- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:
It’s interesting that just as globalism and the internet are bringing East and West together and making “the greater culture” more familiar with the idea of becoming God, we are pulling back. Either we are a bit late or there is a deeper purpose to the change. I tend to wonder if behind this is the idea that “glorifying the Father” means, not “becoming Gods” but “becoming God”. Anyway, it’s an interesting change.
I wonder if any criticism from other religions about what we teach in our church classes has to do with the teachings. Do they need to be more vague about things we are less certain about because it doesn’t help the missionary work or the retention of members?
Old:
Quote:By following the Lord’s teachings, we can return to live with him and our heavenly parents in the celestial kingdom.
New:
Quote:By following His teachings, we can inherit a place in the celestial kingdom.
Interesting. If our end is to return to the bosom of the Father, I wonder why they changed the wording from “return to live with” to “inherit a place in”. In light of the other changes made that de-emphasize “earning” exaltation, what does this movement mean? Why was the word “inherit” chosen? By following his teachings, we won’t lose our inheritance? We won’t be disowned? What does it imply about the conditions of
Hislove vs the conditions of mylove? Are these changes true to recent teachings about “becoming” and “being” vs. “doing”, “earning”, and “achieving”? Hmm. Quote:What about prophecy and seership?
Exactly. What happened to current prophecy? Where are the angelic visitations and visions? What happened that seership would be reduced to “feeling the spirit”? It sounds suspiciously like the heavens are shut for some reason….maybe it’s just me.
This exact idea has been a concern for me. Thanks for saying it.
And I do like the that the focus is being shifted away from “earning/performance” sort of language. I have thought for a long time that many people are missing a full understanding of grace.
Quote:.I submit, with respect to Poppyseed, that the core is indeed changed. The character of God, as brought forth to us by Joseph Smith is absolutely a Gospel Essential.
Yes. I see what you are saying and I agree. I think I was just trying to point out that on the subject of how Father became a God, that we know very very little and that most opinions on this are in murky water. It would seem foolish to put this into a entry level manual. It seems to me a more appropriate topic for Gospel Doctrine class. That is all I meant. I don’t want to say that these things shouldn’t be discussed or questioned or that we shouldn’t even share our collective supposings on the matter. I was just thinking of the venue and the audience. Also, in my mind essential doctrines include saving doctrines and commandments that lead people to saving ordinances. Understanding the origin of gods, whether there are one or many as the D&C suggests doesn’t fall under that umbrella. But I do see value in teaching the basics about Eternal progression. And I think it might be a wise position for the church to admit that it doesn’t know everything on these subjects so as to prevent misunderstanding.
I wonder if this is why GBHinckley answered the Larry King question like he did — “I don’t know that we teach that” . He didn’t say that we don’t believe this or that we condemn the ideas.
I will say also — Have you been in a lesson where this deeper doctrine was discussed? Holy Cow. You get some interesting ideas getting shared. And not everyone knows how to separate opinion from solid doctrine.
I might have to go back to Gospel Doctrine class where people just tell “feel good” stories… Gospel Essentials is getting too deep for me.
bridget_night wrote:Have you all heard about this:
http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=741#more-741 And what are your thoughts…. I have mixed feelings.Wow! No mixed feelings here. I absolutely love the changes. I wonder if it’s also available in Spanish already. My husband and I are assistant ward missionaries with the Church’s “Hispanic Initiative” and attend the Gospel Principles class in a Spanish-speaking branch here in Salt Lake. I’d love to see them start using the new manual. I’m going to check into it.
I guess, on second thought, I do have reservations about one thing. The elimination (or minimalization) of the “doctrines” that were listed will just give the anti-Mormons more fodder. They’ll be saying, “Well, the LDS Church used to teach its members that (as an example), Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. They don’t teach that any more. They’re always changing their doctrines so that they’ll appear to be more mainstream.” Oh well… the heck with them. The changes are good.
Quote:Bruce in Montana said…What about prophecy and seership?
Exactly. What happened to current prophecy? Where are the angelic visitations and visions? What happened that seership would be reduced to “feeling the spirit”? It sounds suspiciously like the heavens are shut for some reason….maybe it’s just me.
I am just happy God is willing to let me feel his spirit, I ask for no more than that. But I do know…men and women who are more worthy than I still receive visitations from angles and God (Holy spirit of promise). This church is led by men who please God, other wise their hearts stop beating.
Quote:I am just happy God is willing to let me feel his spirit, I ask for no more than that.
I agree, essentially.
Quote:But I do know…men and women who are more worthy than I still receive visitations from angles and God (Holy spirit of promise).
I agree, in theory, but I believe that is true of people all over the world – in lots of different circumstances and without the “more worthy than I” disclaimer.
Quote:This church is led by men who please God,
I agree, but with the same disclaimer as above – that MANY people all over the world please God, even many who lead other congregations and religions, men and women. I truly do believe that God still is “well pleased” in general with the leadership of the LDS Church, even as I don’t believe the leadership of the Church understands and accomplishes everything perfectly in accordance with the full will of God – and I am positive they would agree with that last part.
Quote:otherwise their hearts stop beating.
We disagree about as completely as we can on this one.
(Sorry for the length on this one. I got a bit carried away.) My problem with the changes we see in the church isn’t that changes exist. For example, the church obviously changed a lot during Joseph Smith’s time. I would also say that things changed a lot during the time of Christ. To some extent, that’s the whole reason they came to earth in the first place – to change things.
My problem comes in the nature of the changes. In the time of JS and Christ the changes we’re progressive. They added to our cannon of knowledge and new things to think about. IMO, most of the changes made today are digressions – they are taking things away rather than adding more. The changes to the temple ceremony is a classic example of this. Those changes mostly involved removing things and lowering expectations (e.g. no longer covenanting to “obey” the law of consecration but rather to “accept” it). For me, those changes don’t mean that it was once true and is no longer true. For me it would be like ripping out the book of Alma from the Book of Mormon. Would the book still be true? Of course. That’s not the issue. The real question would be whether it contained more truth or less truth than it did before. (If the BOM doesn’t work for you, pick any “true” book and the analogy still applies.)
These kinds of changes are even noticed by non-Mormon scholars. For example, Professor Harold Bloom, a non-Mormon scholar of religion from Yale University once stated,
“It has become somewhat of a commonplace to observe that modern Mormonism tends to reduce itself to another Protestant sect, another Christian heresy, while the religion of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Parley and Orson Pratt and other leading early Mormons was a far more radical swerve away from Protestant tradition.” (The Annual David P. Gardner Lecture, Kingsbury Hall, University of Utah, November 15, 1990)Notice that this guy isn’t really attacking Mormonism or the LDS church. He’s simply stating that there is a difference between early Mormonism and modern Mormonism – a difference that seems to be moving us away from the (IMO) great stuff taught by JS and others. For those who truly love the gospel (e.g. me), and like the “radical” stuff Joseph Smith taught (me again), this can become kind of depressing. Regarding some issues, either they were right then or they are right now, but not both. Trying to reconcile the various points of disagreement is difficult to say the least.
Elder B. H. Roberts once made an observation about this problem that likely applies to many people on this forum:
“Suppose your youth receive their impressions of church history from ‘pictures and stories’ and build their faith upon these alleged miracles [and] shall someday come face to face with the fact that their belief rests on falsehoods, what then will be the result? Will they not say that since these things are myth and our Church has permitted them to be perpetuated …might not the other fundamentals to the actual story of the Church, the things in which it had its origin, might they not all be lies and nothing but lies? … [Some say that] because one repudiates the false he stands in danger of weakening, perhaps losing the truth. I have no fear of such results. I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.” (Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story, p. 363)Elder Roberts’ insight seems to have proven prophetic. He seems to describe well what is happening among many Latter-day Saints today (including many of us here).
As I see it, the real problem here isn’t that changes are being made. It is that most (all?) of the changes are taking things away rather than adding more. They are reducing our level of gospel understanding rather than increasing it. If you will permit me one scripture that may be applicable:
“For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.” (2 Nephi 28:30, underline added)If this passage is true, it kinda makes me wonder just how the Lord would go about taking away even that which we have.
Quote:Pappanoon » 16 Aug 2009, 07:59
(Sorry for the length on this one. I got a bit carried away.)
My problem with the changes we see in the church isn’t that changes exist. For example, the church obviously changed a lot during Joseph Smith’s time. I would also say that things changed a lot during the time of Christ. To some extent, that’s the whole reason they came to earth in the first place – to change things.
My problem comes in the nature of the changes. In the time of JS and Christ the changes we’re progressive. They added to our cannon of knowledge and new things to think about. IMO, most of the changes made today are digressions – they are taking things away rather than adding more. The changes to the temple ceremony is a classic example of this. Those changes mostly involved removing things and lowering expectations (e.g. no longer covenanting to “obey” the law of consecration but rather to “accept” it). For me, those changes don’t mean that it was once true and is no longer true. For me it would be like ripping out the book of Alma from the Book of Mormon. Would the book still be true? Of course. That’s not the issue. The real question would be whether it contained more truth or less truth than it did before. (If the BOM doesn’t work for you, pick any “true” book and the analogy still applies.)
This is on the just thinking out loud level, prehaps things are becoming more simple in church teachings because there are alot of people like me who just can’t get off their duff, go to church and show forth alot of zeal for the faith. So God gives according to our abilities. Joseph Fielding Smith was discouraged that LDS were not living worthy enough to be recieving more revelation and scripture. If it’s true half the members don’t attend church, in what condition are those that do? And I’m not suggesting I know. Brigham Young said people would be joining the church in droves if the members were living their religion, and that that would be without sending forth any missionaries. I know people who have moved to Utah from out of state who find it hard going to church here. I guess there must be a reason for that. I better get back to church to find out what the heck is going on.
This is a double edged sword for me. Let me explain: 1. I actually agree with Bruce. Joseph taught unequivocal, clear, unmistakable, and profound doctrines that recently we have nigh abandon. I can really sympathize with the fundamentalist stance on these things and I understand why people would become such. People want something to latch onto, to be certain of. Joseph, and his first few successors gave clear speech (“thus saith the Lord…”) that gave little room for interpretations. If we are to accept that Joseph knew what he was talking about, had a direct line to God, as most TBMs seem to believe, then picking and choosing which revealed doctrines we accept now, is nothing short of apostasy!
2. OTOH, I think it is unwise to be so certain in Joseph’s abilities, revelations, etc. The worldview that is generated by such certainty is a dangerous one as evidenced by the abundance of ill-functioning cult members in our society. When will society learn that a single individual running the show is not a wise idea? Yet, we give full confidence to those we deem as prophets, assuming they are somehow beyond the reach of collective human wisdom showing this point. For this reason, I am very glad to see the church adopting a healthier worldview to pass on to its members. The leaders are admitting uncertainty in Joseph and past prophets by letting these things go (a fact supported by historical evidence IMHO).
Hence, I am very torn on the issue. The TBM part of me, and one who has studied Joseph’s life, feels sad to see such powerful teachings going by the wayside. Yet, the realistic side of me is grateful that we are embracing a better view of reality. If the church eventually takes a stance on the BoM similar to the CoC church (as Bruce alluded to in his extreme example) I will be grateful again that we are embracing reality, while saddened at the implications for normal TBM thought.
I think rank and file members are in such a precarious position. We are taught that Joseph was a prophet, and are frequently reminded of how humble, honest, wonderful, powerful, spiritual, and charismatic he was. Indeed according to Taylor, “save Jesus only” no one has done more for the salvation of mankind (quite a lofty statement IMHO). And most members know something of the teachings in the King Follett discourse. But they are also taught dependence on and submission to the current prophet and his teachings. Throw in a dash of science, psychology, and reality and you have a recipe for something very hard to sort through. Fortunately for the church, they have done a good job I think of emphasizing that current prophets trump past prophets, so the pull toward fundamentalism will be diminished by loyalty to the current prophet.
Of course, in all honesty, I bet hardly anyone will even analyze it like we have here. Most will barely even notice anything changed. I think people are joining the church because of what it is today, not because of its history or founder.
Quote:jmb 275 said…Of course, in all honesty, I bet hardly anyone will even analyze it like we have here. Most will barely even notice anything changed. I think people are joining the church because of what it is today, not because of its history or founder.
Pardon me while I assume that many other’s, like myself, have studied alot of church history and managed to come away with no shattered vision of Joseph Smith and it’s early history. Meaning no disrespect here, when I have had conversations with knowledgable active LDS about this very subject, their take was that such people fall into the catagory of having been overcome of the world. And yes, I fall into that catagory. To me this is the very purpose of life, I really wonder if what I have come to believe this far, how much of it is acceptable to God. When I go back to church I want to be able to say my beliefs are in line with what the current leaders believe. Anything less, I believe God will find me wanting.
Quote:Old-Timer said…I agree, but with the same disclaimer as above – that MANY people all over the world please God, even many who lead other congregations and religions, men and women. I truly do believe that God still is “well pleased” in general with the leadership of the LDS Church, even as I don’t believe the leadership of the Church understands and accomplishes everything perfectly in accordance with the full will of God – and I am positive they would agree with that last part.
I have A LOT of markers in my life that I use to show personal growth. One such marker was when I figured out that other people on the planet were as loved and looked after by God as the LDS. One BYU speaker told how the church’s that formed from the Catholic church, starting with Martin Luther were sent by God for that express purpose, and that that prepared the world for the restoration. I like your cosmopolitan outlook.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.