Jump to content

The Lorenzo Snow Couplet And Gordon B. Hinckley


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Interviewer: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah.

Interviewer: 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?

Hinckley: 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 alot about it. (Time magazine, August 4, 1997)

_____________________________________________________________________________________-

Interviewer: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, as man is, God once was. As God now is, man may become. Now thats more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know much about. (San Fran Chronicle, April 13, 1997)

_______________________________________________________________________________________

NOW I ASK; WHAT DOES GORDON B. HINKLEY THINK OF THESE QUOTES?

"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 thatâ??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."

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??Drawing Nearer to the Lord,â? Ensign, Nov 1997, 4

1)He believes he was misquoted.

2)He does not consider the quotes authoritative

WHAT CAN WE ASSUME ABOUT THESE QUOTES?

I think that there are 2 possibilities:

1) he was misquoted

2)he simply choked. He goofed. He was a 90 year old mortal after all.

EITHER WAY

Anything reported in those interviews is not binding in anyway.

Link to comment

Not "binding"? Nobody's looking for signed contracts here man. We're just looking for leadership in this world by a Prophet of God, that's all.

The critics' response over this is that there is an appearance that Pres. Hinckley was trying to equivocate or deflect questions about that doctrine because that very doctrine is one of the things that "traditional" Christians hammer us on. This wasn't some random LDS tidbit - it was chosen because it is in fact a hot-button issue as far as the EVs and other non-LDS Christians go. And Pres. Hinckley, rather than affirming our doctrine before the world, seems to have attempted to punt, but fumbled the ball. The critics are concerned by the appearance that Pres. Hinckley was denying our doctrines out of public relations concerns, rather than proclaiming divinely inspired Truth to the world.

Link to comment

Not "binding"? Nobody's looking for signed contracts here man. We're just looking for leadership in this world by a Prophet of God, that's all.

The critics' response over this is that there is an appearance that Pres. Hinckley was trying to equivocate or deflect questions about that doctrine because that very doctrine is one of the things that "traditional" Christians hammer us on. This wasn't some random LDS tidbit - it was chosen because it is in fact a hot-button issue as far as the EVs and other non-LDS Christians go. And Pres. Hinckley, rather than affirming our doctrine before the world, seems to have attempted to punt, but fumbled the ball. The critics are concerned by the appearance that Pres. Hinckley was denying our doctrines out of public relations concerns, rather than proclaiming divinely inspired Truth to the world.

And I understand that. Im just saying that some folks are being too hard on the guy. I know Ive fumbled many a punt, especially on this message board. He goofed, plain and simple.

As for his leadership: that speaks for itself. Im sure the Lord will give him a excellent grade for it.

Link to comment

Not "binding"? Nobody's looking for signed contracts here man. We're just looking for leadership in this world by a Prophet of God, that's all.

The critics' response over this is that there is an appearance that Pres. Hinckley was trying to equivocate or deflect questions about that doctrine because that very doctrine is one of the things that "traditional" Christians hammer us on. This wasn't some random LDS tidbit - it was chosen because it is in fact a hot-button issue as far as the EVs and other non-LDS Christians go. And Pres. Hinckley, rather than affirming our doctrine before the world, seems to have attempted to punt, but fumbled the ball. The critics are concerned by the appearance that Pres. Hinckley was denying our doctrines out of public relations concerns, rather than proclaiming divinely inspired Truth to the world.

BINGO :P<_<:unsure:

Link to comment

I think that was not his best moment. But also, anyone who jumps on a couple of words, and disregards the whole body of his printed works is either stupid or desperate in a losing battle or being deliberately dedeitful him/herself.

I have been on the Concerned Christian message board and that is their mantra. I know a couple of them are stupid, I suspect they all feel desperate in a losing battle, and I am more than sure that one would sell his mother into white slavery for one good sound byte against the Church.

And then are a few really nice Concerned Christians. Really nice.

Link to comment

WHAT CAN WE ASSUME ABOUT THESE QUOTES?

I think that there are 2 possibilities:

1) he was misquoted

2)he simply choked. He goofed. He was a 90 year old mortal after all.

EITHER WAY

Anything reported in those interviews is not binding in anyway.

Its simple, the reporter was lying and waiting to decieve :P

<_<

Link to comment

Her Amun:

I don't believe President Hinckley did "GOOF". I believe he presented the couplet as Doctrine, but one which the first part of we know next to nothing about.

I can go along with that. When I say "goof" i also mean choked, stuttered, didnt think on his feet all that well. The problem is many people confuse the Prophet of God for God Himself and thus unwisely hold him to an unfair standard. Heaven forbid he stammer and not give a perfect answer. Who do they think he is ? Miss Universe?

Link to comment

And I understand that. Im just saying that some folks are being too hard on the guy. I know Ive fumbled many a punt, especially on this message board. He goofed, plain and simple.

As for his leadership: that speaks for itself. Im sure the Lord will give him a excellent grade for it.

Notwithstanding my previous post, I should point out that I'm not one of the critics who pull out the Pres. Hinckley interview and points it out to people.

Link to comment

Interviewer: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah.

Interviewer: 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?

Hinckley: 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 alot about it. (Time magazine, August 4, 1997)

_____________________________________________________________________________________-

Interviewer: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, as man is, God once was. As God now is, man may become. Now thats more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know much about. (San Fran Chronicle, April 13, 1997)

_______________________________________________________________________________________

NOW I ASK; WHAT DOES GORDON B. HINKLEY THINK OF THESE QUOTES?

"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 thatâ??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."

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??Drawing Nearer to the Lord,â? Ensign, Nov 1997, 4

1)He believes he was misquoted.

2)He does not consider the quotes authoritative

WHAT CAN WE ASSUME ABOUT THESE QUOTES?

I think that there are 2 possibilities:

1) he was misquoted

2)he simply choked. He goofed. He was a 90 year old mortal after all.

EITHER WAY

Anything reported in those interviews is not binding in anyway.

If I tell my kids not to smoke, then get caught smoking by a third party, and it gets back to my kids, I then tell my kids that it's not what he/she saw, and they then believe me, am I a good father?

President Hinckley taught this doctrine to the church in "Teachings of the prophet Gordon B Hinckley", are not the words of the current Prophet more "authorative" than any past teachings?

1. Misquoted lets call Time and or San Fran Chronicle. Wait they have already verified that their quotes are NOT misquoted. (Using tape recorders and all)

2. If his age effects his abilty to lead/ represent the church then maybe he should step down.

Either way stating the couplet in his book affirms IMO that he,

1. Was aware of the teaching

2. Chose to "avoid" a direct answer, his reasons however for doing so are what is in question.

In addition if he had only stated "known" doctrine then IMO the "antis" would have had alot less to work with, either way those darn "anti's" will find fault , might as well be open and upfront with teachings then to hide behind supposed lack of info. If he did not know why did he then teach as if he did in his writings to the church?

IMO it would have been more faith affirming to simply answer that the church does teach that and if asked for further info, ask that those with more questions meet with their local LDS friend or missionary, as this platform seems inappropriate to discuss such "sacred" doctrine. I for one would have respected that and moved on. Again I understand all that can be offered are opinions but what think ye?

Regards,

Sentinus

Link to comment
NOW I ASK; WHAT DOES GORDON B. HINKLEY THINK OF THESE QUOTES?

"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."

How do we know Pres. Hinkley was referring to your previous two quotes? I've seen some critical work regarding his involvement in the Hoffman issue, for example..

HSR

Link to comment

If I tell my kids not to smoke, then get caught smoking by a third party, and it gets back to my kids, I then tell my kids that it's not what he/she saw, and they then believe me, am I a good father?

[...]

If I tell my kids to love everyone, and then when a woman comes wanting me to help her daughter, and I basically call the woman a dog because she's a different ethnicity than I am, am I a good father?

I think I get the gist of what you were trying to convey in your analogy, but I think it's heavily flawed (as hopefully my above â??analogyâ? illustrates).

Link to comment
If I tell my kids not to smoke, then get caught smoking by a third party, and it gets back to my kids, I then tell my kids that it's not what he/she saw, and they then believe me, am I a good father?

It sure does. 1) Smoking is not immoral. 2)You probably tought your children not to listen to or pass along rumors. 3)The fact that you smoke does not make the admonition against smoking anyless valid; if your children are smart then they'll understand that. My father was a womanizer in his youth,he admits it and so does everyone else, but he tought me not to follow those ways and I haven't.

President Hinckley taught this doctrine to the church in "Teachings of the prophet Gordon B Hinckley", are not the words of the current Prophet more "authorative" than any past teachings?

Im not dny that in the least. I am a firm believer in the KFD.

1. Misquoted lets call Time and or San Fran Chronicle. Wait they have already verified that their quotes are NOT misquoted. (Using tape recorders and all)
Go ahead. Besides he didnt mention the San Fran Chron directly, so what point would it make? The point he tried to make in GC was that he didnt consider his interviews to news reporters as being anyworth when compared to his and other's previos writtings. Tell me, do you think LDS should study news interviews of the GA's for doctrinal insights?
2. If his age effects his abilty to lead/ represent the church then maybe he should step down.

What a straw man. Pathetic to say the least. I only hope you hold yourself to the same standard of perfecxtion you are holding the Prophet to. I have no problem with saying he goofed on that interview. I think its sad that you or anyone else might have lost sleep over this, or see it as a sin of seniality.

Either way stating the couplet in his book affirms IMO that he,

1. Was aware of the teaching

2. Chose to "avoid" a direct answer, his reasons however for doing so are what is in question.

I agree. And your point is?

In addition if he had only stated "known" doctrine then IMO the "antis" would have had alot less to work with, either way those darn "anti's" will find fault , might as well be open and upfront with teachings then to hide behind supposed lack of info. If he did not know why did he then teach as if he did in his writings to the church?
Like I said he chocked. Cut him some slack, geez.
IMO it would have been more faith affirming to simply answer that the church does teach that and if asked for further info, ask that those with more questions meet with their local LDS friend or missionary, as this platform seems inappropriate to discuss such "sacred" doctrine.

Faith affirming? Give me a break! So is chocking on a news interview some kind of evidence that he is not a prophet? Wow, what kind of "testimony" did you have as an LDS? Did you think prophets were infallible?

I for one would have respected that and moved on. Again I understand all that can be offered are opinions but what think ye?
I think he goofed. He should have said "Yes, and it is as true and real as the chair Im sitting on." Interviewer: But how do you reconcile this with traditional christian teaching? GBH: We dont, its traditional christian teahing that has to reconcile itsefl". Interviewer: Doesnt that seem a bit arrogant, You have only been around less than 200 years. GBH: "I believe Ive said my piece on this matter".

But he didnt.

So what?

Link to comment

It sure does. 1) Smoking is not immoral. 2)You probably tought your children not to listen to or pass along rumors. 3)The fact that you smoke does not make the admonition against smoking anyless valid; if your children are smart then they'll understand that. My father was a womanizer in his youth,he admits it and so does everyone else, but he tought me not to follow those ways and I haven't.

Im not dny that in the least. I am a firm believer in the KFD.

Go ahead. Besides he didnt mention the San Fran Chron directly, so what point would it make? The point he tried to make in GC was that he didnt consider his interviews to news reporters as being anyworth when compared to his and other's previos writtings. Tell me, do you think LDS should study news interviews of the GA's for doctrinal insights?

What a straw man. Pathetic to say the least. I only hope you hold yourself to the same standard of perfecxtion you are holding the Prophet to. I have no problem with saying he goofed on that interview. I think its sad that you or anyone else might have lost sleep over this, or see it as a sin of seniality.

I agree. And your point is?

Like I said he chocked. Cut him some slack, geez.

Faith affirming? Give me a break! So is chocking on a news interview some kind of evidence that he is not a prophet? Wow, what kind of "testimony" did you have as an LDS? Did you think prophets were infallible?

I think he goofed. He should have said "Yes, and it is as true and real as the chair Im sitting on." Interviewer: But how do you reconcile this with traditional christian teaching? GBH: We dont, its traditional christian teahing that has to reconcile itsefl". Interviewer: Doesnt that seem a bit arrogant, You have only been around less than 200 years. GBH: "I believe Ive said my piece on this matter".

But he didnt.

So what?

Have you read the keys that a real prophet holds? Perfection is one of them (sinless). As well as communion with the Father, the Son, the General council and the church of the Firstborn, having the heavens open to them.

Exercising all powers as a seer and revelator, translator,tongues, healing, raising the dead, casting out demons etc... heck the apostles had all of that.

Link to comment

Have you read the keys that a real prophet holds? Perfection is one of them (sinless). As well as communion with the Father, the Son, the General council and the church of the Firstborn, having the heavens open to them.

Exercising all powers as a seer and revelator, translator,tongues, healing, raising the dead, casting out demons etc... heck the apostles had all of that.

sinless?

why dont you add omniscience in there too?

Some might enjoy the sport of trying to catch the Prophet in his words, to them I say: get a life.

Link to comment

Name me one sinless prophet (other than Christ Jesus).

Elijah, John the beloved, Enoch, Moses, Aaron, Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, Andrew,Joseph Smith, Teckla, and many more that would mean nothing to you.

These all overcame sin, and were perfected.

Link to comment

If I tell my kids to love everyone, and then when a woman comes wanting me to help her daughter, and I basically call the woman a dog because she's a different ethnicity than I am, am I a good father?

I think I get the gist of what you were trying to convey in your analogy, but I think it's heavily flawed (as hopefully my above â??analogyâ? illustrates).

Thats why I didn't allow it to stand alone. plus some guy interupted me somthing about his car not working right, blah blah blah. (I run an auto repair shop)

Thanks Doc I can always count on you. :P

Sentinus

Link to comment

Elijah, John the beloved, Enoch, Moses, Aaron, Peter, Paul, James, Stephen, Andrew,Joseph Smith, Teckla, and many more that would mean nothing to you.

These all overcame sin, and were perfected.

I think I misunderstood you, as it appears we have two different understandings of what "sinless" is. For me, sinless is someone who is without sin (as in someone who has never sinned). In my mindset, Christ is the only sinless man to ever walk the Earth. But it appears that you include those who have repented of their sins and cleansed by the blood of Christ in that category as well.

My apologies.

Link to comment

I think I misunderstood you, as it appears we have two different understandings of what "sinless" is. For me, sinless is someone who is without sin (as in someone who has never sinned). In my mindset, Christ is the only sinless man to ever walk the Earth. But it appears that you include those who have repented of their sins and cleansed by the blood of Christ in that category as well.

My apologies.

Who's Teckla?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...