Missing gospel topics essay

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why do you think this is so? Could the church have had something to do with it, or the leaders?

Based on DCP's comments, I think it's an intra-BYU, intra-Maxwell Institute issue:

Quote

It seems that MI_BYU has now confirmed via Twitter that all links to historic materials at mi.byu.edu (http://mi.byu.edu/) will be broken, which, says one such webmaster, is “a devastating blow to webmasters who have relied on their information.”  “Is this,” he asks, “an update or a purge?”

One observer estimates that this may be the fifth time — at least — over the past dozen years that all Maxwell Institute links have been broken in a site “update,” which, he remarks, causes “great grief to users of their material and {makes} valuable materials more and more difficult to find due to lost SEO rankings and visibility.”  “Those who used that material like me will be punished with hundreds of dead links that hurt the SEO scores of users. How can they do this again? So troubling.”

A different person responds:  “Yes. It is very frustrating. I wish they would drop the pretenses at maintaining any continuity with the former NAMI and just change their name.”

Another comment, regarding the Insights newsletter formerly published by the old Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studes (or FARMS): “It appears that all the meaty articles in Insights are not at the Scholars archive.  Another ouch.”

Well, I’m hoping that all of these valuable materials won’t simply be lost.  That would be an offense against the authors and a real disservice to those who have found these materials helpful or might have done so in the future.

The comments are probably also worth a read.

In the end, though, I don't have any substantive, competent evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious about dead links pertaining to FARMS content.  Is that still going on?  Does anyone know?

Often I'll be able to find the new location of it with a google. It seems that whenever they rearrange their website, they don't put appropriate redirects into place to let old links point to the new location.

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why do you think this is so? Could the church have had something to do with it, or the leaders?

I am assuming MI have decided not to try to replace data that was lost awhile back when they switched to Scholars’ Archive iirc. My memory is something went wrong with the data dump and the lost a lot of stuff. 
 

But they have had an issue with dead links for a decade I am guessing. FAIR has a lot of stuff linking to the Maxwell Site and it has seemed like someone was moaning they had to update links again every couple of years for quite some time. But then I have a very bad sense of time, so maybe longer, maybe less. 
 

added:

Quote

One observer estimates that this may be the fifth time — at least — over the past dozen years that all Maxwell Institute links have been broken in a site “update,” which, 

I love it when it turns out my brain functions better than expected. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am assuming MI have decided not to try to replace data that was lost awhile back when they switched to Scholars’ Archive iirc. My memory is something went wrong with the data dump and the lost a lot of stuff. 
 

But they have had an issue with dead links for a decade I am guessing. FAIR has a lot of stuff linking to the Maxwell Site and it has seemed like someone was moaning they had to update links again every couple of years for quite some time. But then I have a very bad sense of time, so maybe longer, maybe less. 
 

added:

I love it when it turns out my brain functions better than expected. 

Well, we're quite the pair!!

[Esrom]

On 7/3/2021 at 8:50 AM, secondclasscitizen said:

Well it wouldn’t be the first time the church was accused of changing doctrine nor the first time it actually has changed doctrine. 

Ex-MormonTikTok has exploded on this "missing link" conspiracy. The essay link is now back on the church site but the exmos insist the church is backtracking on godhood and "getting your own planet".  The church site clearly says "No" to a question on getting your own planet, and explains it is a caricature & speculation, but exmos are citing dozens of statements by past leaders saying otherwise, and this excerpt from Gospel Fundamentals manual from 2002:  "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.”  

Can anyone shed some light on the discrepancy?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Esrom said:

Can anyone shed some light on the discrepancy?

I think it is a primarily case of language…similar to the use of “celestial sex” as a substitute for celestial marriage. The one is accurate in the sense that most assume there will be sexual relations between an exalted married couple, there will be some form of procreation…but the focus on sex rather than on the full marriage experience is seen as meant to be derogatory, belittling. 
 

Nuances of talking about having sex as opposed to the nuances of being in a marriage relationship are very different.  Overtime, leaders/official church publications have moved away from using language that was more easily turned to focusing on sex for pure pleasure, harems, etc. to lessen the chance of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.  Makes sense if we want a better understanding of our beliefs and motivations by others.

We are also as a Church imo moving to try and eliminate the same misunderstandings, intentional and not, when speaking of the creating worlds aspect of exaltation. 
 

Nuances of “getting our own planets” vs participating in the Plan of Salvation under the direction of God the Father are rather different.  When I was a youth,  we would speculate on what we would do when getting our own planet and it was always about doing fun things for ourselves like having dragons or humans that could fly, cool geographical features like waterfalls that ‘fell’ up, trees that had fruit that tasted like fine beef, one endless beach for surfing, etc.  This self centered ‘let’s do it my way for my pleasure’ is a very different approach than creating a world based on another’s plan for the purpose of providing billions of others to have a chance at exaltation as well.  
 

Using language that helps others understand the actual purpose of creating worlds rather than going in the direction of the fun, speculative, but ultimately childish and self centered ‘so cool to get my own planet’ conversations makes sense to me as well. 

Edited July 11, 2021 by Calm

[Esrom]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is a primarily case of language…similar to the use of “celestial sex” as a substitute for celestial marriage. The one is accurate in the sense that most assume there will be sexual relations between an exalted married couple, there will be some form of procreation…but the focus on sex rather than on the full marriage experience is seen as meant to be derogatory, belittling. 
 

Nuances of talking about having sex as opposed to the nuances of being in a marriage relationship are very different.  Overtime, leaders/official church publications have moved away from using language that was more easily turned to focusing on set for pure pleasure, harems, etc. to lessen the chance of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.  Makes sense if we want a better understanding of our beliefs and motivations by others.

We are also as a Church imo moving to try and eliminate the same misunderstandings, intentional and not, when speaking of the creating worlds aspect of exaltation. 
 

Nuances of “getting our own planets” vs participating in the Plan of Salvation under the direction of God the Father are rather different.  When I was a youth,  we would speculate on what we would do when getting our own planet and it was always about doing fun things for ourselves like having dragons or humans that could fly, cool geographical features like waterfalls that ‘fell’ up, trees that had fruit that tasted like fine beef, one endless beach for surfing, etc.  This self centered ‘let’s do it my way for my pleasure’ is a very different approach than creating a world based on another’s plan for the purpose of providing billions of others to have a chance at exaltation as well.  
 

Using language that helps others understand the actual purpose of creating worlds rather than going in the direction of the fun, speculative, but ultimately childish and self centered ‘so cool to get my own planet’ conversations makes sense to me as well. 

Thank you, that's helpful. I sort of wish it was more clear on the site that its semantics because saying "No" on the Q&A has led to a lot of accusations of subtle doctrine shifting, including a novel theory that gradual elimination of the idea of spirit procreation (by exhalted beings) is to pave the way for a gay celestial marriage revelation.  Which of course makes no sense.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Esrom said:

Thank you, that's helpful. I sort of wish it was more clear on the site that its semantics because saying "No" on the Q&A has led to a lot of accusations of subtle doctrine shifting, including a novel theory that gradual elimination of the idea of spirit procreation (by exhalted beings) is to pave the way for a gay celestial marriage revelation.  Which of course makes no sense.

It is hard to fashion language with the three requirements of:

1) Short…so it gets read and repeated in print and speech 

2) Nuanced…so people understand all the limits of what it is defining 

3) Does not include any wording that can be removed from context to make the idea look stupid or perverted

If I recall correctly, the Q and A is set up on the newsroom part of the Church’s website?

Edited July 11, 2021 by Calm

[Esrom]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is hard to fashion language with the three requirements of:

1) Short…so it gets read and repeated in print and speech 

2) Nuanced…so people understand all the limits of what it is defining 

3) Does not include any wording that can be removed from context to make the idea look stupid or perverted

If I recall correctly, the Q and A is set up on the newsroom part of the Church’s website?

I'm having trouble finding the link now but I've seen the screenshot and here is the quote:  

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will ‘get their own planet’?” 

“No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).”

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Using language that helps others understand the actual purpose of creating worlds rather than going in the direction of the fun, speculative, but ultimately childish and self centered ‘so cool to get my own planet’ conversations makes sense to me as well. 

Also I find the idea of "creating worlds" as expansive and infinite, but "getting my own planet" sounds like a child on Christmas morning getting his very own "Make Your Own Planet" set

It is just childish thinking of an incredibe principle.

We create our own world every time we interpret any feeling about our own world- all of us are working on our own view of "our planet" Earth every day we are alive.

It is hard to comprehend the level of the intelligence of folks who compare becoming like God to getting their own planet to play with.  Actually I find it kind of disgusting and actually profane.   Yuck.

Edited July 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Esrom said:

Thank you, that's helpful. I sort of wish it was more clear on the site that its semantics because saying "No" on the Q&A has led to a lot of accusations of subtle doctrine shifting, including a novel theory that gradual elimination of the idea of spirit procreation (by exhalted beings) is to pave the way for a gay celestial marriage revelation.  Which of course makes no sense.

Now THAT is seriously disgusting.   On on side we have the unity of Yin and Yang, where half the planet learns about the other half making humanity "one" being and on the other we have...... yet again, ..............   I can't even say it.  

[Esrom]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Also I find the idea of "creating worlds" as expansive and infinite, but "getting my own planet" sounds like a child on Christmas morning getting his very own "Make Your Own Planet" set

It is just childish thinking of an incredibe principle.

We create our own world every time we interpret any feeling about our own world- all of us are working on our own view of "our planet" Earth every day we are alive.

It is hard to comprehend the level of the intelligence of folks who compare becoming like God to getting their own planet to play with.  Actually I find it kind of disgusting and actually profane.   Yuck.

OMG, I really had not considered the metaphysical and maturity difference between the understanding of planet vs. a "world"!   That really adds a lot for me to think over.  Thank you!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Esrom said:

I'm having trouble finding the link now but I've seen the screenshot and here is the quote:  

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will ‘get their own planet’?” 

“No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).”

It is a Newsroom FAQs page…not meant for in-depth answers.

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mormonism-101-faq

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

It is a Newsroom FAQs page…not meant for in-depth answers.

https://news-ca.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/mormonism-101-faq

Of course, they could have just said "Yes." Since, as had been mentioned by so many LDS, it is something that "Latter-day Saints believe."

And let's not forget that President Nelson has recently said this:
 

Quote

Eternal life is so much more than a designation of time, he explained. “Eternal life is the kind and quality of life that Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son live. When the Father offers us everlasting life, He is saying in essence, ‘If you choose to follow My Son—if your desire is really to become more like Him—then in time you may live as We live, and preside over worlds and kingdoms as We do.’”

(Emphasis added)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/at-christmas-devotional-president-nelson-addresses-four-gifts-from-the-savior?lang=eng

 

We may quibble over the phrasing of "getting your own planet", but let's not pretend that the principle isn't part of LDS teachings.

Edited July 11, 2021 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Of course, they could have just said "Yes." Since, as had been mentioned by so many LDS, it is something that "Latter-day Saints believe."

And let's not forget that President Nelson has recently said this:
 

We may quibble over the phrasing of "getting your own planet", but let's not pretend that the principle isn't part of LDS teachings.

Objecting to a slanted, incomplete, out-of-context or otherwise misleading rendition of another’s doctrinal beliefs is not mere quibbling. Such mischaracterization is at best reflective of ignorance and at worst outright dishonesty. 

[cinepro]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Objecting to a slanted, incomplete, out-of-context or otherwise misleading rendition of another’s doctrinal beliefs is not mere quibbling. Such mischaracterization is at best reflective of ignorance and at worst outright dishonesty. 

Okay, let's be honest. There is a CES manual called "Presidents of the Church." It has an English approval date of 2/12. So first I would ask who approved it, and what does that approval mean?

In this manual, used by the Church Education System to teach college-level students about the Presidents of the Church and their teachings, there is a section on page 90 called "They Shall Organize Worlds and Rule Over Them."

In this section, the following story is told:
 

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). (Emphasis added)

So if someone asked "Hey, do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think they'll get worlds over which they shall rule as gods?" I wouldn't feel honest telling them no. Would you?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

course, they could have just said "Yes."

That does not meet two of the three requirements, especially the last one…most likely the one of the three to be a real requirement. Short, yes. Nuanced…might have been depending on what followed, but not as is. Not something that could be used to make members look stupid…definitely fails that requirement.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

So if someone asked "Hey, do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think they'll get worlds over which they shall rule as gods?" I wouldn't feel honest telling them no. Would you?

I also wouldn’t feel honest just saying yes, myself. 

[secondclasscitizen]

We get our own worlds ( I assume there is a planet in there somewhere). I was taught that growing up and have heard it a number of times over the years in different venues. I did a random search to see if it had been officially taught recently or at least when I would have been around to hear it and found this:

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.”

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/10/the-privilege-of-holding-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited July 11, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

We get our own worlds ( I assume there is a planet in there somewhere). I was taught that growing up and have heard it a number of times over the years in different venues. I did a random search to see if it had been officially taught recently or at least when I would have been around to hear it and found this:

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.”

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/10/the-privilege-of-holding-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Do you really want to limit God to governing one planet?

Who made the rest of the contents of the universe?

This is just silly sensationalistic speculation.

The Doctrine is that we will have eternal life and live as God lives and do what He has done.

At our level, just leave the rest to Him because we are unable to comprehend any of it.

[secondclasscitizen]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you really want to limit God to governing one planet?
 

Did I limit God to one planet? Show me where.

 

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Who made the rest of the contents of the universe?

Beats me. Wanna share what you know?

 

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is just silly sensationalistic speculation.

Take that up with the prophet. He said it not me. 

 

 

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The Doctrine is that we will have eternal life and live as God lives and do what He has done.

At our level, just leave the rest to Him because we are unable to comprehend any of it.

ok then why are you participating in discussion about it?

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

We get our own worlds ( I assume there is a planet in there somewhere). I was taught that growing up and have heard it a number of times over the years in different venues.

The false portrayal of the doctrine that the church rejects, as I see it, is the idea that these worlds (or planets as you call them) become personal possessions that can be used for whatever purpose the "owner" desires.  That is certainly how it is portrayed in some literature critical of the church, and that is what I think the church is saying that we do not believe.  The truth is, celestial beings become a Zion people, having all things in common, and they are in fact inheritors in all that God has:

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." (Revelation 21:7)

"Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.  And they shall overcome all things."(Doctrine and Covenants 76:59–60)

And as it says in the Joseph Smith translation of Revelation 2:26-27:

"And to him who overcometh, and keepeth my commandments unto the end, will I give power over many kingdoms;  And he shall rule them with the word of God; and they shall be in his hands as the vessels of clay in the hands of a potter; and he shall govern them by faith, with equity and justice, even as I received of my Father."  (Joseph Smith Translation, Revelation 2:26–27)

It's all done according to the order and plan of Heavenly Father, and under his direction. 

So if all things are theirs, and all things are God's, it's kind of pointless to say that someone "get's their own planet", except in the sense that they are appointed a stewardship over particular kingdoms.  To me it's kind of like saying that a Bishop in the church has his "own" ward.  

[secondclasscitizen]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The false portrayal of the doctrine that the church rejects, as I see it, is the idea that these worlds (or planets as you call them) become personal possessions that can be used for whatever purpose the "owner" desires.  That is certainly how it is portrayed in some literature critical of the church, and that is what I think the church is saying that we do not believe.  The truth is, celestial beings become a Zion people, having all things in common, and they are in fact inheritors in all that God has:

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." (Revelation 21:7)

"Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.  And they shall overcome all things."(Doctrine and Covenants 76:59–60)

And as it says in the Joseph Smith translation of Revelation 2:26-27:

"And to him who overcometh, and keepeth my commandments unto the end, will I give power over many kingdoms;  And he shall rule them with the word of God; and they shall be in his hands as the vessels of clay in the hands of a potter; and he shall govern them by faith, with equity and justice, even as I received of my Father."  (Joseph Smith Translation, Revelation 2:26–27)

It's all done according to the order and plan of Heavenly Father, and under his direction. 

So if all things are theirs, and all things are God's, it's kind of pointless to say that someone "get's their own planet", except in the sense that they are appointed a stewardship over particular kingdoms.  To me it's kind of like saying that a Bishop in the church has his "own" ward.  

So you are saying the quote from pres kimball I quoted is false doctrine? Here it is again just so we are clear on what he said:

 

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.”

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

 

 

 

 

 

Not much.

If we all make 1 planet, and we have all the abilities of God, then God must only have made 1 planet as well.

If there exists more than one planet, then they were made by beings other than God

That limits God.

I guess that was a hard set of syllogisms to follow.

I feel sorry for the guy who made Pluto. Must have skipped planet school that day.

Don't put your replies in the quote box, or they will not appear in my reply, as above 

Edited July 12, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

So you are saying the quote from pres kimball I quoted is false doctrine? Here it is again just so we are clear on what he said:

 

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.”

Do you actually think that Prophets are incapable of making mistakes?

Edited July 12, 2021 by mfbukowski