Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jonah
_Emeritus
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:20 am

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _Jonah »

why me wrote:We need to recognize that on the Larry King Show, Gordon B. Hinckley was rather old, taking a rapid fire of questions from a pro.

BS. Did you see the interview? I did. No "rapid fire" questions, they were softballs. And yes, delivered by a pro...a pro-LDS that is. King was either engaged or married to his LDS wife at the time. Probably explains how he got Hinckley on the show in the first place. King was definitely NOT looking for a "gotcha" moment. I found him to be more than accommodating towards Hinckley and the church.

I was a little surprised that we didn't teach or emphasize that god was once a man and that we could someday become gods ourselves. Especially since that was the topic of our Elders Quorum lesson a few weeks before. That didn't bother me much because I knew...knew with every fiber of my bean...that Hinckley, with an audience of millions, would call upon all viewers to drop their false religions and join the ONE TRUE CHURCH. Then proclaim himself to be the one living prophet on the face of the earth like unto Noah, Moses, and Abraham of the Old Testament. I mean, surely he would do this...testify to the truthfulness just as I had been taught to do since I was a youngster. Hell, if I could, certainly he could as well. God had provided the venue. Didn't happen. His silence concerning the "one true church" claim was deafening.

Then again, if he would have, men in white suits would have probably nabbed him and hauled him off to a padded room.
Red flags look normal when you're wearing rose colored glasses.
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _lulu »

ludwigm wrote:That is. Do You Have any Feedback?


That would meet the definition of hidden. At least they could put up a press release saying they don't know the reason they hid her.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _lulu »

Jonah wrote:
why me wrote:We need to recognize that on the Larry King Show, Gordon B. Hinckley was rather old, taking a rapid fire of questions from a pro.

b***s***. Did you see the interview? I did. No "rapid fire" questions, they were softballs.


why me, King made his whole career on NOT asking rapid fire questions.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _KevinSim »

Gadianton wrote:You put emphasis on whatever the leaders put emphasis on. The leaders in most cases emphasize what their marketing department tells them will sell best and defines the target audience.

Gadianton, how do you tell the difference between spiritual leaders who "emphasize what their marketing department tells them will sell best" and spiritual leaders who act as they are inspired by God?
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _KevinSim »

malkie wrote:If that were the case, I think I would expect that the teachings in the temple would have a different emphasis. Instead, the temple endowment and sealings are largely about the mechanics (signs, keywords etc) of how you get to this footnoted outcome, is it not?

I'm pretty much willing to discuss everything about the LDS Church without limits except for what goes on in LDS temples, and even to some extent what goes on in temples, but, Malkie, this question that you have asked me crosses a line that I will not cross, so I'm going to respectfully decline to answer your question.
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_malkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _malkie »

KevinSim wrote:Infymus, we obviously put emphasis on different things. Latter-day Saints put emphasis on letting Jesus Christ transform our lives; we don't put emphasis on the eventual outcome of the transformation of those lives. You do. That's fine with me. What's a footnote for me and other Latter-day Saints might indeed be a much more important matter for you. Once again, that's fine with me.

malkie wrote:If that were the case, I think I would expect that the teachings in the temple would have a different emphasis. Instead, the temple endowment and sealings are largely about the mechanics (signs, keywords etc) of how you get to this footnoted outcome, is it not?

KevinSim wrote:I'm pretty much willing to discuss everything about the LDS Church without limits except for what goes on in LDS temples, and even to some extent what goes on in temples, but, Malkie, this question that you have asked me crosses a line that I will not cross, so I'm going to respectfully decline to answer your question.

Sorry, KS, I had no intent to offend. I certainly didn't expect you (or anyone) to reveal any of the secret/sacred content of temple rituals.

May I ask the question in another way, then, that I'm sure does not ask you to cross a line you would not want to cross?

In Why These Temples?
President Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:Surely these temples are unique among all buildings. They are houses of instruction. They are places of covenants and promises. At their altars we kneel before God our Creator and are given promise of His everlasting blessings. In the sanctity of their appointments we commune with Him and reflect on His Son, our Savior and Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who served as proxy for each of us in a vicarious sacrifice in our behalf. Here we set aside our own selfishness and serve for those who cannot serve themselves. Here, under the true priesthood power of God, we are bound together in the most sacred of all human relationships—as husbands and wives, as children and parents, as families under a sealing that time cannot destroy and death cannot disrupt.

These sacred buildings were constructed even during those dark years when the Latter-day Saints were relentlessly driven and persecuted. They have been built and maintained in times of poverty and prosperity. They come from the vital faith of an ever-growing number who bear witness of a living God, of the resurrected Lord, of prophets and divine revelation, and of the peace and assurance of eternal blessings to be found only in the house of the Lord.

If an unbiased observer (if there is such a person) were able to view and listen to the endowment ceremony, do you think that they would see "the emphasis on letting Jesus Christ transform our lives", or the emphasis on something else?

My recollection, though it is several years since I attended an endowment session, is that there is very little mention of anything that a non-LDS Christian would regard as focused on "letting Jesus Christ transform our lives".

Because the temple endowment is considered by many LDS as the epitome of the LDS experience, I would expect the emphasis there to be on Jesus. Others, of course, may not, and this may simply indicate that I have an incorrect view of things.

Anyway, I would appreciate any comment you might have on this, and stand ready to be corrected if I am wrong.
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
_KevinSim
_Emeritus
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _KevinSim »

Themis wrote: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 stand corrected. Themis, I concede that it is true that you "never said he was a liar," so it was wrong for me to imply that you were rushing "to brand Hinckley a liar."

Themis wrote: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 a church has not taught something in its lesson manuals for the year prior to a statement being made, can you really maintain that the statement is false if it says, "We do not teach" that something? It might be false to say, "We have never taught" that something, but to call a statement false that says we do not teach that something seems a bit of a stretch.

Themis wrote: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.

There's a difference between "the church has not taught" and "the church is teaching." The former uses the past tense and the latter uses the present. I have not "admitted that we do teach it," but rather I have admitted that the church has taught it in the past.

The manuals probably existing do not make Hinckley's statements false. It would only be the manuals actually existing that would make Hinckley's statement a lie. Please either produce the manual(s) or stop calling Hinckley's statement a lie.
KevinSim

Reverence the eternal.
_malkie
_Emeritus
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:03 pm

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _malkie »

KevinSim wrote:
Themis wrote: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 stand corrected. Themis, I concede that it is true that you "never said he was a liar," so it was wrong for me to imply that you were rushing "to brand Hinckley a liar."

Themis wrote: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 a church has not taught something in its lesson manuals for the year prior to a statement being made, can you really maintain that the statement is false if it says, "We do not teach" that something? It might be false to say, "We have never taught" that something, but to call a statement false that says we do not teach that something seems a bit of a stretch.

Themis wrote: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.

There's a difference between "the church has not taught" and "the church is teaching." The former uses the past tense and the latter uses the present. I have not "admitted that we do teach it," but rather I have admitted that the church has taught it in the past.

The manuals probably existing do not make Hinckley's statements false. It would only be the manuals actually existing that would make Hinckley's statement a lie. Please either produce the manual(s) or stop calling Hinckley's statement a lie.

If a church has not taught something in its lesson manuals for the 60 seconds prior to a statement being made, can you really maintain that the statement is false if it says, "We do not teach" that something?

You see what I did there, right?
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _Themis »

why me wrote:
I don't think that it has to do with honesty. But it may have to do with confusion. I don't believe that he lied. As I said, if I live to be ninety, I can only hope for the best.


See. You defend the church or it's leaders regardless. I saw the conference session after this interview, and what he said. He knew what he was saying, and it was not entirely honest. Now that does not mean he has not been a good man during his life, and someone who wants to make a positive contribution, but I also understand what lengths even good men will go to defend their religion or group. Other examples of dishonesty can be seen with the priesthood ban from some here.


why me wrote:
Themis wrote:
Not all critics are, but you certainly have show this tendency. This post however, I have no idea what you are talking about.


I am referring to the site that said no to being gods over planets. I think that this has been a part of certain Mormon belief by many members. The newsroom could have done better in the answer.


LOL Again you don't admit that it was not an honest answer. LOL
42
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

Post by _Themis »

Drifting wrote:
That's right because on another thread you were adamant that the newsroom was correct in stating that:
1. LDS don't believe they can becomes Gods
2. LDS don't believe they can rule planets

You maintained this position up until you were shown quotes from LDS teaching manuals that explicitly showed you were wrong and the newsroom was lying.

Then you ran away...


Opps. I wonder if he can own up to this.
42
Post Reply