Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Nackhadlow was kind enough to go through the new edition when it came out and marked all the changes, due to the updates and moving of the thread to save it, the direct links don't work, but it is easy to start at post 155 if you want to skip the discussion and just skim through the thread for nack's posts:
zerinus Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Nackhadlow was kind enough to go through the new edition when it came out and marked all the changes, due to the updates and moving of the thread to save it, the direct links don't work, but it is easy to start at post 155 if you want to skip the discussion and just skim through the thread for nack's posts:http://www.mormondia...l/page__st__140I still have that. You can download it here.
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 I still have that. You can download it here.Excellent
zerinus Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 ExcellentThe comparisons and highlights were done automatically in Microsoft Word, by the way. He didn't go through it manually and mark all of those changes!
cdowis Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 I know how he works. He would elevate and offhand quote from Newsweek magazine to the status of Prophetic teaching and doctrine for the Saints. Funny how in avoiding the "gotcha" question even a non-answer is used by anti-mormons to misrepresent our true beliefs.The editor twisted his words, and the myth continues.FAIR has the actual, full text of his words. By asking Rob to prove his point, he will discover the truth. He may dance around it, but there it is.
Bernard Gui Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 To further refute Mr. Bowman's false claim that the Church is backing away from the doctrines of deification and the mortal life of God the Father, here is a quote from chapter 7 of the current Relief Society and Priesthood study manual, Teachings of President George Albert Smith. This book is the official Church approved curriculum for all adult members. It is also available to investigators who attend the adult meetings. "We believe that we are here because we kept our first estate and earned the privilege of coming to this earth. We believe that our very existence is a reward for our faithfulness before we came here, and that we are enjoying on earth the fruits of our efforts in the spirit world. We also believe that we are sowing the seed today of a harvest that we will reap when we go from here. Eternal life is to us the sum of pre-existence, present existence, and the continuation of life in immortality, holding out to us the power of endless progression and increase. With that feeling and that assurance, we believe that "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." [see Lorenzo Snow, "The Grand Destiny of Man," Deseret Evening News, July 20, 1901, 22.] Being created in the image of God, we believe that it is not improper, that it is not unrighteous, for us to hope that we may be permitted to partake of the attributes of deity and, if we are faithful, to become like unto God; for as we receive of and obey the natural laws of our Father that govern this life, we become more like Him; and as we take advantage of the opportunities placed within our reach, we prepare to receive greater opportunities in this life and in the life that is to come..."Notice in particular the reference to Lorenzo Snow's couplet. I have shown from the Gospel Principles manual itself and the current adult study guide that Rob's assertions are false. I call on him to make the appropriate corrections. Such blatant errors and their persistent defense call into serious question the accuracy of IRR's research and the sincerity of their claim to truthfully represent LDS beliefs to their readers. Bernard
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) It is even in the 2002 Friend: http://www.lds.org/f...god+once+was%22He wrote as a couplet (two lines of verse) a revelation that he had and that the Prophet Joseph Smith said was true: As man ____ is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.It is in the Lesson 1 for the Aaronic Priesthood manual 2: http://www.lds.org/m...god+once+was%22It is on the quote page for Lorenzo Snow: http://www.lds.org/c...=5&topic=quotesSo that is three references (actually four there is another story that quotes it but I didn't list it as it wasn't the focus) for the past decade.For the decade of 1970, there are four references one can find online as well. Only one for 1983 and none listed for 1990s. So if anything it would seem that the teaching is more spoken of now than it has been for 30 years. And when the manual comes out for Lorenzo Snow..... Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah
Bernard Gui Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) If the above is not sufficient, let's look at another official manual, Gospel Fundamentals, chapter 36. "To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation * or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted..."Becoming like our Father in Heaven is like climbing a ladder. We must start at the bottom and climb each step until we reach the top. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that if we want to become like our Father in Heaven we must learn how He feels, thinks, and acts. When we understand these things about Him, we can then learn all other things about Him, until we know how to become as He is..."It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth. However, the Prophet Joseph Smith said we will not learn everything we need to learn while in this world. It will take us a long time after we complete this life to know all the things we need to know in order to become like our Father in Heaven."Bernard Edited March 14, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 From the RS manual LDS Woman part a:President Lorenzo Snow taught: “When two Latter-day Saints are united together in marriage, promises are made to them concerning their offspring that reach from eternity to eternity. They are promised that they shall have the power and the right to govern and control and administer salvation and exaltation and glory to their offspring, worlds without end. And what offspring they do not have here, undoubtedly there will be opportunities to have them hereafter. What else could man wish? A man and a woman, in the other life, having celestial bodies, free from sickness and disease, glorified and beautified beyond description, standing in the midst of their posterity, governing and controlling them, administering life, exaltation and glory worlds without end” (Deseret News, 13 Mar. 1897; quoted by Spencer W. Kimball in The Miracle of Forgiveness [1969], 246).http://www.lds.org/manual/the-latter-day-saint-woman-basic-manual-for-women-part-a/lesson-10-eternal-marriage?lang=eng
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 From Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood, book a:President Spencer W. Kimball said: “Our Heavenly Father has a plan for man’s growth from infancy to godhood. … He intended that all men should live worthy to [be married] for time and all eternity” (“The Lord’s Plan for Men and Women,” Ensign, Oct. 1975, 2, 4)http://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/lesson-35-the-eternal-family?lang=eng
Bernard Gui Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 Well, you have shown that the Church is definitely backing away from this "gospel fundamental." Maybe IRR can use your quotes to make their case. Bernard
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 YW's manual 1:“The truth is … man is a child of God—a God in embryo. … That man is a child of God is the most important knowledge available to mortals” (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1973, p. 136; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 14).http://www.lds.org/manual/young-women-manual-1/lesson-1-a-daughter-of-god?lang=eng
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) SWK manual:It is developed for man, the offspring of God. Man is a god in embryo and has in him the seeds of godhood, and he can, if he will, rise to great heights.”4....But for those Latter-day Saints who are valiant, who fulfill the requirements faithfully and fully, the promises are glorious beyond description:“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” (D&C 132:20.)26When one realizes the vastness, the richness, the glory of that “all” which the Lord promises to bestow upon his faithful, it is worth all it costs in patience, faith, sacrifice, sweat and tears. The blessings of eternity contemplated in this “all” bring men immortality and everlasting life, eternal growth, divine leadership, eternal increase, perfection, and with it all, godhoodhttp://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRDsee also John Taylor: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=87bdbe335dc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Doctrines of the Gospel:■ “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man. . . . If the veil were rent today, . . . if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. . . .“. . . It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible” (Smith, Teachings, 345–46).http://institute.lds...osp-01-10-3.aspsee also:http://www.lds.org/e...female?lang=enghttp://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRDhttp://www.lds.org/e...of-man?lang=enghttp://www.lds.org/e...ildren?lang=enghttp://institute.lds.org/manuals/new-testament-institute-student-manual/nt-in-08-8-40.asphttp://seminary.lds.org/manuals/New-Testament-seminary-teacher-Resource-Manual/nt-trm-14-ap1-14-6.asphttp://www.lds.org/new-era/2012/02/our-father-in-heaven?lang=enghttp://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/god-loves-and-helps-all-of-his-children?lang=enghttp://institute.lds.org/manuals/presidents-of-the-church-teacher-manual/pres-tchr-2-6.asphttp://seminary.lds.org/manuals/Old-Testament-seminary-teacher-Resource-Manual/ot-trm-02-int2-2-3.asphttp://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=c2719207f7c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRDhttp://seminary.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-student-study-guide/dc-ssg-7-jfs.asphttp://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=2&sourceId=dc48b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRDhttp://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-teacher-resource-manual/the-great-plan-of-happiness?lang=eng&query=plan+salvationhttps://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:pscl9pyeydwJ:www.lds.org/institutes/attachment/display/1,18728,91079,00.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi4NRicG2Ia21UlC6HBTMnUcTYeGAmNeVcdiBFGc2geDkCTyySLQC05nNhq-m2Zdr2J5vQmvwh5JhlTPNBVCpIifr8GW-tvN8SxWGWyG5m8fjbZTvsxlvpXu5GVilXwZ4-1WTkm&sig=AHIEtbRXnjvwSnBIyHrgf8R-5BpukISqpQhttp://seminary.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-16-20-20.asphttp://institute.lds.org/manuals/presidents-of-the-church-student-manual/pres-ch-04-06-5.asp Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 It looks like I could collect a couple of hundred more quotes from magazines, manuals, etc. on lds.org searching on several other terms, including "godhood" for example. However it is now almost 2:30 AM and I think Bernard and I have proved his point quite well.
Bernard Gui Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Crivens, Cal! The Church might as well just renounce the doctrine and get it over with. BernardPS. Did I mention you da bomb? It's only 1:30 here. Edited March 14, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) And just in case Mr. Bowman wants to claim that the doctrine is still being taught, just in a more generic form and the uniqueness of the teaching quoted from the GP first published 30+ years ago is being watered down or whatever, I would like to know how this is possible when the same quotes and commentary are being used that were used back in the 70s plus several of the current manuals in use are the same manuals of 30 years ago when I was in university....the ones on my shelf being a testament to that fact (and they could have easily been replaced if they had been found to teach certain doctrines too 'aggressively'.)So if he still sees a difference, I suspect it's either he's interpreting the 'former' position wrongly or the 'current' one or both......And as far as the Church's teachings allowing more variation of thought now then formerly, I would like to know just how many LDS he has discussed this over with 30 years ago, if he is getting this idea from anywhere save his own interpretations. I haven't heard anything new myself, I saw the same variation of nuances being attached to the core concept thirty, twenty and ten years ago as I do today. I run into more people with the more unusual POVs but then I didn't have the internet to discuss such things on back then so I think that might make a wee bit of difference. The only perceived substantive difference is that it seems to me that younger people are much more fluent and prone to in depth analysis , but that could have more to do with my perception changing with age than reality (those twenty year olds who looked so mature to me back in the day look like babies nowadays or perhaps it is due to me hanging around with science types rather than historical and philosophical types back then and more of the latter these days). Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah
Rob Bowman Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Bernard,You wrote:To further refute Mr. Bowman's false claim that the Church is backing away from the doctrines of deification and the mortal life of God the Father, here is a quote from chapter 7 of the current Relief Society and Priesthood study manual, Teachings of President George Albert Smith. This book is the official Church approved curriculum for all adult members. It is also available to investigators who attend the adult meetings."We believe that we are here because we kept our first estate and earned the privilege of coming to this earth. We believe that our very existence is a reward for our faithfulness before we came here, and that we are enjoying on earth the fruits of our efforts in the spirit world. We also believe that we are sowing the seed today of a harvest that we will reap when we go from here. Eternal life is to us the sum of pre-existence, present existence, and the continuation of life in immortality, holding out to us the power of endless progression and increase. With that feeling and that assurance, we believe that "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." [see Lorenzo Snow, "The Grand Destiny of Man," Deseret Evening News, July 20, 1901, 22.] Being created in the image of God, we believe that it is not improper, that it is not unrighteous, for us to hope that we may be permitted to partake of the attributes of deity and, if we are faithful, to become like unto God; for as we receive of and obey the natural laws of our Father that govern this life, we become more like Him; and as we take advantage of the opportunities placed within our reach, we prepare to receive greater opportunities in this life and in the life that is to come..."Notice in particular the reference to Lorenzo Snow's couplet.I have shown from the Gospel Principles manual itself and the current adult study guide that Rob's assertions are false. I call on him to make the appropriate corrections. Such blatant errors and their persistent defense call into serious question the accuracy of IRR's research and the sincerity of their claim to truthfully represent LDS beliefs to their readers.You guys are a riot. This discussion board should come with a laugh track, like sitcoms in the 60s. I quoted this very passage from that manual to make exactly the same point. Here is the comment I made after quoting the very same passage:Notice not only George Albert Smith’s quotation of Snow’s couplet as something “we believe,” but also his affirmation that human beings may have “the power of endless progression and increase.” This doctrine of eternal progression has thus been part of the LDS Church’s teaching by its leaders and in its official doctrinal publications from the last days of Joseph Smith right up to the present day.No further proof is needed that you and the others here who are trying to find fault with my article aren't even making a serious effort. Edited March 14, 2012 by Rob Bowman
Vance Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 You guys are a riot. This discussion board should come with a laugh track, like sitcoms in the 60s. Actually it is your "scholarship" that needs a laugh track.I quoted this very passage from that manual to make exactly the same point. Here is the comment I made after quoting the very same passage:No further proof is needed that you and the others here who are trying to find fault with my article aren't even making a serious effort.So, then you are contradicting this statement of yours. Gospel Principles taught this idea explicitly for thirty years, but in the current edition it is simply dropped without explanation."Now, where is that laugh track now that it is needed.LOL!!!
Rob Bowman Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Vance,The current edition of Gospel Principles does indeed drop the statement I said it did. In my response to Bernard I was referring to a different statement in a different publication.
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) 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 preferWhether or not the current GP manual is more ambiguous or not as what you claim it, if the doctrine is as clearly stated as it was printed in the previous GP manual in a multitude of other current manuals and publications, how in the world is the Church trying to create a more ambiguous teaching then before? The Church does not depend on just one manual to convey its teachings and it is likely once those two years of study of the GP is done, few members beyond new converts and their teachers will even be referring to it much if past history is an indication.I agree that the above statements in their original contexts were part of the classic LDS doctrine of eternal progression.The problem for your theory is that this "classic" LDS doctrine is still being taught today in a multitude of manuals and other publications. it seems to me you are the one relying on a "soundbite" when you point to one manual's minor semantic editing change as a major shift in the Church's teaching of its doctrine.What is taught today on this doctrine is the same as has been taught for the last 40 years as one can tell by what is presented as past talks and present publications, which are consistent with each other. Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah 1
Rob Bowman Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 calmoriah,You wrote:Whether or not the current GP manual is more ambiguous or not as what you claim it, if the doctrine is as clearly stated as it was printed in the previous GP manual in a multitude of other current manuals and publications, how in the world is the Church trying to create a more ambiguous teaching then before? The Church does not depend on just one manual to convey its teachings and it is likely once those two years of study of the GP is done, few members beyond new converts and their teachers will even be referring to it much if past history is an indication.Please read my entire article and try to follow the argument I present in its entirety. It is not based on one manual alone.
Calm Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Does it deal with all the current manuals publications that I and others quoted?
Damien the Leper Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 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.So, nothing is the same yesterday, today or forever? I'm okay with religions saying "We changed our mind". But don't back down from it. What is taught today is just as relevant as what was taught in the 19th century. Mr. Costa at the 2010 General Conference was wrong in his talk on obedience to the prophets because the principle is still the same. What Monson teaches today is no more important than what Moses taught. Just the same, Monson is no more imporant than Moses.
Recommended Posts