Posted on 02/15/2010 10:15:24 AM PST by colorcountry
The Gospel Principles 2009 manual essentially calls classical Christianity “false Christianity” and its theology of God “pagan” and its adherents those who are “called” Christian.
If we talked about Mormon beliefs and Mormonism and Mormon members this way, we’d get priesthood-slapped.
Yes, you heard me right. Let me explain.
In chapter 16 it implicitly taps into popular assumptions about Nicaea and then says that “false Christianity” (that the “Roman emperor adopted”) “taught that God was a being without form or substance.”
My first reaction was that the New Testament teaches that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that God is spirit, etc.
But then it struck me: WAIT, did a 2009 LDS Church manual just make a delineation between true and FALSE Christianity partly the basis of teaching that “God was a being without [spatial] form or [material] substance”?
Mormonism has been complaining for a long while now that anyone should make pronouncements about what is and what is not true Christianity. But here we have it in the 2009 manual: Mormonism has essentially fired a shot at Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy as being “false Christianity” for teaching the “pagan”[1] idea that “God [is] a being without form or substance.”
Here is the quote (with emphasis added):
Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. It taught that God was a being without form or substance.
Make no mistake, the manual is not doing ALL of what Mormons complain that the wide range of countercultists do, but it is hypocritically doing a great deal of it. The manual digs its criticism in by calling these people with pagan beliefs those “called Christians”. It in effect is calling them so-called Christians. So the manual isn’t merely criticizing the religious systems (which teach God is spirit and not a material substance) as false Christianity; it is also suggest its adherents are merely “called” Christians.
Ask yourselves, what kind of vehement reaction do evangelicals get when we speak of Lorenzo Snow couplet theology as “pagan” and of Mormonism as “false Christianity”[2] and of Mormons as those “called” Christians? Look, I don’t believe it’s inherently wrong to say someone’s beliefs are pagan, or that a religion is a false Christianity, or that many of its adherents are only called Christians[3]. Mormonism is a false Christianity with pagan beliefs and with many adherents that are merely “called” Christians. But I’ve been given a lot of grief for saying those kinds of things, with the premise that saying such things is unethical. I just am calling out the LDS Church for its hypocrisy on this.
I would rather that they just get all McConkie on us[4]. We’re big boys. The more cards we have out on the table the easier it can be for us to tackle the big issues!
[1] Ironically, at other times in Mormon history the “pagan” concept of God has been glorified, not criticized.
[2] When the GP manual essentially says traditional Christianity has “pagan beilefs” and is a “false Christianity”, it isn’t flattering. It might help some Mormons feel better to explain, “But hey, it didn’t say traditional Christianity is non-Christianity, it just says it is FALSE Christianity”, but it seems like an exercise in missing the point. At the colloquial level evangelicals don’t make a big distinction between the two. I’m reminded of Paul in Galatians 1 who said he was disturbed that people were turning to a “different gospel”. Paul immediately then says, “not that there is another one”. That’s how I feel about “false” Christianity. Like Paul can speak of a “different” gospel that is no gospel at all, I can speak of a different, false Christianity that in theological essence is no Christianity at all. But that’s not all that can be said on the issue. I would agree with Rob Bowman’s articulation elsewhere that Mormonism is within sociological Christianity but not within the Biblically theological Christianity. Inasmuch as Christianity is a historical, sociologically identified movement that is marked by a general focus and devotion to the historical person of Jesus, Mormonism is Christian. But inasmuch as Christianity is the body of believers that is faithful to the essential doctrines taught in the Bible, Mormonism is not Christian.
[3] It would however be wrong to stereotype all Mormons as non-Christians. Not all Mormons believe in the distinctives of traditional Mormonism, and frankly some Mormons are struggling evangelicals-in-embryo.
[4] “You talk about teaching false doctrine and being damned. Here is a list of false doctrines that if anyone teaches he will be damned. And there is not one of these that I have ever known to be taught in the Church, but I am giving you the list for a perspective because of what will follow. Teach that God is a Spirit, the sectarian trinity. Teach that salvation comes by grace alone, without works. Teach original guilt, or birth sin, as they express it. Teach infant baptism. Teach predestination. Teach that revelation and gifts and miracles have ceased. Teach the Adam-God theory (that does apply in the Church). Teach that we should practice plural marriage today. Now, any of those are doctrines that damn” (Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, p.337).
Did Joseph Smith then rectify the exclusion of such an important ordinance when he retranslated the Bible - in his JST?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Do you have any document that shows that Baptism of the Dead was an early Christian practice - because these few short verses from Paul certainly don’t.
Funny you should ask ;)
Do you celebrate Christmas? Easter?
Worship on Sunday?
(He swings....and ... Over the Fence!)
What part of vines was too difficult for u to understand? invisible, immaterial and powerful. Not once in over 500 instances of ruah or pneuma (and in the 132 senses that I can detect) does the Bible describe spirit to be nonmaterial.
Don't study the word very well then, let Jesus clarify it for you
Luk 24:39 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.
Jesus states spirit in not material - pretty simple for most.
2. God is infinite. We agree:
Interesting - since many of your prophets and seers tend to limit heavenly father to a tangible body - from the lips of smith himself - poorly thought out theology by heavenly father.
1) Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
How can an omnipresent being move? Movement can only occur if boundaries are discernable since the object has something to be measured against. Anything that has boundaries isn’t omnipresent.
Oh really - but that isn't what is being transmitted here is it? First and foremost you have not considered the nature of the language in this passage - show me where it specifically states "boundaries". The passage description does not indicate that the Spirit of God was everywhere as well - the passage is silent on that point.
2) Gen 17:22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
God appeared to Abraham ( 17:1), gave him a new name, gave him promises, commandments and revelation, then left Abraham, and went up into heaven. This doesn’t describe an omnipresent being but one with discernable dimensions.
It would - if the passage discussed discernable dimensions now wouldn't it. All the passage says it that God "appeared" and 'talked' to Abraham.
God appeared to Abraham (18:1),
The biblical truth that God can take a human shape - does not preclude continued omnipresence because of omnipotency.
I can provide at least 60 more biblical passages that prove God cannot be ontologically omnipresent.
well, better reduce that count by a few eddie if this is all you are hanging it upon. YOur verses do not show that while God manifested His presence he was still not fully present everywhere else.
Why do the Scriptures describe God’s spirit as departing, withdrawn (also see Deut 32:30; Hos 5:6; 9:12), absent, enter into you, etc. if he is ontologically omnipresent? These words convey limitations.
Apparently there is an inability to recognize figurative language usage in the bible, as well as what was contexturally being communicated in these instances.
Further, you are also setting up a false dichotomy. As an incorporeal being, God is not localized in a circumscribable spatial location. God is everywhere present in virtue of His incorporeality. God is neither localized in space, nor universally extended throughout space. God is wholly present to all points in space at once.
In fact, God’s supposed omnipresence leads to pantheism, where God is present in every cubic centimeter of the universe, even if our opponents claim God and the universe are separate, since the separation of God from the universe is an artificial boundary due to being in logical conflict with an ontological omnipresence.
Look up foundational beliefs of pantheism - God is not part of the rock per pantheism - yet his spirit can permeate everywhere.
If God is omnipresent, that would mean God is everywhere. Can God dwell in the hearts of the unrighteous such as murderers and rapists? Can he be found in places of sin and vice?
Most certainly - to convict and to work to change their ways
Can God be within idols or graven images?
God is present everywhere - but that doesn't deitify those images. - false attribution to pantheism. This does not mean that nature is a part of God and is, therefore, to be worshiped. Creation is separate from God, but not independent of Him.
What does “invisible” mean? Invisible does not mean incorporeal or nonmaterial. It simply means can’t be seen or is hidden. . . . . However, the fact that there are materials that are comprised of matter that are “invisible,” invalidates your point.
Perhaps one should look at this deeper. Glass and plastics are transparent but not 'invisible'. This is where you are misjudging the definition. All of the things you noted can be seen to a degree - they do not match the definition of 'invisible', hence 'transparent' does not equal invisible. Thus it is your point that is invalidated.
The far side of the moon was invisible to man until the Soviet Luna 3 spacecraft went around the moon and took photographs of it in October of 1959.
Did they photograph the men in quaker outfits too? Here is a tortured application of your bleat - There is a difference between 'not observable' but physically there to invisible. The back side of the moon had the physical state of being visible at all times - not being able to view the backside from earth did not make that physical property of the back side of the moon invisible - just not visible - which is a big difference.
The “invisible” things of God can be seen (Rom 1:20).
Through his creation
Because of these facts, the term invisible doesn’t mean incorporeal or nonmaterial.
LOL, on a physical level, this statement has been invalidated because invisible does not equal transparent, nor does invisible equal something physically present, yet blocked from view. Bone up on your physical sciences.
-Mormonguy, the other guys cousin twice removed...
“There is a lot that is not in the Bible.”
Such as?
“The Bible, itself, references writing left by prophets that are not in the Bible.”
Do tell.
“The Bible does mention, however, baptism for the dead.”
God’s word repeatedly stresses the need for individual acceptance of the gospel; not salvation based upon another’s good works.
Ok, let’s see if your point is valid:
“Infinite” can mean (1) “indeterminate” like an endless number (e.g., the last decimal number of pi or the last number of 1/3 of 1), (2) “indefinite” (e.g., beginning or end of a sphere or the last second of an open universe) or (3) “complete / perfect.” Things that are incapable of improvement (e.g., the knowledge of God, the mercy and love of God).
The word can only be found in three places in the AV:
1) Job 22:5 Is not thy wickedness great? and thine iniquities infinite?
Eliphaz told Job his iniquities were infinite [“qets”].
2) Ps 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite[“micpar”]
You overlooked Nah 3:9:
3) Nah 3:9 Ethiopia and Egypt were her strength, and it was infinite [“qatseh”]; Put and Lubim were thy helpers.
The Hebrew words in these three passages are linked to another Hebrew word, “`ayin” which means “to be nothing, not exist.” The only time “ infinite” is used in reference to God is in Ps 147:5 which doesn’t use it in regards to his nature but to his UNDERSTANDING.
In reality, these Hebrew words don’t convey “infinity” and are used many times for things that aren’t infinite.
On the other hand, we Latter-day Saints agree with the idea of God’s infinity despite it can’t be found in the Bible since our Latter-day Scriptures repeatedly mention it:
a) 2 Ne 1:10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his INFINITE goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
b) 2 Ne 9:7 Wherefore, it must needs be an INFINITE atonement—save it should be an INFINITE atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
c) 2 Ne 25:16 And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is INFINITE for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.
d) Alma 34:10,12,14 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an INFINITE and eternal sacrifice ... But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an INFINITE atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
Jesus Christ performed an infinite atonement (Heb 7:25).
e) Mosi 5:3 And we, ourselves, also, through the INFINITE goodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things.
f) Hela 12:1 And thus we can behold how false, and also the unsteadiness of the hearts of the children of men; yea, we can see that the Lord in his great INFINITE goodness doth bless and prosper those who put their trust in him.
g) Moro 8:3 I am mindful of you always in my prayers, continually praying unto God the Father in the name of his Holy Child, Jesus, that he, through his INFINITE goodness and grace, will keep you through the endurance of faith on his name to the end.
God’s righteousness is infinite.
h) Mosi 28:4 And thus did the Spirit of the Lord work upon them, for they were the very vilest of sinners. And the Lord saw fit in his INFINITE mercy to spare them; nevertheless they suffered much anguish of soul because of their iniquities, suffering much and fearing that they should be cast off forever.
God’s mercy is infinite.
i) D&C 20:17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is INFINITE and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;
D&C 20:28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, INFINITE and eternal, without end. Amen.
God is infinite.
I find it interesting that the Latter-day Scriptures explicitly mention God, and all three members of the Godhead as being infinite whereas the Bible doesn’t mention God is infinite. Despite the word is absent in the Bible (in relation to God’s nature), it is used as a descriptive term in reference to God.
The problem is the fact that since the Bible never uses the word in reference to God’s nature, any insistence by our opponents on using the word “infinite” against the Mormon concept of deity is untenable. All a Mormon needs to do to an opponent who claims “God is infinite” is ask where in the Bible is the word used in reference to God’s nature. Our advantage is the fact that the Latter-day Scriptures clearly refer to God as “infinite” even though it doesn’t define what “infinite” means. At least D&C 20:17,28 calls God infinite but where in the Bible does it say God is infinite and define what infinite means?
The terms: First/Last; Alpha/Omega; everlasting to everlasting; eternal; etc. don’t necessarily mean infinity and when our opponents are asked to define “infinite” will invariably use philosophical ideas derived from Greek Philosophy. How do YOU know “infinite” must be defined in such a manner when it is absent in the Bible?
As for using “olam” to mean self-existing:
Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting [OLAM] hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
Hab 3:6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting [OLAM] mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan; for an everlasting [OLAM] possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 48:4 and said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting [OLAM] possession.
Ex 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it forever [OLAM].
2 Sam 7:13-16,29 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever [OLAM]. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever [OLAM] before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever [OLAM]... Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for ever [OLAM] before thee: for thou, O Lord GOD, hast spoken [it]: and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever [OLAM].
2 Sam 23:5 Although my house [be] not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting [OLAM] covenant, ordered in all [things], and sure: for [this is] all my salvation, and all [my] desire, although he make [it] not to grow.
Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
It is indisputable that the terms “everlasting, perpetual, forever, etc.” don’t automatically mean that the subject had no beginning or end and this is made even more clear when one examines the 440 times “`ôlam” appears in the OT.
The Bible refers to hills and mountains as “everlasting” and “perpetual” while also teaching that the earth had a beginning (Gen 1-2). The Israelites are supposed to reside in Canaan forever (Gen 17:8; 48:4; Ex 32:13; etc.) but the earth is supposed to be destroyed in the future which would make such an arrangement impossible to fulfill. Despite the mountains and hills are perpetual and everlasting, they will still be destroyed when the earth passes away (Ps 102:26; Heb 1:10-11; 2 Pet 3:10-11; Rev 20:11). David’s dynasty was supposed to last forever but it only lasted for a couple of centuries (and only a couple of generations for unified Israel).
So, God is OLAM but as the Bible proves, olam does not mean self-existent. Now what?
From http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r001.html
Often times, Mormons will claim that Paul supported the practice of baptism for the dead in I Corinthians 15:29, “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” Many Christians do not know how to respond to this claim. Did Paul support this unique ritual?
As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he was very concerned about their understanding of the resurrection. Corinth was a Greek city and was greatly influenced by philosophy. The Greek mind didn’t have any problem in accepting the concept of a “resurrection.” However, when the Greek spoke of “resurrection” he was referring to a spiritual resurrection in which the spirit was freed from physical matter and the evil of this material world. This “resurrection”, Plato taught, would happen to each person at the time of their death. Paul notes that the Christian concept of resurrection is not merely spiritual, but also physical. He argues that Christ was resurrected in bodily form. Paul states,
“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is vain” (vs. 14).
Following this statement, Paul illustrates the importance of understanding the reality of physical resurrection,
“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”(vs. 29).
This is a difficult verse. It has been interpreted in many different ways:
Epiphanius, an ancient church father, understood this to refer to the practice of instructing people who were on their death bed about Christ. However, this understanding doesn’t seem to fit the context or language of the verse.
Some have argued that this verse refers to a superstitious baptism for believers who were “outside” the church. However, Paul’s understanding of “the church” included all believers; unlike the view of Catholic Christians many centuries later.
Another view that was held during the middle ages referred to the practice of believers laying under the beds of those unbelievers who had recently died. A priest would ask the dead person if he desired to be baptized and forgiven of sins. The living believer would answer in the affirmative from under the bed and the dead person would be baptized. Although this practice is reported to have existed in the middle ages, there is no evidence that it occurred during the time of the Apostles or that this was the practice to which Paul referred.
Still others have suggested that there may have been a cult that existed in Corinth which baptized its members on behalf of the dead, much like modern Mormonism. Commentators have noted that if this is the situation, that we must remember that Paul does not confirm or deny this practice; it is simply used as an illustration of the importance of the resurrection. The weakness of this view is that history does not record any cults that included the baptism for the dead during this time period in Corinth.
The final option, which seems to be the most reasonable, is that the baptism for the dead refers to those who are willing to be identified with Christianity and who suffer the fate of persecution just as those who have lived as examples before them. These people are even willing to die for Christ because they are convinced that the resurrection of the dead is a reality.
There are three important factors for gaining this perspective on these verses. The first crucial aspect concerns the word “baptized.” One of the meanings of baptism is “identification.” When Lydia would dip her fabric in a large jar of purple dye, the fabric would take on the same color as the dye. The fabric was baptized in the dye. This baptism refers to immersion, but also identification. When each believer is baptized in Christ’s name, it is not a matter of getting dunked in “holy” water; the believer is identifying himself with Jesus Christ.
The second factor that plays an important part in our understanding of this verse is the word “for.” The structure of this sentence is such that the word translated “for” in most Bibles, could be understood more clearly by the words “on behalf of” or “in the place of.” Thus, there were believers being identified (baptized) in the place of the dead. This translation would make good sense to the Greeks because of their cultural context.
Every Greek would know the account of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the world. In only a few years time, Alexander had rolled his military machine across the known continents, dominating any who would try to resist him. The strength of Alexander’s army was known as the Greek phalanx (invented by his father, Philip of Macedonia, but perfected by Alexander). The way the phalanx would work is as follows: the soldiers would make several long lines. The men in the front would carry a large shield that would cover the soldiers from head to foot. Each of the men lined up behind the shield would carry long spears, which they would rest on the shoulders of the men in front of them. Thus, they would approach their enemies in unison and virtually walk right over them. If the man in the front of the line should be killed, the second man would simply drop his spear, pick up the shield and the lines would continue on their march. That second man would pick up the shield “on behalf of (or in the place of) the dead soldier who once carried it.”
From these three important points, we can gain an understanding about what Paul meant in these verses. As an illustration of the reality of physical resurrection (and vain faith if resurrection doesn’t occur), Paul questions,
“Why would people suffer and die for Christ if there is no resurrection? Having seen others die for Christ, do you think that I would suffer according to their example if I didn’t believe in the resurrection?” He states, “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? Why are we also in danger every hour? I protest, brethren, by the boasting in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If from human motives I fought wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE.” (I Corinthians 15:29-32)
Paul was convinced of the reality of our future life. This is what made it possible for him to give his present life for Christ. Without his confidence in Christ’s promise of resurrection, Paul would not have allowed himself to suffer. We must ask ourselves,“Are we convinced of the resurrection, and our future life in heaven with Christ?” If the answer is yes, we ought to be willing to suffer for Christ during this life, following the examples of the saints that went before us. Paul exhorts us to be willing to take up the shield of those who have been persecuted for Christ’s sake, remembering the rewards that await those who love him.
OMG! Oh do tell and quick before I die of laughter!!!
Please, disabuse me of my throwback and pagan preconceptions.
I AM dying here, really!
ROTFLMAO !!!
I also see your definitions which I fail to see varying from the one I submitted except in grammatical and verbiage construct, except perhaps the 3 rd construct you list, which I see no issue with even with in the "dictionary" definition of infinite.
I also see the non biblical LDS sources, as expected, despite my admonition otherwise. Given the source I will unfortunately have to dismiss those out of hand since they have no more bearing on the subject than any other work of fiction such as a Grisham novel or a work of Tolkien.
As an aside, I do find that your use of D&C 20:17 and D&C 20:28 really does you no favors on many levels, as it indicates God that has no beginning and no end, and also point directly at that pagan trinity...
But I digress...
Of course we do have the biblical ones you do cite, which contravene nothing of the definition I used despite your burring it in rhetorical muck as is SOP for the LDS.
So we are back to facts, and since that should be the basis for such debates, I see no reason to not say the infinity is argument is done.
Now as to the rest of D&C 20:17, which you have posted yet again...
DUH!
That's the ROCK that MORMONism is BUILT upon!
Peter mentions preaching to those that are dead.
??? Hardly. It simply isn’t possible to argue God is infinite, in the sense of self-existent, since the Bible never says so.
Nice try, but no.
Let’s use the Bible: Jesus Christ never denied that he was The Son of God. Yes, he said, “I and My Father are one, Jn 10:30, “He that hath seen me hath seen The Father” Jn 14:9.
“I am in The Father, and The Father in me: All 3 are correct, Jesus and The Father are one just as Jesus and his Apostles were one, John 17:20-22 He looked exactly like the Father. When I was a kid a common expression was, “he is the spitting image of his father”.
The book of John clearly states that Jesus was The Son, sent by, and returning to The Father. He did nothing that wasn’t taught him by The Father.
After His resurection he appeared 3 times to the Apostles, ate and drank with them and said in Jn 24:39 “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.
God The Father,Angels,Prophets,and Apostles all testified that He was The Son Of God.
There are many, many, more scriptures that testify that He is The Son Of God.
Does the bible say God is infinite (not the original question BTW), no the term is not directly applied any where I can see, but easily can be added to his attributes and abilities. The bible never says bible and never says trinity but both are also realities we have in our intellectual relationship with the one true God.
Now as to your own doctrine, infinite is an interesting choice, even more so parsed. I guess i could grant the "having a beginning but never ending" as is provided for in the dictionary definition with little effort. However, if he is not everlasting in both directions, as is said in your own doctrine, then I guess he would not be self existent having been created at some point. Yet he existed forever as a spirit before his god brought him forth. Seems a bit, well contradictory.
I guess we can split the difference and say you are right if it helps. After all, that is all the LDS is after, justification and reward for outwitting everybody and toeing the company line.
So by your standards, you win.
Shall I email LDS HQ for your validation?
As an aside, I have to admit, there are times I do envy the ease of being LDS, since one can argue all sides of an issue as the occasion warrants and never fail at being right.
I wish college have been like that...
Just learned it by reading my 2009 Gospel Principals Manual!)25Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
26They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
27But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Just an interesting factoid...
If we are dealing in definitions...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.