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.
What we need to understand is that it is a basic tactic of the cults to, in some way, denegrate the Word of God. It’s the only way they can find some justification for their aberrent, heretical and in some cases blasphomous doctrines. The Bible calls these things “doctrines of demons”. As we see in the subject of this thread, another tactic of cults is to disguise what they really believe. It is also a characteristic of cults to plead a case for “new light” or “new revelation” when time and evidence proves their previous proclamations not only false but in many cases ridiculous to the point of being laughable.
When I was listening to an audio interview of Grant Palmer author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” it was very evident that he was holding out hope that the Utah based LDS church would reform itself. It was his sense that if this didn’t happen, the church would eventually collapse under it’s own weight of lies and deception (my words interpreting his expressed opinion). One line that went by me the first time I listened to the interview was when he said, “There isn’t much there for me any more.” One of the things he was hoping for was that the church would become Christ centered and start emphasizing Jesus and stop presenting boring lectures on what the relief society was doing. I don’t know who Grant Palmer thinks Jesus is, but if it’s the Mormon Jesus, I don’t know what good this would do.
I would say that the culture of Mormonism will destroy it as much as it’s aberrent teachings and practices. That culture includes lies, deceptions, misdirection and changing of basic teachings in the name of progressive revelation. Word gets around and the word on Mormonism, despite it’s attempts to look mainstream and conventional, is that this is a kooky religion that can’t hide it’s kookiness no matter how hard it tries. The light of truth, when shone on Mormonism, causes the rats to run for cover. They can only hide for just so long
Olsen Jim wrote “I just read the report of the Anglican church changing its policy in America such that homosexuals can now be ordained. Anybody care?”
Yeah, me.
I’m an Anglican, but I don’t live in America. Will this issue lead me to leave my church? Possibly.
But, my salvation is bound to Jesus, not to my church membership. If I walk out of the door, I take my membership card to God’s Kingdom with me. Can you say that?
Would you leave your church if it did or taught something that you believed was wrong?
JackG wrote “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?”
Yup, me. God is the origin of maleness and femaleness; he [sic] is not bound by these qualities. I think you’ll also get some mileage out of the language of Genesis, which starts out by describing “man” in gender-neutral terms (more like our phrase “the human being”).
There are a couple of instances in Scripture when God is described in female terms. My favourite is Zeph 3:17. Also the “father” running down the street to greet the prodigal son in the parable.
Also…”Has anyone read the book? [The Shack]”
Yup, me again. Like you, I think it does a good job of exposing the “boxes” we like to put God in.
courageous wrote “Isn’t that deceitful to still say that the prophet said it when it has been changed?”
Good point.
I have never understood this about Mormonism. If Joseph Smith was a prophet (like all the missionaries claim), why change his message? Why is the average Mormon so ignorant of the man’s biography and teachings? Why are LDS so careless in handling the words of their great prophets?
If the LDS leadership is so gifted in “continuing revelation”, why change it? Isn’t this the slow creep of apostasy?
Last night I was reading about the (possible) collapse of Gnosticism in the early centuries AD, principally because it could not reconcile itself with the historical nature of the Christian Gospel. Is the LDS movement at the same point? God, I hope so.
The basics of sales and marketing is bringing forth the best features of your product or service and talking about the benefits of those particular features. According to the article posted above, Mormonism appears to be burying certain features of their program and therefore by default not seeing these things as benefits.
Martin when we talk about the changing/progressive nature of Mormonism, that’s one of the features the rank and file are most proud of. They love this continuous flow of revelation provided by the Mormon god even if it swerves and jerks about here and there and contradicts basic sacred everlasting doctrines and practices. It seems the Mormon god is very much influenced by public opinion and perceptions of the masses.
I’m going to give another ‘little’ thought about the changes that elaborates a little more on my last posts. I think these changes are trying to bring things back to the basics – ie Heavenly Father is our spirit father, He has a body of flesh and bone, through Jesus Christ’s atonement we can become like Him, etc. The reason I am saying this is because I have seen many people try and gain more ‘knowledge’ and/or deeper doctrine by reading into scriptures, church manuals, etc but they end up doing it without the guidance of the Spirit and instead come up with false ideas. Some of these people have been excommunicated because they have tried to teach this as doctrine. Others have not taught it openly but still believe it and remain members. We need to keep the basics to gain the Spirit’s guidance before we can obtain more – thus the changes to a more ‘basic’ level in the Gospel Principles book. Just a musing.
JackG,
The Bible says God created male and female in Adam and Eve (Gen 1), not a neutral type being and then female out of it’s side (Gen 2). I know God can do anything, but biologically, its easier to ‘create’ female than male as the basic biology of the human development is feminine. One needs the Y chromosome as well as the testosterone and progesterone steroids to become male at the right time in foetal development. So going from XY (Adam) to XX (Eve) was easier than going from XX to XY.
A small side point on this, I know we have discussed this word, but if we are made in the image of ‘Elohim’, this could be referring to both Heavenly Father and Mother which then explains in the LDS perspective how we can say that we are in the physical image of God(s) – just another musing.
Good mornin Ralph.
You wanna answer a question I have? (actually two) Is God the Father (Elohim) the first god, or does he have a father/god? And is he the prayer-hearer/answerer, or is God the Father (Jehovah)?
Setfree,
I can kind of clarify this for you. I think it was Orson Pratt who said that if you worship one of the gods, you’re worshiping all of them, so it would stand to reason, I guess, if you prayed to one of them, you’d be praying to all of them. The other thing I think that would apply here is the Mormon motto “There’s so much we don’t know.” I’m thinking that in the pantheon of gods, you’d pick your guy and go with it but that wouldn’t preclude you from praying to or worshiping any of the rest.
Polytheism does give one lots of choices, but it does seem quite unusual that we can’t find out who the first god is. See if a person knew that, then you could go right to the god that’s progressed the furthest and who has more knowledge than the current god of earth.
Folks, can you see why Mormons hide this stuff from view? There is an amazing amount of mind-snapping that has to be done to accept this. However, the Mormon/cult mind-set is such that the more wackado it is the more it has to be believed and accepted. It’s a test of faith you see. Very sad indeed!
It would be worth the trip for our readers to go to:
http://www.themormoncurtain.com
Someone calling themselves “Confused” wrote a little piece titled: “The Witness of the Spirit and the Changed Handbook”. I think this person really hits at the primary issue surrounding the changes in the handbook. But like I wrote previously, for many hardcore Mormons change means new revelation from the Mormon god…..YIPPIE…….something new. The integrity of the organization or the leaders are never questioned. The folks are just so happy and content which is an application of the old “ignorance is bliss” line. The desire to believe something, mixed with strong emotion is pretty tough to overcome with rational, logical arguments and evidence to the contrary of the strongly held belief.
Am I missing something? Maybe I am just a brainwashed Mormon, but I don’t see the big deal here.
It’s just a manual. I think I might be more concerned if we NEVER changed our manuals. It’s not like they are trying to alter scripture or anything. I’m fairly certain that every organization, religious or otherwise, makes changes to their manuals and teaching materials over time.
The changes I’ve seen thus far don’t even show any changes in doctrine. All of the changed I have seen are simple wording an focus changes that just simplify the text and the message. I don’t see what the fuss is.
Mikey, take a closer look at the exaltation chapter.
What’s interesting about a topic like this is there are two primary ways to view it from. Both have been exemplified. One is that it is just a manual and no doctrine has been changed. The second is that the changes in the manual should mirror doctrine.
What view you take should mirror which faith you like to take. And this discussion wold not matter if the faith did not matter. However, the faith does matter, because if you’ve got the wrong one, you are damned. The options then are Christians are wrong, and the Mormons are right; the Christians are right and Mormons wrong; both are right; or both are wrong.
How do we determine what is right? Christians look to several things, and Mormons rely on but one that guides how they look at everything else. Christians use scripture, the voice of the Spirit, history, and reason. Mormons base all their truth off of the voice of the Ghost.
So, when there is a change in an official church manual that has signficant changes in wording to certain ideas that can well point to subtle shifts in doctrine then Christians will question those changes. The skepticism of Christians is only heightened when looking at the history of the chruch that has made significant doctrinal, at least what they see as doctrine, changes in the past. Comparing to their own doctrine which has not seen the radical changes, the skepticism only rises.
To the Mormon, whose manual is in question, such manual changes can be seen as very minor in importance because they believe the Holy Ghost guides everything, and as such can dictate changes in what to others may seem as doctrine but in reality are just practices. Therefore, they don’t get the concerns of other groups.
But again, which is the right way to view it? Through comparing past doctrine and past application of the doctrine or through the guidance of a spirit you can’t fully identify?
I know my answer…
Another point that hit me last night when thinking about a comment I read last night that our faith is not tied to a given church and that all believers in Jesus of the Bible are members of the one true church, ie the one true church is not Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, or any other denomination.
It hit me that Smith’s basic claim is that God chose him to restore the one true church because all the others were wrong. By all the others, I undersnand him to have meant these denominations. So, if the church is united under God through all who believe, then denominations do not matter to Christ. Therefore, the denomination claim from Smith cannot be correct.
It is actually a false premise that he based the conclusion on, and he is restoring something that was never broken, and because it is something entirely new it can be changed as the leaders please. They can do so because there is nothing to compare it against.
Jason Rae,
I think your posts on the other thread make so much sense and I feel that the comments were stopped out of fear of additional things you might say. Please private message me at [email protected]. I am interested in further discussion and insights that obviously cannot be had here.
mj
mj, be sure to ask Jason in your e-mail exchange about his views on Adam 😉
If Jason wants to be substantive, we’re not fearing what he has to say. It more had to do with the inflammatory and childish and repeatedly blasphemous way he said it. Hot inflammatory words should be used sparingly, not like bullets in a machine gun.
I appreciate your thoughts Aaron but to be honest I had no problem with the way he said it.
mj
Mikey Petey wrote, “The changes I’ve seen thus far don’t even show any changes in doctrine. All of the changed I have seen are simple wording an focus changes that just simplify the text and the message. I don’t see what the fuss is.”
One question, so when do converts learn about the lessons that have been omitted or altered in focus, from the 2009 edition of the Manual?
From what I recall, when I was a new convert, I was handed a GP handbook, told to read it, and go to GP class because this was next step in the process.
I can understand changes to manuals, sure, no problem, but when will a new convert learn the lessons that the original author intended?
Why the change in focus or emphasis? Is it just preference of the current leadership of the church? Is God tired of listening to the same old lessons week after week, year after year?
Ralph,
I though the only time that “We got back to the basics” is when things are not going right. Its the sports analogy (football) we are not going to win games if we cannot do the basics, like blocking and tackling. So if the church is getting back to the basics does that mean that the membership has started to fall away? Why else would you go backwards?
Would a True Believing Mormon (TBM) agree that what is taught in GP is a mirror of doctrine, as Michael P has pointed out? Or is it just a guild line. How serious do you take these teachings? If you take then seriously, why change the point at which a convert will learn of them.
Kevin said, “One question, so when do converts learn about the lessons that have been omitted or altered in focus, from the 2009 edition of the Manual?”
I’m still not sure what lessons have been omitted. It appears that some sentances have been trimmed and some wording has changed, but all of the same principles seem to still be in there. It may not all be on the same pages/lines as before, but it is all still in there.
I just don’t get what the big deal is. A first time reader will get all of the same information, as far as I can tell. It is now presented in a more focused and straight forward manner. All of the changes seem to be improvements in language/wording and format, in my opinion.
Mikey, can you honestly say that after combing over the exaltation chapter? I don’t see any remaining references to God the Father becoming a God, unless you count the KFD. But the 1997 references were more explicit about God becoming a God through a mortal experience.
G’mornin Setfree,
It’s now 6:45 am Wednesday here and freezing(around 8 degrees I think). We pray to our Heavenly Father, hence why we start our prayers addressed to Him as Jesus taught. It is He who ultimately answers our prayers but does it through different means. We pray in/through the name of our Mediator, Jesus, because He is that – our Mediator between us and God.
Falcon,
Can you please give us an actual quote, not just an “I think I heard”, otherwise its just HEARSAY, not fact. Or arww you just making it up? This is the 3rd time you have made this comment and you still are not backing it up. Besides, doesn’t the NT teach something like that?
Kevin,
Did you read my last post fully? I did say that there are members that are trying to gain more ‘knowledge’ about the ‘mysteries’/unanswered questions about God, this life, etc, but they are doing it under their own understanding and not using the guidance of the Spirit. These people are doing it just to make themselves look good because they know better than others, or so they can come on sites like this and argue a point to try and convert by argument not Spirit. Some of these people become excommunicated, others don’t but their Spiritual progress is halted. So I am saying that the members of the church need to look at what is important to their salvation and stop trying to ‘force’ (for want of a better word) the gaining of knowledge they do not need. And yes, things are not going right amongst the members, but that does not mean the church isn’t true – just the members are not perfect.
The pseudonyms are getting rather amusing but I had to laugh out loud at merry jane on Sunday. Good Heavens that HAS to be a violation of the Word of Wisdom. Great clouds of smoke Batman……
Ralph,
I hate to waste a comment on this but it can be a literary technique and besides I use it when I’m pretty sure but just want to be honest which is something that Mormonism is a stranger to.
Here’s the reference and I expect you to go out and listen to all of it.
http://mormonstories.org/?page_id=102
I’m guessing you had to comment on this because of the times we’ve caught you with your hand in the reference cookie jar.
So I’ll keep saying things like “didn’t I hear something like XYZ” and I’ll let you figure it out.
What a waste of a post!
BTW Ralph how about those changes to the old manual Buddy. Did you go down to the ward and get your mind massaged? I forgot, you know all of this stuff and it hasn’t effected your testimony one bit. It’s just as strong as it’s always been. Keep sending in your money Ralph, the boys in SLC love guys like you. Now go polish your seer stone!
Ralph,
Thanks for that. I thought that’s the way I had understood it as well.
So, what of my other question: has God the Father got a father/god? or is he the first god?
(brrr… i’m so glad I’m not where you are)!
LDSSTitanic: those were funnier words than I would have used, but it was a similar thought that I was having about mj
Ralph,
Yesterday your reply to Jack G. concerning your
Heavenly Mother[HM] was most revealing.You said
that your HM, “…may play a large role in our
lives, for some reason or another HF does not
want us ‘thinking’ to much about her and refer-
encing her.”
This is an amazing statement Ralph.Can you tell
me what of relationship do you have with your
Heavenly Mom? My earthly dad(before he developed
Alzheimers) loved to dote on my mom he was proud
of her.He would never even think about not
‘referencing’ her.Has not your HF gave you clear
instuctions about your behavior towards your
earthly wife? Gorden B. Hinckley seems to have
counseled LDS to refraim from praying to their
HM (Ensign, Nov.1991). Ralph, have you ever told
your Heavenly Mom you love and miss Her? This is
prayer.
What you said about HF portecting Her from slander
sounds noble, but it does not answer the question.
I have heard over and over from LDS that they have
a prophet to guide them and reveal answers to the real important questions of life.
Since this is a foundational issue because it
concerns family relationships,there should be more
offical doctrine holding it up.
Falcon,
Thanks for the ref – I’ll get to it tonight after work, so can’t comment on it now.
Setfree,
Just remember I am in Australia, we use Celcius here, so in your temp its about 46 degrees. In answer to your question about God having a father, personally I don’t know the answer to that question because it is not something discussed very often in meetings nor have I ever really thought about it. But some of our past church leaders have made comments that He is not ‘the first in line’ but that He had a father, who had a father. So does that answer your question?
Mike R,
I do not pray to Heavenly Mother. When I said that She ‘may play a large role in our lives’, just remember that we LDS believe in a pre-mortal existance and it was there that She would have had the major role/influence.
Aaron,
I understand that there are people out there that want to believe that heavenly parents means something different, but the phrase in normal language indicates a father and mother – that is how I read/interpret that statement. That is how I will teach that statement – so to me, that is an explicit teaching of a Heavenly Father and Mother.
Another point I’d like to address on this is that the manual in question just isn’t a manual, its, from what I understand used as a little bit more than just a manual.
Actually, when I think about it, what is a manual? It is something used to explain how to do something or what to make of others. It reflects the truth of whatever it is a manual for. Whether what to think about something or how to put together a shelf, it is supposed to hold the truth of it subject.
The manual in question adjusts and shifts its emphasis, which to me suggests a chance in what the church thinks is important. What is changed is pretty significant if you believe in one God with an everlasting truth to him, who will not shift important aspects of his nature or rules.
Aaron, my views on Adam my differ but that’s mild compared to some of the deviants on this board. For example do you agree with Martin from Brisbane and JackG that God the Father is a hermaphrodite?
setfreefalcon, you agree with your fellow evs that Jesus would wear lipstick if he came back today? Remember, don’t limit yourself to what kind of “boxes” you put Him in. If you have a problem with it go read “The Shack” for the latest Evs doctrine.
So now we have a non-human species alien lipstick wearing fascist hermaphrodite thug with a penchant for torture running the universe. How do you pray to that? Do you end with ‘Sieg Heil’ or just a vanilla ‘amen’? Just curious.
~
EVsTitanic, based on mj’s posts on the other thread she’s clearly not LDS but either way isn’t it kind of rude to make a cannabis reference towards a fellow Christian?
~
mj, I would be more than happy to private message you. Thanks for your kind words and understanding my points. Also kudos on being the only one to call out the moderator for not taking the heat.
If you agree to it I will send you a copy of the Book of Mormon free of charge so that when we discuss various things you’ll have a ready reference.
Ralph,
I guess I hadn’t yet known that you lived in Australia. I had dreams of visiting there once, but yeah… I don’t think that’ll happen.
Anyway,
Thanks for answering my question. I was hoping that this is what you would say.
I wonder if you have ever considered where the god/father line started? Follow the line back as far as you want to imagine, father of… father of… back to wherever it started. Think of how that first “god” became a god. Tell me what you come up with will ya?
Also mj I’ll show why the gospel of androgyny being touted on this board is blasphemy of the highest order and you would do well to run from it as far as you can.
Jason, does God need a gender? Is that not an attempt to put God into our understanding, when the fullness of God is beyond our comprehension?
Of course, since you believe we are of the same species, you must think God has a gender, but when you look at it through our lens, it is actually more logical for God to be genderless.
Alas.
Does God change doctrine, though?
Setfree,
How can we with finite minds and understanding understand something that is infinite? Do you really understand where God originates from in your doctrine? I know you believe that He has always been in existance and that He was not created, but before He created the universe what did He do? Why did He decide to create the universe and us? How is it that He has always been in existance and not created? Where did He come from (this question works whether He was created or not)? And so on with the questions. You can answer the questions with ‘He was just there’, but that does not really mean anything in depth except that He just existed – it does not give the hows and whys, etc. I know you can believe in it and profess an understanding of it, but do you really fully understand and infinite existance with nothing else around, or something existing without being created/formed when there was nothing at all to begin with? There are things that we will not understand or know until after the day of judgement and we are resting in our Father’s presence. Not trying to argue with you, just showing you what I said in my first statement – we cannot understand the infinite with finite minds.
If one takes Mormon doctrine all the way back – to the first man who became a god, what you have are principles that this first god had to follow in order to become a god. Who set these principles up? Before the first god “was,” there was matter, or the material universe. In my understanding, the ultimate god of Mormonism is the material universe – which is above and before all gods (the logical extension of Mormon theology). This completely inverts, reverses, and perverts the creator and the created.
Jason Rae
I think that sounds great I look forward to your email.
mj
Ralph,
Your statement,” she[HM] may play a large role
in our lives…” sounded like the here and now,
yet now you’re saying it referred to your re-
lationship in pre-existence,which is it?
I surmise from your reply that you do not tell
your Heavenly Mom that you love and appreciate
Her.You have a real personal relationship with
your HF I’m sure you tell Him you love Him,yet
your HM who is standing right by His side and
who is also listening to you,yet no words for
Her.Is this reasonable? Any scriptures on this?
I’d like to share a few statements from the LDS
manuel,”Living As A Daughter of God” ch.1
After counseling young LDS women on the truth of
their relationship with their earthly parents,it
moves to discussing truths about the relationship
with their HF.: “Discussion.Have the young women
suggest what they can do to show their desire to
continue in and improve their relationship with
their HF.Refer to the Chalkboard list of things a
daughter can do in a father-daughter relationship.
…show how the same qualities are used in devel-
oping and maintaining a relationship with our
HF.How do we show appreciation to our HF?(…by
showing gratitude)…”
Ralph, will you teach young LDS as how they treat
their earthly father and mother, they should like-
wise treat their Heavenly Father AND Heavenly
Mother? I show gratitude to my mom here by telling
her I love her so very,very much. Exodus 20:12
Merryjane,
Last weekend you were trying to wake your husband up to help you with your concerns regarding Jason Rae’s history class on the Nazi leadership and some form of a connection with Christianity. I’d like you to shake him and really wake him up now. Please have him email me ([email protected])because it appears he needs to call poison control in your area because you have drank the “kool-aid”. Insructions: induce vomiting!
Also, please read my last installment on that thread and you can look at the documentation provided regarding the history of the LDS Church with Adolf Hitler. Before you gulp down the last drop of Jason Rae’s “kool-aid” please ask him why neither he nor anyone else in the LDS Church has done proxy work for Anne Frank or Rutka Laskier, but plenty for Adolf Hitler who doesn’t qualify for anything other than the telestial kingdom in LDS theology by their own admission. Please have your husband read to you 1 Thes 5:21 and 2 Cor 4:4. It could save your life.
Jason Rae (or whoever you really are),
I know you’re busy working on your tribute webpage to Joseph Smith. I hear that is your “claim to fame”. Since you’re sending free copies of the Book of Mormon to bloggers with personal instruction, please send me the manuscript copies of the Reformed Egyptian so I can check them against my 1830 Book of Mormon and my 1981 Book of Mormon. It appears that there is a discrepency in deciding which king should be in Mosiah 21:28. Is it Mosiah or Benjamin? I’d love to see the Reformed Egyptian manuscripts of the Book of Mormon.
I am enjoying reading Codex Sinaiticus online. Would you care to join me? Shall you join me for a “drink” of Greek?
You’ve mentioned “hermaphrodite” and “alien” in reference to God. You do have some imagination – sick. I’d like to get your commentary on the pornography displayed by your god showing us his erect penis in the Book of Abraham, Facsimile No.2, Figure 7 – pervert.
Not into “kool-aid”,
Andy
Andy, might want to give the lurking readers some context for your remarks.
Jason, I think you’re confusing androgynous with genderless. If God adds a human nature to himself or has a temporary theophany as a human, it is without gender-confusion. But God in his most fundamental and essential nature is not gendered.
Ironically, if gender in Mormonism is bestowed at spirit-birth (and not already an attribute of mere intelligences), then that means gender is not a most fundamental and essential attribute of the gods.
Aaron,
Thankyou for responding to Jason Rae in terms that are far more civil than I could muster.
It really seems that Mormons have enormous difficulty with the concept of a God who creates ALL things (John 1:3), including maleness and femaleness.
He was there before maleness and femaleness (Gen 1:27).
He was there before humanity was created (Gen 1:26)
He was there before matter (even refined matter – whatever that is) was created (Gen 1:1)
He was there before the principals and laws of the universe were created (Col 1:16)
He was there before all gods (however you like to define them).
He was there before the beginning of time and He is there after the end of time (Rev 22:13). In other words, time exists in God. Note that the the time “before” or “after” time has to be subject to cosmological speculation, if it exists at all.
“This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.
Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
(Isaiah 44:6-8)
I am enjoying this discussion very much since I like to keep the LURKERS in mind as I’m reading and wondering what they might be thinking. I do believe this discussion might prove an opportunity for those Mormon questioners, to be provided with some pertinent information to help in their exit from Mormonism.
When it comes to anything “Mormon” we have to keep reminding ourselves that it’s a religion that operates off of “revelation”. The problem is that the “revelators” in Mormonism are not to be questioned. They are to be supported, unquestionably, in whatever they “reveal”. The “revelations” and changes in Mormonism (including changes in the BoM)in the last century or so have come about because pressure has come to bear on the image of the Mormon organization from society at large or because information “revealed” by secular sources do not correspond to Mormon “spiritual” revelations. So the program gets an upgrade.
One of the big changes, of course, was the proclamation that the Mormon men were to stop marrying more then one woman. The interesting thing of course is that some in leadership just kept marrying extra babes and tacit approval was given to the continuation of the practice. Some revelation. When the “revelation” was given to start the practice of plural marrage, the leadership would lie that they were actually doing it.
So besides having a basis in “revelation” Mormonism is also built on a foundation of “acceptable” lies and deceit. This is often done by not telling people certain things; for us regular folks called a sin of omission. So these changes in the manual, judging from the history and standard practices of Mormonism, does not represent a change in doctrine but a way to hide what Mormons really believe. In order to appear mainstream, Mormonism has to hide its, shall we say, more unconventional beliefs and practices but most importantly its past history.
I hope our LURKERS find a way out. You’ll have plenty of company.
Someone has probably already said this (I started reading the comments but there are 89 of them and I have to get going in a minute), but really, can’t Mormons change any of their doctrine and have it be acceptable? Since they have an open canon and continuing revelation, the goalposts and standards are constantly changing. There are lots of things Mormons don’t follow today: polygamy, blacks being denied the priesthood; even their undergarments have changed. Even though there is room for varying degrees of interpretation of non-essentials in the Christian world (the rapture, arminianism vs. calvinism, and other things), the rules have already been laid out and we have to adhere to them. Those who try to change the rules (like Unitarians and universal salvation) are in error. But LDS leaders can change their doctrinal rules whenever they get new “revelation”, and the only people they answer to are themselves.
Megan,
Mormonism is a religion that has to run away from itself. That’s why all the changes. It has nothing to do with “revelation” but in trying to #1) hide as much of the wacko stuff as possible especially the historical aspects and #2)to appear mainstream without upsetting the hardcore believers. I believe the Community of Christ, formerly the “Reorganizers” made their big changes (I believe 1984) they lost more than half of their membership. I think there’s an offshoot of that group now calling themselves the “restoration”. The SLC Mormon leaders are in a real jam.
The boys who sit in the big tall buildings in SLC have a fine line to walk. How to look like some kind of Christian mainstream religion but keep all of the wacked-out stuff the real into-it bunch just really grooves on, stable. The main goal is to get the prospect into the water for a quick dunk and indoctrinate them with the cult treatment before they find out what’s really going on. The progressive revelation line gives the Mormons free license to disgard anything from the past that would turn people off and keep the little people in the program dumb, happy and paying their 10%.
Anyone with an ounce of integrity and curiosity soon exits the Morg when they find out the real picture. That’s why the Morg has gone from two people processing resignations to ten in the last few years. That’s why two-thirds of the people on the Mormon rolls are inactive and that’s why fifty percent of Mormon missionaries go inactive when returning home. It’s not that they just get sick of wearing the magic underwear.
A question for the evangelicals on this board: Aren’t these GP changes good news for you? If what you say is true: Aren’t you glad to see Mormonism moving slowly in the direction of mainstream Christianity, even if it isn’t yet enough for you?
See, I would think that, if you were really acting out of your profesed convictions, the revisions to GP would be a cause for celebration of behalf of your Mormon friends, instead of the mocking disdain many of you exhibit. The Christian thing to do would be to look for common ground with others, while encouraging them toward the born again experience. But I fear that, for whatever reason, some of you might hate Mormonism more than you love Christianity, or than you profess to “love” mormons. My caution to you would be that, based on your own evangelical standards, this moves close to idolatry (positioning Mormonism-hating as your ultimate value).
Aaron, You said: ” But God in his most fundamental and essential nature is not gendered ”
Tell me, when you guys are out witnessing to Mormons do you tell them this basic tenet?? Why not post such a core fundamental belief at http://www.mrm.org/about ? I think that’s a pretty foundational thing for LDS people to know as you proselytize around the valley.
Some ideas for a marching around signs:
“Really LDS people! Does GOD need a Gender??”
“Created in HIS Image?? Bwahahahahah!”
I think you know that for LDS people this would be a very core facet that if they knew they might not lend you credibility. Is this one of those milk before the meat doctrines that you feel is best to keep hidden?
Again, are you willing to post this core fundamental doctrine at mrm.org?
If LDS leadership publicly denounced the heretical doctrines it embraces and teaches; if it confessed to having led people spiritually astray; if it stood up and said, “The doctrine that God was once a man who came to be a God by obedience to laws and ordinances is not true and those who taught it were in error,” I think we would find much rejoicing among Evangelicals. But as it is, with even the Mormons saying these changes in the manual do not represent real doctrinal changes, there is no reason to rejoice. There is no good news here, only further obfuscation of the core doctrines of Mormonism. Now, instead of being taught soon after baptism that Mormonism promotes the worship of a God who was once a man, members may not get that particular slice of “meat” until they attend the temple at least a year after being brought into the group. For me, anyway, that’s a step in the wrong direction.
Doc Sarvis, most Mormons have told us (in this and in other venues) they don’t believe the changes represent any significant changes in church-teachings, or any steps away from traditional Mormon theology, particularly on the past of God. While the changes can be used by some Mormons to justify their continued and increasing Mormon neo-orthodoxy, if there is no repentance from the top-down, or from the bottom-up, there is no warrant for celebration yet.
And even if there was more substantial doctrinal transition in the future, if it was without repentance then it would only mean people were becoming more like the unrepentant demons.
“You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (James 2:19)
That’s why we’re looking for genuine doctrinal change with confessions and tears of repentance and public denunciations of older teachings from leadership with clear contrasts and forthright language.
We want to be able to say, “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5)
Doc,
Interesting take on the topic, but wrong. My sense is that these changes in the manual are cosmetic and don’t reflect any substative change in Mormon doctrine or practice. Once again we have a poster trying to position ev. Christians as haters, and all around bad people because they contend for the faith as directed in Jude vs. 3. You’re getting into the Mormon persecution complex pretty early. It usually comes at about post number five when the Mormon can’t come-up with any real discussion points. Any type of strong defense of Biblical Christianity and pointing out the truth of Mormonism is seen by Mormons as mocking (one of Mormonism’s favorite charges). When you hang around the wards everybody just reinforces the core beliefs of Mormonism and there really isn’t any sort of critical thinking or investigation going on. The folks who do investigate, normally leave the program.
Also I don’t think Christians would be as vociferous in our defense of the Christian faith if it weren’t for the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to restore “true” Christianity and said that God told him Christianity represented an abomination in it’s beliefs. Unfortuately Mormons can’t seem to figure out what really went on in first century Christianity because they keep changing the “everlasting” rituals, practices and beliefs. A list will be provided upon request. Retention is a huge problem for the money changers at LDS headquarters so the “up dates” in the manual has more to do with image and bottom-line financial concerns than anything of a spiritual nature.
Jason, do you believe gender was bestowed at spirit-birth? If so, doesn’t that mean you believe humans were created in the image of God twice-over, once at spirit-birth, and then again on this earth?
You can check out Rob Sivulka’s presentation for more on the Christian view of what it means to be created in God’s image.
Martin,
Thanks for all the scriptures about the awesome God we serve. Reading those verses really brings home the difference between the Sovereign Creator of All – the God of the Universe and the Mormon god. The Mormon god is a god who became god, a god who did not create everything, a god amongst many gods, a mere ascended man – who had to follow “gospel principles” in order to gain his own lackluster exaltation – not a Creator God at all, nor in charge of much – just someone who got there before the rest of the Mormons.
Ralph,
How can we with finite minds and understanding understand something that is infinite? Exactly Do you really understand where God originates from in your doctrine? No! I know you believe that He has always been in existance and that He was not created, but before He created the universe what did He do? I don’t know! 🙂 Why did He decide to create the universe and us? Don’t know! How is it that He has always been in existance and not created? Don’t know! Where did He come from (this question works whether He was created or not)? Don’t know! And so on with the questions. You can answer the questions with ‘He was just there’, but that does not really mean anything in depth except that He just existed – it does not give the hows and whys, etc. I know you can believe in it and profess an understanding of it, but do you really fully understand and infinite existance with nothing else around, or something existing without being created/formed when there was nothing at all to begin with? NO! There are things that we will not understand or know until after the day of judgement and we are resting in our Father’s presence.Yes… Not trying to argue with you, just showing you what I said in my first statement – we cannot understand the infinite with finite minds.Once again… Exactly! 🙂
I love your thoughts on this. What I was hoping to point out (did I?) is that even though the LDS think they understand more about God from having made him into the corruptible image of a man (Rom 1:23), the fact is that you look back long enough, you find yourselves in the same situation. Was it the chicken first (did it start out with a god) or was it the egg (…or a man)? Or, if you believe in evolution, maybe it just started out with nothing, that became some dirt, that became a baby, that grew to a man, that figured out how to become a god…
Ralph,
Before I get too far away from this subject, let me cover another division point between our beliefs.
What will we be doing for all eternity? Someone (can’t remember who) said that our (EV) version is “eternal stagnation”. HA! Oh no, we don’t believe that at all.
Believing in a God that is everywhere, knows everything, has all power, etc etc etc, means that we believe that we are going to have forever to EXPLORE! We’ll get to go everywhere, literally. See everything! Learn and learn and learn and learn. And we’ll be with God… we’ll be free from sickness, tiredness, pain, worry, hate, crime, sin…
It’s going to be the best time to be had, forever!
In your belief system, you’re going to become a god. Have you ever stopped to think about what this is going to entail? How about having billions of selfish little brats yelling their requests at you nonstop for eternity. lol.
By the way, do you believe in evolution? (And I mean the kind where dirt can become a human, not where one kind of dog can become lots of kinds).