Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

[Guest]

...[T]he 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 and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!

The 'whole design of the gospel', but then this zig

Larry King: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
GBH: Yeah.
Larry King: ...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?
GBH: 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.

before this zag

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.

Too bad GBH's counselors didn't insist he not give interviews, and allow for only correlated answers to written questions.

[_xolotl]

because its too peculiar to mainstream Christianity. GBH didn't care about standing for something, he just wanted to mainstream Mormonism and join the club. Apparently he forgot about the whole peculiar people and all other churches are in apostasy and an abomination.

[_bcspace]

Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

I'm glad you interpreted that correctly which few critics seem able to do. The reason he downplayed it is because of the "milk before meat" and "pearls before swine principles" which are both PR principles. He wants people to focus on things other than the deep doctrines of the Church since they are not likely to understand them or find them strange because they don't understand them.

My personal opinion is that Theosis should be front and center because it's a basic milk doctrine but I'm just an ark steadier as you well know.

[_Nightlion]

Elder Hinckley was apprised of my fine theological work as far back as 1983. I cannot imagine anyone familiar with LDS standard works believing in the deification of humans after perusing the logic and scripture that is so well unfolded in my paper:
New Mormon Theology: Wonders of Eternity

Someone has hacked my fireark website and made it blank. So there is no online link for any to read at this time. Sorry.

Makes me wonder just how many of the leading brethren are fans who cannot confess me openly for fear of THE HYPOCRISY.

[_bcspace]

I cannot imagine anyone familiar with LDS standard works believing in the deification of humans after perusing the logic and scripture that is so well unfolded in my paper

The early Christians believed in human deification and based it on some of the same scriptures. It is impossible to come away from reading the Bible and not accept human deification without being intellectually dishonest.

[_sunstoned]

The milk before the meat thing is total BS. There is no meat in Mormon theology anymore. It has all been correlated out. Read GBH’s words again, he plainly denied a long held Mormon doctrine, and then later tried to deny it. He put PR and his own self-importance above everything else. GBH was truly cut from the same cloth as Joseph Smith. A narcissistic, egotistic and dishonest man.

A follower of the Christ of the New Testament is suppose to be humble. Hinkley was a media hound. Allowing two buildings to be named after you is not humble.

[_Nightlion]

I cannot imagine anyone familiar with LDS standard works believing in the deification of humans after perusing the logic and scripture that is so well unfolded in my paper

The early Christians believed in human deification and based it on some of the same scriptures. It is impossible to come away from reading the Bible and not accept human deification without being intellectually dishonest.

BC there is no way in all he world that you ever read my paper or have the least notion of what scripture I base my theological revolution of Mormonism upon.

That the same recreationalism existed anciently will not justify the same sloppy theology today.

[_Nightlion]

I cannot imagine anyone familiar with LDS standard works believing in the deification of humans after perusing the logic and scripture that is so well unfolded in my paper

The early Christians believed in human deification and based it on some of the same scriptures. It is impossible to come away from reading the Bible and not accept human deification without being intellectually dishonest.

BC there is no way in all he world that you ever read my paper or have the least notion of what scripture I base my theological revolution of Mormonism upon.

That the same recreationalism existed anciently will not justify the same sloppy theology today.

[_hugh jass]

The milk before the meat thing is total BS.

More like solid excrement before explosive diarrhea.

[_Chap]

Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

I'm glad you interpreted that correctly which few critics seem able to do. The reason he downplayed it is because of the "milk before meat" and "pearls before swine principles" which are both PR principles. He wants people to focus on things other than the deep doctrines of the Church since they are not likely to understand them or find them strange because they don't understand them.

A man who teaches a doctrine publicly and clearly in General Conference in 1994, and then says in 1997:

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.

is not 'downplaying' the doctrine. He is saying things that are flat out untrue, and untrue in a way that makes it obvious he must have known they were untrue.

If one is not going to say something like 'he was an old man, and a bit confused - he just forgot', then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he was deliberately deceiving his audience. A blunt word for that is 'lying'.

[Cue for Stemelbow: "But haven't we all told lies sometime?". Maybe so. And on this occasion it looks as if the Prophet lied in public about a major element in LDS doctrine. But maybe you are cool with that?]