Human Deification--Why did GBH downplay it?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I find it interesting that he lied, and was clearly embarrassed about the doctrine itself.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Buffalo]

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.

Maybe in his book Standing For Something he was talking about standing for public relations?

[_Buffalo]

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.

So you admit that he lied. Cool!

[_sock puppet]

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?]

Hi, Chap. In the past, whenever bcspace has responded to this GBH issue, he has curtly dismissed the characterization of a lie as not one, or that the poster hasn't looked at the context. So, I deliberately couched the OP in the terms FAIR has it, but juxtapositioning the 1994 GC quote in close proximity to the 1997 LKL quote, so that they would stand in stark contrast, one to the other, and termed it 'downplay' in 1997 vis-a-vis GBH's comments rather than an outright lie. I think doing so has garnered a more meaty reply from bcspace than I've seen him provide before. bcspace, for example, thinks Theosis ought to be front and center.

As to the milk before the meat idea, both GBH occasions had worldwide audiences, including non-Mormons--after all, when I was on a mission, it was explained that GCs were one of the best tools for spreading the gospel to the 'gentiles', since it is broadcast on publicly available TV stations in many locales. So it seems odd that the meat could be put before the milk in Oct 94, but by summer of 97, the meat had to be hid away.

[_DarkHelmet]

GBH wanted to fit in and be accepted by mainstream Americans. Around the same time he ironically wrote a book called "Standing for Something." A better title would have been "We're Not Weird."

[_Buffalo]

Really this milk before meat thing is bollocks. The only reason why you would hide your beliefs (the "meat") is because you're ashamed of them.

[_Nevo]

In the space of just three years, how and why did human deification really go from being pronounced at General Conference as the end goal of 'the whole design of the gospel' to the Mormon prophet not knowing if the Mormon Church teaches it, explaining the Mormons do not emphasize it?

I thought you were a better reader than this. The second quote you cite isn't incompatible with the first. Helping humans attain exaltation—eternal life—is "the whole design of the gospel" (cf. Moses 1:39). The doctrine of human deification is thoroughly scriptural.

But Larry King's question wasn't about humans' divine destiny but God's past—specifically, whether God was once a man "like we are." I think President Hinckley was right to demur on that point. In what sense was God the Father once like we are? We don't exactly know. The scriptures are silent on this point. Since the Father has a glorified (presumably resurrected) body of flesh and bone, we can infer that he was once mortal, but beyond that we can only speculate.

To affirm on national TV that "God was once a man like we are" could easily lead to confusion about the LDS understanding of God. Do Mormons deny God's transcendence? Are they saying that God had a beginning? That God wasn't always God? Are they saying that God was once sinful and imperfect ("like we are")?

I think President Hinckley was wise to avoid the issue. We really don't know much about it.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I actually agree. GBH really did not want to talk about it in public because it is a more "odd" doctrine when compared with mainstream Christianity and to expound on it so it was clearer would have likely taken too much time. So he dodged, more than once.

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

Yes you are sir and I am glad to see you admit it.

Careful though. You are one step away from NOMness or worse flat out apostasy.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?]

Yep he did. Or more so he obfuscated. I don't know, this one just does not bug me. I think it would have been better to be more forthright. And he did it more than once. He had to know that at least LDS members knew he was dancing around it intentionally.

So he lied. If there is a God I doubt he lost his salvation over it.

[_stemelbow]

Thanks Nevo. I started reading the responses and realized people didn't realize the deception of ol' SP, or attempted deception. Its not some out and out contradiction here, we're talkingn two different topics, even if they are related.