Revised Gospel Principals Manual

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wife's in primary and I've been in YM's for a few years. I don't even think we have that book around. Can you post the reference. I'm truly interested. Thanks.

I can relate. I was in primary for a few years. I still managed to get my hands on the new Joseph Smith manual and read through it, though. It is also posted online here:

http://tinyurl.com/jsmanual

[LifeOnaPlate]

I recall the intent of the Presidents of the Church series was that, eventually homes in the Church would have a library of manuals covering teachings from each of the presidents of the Church. I guess that's no longer the intent.

I wonder if it's because the Church had trouble getting people to teach the material in the manuals instead of branching off on their own.

I heard tell a Lorenzo Snow manual is in the works.

[Scott Lloyd]

I heard tell a Lorenzo Snow manual is in the works.

Is this merely an interlude, then? Will they resume the Presidents of the Church series after 2011?

I'll see what I can find out.

[cinepro]

So it's clear because it's clear to you. But if a huge percentage (possible majority?) of LDS didn't agree with your post, then it's just their fault for being dense?

Anyway, this has been discussed before and not going to be resolved in this thread. I'm just curious to see if this "less forceful" trend as I define it holds in this new manual.

Yes, if you were hoping that the Gospel Principles Manual would set forth the manner in which our future spirit children will pray to us, the mechanics and scope of setting up planets for their probation, and the proper etiquette and procedures for operating according to the Plan of Salvation as a god, then I would agree that this new manual is sorely lacking. But then again, the last time I've seen all those issues covered was in the "Religion 401: Exaltation and Godhood in the Hereafter" manual that was used by CES in the late 1960's.

As for what is there, it could be a lot worse. At least it teaches that "godhood" is our ultimate goal, and that God went through a similar process to achieve his reward.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can relate. I was in primary for a few years. I still managed to get my hands on the new Joseph Smith manual and read through it, though. It is also posted online here:

http://tinyurl.com/jsmanual

Each Melchizedek Priesthood holder and Relief Society member was supposed to have been given a copy each year of that year's manual. We had a ward clerk who went on a cost-savings kick one year and didn't order enough for each adult in the ward to have one. We went to the bishopric about it. Since then the ward has had a surplus each year.

[robuchan]

I can relate. I was in primary for a few years. I still managed to get my hands on the new Joseph Smith manual and read through it, though. It is also posted online here:

http://tinyurl.com/jsmanual

Can you show me where the God was once man stuff is in this book?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Each Melchizedek Priesthood holder and Relief Society member was supposed to have been given a copy each year of that year's manual. We had a ward clerk who went on a cost-savings kick one year and didn't order enough for each adult in the ward to have one. We went to the bishopric about it. Since then the ward has had a surplus each year.

I'm a nerd and bought a copy as soon as it hit distribution several months before the new year.

[robuchan]

Yes, if you were hoping that the Gospel Principles Manual would set forth the manner in which our future spirit children will pray to us, the mechanics and scope of setting up planets for their probation, and the proper etiquette and procedures for operating according to the Plan of Salvation as a god, then I would agree that this new manual is sorely lacking. But then again, the last time I've seen all those issues covered was in the "Religion 401: Exaltation and Godhood in the Hereafter" manual that was used by CES in the late 1960's.

As for what is there, it could be a lot worse. At least it teaches that "godhood" is our ultimate goal, and that God went through a similar process to achieve his reward.

OK, let's back up. I put that out there the question will someone eventually pay to you addressing you as Heavenly Father as a proxy for a much simpler question of will you become a God like Heavenly Father is a God. So please don't pick me apart on that. It was just a way to define what you mean by "we can become gods". A lot of LDS interpret that as being no more significant than the NT scriptures that say we will inherit jointly with Christ and have no expectation that they will operate in a way that Heavenly Father operates, being the alpha God of his spirit children.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can you show me where the God was once man stuff is in this book?

Happy reading.

(By the way, while you're looking, can you show me any Church manual that says God was ever a man who sins like you and me as opposed to a man like Christ who had the power to lay down his life and take it up again?)

[David T]

Can you show me where the God was once man stuff is in this book?

Sure. Chapter 2: God The Eternal Father.

When we comprehend the character of God, we comprehend ourselves and know how to approach Him.

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or His existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into more lofty spheres and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.

â?¦ The scriptures inform us that This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. [John 17:3.]

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is,if he will search diligently his own heartif the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is. â?¦

God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in formlike yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. â?¦

â?¦ Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.9

[David T]

Can you show me where the God was once man stuff is in this book?

Sure. Chapter 2: God The Eternal Father.

When we comprehend the character of God, we comprehend ourselves and know how to approach Him.

â??There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or His existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

â??If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into more lofty spheres and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.

â??â?¦ The scriptures inform us that â??This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.â?? [John 17:3.]

â??If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is,â??if he will search diligently his own heartâ??if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

â??My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is. â?¦

â??God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,â??I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in formâ??like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. â?¦

â??â?¦ Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.â?9

[robuchan]

Sure. Chapter 2: God The Eternal Father.

Thanks. It's not the most clear quote on God being a man, but thanks for answering me.

[David T]

Thanks. It's not the most clear quote on God being a man, but thanks for answering me.

You're welcome. In what way do you feel that "God Himself was once as we are now" is not clear?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sure. Chapter 2: God The Eternal Father.

Hey! robuchan was supposed to read tha manual!

[LifeOnaPlate]

You're welcome. In what way do you feel that "God Himself was once as we are now" is not clear?

I'll volunteer. In order to sustain his false accusation that the Church is trying to minimize God once being a man he must posit that more specific statements exist that conform to his theory, even though they don't. Rob was evidently decoyed by various folk doctrines or rumors on the subject and failed to pay due attention to the actual historical sources. Otherwise, he would realize that Pres. Hinckley was absolutely correct in his statements that we don;t emphasize this aspect of God very often (or ever in the Church's history) because we simply don't have a lot of information about it.

[robuchan]

I'll volunteer. In order to sustain his false accusation that the Church is trying to minimize God once being a man he must posit that more specific statements exist that conform to his theory, even though they don't. Rob was evidently decoyed by various folk doctrines or rumors on the subject and failed to pay due attention to the actual historical sources. Otherwise, he would realize that Pres. Hinckley was absolutely correct in his statements that we don;t emphasize this aspect of God very often (or ever in the Church's history) because we simply don't have a lot of information about it.

Lightbearer has a ton of information on it. Who should I believe, you or him? I need a prophet to help me sort this out. Will one step forward?

[Obiwan]

No reason to be coy. You know what I mean. Lower case gods could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. You could reject pretty much all of King Follet and still be in line doctrinally with the Gospel Principles Manual.

Of course you pretty much could.... That's because the main subject of the KFD which is that the Father was once "like Christ" is not a "Doctrine" of the Church. We believe it too be true, but, it's not official doctrine. It's Joseph's own personal inspiration through studying the scriptures. And the reason LDS believe it's true is because Christ actually say's essentially the same thing in the Bible.

Christ himself said he "did nothing he hadn't seen the Father do". It is pretty clear what Christ is saying here, and there is no other "context" that needs to be understood (but you can try to tell me one if you want, but I bet you can't). Christ was direct in his point that he was doing things exactly as he had seen the Father do. Thus, that clearly means the Father was once on an earth doing exactly the same things as Christ did. Or do you deny Christ's own words???

[Lachoneus]

The Gospel Principles manual is for the Gospel Principles course (sometimes erroneously called Gospel Essentials), one of the optional courses that may be taught during the Sunday School hour.

Actually, it's one of the basic courses, not an optional class. I've been teaching it for over 7 years.

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, it's one of the basic courses, not an optional class. I've been teaching it for over 7 years.

Thanks. It has been about that long since I was stake Sunday School president, and my memory is starting to fade, I guess.

I suppose I thought it was optional because our ward has not always offered it.

[bjw]

If they are deciding to can the President's series, I could see why. I think there is just too much problematic stuff in the church history and in the past teachings of prophets that it just creates controversy among members and non-members alike, so maybe they've decided it was a bad idea. For instance, people complained because the Brigham Young manual didn't mention more than one wife. The Joseph Smith manual didn't mention anything negative in his life. Its one of those things that if they put too much in, people will complain, but if they put too little in people will still complain. So, since they realize they can't satisfy everybody, maybe they want to just focus on specific doctrine in these classes now.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Lightbearer has a ton of information on it. Who should I believe, you or him? I need a prophet to help me sort this out. Will one step forward?

The point is you are supposed to become a prophet. That ain't likely to happen when you can't even read a simple manual. Wait around to be spoonfed and you'll remain right where you are, robuchan.

[ebeddoulos]

Thanks. It has been about that long since I was stake Sunday School president, and my memory is starting to fade, I guess.

I suppose I thought it was optional because our ward has not always offered it.

I may be out of step here but I think that "optional" is not an inappropriate description for this basic course. It is generally a course for investigators, the newly converted and the recently activated where basic gospel precepts are taught. A ward, say in Utah, may not have anybody who fits into the the first two classifications and those that are in the last group may be inclined to attend Gospel Doctrine with their close friends and neighbors. In a previous ward, I taught it for several years. It is not in the curriculum of my present ward.

[Freedom]

This manual was just revised, I think is simply has a new picture on it.

[AngelPalmoni]

$20 says deification doctrine is further dumbed down.

don't worry we'll be learning new truths soon enough. Not much longer now...

Web.me.com/angelpalmoni

~Angel Palmoni~

[David T]

New Cool Thang has a brief review of the first 10 Chapters. For one, it appears all references to Mormon Doctrine have been excised.