AVMetro and John Powell rap on the Trinity

[AVmetro]

Powell writes:

I will affirm that my former Mormon-like beliefs about the nature of God are more logical and more Biblical than AVmetro's current Trinity beliefs on the nature of God if he will affirm that his current Trinity beliefs on the nature of God are more logical and more Biblical than my former Mormon-like beliefs about the nature of God.

Is there a nuanced implication to your statement
concerning "logic?" I wouldn't say that finite human logic should necessarily affect 'what is' and 'what is not' biblical. As I stated in my reply to Till regarding my sig.:

"I place that passage in my sig. for the sake of Anti-Trins, not atheists. Hence, I can prove the doctrine of the Trinity from scripture- the understanding thereof, however, is a spiritual discernment."

>

Mystery. St. Paul wrote: "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He [God] appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was wseen by angels, was preached amon the nations, was believed on in th world, was taen up in glory" (1Tim. 3:16). The incarnation is a mystery (see Christ, Deity of). So is the *Trinity.
A mystery is not to be confused with an antinomy or paradox, which involves a logical contradiction (see Logic). A mystery goes beyond reason but not against reason. There is no contradiction, yet we lack total comprehension.
Further, a mystery is not something that can be attained by unaided human reason (see Faither and Reason). A mystery is known only by special divine revelation (see Revelation, Special). Hence, mysteries are not are not the subject of *natural theology but only of revealed theology.
Another characteristic of a mystery is that while we know that both elements making up the mytery are true and ultimately fit together, nevertheless, we do not know how they are compatible. For example, we know that Christ is both God and human, but it is a mystery just how these two natures unite in one person.
Finally, a mystery is distinguished from a problem. A problem has a solution; a mystery is the object of meditation. A problem calls for extensive knowlege; a myster for intensive concentration. Like a missing word in a crossword puzzle, a problem can be solved by more knowledge; a mystery cannot. If it could, it would not be a mystery. Mysteries do not call for answers, but for insights.

Sources
N. L. Geisler and R. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask
G. Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles

[Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler pp515-516]

For scriptural support:

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!

Isa 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known.

Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

That should give a quick overview of my position regarding the "mystery" of the Trinity as it relates to "logic". Unless, as I inquired above, you had something else in mind.

-God bless-

[John Powell]

Powell:
We surely need to first define what those beliefs are. If AVmetro shows interest in the debate then I will post some of those core beliefs.

AVMETRO:
I think this would be tremendously helpful given my lack of experience in the Mormon ballfield. I'll leave the number of rounds up to you guys.

-God bless-


POWELL:
I would prefer going more rather than fewer rounds.

When I speak as a believing Mormon, I will use the tag "John Mormon."

JOHN MORMON:
Some of John Mormon's beliefs about God and related topics:

"God" is a position of power, whereas "god" is an exalted being or one of the false pagan gods.

There are three individuals or beings or personages in the Godhead: Elohim or God, the Father; Jehovah or God, the Son or Jesus Christ; and God, the Holy Ghost / Spirit. Elohim is the supreme God of the Godhead. They work together like an ideal presidency, in which there's the president (Elohim) and his two counselors. They are "one" or united in purpose. They don't argue or disagree like the pagan gods were thought to. Absolute perfect harmony doesn't exist in heaven, however, as evidenced by the rebellion of Satan.

Elohim is a spirit, but has a resurrected, glorified physical body of flesh and bone (but not blood), as does Jehovah. The Holy Ghost / Spirit does not have a resurrected, glorified physical body but is only a personage of spirit to facilitate divine communication to mortals. Elohim and Jehovah appear like identical twins.

Jehovah was the first and best spirit child of Elohim. All human beings and angels are spirit children of Elohim, even Satan, so Jehovah is our spiritual brother. We all lived as spirits in a pre-mortal existence. Jehovah became a member of Elohim's Godhead while still a spirit. Jehovah created the Earth and was the God of the Old Testament under the direction of Elohim.

Sometime before birth our spirit entered into the body forming inside our mother. While living on Earth we are spirits housed in physical bodies.

The spirit of Jehovah entered into the body growing inside of Mary. The body of Jesus was genetically half Mary and half Elohim, so Jesus was the only biological Son of Elohim. The Holy Spirit was involved in this procedure.

When we die, our spirit permanently leaves the physical body, which body then decays. In the resurrection we receive a similar-looking, but immortal body. The glory of the resurrected body we receive depends upon our obedience. Without the grace of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we would not be able to resurrect or progress very far in the after-mortal life.

When the body of Jesus died on the cross, His spirit went to the spirit world and organized missionaries to teach His Gospel to those in spirit prison. When Jesus resurrected, He took up the body that had been put in the tomb and turned it into an immortal exalted body.

Elohim was a spirit child of His unnamed Father. Elohim was a Savior on a planet in a way very similar to how Jesus was a Savior on our planet.

Those of us who obey the commandments of God sufficiently well will resurrect with exalted bodies and become gods. Eventually, these gods could become Gods of their own worlds populated by their own spirit children.

The Bible is the Word of God, but due to human weakness and evil intent, the Bible has errors. It isn't perfect.

This above is pretty close to what other Mormons believe.

However, below is where my unorthodox beliefs will more likely diverge from other Mormons.

God is not an Omnibeing in the philosophical sense, but is incredibly powerful, knowledgeable, and good. God does not know the future, but merely predicts it using His great knowledge and then uses His great power to fulfill His promises. There is no one more powerful or more knowlegeable or more good that we need to worry about than Elohim.

If Elohim were to exercise His free agency / will and do something too bad then He would lose His position of power. He would cease to be God to us because we would no longer support Him, but He would continue to have the exalted body that makes him a god. Perhaps Jehovah would replace Him as our supreme God.

Before becoming spirit children of Elohim, we were beings of intelligence. These "intelligences" are eternal, uncreated. Elohim, Himself, was an intelligence at one time. When each of us became a spirit child, our intelligence was housed in a body made of spirit matter. Spirit matter is similar to, but better than gross physical matter. Consequently, as we are now on Earth, we are intelligences housed in spirit bodies housed in physical bodies. Neither intelligences nor spirit bodies can be destroyed. When we resurrect, we will obtain physical bodies that also cannot be destroyed.

The question of whether Jesus was man or God is treated differently than other Christians deal with it because the spirit matter of a God is the same as the spirit matter of a man.

In one sense Jesus was fully God because He had His full spirit there, however, He suffered as we do the veil of forgetfullness, in which we forget what we knew in the pre-mortal life. This was so Earthlife would be a test. Since Jesus lost that memory too and only gradually regained it during His life, His Godly powers were not fully available until after He died. In another sense, Jesus was half-God because His physical body was half from Mary and half from Elohim. In another sense, His spirit is fully "man" because our spirits are essentially the same as His.

Perhaps that's enough. Are there any questions, AVMETRO?

Now, could you indicate your beliefs about God, especially the following?

1) What are your beliefs concerning the Trinity? What is God? What is a "person," if that's a term you use?

2) What do you consider to be the attributes of God relative to an ideal OmniBeing? For example, what do "all-powerful," "all-knowing" and "all-good" mean if those are attributes of your God?

3) What was Jesus in terms of being man and God?

4) What are your beliefs concerning the inerrancy of the Bible?

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Perhaps this doesn't belong here, but I might use it in the upcoming Trinity debate.

Since I've recently been thinking about these theological issues from my old Mormon perspective, I think I've come up with a better solution to a problem I had with Mormon theology. The problem is that, according to Mormon doctrine concerning the plans of Satan and Elohim, Satan's plan was actually the better plan.

I'll let my former self explain.

JOHN MORMON:
According to Mormon theology, God had a plan for our eternal progression that entailed us coming to Earth to obtain physical bodies, being tested, being judged and given resurrected bodies commensurate with our obedience.

People who sinned too much would receive a lesser degree of glory than the Celestial Kingdom. If they were prophet / apostle types who completely rebelled, i.e., sinned against the Holy Ghost, then they'd go to Outer Darkness with a resurrected, but non glorious body. Murderers, habitual liars and such would obtain a star-scale resurrected body of glory (called "Telestial"). If they were good non-Mormon people then they'd receive a moon-scale resurrected body of glory (called "Terrestrial"). Only if they were really good could they obtain a sun-scale resurrected body of glory (called "Celestial"). In the Celestial glory there are three sub-levels with the very highest being Exaltation or Eternal Life (which means "life like God has" since "Eternal" is one of the names of God). This highest level is where God and gods dwell. Children who die before the age of accountability (officially 8 years of age) are assured a position in at least the lowest sub-level of the Celestial glory / kingdom.

Satan, however, proposed a different plan. In his plan (perhaps his own invention) there would be no free agency / will for mortals of Earth, thus no sin, and so everyone would be worthy of obtaining a sun-scale glorious body. Assuming his plan were accepted, Satan expected to become the supreme God. Jehovah presented Elohim's plan that was, unfortunately, expected to produce much fewer sun-glorious beings, but had a good chance of producing gods. Satan's plan presumably would not produce nearly as many, or perhaps any, gods. Jehovah defended Elohim's claim to remain our supreme God.

There was a war of words in the pre-mortal heaven. Satan and those who thought his plan was superior (1/3 roughly of the total spirit children of Elohim associated with this Earth) argued with those who wanted to accept the plan of Elohim as presented by Jehovah (perhaps as many as 2/3 of the total). There may have been a substantial number of fence sitters. Michael (pre-mortal Adam) was instrumental in putting down Satan and his supporters.

My fellow Mormons typically argue that the plan of Elohim as presented by Jehovah was superior because it allowed us to have free agency, which is all-important, and to retain Elohim as our God. "Don't you like having free agency? Would you like having Satan as God?" they might ask. Some argue that Satan's plan wouldn't work anyway. Others argue that Satan's plan could work maybe, but we would have to be like robots, which is obviously an unacceptable alternative they think.

I disagree.

Our spirits could all be housed in ape-like sub-human bodies since animals go to the Celestial Kingdom (lowest sublevel).

Or, better yet, if everyone died before the age of accountability except for retarded child-bearing adults then everyone would be worthy of at least the lowest sublevel in the Celestial kingdom. We would have temporarily lost the opportunity to have free will as accountable youths and adults, but the exchange would assure us of Celestial glory. That exchange seems worth it to me.

Besides, even if we were all robots for the short time we spend on Earth, that would be worth an assured Celestial reward for the rest of eternity. We'd get our free will back after we die.

Except for those who would likely become gods or nearly gods, Satan's plan appeared to be the better one. Satan's plan maximized the after-life reward for all the spirits of Elohim. It effectively depopulated the future Outer Darkness, Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms. Everyone would be saved.

Some Mormons might argue that producing gods is the end-all goal of God's plan. Maybe so, but it sure looked to me like it resulted in a worse condition for the vast majority of spirits. I could understand why so many Telestial and Terrestrial-bound spirits would seek Satan's plan instead.

POWELL:

It also produced a theological dilemma I was never able to resolve with Mormon doctrine intact. It has to do with whether it's better to die before the age of accountability if you're likely to sin and deserve something less than the Celestial Kingdom.

Kill Children Dilemma.

If children automatically go to heaven regardless of how they might have lived their lives if they were to live into adulthood then if a man potentially sacrifices his own salvation by causing to die the maximum number of children he can, he would likely be hailed by the vast majority of those he killed as their savior. This would be a selfless sacrifice of his own Celestial opportunities to assure them Celestial glory. If the vast majority of adults end up in the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdoms, as Mormons believe, then this would seem to be a praise-worthy thing to do, kill as many children as you can. Murderers are supposed to go to the Telestial Kingdom, but God would appear to be less-moral if he punished the man for doing so much good for so many. Also, killing children is bad. What a dilemma.

It's true that some of those killed might have been destined for god-hood, but that would have been very few. It's true that their adult lives were taken from them without their permission. But look what they received in exchange: Celestial glory when they almost certainly would have received something significantly worse.

The only solution I could come up with is that children who die before the age of accountability do NOT automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom. They only do that if it is reasonably expected that they would have lived worthy to do so if they had lived into adulthood. In other words, Mormon doctine on this was wrong.

Another solution is to argue that the differences between the various kingdoms is not that great. In essence: everyone goes to heaven, but things are slightly better for you if you're slightly better.

Back to Satan's plan.

JOHN MORMON:
If Satan's plan were accepted then he probably deserved to replace Elohim as the God of the Earth.

After his plan was rejected, Satan and the 1/3 rebelled. Since then he has tried to frustrate the plan of Elohim in hopes, perhaps, that Elohim reverses Himself and lets Satan and the 1/3 get bodies under a better plan for them. Elohim has assured us that Satan's efforts will ultimately fail. We trust Elohim.

Evolution or Adam and Eve?

My grandfather had a dream in which the Serpent-Eve-Adam story was explained. According to the dream, that narrative is a metaphorical description of what happened in the pre-mortal existence.

The original plan was to have Jesus be the first man with all of us as descendants. Adam and Eve planned to be Earth partners. As the human-like bodies were seen to appear on the Earth via God's control of biological evolution, Satan persuaded Eve that the bodies were good enough already and that there was insufficient cause to wait until the bodies were more perfect. Eve agreed. Adam agreed, as did many others. They didn't want to wait thousands of years if that was unnecessary. They went to Elohim to see what could be done. Elohim warned them that if He changed the plan in that way that there would be extra problems, such as wars in which good people killed other good people, that would have been avoided if they would continue their spiritual preparation those thousands of years. They wanted it, so Elohim accommodated them.

In the new plan, Adam and Eve were born about 4000 years before they were supposed to. Adam's parents were sub-god-like (animal) spirits housed in human-like bodies. Eve was the daughter of Adam and Adam's mother. Jesus was still born about the same time as was originally planned, but it now turned out to be in the Meridian of time and Jesus may have only had a few children with Mary and Martha instead of being the ancestor of us all.

Descendants of Adam married some of the near-humans living at the same time. Negros come from that lineage through Egyptus, the wife of Ham. One of the reasons for Noah's flood was to wipe out all non-Adamic people and near-humans. Until recently, Negros were spirits who did not wish to have the priesthood because that would be too much of a condemnation upon them since they didn't have what it took to magnify their callings. Out of consideration for their weaker characters, God did not give them the priesthood or the Gospel. Unto whom much is given, much is required. Now, however, there is enough white-black mix in the Negro gene pool and the spirits inhabiting male Negro bodies today are fully worthy to be priesthood holders. The same applies to any white person who is in a situation where they are unlikely to receive the priesthood. Maybe they chose not to have it.

In like manner, some people are born handicapped or die before the age of accountability because they have very good qualities, but if they were born whole and lived into adulthood they would likely seriously screw up. Other very good spirits are born handicapped or die young to be examples to the rest of us. Fetuses and infants die because they concluded, with advisement from Elohim, that they didn't really need to live that long.

POWELL:
I was bothered because here was a perfectly good (in my mind) solution to the apparent conflict between evolution and Adam and Eve explanations for human origins, but the Mormon Prophet wasn't preaching it. I was also bothered because I had come up with a good argument that Satan's plan was better than God's plan and no Mormon I knew could come up with a good rebuttal.

These unsolved theological problems were part of the reason that I stopped believing in Mormonism. However, I think I now may have a pretty good solution to the "Satan's plan is better" problem.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, it looks like God's plan is worse than Satan's plan because God's plan results in the vast majority of us gaining something less than Celestial glory, but Satan's plan assures us of getting Celestial glory. Also, it looks like the only ones who really benefit more from God's plan are those expected to be gods, who might not warrant god-hood / Exaltation under Satan's plan.

Now, my solution.

However, what about all those intelligences that haven't obtained spirit bodies yet? They need Gods to parent them. Anything less than a God parent isn't acceptable or maybe even possible. If there aren't enough Gods then those intelligences have to wait long time periods to progress to spirit and then physical bodies. Elohim might be overburdened as it is. Those intelligences could benefit from God's plan since more gods means more of them can progress to spirits sooner, but they don't benefit (much?) from Satan's plan since Satan's plan doesn't produce gods (or produces much fewer). Satan's plan might maximize the benefit for those already spirit, but it may not maximize the benefit for all if one includes the vast number of intelligences waiting to gain spirit bodies. God is thinking about those intelligences too. God's plan really is the better plan.

Perhaps in the future, when the spirit / intelligence number ratio has increased enough, Satan's plan will be considered the better plan. However, for our Earth at least, God's plan was probably the better.

John Powell

[dizzle]

Okay AV is this some good background? I am going to ask at this point though that if additional background, discussion is needed that this be moved into the Christology section... please let me know guys.

[John Powell]

Dee Dee Warren:

Okay AV is this some good background? I am going to ask at this point though that if additional background, discussion is needed that this be moved into the Christology section... please let me know guys.


POWELL:
I don't much care where in tweb Avmetro's statements of faith are posted (answers to the questions I asked) as long as he lets me know where to find them. If I have any more background to add, I'll put it in the Christology section. Also, I'll answer any questions about the religious background I will be defending in the Christology section. I'll answer other questions relevant to the debate here. I hope that will be ok with Dee Dee.

John Powell

[AVmetro]

AV states:

Is there a nuanced implication to your statement concerning "logic?"

Powell replies:

I don't think so. I could have used "reasonable" or "sensible" as replacement words. The question is whether one or the other God belief is more firmly supported by the likely meaning of the Biblical texts AND more reasonable to the rational mind.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=28261#post28261

As I stated prior, I don't believe that what is "logical" or as you stated "reasonable" should factor in as to what is biblical. Take again for example:

Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!

The fact that God's ways, judgements, etc, are "unsearchable" i.e. beyond our understanding in no way nullifies the fact that the matter is biblical.

The book of Job is saturated with the very principle that God's nature is beyond our understanding:

Job 11:7-8 Can you find out God by searching? Or can you find out the end of the Almighty? Heights of the heavens! What can you do? It is deeper than Sheol; what can you know? [LITV]

Yet it would, in fact, be unreasonable to insist that God's nature as presented here is unbiblical on the basis that one cannot fully grasp or comprehend the fact.

It may be a good idea to go into this area in more detail when the correspondence begins.

God bless you--Jeremiah

[AVmetro]

Perhaps that's enough. Are there any questions, AVMETRO?

This will certainly suffice for the time being. However, I do have one:

Powell states:

There are three individuals or beings or personages in the Godhead: Elohim or God, the Father; Jehovah or God, the Son or Jesus Christ; and God, the Holy Ghost / Spirit. Elohim is the supreme God of the Godhead.

Are you stating a belief that each member of the 'presidency' holds an exclusive name, e.g the Father alone is Elohim, whereas Jesus alone is Jehovah i.e. the Father is not Jehovah, and the Son [Jesus] is not Elohim?

Now, could you indicate your beliefs about God, especially the following?

>>


1) What are your beliefs concerning the Trinity? What is God? What is a "person," if that's a term you use?

I'll cite Dr. R. Morey as he puts it in rather simple terms:

"Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity." [Trinity: EAI p.87]

I believe this view is substantiated in the fact that time and time again the scriptures emphatically express the existence of only one True God [Jn17:3, Numerous examples are found in Deutero-Isaiah etc,.]. Yet there are three who are biblically painted as being "very God". Numerous contradictions result, only to be reconciled by the concept of a Triune God.

You can read this article[/b] (]2) What do you consider to be the attributes of God relative to an ideal OmniBeing? For example, what do "all-powerful," "all-knowing" and "all-good" mean if those are attributes of your God?[/quote]

As referrent to the One True God, I would avoid the use of a hyperbole ;). On a side note, there is the presence of Trinitarians who hold the Open View of God [Limited in Foreknowledge etc,.]. I'm not sure how it would factor in regarding Tritheism vs Triunity.

3) What was Jesus in terms of being man and God?

Fully human and yet at the same time wholly divine [Jn1:1 (The Word was God)..cf..Jn1:14 (The Word became flesh)..cf..Jn1:18 (The Only-Begotten God)..cf..Phil2:6 (The process of humility) etc,.]. The hypostatic union.

4) What are your beliefs concerning the inerrancy of the Bible?

I believe the Scriptures to be inerrant with the sole exception allowing for [b]copyist errors (http://www.tektonics.org/copyisterrors.html). However, I do not hold these copyist errors to be as great a factor in regards to scriptural accuracy as the Mormon view of such ;).

Hope this helps. If you need more, ask. My views are essentially orthodox [o not O ;)] if that gives you a better understanding. I am mildly flexible in some areas however.

[AVmetro]

Okay AV is this some good background? I am going to ask at this point though that if additional background, discussion is needed that this be moved into the Christology section... please let me know guys.

The background information provided by Powell was very thorough and informative. I believe this will suffice in giving me a good overview of his former beliefs prior to our coming debate.

So when do we begin?

Powell-

Do you believe you may at some point decide to return to a different system of belief as pertaining to Christianity? You mentioned an exclusive Mormon belief as attributing to your renunciation of the LDS faith. If this LDS teaching were found to be, in reality, an unbiblical teaching to begin with, then perhaps you could find reason, either now or later down the road, to obtain salvation within orthodox Christianity.

-God bless-

[dizzle]

Dear AV and John:

Once you think you both have developed significant enough background to do the proposed debate, then please return to the debate area and work out a resolution for debate, rounds, etc.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Perhaps that's enough. Are there any questions, AVMETRO?

AVMETRO:
This will certainly suffice for the time being. However, I do have one:

JOHN MORMON:
There are three individuals or beings or personages in the Godhead: Elohim or God, the Father; Jehovah or God, the Son or Jesus Christ; and God, the Holy Ghost / Spirit. Elohim is the supreme God of the Godhead.

AVMETRO:
Are you stating a belief that each member of the 'presidency' holds an exclusive name, e.g the Father alone is Elohim, whereas Jesus alone is Jehovah i.e. the Father is not Jehovah, and the Son [Jesus] is not Elohim?


JOHN MORMON:
Yes.

Very good question, Avmetro. I made some mention of "investiture of power" (without calling it by name), but not enough. Just like the Secretary of State might speak in behalf of the President and say "The President orders . . ." or he could say "The Secretary of State orders . . . " or "I, the Secretary of State order . . ." so likewise Jehovah could say "The Lord God or Lord of Hosts (implying Elohim) saith . . ." as Elohim's wholly reliable representative or Jehovah could say "I, the Lord God or Lord of Hosts (implying Jehovah) saith . . ." It's even more than that, however. Because of the close unity of purpose of Elohim and Jehovah, Jehovah would even be justified in saying "I, Elohim saith. . ." This shouldn't be thought of as so odd because didn't the angel in Revelation speak as if he were Jesus and, thereby, confuse John the Revelator? And, didn't Jacob wrestle with an angel and think he was wrestling with God?

The point of obscuring the distinction in some Biblical passages of this investiture of power issue may have been that, unlike the pagan gods, Elohim and Jehovah are "one" in agreement. What one says the other would have said if He had been there or had been in charge. In some cases Biblical passages referring to this may have been miscopied because of confused or evil scribes.

I forgot something I'm adding now. Jesus / Jehovah can be thought of as the "Eternal Father" in a number of ways. He was the creator / Father of the Earth. More importantly, Jesus / Jehovah is the Father of Salvation. Although we are forever spirit children of Elohim we can become adopted sons of God (vague) through accepting and obeying the Gospel of Jesus. We could be thought of as becoming adopted sons of Jesus by this way, but that doesn't necessarily exclude us as being adopted sons of Elohim too. Elohim or Jehovah, they're so united in purpose it's not much difference. It's sort of like a biological son who is expected to satisfy certain conditions to become an heir to his biological father. One might think of the biological son as being "adopted" by his biological father or even being adopted by the eldest son in charge of the estate when the younger son completes the conditions.

Brigham Young, the second prophet adopted several older men as his sons. The idea was that he would be a father to them in the afterlife. My grandmother's grandfather, John D. Lee of Mountain Meadows notoriety, was one of these adopted sons of Brigham Young.

POWELL:
The Mormons have tried very hard to cover all their bases. I'll be curious to see how well they've done, Avmetro.

JOHN MORMON:
Now, could you indicate your beliefs about God, especially the following?

1) What are your beliefs concerning the Trinity? What is God? What is a "person," if that's a term you use?

AVMETRO:
I'll cite Dr. R. Morey as he puts it in rather simple terms:

"Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity." [Trinity: EAI p.87]


POWELL:
Is the following one of the best human analogies we can come up with for the 3 persons, 1 God, 1 substance of the Trinity? God is like the second Terminator who could make various parts of his liquid metal body / substance become different shapes of differing physical property, but we'll add that he can do this even if not connected directly to the rest of the body. In addition, he has a maximum of 3 personalities that could control those various body parts. Could you make suggestions so this model better matches your view of the Trinity?

AVMETRO:
I believe this view is substantiated in the fact that time and time again the scriptures emphatically express the existence of only one True God [Jn17:3, Numerous examples are found in Deutero-Isaiah etc,.]. Yet there are three who are biblically painted as being "very God". Numerous contradictions result, only to be reconciled by the concept of a Triune God.


POWELL:
Perhaps.

AVMETRO:
You can read this article[/b] (]. I'm not sure how it would factor in regarding Tritheism vs Triunity.


JOHN MORMON:
It's part of it being "logical." Could you please try again? Do you believe God is an OmniBeing? If yes, then please define "all-knowing," "all-powerful," and "all-good" so that it's not an exaggeration of your beliefs. If you don't feel comfortable giving these named-attributes to God, then please explain how you would describe His/Their attributes of knowledge, power, and benevolence.

I guess we should also talk about transcendant. If you believe God is that, then please explain what you mean.

I believe that the throne of God where sits Elohim and Jehovah is on a sphere of glass which has a spin period of about 1000 Earth years.

Earth, after it is destroyed, will be resurrected as a sphere of glass on which celestial beings will dwell. Although in a figurative sense the Celestial Kingdom is where ever celestial beings are, in a more physical sense it will be the Earth in its celestialized state.

MATRIX UNIVERSE:
I believe that all spirits and resurrected beings dwell in a spiritual realm, something like a higher dimensional universe connected to our own so they and we can be just there or there and here.

Time and space exist there, but must be somewhat different because the speed of light isn't a limitation there. God can communicate nearly instantaneously and appear nearly instantaneously in that realm.

This spiritual universe IS the real universe. What we think of as the universe is a construct of the Gods. It's like a virtual reality game or the movie Matrix. "WE" are really spiritual beings living in a game world designed for our benefit. There are rules the Gods formulated for our physical universe such as the laws of nature. God can violate these laws similar to how gamers can use cheat codes.

God is incapable of violating certain eternal spiritual laws, however, such as giving His abilities to someone else or doing logically impossible things. God is prohibited from violating other spiritual laws such as being unfair. If God were to violate the eternal laws too much He would cease to be God.

When a gamer's character dies, he doesn't die. In like manner, when we physically die, our spirit doesn't die. Physical death is not that big a deal since we exist forever.

The universe around us is an illusion. Our bodies are illusions. True reality is the spiritual universe we can't see because we're in that virtual reality game. However, if you look closely at the features in the game you'll notice they get blurry (the pixels are not infinitely small). Likewise, if you look at matter in our universe too closely, you find it becomes fuzzy too.

POWELL:
3) What was Jesus in terms of being man and God?

AVMETRO:
Fully human and yet at the same time wholly divine [Jn1:1 (The Word was God)..cf..Jn1:14 (The Word became flesh)..cf..Jn1:18 (The Only-Begotten God)..cf..Phil2:6 (The process of humility) etc,.]. The hypostatic union.


POWELL:
Ok. So Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, right?

POWELL:
4) What are your beliefs concerning the inerrancy of the Bible?

AVMETRO:
I believe the Scriptures to be inerrant with the sole exception allowing for [b]copyist errors (http://www.tektonics.org/copyisterrors.html). However, I do not hold these copyist errors to be as great a factor in regards to scriptural accuracy as the Mormon view of such ;).


JOHN MORMON:
Ok.

AVMETRO:
Hope this helps. If you need more, ask. My views are essentially orthodox [o not O ;)] if that gives you a better understanding. I am mildly flexible in some areas however.


JOHN MORMON:
This helps a lot.

DDWARREN:
Okay AV is this some good background? I am going to ask at this point though that if additional background, discussion is needed that this be moved into the Christology section... please let me know guys.

AVMETRO:
The background information provided by Powell was very thorough and informative. I believe this will suffice in giving me a good overview of his former beliefs prior to our coming debate.

So when do we begin?


POWELL:
Soon. I still need your answers to the questions above.

AVMETERO
Powell.

Do you believe you may at some point decide to return to a different system of belief as pertaining to Christianity?


POWELL:
I might do it to please my future wife, sort of like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," but I wouldn't change my religious views, I don't think.

AVMETRO:
You mentioned an exclusive Mormon belief as attributing to your renunciation of the LDS faith. If this LDS teaching were found to be, in reality, an unbiblical teaching to begin with, then perhaps you could find reason, either now or later down the road, to obtain salvation within orthodox Christianity.

-God bless-


POWELL:
I seriously doubt it.

I am very curious, however, to learn whether my former Mormon view of God is demonstrably superior, both logically and Biblically, to that of Trinitarians.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I believe that the throne of God where sits Elohim and Jehovah is on a sphere of glass which has a spin period of about 1000 Earth years.

Earth, after it is destroyed, will be resurrected as a sphere of glass on which celestial beings will dwell.


POWELL:
I meant to say "something like a sphere of glass," not that it's necessarily composed of silicon dioxide.

John Powell

[AVmetro]

Sorry for the delay in this response. Been busy with a few anti-Trins [JW, IDC, etc,.] I wrote a response to your post but have decided to leave out what I wrote on your view of "Father" in addition to some other points that I feel should be saved for the debate.

Here's is what I will post in regards to your questions:

POWELL:
The Mormons have tried very hard to cover all their bases. I'll be curious to see how well they've done, Avmetro.

I hope to gain some experience in the process as well.

AVMETRO:
I'll cite Dr. R. Morey as he puts it in rather simple terms:

"Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity." [Trinity: EAI p.87]



POWELL:
Is the following one of the best human analogies we can come up with for the 3 persons, 1 God, 1 substance of the Trinity? God is like the second Terminator who could make various parts of his liquid metal body / substance become different shapes of differing physical property, but we'll add that he can do this even if not connected directly to the rest of the body. In addition, he has a maximum of 3 personalities that could control those various body parts. Could you make suggestions so this model better matches your view of the Trinity?

Actually, I would consider the above description to represent modalism, at best, whereas God is one *person* who manifests Himself in three different forms. Hence the fact that there are not three *seperate* intellects, egos, "persons" within view in the above analogy. It is truly difficult for me to provide a fully accurate analogy to the Triune God. He truly is unique. I usually don't bother describing the Trinity so much as simply demonstrating the fact thereof from scripture. As I said in regards to my sig...
I honestly do not believe a "logical" view of God to be the most "scriptural" view of God. If you, however, require this, then tell me and I'll see what I can concoct :)

AVMETRO:
I believe this view is substantiated in the fact that time and time again the scriptures emphatically express the existence of only one True God [Jn17:3, Numerous examples are found in Deutero-Isaiah etc,.]. Yet there are three who are biblically painted as being "very God". Numerous contradictions result, only to be reconciled by the concept of a Triune God.


POWELL:
Perhaps.

This is an area I hope to emphasize primarily in the debate itself in addition to some other factors mentioned thus far.

AVMETRO:
You can read this article <http://> I came across awhile back for a quick run-down on a view of "persons" in regards to the Trinity.

POWELL:
That link didn't work for me.

I apologize as I believe I forgot to include the actual URL in the Vb code. Here ya go:

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/trinityandpersons.htm

Not very thorough, but it should give a glimpse to begin.


AVMETRO:
Fully human and yet at the same time wholly divine [Jn1:1 (The Word was God)..cf..Jn1:14 (The Word became flesh)..cf..Jn1:18 (The Only-Begotten God)..cf..Phil2:6 (The process of humility) etc,.]. The hypostatic union.


POWELL:
Ok. So Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, right?

Yes, but not in any contradictory sense as Unitarians assert. You can view a discussion of this topic here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=742

My own presence is fleeting, but I feel that Jaltus and 'Phantaz Sunlyck' brought up some good insights concerning this topic.


POWELL:
4) What are your beliefs concerning the inerrancy of the Bible?

AVMETRO:
I believe the Scriptures to be inerrant with the sole exception allowing for copyist errors. However, I do not hold these copyist errors to be as great a factor in regards to scriptural accuracy as the Mormon view of such ;).


JOHN MORMON:
Ok.

Good. If you need any further clarification, tell me.

AVMETRO:
Hope this helps. If you need more, ask. My views are essentially orthodox [o not O ;)] if that gives you a better understanding. I am mildly flexible in some areas however.



JOHN MORMON:
This helps a lot.

You're welcome.


DDWARREN:
Okay AV is this some good background? I am going to ask at this point though that if additional background, discussion is needed that this be moved into the Christology section... please let me know guys.

AVMETRO:
The background information provided by Powell was very thorough and informative. I believe this will suffice in giving me a good overview of his former beliefs prior to our coming debate.

So when do we begin?


POWELL:
Soon. I still need your answers to the questions above.

Hopefully this will suffice. If you need more clarification, all you need is to ask for further information.

quote:

POWELL:
2) What do you consider to be the attributes of God relative to an ideal OmniBeing? For example, what do "all-powerful," "all-knowing" and "all-good" mean if those are attributes of your God?

AVMETRO:
As referrent to the One True God, I would avoid the use of a hyperbole ;). On a side note, there is the presence of Trinitarians who hold the Open View of God [Limited in Foreknowledge etc,.]. I'm not sure how it would factor in regarding Tritheism vs Triunity.



JOHN MORMON:
It's part of it being "logical." Could you please try again? Do you believe God is an OmniBeing? If yes, then please define "all-knowing," "all-powerful," and "all-good" so that it's not an exaggeration of your beliefs. If you don't feel comfortable giving these named-attributes to God, then please explain how you would describe His/Their attributes of knowledge, power, and benevolence.

Certainly "all-good" in the utmost sense. Dito on "all-powerful". I would also state that "all-knowing" is in the same non-hyperbolic class, but then again, I would probably be spammed with a multitued of OV proof-texts [with which I have little experience]. I think that might lead to a tangent issue. If's it's important to the topic of our debate, however, feel free to lay 'em on me. As for "omnipresent", I think one could relate this to "all-knowing." If one knows everything about a place (past, present, future, sights, smells, etc, etc,.) then one may as well be present there physically. The difference is not essential to a high enough level that I feel the two should be argued seperately as far as what does seem and what does not seem "logical" goes. However being that you brought up the topic of "trancendance" I imagine that it would. The former would imply a unique "place of dwelling" and the latter, omnipresence. I hold that God literally lives within all believers. This would naturally require omnipresence. I had a few thoughts going through my mind at once. Hope that wasn't a bit lop sided. ;)

Interesting post on your view of trancendance, btw.

AVMETERO
Powell.

Do you believe you may at some point decide to return to a different system of belief as pertaining to Christianity?

POWELL:
I might do it to please my future wife, sort of like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," but I wouldn't change my religious views, I don't think.

I wouldn't say that this would "count". But I'll certainly place my hopes in a potential conversion. ;)



8<

I am very curious, however, to learn whether my former Mormon view of God is demonstrably superior, both logically and Biblically, to that of Trinitarians.

May I ask what motivates this curiosity? This is the question within my mind that resulted in my inquiry of your view as to wether or not you could possibly return to a different sect of Christianity, perhaps orthodoxy.

God bless you--AV

[AVmetro]

I had initiated a debate revolving around the Unitarian position of John1 back on 9/26/02 here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/23426-1.html

...and resurrected it a few days ago here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/23426-6.html

Provide me a week, more or less, to wrap up things there with Edpobre and then we'll start our debate. I'll be doing a little research into Mormon apologetics during this time as well. If you'd like to finish your debate with Jaltus first, then that will do fine as well, unless you desire to do ours earlier. Thanks.

-God bless-

[John Powell]

AVMETRO:
Sorry for the delay in this response. Been busy with a few anti-Trins [JW, IDC, etc,.]


POWELL:
No problem.

AVMETRO:
I wrote a response to your post but have decided to leave out what I wrote on your view of "Father" in addition to some other points that I feel should be saved for the debate.


POWELL:
That seems acceptable.

AVMETRO:
Here's is what I will post in regards to your questions:

POWELL:
The Mormons have tried very hard to cover all their bases. I'll be curious to see how well they've done, Avmetro.

AVMETRO:
I hope to gain some experience in the process as well.


POWELL:
Ok.

AVMETRO:
I'll cite Dr. R. Morey as he puts it in rather simple terms:

"Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity." [Trinity: EAI p.87]

POWELL:
Is the following one of the best human analogies we can come up with for the 3 persons, 1 God, 1 substance of the Trinity? God is like the second Terminator who could make various parts of his liquid metal body / substance become different shapes of differing physical property, but we'll add that he can do this even if not connected directly to the rest of the body. In addition, he has a maximum of 3 personalities that could control those various body parts. Could you make suggestions so this model better matches your view of the Trinity?

AVMETRO:
Actually, I would consider the above description to represent modalism, at best, whereas God is one *person* who manifests Himself in three different forms. Hence the fact that there are not three *seperate* intellects, egos, "persons" within view in the above analogy.


POWELL:
That's not too helpful because Morey speaks of 1 "God" but multiple "persons" while you speak of one "person." I need some consistency in terminology unless it is your argument that such is impossible when discussing the nature of God.

AVMETRO:
It is truly difficult for me to provide a fully accurate analogy to the Triune God.


POWELL:
All analgogies "fail" at perfection, but can succeed to the extent that the reality and the model are similar. What I'm looking for, Avmetro, is the most logical analogy you know to explain the Trinity. Perhaps it is your argument that no logical analogy has any significant similarity to the nature of the Triune God.

AVMETRO:
He truly is unique.

I usually don't bother describing the Trinity so much as simply demonstrating the fact thereof from scripture. As I said in regards to my sig...

I honestly do not believe a "logical" view of God to be the most "scriptural" view of God.


POWELL:
In that case, will you concede that the Triune God appears to be illogical from the point of view of logically-thinking humans?

AVMETRO:
If you, however, require this, then tell me and I'll see what I can concoct :)


POWELL:
If you can't concoct something logically adequate then perhaps we should proceed as is.

AVMETRO:
I believe this view is substantiated in the fact that time and time again the scriptures emphatically express the existence of only one True God [Jn17:3, Numerous examples are found in Deutero-Isaiah etc,.]. Yet there are three who are biblically painted as being "very God". Numerous contradictions result, only to be reconciled by the concept of a Triune God.

POWELL:
Perhaps.

AVMETRO:
This is an area I hope to emphasize primarily in the debate itself in addition to some other factors mentioned thus far.


POWELL:
Ok.

AVMETRO:
You can read this article <http://> I came across awhile back for a quick run-down on a view of "persons" in regards to the Trinity.

POWELL:
That link didn't work for me.

AVMETRO:
I apologize as I believe I forgot to include the actual URL in the Vb code. Here ya go:

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/trinityandpersons.htm

Not very thorough, but it should give a glimpse to begin.


POWELL:
Thanks. It's helpful.

AVMETRO:
Fully human and yet at the same time wholly divine [Jn1:1 (The Word was God)..cf..Jn1:14 (The Word became flesh)..cf..Jn1:18 (The Only-Begotten God)..cf..Phil2:6 (The process of humility) etc,.]. The hypostatic union.

POWELL:
Ok. So Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, right?

AVMETRO:
Yes, but not in any contradictory sense as Unitarians assert. You can view a discussion of this topic here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=742

My own presence is fleeting, but I feel that Jaltus and 'Phantaz Sunlyck' brought up some good insights concerning this topic.


POWELL:
Thanks. I read a few pages. I'll read more later.

POWELL:
4) What are your beliefs concerning the inerrancy of the Bible?

AVMETRO:
I believe the Scriptures to be inerrant with the sole exception allowing for copyist errors. However, I do not hold these copyist errors to be as great a factor in regards to scriptural accuracy as the Mormon view of such ;).

JOHN MORMON:
Ok.

AVMETRO:
Good. If you need any further clarification, tell me.


POWELL:
That doesn't seem to be necessary. Your statement seems adequate.

AVMETRO:
Hope this helps. If you need more, ask. My views are essentially orthodox [o not O ;)] if that gives you a better understanding. I am mildly flexible in some areas however.

JOHN MORMON:
This helps a lot.

AVMETRO:
You're welcome.


POWELL:
Ok.

AVMETRO:
<snipped>
So when do we begin?

POWELL:
Soon. I still need your answers to the questions above.

AVMETRO:
Hopefully this will suffice. If you need more clarification, all you need is to ask for further information.


POWELL:
We're close, I think. I'm trying one more time.

POWELL:
2) What do you consider to be the attributes of God relative to an ideal OmniBeing? For example, what do "all-powerful," "all-knowing" and "all-good" mean if those are attributes of your God?

AVMETRO:
As referrent to the One True God, I would avoid the use of a hyperbole ;). On a side note, there is the presence of Trinitarians who hold the Open View of God [Limited in Foreknowledge etc,.]. I'm not sure how it would factor in regarding Tritheism vs Triunity.

JOHN MORMON:
It's part of it being "logical." Could you please try again? Do you believe God is an OmniBeing? If yes, then please define "all-knowing," "all-powerful," and "all-good" so that it's not an exaggeration of your beliefs. If you don't feel comfortable giving these named-attributes to God, then please explain how you would describe His/Their attributes of knowledge, power, and benevolence.

AVMETRO:
Certainly "all-good" in the utmost sense. Dito on "all-powerful". I would also state that "all-knowing" is in the same non-hyperbolic class, but then again, I would probably be spammed with a multitued of OV proof-texts [with which I have little experience]. I think that might lead to a tangent issue. If's it's important to the topic of our debate, however, feel free to lay 'em on me.


POWELL:
Thank you for the effort, but perhaps you will indulge me a little further because I still can't tell how extreme your definitions are. You say you believe them in the "utmost" senses, but then deny the exaggerated senses that some believe.

Consider these triads of statements. Which best represents your view? If none, please clarify. In each case, choice 1 represents the most extreme choice I thought might be believed while choice 3 represents my former beliefs.

Omnipotent
1. God can do anything, even things which mortals might think are impossible.

2. God can do anything that is logically possible.

3. God is very very powerful, more powerful than any other being who matters to us.

Omniscient:

1. God knows everything, even things which mortals might think are impossible to know.

2. God knows everything that can logically be known.

3. God is very very knowledgeable, more knowledgeable than any other being who matters to us.

Omnibenevolence

1. God is completely good, there is no evil in Him whatsoever. God never does evil at all.

2. God is as good as is logically possible.

3. God is very very good, more good than any other being who matters to us.

Omnipresence.

1. God exists in every location of space in our universe and all planes of existence.

2. God does NOT exist in every location, but His influence extends to every possible location in our universe and all planes of existence.

3. God has sovereign power or controlling influence over the Earth and other nearby locations in our universe and certain parts of the spirit world, perhaps over the entire universe and entire spirit world, but only exists in a limited part of the spirit world and possibly universe.

AVMETRO:
As for "omnipresent", I think one could relate this to "all-knowing." If one knows everything about a place (past, present, future, sights, smells, etc, etc,.) then one may as well be present there physically.


POWELL:
This might explain your meaning of omnipresence.

AVMETRO:
The difference is not essential to a high enough level that I feel the two should be argued seperately as far as what does seem and what does not seem "logical" goes. However being that you brought up the topic of "trancendance" I imagine that it would. The former would imply a unique "place of dwelling" and the latter, omnipresence. I hold that God literally lives within all believers.


POWELL:
How can you say this "literally", when by "lives within" implies eats there, rests there, etc. You MUST mean this in a largely figurative sense, isn't that so? Perhaps you mean that God exists within every believer, but doesn't live within every non-believer nor at every location in our universe and all other planes of existence. Is that close to what you mean?

AVMETRO:
This would naturally require omnipresence. I had a few thoughts going through my mind at once. Hope that wasn't a bit lop sided. ;)

Interesting post on your view of trancendance, btw.


POWELL:
I came up with it after playing computer games of the DOOM genre. Matrix gives a good example to help explain the idea.

AVMETERO
Powell.
Do you believe you may at some point decide to return to a different system of belief as pertaining to Christianity?

POWELL:
I might do it to please my future wife, sort of like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," but I wouldn't change my religious views, I don't think.

AVMETRO:
I wouldn't say that this would f"count". But I'll certainly place my hopes in a potential conversion. ;)

POWELL:
I am very curious, however, to learn whether my former Mormon view of God is demonstrably superior, both logically and Biblically, to that of Trinitarians.

AVMETRO:
May I ask what motivates this curiosity? This is the question within my mind that resulted in my inquiry of your view as to wether or not you could possibly return to a different sect of Christianity, perhaps orthodoxy.


POWELL:
Of course. While a believing Mormon I concluded, perhaps foolishly, that Mormonism was superior both logically and Biblically to any other major religion. I would like to see some good support or counter evidence to that belief.

AVMETRO:
God bless you--AV


POWELL:
I appreciate the sentiment even if I doubt the literal fulfilment.

Live long and prosper.

John Powell

[John Powell]

03-15-2003 @ 03:53 AM
AVmetro:

I had initiated a debate revolving around the Unitarian position of John1 back on 9/26/02 here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/23426-1.html

...and resurrected it a few days ago here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/23426-6.html

Provide me a week, more or less, to wrap up things there with Edpobre and then we'll start our debate. I'll be doing a little research into Mormon apologetics during this time as well. If you'd like to finish your debate with Jaltus first, then that will do fine as well, unless you desire to do ours earlier. Thanks.

-God bless-

POWELL:
It doesn't matter. Whatever you want. The five days gives me plenty of time. Remember that my former beliefs were not strictly orthodox Mormon, but were in many cases close enough.

John Powell

[AVmetro]

One quick observation before I move on:


AVMETRO:
Actually, I would consider the above description to represent modalism, at best, whereas God is one *person* who manifests Himself in three different forms. Hence the fact that there are not three *seperate* intellects, egos, "persons" within view in the above analogy.

POWELL:
That's not too helpful because Morey speaks of 1 "God" but multiple "persons" while you speak of one "person." I need some consistency in terminology unless it is your argument that such is impossible when discussing the nature of God.
I think you misunderstood me. I was describing the beliefs of Sabellist, not my own view of the Trinity. It is the modalist who believes in one God who is composed merely of one person. I believe the analogy you gave more like represents those beliefs rather than those of Trinitarians.

I'll be back to answer the rest tonight or tomorrow ;).

God bless

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm bumping this up for Greyphilosophy's benefit.

John Powell