KevinSim wrote:Such a rush to brand Hinckley a liar!
Now be nice, and be honest. I never said he was a liar, even though I do think he was lying or being less then honest, which we can also find in LDS teachings that this is the same as lying. Lying and being a liar are two different things. Everyone has lied at one time or another so the term liar cannot apply to everyone, but those who do so on a regular basis.
I'm sure that Hinckley was in an uncomfortable situation. Critics of the LDS Church would like the world to believe that the principal reason people are LDS is because they want to be deities over their own planets some day; they are, the critics say, drawn by the promises of power.
You may want to be more open minded. Most critics do not make this argument.
So what did Hinckley say when asked about that? Quite frankly I don't remember the exact words, but it was something like, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." You said, "Hinckley was not telling the truth, and many member had to do a double take." For the record I myself did a double take, because it didn't sound right at all. It sounded completely false. But I had to ask myself (and you would do well to ask yourself), were Hinckley's words false?
Hinckely said he didn't know. I think it more then a little hard to accept he didn't know what we teach, and yes the church does teach it. This is where the problem was. I understand why he may have slipped up in order to aviod problems.
If you think that what Hinckley said was false, then please find me one lesson manual where a quorum or class instructor is directed to teach that we can become gods or deities in any single lesson manual published in the year before Mike Wallace asked his question and Gordon Hinckley gave his controversial answer.
LOLOLOLOL I had to laugh when you wanted to limit it to a year before the interview. You really think that is reasonable. Again LOL
If we really do teach that we can become deities, then it should be in some lesson manual, wouldn't you think? You have already admitted that we don't emphasize it. So where's the lie?
Jonah has already addressed it, and it has more to do with God once being a Man. Have you really been an active member and think the church has not taught we can become Gods. I can provide evidence to this, but then you did admit already that we do teach it, so I am not sure why you want information from manuals you already know probably exist.
Hinckley was not saying that us eventually becoming deities was not a part of LDS Church doctrine; he was trying to dispell the notion that it is the primary motivator of the vast majority of Latter-day Saints that keeps them on the straight and narrow, that it is so central to LDS thought that Latter-day Saints think about it all the time; in short he was trying to dispell the notion that the LDS Church is currently actively involved in teaching it and emphasizing it.
Sure I can see him wanting people outside the church not to focus on what they might be disturbed by. I doubt he thought people would think it is a prime motivator, but then it certainly is a motivator in the LDS church I know. Why shouldn't it be. It was one of the better ideas from Mormonism before I understood it was not really true.