Was Hinckley lying?

[_Sam Harris]

Then why did he not state that?

I bet you are the typical Mormon with the picture of Hinckley hanging on your wall. No?

No picture of Pres Hinckley on my wall.

That is a step in the right direction.

Let me make a small attempt to point you in a "right" direction, PP. Cease with the fundie-anti-mormon assumptions about literally everyone who falls under the umbrella "LDS". I've gone toe to toe with Jason a few times, but I can't even agree with the way you're treating him, and every other Mormon here. Good grief. Go pick on Cog or BCSpace, at least make it fun. Leave the liberal Mormons alone, give them credit for thinking on their own.

[_Sam Harris]

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.

I think Hinckley just didn't want to talk about it. He could have just said that, though. What's so bad about that?

[_moksha]

I think President Hinckley was setting the stage for deemphasizing some unusual ideas from the past.

[_why me]

No, I don't think that he was lying. But I do believe that he showed his age. Prophet or no prophet, he is an old man whose mind is not as chipper as it used to be. If I get to be his age, I am sure that I will also be having problems with idea retention and in articulating my thoughts. Such is life for the elderly and Gordon B.Hinckley is no different.

Give the guy a break...Lets see how we will all be at 90 years old. I am sure that we will be posting lucidly on these boards. :=)

[_richardMdBorn]

No, I don't think that he was lying. But I do believe that he showed his age. Prophet or no prophet, he is an old man whose mind is not as chipper as it used to be. If I get to be his age, I am sure that I will also be having problems with idea retention and in articulating my thoughts. Such is life for the elderly and Gordon B.Hinckley is no different.

Give the guy a break...Lets see how we will all be at 90 years old. I am sure that we will be posting lucidly on these boards. :=)

WHY then is he still prophet? The LDS emphasize that they have a big advantage over other churches in that they have a living prophet. Yet when on ZLMB I asked what revelations this prophet gives, they responded with unimpressive answers such as choosing where to put new temples. If the prophet is incapacitated by age, is he serving as a prophet.

[_harmony]

No, I don't think that he was lying. But I do believe that he showed his age. Prophet or no prophet, he is an old man whose mind is not as chipper as it used to be. If I get to be his age, I am sure that I will also be having problems with idea retention and in articulating my thoughts. Such is life for the elderly and Gordon B.Hinckley is no different.

Give the guy a break...Lets see how we will all be at 90 years old. I am sure that we will be posting lucidly on these boards. :=)

WHY then is he still prophet? The LDS emphasize that they have a big advantage over other churches in that they have a living prophet. Yet when on ZLMB I asked what revelations this prophet gives, they responded with unimpressive answers such as choosing where to put new temples. If the prophet is incapacitated by age, is he serving as a prophet.

We do not currently have the option of retiring a prophet unless he's completely incapacitated like Pres Benson was. This is a flaw in the system. It results in government by the geriocracy. While I think we should cherish our elderly, putting them at the head of the organization when there's many who are quite capable and are much younger is simply stupid. Back in the 1800's, people didn't live to be in their 90's, 80's, or even 60's very often. Because of the longer lifespan, we need to change this system. (We won't though... another myth of the church that is bogus).

[_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.

[_Mary]

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).

Well, I'll put my foot in it here, and say that he was being 'economical with the truth'. What he seems to have done is to repeat that all familiar 'couplet' with which most members are/were familiar, (I certainly was) and miss out the more controversial aspect of it. He was lying I think (no doubt with wise intentions), with perhaps a nod and wink to the membership who would know better anyway?

I think it may backfire though, because some members will say....hey....wait a minute....that's not right. We do believe in the 'couplet' in its entirety, at least this is what we have always been taught.

If the doctrine is not worth standing up for then perhaps it's not a doctrine worth holding on to, even in private, and perhaps an announcement to the membership of the church that clarifies what has always been taken for granted as specific Mormon doctrine would be useful.

Just my opinion.

Mary


I'm also interested in his statement of belief in 'eternal progression'. Particularly since this subject seems to arouse strong feelings among the more fundamentalist LDS for example on the old fair boards.... I agree with him!!!, I'm just not sure quite what he meant by 'eternal progression'. Perhaps the ambiguity is considered and pointed. I also agree with his belief that knowledge and learning are eternal....!!!! (great stuff)

[_Alter Idem]

The problem as I see it is that Joseph's statement is not in the canonized works of the gospel, therefore, Pres. Hinckley was wise not to commit himself with an affirmative statement. Especially in a national Television interview where he needs to be very careful what he says.

"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)"

Joseph says he'll show it from the Bible...I guess I'll have to look up the exact context to find out what scriptures he is using to back up his statements. If he can make a case for it, I'll believe it.

But at this point, I would say it is speculative and unless he can provide solid scriptural references to back it up, I tend to agree with Pres. Hinckley...I'm not sure we emphasize this concept of Joseph's much today. I don't deny it was taught and believed in earlier times, but I know a number of doctrines which were believed at one time that we don't teach today.

Sometimes, I think our earlier leaders should have heeded the admonishment to preach nothing save the "doctrine of Christ"--faith, repentance, baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost and spend less time delving into mysteries that only confuse people who can only bear milk.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Let me make a small attempt to point you in a "right" direction, PP. Cease with the fundie-anti-mormon assumptions about literally everyone who falls under the umbrella "LDS". I've gone toe to toe with Jason a few times, but I can't even agree with the way you're treating him, and every other Mormon here. Good grief. Go pick on Cog or BCSpace, at least make it fun. Leave the liberal Mormons alone, give them credit for thinking on their own.

Liberal Mormon?

HA!

More like wet exmormon... just need to dry them off!

Look, I am not making up the rules. LDS doctrines and counsel have already branded them jack Mormons, I am merely pointing out the obvious.