nicolasconnault Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 As fun as it would be to say that GBH was pwned, I doubt it. I think that he knew exactly how evasive his response to the question really was and the reasons for giving such an evasive response. Theoretically, prophets could be easily outclassed by an interviewer. I don't believe that this is one of those cases.President Hinckley didn't outclass Larry King because he was the prophet, but because he was extremely smart, literate and knowledgeable, far more than Larry King ever was. I also think his words were carefully chosen, but for valid reasons which I've explained earlier in this thread.
cinepro Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 President Hinckley didn't outclass Larry King because he was the prophet, but because he was extremely smart, literate and knowledgeable, far more than Larry King ever was. I also think his words were carefully chosen, but for valid reasons which I've explained earlier in this thread.Just to be clear, the "I don't know that we teach it" quotes were in interviews with Time Magazine and the San Fransisco Chronicle in 1997, not Larry King.Sadly, this isn't the extent of the confusion. Instead of just letting it go, President Hinckley had to go and say this in General Conference of that year:The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. 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 that
nicolasconnault Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Just to be clear, the "I don't know that we teach it" quotes were in interviews with Time Magazine and the San Fransisco Chronicle in 1997, not Larry King.Sadly, this isn't the extent of the confusion. Instead of just letting it go, President Hinckley had to go and say this in General Conference of that year:Ok, what is missing from that statement? How about actually clarifying what the doctrine is, he being a Prophet speaking to the faithful in General Conference, and all that? He doesn't say which doctrine he is referring to, and then assures us he "understands them thoroughly" but doesn't share his thorough understanding with us. So we're left with two evasive interviews and a non-clarification.Well played, President Hinckley. Well played.Maybe it was actually Brigham Young speaking through him?
Balzer Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 "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."Now isn't that just silly?Respectfully,Balzer
bluebell Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 "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."Now isn't that just silly?Respectfully,BalzerWhy is it silly?It's a matter of record that the interview was edited (not saying that that means there was any nefarious intent in the editing) and the editing does obscure the fact that Pres. Hinckely was remarking about the specific Lorenzo Snow couplet and not the doctrine behind it.
Balzer Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Why is it silly?It's a matter of record that the interview was edited (not saying that that means there was any nefarious intent in the editing) and the editing does obscure the fact that Pres. Hinckely was remarking about the specific Lorenzo Snow couplet and not the doctrine behind it.I think it was silly to say "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it," and then claim it was the reporter that made it seem as though he didn't understand the doctrine. "I don't know a lot about it?" Please. He's the PROPHET! If anyone knows anything about it I should think it would be the PROPHET! He was definitely playing a very purposeful tune.Respectfully,Balzer
thesometimesaint Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Balzer:You can go to Church a month of Sunday's and not here a word about God being a man. We don't teach it outside of the last part of the couplet. We don't know anything outside of the philosophical implications that it entails. That God has chosen not to reveal much about it is evident. Why on Gods' green earth should a prophet know about all it?
cinepro Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 You can go to Church a month of Sunday's and not here a word about God being a man. We don't teach it outside of the last part of the couplet. We don't know anything outside of the philosophical implications that it entails. That God has chosen not to reveal much about it is evident. Why on Gods' green earth should a prophet know about all it?It would be great if President Hinckley had even said that much.Except the part about not teaching it outside the last part of the couplet. We do teach the first part of the couplet too.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 cinepro:I fail to see anything that addresses "As God once was...". Maybe if you pointed it out.
saemo Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Don't most Christians believe that Jesus Christ, who is God, was once a Man? Christians believe God became man...the Word of God made flesh...John 1
HiJolly Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Please. He's the PROPHET! If anyone knows anything about it I should think it would be the PROPHET! He was definitely playing a very purposeful tune.Respectfully,BalzerBased on a couple of your posts in this thread RE: prophets, I think your understanding of what is to be expected of a prophet is naive, ignorant and dysfunctional. You should read what the Bible has to say about prophets. Maybe that would help. Sincerely, HiJolly
Balzer Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Based on a couple of your posts in this thread RE: prophets, I think your understanding of what is to be expected of a prophet is naive, ignorant and dysfunctional. You should read what the Bible has to say about prophets. Maybe that would help. Sincerely, HiJollyI'll buy naive and ignorant, but dysfunctional? Ok.Anyway, you don't think that your prophet is an authority on all things Mormon? Bummer!Respectfully,Balzer
nicolasconnault Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I'll buy naive and ignorant, but dysfunctional? Ok.Anyway, you don't think that your prophet is an authority on all things Mormon? Bummer!Respectfully,BalzerActually no, he's the authority on what God wants us to know right now. That's a lot more relevant to me than knowing what colour underpants Joseph Smith wore.
Jon63 Posted January 10, 2011 Author Posted January 10, 2011 Actually no, he's the authority on what God wants us to know right now. That's a lot more relevant to me than knowing what colour underpants Joseph Smith wore.So, God wanted the Prophet to teach people about Polygamy, then he didn't, but he will again later in the Celestial Kingdom?So, God wanted the Prophet to allow Black people to have the Priesthood, then he didn't, then he did again?So, God wants the doctrine of Himself being a man taught as part of the Gospel Principles but wants the Prophet in public to deny having knowledge that we teach it?Flip flopping doctrines seem to be a recurring theme within Mormonism...
nicolasconnault Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 So, God wanted the Prophet to teach people about Polygamy, then he didn't, but he will again later in the Celestial Kingdom?So, God wanted the Prophet to allow Black people to have the Priesthood, then he didn't, then he did again?So, God wants the doctrine of Himself being a man taught as part of the Gospel Principles but wants the Prophet in public to deny having knowledge that we teach it?Flip flopping doctrines seem to be a recurring theme within Mormonism...That's one way to look at it. My point of view is fairly different of course, but essentially I trust God's judgement and wisdom.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Jon63:Polygamy is still the doctrine of the Church.Blacks were never excluded from the Priesthood.Jesus is not a man?
semlogo Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Well lets see, because all teachings aren't doctrine?That is literally a meaningless statement.
semlogo Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Jon63:Polygamy is still the doctrine of the Church.Blacks were never excluded from the Priesthood.Jesus is not a man?Did I miss the punchline?
ebeddoulos Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 I would have to disagree. A true prophet could never be outclassed by anyone. I do agree tho that his answer was intentionally evasive, and understand why it was so. And I don't hold that against him, even if he might have been a little more honest. This is a controversial belief, but I still think Mormon's have every right to it.Respectfully,BalzerIf you realy believe that a true prophet would not be at loss for words, I am sure you can wax eloquent on the correct exegesis of Exodus 4:10 and how Aaron the Levite really did not play a role in the initial phases of the departure of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt because Moses actually provided a grand oration for the children of Israel, Exodus 4:30 to the contrary.
cdowis Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Just to be clear, the "I don't know that we teach it" quotes were in interviews with Time Magazine and the San Fransisco Chronicle in 1997, not Larry King.Sadly, this isn't the extent of the confusion. Instead of just letting it go, President Hinckley had to go and say this in General Conference of that year:Ok, what is missing from that statement? How about actually clarifying what the doctrine is, he being a Prophet speaking to the faithful in General Conference, and all that? He doesn't say which doctrine he is referring to, and then assures us he "understands them thoroughly" but doesn't share his thorough understanding with us. So we're left with two evasive interviews and a non-clarification.Well played, President Hinckley. Well played.This is an instructive example of "steadying the ark".Cinepro, the prophet does not your steadying hand and advice on how to run the church, and what he needs to say in General Conference. I think he handled the situation masterfully, without creating additional grist for the antimormon mill.Well played, indeed.
evangelist Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I believe that god was once a man. And I think that it makes sense. Also, to see god as once a man is very comforting because it means that god understands us in a very personal way. And I have always thought why would we experience something meaningful as our body if god himself didn't experience it himself. And yes, I do believe that the lds church teaches that god was once a man.Thanks for being honest!
evangelist Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 The Bible even calls God a Man of War. Gasp. Will the last Christian to leave please turn out the lights?Joh:10:9: I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.The bible calls Jesus a door , so is Jesus a steal or wooden door??one love
evangelist Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 The big difference is that most Christians interpret all the Biblical references to our being the children of God, even his very offspring, as symbolic or by adoption only, apparently as if a human were to adopt a stray dog. I have heard it said, "We are not of the same species!"LDS Christians take the Biblical references literally. We are the same species! And to be a literal son or daughter means that one grows up to be like the parent. Not replacing the parent. When I stand under the stars of a cold, clear winter sky, I am thrilled at the possibilities within our vast universe -- how little we mortals truly know -- and that God may have something more for me to do in the future among those stars, to His everlasting glory.The bible say :M't:5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.M't:5:29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.M't:5:30: And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.So if this is a issue with a mormon should they take the bible litterally and cut off body parts??one love
cinepro Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 cinepro:I fail to see anything that addresses "As God once was...". Maybe if you pointed it out.Just to be clear, the couplet we're referring to is the Lorenzo Snow classic "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may be."The first part of that couplet, referring to God having once "been" as man "is", is referenced in the current Gospel Principles lesson here:Joseph Smith taught:
why me Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 The bible say :M't:5:28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.one loveI have a very good friend who is a nun. I remember a discussion with her about looking after a woman with lust. She gave me a real eye opener. She said: "why me, when you look at a woman, you don't need to be lustful. Just admire her beauty and thank god for creating such a beautiful human being. I have been often thanking god since this advice. And I still find it comforting that god was once a man and as a man, I am sure that he looked at women too, but not with lust but with admiration.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.