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

[Guest]

Listen, it's really simple. I'm not "lying" and president Hinkley didn't "lie" either.
You all should really learn that simply because you can't understand something someone is trying to explain to you, and thus you take the "easy" negative judgment as if that is the actual truth, doesn't mean the those of us who believe things differently are "lying".

President Hinkley and I are trying to explain very "subtle" but important differences in things. We are trying to show you what the Church actually "IS" rather than what you think it is in your negative and degrading judgments.

President Hinckley stated:

“The experience of Joseph Smith in a few moments in the grove on a spring day in 1820, brought more light and knowledge and understanding of the personality and reality and substance of God and his Beloved Son than men had arrived at during centuries of speculation.” 4

From the same article:

Not only do we know that God possesses a glorified body of flesh and bones, but from this restored understanding of the nature of God flows the Latter-day Saint belief regarding our nature and potential. The Prophet Joseph Smith once taught: “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, … and that He was once a man like us.

Liahona » 2006 » January The Fulness of the Gospel: The Nature of the Godhead

"I don't know that we teach it", is a lie on Hinckley's part. The LDS church does "officially" teach it, and GBH knew that the church taught it.

"I don't know that we emphasize it", is also lie on Hinckley's part. The LDS church "officially" emphasizes it and the proof is overwhelming. GBH knew that the church emphasized it.

"I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made." But Hinckley did know and he lied, he claimed that "truth" himself (read the cite). He also knew that it originated from Joseph Smith.

Whether it is "official doctrine" according to your impossible and mercurial definitions of doctrine are totally irrevelant to what the church teaches and what Hinckley claimed about those teachings.

[_Tchild]

There is no "scripture" on the Father once being a man, save implied, thus not official.

Irrelevant to what the LDS church teaches and what GBH claimed.

There is no Official First Presidency announcement that the Father was once a man as we are.

Irrelevant to what the LDS church teaches and what GBH claimed.

There is no official revelation from God to the Church proclaiming the Father was once a man.

Irrelevant to what the LDS church teaches and what GBH claimed

The KFD is not scripture....
on and on....

All equally irrelevant to what the church teaches and what GBH claimed.

[_harmony]

List. Our "doctrine" is that Christ who is God was once a man.

Actually, no it's not. Our doctrine is that Christ was God before he was a man.

A subtle but important difference.

[_Darth J]

I do believe that by mentioning the King Follet Discourses, the interviewer gave a confusing situation. Was the question about the doctrine or the King Follet discourses? In answering this question, it seems that Hinckley was focusing on the discourses.

False dilemma: Remember, you can always try to create an issue by framing a question in a way that makes it appear as if two things are divergent even though they are not.

Gordon B. Hinckley
September 1994 Ensign

In March of the year he died—1844—the Prophet had amplified this doctrine in a monumental address which he delivered in the grove which was just below the temple site. The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

And this is the thing that keeps me coming back to this board. To watch Mopologists completely destroy the very thing they serve is astounding. To watch critics defend the very thing that bothers them is fascinating. What a strange thing Mopologism forces people to do!

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Joseph]

The mental gyrations and denial of some who think Hinckleys lies are OK is what got OJ off and told a Jury the white cops beating hell out of Rodney King was just fine.

Mental illness is a sad thing.

[_Infymus]

Just wanted to chime in on this as I've watched it amused from a distance.

I am finishing up some work at home on the laptop and watching the old Battlestar Galactica series. This particular episode is "War Of The Gods".

See: http://galactica1981.tripod.com/WAROFTHEGODS.htm

It made me giggle when one of the "angels" on the "ship of lights" quoted the following to Starbuck:

"You are now, what we once were. What we are now, you may become."

Snicker.

[_why me]

I do believe that by mentioning the King Follet Discourses, the interviewer gave a confusing situation. Was the question about the doctrine or the King Follet discourses? In answering this question, it seems that Hinckley was focusing on the discourses.

False dilemma: Remember, you can always try to create an issue by framing a question in a way that makes it appear as if two things are divergent even though they are not.

Gordon B. Hinckley
September 1994 Ensign

In March of the year he died—1844—the Prophet had amplified this doctrine in a monumental address which he delivered in the grove which was just below the temple site. The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon.

Okay, let me try this again. I know that it is doctrine. I have said on the MDD board. And I have said so here. I don't care if the idea that god was once a man is doctrine. I agree with the doctrine. However, I disagree with the notion that he attentionally lied. That is my point. I see no reason to intentionally lie about this doctrine since it is actively taught in LDS manuals. And so, who was he lying to? The members? No.

Bottom line: who was he lying to since the many members know this doctrine rather well. Now do all the members know this doctrine? No. Do all protestants and catholics know their doctrine? No.

And so, who was Hinckley lying to? And again, I will say that the king follett discourses are not doctrine and these discourses are not studied as doctrine. I have never studied the king follett discourses in sunday school or priesthood. They are not now added to the doctrine and covenants or to the pearl of great price. And so, they are not taught. Hinckley was correct. Or he had the right to be confused when the Time interviewer mentioned the discourses.

Now can I look into the hinckley's heart to see if he intentionally lied? No. can I judge him as lying? No. That is between him and his maker if he lied or not. But I don't think that he would intentionally lie about something that is taught in church.

[Guest]

I do believe that by mentioning the King Follet Discourses, the interviewer gave a confusing situation. Was the question about the doctrine or the King Follet discourses? In answering this question, it seems that Hinckley was focusing on the discourses.

False dilemma: Remember, you can always try to create an issue by framing a question in a way that makes it appear as if two things are divergent even though they are not.

Gordon B. Hinckley
September 1994 Ensign

In March of the year he died—1844—the Prophet had amplified this doctrine in a monumental address which he delivered in the grove which was just below the temple site. The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church. It is known as the King Follett Sermon.

Clearly aware of the controversy that his comments had engendered, President Hinckley raised the subject in October 1997 General Conference:

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. Gordon B. Hinckley, "Drawing Nearer to the Lord," Ensign (November 1997), 4–6

Sorry, I just buy it that he intentionally lied. By intentionally lying, he would have known that the blowback would be severe.

[_Themis]

Okay, let me try this again. I know that it is doctrine. I have said on the MDD board. And I have said so here. I don't care if the idea that god was once a man is doctrine. I agree with the doctrine. However, I disagree with the notion that he attentionally lied. That is my point. I see no reason to intentionally lie about this doctrine since it is actively taught in LDS manuals. And so, who was he lying to? The members? No.

Bottom line: who was he lying to since the many members know this doctrine rather well. Now do all the members know this doctrine? No. Do all protestants and catholics know their doctrine? No.

And so, who was Hinckley lying to? And again, I will say that the king follett discourses are not doctrine and these discourses are not studied as doctrine. I have never studied the king follett discourses in sunday school or priesthood. They are not now added to the doctrine and covenants or to the pearl of great price. And so, they are not taught. Hinckley was correct. Or he had the right to be confused when the Time interviewer mentioned the discourses.

Now can I look into the hinckley's heart to see if he intentionally lied? No. can I judge him as lying? No. That is between him and his maker if he lied or not. But I don't think that he would intentionally lie about something that is taught in church.

Wait, your first paragraph you say it is doctrine and that he lied but not intentionally, but in your third paragraph you say it is not doctrine. Did you even think while you were typing your reply? Your second paragraph just makes no sense at all. It's like if I say something I know is not true(lying) to a group of people who know what I am saying is not true then it is not a lie. Now your third paragraph of course is contradicting your first, but now it's not doctrine because you never studied it in church or that it is not in the D&C. You really need to learn what doctrine is before you start typing, and people have already shown that it is in some our our manual, talks by leaders(Including Hinkley), so yes it is taught, and it is doctrine. You have written some whoppers in illogical arguments, but this last post of yours may be the best.