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.
Well I’m just loving this. It really doesn’t get any better from my point-of-view. First of all we have a couple of our Mormon posters doing a fantastic job of representing just what Mormonism is and what it produces in terms of its own apologetic tone. I hope we have a high volume of Mormon LUKERS passing through.
mobaby and Martin, you are providing our Mormon LURKERS with a very clear contrast (to Mormonism) as to who God is. There’s something about God’s Word and the accompaning witness of the Holy Spirit that illuminates God’s truth and draws people to Him. To Christians, it’s all about our relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus is the entire focus of our spiritual life. Mormonism has a god who is just one of the gang, though further along in the Mormon improvement program. So they claim to worship a god who’s just a more refined version of themselves.
The changes in the manual has come because the Mormon leadership has finally figured out that their representation of god, offends the sensibilities of people. People know instinctively that God isn’t just a better version of themselves. People want God, not a god.
Mormon leaders see the recruitment and exit numbers. They can sort out the numbers representing those who were born in the program and indoctrinated from childhood from adult type converts. It’s all about recruitment, retention and the bottom-line, money. The SLC boys can only squeeze just so much out of the faithful. The temples are profit centers for the Mormon church. If the flow of folks is up, the cost of a new temple can be recooped in a couple of years and the rest is gravy. If the church is at zero yearly growth and if the foreign sites are populated by poor people, again the bottom-line suffers. Hence a change in the manual, just like the changes in the temple ceremony in 1990 when they took out the throat slitting and disembowelment rituals. There’s no revelation here. Just change as a result of PR and marketing.
I think I might have missed something while I took a few days off, because I have NO IDEA why this Jason Rae character is getting so much attention and why merry jane is falling all over him. Can anyone refer me to where Jason makes the comments that has so lit up the board? Thanks…
Peace!
Sharon, Aaron, shall we cease all talk of LDS leadership obfuscation until MRM is at least more forthcoming on some of its own core tenets? Since your target market is the LDS faithful shouldn’t you be crystal clear as to your own core theology so that they can judge accurately?
Two pertinent items that should be proudly displayed on your about page at mrm:
1. God as a non-human species.
This is a core evangelical doctrine. Anything that is non-human is by nature an alien. Your target market (LDS) have no idea you belive this way and you do not reveal it at MRM.org.
2. God in his most fundamental and essential nature is not gendered.
So God isn’t a He or a She but rather an “It”. Or is it even an “It”? Who knows. Another very very core doctrine and certainly an LDS member would want to know you belive it.
So I ask again, are you willing to add these base doctrines to your “Where do we stand” section found at: http://www.mrm.org/about ?
Jason, our creedal-Mormon friend,
That we hold to the historic Christian distinction between deity and humanity is all the more clear since we have the Athanasian creed on our site:
http://www.mrm.org/athanasian-creed
Your favorite creedal-Christian,
Aaron
Any “christian” who refers to the LDS church as the “morg” is a mocking hater, period. No persecution complex necessary.
I completely understand evangelicals’ concern with Joseph Smith’s “abomination” revelation; in fact, I suggest that’s at the core of all this. How many of your “christians” were once mormons? There’s a lot of hatred here, and on other forums. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
My point is that you spend so much time hating Mormonism (honestly, nothing short of the systematic dissolution and dismantling of the church infrastructure would satisfy some of you), it has become more important to you than trying to help Mormons find Christ. That’s idolatry, and is against the first commandment.
Mormons view themselves as Christian, whether you agree with the definition or not. So why not find common ground with them, and then proceed to show them what they’re missing, instead of wallowing in negativity about a “different Jesus”, calling them a “cult” of “the morg” and all that nonsense?
P.S. Don’t assume you know what religion I profess.
Doc, please see here:
http://blog.mrm.org/comment-policy/
to see our policy on making personal accusations of hatred.
I certainly did not mean to accuse anyone personally of hatred. I did not save my comment or I would gladly revise it to meet your guidelines for discourse. My goal is to keep things positive and keep the empahsis on Christ.
P.S. I wish you would exercise the same degree of moderation to those who slander Mormonism – I could cite 20 examples in this thread alone.
P.P.S. Don’t assume you know my religious views.
Doc, I sent a copy of the comment to you.
The reason Mormons are hooked on the idea of a heavenly mother is because it means there will be sex in heaven. Don’t let them fool you when they try to make my comment into something that reveals depravity on my part. They can’t understand the concept of God creating “ex nihilo,” so they relate everything to how we live and exist. The problem is trying to have an explanation for everything, then falling back on the “God will reveal more of whatever when we’re exalted” whenever they can’t defend their argument. So, since JS created this false teaching of celestial marriage and becoming gods and procreating spirit children, it only stands to reason that he would make up the idea of a heavenly mother–an idea that is totally without a biblical foundation, which is why he had to create the 8th AoF, so that he became the authority as opposed to God’s revealed Word, which is the work of the Holy Spirit through men, and why would the Holy Spirit give witness to those things that would contradict what He has already revealed? 1 Nephi 14 is nothing more than JS smearing the Bible in order to prepare his followers for the heresies he would perpetrate against the world. Those who follow the true Spirit of the Living God will not be led astray, while those who follow false spirits will remain blind to the Light–and even come to despise the Light.
Peace and Grace!
Here is a revised version – thanks for the opportunity to re-post:
Anyone who refers to the LDS church as the “morg” really is mocking Mormons – no persecution complex necessary.
I completely understand evangelicals’ concern with Joseph Smith’s “abomination” revelation; in fact, I suggest that’s at the core of all this. How many of you Christians were once mormons? But, two wrongs (Joseph Smith’s comment and an irrational emphasis on what’s wrong with Mormonism instead of what’s right with Jesus Christ) don’t make a right.
My point is that if one spends too much energy focused on the negatives of Mormonism, to the point that nothing short of the systematic dissolution and dismantling of the church infrastructure would satisfy some, it can become more important than trying to help Mormons find Christ in a positive way. That’s idolatry, and is against the first commandment.
Mormons view themselves as Christian, whether you agree with the definition or not. So why not find common ground with them, and then proceed to show them what they’re missing, instead of wallowing in negativity about a “different Jesus”, calling them a “cult” or “the morg” and all that nonsense? My answer to the question: “Are Mormons Christians?”, is that some of them are, and more could be – if those who profess to know Christ allow the light of Christ to shine on Mormons, helping them to a true born again experience. Endless negativity about the Mormons’ cultural and religious heritage does not help this process, especially since, no matter how one may feel it has gone astray, there’s no denying that Mormonism is rooted in Protestant Christianity.
P.S. Don’t assume you know what religion I profess.
One more thought: does it make sense that evil men would remove from the Bible teachings about becoming gods and having eternal sex with who-knows-how-many wives? Or, does it make more sense that evil men would add this to the Bible? The Mormon argument defies all reason and contradicts the true revealed Word of God. The sick part is that they will try to accuse us of worshiping the Bible, which is totally ludicrous–and which merely underscores their lack of understanding regarding how God has chosen to work through a fallen humanity–because we are the least likely candidates–and have the power and ability to preserve His Word despite us.
Peace and Grace!
Doc,
I can understand where you are coming from, but you present your argument as if there are shared presuppositions. I also don’t see where you make your connection to idolatry, so it would be great if you could expound on that thought. The fact of the matter is that Mormon theology paints a Jesus that is not congruent with the biblical text. That amounts to heresy, and heresy has always been fought against. It is clear that Mormon theology is nothing more than synchretism, and synchretism has never been acceptable in the eyes of the LORD. What we attempt to do here is to dispel the lies perpetrated by JS against the world and, more particularly, against the victims that believe what he taught. Yes, there are times when “ad hominem” taints the arguments of Christians, but each group is guilty of it. That doesn’t make it right, but it just shows that we are imperfect human beings trying to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will admit that there are times when the Spirit chastens me for attacking the person rather than the theology, so I am in agreement with you when you imply that we should examine our tactics.
Blessings…
While I’m at it – I’m going to address the fundamental unfairness of the practice of attacking Mormonism for every theological trap, such as the “God never sinned” discussion. Mormonism has been around for less that 200 years, not enough time for all the theological problems to be worked out. Certainly the ideas discussed here fits into that category. It was 300 years before irreconcilable contraditions about the nature of Christ and God within Christainity led to the council of Nicea.
Now I know that a response will be that Mormonism claims divine revelation and so every misstatement or blind alley from any leader is a “trap”. But the fact is, Mormons do not claim infallability, not even for Joseph Smith. They are working out issues and geting better at what they do. A recent posting on the official LDS site attempts to address how statement’s fomr leaders are or are not canonized. By the way, I believe the famous Lorenzo Snow couplet is not part of the mormon canon.
If I were involved in an evangelical ministry to mormons, I would help Mormons to see and build upon the Christian aspects of their existing faith, rather than trying myriad ways to destroy that faith. The latter approach is more likely to produce atheists.
P.S. If a mormon said they accepted the Apostle’s Creed, would you consider them a Christian? Just curious…
It took Christianity hundreds of years to, after Arian heretics pressed them to, come up with a helpful articulation of the Trinity that would combat the rhetorical manipulations of the Arians.
But I can guarantee you it only took the early Church two seconds to come to agreement on the issue of whether God the Father could have been a sinner in the past.
That’s not the kind of thing that needs to be hashed out. It’s a black and white issue, with immediate clarity.
Also, if Mormonism wants to claim itself a part of Christianity, then it has 2000 years of tradition to stand on, not 179 years.
Doc, you might benefit from reading this:
http://www.mrm.org/official-doctrine
Please pay special attention to the end of the article.
If a mormon said they accepted the Apostle’s Creed, would you consider them a Christian? Just curious…
If a person said they believed, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…”, but then said they believed that this God was a Flying Spaghetti Monster, no, I would not consider them a Christian.
If a person said they believed, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…”, but then said they believed that this Jesus was a Mexican bartender who saves people from the border patrol, no, I would not consider them a Christian.
If a person said they believed, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…”, but then said they believed that this God was an exalted man who progressed unto godhood having once been a mere man, no, I would not consider them a Christian.
If a person said they believed, “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…”, but then said they believed that this God could have been a sinner in the past, no, I would not consider them a Christian.
Meaning matters. Real common ground is over meaning of words, not words.
Doc,
I think the bigger question regarding a Mormon accepting the Apostle’s Creed would be if the Church would excommunicate them or not. A person can’t believe Mormon theology and the Apostle’s Creed at the same time, since they represent diametrically opposed views of theology. So, a Mormon accepting the Apostle’s Creed could no longer be considered a Mormon. I was a Mormon, Doc, and my belief system had to be brought to the ground so the building of a belief system based on the revealed Word of God could take root. Perhaps you feel this is too drastic, but this is the same thing God commanded the Israelites to do when they conquered a nation, which was to tear down their high places of worship. My high places of worship needed to be torn down, Doc. Now, perhaps we should consider the role of the Holy Spirit and the fact that we sometimes want to do the Holy Spirit’s job–which is to convict the world of sin. So, I will still agree with you that we should reexamine our tactics and line them up with Christlikeness.
Blessings…
Doc,
My opinion of the matter between Ev’s and Mormons is that it usually is in good faith at first, but it is when we seek to expound on the very real differences in our faiths that they get contentious. In other words, it is when we try to give our view of your faith, based on what we see historically and doctrinally, and of both our faiths that things get contentious.
It is my opinion that Mormons hate it when your faith is presented in any way other than what you think it is, but that most Mormons have no desire to present our faith in an accurate manner, if they care to understand it at all.
Certainly, it is adviseable to be respectful to all at all times. I don’t know what your post that was moderated said, but I suspect it contained several sharp statements that would violate your own advise to us, or it would not have been moderated.
But in the current topic of hte changes to the manual, do you understand why we are concerned? If not, then maybe we should start there.
Doc hit the daily comment limit.
Aaron, thanks for pointing me to the Athanasian Creed as posted on MRM. However it still does not address the two core doctrinal items I mentioned before and that would be quite pertinent information that any LDS person would want to know about if they were to make an informed decision regarding your faith. These are core fundamental beliefs, why not share them at MRM?
Btw I’m enjoying the Rob Sivulka talk on Youtube, thanks for posting the link.
~
jackg, you can see my posts on the prior thread that was shut down by the moderator for apparent blasphemy for pointing out the true nature of the evangelical God. When actual evangelical doctrine is laid bare for all to see the natural reaction is to recoil from it.
~
Andy Watson (or whoever you really are) I am the Destroyer of Creeds. The creeds that gave rise to the alien God in the first place. The creeds that are filled with nonsense.
My goal for the alien God is to kill it, burn it, stomp the ashes, salt the earth, burn the salted earth, burn the salty earthy ashes, stomp that out, pour gasoline around, burn the remaining mess, and then spit on it to put it out. (had a different word for spit but need to be respectful of the board)
Jason, you are sounding sarcastic and bitter today. Everything OK?
Is there a way to number the posts, with the rapid expansion of comments I can never figure out where I left off.
Kevin, great idea. I will try to integrate that.
I’ve spent quite abit of time digging through a book titled “Early Christian Doctrines” by J.N.D. Kelly. A comment on the cover from Cyril C. Richardson reads: “This book is a clear, precise and up-to-date account of the early history of Christian doctrine. It is invaluable for an understanding of the formative period when the main lines of Christian dogma were laid down; and it presents a balanced picture of the early controversies in the light of modern scholarship.”
There are no deep dark secrets when it comes to Christian scholarship on these matters. I must admit to more than a little irritation when Mormons do the “….and with the death of the apostles the gospel was lost….” routine. It shows such a lack of real knowledge and understanding regarding the history of the early Church and completely disregards the writings of the Church Fathers. The average Mormon thinks that a bunch of guys sat down at the Council of Nicea and made-up the doctrines that have guided the Christian faith since it’s inception. There is a long and storied history regarding the Church Father’s battle with early heresy and heretics. There is a paper trail regarding this.
The Mormon mottos may serve the purpose of Mormonism, to have a falling away so there can be a restoration, but it doesn’t follow the facts of history. At the same time Mormons want to claim that Mormonism was the standard operating mode for the first century Christian Church. The lack of any mention of this in the scriptures requires a complicated conspiracy theory to help Mormons make their presupposition fit.
Christians don’t change the basic doctrines of the Church to accommodate public opinion. We don’t have to hide our doctrines on the nature of God, of man, the inspiration of the Bible, the diety of Christ, the virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection, His second coming, the blood atonement, salvation by grace through faith, and the final judgement of God.
Falcon,
Of course, the BofM says that the Bible was pure and uncorrupted until the Catholic Church got a hold of it. It also says that it (the Book of Mormon) contains the “fullness of the gospel” as does the Bible. So one must wonder, was it also the Catholic church that corrupted the Book of Mormon? The BofM does surely NOT contain a full set of principles, ordinances, commandments, and covenants either! What a conspiracy! 😉
Doc,
The problem with “finding common ground” with the LDS, besides that there truly isn’t any, is that a Mormon believes that Christianity only has a little truth, and Mormons have all the truth that Christianity is missing. Thus, a little head-nodding and “oh, you poor thing, you don’t have the further light and knowledge” is what you get when you try to explain the salvation message to one.
Plus, there is no reason for a Mormon to want to look at the Bible… who knows what passages are even true in there, because of the 8th Article of Faith?
Of course, the whole “Legacy” of Joseph Smith is so pure and pretty, and all the other questionable stuff so “they had a good reason”ed that the whole Mormon story is lovely from start to finish. Who would want to reconsider?
That’s why it’s necessary to bring down the white-washed wall.
Jason,
Is all the god-hate talk just a joke too?
Sarvis said, “A recent posting on the official LDS site attempts to address how statement’s fomr leaders are or are not canonized.” Can you please provide a link to support this statement.
I have always had a problem with this very issue. When I was a member I was told, “Listen to the Prophet”, but when is he talking for God and when is he not? What is revelation what is not. So by positional lineage, what lessons can I look back upon, and learn of, teachings that are divine origin? If Snow’s couplet is not canon, although it was given from the pulpit, yet it is taught in a manual, I would come to the reasonable conclusion that the teachings from a prophet are revelation?
So if the church never takes an official stand, meaning they let the members decide, on what is revelation and what is opinion; than the omission will put the church in a no loss situation. For example, I claim that tomorrow it is going to rain (The exact opposite of what weather forecasters predict) and it does not rain, well then that was just my opinion. BUT, if it does rain, I can then (after the fact) claim that God gave me revelation.
As a faithful member, how can I trust a system that has a history and common practice of back dating revelation? (Quinn, Ext. of Power)
Interesting point, as a side note,, I cannot remember which LDS president said this (I think it was JFS), I will look up the quote later, but he said that he supposed he received revelation no different than a faithful Methodist.
IMO~Humor
The LDS church is not a house of cards, my friends, this is a bad analogy, but if we must. It is a house of cards built on a lake of fire and brimstone. A goof friend of mine best described the LDS church as a great and spacious building. 🙂
Anybody remember the little LDS play “My Turn on Earth”? In it, Jesus “gets” to be our Savior because he wants everyone to be able to choose, and if his plan is chosen, God can have the glory.
Satan’s plan is to force everyone to live righteously, and if his plan is chosen, he wants to keep the glory.
Isn’t that ironic?
All,
I have not been following Mormon Coffee as much as I have in times past but it seems there is an extra amount of venom lately. I am one to name names so I have got to ask – Jason, why single out 21st century Protestants for believing in an “alien” transcendent deity? Does anyone else here realize that if one adds up all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims on the earth (plus all the non-religious theists) you are talking about half of the earth. And our God is the “alien” being? Only in Orwellian Mormondum can the God of gods be “strange” (as in the OT sense of the word) and Jews can be Gentiles.
Jason Rae wrote “My goal for the alien God is to kill it, burn it, stomp the ashes, salt the earth, burn the salted earth, burn the salty earthy ashes, stomp that out, pour gasoline around, burn the remaining mess, and then spit on it to put it out. (had a different word for spit but need to be respectful of the board)”
…or, why don’t you try ‘trump up charges, use inflammatory language to incite a near-riot, manipulate the authorities, publicly shame, flog, slander, mock, physically beat, strip naked and kill by hanging on a cross so that it “becomes a curse” (Gal 3:13)’?
…oh, wait. That’s already been done.
…wait again, it was planned (Matt 17:22, Matt 20:18 etc).
…and (call me silly if you like) wasn’t there something about conquering death though the resurrection? I dunno, must have read it somewhere in that awfully corrupted and unreliable book that you say is (present tense) the Word of God.
I must have missed it among all that stuff about Heavenly Mother, the pre-mortal existence, God’s own journey to being a God, handshakes, funny underwear and Temple Ordinances etc etc.
In whose name do you come to us, Jason Rae?
Doc Sarvis wrote:
Apostle’s Creed:
The answer is that I don’t think so, I don’t think a simply acknowledgment of the Apostles Creed as true warrants the title of Christian, because your understanding of say the phrase “holy catholic church” might simply mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or your understanding of “conceived by the Holy Spirit” might be the power by which God the Father sired Jesus Christ. “Forgiveness of sins” might be after all we can do, “life everlasting” might mean exaltation in your view. Very similar to what LDS do to the Bible, Isaiah 28:13.
Lautensack
Martin I’m evangelical Christian and I think I fully understood that Jason was talking about the creeds rather than God himself. You may think I’m wrong or silly to post this but to be honest his words from the previous article kept me up for almost two nights and I’m trying to sort a lot of things out right now.
mj
Well merryjane,
There are any number of us here willing, ready and able to help in the sorting out process you are going through. In fact that’s part of the fun of being a Christian. I love to be challenged, it makes me stay-up nights in study. At least you care enough. But let me caution you; Jason is a bomb thrower and most of the stuff he presents is pretty easily handled. In fact Andy Watson/Berean was telling me that much of what we get from that frustrated fella is the same things encountered with atheists and satanists….same words and tactics.
Martin,
You surprised me in your last post. Careful, you have your toes right up to the line of sounding like me. I don’t think this blog could handle two.
Jason Rae wrote:
Are tigers aliens, they are non-human? Maybe you should phrase this statement a little better.
Jason Rae wrote:
God, as He is in Himself, cannot be understood by any save Himself. 1 Timothy 6:16, “Dwelling in that inaccessible light, whom no man has seen or can see.” Since the things which pertain to God must be explained in a human way, they often involve anthropomorphic language. To more fully understand how God transcends gender since both sexes image God, a detailed look at Theology Proper is in order. However as a counter question: If God is simply Male, how is it that both Men and Women image Him?
Lautensack
first of all, I have thought for awhile that Martin and Falcon may have been twins separated at birth. But then again, that may be an example of my weird humor.
MJ – Thanks for your openness regarding your posts. You may not be able to dialogue about these issues to your satisfaction on these threads, but the moderators can connect you to resources like Falcon and Andy, and others. Take care and God Bless!
SETFREE
As Ralph puts it, we can never really know. However, there are two things I would like to point out. First, while it is very difficult to understand that there is no beginning to the line of gods, it is even more incomprehensable (at least to me) to imagine a beginning.
Joseph Smith said it best when he said if something has a beginning it must have an end. Thus, to say that there was a first god means there must be a last god, and I would hate for that to happen.
There is a great song that addresses this very question. It is hymn 89 in our hymnals (I think) and is titled “If You Could Hie to Kolob”
If you could hie to Kolob, in the twinkling of an eye.
And then continue onward, with that same speed to fly.
Do you think that you could ever, through all eternity.
Find out the generation where gods began to be.
Or see the grand beginning where space does not extend.
Or view the last creation where gods and matter end.
Me thinks the spirit whispers “No man has found pure space,
Nor seen the outside curtain, where nothing has a place.”
The works of God continue, and worlds and lives abound.
Improvement and progression have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter, there is no end to race,
There is no end to being, there is no end to race.
There are two more verses, but this really does a great job of explaining this concept in the best way for our minds to comprehend it.
Ward wrote “I have thought for awhile that Martin and Falcon may have been twins separated at birth.”
Ha ha!
If I have one, then I AM the evil twin.
Seriously, Falcon and I are not related and we have never met, though we share similar histories; in particular our past involvement with the Charismatic movement.
God may soon get a hold of Jason Rae and rock his world. Look what happened to the Apostle Paul when he was persecuting Christians! Jason has a lot of anger for the God of the Bible – but God can turn that all around!
No anger mobaby. Just simple observations.
Jason: I think you are seeing your “simple observations” too simply. If I exhibit a behavior and label it as “A”, but most of the people label it “B”, I need to look at that. Perhaps I am in need of some self-correction. I need my friends around me to help me understand the impact of my actions and communications. I make regular corrections of myself, based on these relationships. For me, I also seek God’s direction about these differing perspectives. All of this works together. Of course, this usually works better if I am desiring to stay in community with the people who are raising the concerns. It is harder to accept input from those who I disagree with or maybe don’t respect. However, over my life, I have found that I have benefitted from listening to all parties.
If you really want to have your voice and perspectives heard in dialogical places like MC, it might serve you well to review your comments over the last few days and reread them from others’ perspectives. Do you want us to assume arrogance, belittlement, put down, aggression, and anger (and, even violence) from your comments? If so, then don’t change.
This goes both ways. I am trying to model respectful dialogue and disagreement. I am not trying to put anyone down. I know some of my brothers may get too sarcastic or even harsh. However, I know from my relationship with them that they will test themselves and make amends where necessary.
This does not mean we will avoid all of this in the future. A continuing problem we have here is that of circular arguments and reasoning. If you want to continue here in good company, then you will need to hear what I am saying. And possibly do something about it.
Take care and God Bless!
Quoting Jason Rae: “My goal for the alien God is to kill it, burn it, stomp the ashes, salt the earth, burn the salted earth, burn the salty earthy ashes, stomp that out, pour gasoline around, burn the remaining mess, and then spit on it to put it out. (had a different word for spit but need to be respectful of the board)”
That sound like anger to me! Fortunately, God can take it – He took all man’s anger at Him on the cross, died, and rose again. And all who are called by Him and trust in Him through faith given by the preaching of Christ crucified are cleansed from all sin and counted righteous in God’s sight.
Truly God is alien (set-apart, different, separated from) to us in many ways – we are alien to His righteousness and holiness, we are alien to His purity, we are alien to Him in our lusts and sinfulness. These are all things that separate us from the Holy Sovereign God. God did not leave it there though. He came and died on a cross so that we can be His sons and daughters, adopted as His children. He gave His life for our sins. The alien God became Our Father in Heaven, glory to His name.
I just second Jim Olsen’s comments. I personally like the changes. They bring this teaching aid into closer conformity with LDS scriptural language. It makes changes appropriate for the times and people’s evolving sensitivity about words and doctrines. That is the role of living apostles.
Thirty years ago there was no need for a “Proclamation on the Family” because people did not think the words “gay” and “marriage” would ever attempt to be shoved down our throats as a mainstream standard.
Please don’t say such a view is obvious, since the Anglicans, who are excellent Biblical scholars in their own right, don’t see their acceptance of homosexual clerics and practices as inconsistent with the Bible.
Likewise, the understanding of “obedience” and “repentance” in previous years always was understood in the sense of an attitude of faith with consistent works which followed, and ongoing repentance of our small sins, directing us to rely upon god for strength and grace, his Spirit (See Kimball, “Miracle of Forgiveness, page 368; Ether 12:27). Clarifying to a generation built upon legalism and self-rationalization of “I’m good enough” to avoid actual Biblical repentance is important.
The hair splitting by not-pro-LDS critics of the teachings of the Church on repentance typify this kind of micro-scrutiny which distorts the intended meaning. We see the LDS leaders moving the approach to teaching that one must forsake sins and hate them, yet that obtaining a “perfect” life is possible (1 Nephi 3:7), though it is not immediate. The way involves a desire to correct our failings and relying upon the atonement to cleanse us. It is perfectly consistent with the teachings of the Church back to the beginning.
Much ado about nothing.
mobaby, it’s alien as in non-human ie something entirely outside of the human experience.
The creeds have given rise to a creature so vast and incomprehensible that we now have a gigantic castrated genderless monster ruling the universe that, btw, doesn’t even have the power to propagate its own species.
In other words, making Gospel Principles more palatable for mainstreaming.
That whole “This is the way our Heavenly Father became God” thing? People with the Holy Spirit are very sensitive to it. We worship the God who was always fully God.
And the removal of “These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father” removes one of the clearest teachings in the book that implies our spirit children will have a relationship of worship with us as we have a relationship of worship with our spirit father.
How does removing such language “clarify” the situation? It only further obscures and confuses outsiders as to what views institutional Mormonism is trying to preserve and foster.
I have to wonder if language like this is weasel language, cryptically including the notion that Gospel Principles went inappropriately beyond what the LDS canon teaches, and shaved off some of these extra-canonical “speculative” teachings.
In other words, it seems Mormons sometimes recognize bona fide corrections in manuals that went beyond “pure doctrine” to speculation, yet euphemistically speak of the shaving-off/correction as a “clarification”.
For background on this see the article on the LDS teetering between maximalism and minimalism, between sola scriptura and prima ecclesia.
I like what VOOK said in this last post.
Sorry, I have not been following this thread very much, as it goes a little to fast for me.
I will just say that for one who understands ALL the doctrine of the church, and who has read and studied, and learned concerning the words of the Prophets, nothing has changed from what was written to what is now written.
All that has happened is they have omitted certain items and topics that are difficult for the average person to truly grasp, and thus these topics or more a stumbling block then they are a blessing. This does not make them false, nor does it mean the church is denying them as doctrine. All it means is that they are looking after the spiritual welfare of the members.
Now, I know the LDS get ridiculed for teaching in the same manner as Paul (milk before meat), but this is all that is happening with these changes.
A little more on the fact that the creedal God doesn’t even have the power to propagate its own species:
I would say any being or “God” that does not have the power to reproduce is in many ways powerless. So most humans have a power the creedal God does not have.
Now we know that in the resurrection our bodies will have all of the same faculties we have now and that nothing will be lost.
So let’s just pick someone, say… Brigham Young with his 30 plus wives in the resurrection producing offspring. Now give Brigham Young eternity and he will produce a vast kingdom but he will do it in a far more natural way than the creedal God since the creedal God doesn’t have that power. He will produce in his own image.
BY produces his kingdom naturally, the creedal God waves a wand Harry Potter style or however he does it with some clay and water and breathing etc.
I would submit to you that a God that can’t propagate its own species isn’t a God at all. And is in fact the very antithesis of life.
Jason,
God is God, He has all power. If he wanted to “propagate” more Gods he sure has the power to do so. The question is why would God do this? His ways are not our ways. It does not make any since for God to “propagate” more Gods. What would be the point? God is all powerful, all knowing. I think God knows what is best. I would leave it at that.
Oh please, is this typical Mormon minding bending or what?
“All that has happened is they have omitted certain items and topics that are difficult for the average person to truly grasp, and this these topics are more a stumbling block then they are a blessing.”
Man is the falcon working hard to control himself with this one. Let me translate: “Mormons can’t allow the truth of Mormonism be known until we suck folks into the vortex of a black hole that is Mormonism. We have to seduce them into thinking the religion is one thing when it’s really something else; we have to give them the cult mind massage and then we’ll sneak this stuff in.
Look at me…..it’s called lying! It’s called seduction. It’s no different than a pimp getting a 14 year old girl to turn tricks for him. The pimp dosen’t put the kid out on the street the first night. There’s a whole process of breaking down normal resistance to the abhorent act. I’m really being as restrained as I can be here, but the fact that this is seen as normal and acceptable behavior on the part of Mormons really pushes me over the edge.
“This does not make them false, nor does it mean the church is denying them as doctrine. All it means is that they are looking after the spiritual welfare of the members.” Really? It’s all for your own good sweetheart. We know we’ve lied to you and misrepresenting who we are and what we’ve been, and we’ve taken your time and money BUT it’s all been for your own good!
Am I really hearing this? How incredably perverted is this religion?
What a bunch of dishonest, low-life con artists these Mormons are. They take bait-and-switch to a whole new level. But it’s all for people’s own good so they don’t miss a blessing….Oh Sigh…be still my heart….isn’t it all just wonderful?
kholland, so the creedal God does have the power to procreate? So then he’s NOT genderless? So maybe he’s a male and would procreate with a female? Is that what you’re saying?
Just saying that God can “propagate” more Gods is a break from evangelical Christianity right there. You are the first kholland to make such a statement that I’ve ever heard.
And you ask why would God do this but that doesn’t matter as
you have now opened the door to the fact that he may very well have done so.
Do the rest of the Evs stand with kholland on this?
Kevin wrote:
Sarvis said, “A recent posting on the official LDS site attempts to address how statement’s fomr leaders are or are not canonized.” Can you please provide a link to support this statement.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
PS Aaron says he doesn’t want links to “apologetic mormon websites” but hopefully he will see the contect of this one.
Gotta run folks – more comments/responses later. Thanks!