As Man Now Is, God Once Was; As God Is Now Man May Be.

[KevinG]

And i see a pattern of claims made with no substance to back the claim.

I read the thread. All I see is you claiming.g something without showing.g evidence of what you claim.

Again I ask, what is the alleged incomplete quote that is attributed to Pres. Hinckley? What is the complete quote. And how do the two differ.

Asked and answered in post 4&7

Please attend President Hinkley's own comments about incomplete reporting. We may never have all the statements that were edited out but the most oft quoted by critics is dealt with there.

Now do the rest of your homework on your own.

[Calm]

Relating to one of my favorite movie series, Lord of the Rings, I feel like we are being led by Stewards while we are waiting for the return of a King (prophet).

I think the analogy is accurate except there may be some confusion if people see prophets as the king and not Christ.

[Tacenda]

I think the analogy is accurate except there may be some confusion if people see prophets as the king and not Christ.

Whoa, I agree!

[teddyaware]

President Hinkley was following the Savior's solemn admonition to not cast sacred pearls before swine. After all, it seems apparent that many, if not the vast majority of the world's sectarian Christians don't believe there will be any theological surprises when, at last, they enter the eternities. Remember, for them all of God's word for man is already permanently enshrined in the Bible, a book that cannot have anything at all added thereto nor taken away. Heaven forbid that at some time in the future they learn there might be mysteries of godliness yet to be revealed -- shocking and highly upsetting revelations of truth that might turn their beautifully gift wrapped and bowed belief sysyems upside down!

[CASteinman]

I always believed the same but I see us backtracking on many of the teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith (doctrines of salvation), Bruce McConkie (mormon doctrine) and others.

None of those are official Church publications.

Do you understand the difference between something published over the name of an individual general authority and something published over the signatures of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve?

[Closet Doubter]

None of those are official Church publications.

Do you understand the difference between something published over the name of an individual general authority and something published over the signatures of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve?

When the Journal of Discourses were first published, they were as official a publication as anything the Church has ever put out. Saying the Journal of Discourses is not an official Church publication is like saying the conference edition of the Ensign is not an official Church publication. I guess there might be one difference, the discourses from general conference are sometimes changed when printed in the Ensign (see Boyd Packers talk from about two years ago, minor changes but very significant).

[USU78]

When the Journal of Discourses were first published, they were as official a publication as anything the Church has ever put out. Saying the Journal of Discourses is not an official Church publication is like saying the conference edition of the Ensign is not an official Church publication. I guess there might be one difference, the discourses from general conference are sometimes changed when printed in the Ensign (see Boyd Packers talk from about two years ago, minor changes but very significant).

The Church didn't publish the JD. That was a wholly private publication.

[Damien the Leper]

I wish we'd canonize it as well, along with the Sermon in the Grove and all the First Vision accounts.

Throw in the Law of Adoption as part of the package deal and I'm with you.

[Damien the Leper]

Remember that criticizing someones sacred beliefs is always personal. I will try to be as civil as I can in response however.

Unfortunately, not even the LDS are an exception to this truth.

[Damien the Leper]

I have no problem with Theosis but it is of little concern or relevance to me.

[CASteinman]

When the Journal of Discourses were first published, they were as official a publication as anything the Church has ever put out.

This is not true. By Definition.

Saying the Journal of Discourses is not an official Church publication is like saying the conference edition of the Ensign is not an official Church publication.

Incorrect. The Journal of Discourses was published by a private label company. The Ensign is published by the Church.

You may be conflating the Church's approval of the publication of its discourses with the idea that this approval confers official status. It does not.

I guess there might be one difference, the discourses from general conference are sometimes changed when printed in the Ensign (see Boyd Packers talk from about two years ago, minor changes but very significant).

Well, yes that is one of the important things -- as an official Church organ the Ensign has more scrutiny in its publication. Of course nothing is perfect that man sets his hand to, but still there is a difference between official Church organs and non-official publications.

What exactly is eating you about the JoD?

[theplains]

Critics crow about how the LDS Chuch "seems to be" pulling back from the statements of Joseph and President Snow on the matter of deification.

Maybe de-emphasizing would be the more appropriate term to use.

Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father could have been elaborated on with an addition to footnote #4.

Other revelations about the nature of God followed, including many that are now in our latter-day scriptures. As God’s

chosen instrument in restoring gospel truth to the world, the Prophet testified of God throughout his ministry. “I am going

to inquire after God,” he declared, “for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him. … You will then know that

I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.”4

Looking at this reference, History of the Church, volume 6, page 305 has this a few paragraphs after:

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is

necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell

you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute

that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see". (source)

This might explain why his teaching that "this is the way Heavenly Father became God" was also removed from the

1997 version of Gospel Principles.

Regards,

Jim

[DonBradley]

To me, this idea that we will become Gods (rather than gods) is quite wrong. I do not believe that anyone will ever pray to me or worship me. If I am exalted in the celestial kingdom my spiritual posterity will pray to and worship the same being I do.

Alan,

I have to admit that I'm not particularly interested in being prayed to either. The idea seems bizarre and not like something I would desire. But if it turns out that's how things work in the eternities, it will be because that's the best way for them to work. There's no need, I think, for any of us to fret about it now.

But the idea that we are of the same order as God, and will become truly what He is, was taught as a fundamental by Joseph Smith and makes us more intimately related to God than any other doctrine. To posit an absolute difference between us and God and then try to draw close to Him and be like Him is to pursue a contradiction. Either there is an absolute gulf between us and God in our very nature or there is not. If there is, we can never truly know Him or be like Him and are not His children but his play things. The restored Gospel points us to higher and better things than that.

Don

[Storm Rider]

I pretty much reject any concept of or teaching of creating worlds, etc. What I think is far more appropriate is to focus on what the scriptures tell us:

• That we will be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ
  
• That we will be one with the Father and the Son
  

This is true doctrine; it cannot be denied with anyone that believes in scripture. To contemplate such teachings humbles the spirit and places us in the position of extreme gratitude. The Holy One of Israel offers this to all those who willingly put their hand in his and seek to follow him. My actions in life will reflect my love for him; my thoughts will be centered on him; my prayers will be unceasing, and my heart will be broken.

Trying to explain what these two teachings mean exceed the understanding of man and words do not begin to describe. Some have tried, but the Father has not seen fit to expand on these teachings or to make them clear by revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess part of my problem is I expect a prophet to speak as someone with authority. I can't imagine someone asking Joseph Smith about any of these doctrines and not getting an authoritative and definitive answer. I didn't see this with any of President Hinckley's interviews. Relating to one of my favorite movie series, Lord of the Rings, I feel like we are being led by Stewards while we are waiting for the return of a King (prophet).

Are you sure Joseph Smith responded with absolute candor in each and every instance? What about the matter of plural marriage?

I think it is wise to occasionally be very guarded in how we speak of our beliefs lest we give unfriendly elements occasion to "turn again and rend" us, to put it in scriptural terms.

[Tacenda]

I pretty much reject any concept of or teaching of creating worlds, etc. What I think is far more appropriate is to focus on what the scriptures tell us:

• That we will be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ
  
• That we will be one with the Father and the Son
  

This is true doctrine; it cannot be denied with anyone that believes in scripture. To contemplate such teachings humbles the spirit and places us in the position of extreme gratitude. The Holy One of Israel offers this to all those who willingly put their hand in his and seek to follow him. My actions in life will reflect my love for him; my thoughts will be centered on him; my prayers will be unceasing, and my heart will be broken.

Trying to explain what these two teachings mean exceed the understanding of man and words do not begin to describe. Some have tried, but the Father has not seen fit to expand on these teachings or to make them clear by revelation.

I wish to emulate this train of thought, it reminds me of one who has become born again, and it is the only way to live with Him again, atleast according to the bible. Something that has been out of reach for me as of late. Thanks for this awesome comment.

[thesometimesaint]

/

Edited July 24, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Nevo]

Critics crow about how the LDS Chuch "seems to be" pulling back from the statements of Joseph and President Snow on the matter of deification.

FYI, it isn't just "critics" that have made this observation. The LDS sociologist and sometime FAIR contributor Armand Mauss noted in a recent Dialogue article that "the Church seems to be backing away as much as is feasible from such distinctive teachings as heavenly parents, the eternal progression of God from a mortal state, and the potential human destiny of godhood."

Noting President Hinckley's "seeming equivocation" on these topics in various media interviews, Mauss continues:

Lest we assume that such retreats from LDS doctrinal distinctiveness are for public consumption only, we need look no farther than the 2010–11 official lesson manual for the priesthood and the Relief Society to see a rather remarkable erosion of distinctive doctrines. One might have thought that Principles of the Gospel, used for years as the manual for new converts and investigators, had already been properly vetted, cleansed, and simplified for the “lowest common denominator” of LDS doctrine, but no: It had to be relieved of yet more material that might detract from a mainstream Christian image for Mormonism. Among the traditional LDS teachings that have been eliminated or seriously watered down in the new version, Gospel Principles, are that faithful members can become gods; God was not always a god but became God in the same way that LDS members can become gods; both Jesus and Satan are our brothers; and we are children of heavenly parents (including a mother), and that what is required for salvation is true faithfulness, not primarily obedience to a checklist of works-oriented commandments.

— Armand L. Mauss, "Rethinking Retrenchment: Course Corrections in the Ongoing Campaign for Respectability," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 44, no. 4 (2011): 6–7.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Nevo

[Calm]

Among the traditional LDS teachings that have been eliminated or seriously watered down in the new version, Gospel Principles, are that faithful members can become gods; God was not always a god but became God in the same way that LDS members can become gods; both Jesus and Satan are our brothers; and we are children of heavenly parents (including a mother), and that what is required for salvation is true faithfulness, not primarily obedience to a checklist of works-oriented commandments.

I'd like to check these claims to see if they are accurate. I know the first one isn't as it specifically states that in the exaltation chapter ("2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23)."). In the second chapter it mentions twice we are children of heavenly parents. While not explicit, considering how in the previous chapter they said everyone was brothers and sisters than in the next present Jesus and Satan at the council, it is unlikely that it would be missed that Satan was part of the family since it was a gathering of family. There is a pretty hefty chapter on both faith and obedience so I would have to see particulars about what he thinks has downplayed a topic before deciding, especially as neither have a checklist of commandments. The only possible relevant checklists that were in different chapters were in both books. There is this quote:

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

When this new manual came out there were several of us on the board who went through it, one poster did the most work by making a list of all changes in each chapter. Some of us went and found some elements that had been moved to a different chapter, we found some repetitions had been removed. I cannot remember anything of significance that was edited out, though it is possible that in the earlier manual they used Heavenly Father and Mother and simply used "Heavenly Parents" in this one.

One error Mauss made apparently due to his dependency on an anti site which left out things that weren't changed so missed citations that demonstrated that the claimed change did not actually occur (it appears from their editing that there was no mention of men becoming gods in the last manual edition, this is quite wrong as I demonstrated already) to compare the two was the change in title from Principles of the Gospel to Gospel Principles. I have both manuals next to me right now, both are titled Gospel Principles (and it was the change in titles that made me wonder about his appraisal in the first place. Checking the older manual it does leave out the comment "two of our brothers" in speaking of the Council and presentations of Jesus and Lucifer. A section that speculated about preearth life was left out, didn't see it as necessary, it didn't really explain anything doctrinal that hadn't already been or couldn't be better explained in another context. There was a mention of heavenly parents in that section that was removed, but since there were multiple mentions of heavenly parents it seems irrelevant to establish that issue.

I am now very much wondering why Mauss drew the conclusions that he did. The only one that could come close to be watered down is the lack of the comment "Two of our brothers" but since we were already told that all there were our siblings, of course they would be our brothers.

The new manual uses references of which the vast majority are scriptures. Since it is the first manual for new converts and investigators I think it is wise for them to concentrate on material they can find primarily in the scriptures and only appeal to other sources when there it is necessary for full clarity. This promotes scripture study for one thing and helps those who are not familiar with the scriptures become that much more familiar as well as not developing the habit on going to commentaries, even of the prophets, instead of the scriptures themselves.

Edited July 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

and that what is required for salvation is true faithfulness, not primarily obedience to a checklist of works-oriented commandments.

Really?

Gospel Principles Chapter 47

Blessings of Exaltation

• •
  What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?
  

Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

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

• 1.
  They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
  
• 2.
  They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
  
• 3.
  They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
  
• 4.
  They will receive a fulness of joy.
  
• 5.
  They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).
  

Requirements for Exaltation

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

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

He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

• 1.
  We must be baptized.
  
• 2.
  We must receive the laying on of hands to be confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  
• 3.
  Brethren must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and magnify their callings in the priesthood.
  
• 4.
  We must receive the temple endowment.
  
• 5.
  We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next.
  

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

• 1.
  Love God and our neighbors.
  
• 2.
  Keep the commandments.
  
• 3.
  Repent of our wrongdoings.
  
• 4.
  Search out our kindred dead and receive the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.
  
• 5.
  Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.
  
• 6.
  Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.
  
• 7.
  Have family and individual prayers every day.
  
• 8.
  Teach the gospel to others by word and example.
  
• 9.
  Study the scriptures.
  
• 10.
  Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord
  

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

Looks like a checklist to me.

Bernard

Edited July 24, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[KevinG]

We have been discussing deification for three days now. Anyone here going to have to confess this during their next Temple recommend interview?

Have any of the teachers who discussed it in class last Sunday been called into the office by the Bishop and asked not to emphasize it?

I await the evidence that we are pulling away from deification or that we may become gods like unto Christ and Father in Heaven.

[ShawFanX]

We have been discussing deification for three days now. Anyone here going to have to confess this during their next Temple recommend interview?

Have any of the teachers who discussed it in class last Sunday been called into the office by the Bishop and asked not to emphasize it?

I await the evidence that we are pulling away from deification or that we may become gods like unto Christ and Father in Heaven.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the idea is official Doctrine as far as the Church is concerned.

http://www.lds.org/m...pter-2?lang=eng

Philosophical speculation upon the subject are fine, of course, but there should be no question as to the Church's settled orientation toward the idea.

[KevinG]

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the idea is official Doctrine as far as the Church is concerned.

http://www.lds.org/m...pter-2?lang=eng

Philosophical speculation upon the subject are fine, of course, but there should be no question as to the Church's settled orientation toward the idea.

Agreed. Palerider and his co-critics really like to take the position that the church is somehow withdrawing or pulling back from long held beliefs in order to mainstream. It is a common ploy but not one easily swallowed by active Saints who actually teach and share our cherished beliefs and history.

[ShawFanX]

Agreed. Palerider and his co-critics really like to take the position that the church is somehow withdrawing or pulling back from long held beliefs in order to mainstream. It is a common ploy but not one easily swallowed by active Saints who actually teach and share our cherished beliefs and history.

Indeed, it is only if the Church ever actually began to "mainstream" that I would, for the first time in my life, actually begin to have my doubts.

[CASteinman]

focus on what the scriptures tell us:

• That we will be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ
  
• That we will be one with the Father and the Son
  

I like the passage from the Apocalypse:

"To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." (NIV)

turns out a throne can seat more than one person.