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

[_Jonah]

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

So where did he lie? I have shown in the gospel principles manual where it is taught now. But when I read what he said in the interview...he is not denying the principle. And it is true, that we just don't know a lot about the doctrine. He didn't say that we didn't teach it or don't teach it. It sounds like an old ninety year old man trying to grapple with his thougths.

Wow...I remember having to jump through hoops like this trying to justify and rationalize the gospel and it's leaders [shudder]. My life got a whole lot better once I stopped lying to myself.

I also remember how excited I was to watch Hinckley on Larry King. I knew King wouldn't beat him up and would offer him a forum in front of millions of viewers to declare a testimony similar to mine - that he was the one true living prophet on the face of the earth similar to Moses and Abraham of old. That the LDS church was the one true church above all others, so invite our missionaries into your homes so you too can have the truth and someday be a god!!

What a disappointment. What a bummer. But at the same time, how revealing.

[_Brackite]

President Hinkley didn't lie, and I should know having actively attended the Church in over 20 different wards and areas for some 32 years.

The only thing that is "emphasized" in the Church is the part of the couplet that "we can become like our Father". The church hasn't at all been teaching and emphasizing that the Father was once a man like us. Has the quote been a quote that has been taught and repeated, yes, and is it even believed by most, yes, but the last part of that quote is not official doctrine.

That was why President Hinckley answered the way he did.

Also, CFR that President Hinckley ever taught that "God was once a man like us".
You can find him teaching the first part of the couplet, but as far as I know certainly not the last. Why? Cause it's not official doctrine. LDS leaders haven't touched the last part of the couplet for years. For the last 30 years the Church has been trying hard to only teach what is actual "Doctrine" of the Church. Not every word or idea ever taught or spoken is doctrine, and it never has been.

And in case you don't know what makes doctrine of the Church. It's FOUR THINGS.

Scripture, Prophets, Holy Ghost, & Common Consent.
ALL must agree and be cohesive to be doctrine.

Please Check Out And See:

viewtopic.php?p=378540#p378540

viewtopic.php?p=378550#p378550

[_cinepro]

It is difficult to dodge something that is still actively taught in church. With the larry king interview, larry was throwing him many questions. I admit that Hinckley did not do a good job...but for a guy his age, he did okay. There was a fear that he may be able to manage larry. Not many interviewees did manage well with larry.

Just to be clear, the "I don't know that we teach it" quotes were in interviews with Time Magazine and the San Fransisco Chronicle in 1997, not Larry King.

Sadly, this isn't the extent of the confusion. Instead of just letting it go, President Hinckley had to go and say this in General Conference of that year:

The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.

Ok, what is missing from that statement? How about actually clarifying what the doctrine is, he being a Prophet speaking to the faithful in General Conference, and all that? He doesn't say which doctrines he is referring to, and then assures us he "understands them thoroughly" but doesn't share his thorough understanding with us. So we're left with two evasive interviews and a non-clarification.

Well played, President Hinckley. Well played.

[Guest]

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

So where did he lie?

Read the underscored portions in your quoted post.


The prophet of the restoration of the fullness of times; Joseph Smith:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!

King Follet Sermon, april 17th 1844 general conference with 20,000 in attendance.


Hey Why me, here is a suggestion; take a pair of scissors, snip off our wasted man-sack and give it to someone who might use it properly instead of letting it dangle uselessly like a shriveled grape.

[_Themis]

Okay, Themis. You're better than me. Whatever. I'm not trying to be deceptive here.

Never said that, but nice of you to put words in my mouth I never said or thought.

I truly see the whole process of repentence as personal, and the formulated steps, though important, are between God and the sinner for repentance to be reached. I do not hold to the idea that each and every soul must show that they've accomplished the steps to others, because I feel it best to let them determine how to handle the steps.

I never said it wasn't personal, but part of the process involves restitution. I notices my earlier questions about lying and stealing went essentially unanswered.

On top of that, I have honestly suggested that even if Hinckley failed to accomplish the steps in repentence for this particular lie, then its between he and God, and not between you, me, he and God.

All I have done is just said what the church teaches is the process. Our involvement is only that he lied to us and others, and so part of his repentance process would be to acknowledge the lie to those he lied to. It would be the same for everyone, and I am not suggesting that anyone who does not do this will be denied the Celestial kingdom by LDS teachings. I realize the church teaches that we don't have to be perfect in this life.

Thus, I drop it, in the spirit of forgiveness and positivity. Yet you hold on to it even going so far as to condemn him for not repenting for whatever reason.

My post above I think puts it to rest that I do not condemn him, only what process the church teaches we have to do in order to receive forgiveness from God. I think he made a mistake, but I don't worry about it. I think he was a good man in many many ways.

[_Blixa]

There was a Sherlock Holmes story, I think, where a valuable item had been hidden in a room and Sherlock could not figure out where it was located. He knew the owner of the house had stolen the item and he had narrowed the hiding place down to a particular room. But he could go no further.

What did he do? He had Watson proclaim a fake fire alarm outside the window and then watched the suspect to see where he glanced first, believing that the thing valued most by the suspect would be the first thing he would think of perishing in a fire.

That's "Scandal in Bohemia," the first story I teach in my Detective Fiction course. Irene Adler, the only person to ever outsmart Holmes, and a woman to boot, was betrayed by glancing at where she had hidden the photograph of her and her then lover, the King of Bohemia. (However, she realized the ruse, and removed the photograph before Holmes could return to steal it. Also, she fooled him earlier in the story by cross dressing. Irene Adler was quite a woman and Holmes never referred to her without a sigh and a faraway look in his eye).

But Hinckley? I'm afraid that was the kind of lie, fib or prevarication that even Watson could have picked up on.

[_Quasimodo]

But Hinckley? I'm afraid that was the kind of lie, fib or prevarication that even Watson could have picked up on.

LOL!

[_why me]

One thing I find fascinating about the LDS church is that it very much seems to be engineered, where they are constantly redefining doctrine but yet still claiming to never back away from their history. Still, the recent statements from Hinckley are hard to imagine:

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

Now, I tend to try to put the most positive spin concerning whether a person is lying or just mistaken, but with Hinckley, I don't know how this could be anything but a flat out lie. He KNEW that it was taught, because he even taught it himself. So what was his angle in making this statement? Why are they backing away from this very central part of Mormon theology, or at least it seemed to be in the past?

Here is the exact question asked by Time:

Transcript Comments


Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah



Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?



Notice the ellipsis starting this question. This may be the ellipsis Ms. Ray was referring to, but there is no indication of such.

Also, pay particular note to the actual question being asked.



A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.



The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. We emphasize trying to pattern our lives after Jesus Christ so we may reach our full potential of becoming like God is. As for not discussing the concept in public discourse, all one has to do is examine Conference talks to see the truth of the answer.

bold black text was omitted in the Time article and replaced with ellipsis.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Does_Presid ... trine.html

Maybe dad you should read the link.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Interesting, why me. Tell me, do Mormons believe that God was once a man?

[_why me]

Hi dad, you can also read this link:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... _Discourse

I think that the explanation is pretty good. What do you think?