Yes We Do.

[Bob Crockett]

Your view of discomfort doesn't admit any error on the part of the Brethren. Here we have a 90-year-old man on the spot, with no advance questions. I doubt my 87-year-old ex-law enforcement pilot father-in-law would have even done 10 percent as well.

And, shock of all shocks, the President of the Church does not speak for the Church. Only the First Presidency with the blessing of the Twelve do.

[Calm]

Cb, it seems to me you are ignoring thevfact that the question was asked about the first part of the couplet, not the second. I don't see it as reasonable to view someone as dismissive or deceptive for not answering a question that wasn't asked. Now one can interpret his comments as diminishing the importance of the first part, but I think one can also view it as simply dealing with the frequency and depth of when and how it was taught.

Of the two parts of the couplet, the first part is the much more controversial one, uniquely ours I believe unlike the second (though our doctrine is of course not identical to others on what is meant to become like God). To me, it makes perfect sense not to add potentially distracting discussion about the second part while one is attempting to place the first part in proper context.

I recently read an account claiming that Romney was being deceptive when he talked about his Mormon beliefs because he did not speak of beliefs unique to LDS. However the beliefs he did speak of are central to our faith and are what I hear constantly from the members on Fast and Testimony day. Viewing someone as deceptive or dismissive because they did not add to an answer things that were not required to answer the question is going too far, IMO, no matter how much the listener/reader wants to hear about the other subject or views it as more important.

I do think he misspoke right at the beginning, trying to give a shorthand description such as are wanted and expected in such interviews (after all, they even cut down the short explanation that he gave which caused a grat deal of misunderstanding in my opinion). I think the sentences following the first one---"we don't teach"------- make the best sense as a correction and not as a defense of that phrase.

We don't know the instructions the interviewer gave hin, whether it was "just relax and let's let the conversation take us where it will" or if concern was of time limitations with a lot of material to be covered and a caution expressed for keeping on track and short or whether Pres. Hinckley was cautious himself

to 'stay between the lines' and knew that the less he expanded on and added to the answers the more likely the essential explanation he supplied would not get lost and edited out in the final product. If this was a concern, one just has to look at what was edited to see it was merited.

[frankenstein]

That fair article just reads of desperation. The part of the article about not having enough time to respond does seem supported by scripture which dates that the words we need to speak will be put into our mouths.

[Calm]

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.

But what you call "a followup question" that your wording implies was not asked in the interview was the actual question asked and Pres. Hinckley's answer parallels yours with the addition of information that it (the first part of the couplet) was an infrequent part of discussions in the church context. He was not asked about the plan of salvation or the belief that men can become like God.

Again I will post the actual question he was asked:

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

A: Yeah.

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?

------

if you see in that citation a question about men becoming gods, I wish you would point it out because I don't see it.

[altersteve]

California Boy, all we know is that our Heavenly Father has eternally been God, like His Son, and was "like us" in some sense, like His Son. Full stop. Everything past that is speculation, and none of it is taught or emphasized in church. Ideas are tossed around, and many often assume that it is official doctrine, but it's not. The only "official doctrine" part is that God was once as we are. Period. We don't know any specific details beyond that, and I don't believe we will ever know as long as we're still in our mortal probation on this earth.

[Calm]

That fair article just reads of desperation. The part of the article about not having enough time to respond does seem supported by scripture which dates that the words we need to speak will be put into our mouths.

Here is what was said:

Why didn't he say more?

Finally, it should be remembered that this doctrine requires a great deal of "background" to understand even the little that the Church does know. Providing that background in an interview for the general public is virtually impossible. Anti-Mormon authors are always quick to pounce on "strange" things they can use to alienate other Christians from LDS theology; one might suspect that President Hinckley did not want to confuse matters by attempting what probably would have been an unsatisfactory explanation of the doctrine.

Also the responses a reporter receives in an oral interview are, by the nature of the interview itself, unprepared and off-the-cuff. Frequently, interviewees will give hasty answers that reflect a misunderstanding of the question or are the result of not expecting certain questions in the first place. Had the reporter submitted his questions in writing and asked for written responses, it's quite likely that President Hinckley's response to this question would have been clearer.

-----------------

You appear to believe that the commonsense response that if someone has time to prepare they are likely to provide a clearer explanation is desperate because it says in the scriptures that words will be given, etc.

If all that was necessary for witnessing is to rely on the Spirit, why did God give Aaron to Moses as a spokesperson when Moses pointed out he wasn't a good public speaker or some such thing? It would seem that God accepts there are times when relying solely on the Spirit is not appropriate.

[Calm]

There is also the fact that church authorities prepare talks for conference and don't rely solely on the Spirit to put words in their mouths. Missionaries themselves, while they do not memorize lessons, rely on study as much as the Spirit....they work together. Witnessing is not in a one size fits all. What is required depends as much on the audience as the speaker. The Lord does not promise eloquence, but that the needed message will be taught with the spirit so that those who need to hear will hear. Scriptures are also clear that those who refuse the spirit lose the understanding that comes from it.

I think it is a big assumption to assume that those reading the interview all do so through the filter of the Spirit or because they feel a desire to hear the spiritual message being taught. For those that don't clarity may be provided by a more polished text.

The Spirit can speak to an individual as much while he's preparing his words as while he's speaking them, sometimes moreso since there is less distraction and someone not open to the spirit will respond well to something well written than something that is understood best in the presence of the Spirit.

Part of the aspect of the Spirit providing the appropriate words, etc. Is that the Spirit is also working on those who are hearing those words. If one does not hear with the Spirit, no matter what is said it will not be enough. This would include those who are editing the words into soundbites prior to the intended audience hearing them. I personally do not believe the Spirit was standing at the editor's shoulder not only telling him when to cut, but also forcing him to do so if he wasn't listening closely enough. This would be akin to sola scriptura.

Edited December 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[frankenstein]

Here is what was said:

Why didn't he say more?

Finally, it should be remembered that this doctrine requires a great deal of "background" to understand even the little that the Church does know. Providing that background in an interview for the general public is virtually impossible. Anti-Mormon authors are always quick to pounce on "strange" things they can use to alienate other Christians from LDS theology; one might suspect that President Hinckley did not want to confuse matters by attempting what probably would have been an unsatisfactory explanation of the doctrine.

Also the responses a reporter receives in an oral interview are, by the nature of the interview itself, unprepared and off-the-cuff. Frequently, interviewees will give hasty answers that reflect a misunderstanding of the question or are the result of not expecting certain questions in the first place. Had the reporter submitted his questions in writing and asked for written responses, it's quite likely that President Hinckley's response to this question would have been clearer.

-----------------

You appear to believe that the commonsense response that if someone has time to prepare they are likely to provide a clearer explanation is desperate because it says in the scriptures that words will be given, etc.

If all that was necessary for witnessing is to rely on the Spirit, why did God give Aaron to Moses as a spokesperson when Moses pointed out he wasn't a good public speaker or some such thing? It would seem that God accepts there are times when relying solely on the Spirit is not appropriate.

I believe that people should not rely on the arm of the flesh when trying to explain away what a Prophet of God said. I also believe that the people of fair are in no position or place to speak for the Prophet, to the Prophets motives, or the what a the Prophet did or did not say. The fair article would not appear so desperate if the article wasn't doing the shot-gun approach and hoping something would stick. And speaking of common sense do not the scripture tell us that foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man? I do not have much issue the that fair article except the part that drips of desperation.

the final sentence in the fair article shows that fair could exercise a little more dignity in its presentations and conclusions. The "teachings" v. "doctrine" segment is desperate and ridiculous as it the section "not enough time to answer". Without those two section and the juvenile final sentence the article would be sufficient to address what happened.

Suffice it to say, it is nice to that the what is quoted in the OP printed and taught officially in Church materials.

Edited December 11, 2011 by frankenstein

[Pahoran]

I have to say President Hinckley's statement on national TV really has continued to bother me.

Why?

It just seemed like a flat out deception coming from a prophet of God.

Did it?

Why?

Did anyone else feel shocked and betrayed by his comment?

Did anyone at all "feel shocked and betrayed by his comment?"

Is it rhetorically and polemically useful for people to claim to have so felt? Evidently it is. Does that mean that they really felt that way?

Can anyone honestly explain it away?

There's no need to explain anything away. President Hinckley clarified his intent in the very next sentence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[blackstrap]

To answer the question asked by the interviewer,3 questions could be asked:

1. Do Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God?

2. Do Christians believe that God was made flesh?

3. Do Christians believe the Bible when it states that Christ only did what He had seen the Father do?

If one ignores the Trinitarian problem that arises from the 3rd question,logic provides the clear conclusion.

[blackstrap]

Why?

Did it?

Why?

Did anyone at all "feel shocked and betrayed by his comment?"

Is it rhetorically and polemically useful for people to claim to have so felt? Evidently it is. Does that mean that they really felt that way?

There's no need to explain anything away. President Hinckley clarified his intent in the very next sentence.

Regards,

Pahoran

There must have been some negative feedback,because President Hinckley did respond in his next general address.

[KevinG]

Unfortunately I feel off the roof cleaning my gutters aver the weekend and cannot report on the reaction to my priesthood lesson. I called for a substitute.

Nothing broken - but a lot of bruises.

[blackstrap]

You know,Daddy,they make an app for that. It's called a curved gutter hose. I do,however, feel your pain.Funny how gravity works,ALL THE TIME!!!!

[Rivers]

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 never had a problem with this statement. I think he accurately conveyed the way in which many mormons understand this subject. It is a very deep doctrine that we really don't know much about and isn't talked about in church very often. I don't understand why people get so hung up on it;

[Cobalt-70]

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...llett_Discourse

I wouldn't say it is "deceptive," but it was perhaps a bit disingenuous. This was just an off-the-cuff PR response--not a falsehood, but not the full truth either. As reflected in his later statements, Hinckley actually harbored no uncertainty on this doctrine. What he said might be technically right, but it was not as forthright as one might have expected. Perhaps, after he said it, he wished he had handled it differently. He certainly deflected the issue better, and perhaps more forthrightly, than most LDS missionaries could do. I'm sure he did not intend this to be a reversal of doctrine that almost all Mormons have held dear (but, more or less, close to the vest) since 1844.

[Lightbearer]

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?

Actually President Hinckley's statement has never bothered or concerned me. What really concerns me is how the critics and enemies of the truth try to "catch something out of his (the prophet's) mouth" much like the Pharasee's did with the Lord Himself. They tried to say He was a liar, a deciever and even the prince of devils! How little do the tactics of the adversary change over hundreds of years. Why anyone who has claimed a belief in the Bible should be "shocked" at the teaching that God was once a mortal man and that we, if we have perfect faith in Him and keep His commandments, can sit with Him in His throne, just as Jesus overcame and sat down with His Father in His throne...is beyond me. How exactly is this teaching so "shocking." The chief priests and the lawyers were offended by it so much so they used the accusation of blasphemy as their reason for shedding innocent blood. It is instructive that the Prophet Joseph was killed for teaching the same principle (that man could become as God is!) I think your accusation against a prophet of the Lord (President Hinckley) has been well answered already in this thread in showing the full quote. I only make one further "explaination" (as if a prophet needs one!) But for what it is worth here goes:

"It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 12:9 - 11)

Did it ever occur to you that President Hinckley was only being true to this principle? It is little wonder that Anti-Mormons and other enemies of truth love discourse of "deep doctrine" doctrine that is impossible for them or others that may not have the spirit of the Lord to understand. Of course those enemies will claim the servants of God are trying to "hide" doctrines or history or whatever and they do this so they can harden the hearts and blind the minds of those who are only kept from the truth because they no not where to find it. As a missionary I faced this same problem, however those who had the spirit of the Lord, knew by the time I was finished that we could become as God is... not a deep dark secret, but rather a gloriously bright yet sacred teaching that tells us our true, refined nature, the purpose of our existence and the meaning of the words: "I am a child of God" the reason we live in the family unit, Father, Mother, Son and Daughter... even a child can understand it, mainly because their minds have not been polluted with vain philosophies of men! They can see the pure holy teaching that we are here to "Bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of MAN" (that is God's work, to be our brother's keeper to be saviors on Mount Zion!

[Cobalt-70]

...As a missionary I faced this same problem, however those who had the spirit of the Lord, knew by the time I was finished that we could become as God is... not a deep dark secret, but rather a gloriously bright yet sacred teaching that tells us our true, refined nature, the purpose of our existence and the meaning of the words: "I am a child of God" the reason we live in the family unit, Father, Mother, Son and Daughter....

You are talking about a quite different doctrine. The idea that humans may become like God is far less controversial than the idea that God was once a man, and in fact many Christian denominations teach some kind of sanctification doctrine that says humans may become sanctified to obtain the qualities of God. The idea that God was once a man, however, seems to challenge the eternal nature of God, and is incompatible with traditional Christian theology as it has existed since the early creeds. So it is not surprising that Hinckley took a more deflective "PR" approach to answering that question than he did to the question of whether humans can become gods.

[coolrok7]

I wouldn't say it is "deceptive," but it was perhaps a bit disingenuous. This was just an off-the-cuff PR response--not a falsehood, but not the full truth either. As reflected in his later statements, Hinckley actually harbored no uncertainty on this doctrine. What he said might be technically right, but it was not as forthright as one might have expected. Perhaps, after he said it, he wished he had handled it differently. He certainly deflected the issue better, and perhaps more forthrightly, than most LDS missionaries could do. I'm sure he did not intend this to be a reversal of doctrine that almost all Mormons have held dear (but, more or less, close to the vest) since 1844. (Cobalt-70, post # 40)

I believe based on the following that it is both a “deceptive” and “disingenuous” pr response. It would have been a good chance at clarifying Church teaching on the subject at a minimum as it wouldn’t have taken much to make it clear. He was after all the “Prophet” at the time.

The issue was whether or not it was a church teaching which it was, not whether or not it was well understood (whose responsibility then would that be?).

. . .God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, . . . (History of the Church, Joseph Smith Jr., April 1844, 6:305)

President Hinckley made this comment in the November 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’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." (The Ensign, Gordon B. Hinckley, Drawing Nearer to the Lord, Nov. 1997)

In a lesson contained in a Church teaching manual—Search These Commandments, subtitled, “Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide” (Lesson 21, pp. 151-156; 1984), the following is stated (the title of the lesson is: “God was Once a Man As We Are Now”)’ Note the “man may be” not “become”:

When he was a young man, Lorenzo Snow was promised by the Lord through the Patriach to the Church that through obedience to the gospel he could become as great as God, “and you cannot wish to be greater” (Eliza R, Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 9—10).

President Lorenzo Snow recorded this experience that occurred when he was still a young elder: “The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man.” Elder Snow expressed this new found understanding in these words: “As man now is God once was. As God now is, man may be.” Later the Prophet Joseph Smith assured him: “Brother Snow, that is true gospel doctrine, and is a revelation of God to you” (quoted by LeRoi C. Snow, in “Devotion to Divine Inspiration,” Improvement Era [June 1919]: 651-56)

Also in a Church temple preparation teaching manual concerning Celestial marriage (D&C 132 which also teaches a plurality of wives), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches the following doctrine (eternal progression).

It would follow that those instructed in the manual would know this (even if “less well understood” as they would be taking instruction to enter the temple and receive their endowments):

(1-1) INTRODUCTION

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that man is an eternal being, made in the image and likeness of God. It holds that man is a literal child of God and has the potential, if faithful to divine laws and ordinances, of becoming like his heavenly parent. These truths are generally well understood by Latter-day Saints. Less well understood, however, is the fact that God is an exalted man who once lived on an earth and underwent experiences of mortality. The Prophet Joseph Smith refers to this as “the great secret.”(Times and Seasons 5:613 (Aug. 1844). See also Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345) The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles , “for he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.” (D&C 88:22.). . .By definition, exaltation includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity. . . .His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of celestial marriage. The Lord would have all his children attain exaltation, but men must have their agency. Only those who subscribe by ordinance and by faithful adherence to covenant are worthy of “a continuance of the seeds forever and ever.” (D&C 132:19)

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this: “Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance;. . .The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, by the right authority; and 2., to keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony--thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom.” (Mormon Doctrine, p.118) (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Salt Lake City: Church Education System, 1976, 1992, pp.129, 132)

In the 1985 Gospel Principles manual, in the chapter on Exaltation, it says the following:

REQUIREMENTS FOR EXALTATION

. . .There are specific ordinrances we must have received to be exalted:

1. We must be baptized and confirmed a member of the

Church of Jesus Christ.

2. We must receive the Holy Ghost.

3. We must receive the temple endowment.

4. We must be married for time and eternity.

In addition to the required ordinances, there are also many laws we have to obey to qualify for exaltation—We must . . . (p.291)

This is the way our Heavenly Father became a God. . . .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” (p.293; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-46[King Follet Discourse])

The Biblical Gospel is the following, not any of this other teaching:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The following from a website that posted part of the subject interview Gordon B. Hinckley had back in 1997. President Hinckley was asked about his views in reference to Joseph Smith’s teachings as reported in an August 4, 1997, Time Magazine article (p.56):

Here is the text of our letter to the Office of the First Presidency, and their response, followed by our correspondence with Time, which sent us a transcript to prove they did not take Hinckley's words out of context:

August 27, 1997

Office of the First Presidency

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

50 East North Temple Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84150;

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am inquiring about a statement attributed to President Gordon B. Hinckley in the August 4, 1997 issue of Time magazine.

In response to Time’s question as to whether or not it is a teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that "God the Father was once a man," President Hinckley is quoted as replying, "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." (page 56)

Would you please confirm for me whether or not in this statement President Hinckley was accurately quoted? The Institute for Religious Research and Gospel Truths Ministries is frequently asked about the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would be most helpful to know whether this statement is reliable.

Sincerely,

Luke P. Wilson

Executive Director

In a letter dated September 3, 1997, the Office of the First Presidency replied to the above letter as follows:

Dear Mr. Wilson:

I have been asked to acknowledge your letter of August 27, 1997, with regard to statements reported as made by President Gordon B. Hinckley on the topic of eternal progression in the August 4, 1997, issue of Time magazine.

The quotation you reference was taken out of context. The statement was made in response to a question about the actual circumstances and background surrounding remarks given during the funeral services of a man named King Follet, not the doctrine of exaltation and the blessings that await those who will inherit the celestial kingdom.

The Brethren appreciate your interest in this matter and have asked me to extend their best wishes to you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

F. Michael Watson

Secretary to the First Presidency. . .

Here is the relevant excerpt from President Hinckley’s interview with Time:

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

A: Yeah

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.

Notice that President Hinckley's answer, "I don't know that we teach it . . ." comes in direct response to the question, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" Thus, the statement in the letter from the Office of the First Presidency that President Hinckley's words were quoted out of context — that these were made "in response to a question about the actual circumstances and background surrounding remarks given during the funeral services of a man named "King Follet, not the doctrine of exaltation," — is clearly false. . . .

I think it is clear, or should be that President Hinckley could have been more forthright in his response (to the public) in the Time magazine interview.

I think it is also important to point out that comments here, unless directly quoting church teaching, are people’s opinions to which they are entitled to but do not speak officially for the Church.

The following statement was contained in an in-house letter of correction to Eugene England (February 19, 1981), a professor at BYU (now deceased), who had been instructing certain things in relation to the concept of God always increasing in knowledge.

In response, writing as an LDS apostle, Elder McConkie was in disagreement with that idea. I think it is instructive in how the recognized leadership of the Church views their authority in establishing what doctrine the Church teaches:

Dear Brother England: This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive (p.1). . . .It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. . . .This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. . . .And those at (p.eight) the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works (p.9). . . .

[Deborah]

It continues to amaze me how little understanding people in general have of what a prophet is and does.

[altersteve]

coolrock7, why is everything you post on this forum so preachy?

[Senator]

It continues to amaze me how little understanding people in general have of what a prophet is and does.

I don't understand why it amazes you. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that "people" have little understanding of what a prophet is and does. What contemporary reference figure do the people have from which to gain such insight? Your prophet? My prophet?

Edited December 13, 2011 by Senator

[Cobalt-70]

In response, writing as an LDS apostle, Elder McConkie was in disagreement with that idea. I think it is instructive in how the recognized leadership of the Church views their authority in establishing what doctrine the Church teaches:

Quote

Dear Brother England: This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive (p.1). . . .It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. . . .This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. . . .And those at (p.eight) the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works (p.9). . . .

I had never seen this McConkie letter before. It is a bit ironic, considering that he himself was chewed-out by David O. McKay for teaching false doctrine in the first edition of his Mormon Doctrine book. It is also ironic that this very issue was one of debate 100 years earlier between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt, and that in this case McConkie is taking Pratt's side in opposition to Brigham Young, who at that time was supposed to have the ultimate doctrinal "say."

[Deborah]

I don't understand why it amazes you. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that "people" have little understanding of what a prophet is and does. What contemporary reference figure do the people have from which to gain such insight? Your prophet? My prophet?

They obviously aren't familiar with OT prophets.

[coolrok7]

The relevant point I was making after reading through the responses to the op, "Yes We Do" (which isn't preaching but you are entitled to your views here):

I believe based on the following that it is both a “deceptive” and “disingenuous” pr response. It would have been a good chance at clarifying Church teaching on the subject at a minimum as it wouldn’t have taken much to make it clear. He was after all the “Prophet” at the time.

The issue was whether or not it was a church teaching which it was, not whether or not it was well understood. . .

And yes I do as a Christian understand the Biblical role of prophets, Old/New Testament type. I also believe the valid warning of the coming of false prophets which jesus and others warned about.

I don't believe in Mormon so-called prophets, something I've always voiced since I was invited to ZLMB and this forum since I first found out the Mormon message in which I'm told I'm "wrong" and other such false accusations (my perspective of course).

[KevinG]

If it doesn't affect my salvation and its not well defined by doctrine I don't get hung up on every public utterance of the General Authorities. That's a hobby for critics of the church and not a very productive one at that.

As Brother Brigham taught, we ought to verify the teachings of the Prophets with God and have our own knowledge.