Jump to content

The Gospel Principles Manual -- Then And Now


cksalmon

Recommended Posts

If you're averse to minutia, keep movin'.

I read tonight that the (original) 1978 edition of the instructional manual Gospel Principles (GP) contained the following prefatory material:

(1) "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

(2) "

Link to comment

If you're averse to minutia, keep movin'.

I read tonight that the (original) 1978 edition of the instructional manual Gospel Principles (GP) contained the following prefatory material:

(1) "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

(2) "

Link to comment

I thoroughly agree a very interesting piece if minutia, and very important, good to see someone is reading the fine print! I think we all know in light of the 1978 edition nothing has really changed only the removal of a disclaimer, inorder to add more credibility to the text. Let's no kid ourselves here.

These book are written by BYU academics from the religion department, that has not changed and that is the bottum line. However I am open to an alternate view? The question is I suppose can we rely on Church Handbooks like Gospel Doctrine to be officially authoritative texts. My answer would be clearly NO! However that said I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with that only that perhaps that fact should be made clearer. I my opinion 99.9% of members would view that book as authoritive bona fide mormon doctrine.

Link to comment

I thoroughly agree a very interesting piece if minutia, and very important, good to see someone is reading the fine print! I think we all know in light of the 1978 edition nothing has really changed only the removal of a disclaimer, inorder to add more credibility to the text. Let's no kid ourselves here.

My guess is that the disclaimer changed because of legal changes in the church's corporate structure. When I worked there, for example, church publications bore the copyright of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; now the copyright is of Intellectual Reserve. Same people are publishing it, but the legal structure has changed.

These book are written by BYU academics from the religion department, that has not changed and that is the bottum line.

That's not true. As I said, most of the publications are written by a volunteer committee whose makeup varies.

However I am open to an alternate view? The question is I suppose can we rely on Church Handbooks like Gospel Doctrine to be officially authoritative texts. My answer would be clearly NO! However that said I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with that only that perhaps that fact should be made clearer. I my opinion 99.9% of members would view that book as authoritive bona fide mormon doctrine.

I think you're right that it can't be considered "authoritative" in that only the canon is so considered. But it should be considered consistent with church doctrine.

Link to comment

So my early posts which were excused by saying that Gospel Doctrines were not 'official church doctrine' are now made valid. Thank you:-)

So you do believe what it said about God.

Now you can also prepare for June 22nd.

Christian Neighbors are close in every town.

Link to comment

So my early posts which were excused by saying that Gospel Doctrines were not 'official church doctrine' are now made valid. Thank you:-)

So you do believe what it said about God.

Now you can also prepare for June 22nd.

Christian Neighbors are close in every town.

So far, the only person saying it's "official" is me, and I'm not a believing Mormon.

What's June 22nd?

Link to comment

I think that is the date that the new MMM movie based on "Blood of the Prophets, Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows" by Will Bagley is to be released to theaters. Nothing beyond that. With a Mormon running for President of the USA it will likely generate a lot of the public to go see it. When they do the information that is not what the LDS have claimed for years about the event and the man will be exploded and I think that it will be either a crisis for the LDS Church or else an opportunity to finally set the record straight and face the skeletons in the closet...the 500 lb gorilla in the room - so to speak.

Do good men do bad things in the name of religion? Or does bad religion cause its followers to do bad things?

Taliban comes to mind.

Stop the extreme comparisons ~ Mod

Link to comment

I think that is the date that the new MMM movie based on "Blood of the Prophets, Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows" by Will Bagley is to be released to theaters. Nothing beyond that. With a Mormon running for President of the USA it will likely generate a lot of the public to go see it. When they do the information that is not what the LDS have claimed for years about the event and the man will be exploded and I think that it will be either a crisis for the LDS Church or else an opportunity to finally set the record straight and face the skeletons in the closet...the 500 lb gorilla in the room - so to speak.

I think you're overstating the impact of the film. Some people will see it as confirmation that the church is evil, and believers will see it as an anti-Mormon attack. The church will probably issue a statement expressing disappointment, but it's not going to be a crisis, nor is the church going to confront MMM.

Do good men do bad things in the name of religion? Or does bad religion cause its followers to do bad things?

Taliban comes to mind.

Religion has potential to do good and evil. I'm always hopeful for the good.

Link to comment

If you're averse to minutia, keep movin'.

I read tonight that the (original) 1978 edition of the instructional manual Gospel Principles (GP) contained the following prefatory material:

(1) "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

(2) "

Link to comment

I think what has changed is the effect of Anti-mormon taking a lot of time and effort to glean mistakes or contradictions in everything published and the church has just stopped putting anything out that makes any disclaimers that would make a work suspect.

When the opposition gets stronger, so does the stand of the church.

Hammer,

I'm not sure it was your intention to imply that CKS is an anti-Mormon, but your post could be read that way.

For the record, though CKS is certainly a critic of the Church, he does not fit the description of the classic "anti-Mormon."

First and foremost, it is my understanding that CKS can compose complete sentences without pausing to check his notes or consult his pastor, has nearly all of his teeth, and does not frequent a tin-foil haberdashery.

These factors, coupled with the lack of bulk shipments of Chick tracts and/or lithium to his home would certainly seem to disqualify him for the role of "anti-Mormon".

As to the OP, I think it was simply a legal disclaimer pushed by the Church's lawyers and no longer relevant to the modern legal environment.

Link to comment

The Gospel Principles manual is an official Sunday School publication of the Church. As such, what is contained in there is pretty reliable as a representation of LDS teachings. However, the GP manual is not canonized scripture.

Given the amount of word-parsing that critics of the Church engage in...it is no wonder to me that there may be disclaimers at the beginning of non-canonized manuals.

Regards,

Six

Link to comment

Hammer,

I'm not sure it was your intention to imply that CKS is an anti-Mormon, but your post could be read that way.

For the record, though CKS is certainly a critic of the Church, he does not fit the description of the classic "anti-Mormon."

First and foremost, it is my understanding that CKS can compose complete sentences without pausing to check his notes or consult his pastor, has nearly all of his teeth, and does not frequent a tin-foil haberdashery.

These factors, coupled with the lack of bulk shipments of Chick tracts and/or lithium to his home would certainly seem to disqualify him for the role of "anti-Mormon".

That made me laugh Thanks. Though dang, what am I going to do with all my Chick tracts?

As to the OP, I think it was simply a legal disclaimer pushed by the Church's lawyers and no longer relevant to the modern legal environment.

That's my impression. as well.

Link to comment

I think that is the date that the new MMM movie based on "Blood of the Prophets, Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows" by Will Bagley is to be released to theaters. Nothing beyond that. With a Mormon running for President of the USA it will likely generate a lot of the public to go see it. When they do the information that is not what the LDS have claimed for years about the event and the man will be exploded and I think that it will be either a crisis for the LDS Church or else an opportunity to finally set the record straight and face the skeletons in the closet...the 500 lb gorilla in the room - so to speak.

Do good men do bad things in the name of religion? Or does bad religion cause its followers to do bad things?

Taliban comes to mind.

The vast majority of Americans have no idea what MMM was, let alone your idea of "what the LDS have claimed for years".

The inflammatory reference to the Taliban is simply ridiculous. Have you been to Afghanistan and seen what that regime has done? I have. If you haven't, then you have no credibility making such comparisons. Nice try at a hijack. Start your own "Let's Compare the LDS Church to the Taliban" thread and see how far you get.

Link to comment

Hammer,

I'm not sure it was your intention to imply that CKS is an anti-Mormon, but your post could be read that way.

For the record, though CKS is certainly a critic of the Church, he does not fit the description of the classic "anti-Mormon."

First and foremost, it is my understanding that CKS can compose complete sentences without pausing to check his notes or consult his pastor, has nearly all of his teeth, and does not frequent a tin-foil haberdashery.

These factors, coupled with the lack of bulk shipments of Chick tracts and/or lithium to his home would certainly seem to disqualify him for the role of "anti-Mormon".

As to the OP, I think it was simply a legal disclaimer pushed by the Church's lawyers and no longer relevant to the modern legal environment.

I had no intention of making that post a personal one. It was a statement of fact that actually is based off of a thread about how the division between the church and its opposition becomes more distinct when truth is reveal or stood by.

Here is the link.

Absolute Truth

I'm sorry you took it to be personal.

Link to comment

I had no intention of making that post a personal one. It was a statement of fact that actually is based off of a thread about how the division between the church and its opposition becomes more distinct when truth is reveal or stood by.

Here is the link.

Absolute Truth

I'm sorry you took it to be personal.

I didn't. I was merely pointing out that it COULD be taken that way, followed by a gratuitous description of the rabid mouth-breathers who like to slam on the Church. :P

Link to comment

The vast majority of Americans have no idea what MMM was, let alone your idea of "what the LDS have claimed for years".

The inflammatory reference to the Taliban is simply ridiculous. Have you been to Afghanistan and seen what that regime has done? I have. If you haven't, then you have no credibility making such comparisons. Nice try at a hijack. Start your own "Let's Compare the LDS Church to the Taliban" thread and see how far you get.

Obviously it was created as an incindiary. It certainly wasn't made for quality or precision.

Link to comment

a gratuitous description of the rabid mouth-breathers

Now an attack on mouth-breathers!!!

I'm a mouth breather :P Can't help it, born that way. My nose just isn't big enough...and the allergies, what can I say about the allergies...and...and I only foam at the mouth on occasion.

This is so unfair!

Link to comment

Now an attack on mouth-breathers!!!

I'm a mouth breather :P Can't help it, born that way. My nose just isn't big enough...and the allergies, what can I say about the allergies...and...and I only foam at the mouth on occasion.

This is so unfair!

I'm sorry Cal- didn't mean to strike a nerve. In my defense, I did qualify it with the adjective "rabid" and the phrase "who like to slam on the Church".

Now that the Geico caveman is going prime-time, I understand they're looking for a new mascot.....

Do your knuckles, by any chance, have callouses from dragging on the sidewalk? <_<

Link to comment

My impression is that the church has been moving away from accountability with respect to published materials. When the evangelical DVD hit the fan, church leaders thoroughly denounced it, claiming it distorted church doctrine. But the church proper never actually said what those distortions were, or what the correct doctrine was. Instead, that duty was passed on to private individuals whose opinions "do not necessarily represent the position of the Church." Just recently there was an article in the LDS Church News that addressed the topic of the multiple versions of the first vision. Preceeding the article was, again, the same disclaimer.

I don't know why the disclaimer was left off recent editions of the GP manual, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Link to comment

My impression is that the church has been moving away from accountability with respect to published materials. When the evangelical DVD hit the fan, church leaders thoroughly denounced it, claiming it distorted church doctrine. But the church proper never actually said what those distortions were, or what the correct doctrine was. Instead, that duty was passed on to private individuals whose opinions "do not necessarily represent the position of the Church."

Which I believe to be the best policy. The Church should not get distracted by these trolls. It should keep focused on its primary mission while leaving these issues for private individuals. The calling of Apostles is to proclaim the Gospel and revealed truths. Not to waste time digging through historical sources to find answers to issues that are generally trivial. They have enough on their plates. These "private individuals" can give these trolls all they can handle on their own.

Link to comment

The vast majority of Americans have no idea what MMM was, let alone your idea of "what the LDS have claimed for years".

The inflammatory reference to the Taliban is simply ridiculous. Have you been to Afghanistan and seen what that regime has done? I have. If you haven't, then you have no credibility making such comparisons. Nice try at a hijack. Start your own "Let's Compare the LDS Church to the Taliban" thread and see how far you get.

Most people are content to abide where they are, that is true, and as such those not LDS are going to have 'fresh' reason to think and feel about LDS as they do.

On the other hand there are a multitude of LDS who may see the film and start asking questions and doing their own research to verify what the facts are. Practically all of them will be of the TBM variety who believe in the Church because it is true so far as they have been told. So take the great founder who led them to Deseret and put a whole new light on him that was not shown in "The Teachings of Brigham Young" at Church classes and see if they don't have some element of faith crisis. Seems reasonable to me that many will. That's all.

I'm sure there are good honest Muslims. Only a minute few do terroristic acts.

Link to comment

For the record, though CKS is certainly a critic of the Church, he does not fit the description of the classic "anti-Mormon."

Hi selek--

I appreciate the defense. Alas, I'm tempted to own the label "anti-Mormon" in a limited sense, thanks to Dan Peterson. That is, "against Mormonism," but not against Mormons qua Mormons.

That distinction is a fair and legitimate one, albeit not a common one in these environs. If only the board, generally speaking, would catch up with the thrust of Peterson's commentary anent "anti-Mormonism" (rehearsed more than once by both him and others here), MADB would be a slightly less antagonistic place all 'round.

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

Most people are content to abide where they are, that is true, and as such those not LDS are going to have 'fresh' reason to think and feel about LDS as they do.

On the other hand there are a multitude of LDS who may see the film and start asking questions and doing their own research to verify what the facts are. Practically all of them will be of the TBM variety who believe in the Church because it is true so far as they have been told. So take the great founder who led them to Deseret and put a whole new light on him that was not shown in "The Teachings of Brigham Young" at Church classes and see if they don't have some element of faith crisis. Seems reasonable to me that many will. That's all.

I doubt very much that many church members will even see the film, and I would expect that most who do will treat it the way they do every other "anti" production: they'll assume it's dishonest or inaccurate and get on with their lives. Look at the recent PBS documentary, which IMO was reasonably fair (it could have been a lot worse), but most members of the church I know have said it was a biased and distorted attack piece. Do you really think people are going to be swayed by this upcoming film? I highly doubt it.

Link to comment

Hi selek--

I appreciate the defense. Alas, I'm tempted to own the label "anti-Mormon" in a limited sense, thanks to Dan Peterson. That is, "against Mormonism," but not against Mormons qua Mormons.

That distinction is a fair and legitimate one, albeit not a common one in these environs. If only the board, generally speaking, would catch up with the thrust of Peterson's commentary anent "anti-Mormonism" (rehearsed more than once by both him and others here), MADB would be a slightly less antagonistic place all 'round.

Best.

CKS

I understand the temptation. God gave us weaknesses to make us humble. Seems to me, though, yeilding this particular temptation would be to give into pride.

Some poeple will do anything to be noticed by the Great DCP. <_<

I agree, though that the distinction can be a subtle one. It's been my experience that contra-Mo rather than anti- would be more apt for your situation- if only because you are articulate, thoughtful and only occasionally infuriating.

That and (and so I am told) you look both ways before crossing the street and floss regularly! What more is there? :P

Link to comment

My guess is that the disclaimer changed because of legal changes in the church's corporate structure. When I worked there, for example, church publications bore the copyright of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...

That makes sense. Thanks. But I'm still curious about the unnamed author...?

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...