Eternal child gods? and changing Truth

[_Joseph]

From the King Follet Discourse by Joseph Smith: "A question may be asked -- "Will mothers have their children in eternity?" Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid. There is not damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow ; it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature."

The section about the child staying in the same precise form as it appeared before it died is not in current l-dsinc manuals or teachings. It was removed some time ago, kind of like out of favor Generals in soviet photos used to be.

Why remove 'inspired teachings' if you are committed to the Truth?

[_Buffalo]

Down the memory hole it goes

[_bcspace]

It remains official doctrine:

Chapter 14: Words of Hope and Consolation at the Time of Death," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007)

Down the memory hole it goes

Yes, but only in the minds of some.....

[_just me]

I feel sorry for the micropremies who will remain 1 lb into eternity. Kinda depressing.

[_Buffalo]

It remains official doctrine:

Chapter 14: Words of Hope and Consolation at the Time of Death," Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007)

Down the memory hole it goes

Yes, but only in the minds of some.....

Mormons, for instance. Notice that the manual leaves out the part about remaining infants for all eternity, ruling on thrones as infants.

Like I said, down the memory hole it goes.

[_bcspace]

Mormons, for instance. Notice that the manual leaves out the part about remaining infants for all eternity, ruling on thrones as infants.

I was hoping just me would catch that. Joseph F. Smith's statement in the manual is the doctrine and has been for a long time. But regarding your memory hole, I would like a CFR now on the OP's "removed" claim. Removed from what? Doctrine? Someone's hopeful reconstruction not recognized as doctrine by the Church?

[_Buffalo]

Mormons, for instance. Notice that the manual leaves out the part about remaining infants for all eternity, ruling on thrones as infants.

I was hoping just me would catch that. Joseph F. Smith's statement in the manual is the doctrine and has been for a long time. But regarding your memory hole, I would like a CFR now on the OP's "removed" claim. Removed from what? Doctrine? Someone's hopeful reconstruction not recognized as doctrine by the Church?

http://byustudies.BYU.edu/PDFLibrary/18.2Larson.pdf

Are you aware of what the term "memory hole" means and where it comes from?

[_just me]

Mormons, for instance. Notice that the manual leaves out the part about remaining infants for all eternity, ruling on thrones as infants.

I was hoping just me would catch that. Joseph F. Smith's statement in the manual is the doctrine and has been for a long time. But regarding your memory hole, I would like a CFR now on the OP's "removed" claim. Removed from what? Doctrine? Someone's hopeful reconstruction not recognized as doctrine by the Church?

Hoping I would catch what? I am not seriously invested in this thread.

[_Joseph]

Well mr space, I got it from two different websites after reading a comparison of the discourse - edited and unedited, from an old LDS manual I had as reference material.

It is l-dsinc doctrine per your guidelines, being published in an official l-dsinc publication. Here is where you can find it:

http://LDS.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king- ... n?lang=eng

[_bcspace]

It is l-dsinc doctrine per your guidelines, being published in an official l-dsinc publication. Here is where you can find it:

http://LDS.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king- ... n?lang=eng

Thanks for the CFR which shows that the OP portion in question is not doctrine.

Hoping I would catch what? I am not seriously invested in this thread.

That's okay. Joseph doesn;t seem to be very invested either. Or Buffalo. Just looking for evidence of doctrine in the original claim. None found so far.