The Gospel Principles Manual -- Then And Now

[jason e.]

You've corrected one error out of many.

-nope just the one. look back over my posts, i will always admit if i am wrong.

I have never denied the texts have changed. What needs to be determined is if the changes are significant.

-ok, agreed

Since the exact material is mentioned elsewhere in the text, the change is insignificant.

-this is partly true, its just the significance is not there as much as in the earlier editions and the gf.

Removing repetition to improve the writing is hardly signficant to the info either.

-these are hardly repititions;

-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."

this is not repetition!!! this is a different teaching. i ask you point bank right now, are you really telling me this above quote is a result in weeding out repetition?

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.

-no its more like saying if you drink milk you will become strong and majestic like an eagle, or if you drink milk you will become a strong and majestic eagle.

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.

-what have i ignored? i iwll adress it/them

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

-what links do you want? i have only quoted a few things;

1) the two gbh interviews that everyone is familir with

2)thw gospel principles (2 editions) and the gospel fundementals, i gave the years and pages for all three (see; -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;)

-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 )

-so honestally what am i not sourcing?

and you havent even mentioned how gbh has clearly didnt speak in depth and actually SHYED away from this in BOTH his interviews... what doesn he mean he doesnyt know about that! iwas an investigator that read early church writings and even i knew about it, so that is how i can logically arrive at the fact that he is as ive been sayin SGYING away from it. and i even heard millett teach for the church not really to teach that because, and i quote "even he doesnt know alot about it." but thats not what we are saying, of course not many people know, that is UNDERSTAND the actual teaching of it as it is a grey area, but gbh made it seem like he didnt know about it in terms of it wasnt really a part of mainstream mormonism, and dont tell me hes just an old timer and confused or something the man knows how to be a spokesperson and what to say and what not to say.

- i have been gracious with you and you keep accusing me of things that are actualy ROOTED, quite accusing me that i am just making things up w/o references and just playing games here.

and by the way your arrogance is gross, and your assumptions are worse (as i AM a student of koine greek).

[Lightbearer]

As for the GP disclaimer, again it is not there, at least not in my copy which is a first edition. I could scan in a copy of the preface or for that matter the entire book to prove that I am not a liar. But I think it would prove nothing, it could then be claimed that I digitally manipulated it. So all I have is my witness that what I am saying is true. I know it and God knows it. As for President Gordon B. Hinkley's media interviews. I cannot speak for why a Prophet of God states what he states to a "drive-by" sensationalist media that trys to make a man an offender for a word and does it's best to slander and vilify anything that is true, holy, or just. The doctrine spoken of (God was once a man and that man can become as He is) is a holy one, a "pearl of the Gospel" not one to be bandied about and ridiculed by "men of corrupt minds that do not desire to know the truth." Maybe he was just following the savior's admonition:

Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Also it is a basic principle of the Gospel to teach "line upon line and precept upon precept..." and "milk before meat." If the Church has taken a more "softer" tone (and I am not saying it has) it is not to decieve or hide any of the truth. But before one can even understand greater truths one must understand the basics and apply them. The Gospel is not something that can be understood by reason or study alone. It must be understood by the Spirit of God. It must be understood by personal revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. And most importantly it must be lived. That is the reason anti-mormon literature is presented in the manner it is...it grieves the Spirit of the Lord and forments contetion and anger, not love or peace or understanding. It's main objective is to prevent anyone from even looking into the truth. Instead of reading the Book of Mormon and accepting the challenge of God to ask Him if it is true, it demands those declaring the truth to "prove it!" Demanding to see a sign! It tries to use so-called scholarship to prove the work of God is a lie. Much as the Pharasee's did against the Gospel in the meridian of time. It denies the possibility of God being able to speak today or even answer a prayer. They even go so far as to say if there is an answer or a vision or revelation it must be of the devil, as if he has more power than God! But God is more powerful than the devil and can prove His own work if we will seek the answers from Him with a sincere heart and with real intent having faith in Christ.

[cksalmon]

As for the GP disclaimer, again it is not there, at least not in my copy which is a first edition. I could scan in a copy of the preface or for that matter the entire book to prove that I am not a liar.

There's no need. No one thinks you're lying--least of all me. I was just being thorough in my list of possibilities. It had nothing to do with you personally.

Best.

CKS

[Lightbearer]

There's no need. No one thinks you're lying--least of all me. I was just being thorough in my list of possibilities. It had nothing to do with you personally.

Best.

CKS

Actually my last post was not directed at your reply. I did understand and respect your list of possibilities and it seems like a sound evaluation of those possibilities. I was actually responding to other posts in this thread. Thanks.

[Calm]

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

-what links do you want? i have only quoted a few things

Then it should be obvious which links I mean.

I want you to put up links with each quote of the currently texts so that readers can go to the page you are quoting and see for themselves whether anything got left out.

Until you do this, I am not interested in discussing any of your prooftexting. The use of one sentence or even a title out of an entire book or even a couple of page lesson as proof that something isn't being taught or has been changed is ludicrous. People do not come into class, read the title or one sentence and then walk out again satisfied in having finished that day's study.

You do know what "prooftexting" means?

add-on: I am not interested in GBH's interviews as they were not intended as part of the Church's curriculum.

[selek]

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.

Don't "Sir" me boy! I knew both my parents! If you don't get this joke, I suggest you ask a service veteran- preferrably an officer.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that the Church is "shying away from" or "watering down" certain teachings.

Neither do I have time to repeat every bit of evidence that has been offered and ignored on this thread (or the myriad others which have sprung up with the regularity, flavor, and wholesomeness of poisonous mushrooms).

It is up to you to prove your assertion, not for us to disprove your baseless allegations. Trying to prove that we have not strayed would be attempting to prove a negative. It would be akin to you attempting to prove that you didn't snort cocaine with Paris Hilton. No matter how far fetched the allegation, it could not be disproven.

This is elementary logic, sir.

You must prove your allegation, not the otherway around.

The fact that your only evidence is isolated sentences removed from their context and strung together in seeming random order does not inspire confidence in your case.

The fact that you consistently distort what "evidence" you have, and refuse to cite your sources is even more damning, hence my assessment of your character and motives above.

[jason e.]

Don't "Sir" me boy! I knew both my parents! If you don't get this joke, I suggest you ask a service veteran- preferrably an officer.

-You "knew" them in the same way adam "knew" eve? eww, your gross.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that the Church is "shying away from" or "watering down" certain teachings.

-I disagree with you disagrement

Neither do I have time to repeat every bit of evidence that has been offered and ignored on this thread (or the myriad others which have sprung up with the regularity, flavor, and wholesomeness of poisonous mushrooms).

-I have looked over the "evidence" and it looks to be in favor of what I am saying.

It is up to you to prove your assertion, not for us to disprove your baseless allegations.

-Sure, the burden of proof is on me. Thats why i showed you where gbh clearly backed away and claimed ignorance (or whatever word you want to sub in), another proof is the b an w text that shows changes in gp. if that is not evidence i dont know what is.

Trying to prove that we have not strayed would be attempting to prove a negative.

-Thats why im proving that you actaully have strayed from this.

It would be akin to you attempting to prove that you didn't snort cocaine with Paris Hilton. No matter how far fetched the allegation, it could not be disproven.

-You cant say "there is no gold in China" but you can say "there is gold in china." in the same way, i have seen b an w texts and heard the words of gbh that shows you have indeed strayed (gp/gf/gbh/training center...)

This is elementary logic, sir.

-Then why are you so bad at it, boss?

You must prove your allegation, not the otherway around.

-I submited my facts; gbh and the gp and gf, so now its your turn to respond.

The fact that your only evidence is isolated sentences removed from their context and strung together in seeming random order does not inspire confidence in your case.

The fact that you consistently distort what "evidence" you have, and refuse to cite your sources is even more damning, hence my assessment of your character and motives above.

-You guys are nuts, i have cited my sources at least 3 times now. I HAVE 3 BOOKS; T2 EDITIONS OF THE GOSPEL PRINCIPLE AND ONE EDITION OF THE GOSPEL FUNDEMENTALS, I GAVE YOU PAGE AND YEAR WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED??????????????????????????

[jason e.]

Then it should be obvious which links I mean.

I want you to put up links with each quote of the currently texts so that readers can go to the page you are quoting and see for themselves whether anything got left out.

-What is the "currently texts"? as i said earlier THE SOURCES ARE THERE!!!!!! I have 3 books, they are sitting on my shelf right now. i pick them up to page that i wrote next to the quote and then i look for the quote and then it is there just like i said, what is so hard about this? 2 GOSPEL PRIN and 1 GOSpel FUND.!!!!! What else do you want?

Until you do this, I am not interested in discussing any of your prooftexting.

-I just did it

The use of one sentence or even a title out of an entire book or even a couple of page lesson as proof that something isn't being taught or has been changed is ludicrous.

-Wait are my quotes real or not? So at one point your alluding to the fact that im making them up or twisting them and so you dont recieve them, but then at the same time your saying that if they are real you dont recieve them. wow what an open mind you have, can any one say "unteachable"?

-fine then put them in "context" if i havent and you wull find the same thing, one says you will become agod and the other says you will become like god.

People do not come into class, read the title or one sentence and then walk out again satisfied in having finished that day's study.

-i agree, they get the selection and read it. so i gave you the selsction and now i ask that you readit and respond (or do you need the page number again for the 11th time?).

You do know what "prooftexting" means?

-does it mean to put peanut butter on ankle warts?

add-on: I am not interested in GBH's interviews as they were not intended as part of the Church's curriculum.

-fair enough. but im interested in the fact that the church has shyed away from this teaching and your prophet is living proof. quite convienent you wont respond to it.

p.s. i know these are gettinghot and saucy but i understand were all big boys so im taking your flack (and boy theres alot of it), but let it be known that its all in the name of deeper understanding (that is if you guys would actually adress the message and not the messenger) and i assume your older than me and so forgive me for my bluntness in calling you out, but i guess this is a place where that is ok. but thanks again for the interaction.

[Calm]

i understand were all big boys

Then that would be another 'understanding' that you were wrong on.

What is so hard about putting a link every time you quote something?

Here is the link to the current GP text to get you started. When you quote something, just go to the right lesson and post the link with your quote: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...000176f620a____

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...000176f620a____

Since you used a link for one quote that explained which manual (GP or GF) should be used, why not use links for other quotes.

Prooftexting: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Prooftext

Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition rhetorically through an appeal to authority. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

[jason e.]

Then that would be another 'understanding' that you were wrong on.

What is so hard about putting a link every time you quote something?

Here is the link to the current GP text to get you started. When you quote something, just go to the right lesson and post the link with your quote: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...000176f620a____

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem...000176f620a____

Since you used a link for one quote that explained which manual (GP or GF) should be used, why not use links for other quotes.

Prooftexting: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Prooftext

Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition rhetorically through an appeal to authority. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

-Oh my goodness. I DIDNT PUT A COMPUTER LINK UP BECAUSE I DIDNT GET THEM FROM THE COMPUTER!!!!!!!!! I GOT THEM FROM BOOKS (you know paper, binding, glue) FROM MY SHELF!!!!

Do you understand yet?

-And yeah I guess were not all "big boys" i was just trying to make this harsh atmophere youve created a little less harsh. thats all, but you an be childish about it.

-Anyways now that that is behind us will you quit dancing around the subject and adress the issue????

If you want to stay on this board you will give more documentation when you are asked for it whether you are using links or books. That is in our board policy. If you don't clean up your act and your attitude you won't last much longer. ~ Mods

[Calm]

-Oh my goodness. I DIDNT PUT A COMPUTER LINK UP BECAUSE I DIDNT GET THEM FROM THE COMPUTER!!!!!!!!! I GOT THEM FROM BOOKS (you know paper, binding, glue) FROM MY SHELF!!!!

Do you understand yet?

-And yeah I guess were not all "big boys" i was just trying to make this harsh atmophere youve created a little less harsh. thats all, but you an be childish about it.

-Anyways now that that is behind us will you quit dancing around the subject and adress the issue????

If you want to stay on this board you will give more documentation when you are asked for it whether you are using links or books. That is in our board policy. If you don't clean up your act and your attitude you won't last much longer. ~ Mods

I don't care whether or not you get them from books. I am not talking about giving credit as I recognize that you have done that all along....at least in this thread. I am talking about putting up the pages they are available for easy reading so people can read your prooftexting in context.

I really don't care that you can read them from your books. I care that others, who don't have the books, can.

I am not dancing around the subject, I posted up actual content to all of your quotes long ago. Now I am waiting for you to do the same. You are the one not addressing the subject.

[jason e.]

I don't care whether or not you get them from books. I am not talking about giving credit as I recognize that you have done that all along....at least in this thread. I am talking about putting up the pages they are available for easy reading so people can read your prooftexting in context.

I really don't care that you can read them from your books. I care that others, who don't have the books, can.

I am not dancing around the subject, I posted up actual content to all of your quotes long ago. Now I am waiting for you to do the same. You are the one not addressing the subject.

ok 2 simple things;

1- highlight the text you want a source for and i will get it.

2- please specifically adress why the change was made;

-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."

[cksalmon]

Goodness. Who knew that a fairly innocuous thread could cause so much weird ill will among us.

Just to clarify: My question really is an instance of minutia. I asked the questions I did simply because I thought they were interesting in their own right, without any necessary reference to larger issues. I truly don't think they have any necessary relevance to LDS apologetics (although, in fact, they may--but that wasn't my point).

I do find the lds.org citation about Elohim once being a man vis-a-vis GBH's insistence that he has no idea whether or not such a thing is even taught quite interesting. But, I think that's probably an issue for another thread.

I'm really curious if someone other than Lightbearer (who has already significantly chimed in) has access to a (potentially-different) copy of 1978 GP.

Best.

CKS

[jason e.]

Goodness. Who knew that a fairly innocuous thread could cause so much weird ill will among us.

Just to clarify: My question really is an instance of minutia. I asked the questions I did simply because I thought they were interesting in their own right, without any necessary reference to larger issues. I truly don't think they have any necessary relevance to LDS apologetics (although, in fact, they may--but that wasn't my point).

I do find the lds.org citation about Elohim once being a man vis-a-vis GBH's insistence that he has no idea whether or not such a thing is even taught quite interesting. But, I think that's probably an issue for another thread.

I'm really curious if someone other than Lightbearer (who has already significantly chimed in) has access to a (potentially-different) copy of 1978 GP.

Best.

CKS

i have a 78, what are you looking for?

[jason e.]

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. No there are no significant or even insignificant doctrinal changes between GP 1978 edition and the 1997 edition. There may be changes in phraseolgy to enhance understanding of the doctrines involved, but if you read them in there entirety and not just site isolated quotes the doctrine is the same. I have taught from both manuals over the years and the doctrines are the same. The Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in both of these manuals have been and always will be true.

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...

-my 78 also does not have this statment. what pg are you lookin at?

[Calm]

ok 2 simple things;

1- highlight the text you want a source for and i will get it.

2- please specifically adress why the change was made;

-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 want links for everything you quote from the current manuals as I have stated before. I provided you with links to the texts so that should be easy. Since the 78 manual is not online, I do not expect you to be able to link to that, but if you happen to come across this somewhere, I would hope you'd do the same.

I cannot explain why a change was made as that is not included in the text, I can only give possibilities. If the same info is elsewhere in the text (see all my quotes in response to your prooftexts), my guess would be it was done for simply improving the writing style and readability. Too much repetition is boring, takes up unnecessary room and ends up losing the audience. If something was moved to another section, it could have been to improve clarity; if it's earlier in the text because it was needed to build a foundation for something else, if it's later because it makes more sense after other principles have been learned.

I will address the quotes you posted when the link to the manual is posted.

[Calm]

Goodness. Who knew that a fairly innocuous thread could cause so much weird ill will among us.

Just to clarify: My question really is an instance of minutia. I asked the questions I did simply because I thought they were interesting in their own right, without any necessary reference to larger issues. I truly don't think they have any necessary relevance to LDS apologetics (although, in fact, they may--but that wasn't my point).

I do find the lds.org citation about Elohim once being a man vis-a-vis GBH's insistence that he has no idea whether or not such a thing is even taught quite interesting. But, I think that's probably an issue for another thread.

I'm really curious if someone other than Lightbearer (who has already significantly chimed in) has access to a (potentially-different) copy of 1978 GP.

Best.

CKS

cks, just so you know, I have no issue with your comments. My only issue here is that je has avoided dealing with any of the information I posted relating to his proof texts as well as avoided until the mods stepped in posting links to the material so that others could read it. Any "ill will" that is being attributed to me is me getting tired of having to repeat requests over and over while my responses addressing his quotes are ignored. I consider acting as if there were no answers given when there were as deceptive...and a waste of my time.

[jason e.]

dear mod,

If you want to stay on this board you will give more documentation when you are asked for it whether you are using links or books. That is in our board policy. If you don't clean up your act and your attitude you won't last much longer. ~ Mods

i quoted 3 books. for each book i gave the date the ed and the page number. that is citing my sources. so please moderators shome where i have not cited my sources. (and if the book is available online why do i need to go and get it for you, quit being lazy i already did the studying, the comparisons, and the conclusions, as well as citing the page).

[Calm]

dear mod,

If you want to stay on this board you will give more documentation when you are asked for it whether you are using links or books. That is in our board policy. If you don't clean up your act and your attitude you won't last much longer. ~ Mods

The documentation that has been requested is not the citations, but as has been clearly requested by at least me in practically every post I've responded to you with the complete context of your prooftexts. This is easily provided by links to the current text (which since this is the one you claim has changed with your prooftexts, is the one that needs the complete context given).

Since you were able to do this (see below) even without being requested in your second? post, I have to wonder why it's taking so long for you to accomplish in these cases.

"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

[Doctor Steuss]

CKSalmon,

I was going through the manuals that I have; although I donâ??t have a 1978 copy, I do have a 1979 copy of Gospel Principles. On the first page it has:

Published by

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Salt Lake City, Utah 1978

Revised 1979

Second page has this:

Copyright

[Calm]

Well, it is now sometime since jason last appeared in this thread. He delayed posting the links as long as possible; now is required to by the mods if he intends to post again. He appears to prefer to abandon his attempt to convince us of his farfetched claim that the church was downplaying certain doctrines by changing text in the Gospel Principles manual as well as the Gospel Fundamentals one as he has deserted this thread for another.

(If you think my comments are too strong in attaching intentional misrepresentation to je, let me just point out that he links to the Gospel Principles teacher's home page which has links for both manuals on it, plus more, yet he claims "well i dont know where to find them online, all i have are my books" (Jun 7 2007, 04:52 PM, post #65). Even if he was blind when he read that page to lift his quote, since I linked to the texts with each of my quotes at the time I originally posted them...meaning multiple times and he even cited some of them in his posts, I can't imagine how he could have missed it as the intelligence he displayed by doing his research and linking was surely more than enough to comprehend what I was doing.)

Just in case someone missed my answers to his attacks as jason certainly attempted to make it appear like they hadn't been addressed, I'll repost his quotes in the actual context they were given. I will be using the current copies of GP and GF that are available online. Some of my comments I'll repeat, but I will not repost the entire Exaltation chapter from GP but leave it to anyone who still has doubts to go and read it in its entire to see if there is any significant change between the first edition and the last as je claims.

======

Claims that using the term "eternal life" in GF instead of "exaltation" as is done in GP in the headings of a similar section downplays the LDS concept of exaltation.

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

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

By going to the chapter titled "Eternal Life" here, it is easily seen that "eternal life" is quickly defined as "exaltation" about two inches below the title:

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

Why not head the chapter with "exaltation" as in the GP manual? My opinion and I think it's pretty straightforward so that those who don't read with a negative agenda will agree, "eternal life" is an easier concept to understand, especially for less educated individuals...and it is obvious that GF is for them. In fact, contrary to je's claim that the church is trying to misrepresent its doctrines by using "eternal life" as a title, it is actually trying to avoid confusion by using a familiar term first and then connecting it with the more unique LDS term "exaltation". And since "exaltation" is likely to be a less familiar term and therefore more difficult to read, it is hardly surprising if the term "eternal life" is used elsewhere in the chapter. The clearer and simpler to understand the chapter is, the more likely the reader will get exactly what LDS teachings are. It's a wise choice to use simpler terms as long as the descriptions of such terms match...and if you read the chapter and compare it to GP, it's a very close match.

To ensure that the definition is not lost among the rest of the text, it's repeated at the end of the lesson which is used for the listing of difficult or new terms, a common practice in teaching readers.

Exaltation: Life in the highest level of the celestial kingdom. Those who receive exaltation will become like our Father in Heaven.

That they two manuals are two significantly 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.

This is, I believe, diplomatically explained on the Gospel Principles/Fundamentals teacher's resource page at http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,7102-1,00.html:

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). This course is for investigators and others who want basic gospel instruction.

Most of the places the church isn't organized these days would have many nonEnglish speakers and less literate individuals. If general curriculum materials aren't available in their own language, which will be better at teaching them LDS concepts--an uncomplicated text they are likely to understand or one that is more complicated with much more text to have to struggle through including a higher level of vocabulary?

The essence of the texts is the same.

=======

Claims that the idea of the Plan of Salvation is 'shyed away from' because it isn't mentioned in the second selection quoted from the GF manual:

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

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

Unfortunately for this claim, it is taught in the GF text prior to the selection quoted.

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.

Our Father in Heaven said He would have an earth made, on which we would live for a time. On the earth, we would not remember our life with Him in heaven. We would be able to choose good things or bad things. This would be a test to see if we would obey our Father in Heaven when we were not with Him.

According to our Father in Heaven’s plan, we would each receive a body of flesh and bones. We would need this kind of body to learn the things He knows and do the things He does. Later, we would die, and our spirits would leave our bodies of flesh and bones. But our spirits would be joined again with our bodies, and we would never die again. Those who had done the things that our Father in Heaven told us to do would return to live with Him forever.

We learned that everyone would have problems on earth, such as sickness, pain, sorrow, and death. But we understood that we would learn from these things. These problems could teach us to love and help one another.

Our Father in Heaven would choose the time and the place for each of us to be born on earth. He knew where on earth to send each of us to learn the things that we would need to know. We would all have opportunities to do many different things. Our Father in Heaven wanted us to do good things and be able to return to Him. However, He would never force us to do anything.

Some of us would choose to obey Him. If we did obey Him, we would become more like Him and return to live with Him. Some of us would choose not to obey Him. If we did not obey Him, we would not be able to become like Him and would not be able to return to live with Him.

When we heard our Father in Heaven’s plan for us, we were very happy. We wanted to be able to learn and develop. Everyone who has lived on earth agreed to live by His plan.

Our Life in Heaven, Chapter 2How can the claim that it's being 'shyed away from' be realistic if it's already been taught?

==========

Next criticism:

-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.

Unfortunately for je, again this has been taught in a previous chapter, the very first one, There is a God:

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.

As to not teaching the concept that God was once a man, in the Eternal Life chapter, we read:

Since we are His children, we have the power to become like Him [and additional info on how to become like Him]......Becoming like our Father in Heaven is like climbing a ladder. We must start at the bottom and climb each step until we reach the top. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that if we want to become like our Father in Heaven we must learn how He feels, thinks, and acts. When we understand these things about Him, we can then learn all other things about Him, until we know how to become as He is.

It will help us to remember that our Father in Heaven was once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do. He became our Father in Heaven by overcoming problems, just as we have to do on this earth. However, the Prophet Joseph Smith said we will not learn everything we need to learn while in this world. It will take us a long time after we complete this life to know all the things we need to know in order to become like our Father in Heaven.

When we do learn to keep all of our Father in Heaven’s commandments, think how happy we will be as we return to Him and He tells us He is happy with the life we lived and we will become like Him and live with Him forever.

It gets as close to saying "we will become gods" as one can without doing so. I do not know why it doesn't say it. I suspect because of incorrect connotations that are attached to this idea by most other denominations, that the specific wording is not used to avoid confusion and it is left to the teacher to take it the final step. I would very much like to find someone not exposed to this idea before and see if they make the correct conceptual picture painted by the comments like "we are His children, we have the power to become like Him" and "once a man who lived on an earth, the same as we do," having to learn all the things the Father knows as well as the concepts taught in other chapters such as "[w]e belonged to a family there... [o]ur Father in Heaven was the Father of our spirits, and for this reason we often call Him Heavenly Father...[e]very person who lives on this earth was our brother or sister in heaven[, t]he oldest child in our heavenly family was Jesus Christ[, h]e is our oldest brother," maybe it's my own bias, but I don't see how the connection couldn't be made unless a huge preconception blocked it--the same preconception that would block accurate understanding of "we will become gods"--and this would be discovered by the teacher and corrected.

======

Last criticism is much like the others, the claim that because the wording and placement isn't identical---even though the concept is clearly taught in close connection in the later text--the church is again attempting to downplay the LDS concept of deification:

-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;)

I don't know where he gets the idea that the missionaries aren't told to teach this since it's in the GP manual which is what they teach from...and the claim that because he cites a text of 97, that the GF edition of '02 shows a downward trend is laughable because both the '97 GP text and the '02 GF text are the current teaching texts and therefore should be considered contemporaries, not one replacing the other. It is obvious from his own quote that the deification concept is clearly presented and if you don't think that's enough, here's an additional quote from the same chapter "[t]hey will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge." Exalted individuals will possess omnipotence, etc.--the qualities that are what God is generally defined by other religions and reserved solely for him....yet LDS believe we will be given the same.

I think the only reasonable claim of change might be a clearer and more accurate picture of our eternal relationship with God, it is at least implied that we will not become his equals as he will always be our God and our Father, we always his children and subject to him. Since this has always been the LDS teaching, it is not 'shying away' or 'downplaying' or 'mainstreaming' in any shape or form no matter how much je and others claim it to be.

[pcarthew]

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?

Yep I also have a 1978 Hcopy and lightbearer is correct.

Regards,

pjc

[Calm]

Bumping so jason e. can demonstrate just how he's demonstrated that the "God was once a man" teaching isn't present in the GP manual.

Or how at this point, the "burden of proof" is on me.

[Calm]

Another bump as I see jason e. is posting on the board again and starting new threads and new conversations and yet is not dealing with this one.

[cksalmon]

re: the caveat delimiting 1978 GP's authoritative status:

It's in the preface = 1

It's not in the preface = 4

Looks like the nots are prevailing.

Best.

CKS