President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[Questing Beast]

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

Asked about that by David Van Biema, Hinckley responded (the red is from the full transcript, not included in the article):

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. - August 4, 1997 Time Magazine

So, which is it to be? So far, I guess it's been decided to ignore/discredit Hinckley and go with Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow....

Moderator: Pres. Hinckley was not asked about the full couplet, that needs to be made clear in an OP.

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?

[Duncan]

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

Asked about that by David Van Biema, Hinckley responded (the red is from the full transcript, not included in the article):

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. - August 4, 1997 Time Magazine

So, which is it to be? So far, I guess it's been decided to ignore/discredit Hinckley and go with Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow....

I think he is speaking to his own experiences with that phrase and he says he just doesn't know much about it or who speaks about it, can't fault someone for not knowing

[rodheadlee]

Pearls and swine.

[Freedom]

There are two components to this issue - 1) that we can become like God 2) that God was once like us.

He was responding to the second concept and what he said is completely true. We do not emphasize it, we do nut fully understand it, but we accept the philosophical background behind it. Unless you can show that we do know a lot about it, then there is nothing to ignore or discredit.

[Scott Lloyd]

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

Asked about that by David Van Biema, Hinckley responded (the red is from the full transcript, not included in the article):

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. - August 4, 1997 Time Magazine

So, which is it to be? So far, I guess it's been decided to ignore/discredit Hinckley and go with Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow....

It's clear to me from context -- though it may not be to an uncomprehending magazine journalist or a hostile antagonist -- that President Hinckley was referring to the first part of the Snow couplet, the part that says as man is God once was. And President Hinckley was absolutely right in reference to that concept: We don't know or understand much about it; therefore we don't teach or emphasize it very much.

Thus there is no real conflict between what President Snow said and what President Hinckley said. So you are not obliged to to ignore or discredit either man.

Coincidentally, as we discussed this chapter in high priests meeting today, I made a comment to the effect of the above.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are two components to this issue - 1) that we can become like God 2) that God was once like us.

He was responding to the second concept and what he said is completely true. We do not emphasize it, we do nut fully understand it, but we accept the philosophical background behind it. Unless you can show that we do know a lot about it, then there is nothing to ignore or discredit.

I agree with your post, except I think you meant to say he was responding to the first concept.

[cinepro]

While I've criticized President Hinckley's response, I think ultimately it's just proof that President Hinckley didn't know what he's going to be asked in the interview. Frankly, I'm more disappointed in the follow up. In general conference that year, President Hinckley dealt with the situation with a non-statement:

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.

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.

FYI, we already discussed it to death here:

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.”

Asked about that by David Van Biema, Hinckley responded (the red is from the full transcript, not included in the article):

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. - August 4, 1997 Time Magazine

So, which is it to be? So far, I guess it's been decided to ignore/discredit Hinckley and go with Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow....

I believe he was trying to put into context, it is not a quote emphasized all the time. I have only heard it word for word more 5-6 times in 34 years. I am 55, and I would not just give a yes or no answer...be kind to GBH on National TV, at his age seeking to do the same. I have noted that those who love this quote and dwell on D&C 132 constantly really miss the whole point.

Also some advice, if anyone you know starts talking about when they are a God and have their own planet...RUN!

Edited March 11, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Stargazer]

On my mission, one of our investigators brought up the Snow couplet (in translation into German), and asked if the translation was accurate, and did we really believe what it said. I simply said that yes the translation was correct and we did in fact believe it. Result: termination of further discussion, and end of investigation.

I don't know if a Hinckley-like soft-answer would have made any difference, but It is nevertheless clear to me that there are some doctrines that are definitely too deep for those with little acquaintance to the gospel, and should not be introduced at an early stage in investigation. This was clear to Jesus during his mortal ministry, and he made it quite clear in the "pearls before swine" allegory. I happen to be one of those who believe that President Hinckley made the best possible answer. I do not now know how he could have answered it better.

Do you?

[Calm]

Why do those who bring this up always leave out the actual question:

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?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse Edited March 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Freedom]

I agree with your post, except I think you meant to say he was responding to the first concept.

No, from my recollection of the interview, Hinkley was responding to the question about God once being a man. We speak quite openly about becoming like God, it is a fundamental doctrine of our religion.

from reading your other post, I think we are referring to the same thing, I put them in the wrong order in my post.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Freedom

[Darren10]

I agree with your post, except I think you meant to say he was responding to the first concept.

That was my thought on his post.

[williamsmith]

Why do those who bring this up always leave out the actual question:

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?

http://en.fairmormon...llett_Discourse

Did you really want an answer to that question?

Of course, being a little diplomatic I would say such people are simply more easily swayed by negative propaganda of things and people, rather than finding out the actual truth for themselves, putting things into context, getting all the facts etc, before making a judgement or even asking a question thus then not needing to ask the question.

To put it another way. Some people seem more susceptible to judge the surface and obvious of things, instead of getting at the details to understand the actual truth. Take this issue, critics see the whole couplet in their thoughts, but ignore that the actual statement was only addressing part of the couplet, not the entire thing.

Edited March 11, 2013 by williamsmith

[Darren10]

When the President Snow quote was mentioned today in Elder's Quorum my commentswere that his wuote can be divided into two parts. First, that God was once a man like us. Second, that man may become like God. Responding directly to our teacher's question, "have any of you thought about this" I said that I have. i said that the second part, man becoming like God, is very much substantiated by the Standard Work, which, of course, includes the Bible, as well as it being spoken and taught by modern-day prophets. The first part, however, God once being like man, is true for for Jesus Christ but there really is no substantiation for it neither by the Standard Works, nor from the words of living and modern-day prophets. The teacher then mentioned that Jesus said that He was doing only that which He saw His father do but admitted that even there it is not clear what that meant. I readily agreed with him.

President Hinkley was exactly correct in that we (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) do not teach or emphasize much regarding God (the Father) once being like a man. But we do teach that man can become like God. To this end, as part of my comments in Elder's Quorum, I said that we go to church not to find out "how to be like God and to get our own planet (in fact that's never taught in church from my experience)" but how to focus our lives on Jesus Christ and follow Him and His example. That whatever the eternal blessings avaialable to those who remain faithful servants of Jesus Christ will work out on on their own. (Though I did not say it but rather it was already assumed in class, this is because God the Father is in charge of all things).

Edited March 11, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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.

If President Hinkley were to decide such a clarification were needed wouldn't he do so in a morte formal setting like General Conference as opposed to Larry King live? As Hinkley said, we need not use the press as the official source of our doctrines.

Well played, President Hinckley. Well played.

While no doubt President Hinkeley was a masterful media "player" I don't think he played anything as per your critique.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Darren10

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's the best response I've seen to this.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/

[TAO]

I think Freedom is right. President Hinckley was referring to the first part of the verse, which though I guess you could say is implied, is almost never mentioned directly (or at least not in my ward). The second part of the verse is obviously taught, and I'm pretty sure President Hinckley wasn't trying to avoid that.

If you read the Lorenzo Snow Manual, you will notice it focuses on the second part, and leaves out discussion on the first. I think this is consistent with President Hinckley's Statement (or at least it's intents).

EDIT: And LifeOnAPlate, excellent article on the subject =D.

Edited March 11, 2013 by TAO

[Thinking]

From the Gospel Principles Manual:

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).

Why wouldn't the Church teach or emphasize something that Joseph Smith classifies as being the first principle of the Gospel?

Here is the full quote from the King Follett Discourse.

I want to ask this congregation-every man, woman, and child, to answer the question in their own heart, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with him. This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question-What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? Here is the question that will peradventure from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The Scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,-if he will search diligently his own heart-if the declarations of Jesus and the Apostles be true-he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being he is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations, inspirations, or to be a Prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world-a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life. But if all religious teachers were honest enough to renounce their pretensions to godliness, when their ignorance of the knowledge of God is made manifest, they will all be as badly off as I am, at any rate; and you might just as well take the lives of other false teachers as that of mine, if I am false. If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher; and where would be the end of blood? and who would not be the sufferer?

But meddle not with any man for his religion; and all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.

I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know him and to be familiar with him; and if I can bring you to a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant; for I speak as one having authority.

I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon.) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power"-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner, to lay down his body and take up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,-namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,-from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

[TAO]

@ Thinking, You should read some of the comments on LOAPs article. Discussion on that subject tends to get people confused, especially on the subject of whether he sinned or not. And we don't really know that yet.

Edited March 11, 2013 by TAO

[Storm Rider]

This issue of God being a man with some of the inherent logical deductions that result from it is seldom discussed in any deep, clear form. Brigham Young provided a rather clear answer by stating that trying to understand the First Cause was like an ant counting or knowing the number of sand crystals in the world. The understanding of such a thing is beyond the comprehension of mankind. That works for me. Did God the Father do the same the thing that God the Son did? Quite possibly if we take Jesus' words at face value. Was Jesus ever just a man before his mortal existence as the Son of God? No, I don't think he was nor have I ever heard anyone allege such a think. Was the Father ever just a man? No, I don't think he was in the same way Jesus was never just a man. They both have been and will always be members of the Godhead and never needed to acquire a mortal body more than once. In my very puny mind can only comprehend God being God and never exactly like we are. Heavenly Father, in his infinite love, has created a way to make us like him, but it remains a gift, an immeasurable grace, from him to us.

[BlueDreams]

Do you?

I didn't have someone pull out the couplet but ask about becoming Gods. Instead of answering directly I pulled out Moro 7:48, one of my favorite scriptures about it....and that was that. He didn't have any remaining questions. I think presentation can be key. I agree, I think Hinckley did a pretty good job with that answer. Though it may be believed in full, the first half is definitely not something really understood or fleshed out. The second half can be found in some way in every main body of scripture in some fashion.

A semi-related note: Yesterday was the first day that I really heard any sort of discussion in church about the first half of the quote that I can remember.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 11, 2013 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

This issue of God being a man with some of the inherent logical deductions that result from it is seldom discussed in any deep, clear form. Brigham Young provided a rather clear answer by stating that trying to understand the First Cause was like an ant counting or knowing the number of sand crystals in the world. The understanding of such a thing is beyond the comprehension of mankind. That works for me. Did God the Father do the same the thing that God the Son did? Quite possibly if we take Jesus' words at face value. Was Jesus ever just a man before his mortal existence as the Son of God? No, I don't think he was nor have I ever heard anyone allege such a think. Was the Father ever just a man? No, I don't think he was in the same way Jesus was never just a man. They both have been and will always be members of the Godhead and never needed to acquire a mortal body more than once. In my very puny mind can only comprehend God being God and never exactly like we are. Heavenly Father, in his infinite love, has created a way to make us like him, but it remains a gift, an immeasurable grace, from him to us.

We have always been Gods.

[teddyaware]

We have always been Gods.

We belong to the "God Race." Is an infant any less human than a grownup because it does not yet walk, speak, eat on its own or clean up after itself? No, the infant is just as human as the grownup. Are we of the God race any less members of that race just because we are in the infant or childhood stages of develpoment? I think not. The God race by very nature grows, learns, increases and progresses in light, life, knowledge, wisdom, power and authority until the inherent full potential of each individual (at least those who mightily strive to move forward with living faith in Christ) is fulfilled in his or her own divine destiny. This was the case even with the Son of God, who started out as a helpless and dependant babe in Bethlehem, but who grew in the grace and knowledge of God until he was fully capacitated to successfully work out the infinite and eternal atonement. And so we read:

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. (D&C 93)

Edited March 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[William Schryver]

While I've criticized President Hinckley's response, I think ultimately it's just proof that President Hinckley didn't know what he's going to be asked in the interview.

Huh. That's interesting, because my impression was just the opposite: that, in fact, President Hinckley had anticipated the question and that his ultimate response was well-considered.

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.

Seriously?

You are such an enigma to me, at times.

First of all, I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize that Pres. Hinckley was responding to only the one aspect of the famous Lorenzo Snow couplet: the question of whether or not God was once a man like us. So, assuming that you do recognize that, I find it hard to believe that you feel his reply to the reporter was somehow less than forthright. I mean, I don't recall it ever being taught beyond recitations of the Snow couplet and the one JS statement from the KFD. I don't believe we know much about it. I haven't even heard much speculation about it over my years in the church. So, from my perspective, his answer to the reporter was an accurate reflection of the status of that "doctrine" in the church.

Now, as to what he might have said in General Conference in terms of "clarifying what the doctrine is": What would you have had him say? Seriously. Unless he had received some new revelation in relation to this topic, what more could he have said? And to what end?

ETA: Incidentally, I'm not sure the Lorenzo Snow couplet is an accurate reflection of what Joseph Smith taught in the KFD. Joseph Smith did NOT suggest that, "as man is, God once was." That is NOT what he said. Not at all.

Edited March 11, 2013 by William Schryver

[Questing Beast]

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens."

"We" includes all of us, not just Jesus Christ.

I accept and believe the description of us as "the god race". That is what we are. That is what Joseph Smith's God the Father Is, and Jesus Christ, and all of us.

But what we are not, including Joseph Smith's God the Father, is the First Cause of Existence in the First Place. It explains nothing to assert that just because our finite perceptions will always "see" another bigger part of the picture of Existence, that there is no First Cause transcending everything there is to "see". This just proves the finiteness of our intellect compared to Existence In The First Place.

So, we are "the god race", which means that we already are immortals and will always be discovering more about "God" (the First Cause), forever and ever, worlds without end. That is what "God the Father" Is too. So I worship the First Cause, not GtF, because I know that GtF does not worship his Father either, but rather the "God" that his Father worships, and so on forever.

That first part of "the couplet" is what threw me, to hear it quoted in one of the latest publications of the Church, after what president Hinckley said repeatedly about it not being taught in the Church much if at all, and not understood by anyone. I accepted that at the time and so this inclusion of it in the Lorenzo Snow manual is surprising to me. The second half of "the couplet" is completely doctrinal, as has been pointed out by several on this thread already. The second half is directly about us, "the god race", becoming like God the Father and Jesus Christ. That part is what the Church's purpose is all about. The first part of "the couplet" need not be appealed to at all, and therefore the entire "couplet" can be dispensed with. It isn't necessary to appeal to it to teach the principle that we are "the god race". All of that can in fact be drawn from the Standard Works, and even especially the Bible, since there is plenty in it to support such a doctrine....