Revised Gospel Principals Manual

[mfbukowski]

One thing that cracks me up about this whole “what is doctrine” thing is that the LDS statement on doctrine itself doesn’t fit any of the categories that it proclaims.

In other words, the doctrine of what is doctrine isn’t doctrine.

That's what happens when you believe in continuing revelation. We aren't Catholics and don't have a Magesterium.

One would think we could get used to it, but it keeps coming up. Eternal progression calls for eternal change.

"Life is change- how it differs from the rocks! I've seen their ways too often for my liking" - Jefferson Starship circa 1970

[cinepro]

The statements you brought up are either ambiguous about this or imo, not correct or non-doctrinal. None of these are scriptural quotes.

But, being consistently proclaimed in Church publications, they're apparently doctrinal.

The funny thing about these alternate (or shall we say nuanced) theories is how they slip and weave through the semantic cracks, as if the authors of the scriptures and these statements were somehow wording them to intentionally leave room for a wildly alternate reading.

But we all know what would happen should the opportunity present itself to actually ask Elder Nelson or Elder Holland whether there was physical death used during the creation process, and whether their statements were worded to allow for that fact (even though they appear to say that no, there wasn't any death anywhere on the Earth before the Fall).

[mfbukowski]

But we all know what would happen should the opportunity present itself to actually ask Elder Nelson or Elder Holland whether there was physical death used during the creation process, and whether their statements were worded to allow for that fact (even though they appear to say that no, there wasn't any death anywhere on the Earth before the Fall).

I completely disagree.

That is your nuanced interpretation.

As a surgeon, Elder Nelson is thoroughly educated in the biological sciences, and Elder Holland is ex-president of BYU, an institution which has no problem with teaching evolution.

It is crystal clear that if the church today has a problem with evolution, it would have made a clear and unambiguous denunciation akin to the Proclamation on the Family . When the church is opposed to something, they let you know. I lived through Proposition 8, and I have no doubt that the church is not shy about stating its opinion when it is important.

[Nemesis]

Be very careful about what temple content you are bringing into this thread. We have a zero tolerance for it.

[David T]

Just got my copy in the mail. Changes to chap 1 and 2 have already been noted, so here's something new.

Omissions are struck out, additions are underlined.

----

Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior

General Changes:

1. "Heavenly Parents" always changed to "Heavenly Father"

2. References to Jesus Christ as 'him' and 'his' all changed to 'Him' and 'His'

3. Additional scriptural references are often added to support statements.

Specfic Changes:

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said,

[mnn727]

so far it doesn't sound too bad, although I don;t see why this was taken out

By following the Lord

[mnn727]

so far it doesn't sound too bad, although I don;t see why this was taken out

By following the Lord

[mnn727]

so far it doesn't sound too bad, although I don;t see why this was taken out

By following the Lord

[mfbukowski]

Wow.

When you post it that way with the strikethroughs etc, it really points up the direction they have in mind, doesn't it? I am all for it!

[mfbukowski]

so far it doesn't sound too bad, although I don;t see why this was taken out

It is a rather distinct part of our beliefs that we lived there before birth and thus can return and that we have Heavenly parents

But clearly they are distancing themselves from, I would guess, "heavenly mother" and the idea that Jesus and Satan are brothers. No, it isn't changed doctrine, it is just not introduced in this volume as it was, and for some of these points, Gospel principles was the only official reference other than GA comments and Ensign articles. As an official manual, GP carries more weight than the others, and it also has implications for how new converts are to be taught.

[David T]

so far it doesn't sound too bad, although I don;t see why this was taken out

It is a rather distinct part of our beliefs that we lived there before birth and thus can return and that we have Heavenly parents What they substitued is not wrong, its just not "the rest of the story"

Perhaps you missed the rest of the paragraph where it still says, "He did His part to help us return to our heavenly home. It is now up to each of us to do our part and become worthy of exaltation."

"the rest of the story" is still there.

[mnn727]

But clearly they are distancing themselves from, I would guess, "heavenly mother" and the idea that Jesus and Satan are brothers. No, it isn't changed doctrine, it is just not introduced in this volume as it was, and for some of these points, Gospel principles was the only official reference other than GA comments and Ensign articles. As an official manual, GP carries more weight than the others, and it also has implications for how new converts are to be taught.

I agree, and I have no problem cleaning things up, but I also don't want to get too far from the things that make us different from Protestantism. The RLDS went down that road and look at them now.

It will give the people at "the board which shall not be named" something to talk about

[emeliza]

Sounds like it is just the same information formatting a little more Protestantish. Either it is to go more mainstream or to follow the flow of the members....which really that is what it seems like.

[David T]

Chapter 4: Freedom to Choose

In the our premortal life we were free agents had moral agency. That means we had power to act for ourselves (see D&C 93:29

[Calm]

Sounds like it is just the same information formatting a little more Protestantish. Either it is to go more mainstream or to follow the flow of the members....which really that is what it seems like.

It reminds me more of the scriptural phrasing rather than the common paraphrasing we LDS often do. I think that is a good direction to go as it keeps it tighter to what we have been given in revelation, focuses on the scriptures and is less likely to wander off into speculation.

[David T]

Chapter 5: The Creation

There are no changes at all. Even the phrase 'heavenly parents', used twice in this chapter, remains the same.

[emeliza]

It reminds me more of the scriptural phrasing rather than the common paraphrasing we LDS often do. I think that is a good direction to go as it keeps it tighter to what we have been given in revelation, focuses on the scriptures and is less likely to wander off into speculation.

I agree and think it looks good and it seems to condense what they needed to say anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

It reminds me more of the scriptural phrasing rather than the common paraphrasing we LDS often do. I think that is a good direction to go as it keeps it tighter to what we have been given in revelation, focuses on the scriptures and is less likely to wander off into speculation.

And less likely to provide people like Mike Huckabee little snippets that they can take out of context and shock the public with.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is this merely an interlude, then? Will they resume the Presidents of the Church series after 2011?

I'll see what I can find out.

I've now seen what I could find out. Here's the skinny:

1. The Presidents of the Church series will indeed resume after 2011. In fact, two more manuals in the series have already been prepared.

2. This two-year interlude comes because it was felt that there was some slackness in the understanding of Church members pertaining to the basic principles and that some "gospel retrenchment" was in order.

3. An upcoming article in the Ensign will explain more about it.

4. During the next two years, there will be two courses during the three-hour meeting block that use the same manual: Melchizedek Priesthood/Relief Society and the Sunday School Gospel Principles Course. However, it won't be an identical arrangement, because in the Sunday School course, they are free to skip around in the scheduling of lessons; in Priesthood/Relief Society, the lessons will be taken up sequentially.

5. Discussion questions and pictures have been changed. Also, as we've seen here, there has been some minor alteration in text.

[BCSpace]

Actually, if death existed prior to (and concurrently with) Adam and Eve in the Garden, then it would be totally incorrect to say the Fall "introduced" physical death into the world.

How so?

You might say it reintroduced death into the world...?

You could also say that, but what world are we talking about? The world that was finsished being created. Everything up to the placement of Adam into the garden was in a world that was still being created.

There is official doctrinal precedent for this line of thinking. For example, the D&C Institute Manual on D&C 77:6 which differentiates the thousand year dispensations from any creative periods that might have existed prior.

But either way, your theory is the opposite of what the Church teaches.

Which teaching would that be? Not only have you failed to identify even one single teaching I might be in conflict with but you don't even seem to know what the Church's position on the matter is. For example, the 1931 statement in which the notion of "preAdamites", for or against, is declared not to be a position of the Church. In other words, I can believe that preAdamites existed without conflicting with the Church much less it's own doctrine.

[Joseph Antley]

I work in the receiving department at the BYU Bookstore and we got our first shipment of the new manuals in earlier this week. They look really awesome. Pretty much our whole crew was gathered around a guy flipping through one.

[BCSpace]

One thing that cracks me up about this whole

[David T]

Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve were foreordained to become the parents of the human race our first parents. The Lord promised Adam great blessings:

[David T]

Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve

I actually think this section contains one of the most important re-phrasings, in the fact that it allows for the capability for Adam and Eve to reproduce pre-fall, but while still maintaining and reaffirming the scriptural teaching that they "would" not have had done so.

[mfbukowski]

I actually think this section contains one of the most important re-phrasings, in the fact that it allows for the capability for Adam and Eve to reproduce pre-fall, but while still maintaining and reaffirming the scriptural teaching that they "would" not have had done so.

I totally totally agree. God commanded them in the Garden to multiply and replenish the earth, and he gives no commandments which cannot be fufilled, and I have always seen that part of the story as an inconsistency.

But I think this process we are going through on this thread is very gratifying because I think it shows that the church is moving in the same direction that many of us here are, away from the BRM pov (notice that one edit aboive!) toward a more scriptural and (to me) reasonable approach. Thanks again for this thread! It's a lot of work, I know, but it's a keeper!