Interesting article for Youth about Heavenly Father

[_Themis]

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.

You keep making me laugh. Are you ok with a manual that may be older the a year but is still used? I am not going to show you sources that state we can become Gods(although some have shown them on another thread recently) unless you state you do not believe the church teaches that we can become Gods.

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.

You know there is a point where you would be wise to just admit to being wrong. Do you beleive the church still teaches it, or that it is still current doctrine. Adam God was once doctrine and taught, but now it is not. We know this because the church came out and said it was wrong.

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.

Do you believe the church still teaches that we can become a God. Do you think the church has never taught that God was once a man? At this point I am not sure you are being honest in this discussion. My understanding is that you are an active member, and probably already know the church has taught these things. Even Hinckely himself. Do you agree or disagree?

[_Drifting]

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.

Kevin, do you not attend Church?

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

That quote is from Chapter 47 of the current Gospel Principles manual.
It was also contained within the a gospel Doctrine Manual at the time Hinckley gave his public interview.

You can see this manual online at LDS.org. Or if you finally get around to attending Churvh you will find one in the library.

It was taught during Joseph Smiths era.
It was taught during Joseph Fielding Smiths era.
It was taught during Hinckleys era.
It has been taught since the restoration of the Church right up to today.

Hinckley lied.

[_Themis]

Now that some are giving him sources this is another one

http://www.mormondoctrine.net/don%27t_know_that_we_teach_it.htm

[Guest]

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...

Actually I did no such thing. I think that the newsroom was correct with the gods. But with the planets, I remembered what members were saying very well. I just think that they could have done a better job with the planets. A full stop no was the problem for the newsroom.

Many Mormons will be writing to them about it. But one thing I do know: the LDS church teaches that if one is faithful, they will be reunited with their heavenly parents. Difficult for this to happen if one has their own planet.

[_why me]

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,

I don't think so. He was an old guy by that time. As I said, I tend to give people over 90 a break with what they say or don't say, especially during an interview that has rapid fired questions.

[_Themis]

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,

I don't think so. He was an old guy by that time. As I said, I tend to give people over 90 a break with what they say or don't say, especially during an interview that has rapid fired questions.

LOL You confirming your bias to defend no matter what. You know some of us were active believing members at this time, so we know that Hinckely was old, but very mentally aware. Read his statement in his first conference talk after that interview. Some of us were actually listening.

[_Themis]

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...

Actually I did no such thing. I think that the newsroom was correct with the gods. But with the planets, I remembered what members were saying very well. I just think that they could have done a better job with the planets. A full stop no was the problem for the newsroom.

Many Mormons will be writing to them about it. But one thing I do know: the LDS church teaches that if one is faithful, they will be reunited with their heavenly parents. Difficult for this to happen if one has their own planet.

This is a dodge, and not an honest reply by the newsroom. They are the ones forming the question so that they can deny something most don't claim about the church, so they can avoid the question most really have, which is about whether the church teaches one can become a God, not really about whether they get their own personal planet. The church does teach we can become God's and will be creating planets. Again I always liked the idea.

[_malkie]

...
But one thing I do know: the LDS church teaches that if one is faithful, they will be reunited with their heavenly parents. Difficult for this to happen if one has their own planet.

This is a dodge, and not an honest reply by the newsroom. They are the ones forming the question so that they can deny something most don't claim about the church, so they can avoid the question most really have, which is about whether the church teaches one can become a God, not really about whether they get their own personal planet. The church does teach we can become God's and will be creating planets. Again I always liked the idea.

Yep! My parents and I found it almost impossible to have any kind of family gathering when I stopped living at home. The fact that I could travel instantaneously from my home to theirs didn't help at all. /sarcasm

[_Drifting]

It's like Why Me stopped attending Chuch decades ago and now has no recollection of what it teaches...

[_KevinSim]

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.

You didn't offend me. I can hardly expect you to keep the conversation within the limits I will tolerate if I don't tell you what those limits are, so that's what I was doing, telling you what my limits are.

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".

My initial reaction, after thinking about it for a little bit, was to agree with you, that the emphasis was not there. But after thinking about it some more I've changed my mind. Jesus' transformative influence is there, if you look at it. When you get active enough in the Church to get a temple recommend again :) let me know, and we can do a temple session together, and I'll show you where that influence gets dealt with in the session. It's subtle (hence my original reaction), but it's there.