Revised Gospel Principals Manual

[BCSpace]

These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father.

Can you find a canonized scripture or statement from Joseph Smith that makes this claim?

Why so undoctrinally limit? Nevertheless a quick purusal of the scriptures shows this to be the case. For example Revelations 3:21 puts us in God's throne, which means we have all power and authority and judgement.

[bjw]

Why so undoctrinally limit? Nevertheless a quick purusal of the scriptures shows this to be the case. For example Revelations 3:21 puts us in God's throne, which means we have all power and authority and judgement.

Also, Revelation 1:6.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Why so undoctrinally limit? Nevertheless a quick purusal of the scriptures shows this to be the case. For example Revelations 3:21 puts us in God's throne, which means we have all power and authority and judgement.

Is it possible that vivaporous spirit birth is a misconception? If so, it would seem an adoption model makes more sense, especially in light of the doctrine of eternal intelligences.

[BCSpace]

Is it possible that vivaporous spirit birth is a misconception?

I really don't think so. We have the continuation of the seeds in D&C 132 as an example of what will happen for us and we know that we will become what God is now.

Cool New Thang in the link in post #75 tried to make the argument that the changes in the manual moved the Church away from vivaporous spirit birth. I posted in the comment section, #29 iirc, showing how that is wrong.

I don't know of a doctrinal statement about it. But I do think it just logically follows from being the literal spirit children of God.

If so, it would seem an adoption model makes more sense, especially in light of the doctrine of eternal intelligences.

The change in the manual simply made sure that both literal and adoptive senses of being children of God are part of exaltation. Since sexual reproduction is a form of organization, I don't see a conflict.

Here is something else to think about. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that a doctrine was completely removed from the manual. Does it mean that the Church is abandoning the doctrine or perhaps does it mean that the Church has simply decided that the doctrine in question does not belong in a basic manual?

[David T]

Personally, I would love it if the Church would do a a 'purging' of speculation-cited-as-definitive in their General Sunday-use manuals. I do not like seeing Doctrines of Salvation and Mormon Doctrine cited as sources to a Doctrine. I am very pleased such have been removed from this edition.

I think keeping the references in CES material would be fine if it were made clear it was not the official doctrine, but, in the eyes of some, 'logical conclusions' from it.

Personally, I think such changes will actually 'widen' what is considered 'Orthodoxy', and possibly place the Church in a much better place for when additional light is revealed, and not have to go through a 'I know we've been teaching this for 10 years, but turns out we were wrong. Forget everything any manual has said on this point. We correlated without the new light that has been shed...'

I fully believe a Gospel Principles manual should be accurate in teaching what the Lord has revealed

1) Through the Scriptures

2) Through the unanimous declarations of the First Presidency & Twelve

Speculation is fine. But I think its potentially very damaging if done in an official Church Manual. The more I think about, I think the changes are exactly what needed to happen, to teach Revealed Gospel Truth, and to wipe away confusion.

If this continues, I'm sure we'll stop seeing references to 'no blood before the fall', and keep the Official Church Documents and Teaching as neutral to the possibility of Evolutionary creation methods as their Official Statements have been.

While I think the opinions of all Apostles and General Authorities on unrevealed gospel matters are worthwhile for exploring and taking heavily into consideration, it is clear from the revelations that we are not to consider binding New Doctrine that does not come through a sitting President of the Church, and ratified by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12.

As much as this may or may not help advance our Pet theories.

[mnn727]

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.

Sorry, but while there have been a number of talks on this subject there is also little doctrinal information. "Sons of God" and "Co-heir's with Christ" is too vague to come up with specific doctrine. Now God may have revealed more to some of His Prophets or the Prophets may have extrapolated what they believed the Bible meant in those statements, either way; since it was not cannonized, then it was appearantly not meant for the entire Church.

I'm fine with little 'g' gods and I am sure we'll spend thousands or even millions of years in the afterlife learning exactly what that means -- I'm not worried in the least about it. I have to enough problems in THIS life to worry about the subtle differences between little 'g' verses big 'G'

[robuchan]

Sorry, but while there have been a number of talks on this subject there is also little doctrinal information. "Sons of God" and "Co-heir's with Christ" is too vague to come up with specific doctrine. Now God may have revealed more to some of His Prophets or the Prophets may have extrapolated what they believed the Bible meant in those statements, either way; since it was not cannonized, then it was appearantly not meant for the entire Church.

I'm fine with little 'g' gods and I am sure we'll spend thousands or even millions of years in the afterlife learning exactly what that means -- I'm not worried in the least about it. I have to enough problems in THIS life to worry about the subtle differences between little 'g' verses big 'G'

Agree 100%, thus I'm pleased with the change in the manual.

[mnn727]

Sounds like you both reject what the Church itself says about it's own doctrine.

We keep having this discussion over and over BC - publications, manuals, etc while they may contain doctrine are not original sources of doctrine in and of themselves. So when the J.S. manual quotes the KFD, it does not make the KFD doctrinal.

Show me an official cannonized declaration that states differently.

[BCSpace]

Personally, I would love it if the Church would do a a 'purging' of speculation-cited-as-definitive in their General Sunday-use manuals. I do not like seeing Doctrines of Salvation and Mormon Doctrine cited as sources to a Doctrine. I am very pleased such have been removed from this edition.

Where such exists, I agree. But I don't agree that if it logically follows and/or if it's taught by the prophets but not expressly in the scriptures it's necessarily speculation.

I'm fine with little 'g' gods and I am sure we'll spend thousands or even millions of years in the afterlife learning exactly what that means -- I'm not worried in the least about it. I have to enough problems in THIS life to worry about the subtle differences between little 'g' verses big 'G'

Did this manual ever have big 'G' Gods? However, the scriptures, especially the Bible, expressly teach big 'G' powers and authority for the exalted saints.

If this continues, I'm sure we'll stop seeing references to 'no blood before the fall', and keep the Official Church Documents and Teaching as neutral to the possibility of Evolutionary creation methods as their Official Statements have been.

If it's not doctrine, it's not doctrine. I'd have to study furhter to be sure what I think about it.

However, have you seen how I believe Evolution works within LDS doctrine and scripture? 'no blood before the Fall' works just fine beacause there is a period of death before the period of no death where evolution exists made possible by 2 Nephi 2:22 because Adam is placed into the garden AFTER he is created. That implies ('implying' is a thing I know you don't like) an undefined creative period before the state of no death. Therefore, evolution can swim with LDS doctrine.

I agree there are some negative statements about evolution, especially in the Ensign, but they stop short of precluding evolution or they don't accurately describe evolution because I believe "correlation" knows that they can't. The manuals are much more friendly towards evolution. For example, even the OT seminary manual, which is the most Creationist imho, admits that we don't know anything about the process of the physical creation.

And then there are....

1. Positive or neutral statements by SWK and GBH etc.

2. The 1931 statement which concludes the debate over the previous official statements by stating that the Church has no doctrine or opinion on the notion of preAdamite races and states that further discussion on the issue is counter to the mission of the Church.

3. The Insitute Manual on Genesis 1 acknowledging various possibilites for the age of the earth and stating that it's wrong to ascribe an age of the earth as LDS doctrine.

4. The Insitute Manual on D&C 77:6 (the 1000 year dispensations)stating that those veres don't address or define the possibility of a prior creative period.

5. Various other statements acknowledging how we don't know the details of the physical creation.

6. a) BRM correcting a prior ETB statemment in the Ensign. About 1975, ETB says the BoM is good for combating certain false doctrines including evolution. A few years later, BRM quotes it but adds the caveat for creation theories "that denies the Fall". Evolution theory does not deny the fall or even address it.

BRM acknowledging the possibility of reconciling evolution with LDS doctrine but stating that he believes it can't be done (he's certainly wrong on that but only because he did not understand evolution as science does or consider other possibilites) in his (nondoctrinal) Seven Deadly Heresies speech at BYU.

etc.

[BCSpace]

Duplicate.

[BCSpace]

Sounds like you both reject what the Church itself says about it's own doctrine.

We keep having this discussion over and over BC- publications, manuals, etc while they may contain doctrine are not original sources of doctrine in and of themselves. Show me an official cannonized declaration that states differently.

You rarely, if ever, make that distinction. In this case, it's being said that if it's not expressly in the scriptures, it's not doctrine or it's speculation. That is contrary to what the Church itself has said in it's 'Approaching Mormon Doctrine' linked to in my siggy. It is contrary to the Church podcast presented in this thread. It's contrary to what's been taught about doctrine for at least the last 30 years in the various church Handbooks and Teacher Prep classes.

[gmormon]

...That would be odd, since they've had at least 6 years notice that 2010 was coming...

I have known that 2010 was coming all my life, and you say the church has only known for the last six years????

[emeliza]

I don't think they are getting away from the Prophets of the Church series so much as realizing that many members don't know the basics or need a refresher of the basics. The easiest way to do that is teach in RS and PH. I suppose they could get rid of GD and change it to GP, but really we need the scriptures as well.

My guess is that in 2012 we will be back to the Presidents of the Church.....assuming we have a 2012.

[Scott Lloyd]

That would be odd, since they've had at least 6 years notice that 2010 was coming and would need a prophets manual.

Not so odd when you consider how slowly the wheels turn with Church administration, review and approval of curriculum materials, etc. It may be that the Joseph Smith manual took a lot of time and energy because a lot of it is new research uncovered via the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Of course, I'm only guessing, but it may be there wasn't enough time left to bring the next prophets manual in the series to fruition in time to meet the schedule.

I'm assuming this change came with the "encouragement" of President Monson, now that he's prophet. I know there are many, many Church members who aren't thrilled with the manuals (or the lessons they result in), and President Monson might be sensitive to those feelings.

And you may be right. But bear in mind that President Monson was part of the First Presidency under whose direction the Presidents of the Church series was initiated.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think they are getting away from the Prophets of the Church series so much as realizing that many members don't know the basics or need a refresher of the basics. The easiest way to do that is teach in RS and PH. I suppose they could get rid of GD and change it to GP, but really we need the scriptures as well.

My guess is that in 2012 we will be back to the Presidents of the Church.....assuming we have a 2012.

I think that makes a lot of sense, emeliza.

[jkfrost]

"Is it possible that vivaporous spirit birth is a misconception?"

Is this a pun?

BY said this:

"The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children;

it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--

was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

(Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)

" 1) Our Father in Heaven is married to our Mother in Heaven

and together they live in a state of perfect happiness and joy.

As Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

"An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57)

could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection,

and holiness was associated with him as a Mother."

2) The parenthood of our Heavenly Father and Mother is literal.

As explained by the First Presidency, "Man, as a spirit,

was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity

in the eternal mansions of the Father," that man is the

"offspring of celestial parentage," and that

"all men and women are in the similitude

of the universal Father and Mother and are literally

the sons and daughters of Deity." (See (Man: Origin and Destiny, pp. 348-355.)

3) The ultimate purpose of life is to become

like our Heavenly Parents by acquiring all divine attributes

and doing as they do and being as they are.

( See Godhood; Exaltation, Eternal life; Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase)"

by W. John Walsh and Jenny Scoville Walsh = Light planet

[robuchan]

"Is it possible that vivaporous spirit birth is a misconception?"

Is this a pun?

BY said this:

"The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children;

it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--

was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

(Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115)

" 1) Our Father in Heaven is married to our Mother in Heaven

and together they live in a state of perfect happiness and joy.

As Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

"An exalted and glorified Man of Holiness (Moses 6:57)

could not be a Father unless a Woman of like glory, perfection,

and holiness was associated with him as a Mother."

2) The parenthood of our Heavenly Father and Mother is literal.

As explained by the First Presidency, "Man, as a spirit,

was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity

in the eternal mansions of the Father," that man is the

"offspring of celestial parentage," and that

"all men and women are in the similitude

of the universal Father and Mother and are literally

the sons and daughters of Deity." (See (Man: Origin and Destiny, pp. 348-355.)

3) The ultimate purpose of life is to become

like our Heavenly Parents by acquiring all divine attributes

and doing as they do and being as they are.

( See Godhood; Exaltation, Eternal life; Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase)"

by W. John Walsh and Jenny Scoville Walsh = Light planet

Predict the year a future JKFROST will be warned by church leaders not to repeat these quotes and threatened with excommunication if he persists. I say 2050. I'm not doing too bad on my predictions. You guys should listen to me more.

[BCSpace]

Predict the year a future JKFROST will be warned by church leaders not to repeat these quotes and threatened with excommunication if he persists. I say 2050. I'm not doing too bad on my predictions. You guys should listen to me more.

I predict never. I also predict that what he will be told now and far into the future by any LDS ecclesiastical authority is that the Journal of Discourses, Man: Origin and Destiny, Godhood; Exaltation, Eternal life; Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase by W. John Walsh and Jenny Scoville Walsh are not doctrinal works and that unless he can find such quotes in something published by the Church, it's not doctrine.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Not all doctrine is true and not all truth is doctrine.

[jkfrost]

I predict never. I also predict that what he will be told now and far into the future by any LDS ecclesiastical authority is that the Journal of Discourses, Man: Origin and Destiny, Godhood; Exaltation, Eternal life; Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase by W. John Walsh and Jenny Scoville Walsh are not doctrinal works and that unless he can find such quotes in something published by the Church, it's not doctrine.

How do you define doctrine?

True Teachings of the Faith?

Something found in

Church curriculum?

Statements by First Presidency?

General Conf talks?

If it is not Doctrine - and it is in the above records what is it?

[jkfrost]

I predict never. I also predict that what he will be told now and far into the future by any LDS ecclesiastical authority is that the Journal of Discourses, Man: Origin and Destiny, Godhood; Exaltation, Eternal life; Eternal Lives, Eternal Increase by W. John Walsh and Jenny Scoville Walsh are not doctrinal works and that unless he can find such quotes in something published by the Church, it's not doctrine.

How do you define doctrine?

True Teachings of the Faith?

Something found in

Church curriculum?

Statements by First Presidency?

General Conf talks?

If it is not Doctrine - and it is in the above records what is it?

[BCSpace]

How do you define doctrine?

By the Church's own statement on the subject that I link to in my siggy.

True Teachings of the Faith?

Something found in

Church curriculum?

Statements by First Presidency?

General Conf talks?

If it is not Doctrine - and it is in the above records what is it?

What's published by the Church is doctrine according to the Church, so it would seem to include all those things.

[mnn727]

What's published by the Church is doctrine according to the Church, so it would seem to include all those things.

You keep saying that, but its not true. Things published by the Church may contain doctrine but they are not sources of doctrine in and of themselves.

For example the J.S. manual printed part of the KFD - do you think that made the KFD doctrinal? no it didn't.

[BCSpace]

What's published by the Church is doctrine according to the Church, so it would seem to include all those things.

You keep saying that, but its not true.

And I will keep saying it because it is true. It's what the Church has stated. It's how every ecclesiastical authority above and below me understands it. It's exactly how it's been taught for at least the last 30 years. Have you read the Church's statement yet? I link to it in my siggy.

Things published by the Church may contain doctrine but they are not sources of doctrine in and of themselves.

Doesn't matter and that is a cognitive disconnect that actually changes the subject. The Church says the doctrine is established in official publications. The scriptures, for example, are indeed sources of doctrine and you may certainly go there to find doctrine, but neither you or I can establish doctrine from the scriptures. That is the job of the prophets (2 Peter 1:21).

For example the J.S. manual printed part of the KFD - do you think that made the KFD doctrinal? no it didn't

Depends on the context. For example, iirc, I believe the Ensign also once published the entire KFD. But that was for a historical look. Therefore, the doctrine would be that the KFD is a historical look at what JS' opinion/understanding was at the time. A better and more modern example would be the intorduction to the Bible Dictionary. The intro establishes that the doctrine that the Bible dictionary is not doctrine. So context and stated caveats are the way to determine if something published by the Church is not doctrine. Otherwise, it is.

Edit: The manuals quote many works that are not doctrinal such as BRM's "Mormon Doctrine". Those particular quotes are doctrine because they are also published in an official work. So in the case of the KFD being quoted in the JS manual, I'll bet that there is no overriding context and those particular KFD quotes therefore are doctrine.

[Darth_Bill]

I'm one to limit it to the standard works. Those are what the church has accepted by common consent...and there's plenty there to learn. I have to really look hard at what the apostles and prophets say and since the church hasn't accepted it by common consent, I'm more apt to look at it critically. I don't think we sign away our principles when we confirm the apostles to their role. We do hold ourselves to those things by common consent as being the mind and will of God. We have a process. We should stick to that.