Curious To Know If An Apologtic Ever Defended Something And It Turned Out To Be False

[zerinus]

Being a scholar, unfortunately, does not guarantee that a person will handle his subject matter well. I'm afraid I can't agree with Richard Mouw's perspective on Mormonism. For an excellent article by an evangelical scholar showing the superficiality of Mouw's handling of Mormonism, see Ronald V. Huggins, "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be’: ‘No functioning place in present-day Mormon doctrine?’ A response to Richard Mouw,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): 549-68.

A brief look at the article:

Mouw’s assertion concerning the teaching of Lorenzo’s Snow’s couplet is remarkable given the fact that (for most of this writer’s lifetime, at least) it has fallen into the category of things Mormons know even if they know nothing else about their faith. The Osmond Brothers even included a song that alluded to this teaching called Before the Beginning on their 1973 album The Plan.

Nobody denies that the Snow couplet is a well known teaching among Mormons, and many still accept it as official doctrine; but after the repudiation of that doctrine by no lesser person than Gordon B. Hinckley on two separate occasions, it puts it firmly in the realm of speculation; and Mormon doctrine is not equivalent to Mormon speculation.

In defense of his remark Mouw appeals to a number of specific sources, including BYU professors Robert L. Millet and Stephen E. Robinson, as well as the 1997 book Mormon America by Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling.

I don’t have a reference to quote off-hand; but I do recall that He has quoted Gordon B. Hinckley specifically on this issue, which is the most authoritative source. It trumps what any other “scholar” has said.

Mouw further states that “a number of LDS writers have been formulating the ‘becoming God’ theme in terms that are common in Eastern Orthodoxy.” We must now examine these sources.

I am not seeing that either. The LDS doctrine of deification was taught in the Doctrine and Covenants long before it was taught by any LDS “scholar;” and the way it is formulated in the D&C makes it difficult to differentiate it substantially from Theosis as taught by Patristic Fathers.

Mouw credits Millet directly as a source for his claim that the teaching of the couplet is something current Mormon leaders “don’t understand” and that it “has no functioning place in present day Mormon doctrine.” Following up on Mouw’s remarks I wrote to Millet asking him whether he really said the things Mouw credited him with saying. His answer was as follows:

Mouw doesn’t need to quote from Millet, when he has a source as authoritative as GBH. Continuing quotation from the article:

Millet seems to speak of these public statements as if they were official statements of current LDS thinking on the subject. . . .

It doesn’t have to be “official” in order to put it firmly in the realm of speculation. The fact that (a) the couplet is not found in any standard works of the Church, and (b) has been repudiated by no less an individual than GBH, puts it firmly in the realm of speculation (and that included the King Follett discourse).

Edited July 20, 2012 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

If Gordon B. Hinckley had said, "You know, we used to teach that as doctrine, but the Lord has shown me that it is speculation and we are no longer to regard it as doctrine," that would have been at least a plausible way of him doing what you seem to think he did. But that's not what happened. Hinckley acted as though it wasn't ever a doctrine firmly taught in the LDS Church.

Also, if you are right one would expect that in the years since Hinckley's famous statement the LDS Church's teaching materials would reflect a clear policy of avoiding any affirmation of Snow's couplet or its doctrine. That is also not the case.

[Robert F. Smith]

zerinus,

If Gordon B. Hinckley had said, "You know, we used to teach that as doctrine, but the Lord has shown me that it is speculation and we are no longer to regard it as doctrine," that would have been at least a plausible way of him doing what you seem to think he did. But that's not what happened. Hinckley acted as though it wasn't ever a doctrine firmly taught in the LDS Church.

Also, if you are right one would expect that in the years since Hinckley's famous statement the LDS Church's teaching materials would reflect a clear policy of avoiding any affirmation of Snow's couplet or its doctrine. That is also not the case.

Correct. There is no reason to deny Pres. Snow's brief, poetic summation of accepted Mormon doctrine, which is as true today as it was in yesteryear. Of course any responsible commentator should feel obligated to cite the minority views on this matter.

[wenglund]

zerinus,

If Gordon B. Hinckley had said, "You know, we used to teach that as doctrine, but the Lord has shown me that it is speculation and we are no longer to regard it as doctrine," that would have been at least a plausible way of him doing what you seem to think he did. But that's not what happened. Hinckley acted as though it wasn't ever a doctrine firmly taught in the LDS Church.

Also, if you are right one would expect that in the years since Hinckley's famous statement the LDS Church's teaching materials would reflect a clear policy of avoiding any affirmation of Snow's couplet or its doctrine. That is also not the case.

The people most animated by Pres. Hinckley's off-hand comment, and who nit-pick this relatively insignificant issue to the point of absurdity, tend in large part to be non-believers and non-members who are less likely to correctly understand him, though some of whom think they have correctly understood him, and refuse to listen to those believers who actually do correctly understand him, and who may presume to dogmatically lecture to believers about what supposedly happened and what supposedly would have happened otherwise in regards to their leader. As such, there is little value in attempting a reasoned exchange with such unreasonable people.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[halconero]

President Snow's couplet is doctrine. Why? Because the doctrine support it is found in the scriptures and in Church manuals:

"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” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46)." - Gospel Principles manual (which I used to teach off and on and attended the class for two years as a missionary), pg. 279, "Exaltation" chapter.

And just ready D&C 76 or 132 for the second half of the couplet.

[CASteinman]

Hinckley acted as though it wasn't ever a doctrine firmly taught in the LDS Church.

Utter tripe.

[zerinus]

Hinckley acted as though it wasn't ever a doctrine firmly taught in the LDS Church.

Not true. He said that he is not aware that it is (currently) being taught or emphasised, and that is true. When was the last time you heard it being taught or emphasised at general conference? I haven't heard it for a long time. I haven't even heard it preached at Sacrament Meeting for a long time. The fact that traces of it still remain in a couple of manuals is neither here nor there.

Edited July 20, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Correct. There is no reason to deny Pres. Snow's brief, poetic summation of accepted Mormon doctrine, which is as true today as it was in yesteryear. Of course any responsible commentator should feel obligated to cite the minority views on this matter.

Not correct. There is no need to deny Gordon B. Hinckley's express teaching on the subject, or to dismiss it as a "minority view". It carries more weight than the views all the Mormon "scholars" put together.

Edited July 20, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

President Snow's couplet is doctrine. Why? Because the doctrine support it is found in the scriptures and in Church manuals:

"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” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46)." - Gospel Principles manual (which I used to teach off and on and attended the class for two years as a missionary), pg. 279, "Exaltation" chapter.

And just ready D&C 76 or 132 for the second half of the couplet.

In the manuals maybe; but not in the scriptures. Half the couplet is not the same as all the couplet. And for the record, GBH repudiated the King Follett discourse too.

Edited July 20, 2012 by zerinus

[halconero]

In the manuals maybe; but not in the scriptures. Half the couplet is not the same as all the couplet. And for the record, GBH repudiated the King Follett discourse too.

Then why does the first presidency approve of us teaching it to investigators, less-actives and recent converts? The people who attend the Gospel Principles class.

[CV75]

Then why does the first presidency approve of us teaching it to investigators, less-actives and recent converts? The people who attend the Gospel Principles class.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that while the First Presidency has not counseled against or forbidden it to be taught, and it may in a sense allow it to be taught, these are not the same as approving it (that God was once a man as we are, which can mean something different to each of us with varying degrees of correctness) to be taught--it may simply not be important enough to address more than President Hinckley did.

Edited July 20, 2012 by CV75

[Calm]

Then why does the first presidency approve of us teaching it to investigators, less-actives and recent converts? The people who attend the Gospel Principles class.

Don't forget the YM and YW manuals (oh, I thought you were talking about the second part of the couplet, the first part is hardly mentioned at all as a theme on its own. Edited July 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

You wrote:

Utter tripe.

Perhaps, but your comment sheds no light on the substantive information and analysis in Huggins's article.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

The people most animated by Pres. Hinckley's off-hand comment, and who nit-pick this relatively insignificant issue to the point of absurdity, tend in large part to be non-believers and non-members who are less likely to correctly understand him, though some of whom think they have correctly understood him, and refuse to listen to those believers who actually do correctly understand him....

The problem with your criticism here, Wade, is that believers and members of the LDS Church differ among themselves as to how "to correctly understand him," as the comments in this very thread illustrate.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Not true. He said that he is not aware that it is (currently) being taught or emphasised, and that is true. When was the last time you heard it being taught or emphasised at general conference? I haven't heard it for a long time. I haven't even heard it preached at Sacrament Meeting for a long time. The fact that traces of it still remain in a couple of manuals is neither here nor there.

Joseph Smith claimed (in the King Follett Discourse) that this doctrine was part of the first principle of the gospel. Why wouldn't it be taught or emphasized today?

You wrote:

And for the record, GBH repudiated the King Follett discourse too.

CFR.

[KevinG]

My take on President Hinkley's comment to the press was that he was keeping a pearl in our treasury as opposed to allowing it to be put on the floor to be trampled by swine.

[Robert F. Smith]

In the manuals maybe; but not in the scriptures. Half the couplet is not the same as all the couplet. And for the record, GBH repudiated the King Follett discourse too.

Zerinus,

By and by we (including you, me, Rob, and GBH) will enjoying discussing this very matter over on the other side, where all will become clear.

[Robert F. Smith]

My take on President Hinkley's comment to the press was that he was keeping a pearl in our treasury as opposed to allowing it to be put on the floor to be trampled by swine.

My sentiments exactly.

[CASteinman]

Perhaps, but your comment sheds no light on the substantive information and analysis in Huggins's article.

I was not replying to any words from an article. I was responding to the words in your post which quoted no one.

[USU78]

I've been musing for a few days that just about everything ever said about the priesthood ban prior to 1978 would fall into this category.

As Elder McConkie later said, "We spoke without knowledge."

And just about everything was wrong about what was said: no fence-sitters; no curse of Cain; no curse of Cainan; no curse of Canaan. Nothing accounted for it in scripture or otherwise.

[zerinus]

Joseph Smith claimed (in the King Follett Discourse) that this doctrine was part of the first principle of the gospel. Why wouldn't it be taught or emphasized today?

CFR.

From the Time Magazine article:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett 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 [in KFD] was made.]¹ 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.

___________

¹Time magazine, Aug 4, 1997. The words in square brackets were omitted from the original Time report.

This answers your first question as well. Hinckley felt that at the time Joseph Smith preached that sermon he may have been acting under pressures which may have caused him to have strayed theologically.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

By and by we (including you, me, Rob, and GBH) will enjoying discussing this very matter over on the other side, where all will become clear.

Okay, and how does that help us in our current debate?

[cinepro]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but the Kinderhook Plates were definitely regarded as authentic (and used as an example of ancient writing on metal plates) until scientific testing proved otherwise in 1980.

So to the degree that their use as an evidence for LDS claims was "apologetics", then that would be something that was later proven "false."

Edited July 20, 2012 by cinepro

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

You wrote:

I was not replying to any words from an article. I was responding to the words in your post which quoted no one.

My words were backed up by the article that I cited.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

My take on President Hinkley's comment to the press was that he was keeping a pearl in our treasury as opposed to allowing it to be put on the floor to be trampled by swine.

That would appear to be a pious way of saying that he fibbed. Is that right?