LDS Doctrines and the Bible

Any questions or comments can be forwarded to doug_towns@yahoo.com.au

  1. Christ’s Teachings

  2. What did Christ teach?

  3. Saved by Grace or Works?

  4. Are we saved by Grace or Works? And saved from what?

  5. Is God just a Spirit?

  6. Is God only a spirit, as some claim?

  7. Our Brain _ does it actually think?

  8. Certain scientists propose that the brain thinks, and imply they have proved this. Does that grey blob really think?

  9. Do we Cease to Exist between Death and the Resurrection?

  10. Do we continue as a spirit after death or do we just drop dead and not exist until the resurrection?

  11. Seeing God

  12. What of all the Bible references of people who saw God, but other places say you can't see him? Can God be seen or not?

  13. Three Temptations

  14. Here are the 3 areas of temptation that the devil attacks; and why 3 areas.

  15. Trinity

  16. Did Jesus really say that he was actually the Father? Does the Bible talk of a trinity?

  17. Does the Bible say that Angels came down and Married Women?

  18. A book proposing to be written by Enoch claims that angels came down and married women. Does the Bible support this as some claim it does?


  19. The Father and Jesus Christ have Bodies

  20. Are the Father and the Son made of nothing or do they have some body?


  21. Solomon Died a Sinner

Is Hollywood right that Solomon repented before his death and changed back to following God? Does the Bible support this commonly held idea?



What do Christ's teachings tell us

We believe that those who are meek will inherit this earth in it's resurrected and glorified state.

We believe that the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who aren't puffed up, but humble enough to hear what God is teaching.

We believe that those who are saddened by the sins of the world will be comforted by God.

We believe that if we hunger and thirst for righteousness we shall be filled by the Holy Ghost.

We believe that if pure in heart, we shall see God

We believe that if we have mercy to others God will be merciful to us.

We believe that God will truly consider us His children if we try to bring peace to conflict.

We believe that if no-one is saying evil against us falsely, and twisting our words and intentions, then we're doing something wrong.

We believe that great responsibility rests on us to be as Christ wants us to be, and if we aren't then we're no use to God (as the salt).

We believe that Christ in us should be shown in our actions.

We believe that Christ fulfilled the law by being the sacrifice.

I believe that if you can't keep the commandments of the law then you won't even be considered the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

We believe that Christ taught greater commandments and asks us to obey those, not forgetting the law.

We believe that Christ requires us not to be angry, not to lust, to keep our thoughts pure, not to seek divorce, not to make oaths and promises, to turn the other cheek and to love others.

I believe God requires us to be perfect.

We believe that your Christian actions shouldn't be done to gain adoration from people, and it's therefore best people don't know what good you are doing for them.

We don't believe in having set prayers (though we do so in the case of the sacrament / communion to ensure that all necessary points are stated) or repetition of statement, as God isn't deaf (or sleeping - to quote Elijah). I believe reciting the "Lords' prayer" isn't advisable as most people seem to quote it with a piousness because they know it, don't mean it, and are so fixed on it rather than its meaning always fail to conclude the prayer in the name of Christ.



Saved by Grace or Works

This subject is often confused and some non-descriptive, but sounding good (with loads of statements about Jesus Christ being the Saviour) doctrine is advanced as the doctrine to believe. Thus suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree can't believe that Jesus Christ is the Saviour. However this is just all twist and suggestion.

This is the foundation area of our belief _ faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance for sins done, baptism to signify a burying of the old person, and receiving the Holy Ghost, as we need personal revelation to guide the new one. Jesus Christ is the spiritual Saviour of all who truly repent, and the Saviour of all mankind from death through His resurrection. That is that Jesus Christ saves us all from death, as he resurrects us all (good and bad _ John 5:28-29). And he saves those who truly believe in him and change from the hell due from their past sins.

But to the Scriptures quoted:- Eph 2 : 8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." If they went on to quote the next verse it would put the thing in a better perspective for them. Verse 10 states, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." Notice that the statement is "created in Christ Jesus", not "created by Christ Jesus". In other words when we are "saved by grace", we also are "created ... unto good works". So someone not producing the works is deceived if they feel they are saved. In James 2 : 24 + 26 _ "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." In other words there is no justification with God without works. Some may be confused then as to what to believe. The answer is that we believe exactly what is stated here in the Bible. We believe that we are saved by grace from our past sins, as no work we do afterward can remove them. And we believe that from then we need to bring forth good works to be justified in receiving Eternal Life.

John 3 : 16 is often quoted, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It will be claimed that this is stating that as long as you confess Christ as your Saviour, and say you believe in Him, you will have everlasting life. Yet in Mark 3 : 11 it says, "And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, You are the Son of God." There are several accounts of this in the gospels. Also in James 2 : 19 it states, "You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble." So with devils confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and also believing in God, we would have to except that they were saved too. Matt 7 : 21 states, "Not every one that says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven." This also refutes the above interpretation of John 3 : 16. It's not what people are saying but what they are doing. John 3 : 16 is stating that we must believe in Christ. I believe that cars exist (like the devils believe that Jesus is the Son of God), but only if I drive the car with no concern for its ability to brake on time etc. do I actually believe in the car. In other words if I believe in Jesus Christ I will trust in what he has said without worry, and obey it. That is belief in Jesus Christ: Not some flimsy thing of saying, "oh I believe in him": we leave that to devils.

There are many Scriptures that could be quoted. Some of which you will find are quoted much more out of context than even these, but the answers given here can be used for any of them if nothing in them comes to you. However one last one that I think is worth mentioning, as it ties into the greatest book on this subject (in my opinion).

John 17 : 3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." The person is claiming to know Christ as their personal Saviour, or some similar terminology, and therefore claim they have eternal life. These people claim that it doesn't matter how much they go on sinning because they're going to get eternal life, as they know Christ. In regard to this I turn to the same writer, in 1st John. So the following quotations are from that book. Chapter 2 : 3 says, "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." Pretty straight forward, and self explanatory. The next verse is even more damning of this claim. Verse 4 says, "He that says, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." So if people are actively sinning they certainly do not know Jesus Christ at all, according to the Bible. This book of 1st John is full of verses refuting this claim _ 3 : 8 says, "He that commits sin is of the devil..." 4 : 7 - 8 [I don't want to go on too long with this, but just enough to give you a key to the rest] says, "...and every one that loves is born of God, and knows God. He that loves not knows not God; for God is love." In other words he that knows God is "born of God", and is a changed person in that he has this great love _ a required change of personality. Again in 5 : 1 we find, "Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God..." Verse 18 says, "We know that whosoever is born of God sins not..." How can anybody, running around actively sinning, claim that The Bible says they get eternal life? One would have to ignore the entire message of almost every statement of the New Testament, and only accept twisted interpretations of a few well-chosen verses, to believe that nothing is required of you but some words. Are they saying Christ was off on a tangent when He made the statement recorded in Matt 25 : 33 - 46? In John 14 : 12 Jesus Christ states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." Whoever truly believes, as is necessary to gain eternal life, does the works that Christ did: Not committing adultery, fornication, brawling, drunkenness, thieving, belting your marriage partner, or any other unholy practice. In fact to fit the mould a person needs to be actively engaged in constructive activities (including wholesome studies _ particularly of the Scriptures), whenever time permits (I add the later in case you feel your occupation isn't constructive).

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Mosiah states (4 : 2), "...And they all cried with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men." The next verse goes on to explain that they received that remission of sins. This is again (as in the Bible) plainly stating that it is by repentance that we obtain forgiveness _ no doctrine of works to obtain forgiveness of past sins. As to works this is explained as well in Alma 5 : 40 - 41 as it is in The Bible. It says (in modern English), "For I say to you that whatsoever is good comes from God, and whatsoever is evil comes from the devil. Therefore, if a man brings forth good works he listens to the voice of the good shepherd, and he does follow him; but whosoever brings forth evil works, the same becomes a child of the devil, for he listens to his voice, and does follow him." This later person may even claim to be born again of God, in order to feel justified before God while still actively sinning.



Is God Just a Spirit?

John 4:24 states in the Greek that "God a spirit", but is wrongly translated into English as "God is a spirit". 1 John 4:8 states that the God IS love, in Greek as well as English. So if John 4:24 were stating that God "is" a spirit, it would use the Greek word "3(backward)'OTI'V'" as it does twice in verse 22 (only 2 verses previous) and also in the statement "God is love". However it is true to state that God has a spirit. It must be noted what the point of the statement is, and that is to point out that we must worship God in our spirit inside, so John is referring to the fact that God has a spirit also (or that God has the Holy Spirit, and we must worship Him with the Holy Spirit in us): John wasn't attempting to give a doctrinal discussion on the physical make-up of God.

2 Corinthians 3:17-18 "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." NKJ

Far from stating that the Father is a spirit, this shows that he isn't a spirit, but just also has a spirit. When we look back at the beginning of the topic of what "the spirit" he's speaking of in v17 we find in verse 3 that he's speaking of "the spirit OF the living God". So at best you could propose that this spirit is some small part of God, if not, in fact, a total separate entity _ if we say, "the arm OF Jim," we are speaking only of a part of Jim; also if we say, "the house OF Jim," we are speaking of a totally separate thing that isn't actually part of Jim at all. So we don't say, "the all OF Jim." Verse 18 refers to "the spirit OF the Lord" AKJ or in Greek "from of Lord [the] of Spirit" (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures). So for this spirit to be OF the Lord it can't be all of Him.

So God is far more than a spirit, but obviously has one, as we do. The Scriptures tell us that God sits upon a throne. While the Scriptures tell us that God would like to gather Israel AS a hen gathers her chickens under his wing, the Scriptures don't claim God actually has wings. They do however tell us that He has arms, hands, feet, a face, a mouth, ears etc. just as we do; which shouldn't be surprising as the Scriptures plainly tell us we are made in His image and likeness. Any adding of leaven to this simple principle isn't advised, as the Scriptures don't support anything but a being that looks like us. I'm sorry if this makes God a bit too hum-drum for you, and you preferred a weirdo god that you couldn't really relate to, but I don't make the rules.



Our Brain

Much research and theory has come of recent years in regard to what happens with the brain. But much of this research appears to be focused in a particular concept, rather than considering the whole point. It has been found that electrical activity occurs in certain parts of the brain (generally speaking) for particular actions or thoughts. From this some scientists have concluded that the brain is causing and processing thoughts.

I remember some years back watching a special on Television about some scientists in Europe doing research on all these people that had less than the normal amount of brain _ people who were born with brain missing. Some of these had almost no brain at all (some the size of a coin), and MANY were missing the so called "human part" that apes don't have. After years of research, and studying their social and intellectual habits they found absolutely no difference between them and anyone else. They had only found them by referral from hospitals which had done a brain scan for whatever reason and found the person to have less brain matter than normal. Apart from this these people were perfectly normal _ some were street sweepers, some were businessmen and women, some university professors, some unemployed etc, just like everyone else. In regard social habits, again they found no difference in percentage of smokers, alcoholics, numbers of children they had, housewives, shopping habits, spirituality, etc.

These are facts that certain scientists don’t mention as they have built up this great dogma of brain theory that gives them funding and fame.

If a person suddenly loses a part of the brain then there is a problem because our intelligence (that part that thinks, has emotions and decides) may not adapt to the change. Some intelligences adapt better than others to the same amount of sudden brain loss. Thus we find that two different people can suffer the same amount of brain loss and one recovers better than the other, for no medically explainable reason.

The next point I'd like to present relative to this is that our brain cannot possibly store the huge amounts of information we have stored. It is far too small. Under pressure people are able to remember any particular part of their life in complete detail _ Three dimensional images into which they can project their view, and audio (sound). Even a 1,000 Gigabyte computer hard drive wouldn't be able to store a week of your life, if a day. So can the brain? The obvious answer is NO! The brain hasn't been proven to store anything. All that is proven is that most people have certain brain activity for certain actions.

We have been brought up to believe that a bit of matter shaped the right way can actually think because of how it is shaped. If this is true then why is it that scientists simulated a brain decades ago but couldn’t get any thinking out of it? And how do people with almost no brain think just as normally as those with a full brain?

It is plain that our intelligence uses the brain to get the body to do things by creating electrical impulses in it, and therefore our intelligence is more focused there. Our intelligence stores all our memories, and appears to have no limits, other than those we place upon it by disobedience to God. Thus our brain responds to the feelings of our intelligence.

The reason I present this is to point out that it isn't the body that is the source of our thinking. We have an intelligence and spirit that can stretch out to feel the feelings of others, and our feelings can be felt by others who are sensitive.




Some Old Testament Scriptures seem to present the concept that people when dead cease to exist. Some conclude that these texts not only state that the person isn't thinking or doing anything anymore, but that their spirit isn't either.

Some quote the fact that evil spirits exist and do evil things to excuse the fact that many say they've seen spirits of departed relatives and friends. They say these sightings of the departed are evil spirits appearing in the form of their relatives etc. There's quotes of people who fear their relatives to claim this to be some kind of proof that no good beings or friends exist as spirits, saying therefore that it's all evil. I definitely agree with the concept that evil spirits do create serious problems in those who pursue evil and superstition. But do these bad experiences mean that there's no other spirits? Do we just have a body that is empty other than it's breath, or are we a far deeper being that can't be extinguished? Though the body dies and can't think or do anything, does some other part of us continue to learn? Is it true that the Scriptures don't support, and in fact show false, the concept of a spirit? Some conclude that we must come back at the judgement (or there about) and don't exist in the mean time. There's quotes about the soul being dead at physical death.

It's also stated by many that God is only a spirit, and has nothing else. Is this what the Scriptures really say? Let's look at the Scriptures used to support these ideas, and others that are against them, and see what's being said.

Some simple issues to get out of the way_

I don't think anyone believing the Scriptures would disagree with my saying that evil spirits do exist and work against our happiness. I also don't think that anyone would disagree that God has sent angels in the past to deliver His messages to certain people. So comments about Satan appearing to someone trying to put over that he's an angel of light are only confirming the known statement above; that evil spirits are also at work.

{I should digress just a bit for the purpose of stating an important principle to note here, and point out that it isn't claimed that Satan will appear looking like an angel of light (as some interpret) but that he'll appear pretending to be one. A read of 2 Corinthians 11:12-14 will reveal that some men were trying to put over that they were Apostles (not by making themselves look like them through plastic surgery or make-up, but by claiming to be such) in Paul's day, and that Satan even tried to put over that he was an angel of light (again not by trying to look like one, but by claiming to be such). The root (i.e. source word _ e.g. the source word of "running" is "run") for both the words used of these "Apostles" transforming themselves and Satan transforming himself is the same Greek word.}

The Dead

Soul _ The word "soul" is generally referring to the spirit and body connected together. Genesis 2:7 states, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Clearly the soul has become an existence at this point. Life has in some way come into the man from God, and this life and his body make up a living soul, as is stated there. The same happens with animals, whom God also puts a life in, and become living souls by the spirit being in the body. Leviticus 24:17-18 (the same Hebrew word is applied to both man and animals) states _ "And in case a man strikes any soul of mankind fatally, he should be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, soul for soul" (NWT).

But let us get to the Scriptures that get some confused about spirits and death:-

Those Against a Spirit at Death

Eccles 3:20 - 21 _ "All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" NIV

Far from denying the existence of a spirit this Scripture states that there is one, but that he is uncertain where it goes upon death. He's questioning whether animal's spirits go to a different place than where people's spirits go to. He's also stating that the body itself goes to the earth and stays there.

Eccles 9:5-6 + 10 "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. Their love, their hate, and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun."

"Whatsoever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." NIV

So does this mean that once dead that's it; as this is appearing to state, if taken so literally? We would be as the Sadducees who didn't believe in a resurrection! Verse 5 says that "they have no further reward", yet the Scriptures tell us that we will be judged and REWARDED according to our works. Verse 6 states that "never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun." Does this mean that there's no resurrection in which people once dead will again be doing something under the sun? Verse 2 states, "All share a common destiny - the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not. As it is with the good man, so with the sinner; as it is with those who are afraid to take them" (NIV). If taken literally we would have all mankind with the same destiny. So all would be saved bar none, or all would be condemned bar none. The common destiny that is shared is that we become forgotten by those left behind, and the body sits in the earth to rot. We can no longer go to school or work or obtain any reward upon this earth, because our body is dead. And that is what Solomon was getting at in this chapter and the one before. He's saying to do things while you're still alive. Scriptures must be taken in the context in which they are written.

Psalms 146:4 "When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing." NIV

Some versions translate the word "plans" as "thoughts"_

Once again it's wise to examine the context of the statement to see what's being talked about in this verse. Verse 3 advises us not to put our trust in man. Verse 4, therefore, is explaining why not to trust in man. It's saying that he's going to die at some point and all things relative to his earthly existence will be gone _ his body and his schemes, power and anything else about him that you trusted in. Once again this is mentioning a removal of his spirit in most versions read. And so with his spirit out he naturally has nothing left in his body to think with anyway.

Psalms 115:17 "It is not the dead who praise the LORD, those who go down to silence." NIV

This is quoted to suggest that the spirits of the dead don't exist to be praising the Lord. However verse 18 goes on to say, "it is we who extol the LORD, both now and for evermore. Praise the LORD" NIV. In this verse David is stating that he'll always be praising the Lord from that time forth. What about when He's dead? He's claimed he'll be praising the Lord "both now and forever more". This doesn't make any exception about some period of extinction. Unfortunately the psalm doesn't give us any in-depth view on why he made the statement about the dead, and gives no depth of it's full meaning other than to relate it to the fact that he was alive and praising God. Considering verse 18 disagrees with the idea of a period of extinction, verse 17 should just be taken in the context of David's logic being that he was there praising God, and the dead weren't heard or seen doing so. Again I would stress the point of looking at the whole Scriptures before coming to conclusions.

Isaiah 26:14 _ "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish." AKJ

or "They are dead; they will not live. Impotent in death, they will not rise up. Therefore you have turned your attention that you might annihilate them and destroy all mention of them." NWT

Well that sounds like the Sadducees got it right for sure, doesn't it? Reading that you'd have no belief in the resurrection or any future existence for mankind whatsoever. However this is a classic case of not taking a verse on it's own. A read of the text around the verse reveals an entirely different meaning to this verse. The verse before (verse 13) states, "O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name" (AKJ). The "other lords" mentioned here are Gentiles who've ruled over them. So verse 14 is pointing out that these seemingly so powerful people are now dead, and their bodies won't be coming back up out of their graves to continue on as a "lord" of anybody during the period before their resurrection by God. In spite of all the carry on of these people, and all their plans and supposed greatness they are buried and forgotten, and God had made any fear of them forgotten by people.

Those for a Spirit at Death

1 Samuel 28:3-19 (quotes from NKJ) gives the story of Saul not being able to hear God anymore, so he goes to a spirit medium. God had banned spirit mediums, yet King Saul of Israel went to see one in order that he might get her to raise Samuel, so that he might get God's advice. But before he even got to tell her who he wanted her to raise, or the medium even say any words to raise anyone, Samuel just turned up. Verse 3 tells us that Samuel was dead. But in verse 12 it states "When the woman saw SAMUEL" (The inverted commas in the NWT are not in the Hebrew text). Surely if this wasn't Samuel the Bible would say so, rather than saying that it was? Why doesn't the Bible say "the fake Samuel" or "the pretend Samuel" or something of that nature? Why does the Bible say that it was Samuel? Verse 14 states "And Saul perceived that IT WAS SAMUEL". Verse 15 states, "And SAMUEL began to say to Saul..." Verse 16 states, "Now SAMUEL said to Saul..." Then in verse 17 this Samuel prophesies that God will rip the kingdom away from Saul and give it to David. In verses 18-19 this Samuel continues to prophesy that because Saul did not obey God (which an evil spirit would not say) the Philistines will win and that he and his son will both die tomorrow. So here we have a prophecy from this Samuel. Is he truly the prophet Samuel or a false demon/spirit? The Scriptures come to our aid. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 "And if you should say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' _ When the prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." 1 Samuel 28 in verses 17, 18 and 19 this Samuel speaks for the LORD. So the final test will be if what he says comes to pass. 1 Samuel 31:6 says, "So Saul, his three sons, his armorbearer, and all his men died together that same day."

What less disputable and greater evidence can we have than the Scriptures firstly telling us that it was Samuel over and over again, and then proving it was Samuel by his fulfilled prophecy? Do evil spirits tell people to obey God, as this Samuel has? Do evil spirits tell the truth, as this Samuel has? John 8:44 tells us, regarding the Devil, "... there is no truth in him." If the Devil knew the future would he continue pursuing his present course? The Scriptures make no claim that the Devil knows the future: In fact quite the opposite. Jesus tells us that no-one knows the date of His second coming even (Mark 13:32). He states that neither He nor the angels know. Should we propose that the Devil does? Jesus states that only our Father in heaven knows. If the Devil knew the future why did he even bother trying to tempt Jesus, as he'd know it would result in failure? If the Devil knew the future why did he attempt to turn Job away from God, as he'd know it would result also in failure? God, however, does know the future but gives all a fair chance so that all can say that He's been fair and just, and He can use the evil to fulfil His purposes (John 6:70-71).

Some may argue, "would God use a medium to do His work, considering He was opposed to the use of mediums"? But He hasn't used the medium at all. Saul went along to the medium, but the medium didn't even get a chance to call on anyone before Samuel's arrival. Secondly, even if it had been that the medium had called Samuel before his arising this would not be the only time that God used the wickedness of the wicked to bring about His purposes: Pharaoh's refusal to release the Israelites at the time of Moses being a classic example. Here God got to show great signs and wonders to the Israelites, to soften their hard hearts a bit. God used the wickedness of Caiaphas to bring about the crucifixion of Christ. He uses the wickedness of the wicked to give us all the opportunity of growth through trial.

Revelation 22:8 - 9 "Now I, John saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell sown to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, 'See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.'"

This angel has stated that he is one of his fellow servants and of the prophets. Which one of the prophets he doesn't say, but he may have been one we have no record of anyway. Nevertheless, this has this particular angel as being someone deceased.

Luke chapter 16:19 - 31 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate. Desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us. ' Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house. For I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' But he said to him. 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'"

This disputes the argument that if God or some angel came and talked to someone that they would then believe; which is what Jesus is saying by this parable (note the last verse). It should be remembered that Jesus' point in using parables was to use things that they could relate to - sewers, merchants, vineyard owners etc, in order to remember (or learn) things that they didn't know. So obviously the Jews believed the doctrinal points presented here as fact. Jesus hasn't disputed any of the concepts believed in this parable. So He's accepted them as fact. Upon death people are going to either a state of bliss, or a state of misery. Now I don't want to digress and go through a discussion of this and final judgement at this point (as it would detract from the issue at hand), but suffice it to say that this states quite clearly that life goes on immediately after death. There is no period of non-existence.

1 Peter 3:18 - 20 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit, By which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, Who once were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." AKJ

This talks of spirits of people who were once living at the time of the flood. It talks of Jesus Christ going to preach to them _ which implies that some will repent and change to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and become forgiven of their sins; else why preach to them?

Note that this says that the time that these people were disobedient was actually while the ark was being built. Any attempt to palm this off by a tale of fallen angels who were once disobedient and took on bodies of men is in contrast to Genesis 6 which shows that the ark wasn't being prepared for a long time after verse 2. Verse 6 has God sorry that He's made man because peoples' thoughts were upon evil, and in verse 7 He decides He'll destroy living things that move on the earth. Verse 8 says He was happy with Noah. Verse 10 tells us that Noah THEN had 3 sons born to him. Then by verses 11 - 12 we find that God looked at the earth again, and it was corrupt, full of violence and all flesh was corrupt. He then decides (verse 13) that the time has fully come for Him to get onto the job of destroying all flesh. So God then tells Noah to make an ark (verse 14). Then in verse 22 Noah gets to the task of building the ark (the spirits mentioned in 1 Peter are those being disobedient at this point in verse 22). It should also be noted from verse 1 that the time quoted that the sons of God (a term meaning great men) saw the daughters of men was "When men BEGAN to multiply on the face of the earth." This again implies a long time before Noah began building the ark, and probably long before he was even born; as men had over a thousand years to BEGIN to multiply by the time he was born.

It is interesting to note from 1 Peter that, for some, a chance for repentance and change exists after death.

1 Peter 4:6 "For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." NKJ

The verse before mentions that we must give account of ourselves before God for how we've lived our lives. So in this verse Peter is mentioning that this is why the gospel is also preached to dead people, so while living in the spirit with God (in a sense), they can be judged like people in the flesh at present. Again we have mention of dead people having the gospel preached to them while they are spirits.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." AKJ

So our spirits were with God before coming here, and go back to be with Him after. This demonstrates that we must have a spirit for it to be able to go back to God. Remember that the Apostles thought that Jesus must have been a spirit when He appeared in the room to them after His resurrection (Luke 24:36 - 39), but He proved He had a body. It is interesting to note (in Luke 24) that Jesus says that a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, but doesn't mention them looking any different. So our spirits look like we do, and are the actual person to return to God.

Acts 7:59 "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." AKJ

If all peoples' spirits were returning to the same state of non-existence between death and the resurrection then why has Stephen asked Jesus to receive his spirit; as supposedly we're all going to the same state anyway? Obviously Stephan was aware that spirits are not all going to the same state at death.

Hebrews 12:23 "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." AKJ

In this chapter Paul talks of Moses and the Israelites having difficulty with the glory of God (verses 18 - 21), and verse 22 states that these people were now coming to the heavenly Jerusalem. It is stating in verse 23 here that part of what they're coming to is the spirits of just men. It's not stating them to be a memory in God's mind, or a non-existence for now, but actually there in heaven with God, as Stephan asked.




This subject poses some problems as it has so many Scriptural statements for the idea that you can, and so many saying you can't. This appears to be a contradiction on first observation. We know that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel. Isaiah refers to Jesus as the Mighty God, yet we know that great multitudes of people saw Him throughout His ministry. Not only during His lifetime was He seen but after His resurrection. The Nephite and Lamanite people saw Him, along with five hundred in Judea, Stephan, Paul, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey just to quote some. Then there's the question of; can you see the Son but not the Father? Unfortunately this becomes complicated by the fact that sometimes a messenger can deliver a message from God word for word, seeming to be that being. A classic case is; who was talking to Moses in the book of Moses? One moment you're sure it's the Father, then it seems it could be the Son talking the words of the Father.

Fortunately the Scriptures do give us a lot of assistance if studied fully. It's best to go through the Scriptures that deal with the subject and see what we can learn from looking back through it all, though some observations are worth noting on the way.

Opposing the Idea of Seeing God

John 1:18 _ "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

John 5:37 _ "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form."

One thing that I think may need qualifying here is that Jesus is talking to the Jews (note verse 18-19). So His statement may have been specific to the people He's talking to.

John 6:46 _ "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father."

It is assumed by some that this is saying that only Jesus Christ has seen God. However this term of "from God" (or "of God" in some translations) refers to any person obedient to God. Note John 9:16, "Therefore some of the Pharisees said, 'This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath'. Others said, 'How can a man who is a sinner do such signs'? And there was a division among them." So they have argued whether Jesus can be considered as a man "from God". They considered that a man from God would do good things and not evil. This doesn't sound as if they are debating whether he is God's son, but whether he can be considered like Isaiah etc. John 8:47 states, "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." This uses the same Greek term (though translated as "of God" here) and is saying that anybody who hears God's words is classified as "of God" (or "From God"). Both of these other quotes come from the same author (John) and therefore show his opinion as to what the term means. So the Scripture is stating that any person who truly follows God can have seen God. We will see this further on.

1 Timothy 6:16 _ "Who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honour and everlasting power. Amen."

1 John 4:12 _ "No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us."

1 John 4:20 _ "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love Him whom he has not seen?"

Colossians 1:15 _ "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

These statements seem to conclusively say that God can't be seen. If these were all there were in the Scriptures about the subject you could easily be excused for believing no one will ever, or has ever seen God. We have God as invisible, and no one being able to see Him.

Supporting the Idea of Seeing God

Acts 7:55 - 56 _ "But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, And said, 'Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!'"

This is greatly confused by some people trying to make this into a vision, rather than what Stephan actually saw. However the Scriptures make it very plain that he actually saw them. Stephan says that the heavens opened. He says nothing of a vision of the heavens opening. He says that He sees the Son of Man (Jesus Christ). He doesn't say that he saw a vision of this either. He then goes on to say that Jesus was on the right hand of God, which means he saw the Father. Again he doesn't claim this to be a vision. Note particularly in verse 56 that he qualifies what he is seeing: I see ... the Son of Man ...[and] God. This Scripture is specific about what he saw. Stephan lives through this experience, but is then taken out and killed.

Matthew 5:8 (also 3 Nephi 12:8) _ "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

While it can be considered that this is speaking of some future event, or on a permanent basis (as all will see God at the Judgement for starters), this is an assumption only. I also felt that this bears noting, as it is relevant to seeing God at anytime.

Genesis 32:30 _ "So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved'."

Jacob has commented how significant it is that he's seen the face of God and is still alive. In other words he's saying that there would be those who saw what he saw and would be dead. In fact the statement could imply that almost everyone else who saw what he did would be dead, else why make such a note of it. Some consider that Jacob must have been confused and was ignorant. I find it odd that I should (or anyone else) feel qualified to consider a person who was chosen by God, to be that much more ignorant than themselves; particularly about what HE saw. Verse 30 makes it plain that the man wrestling with Jacob was God. To change this purely because you don't understand it is to do yourself a disservice.

Genesis 35:1 & 7 & 9 _ "Then God said to Jacob, 'Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from the face of Esau your brother."

"And he built an altar there and called the place El Bethel, because there God appeared to him when he fled from the face of his brother."

"Then God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Padan Aram, and blessed him."

Here God is even admitting that Jacob had seen Him (verse 1).

Hebrews 12:14 _ "Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord."

Now we know that in the end all will see the Lord (Revelation 1:7 and Matthew 24:30) at His Second Coming, and we will also see Him at the judgement. So this seeing of the Lord doesn't mean afterward (also note that Terrestial beings will have the ministering of the Son (D&C 76). So this applies to now. It doesn't make any statement saying that it applies to any specific time, so why assume that it doesn't mean now, considering we have all these people who have seen Him in their lifetime? The problem that can be in some people's minds is trying to tie it in with the Scriptures that talk of Him not being seen. We will come to it all in the end. But it's important to remember the statement.

Hebrews 11:27 _ "By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible."

This is speaking of Moses. It states that he had seen the invisible God. So the statement of God being "invisible" isn't saying He can never be seen, but that He isn't normally seen. This term was used because the other nations around had idols that anybody could see, as gods.

Exodus 24:9 - 11 _ "Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, And they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank."

Here we have seventy-four people seeing the Lord. They didn't just see a cloud or something, as it states what they saw under His feet. It is of worth noting in verses 15 - 17 that the Lord had a cloud covering the mountain, and His glory on the mountain. To the Israelites down below that glory (even with the cloud covering it) was like a consuming fire, even at that distance. This all helps us in understanding the facts as presented, and we'll put it all together at the conclusion. It is also worth mentioning that at the time of them seeing the Lord they weren't right up on the mount where the cloud was, as only Moses was invited up there (verse 12).

John 12:41 _ "These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him."

This is stating that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. This is a bit more to the puzzle.

Genesis 17:1 _ "When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, 'I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless'."

Genesis 18:1 & 33 _ "Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day.

"So the LORD went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place."

This is an interesting chapter. We have the Lord appearing to Abraham with two other men. Several things bear mentioning here. We note in the next chapter (verse 1) that two angels turn up in Sodom straight after the Lord heads off to Sodom and Gomorrah with two men. This seems a bit too coincidental. The Lord didn't appear to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah yet appeared to Abraham. What's more the Lord actually ate there, with, what was most likely, the two angels (also referred to as "men") that the Sodomites wanted to have their way with (verse 5). The Scriptures say that at the end of the conversation with Abraham "The LORD went His way". So the Lord was talking, and dining with Abraham all that time. The New Testament also makes mention of another appearance of the God of glory to Abraham.

Acts 7:2 _ "And he said, 'Brethren and fathers, listen: the God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran'."

3 John 11 _ "Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God."

This is suggesting that those who do good have seen God (or at least it must be common). This would be a rather pointless statement to make if no one got to see God anyway.

1 John 3:6 _ "Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him."

Once we repent and accept to follow the Saviour with full purpose of heart we should bury the old man in baptism and follow the Father as a little child. If we continue on in our sinning ways we have to look at making our baptism real, by working harder to bury the old man. Whoever doesn't make these changes, or isn't very seriously working on them, hasn't seen the Father. So, again, we have the point that God can be seen but it isn't a typical occurrence for people who aren't prepared, or looking in faith.

Ezekiel 3:23 - 24 _ "So I arose and went out into the plain, and behold, the glory of the LORD stood there, like the glory which I saw by the River Chebar; and I fell on my face. Then the Spirit entered me and set me on my feet, and spoke with me and said to me: 'Go shut yourself inside your house'."

Ezekiel fell down because he saw the glory of the LORD. But when the Holy Spirit entered into him he rose up. This is an interesting point to remember.

1 Kings 11:9 _ "So the LORD became angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned from the LORD God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice."

Doctrine and Covenants 67:10 - 12 _ "And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a promise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry, that inasmuch as you strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am - not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual. For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God. Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind."

We need to humble ourselves if we expect to have that veil rent that stops us from seeing God. We need to look to the spiritual, that our mind isn't focused on the carnal. We also need the Holy Spirit to be upon us at that time. Again, if it weren't possible to see God why bother saying this.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:23 _ "For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father -."

Exodus 3:3 - 6 _ "Then Moses said, 'I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn'. So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, 'Moses, Moses!' And he said, 'Here I am'. Then He said, 'Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground'. Moreover He said, 'I am the God of your father - the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God."

Exodus 33:11 _ "So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle."

So at first Moses wouldn't even look upon the face of God, but by this point he can. What had happened in the meantime? Moses had been through a time where he had exercised great faith while in Egypt and had seen that God had preserved him through it all. He'd stood before the Pharaoh of Egypt and promised all these ridiculous things, and they'd all happened. Moses' faith had climbed enormously by his exercising great faith, and seeing it pay off.

Exodus 33:18 - 23 _ "And he said, 'Please, show me Your glory'. Then He said, 'I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion'. But He said, 'You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.' And the LORD said, 'Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen'."

This seems contradictory to the previous quote where Moses sees God face to face. But this is a progress. Moses is now wanting to see God with His glory fully present also. So Moses would die if he saw God face to face while God's glory wasn't being held back from Moses view. You see how the Scriptures are explaining themselves?

Summation on Seeing God

So what do we learn from all this? We have people seeing and others not seeing? But the Scriptures have explained it all if read in full. People who are carnally minded don't see God. If you don't search for God then you won't find Him. If you aren't talking to Him then how are you going to be able to see Him? If you draw near Him then you have a chance to see Him. But if you are miles away you won't see a thing. Also there's not just seeing God, but seeing God with Him not holding back any degree of His glory. References to not being able to see God really mean not being able to see more of God's glory than what you can handle according to your righteousness. Then there's the point of help from the Holy Ghost being important where viewing God's glory (or part thereof) is concerned. So there is complete harmony in Scripture when the meaning of a statement is looked into by a complete examination.




In several places in the Scriptures we find sins categorised into three different types. Though we find sins coming in various shapes and sizes, they all fall into these categories. It is significant to note this so that it may assist us in recognising and opposing temptation.

Genesis 3:1 - 6 _ "Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?''

And the woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'' Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil'. So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."

This states that Eve noted three things of the tree. First that it was good for food. Second was that it pleasant to the eyes. And third was a tree desirable to make one wise. Let's look at this relative to the next quote.

Luke 4:1 - 13 _ "Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry. And the devil said to Him, 'If You are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.' But Jesus answered him, saying, 'It is written, 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.'' Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, 'All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'' Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, 'If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you,' And , 'In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.'' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'It has been said, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.' Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time."

So first we have the devil asking Jesus to turn stone into bread, because he knew He was hungry. Secondly the devil shows Jesus all these kingdoms and says He can have them all. Thirdly the devil challenges Jesus to prove that He is the Son of God. So let's go on and look at another.

1 John 2:15 - 16 _ "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world - the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life - is not of the Father but is of the world."

There are three mentioned again here. First we have the lust of the flesh. Secondly we have the lust of the eyes. And thirdly we have the pride of life.

So putting this all together we have the first defined as - good for food, Jesus being asked to feed Himself, and the lust of the flesh.

These are just different ways of saying the same thing. Food fills the desire of the flesh. Satan wanted Jesus to lust after food because He was hungry, and do the wrong thing in His lust. But Jesus resisted the lust of the flesh, as John also mentions we must do. Genesis is stating that this temptation is a wrong thing also.

The second is defined as - pleasant to the eyes, Jesus being offered all the kingdoms He's shown, and the lust of the eyes.

I think that this, again, can be seen to be different ways of saying the same thing as each other. Satan will try to make things look good, to entice you into evil. Satan promises so much, yet delivers nothing that anyone really has.

And the third we have defined as desirable to make one wise, Jesus being challenged to prove His Sonship, and the pride of life.

Some may have trouble seeing the connection here, so I'll go through each. Wanting to feel wiser than others is usually a pride thing. A person shouldn't judge their wisdom relative to other people, but next to God. If that doesn't keep you humble then you've got problems. If you want to be like our Father in heaven then you must look at yourself relative to your goal, not relative to the person down the road. Satan was presenting to Eve that she would suddenly be as wise as God. So he appealed to her pride. Jesus has His Sonship challenged by the devil, to try and get at His pride, by asking Him to prove it. It sounds like some kid at school, doesn't it: "Oh, you can't do that, I bet you can't." And the last one says it quite plainly; "the pride of life".

These are attacks against our three parts _ physical body, spirit body and intelligence.

These are the three areas from which all temptations stem. This can help you recognise sins, with the help of the Holy Ghost.




In some churches the concept is believed of a triune God. The concept states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one mass: Not totally separate beings.

Hundreds of years after the death of the original apostles the Roman Emperor decided to take over control of the church. He set himself up as the decider of doctrine on God's behalf. However a power struggle existed with the old authority and him taking over with his priests. To cement his authority his priests and doctrines had to be victorious.

A man named Arian presented a doctrine (we don't know the doctrine totally because we only have the Roman's version of it, and a person's version of their opponent's doctrine is often exaggerated and distorted. But we can establish some things). Arian had many others who agreed with him. His belief was that the Father and the Son were separate beings, and that the Father was superior to the Son. He stated that while on earth Jesus was just a man like any other, and that by obedience to God He earned His place in Heaven, just as any of us must.

The trinity doctrine was put forward to combat Arian, so that he wouldn't have control. Also a new word was invented for God which meant "of the same substance", to replace the word that had been used, which meant "of similar substance".

A creed was made to explain God (which ultimately concluded that He couldn't be explained). But looking at the trinity it says there's one omnipotent but three omnipotents, one omnipresent but three omnipresent etc.

So basically we have one being with three identities in it. The question comes as to whether the Scriptures, or even just the Bible preaches or even supports such a being.

The question as to whether the Bible preaches such a being is the easiest part to answer. Even those who preach the trinity admit, verbally and in books, that the Bible doesn't clearly state the trinity concept anywhere. There is no statement saying anything like, "God is one God, but three Gods. So does the Bible actually, at least support the concept? And what of the rest of the Scriptures? Some confuse some verses in the Book of Mormon. We'll look at those statements which seem to support the possibility of a trinity and those that oppose it.

Supporting the Trinity Concept

Deuteronomy 6:4 _ "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one!"

This doesn't exactly state anything about a trinity, of course, but is used to establish that in some way The LORD is one. This "LORD" of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (the name "Jehovah", as used here, is Jesus Christ). And He is one. No one disputes that. This is merely stating that Jesus Christ is the God of Israel, and the only God that they got.

John 10:30 here Jesus says _ "I and My Father are one."

Again this says nothing of a trinity, but states that in some way the Father and Son are one. He doesn't explain in this verse what He means by the statement, but a look around this chapter gives us some clues that He wasn't saying that He was the actual Father Himself. The Jews accused Jesus of saying that He was God (verse 33). However He denies this implication in verses 34 - 36, "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, 'I said, 'You are gods''? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

In other places this oneness of the Father and Son is explained a bit better and we'll come to that.

Romans 3:30 _ "Since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith."

This again isn't saying anything about a trinity. However the term "God" used here is obviously referring to the Father, as shown in verses 22 - 26, which talk of God giving us Jesus Christ. So this is saying in verse 30 that there is one Father who will justify Jew and Gentile. If anything these verses are pointing out the separation of the Father and Son.

1 John 5:7 _ "For there are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

For those with more modern versions this probably won't be what you're reading. I'll come to that problem.

This would be the only Scripture in the Bible that comes anywhere near actually looking something like the trinity doctrine. However two problems exist with it. The first is the next verse, which states, "And there are three that bear witness on earth; the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one." These words translated as "agree as" are from the same Greek word translated as "are" in the previous verse. In other words according to verse 8, verse 7 should have ended saying, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three agree as one."

The other problem is that the oldest Greek manuscript of the book of 1st John that has been found, doesn't include this statement at all. In other words it appears some priest added it to a later manuscript to give some scriptural support for the trinity concept. The NIV version (which is quite popular these days) doesn't include this. Nor do many others. This means that they accept that this wasn't originally there.

1 Corinthians 8:6 _ "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

This is fairly straightforward. It's stating that there is one God: whom it even qualifies to be the Father. And then it's stating that there is one Lord: whom it qualifies as Jesus Christ. No one is scripturally disputing the existence of both beings. But, again, this says nothing of any trinity. Nor does this particular Scripture even give a hint of a possibility of a trinity. Yet these Scripture references being given are those used.

Ephesians 4:5 _ "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

The next verse is rarely quoted, but I think should be. "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." So here again we have the statement that we have one Lord (whom we know is Jesus Christ), and one God (whom it qualifies as the Father of all). This isn't in dispute. Still nothing of a trinity.

John 14:8 - 9 _ "Philip said to Him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father''?"

This can appear as if Jesus is stating that He is actually the Father Himself. However a bit of a look at the verses around reveal that this isn't the case. You can't just take bits out of the Scriptures that you like and ignore the rest. The very next verse (verse 10) states, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." In other words He's stating that the reason He's calling Himself the Father is because He's doing the works the Father wants Him to do. Also if the Father were there in that situation, that is exactly what the Father would be doing. And therefore in seeing Him you're seeing the Father. Three verses later (verse 12) He states, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father." If He meant that He was literally the Father why would He then state that He was going to the Father? Clearly His talk of the Father being actually in Him, or Him being the Father in a sense, doesn't relate to a physical joint-being concept any more than Jesus Christ or God being in us does. But we will come to more on this.

1 Timothy 2:5 _ "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus."

This is similar to some others we've discussed and I only mention it because it is so often quoted to claim some kind of trinity is suggested by talk of one God. However it is purely stating that there is one God (whom it doesn't identify, but is obviously talking of the Father due to the rest of the verse), and one Mediator between us and God (who can't be the God just mentioned as God can't be the mediator between us and God _ as that is illogical: You can't have the mediator between two parties being one of the parties himself), namely Jesus Christ. These verses present the fact that there are two, not one being as is presented in the trinity concept.

1 Timothy 3:16 _ "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."

The statement about God being manifest in the flesh doesn't mean that the Father became flesh Himself. It would refer to the same sense as when Jesus was talking to Philip (as explained above). Either that or this is using the term "God" to define Jesus Christ Himself, in this case. Whichever it is, the Scripture states nothing of a triune God. No one is scripturally disputing that Jesus Christ was received up in glory to sit with God in His thrown. Jesus Christ is the God of Israel. But He isn't the Father, as He made clear Himself (we will come to those Scriptures which oppose the concept of a trinity - though some we've mentioned seem to do so on their own).

John 1:1 _ "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Firstly I should point out that the Joseph Smith Translation has the end stating that the word was of God. Joseph Smith made no claim to have completed this work however and so this should be regarded as a possible alternate rendering. Joseph Smith may only have done this revision quickly and planned to get back to it at a more inspired time. Unless a prophet declares his statement to have come from God it is an opinion, and he didn't even declare it as his final opinion. Some feel that it should be rendered "a God" at the end (and I have seen it written this way). However there are some other feelings on this and so I will express them.

One is that this is a typical Jewish style of writing. If you note Stephen's defence before the Jews you will see that he tells the story of Israel, and eventually comes to Christ, having shown the connection. John may have been doing this same thing here. It talks of God's word being with Him in the first place (remember that in Genesis it states that God just says things and they happen). John talks of all things being made by God's word. It talks of His word as a "him". It talks of His word as being light. Then it gets to John the Baptist and then to Jesus. At this point it ties Jesus into God's word, and gives all it's qualities to Him. This is a passing of symbolism, to point out Jesus's closeness to God and His divine calling. However this is just a possibility.

But leaving all these aside, what does the Scripture state as is. At face value it merely states that Jesus Christ was with God the Father and was also God (He being the Son). It doesn't state that the Father and Son are one being and not three separate beings.

John 17:11 + 22 _ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You, Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are."

_ "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one."

We have Jesus Christ stating that He and the Father are one. So is this the trinity concept? The two verses themselves answer this question. Jesus is asking the Father if He'd look after the 12 Apostles. He's also saying that He wants the Apostles to be one just as He and the Father are one. So is He asking that the Apostles should become a 12 in 1? The obvious answer is, "no". Yet He's said that they should be one, just as the Father and He are. In other words the oneness He's asking for of the Apostles is the same oneness that He and the Father have _ a unity and agreement in purpose. But I'll come back with more on this when covering those Scriptures which dispute the trinity concept.

1 Nephi 13:41 _ "And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth."

This Scripture is just presenting that Jesus Christ is also the God of Israel. This isn't even presenting the Father at all.

2 Nephi 31:21 _ "And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

This is stating that there is only one way for salvation. Nephi then states that this is the doctrine of all three members of the Godhead. This is important to know so that we don't get confused thinking that perhaps the three each have differing views as to salvation and how to get it. So Nephi qualifies that they are one. This Scripture is very good in that it points out the very reason why Jesus talks of Himself and the Father being one. Imagine if we weren't told that each had the same opinion on this. But fortunately they do have the same opinion, and this has been stated over and over. I'll come to more on this later, but this doctrine issue mentioned here is important to remember.

Alma 11:44 _ "Now this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not be so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to it's perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought to be arrayed before the judgement bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

This is again setting forth the unity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In this case it is talking about the judgement. This is the time when we will be glad that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are in agreement. We won't have to be saying to Christ, "but the Holy Ghost said ...". Alma is pointing out that all three are together in judgement.

Mosiah 15:3-4 _ "The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son - And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth."

This is a very interesting statement, along with some around it. Verse 2 states, "...subjecting the will of the flesh to the Father..". Also verse 5 states this same thing, "And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father...". Verse 7 goes on to say, "the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father". Then verse 8 says, "And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men." So what is all this saying? Is it all talking of the trinity doctrine? Quite the contrary. It is stating that the Son is only the Father because He subjects His will to the Father's will. If they were one and the same His Father's will would be His will too. But this is saying that He has subjected His will. Also it's stating that this subjecting of His will, and thus doing the atonement, makes it that the Father has made the atonement possible giving His Son power to make intercession. So this has explained that Jesus Christ is the Son because of his flesh; that is that He is separate and God's Son, and He is the Father in that He's doing what God wants and would do. But I'll admit that it can be easily confused if not read properly.

As can be seen from above, the Bible itself (from which the trinity concept supposedly derived) is rather devoid of any substantial support for the trinitarian concept. In fact it's rather short on even vague connection with the concept. The Book of Mormon presents some texts, which sound a little trinitarian at first glance. But there is no Scripture which states that the three beings (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) are one in substance and mass, as is presented in the trinity concept. All we have is that the three are classified as "one Eternal God". With this and unqualified statements of there just being one God, some confusion as to what this means is understandable. However an examination of the Scripture references opposing the concept should help to make this all clear.

Opposing the Trinity Concept

Matthew 19:16 - 17 _ concerning Jesus it says, "Now behold, one came and said to Him, 'Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' So He said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments'."

Here we have Jesus saying that He isn't to be considered as "Good" but only God is. He is obviously referring to the Father in saying "God". So if He were the Father literally (as is confused by such statements as that stated to Philip) then this statement would be a lie; and we know that Jesus didn't sin, and thus this can't be a lie. He's stating that only the Father could be classified as "good" (whatever He considered that to mean). This shows a definite difference between the Father and the Son.

Acts 4:32 _ "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common."

This Scripture gives us some understanding as to how many can be "one" in Scriptural thinking. It says the "multitude" were of "one heart" and "one soul". If this were a Scripture about God people could get it confused and think it supported the trinity idea. So looking at the whole doctrine presented in Scripture is important to a proper understanding.

Romans 12:5 _ "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another."

Again we have reference to the concept of many being one. In fact here we have a statement of many being "one body". Also it's stating that these people were "members of one another". This would be very confusing stuff if it were being said of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. We know that these members were all individuals, and not many in one mass. So it must be remembered that this type of thinking was common.

1 Cor 6:16 - 17 _ "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two' He says, 'shall become one flesh'. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

It talks (as in Genesis) of husbands and wives being "one flesh". We know this doesn't mean so in a literal sense. Also it speaks here of believers being one Spirit with the Lord. Should we believe that this means literally? Of course the answer is, "no". Obviously this is speaking of the same type of oneness spoken of by Nephi and Alma: A oneness of doctrine, type of action and purpose. So saying that three are one "Eternal God", as stated in the Book of Mormon, isn't some trintarian doctrine, but a statement of the unity of doctrine and purpose of all three.

Matthew 3:16 - 17 "When He had been baptised, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice same from heaven, saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'."

Jesus is standing there on the earth, the Holy Ghost is elsewhere, but comes down and lands on Jesus. This certainly doesn't present that the three of them were one mass. Then we have the Father speaking from heaven. Again this suggests a separation of beings, and therefore opposes a trinity idea.

Genesis 1:26 _ "Then God said, 'Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth'."

Also in this regard I will quote the following and deal with them together.

Genesis 3:22 _ "Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever' -."

Both of these Scriptures point out that there isn't just one God and that's it. Both use the term "us" when one of them is speaking. In the first reference given it is "Eloheim" that is translated as "God". Anyone knowing Hebrew will know that anything ending in "im" in Hebrew is a plural word, not singular. Therefore strictly this can't be translated as "God" but (as some consider) "Head God of the Gods", or at least as "Gods" as is the case in the Book of Abraham. So we have more than one God in reality. Talk of "one God" must be kept in the context in which it is meant.

John 12:50 _ "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak."

So Jesus Christ is stating here that it isn't His own ideas that He speaks, but the Father's ideas. If He were the Father, as some confuse certain verses to presume, this wouldn't make any sense, as Jesus' opinion would be His (the Father's) own opinion. He's showing again that while, in a sense, He can be considered the Father, He actually isn't in reality.

Acts 2:33 _ It says of Jesus, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear."

Well this presents a fairly clear message of separate beings, not one. We have Jesus Christ being on God's right-hand side, as opposed to being His right hand (a bit of humour there). We also have the Father promising the Son that the Holy Ghost would be poured out. This latter part seems an even stranger statement in that the trinitarian translation would have the Father promising Himself that He'd pour Himself out. No wonder there is so much talk of God being "incomprehensible". I'd be very confused with that. I hope anyone who was uncertain about the trinity concept has come to see by this point that it isn't supported in the Scriptures. But just in case more convincing is required, or would be appreciated, I'll go on.

John Chapter 17

Verse 1 _ "Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: 'Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You."

Jesus has "lifted up His eyes to heaven" and talked to the Father. Jesus is making a request of the Father. Jesus is saying that He'd like the Father to Glorify Him (Jesus), so that He can glorify the Father. Would this conversation make any sense at all if He (Jesus) was the Father? Jesus is praying! He's actually praying to God! If He were the Father would He be praying to Himself? Surely this would be madness. Jesus is coming to the time of the atonement, and He is asking for His (and ours) God's support.

Verse 2 _ "As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him."

So God (the Father) has given Jesus authority. Didn't Jesus just have it, being the Father Himself? Jesus didn't seem to think so, and that will do me. Next we have Jesus only being able to give eternal life to those whom the Father chooses. Jesus is speaking to the Father as a man to His God, not as equals or parts of the same being. Verse 3 informs us that we have to come to know both the Father and the Son, it doesn't say we just have to know one being.

Verse 4 _ "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do."

The Father has given the Son this work to do. The Son hasn't given Himself the work. Also the Son hasn't glorified Himself, but the Father. If He were the Father, literally, He would have given Himself the work and be glorifying Himself. But this doesn't present this here. So again we have a separate Father and Son. We have the Father directing a Son as to what to do and when.

Verse 5 _ "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

The Son is saying that He'd like to be back in the glory of His Father as He was before the world was. Doesn't he have the presence of His Father? Obviously not literally. So such glory wasn't with Him. He was on His own. His Father had a mental presence with the Son (as we can tell from other Scripture references) but not a literal one: They weren't one mass or one being. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost can have a mental presence with us also (as is also stated) but this doesn't make us one being with them either.

Verses 6 - 10 continue with this same concept with Jesus saying to the Father things like "You gave them to Me" and "They were Yours" and "I have manifested Your name" and "all things which You have given Me are from You" and "You have given Me" and "You sent Me" and "I pray for them".

Verse 11 _ "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are."

Here Jesus speaks of this oneness between Him and the Father. But note that He's asking that the Apostles (which are the people He's talking about) can be one as He and the Father are one. Is He asking that the Apostles become one mass or substance? _ A twelve in one? If He was the Father didn't seem to grant this request. I think it's rather obvious, again, that this isn't a oneness of being, but of doctrine and love.

Verses 12 - 17 has Jesus continuing to pray to the Father and say such things as "I kept them in Your name" and "Those whom You gave Me" and "But now I come to You" and "I have given them Your word" and "I do not pray that You" and "but that You" and "Sanctify them by Your truth" and "Your word is truth".

These statements continue to support the doctrine that Jesus isn't the actual Father at all. How can He come to himself? He is qualifying what He means in the prayer _ to Himself? Why a need to qualify a request in prayer to yourself? Surely you would know what you mean. But He says "I do not pray that you should take them out of the world". That Jesus Christ is praying on His knees to Himself or some other part of Himself just seems insane. Yet this is what He'd have to be doing if the trinity concept were accurate. How much more logical and Scriptural to just realise that the trinity idea was just an invention of man? The rest of the chapter just goes on with more of the same. Rather than bother showing more of the same I'll just select those parts that I feel most significant.

Verse 18 _ "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world."

Jesus is stating that the Father SENT Him into the world. To be "sent" a person would have to leave somewhere / someone, and go to a place that He wasn't at before being sent. So this tells us that Jesus left the presence of the Father _ No three in one.

Verse 20 - 21 _ "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."

So Jesus is asking that not only He and the Father and twelve Apostles be one, but that everybody else who believes in their word (Acts talks of 500 people being present at His ascension) being one "AS" they are one. So in the same way the Father and Son are one all these others are to be one with them also _ hundreds in one.

Verse 23 says "I in them and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You loved Me."

This refers to Jesus being "in" His Apostles and the Father being "in" Him. It talks of being made perfect in one. Over and over we see that the oneness referred to isn't one mass. Jesus and the Father and the Holy Ghost being in us doesn't make us really all one substance, as the trinity doctrine claims.

Matthew 20:23 _ "So He said to them, 'You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."

The Son is stating that He has no authority to decide who is going to sit on His right and left in the Kingdom of God. He's saying this is something only the Father has worked out. So how does this fit with the idea that He is the Father? Obviously He wasn't meaning to take the concept of Him being the Father literally.

Matthew 26:39 + 42 + 44 _ "He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'

"Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.'

"So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words."

In these verses Jesus is asking that He not have to do the atonement. He, of Himself found it an enormously difficult thing to perform. But in spite of this He said to the Father that He was willing to suffer it (in obedience to the Father) if the Father really wanted Him to. Does this portray that Jesus is the Father? This also totally opposes the trinity concept.

Luke 22:43 _ "Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him."

This was at the time of the atonement in the garden, and He needed an angel to help Him. So let's get this straight in our minds: We have the God of the universe, who's holding everything together, needing an angel to give Him extra strength. Does this sound right to you? Is God a little short on strength? Yet clearly this is what we have here if we are to believe that Jesus and the Father are the one being. This presents a VERY human Jesus Christ, not a God. At the same time we must realise that by His obedience in the pre-existence and this earth life He is the God of Israel etc. But He went through an earth life to gain a body and experience just like everybody else. He, however, didn't sin, and thus could perform the atonement. He also made the resurrection possible.

Luke 23:46 _ "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, 'Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit'. Having said this, He breathed His last."

Jesus has told the Father that He's committing His SPIRIT to the Father. How can He do that if He and the Father are the same spirit? Didn't the Father already have His own Spirit? Should we believe that Jesus Christ had just temporarily borrowed the Father's spirit? This is telling us that Jesus' spirit is separate to the Father's spirit. How untrinitarian a statement can you get.

Matthew 27:46 _ "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That is, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?'"

Jesus has stated that the Father has left Him. How could that be unless they are separate to be able to be away from each other? If they were one being and mass how could He leave Himself? And why even ask why, considering you would know why you were doing something, wouldn't you?

D&C 130:22 _ " The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

This spells it out very plainly that the Father and Son have a body each, and that the Holy Ghost is separate again with a spirit body only.

Joseph Smith History 17 + 25 _ "It no sooner appeared that I found myself delivered from the enemy which had me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other - This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

"So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me ...."

These verses speak plainly of two Personages, not just one.

Some other references:-

1 Peter 3:22, 1 Peter 3:8, Galatians 3:28, Hebrews 2:11, 2 Corinthians 13:11, John 12:27-28, Acts 7:55-56, Revelation 3:21, 1 John 4:15, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Mark 10:17-18, Matthew 4:1, Luke 3:22, John 4:19, John 20:17, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Ephesians 3:14, 3 Nephi 11:10-11, 3 Nephi 12:48, 3 Nephi 13:1, D&C 76:23, D&C 35:2, D&C 93:3, Moses 6:68,

Summation on the Trinity

There are many Scriptures showing that the concept of the trinity is a man made, not God inspired, doctrine. Again I should point out that even many people supporting the trinity idea admit that there is no Biblical statement that actually states it: Nothing says anything about there being three in the one mass, or that there is three Gods in one actual God. There are statements that mention that God is one. But as we have seen, there are also statements about large groups of people being one, too. To get a better understanding of the situation of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we could liken it to a business that has an owner (the Father) and a manager (the Son) and a sales representative (the Holy Ghost) out helping people with the product. It's a bit simplistic, but may give you some idea. The manager can speak as if he is the owner, even though he isn't. He stands to speak on behalf of the owner, as the owner has given him that right. The sales representative goes out and makes promises to customers that things will be arriving at certain times and will cost certain amounts. He speaks with authority. He is the owner as far as the customer is concerned. What the sales representative says, and what the manager says should be no different to what the owner would say if there himself. So, in a sense, the three are one: All three are the owner. But this doesn't make them joined into one mass. All are still separate individuals.




Does Genesis say that Angels came down and Married Women?

The so called "Book of Enoch" talks of angels coming down and having sexual relationships with women. Some therefore interpret the Bible to support this claim. So what does the Bible actually state?

Genesis 6:1 - 4 states, "And it came to pass, when man began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown." AKJ.

From this Scripture mixed with others that say absolutely nothing of giants or angels coming down to marry women, so don't bear mentioning, this weird concept has arisen of fallen angels fathering giant children. While this sounds an interesting yarn to perhaps rival Jack and the Beanstalk, this isn't what the Scriptures have said. Verse 1 states that men had daughters, and verse 2 states that the sons of God married them (we'll come to that term in a moment, but that means the normal sons of men). Then we have God mentioning that man's average life span is to be reduced in length. Then we have mention that there happened to be giants in the land at that time. Then it goes on to say that the sons and daughters had children, men who made a name for themselves. I think it is important to note that Moses (the writer of the book) had just mentioned the great patriarchs from Adam to Noah and sons in chapter 5. Of Noah, verse 9 of chapter 6 states that he "was a just man, and perfect" and "walked with God." And in chapter 5 he's also talked of such greats as Seth, Abel, and Enoch (the latter of whom God translated _ Hebrews 11:5). These are men of renown, even today. Is it any wonder then that he refers to "sons of God" only two verses later (remember that the Hebrew scriptures weren't written in chapters)? Psalms 82:6 refers to normal people as being "sons of God". Hosea 1:10 refers to sons of Israel (meaning Israelites) as becoming "the sons of the living God" by obedience. Acts 17:29 "you are the offspring of God" _ meaning all mankind. And there are more scriptures showing that the term "sons of God" refers to normal people. Of course it also refers to us before we were born, as is mentioned in Job chapter 38.

The Bible gives no explanation of why they happened to be giants, but as we know from modern science, even eating certain foods will produce this effect. Pygmies are very small only because of their diet, which would make us giants to them. Then what would we say of dwarfs, are we to make up some doctrine built around their existence also? These are just natural things.

Next we have the problem of more giants long after the flood. The flood would have wiped out these giants at Noah's time (whatever one wishes to decide the reason for their height to be) _ unless we decide that they were so tall that they had their heads above water during the flood. In Genesis 7:22 it says, "...all that was on the dry land, died." (NKJ). So that means these giants too. So where did the Anakim and Emim etc come from? These peoples were giants too. The Emim were as numerous and as tall as the Anakim (Deuteronomy 2:10). And verse 21 makes mention of another people as tall and numerous as the Anakim, who had long ago been wiped out by the Ammonites (but perhaps some had survived as seems to be implied in the next verse). Of the height of the Anakim the spies stated, "There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight" NKJ (Numbers 13:33). While we would assume that it was somewhat of an exaggeration to state that they were so huge that the Israelites size could be compared to grasshoppers, obviously the Anakim were quite huge. And the Scriptures have made these references to 2 other groups of people just as huge, that they were aware of in their little corner of the world, all living after the flood. Even with our limited knowledge we know of ways to make people a lot larger _ though obviously their skills here were way beyond ours.

So firstly we don't have the Scriptures stating any definite connection between the fact that giants were there and the fact that anyone was getting married. Secondly we have no mention in Genesis chapter 6 of anyone leaving heaven at that time. Thirdly we have all these giants well after the ones at Noah's time were long drowned. And fourthly we have far more Scripture references to males on earth being referred to as "sons of God" than we do heavenly beings, and none stating a reference to fallen angels. Verses 5-7 go on to talk of man having problems, not angels. This claim is based solely on a book not accepted as Scripture. So while we can enjoy fantasy such as Star Wars and Planet of the Apes, let's keep realistic about truth.




The Father and Jesus Christ Have Bodies, and are in One Place at a Time

Eph 4 : 6, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Some feel that this is saying that God, as a being, fills the universe. D & C 88 : 41 also states what Ephesians is stating. So is God everywhere in person? Verse 9 says concerning Jesus Christ, "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" Here we have Jesus Christ certainly able to ascend, and descend. How could He do this if He's everywhere already? And it would make a mockery of His time in the Garden of Gethsemane, and on the cross to say that at the same time he was also sipping wine with Herod, and inside Caiaphas relaxing at home (or whatever they were doing). A person may argue that Jesus Christ changed when coming to earth and was in only one place while in human form on earth. We agree that Jesus Christ came here and got a body just like all of us. But does the Bible teach that Jesus changed into a different spirit form when coming to earth? No. To assume that God, and Jesus Christ are literally in all of us leaves one wondering what to make of the many scriptures such as 1John 3 : 24, "And he that keeps his commandments dwells in him, and he in him.." This suggests that he that doesn’t keep the commandments doesn't have God dwelling in him. If someone says, "but this is in a spiritual sense," then they have answered the point themselves. Gods' intelligence (though it stems from Himself) permeates everything, in that it influences matter, thereby creating order. Therefore in regard to Eph 4 : 6, and other similar verses, we don't disagree with the interpretation that God (in some way) fills the universe. We just disagree that this is a physical filling of the universe and know that the Scriptures don't support such a concept.

Psalms 139 : 7 - 10, " Where shall I go from your spirit? or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend up into heaven, you are there: if I make my bed in hell, look, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall your hand lead me, and your right hand shall hold me." Though we agree with the point that Gods' intelligence permeates through everything (though stemming from one place), I must, in all fairness to the Scripture, point out that to interpret this scripture as that God is everywhere, in any sense, is a misrepresentation. In verse 13 David says concerning the previous verses (including verses 7 - 10), "For you have possessed my reins..." In other words David is saying that God will be there because he (David) is there, not because God's there already. David is saying that God watches over him. But David has in fact constantly talked of God as a being with a body, "..your right hand shall hold me" (verse 10). And " Your eyes did see my substance.." (verse 16). So in fact this chapter speaks in favour of the true' view of God, rather than in opposition to it. Some may say that these later two quotes can't be taken literally, and quote Matt 23 : 37 (or something similar), "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kills the prophets, and stones them which are sent to you, how often would I have gathered yout children together, even as a hen gatherd her chickens under her wings, and you would not!" From this they decide that we'd have to conclude that the Lord was a hen. However this scripture says, "..even as a hen gatherd her chickens..," not, "the Lord is a hen gathering her chickens." Also in Psalms it doesn't say, "as a right hand," but says, "your right hand shall hold me." Some may grasp at straws and say, "How can David be held by Gods' right hand," as if size presents some problem. However I don't think David was considering that God had any limitations, as these people would be suggesting that God couldn't raise David with one hand, and hold him up in it. Of course God could easily do this.

Jer 23 : 23 - 24, "Am I a God at hand, says the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? says the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? says the LORD." I quote a few of these kinds of verses only because a few may be quoted to you, and I'm just using them as an example (in regard to this subject), to show that no matter what's quoted on this the point will boil down to the question, "in what way does God fill the heaven and earth?" Do these scriptures mean physically? Once again we find in the same chapter a scripture talking of God as being in mans' likeness _ "...mouth of the LORD" (verse 16). The answer to this is the same as to Eph 4 : 6, and the question of whether the Father and Son have physical bodies will really answer this point more fully. If They do have bodies They must be physically in one place. So to turn to that subject also _

Num 23 : 19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" The surrounding circumstances are very relevant to the interpretation of a few statements in this part of the chapter. Balaam is talking to a Gentile king (Balak), and saying that God is not like people he meets, who lie, and say they'll do things, but don't, or change their mind. He's not making a doctrinal statement to explain the physical make-up of God, but of His attributes. Taking these statements literally, rather than in context of whom he was speaking to would come unstuck in verse 21 (as this is part of the same declaration, comprising verses 19 - 24), which says, "He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither has he seen perverseness in Israel..." This statement was made to a king of the Gentiles. In comparison to the Gentiles it's accurate, but as a doctrine it's wrong. There certainly was iniquity in Jacob, and perverseness in Israel. This shows up immediately after this story of Balaam, Chapter 25 verses 1 & 2, where we find them committing whoredoms, and worshipping idols. These actions didn't just pop up out of thin air, their minds weren't in the right place. Many of them had just been destroyed by fiery serpents in the chapter before the Balaam story (chapter 21). So these statements must be taken in context. We'll come to more verses pointing out that God and Jesus Christ are in one place, and have bodies that look like men, further on.

John 4 : 24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." In quoting this people are attempting to say that when it says that God is a Spirit (the original Greek says, "God a spirit", the "is" is just thrown in to make it flow better in English; that's why it's in italics in all good Bibles), that it's saying that that is all He is. In other words they're saying that He can't also have a body because this says He's a spirit. However that logic becomes lost in 1John 4 : 8 where we're told that, "He that loves not knows not God; for God is love." Are we to conclude schizophrenia? One moment He's a spirit (and nothing else such as a body), the next thing we know He's love (and by the same logic as used before we would have to accept that He's nothing else). As surely as God can be both "love" and "a spirit", so He can be also physical. Both of these statements must be taken in context. One scripture is talking about love, the other is talking about spiritual worship as opposed to just outward activity. John 3 : 5 - 6 says, "Jesus answered, Surely, surely, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This latter spirit being spoken of is a person who's been "born again". Yet in spite of them now being "spirit" (as verse 6 puts it) they are still also physical. It is also interesting to note that the same Greek word that is translated as "a Spirit" in John 4 : 24, is translated as "spirit" in John 3 : 6. I point that out just in case you find someone grasping at straws saying, "ah yes, but this scripture says "a Spirit", but this one says "spirit". They also have the same grammatical construction, as do all quotes I make from Greek, used to show the harmony between two usage's. So people truly born of the Spirit are spirit (or "a spirit"), yet still have bodies, and so God also being spirit (or "a spirit") can just as easily have a body. 1Cor 6 : 16 -17 says, "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." Again we find that those who follow the Lord are one with Him, and that He and you are one spirit. These quotes make it hard to conclude that even a statement saying that God is a spirit, should be interpreted that that's all He is, as we are one spirit with him but still have a body also.

Two questions I pose at this time. 1. are there any other Biblical references to the fact that Jesus Christ, and God the Father are in one place at a time?, and 2. are there any Biblical references to the fact that Jesus Christ, and God the Father have physical bodies?, the answer is, "so many I will not bother quoting all of them." As, if people don't accept this many verses saying something then they wish to believe their traditions, rather than the Bible. Everybody will have this problem to some extent (that's just human), but the question is, "will they end up putting God first, or their traditions."

One of the most well testified occurrences of the New Testament is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now what was resurrected? A spirit? When the women came to the tomb, Luke 24 : 2 - 3 says, "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus." So why did He raise His body if He wasn't going to keep it? If He just wanted to prove He had power over death He could have just turned up with another body. When the apostles were gathered together, and Jesus Christ appeared to them, He said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." (Luke 24 : 39 - 43). Jesus Christ was raised from the dead to be a living, breathing, capable of eating, speaking, etc, resurrected person. He was not raised as "a spirit." In fact the apostles originally made this same mistake _ "But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." (Luke 24 : 37). Matt 28 : 9 says, "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." Again we see Jesus Christ as a resurrected person, with the same body that people could recognise, and was missing from the tomb. In Acts 1 : 3 it says, "To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." Here we find that they saw Him "alive" for forty days. Then we find in verses 9 - 11, "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." So far we've found that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead with His own body, that could eat, walk, be held, talk etc. We have also found that He went up "into heaven" with it. And we are told that He shall return in like manner, with it. This later statement is also prophesied in Zech 13 : 6, which says, "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." Note also Zech 12 :10 "..and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced..." When Christ comes again He will still have the wounds in His hands (at least) according to these scriptures (He would obviously also have them in His feet, and side where stabbed _ which we also find from 3 Nephi 11 :12 -14. Also John 20 : 27 mentions the hole still being in His side after the resurrection). So when does He dump his body? Has He left it sitting in the closet to pick up on the way down for His second coming? When Stephen was being questioned it says of him, "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." (Acts 7 : 55 ). Now the Bible is telling us that Stephen "saw" not only "the glory of God", but also "Jesus" standing beside "God". Now some may say, "well this was just a vision, and therefore shouldn't be taken literally." But Stephen doesn't seem to hold that opinion, he says of it in the next verse, "And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." A clear statement _ "I see.. the Son of man." What's more he says, "standing on the right hand of God." Nothing here about "I see a representation of the Son of man," or, "standing on the right hand side of an illusion of God." The scripture has also stated that he "looked up stedfastly into heaven." Once again it's not saying anything about an "imaginary" or "illusionary" heaven. So there's nothing here to support anything contrary to what Stephen (and the Bible) says he saw. If someone wants to go beyond the Bible, and create their own doctrine, then ask them why they use the Bible at all. From these verses we find that Stephen saw Jesus Christ, and obviously recognised Him as Jesus Christ. In other words He still looked the same. And he was "standing." As opposed to what? Sitting? Laying down? If He filled the universe how could He be recognised as being in the standing position? Paul has Him also capable of sitting, (Heb 1 : 3) "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." This was just a doctrinal statement by Paul, plain, and to the point. Jesus Christ, again, on the right hand side of God. And it says that Jesus Christ is the "express image of his (God's) person." This could have been why Jesus was standing when Stephen saw them both, so he would know it would obviously be the Father sitting, and the Son standing (as they look the same). But don't bring this last bit up unless you feel sure they can handle the reality of God.

Another scripture in regard to God being in one place at a time _ Exodus 24 :1 - 2, "AND he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off. And Moses alone shall come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him." How was Moses to "Come up unto the LORD," if He was already everywhere? How could others "worship.. afar off"?

Some may try to say, in spite of all these scriptures, "well that's all symbolic." So where does that leave anybody? If all of these scriptures are symbolic, then what of the few they've quoted? How do they conclude that they aren't? And was the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ just symbolic? Did He just pretend to eat the fish, just to fool them? If you're in a situation where you're answering arguments against the church presented by a person who is present, and you're answering to help someone else who is present, remember that you don't need to answer questions to the attacker's satisfaction. The fact that they’re not satisfied is irrelevant. They probably haven't come there with anything like an open mind, so just give answers, and leave it to the Holy Ghost to work with people in regard to what you're saying.

When Paul was being held by the Romans, it says, "And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness at Rome."(Acts 23 :11). So how did Paul decide that the Lord stood near him? How much Biblical evidence is necessary? Paul has the Lord standing ( "stood" ), he has the Lord in one place ( "stood by him" ), and he has the Lord speaking ( "and said" ).

Concerning Israel, Moses prophesied, "And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell." (Deut 4 : 28). As opposed to what? Moses has mentioned these things about these idols as being negative points. So obviously God doesn't fit into any of them. Firstly we're informed that He therefore isn't made of wood and/or stone. Then we find that He sees, hears, eats, and smells things. If God doesn't do any one of these things then Moses' statement is meaningless. What's the point of him having a dig at these other "gods" for not being life like, if his God (our God) isn't either? The next scripture I'd like to quote goes into this point even more.

When Paul was preaching in Athens he said concerning the Lord, (Acts 17 : 28 - 29) "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." ( I should add that nothing I say here should be concluded to mean that I am suggesting that Adam is God, nor do I hold that he is, in case anyone would try to read it into it). What is Paul trying to say? He's said that we are the offspring of God. Whatever sense a person may wish to interpret this statement into, one thing is plain; Paul was using this relationship to prove a point, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is..." In other words he's saying that since we're God's offspring, we shouldn't think that the God is... The only way such a point could make any sense is if, as God's offspring, we were like Him. So in what sense was Paul saying that we're like Him. Did he mean some obscure spiritual sense ( I say, "obscure" because most people are still sinning, and so don't reflect Him very well in that area)? The answer to that lays within the scripture also _ "..that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone..." This is not any spiritual sense that Paul is talking about, but God's physical make-up. The logic of his whole argument here is that God can't be made of stone etc., because we are His offspring, and we're not made of stone, so how can God be. In other words God is made of the same substance we are (for those who haven't caught on yet). I again qualify that I know that Adam isn't God (as shown in Luke 3:38 and Moses 6:22 along with many other places).





Contrary to popular belief, the Scriptures say nothing of Solomon repenting before he died (in spite of the movies). Not only don't they say that he repented, but seem to say that he didn't. Some find this difficult to accept; that after receiving so much wisdom, and writing wise proverbs, that he could fail. However the Scriptures state that he did fail after receiving his wisdom. But the impression has been that he repented eventually, and made it right with God. A look at the Scriptures should make the truth clear.

Deuteronomy 17:17 says regarding the Kings of Israel _ "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself."

So Kings were not to have a great collection of wives. David was requested of God (by Nathan the prophet) to take two wives beyond those that he had, but this didn't make a great multiplicity of wives as God was forbidding. But let's look at Solomon's collection.

1 Kings 11:3 _ "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart."

I feel sure that a thousand women would be classified as multiplying women to himself. He certainly couldn't be a good husband to that many women. It also mentions that the wives (I doubt that it actually means all of them, but obviously some) turned away his heart, as warned in Deuteronomy 17:17 above. So this was one law of God, given to Moses, that Solomon broke.

Deuteronomy 7:3 - 6 says regarding non-Israelites (Gentiles) _ "Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. But thus you shall deal with them; you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire. For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth."

This is saying that no Israelite is to marry any Gentiles. It's also saying that they are to destroy any carved images that they can lay their hands on. So let's look at what Solomon did.

1 Kings 11:1-2 _ "But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites - From the nations of whom the LORD had said to the children of Israel, 'You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods'. Solomon clung to these in love."

Here again Solomon broke the law given to Moses by marrying Gentiles. So let's look at what happened.

1 Kings 11:4 - 10 _ "For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not fully follow the LORD, as did his father David. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the people of Ammon. And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. So the LORD became angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned from the LORD God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD had commanded."

So having broken the law to marry Gentiles and collect many wives, he went on to allow carved images to be built, rather than obeying Gods' command to destroy such things. He also was following these images to some extent. Note also that it says this happened "When Solomon was old". So did he repent of this when even older? The Scriptures not only don't claim that he did, but show that he didn't.

1 Kings 11:11 - 13 _ "Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, 'Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away the whole kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of my servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."

Solomon has been informed that because he is sinning the kingdom of Israel will be divided into two kingdoms with his son ruling only one tribe, and the other tribes will be ruled by someone else, when Solomon dies. This is a prophecy against Solomon. The Scriptures show us Gods' rules concerning such prophecies. First let's look at the story of Jonah, who was commanded by God to go and tell the people of Nineveh that they were going to be destroyed because of their wickedness.

Jonah 3:4 - 10 _ "And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, 'Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown'. So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his thrown and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it."

So even after stating that He would destroy them God didn't because they repented. So if God prophesies evil against anyone for their evil ways it can be changed by the person repenting and changing their ways. The Scriptures declare this plainly in Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 33:14 - 15 _ "Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die', if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, If the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die."

So had Solomon repented and changed God would not have continued on to do that which He had prophesied against him. However God did go on to do that which was prophesied against Solomon.

1 Kings 12:15 & 19 - 20 _ "So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from the LORD, that He might fulfil His word, which the LORD had spoken by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jereboam the son of Nebat."

"So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day. Now it came to pass when all Israel heard that Jereboam had come back, they sent for him and called him to the congregation, and made him king over all Israel. There was none who followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only."

The kingdom of Israel was taken from Solomon's son other than the tribe of Judah, as was prophesied. This is the time that Israel split into Israel in the North and Judah (the Jews) in the South. Israel was destroyed (scattered) in around 722BC, but Judah remained, in spite of some difficulties, until scattered by the Romans in around 70AD. Had Solomon repented this split wouldn't have occurred.

About Me

I am LDS. I've taught seminary and Gospel Doctrine classes. I've been Elders Quorum Advisor and taught the High Priests. I am an RM. I uphold the truth of Scripture above the changing philosophies of mankind. Therefore I believe in PROVEN science only (else it isn't science in the true sense); I don't believe in unprovable fantasies such as evolution, billions of years old earth, etc. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are my leaders. They are the ONLY ones I consider infallible. Yet I fully support all those authorised of God within their various roles in the LDS church. I am widowed, but would STRICTLY only date LDS women.