The Gospel Principles Manual -- Then And Now

[Calm]

-Their are many changes in the GP, many changes are just format, but in contenet the newer versions are more "mainline" "Christian" (if you will), like less emphasis in God once a man.

And you know this how?

IOW, CFR

[Lightbearer]

"What I'm really curious about, though, is whether anything was removed from the manual prior to the disappearance of the 1978 caveat."

-Their are many changes in the GP, many changes are just format, but in contenet the newer versions are more "mainline" "Christian" (if you will), like less emphasis in God once a man.

Again I have a 1978 edition of the Gospel Principles Manual and there was NO SUCH "caveat". As for changes prior to 1978...I believe the 1978 edition was the first edition.

As for your claim of the newer versions being "more "mainline" "Christian"...like less emphasis on God once a man." How about this quote from the current edition:

(Gospel Principles Chapter 47 Exaltation):"This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: â??It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. â?¦ He was once a man like us; â?¦ God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself didâ? (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345â??46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

Imagine what joy each of us will have when we return to our Heavenly Father if we can say: â??Father, I did what you wanted me to do. I have been faithful and have kept your commandments. I am happy to be home again.â? Then we will hear him say, â??Well done; â?¦ thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lordâ? (Matthew 25:23).

Although I do consider this teaching "mainline Christian" teaching I have yet to find any other church other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach this doctrine. So I really do not understand what you are saying...that we are abandoning doctrine? No, we are not. We still believe that God was once a man and that we can become like Him...that is why Jesus said come follow me.

[Baurak Ale]

I strongly agree with what Daniel Petersen said on the PBS mockumentary, about the dangers of us becoming too mainstream, that we have given to much time to emphasing similiarities than differences with the Christian world around us. Too pre-occupied with assimilating into the Christian mainstream. He also gave a good quote by B.Y.

[Calm]

I strongly agree with what Daniel Petersen said on the PBS mockumentary, about the dangers of us becoming too mainstream, that we have given to much time to emphasing similiarities than differences with the Christian world around us. Too pre-occupied with assimilating into the Christian mainstream. He also gave a good quote by B.Y.

CFR--Like to see the direct quote. Is the "too pre-occupied...." comment his or yours?

[jason e.]

"I really do not understand what you are saying...that we are abandoning doctrine? No, we are not. We still believe that God was once a man and that we can become like Him...that is why Jesus said come follow me."

-Not abandoning this doctrine huh?;

-1978 ed pg 290, "We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."

1997 ed pg 302, "We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."

(I will say however there are still refernces to this teaching that have not been changed, like both have "We could become like Him, an exalted being" (301), and "They will become Gods" (302). But with that being said the missionaries are no longer told to teach this. But even that was 1997, look at the GF of '02;)

..................................................................................................................................

So a key way of testing my point that the church shys away from this teaching in an attempt to appeal more to mainline Christianity would be to see what is directed towards people not familiar with LDS teachings (men can become gods, god was once a man) but more familiar teaching with mainline christianity (God has always been God, humans can not become gods) and if they in fact do shy away from this teaching. Well what do we see,

"The teacher's manual for this course is the Gospel Principles manual (used where the Church is well established) or the Gospel Fundamentals manual (used where the Church has been recently organized or where general curriculum materials are not available)." http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,7102-1,00.html

-1997 ed pg 302, chapter heading, "Exaltation"

2002 GF pg 201, chapter heading, "Eternal Life"

-97 "Father in Heaven explained a plan for our Progression"

-02 "Father in Heaven has prepared many places for us to live"

-97 There is an entire section on "What is exaltation" then defines the diety attributes of God and then how faithful can become gods too. 302

-02 In the paralell section only says "To have eternal life with our Father in heaven is the greatest gift he can give to us." 203 And makes no mention of being exalted to godhood. The section ends with the question "What is eternal life?" And if all they had was GF they would say that is it eternal life with God in heaven. They would have no idea that they too like god who was once a man were going to become Gods.

...................................................................................................................................

-Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

GBH: I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

-"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he (GBH) sounded uncertain, â??I don't know that we teach it, I don't know that we emphasize it...I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." (Time magazine of August 4, 1997, "Kingdom Come," pg 56)

-Point here is that it is not really taught often or emphasized. This gives credence to my statment that the GP have started taking this out and tried to sound more orthodox.

(Sure you al will have explanationd for this but there is one undisputable fact; The older LDS church spoke freely and openly about this (and in a non speculative manner) but now it is shyed away from).

.............................................................................................................................................

So as I stated earlier, the churcj shys away from this in an attempt to appeal to mainline christanity.

[Calm]

Have you actually read the whole text or are you getting this stuff off of another's site? Where are your links to the quoted material or are you claiming you are actually typing from the text?

I suggest you go visit this website and actually find those claims you are putting up, because most of them are pure bogus especially when you post the entire context: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...000176f620a____

This is the entire chapter titled Exaltation:

Exaltation

“Chapter 47: Exaltation,” Gospel Principles, 301

When we lived with our Heavenly Father, he explained a plan for our progression. We could become like him, an exalted being. The plan required that we be separated from him and come to earth. This separation was necessary to prove whether we would obey our Father’s commandments even though we were no longer in his presence. The plan provided that when earth life ended, we would be judged and rewarded according to the degree of our faith and obedience. We would then be assigned to the place for which we had prepared.

Jesus taught, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). From the scriptures we learn that there are three kingdoms of glory in heaven. The Apostle Paul mentioned that he knew a man who was “caught up to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2). Paul named two of the kingdoms in heaven: the celestial and the terrestrial (see 1 Corinthians 15:40–42). The celestial is the highest, and the terrestrial is second. Through latter-day revelation we learn that the third kingdom is the telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:81). We also learn that there are three heavens or degrees within the celestial kingdom (see D&C 131:1).

Discussion

• Have someone tell about our Heavenly Father’s plan for us.

What Is Exaltation?

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 we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, just like our Heavenly Father. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give his children (see D&C 14:7).

Discussion

• What is exaltation?

Blessings of Exaltation

Our Heavenly Father is perfect. However, he is not jealous of his wisdom and perfection. He glories in the fact that it is possible for his children to become like him. He has said, “This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

2. They will become gods.

3. They 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. They will be an eternal family.

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. 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, 2:36).

Discussion

• List some of the blessings that will be given to those who are exalted.

Requirements for Exaltation

The time to fulfill the requirements for exaltation is now (see Alma 34:32–34). President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “In order to obtain the exaltation we must accept the gospel and all its covenants; and take upon us the obligations which the Lord has offered; and walk in the light and understanding of the truth; and ‘live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God’ ” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:43).

To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in him must be such that we repent of our sins and obey his commandments.

He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

1. We must be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

2. We must receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

3. We must receive the temple endowment.

4. We must be married for time and eternity.

In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord commands all of us to—

1. Love and worship God.

2. Love our neighbor.

3. Repent of our wrongdoings.

4. Live the law of chastity.

5. Pay honest tithes and offerings.

6. Be honest in our dealings with others and with the Lord.

7. Speak the truth always.

8. Obey the Word of Wisdom.

9. Search out our kindred dead and perform the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.

10. Keep the Sabbath day holy.

11. Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.

12. Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.

13. Have family and individual prayers every day.

14. Honor our parents.

15. Teach the gospel to others by word and example.

16. Study the scriptures.

17. Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.

Finally, each of us needs to receive the Holy Ghost and learn to follow his direction in our individual lives.

Discussion

• Why are faith in and obedience to Jesus Christ necessary to become exalted?

• What ordinances must we accept in order to become exalted?

• What laws does the Lord give us that we must obey to become exalted?

• Why must we learn to follow the direction of the Holy Ghost to become exalted?

After We Have Endured to the End

What happens when we have endured to the end in faithful discipleship to Christ? The Lord has said, “If you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7). President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “If we will continue in God; that is, keep his commandments, worship him and live his truth; then the time will come when we shall be bathed in the fulness of truth, which shall grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. 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, pp. 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

Imagine what joy each of us will have when we return to our Heavenly Father if we can say: “Father, I did what you wanted me to do. I have been faithful and have kept your commandments. I am happy to be home again.” Then we will hear him say, “Well done; … thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (Matthew 25:23).

Discussion

• Describe how you might feel to hear the Savior’s words in Matthew 25:23.

• What must we do to endure to the end?

Additional Scriptures

• D&C 132:3–4, 16–26, 37 (pertaining to exaltation)

• D&C 131:1–4 (eternal marriage is key to exaltation)

• D&C 76:59–70 (blessings of celestial glory explained)

Those who are faithful to the end will be exalted with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

Gospel Fundamentals is a different manual than Gospel Principles, contrasting quotes from one with the other claiming there have been changes is deceptive.

-1997 ed pg 302, chapter heading, "Exaltation"

2002 GF pg 201, chapter heading, "Eternal Life"

That they are two different books and always were should be obvious from the page numbering. That the second is a much simplified version should also be obvious from the numbering as for the second to equal the first, an additional half of the text would have had to been added.

Fundamentals is written for areas that tend to have less educated members and is written in a simplified form. Hardly surprising that the easily understood "eternal life" is used in the place of "Exaltation" to avoid confusion. This is consistent with the LDS definition of exaltation everywhere that I've seen it given.

However, the essence is the same:

The good men who have seen our Father in Heaven have said that He is real. He lives. He looks like a man.

Our Father in Heaven is not an idol or an animal. He has a body of flesh and bones. His body looks like a man’s body, but it is different.

His body will never die. His body feels no pain and cannot become sick.

He has feelings. He can feel happy or sad. He loves all people and wants them to be happy. He is kind and fair. He does only good things, and He speaks only the truth. He knows all things. He can do all things. There is light all around Him. His brightness and beauty are greater than anything we have ever seen.

Our Father in Heaven is the only being we should worship. He lives in a place called heaven. It is a place more beautiful than the earth.

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

Our Father in Heaven Made a Plan to Help Us

In heaven we learned many things and improved ourselves as much as we could, but there were things we could not learn and do there. Our Father in Heaven made a plan for us to learn more.

He called us to a meeting in heaven. We were all there. He explained His plan to help us to learn and told us that if we followed His plan we would become like Him.

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

[Doctor Steuss]

When more and more scholars are publishing on deification and its place as a Christian doctrine, is â??mainstream Christianityâ? shying away from belief that we are mere creatures and will always be such in order to appear more LDS?

[Doctor Steuss]

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.

Somehow I doubt this. I think you'd give me a run for my money... but then again, I've been told by some of my chess "foes" that trying to analyze my moves logically ultimately causes them to lose against me. It's best not to try to get into the workings of my mind (at least not with logic).

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.)

I'm beginning to read more of the JoD (and other early publications/sermons -- like Times and Seasons) as well, and indeed it is interesting seeing the evolution. Of course as an LDS, I chalk it up to increased knowledge/light (insert McConkie statement here). But it is cool and interesting seeing the beginnings and looking at doctrines when they were in their raw form.

Best.

CKS

Best to you as well my logical friend.

-Stu

PS.

How goes the final version of your LDS Christology research? Iâ??d still like a copy if itâ??s ok.

[Johan]

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

I'm going to have to take aaronshaf's side on this. I'm not sure it's right to say he "promotes" deceptions when he refers us to some site. He may agree with everything on it, but maybe not. Sure, he agrees with at least some of it, okay. He wrote: "related pages on the changes to" the Gospel Principles book. He didn't give them any value. He simply made a referral. There are many pages, I suppose, that one could be referred to. We should look at both the positive and the criticisms to get the best overall picture imo.

Now if some Mormon refered to a book on Mormon apologetics that used a derogatory term for a critic of Mormonism, that Mormon would be accused of being derogatory himself -- "To promote these derogatory remarks speaks a lot about him". We can't do that. When someone refers us to a book or website or whatever, we can look at it if we want. But then we need to find out what the person who referred us to thinks of it, what he makes of it, not assume he is using it as a cruel and foolish weapon. He may be, but we have to ask first.

It doesn't bother me. But if I were to ask aaronshaf, It would be, "Do you believe these changes are significant , and if so in what way and to what degree?"

Neither aaron nor the site claimed the change was not compensated for in another section of the book. We also have to look at where the compensation (restatement) is made. If it is in an introduction or appendix, then I would say the change is significant. The reason is that once a teaching is removed from the basic text of the book, it's as good as gone. If some shadow remains in an introduction, that, too, will disappear in another edition or two. That's the nature of books, book-writing, prefaces, etc.

Gven the church's strong attachment to the word "atonement", due probably to renditions of the word as "at-one-ment", I find it odd that "atoned" is removed from the 1997 edition (change #2). Perhaps this is a harbinger of the diminishing emphasis on the word "atonement"

The third change is extremely significant. From "We can become Gods" to a mere resemblance of God, presumably in our ability to love.

A reason for the changes is not offered at the website. The author writes, "Do they herald a real change in the teachings of the Mormon church? Or are they just an attempt to do a better job in hiding them? I don't know". There could be a third, fourth, fifth reason. The writer is honest in saying he doesn't know why the changes were made. It is not up to him, however, but to those to whom it matters personally, to satisfy that question. Again, aaronshaf should not be condemned for pointing to another person who asks a question and says he doesn't know the answer. As an attack on Mormonism, it is ineffective. The most it does is get the reader to look more deeply into the issues and the "Gospel Principles" involved.

= = =

BaurakAle wrote that

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

and John W wrote that

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

Would someone please give a definitive answer to this? Who wrote the blessed thing!? Does the church have a publication detailing who wrote what, and whether they were volunteers, academicians, general authorities, or what?

= = =

As far as "authoritative," why is this a question? Doesn't the church itself say which books are "authoritative." Several times General Authorities have said, the only authoritative standard we have are the Scriptures. Everything that is said, including by the Prophet and Apostles, must agree with the Scriptures.

But beyond that, they can also say, that the Gospel Principles book, or the Melchezidek Priesthood Manual are authoritative. They, of all people, should know whether class books are in harmony with the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church. Therefore, it behooves them to state so unequivocably. Otherwise, a Methodist class manual would be as reliable.

[Calm]

He may agree with everything on it, but maybe not.

Since the second page merely repeats the changes the first one does, but adds the commentary that is deceptive, I don't see how one can conclude anything but that he agrees with that commentary. If he didn't, why then did he post a link that merely repeated the same references that were in the first?

Are you going off his sites quotes or have you actually gone and looked at what the text says? Not in the intro, not in appendix, but usually in the same chapter that he's claiming it's been removed from.

[cksalmon]

I received a response from Richard Abanes this evening re the 1978 GP proviso. I won't quote his response directly, as I haven't obtained his permission to do so, but here's the gist of it:

(1) He no longer has the copy he was looking at, and so can't send me an image.

(2) The copy he was looking at did contain the proviso.

(3) He advised me to track down an old copy and check it out for myself

(4) He suggested that even when editions bear the same copyright date (e.g., 1978), there may have been changes to the publication within that year

My conclusions:

It is possible that Lightbearer is lying. I don't believe that Lightbearer is lying.

It is possible, but highly unlikely, that Lightbearer is mistaken. I don't believe that Lightbearer is mistaken (as he claims to have a copy in hand and has related that it is, indeed, an edition from 1978).

It is possible that Abanes is lying. I don't believe that Abanes is lying.

It is possible that Abanes is mistaken. But, this seems unlikely, given that he implies that he did have a copy of the 1978 edition while researching/writing the book.

If no 1978 editions of GP can be found to substantiate Abanes's claim, it becomes much more likely that he is either mistaken or lying. But, again, I don't think he is lying.

Does anyone else have a copy of a 1978 GP? I'd like to follow up on whether or not editions within that year were altered.

It is possible that the very first editions of 1978 GP to roll off the presses contained the proviso and that later printings from that same year had had it removed. I have no idea how likely or unlikely that is.

Oh, well. It really is a bit of minutia, isn't it?

I'll let you folks know if Abanes clarifies further.

Best.

CKS

[jason e.]

Have you actually read the whole text or are you getting this stuff off of another's site? Where are your links to the quoted material or are you claiming you are actually typing from the text?

-I have the three i cited in front of me right now.

I suggest you go visit this website and actually find those claims you are putting up, because most of them are pure bogus especially when you post the entire context:

-I dont understand? I didnt go to "anti" sites, i just picked up my books and read pertanent facts.

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...000176f620a____

This is the entire chapter titled Exaltation: Gospel Fundamentals is a different manual than Gospel Principles, contrasting quotes from one with the other claiming there have been changes is deceptive. Fundamentals is written for areas that tend to have less educated members and is written in a simplified form.

-I didnt say that gf was gp gf. I said gf was a for the person less associated with the church and its teachings, and that is how i arrive at the fact that the church is shying waya from this.

-my point still stands; i showed changes in dif ed's of gp. and i then showed statments by gbh. i then showed gf that is aimed towards those all more unfamiliar with the church and its teachings. all this to say, the church is shying away from this teaching.

[Calm]

i then showed gf that is aimed towards those all more unfamiliar with the church and its teachings. all this to say, the church is shying away from this teaching.

And I showed they are teaching the same thing so they are not shying away from any teaching. It is a different book, it has the same teachings on the deity attributes of God in the first chapter as I quoted. The "Plan" is also taught. There is no need to repeat them in a simplified version.

Do you admit that the teachings you claim are left out in GF are prominent elsewhere in the text? If they are there, why do you think they have to be included elsewhere to avoid the accusation that the Church is somehow trying to downplay certain teachings?

[Calm]

I suggest you go visit this website and actually find those claims you are putting up, because most of them are pure bogus especially when you post the entire context:

-I dont understand? I didnt go to "anti" sites, i just picked up my books and read pertanent facts.

You should link to the actual text you are quoting so people can find out for themselves that nothing is being left out as I have demonstrated and you keep ignoring.

Go back and read my post again as I added the actual quotes myself since you obviously weren't going to do it. Respond to the text that states exactly what you are claiming isn't stated in the book.

I withdraw my claim that you were trying to pass off GP and GF as the essentially the same text and apologize for it. I was interrupted in my reading at that time and skipped the paragraph where you were explaining that you were comparing the two texts.

Having said that, comparing the text of a book almost 400 pages to a text of a book just under 300 pages by talking about "parallel" passages is deceptive in my view, whether or not intentionally. What actually needs to be examined is if the teaching is found anywhere in each book and compare those teachings, not the difference in placement between two different, in some ways very different, books.

[jason e.]

You should link to the actual text you are quoting so people can find out for themselves that nothing is being left out as I have demonstrated and you keep ignoring.

-well i dont know where to find them online, all i have are my books, but they are just as good and i wrote out the actual quotes, so please tell me specifically what i am saying that is incorrect and i will provide a source.

I withdraw my claim that you were trying to pass off GP and GF as the essentially the same text and apologize for it. I was interrupted in my reading at that time and skipped the paragraph where you were explaining that you were comparing the two texts.

-i hear ya, no problem

Having said that, comparing the text of a book almost 400 pages to a text of a book just under 300 pages by talking about "parallel" passages is deceptive in my view, whether or not intentionally. What actually needs to be examined is if the teaching is found anywhere in each book and compare those teachings, not the difference in placement between two different, in some ways very different, books.

-this proves my point, both books are supposed to explain the key points/fundmentals/issues/principles of the faith, but the one that is for non lds (or newer ones) is very mainline style in language and teaching.

[Calm]

-this proves my point, both books are supposed to explain the key points/fundmentals/issues/principles of the faith, but the one that is for non lds (or newer ones) is very mainline style in language and teaching.

Have you even read the quotes I've posted? They say the same exact thing as the GP manual though they may not be in the identical area of the book and they may use a simpler style as in smaller and more common and therefore more easily understanable wording. The GP manual has a lot of repetition that is removed for simplified reading in the GF, but the same teachings are there in the book.

For example, the claim that the chapter heading being "Eternal Life" rather than "Exaltation" is somehow "mainstreaming the text" is completely bogus and seems to be an outright lie if you actually have the text in front of you since in the second paragraph below that title we find this:

To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life.

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

The books are just as good for you, but for the rest of us---your pruning and interpretation is significantly different from the actual context as I've shown. I have linked to the current text of both GP and GF multiple times. If you had bothered reading my posts, you would have known this so the excuse you don't know how to find them on line is rather weak.

[jason e.]

ok here is the point by point response;

Have you actually read the whole text or are you getting this stuff off of another's site? Where are your links to the quoted material or are you claiming you are actually typing from the text?

-i own the books

I suggest you go visit this website and actually find those claims you are putting up, because most of them are pure bogus especially when you post the entire context:

-what is bogus, i jsut wrote them as i see them in the text?

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...000176f620a____

This is the entire chapter titled Exaltation: Gospel Fundamentals is a different manual than Gospel Principles, contrasting quotes from one with the other claiming there have been changes is deceptive.

-we arlready adressed this

That they are two different books and always were should be obvious from the page numbering. That the second is a much simplified version should also be obvious from the numbering as for the second to equal the first, an additional half of the text would have had to been added.

"simpler" is the key word. simpler in that is doesnt teach the "difficult teachings of the church" and so it sounds way more mainstream as i have been saying

Fundamentals is written for areas that tend to have less educated members and is written in a simplified form. Hardly surprising that the easily understood "eternal life" is used in the place of "Exaltation" to avoid confusion. This is consistent with the LDS definition of exaltation everywhere that I've seen it given.

-but there is a clear leaving out of becoming gods in gf (that is to those who are not steeped in the church), and this confirms the accusations against the church that it trys to sound mainline to hook people in

However, the essence is the same

-this is not true. when one reads gp (especially the older ones) we learn about becoming gods and god was once a man. in gf we learn NOTHING about becoming a god or god once a man. and this is of course because this is a radical departure from mainline what they are use to (even if not a believer of either one).

[Calm]

Are you removing all your other claims now and focusing only on the one about the absence of the phrase "2. [t]hey will become gods."

If so, I'd like an acknowledgment rather than you just ignoring them.

[Calm]

in gf we learn NOTHING about becoming a god or god once a man

I have to say you are either a really poor reader or a deceptive one:

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.

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

[selek]

Are you removing all your other claims now and focusing only on the one about the absence of the phrase "2. [t]hey will become gods."

If so, I'd like an acknowledgment rather than you just ignoring them.

Cal, why are you bothering?

Jason E. is merely another Hoops22/ARTV sock puppet. He's no more interested in an honest resolution of the matter than I am in seeing Rosie O'Donnel belly dancing naked on the South Lawn of the White House.

He hasn't had a coherent argument yet that hasn't been copied verbatim from either the IRR Asylum or Confused Christians.

And he may be a poor poster, a lousy typist, but he's not a poor reader.

[Calm]

Cal, why are you bothering?

Jason E. is merely another Hoops22/ARTV sock puppet. He's no more interested in an honest resolution of the matter than I am in seeing Rosie O'Donnel belly dancing naked on the South Lawn of the White House.

He hasn't had a coherent argument yet that hasn't been copied verbatim from either the IRR Asylum or Confused Christians.

And he may be a poor poster, a lousy typist, but he's not a poor reader.

I find such obvious deception used for the purpose of claiming the Church is being deceptive most annoying. I am now however about to go out with family and don't have a clue whether on the return I will continue or let my argument rest. If he does not retract all his claims save the "they will become gods," I might just gather all his claims and all my quotes disproving them in one post so that even if he continues to pretend they don't exist, no one else will be likely to.

[jason e.]

I have to say you are either a really poor reader or a deceptive one: http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...contentLocale=0

-Whoops, you are correct here.

[jason e.]

Cal, why are you bothering?

Jason E. is merely another Hoops22/ARTV sock puppet. He's no more interested in an honest resolution of the matter than I am in seeing Rosie O'Donnel belly dancing naked on the South Lawn of the White House.

He hasn't had a coherent argument yet that hasn't been copied verbatim from either the IRR Asylum or Confused Christians.

And he may be a poor poster, a lousy typist, but he's not a poor reader.

Sir,

Since you have jumped in I ask you if you agree with me when I say that "the church is shying away from the teachings that god was once a man and that men can become gods." Im not saying it is completely left out but for the most part it is softened up and many times changed and ignored. If I am wrong please show me how I am. Please adress the quotes that i brought to the table from gp, gf, and gbh.

[jason e.]

I find such obvious deception used for the purpose of claiming the Church is being deceptive most annoying. I am now however about to go out with family and don't have a clue whether on the return I will continue or let my argument rest. If he does not retract all his claims save the "they will become gods," I might just gather all his claims and all my quotes disproving them in one post so that even if he continues to pretend they don't exist, no one else will be likely to.

I find such obvious deception used for the purpose of claiming the Church is being deceptive most annoying.

-I corrected my error. i know you dont know me, but if you did i dont think you would accuse me of this.

I am now however about to go out with family and don't have a clue whether on the return I will continue or let my argument rest.

-I enjoy the dialouge, i hope you continue. I dont recant my general thought that has not been falsified yet that the church shys aways from these 2 key teaching in these publications as well in gbh's teaching. I have allowed you to hit me and check me and i have done so and so now i ask you to respond. i have shown that clearly the texts have changed! have they not? if you admit they have changed then that is a first step towards us reachin an agreement. So yeah maybe i should choose my battles; did this happen or did i make those up?

-1978 ed pg 290, "We can become Gods like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."

1997 ed pg 302, "We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."

[Calm]

-I corrected my error.

You've corrected one error out of many.

I have never denied the texts have changed. What needs to be determined is if the changes are significant. Since the exact material is mentioned elsewhere in the text, the change is insignificant. People will get the info whether they read the old text or the new text; all that is different is the timing....sometimes what might amount to a minute or two since it's even on the same page. Removing repetition to improve the writing is hardly signficant to the info either.

You have yet to demonstrate how mentioning the same thing in a different place in the text is "shying away" from any of the teachings you posted.

That's like claiming I'm trying to downplay my family's history just because I've moved my parents' picture from one wall to the wall opposite it.

PS: I'm not enjoying this btw as you've ignored all the quotes I've posted save the one you admitted to being in error. I expect someone who is seriously engaged in dialogue to address all the relevant points, not pretend as if the ones that disprove his claims don't exist.

Still aren't providing links so people can read for themselves the deceptiveness of your claims, I see.