Jump to content

The Gospel Principles Manual -- Then And Now


cksalmon

Recommended Posts

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

Best.

CKS

Perhaps the compilation methods have been refined enough to now omit the disclaimer. Or maybe itâ??s enough common knowledge now that the only source for doctrine is the canon, and thusly the disclaimer was redundant. :P

It is an interesting observation though CKS. What sends you down these paths? (I'd hate to challenge you to a game of chess).

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

Another quasi-political-religous "hit piece."

As for:

Do good men do bad things in the name of religion? Or does bad religion cause its followers to do bad things?
Ask yourself about the Crusades? Or maybe the Spainish Inquisition? Besides what makes you think Will Bagley knows what he is talking about.
Link to comment

Related pages on the changes to Gospel Principles:

http://mormonwiki.org/Gospel_Principles

http://www.bcmmin.org/gospeprin.html

Wow, Aaron, that was a useful post. Thank you. Two links to counter-cult "ministries" that intentionally misrepresent themselves as authoritative about the Church and offer nothing but biased speculation.

Way to "Lie For the Lord"!

No wonder you and your "Confused Christian" ilk refuse to deal with Mormons face to face.

Such transparent falsehoods really only work on uneducated dupes with room temperature IQ's and family trees with no branches. Too bad there are no unattended door knobs around here or you'd post more frequently.

More of the same from the most prolific purveyor of malicious and dishonest anti-Mormon bigotry and propoganda on the Web.

Link to comment
Such transparent falsehoods really only work on uneducated dupes with room temperature IQ's and family trees with no branches. Too bad there are no unattended door knobs around here or you'd post more frequently.

Oh I can feel the looooooooove. Does someone need a hug?

teddy_bear_SR7S.gif

Link to comment

Oh I can feel the looooooooove. Does someone need a hug?

teddy_bear_SR7S.gif

I'd much rather see a restraining order prohibiting you from spreading the kind of nonsense which sets me off, but if a hug is the best I can get, then we'll have to go with that. <_<

How's the family, by the way? They seem lovely in your avatar.

Don't take this the wrong way- but even if you never come round to joining(returning to?) the Church, I hope you have a long and healthy life :P (though not necessarily a productive one considering my opinion of your work). :unsure:

Link to comment

Related pages on the changes to Gospel Principles:

http://mormonwiki.org/Gospel_Principles

http://www.bcmmin.org/gospeprin.html

The second link state that the four changes listed are significant changes. I totally disagree with Farkas for the reasons below.

The first claim of difference is an outright deception because what was 'left out' is mentioned on a previous page: "Because we are made in his image (see Moses 6:9), we know that God has a body that looks like ours. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). God’s body, however, is perfected and glorified, with a glory beyond all description".

The second and third claims are mentioned elsewhere as well. Since we don't have the 78 edition, I am assuming that the need for faith in Christ was mentioned because it is one of the best known articles of faith, faith is one of the most common lesson topics, etc.

That aaron continues to promote these deceptions speaks a lot about him, imo.

Link to comment

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....

You're begging the question: Just what is "the Gospel" and what are the "revealed truths"? Why is this so darn slippery, anyway? Sometimes Mormon gospel seems as evasive as the treasures Joseph used to see in his stone, which had the ability to burrow deeper into the earth to get away from the seekers.

Link to comment

Related pages on the changes to Gospel Principles:

http://mormonwiki.org/Gospel_Principles

http://www.bcmmin.org/gospeprin.html

If you want to see an entire copy of the Gospel Principles Manual (current edition) then go to LDS.org (the official church site) and not some anti-Mormon drivel site. I have taught out of both editions of these manuals and they are essentially the same. The phraseology may be different but the meanings are identical. I have hard copies of both, 1978 edition and the 1997 edition as well. Just one example of this deception of the Anti-Mormon site should prove instructive:
Link to comment

If you want to see an entire copy of the Gospel Principles Manual (current edition) then go to LDS.org (the official church site) and not some anti-Mormon drivel site. I have taught out of both editions of these manuals and they are essentially the same. The phraseology may be different but the meanings are identical. I have hard copies of both, 1978 edition and the 1997 edition as well. Just one example of this deception of the Anti-Mormon site should prove instructive:Okay maybe so, but if you read the following I think it clarifies any change:That is just one example, need I quote the rest?

For those of us Mormons that have been around long enough (I served a Mission in 1979) you can't pull that anti-Mormon "jive talkin" (a little 70's lingo) on us. It proves the anti-Mormons have not changed much in 30 years. :P

I thought Mormons believed in the Inerrancy of the Gospel Principles manual. <_<

That's a pretty lame attack, I would have to agree.

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

Sorry to disagree with you, but I have a hard copy of the 1978 edition and although "Corporation of the President" was in the 1978 edition (it's removal I believe is for legal reasons, corporation structure or some such.) But the so called warning you refer to:IS NOT THERE...I do not know where you get this information but I have searched the manual in vain and it does not exist.

Huh, now that is quite interesting. I got that nugget of info from the introduction to Abanes's Inside Today's Mormonism.

CKS

Can anyone else comment on this? Does anyone know how to contact Abanes?

Link to comment

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

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

A volunteer committee consisting of who then please enlighten me or us? Can I volunteer? I must admitt I don't know if I would feel comfortable compiling church manuals no matter my academic qualifications, I would prefer it was done by authoritive writers general authorities. I think thats what many believe in the church its done by G.A. Not a group of academics sitting around a table in a committee.

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.

In a strange way I think the new brand of anti-mormonism has been a good thing for the Church, with the scrutinizing our materials. It helps promote awareness in delivering accurate church publications, and is a good goad and incentive for correct doctrines and teachings by General Authorities. The old days of all the strange, peculiar statements and eternally lingering loose ends left to us by G.A.'s is a thing of the past. With the knowledge that every jot and title will be examined and that anything remotely loopy needs to be edited and cut out like a malignant cancer, quickly carefully and precisely. Otherwise it could be sort of like on a theoretically archive loop replayed over and over again into eternity on the internet. So that said it helps maintain doctrinal integrity and purity within the church, I don't deny.

However the problem is everything becomes so utterly blain, like a cracker without topping, albeit nothing doctrinally inerrant passes. No one is interested in anything general authorities are currently saying, well it doesn't appear the thinkers are anyhow IMO we don't care we just wanna know what all that cool stuff the G.A.'s said a 100yrs ago, the juicy stuff. Ask youself this rhetorical question you have 2 tickets to general conference one for the current conference the other for one 100yrs ago, you can only choose one, which one would you go to? Which one would hold you attention and concentration span longer. I find myself unable to physically read the Ensign I find it so boring, so I get it on CD so I can listen to it while driving, we must accomodate. To be a good Latter Day Saint today I find for myself is all out war against boredom & montomy its a new challenge the church is facing however I don't know if it has been recognised so far. Then again I must admitt I am not really infavour of tackling the problem like other churches by recruiting a live Rock n' Roll band to curb the problem.

Link to comment

A volunteer committee consisting of who then please enlighten me or us? Can I volunteer? I must admitt I don't know if I would feel comfortable compiling church manuals no matter my academic qualifications, I would prefer it was done by authoritive writers general authorities. I think thats what many believe in the church its done by G.A. Not a group of academics sitting around a table in a committee.

It depends. The "volunteers" are asked to participate in the committee. I've seen academics and nonacademics, BYU professors, educators, psychologists, medical doctors--in short, whoever's expertise or experience was needed in a given situation.

In a strange way I think the new brand of anti-mormonism has been a good thing for the Church, with the scrutinizing our materials. It helps promote awareness in delivering accurate church publications, and is a good goad and incentive for correct doctrines and teachings by General Authorities. The old days of all the strange, peculiar statements and eternally lingering loose ends left to us by G.A.'s is a thing of the past. With the knowledge that every jot and title will be examined and that anything remotely loopy needs to be edited and cut out like a malignant cancer, quickly carefully and precisely. Otherwise it could be sort of like on a theoretically archive loop replayed over and over again into eternity on the internet. So that said it helps maintain doctrinal integrity and purity within the church, I don't deny.

That scrutiny is supposed to be the responsibility of the Correlation Committee. But I agree that the critics keep the COB honest.

However the problem is everything becomes so utterly blain, like a cracker without topping, albeit nothing doctrinally inerrant passes. No one is interested in anything general authorities are currently saying, well it doesn't appear the thinkers are anyhow IMO we don't care we just wanna know what all that cool stuff the G.A.'s said a 100yrs ago, the juicy stuff. Ask youself this rhetorical question you have 2 tickets to general conference one for the current conference the other for one 100yrs ago, you can only choose one, which one would you go to? Which one would hold you attention and concentration span longer. I find myself unable to physically read the Ensign I find it so boring, so I get it on CD so I can listen to it while driving, we must accomodate. To be a good Latter Day Saint today I find for myself is all out war against boredom & montomy its a new challenge the church is facing however I don't know if it has been recognised so far.

I think a lot of people feel the same way. In my opinion, the church has been so busy making sure things are doctrinally pure that they have taken what should be a dynamic and radical theology and presented it as the religious equivalent of a block of American cheese, bland and tasteless.

Link to comment

Huh, now that is quite interesting. I got that nugget of info from the introduction to Abanes's Inside Today's Mormonism.

CKS

Can anyone else comment on this? Does anyone know how to contact Abanes?

Since Richard has been known in the past to use other people's work rather than check out something for himself, an error like this is hardly surprising.

Link to comment

Since Richard has been known in the past to use other people's work rather than check out something for himself, an error like this is hardly surprising.

I read his stuff and wasn't particularly impressed. I remember a few years ago he was on the radio (IIRC, it was Hank Hanegraff's show), and they were going on about how dead bodies littered the streets in BY's day and how Mormons are bent on taking over and dominating the world. And then he said, "But we don't have a problem with Mormons. They're wonderful people." :P

Link to comment

I sent Harvest House Publishers a quick email re: the GP caveat. Hopefully, they'll clarify.

Name: C. K. Salmon

Email: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx

Subject: Bookcorrect

Comments:

Greetings:

I'm hoping to obtain some clarification about a statement in Richard Abanes's book, Inside Today's Mormonism. In his introduction, Abanes states 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

Perhaps the compilation methods have been refined enough to now omit the disclaimer. Or maybe itâ??s enough common knowledge now that the only source for doctrine is the canon, and thusly the disclaimer was redundant. :P

It is an interesting observation though CKS. What sends you down these paths? (I'd hate to challenge you to a game of chess).

Hey Steuss--

Don't worry: I'd lose to a retarded monkey in a game of chess. I completely lack "A leads indirectly to D" skillz, yo.

For an example of what sends me down these paths, see the posts more or less directly above this one. I'm particularly interested in minutia textual in nature.

Despite, or perhaps because of, my deficits in predictive thinking, I'm particularly drawn to sussing out, logically, the moves from A to B to C to D.

(And, that's one of the reasons why I'm so interested in JoD and Mormonism in general. In many cases, we've got the requisite historical data to closely examine the theological moves involved in the evolution of LDS faith and praxis. It's very interesting stuff.)

Best.

CKS

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

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...