Do Elder Oaks And Pres Hinckley Have Different Views

[mms]

In the interview for "The Mormons," Elder Oaks ("DHO") and Helen Whitney ("HW")(the producer) had this exchange:

DHO: Before the close of his ministry, in Illinois, Joseph Smith put together the significance of what he had taught about the nature of God and the nature and destiny of man. He preached a great sermon not long before he was murdered that God was a glorified Man, glorified beyond our comprehension, (still incomprehensible in many ways), but a glorified, resurrected, physical Being, and it is the destiny of His children upon this earth, upon the conditions He has proscribed, to grow into that status themselves. That was a big idea, a challenging idea. It followed from the First Vision, and it was taught by Joseph Smith, and it is the explanation of many things that Mormons do â?? the whole theology of Mormonism.

HW: Is it the core of it?

DHO: That is the purpose of the life of men and women on this earth: to pursue their eternal destiny. Eternal means Godlike and to become like God. One of the succeeding prophets said: â??As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become.â? That is an extremely challenging idea. We donâ??t understand, weâ??re not able to understand, all [about] how it comes to pass or what is at its origin, but it explains the purpose of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is to put peopleâ??s feet on the pathway to a glorified existence in the life to come that is incomprehensible, but far closer to God than the Christian world generally perceives.

(Emphasis mine.)

I think we are all aware that Pres. Hinckley has made several comments de-emphasizing this doctrine--that God was a man. Here is one from a San Francisco Chronicle article:

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

A (Pres. Hinckley): I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A (Pres. hinckley): Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. we believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people.

(Emphasis mine.)

First, have I provided enough context or is there something that should be added to explain either quote? Second, does anyone see a contradiction here, or are they consistent statements? Why the contradiction if you see one? Why is there no contradiction, if you see the statements as consistent?

[selek]

First, have I provided enough context or is there something that should be added to explain either quote? Second, does anyone see a contradiction here, or are they consistent statements? Why the contradiction if you see one? Why is there no contradiction, if you see the statements as consistent?

Yes- the search engine. Whatever you may be MMS, this a favorite trope of the anti's, and has been discussed at some length (at least the Hinckley portion of it).

President Hinckley, in giving his interview years ago, was speaking from the cuff, with little in the way of preparation, and was essentially asked to provide a 5-second soundbite on an extremely important and complex matter.

His answer was a polite brush off- a rejection of the rather simplistic summary King was offering (with no chance for a follow up).

Elder Oaks was in a more extended interview and had some forewarning of the questions that might be asked.

[Paul Ray]

I believe they both have the same view on this issue and they are both in agreement.

... and I realize they have answered questions about this issue differently at different times with different people.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the interview for "The Mormons," Elder Oaks ("DHO") and Helen Whitney ("HW")(the producer) had this exchange:

DHO: Before the close of his ministry, in Illinois, Joseph Smith put together the significance of what he had taught about the nature of God and the nature and destiny of man. He preached a great sermon not long before he was murdered that God was a glorified Man, glorified beyond our comprehension, (still incomprehensible in many ways), but a glorified, resurrected, physical Being, and it is the destiny of His children upon this earth, upon the conditions He has proscribed, to grow into that status themselves. That was a big idea, a challenging idea. It followed from the First Vision, and it was taught by Joseph Smith, and it is the explanation of many things that Mormons do — the whole theology of Mormonism.

HW: Is it the core of it?

DHO: That is the purpose of the life of men and women on this earth: to pursue their eternal destiny. Eternal means Godlike and to become like God. One of the succeeding prophets said: “As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become.” That is an extremely challenging idea. We don’t understand, we’re not able to understand, all [about] how it comes to pass or what is at its origin, but it explains the purpose of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is to put people’s feet on the pathway to a glorified existence in the life to come that is incomprehensible, but far closer to God than the Christian world generally perceives.

(Emphasis mine.)

I think we are all aware that Pres. Hinckley has made several comments de-emphasizing this doctrine--that God was a man. Here is one from a San Francisco Chronicle article:

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

A (Pres. Hinckley): I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A (Pres. hinckley): Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. we believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We're trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people.

(Emphasis mine.)

First, have I provided enough context or is there something that should be added to explain either quote? Second, does anyone see a contradiction here, or are they consistent statements? Why the contradiction if you see one? Why is there no contradiction, if you see the statements as consistent?

I don't see a contradiction. Both are, in effect saying the same thing. President Hinckley followed up his "I wouldn't say that" statement with explanatory commentary to the effect that it gets into deep doctrine that we don't know much about -- the very point that Elder Oaks made. By stating "I wouldn't say that," President Hinckley means he wouldn't put it in those terms. Why? Because to do so does not convey a proper understanding of a concept about which, after all, not much has been revealed.

Have you provided enough context? I don't think so. You would have to point out that throughout Church history, very little if anything has been revealed by way of explanation of the concept that "as man is God once was." And you claim that "Pres. Hinckley has made several comments de-emphasizing this doctrine." You cite one. I can think of maybe one other. Two (or even three) instances hardly constitute "several."

[Doctor Steuss]

They seem to agree to me:

DHO: â??As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become.â? That is an extremely challenging idea. We donâ??t understand, weâ??re not able to understand, all [about] how it comes to pass or what is at its originâ?¦â?

Pres. Hinckley: â??"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."â? â?¦ That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

[mms]

I do see some consistency, but the most striking contradiction (which I cannot help but see)-- I failed to bold part of it in the OP, is the fact that Elder Oaks is using the "couplet" in response to a question about the "core" of church doctrine and Pres. Hinckley states that it is simply "more of a couplet than anything else." These do not seem to agree to me.

(Selek, please consider the possibility that the most used "anti" arguments could possibly embody the matters that cause the most challenge to those who learn new information and find their faith challenged. This does not seem to be a difficult matter to comprehend. So, it may be, that when someone comes along claiming to be genuinely concerned about new information, that the information is some of the same information that anti's use. I should say, however, that with regard to thsi particular post, I had no idea that anti-mormons used Pres. Hinckley's quotes on this matter for their purposes, nor is this matter particularly faith-challenging in my view, but I was simply struck by the seeming (arguable) difference between just how important the "couplet" should be to our doctrine.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Agreed with the posters who say it seems essentially the same. It seems Elder Oaks fielded it better initially, but their meaning was the same: ie, the first part of the couplet has not been expounded upon.

Basically Pres. Hinckley was treading lightly with a very heavily doctrinal subject, imo.

[Paul Ray]

You are only citing certain references. Try looking at everything they have said on that subject.

[Severian]

Do they ever use the words Theology and Speculation interchangeably?

[Doctor Steuss]

I do see some consistency, but the most striking contradiction (which I cannot help but see)-- I failed to bold part of it in the OP, is the fact that Elder Oaks is using the "couplet" in response to a question about the "core" of church doctrine and Pres. Hinckley states that it is simply "more of a couplet than anything else." These do not seem to agree to me.

[...]

Hi mms,

I can see where one could get the impression. But, it helps to look at what each was focusing on. DHO seems to be focusing mainly on man's potential (not so much in the first quote, but the follow up makes it clear why this doctrine is "core"). Whereas in the Pres. Hinckley interview, the interviewer (and Pres. Hinckley) seemed to be focusing solely on G-d (i.e. the first portion of the couplet).

[mms]

Hi mms,

I can see where one could get the impression. But, it helps to look at what each was focusing on. DHO seems to be focusing mainly on man's potential (not so much in the first quote, but the follow up makes it clear why this doctrine is "core"). Whereas in the Pres. Hinckley interview, the interviewer (and Pres. Hinckley) seemed to be focusing solely on G-d (i.e. the first portion of the couplet).

True.

[selek]

(Selek, please consider the possibility that the most used "anti" arguments could possibly embody the matters that cause the most challenge to those who learn new information and find their faith challenged.

I agree- which is why the board is so split on the subject of trolls. It can be a bit tricky telling the sheep from the goats- what may appear to be an anti-Mormon regurgitating endless talking points might also be an earnest seeker who has been blindsided by those very same talking points.

This does not seem to be a difficult matter to comprehend. So, it may be, that when someone comes along claiming to be genuinely concerned about new information, that the information is some of the same information that anti's use.

Agreed- that's why the anti's are so insidious. They knowingly pose as innocent seekers of truth, then spout reams of discredited propoganda and eventually reveal their true colors, and annoy faithful members of the board to no end. It is a long and morbid cycle, with a history greater than my own.

I should say, however, that with regard to thsi particular post, I had no idea that anti-mormons used Pres. Hinckley's quotes on this matter for their purposes, nor is this matter particularly faith-challenging in my view, but I was simply struck by the seeming (arguable) difference between just how important the "couplet" should be to our doctrine.)

Which is why I pointed it out in my earlier response. Rather than making an accusation, I was trying to give you a heads-up. I apologize if you took it as an attack- it was not intended as such, though your reaction would be perfectly understandable.

Perhaps it's the medication, perhaps it's a matter of having gotten a full-night's rest, or perhaps even latent senility settling in, but I begin to wonder if I wasn't too harsh on you initially.

Your initial posts set off all of my buzzers, but I begin to think I pulled on my hob-nail boots and jumped too quickly.

Having gotten past the understandable defensiveness on both sides, your posts strike me as far too thoughtful and articulate to have come from the "standard-issue" troll.

By now, one of those would have been foaming at the mouth, tearing at his/her hair, wailing at the walls, denouncing us all as heretics and dupes, and scurried for the hills.

[Scott Lloyd]

By now, one of those would have been foaming at the mouth, tearing at his/her hair, wailing at the walls, denouncing us all as heretics and dupes, and scurried for the hills.

You've just given me an idea: a Harry Potter knock-off about anti-Mormon trolls!

[solomarineris]

They seem to agree to me:

DHO: â??As man is, God once was. And as God is, man may become.â? That is an extremely challenging idea. We donâ??t understand, weâ??re not able to understand, all [about] how it comes to pass or what is at its originâ?¦â?

Pres. Hinckley: â??"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."â? â?¦ That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

I would strongly disagree with your asessment that these two paragraphs agreeing.

"Pretty deep theology that we don't know much about"?

Could you repeat this to me who has been numerous sunday school classes, elders Q. meetings?

I still have those priesthood manuals, nothing is left to imagination in this area.

What I don't understand is, why try to water down such a clear concise revelation?

That is exactly what is happening here.

[Doctor Steuss]

I would strongly disagree with your asessment that these two paragraphs agreeing.

"Pretty deep theology that we don't know much about"?

Could you repeat this to me who has been numerous sunday school classes, elders Q. meetings?

I still have those priesthood manuals, nothing is left to imagination in this area.

What I don't understand is, why try to water down such a clear concise revelation?

That is exactly what is happening here.

So, you don't agree that it "gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about," and that it "is an extremely challenging idea. We donâ??t understand, weâ??re not able to understand, all [about] how it comes to pass or what is at its origin"?

I sure hope I could repeat that in Sunday School classes or EQ meetings and have at least one person who has thought about it deeply enough to think it's not a "clear concise revelation." The implication are deep, profound, and damned complicated (even "mainstream" theosis/deification is some pretty deep theology).

Edited to add: Upon re-reading it this morning, I don't necessarily completely agree with my initial assessment either. See my secondary post made this morning.

[selek]

You've just given me an idea: a Harry Potter knock-off about anti-Mormon trolls!

How's this for a title?

Harry Potter and the Drooling Inanity

[Scott Lloyd]

I would strongly disagree with your asessment that these two paragraphs agreeing.

"Pretty deep theology that we don't know much about"?

Could you repeat this to me who has been numerous sunday school classes, elders Q. meetings?

I still have those priesthood manuals, nothing is left to imagination in this area.

Pretty much all of the Church curriculum is on line now. Can you give us a single link that explains the concept of God having once been a man in a way that does not raise questions for which there are at present no answers?

Barring that, go ahead and cite something from those old priesthood manuals, if you care to.

[Scott Lloyd]

How's this for a title?

Harry Potter and the Drooling Inanity

I love it!

Let's contact Abanes's publisher, who we already know is into mystic fantasy.

[thesometimesaint]

solomarineris:

You are on. You have exactly two minutes to type, without referring to any source material, or notes, a comprehensive multi-page treatise on the philosophical ramifications of the first part of the Snow Couplet.

BTW make sure it is in total agreement with other General authorities have said.

Time starts NOW.

[Doctor Steuss]

solomarineris:

You are on. You have exactly two minutes to type, without referring to any source material, or notes, a comprehensive multi-page treatise on the philosophical ramifications of the first part of the Snow Couplet.

BTW make sure it is in total agreement with other General authorities have said.

Time starts NOW.

In some ways, I think the ramifications of the second part of the Snow Couplet are just as profound as those of the first. The implications of theosis (and that G-d himself was once a "man") are far reaching, and cause far more questions than they answer.

[Paul Ray]

In some ways, I think the ramifications of the second part of the Snow Couplet are just as profound as those of the first. The implications of theosis (and that G-d himself was once a "man") are far reaching, and cause far more questions than they answer.

Yeah, like:

If God was once a man, does that mean he is still a man, in some sense?

If not, when did he stop becoming a man, in some sense?

If so, what is he now, if not a man now, in some sense?

And what does it mean to be a man, exactly?

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

[mocnarf]

Does not the Temple endoments enable people to qualify (if they honor their covenents) to reach the third degree (highest level) in the Celestial Kingdom. And, is it not taught that people who reach this level of glory will be able to create spirit children and populate worlds that they create. If so, then how does this differ from being a God?

[Paul Ray]

Does not the Temple endoments enable people to qualify (if they honor their covenents) to reach the third degree (highest level) in the Celestial Kingdom. And, is it not taught that people who reach this level of glory will be able to create spirit children and populate worlds that they create. If so, then how does this differ from being a God?

Would you agree that another way to say "being a God" is "being like our Father in heaven"?

... or "being like Jesus Christ", as he is like him?

... or "being like our Father in heaven, except for still being a woman, if you are a woman and not a man?

Just curious. What do you think?

[thesometimesaint]

Doctor Steuss:

Agreed.

[Lightbearer]

God and man are both of the same species. The difference is we are only potentially a god in embryo and He is perfected, glorified and exalted. Both President Hinckley and Elder Oaks are on the same page. It is a little tiresome to hear this same old worn out quote that supposedly throws some doubt on God being a glorified and exalted man or of President Hinckley not believing the doctrine when it is all over the scriptures. The truth is we do not know a lot about the details of God (the Father) being a mortal man. The prototype we have been given is the Lord Jesus Christ, He is the example we must follow and He is who makes Godhood possible for us. We are children of God in the literal sense, He is the Father of our spirits and Jesus is the joint heir of which we can take part with if we follow Him.