74 replies to this topic

[Bernard Gui]

In his critique of chapter 47 of the new Gospel Principles manual, Rob Bowman wrote:

"The omission of the word “Gods” from the above sentence is extremely significant. Notice that the LDS Church is not now denying that we can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. In fact, that people can become Gods has been LDS doctrine since 1844 and apparently still is LDS doctrine, as we have documented above. For some reason, though, the LDS Church in this publication has chosen not to continue making that straightforward affirmation.
"Basic to Joseph Smith’s doctrine of eternal progression was the idea that the Father himself progressed from a state in which he was not yet God to one in which he had become a God. Gospel Principles taught this idea explicitly for thirty years, but in the current edition it is simply dropped without explanation."

[link removed for Temple content]

On the contrary, chapter 47 includes a list that defines exaltation. Number 2 on the list is

"2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23)."

It also presents this quote from Joseph Smith:

"Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46). (Gospel Principles, Chapter 47: Exaltation)"


It is odd that Mr. Bowman missed this. In keeping with his challenge to find errors in his critique, I request IRR make the correction.

Bernard

Edited by Ares, 13 March 2012 - 08:34 AM.

[Vance]

Bowman often gets it wrong.  And he seldom fixes it when pointed out to him.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Bernard Gui, on 13 March 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

On the contrary, chapter 47 includes a list that defines exaltation. Number 2 on the list is

"2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23)."

It also presents this quote from Joseph Smith:

"Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46). (Gospel Principles, Chapter 47: Exaltation)"

It is odd that Mr. Bowman missed this. In keeping with his challenge to find errors in his critique, I request IRR make the correction.

I didn't miss it. I agree that the above statements in their original contexts were part of the classic LDS doctrine of eternal progression. However, as has been illustrated on this board numerous times, including this current thread, some Mormons today deny that Heavenly Father was once not a God and question or soften the claim that we will become Gods of the exact same kind as Heavenly Father. The changes in Gospel Principles appear to support such softening or backpedaling away from the classic doctrine. Those changes appear to be designed to allow Mormons to hold to the classical doctrine if they wish or to hold to a different understanding if they prefer. Hence, for example, Gospel Principles still includes the statement you quoted, "They will become gods" (little g and with no explicit comparison to the Father), but no longer says "We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father" (capital G and with the explicit comparison of becoming Gods like the Father).

If you decide to engage the argument of the entire article, instead of attacking a soundbite taken out of context, I'll be happy to discuss this further.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 13 March 2012 - 09:33 AM.

[KevinG]

You confuse a clearer teaching of the concept with "backing down from the classic doctrine".  It is not up to you and IRR to define what is doctrine for the Latter-day Saints.  Trying to play LDS concepts from one century to another against each other is especially frought with danger for the critics considering we believe in eternal progression and learning line-by line and precept by precept.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

KevinG, on 13 March 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

You confuse a clearer teaching of the concept with "backing down from the classic doctrine".

The fact is that the current way in which the doctrine is taught is less clear, not clearer, than the way it was taught in the past.

You wrote:

Quote

It is not up to you and IRR to define what is doctrine for the Latter-day Saints.

Boring, tired, boiler-plate criticism that has nothing to do with what I or IRR is doing.

You wrote:

Quote

Trying to play LDS concepts from one century to another against each other is especially frought with danger for the critics considering we believe in eternal progression and learning line-by line and precept by precept.

Again, the LDS Church appears to be learning less, not more, as it goes along. Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith were a lot more confident in their teaching on the subject than Gordon B. Hinckley!

[KevinG]

Resorting to insults of me or current church leaders does not support your position Rob.  Nevertheless,

When I was a child I was convinced that my father was a nearly perfect man.  I made statements to that effect in school.

Now I know my father is mortal and has weaknesses.  This does not mean I know less about him.  It means I have a more complete picture of what his nature is.  I am still impressed with him however, maybe more since I know more about the nature of life.

[KevinG]

How is picking the LDS opinion you agree with and taking sides not defining what our doctrines are (or at least choosing to present an image of what our doctrines are)?  That is an observation of your behavior not a tired boilerplate criticism.

Don't confuse your opinion with our doctrine and teach others that it is what we (as a people) believe.

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

KevinG, on 13 March 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Resorting to insults of me or current church leaders does not support your position Rob.

I agree. I don't believe I insulted you or current church leaders.

You wrote:

Quote

How is picking the LDS opinion you agree with and taking sides not defining what our doctrines are (or at least choosing to present an image of what our doctrines are)? That is an observation of your behavior not a tired boilerplate criticism.

Don't confuse your opinion with our doctrine and teach others that it is what we (as a people) believe.

I didn't state that my understanding of what the Book of Mormon says is what you as a people believe. In fact, I pointed out explicitly that many of you don't agree with that understanding!

[KevinG]

Your opinion is a matter of public record and debate once you present yourself as an expert in a subject.  You cannot have the luxury of being an expert in Mormonism then resorting to "it was just my opinion" when you are called on poor representations of our writings.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

KevinG, on 13 March 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Your opinion is a matter of public record and debate once you present yourself as an expert in a subject.  You cannot have the luxury of being an expert in Mormonism then resorting to "it was just my opinion" when you are called on poor representations of our writings.

Your arguments are becoming thinner with each post. You keep making false accusations and then when called on them shift to other criticisms. You have shown no false or poor representations of your writings in my article, and you have not engaged the big picture of the argument presented in the article that Bernard criticized in the opening post. Nor did I say here that something was "just my opinion."

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Kevin,

You wrote:



Your arguments are becoming thinner with each post. You keep making false accusations and then when called on them shift to other criticisms. You have shown no false or poor representations of your writings in my article, and you have not engaged the big picture of the argument presented in the article that Bernard criticized in the opening post. Nor did I say here that something was "just my opinion."

Nice - more ad hominem.  I'd forgotten I have to be very careful having a genuine discussion with you due to your habit of splitting hairs.  I communicate for understanding not to win points.

Back to the OP -

Just because a teaching was "more explicit" does not mean it was more correct or more "straightforward" as you wrote.  The doctrines related to deification are not always clearly understood or explicitly outlined.  You know this well from numerous online discussions here on this forum.

Why is it you are hesitant to clear up the language on your site to reflect what the LDS Church teaches today based on our greater understanding or at the very least understanding we don't know what we thought we knew?

You are not clearly presenting all sides of the discussion instead there is an implied criticism that we are backing away from our doctrine that just isn't so.

If anything the correlation process over the last few decades has helped us clarify our core doctrines and eschew some of the past speculation (authoratative and folk) that muddies the water.  If we scoop mud out of the water don't seek to throw it back in.

Edited by KevinG, 13 March 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[cinepro]

Bernard Gui, on 13 March 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

"Basic to Joseph Smith’s doctrine of eternal progression was the idea that the Father himself progressed from a state in which he was not yet God to one in which he had become a God. Gospel Principles taught this idea explicitly for thirty years, but in the current edition it is simply dropped without explanation."

IRR's article on Gospel Principles chapter 47 has a lot of interesting background on LDS teachings regarding exaltation, but the bolded statement above is totally wrong, as shown by Bernard.   I don't have the 1978 edition to review the chapter on Exaltation, but I suspect the change in wording was done for editorial reasons and not to hide anything, since Joseph Smith's quote about God once being a "man like us" is still plainly in there.  

[Vance]

cinepro, on 13 March 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

I don't have the 1978 edition to review the chapter on Exaltation, but I suspect the change in wording was done for editorial reasons and not to hide anything, since Joseph Smith's quote about God once being a "man like us" is still plainly in there.  

What?

And miss an opportunity to make something sound nefarious when it isn't?

NEVER!!!

Edited by Vance, 13 March 2012 - 12:19 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You've got it all wrong. It's the LDS Church that is not presenting all sides of the issue. They don't even acknowledge that there is an issue. Hence Gospel Principles simply whites out words and sentences that used to be there without comment.

[Rob Bowman]

cinepro,

You wrote:

cinepro, on 13 March 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

IRR's article on Gospel Principles chapter 47 has a lot of interesting background on LDS teachings regarding exaltation, but the bolded statement above is totally wrong, as shown by Bernard.   I don't have the 1978 edition to review the chapter on Exaltation, but I suspect the change in wording was done for editorial reasons and not to hide anything, since Joseph Smith's quote about God once being a "man like us" is still plainly in there.  

"For editorial reasons" is awfully vague. What sort of editorial reason do you have in mind?

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Kevin,

You've got it all wrong. It's the LDS Church that is not presenting all sides of the issue. They don't even acknowledge that there is an issue. Hence Gospel Principles simply whites out words and sentences that used to be there without comment.

Amazing how we hide all these issues under a century of publications, journals and scholarly papers.

Do us all a favor and look into the LDS correllation process over the last few decades.

[cinepro]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

cinepro,

You wrote:



"For editorial reasons" is awfully vague. What sort of editorial reason do you have in mind?

Just the usual changing stuff around to make it more organized, or easier to read or understand.

Since the teaching about "God once being a man" is still there, if there was any desire to take it out, then whoever supervised the changes from the 1978 edition should be fired for gross incompetence.

Edited by cinepro, 13 March 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[Bernard Gui]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

If you decide to engage the argument of the entire article, instead of attacking a soundbite taken out of context, I'll be happy to discuss this further.

The devil is in the details. I gave your full quotes and responded appropriately with quotes from the GP manual.
You are wrong on both counts...that men may become gods and that God was once a man. Both are explicitly
stated.

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 13 March 2012 - 01:31 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

cinepro,

You wrote:

cinepro, on 13 March 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Just the usual changing stuff around to make it more organized, or easier to read or understand.

Please explain how the following changes enhance the book's organization, readability, or understandability:

Quote

Exalted persons “will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father” (1978 ed., 225; 1997 ed., 302).
Exalted persons “will be reunited eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase” (2009 ed., 277).

Quote

“We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation” (1978 ed., 225).
“We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation” (1997 ed., 302; 2009 ed., 275).

Quote

“This [exaltation] is the way our Heavenly Father became God” (1997 ed., 305).
Statement omitted from 2009 ed. (279).

None of the above changes have anything to do with the organization of the material. None of them in any way clarify or make more understandable what was said in the earlier editions. Sorry, I don't think your explanation works.

You wrote:

Quote

Since the teaching about "God once being a man" is still there, if there was any desire to take it out, then whoever supervised the changes from the 1978 edition should be fired for gross incompetence.

I won't argue that point, but the fact is that what the new edition of Gospel Principles leaves in, that God "was once a man like us," is interpreted by some LDS apologists to mean that God went through a period of mortality but was already God before he did so. By omitting statements that prove this interpretation false, most notably the statement “This [exaltation] is the way our Heavenly Father became God” (1997 ed., 305), the new Gospel Principles fails to shut the door on that explanation and leaves the question less than definitively resolved.

[orion88]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

“This [exaltation] is the way our Heavenly Father became God” (1997 ed., 305), the new Gospel Principles fails to shut the door on that explanation and leaves the question less than definitively resolved.

Regarding your earlier quote of the 1978 edition.

Wow. You're the only other person that I know of (besides me) that has this book. Thanks.
I'll scan that page and include it on my Facebook.

Say hi to Joel for me.

Tony in Miss...