the human physical bodies are descended from Adam and Eve. Adam may have made promises to more than one female spirit in the premortal existence, but as far as I know, Adam only had one wife while on Earth.

Here's a scripture that includes Eve.

1 Ne. 5: 11:
11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;



JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

TROUT:
False, the LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized already existing matter into what we call the heaven and the earth.

JOHN MORMON:
The fact that you have a mistaken view of what "create" means isn't my fault, Trout. Look it up in the dictionary.


TROUT:
create:
1. To cause to exist; bring into being. See Synonyms at found1.
2. To give rise to; produce: That remark created a stir.
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

TROUT:
Glaringly obvious is the fact that reorganize is missing. Again, when you cook the words, what remains of their meaning?


JOHN MORMON:
When you create / cause a house to come into being do you reorganize the building materials or do you create the house ex nihilo? When you create / produce a painting do you reorganize the canvas and paints or do you create the painting ex nihilo?


POWELL:
I don't usually counter-charge someone with lying even if they accuse me of it, but in this case I worry that Romans5_1's charge that Tenshi was lying has offended Tenshi. My protective big brother instinct came into action.


TROUT:
Understandable.

Trout


JOHN MORMON:
Done.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
No, sir, Romans5_1. What you have on day 1 is God, water, space, and time. Then God creates light. On day 2 God creates the heavens by taking the water that's already there and dividing it. On day 3 God creates the earth in the midst of the water that's already there. It is NOT clearly implied that God created the primoridal water or the space and time that God was in. Your problem apparently is that you're thinking like a round earther instead of a flat earther.

Well, this kind of talk belongs in Apologetics rather than here. If you want to continue discussing it, I'll start a post there.

LEROY:
John Powell, this may belong in another thread or forum, what are your thoughts on this?


POWELL:
Perhaps our discussion will be short enough that we don't need to start a new thread.


LEROY:
On day 1 you have God, water, space and time. Measurable time simple begins at day one. A creator could exist prior to the creation of time, water, space & time could be created in the very same instance.


POWELL:
Timelessness implies changelessness. Change implies time. If God could change things (such as make a decision) then it appears to me that time had to have existed, otherwise there would have been no moment when that decision could have been made.


LEROY:
There is no "T minus" prior to the creation of time.


POWELL:
Then apparently there was no opportunity to make T zero or T plus.

LEROY:
How would a creator express the relationship of events prior to the creation of time to his creation, as we can only comprehend time as it has been created for us to understand the correlation of events?


POWELL:
By speaking nonsense. He might as well claim to be three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time. It's illogical.

I see no implication in Genesis 1 that the writer imagined that time and space came into existence on day 1 of creation anymore than someone describing the formation of the United States of America beginning on the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence would be implying that world history began in the year of the signing.

It's clear to me that the writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain how God created the heavens and the earth out of the primordial water, not how God created space and time. People seem to be confused because of the word "beginning" as if that's the absolute beginning of time. When someone tells a story "from the beginning" it virtually NEVER means from the beginning of time and space.

John Powell

[Leroy]

POWELL:
Timelessness implies changelessness. Change implies time. If God could change things (such as make a decision) then it appears to me that time had to have existed, otherwise there would have been no moment when that decision could have been made.

Time is a measurement, with the absence of measurement couldn’t there still be the possibility or events unmeasured? If there is no measuring instrument for height does that mean that everything is flat?




POWELL:
Then apparently there was no opportunity to make T zero or T plus.

Could there exist an immeasurable T minus, not comprehensible with our time driven understanding?



POWELL:
By speaking nonsense. He might as well claim to be three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time. It's illogical.

I can understand your hesitancy in grasping the seemingly illogical principals of the Trinity, but compared to what other God, would make this a logical deduction?

I see no implication in Genesis 1 that the writer imagined that time and space came into existence on day 1 of creation anymore than someone describing the formation of the United States of America beginning on the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence would be implying that world history began in the year of the signing.

Apples and black holes, impossible to draw comparisons.

It's clear to me that the writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain how God created the heavens and the earth out of the primordial water, not how God created space and time. People seem to be confused because of the word "beginning" as if that's the absolute beginning of time. When someone tells a story "from the beginning" it virtually NEVER means from the beginning of time and space.

John Powell

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn’t seem a stretch at all to take that literally. After all you’re talking about unfathomable power. I agree “ex nihilo” is not expressly stated but it is emphatically implied throughout scripture. There is no supporting evidence to state that God created in Gen 1 from preexisting matter.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Well, I had been taught that God would bless me financially as well as spiritually if I paid an honest tithing. I heard of numerous cases where people were struggling financially, decided to pay their tithing anyway rather than paying their other bills, and everything apparently worked out better than if they hadn't paid their tithing.

Are you persuaded by such stories, Alma?


ALMA:
I'm not persuaded in the least.


JOHN MORMON (my former believing self):
Then perhaps you'll believe it if you read it in the Ensign. I searched using "tithing miracle" among the Ensign articles at www.lds.org and these were two of the first Ensign articles that the search brought up.


Sydney S. Reynolds, "A God of Miracles," Ensign, May 2001, 12-

We know friends who pay their tithing with the last of their money and then, through a miracle, find themselves able to pay their tuition or their rent or somehow obtain food for their family.


JOHN MORMON:
Presumably, if these friends had used the last of their money to pay their other bills then they would NOT have been able to ALSO pay their tithing. By paying their tithing they were able to ALSO pay their other bills. In other words, they had more money by paying tithing than if they hadn't.


Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Sacred Law of Tithing," Ensign, Dec. 1989, 2-

We never felt that it was a sacrifice to pay our tithing. . .
We did not do it with the expectation of material blessings, although we can testify that we have been so blessed.


JOHN MORMON:
The prophet testified that his family were blessed materially for paying their tithing. He didn't say how much. Maybe it wasn't so much that they had more money by paying than if they hadn't paid, but maybe it was.


ALMA:
I believe that God will bless people in ways that they don't initially comprehend, but it's supposed to be a sacrifice.


POWELL:
Well, the prophet said his family didn't consider it a sacrifice.

This may just be him focusing on the LACK of feelings among his family of losing the thing of value. A wise sacrifice is to give up something of value for something of significantly higher value.


ALMA:
That means that bills don't get paid quite as quickly and that you have to make decisions about what is really important. I don't know anyone who believes that they have more money paying tithing than if they didn't pay it.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, NOW you know someone who believes that sometimes they have more money paying tithing than if they didn't pay it due to God's intervention: President Reynolds, First Counselor in the Primary General Presidency and some of her friends.


POWELL:
I'm no geneticist, but it's my understanding that they compared American Indian DNA with the DNA of living Jews and living Asians and others. The match was much closer to living Asians of Mongolian descent than to living Jews or any other existing group.

Does that make sense to you?


ALMA:
No, it doesn't make any sense. It's quite apparent that Lehi and his descendants weren't Jews, they were from the tribe of Joseph.


POWELL (my atheist self):
Are you suggesting that the Y-chromosome DNA of Judah was probably so much different from the Y-chromosome DNA of his half-brother Joseph (different mother) that the male descendants of Joseph would have Y-Chromosome DNA that realistically might look more like a modern Mongolian's Y-Chromosome DNA than a modern Jew's Y-Chromosome DNA?

Jews differ from Israelites by one generation only. If one generation can reasonably cause that much difference then DNA testing of populations or even bloodlines using the Y-chromosome (and the female line shown by mitochondrial DNA) is a rather hopeless undertaking.

ALMA:
Now, if you want to compare DNA, you need to find decendants of Joseph rather than Judah for a comparison. The chance that living Jews might share DNA with ancient Hebrews who were not Jews seems like a very sandy foundation upon which to make a decision about the Book of Mormon.


POWELL:
What seems "sandy" to you seems rather more solid to me.

Are you suggesting that your Y-Chromosome DNA differs so much from that of your father and half-brother (different mother) that a geneticist could not give you a reliable answer as to whether the man you thought was your father really was based on a comparison of your Y with that of your half-brother's Y?

If NO then why are you suggesting that Judah's Y-chromosome DNA would have plausibly been so much different from Joseph's that a geneticist could not give a reliable answer as to whether their male descendants were related?


POWELL:
Consider another example. When those African Americans tried to prove that they were descendants of Thomas Jefferson (or a near relative) they needed to show that their DNA was sufficiently similar to that of the recognized descendants of TJ.

Does that make sense to you?


ALMA:
That makes great sense because there is a historical provenance for Jeffersonian DNA. There is none for Lehi so any comparison would be a complete shot in the dark.


POWELL:
A complete shot in the dark? Well, if you have Y-Chromosome DNA from Judah's male descendants then shouldn't that be similar to the Y-Chromosome DNA of Joseph's male descendants?

ALMA:
As I indicated in my previous message, you might as well claim you've compared Jews' DNA with that of Noah. It ain't possible because you don't have the necessary scientific control to tell you where Lehi's DNA might have had Old World connection. The only way there could be a connection to Lehi and modern Jews would be if Lehi or Sariah had descendants who stayed in the Old World.


POWELL:
I don't think you understand how this DNA analysis works.

POWELL:
Perhaps you are the kind of "faith-despite-the facts" person, Alma, who if you thought that you were a descendant of Brigham Young, but it was shown that you had the wrong DNA, then you nevertheless would insist you are a BY descendant because science can't absolutely prove otherwise because no one has BY's DNA!


ALMA:
Hardly. I'm quite a stickler for facts rather than pseudo science masquerading as facts. Your analogy doesn't work because BY's DNA is just as available through bona fide descendants, as with Jefferson. But what makes you think Lehi or Ishmael or any other individuals named in the Book of Mormon left descendants in the Old World? What makes you think that present day Jews are actually descendants of non-Jewish tribes of Israel?


POWELL:
Well, presumably Judah wasn't the only tribe that remained after the Assyrians took over the northern Kingdom. Didn't parts of the other tribes remain in the land of Judah? Lehi and Ishmael lived in Jerusalem which was within the borders of the tribe of Benjamin, yes? Maybe there were others. Surely some of the relatives of Lehi and Ishmael remained in Jerusalem and were captured by the Babylonians, yes? Also, weren't Mulek's people Jewish?

POWELL:

John Powell
Mormon student asking his Book of Mormon teacher and his Bishop: "Why is American Indian DNA most like Mongolian rather than Jewish DNA"?

Teacher: The Book of Mormon characters were a very tiny segment of the existing Mongolian population in the Americas.

Bishop: The DNA was changed by God to test our faith.


ALMA:
Cute discussion, but I've never met a bishop who was that stupid. If you really think you know one who believes that is a legitimate answer, I'd be really interested in hearing it from him personally.


POWELL:
I don't know anyone off hand, but it's the kind of claim I would not be surprised to hear from those disinclined to trust science when it appears to contradict their religious beliefs.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Timelessness implies changelessness. Change implies time. If God could change things (such as make a decision) then it appears to me that time had to have existed, otherwise there would have been no moment when that decision could have been made.

LEROY:
Time is a measurement, with the absence of measurement couldn’t there still be the possibility or events unmeasured? If there is no measuring instrument for height does that mean that everything is flat?


POWELL:
There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height.


POWELL:
Then apparently there was no opportunity to make T zero or T plus.

LEROY:
Could there exist an immeasurable T minus, not comprehensible with our time driven understanding?


POWELL:
Not logically if you mean incomprehensible even beyond the difficulties we have comprehending infinity or the zero time that photons presumably experience.

Could God be one person AND three persons at the same time in the same way? Not logically.


POWELL:
By speaking nonsense. He might as well claim to be three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time. It's illogical.

LEROY:
I can understand your hesitancy in grasping the seemingly illogical principals of the Trinity, but compared to what other God, would make this a logical deduction?


POWELL:
I don't understand your question.

The trinity claim is NOT that God is three persons and 1 person, that would be illogical, but that God is one God and 3 persons. However, if you're going to discard the need for time to be logical then I'm asking why you feel the need to make the trinity logical.


POWELL:
I see no implication in Genesis 1 that the writer imagined that time and space came into existence on day 1 of creation anymore than someone describing the formation of the United States of America beginning on the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence would be implying that world history began in the year of the signing.

LEROY:
Apples and black holes, impossible to draw comparisons.

POWELL:
It's clear to me that the writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain how God created the heavens and the earth out of the primordial water, not how God created space and time. People seem to be confused because of the word "beginning" as if that's the absolute beginning of time. When someone tells a story "from the beginning" it virtually NEVER means from the beginning of time and space.

LEROY:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn’t seem a stretch at all to take that literally.


POWELL:
I'm taking it literally as the writer probably understood things. To the ancients, the earth was the ground in the midst of the flat water. The heavens were the clouds, sun, moon, planets, stars and other parts of the sky they could see. The ancients didn't know about galaxies or the extent of the universe as we do. The furthest stars they could see were just part of our own galaxy (unless you count the fuzzy thing in Andromeda and the two clouds in the southern hemisphere).


LEROY:
After all you’re talking about unfathomable power. I agree "ex nihilo" is not expressly stated but it is emphatically implied throughout scripture. There is no supporting evidence to state that God created in Gen 1 from preexisting matter.


POWELL:
It is claimed that on day 2 the heavens were created from the waters that were already there. The writer did not offer to answer the combined question "where did time, space, the water, and God come from?"

Where is ex nihilo "emphatically implied" in the scriptures when speaking of God's creative acts?

Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, . . .


POWELL:
Don't you think that God created the wind that Amos felt with the air that was already there or do you think God created the air ex nihilo everytime Amos felt the wind?

"Creatures" are created things. Do you think that all creatures which existed during, say, New Testament times were created ex nihilo?

John Powell

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON (to Romans5_1):
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

TROUTK:
The LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized matter, not created it, your statement is misleading, John Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
The LDS church teaches that Christ created the Earth by organizing the matter that was already there.

Agreed.

JOHN MORMON:
Where in the definition of the English word "create" or the Hebrew word H01254:bara = create (Gen 1:1) or the Greek word G2936:ktizo = create (Eph 3:9) or G1096:ginomai = made (John 1:3) is it clearly implied ex nihilo?

TROUTK:
Feel free to cook the definitions of words, but please explain what your definitions are so that our dialogue can be productive.
In John it says that Christ created all things, it doesn't say He reorganized all matter.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, if Christ created all things then He must have created Himself too, huh?

He created all things that were created.

What does "create" mean in English, Trout? Does it necessarily mean "ex nihilo"? No. Although Mormons are blamed for changing the meanings of words in the Bible, this accusation concerning "create" seems especially misguided.

It certainly can imply ex nihilo, but it doesn't always mean ex nihilo.

The LDS church would be better off using the words "organized" or "built" in place of the word "created"


JOHN MORMON:
Where is this taught in Mormon scriptures? I'm not bound to obey Brigham's personal opinion or something someone may have misrecorded.

Even if Adam did come from another planet that would not imply that Adam was uncreated.

TROUTK:
Pardon me, I was of the impression that Brigham Young had authority above and beyond that which you posess, therefore obligating you to believe and trust the things he explained.

JOHN MORMON:
Your impression is mistaken. I'm only bound to obey the prophet when he speaks as the prophet. These alleged views of Brigham Young are not considered church doctrine by the church so I'm not bound to obey them. If Brigham Young really believed it then apparently he was just wrong. If he was right then I'll find that out later.

How have you determined when to believe him and when to discard his teachings?


TROUTK:
Are all the doctrines of the LDS church outlined in the Standard Works?

JOHN MORMON:
Pretty much.

Your response has implied that not all doctrines of the LDS church are found in the standard works. So it would seem that you do believe things not outlined in the standard works.


John Mormon:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

TROUTK:
As far as Adam is concerned, there was never a time when his intelligence didn't exist, according to LDS thought. Therefore Adam wasn't created by God as you have said.

JOHN MORMON:
Adam's intelligence was not created by God, but existed eternally. Adam's spirit body, however, was procreated by Father and Mother in Heaven (one of them?). Adam's physical body was created by God. Our physical bodies are created by God and procreated by our parents out of the available materials.

Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.

TROUT:
Neither of the scriptures you quoted said that Eve was exclusively involved in the creation of spirit children. And knowing that Brigham Young had claimed that Adam was a polygamist, it cannot be assumed that all spirits are the product of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
None of the spirits are the product of Adam and Eve. They are products of Father and Mother in Heaven. All of the human physical bodies are descended from Adam and Eve. Adam may have made promises to more than one female spirit in the premortal existence, but as far as I know, Adam only had one wife while on Earth.

Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".


JOHN MORMON:
When you create / cause a house to come into being do you reorganize the building materials or do you create the house ex nihilo?

I "organize", or "build" the house.




JOHN MORMON:
When you create / produce a painting do you reorganize the canvas and paints or do you create the painting ex nihilo?

I "build" a painting.

Trout

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON (to Romans5_1):
This is a lie (see, I can say that too), for Mormonism believes that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth.

TROUTK:
The LDS church teaches that Christ reorganized matter, not created it, your statement is misleading, John Mormon.

JOHN MORMON:
The LDS church teaches that Christ created the Earth by organizing the matter that was already there.


TROUTK:
Agreed.


JOHN MORMON:
Where in the definition of the English word "create" or the Hebrew word H01254:bara = create (Gen 1:1) or the Greek word G2936:ktizo = create (Eph 3:9) or G1096:ginomai = made (John 1:3) is it clearly implied ex nihilo?

TROUTK:
Feel free to cook the definitions of words, but please explain what your definitions are so that our dialogue can be productive.
In John it says that Christ created all things, it doesn't say He reorganized all matter.

JOHN MORMON:
Well, if Christ created all things then He must have created Himself too, huh?


TROUTK:
He created all things that were created.


JOHN MORMON:
Then did Jesus create heaven and hell or did the Father do that? If Jesus created everything that was created, including the throne that God sits on, then what did the Father do? Nothing?

For example, did the Father give Jesus to the world or did Jesus create / cause that to be? And, did the Father raise Jesus from the dead or did Jesus create / cause that to be?

JOHN MORMON:
What does "create" mean in English, Trout? Does it necessarily mean "ex nihilo"? No. Although Mormons are blamed for changing the meanings of words in the Bible, this accusation concerning "create" seems especially misguided.


TROUTK:
It certainly can imply ex nihilo, but it doesn't always mean ex nihilo.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes it can, but I don't think Genesis 1 implies ex nihilo. If God did it ex nihilo and wanted us to know that then He should have done a better job of explaining it. Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price help to explain how we think Genesis should be understood.


TROUTK:
The LDS church would be better off using the words "organized" or "built" in place of the word "created"


JOHN MORMON:
The creation account in Abraham emphasizes "organized," but using "create" still follows the English meaning of the word.

JOHN MORMON:
Where is this taught in Mormon scriptures? I'm not bound to obey Brigham's personal opinion or something someone may have misrecorded.

Even if Adam did come from another planet that would not imply that Adam was uncreated.

TROUTK:
Pardon me, I was of the impression that Brigham Young had authority above and beyond that which you posess, therefore obligating you to believe and trust the things he explained.

JOHN MORMON:
Your impression is mistaken. I'm only bound to obey the prophet when he speaks as the prophet. These alleged views of Brigham Young are not considered church doctrine by the church so I'm not bound to obey them. If Brigham Young really believed it then apparently he was just wrong. If he was right then I'll find that out later.


TROUTK:
How have you determined when to believe him and when to discard his teachings?


JOHN MORMON:
When the alleged teachings of a dead prophet are not supported by the modern prophet then I tend to disbelieve the old views. I don't know for sure who is right, but I do the best I can and hope I'm not too far off the mark. Since such issues are almost always irrelevant to my salvation, but are curiosities, mysteries that will be revealed eventually, it doesn't matter a great deal who I believe concerning those things.


TROUTK:
Are all the doctrines of the LDS church outlined in the Standard Works?

JOHN MORMON:
Pretty much.


TROUTK:
Your response has implied that not all doctrines of the LDS church are found in the standard works. So it would seem that you do believe things not outlined in the standard works.


JOHN MORMON:
What LDS doctrine are you referring to that is not stated or clearly implied in the standard works?


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

TROUTK:
As far as Adam is concerned, there was never a time when his intelligence didn't exist, according to LDS thought. Therefore Adam wasn't created by God as you have said.

JOHN MORMON:
Adam's intelligence was not created by God, but existed eternally. Adam's spirit body, however, was procreated by Father and Mother in Heaven (one of them?). Adam's physical body was created by God. Our physical bodies are created by God and procreated by our parents out of the available materials.


TROUTK:
Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".


JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout. The answer is "it depends on whether you're talking about the intelligence, the spirit body, or the physical body of Adam." Since to most people, the creation of Adam is speaking of the physical body, that's the default meaning, and so it's appropriate to say God created it. If you mean the intelligence or spirit body of Adam then you should specify that.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.

TROUT:
Neither of the scriptures you quoted said that Eve was exclusively involved in the creation of spirit children. And knowing that Brigham Young had claimed that Adam was a polygamist, it cannot be assumed that all spirits are the product of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
None of the spirits are the product of Adam and Eve. They are products of Father and Mother in Heaven. All of the human physical bodies are descended from Adam and Eve. Adam may have made promises to more than one female spirit in the premortal existence, but as far as I know, Adam only had one wife while on Earth.


TROUTK:
Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".


JOHN MORMON:
No. The answer is "it depends on whether you're talking about intelligence descendants, spiritual descendants, or biological descendants." Since to most people "descendants" refers to biological descendants, that's the default. If you mean intelligence or spiritual descendants then you should specify that. We are nobody's intelligence descendants. Our intelligences are co-eternal with God's intelligence. We are God's spiritual descendants and we are Adam and Eve's biological descendants.

Unless someone specifies they're asking about "intelligence" or "spirit" then you should assume that questions like "Who is your father?" and "Whose son are you" refer to biological connections.


JOHN MORMON:
When you create / cause a house to come into being do you reorganize the building materials or do you create the house ex nihilo?


TROUTK:
I "organize", or "build" the house.


JOHN MORMON:
According to the first definition of create "1. To cause to exist; bring into being" if you cause the house to exist or bring the house into being then you are creating the house. Such an action would imply you used the existing materials unless it is explicitly claimed that you did it ex nihilo.


JOHN MORMON:
When you create / produce a painting do you reorganize the canvas and paints or do you create the painting ex nihilo?


TROUTK:
I "build" a painting.


JOHN MORMON:
You're the one who seems to be cooking the meaning of "create." The statement "I created a piece of art" is acceptable English.

According to the fourth definition of create "4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role." to produce a painting through artistic effort would be to create a painting. Such an action would imply you used the existing materials unless it is explicitly claimed that you did it ex nihilo.

As I said before, if you mean ex nihilo then you should say ex nihilo. Don't assume God created ex nihilo unless it's stated or clearly implied. The default meaning of the word create is NOT ex nihilo, but "to cause to be" using the available materials.

John Powell

[Trout]

TROUTK:
He created all things that were created.

JOHN MORMON:
Then did Jesus create heaven and hell or did the Father do that? If Jesus created everything that was created,

Yes


John Mormon:
including the throne that God sits on, then what did the Father do? Nothing?

That's an anthropomorphism, God is Spirit, and doesn't need to sit.


John Mormon:
For example, did the Father give Jesus to the world or did Jesus create / cause that to be? And, did the Father raise Jesus from the dead or did Jesus create / cause that to be?

When you try to seperate the Trinity like that you run into those problems, the Bible says that each member of the Trinity was active in creation, and in Christ's resurrection.


TROUTK:
It certainly can imply ex nihilo, but it doesn't always mean ex nihilo.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes it can, but I don't think Genesis 1 implies ex nihilo. If God did it ex nihilo and wanted us to know that then He should have done a better job of explaining it. Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price help to explain how we think Genesis should be understood.

JOHN MORMON:
The creation account in Abraham emphasizes "organized," but using "create" still follows the English meaning of the word.



Then you should have no problem using the word "organized" or "built" in place of create. When the Christian speaks of creation, he/she implies ex nihilo, the LDS don't mean to imply ex nihilo. So, why use an ambiguous term when another term will explain your position better?


TROUTK:
How have you determined when to believe him and when to discard his teachings?

JOHN MORMON:
When the alleged teachings of a dead prophet are not supported by the modern prophet then I tend to disbelieve the old views. I don't know for sure who is right, but I do the best I can and hope I'm not too far off the mark. Since such issues are almost always irrelevant to my salvation, but are curiosities, mysteries that will be revealed eventually, it doesn't matter a great deal who I believe concerning those things.

So then a live prophet is better than a dead one?


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

TROUTK:
Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".

JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout. The answer is "it depends on whether you're talking about the intelligence, the spirit body, or the physical body of Adam." Since to most people, the creation of Adam is speaking of the physical body, that's the default meaning, and so it's appropriate to say God created it. If you mean the intelligence or spirit body of Adam then you should specify that.

Shouldn't it be the LDS adherent who qualifies that statement? i.e. God only created part of Adam and Eve, the other part existed from all eternity.

As a Christian, when I claim that Adam and Eve were created by God, my claim is unqualified, I believe that Adam and Eve were created by God. Everything that makes them Adam and Eve was the product of God, their intelligence, bodies, minds, souls, spirits, all were created by God. My answer doesn't depend upon my qualifying the statement.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.

TROUT:
Neither of the scriptures you quoted said that Eve was exclusively involved in the creation of spirit children. And knowing that Brigham Young had claimed that Adam was a polygamist, it cannot be assumed that all spirits are the product of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
None of the spirits are the product of Adam and Eve. They are products of Father and Mother in Heaven. All of the human physical bodies are descended from Adam and Eve. Adam may have made promises to more than one female spirit in the premortal existence, but as far as I know, Adam only had one wife while on Earth.


TROUTK:
Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".

JOHN MORMON:
No. The answer is "it depends on whether you're talking about intelligence descendants, spiritual descendants, or biological descendants." Since to most people "descendants" refers to biological descendants, that's the default. If you mean intelligence or spiritual descendants then you should specify that. We are nobody's intelligence descendants. Our intelligences are co-eternal with God's intelligence. We are God's spiritual descendants and we are Adam and Eve's biological descendants.

Unless someone specifies they're asking about "intelligence" or "spirit" then you should assume that questions like "Who is your father?" and "Whose son are you" refer to biological connections.


When someone makes the statement: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. To the Christian the default meaning is everything that we are, is descended from Adam and Eve, not just part of us.

The LDS don't believe that our spirits are descended from Adam and Eve. And it's our spirit that dictates who and what we are, not our physical beings.

So the answer remains "False"

Trout

[Leroy]

POWELL:
Timelessness implies changelessness. Change implies time. If God could change things (such as make a decision) then it appears to me that time had to have existed, otherwise there would have been no moment when that decision could have been made.

LEROY:
Time is a measurement, with the absence of measurement couldn’t there still be the possibility or events unmeasured? If there is no measuring instrument for height does that mean that everything is flat?





POWELL:
There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height.

I’m wondering if you could apply the logic in your last statement to your first statement in the above quote and surmise that there could have been a decision or action by God without the instrument of time to measure it?




POWELL:
Then apparently there was no opportunity to make T zero or T plus.

LEROY:
Could there exist an immeasurable T minus, not comprehensible with our time driven understanding?





POWELL:
Not logically if you mean incomprehensible even beyond the difficulties we have comprehending infinity or the zero time that photons presumably experience.

Could God be one person AND three persons at the same time in the same way? Not logically.

I do understand that God could not logically be a contradiction.


POWELL:
By speaking nonsense. He might as well claim to be three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time. It's illogical.

LEROY:
I can understand your hesitancy in grasping the seemingly illogical principals of the Trinity, but compared to what other God, would make this a logical deduction?





POWELL:
I don't understand your question.

The trinity claim is NOT that God is three persons and 1 person, that would be illogical, but that God is one God and 3 persons. However, if you're going to discard the need for time to be logical then I'm asking why you feel the need to make the trinity logical.

Sorry, I didn’t present my question very well and it’s partly because I jumped to the wrong conclusion reading your original statement.

I’m not trying to discard the need for time to be logical, my question is more along the lines of prior to time, as we understand it, could we understand timelessness? What are John Powell’s thoughts on pre-time event possibilities if time is just a measurement of a sequence of events?




POWELL:
I see no implication in Genesis 1 that the writer imagined that time and space came into existence on day 1 of creation anymore than someone describing the formation of the United States of America beginning on the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence would be implying that world history began in the year of the signing.

LEROY:
Apples and black holes, impossible to draw comparisons.

POWELL:
It's clear to me that the writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain how God created the heavens and the earth out of the primordial water, not how God created space and time. People seem to be confused because of the word "beginning" as if that's the absolute beginning of time. When someone tells a story "from the beginning" it virtually NEVER means from the beginning of time and space.

LEROY:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn’t seem a stretch at all to take that literally.





POWELL:
I'm taking it literally as the writer probably understood things. To the ancients, the earth was the ground in the midst of the flat water. The heavens were the clouds, sun, moon, planets, stars and other parts of the sky they could see. The ancients didn't know about galaxies or the extent of the universe as we do. The furthest stars they could see were just part of our own galaxy (unless you count the fuzzy thing in Andromeda and the two clouds in the southern hemisphere).

It would be conjecture on the writer’s part without the Author’s interjection and under that assumption you would be correct. Believing in Divine authorship would bring these statements into an entire different perspective.





LEROY:
After all you’re talking about unfathomable power. I agree "ex nihilo" is not expressly stated but it is emphatically implied throughout scripture. There is no supporting evidence to state that God created in Gen 1 from preexisting matter.





POWELL:
It is claimed that on day 2 the heavens were created from the waters that were already there. The writer did not offer to answer the combined question "where did time, space, the water, and God come from?"

Where is ex nihilo "emphatically implied" in the scriptures when speaking of God's creative acts?
I couple of quick observations:


Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Heb 11:3 does not state creatio ex nihilo in positive terms it, negatively, " denies that the creative universe originated from primal material or anything observable." In Romans 4:17 it states two comparative differences bringing the dead back to life, ie creation from something, but then goes on the say, "calls into existence where there was nothing at all", a clear distention is made.



Scripture Verse:
Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, . . .



POWELL:
Don't you think that God created the wind that Amos felt with the air that was already there or do you think God created the air ex nihilo everytime Amos felt the wind?

"Creatures" are created things. Do you think that all creatures which existed during, say, New Testament times were created ex nihilo?

No I don’t John, but isn’t it awesome to think that when God created the air way back when, ex nihilo He created it with the intention of moving some of it quickly from one area to another from time to time with Amos in mind?

[John Powell]

TROUTK:
He created all things that were created.

JOHN MORMON:
Then did Jesus create heaven and hell or did the Father do that? If Jesus created everything that was created, . . .


TROUTK:
Yes

JOHN MORMON:
including the throne that God sits on, then what did the Father do? Nothing?


TROUTK:
That's an anthropomorphism, God is Spirit, and doesn't need to sit.


JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant. CAN God sit on a throne? Doesn't the Bible imply there are thrones up there in heaven for God and Jesus and the 12 apostles to sit on?

Did Stephen see Jesus on the right hand of God or did Stephen see Jesus on the right hand of Himself or what?


JOHN MORMON:
For example, did the Father give Jesus to the world or did Jesus create / cause that to be? And, did the Father raise Jesus from the dead or did Jesus create / cause that to be?


TROUTK:
When you try to seperate the Trinity like that you run into those problems, the Bible says that each member of the Trinity was active in creation, and in Christ's resurrection.


JOHN MORMON:
According to the Bible WHO resurrected Jesus? Was it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost? Please post the passage.

Then why try to separate them? Why didn't the Bible consistently just say things like "God so loved the world that He gave Himself." "God resurrected Himself from the dead." "When I, God, leave then I will return to you as a spiritual comforter." Why all this confusion about three different parts of God playing different roles, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?


TROUTK:
It certainly can imply ex nihilo, but it doesn't always mean ex nihilo.

JOHN MORMON:
Yes it can, but I don't think Genesis 1 implies ex nihilo. If God did it ex nihilo and wanted us to know that then He should have done a better job of explaining it. Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price help to explain how we think Genesis should be understood.

. . .

JOHN MORMON:
The creation account in Abraham emphasizes "organized," but using "create" still follows the English meaning of the word.


TROUTK:
Then you should have no problem using the word "organized" or "built" in place of create. When the Christian speaks of creation, he/she implies ex nihilo, the LDS don't mean to imply ex nihilo. So, why use an ambiguous term when another term will explain your position better?


JOHN MORMON:
What about when the Christian painter claims that he created a work of art, does he imply ex nihilo? What about when the Christian claims that God created a beautiful sunset today, does he imply ex nihilo? What about when the Christian claims that God created a new heart for him, does he imply ex nihilo? What about when the Christian claims that God created an opportunity for him, does he imply ex nihilo? What about when the Christian refers to the creatures (created things) living today, does he imply they were created ex nihilo? What about when the Christian parent discusses his child's "creativity," does he mean their ability to create ex nihilo?

It appears to me that Christians usually DON'T mean ex nihilo when they refer to creative acts.

Are you "creative," Trout, do you have the ability to create?


TROUTK:
How have you determined when to believe him and when to discard his teachings?

JOHN MORMON:
When the alleged teachings of a dead prophet are not supported by the modern prophet then I tend to disbelieve the old views. I don't know for sure who is right, but I do the best I can and hope I'm not too far off the mark. Since such issues are almost always irrelevant to my salvation, but are curiosities, mysteries that will be revealed eventually, it doesn't matter a great deal who I believe concerning those things.


TROUT:
So then a live prophet is better than a dead one?


JOHN MORMON:
In many cases, yes.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that God created Adam and Eve.

TROUTK:
Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".

JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout. The answer is "it depends on whether you're talking about the intelligence, the spirit body, or the physical body of Adam." Since to most people, the creation of Adam is speaking of the physical body, that's the default meaning, and so it's appropriate to say God created it. If you mean the intelligence or spirit body of Adam then you should specify that.


TROUTK:
Shouldn't it be the LDS adherent who qualifies that statement? i.e. God only created part of Adam and Eve, the other part existed from all eternity.


JOHN MORMON:
When speaking of the creation of Adam and Eve the default meaning is their physical bodies. If you mean their spiritual bodies or their intelligences then you should clarify that.


TROUTK:
As a Christian, when I claim that Adam and Eve were created by God, my claim is unqualified, I believe that Adam and Eve were created by God. Everything that makes them Adam and Eve was the product of God, their intelligence, bodies, minds, souls, spirits, all were created by God. My answer doesn't depend upon my qualifying the statement.


JOHN MORMON:
Since you don't qualify your meaning of create, the assumption is that it's NOT ex nihilo. If you mean ex nihilo then you should say or clearly imply it.


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.

TROUT:
Neither of the scriptures you quoted said that Eve was exclusively involved in the creation of spirit children. And knowing that Brigham Young had claimed that Adam was a polygamist, it cannot be assumed that all spirits are the product of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
None of the spirits are the product of Adam and Eve. They are products of Father and Mother in Heaven. All of the human physical bodies are descended from Adam and Eve. Adam may have made promises to more than one female spirit in the premortal existence, but as far as I know, Adam only had one wife while on Earth.

TROUTK:
Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".

JOHN MORMON:
No. The answer is "it depends on whether you're talking about intelligence descendants, spiritual descendants, or biological descendants." Since to most people "descendants" refers to biological descendants, that's the default. If you mean intelligence or spiritual descendants then you should specify that. We are nobody's intelligence descendants. Our intelligences are co-eternal with God's intelligence. We are God's spiritual descendants and we are Adam and Eve's biological descendants.

Unless someone specifies they're asking about "intelligence" or "spirit" then you should assume that questions like "Who is your father?" and "Whose son are you" refer to biological connections.


TROUTK:
When someone makes the statement: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. To the Christian the default meaning is everything that we are, is descended from Adam and Eve, not just part of us.


JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout. The default meaning to the Christian is biological descent. If you mean spiritual descent then you need to specify that or you'll likely be misunderstood.


TROUTK:
The LDS don't believe that our spirits are descended from Adam and Eve. And it's our spirit that dictates who and what we are, not our physical beings.

So the answer remains "False"

Trout


JOHN MORMON:
If you can get people to think more in terms of the eternal, the "spiritual" laws of existence rather than physical world we're surrounded by then maybe spiritual descent will become the default meaning of "Who is your father?" Right now, the assumed referrent is your biological father whether you're a Christian or anyone else.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Timelessness implies changelessness. Change implies time. If God could change things (such as make a decision) then it appears to me that time had to have existed, otherwise there would have been no moment when that decision could have been made.

LEROY:
Time is a measurement, with the absence of measurement couldn’t there still be the possibility or events unmeasured? If there is no measuring instrument for height does that mean that everything is flat?

POWELL:
There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height.


LEROY:
I’m wondering if you could apply the logic in your last statement to your first statement in the above quote and surmise that there could have been a decision or action by God without the instrument of time to measure it?


POWELL:
I do not believe that I could rationally surmise such a thing.


POWELL:
Then apparently there was no opportunity to make T zero or T plus.

LEROY:
Could there exist an immeasurable T minus, not comprehensible with our time driven understanding?

POWELL:
Not logically if you mean incomprehensible even beyond the difficulties we have comprehending infinity or the zero time that photons presumably experience.

Could God be one person AND three persons at the same time in the same way? Not logically.


LEROY:
I do understand that God could not logically be a contradiction.


POWELL:
Then why are you seriously considering that God could be temporally illogical?


POWELL:
By speaking nonsense. He might as well claim to be three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time. It's illogical.

LEROY:
I can understand your hesitancy in grasping the seemingly illogical principals of the Trinity, but compared to what other God, would make this a logical deduction?

POWELL:
I don't understand your question.

The trinity claim is NOT that God is three persons and 1 person, that would be illogical, but that God is one God and 3 persons. However, if you're going to discard the need for time to be logical then I'm asking why you feel the need to make the trinity logical.


LEROY:
Sorry, I didn’t present my question very well and it’s partly because I jumped to the wrong conclusion reading your original statement.

I’m not trying to discard the need for time to be logical, my question is more along the lines of prior to time, as we understand it, could we understand timelessness? What are John Powell’s thoughts on pre-time event possibilities if time is just a measurement of a sequence of events?


POWELL:
If there is no time then there is no sequence of events. All things in such a state remain unchanged. It seems to me that it cannot be that God decides to create the universe and then does so if there is no time.


POWELL:
I see no implication in Genesis 1 that the writer imagined that time and space came into existence on day 1 of creation anymore than someone describing the formation of the United States of America beginning on the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence would be implying that world history began in the year of the signing.

LEROY:
Apples and black holes, impossible to draw comparisons.

POWELL:
It's clear to me that the writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain how God created the heavens and the earth out of the primordial water, not how God created space and time. People seem to be confused because of the word "beginning" as if that's the absolute beginning of time. When someone tells a story "from the beginning" it virtually NEVER means from the beginning of time and space.

LEROY:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn’t seem a stretch at all to take that literally.

POWELL:
I'm taking it literally as the writer probably understood things. To the ancients, the earth was the ground in the midst of the flat water. The heavens were the clouds, sun, moon, planets, stars and other parts of the sky they could see. The ancients didn't know about galaxies or the extent of the universe as we do. The furthest stars they could see were just part of our own galaxy (unless you count the fuzzy thing in Andromeda and the two clouds in the southern hemisphere).


LEROY:
It would be conjecture on the writer’s part without the Author’s interjection and under that assumption you would be correct. Believing in Divine authorship would bring these statements into an entire different perspective.


POWELL:
Are you suggesting that God was revealing the creation of space, time, and the entire universe, but in such a way that the writer thought he was only revealing the creation of the earth and the visible universe?

What scriptural evidence do you have to support that position?


LEROY:
After all you’re talking about unfathomable power. I agree "ex nihilo" is not expressly stated but it is emphatically implied throughout scripture. There is no supporting evidence to state that God created in Gen 1 from preexisting matter.

POWELL:
It is claimed that on day 2 the heavens were created from the waters that were already there. The writer did not offer to answer the combined question "where did time, space, the water, and God come from?"

Where is ex nihilo "emphatically implied" in the scriptures when speaking of God's creative acts?


LEROY (Powell rearranged Leroy's comments to go under the respective verse):
I couple of quick observations:

Heb 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


LEROY:
Heb 11:3 does not state creatio ex nihilo in positive terms it, negatively, " denies that the creative universe originated from primal material or anything observable."



POWELL:
Heb 11:3 (NRSV)
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.


POWELL:
To claim that the world was made from invisible things implies that it was NOT created ex nihilo. Invisible is NOT synonymous with nonexistent, or do you think otherwise?

LEROY:
Rom 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.


LEROY:
In Romans 4:17 it states two comparative differences bringing the dead back to life, ie creation from something, but then goes on the say, "calls into existence where there was nothing at all", a clear distention is made.


POWELL:
The last part of the verse is merely pointing out that when God said "I have made thee a father of many nations" that the many nations didn't exist yet. Perhaps Paul was implying that God's words concerning the future are so reliable that if God says or implies "X will happen" then it's almost as if it already happened. The passage in Romans is NOT claiming or clearly implying that God had already created the many nations ex nihilo or that He was going to create them ex nihilo.


POWELL:
Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, . . .


POWELL:
Don't you think that God created the wind that Amos felt with the air that was already there or do you think God created the air ex nihilo everytime Amos felt the wind?

"Creatures" are created things. Do you think that all creatures which existed during, say, New Testament times were created ex nihilo?


LEROY:
No I don’t John, but isn’t it awesome to think that when God created the air way back when, ex nihilo He created it with the intention of moving some of it quickly from one area to another from time to time with Amos in mind?


POWELL:
I used to think such things were awesome.

But, Leroy, don't you see that Amos is speaking of the divinely created wind that Amos could feel? Don't you realize that the divinely created wind that Amos could feel was created using the existing air?

John Powell

[Trout]

TROUTK:
He created all things that were created.

JOHN MORMON:
including the throne that God sits on, then what did the Father do? Nothing?

TROUTK:
That's an anthropomorphism, God is Spirit, and doesn't need to sit.

JOHN MORMON:
Irrelevant. CAN God sit on a throne? Doesn't the Bible imply there are thrones up there in heaven for God and Jesus and the 12 apostles to sit on?

Everything that is created was created by Christ.


John Mormon:
Did Stephen see Jesus on the right hand of God or did Stephen see Jesus on the right hand of Himself or what?

Do you mean to imply that Stephen saw Jesus literally "on" the hand of God? He was actually seated "on" God's hand?


JOHN MORMON:
For example, did the Father give Jesus to the world or did Jesus create / cause that to be? And, did the Father raise Jesus from the dead or did Jesus create / cause that to be?

TROUTK:
When you try to seperate the Trinity like that you run into those problems, the Bible says that each member of the Trinity was active in creation, and in Christ's resurrection.

JOHN MORMON:
According to the Bible WHO resurrected Jesus? Was it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost? Please post the passage.

All three members of the Trinity are given credit for Christ's resurrection.


Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Jhn 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Jhn 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.



Then why try to separate them? Why didn't the Bible consistently just say things like "God so loved the world that He gave Himself." "God resurrected Himself from the dead." "When I, God, leave then I will return to you as a spiritual comforter." Why all this confusion about three different parts of God playing different roles, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

The Bible is thouroughly anthropomorphic, when God speaks to His creation, he does so in terms we can understand and relate to. The descriptive terminology we use in reference to God explains the relationship within the Trinity so that we might relate to it, not understand it exhaustively.


JOHN MORMON:
When speaking of the creation of Adam and Eve the default meaning is their physical bodies. If you mean their spiritual bodies or their intelligences then you should clarify that.

But technically speaking, God didn't create Adam and Eve in their entirety, right John Mormon?


JOHN MORMON:
True or false: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

TROUT:
False, I don't think there is any clear LDS teaching here, if Eve was merely "one" of Adam-God's wives then I must conclude that there are other wives who have had Adam-God's spirit children as well. Therefore we cannot all be the offspring of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
Here are two scriptures implying that we are all descendants of Adam.

TROUT:
Neither of the scriptures you quoted said that Eve was exclusively involved in the creation of spirit children. And knowing that Brigham Young had claimed that Adam was a polygamist, it cannot be assumed that all spirits are the product of Adam and Eve.

JOHN MORMON:
None of the spirits are the product of Adam and Eve. They are products of Father and Mother in Heaven. All of the human physical bodies are descended from Adam and Eve. Adam may have made promises to more than one female spirit in the premortal existence, but as far as I know, Adam only had one wife while on Earth.

TROUTK:
Agreed, so then the answer to the initial question is "False".

JOHN MORMON:
No. The answer is "it depends on whether you're talking about intelligence descendants, spiritual descendants, or biological descendants." Since to most people "descendants" refers to biological descendants, that's the default. If you mean intelligence or spiritual descendants then you should specify that. We are nobody's intelligence descendants. Our intelligences are co-eternal with God's intelligence. We are God's spiritual descendants and we are Adam and Eve's biological descendants.

Unless someone specifies they're asking about "intelligence" or "spirit" then you should assume that questions like "Who is your father?" and "Whose son are you" refer to biological connections.

TROUTK:
When someone makes the statement: Mormons believe that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. To the Christian the default meaning is everything that we are, is descended from Adam and Eve, not just part of us.

JOHN MORMON:
No, Trout. The default meaning to the Christian is biological descent. If you mean spiritual descent then you need to specify that or you'll likely be misunderstood.

But, technically speaking, the answer to your initial statement is "False". Adam and Eve's intelligences existed prior to their incarnation, as did their spirits, which weren't the product of Adam and Eve, right John Mormon?


TROUTK:
The LDS don't believe that our spirits are descended from Adam and Eve. And it's our spirit that dictates who and what we are, not our physical beings.

So the answer remains "False"

JOHN MORMON:
If you can get people to think more in terms of the eternal, the "spiritual" laws of existence rather than physical world we're surrounded by then maybe spiritual descent will become the default meaning of "Who is your father?" Right now, the assumed referrent is your biological father whether you're a Christian or anyone else.

John Powell

It seems that we're in agreement about the answer to your initial query, right John Mormon?

Trout

[Leroy]

POWELL:
Timelessness implies changelessness. Change implies time. If God could change things (such as make a decision) then it appears to me that time had to have existed, otherwise there would have been no moment when that decision could have been made.

LEROY:
Time is a measurement, with the absence of measurement couldn’t there still be the possibility or events unmeasured? If there is no measuring instrument for height does that mean that everything is flat?

POWELL:
There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height.





LEROY:
I’m wondering if you could apply the logic in your last statement to your first statement in the above quote and surmise that there could have been a decision or action by God without the instrument of time to measure it?





POWELL:
I do not believe that I could rationally surmise such a thing.

If as you say “There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height.” and prior to creation there was no human around to measure the sequence of events, then why would timelessness mean changelessness in the literal sense?

Which one of these statements do you believe to be true

There were no events prior to existence of time (the measurement of the sequence of events)

Chaos existed in the events in timelessness.

We’ve failed to understand events in timelessness.



POWELL:
Then apparently there was no opportunity to make T zero or T plus.

LEROY:
Could there exist an immeasurable T minus, not comprehensible with our time driven understanding?

POWELL:
Not logically if you mean incomprehensible even beyond the difficulties we have comprehending infinity or the zero time that photons presumably experience.

Could God be one person AND three persons at the same time in the same way? Not logically.



LEROY:
I do understand that God could not logically be a contradiction.



POWELL:
Then why are you seriously considering that God could be temporally illogical?

I’m not JP, you’re jumping to that conclusion. How can you claim that I’m considering that God could be temporally illogical after you stated, “incomprehensible even beyond the difficulties we have comprehending infinity”?

What other deities do you compare to the Judeo Christian God to determine logical properties?

Omnipresence for instance, is that logical for one human to be present everywhere at once?

Are you saying that God is illogical if He claims Omnipresence?


POWELL:
By speaking nonsense. He might as well claim to be three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time. It's illogical.

LEROY:
I can understand your hesitancy in grasping the seemingly illogical principals of the Trinity, but compared to what other God, would make this a logical deduction?

POWELL:
I don't understand your question.

The trinity claim is NOT that God is three persons and 1 person, that would be illogical, but that God is one God and 3 persons. However, if you're going to discard the need for time to be logical then I'm asking why you feel the need to make the trinity logical.





LEROY:
Sorry, I didn’t present my question very well and it’s partly because I jumped to the wrong conclusion reading your original statement.

I’m not trying to discard the need for time to be logical, my question is more along the lines of prior to time, as we understand it, could we understand timelessness? What are John Powell’s thoughts on pre-time event possibilities if time is just a measurement of a sequence of events?





POWELL:
If there is no time then there is no sequence of events. All things in such a state remain unchanged. It seems to me that it cannot be that God decides to create the universe and then does so if there is no time.

“If there is no time then there is no sequence of events” but there could be events.

Please tell me how you know that all things in such a state remain unchanged?

Based on your statement “POWELL: There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height.”

Why can’t you apply that same logic to, just because no human is around to measure the sequence of events doesn’t imply that there is no events?


POWELL:
I see no implication in Genesis 1 that the writer imagined that time and space came into existence on day 1 of creation anymore than someone describing the formation of the United States of America beginning on the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence would be implying that world history began in the year of the signing.

LEROY:
Apples and black holes, impossible to draw comparisons.

POWELL:
It's clear to me that the writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain how God created the heavens and the earth out of the primordial water, not how God created space and time. People seem to be confused because of the word "beginning" as if that's the absolute beginning of time. When someone tells a story "from the beginning" it virtually NEVER means from the beginning of time and space.

LEROY:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn’t seem a stretch at all to take that literally.

POWELL:
I'm taking it literally as the writer probably understood things. To the ancients, the earth was the ground in the midst of the flat water. The heavens were the clouds, sun, moon, planets, stars and other parts of the sky they could see. The ancients didn't know about galaxies or the extent of the universe as we do. The furthest stars they could see were just part of our own galaxy (unless you count the fuzzy thing in Andromeda and the two clouds in the southern hemisphere).





LEROY:
It would be conjecture on the writer’s part without the Author’s interjection and under that assumption you would be correct. Believing in Divine authorship would bring these statements into an entire different perspective.





POWELL:
Are you suggesting that God was revealing the creation of space, time, and the entire universe, but in such a way that the writer thought he was only revealing the creation of the earth and the visible universe?

I believe the writer was communicating God’s revelation to him concerning “the creation of space, time, and the entire universe” your assumption is that the writer was only revealing the creation of the earth and the visible universe.


LEROY:
After all you’re talking about unfathomable power. I agree "ex nihilo" is not expressly stated but it is emphatically implied throughout scripture. There is no supporting evidence to state that God created in Gen 1 from preexisting matter.

POWELL:
It is claimed that on day 2 the heavens were created from the waters that were already there. The writer did not offer to answer the combined question "where did time, space, the water, and God come from?"

Where is ex nihilo "emphatically implied" in the scriptures when speaking of God's creative acts?





LEROY (Powell rearranged Leroy's comments to go under the respective verse):
I couple of quick observations:


Scripture Verse:
Heb 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.



LEROY:
Heb 11:3 does not state creatio ex nihilo in positive terms it, negatively, " denies that the creative universe originated from primal material or anything observable."






POWELL:
Scripture Verse:
Heb 11:3 (NRSV)
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.




POWELL:
To claim that the world was made from invisible things implies that it was NOT created ex nihilo. Invisible is NOT synonymous with nonexistent, or do you think otherwise?

Why aren’t you taking this literally as the writer probably understood things?

Anytime someone reverts to another translation to make a point, tells me his point is a little fuzzy.

The world was “framed” by the word of God, framing implies the basic structure as in a house, and “by the word of God” implies just that, God’s word. God’s word is invisible, it’s existent but were does it originate from?

Are you suggesting that because God thought the word before He spoke the word negates ex nihilo?

God said, and it became.


LEROY:
Scripture Verse:
Rom 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.



LEROY:
In Romans 4:17 it states two comparative differences bringing the dead back to life, ie creation from something, but then goes on the say, "calls into existence where there was nothing at all", a clear distention is made.





POWELL:
The last part of the verse is merely pointing out that when God said "I have made thee a father of many nations" that the many nations didn't exist yet. Perhaps Paul was implying that God's words concerning the future are so reliable that if God says or implies "X will happen" then it's almost as if it already happened. The passage in Romans is NOT claiming or clearly implying that God had already created the many nations ex nihilo or that He was going to create them ex nihilo.

Perhaps Paul was implying that, and I never implied that this verse in Romans was clearly claiming ex nihilo, the implications are there to except or reject.


POWELL:
Scripture Verse:
Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, . . .



POWELL:
Don't you think that God created the wind that Amos felt with the air that was already there or do you think God created the air ex nihilo everytime Amos felt the wind?

"Creatures" are created things. Do you think that all creatures which existed during, say, New Testament times were created ex nihilo?





LEROY:
No I don’t John, but isn’t it awesome to think that when God created the air way back when, ex nihilo He created it with the intention of moving some of it quickly from one area to another from time to time with Amos in mind?





POWELL:
I used to think such things were awesome.

But, Leroy, don't you see that Amos is speaking of the divinely created wind that Amos could feel? Don't you realize that the divinely created wind that Amos could feel was created using the existing air?

Is this the verse bangs the nail in the ex nihilo coffin?

Here is a few other verses that assume creation ex nihilo;

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.[/quote]

[verse] Jhn1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Rom. 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.

1 Cor. 8:6 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 [are] all things, and we by him.

Eph 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Isa. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Pro. 8:22-26 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

It’s extremely difficult for me to imagine that God would have created by simply reorganizing matter.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Timelessness implies changelessness. Change implies time. If God could change things (such as make a decision) then it appears to me that time had to have existed, otherwise there would have been no moment when that decision could have been made.

LEROY:
Time is a measurement, with the absence of measurement couldn’t there still be the possibility or events unmeasured? If there is no measuring instrument for height does that mean that everything is flat?

POWELL:
There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height.

LEROY:
I’m wondering if you could apply the logic in your last statement to your first statement in the above quote and surmise that there could have been a decision or action by God without the instrument of time to measure it?

POWELL:
I do not believe that I could rationally surmise such a thing.


LEROY:
If as you say "There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height." and prior to creation there was no human around to measure the sequence of events, then why would timelessness mean changelessness in the literal sense?


POWELL:
If there is no sequence of events then, however things are, they should remain that way until time exists.


LEROY:
Which one of these statements do you believe to be true

There were no events prior to existence of time (the measurement of the sequence of events)

Chaos existed in the events in timelessness.

We’ve failed to understand events in timelessness.


POWELL:
I'm closest in agreement with the first one, but I have problems with treating the parenthetical as THE definition of time. Time IS irremovably associated with the sequence of events, whether some human measures them or not. Sequence implies A THEN B. "Then" in this context implies some time later. The following better represents my position:

Probably there are no space-time events in the absence of space and time.


POWELL:
Then apparently there was no opportunity to make T zero or T plus.

LEROY:
Could there exist an immeasurable T minus, not comprehensible with our time driven understanding?

POWELL:
Not logically if you mean incomprehensible even beyond the difficulties we have comprehending infinity or the zero time that photons presumably experience.

Could God be one person AND three persons at the same time in the same way? Not logically.

LEROY:
I do understand that God could not logically be a contradiction.

POWELL:
Then why are you seriously considering that God could be temporally illogical?


LEROY:
I’m not JP, you’re jumping to that conclusion. How can you claim that I’m considering that God could be temporally illogical after you stated, "incomprehensible even beyond the difficulties we have comprehending infinity"?


POWELL:
Aren't you suggesting that there could be space-time events in the absence of time? Wouldn't that be self-contradictory?

I'm not saying that infinity is illogical.


LEROY:
What other deities do you compare to the Judeo Christian God to determine logical properties?

Omnipresence for instance, is that logical for one human to be present everywhere at once?


POWELL:
It's not logical for a spacially limited being to be spacially unlimited. Are humans spacially limited or spacially unlimited?


LEROY:
Are you saying that God is illogical if He claims Omnipresence?


POWELL:
No, because presumably highly intelligent beings can lie or exaggerate unless they can't by definition.

Spacial unboundedness is not self-contradictory like proposing a sequence of events in the absence of time.


POWELL:
By speaking nonsense. He might as well claim to be three persons and one person in the same sense at the same time. It's illogical.

LEROY:
I can understand your hesitancy in grasping the seemingly illogical principals of the Trinity, but compared to what other God, would make this a logical deduction?

POWELL:
I don't understand your question.

The trinity claim is NOT that God is three persons and 1 person, that would be illogical, but that God is one God and 3 persons. However, if you're going to discard the need for time to be logical then I'm asking why you feel the need to make the trinity logical.

LEROY:
Sorry, I didn’t present my question very well and it’s partly because I jumped to the wrong conclusion reading your original statement.

I’m not trying to discard the need for time to be logical, my question is more along the lines of prior to time, as we understand it, could we understand timelessness? What are John Powell’s thoughts on pre-time event possibilities if time is just a measurement of a sequence of events?

POWELL:
If there is no time then there is no sequence of events. All things in such a state remain unchanged. It seems to me that it cannot be that God decides to create the universe and then does so if there is no time.


LEROY:
"If there is no time then there is no sequence of events" but there could be events.


POWELL:
Such as what? Please give me two example events and then tell me whether the first event you mention occurred before, after, or the same time as the second event you mention.

How about: 1. God floats above the primordial waters. 2. God says "Let there be light."


LEROY:
Please tell me how you know that all things in such a state remain unchanged?


POWELL:
I don't absolutely know it, but I believe it. It seems to me to be the most likely resultant situation.


LEROY:
Based on your statement "POWELL: There can be events which humans do not measure, yes. Just because no human is around to measure the height doesn't imply that the thing has no height."

Why can’t you apply that same logic to, just because no human is around to measure the sequence of events doesn’t imply that there is no events?


POWELL:
I think you can apply that logic that way. That sounds good to me until you propose that there were events, but no sequence associated with them. Perhaps you intend to claim they all occurred at the same time.


POWELL:
I see no implication in Genesis 1 that the writer imagined that time and space came into existence on day 1 of creation anymore than someone describing the formation of the United States of America beginning on the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence would be implying that world history began in the year of the signing.

LEROY:
Apples and black holes, impossible to draw comparisons.

POWELL:
It's clear to me that the writer of Genesis 1 was trying to explain how God created the heavens and the earth out of the primordial water, not how God created space and time. People seem to be confused because of the word "beginning" as if that's the absolute beginning of time. When someone tells a story "from the beginning" it virtually NEVER means from the beginning of time and space.

LEROY:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, it doesn’t seem a stretch at all to take that literally.

POWELL:
I'm taking it literally as the writer probably understood things. To the ancients, the earth was the ground in the midst of the flat water. The heavens were the clouds, sun, moon, planets, stars and other parts of the sky they could see. The ancients didn't know about galaxies or the extent of the universe as we do. The furthest stars they could see were just part of our own galaxy (unless you count the fuzzy thing in Andromeda and the two clouds in the southern hemisphere).

LEROY:
It would be conjecture on the writer’s part without the Author’s interjection and under that assumption you would be correct. Believing in Divine authorship would bring these statements into an entire different perspective.

POWELL:
Are you suggesting that God was revealing the creation of space, time, and the entire universe, but in such a way that the writer thought he was only revealing the creation of the earth and the visible universe?


LEROY:
I believe the writer was communicating God’s revelation to him concerning "the creation of space, time, and the entire universe" your assumption is that the writer was only revealing the creation of the earth and the visible universe.


POWELL:
I think it's a lot more likely that the writer thought he was relating the creation of the earth and the heavens he could see as a sequence of events in some pre-existing space rather than that he was relating the creation of space and time and galaxies and such things. It's my understanding that human beings were ignorant of the full extent of the universe until modern times. Perhaps some ancient philosophers considered the idea that space and time might be created things.


LEROY:
After all you’re talking about unfathomable power. I agree "ex nihilo" is not expressly stated but it is emphatically implied throughout scripture. There is no supporting evidence to state that God created in Gen 1 from preexisting matter.

POWELL:
It is claimed that on day 2 the heavens were created from the waters that were already there. The writer did not offer to answer the combined question "where did time, space, the water, and God come from?"

Where is ex nihilo "emphatically implied" in the scriptures when speaking of God's creative acts?

LEROY (Powell rearranged Leroy's comments to go under the respective verse):
I couple of quick observations:


Heb 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


LEROY:
Heb 11:3 does not state creatio ex nihilo in positive terms it, negatively, " denies that the creative universe originated from primal material or anything observable."

POWELL:
Heb 11:3 (NRSV)
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.


POWELL:
To claim that the world was made from invisible things implies that it was NOT created ex nihilo. Invisible is NOT synonymous with nonexistent, or do you think otherwise?


LEROY:
Why aren’t you taking this literally as the writer probably understood things?


POWELL:
I thought I was. Invisible means humans couldn't see it.


LEROY:
Anytime someone reverts to another translation to make a point, tells me his point is a little fuzzy.


POWELL:
Biblical issues are more secure when they are translation invariant.

Apparently you think "were not made of things which do appear" means "were not made of things which do exist" rather than "were not made of things which are visible."


LEROY:
The world was "framed" by the word of God, framing implies the basic structure as in a house, and "by the word of God" implies just that, God’s word. God’s word is invisible, it’s existent but were does it originate from?


POWELL:
Presumably from God. Apparently, the writer imagined God speaking the words and then the magic worked.


LEROY:
Are you suggesting that because God thought the word before He spoke the word negates ex nihilo?


POWELL:
No. I'm suggesting among other things that when the writer imagined God commanding the waters to vertically divide to create the heavens that the waters were already there.

LEROY:
God said, and it became.


POWELL:
Yes, but was the becoming (such as the heavens) ex nihilo or a reorganization of the material that was already there?


LEROY:
Rom 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.


LEROY:
In Romans 4:17 it states two comparative differences bringing the dead back to life, ie creation from something, but then goes on the say, "calls into existence where there was nothing at all", a clear distention is made.

POWELL:
The last part of the verse is merely pointing out that when God said "I have made thee a father of many nations" that the many nations didn't exist yet. Perhaps Paul was implying that God's words concerning the future are so reliable that if God says or implies "X will happen" then it's almost as if it already happened. The passage in Romans is NOT claiming or clearly implying that God had already created the many nations ex nihilo or that He was going to create them ex nihilo.


LEROY:
Perhaps Paul was implying that, and I never implied that this verse in Romans was clearly claiming ex nihilo, the implications are there to except or reject.


POWELL:
Even if Paul did think that the creation was ex nihilo (which the scripture you supplied doesn't say or clearly imply) that would be rather irrelevant to whether the writer of Genesis thought it was.


POWELL:
Amos 4: 13
13 For, lo, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, . . .


POWELL:
Don't you think that God created the wind that Amos felt with the air that was already there or do you think God created the air ex nihilo everytime Amos felt the wind?

"Creatures" are created things. Do you think that all creatures which existed during, say, New Testament times were created ex nihilo?

LEROY:
No I don’t John, but isn’t it awesome to think that when God created the air way back when, ex nihilo He created it with the intention of moving some of it quickly from one area to another from time to time with Amos in mind?

POWELL:
I used to think such things were awesome.

But, Leroy, don't you see that Amos is speaking of the divinely created wind that Amos could feel? Don't you realize that the divinely created wind that Amos could feel was created using the existing air?


LEROY:
Is this the verse bangs the nail in the ex nihilo coffin?


POWELL:
It's working well for me.


LEROY:
Here is a few other verses that assume creation ex nihilo;

Col. 1:16-17
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.



POWELL:
I see no indication here that the writer had any idea of the existence of galaxies or the full extent of the universe. As far as I can see he's referring to visible and invisible things within the "universe" that he imagines which is the earth and the dome of the sky and spiritual realms he imagines exist.

Now, if you had explained the full extent of the universe then perhaps the writer of Colossians would have affirmed that God created the galaxies too, but the question is still whether the writer of Genesis believed that he was relating the creation of the universe as he knew it (without galaxies) or the universe as we know it.


LEROY:
Jhn1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.



POWELL:
If you asked John to list some of the things he's referring to as having been made, he would likely list visible things associated with the earth and the visible sky, NOT galaxies and such things.


LEROY:
Rom. 11:36
For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen.


1 Cor 8:6:
1 Cor. 8:6 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 [are] all things, and we by him.


Eph 3:9
Eph 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:


Rev 4:11
Rev. 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.



POWELL:
Again, if you asked these N.T. writers to list some of the most significant things being referred to that God created, you would not expect them to include large scale structures like galaxies and superclusters of galaxies. Their view of the universe was limited to our little part of the galaxy.


LEROY:
Isa 44:6
Isa. 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.


Rev 1:8
Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.



POWELL:
I don't see ex nihilo creation clearly implied by these titles of God or that God existed before time existed.


LEROY:
Prov 8:22-26:
Pro. 8:22-26 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.



POWELL:
Notice that the writer is describing features of the Earth. He's showing no knowledge of structures larger than our piece of the galaxy.

The writer apparently believed that God had to have wisdom before He could wisely do anything like create the earth. That makes sense to me.


LEROY:
It’s extremely difficult for me to imagine that God would have created by simply reorganizing matter.


POWELL:
Well, since you think the substance of God can be uncreated, why not the substance of other things?

The more relevant question is what the writer of Genesis thought.

What do you make of God floating ABOVE (space already existing) the WATERS (matter already existing) and THEN (time already existing) God BEGINNING the creation of the heavens and the earth by saying the words "Let there be light"?

Does that look to you like the writer of Genesis meant to imply that God had previously created space, time, and the waters?

John Powell

[Tenshi]

As I said before, I don't want to get too involved in this debate, and JP seems to be handling things well. I just thought I'd chime in with a few comments. First off, this whole "that's not what you believe, this is what you actually believe" thing is VERY annoying. I have been LDS my entire life, spent four years in seminary, and have gone to sunday school every sunday since I was born. I think I have a VERY good grasp of what the church believes, so if you want to contradict me on some point of Mormon belief, you had better provide support from the canon. And by canon, I mean the Bible, the BoM, the D&C, the PoGP, and the official statements of the Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. The Journal of Discourses doesn't count, nor any other such writings. And I don't like being accused of lying, especially without support. Thanks to JP for stepping in on my side there.

Second of all, JP, as to your reasons for leaving the church (I'm thinking specifically of the DNA evidence, and the tithing thing), the DNA evidence is not so clear as critics would have it. See this (http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/dna-evidence.html) website, or this (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml) one, among others. As for tithing, the text of Malachi promises blessings. It doesn't say they would be monetary. While many church members find that their finances improve when they pay their tithing (via a better job opportunity, or some such), it is not necessarily the case. I, for example, have not found that I have less money as a result of paying tithing, but I am spiritually strenghtened by it. I don't really seek to re-activate you, so to speak, but I do think you should consider the evidence more fully.

[John Powell]

TENSHI:
Second of all, JP, as to your reasons for leaving the church (I'm thinking specifically of the DNA evidence, and the tithing thing), the DNA evidence is not so clear as critics would have it. See this website, or this one, among others.


POWELL:
Thanks for the DNA links. Maybe I'll look at them later.

Perhaps we can discuss the tithing thing later too.

John Powell