It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 10:51 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
bcspace wrote:
Quote:
So god reveled evolution first to his prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith, right?


Wrong. Read it again.


I read it again. It sounds like you're engaging in a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. I'd try that over and see if you can find an explanation that isn't fallacious on the face of it.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:35 pm 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am
Posts: 4170
Location: Hungary
Buffalo wrote:
Funny how God didn't seem to know anything about evolution until Darwin came along.

Image

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:53 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am
Posts: 1681
If you read my prior text carefully, it states that Brigham Young (like Joseph Smith) taught that there never was a time when there were no Gods, however, he also talked about a first cause of all things. These, at first, appear to be contradictory statements when one views them as we normally view time. It should be remembered that, like the over simple analogy of the ring, time can be traveled in more than one direction (as around the ring). There is a starting point on the ring, but where is it? It can't be readily noticed because all along the ring no matter which way one goes, or looks, there is the gold (or gods).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:18 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am
Posts: 7308
gdemetz wrote:
If you read my prior text carefully, it states that Brigham Young (like Joseph Smith) taught that there never was a time when there were no Gods, however, he also talked about a first cause of all things. These, at first, appear to be contradictory statements when one views them as we normally view time. It should be remembered that, like the over simple analogy of the ring, time can be traveled in more than one direction (as around the ring). There is a starting point on the ring, but where is it? It can't be readily noticed because all along the ring no matter which way one goes, or looks, there is the gold (or gods).


When you say Gods are you meaning that you believe in the existence of multiple Gods all the equivalent of our Heavenly Father?

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:09 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am
Posts: 1681
Yes, that is correct. "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:29 pm 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am
Posts: 4170
Location: Hungary
gdemetz wrote:
Yes, that is correct. "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become."


"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it." ©Gordon B. Hinckley

Is this correct, too?

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:32 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am
Posts: 1681
It may not be in any of the current teaching manuals, but it is definitely church doctrine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:38 pm 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am
Posts: 4170
Location: Hungary
gdemetz wrote:
It may not be in any of the current teaching manuals, but it is definitely church doctrine.


Doctrine which is not taught?

There is a Hungarian saying about absurdity:
Fából vaskarika = An iron ring made of wood.

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:05 am 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am
Posts: 1681
I teach it. I had a problem with this also. I was allowed to teach an advanced doctrine class, and I also asked my stake president why the church's lessons are so simple. His answer to me was that the church has a philosophy of teaching on an 8th grade level. I was initially upset with that response, however, after I arrived back at my home and thought about it for a while, I agreed with it. There are so many complicated doctrines in the church, and most members are not even aware of some of them. Also, the enemies and apostates are just waiting for any excuse to attack and criticize the church. If all these deeper doctrines were taught, it would just add to the problems and confusion. The general conferences nor are now so bland, and despite this, the enemies are trying to pick apart every word that is said. Could you image what would happen if someone gave a talk on the six types of marriages in the early church?! In helping the Master prune the vineyard, the leaders have been inspired to focus on basic "gardening" methods, and it has worked. The church is growing and flourishing, and one day it will fill the whole earth as Daniel has prophesied!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:45 am 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:14 am
Posts: 332
Location: Sweden
gdemetz wrote:
Yes, that is correct. "As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become."


This is a the kind of doctrine that makes a great sales pitch but says absolutely nothing. Mormons might as well have it as a short-hand sign off to their text messages. AmiGowaaGimmb.

The idea is, of course, that if you just study hard enough and long enough, eventually you will know everything. Any perusal of scripture will quickly inform the curious that a god will need to know every single thing about every and all things. This mangod will have to make everything that can be made.

It ain't gonna happen! My proof? Go to IKEA, buy a bookshelf, throw away the instruction manual(s), (yes, even the instructions in Korean with the numbered pictures), and put the shelves together without making any mistakes. See? can't be done. So how are you going to create worlds?

_________________
”So why should non Americans bother about the American constitution?[/quote]
non American non-mormons = because it is just the better wager, globally speaking.(Thankyou, Subgenius)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:48 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am
Posts: 1681
It's a lot more than apostate Christendom has said! Once one realizes how little he really knows, and how much more there is to learn, then he is at a good starting point! Do you realize how close we are to actually creating life from scratch, or prolonging life for e extended periods of time, even on our own little world at this short period of time? God has been at this for a long time before you were ever born, and it is not a big problem for Him to create a world!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:31 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am
Posts: 7308
gdemetz wrote:
It's a lot more than apostate Christendom has said! Once one realizes how little he really knows, and how much more there is to learn, then he is at a good starting point! Do you realize how close we are to actually creating life from scratch, or prolonging life for e extended periods of time, even on our own little world at this short period of time? God has been at this for a long time before you were ever born, and it is not a big problem for Him to create a world!


So, Mormon's are Christians even though; they don't believe in the Christ of traditional Christianity; they believe God was once a man; that there are many many Gods with multiple wives; and that we can also become Gods over our own planets.

But, the FLDS aren't Mormon's even though they believe in exactly the same restoration of exactly the same Gospel by exactly the same Prophet with exactly the same scriptures as the LDS.

:confused:

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:42 am 
God

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am
Posts: 1681
Of course, they are "Mormons" also, but they do not belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Who came first?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:58 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am
Posts: 7308
gdemetz wrote:
Of course, they are "Mormons" also, but they do not belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.


Taken to a separate thread.

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tobin and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group