ttribe Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Cinepro~ You crack me up. I spit my salad all over my desk when I read that one. Geesh...how much salad was in your mouth!?
cinepro Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 No reason to be coy. You know what I mean. Lower case gods could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. You could reject pretty much all of King Follet and still be in line doctrinally with the Gospel Principles Manual.No, I honestly think the chapter is totally upfront and honest regarding LDS beliefs of deification. I don't think anyone would be confused or have any misunderstandings over what is being said, and I don't think they would learn anything further down the line that would surprise them. It's not that complicated. I can't imagine what the manual writers could have done or said to make it more clear.Read the whole chapter, and you'll find that it is very specific about what "lower case gods" means. It's not that one line.
robuchan Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Methinks you have more reading to do, robuchan. Your ignorance betrays you, my friend. The newest manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, talks about God being a man, and man becoming gods, several explicit times. While it enters no rigorous ontological or metaphysical discussion on the subject, the words are all there, and quite explicit. In other words, this comment of yours is akin to me claiming that Huck Finn never mentions any rafting on the river. It shows little more than sheer ignorance. Oops! Wife's in primary and I've been in YM's for a few years. I don't even think we have that book around. Can you post the reference. I'm truly interested. Thanks.
emeliza Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Geesh...how much salad was in your mouth!?There were croutons and dressing on the bite I was chomping. Messy.
robuchan Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Oh SNAP! btw, I don't mean my comment about predicting deification to be dumbed down as a whine or an insult or whatever. The church teaches incorrect doctrine and then the incorrect doctrine gets righted over time. I don't see that as a bad thing. It's my theory that we're observing that happening with the deification doctrine.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Hmmm....maybe I should go look for that old thread we did a pretty detailed analysis on one of the issues....deification, IIRC.Which reminds me yet again that I have failed to get you scanned copies of the pertinent pages from my collection of old GP manualsâ?¦Sorry sister.
Calm Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Which reminds me yet again that I have failed to get you scanned copies of the pertinent pages from my collection of old GP manualsâ?¦Sorry sister. We'll see if it matters with this new one before starting to worry about it.
robuchan Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 No, I honestly think the chapter is totally upfront and honest regarding LDS beliefs of deification. I don't think anyone would be confused or have any misunderstandings over what is being said, and I don't think they would learn anything further down the line that would surprise them. It's not that complicated. I can't imagine what the manual writers could have done or said to make it more clear.Read the whole chapter, and you'll find that it is very specific about what "lower case gods" means. It's not that one line.OK, so do you think someday someone will be praying to you addressing you as Heavenly Father? That's the bottom line. 50 years ago I think the doctrine was taught that most members would say yes to that (ignoring of course the personal aspect of whether or not one believes they will be exalted). Today I'd guess most would say I don't know or No to that. That's my own stab in the dark in the way the doctrine is evolving.
cinepro Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Wife's in primary and I've been in YM's for a few years. I don't even think we have that book around. Can you post the reference. I'm truly interested. Thanks.Beyond the Veil: Life in the Eternities
cinepro Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 OK, so do you think someday someone will be praying to you addressing you as Heavenly Father? That's the bottom line. 50 years ago I think the doctrine was taught that most members would say yes to that (ignoring of course the personal aspect of whether or not one believes they will be exalted). Today I'd guess most would say I don't know or No to that. That's my own stab in the dark in the way the doctrine is evolving.I think there is a certain sub-set of church members that absolutely believe that. Whether they arrived at this conclusion from official teachings in Church meetings, or through "cultural indoctrination", I don't know.For example, I know a TBM family that actually jokes about which natural wonders they plan on incorporating in their future planets (they all agree that they will definitely be putting a Yosemite Valley in). So for them, it's just a fact of future life.
Connolly Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 OK, so do you think someday someone will be praying to you addressing you as Heavenly Father? That's the bottom line. 50 years ago I think the doctrine was taught that most members would say yes to that (ignoring of course the personal aspect of whether or not one believes they will be exalted). Today I'd guess most would say I don't know or No to that. That's my own stab in the dark in the way the doctrine is evolving.I imagine that then you can have them address you however you want...
Calm Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 50 years ago I think the doctrine was taught that most members would say yes to that (ignoring of course the personal aspect of whether or not one believes they will be exalted). It would be interesting to have something besides speculation on this.
robuchan Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 I think there is a certain sub-set of church members that absolutely believe that. Whether they arrived at this conclusion from official teachings in Church meetings, or through "cultural indoctrination", I don't know.For example, I know a TBM family that actually jokes about which natural wonders they plan on incorporating in their future planets (they all agree that they will definitely be putting a Yosemite Valley in). So for them, it's just a fact of future life.So how can you agree that there's this huge range of beliefs about deification in the church, yet you say it's clearly explain in the Gospel Principles book? I'd say it's clear as mud. We have this vague reference to lower case g gods but no explanation as to what that means. We have no GA's taking it on in conference for the better part of a couple decades. And we have a prophet who said "we're not really sure what it means" and gave no follow up to clarify. That's called not taught very "forcefully". King Follet and the way the early brethren taught it = Forcefully. Today = Not Forcefully. Adding a really really in front of a lower case g gods doesn't add any force.
robuchan Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 It would be interesting to have something besides speculation on this.I knew that was coming. You guys are a tough bunch to crack. You disagree? Or just doing the smokescreen thing?
robuchan Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Beyond the Veil: Life in the EternitiesThanks, I was specifically looking for where LOAP referred to God being man.
Bernard Gui Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Well, this old coot has been around longer than 50 years. I don't recall being taught that sometimein the future people will call me Heavenly Father. The Ensign, Feb 2002, pp.26-30 reprinted the 1909 First Presidenty doctrinal exposition entitled"The Origin of Man." It forcefully declares:Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and evenas the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages andaeons, of evolving into a God. [upper case G in original]From the current missionary guide "Preach My Gospel":During our mortal lives we make choices regarding good and evil. God rewards usaccording to our works and desires. Because God rewards everyone according to deedsdone in the body, there are different kingdoms of glory to which we may be assignedafter the Judgment. Those who have repented of their sins and received the ordinances ofthe gospel and kept the associated covenants will be cleansed by the Atonement ofChrist. They will receive exaltation in the highest kingdom, also known as the celestialkingdom. They will live in Gods presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy.They will live together for eternity with those of their family who qualify. In thescriptures this kingdom is compared to the glory or brightness of the sun.Bernard
Calm Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 I knew that was coming. You guys are a tough bunch to crack. You disagree? Or just doing the smokescreen thing?I just know how memories can be faulty. I do not remember this stuff being discussed at church 40+ years ago, but that may be because I just wasn't paying attention. OTOH, my family did joke about it but at this point I wouldn't think it safe for me to say whether or not it was taken seriously or we thought of such things as making our own planets as future 'Heavenly Fathers' or under the direction of the Father and Christ (my memory says it was the latter, not the former).If you check my posts, you will see I say this kind of stuff for pretty much everything whether it can be viewed as pro or con or neutral. I am only disagreeing with any claims that we can determine what the majority of LDS believed back then without some significant documentation to back it up. Even if one experienced what I did, this could have simply been because my family and friends were a subset of thought that was not present in the greater population for example. Even if the majority of posters on this board experienced the same type of thing, while more probably a generalized belief, it could instead be one of the variables that leads people to post on this board---thus part of the selection of this particular subset of LDS, which in my experience in many ways is not generic enough to make broad claims without additional qualifications.
Lightbearer Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 OK, so do you think someday someone will be praying to you addressing you as Heavenly Father? That's the bottom line. 50 years ago I think the doctrine was taught that most members would say yes to that (ignoring of course the personal aspect of whether or not one believes they will be exalted). Today I'd guess most would say I don't know or No to that. That's my own stab in the dark in the way the doctrine is evolving.Why not? If I am exalted then that is what I will be. Maybe some apologists or scholars or some individual members try to water-down this doctrine, but in the 40 years I have been a member it has been crystal clear, I was cutting my "spiritual teeth" on D&C 132 when I was a Deacon at age 12. I also have a first edition Gospel Principles manual from 1978, compared to the doctrine of the 1997 version they are the same. The wording and photos may have changed but the doctrine and the "forcefulness" which it is taught is the same. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, almost every week we "bash" on this board about the doctrine of exaltation and godhood, the scriptures have not changed and although some people would like to weasel out of it the doctrine is just as sound as it was in 1844 (KFD) notwithstanding what some would have us believe.
daz2 Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Re: new Institute B of M Manual. I counted 18 times that Mormon Doctrine is cited in the new manual. I guess the book is still relatively authoritative for CES. I will be interested in how many times it is cited in the new gospel principles manual.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Gospel Principles (2009)I haven't seen it readable online at LDS.org yet, just for purchase. Does anyone know anything more about this manual?Why do you call it a "priesthood manual" in your subject line? The lesson manuals for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society are the "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" series, the current one being Joseph Smith.Did you mean to say Sunday School or something?Add-on: The Gospel Principles manual is for the Gospel Principles course (sometimes erroneously called Gospel Essentials), one of the optional courses that may be taught during the Sunday School hour. It is primarily for investigators, new members and people who are returning to Church activity.
cinepro Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 So how can you agree that there's this huge range of beliefs about deification in the church, yet you say it's clearly explain in the Gospel Principles book? The doctrine is clearly there. It's the nitpicky particulars that aren't discussed. Truly, Church leaders haven't told us what our future spirit children will refer to us as when they pray, or what the conditions of planetary creation and management will entail. But that isn't the fault of the authors of the Gospel Principles manual.And the difference between a God and god isn't one of degree, it is one of grammar. A god can be like God in power and glory, but to us he would still be a god. If the manual used big-G, it would imply that we are replacing our Heavenly Father, which is incorrect.If you become exalted, then your followers' Gospel Principles manuals will refer to you as "God". But for now, we refer to future exaltees as gods.
cinepro Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Why do you call it a "priesthood manual" in your subject line? The lesson manuals for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society are the "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" series, the current one being Joseph Smith.Did you mean to say Sunday School or something?From the link in the OP:This book provides an overview of gospel principles. It was revised in 2009. It is used for personal study and for the Gospel Principles class during Sunday School. In 2010 and 2011 it will be used for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society instruction on the second and third Sundays of each month.No love for Lorenzo Snow, George A. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra T. Benson, and Howard Hunter I guess...?
robuchan Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 The doctrine is clearly there. It's the nitpicky particulars that aren't discussed. Truly, Church leaders haven't told us what our future spirit children will refer to us as when they pray, or what the conditions of planetary creation and management will entail. But that isn't the fault of the authors of the Gospel Principles manual.And the difference between a God and god isn't one of degree, it is one of grammar. A god can be like God in power and glory, but to us he would still be a god. If the manual used big-G, it would imply that we are replacing our Heavenly Father, which is incorrect.If you become exalted, then your followers' Gospel Principles manuals will refer to you as "God". But for now, we refer to future exaltees as gods.So it's clear because it's clear to you. But if a huge percentage (possible majority?) of LDS didn't agree with your post, then it's just their fault for being dense?Anyway, this has been discussed before and not going to be resolved in this thread. I'm just curious to see if this "less forceful" trend as I define it holds in this new manual.
JDErickson Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 Why do you call it a "priesthood manual" in your subject line? The lesson manuals for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society are the "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" series, the current one being Joseph Smith.Did you mean to say Sunday School or something?Add-on: The Gospel Principles manual is for the Gospel Principles course (sometimes erroneously called Gospel Essentials), one of the optional courses that may be taught during the Sunday School hour. It is primarily for investigators, new members and people who are returning to Church activity.This book provides an overview of gospel principles. It was revised in 2009. It is used for personal study and for the Gospel Principles class during Sunday School. In 2010 and 2011 it will be used for Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society instruction on the second and third Sundays of each month.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 24, 2009 Posted July 24, 2009 From the link in the OP:No love for Lorenzo Snow, George A. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Ezra T. Benson, and Howard Hunter I guess...? I recall the intent of the Presidents of the Church series was that, eventually homes in the Church would have a library of manuals covering teachings from each of the presidents of the Church. I guess that's no longer the intent.I wonder if it's because the Church had trouble getting people to teach the material in the manuals instead of branching off on their own.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.