I will leave it to readers to decide whether the LDS Church is honest or whether it is lying about itself and its teachings. We'll begin with this example:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C14

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

Henry B. Eyring, October 2002 Ensign

Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things “so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 386).

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual: Section 138 - Vision of the Redemption of the Dead

D&C 138:12–17. Will Many People Be Saved in the Celestial Kingdom?
.........
President Spencer W. Kimball said in a general priesthood meeting:

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.

“Just think of the possibilities, the potential. Every little boy that has just been born becomes an heir to this glorious, glorious program. When he is grown, he meets a lovely woman; they are married in the holy temple. They live all the commandments of the Lord. They keep themselves clean. And then they become sons of God, and they go forward with their great program—they go beyond the angels, beyond the angels and the gods that are waiting there. They go to their exaltation.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1975, p. 120; or Ensign, Nov. 1975, p. 80 ; see also Alma 13:10–12 .)

“Chapter 36: Eternal Life,” Gospel Fundamentals

To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done.

Presidents of the Church Student Manual - Religion 345
Chapter 5 - Lorenzo Snow - Fifth President of the Church

They Shall Organize Worlds and Rule Over Them

“Only a short time before his death, President Snow visited the Brigham Young University [then Brigham Young Academy], at Provo. President Brimhall escorted the party through one of the buildings; he wanted to reach the assembly room as soon as possible, as the students had already gathered. They were going through one of the kindergarten rooms; President Brimhall had reached the door and was about to open it and go on when President Snow said: ‘Wait a moment, President Brimhall, I want to see these children at work; what are they doing?’ Brother Brimhall replied that they were making clay spheres. ‘That is very interesting,’ the President said. ‘I want to watch them.’ He quietly watched the children for several minutes and then lifted a little girl, perhaps six years of age, and stood her on a table. He then took the clay sphere from her hand, and, turning to Brother Brimhall, said:

“‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” (Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59).

“Chapter 4: Teaching Children: from Four to Eleven Years,” A Parent’s Guide

Teach Children to Accept and Understand Their Gender Roles
.........
“Each one of you has it within the realm of his possibility to develop a kingdom over which you will preside as its king and god. You will need to develop yourself and grow in ability and power and worthiness, to govern such a world with all of its people. You are sent to this earth not merely to have a good time or to satisfy urges or passions or desires. You are sent to this earth, not to ride merry-go-rounds, airplanes, automobiles, and have what the world calls ‘fun.’

“You are sent to this world with a very serious purpose. You are sent to school, for that matter, to begin as a human infant and grow to unbelievable proportions in wisdom, judgment, knowledge, and power” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], p. 31).

Let's deal with this:

1) President Kimball was mistaken in his speculation.
2) President Snow was mistaken in his speculation.

Why? Because what they taught is inconsistent with the scriptures. Man is not God nor can we ever be God (in fact, to state one is God is blasphemy). Man can not save himself and must be saved by God and we can not set the example. However, we can be saved and go to heaven (these are the "gods"), and share in all God has and does. And the only world promised by the scriptures for to those that are thus saved is the Earth.

So where does Kimball, Snow, and others go wrong? They make the mistake of stating that man will govern their own worlds and be God. This can never happen since we are simply incapable. WE CAN assist God in the creation of worlds and one of those ways is in the organizing of spirit children for those worlds, but this process is driven and directed by God (not exalted man). In fact, this exact process was involved in the formation of this world.

With this proper understanding, we realize we aren't literally the spirit children of God, but exalted humanoids that were saved before and that Jesus is the only Begotten Son of the Father. This also makes it clear that Lucifer is NOT literally the spirit brother of Jesus as anti-mormons love to claim. And this provides for the billions upon billions of likely inhabited worlds as well in our universe since the savior is not unique to our world, but each generation of worlds has a savior (that is the only Begotten). This is something that Christianity can not fathom, but is provided for by Mormonism.

Tobin--

Your post is not "dealing with this," because your personal, idiosyncratic beliefs about Mormonism are irrelevant to the OP. The OP is about the LDS Church misrepresenting its teachings in its "Mormonism 101" press release.

Despite your desire to evangelize the gospel of Tobin, and thereby miss the point of this and other threads, the truth value of any LDS teachings is a separate issue from whether the Church is lying about what it teaches.

You can believe what you want Darth J. This is the direction the Church is going in and they will eventually arrive there. You can be in as much denial about it as you like. I see a lot of these same themes expressed by many Mormons on forums (and by some of the leaders of the Church).

Tobin--

Pleeze lurn two rede.

The truth value of a given claim is a separate issue from the issue of whether or not the claim is in fact being made.

I read just fine (even when you misspell it). Your position is an attack on a misunderstanding of doctrine by members and leaders of the Church. Apologists can simply dismiss those attacks by recognizing those leaders and members are and were mistaken about the doctrine. Presently the Church (its leaders and membership) is in the process of correcting those teachings. And I understand that you dismiss what I stated, but that is what is really going on here (they aren't lying) and I've expressed where they will end up eventually.

Tobin--

"What the Church teaches" is a question of objective fact.

"Whether what the Church teaches is true" is a different question.

"The Church teaches this because it misunderstands Joseph Smith and/or conflicts with what God told me in a vision" is simply a paraphrase of "whether what the Church teaches is true."

This thread is about "what the Church teaches." If God has personally told you otherwise, He is wrong.

You are anti-mormon. Prophets do not lead the church astray, they don't mistake. They can not.

Nowhere, You anti-mormon liar.

They don't make any mistake. Prophets of the only true church are not that type of fallible men.

You will be literally excommunicated.
I am not Your enemy. This is a warning only.

Darth J, you are mistaken about the concept of what the Church teaches being static or being necessarily 100% correct. It simply isn't so. It is actually a rather dynamic process as our understanding improves and the Church goes through a process of revising and changing. It isn't as fast as some of us would like, but it does happen.

And this isn't just me saying this stuff. Many members and leaders of the Church are going in this direction (as recent websites and statements from the Church and its leadership demonstrate). You claim they are lying when they do this. I claim they are correcting something that was taught in the past that is incorrect. I have simply expressed the reasons why they are doing this and what direction I believe they are going in.

Now, you may not agree with my statements, but so what? I have had a number of discussions with Mormons about this and many can understand what I am saying and why this is the correct way to approach this doctrine.

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that 'Tobin' is a sock puppet for Heavenly Father. That's the only way his posts make sense.

If only Belmont still posted here we could ask him to get the IP address that 'Tobin' is posting from. Now that would be interesting!

Phooey, last I checked, these guys were mortal men and not God. They are perfectly capable of being wrong.
Again, they are mortal fallible men.
That's not true. They are not God.
I very much doubt it, but even if I am - so what? If I seek the truth as best as God gives me the light to see it, I have no regrets. It is God that saves, not men or churches.

I don't know who runs "LDS Newsroom", though I do think they put out many interesting things. One of my favourites is The Mormon Ethic of Civility.

However, I can't find anywhere on their website where it says something like: "Signed and approved by the First Presidency".

Even past First Presidency statements, such as the 1949 statement on Blacks, seems to be now null and void, and written with "a limited understanding" (corrected, incidentally, by a better understanding of what the Book of Mormon always taught).

But this is what I've always observed about you, Darth. You're a real disciple and fan of using quotations by Mormon leaders, and pitting them against one another, and "bingo!" - we should all abandon Mormonism because Darth J has shown us, unequivocally, that they are all "liars and dishonest".

I'd like to refer you to an old essay, relevant to you, I think, written by a then "anonymous Mormon historian", also known as "Dr. Clandestine", who happened to be none other than D. Michael Quinn.

JERALD AND SANDRA TANNER'S DISTORTED VIEW OF MORMONISM: A RESPONSE TO MORMONISM--SHADOW OR REALITY?.

You, my friend, fall into the Tanners "distorted view of Mormonism", and the more you post here, the more you evidence that. And that's why, from day one, I haven't had a lot of respect for you, or your distorted and biased views.

That is a very wicked thing to do, certainly.

I don't particularly care to have my own planet, but I am absolutely blown away by how easily teachings of the LDS Church I knew have been tossed aside with the eager complicity of people like Tobin. It represents one of the many ways in which Mormonism is accommodating itself to mainstream Christianity and thereby making itself utterly irrelevant. Why put one's self out for what one can essentially get from the Protestant minister down the street for less trouble?

It can be when people take Alvin Dyer's speech on Blacks, for instance, as "doctrine". Yep, I'd have no hesitation in classing it as "wicked", in that instance, and others.

so what ???

You have excommunicated Yourself. Then I don't fall into conversation with You.

Do not spread disease germs! (see "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect", by Mc Conkie)

It takes two witnesses to establish a charge. I am one and the Apocalrock is the second to demonstrate the fall and sin of the LDS Church against the gospel. It is now in the dust and officially on equal footing with the Great and Abominable Church of the Devil. It is done the day of the Gentile is over. It is fully unplugged. No virtue kaput!

Cool that the Lord took such pains in a generation with no faith to make for his own witness by foreknown proximity and destination of a people who were responsible to save the world and failed. As well prophesied it will be the lost sheep of the House of Israel that gather out from all nations and whithersoever the Lord has driven them who redeem Zion and build up her waste places. It is done.

You are seeing the moldering of just another daughter of the Great Whore in the dust of history.

Actually, that was by Boyd K. Packer.

The hoards are begging Mormons to change their policies on homosexuals, and to "get real" and "become relevant". So which is it, Kish? Is "accommodation" a good, or a bad thing? You want them to "accommodate" homosexuals, because that's a "good thing", but if they "accommodate" in any other areas, that makes them "irrelevant"?

You need to be consistent, too, and if you feel LDS should not "accommodate", then don't cry foul when they declare homosexuality "an abomination". Seems you want them to be "progressive" in some areas, which suits you, but not in others, which don't suit you?

We are witnessing another evolutionary phase of the LDS church, due not to "revelation", but the pressure of the host culture.

It happened with polygamy. Polygamy was the "gem" in the crown of the restoration. Members at that time could not conceive that the church would abandon such a core and sacred way of life. But it did. Why? Because Utah wanted statehood.

It happened with the priesthood ban. Many members were shocked, having been taught that the ban would only be lifted after every other non-banned worthy male had the priesthood, throughout the history of our world. But instead, it happened in 1978. Why? Because society was condemning Mormonism and threatening BYU's sports.

It is happening now with the slow abandonment of the basic teaching that worthy human beings will be exalted to godhood one day, and be gods over their own worlds. Why? Because LDS leaders want the political and social power and influence that may come with having their own in powerful political positions, like the US president.

I have often felt that, with access to information about church history increasing via the internet, that the church is at a crossroads. It could react two ways to this inspection and attention. It could retrench and become even more conservative, more wedded to its past in a defensive maneuver. Or it could make its teachings more palatable to the mainstream in an attempt to be accepted.

It's clear the church has chosen the latter route.

I predict that, while it may seem a good move at the moment, the mainstreaming of the LDS church will eventually result in a drop in membership as the LDS church looks more and more like any other protestant faith. Kind of like what happened to the RLDS.

That's a fair question, Ray. I would simply note that their method of accommodation generally runs along the same lines as the worst sort of Protestantism. So, I am, in fact, consistent in disliking the many ways they are consistent in mimicking a socially conservative Protestant sect.