Was Hinckley lying?

[_ozemc]

Was he lying? Or was it simply a halftruth?

Neither. While the fact that God was once a mortal man is LDS doctrine, there is a reason why it's not found until chapter 46 of Gospel Principles. Milk before meat.

Just thinking .... I hear that all the time, and, to me, it is really just a copout.

Why be coy about it? Just say what you believe and be done with it.

[_harmony]

Just thinking .... I hear that all the time, and, to me, it is really just a copout.

Why be coy about it? Just say what you believe and be done with it.

Because the press would crucify him? Ridicule him? Laugh?

[_ozemc]

Because the press would crucify him? Ridicule him? Laugh?

So?

If he's really a "prophet of God", then can't he take the criticism?

Why should he care what the world thinks anyway?

Christ said what He believed .... and was crucified.

Are His followers expected to do less, especially one who supposedly has the direct line right to Him?

[_Mephitus]

Im with you Oz. If your going to believe and follow something, own up to it. Otherwise your just being dishonest.

[_bcspace]

Was he lying? Or was it simply a halftruth?

Neither. While the fact that God was once a mortal man is LDS doctrine, there is a reason why it's not found until chapter 46 of Gospel Principles. Milk before meat.

Just thinking .... I hear that all the time, and, to me, it is really just a copout.

Not at all. It's been the way doctrine has been presented for a very long time.

Why be coy about it? Just say what you believe and be done with it.

I agree. Especially on boards like this when most people already know most of the doctrine anyway LDS or not. Hinkley was speaking to a broad audience many of which know next nothing at all about the LDS Church.

If the audience had not been so broad, I'll bet he would've stated it matter-of-fact just like I do here. On my mission, if someone had just let us in the door and asked us straight up, I always stated, "Yes, we believe that God was once a man and that we all can become Gods just like Him let me show you in your Bible here...."

If I were debating theologians at Biola University, I would do the same. But I would deflect it to a national audience like Hinckley did as they are not all the same in terms of what they already know.

[_bcspace]

Because the press would crucify him? Ridicule him? Laugh?

This is another good answer and it has to do with the Biblical concept of casting pearls before swine. On these boards however, the doctrine is already well-known and often misrepresented or attacked. Therefore, I have no problem at all communicating this doctrine succintly here.

If the national debate and attention on Romney (for example) were to turn to this doctrine, then I'll bet the Church would make statements communicating this doctrine.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Because the press would crucify him? Ridicule him? Laugh?

This is another good answer and it has to do with the Biblical concept of casting pearls before swine. On these boards however, the doctrine is already well-known and often misrepresented or attacked. Therefore, I have no problem at all communicating this doctrine succintly here.

If the national debate and attention on Romney (for example) were to turn to this doctrine, then I'll bet the Church would make statements communicating this doctrine.

So far as they could not mention Mormon Mitt.

[_bcspace]

So far as they could not mention Mormon Mitt.

They wouldn't have to mention Mitt to communicate the doctrine.

[_Zakuska]

Most of us are aware of the story of prophet Gordon Hinkley being interviewed and saying that:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, ``As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now [i]that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. (heh...this is unintentionally ironic...Mormons aren't taught to question anything).

Yet here...clear as day, is Joseph Smith's answer on the immortality of man:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God........yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...." (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)

Was he lying? Or was it simply a halftruth?

Furthermore, why was he so coy with a member of the press? One who could repeat the Mormon message of God-like immortality to the ignorant masses.

Lying? Why would he need to lie about the truth?

It depends on the definition of "MAN"... Does it mean Fallen Man or Imortal Glorified Man. We know next to nothing about the Fathers "mortal existance" Besides two ellusions to it in scripture.

Now as far as Mans Progression he's exactly correct.

This is from the Vatican web site... it's quoting from the 1st century Christian Father Athanasias who won the debatge at Nicea.

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

http://www.vatican.net/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

[_Ezias]

.