The kid needs to hear the truth. I applaud his efforts to defend his faith, and it appears that he is spilling the beans about a lot of stuff that the likes of ParkerD and other mormons would very much like to keep under their hats. I would simply like him to look honestly at what he is being taught.Repectfully, Hosemonkey, it would appear that some cheek-turning on your part is in order.
Well the problem with that is that the author might be promoting people to coming unto their religion by writing false things about Mormon faith. I would rather be called foolish than be excused for being apparently “young and naive” because I’ve probably every book that contains the information i testified on this thread. i know than the average LDS member you find on the street at the age of fourteen.ParkerD is tap-dancing because that is the only thing that he can do to attempt to defend the preposterous mess that is mormon “theology.” His attempts to explain that which cannot be rationally explain merely makes him look foolish as it will you if you follow his example. Because you are young and naive, you can be excused for believing such claptrap, he should know better. Simply because it comes from an adult, does not necessarily make it true. Read the history of mormonism from non-mormon sources, then make up your mind.
I don’t think he’s taking offense at the content of your message as much as the tone. Honestly, you’re coming off as a bit of a jerk.If you are offended by the truth, then I can do nothing about that.
And snapping at him and calling him “young and naive” is the best way you can think of to do that? How about throwing “I don’t need luck!” back at them when someone wishes you good luck? That kind of charm really wins friends and influences people, huh?I would simply like him to look honestly at what he is being taught.
we interpret the verse " Alpha and Omega Beginning and End" as he can see the past, present, future all the same time. so yesterday for us or tomorrow for us is today for Him he knows everything thats going to happen to us and the choses we are going to make.I would simply point out that those are two very different propositions: one says that “Heavenly Father” cannot precede his creator, the other says that “Heavenly Father” would not precede his creator. And they have very different implications.
I notice that Mormons rely heavily on the Book of Revelation for their support of the promises of the afterlife. How do you square the fact that “Heavenly Father” has a creator who precedes him with “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.” According to LDS teaching, “Heavenly Father” is neither the first, nor the last.
But… it doesn’t say “I can see the alpha and the omega, the first and the last.” It says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.” Heck, those terms are even capitalized in every translation I know of, which means that they’re being used as names, as descriptions of who God is, not what He can do.we interpret the verse " Alpha and Omega Beginning and End" as he can see the past, present, future all the same time. so yesterday for us or tomorrow for us is today for Him he knows everything thats going to happen to us and the choses we are going to make.
But they talked differently back then and when God was saying that he probably meant that for us He is Alpha and Omega.But… it doesn’t say “I can see the alpha and the omega, the first and the last.” It says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.” Heck, those terms are even capitalized in every translation I know of, which means that they’re being used as names, as descriptions of who God is, not what He can do.
Again, adding “for us” is a pretty big qualifier. So big, in fact, that adding it would completely nullify the meaning of “Alpha and Omega,” “First and Last,” etc.But they talked differently back then and when God was saying that he probably meant that for us He is Alpha and Omega.
well in another interpretation he is our past, present, and future. i mean in no offense that how can he be self-existent being, or there was no beginning to God he was just there it makes reason stare that he must have had a Creator as wellAgain, adding “for us” is a pretty big qualifier. So big, in fact, that adding it would completely nullify the meaning of “Alpha and Omega,” “First and Last,” etc.
Also, it should be noted that the first time the phrase “Alpha and Omega” appears in the Book of Revelation is in 1:8:
“‘I am the Alpha and Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘The one who is and the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty.’”
In this first instance, as in the second, that phrase is clearly being used a name, a description of who the Lord God is. It is a global statement of His total being, not a narrow description of a single aspect of His ability. In order to claim otherwise, you have to pretend that “I am” actually doesn’t mean “I am.” And I’m sorry, but “they talked differently back then” is not a very convincing argument for why “I am” doesn’t really mean “I am.”
In short, when He says, “I am” He “probably means” “I am.”
He is14 years old. From where I’m sitting, that is young. He is trying to defend false premises without much knowledge, that is naive. In this arena, i am not worried about making friends per se, I am interested in truth. I am not “ecumenical” and I know mormonism is false. I do not depend on “luck”, especially in the realm of salvation. I depend solely on the grace of God. Do you as a Catholic, depend on Luck? I was not aware that I was “snapping” at anybody, I am just short of politically correct words. Anyhow, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, have a nice day.And snapping at him and calling him “young and naive” is the best way you can think of to do that? How about throwing “I don’t need luck!” back at them when someone wishes you good luck? That kind of charm really wins friends and influences people, huh?
without much knowledge? i just stated above i have read alot of books about this i didn’t get all this from my dad or made it up i looked into it. i really studied this. and what i meant by good luck was good luck you are taking that phrase to literal i was a sign of friendshipHe is14 years old. From where I’m sitting, that is young. He is trying to defend false premises without much knowledge, that is naive. In this arena, i am not worried about making friends per se, I am interested in truth. I am not “ecumenical” and I know mormonism is false. I do not depend on “luck”, especially in the realm of salvation. I depend solely on the grace of God. Do you as a Catholic, depend on Luck? I was not aware that I was “snapping” at anybody, I am just short of politically correct words. Anyhow, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, have a nice day.
That’s what “Alpha and Omega,” means Croso. It means the God is the “UnCaused Cause.” Or, to put it another way, He is the “Creator.” Not “a” Creator. “The” Creator. And the reason all this is possible is because God is not bound by the laws of the physical universe, as we are.well in another interpretation he is our past, present, and future. i mean in no offense that how can he be self-existent being, or there was no beginning to God he was just there it makes reason stare that he must have had a Creator as well
oh well i believe that God had and still does has a god and his god has a god and his god has a god etc…That’s what “Alpha and Omega,” means Croso. It means the God is the “UnCaused Cause.” Or, to put it another way, He is the “Creator.” Not “a” Creator. “The” Creator. And the reason all this is possible is because God is not bound by the laws of the physical universe, as we are.
well i specualte alot and i know there is no doctrine but there are LDS book called Life Everlasting that states God was once man like us i think Joseph Smith stated that. but i have prayed about my specualtion and have recieved good feelings about it, as a fellow LDS member i think you can understand where im coming from?Croso
I think you are seriously confused between what is doctrine and what is speculation.
Since your comments actually contradict doctrine in my understanding, please provide references for the below, REMEMBER Doctrine comes from the Quad or joint proclamations by the Apostles & President. If you must resort to books outside of the above, you are talking speculation. That’s OK, just admit it though
- "God was once a mortal like us and went through the trials and tests from his god…got baptized, got sealed to his wife, went through the temple. then after he was resurrected by his god and was exalted by his god to a god. "
Please provide doctrinal references. I’ve only seen it stated (not even in doctrine) that his experience on the earth was like Jesus. **Jesus was diety before, during and after his time on earth. **
The principle you are espousing here is called “infinite regression”, which is a logical fallacy.oh well i believe that God had and still does has a god and his god has a god and his god has a god etc…
i have thought about that and their is no doctrine or even book that states where bit all began but i believe when we die and go to the Spirit World that information will be revealed and or it will be revealed to those who reach Celestial Glory.The principle you are espousing here is called “infinite regression”, which is a logical fallacy.
Let’s just cut to the chase: Where did the very first god come from? Have you ever thought about that?
Croso, It is important to be clear since your earlier post implied you were reciting LDS doctrine, as it is taught by the church.well i specualte alot and i know there is no doctrine but there are LDS book called Life Everlasting that states God was once man like us i think Joseph Smith stated that. but i have prayed about my specualtion and have recieved good feelings about it, as a fellow LDS member i think you can understand where im coming from?
if you want to read it you can buy it at Dessert Book store its by Duane S. Crowther. all the information well most of the information is from Near-Death Experiences and the other information is from LDS doctrine and LDS speculation.Croso, It is important to be clear since your earlier post implied you were reciting LDS doctrine, as it is taught by the church.
The book you mentioned looks interesting. However, I haven’t read it so can’t comment beyond stating it is by a couple of private individuals/authors - they are not representing the LDS Church.
Cheers