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:
http://www.mrm.org/gospel-principles
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.
Wow, that’s a fantastic testimony! (I mean, something that Mormon TRULY believes) How exciting!
Personally, I saw not real change in doctrine when I visited the link given, so I have no problem with the changes that were made.
The Mormon Church continues it’s slow creep away from the blasphemous doctrine that God was once a man like us, and that we can become a god as He is. At least in print, the LDS are trying to be less offensive to investigators and potential converts. However, that said, belief always follows action. If a group shys away from a belief or teaching it will not be long before it is abandoned or possibly even renounced. That may not always hold true, but it is common occurrence. The LDS leadership may be trying to obfuscate, but actions like these lead to questions among the church members and ultimately changes in attitude (as can be seen from the soon to be exMormon quoted).
These changes seem huge to me, partly because they all seem to deal with the same theological idea of man becoming a god, and that God was once a mere man. As can be seen from many of Brigham Young’s teachings, it is completely possible that this teaching will eventually be completely dropped.
Wow. What an interesting way to view things, and how very damning.
I wonder if that Bishop will issue an apology or how he will address it…
Shem, I’m glad you have no problem with it, but these people were evidently chewed out for something that was subsequently and quickly said to be OK.
Unchanging doctrine? Tell that to these guys.
Was listening to “How Great Is Our God” on the way to work, and thought about the changes to the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles: How can anyone know our great God and yet quietly make changes like that without confession, tears, sorrow, and repentance? The LDS leaders do not know the God that I know.
Amen, Aaron.
I just noticed they took out the “heavenly mother” stuff.
It’s no wonder to me that Shem cannot see the changes. His brain is probably just filling in the blanks while he reads. I wonder if many Mormons can see the differences, unless they’ve had a recent encounter like the one in your post.
Does anyone have a list of big doctrine changes, their time-frames and reason for change? For example, like how the changes in the temple ceremony (taking out the blood oaths, etc) occurred right after “The God Makers” book and films became well circulated. Has anyone got a running list on these “revelations”?
I just looked through them, and one thing that jumped out to me was a slight shift from obedience to faith. Of course, kept the commandments and such, but elsewhere they changed the language to emphasize faith more…
Interesting, if nothing else.
If the LDS church is perfect or “only true church” then why are they changing what they teach? Was it perfect before or after the changed?
I’m so grateful my God is perfect and he does not change! Amen!!!!
Aaron said “this is just too hot.”
Earth shattering stuff here. WOW. My testimony is rocked!
Seriously- you guys are so wired.
None of the changes made in this manual represent any actual changes in doctrine. Zip. Zero.
Changes are made to all the manuals over the years. You guys will find what you are looking for, no doubt. Conspiracy theorists see what they want.
Changes are made to improve the flow of ideas, grammar, as well as to emphasize different things as the brethren see fit. Is it a matter of the doctrine changing when the missionary discussions change? Do you really think, Michael P, that the principle of obedience is being abandoned by the church?
Show me one instance in this new manual where a change represents a change in doctrine.
By the way, I just read the report of the Anglican church changing its policy in America such that homosexuals can now be ordained. Anybody care?
You people are quite entertaining.
No, I don’t think that’ll change, but it is interesting to see the shift in emphasis. You say it is it to emphasize things the brethren see fit. So, who rules your church, the word of God, or the brethren?
And the Anglican Church is in error, just as you are. This was a big issue a few years back, and still is, but the church actually split over it. Several Anglican churches have actually left the bigger organization over the shift. They are standing up for what is right, ie what is Biblical, not loyalty to the organization.
I was wondering how long it was going to take before the Mormon Church pressed the “reset” button on Gospel Principles. I remember the first time I read it I couldn’t believe what they said in Chapter 1:
“All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him – a god.”
Wow, it doesn’t get any better than that. That takes guts and I admire that. I attended a Gospel Essentials class later and that chapter was discussed. When that part was read I said:
“Excuse me, I have a question. I’m not a member of this church and I have to admit that the first time I read this line I thought this was a typo. Please tell me this is an error. Do you people really think one day you are going to become a god?”
The woman sitting in front of me turned around and said, “Yeah, pretty intense, huh?”
Pretty wrong. I then read aloud Isaiah 43:10-12 and at that point some woman in the back started crying and bearing her testimony of Joseph Smith. The missionaries tapped me on the shoulder and said they would talk to me about it later. What a joke. What a sin!
It’s always easy to press the reset button and change things when it doesn’t suit the times in attempts to deceive the ignorant who walk in a Mormon ward. I’m amazed at what I have heard form people in the Gospel Essentials class that have been members of the LDS Church for months that sounds very much non-LDS. That’s another trait of a non-Christian cult – misleading.
The JW’s were over for our standard meeting this past Saturday. I read to them from their old books by the Watchtower their false prophecies in which they named dates for end-time events. They didn’t want to look at it but just said that their leaders are entitled to “mistakes” and that they have “brighter light now”. Sounds like Mormonism to a T. They handed me a paper from the Watchtower in which their leadership gives themselves a “get out of jail free card” on false prophecies despite what Deut 18:22 says.
Thanks for affirming what MRM actually believes to be the case.
However, depending on which
convenient excusedefinition of official doctrine you are referring to, some of your fellow Mormonsthe existence of whom you denywould disagree with you, especially considering thatsome crazy, off-the-wall fringeMormons want to denyviviparous spirit birth and the existence of a female heavenly motherthat the church is bound by creeds.I’m sure that Monson, if asked on television about progression and exaltation and the Lorenzo Snow couplet, would affirm that
this is the way our Heavenly Father became God, and thatthose things are justthings LDS leaders have taughtspeculation.PS Please see here for information on the
wild goose chasenotion of official doctrine.All this talk about the new changes from the Mormon Church in which they “sweep under the rug” those teachings that are unpopular today made me think about something former LDS prophet Gordon Hinckely said:
“Our membership has grown. I believe it has grown in faithfulness. We lose too many, but the faithful are so strong. Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. WE ARE NOT CHANGING. The world’s perception of us is changing. WE TEACH THE SAME DOCTRINE. WE HAVE THE SAME ORGANIZATION. (In Conference Report, Nov. 2001)
Really? Hinckley could have fooled me. Then again, Monson is running the program now so whatever Hinckley said is irrelevant. The reset button is pressed again with the incoming of a new prophet or every 6 months after Conference.
They aren’t trying to move into the mainstream of religion? Then why the changes? It’s a no-brainer for those that are awake. Mormons are going inactive at a high rate. They need new members. They clean up the teachings so as to not offend by their old hard-line teachings and the people are duped because they try to sound Christian. It’s intellectual dishonesty and deceptive.
I wonder if the LDS missionaries in the Philippines will now change their approach? When I was there in May they told people right out including me that they were going to be gods and goddesses one day. That works on Filipinos in the country who have no clue. I guess they forgot to change their line when they talked to me – an American. I sure don’t look Filipino.
I guess at the Nauvoo pageant when they cite the King Follet Discourse they will still leave out those sections as they do now that offend people. Gutless. Cowardly. Deceptive. Sinful.
Have a nice day.
[email protected]
Olsen, I’m still waiting on your questions. I’m glad I’m not holding my breath. I am getting sleepy though…zzzzzz.
If I were to be a True Blue Mormon believer still I would be pissed at the change. Are not the manuals the sum of which the members (should)believe? When someone challenged Mormons, all they had to really do is say here read this book, BOM, Gospel Principles, and say this is who we are this is what we believe. Now that has changed, don’t the Mormon members feel as if a particular part of their believe system was swept out the door or covered up. I am astonished at the passive approach by our Mormon friends. Maybe it doesn’t change a thing, behind those closed doors of the temple.
If the U.S. army where to change their manual to say that soldiers are no longer capable of leading soldiers into battle, or remove the basic tenants regarding position – rights – and expectations, I’d be a little Peed off.
Really I love the change, it shows that the LDS faith wants to be like the great and abominable church they claim to have nothing in common with because they are all whores of the earth
The head shed must see the declining numbers (referring to people leaving the church), is this a knee jerk reaction? Is this a precursor of things to come. In ten years the LDS church as we know it will no longer exists.
Apparently Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother got a Celestial divorce last week.
Olsen Jim,
I would ask you how these differences do not have any theological significance. Does the removal of “just like our Heavenly Father” mean nothing? Put another way did being “just like our Heavenly Father” mean nothing before it was removed?
From my perspective this means that you will not become, “just like our Heavenly Father” because the brethren say so. I am not going to say what you beleive but this seems big to me. If you say it is not a big deal to no longer be, “just like our Heavenly Father” I’ll take your word for it.
Something else that strikes me is that you have no authority to do anything except acknowledge that the brethren have changed this book. You cannot go to the Scripture like the Jews in Berea (Act 17:11) or test the apostles like the Church in Ephesus (Rev 2:2). All you can do is accept and hope that the brethren aren’t leading you like a sheep to the… You have no confession of faith or a creed to go back to you have no historic understanding developed and shaped over 2000 years to see if this is significant. You have only the word of the brethren.
Andy,
I have asked “my questions” on almost all the threads I have posted comments- with the only response being basically “let’s deal with this off line.” I had decided to wait until there was a thread that at least was related to my questions and claims. But if you insist:
Evangelicals have absolutely no basis for claiming any authoritative interpretation of the Bible. They say the bible is all the authority a person needs. If that is true, they have no more basis for claiming to be the true religion than anybody else who accepts the Bible. Theirs is a completely circular logic.
Theirs is a modern religion that is 2000 years removed from any authority or revelation. They have no foundation for their religion outside of their interpretation of the Bible. Their belief in the bible is the ONLY connection between them and the original church. Their “church,” the mystical body resembles nothing about the early church. Their foundation is one of protest against the establishment- hardly a basis for authority. EVs who are dogmatic like those here are essentially protestors raising their picket signs.
Neglecting essentially all scholarship on the topic, they insist that the Bible is infallible and is exactly what the original church possessed. The vast majority, including even those here, have no idea about the history of the Bible and its manuscripts. They see nothing outside of the years 1400 B.C. to 33 A.D., extrapolating that relatively brief time period to the whole history of the world and the future.
The ironic thing is that the EV critics of the Church of Jesus Christ do not realize that the ground they stand on is so incredibly shaky and weak. They continue the long tradition of rejecting God’s servants and revelations while clinging to the former revelations.
“Hrmmm… I guess that Gospel Principles thing is pretty embarrassing. I guess I better make myself feel better about it by lambasting the corrupt Bible that I say I love and believe in.”
It may be my own ignorance, Olsen Jim, but aren’t questions supposed to have a question mark at the end of them? You appear to me to be making assertions, no, wild assertions and breathtaking generalizations of self-asserted “facts” in an arrogant and condescending manner. Maybe you are just engaging in tit for tat, I suppose. It doesn’t really bother me personally. There has been much evidence in other threads about the incredible connection of EVs to the past, and you seem to have dismissed it. Oh, yeah, we can’t have creedal arguments, I forgot! And you seem to only want to pontificate online, having ignored the opportunity to dialogue in greater detail with the offline Berean. I can testify to you that you should seriously consider talking earnestly with Andy. Who knows, it might even strengthen your own testimony. Grace to you!
Andy,
I know what you mean concerning the vacillating
nature of JW teachings.My wife is a ex-Jw.We were
privleged years ago to be representatives of a
national ministry to reach JW’s for Jesus.We were
fortunate to speak in Churches, and to be on
christian and secular talk radio.As you pointed
out they have quite the track record of changing
doctrines.Each time a change comes from “Jehovah’s
prophet”(the Governing Body)it is called,”new
light”,this is taken from Prov.4:18.
There are so many similarites with JW’s and LDS
concerning their authoratative positions.Each
claiming to be the sole prophet for these last
days.The key word for people to remember is
“reliable”.Is the prophet of the JW’s and the
Prophet/Apostles of the LDS Church reliable to
teach us the Word of God?
“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God
as a workman who does not need to be ashamed,
HANDLING ACCURATEDLY the word of truth”.(2Tim.
2:15 NAS)
Earth shaking, jaw dropping, how do we proceed from here, the changes, the changes, oh what do we do now. WE keep having changes, new and improved changes, OT changes, NT changes, Law of Moses, Christ fulfills the law and changes the old doctrine to new doctrine. Changes, Creedal Christians, we want no changes, we have the Bible, and need no more Changes, (scriptures). God does not speak anymore, we are satisfied, heaven forbid he might change something as he sees fit, God is not allowed to make changes. Glad I’m not following your Doctrines. Is the earth still flat, does the sun orbit the earth, interesting thing about changes, they always clarify the old.
r.
For lack of a better way to phrase this, I’d like to “double dog dare” Olsen Jim to take Andy up on his offer, and get into a discussion with him about the history and therefore “authority” of the Bible.
I’m issuing this challenge because 1) I think it will benefit Olsen Jim to the greatest extreme, and 2)I don’t think that he is yet willing to get a conversation that has the potential to shoot down his seemingly favorite argument.
So, to restate: I would like to “third (after Ward) the challenge” for Olsen Jim to take up Andy on his offer.
Ok so maybe 12 people in the world care about this issue. Move on with your lives people.
[fake moderator note trimmed]
Those are some interesting points you make Jim, quote, “Neglecting essentially all scholarship on the topic, they insist that the Bible is infallible and is exactly what the original church possessed. The vast majority, including even those here, have no idea about the history of the Bible and its manuscripts” Your right, how do you empirically test the bible to show that it is what the early people had. I have read a little bit about the Dead Sea scrolls, and those transcripts that dealt with Isaiah are pretty accurate to what is published today. So that is one test, but maybe not fully sufficient to appease your assumptions. I know that the LDS church claims that they believe in the bible in so much that it has been translated correctly. Who knows how much has changed, from a secular view point; I agree that is an issue.
Case in point, how many times has the Book of Mormon changed, minor and major points. How many times has the Gospel principles changed? In 500 years, there will be someone who says that the BOM is not the original work, its meaning has changed, how can we trust it. As a matter of fact, some people in the church are challenging those points of contention already.
So to take a stance against the Bible and its accuracy near to the purpose of this posting and the changes to the Gospel Principle book, is it canon? If it is, the LDS church is suspect to the changes that are being made; they are already suspect to the changes made to the BOM and the first vision, which there is three version off. So as to the authenticity it is truly hard to discern between changes.
Each of us can argue that it was God who preserved or changed the documentation. Who is right? I have more faith in a system who gives all credit to Jesus as the modern day prophet who gives us each individual revelation, rather than a system that is focused on mind control and instilling institutionalized Awe.
Why are there moderator notes after each of my posts?
[moderator note: Jason Rae has been deemed a significant threat to Protestant Christianity. Read with caution.]
[real moderator’s note: Jason, are you trying to get banned? Stop writing fake moderator notes or you’re gone. Last warning.]
Ok so maybe I was wrong. After reading some additional links there may be 17 people interested in this issue. Please.
Absolutely NOT a moderator note: Jason Rae has been deemed a significant threat to Protestant Christianity. Read with caution.
I believe what we are talking about here is the change of primary principles, the basic beliefs of the system. I am still surprised that the Mormon posters are white washing the issue, I thought the principles that are now removed are very important parts, isn’t that why they are in the previous editions? Is nothing subject to change? Ok that’s fair, if Mormons are ok with the indefinite amount of changes, cool, ok, I am with that. Nothing is “that” sacred.
They have made many changes to doctrine, temple ceremony, standard publications; it’s a never ending moving target. Personal, I believe it has to do with the money flow slowing down, this is a personal belief.
I still need to learn a lot, so please help, what major principles have Christianity changed?
“Follow the Profit, Follow the Profit, the money knows the way.”
LDS mantra – “You can buy anything with money”
As Mormons are now, I once was; as I am now, Mormons may become.
Much better, Jason, thank you. Speaking of changes to doctrine, have you told anyone here what you beliefs on Adam are?
Jason,
Interesting, what you did above. Pretending to be someone else to further your own agenda. If nothing else, it’s at least LYING, isn’t it?
setfreeFromThatKindOfAngerandSpite
So setfree, you all cool with the moderator pulling the comment capability on the last thread?
Hey Aaron, nada on that. I talk to very few people on what I know about Adam. Private discussions are one thing, public forums quite another.
Jason,
You lied, you misrepresented someone else. You’re over it. No biggie.
You’re a master re-director. You’re miserable.
Buddy, more than anyone I’ve seen yet on this site, you are in need of a Jesus overhaul.
setfreeFromHavingToLieToMyself
What you “know” and what the First Presidency “know” as well, but won’t reveal to us?
Hmmm, nice work Aaron but a little deceptive don’t you think? I was wondering what you had left out and after looking, I found you did leave out some important details from some of the chapters. For example –
Chapter 2, Paragraph 1 – God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. “All men and women are … literally the sons and daughters of Deity. … Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body…” (emphasis mine)
Chapter 2, first set of discussion questions – #4 Who was the first spirit born to our heavenly parents? #5 How are we like our heavenly parents?
If you look at the 2nd paragraph in chapter 2 that you have shown a change in, what is the change?
We were not all alike in heaven. We know, for example, that we were sons and daughters of heavenly parents—males and females (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). We possessed different talents and abilities, and we were called to do different things on earth. We can learn more about our “eternal possibilities” when we receive our patriarchal blessings… (emphasis mine)
I can show a few more that you have omitted to ‘prove your point’, but I think 3 is enough for now.
These changes are only minor and all it does is use more ‘up to date’ quotes and revelation to make it better. If you disagree can you show me where there is a change that is not ‘covered’ elsewhere.
I do agree that the emphasis has ‘changed’ to be more about faith than works, but I have said before, I remember a talk given by one of our GA and he said that he went to a ward once and all through the service the only mention of Jesus was the prayers and hymns. He warned that this was not on because we are His church people and we need to focus on Him. So I think this is just trying to get us back on focus.
Ralph, I can assure you that no editing was done to “prove a point”. I simply wanted to included what seemed salient. One reason is to cut down on the potential size of the finished compilation of changes. I will pull up my copies and take a look at what you’re pointing to. If I made any errors I’d be happy to fix them.
I haven’t read all the changes, but I think it’s fair to say that some of the changes are merely editorial in nature, and the changes don’t change the intent of the document being changed. HOWEVER, there is a significant change in the focus from heavenly parents to Heavenly Father. I wonder if there will be a change in the text of the hymn, “O My Father.” I wonder if this means Mormonism no longer believes in a heavenly mother and will no longer teach it, or if it is still a central tenet of the faith.
There is one doctrine that still troubles me: “We learned that He would provide an earth for us where we would be tested prove ourselves (see Abraham 3:24-26). A veil would cover our memories, and we would forget our heavenly home. This would be necessary so we could exercise our agency to choose good or evil without being influenced by the memory of living with our Heavenly Father…
Does this doctrine imply that it was necessary for Adam and Eve to be disobedient? If so, doesn’t this imply that sin was necessary for God’s plan to take effect? Can we then conclude that God is the author of sin? It would be great if a Mormon could answer these questions.
Peace!
Right setfreefromallhumor. Aren’t you being a little over dramatic for a joke directed at the moderator based on the actions of the moderator from yesterday’s thread and that I knew the moderator would see?
Please, take a deep breath, relax and enjoy the board.
Wow, this is loaded: “. Finally, each of us needs to receive the Holy Ghost and learn to follow his direction in our individual lives…”
This is loaded because it will perpetuate the authority of experience over God’s Word as found in the biblical text. It seems that the fallacious presuppositions will remain intact. Also, I noticed that God was referred to as “a” creator as opposed to “The Creator.” Even though the term “become a god” is removed, the intent is still the same. I can see this as being unethical and misrepresenting the true tenets of the faith.
Peace!
Hei Aaron,
Ok so I was ‘niggling’ a little with the ‘prove your point’ statement. But the book still references/teaches ‘HEAVENLY PARENTS’. When it comes to the discussion questions that refer to heavenly parents the class members can ask questions about that point of doctrine – or they can interupt the teacher if they are brave enough and ask at the first mention.
Also, most (note – MOST) of the other changes you show, as I said, are covered in other sections of the chapter and book, unless you can show otherwise.
JackG,
As I showed above, the book still refers to heavenly parents, so it has not cut out the Heavenly Mother ‘doctrine’. I think it moves the focus back to Heavenly Father as that is whom we should focus on as well as Jesus Christ. Although our Heavenly Mother is there and may play a large role in our lives, for some reason or another Heavenly Father does not want us ‘thinking’ too much about Her and referencing Her. Now you can have your ideas about why, but I think it is to save/protect Her from the slandering that She would get, just as we see Heavenly Fatehr and Jesus getting slandered. If it were me, I would do similar for my wife as I love her and don’t want to see her hurt more than necessary. But that’s my thoughts/opinion, not doctrine as far as I know.
OK, I took a second look. A little background might help: When I used the diff tool on the 1997 and 2009 copies, sometimes the changes were just too minor to mention. Case in point: first paragraph of chapter two that Ralph brings up. The changes (click here, Ralph, to see what I’m talking about) there were boring and editorial—not salient—and an older reference was replaced with a new one. If I included every paragraph like this in the compilation of changes I’d have almost the entire book in there.
Actually, these questions were removed in the 2009 edition. I didn’t list these changes because they were not (in my opinion) salient. One factor is that those questions are part of a list of five questions, something the new 2009 edition doesn’t do. It now seems to list one question after every subsection or every few paragraphs. This is probably a pedagogical decision.
I’m scratching my head on this one. I have noted all the changes in this paragraph on the compilation. What is the complaint? What have I omitted here?
If you think I have omitted a salient change that should be been included, please tell me. But if you think I have omitted an unchanged sentence, etc., then you’re missing the point of the compilation. I’m not trying to reproduce the entire book on the article.
Just take a look at the exaltation chapter. Big changes there that aren’t explicated to the same degree elsewhere in the book. The most significant change of the entire manual in my opinion is the exorcism of the statement, “This is the way our Heavenly Father became God.”
Most changes of this nature were done in the 90’s.
One day in Elders Quorem I heard a story about a frog in boiling water. Short story, if you put a frog in water, then turn the heat up to boiling, the frog cannot notice the change and therefor dies.
I think this is a self proclaimed prophecy. The “truth” is changing, slowly, yet not enough for members to get all upset about, considering the responses we are hearing from TBM here. Apparently they are all going to boil in there own inexpleciable truth
How do LDS folks keep track of what their prophets said when someone else rewords them and they don’t mean QUITE the same thing? Isn’t that deceitful to still say that the prophet said it when it has been changed?
I see shemawater’s answer,
“Personally, I saw not real change in doctrine when I visited the link given, so I have no problem with the changes that were made.”
so the answer is, just keep your blinders on, keep looking through the LDS glassed and deny that they change at all.
it doesn’t seem to be a BIG change, just little ones. But still, the original intent of the author is changed, but still attributed to the original author, even though it doesn’t mean EXACTLY the same thing.
Ralph, looks like I was writing and posting my response while you had already posted another comment.
I’m well aware that the “heavenly parents” phrase / concept is still in the book, although not nearly as frequent as in 1997. All explicit references to Heavenly Mother herself have been, so far from what I’ve seen (and I could be wrong) removed. You’ll probably need some more background on this issue to understand why some Mormons find this significant. Please see the last half of this article. Some Mormons believe that we are not vivaporous spirit children of a Mother and Father, but rather that we are adopted spirit children to a Heavenly Father and a “Mother” figure that could be Jesus or the Spirit (no, I’m not making this up).
Find an explicit mention of Heavenly Mother for me (please do, I’m not done perusing the 2009 edition). Also, please find an explicit mention of God the Father becoming a God. The closest I see is the KFD reference, but that alone is open to lots of
manipulationinterpretation by diverse views in Mormonism, and the interpretation of it is largely affected by a Mormon’s pre-existing assumptions about the cosmogony of the gods (and on this point, traditional Lorenzo Snow couplet theology still has momentum). Also, find any reference to McConkie’s embarrassingly blunt book, Mormon Doctrine.I think it is true that none of these changes matter in one sense. Sure they change the focus of the document and further obscure the deification of man and lowering of God that is Mormon theology, so that it won’t be as immediately objectionable to potential converts. These doctrines are the same ones that early Mormons had problems with and left the LDS over (see the letter from the previous blog article regarding the death of Joseph Smith). But the changes don’t matter because this is not scripture and Mormons have no problem with their scriptures being changed (the Book of Mormon has numerous changes, Joseph Smith’s prophecies have gone through editorial revision, etc.) – so if scripture changes don’t matter, and changes to ETERNAL temple ceremonies don’t matter, these changes are completely meaningless in the Mormon worldview. To the rest of us, these are big changes.
Aaron,
You mention in one of your posts that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother got a divorce last week. I know it was tongue in cheek, but the changes in the book have not written Heavenly Mother out of the picture. That was my point when I copied/pasted the quote of the correction and bolded the statement that has been placed in the book (ie included in these changes) about heavenly parents.
Sorry I did not know that the questions were removed.
As for the sentence about this is how Heavenly Father became God, The rest of the paragraph teaches that Heavenly Father lived on an earth in a mortal life just as we do today.
To me, this is saying the same thing. It says that “He was once a man like us“ Doesn’t this describe/mean that He became God through a similar path as we are going through now? It may not be as explicit as the comment you are referring to but it still is explicit.
The reference to Jesus Christ can be interpreted to be that He Himself was a Saviour of His world; OR show that because we believe that Jesus is a God who came and lived on this earth as a physical, mortal being, that our God (Heavenly Father) could also have had a physical, mortal life on another world (whether as a Saviour or not).
And btw setfree, those that know me understand and will tell you that I thoroughly enjoy discussions with those that oppose my faith and I applaud organizations like MRM for taking the time and extensive effort to do what they do. I honestly have no problem with it at all. Weeding out the weak-minded is a tough job and MRM works hard at it.
If someone’s faith can’t withstand a little challenge what good is it?
Well, the changes give those Mormons who reject the traditional notion of Heavenly Mother more optimism that the ‘speculative’ traditional view is losing ground and institutional explication. Also, some consider our Heavenly Parents to be the Father and Jesus or the Father and the Spirit. At no time did I mean to imply that traditional implications of Heavenly Mother were completely removed.
Right, but you’re missing some background here. Some Mormons believe God was always God, and that he did not originally progress unto godhood through a mortality, but performed a kind of kenosis experience of playing the role of a sinless savior, temporarily leaving his station as the God of all worlds. Read some LDS literature by Blake Ostler for more information. Winnowing down the explications of God once being a man like us to the KFD makes Ostlerites giddy.
Given the momentum of the traditional LDS view of the “one eternal round”, that is how it will largely function. But theological language in Mormonism is a joke. If a Mormon can find a way to reject the traditional view and still use key texts like the KFD, he can all the more easily do so when Mormon leaders refuse to explicate traditional views in interpretative literature. Mormons have prided themselves in non-“creedal”, ambiguous, amorphous language that functions at different layers in different contradicting ways for different people. You can take that to the bank. Me? I prefer my language to actually mean something. Creeds for Christians have been an overflow of the love of meaning.
The 1997 edition of Gospel Principles had more interpretative remarks of traditional LDS theology concerning the past of God. The 2009 edition has removed important parts of that.
Remember, Ralph, that Mormonism for the most part does not teach that Jesus became a God through a mortal experience, but rather achieved this in pre-mortality. Therefore to say, as the earlier GP editions essentially did, that the Father became a God through a mortal experience, by implication precludes the “special strain of savior gods” paradigm. And without some theological gymnastics, the natural implication of that for many Mormons is that God could have been or even probably was a sinner.
Jason, I can’t resist to ask again:
Would you like to help “weed out” the “weak-minded” by sharing your views on Adam with us?
Ralph,
Yes, the explanation you gave regarding “heavenly mother” is the same explanation I got when I was a member. Thanks for expressing it.
What would you say to the idea that God is both male and female? Or that gender doesn’t even play a role in Who God is? Consider that Eve was created out of Adam’s side, which could lead to the conclusion that Adam possessed what we term male and female qualities. Does anyone else out there have thoughts on what I presented?
I think “The Shack” is provocative in presenting the Trinity the way it does, especially with regard to gender issues. Sure, it’s fictional, but it leads one to realize the “box(es)” in which we put God. Gender is one of those boxes. Has anyone read the book? The problem is we try to explain the infinite with examples from a finite world. As much as God has revealed to us about Himself, there are still lots of things that are just unfathomable, and such things cause us to stand in awe and amazement at the Majesty of God!
Peace!
I’m feeling so good about myself not getting into an insult contest with some of our Junior High Mormon posters. I’m growing!
The evidence that the very words of the Bible are God-given may be summarized briefly as follows:
1. It is the claim of the classical text that the writings are inspired (2 Timothy 3:16)
2. It is the emphatic testimony of Paul that he spoke in “words….taught by the Spirit” (I Corinthians 2:13).
3. It is evident from the repeated formula “It is written” (e.g., Matthew 4:4,7,10)
4. Jesus said that that which was written in the whole OT spoke of Him (Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Hebrews. 10:7).
5 The NT constantly equates the Word of God with the Scripture (writings) of the OT (cf. Matthew 21:42; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 3:16)
6. Jesus indicated that not even the smallest part of a Hebrew word or letter could be broken (Matthew 5:18)
7. The NT refers to the written record as the “oracles of God” (Hebrews 5:12).
8. Occasionally the writers were even told to “not omit a word” (Jerimiah 26:2, and John even pronounced an anathema upon all who would add to or subtract from the “words of the book of this prophecy” (Revelation 22:18-19).
9. The very words uttered by men in the OT were considered to be God’s words by the NT writers. It may be an academic option to deny that the Bible claims “verbal inspiration” for itself, but it is clearly not a biblical possibility.
10. It is identified with God’s words. The words of the writers of Scripture are used interchangeably with what “God said.” This gives rise to the expression “What Scripture says, God says.”
(source “A General Introduction to the Bible” pp. 50-51; Norman L. Geisler, William E. Nix)