Another Nit To Pick With Irr

[Calm]

Please read my entire article and try to follow the argument I present in its entirety. It is not based on one manual alone.

Although the LDS Church’s leaders and publications at times downplay or omit explicit reference to the idea that God was once a man like us, the idea continues to appear in official curriculum materials.

This statement makes no sense if you are trying to claim a change of direction in teaching. Simply because different parts of the teaching are discussed depending on the emphasis desired at the time, if the idea of eternal progression is still appearing in the same way, if the Church includes quotes from early church leaders to explain it, then how can two or three references that might be interpreted differently be claimed as the current teaching direction? Your claim only makes sense if these earlier quotes were being dropped out of the curriculum completely. Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Three years earlier, Hinckley had given a ringing endorsement of Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse—but omitted its reference to God having been a man like us: On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Don’t Drop the Ball,” Ensign, Nov 1994, 46).

Since Pres. Hinckley is discussing here the purpose of the gospel for us today, only the second half of the couplet is applicable, adding the first part would extraneous and off point.

[cdowis]

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!

Please CFR that Hinckley is "less confident" in that doctrine, since are making an unqualified statement, and using that as an argument.

To save bandwidth, I am specifically interested in church sources/periodicals (lds.org). The public media has generally proven itself as an unreliable source, but let's see what you got.

Edited March 14, 2012 by cdowis

[KevinG]

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.

What you seem to be unaware of is that the Church has been making a concerted effort to reduce the printed pages of manuals and teaching devices used across the world in the last few decades. I believe our Doctor Peterson is one of those who has been involved in the ongoing correlation process.

If a passage in a manual distracts from the main point of the lesson or goes on too long about it - there is probably some careful editing going on. This occurance in one manual does not mean the Church is backing off of its teachings.

Add this to ongoing revelation and greater understanding as time goes on (not a slam or criticism of previous prophets but the true nature of the human race) then you have some very legitimate reasons we condense and change our teaching materials other than "hiding" something.

While you resort to insults and cat calls about our board members, church curricula, prophets and mormons in general your mask of scholarship is slipping badly.

[Calm]

What you seem to be unaware of is that the Church has been making a concerted effort to reduce the printed pages of manuals and teaching devices used across the world in the last few decades. I believe our Doctor Peterson is one of those who has been involved in the ongoing correlation process.

If a passage in a manual distracts from the main point of the lesson or goes on too long about it - there is probably some careful editing going on. This occurance in one manual does not mean the Church is backing off of its teachings.

Add this to ongoing revelation and greater understanding as time goes on (not a slam or criticism of previous prophets but the true nature of the human race) then you have some very legitimate reasons we condense and change our teaching materials other than "hiding" something.

While you resort to insults and cat calls about our board members, church curricula, prophets and mormons in general your mask of scholarship is slipping badly.

Exactly

[KevinG]

So, nothing is the same yesterday, today or forever?

No. Don't put words in my mouth and then argue with the straw man.

[Damien the Leper]

No. Don't put words in my mouth and then argue with the straw man.

Slow your roll bud.

Very inappropriate gang slang, you can leave the thread now.

[KevinG]

Since offense seems easier than comprhension I will elucidate.

Truth is in the Sphere where God has placed it. We gain access to ultimate truth line by line and precept by precept as we obey God's commandments. See D&C 93

What we thought we knew yesterday may be superceded by greater light and knowledge. This is true for indidivudlals, prophets and the church in general. This is a wonderful thing and leads to constant improvement. The LDS Church is dynamic, living and God led. Don't let our mortal imperfections and subsequent growth fool you.

However that is a different issue entirely than Rob taking one statement from one manual and making a case that we're backing off of doctrines or ealier prophets didn't get it right from God.

[Calm]

However that is a different issue entirely than Rob taking one statement from one manual and making a case that we're backing off of doctrines or ealier prophets didn't get it right from God.

He did get one point semiright in his article when he points out that the infinite regress of Gods is not commonly discussed as part of the curriculum. He should have left it at that and attempted to demonstrate whether or not that is a core doctrine of the faith that was ever commonly discussed, etc. etc. He has a chance with that one, I think his claim about the changes in GP being a significant change in teaching approach is absurd given all the specific mentions elsewhere.

I think very few LDS would argue that there has been no changes in how doctrine is presented or taught over the centuries as this would completely contradict the refinement of knowledge or the teaching of line upon line even for our prophets as clearly stated by KevinG. That there are changes in how doctrines have been taught don't really make LDS tremble in fear and shouldn't cause any nonLDS to think that LDS are being hypocritical or dismissive of our past prophets when we deal with the changes because we have never, ever believed that our prophets are infallible and all knowing. This is a strawmen created by some nonLDS imposing their view of what prophets should be on LDS. We are not hypocritical or dismissive if we judge our prophets by the standards they have asked to judge them by.

It is this pattern of missing the actual potential problem over and over again and choosing instead to focus on a minor point or worse a straw man that convinced me that Mr. Bowman is not very familiar with how actual LDS process their beliefs at all, but instead imposes his own interpretation and weighing of importance, etc. upon our beliefs.

Edited March 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

You guys are a riot. This discussion board should come with a laugh track, like sitcoms in the 60s.

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.

An interesting reaction to being proven wrong.

The errors are so egregiously blatant a serious effort is not needed (although I'm surprised you think Cal's devastating broadside was not a serious effort).

Laugh it off at the risk of losing what little credibility you have left. You made the personal challenge to find errors on your critiques. Many have been shown to you and many more can and will be.

The premise for your critique of chapter 47 has been shown to be fatally flawed. It is bogus. A total rewrite is due.

1. Is the fundamental doctrine that men may become gods still taught in th GP manual?

2. Is it currently taught throughout the official LDS curriculum?

3. Is the fundamental doctrine that God was once a man still taught in the GD manual?

4. Is it still taught throughout the official LDS curriculum?

We have shown that the answer to each question is an unqualified 'yes.' It's a dodge to appeal to the "big picture" and ignore the incompetence shown in the details. That's like saying, "Look at my bright shiny kitchen, but ignore the cockroach infestation in the walls and cupboards."

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

Please CFR that Hinckley is "less confident" in that doctrine, since are making an unqualified statement, and using that as an argument.

To save bandwidth, I am specifically interested in church sources/periodicals (lds.org). The public media has generally proven itself as an unreliable source, but let's see what you got.

My article that everyone is criticizing here provides references supporting my statement, which is not "unqualified," by the way. You will also find at the end of the article references to additional resources on the subject. I cannot provide links to these articles because they are on IRR's website, which the moderators have decided may not be linked on this forum.

[Nevo]

I'm afraid I must disagree with several of my fellow Latter-day Saint posters on this thread. I think there has been a shift in the Church's teaching on the subject of God's origin and man's divine destiny.

I think the Church is noticeably backing away from Joseph Smith's teaching that God the Father was not always God. The relatively recent True to the Faith manual, for example, says nothing at all about God the Father once being "as we are now." Instead it emphasizes his absoluteness: He is "the Supreme Being... the ultimate Creator... of all things." Eternal life is defined not as becoming a "God" with a capital G but rather as "liv[ing] in God’s presence and continu[ing] as families."

I take this as a good thing. The doctrine that God the Father "was once as we are now", though long taught in the Church, is not found in the scriptures and therefore some caution is probably warranted. President Hinckley was right: we don't know much about it.

In volume 3 of his series Exploring Mormon Thought, Blake Ostler writes:

I believe that until recently almost all Mormons believed that Joseph Smith taught that God progressed to become fully divine from a lower state of non-divinity. Thus, it was believed that God the Father became God; before that, he was something less than God. During the eternal period before which he was "God," or fully divine, he worshiped and was subject to another God, who was more ultimate than he was.

Ostler maintains that the God the Father was not only fully divine before becoming mortal (as the Son was), but that he is in fact the "head God who is the supreme God of all other gods." I think this understanding fits well with the scriptures and I am glad to see the Church moving towards this view in its manuals.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Nevo

[cdowis]

I cannot provide links to these articles because they are on IRR's website, which the moderators have decided may not be linked on this forum.

Apparently you are not familiar with the concept of copy and paste. Just copy the link to lds.org or other lds sites where he shows his lack of confidence in this doctrine, and I'm certain the mods will allow it.

Let me give you my own CFR from Mormon wiki:

Hinckley said the following in the 1997 October General Conference: "I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

You will find detailed account of the interview with Time magazine at http://en.fairmormon...llett_Discourse You may find it informative. Basically he was addressing the issue whether there is an emphasis on teaching that particular doctrine in the classroom and in conference talks, rather than whether we continue to accept it as doctrine. My own observation is that there many doctrines (e.g. Kolob, mother in heaven, etc) in the church where we do not hear them taught, because they only satisfy our curiosity rather than bringing us to exaltation. You and your minions delight in trying to trap the church in insignificant matters. I understand how an individual who ublishes the sacred temple rites would not be embarrassed by such tactics. Edited March 14, 2012 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

I'm afraid I must disagree with several of my fellow Latter-day Saint posters on this thread. I think there has been a shift in the Church's teaching on the subject of God's origin and man's divine destiny.

With all respect, Nevo, several of your fellow LDS have presented adequate evidence to the contrary from current official LDS publications. May I point to the explicit wording quoted above from Gospel Fundamentals? There are many more, including the reprinting of the First Presidency declarations "Origin of Man" and "The Father and the Son" in the Ensign. While I respect Bro. Ostler's work, it does not define LDS doctrine.

Bernard

Edited March 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

You and your minions delight in trying to trap the church in insignificant matters. I understand how an individual who ublishes the sacred temple rites would not be embarrassed by such tactics.

This sort of comment shows you are not interested in genuine discussion with me. Enough said.

[Nevo]

May I point to the explicit wording quoted above from Gospel Fundamentals?

Yes, the wording is explicit ("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"), but I would suggest that the notion that exalted humans will create and people new planets is not a settled doctrine and I would be very surprised to see this sort of wording appearing in future manuals. As Robert Millet has noted, "The fact of the matter is, Latter-day Saints simply do not know which of God's attributes are or will be communicable and which are incommunicable" (Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, 82).

[Vance]

This sort of comment shows you are not interested in genuine discussion with me. Enough said.

Your mocking of that which we hold sacred clearly shows that it is YOU that are not interested in a "genuine discussion".

So, yeah, "Enough said".

[cdowis]

Off topic

As Robert Millet has noted, "The fact of the matter is, Latter-day Saints simply do not know which of God's attributes are or will be communicable and which are incommunicable" (Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, 82).

Robert Millet is merely a peer among peers. I have to admit I am unsure exactly what is his point? If this is some profound insight, it seems I am too stupid to understand something so nuanced and profound, OR it is something so very obvious to everyone."

Let me try it:

"We do not understand everything about Divinity." (copyright 2012)

You can quote me, but please give attribution to this forum.

Edited March 15, 2012 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, the wording is explicit ("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"), but I would suggest that the notion that exalted humans will create and people new planets is not a settled doctrine and I would be very surprised to see this sort of wording appearing in future manuals. As Robert Millet has noted, "The fact of the matter is, Latter-day Saints simply do not know which of God's attributes are or will be communicable and which are incommunicable" (Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, 82).

Again, I totally respect Bro. Millet and his outstanding work, but he does not establish LDS doctrine. We would have

to debate what the word "all" means, as in “And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.”

Bernard

[Evergrow]

I'm afraid I must disagree with several of my fellow Latter-day Saint posters on this thread. I think there has been a shift in the Church's teaching on the subject of God's origin and man's divine destiny.

Your views are in error.

I think the Church is noticeably backing away from Joseph Smith's teaching that God the Father was not always God. The relatively recent True to the Faith manual, for example, says nothing at all about God the Father once being "as we are now." Instead it emphasizes his absoluteness: He is "the Supreme Being... the ultimate Creator... of all things." Eternal life is defined not as becoming a "God" with a capital G but rather as "liv[ing] in God’s presence and continu[ing] as families."

First of all, this thread is about "Man becoming God's", not whether or not God the Father was always God. You are mixing two different subjects.

Second, Joseph did not teach that the Father was not always God. He specifically clarified a few paragraphs after the original statement in the KFD that God was once a man as "Christ" was once a man.

I take this as a good thing. The doctrine that God the Father "was once as we are now", though long taught in the Church, is not found in the scriptures and therefore some caution is probably warranted. President Hinckley was right: we don't know much about it.

You are correct that the idea that the Father was once a man as we are is not official doctrine and is not emphasized as much as you say because there is no scripture or revelation to the Church on the subject, other than "implied".

In volume 3 of his series Exploring Mormon Thought, Blake Ostler writes:

Ostler maintains that the God the Father was not only fully divine before becoming mortal (as the Son was), but that he is in fact the "head God who is the supreme God of all other gods." I think this understanding fits well with the scriptures and I am glad to see the Church moving towards this view in its manuals.

This is what I've just stated, and is the more accurate view of the subject. The Father was once a man as Christ was. It is after all what the scriptures state.

[Evergrow]

Just to be clear. Given the above clarification for you, it would be in error to state you are in "support" of Rob Bowman's views.

He has stated that the Church is moving away from the "men can become God's/god's" idea. This is an absolute falsehood.

You should not be in support of our enemy's (the enemy's of God and righteousness) in ANY way, and thus be sure to be accurate in what you state as I have been.

[Nevo]

Your views are in error.

That's entirely possible.

First of all, this thread is about "Man becoming God's", not whether or not God the Father was always God. You are mixing two different subjects.

Well, in my defense, I think the two subjects are related. And apparently so does Rob Bowman.

This thread opened with Rob Bowman's observation that, for some unknown reason, the LDS Church decided not to affirm that "we can become Gods like our Heavenly Father" in the most recent revision of the Gospel Principles manual, even though this "apparently still is LDS doctrine." He continues: "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."

Second, Joseph did not teach that the Father was not always God. He specifically clarified a few paragraphs after the original statement in the KFD that God was once a man as "Christ" was once a man.

It may be that God was once a man as Christ was once a man, but Joseph Smith also clearly states: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God and what sort of a being He is. For we have imagined that God was God from the beginning of all eternity. I will refute that idea..." (in Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text," BYU Studies 18, no. 2 [1978]: 201; emphasis added). I don't know how that could be clearer.

You are correct that the idea that the Father was once a man as we are is not official doctrine and is not emphasized as much as you say because there is no scripture or revelation to the Church on the subject, other than "implied".

Thanks. It's nice to be right about something

This is what I've just stated, and is the more accurate view of the subject. The Father was once a man as Christ was. It is after all what the scriptures state.

I don't know that the scriptures actually state this, but I don't disagree.

Just to be clear. Given the above clarification for you, it would be in error to state you are in "support" of Rob Bowman's views.

He has stated that the Church is moving away from the "men can become God's/god's" idea. This is an absolute falsehood.

To be fair, Rob Bowman doesn't make this claim. At least not in the quote cited by Mr. Gui at the beginning of the thread. In fact, he emphatically states that he is not saying that the Church is denying this doctrine, and notes that it is still taught. But his comments do raise the possibility that the Church may be reevaluating how it presents this doctrine to its members. I happen to think he could be right.

I quoted Robert Millet earlier, but I should probably add a bit more context to the quote (since cdowis had trouble making sense of it):

"Professor McDermott goes to some length to demonstrate that the early church fathers spoke of human deification but definitely did not mean the same thing Mormons mean today when they speak of the subject. The fact of the matter is, Latter-day Saints simply do not know which of God's attributes are or will be communicable and which are incommunicable. There is no question in my mind but that God is God, and there is now and will forevermore be a chasm between the two of us." (Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott, Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007], 82).

Professor Millet knows the doctrine of the Church as well as anyone, yet he is hesitant to affirm that man's ultimate destiny is to become exactly like God the Father in every respect (he implies that some some of God's attributes may be "incommunicable"). I take this as a sign that the Church may be adopting a more careful, nuanced interpretation of eternal life—one grounded in the scriptures rather than in the KFD.

But, like I say, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

You should not be in support of our enemy's (the enemy's of God and righteousness) in ANY way, and thus be sure to be accurate in what you state as I have been.

That's good advice. But we will have to agree to disagree that Mr. Bowman is an "enemy of God and righteousness." Anyway, welcome to the board!

Edited March 19, 2012 by Nevo

[Bernard Gui]

This thread opened with Rob Bowman's observation that, for some unknown reason, the LDS Church decided not to affirm that "we can become Gods like our Heavenly Father" in the most recent revision of the Gospel Principles manual, even though this "apparently still is LDS doctrine." He continues: "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."

The bolded statements are false.

From the GD manual, chapter 47:

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If a person is exalted, meaning becomes like our Heavenly Father, he...

-lives the kind of life God lives

-lives in great glory

-is perfect

-possesses all knowledge and all wisdom

-is the Father of spirit children

-is a creator

The manual then adds another description of exaltation:

• • 1.
    They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
    
  • 2.
    They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
    
  • 3.
    They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
    
  • 4.
    They will receive a fulness of joy.
    
  • 5.
    They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).
    

I truly do not see any backing away here, but maybe I'm just too dense to ferret it out.

Bernard

Edited March 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[LDSToronto]

Slow your roll bud.

Very inappropriate gang slang, you can leave the thread now.

MDD mods run with a tough crowd. I didn't know that was gangster talk!

[georged]

I think that there has been a lot of nit picking about terminology here when the important thing to remember is the doctrine that we are the spirit children of Heavenly Father, and it is a Christian and Biblical principle that we have the potential to progress just as He did and become like Him! Psalms 82:6 plainly and simply states:"Ye are gods and all of you are the children of the Most High." Jesus reaffirmed this teaching to His persecutors as recorded in John 10:33-35 when they accused Him of blasphemy for claiming that He was God: "Isn't it written in you law, I said, Ye are gods." And, to show that this meant more than just being immortal in the resurrection, He also states, as recorded in Revelation 3:21: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne just as I overcame and am sat down with my Father in His throne."!