DiscussMormonism.com

It was recently announced that a revised edition of Gospel Principles will, starting in 2010, be used for Priesthood and Relief Society on the second and third Sundays of each month (replacing the "Teaching of the Prophets" series). Aaron Shafovaloff of Mormon Research Ministries has begun compiling a very interesting list of the changes made to this new edition which can be seen here.

It's a work in progress (not unlike Gospel Principles), but after a quick glance at Shafovaloff's list, it appears that obedience, in places, has been de-emphasized with an emphasis placed on faith, mention of Heavenly Parents has been changed to Heavenly Father only, and exaltation is no longer referred to as a reward that can somehow be earned, but is a gift.

Here are a few other changes I found notable (blue text indicates addition, red text indicates removal):

These spirit children will have the same relationship to them [those gifted with exaltation] as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family eternal increase...

We will become exalted, just like our Heavenly Father to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families.

Everything that He does is to help His children become like Him—a god.

Very interesting stuff. Check it out:

Changes to Gospel Principles










.

I've lost my copy of Gospel Principles, but isn't the term "Gods in embryo" used in like chapter one? I didn't see any changes listed about that term.

Correction- It appears I'm wrong. This term is used in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor.

Wow, Dwight!

Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention! This is fascinating!

The changes are MUCH more "PC". They lend themselves more readily to those transitioning from other faiths.

I find it especially interesting that ALL of the Brigham Young Journal of Discourses references have been removed!

As a member, this honestly makes me very happy.

I have felt a great disconnect from many aspects of the Plan of Salvation. These changes word things in a way that makes it possible for all who are sincere in their desire to be righteous can obtain Celestial glory.

These changes have basically taken away the "Law of Moses" mentality that has existed in the Church for so long. I tried copy/pasting the quote, but it wouldn't recognize the portions that were crossed out as opposed to added. Please take a look at the link:

http://www.mrm.org/gospel-principles

Pay particularly close attention to the changes made from 1997 to 2009.

This is truly reminiscent of the 1990 temple changes.

I am curious as to how things will change in regards to temple recommend questions, etc.

I think that this could be the beginning of some very monumental changes which will be incorporated into Church policy.

It's about time that the spirit of the law outweigh the letter of the law. This is, after all, what Christ's message was all about.

liz3564 wrote:It's about time that the spirit of the law outweigh the letter of the law. This is, after all, what Christ's message was all about.

Have to disagree with you here Liz.

First, I think it's impossible to obey the spirit of the law unless you obey the letter of the law. I agree that the spirit of the Law is superior but I don't think there's a replacement. It's an addendum not a replacement.

I also don't think this is what Christ's message was about. His message was that everyone (except him) was fallen and lost, damned due to disobedience to a Law we are unwilling/unable to live fully. He pointed out that what we all deserve according to the Law is damnation and death. His message is that He will do what we cannot. He will save us from our deserved fate if we will take advantage of what he did.

Liz,

Stereotypical statement, but very true of my parents generation and almost as true to my generation, It's the women that are typically letter of the law, and men tend to be more spirit of the law

But looking here, things are flipped!

The Nehor wrote:

liz3564 wrote:It's about time that the spirit of the law outweigh the letter of the law. This is, after all, what Christ's message was all about.

Have to disagree with you here Liz.

First, I think it's impossible to obey the spirit of the law unless you obey the letter of the law. I agree that the spirit of the Law is superior but I don't think there's a replacement. It's an addendum not a replacement.

I also don't think this is what Christ's message was about. His message was that everyone (except him) was fallen and lost, damned due to disobedience to a Law we are unwilling/unable to live fully. He pointed out that what we all deserve according to the Law is damnation and death. His message is that He will do what we cannot. He will save us from our deserved fate if we will take advantage of what he did.

The letter of the law is the first step...the baby step. When Christ came, he fulfilled the law. So, yes, in that sense, Christ's law replaced the lower law with the higher law.

I'm probably not expressing myself that well. I'm very tired...on my way to bed. I'll expand on this more tomorrow.

My understanding is that mrm.org got a lot wrong. It wouldn't suprise me.

As it turns out, one of the main changes being debated regarding us being the spirit children of God turns out to be a change that eliminates redundancy. That we are the spirit children of God is still mentioned in the same chapter.

There is another question to answer that those on the MADB thread didn't seem to want to tackle.....

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that a doctrine was indeed removed from the manual. Would that mean the Church is truly eliminating that doctrine, distancing themselves from that doctrine, or simply determining that such a doctrine does not belong in a basic manual?

I think it's a very good chance that no doctrine is being removed from LDS doctrine as a whole no matter what changes you might find in this manual.

bcspace wrote:I think it's a very good chance that no doctrine is being removed from LDS doctrine as a whole no matter what changes you might find in this manual.

I would site quotes from Mormon legal administrators concerning the revelatory nature and value of the Journal of Discourses as a whole, but you know the quotes.

Pick and choose BC.

You are still left with round pegs and square holes.

liz3564 wrote: I'm probably not expressing myself that well. I'm very tired...on my way to bed. I'll expand on this more tomorrow.

You can sleep over it many nights, many moons...You still won't get it.
they are changing the church doctrine faster/often than their underwear (if you can imagine older men). They look for gullible,
borderline stupid people to buy this crap.
I have an older version this book in mint condition, I've been baptized, took my endowment mid 70's, do you think then there was any talk about Limited Geography crap? Do you think there is a chance the missionary who did baptize me didn't say; "The Native Americans are the remnants of Lamanites?".
I see the church basically trapped into her own stupid web of dumb stories, trying to make sense, doing damage control.

I can't help it being so arrogant, full of myself, reasonably intelligent people to asking me to buy this
beyond stupid story.
and pay for it too, 10%.
Deal of the year, line up.

I would site quotes from Mormon legal administrators concerning the revelatory nature and value of the Journal of Discourses as a whole, but you know the quotes.

But could you pick anything official according to the Church's own definition? I don't think so.