A shoutout to Wade Englund

[_Runtu]

I for one think President Hinckley was being honest (well, except for the "I don't know if we teach that" phrase).

I think he truly doesn't know if God was a man, and I think he doesn't see Jesus face to face, in the Holy of Holies as is rumored, evidenced by his clear statement that revelation comes to him as the still small voice.

He put an end to those rumors, or at least he tried. There are still those who don't believe him and claim Jesus speaks with him personally.

My guess... in another decade of so, the "God was a man/man can be God" idea will go the way of the Adam/God theory! (You know, just because it was in manuals, and taught by prophets doesn't mean it was doctrine... prophets just speak their opinion, etc.).

:-)

~dancer~

Funny how when the early Christian church diluted its doctrines to become more acceptable to the world, Mormons call that the Great Apostasy. When the modern LDS church does it, it's called "clarifying doctrine" and "continuing revelation." I think you may be right about that.

[_wenglund]

Wade "The tool" Englund is, im sure, still an ignorant little man.

His empty exhortations in which he proclaims to be the savior of homosexuals, his twisted view of reality and his inability to determine what is truly real qualify him to have no respect. I find his actions to be comical, literally. I see his actions as a comedy and not the sick sad reality that they are.

Does this snear remind anyone else of junior high or middle school?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I for one think President Hinckley was being honest (well, except for the "I don't know if we teach that" phrase).

I think he truly doesn't know if God was a man, and I think he doesn't see Jesus face to face, in the Holy of Holies as is rumored, evidenced by his clear statement that revelation comes to him as the still small voice.

He put an end to those rumors, or at least he tried. There are still those who don't believe him and claim Jesus speaks with him personally.

My guess... in another decade of so, the "God was a man/man can be God" idea will go the way of the Adam/God theory! (You know, just because it was in manuals, and taught by prophets doesn't mean it was doctrine... prophets just speak their opinion, etc.).

:-)

~dancer~

Funny how when the early Christian church diluted its doctrines to become more acceptable to the world, Mormons call that the Great Apostasy. When the modern LDS church does it, it's called "clarifying doctrine" and "continuing revelation." I think you may be right about that.

...and here I thought the apostasy was a result of the keys of the priesthood not being passed on, rather than evolving doctrine due to growth in knowledge and light.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

...and here I thought the apostasy was a result of the keys of the priesthood not being passed on, rather than evolving doctrine due to growth in knowledge and light.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which of course resulted in dilution and changing of doctrines, "plain and precious things," and so forth. How on earth is the denial and jettisoning of core doctrines a "growth in knowledge and light"?

[_moksha]

I for one think President Hinckley was being honest (well, except for the "I don't know if we teach that" phrase).

I think he truly doesn't know if God was a man, and I think he doesn't see Jesus face to face, in the Holy of Holies as is rumored, evidenced by his clear statement that revelation comes to him as the still small voice.

He put an end to those rumors, or at least he tried. There are still those who don't believe him and claim Jesus speaks with him personally.

My guess... in another decade of so, the "God was a man/man can be God" idea will go the way of the Adam/God theory! (You know, just because it was in manuals, and taught by prophets doesn't mean it was doctrine... prophets just speak their opinion, etc.).

:-)

~dancer~

TruthDancer, I think that is a very good analysis. President Hinckley's refusal to further engage in unfounded claims is a mark of honesty and integrity. The "I don't know that we teach that" phrase signaled to me, a shift in former doctrine we are willing to teach. There is no reason it has to be taught any further. If it was wild speculation to begin with, then in all honesty, why should it be perpetuated? Except for ax grinding ammunition, why would anyone want to take him to task for honesty?


Tal, I read what he said.

...

[_wenglund]

...and here I thought the apostasy was a result of the keys of the priesthood not being passed on, rather than evolving doctrine due to growth in knowledge and light.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which of course resulted in dilution and changing of doctrines, "plain and precious things," and so forth.

Or, to my way of thinking, it results in building upon the "plain and precious things" line upon line, precept upon precept.

How on earth is the denial and jettisoning of core doctrines a "growth in knowledge and light"?

If you are referring to what the prophet said in the Larry King interview, I don't view it as a "core doctrine", nor do I consider it a "denial and jettison" of even a common belief within the Church. So, your question doesn't apply to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

...and here I thought the apostasy was a result of the keys of the priesthood not being passed on, rather than evolving doctrine due to growth in knowledge and light.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which of course resulted in dilution and changing of doctrines, "plain and precious things," and so forth.

Or, to my way of thinking, it results in building upon the "plain and precious things" line upon line, precept upon precept.

How on earth is the denial and jettisoning of core doctrines a "growth in knowledge and light"?

If you are referring to what the prophet said in the Larry King interview, I don't view it as a "core doctrine", nor do I consider it a "denial and jettison" of even a common belief within the Church. So, your question doesn't apply to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, this is stunning to me, Wade. You don't consider Eternal Progression to be "a core doctrine," or a "common belief within the Church," despite the material covered in the temple?

[_MormonMendacity]

Wow, this is stunning to me, Wade. You don't consider Eternal Progression to be "a core doctrine," or a "common belief within the Church," despite the material covered in the temple?

All but a few arcane phrases and gestures in the temple are pretty much open to Sunday discussion...and that is one of them.

Becoming gods is a core doctrine, Wade. It's more than just a couplet to the 4 - 12 Million Mormons in the world...how many ever there really are.

[_wenglund]

...and here I thought the apostasy was a result of the keys of the priesthood not being passed on, rather than evolving doctrine due to growth in knowledge and light.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which of course resulted in dilution and changing of doctrines, "plain and precious things," and so forth.

Or, to my way of thinking, it results in building upon the "plain and precious things" line upon line, precept upon precept.

How on earth is the denial and jettisoning of core doctrines a "growth in knowledge and light"?

If you are referring to what the prophet said in the Larry King interview, I don't view it as a "core doctrine", nor do I consider it a "denial and jettison" of even a common belief within the Church. So, your question doesn't apply to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, this is stunning to me, Wade. You don't consider Eternal Progression to be "a core doctrine," or a "common belief within the Church," despite the material covered in the temple?

My statement didn't have to do with "eternal progression". So, your question doesn't apply to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wow, this is stunning to me, Wade. You don't consider Eternal Progression to be "a core doctrine," or a "common belief within the Church," despite the material covered in the temple?

All but a few arcane phrases and gestures in the temple are pretty much open to Sunday discussion...and that is one of them.

Becoming gods is a core doctrine, Wade. It's more than just a couplet to the 4 - 12 Million Mormons in the world...how many ever there really are.

I was speaking for myself, as a current, committed and believe member of the CoJCoLDS. And, since I am the ultimate authority on what I believe, my comment stands.

However, you are speaking on behalf of a religion you no longer belong to, and towards which you show continued contempt. That doesn't position you very well for speaking for us--at least not in the minds of reasonable people.

Now, you may have had that perception as a member, and given how you interpret the prophet's statement (or misinterprete it as the case may be), that may help explain, in part, why you are no longer a member and I others remain faithful and believing.

It does not, however, explain your contempt. But, perhaps we can find an explanation for that on several of the threads I have started to that end. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-