Guidelines Responses to Common Questions- Leak

[HappyJackWagon]

In a recent leak, a 2012 document was released that is part of the church's packet to incoming GA' to help them know how to answer certain common questions.

Quote

These guidelines are for the use of Church leaders and Public Affairs representatives in response to questions that may be asked by opinion leaders or the news media in the course of normal Church outreach. They may also be useful in responding to questions from Church members.

Some of the answers to these common questions seem a bit...lets say... insincere, dance around the question, or don't provide a clear answer at all.  For example...

Quote

Will you have your own planet? Assertions that Mormons will each have their own planet in the next life are commonly found in anti-Mormon writings which often fail to give context. We believe what the Bible teaches – that the faithful will be heirs to everything that God has promised to his Son Jesus Christ (See Romans 8:16-17, Galatians 4:7, and Philippians 2:5-6). Few people now living can contemplate the enormous blessings in store for all men and women who faithfully keep God’s commandments.

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

Quote

Are Jesus and Satan brothers? Jesus and Satan are polar opposites. Jesus is the resurrected divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen spirit. All of us are children of God, and therefore all are brothers and sisters.

 

Again, we may not like the question but a simple "yes" would do and then some additional context could be provided. But this seems to dance around the question without actually answering.

Quote

Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri? Strictly speaking, we do not know where the Garden of Eden was. Joseph Smith established a settlement called Adam-ondi-Ahman in Daviess County, Missouri. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Latter-day Saints believe that Adam and Eve dwelt in that area after being expelled from the Garden of Eden.

This answer seems downright dishonest. Can someone help me understand why church leaders, General Authorities, would claim not to know where the Garden of Eden was when it is stated in scripture?

There is much more to this document but I find it strange and disheartening that there is a purposeful effort to teach GA's to provide unclear, or insincere answer to standard questions. Why not just own the unique doctrines? The church seems to be hiding from it.

 

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/5/55/Guideline_Responses_to_Common_Questions.pdf

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

I disagree with you on the "Mormons will each have their own planet" thing. I, of all people, never shrink away from owning doctrine or practices that seem weird to others. While we believe that we will help create worlds and have our eternal posterity, I have actually never seen it taught that we will each "get our own planet." I've never heard this being discussed. This is simply an unknown, and I don't even hear any speculation about that, and I can move in speculative circles. The nature of godhood/exaltation, etc., sure. But the obsession with "getting our own planets" seems to be much more prevalent with non/ex-Mormons than with current ones. 

I agree with you on Garden of Eden/Missouri. I didn't like Mitt Romney running from this, and Church leaders seem the same way. I totally own this, and without any shame and embarrassment. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In a recent leak, a 2012 document was released that is part of the church's packet to incoming GA' to help them know how to answer certain common questions.

Some of the answers to these common questions seem a bit...lets say... insincere, dance around the question, or don't provide a clear answer at all.  For example...

 

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

A simple yes would do and then some additional context could be provided. But this seems to dance around the question without actually answering.

This answer seems downright dishonest. Can someone help me understand why church leaders, General Authorities, would claim not to know where the Garden of Eden was when it is stated in scripture?

There is much more to this document but I find it strange and disheartening that there is a purposeful effort to teach GA's to provide unclear, or insincere answer to standard questions. Why not just own the unique doctrines? The church seems to be hiding from it.

 

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/5/55/Guideline_Responses_to_Common_Questions.pdf

 

ETA- when this posted all of the Q&A examples I posted were deleted. I will fix soon.

 

Thanks for posting this HJW.  I haven't read through it, but I'm very interested to see what it contains.

I actually thought that GA's don't really answer questions anymore from members? Don't they mostly refer them back to the local leaders?

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

This is not at all a settled doctrinal question. Is Christ the only savior in the whole universe? Does each world have its own savior and tempter? Can we become God in the same sense that God is (Joseph Smith taught that Elohim had been a Savior. We are not, and will not be, obviously). 

No, there is not enough, doctrinally, to insist what you have said above. Godhood for us may entail providing spirit children for a head God, and assisting in the creative work.

[Ouagadougou]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In a recent leak, a 2012 document was released that is part of the church's packet to incoming GA' to help them know how to answer certain common questions.

Some of the answers to these common questions seem a bit...lets say... insincere, dance around the question, or don't provide a clear answer at all.  For example...

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

 

Again, we may not like the question but a simple "yes" would do and then some additional context could be provided. But this seems to dance around the question without actually answering.

This answer seems downright dishonest. Can someone help me understand why church leaders, General Authorities, would claim not to know where the Garden of Eden was when it is stated in scripture?

There is much more to this document but I find it strange and disheartening that there is a purposeful effort to teach GA's to provide unclear, or insincere answer to standard questions. Why not just own the unique doctrines? The church seems to be hiding from it.

 

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/5/55/Guideline_Responses_to_Common_Questions.pdf

 

 

 

I agree that all of the answers to these questions should be yes.  These questions also remind me about the church's responses to polygamy:  the church still practices spiritual polygamy and believes God is a polygamous God, but denies it practices polygamy (or just polygamy in the physical sense).  I've said this before, but the church's answers/justifications/excuses, at times, remind me of an alcoholic who can't fully admit that he/she had an alcohol problem and refuses to come clean and admit to any guilt or wrongdoing.  

[Gray]

It's definitely PR speak. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I actually thought that GA's don't really answer questions anymore from members? Don't they mostly refer them back to the local leaders?

I didn't see where this was specified as being a primer for GAs (maybe I missed it?). More like suggested responses for local leaders.

Some GAs answer questions, with varying styles, approaches, and results. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This is not at all a settled doctrinal question. Is Christ the only savior in the whole universe? Does each world have its own savior and tempter? Can we become God in the same sense that God is (Joseph Smith taught that Elohim had been a Savior. We are not, and will not be, obviously). 

No, there is not enough, doctrinally, to insist what you have said above. Godhood for us may entail providing spirit children for a head God, and assisting in the creative work.

Is it not taught that through exaltation we become like God and will create worlds and populate them with spirit children?

If we don't have our own space (planet, universe, whatever) does that mean we will live in some kind of heavenly neighborhood amongst the other gods. Does God live in this kind of a celestial neighborhood with the other Gods?

A God living amongst many Gods in a celestial neighborhood where all the Gods dwell doesn't sound very appealing. I believe it is taught that every exalted couple will be autonomous in their sphere and not likely subject to some kind of celestial home owners association. The concept supposes a very weak God.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In a recent leak, a 2012 document was released that is part of the church's packet to incoming GA' to help them know how to answer certain common questions.

Some of the answers to these common questions seem a bit...lets say... insincere, dance around the question, or don't provide a clear answer at all.  For example...

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

Again, we may not like the question but a simple "yes" would do and then some additional context could be provided. But this seems to dance around the question without actually answering.

This answer seems downright dishonest. Can someone help me understand why church leaders, General Authorities, would claim not to know where the Garden of Eden was when it is stated in scripture?

There is much more to this document but I find it strange and disheartening that there is a purposeful effort to teach GA's to provide unclear, or insincere answer to standard questions. Why not just own the unique doctrines? The church seems to be hiding from it.

................................................   

I see nothing at all wrong with any of the answers which you don't like.  As with the "when did you stop beating your wife" approach, most of the questions are designed to be anti-Mormon and absurd, which calls for restraint and context -- which does not interest the anti-Mormons at all.  The questions are not really questions at all, but attempts to bait.

Take the first item you mention, on everyone getting a planet.  There is no such scriptural promise. Indeed, only those who are exalted will ever be able to organize worlds (whole stellar systems) for their spiritual offspring, upon which a Plan of Salvation will be worked out for embodied spirits.  The only honest way to respond to the nonsense is to provide context, which angers those who are only out to ridicule the Mormons.  The GAs would be fools not to have a well thought out approach to such baiting questions.

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see nothing at all wrong with any of the answers which you don't like.  As with the "when did you stop beating your wife" approach, most of the questions are designed to be anti-Mormon and absurd, which calls for restraint and context -- which does not interest the anti-Mormons at all.  The questions are not really questions at all, but attempts to bait.

Take the first item you mention, on everyone getting a planet.  There is no such scriptural promise. Indeed, only those who are exalted will ever be able to organize worlds (whole stellar systems) for their spiritual offspring, upon which a Plan of Salvation will be worked out for embodied spirits.  The only honest way to respond to the nonsense is to provide context, which angers those who are only out to ridicule the Mormons.  The GAs would be fools not to have a well thought out approach to such baiting questions.

So you don't like the question. I get that. But the response is disingenuous. "Of course Mormons don't get their own planets. But exalted Mormons will organize worlds and solar systems...." That's called obfuscation. Even if the question isn't asked in a polite way, the intent of the question is fairly clear but the answer is not.

Is there, or is there not, revelation and/or prophetic claims that the historical location of the Garden of Eden?

If there is, why would leaders answer in the way that is suggested?

A couple of sources rom FAIR citing early prophets/apostles

Quote

Heber C. Kimball (1863):

...[T]he spot chosen for the garden of Eden was Jackson County, in the State of Missouri, where Independence now stands; it was occupied in the morn of creation by Adam and his associates who came with him for the express purpose of peopling this earth.^[6]

George Q. Cannon (1867):

We appreciate the home that God has given us here, so fruitful in blessings [p.337] to the Saints; but we look forward to that land with indescribable feelings, because it is the place where God has said His City shall be built. It is the land where Adam, the Ancient of Days, will gather his posterity again, and where the blessings of God will descend upon them. It is the land for which the wise and learned have travelled [sic] and sought in vain. Asia has been ransacked in endeavouring [sic] to locate the Garden of Eden. Men have supposed that because the Ark rested on Ararat that the flood commenced there, or rather that it was from thence the Ark started to sail. But God in His revelations has informed us that it was on this choice land of Joseph where Adam was placed and the Garden of Eden was laid out. The spot has been designated, and we look forward with peculiar feelings to repossessing that land.^[7]

Wilford Woodruff quoting Brigham Young (1879):

[spelling as original diary] Again Presdet [sic] Young said Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson Co Missouri, & when Adam was driven out of the garden of Eden He went about 40 miles to the Place which we Named Adam Ondi Ahman, & there built an Altar of Stone & offered Sacrifize [sic]. That Altar remains to this day. I saw it as Adam left it as did many others, & through all the revolutions of the world that Altar had not been disturbed.^[8]

Other citations...

Quote

The location of the Garden of Eden in America, and at Independence, Missouri, clears up many a problem which the Bible account of Eden and its garden has left in the minds of students. (Evidences and Reconciliations, by John A. Widtsoe, p. 395-397)

You have been both to Jerusalem and Zion, and seen both. I have not seen either, for I have never been in Jackson County. Now it is a pleasant thing to think of and to know where the Garden of Eden was. Did you ever think of it? I do not think many do, for in Jackson County was the Garden of Eden. Joseph has declared this, and I am as much bound to believe that as to believe that Joseph was a prophet of God. (Brigham Young - Journal History, March 15, 1857)

 

This is not some kind of strange, obscure detail. This was talked about by many prophets and apostles.

Edited March 22, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In a recent leak, a 2012 document was released that is part of the church's packet to incoming GA' to help them know how to answer certain common questions.

Some of the answers to these common questions seem a bit...lets say... insincere, dance around the question, or don't provide a clear answer at all.  For example...

While we may not like the way the question is phrased, isn't the answer Yes. Not only, yes, we will have our own planet but we will have our own universe and likely many planets. Why hide from this unique but aspirational purpose for God's children?

 

Again, we may not like the question but a simple "yes" would do and then some additional context could be provided. But this seems to dance around the question without actually answering.

This answer seems downright dishonest. Can someone help me understand why church leaders, General Authorities, would claim not to know where the Garden of Eden was when it is stated in scripture?

There is much more to this document but I find it strange and disheartening that there is a purposeful effort to teach GA's to provide unclear, or insincere answer to standard questions. Why not just own the unique doctrines? The church seems to be hiding from it.

 

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/5/55/Guideline_Responses_to_Common_Questions.pdf

 

 

 

The two problems I see with a straightforward "yes" to the belief of us getting planets is that it is not core LDS doctrine but speculation based upon core doctrine. The core doctrine is that for those who remain faithful to God the Father, specifically with covenants made to Him, will receive "all the father has" and become "heirs" with Christ in the kingdom of God. Logically this includes planets, universes, etc., but the LDs message to the world is not "to get planets" but to become like God through Christ and obeying God's commandments.

Also, by focusing on "getting planets", I think the LDS church would teach speculation over substance. Instead of wondering about your own planet, one should focus on serving others, fulfilling one's duties faithfully and diligently, repenting, and generally doing good in this life. Pondering about "getting planets" is meaningless whereas being virtuous brings forth meaningful results.

Christ and Satan "being brothers" is also speculation, howbeit very obvious. during the 2007 presidential campaign, thanks in large part to Mike Huckabee, the "Mormon belief" that Jesus Christ and Satan as brothers was brought to the spotlight. FAIR Mormon cites how the LDs Church, and I think wisely, responded:

Quote

In December 2007 the Church issued the following press release on this issue:

Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel.

As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

The LDS church focuses on the polar differences between Jesus Christ and Satan. as two beings "created by God and are His spirit children" is factually correct and logically since Jesus Christ and Satan were created by the Father as His spirit children, they are brothers. However, all LDs doctrine focuses on the supremacy of Jesus Christ over Satan. Satan had to go before Jehovah to get permission to tempt and afflict Job. Satan could not refute any command Christ gave Him, even to depart. Jesus will eventually, through Michael, cast out Satan forever. The Doctrine and Covenants explicitly declares Satan as having no glory nor ever will obtain any glory whereas Jesus Christ has all glory. The LDS Church's message to the world has never been that "Satan and Jesus Christ are brothers" but that through Jesus Christ we may all overcome Satan.

Likewise, Jesus is your brother and my brother. However, we too should be very careful in declaring this as we may demean who Jesus Christ is to us. Jesus Christ is our LORD, Savior, Redeemer, even God to you and I. Of my 2 and 1/2 years of teaching Gospel Doctrine, only once did I referred to Jesus Christ as "our brother" and that was in reference to the pre-mortal existence where I expressed my thought that we saw Jesus Christ as our brother but something unique about Him and we loved Him for it.

As for the Garden of Eden, I agree that we know little to no about the geographical location of it. Yes, it is mentioned in scripture but beyond that and beyond Joseph Smith's words, we know little to nothing about it.

[Darren10]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it not taught that through exaltation we become like God and will create worlds and populate them with spirit children?

If we don't have our own space (planet, universe, whatever) does that mean we will live in some kind of heavenly neighborhood amongst the other gods. Does God live in this kind of a celestial neighborhood with the other Gods?

A God living amongst many Gods in a celestial neighborhood where all the Gods dwell doesn't sound very appealing. I believe it is taught that every exalted couple will be autonomous in their sphere and not likely subject to some kind of celestial home owners association. The concept supposes a very weak God.

"Is it not taught that through exaltation we become like God and will create worlds and populate them with spirit children?" - Where's that taught?

There's no way to definitively answer any of this until the next life and/or the Millenium. Until then, focus on your home teaching.

"A God living amongst many Gods in a celestial neighborhood where all the Gods dwell doesn't sound very appealing." - Actually, I find that very cool. Very similar to a temple sessions setting.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Darren10

[CV75]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In a recent leak, a 2012 document was released that is part of the church's packet to incoming GA' to help them know how to answer certain common questions.

Some of the answers to these common questions seem a bit...lets say... insincere, dance around the question, or don't provide a clear answer at all.  For example...

I take these guidelines to be talking points for guidance, not scripts to be memorized. I would think anyone responding to these questions would preface their response with “Yes, but…,” “No, but…,” “It depends…” and so forth and provide context. The same with “Strictly speaking…” should they choose to use that preface.

Using the canon as the basis for responses, D&C 116 and 117 do not say Adam-ondi-Ahman was previously Eden. The same with having our own planet.

Often in haste (and the purpose is uniquely their own) someone might develop a caricatured understanding of things that are more realistically represented through open-minded patience. Also a knee-jerk habit of casting aspersions and coming to rash judgements.

Edited March 22, 2017 by CV75

[Darren10]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you don't like the question. I get that. But the response is disingenuous. "Of course Mormons don't get their own planets. But exalted Mormons will organize worlds and solar systems...." That's called obfuscation. Even if the question isn't asked in a polite way, the intent of the question is fairly clear but the answer is not.

Is there, or is there not, revelation and/or prophetic claims that the historical location of the Garden of Eden?

If there is, why would leaders answer in the way that is suggested?

"Is there, or is there not, revelation and/or prophetic claims that the historical location of the Garden of Eden?"

Quote

The home of our first parents, Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:8–3:24; 4:16; Isa. 51:3; 2 Ne. 2:19–25; Moses 3–4; Abr. 5), designated as a garden, eastward in Eden. Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of the Garden of Eden and adds the important information that it was located on what is now the North American continent.

Eden, Garden of from Bible Dictionary - https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/eden-garden-of.html?lang=eng&letter=E

From your own citation (second and third bold mine):

Quote

Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri? Strictly speaking, we do not know where the Garden of Eden was. Joseph Smith established a settlement called Adam-ondi-Ahman in Daviess County, Missouri. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Latter-day Saints believe that Adam and Eve dwelt in that area after being expelled from the Garden of Eden.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it not taught that through exaltation we become like God and will create worlds and populate them with spirit children?

If we don't have our own space (planet, universe, whatever) does that mean we will live in some kind of heavenly neighborhood amongst the other gods. Does God live in this kind of a celestial neighborhood with the other Gods?

A God living amongst many Gods in a celestial neighborhood where all the Gods dwell doesn't sound very appealing. I believe it is taught that every exalted couple will be autonomous in their sphere and not likely subject to some kind of celestial home owners association. The concept supposes a very weak God.

I think you need to start a blog to broadcast these wonderful insights.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is not some kind of strange, obscure detail. This was talked about by many prophets and apostles.

Oh yes it is and yes it was. Hence the guidelines based on the canon, which has stood up to the scrutiny and developing understanding of all involved.

[HappyJackWagon]

This thread is a good illustration about why it is so easy to become disillusioned with the church teachings and lose trust in what current prophets say.

I was taught my whole life that Jackson County was where the Garden of Eden was located. There are many prophetic statements stating such. Now we act like it's absurd to believe something like that and that it is my fault for believing this kind of speculative doctrine. This has been taught in conferences, in sunday lessons my whole life but I obviously can't rely on those teachings as being supported by the current church.

Similarly, it has never been a question that Satan and Jesus are brothers in the same sense that we are all spirit children of God. But can we rely on the church to claim this teaching? No. They dance around it and get cute with their responses.

Will we have our own planet? Of course the question is a caricature and doesn't reflect great understanding because in fact we believe we get much, much more. But the church is embarrassed to admit it.

This stuff makes me want to toss in the towel and give up on this nonsense.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I agree that all of the answers to these questions should be yes.  These questions also remind me about the church's responses to polygamy:  the church still practices spiritual polygamy and believes God is a polygamous God, but denies it practices polygamy (or just polygamy in the physical sense).  I've said this before, but the church's answers/justifications/excuses, at times, remind me of an alcoholic who can't fully admit that he/she had an alcohol problem and refuses to come clean and admit to any guilt or wrongdoing.  

Yes, alcoholism is rampant among the Mormon General Authorities.

[Darren10]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is a good illustration about why it is so easy to become disillusioned with the church teachings and lose trust in what current prophets say.

I was taught my whole life that Jackson County was where the Garden of Eden was located. There are many prophetic statements stating such. Now we act like it's absurd to believe something like that and that it is my fault for believing this kind of speculative doctrine. This has been taught in conferences, in sunday lessons my whole life but I obviously can't rely on those teachings as being supported by the current church.

Similarly, it has never been a question that Satan and Jesus are brothers in the same sense that we are all spirit children of God. But can we rely on the church to claim this teaching? No. They dance around it and get cute with their responses.

Will we have our own planet? Of course the question is a caricature and doesn't reflect great understanding because in fact we believe we get much, much more. But the church is embarrassed to admit it.

This stuff makes me want to toss in the towel and give up on this nonsense.

"I was taught my whole life that Jackson County was where the Garden of Eden was located." - Well, there you have it. It's settled. Since HappyJack was taught that the Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri, it is so and it is what the Mormon Church believes but now treats it like, "whaaaaaaaaaaa???.....whatchyousayin'?"

Happy, there's no reason to lose trust in the church's leadership. It has never been taught as a matter of "what Mormons believe" nor what the LDS church should officially believe. You can go to Adam-ondi-Ahman right now and not see much because the LDs church has never treated it as much of anything. I to have heard from others as the place being fanstic to believe in but beyond that I've never learned much of anything *from the church* regarding it therefore I never considered it as much part of the Church, nor "what Mormons believe".

"This has been taught in conferences, in sunday lessons my whole life but I obviously can't rely on those teachings as being supported by the current church." - Wow. You had a pretty far out ward and what conferences are you referring to?

"Similarly, it has never been a question that Satan and Jesus are brothers in the same sense that we are all spirit children of God. But can we rely on the church to claim this teaching? No. They dance around it and get cute with their responses." - Um, didn't you just cite that this is exactly what the Church teaches? "All of us are children of God, and therefore all are brothers and sisters", was your cited "how to" respond for General Authorities. No dancing, no cuteness, this is exactly what you just asked to receive, from church leaders, is it not?

"This stuff makes me want to toss in the towel and give up on this nonsense." - Oh, I think you've thrown in the towel way before this thread and it's up to you to pick it up and keep going. Don't be disillusioned by anything you do not need to be disillusioned by. if you do then you'll be, well, disillusioned, and for no reason.

Hope you find your way.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Darren10

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

The two problems I see with a straightforward "yes" to the belief of us getting planets is that it is not core LDS doctrine but speculation based upon core doctrine. The core doctrine is that for those who remain faithful to God the Father, specifically with covenants made to Him, will receive "all the father has" and become "heirs" with Christ in the kingdom of God. Logically this includes planets, universes, etc., but the LDs message to the world is not "to get planets" but to become like God through Christ and obeying God's commandments.

Darren, I'm not sure what you're arguing, because you keep giving much more straightforward and honest examples of how to respond to the questions but you seem to think that you're arguing that the evasive answers are just as good.

 

For example, the first statement in the "planets" question attributes it to anti-Mormon literature!

Quote

Will you have your own planet? Assertions that Mormons will each have their own planet in the next life are commonly found in anti-Mormon writings which often fail to give context. We believe what the Bible teaches – that the faithful will be heirs to everything that God has promised to his Son Jesus Christ (See Romans 8:16-17, Galatians 4:7, and Philippians 2:5-6). Few people now living can contemplate the enormous blessings in store for all men and women who faithfully keep God’s commandments.

Sure, it's mentioned in "anti-Mormon writings", but the reason for this is because the Church itself has taught it.

If you were a reporter and asked that question out of sincere interest, and received that answer, and then went to the Church's website and found these quotes in a manual that was used in instruction to the college students and other adults of the Church, and another in a manual published by the Church called "Gospel Fundamentals," would you feel you had been dealt with honestly?

Quote

“Only a short time before his death, President Snow visited the Brigham Young University [then Brigham Young Academy], at Provo. President Brimhall escorted the party through one of the buildings; he wanted to reach the assembly room as soon as possible, as the students had already gathered. They were going through one of the kindergarten rooms; President Brimhall had reached the door and was about to open it and go on when President Snow said: ‘Wait a moment, President Brimhall, I want to see these children at work; what are they doing?’ Brother Brimhall replied that they were making clay spheres. ‘That is very interesting,’ the President said. ‘I want to watch them.’ He quietly watched the children for several minutes and then lifted a little girl, perhaps six years of age, and stood her on a table. He then took the clay sphere from her hand, and, turning to Brother Brimhall, said:

“‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” (Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59).

https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-manual/lorenzo-snow-fifth-president-o-the-church?lang=eng

(emphasis added)

Quote

[Exalted people] will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng

(emphasis added)

Seriously.  It's in a manual called "Gospel Fundamentals".

Edited March 22, 2017 by cinepro

[Ouagadougou]

53 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Yes, alcoholism is rampant among the Mormon General Authorities.

Not alcoholism...but denial...

[cinepro]

35 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Happy, there's no reason to lose trust in the church's leadership. It has never been taught as a matter of "what Mormons believe" nor what the LDS church should officially believe. You can go to Adam-ondi-Ahman right now and not see much because the LDs church has never treated it as much of anything. I to have heard from others as the place being fanstic to believe in but beyond that I've never learned much of anything *from the church* regarding it therefore I never considered it as much part of the Church, nor "what Mormons believe".

"This has been taught in conferences, in sunday lessons my whole life but I obviously can't rely on those teachings as being supported by the current church." - Wow. You had a pretty far out ward and what conferences are you referring to?

Sorry Darren, but you're overplaying the mockery on this one.  Church leaders and publications have taught that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri since the days of Joseph Smith.  While it might not be mentioned every single week in every single Ward, it has certainly been taught with enough regularity and authority throughout the decades that your statements come off as more of a disingenious attempt at deflection than any serious attempt to address the issue.

For example...

What do we know about the location of the Garden of Eden? (Ensign, January 1994)

Quote

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “In accord with the revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, we teach that the Garden of Eden was on the American continent located where the City of Zion, or the New Jerusalem, will be built. When Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden, they eventually dwelt at a place called Adam-ondi-Ahman, situated in what is now Daviess County, Missouri. … We are committed to the fact that Adam dwelt on [the] American continent.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., comp. Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City:Bookcraft, 1956, 3:74. Compare Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957–75, 2:93–95, 4:19–24; and Alvin R. Dyer, in Conference Report, Oct. 1968, pp. 108–9.)

Here's a good collection of quotes put together by a BYU professor explaining why LDS might believe this:

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/327Folder/Garden of Eden Jackson Co.pdf

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is a good illustration about why it is so easy to become disillusioned with the church teachings and lose trust in what current prophets say.

I was taught my whole life that Jackson County was where the Garden of Eden was located. There are many prophetic statements stating such. Now we act like it's absurd to believe something like that and that it is my fault for believing this kind of speculative doctrine. This has been taught in conferences, in sunday lessons my whole life but I obviously can't rely on those teachings as being supported by the current church.

Similarly, it has never been a question that Satan and Jesus are brothers in the same sense that we are all spirit children of God. But can we rely on the church to claim this teaching? No. They dance around it and get cute with their responses.

Will we have our own planet? Of course the question is a caricature and doesn't reflect great understanding because in fact we believe we get much, much more. But the church is embarrassed to admit it.

This stuff makes me want to toss in the towel and give up on this nonsense.

Is this a response to my post?

Yes, you were taught that (Jackson County), but remember and consider exactly by whom¹. It’s not an absurd belief—it’s just not well-founded when tying it back to the scriptures. And certainly, not “core” when considering the purpose of the scriptures (see Title Page of Book or Mormon and D&C 1) or identifying any covenants pertaining to this teaching.

The leaked material is guidelines and talking points, not scripted answers. Note how you yourself qualify “Satan and Jesus are brothers…”² Your perception that the Church is embarrassed about the revealed aspects of exaltation might be better informed by taking the following at face value³: https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng&old=true

Remedies for your frustration: 1. Forgive. 2. Observe fairness. 3. Humbly study.

[Darren10]

22 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Not alcoholism...but denial...

/HICKUP!!!

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/327Folder/Garden of Eden Jackson Co.pdf

These are not reflected in the canon, and the guidance offers a much more accurate approach to answering the question.

All except Elder Dyer’s remarks were qualified as follows:

“The early brethren of this dispensation taught…”

“That is the position of the Latter-day Saints today…”

“The Prophet's revelations indicated…”

“Latter-day revelation specifies that as a mortal, Adam lived at Adam-ondi-Ahman in what is now Daviess County, Missouri… [this is not Eden]”

“Joseph Smith also indicated…”

“As a result of modern revelation [and then cites non-canonical sources], Latter-day Saints believe that the Garden of Eden was located in America, in the present state of Missouri.”

“President Brigham Young declared… [and said nothing of the sort].”

“And I will say more… [non-canonical summary]”

“Where the garden of Eden was is not fully revealed…”

(Emphasis mine…)

Edited March 22, 2017 by CV75