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

[_Themis]

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

Oh great more Illogical thinking. You just don't know when to stop. I am sure he may have been a little unprepared, but yes he knows we teach it, he lied about it, and it was intentional even if he may not have liked saying the lie. People do this all the time in order to avoid certain consequences.

[_why me]

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.

I will make it simple:

The notion is doctrine.

The king discourses are not doctrine. Where do the LDS study the king discourses as doctrine? I don't see them studying these discourses.

Thus, the confusion. As you are now confused.

[_why me]

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

Oh great more Illogical thinking. You just don't know when to stop. I am sure he may have been a little unprepared, but yes he knows we teach it, he lied about it, and it was intentional even if he may not have liked saying the lie. People do this all the time in order to avoid certain consequences.

The LDS teach the discourses of Joseph Smith at King's grave? Where? Is it a part of the pearl of great price or the D&C? I need to get a new edition if so.

[_why me]

The words of a 'lying' man...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noDM2zmN ... re=related

[_Tator]

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.

And you call us confused. Try again and again and again.

[_Tator]

I will make it simple:

The notion is doctrine.

The king discourses are not doctrine. Where do the LDS study the king discourses as doctrine? I don't see them studying these discourses.

Thus, the confusion. As you are now confused.

Why me tries it again.

We just earlier added "inspired speculation" to the "What is doctrine?" question and now we can add "notion is doctrine". But remember you're not confused.....we are.

Mr. Why Me if Larry King had asked the same question without mentioning the KFD what should the answer have been? How does having the KFD mentioned change the real question about "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become"? The real question remains and Gordon didn't want to answer it so he lied. Now you waffle about the KFD when Larry's question is the same with or without mentioning the KFD. For your sake, the "notion" of the question is the same. Gordon should have answered the "notion" of the question instead of lying about it.

Dad, added Gordon's own words in about 3 or 4th post.

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!" - Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

Gordon is not confused about the KFD.

1997, Hinckley in a public interview with Time magazine:

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?

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.

Whyme, I bolded the real question. The KFD question was a lead-in to the real question it did not change the real question.

1997, Hinckley in a public interview with the San Francisco Chronicle:

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

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

In this example, 3 years later, the question is still the same with no "notion" I mean mention of the KFD. But Gordon "wouldn't say that".

Bottom line is Gordon knew the real question and for whatever reason did not want to answer it truthfully.

[Guest]

Bottom line is Gordon knew the real question and for whatever reason did not want to answer it truthfully.

We know why. He was on national tv, with a national audience, and he knew if he just came out and told the truth he'd astonish and/or piss 90% of the audience off.

You can't do that when you're maintstreaming teh Mormonz!

V/R
Dr. Cam "I cannot tell a lie" NC for Me

[_xolotl]

The words of a 'lying' man...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noDM2zmN ... re=related

Agreed, a refreshing testimony that he knows it is true, because the more he reads the surer his knowledge that it is true. It's telling that in his testimony its clear he knows the church is true through a spiritual witness he received through reading the Book of Mormon and scriptures. It also seemed surreal to me that it was obvious the man never saw Christ in the flesh. Everything about that testimony pointed to the spirit and scriptures as his sole source of truth.

It's amusing that as a believer I would have looked at that video and thought to myself that Hinckley wanted the members to know that they can know its all true just through the spirit and reading the scriptures and not in seeing God in the flesh. I would have been slightly disappointed that in all of the mans life, Hinckley never once declared to the world he had seen God in the flesh. I probably would have consoled myself by thinking, milk before meat and remembering that no other prophet since Joseph ever mentioned seeing Christ. I would also be troubled for a short time that the apostles and prophets are not declaring to the world that Christ lives because they have seen him and given their account of such. Shortly after these thoughts I would remember that there is no need to declare such a thing because it had already been done by biblical prophets and Joseph. The foundation for the restoration has been laid. Hooray.

Now looking at that video I recognize the man for what he is. Genuinely a believer through spiritual experiences. He knows it is all true through those experiences. He never saw God in the flesh, he is no more a special witness than any other Mormon that believes in the gospel and church through reading the scriptures and prayer. His testimony was NO different than any other member. It was refreshing to see that ANY other believing man or woman could be giving that same testimony.

Regardless of that testimony, which I feel was pretty much the same thing you hear from almost all Mormons bearing said testimonies, the man lied to the world about what the church teaches and believes. I suppose he is also lying indirectly by allowing the perception to circulate by believing members that he has seen God in the flesh. He should have just been honest and said " I have never seen God in the flesh, never felt the wounds in his hands, feet and side, never ate fish with him and, to my knowledge, I don't believe any other of these apostles who serve with me have either. Still, I know he lives because I felt the spirit testify to me as I read the scriptures and pray."

[_Obiwan]

Well, can't say I didn't try....

It must be a nice life for you all to believe people are either suffering from "mental illness" or are simply lying, instead of actually making any REAL effort to understand what they are trying to say.

God being once a man is doctrine.
The Father once being a man is not doctrine.
Has it been taught, is it believed, yes, but it's not emphasized and it's not official doctrine.

I've been arguing with Christians on this same thing, but they think Theosis is not even in the Bible nor is "doctrine", so I quote an early Christian who said almost the exact same thing, but certainly meant the same.

St. Athanasius one most KEY theologians of both Catholic and Orthodox traditions, one who was instrumental in the creation of the Nicean Creed (the Trinity) put it:

"He (the Son of God) became man, that we might become God."
Sound familiar?

Now here's Lorenzo Snows (couplet):

"As man is now, GOD once was. As GOD is now, man may become."
They are subtantly NO DIFFERENT from each other....

God being once a man IS and always has been "doctrine" of "The Church".
The Father being once a man, no. Is it often considered doctrine and discussed, sometimes. But, the smart LDS are careful to make clear that it is Christ who was God and was once a man, that is the doctrine, not the Father. We teach that it's a reasonable assumption, and true that the Father was also a man as Christ was per the KFD, but it's NOT "officially promoted by the Church". The Church may do so "indirectly" by having the couplet in it's teachings sometimes, but, it's a mystery that is to be understood spiritually, not officially taught. Has someone ever taught such in Church History, and are anti-mormons good at taking things out of context trying to claim they are saying something which they aren't, yes. But, the rare quote and personal viewpoint, as well as anti-mormon out of context and misrepresenting quote-mining has never made doctrine of the Church.

I repeat again.... Doctrine of the Church comes from 3 sources and 1 key verifyer.

Scriptures, Prophets, Holy Ghost, & Common Consent.

For doctrine to be doctrine, the first three must agree, and the final is a final seal of approval on the Lords Church when it's on the earth. Scriptures can have errors because they are made by men, Prophets can error because they are men, and the Holy Ghost can be a false spirit or our own spirits, and as well common consent can be mob rule. One or a couple is not enough for something to be actually doctrine. ALL MUST AGREE to be Doctrine.

In other words, just because you can find something from our history, or from the Ensign, or from General Conference, or some teaching manual that doesn't make such "Doctrine". Are those sources "generally" reliable. Certainly.... But they are not "infallible".

It's the same with the Priesthood ban. Simply because you can find some quotes for this or that that might seem or are racist, doesn't mean "the Church" was racist. The ban itself doesn't mean the Church was racist. "Context" and reality is everything. I was in multiple religions NOT in the South prior to coming into the LDS Church, and it was save the Catholic Church the "least" racist Church of any I was in either doctrinally or it's people. The ban wasn't about racism, but was about doctrine and policy per the Lord.

[_Themis]

I will make it simple:

The notion is doctrine.

The king discourses are not doctrine. Where do the LDS study the king discourses as doctrine? I don't see them studying these discourses.

Thus, the confusion. As you are now confused.

WE are not the ones confused. :)