As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_stemelbow]

I don't think Hinckley intentionally lied. I guess I'm just a bit biased. But we all lie from time to time for our various reasons--oftentimes unintentionally. Let's give him the benefit of our doubts and assume his lie here was unintentional. Perhaps he plain misunderstood the direction of the interview? I think his clarification afterward helps to suggest something along those lines. What a nice mand he was. Lying just doesn't seem like something he'd do very often.

[_Themis]

I don't think Hinckley intentionally lied. I guess I'm just a bit biased. But we all lie from time to time for our various reasons--oftentimes unintentionally. Let's give him the benefit of our doubts and assume his lie here was unintentional. Perhaps he plain misunderstood the direction of the interview? I think his clarification afterward helps to suggest something along those lines. What a nice mand he was. Lying just doesn't seem like something he'd do very often.

I don't think lying is something he would do very often, but he did here, and I knew it then as a believing member. He knew he had lied and addressed it in the next conference, if memory serves, by stating he knows what we teach. Sure he may have been caught off guard, although he should have expected it, but milk before meat arguments just don't excuse it. If he wanted to repent of this he would have needed to make a public announcement to the world, but he never did.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I don't think Hinckley intentionally lied. I guess I'm just a bit biased. But we all lie from time to time for our various reasons--oftentimes unintentionally. Let's give him the benefit of our doubts and assume his lie here was unintentional. Perhaps he plain misunderstood the direction of the interview? I think his clarification afterward helps to suggest something along those lines. What a nice mand he was. Lying just doesn't seem like something he'd do very often.

Let's see. Mopologists claim that the prophet can sin and make mistakes or speak as a man like anyone else. So, of course, mopologists are OK with stating that GBH did in fact lie. Right? Right? Right?

Another molehill to die on.

[_harmony]

When you put old men on the throne, you get old ideas. Forgetfulness. Confusion.

[_stemelbow]

I don't think lying is something he would do very often, but he did here, and I knew it then as a believing member. He knew he had lied and addressed it in the next conference, if memory serves, by stating he knows what we teach. Sure he may have been caught off guard, although he should have expected it, but milk before meat arguments just don't excuse it. If he wanted to repent of this he would have needed to make a public announcement to the world, but he never did.

well I feel that's a little too harsh to assume you know what he needed to do to repent. i for one am quite forgiving on this point. Hopefully our Father in Heaven is too. I guess we'll wait and see, huh? Or, he's been blinked out of existence since he died. either way, no skin off my nose.

Thanks for the reply.

[_stemelbow]

Let's see. Mopologists claim that the prophet can sin and make mistakes or speak as a man like anyone else. So, of course, mopologists are OK with stating that GBH did in fact lie. Right? Right? Right?

Another molehill to die on.

Let's see. Mopologists claim that the prophet can sin and make mistakes or speak as a man like anyone else. So, of course, mopologists are OK with stating that GBH did in fact lie. Right? Right? Right?

Another molehill to die on.

I'm not sure what you expect. If he lied, and I admit it then I'm fighting you or something. If he did lie, and I argue that it wasn't a lie, then I ge hassled for lying about him lying. Somehow, this set-up you've created just doesn't seem to take into account real live people in real live situations. Your expectations seem, well, impossible.

[_Themis]

well I feel that's a little too harsh to assume you know what he needed to do to repent.

Not at all. From an LDS perspective one needs to make restitution, which means letting all those who may have heard the lie that yes indeed you were wrong, and knew you were wrong. Even from a secular perspective the same thing needs to happen.

i for one am quite forgiving on this point.

Sure, so am I.

[_harmony]

Somehow, this set-up you've created just doesn't seem to take into account real live people in real live situations. Your expectations seem, well, impossible.

I'm trying to figure out why this doctrine is so terrible that our leaders have to lie about it. Why not just say "yeah, we do... next question?"

[_stemelbow]

Not at all. From an LDS perspective one needs to make restitution, which means letting all those who may have heard the lie that yes indeed you were wrong, and knew you were wrong. Even from a secular perspective the same thing needs to happen.

That's the general rule, but of course repentence is a personal thing. I don't think messing up when interviewed is something he needs to apologize to you about, for instance. He clarified to all he felt it necessary when he suggested that they need not worry, he knows and understands the teachings. And apology could've worked, but then all we're doing is berating him at this point. If his lack of apology was a mistake too, then I still don't see it as a problem, necessarily. It is that we all fail to apologize from time to time.

Sure, so am I.

pep pep...

[_stemelbow]

I'm trying to figure out why this doctrine is so terrible that our leaders have to lie about it. Why not just say "yeah, we do... next question?"

pep pep...I think its an overstatement to say our leaders have to lie about it. Sure, I can buy that Hinckley unintentionally lied about it in the interview. I don't' mind that.

While all LDS, from what I can tell, believe the teaching that we can become like God, there is some amount of ambiguity to God once being like us. For instance when Joseph Smith taught it, in the KF discourse, he compared God to being once like Jesus. Jesus is like us in some sense, but in other He isn't. In this sense, its not so black and white. Just because He was like us at one time, in a previous world, shall we say, does not mean He did not live a life like unto Jesus', which in LDS teaching pretty much means a perfect life (quite different then any of ours). So there is some ambiguity here...and its not easy to explain. Its not easy to comprehend and its not easy to understand. Does that mean we don't teach it? Not really. I don't htink we emphasize it, though.