I had another post planned for today, but this is just too hot. Big, big changes have been made to the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles, especially in the last chapter (“Exaltation”). I am slowly compiling the changes here:
Commentary is forthcoming. “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:24)
One questioning Mormon summarized some mixed feelings and suspicions that others probably have over these changes:
1st off, I was quite angry as I read this this morning; as I told my wife, the Bishop stood right here in this living room and told us we were forfeiting our blessings and rejecting precious truths. Truths that are now crossed out. These very things that won’t be taught anymore, were weapons to be held against us last year and this year.
2nd, after that I felt a profound sense of relief. If this is not going to be taught then the Bishop can go eat sand. If these vital teachings can no longer be held inviolate, then the brethren have no right to demand my allenience and I can resign with a clear conscience.
3rd suspicion. Will these teachings get sprung on people once they commit? Or, are people going to join the church and be denied the same teachings, promises and expectations that we had? And if so, why? Is this the day when the very elect will be deceived?
And, could I be punished for teaching new members things that the manual has changed?
Despite this all, these teachings are false anyway. It is important to get rid of them. They are enslaving, they are not biblical, and they are a cause of contention between us and other faiths. But still, if the church was the authority on spiritual matters, it would not adopt the outside world view.
Nevertheless, just this Spring our Bishop stood here in this living room and condemned me and my family for rejecting the things that are now crossed out.
Jason – “I get get furious almost to the point of an uncontrollable rage” is not rage. It is absurd of you to therefore label Falcon as a rager. You can do better than that. Aaron – thanks for the points about the rage of Christ and Paul. I almost got kicked out of Junior High Sunday School class because I insisted that Jesus was angry in the temple, and there is nothing wrong with anger. Ah, memories!
Jason — too bad you are using up your posts. It is still mid morning for me. I will miss you. See you tomorrow.
Still walking through the muddy parts on the road with my friend Aaron.
We’re at almost 200 comments, and the new blog post is shortly forthcoming. Please wrap things up here as the thread will be closed today.
Nice try, but I’m not going to accept your discount. Back atcha buddy! My student evaluations are very high and student comments very complimentary and positive. I’m effective in what I do and I think that’s your problem (in this context). You can’t deal with people who are effective in debunking Mormonism! Amazing how you want to critique my teaching style and you’ve never observed me teach or preach (as in sermons) for that matter. So you try the put-down in an effort to shut-down what’s being done here. I don’t write for you any way. You are not my intended audience; my market niche as it where. You exibit the characteristics of what Jim Spencer in his book “Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately” classifies as an “arrogant true believer”:
“The Arrogant True Believer is convinced that he’s a member of the Only True Church, and he has never encountered serious challenge to his faith. That may be because he does not readily listen to anything. He may be brash. He is so convinced of his position that he pities those who are not Mormons. At his worst, the Arrogant True Believer disdains non-Mormons as stupid if they don’t immediately submit to Mormonism’s gospel, and he’s not above ridiculing those who disagree with him…..Whether he is a convert or ‘born under the covenant’, he has never seriously considered the possibility that Mormonism is wrong. In his most deceived condition, the Arrogant True Believer has committed intellectual suicide. He is, as one friend describes it, ‘self-deceived’. He has looked at reality and chosen to retreat into Mormonism. His conscience is seared. He may suffer from terminal spiritual deafness.”
As an exMormon, Jim Spencer has seen the program up close and personal and has led countless numbers of folks out of the maze that is Mormonism.
So Saint baby flail away at me on a personal level or what ever level you choose. I’ve got your number!
Has anyone addressed the issue of both male and female being made in the image of God? I think it was Lautensack who asked it again and I asked it several times in past threads. Haven’t seen an LDS response that I know of. That to me would suggest a hermaphroditic deity if we are going to be hyper-literal on God being in human form.
Blessings!! Anyone heard from Germit lately?
He said…I am a prophet…and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD…But he lied… 1 Kings 13:18
Jason, I think the issue has been addressed. You are presented with a problem that Lautensack just pointed out if you accept that the original state of man was found through Adam in Eden. As I reread your question, I am not sure what is intended from a response. Something smells funny about the way it is presented, because you are pushing the idea that there must a mother god, and the question seems to have to do with Adam and Eve being married and living in bliss while populating the earth.
My guess is that you seek to create an analogy that this is what your mom and pop god does, and so Adam and Eve are therefore our gods, or something like that. I think to make that conclusion you have to make some major leaps in logic based on some non-biblical assumptions, like for instance existence of a mom and pop god.
I don’t think your question is sincere, because the answer is clear to us, and you should pay attention to what has already been said. But to refresh your memory, start with this premise: there is only one God, and if there is only one God, there cannot be both a male version and a female version since that would require there being two. If there is only one God and he created both man and woman in his image, then somehow God is indeed different.
As I’ve said to other Mormons, the answer will come down to a basic assumption of our faiths.
I doubt you will even try to understand this…
Michael, my main point is that if God originally intended for Adam and Eve to live forever and multiply and replenish the earth (which is evs doctrine) then clearly if that is the case God sees gender not just as some earthly mechanical propagation method but rather as an eternal attribute with profound utility throughout eternity.
That’s the point and serious implications follow from that in regards to the non-human species God.
I’ll be shutting down the thread around 2pm MST. Thanks guys.