David T Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product3_715839595_10557_21127_-1__3074457345616903721And a pdf.I haven't browsed it yet, just noticed it, and thought I'd give a heads up!
David T Posted September 5, 2012 Author Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Oh, and because I know there are those who wonder, Chapter 5 appears to be all about his famous Couplet, features spirit begetting, etc. Edited September 5, 2012 by David T 1
KevinG Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 I predict an increase in demand for the "Windows of Heaven" video the week Chapter 12 is taught.WAIT! It says he was imprisoned for practicing polygamy in the overview of his life. I thought we were de-emphasizing our history. At least that's what the critics told me. 1
cinepro Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) I predict an increase in demand for the "Windows of Heaven" video the week Chapter 12 is taught.The history of the Law of Tithing is much more interesting than most members know. I think we can all be thankful for President Snow's changes to the practice of tithing. Especially the converts!John Taylor tried to increase church donations by liberalizing the law of tithing for the first time since 1841. On the fiftieth anniversary of the church's organization, he declared a biblical Jubilee Year in which he forgave half of the delinquent tithing and half of the debts owed to the Perpetual Emigrating Fund. After the Jubilee year of 1880 failed to bring in the unforgiven half of delinquent tithing, the church president offered a carrot-and-stick approach to tithing in 1881. On 8 January 1881 Taylor said he did not care whether Mormons paid the 'one-tenth of the property of the new comers' to Utah, as required by Brigham Young. However, the Presiding Bishopric's tithing clerk recorded that, on motion of the LDS president, the assembled priesthood holders voted unanimously to sustain the requirement of 'one tenth of the property on entering the Church, and one tenth of the increase afterward.' At this stake conference in January and again at general conference in April 1881, President Taylor instructed stake presidents that church members now 'must be tithe payers' in order to have recommends for temple ordinances.The early tithing requirements of Mormonism give added significance to the numbers of immigrants to Utah before 1881 and to the numbers of LDS converts prior to 1899. At a personal level, any Mormon who paid a full tithing by nineteenth-century definitions (like the man who gave $4 in 1845) was deserving of awe and veneration. Then in May 1899 Lorenzo Snow publicly announced a revelation which limited the law of tithing to one-tenth of annual income with no massive payment upon conversion. As an LDS church president, Snow is best known for his emphasis on observance of this new definition of tithing. This was the last LDS liberalization of the 1838 revelation on tithing. From then until the present, Mormons have been allowed to decide whether to pay tithing on their gross income or net income.Lorenzo Snow's announcement was undoubtedly the cause for a significant increase in the percentage of Mormons who paid at least some tithing (see Table). In 1890, 17.2 percent of LDS stake membership had paid some tithing, and the percentage hovered around 15 percent for seven years. In 1898 the percentage of stake members who paid some tithing was only 1 percent higher than in 1890. In 1899, the year of Lorenzo Snow's announcement, the number of tithe payers in the stakes jumped to 25.6 percent.In early 1900 President Snow asked the Presiding Bishop to prepare a list 'of non-tithe payers and about 10,000 names were in the record.' Snow told the apostles that non-payment of tithing 'was worse than the non-observance of the Word of Wisdom' prohibitions against tobacco and alcohol. The time had long since passed when general authorities were exempt from the obligation to pay tithing, and one apostle was shocked to learn that Apostle John W. Taylor's 'name is on the Non-Tithing List!' Edited September 5, 2012 by cinepro
cesc101 Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 Oh, and because I know there are those who wonder, Chapter 5 appears to be all about his famous Couplet, features spirit begetting, etc.Hmm...Just when I thought we were sweeping the King Follet Discourse under the rug... 1
Rob Bowman Posted September 5, 2012 Posted September 5, 2012 Indeed....I have just posted a blog entry on the Religious Researcher entitled "Richard Mouw, call your office: The Lorenzo Snow manual and his couplet about God and man."
Scott Lloyd Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Indeed....I have just posted a blog entry on the Religious Researcher entitled "Richard Mouw, call your office: The Lorenzo Snow manual and his couplet about God and man."What is it you object to most about the couplet, the first half or the second half? 1
David T Posted September 7, 2012 Author Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Scott, I think those who don't believe man and God are ontologically connected (the vast majority of Christiandom) find both the first and second clause to be equally incoherent. Edited September 7, 2012 by David T
KevinG Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Scott, I think those who don't believe man and God are ontologically connected (the vast majority of Christiandom) find both the first and second clause to be equally incoherent.That's why not all Christians are Mormon.
DBMormon Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Hmm...Just when I thought we were sweeping the King Follet Discourse under the rug...Yeah I didn't think we taught it or no longer emphasized it? Curious to see it pop out right here... I am actually impressed. Would not have expected it.
BCSpace Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Oh, and because I know there are those who wonder, Chapter 5 appears to be all about his famous Couplet, features spirit begetting, etc.NIce, though it already was official doctrine.
DBMormon Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) NIce, though it already was official doctrine.agreed, Though admitedly going unemphasized both by the leaders, "President Hinkley's admission; and the lesson material in recent years. Though I agree it is established as doctrine.No beef here, I am glad to see it.MY QUESTION : Could the God refered to in the couplet and in Joseph's preaching have been JesusAs Jesus is Man may becomeAs Man is Jesus once wasOr does it have to be Heavenly Father that is being inferred? Edited September 7, 2012 by DBMormon
David T Posted September 7, 2012 Author Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) MY QUESTION : Could the God refered to in the couplet and in Joseph's preaching have been JesusAs Jesus is Man may becomeAs Man is Jesus once wasOr does it have to be Heavenly Father that is being inferred?Only if you remove Joseph's explicit context. Edited September 7, 2012 by David T
Nevo Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) So what are we to make of the fact that the Church is publishing a statement from Lorenzo Snow stating that it is the destiny of righteous children of God to become "like unto Him in every particular" (p. 86, emphasis added) while at the same time the Newsroom defines becoming like God "in terms of His attributes — not His cosmological assets"? According to the Newsroom's Mormonism 101: FAQ, exaltation entails partaking of the divine nature, not governing planets.Is there any tension between these two positions, or is "in every particular" to be understood in the limited sense of "in every particular with regard to His attributes"? Edited September 7, 2012 by Nevo 1
Tacenda Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 So what are we to make of the fact that the Church is publishing a statement from Lorenzo Snow stating that it is the destiny of righteous children of God to become "like unto Him in every particular" (p. 86, emphasis added) while at the same time the Newsroom defines becoming like God "in terms of His attributes — not His cosmological assets"? According to the Newsroom's Mormonism 101: FAQ, exaltation entails partaking of the divine nature, not governing planets.Is there any tension between these two positions, or is "in every particular" to be understood in the limited sense of "in every particular with regard to His attributes"?I think the more the church tries to distance itself from certain doctrines, older (much older) members won't recognise the church they were baptised into. And the new members won't recognise some of the doctrines Joseph Smith restored.
theplains Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 MY QUESTION : Could the God refered to in the couplet and in Joseph's preaching have been JesusOnly to Jesus? I doubt it.This is from the 1997 Gospel Principles. "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him--a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).Regards,Jim
zerinus Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 Indeed....I have just posted a blog entry on the Religious Researcher entitled "Richard Mouw, call your office: The Lorenzo Snow manual and his couplet about God and man."I read that. I would say the doctrine is still speculative and not official; but it is included because it is an important part of the history and teachings of a great man. We don't censor things. If he said it, and he is famous for saying it, it should be included. Church members are free to make their own minds about it. He was a prophet of the Lord after all. If the Lord didn't care to correct him, why should we?
theplains Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 The history of the Law of Tithing is much more interesting than most members know. I think we can all be thankful for President Snow's changes to the practice of tithing. Especially the converts!The link leaves out one important detail. There is some additional teaching found in a D&C Church History manual in lesson 14."The early Saints attempted to live the law [of Consecration] for periods of time in Ohio, Missouri, and Utah. Some of the Saints lived the law well, but the Church as a whole failed to live it (see also Our Heritage,page 26).According to the introductory notes of Doctrine and Covenants 119, "The Lord had previously given to the Church the law of consecration and stewardship of property, which members (chiefly the leading elders) entered into by a covenant that was to be everlasting. Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church".If all the members lived this higher law, there would have been no law of tithing.Regards,Jim
Scott Lloyd Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Scott, I think those who don't believe man and God are ontologically connected (the vast majority of Christiandom) find both the first and second clause to be equally incoherent.Whether or not that is Rob Bowman's view, I was prompted to bring it up by Rob's blog post title, "Richard Mouw, Call Your Office." On that blog Rob twit's Dr. Mouw with this remark:Mouw infamously claimed in late 2004 that Snow’s doctrine has “no functioning place in present-day Mormon doctrine.”Since this is only a partial quote, I'm left wondering what the full statement was and whether he is quoting Dr. Mouw accurately and in context. If Dr. Mouw was referring to the first half of the Snow couplet, the part that says as man is God once was, it's understandable. The fact is that Latter-day Saints don't know much about the concept other than what is phrased in these few words and, because not much has been revealed about it, it is true that it does not hold much of a prominent place in LDS doctrine.On the other hand, the other half of the couplet — which says man can progress to be like God — is very prominent in our doctrine and has not ever been de-emphasized as far as I can remember.I daresay Richard Mouw knows enough about Mormonism through his interaction with Robert Millet and others to understand that we do embrace the doctrine of theosis.So I wonder, in the first place, how accurately Rob quoted Richard Mouw, and second, why he is amazed that the couplet should appear in a Church-published compilation of Lorenzo Snow's teachings.So, as a conversation-starter, I asked Rob which portion of the couplet he objects to most.But Rob seems more interested in rationalizing the labeling of Latter-day Saints as cultists (see other thread).Incidentally, just so you'll know, Christendom is not spelled "Christiandom". Edited September 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
theplains Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 ... the first half of the Snow couplet, the part that says as man is God once was, it's understandable. The fact is that Latter-day Saints don't know much about the concept other than what is phrased in these few words and, because not much has been revealed about it, it is true that it does not hold much of a prominent place in LDS doctrine.Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God was more prominent in the GospelPrinciples manual pre-2009. But the how, when, and where have not been revealed in detail.Regards,Jim
Rob Bowman Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Scott,You wrote:What is it you object to most about the couplet, the first half or the second half?I consider both unbiblical and heretical.
Rob Bowman Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Scott,You wrote:On that blog Rob twit's Dr. Mouw with this remark.... Since this is only a partial quote, I'm left wondering what the full statement was and whether he is quoting Dr. Mouw accurately and in context.My blog article cites a lengthy academic periodical article by Prof. Ronald V. Huggins that gives the quotation and discusses it in greater detail.You wrote:If Dr. Mouw was referring to the first half of the Snow couplet, the part that says as man is God once was, it's understandable. The fact is that Latter-day Saints don't know much about the concept other than what is phrased in these few words and, because not much has been revealed about it, it is true that it does not hold much of a prominent place in LDS doctrine.Mouw said it had no place in LDS doctrine, not a less than prominent place.You wrote:So I wonder, in the first place, how accurately Rob quoted Richard Mouw, and second, why he is amazed that the couplet should appear in a Church-published compilation of Lorenzo Snow's teachings.I wonder how closely you read my article. I wasn't amazed that the couplet appeared in the manual. I cited it as yet another piece of evidence that the doctrine the couplet expresses is still LDS doctrine.You wrote:So, as a conversation-starter, I asked Richard which portion of the couplet he objects to most.I think you mean Rob (me).You wrote:But Rob seems more interested in rationalizing the labeling of Latter-day Saints as cultists (see other thread).Diversionary comment. I am only interested in accurate understanding of the issues. I myself personally never refer to Mormons as "cultists." But if someone wants to know what evangelicals typically mean when they say that the LDS Church is a "cult," I will explain that usage, even though I personally avoid it.
sunstoned Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 I think the more the church tries to distance itself from certain doctrines, older (much older) members won't recognise the church they were baptised into. And the new members won't recognise some of the doctrines Joseph Smith restored.I know this is the case with my parents. They are very confused by the retraction of teachings that were once considered doctrine.
Recommended Posts