blackstrap Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Gospel Principles ,lesson 47,page 279,bottom of page. Sorry,don't know how to link properly.Apparently we do teach it.
BCSpace Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 That God the Father was once a mortal man? Of course we do. It's official doctrine. 1
blackstrap Posted December 11, 2011 Author Posted December 11, 2011 " I don't know as we teach it " 1
KevinG Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 What do you mean by "it".If you mean that Father went through some kind of growth or mortality experience, or that He could have been a Savior like Christ then yes we do.If you mean (like some critics like to incorrectly imply) that God was somehow less than God or committed sin, or other false notions, then no we don't.The problem I have with this issue and President Hinckley's 60 Minutes interview is that the way the question is asked and the implied stuff that just aint so is that it is often asked as a curiosity or a gotcha question without sufficient follow up or knowledge of other LDS beliefs.I think President Hinkley was avoiding treating a scarcely defined doctrine as a sound bite during the oft quoted interview. Of course those who don't respect or care for the LDS Church will try to spin gold out of this hay. 1
KevinG Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I'm teaching this in HP group tomorrow. I'll report back on how many people get hung up over President Hinkley's television interview statement.
Calm Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 " I don't know as we teach it "Q: ...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?A: 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 a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it.[The portion in italics was omitted from TIME's reporting.]http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse
california boy Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I have to say President Hinckley's statement on national TV really has continued to bother me. It just seemed like a flat out deception coming from a prophet of God. Did anyone else feel shocked and betrayed by his comment? Can anyone honestly explain it away?
Freedom Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I have to say President Hinckley's statement on national TV really has continued to bother me. It just seemed like a flat out deception coming from a prophet of God. Did anyone else feel shocked and betrayed by his comment? Can anyone honestly explain it away?Shocked by him saying he didn't know? He did deny the doctrine, he openly said he understands the philosophy of it, which is what is taught, but that he does not know much about it, which we don't. All we have is the basic philosophy of the doctrine but not enough detail to make a clear definition of what it means. His response was the perfect way, in my opinion, how to explain the doctrine. The notion that he was once a man is philosophically consistant with the doctrine of eternal progression, but beyond that we just don't know anything.
thesometimesaint Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 California Boy:Why do you think Jesus taught in parables?
Ron Beron Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 That God the Father was once a mortal man? Of course we do. It's official doctrine.Not to sound trite, but was God ever a man? A mortal yes, but a man? That would insinuate he was a homo sapiens. Maybe it is time for a glass of milk, a cookie and a long sleep.
california boy Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I guess you two did not feel President Hinckleys statement was incredibly misleading. I was taught that prophets speak the truth with plainness and boldness even when it is not convenient. I grew up on Lorenzo Snows "As man is God once was. As God is man may become." I personally think it is a wonderful concept that speaks of core and wonderfulness of the plan of salvation. To completely dismiss it as being some obscure doctrine that President Hinckley was willing to dismiss was shocking to me. It still is. What is wrong with standing up for the churches beliefs. Perhaps an honest answer would have touched the honest in heart that would hear the promptings of the light of Christ that leads one to the gospel. The prophet of God was unwilling to declare the gospel with boldness. This wasn't a parable. This isn't some obsucre tenant of the gospel This was deception. He could have said. We don't know exactly or even much about how God became God. But we do know that we are the spirit children of God, He is our Father, and through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like Him. But obscure teaching that the head of the church is not sure we even teach??? Come on. That was not an honest answer. 1
BCSpace Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 " I don't know as we teach it " When you find the reference, be sure to finish the quote.Not to sound trite, but was God ever a man? A mortal yes, but a man? That would insinuate he was a homo sapiensI would indeed go so far as to say that God the Father is a homo sapiens and that is official LDS doctrine. There is no other gospel definition of "man" that fits. Do I get my milk and cookies now?
BCSpace Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I guess you two did not feel President Hinckleys statement was incredibly misleading.calmoriah finished the quote for you which the OP starter couldn't seem to do. I don't see how you could possibly feel mislead by it.I grew up on Lorenzo Snows "As man is God once was. As God is man may become."Still official doctrine.I personally think it is a wonderful concept that speaks of core and wonderfulness of the plan of salvation. To completely dismiss it as being some obscure doctrine that President Hinckley was willing to dismiss was shocking to me.Apparently, he felt it was a milk before meat doctrine which would explain his down playing of it.
Calm Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) I have to say President Hinckley's statement on national TV really has continued to bother me. It just seemed like a flat out deception coming from a prophet of God. Did anyone else feel shocked and betrayed by his comment? Can anyone honestly explain it away?I read his first comment of "we don't teach it" as a simple overstatement which he immediately corrected by changing it to "don't emphasize it". It probably would have made the correction obvious if he added after the don't teach comment "that phrase doesn't convey what I mean, which is it is not a teaching that we emphasize in our teachings and discussions and talks because with so little knowledge about the details there is unfortunately little to say beyond the basic fact of the first part of the couplet" and then go on with the explanation given by him..... that while we've got that nugget of truth, we lack in revelation that would provide the contextual setting for the jewel in the crown, and must depend on philosophy for further ideas.....which since LDS do not generally expand their teaching based on philosophical explorations, however wise and fascinating and perhaps even right they might be, no matter how well one understands the philosophical aspects of the phrase, it contributes little to doctrinal knowledge, which is the ideal that we try to teach even as we err in many ways...we just can't seem to let the revelations rest in isolation on their own, we want them to make sense, to fix together, to have predictive value, etc, etc Edited December 11, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) We don't know exactly or even much about how God became God. But we do know that we are the spirit children of God, He is our Father, and through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like Him. But obscure teaching that the head of the church is not sure we even teach??? Come on. That was not an honest answer.But your explanation is about the second half of the couplet, not the first so you are not answer it with any more detail or enthusiasm than he did, in fact you are essentially dismissing the teaching in question by answering not the question asked, but the easier one to answer with the bangs and whistles.I look at your response "we don't know exactly or even much about how God became God" as even less informative because he covered some of the aspects of why we dont know, etc.Here is the question again: Q: ...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?What in that question is answered by any of the additional information that you gave? Edited December 11, 2011 by calmoriah
Storm Rider Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I grew up on Lorenzo Snows "As man is God once was. As God is man may become."God became man so that man might become God. This is a fundamental teaching of many of the Early Church Fathers of Catholicism. I have often wondered why any Christian gets upset by almost anything a LDS may say.I was surprised when I heard President Hinckley's comments. I did understand why he was so wishy-washy about the topic. Brigham Young taught us that it was worthless to consider the First Cause, which I think is directly related to this topic. In what capacity was God a man? Did God develop from other Gods and was a mortal without being God? Or was he a mortal like Jesus was a mortal i.e. while still being God.Jesus does nothing that he did not see the Father do sums it up well for me. The Son did what the Father did. That is about as much as we know. After so much time has past, I have grown to appreciate GBH's comments far more than I did when I heard them. I think it was an appropriate answer and it should make those who think they "know" the doctrine of the Church to pause before they contradict what this prophet stated.
altersteve Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 I guess you two did not feel President Hinckleys statement was incredibly misleading. I was taught that prophets speak the truth with plainness and boldness even when it is not convenient. I grew up on Lorenzo Snows "As man is God once was. As God is man may become." I personally think it is a wonderful concept that speaks of core and wonderfulness of the plan of salvation. To completely dismiss it as being some obscure doctrine that President Hinckley was willing to dismiss was shocking to me. It still is. What is wrong with standing up for the churches beliefs. Perhaps an honest answer would have touched the honest in heart that would hear the promptings of the light of Christ that leads one to the gospel. The prophet of God was unwilling to declare the gospel with boldness. This wasn't a parable. This isn't some obsucre tenant of the gospel This was deception. He could have said. We don't know exactly or even much about how God became God. But we do know that we are the spirit children of God, He is our Father, and through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like Him. But obscure teaching that the head of the church is not sure we even teach??? Come on. That was not an honest answer.It was not deception. We do not teach that God was once like we are. There's no official doctrine on that. We teach that He was once a mortal; Joseph Smith said the Father was once a man in the same sense that the Son was once a man. But there's no official position of the Church on whether or not Heavenly Father was once less than God.President Hinckley's statement was completely honest.
california boy Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Well it sounds like I am the only one that felt President Hinckley's statement was incredibly misleading. He didn't dismiss just the first part of the couplet, he dismissed the entire statement in my opinion. You guys all seem to be fine with him dismissing the entire concept that man can become like God. I don't find that concept milk before meat. The missionaries teach that concept in the very basic discussions we give to investigators to the church. In my opinion, it is a beautiful part of the gospel. In fact, it is the reason the church was restored to the earth. If the prophet wants the church to blend in with all the other christian religions then why even proclaim the gospel to the world.And I don't see substantial difference between God being mortal and God being like us. Has the church stricken Lorenzo Snow's statement from all of the manuals of the church? Has this couplet indeed been shoved into some obscure bazaar teaching that we no longer teach? And when did that all happen? Do none of you believe in the statement any more that President Hinckley dismissed as being unimportant and not really taught? If you don't believe that some day you can become like God, why are you members of the church? But that is just my opinion. You guys all seem to be willing to figure out a way to explain away what was stated as being the real message of the plan of salvation.
Deborah Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 Sigh. Pres. Hinckley was very courageous going in the public forum as he did knowing how his words would be twisted and taken out of context. How do you answer a question with so many depths of understanding and that requires such a foundation in understanding pre-mortal life, the War in Heaven, the nature of God, etc. What he said was essentially true. It's something we allude to and understand at a basic level but don't even begin to understand on a deeper level. We teach the words of Pres. Snow but do we really understand what they mean?God has always been God and to imply anything else is to take away from everything he did for us. However, how he began and how much he had to learn before he could give everything to us in return we don't know. There is certainly the implication that he like Jesus grew in understanding; yet Jesus was perfect and was also God from the beginning. It's a concept I don't think our finite minds can begin to understand, and yet some would have the prophet try to explain what even LDS don't fully comprehend to a world that would only mock. 1
Bob Crockett Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 (edited) I have to say President Hinckley's statement on national TV really has continued to bother me. It just seemed like a flat out deception coming from a prophet of God. Did anyone else feel shocked and betrayed by his comment? Can anyone honestly explain it away?You can't admit the prospect that maybe he misspoke or that you took it out of context? He also admitted that colas are forbidden. in the Reed Smoot hearings when asked, President Smith said that unlike President Woodruff he had never had a revelation. The next day he came back and corrected that statement. Edited December 11, 2011 by rcrocket
thesometimesaint Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 California Boy:It gets even worse. It says TWICE in the Bible that we are Gods.
blackstrap Posted December 11, 2011 Author Posted December 11, 2011 I don't think that president Hinckley was trying to deceive or mislead. Had he time to formulate a better response he would have been clearer.The question was on the idea that God was once a man. The quote from the Teachings of Joseph Smith as found in the Gospel Principles manual,is clear on that point. It is also something that there is little followup info on and that leads to much speculation.President Hinckley was right that we do not emphasize the idea. Much can be said about avoiding a media scrum where possible.
thesometimesaint Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 blackstrap:How to answer a question when not enough is known to put it in the right context is a problem.Kinda like trying to a bunch of first graders advanced algebra by a person who doesn't understand calculus.
california boy Posted December 11, 2011 Posted December 11, 2011 You can't admit the prospect that maybe he misspoke or that you took it out of context? He also admitted that colas are forbidden. Well obviously you all seem to be completely comfortable with President Hinckleys statement. I don't really buy your rational in explaining away his answer. As you young missionary, I would have been able to clearly say that the plan of salvation is based on the belief that we can become like God. If they asked a followup question about the first part, I would have simply said we don't really know much about how God became God, nor does anyone else. I guess I would expect President Hinckley to be able to answer such a basic question without the deception of it not being something we teach any longer.But hey, as long as you guys are compfortable with his answer, that is what is important. It is not really a concern of mine. So thanks for sharing your thoughts. 1
Recommended Posts