DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 5:59 am**

Apparently this was passed around BYU in the 90s, and it’s since been preserved on the Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/details/gospel-myst ... -knowledge

It’s essentially the largest collection of all the deep doctrine that boomers love to talk about in the high council room during 3rd hour. And it holds no punches- the Mormon author calls Mormons polytheist, for example. He expounds at length on the infinite regression of Gods. The author considers all of this so sensitive, that the document “should not be shown to non-Mormons or ex-Mormons.”

There’s been a recent trend by DCP and other apologists to gaslight critics, and try to pretend like these ideas were never a part of Mormonism. Many young Mormons go on missions completely oblivious that these ideas were prevalent a few decades earlier. Documents like these preserve the an important part of the history and culture of the church. They preserve a time when Mormons were comfortable being Mormons, and weren’t trying to morph into just another generic Protestant denomination.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 7:54 am**

drumdude wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 01, 2024 5:59 am
There’s been a recent trend by DCP and other apologists to gaslight critics, and try to pretend like these ideas were never a part of Mormonism.

Burying embarrassing history is part of the Deceptive Process.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 1:39 pm**

drumdude wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 01, 2024 5:59 am
Apparently this was passed around BYU in the 90s, and it’s since been preserved on the Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/details/gospel-myst ... -knowledge

It’s essentially the largest collection of all the deep doctrine that boomers love to talk about in the high council room during 3rd hour. And it holds no punches- the Mormon author calls Mormons polytheist, for example. He expounds at length on the infinite regression of Gods. The author considers all of this so sensitive, that the document “should not be shown to non-Mormons or ex-Mormons.”

There’s been a recent trend by DCP and other apologists to gaslight critics, and try to pretend like these ideas were never a part of Mormonism. Many young Mormons go on missions completely oblivious that these ideas were prevalent a few decades earlier. Documents like these preserve the an important part of the history and culture of the church. They preserve a time when Mormons were comfortable being Mormons, and weren’t trying to morph into just another generic Protestant denomination.

Agree. Including the 2nd anointing. Adam God. And details explicitly stating Mormons can become Gods. It also has extensive lists of who received the second anointing including John D Lee. A fact Will Bagley points out in Blood of the Prophets. A major motivation in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Over 3,000 pages long.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:11 pm**

I grew up in the Restoration Church of: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be".
Which has now become the Reconciliation Church of: "I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it."

Not a lot of what Smith restored remains and the modern Mormon church more closely resembles the "great and spacious building" or "the great and abominable church," than what started out in 1830's.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:22 pm**

Fence Sitter wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:11 pm
I grew up in the Restoration Church of: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be".
Which has now become the Reconciliation Church of: "I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it."

Not a lot of what Smith restored remains and the modern Mormon church more closely resembles the "great and spacious building" or "the great and abominable church," than what started out in 1830's.

I find it difficult to think that much of anything has changed. Well except polygamy not being practiced currently but still is a part of the doctrine, (D and C for those members who read) I think it has been normal practice to be a bit tight lipped about more distinct doctrines when talking publicly. I see no surprise that the church president deflected in a nationally televised interview. No doctrine was changed that I have heard about.

Posted: **Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:43 pm**

I downloaded the document and looked a few things up. Pretty cool. Yes, the document is proof that Chapel Mormonism is real.

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 12:49 am**

Gadianton wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:43 pm
I downloaded the document and looked a few things up. Pretty cool. Yes, the document is proof that Chapel Mormonism is real.

Oh man you are really gonna upset DCP with those fightin' words.......

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:25 am**

huckelberry wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:22 pm
Fence Sitter wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 01, 2024 3:11 pm
I grew up in the Restoration Church of: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be".
Which has now become the Reconciliation Church of: "I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it."

Not a lot of what Smith restored remains and the modern Mormon church more closely resembles the "great and spacious building" or "the great and abominable church," than what started out in 1830's.
I find it difficult to think that much of anything has changed. Well except polygamy not being practiced currently but still is a part of the doctrine, (D and C for those member who read) I think it has been normal practice to be a bit tight lipped about more distinct doctrines when talking publicly. I see no surprise that the church president deflected in a nationally televised interview. No doctrine was changed that I have heard about.

Defining what doctrine is, in Mormonism, is part of the problem. Some may still claim polygamy is part of the doctrine, others not, but certainly how it is practiced and viewed today has radically changed from Smith's time. At one time many would have claimed that having a minimum of three wives was a doctrinal requirement to get into the highest level of heaven. Even for those who still think polygamy is doctrinal, that requirement no longer is held. Polygamy involves the sealing power, another doctrine, if you will, that has changed radically since Smith's time. Initially it was used as a method to build up one's kingdom here on earth by having as many people sealed to themselves as possible in order to create a group of people who would be subservient to you in the eternities. Sort of like building your own Celestial Fantasy Football Team. It was not used to seal blood families together as it is today, rather it was used to create entire new families glued together by this sealing. People were trying to get sealed to as high a leader in the church as they could in an effort to be as high up on the celestial power ladder. After Smith died, hundreds of women had themselves sealed to him, instead of their own husbands because Smith was just one step below Christ. Similarly, we also no longer practice what was known as The Law of Adoption.

Millennialism really isn't a thing, and no one talks about getting ready to gather to Missouri. (I remember how difficult it was for my parents with a family of 9, trying to pay for and maintain a years-supply of food.) And no one is looking for the Lost Ten Tribes or, for that matter, thinks they actually still exist.

The temple ceremony has had some significant changes to it that I would call doctrinal, like the elimination of the graphic oaths and penalties.

We no longer believe the Patriarchal Priesthood to be on the same level with the office of the president of the church, nor is the office of the Presiding Patriarch being filled anymore with a descendent of Hyrum Smith.

Women are no longer allowed to give blessings for the sick.

Baptism for the sick are no longer performed.

Blacks are allowed to have the priesthood and participate in temple rites. (Young claimed that would not happen until all worthy whites had the priesthood.) Also, doctrinal reasoning for the ban has been done away with and changes to a shrug of the shoulders when asked for an explanation.

The Lectures on Faith have been eliminated from the Canon.

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 8:16 pm**

Fence Sitter wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 02, 2024 2:25 am
huckelberry wrote: ↑
Sat Jun 01, 2024 11:22 pm
I find it difficult to think that much of anything has changed. Well except polygamy not being practiced currently but still is a part of the doctrine, (D and C for those member who read) I think it has been normal practice to be a bit tight lipped about more distinct doctrines when talking publicly. I see no surprise that the church president deflected in a nationally televised interview. No doctrine was changed that I have heard about.
Defining what doctrine is, in Mormonism, is part of the problem. Some may still claim polygamy is part of the doctrine, others not, but certainly how it is practiced and viewed today has radically changed from Smith's time. At one time many would have claimed that having a minimum of three wives was a doctrinal requirement to get into the highest level of heaven. Even for those who still think polygamy is doctrinal, that requirement no longer is held. Polygamy involves the sealing power, another doctrine, if you will, that has changed radically since Smith's time. Initially it was used as a method to build up one's kingdom here on earth by having as many people sealed to themselves as possible in order to create a group of people who would be subservient to you in the eternities. Sort of like building your own Celestial Fantasy Football Team. It was not used to seal blood families together as it is today, rather it was used to create entire new families glued together by this sealing. People were trying to get sealed to as high a leader in the church as they could in an effort to be as high up on the celestial power ladder. After Smith died, hundreds of women had themselves sealed to him, instead of their own husbands because Smith was just one step below Christ. Similarly, we also no longer practice what was known as The Law of Adoption.

Millennialism really isn't a thing, and no one talks about getting ready to gather to Missouri. (I remember how difficult it was for my parents with a family of 9, trying to pay for and maintain a years-supply of food.) And no one is looking for the Lost Ten Tribes or, for that matter, thinks they actually still exist.

The temple ceremony has had some significant changes to it that I would call doctrinal, like the elimination of the graphic oaths and penalties.

We no longer believe the Patriarchal Priesthood to be on the same level with the office of the president of the church, nor is the office of the Presiding Patriarch being filled anymore with a descendent of Hyrum Smith.

Women are no longer allowed to give blessings for the sick.

Baptism for the sick are no longer performed.

Blacks are allowed to have the priesthood and participate in temple rites. (Young claimed that would not happen until all worthy whites had the priesthood.) Also, doctrinal reasoning for the ban has been done away with and changes to a shrug of the shoulders when asked for an explanation.

The Lectures on Faith have been eliminated from the Canon.

fence sitter, that is a thoughtful list you have provided. I can see better what you were thinking of. You noted that what is considered change in doctrine could be difficult to pin down. I probably see most of those changes as change in practice, social change, rather than foundational doctrines. But I see you have a point.

I had imagined that concern for second coming, preparedness for food shortages, and Missouri would fluctuate up and down. Has the idea of the Lord's returning shortly faded a lot recently? I do not know. I remember hearing a few comments about lost ten tribes but was not aware anybody took that very seriously.

That odd business about adoption sealings strikes me as closer to doctrinal change but has the idea been rejected or just received reasonable neglect?

Posted: **Sun Jun 02, 2024 11:48 pm**

huckelberry wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 02, 2024 8:16 pm
fence sitter, that is a thoughtful list you have provided. I can see better what you were thinking of. You noted that what is considered change in doctrine could be difficult to pin down. I probably see most of those changes as change in practice, social change, rather than foundational doctrines. But I see you have a point.

A hundred years from now when the Prophetess who leads the Mormon church marries her wife, she will declare how blessed the church is to be able to receive direction from Our Mother-In-Heaven in those Latter-days. Not much is really "foundational" in the Mormon church. Members today have to defend those past practices as non-doctrinal because what other choice do they have? We have only to look at the mess they have made of the "Blacks and the Priesthood " issues to understand why.

huckelberry wrote:I had imagined that concern for second coming, preparedness for food shortages, and Missouri would fluctuate up and down. Has the idea of the Lord's returning shortly faded a lot recently? I do not know. I remember hearing a few comments about lost ten tribes but was not aware anybody took that very seriously.

I think most members still believe in the 2nd coming, but probably not in their or their kids' lifetimes. In Joseph Smith's time it was common for a person's patriarchal blessing to declare they would be still alive to see the face of the returned Christ or something like that. Speaking of those blessings, they still declare which one of the lost ten tribes the recipient descends from but, unlike 100 years ago, (before DNA was around) no one actually believes it to be literal. Additionally, it was thought the blessings caused a change in the blood, so the recipient actually was a true bloodline descendent of Abraham.

huckelberry wrote:That odd business about adoption sealings strikes me as closer to doctrinal change but has the idea been rejected or just received reasonable neglect?

As with most of the changes in church practices over the years, things just fade away. I think the adoption practices were discontinued toward the end of the 19th or early 20th century. Removing the Lectures on Faith from the Doctrine & Covenants in 1927 was clearly a doctrinal change. When they were originally published, they were considered the "doctrine[al]" portion of the Doctrine & Covenants. They were removed because the Godhead doctrine had changed since 1835.

The failure to continue with the Patriarchal Priesthood is a huge change in doctrine, in my opinion. Smith viewed the office of the Presiding Patriarch as equally important and powerful as the office of a prophet and saw the Patriarchal office as a Smith family bloodline calling, which is why modern leadership have eliminated it. The pool of candidates really limited their choice to fill it and the level of power it held was a threat to the 12 & 1st presidency.

Bottom line is that a church that still touts itself as a restoration church has done away with or diminished greatly most of what it once claimed to have restored.

DiscussMormonism.com

Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine

Re: Gail C McOmber‘s 1990s Manifesto on Deep Mormon Doctrine