Blah Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 I know this is the case with my parents. They are very confused by the retraction of teachings that were once considered doctrine.Such as?
David T Posted September 11, 2012 Author Posted September 11, 2012 Incidentally, just so you'll know, Christendom is not spelled "Christiandom".Thanks for the correction.
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Such as?I know you didn't quote me but I thought I'd link you to 4 prophets who believed the couplet of Lorenzo Snow and 2 prophets who didn't believe it was a doctrine. These are changes that the older generation wouldn't recognise. The younger generation would recognise the changes. Prophets who say it is a doctrine.....-Joseph Smithhttp://www.lds.org/e...sermon?lang=eng (The King Follett Sermon has been removed from the LDS.org, I found it on the web, not LDS.org)- Lorenzo Snow and Joseph Fielding Smithhttp://www.lds.org/e.../1982/02/i-h...- Spencer Kimballhttp://www.lds.org/e.../1975/11/the...- God Himselfhttp://www.lds.org/s...ures/dc-test...Prophets who don't say it is a doctrine....- Thomas Monsonhttp://www.mormonnew....org/article...- Gordon Hinckleyhttp://www.sfgate.co...-bin/article... Edited September 11, 2012 by Tacenda
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Scott,You wrote:I consider both unbiblical and heretical.A declaration you would have a difficult time substantiating, as neither is expressly contradicted in the Bible, and, in the case of theosis at least, there is content that arguably supports it. See, for example, this Wikipedia entry, which contains Biblical references supporting the concept of divinization or theosis. Edited September 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) My blog article cites a lengthy academic periodical article by Prof. Ronald V. Huggins that gives the quotation and discusses it in greater detail.I note here that you have not directly addressed the matter of whether you have quoted Dr. Mouw in context and whether he had reference to the entire Lorenzo Snow couplet or just a portion of it.Huggins's piece does not add clarity, as he, like you, have only quoted a couple of tiny snippets from Mouw, not even full sentences.Mouw said it had no place in LDS doctrine, not a less than prominent place.What he said (if you quoted him accurately) is that it has "no functioning place" (my emphasis). The qualifier makes quite a difference. It could still have a place, just not one that is binding upon believers. (And the question still hasn't been addressed as to whether Mouw was referring to the full couplet or just part of it.)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.Again, I wonder why you think that's remarkable.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.You consent to it, apparently. Which doesn't strike me as being much better. Edited September 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).It is probably safe to say Thomas S Monson and Gordon B Hinkley agree with Joseph, Lorenzo and others. They just disagree with the way critics mischaracterize the King Follet sermon.
KevinG Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Whoops President Hinkley must have goofed again when he cites Joseph and Lorenzo... http://www.lds.org/g...ery=king folletOn the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)Wow that sneaky prophet hid it right in a General Conference address. Edited September 11, 2012 by KevinG
Ahab Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Prophets who don't say it is a doctrine....- Thomas Monsonhttp://www.mormonnew....org/article...- Gordon Hinckleyhttp://www.sfgate.co...-bin/article...Misunderstandings abound. Maybe it would help you if you got better information from official Church sources while trying harder to understand what both of those men had in their minds.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).It is probably safe to say Thomas S Monson and Gordon B Hinkley agree with Joseph, Lorenzo and others. They just disagree with the way critics mischaracterize the King Follet sermon.KevinG,Perhaps you should give a reference to the above quote.I'm guessing it comes from lds.org, perhaps the "Newsroom" section.
KevinG Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) KevinG,Perhaps you should give a reference to the above quote.I'm guessing it comes from lds.org, perhaps the "Newsroom" section.Yes it does come from the Newsroom. It is the link Tacenda provided trying to show President Monson does not support Lorenzo Snows couplet as doctrine.FYI here is a good link to Joseph Smiths King Follet sermon. (p 342) http://scriptures.byu.edu/stpjs.html Edited September 11, 2012 by KevinG
KevinG Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 The SFgate article is not online. Tacenda got caught cutting and pasting someone elses research. But let me help you on that quote with and without ellipses.http://www.fairlds.org/authors/fordham-michael/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) So you both are in cahoots to thwart my terribleness. Just the truth please. And I will back down.Certainly becoming Gods has been downplayed to the public for PR. Edited September 11, 2012 by Tacenda
Avatar4321 Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Im excited for this manual. I've just been reading the life and ministry of Lorenzo Snow and im already learning things I didn't know. I never knew President Snow brought someone back from the dead.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) So you both are in cahoots to thwart my terribleness. Just the truth please. And I will back down.I think "the truth" is clear from the FAIR link that KevinG provided. President Hinckley was not repudiating the Snow couplet, but rather, saying that we don't know enough about the first portion ("As man is, God once was ...") to emphasize it in our teaching or public discourse.Certainly becoming Gods has been downplayed to the public for PR.I don't see how you could persuasively substantiate this. It is present in Church curriculum materials and publications, which are posted on the Internet for all to see. Edited September 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
Ahab Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) So you both are in cahoots to thwart my terribleness. Just the truth please. And I will back down.Certainly becoming Gods has been downplayed to the public for PR.Because we don't really "become" Gods, or persons who are the kind of being we refer to as God.We are already God, by virtue of the kind of being we are. We're just not as perfect as our Father in heaven is now. But we can be..Woot! I hope I'm still an instructor in the high priest quorum of my ward when this issue comes around!I have a feeling I'll get a lot of shrugs, though. I'd be a little more than surprised if most of us haven't already accepted this doctrine. Edited September 11, 2012 by Ahab
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 I think "the truth" is clear from the FAIR link that KevinG provided. President Hinckley was not repudiating the Snow couplet, but rather, saying that we don't know enough about the first portion ("As man is, God once was ...") to emphasize it in our teaching or public discourse.I don't see how you could persuasively substantiate this. It is present in Church curriculum materials and publications, which are posted on the Internet for all to see.All I was pointing out in my post is that the doctrines are changing as far a "We are to become Gods" is that not true. In BY's time or Lorenzo Snow's time, people would have heard this preached over the pulpit. And down through the ages it has become de-emphasised, is that correct? Not that I have anything against it.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) All I was pointing out in my post is that the doctrines are changing as far a "We are to become Gods" is that not true.No, it is not.In BY's time or Lorenzo Snow's time, people would have heard this preached over the pulpit.It's preached over the pulpit today. As recently as Aug. 14, by the General Authority at the devotional in connection with BYU Campus Education Week. And down through the ages it has become de-emphasised, is that correct?It is not correct. Not that I have anything against it.The issue is not that you have anything against it. The issue is your making assertions you can't substantiate. Edited September 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).It is probably safe to say Thomas S Monson and Gordon B Hinkley agree with Joseph, Lorenzo and others. They just disagree with the way critics mischaracterize the King Follet sermon.No, it is not.It's preached over the pulpit today. As recently as Aug. 14, by the General Authority at the devotional in connection with BYU Campus Education Week.It is not correct.The issue is not that you have anything against it. The issue is your making assertions you can't substantiate. Ok which is it then? In Kevin's post (bolded section), it is presented a little different than "We are to become Gods".
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Ok which is it then? In Kevin's post (bolded section), it is presented a little different than "We are to become Gods".I see no conflict here.If you're saying that the authentic doctrine is different from the caricature that is often presented by antagonists against the Church, then yes, this is true.But that doesn't substantiate your assertion that the Church has "changed" or "de-emphasized" its doctrine through the ages. Edited September 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Tacenda Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) I see no conflict here.the wordage in theI see no conflict here.If you're saying that the authentic doctrine is different from the caricature that is often presented by antagonists against the Church, then yes, this is true.But that doesn't substantiate your assertion that the Church has "changed" or "de-emphasized" its doctrine through the ages.It only says we can become like God in the BYU speech. And in Kevin's post, that is so non lds christian to me. Big difference. http://www.lds.org/s...-17?lang=eng#15 Here is where Kevin possibly found what he posted. I went to it and read how we are adopted children? This is so not what I thought we were in our church. When have we been taught we are adopted children? I guess I'm pretty bad in not getting this right? Edited September 11, 2012 by Tacenda
Scott Lloyd Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) the wordage in theIt only says we can become like God in the BYU speech. And in Kevin's post, that is so non lds christian to me. Big difference. http://www.lds.org/s...-17?lang=eng#15 Here is where Kevin possibly found what he posted. I went to it and read how we are adopted children? This is so not what I thought we were in our church. When have we been taught we are adopted children? I guess I'm pretty bad in not getting this right?In the LDS concept, there is no difference between saying we shall be like God and saying we shall be gods (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:20).Being joint-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has includes inheriting His divine attributes. It includes inheriting "thrones and dominions, principalities and powers" (Doctrine and Covenants 121:29). Being one with God and Christ (see John 17) means taking part in their divinity.This has been present in the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints since the dawn of the Restoration. It has not been changed or de-emphasized. It is still taught in the classrooms and from the pulpits of the Church.It is true that antagonists and critics have distorted and misstated this sublime doctrine so as to use it to bludgeon the Latter-day Saints. But beware lest you mistake their distortions for the authentic doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Edited September 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
KevinG Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 So you both are in cahoots to thwart my terribleness. Just the truth please. And I will back down.Certainly becoming Gods has been downplayed to the public for PR.You know I checked the entire newsroom and other than the FAQ there isn't one mention of becoming Gods. You must be mistaking our PR efforts for an anti-Mormon group.
Dcharle Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 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.The church's PR firm is helping in writing manuals now - can you say spin doctoring. Hopefully we are getting closer to full disclosure.
cinepro Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) The church's PR firm is helping in writing manuals now - can you say spin doctoring. Hopefully we are getting closer to full disclosure.Well, if we're being semantically precise, I would note that someone being put on trial or imprisoned for something doesn't mean they were guilty of it (see: Joseph Smith). So acknowledging Elder Snow's incarceration for polygamy doesn't require that he actually practiced it.For example, the overview of his life on the Church website notes his imprisonment, but doesn't note any of his marriages:http://www.lds.org/c...=5&topic=eventsCompare that with the Prophets who were monogamous (or only sealed to additional women after their earlier wives died). Their wives and marriages are mentioned on that same site (look in the "Significant Events" sections of the bios).Then compare that to Joseph Smith's entry. Edited September 14, 2012 by cinepro
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2012 Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) The church's PR firm is helping in writing manuals now - can you say spin doctoring. Hopefully we are getting closer to full disclosure.Who is the Church's PR firm? And what's your source that this alleged "firm" is "helping in writing the manuals now"? Edited September 14, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts