President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[Ahab]

You say all that as if it isn't monumentally huge in a theological sense. The fact that you don't find your first four premises remarkable doesn't exactly reinforce President Hinckley's downplaying of the issue.

Okay, so it's huge and remarkable. We still don't know a whole lot about that, though, and I don't know that we teach even that much, generally. When is the last time you heard all of what I said taught in a general Church meeting? It's still not something we know a whole lot about, other than what those statements mean.

[cinepro]

Okay, so it's huge and remarkable. We still don't know a whole lot about that, though, and I don't know that we teach even that much, generally. When is the last time you heard all of what I said taught in a general Church meeting? It's still not something we know a whole lot about, other than what those statements mean.

We covered all those topics in EQ last Sunday. Bad timing on the challenge.

[cinepro]

Would it have been the only word out of his mouth? From all I have observed of Elder Holland, on both formal and informal occasions, I can say with absolute certainty it wouldn't. He would have taken pains not to leave the false impression that a "simple answer" would be apt to convey.

Of course "Yes" wouldn't be the only word (although it would be a perfectly acceptable answer, since it's true).

Why not this:

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?

Theoretical Holland: Yes, we do believe it. I don't know that we teach it often though. 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 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.

Edited March 23, 2013 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

Of course "Yes" wouldn't be the only word (although it would be a perfectly acceptable answer, since it's true).

Why not this:

I still don't understand the flap over all of this. Yes it is doctrinally huge concept. Do we ever talk much anymore about doctrinely huge concepts that are not directly of much importance in trying to keep the behavior of the congregations under control? Of course not. Was Pres. Hinckley a Prophet who was intensely interested in Public Relations and very concerned about his goal of convincing the Evangelicals and fundamentalists that we were just like them but just happened to have some more Scripture. Well of course he was. Was this a very savvy and adroit way of brushing off a question without really answering it and without saying anything untrue, yes it definitely was. Yet, we have people congering up all kind of other reasons for the reply. I particularly love the two question answer -- that one is very good, although I think the real explanation was that old maxim for political debate, you never answer the question asked, you answer the question you wished they had asked.

[Questing Beast]

The first part of "the couplet" is a goofy doctrine, one of the handful that keep coming up and biting Mormons in the keister. Critics and Medía hounds love to ask about them. But also in our classes teachers don't like to address the first part either; as I pointed out up there somewhere, vis-a-vis last week's high priest group lesson. I offered the teacher the opportunity to talk about the first part, and he silently passed onto the next lesson. Why? Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man? A few respondents on this thread seem to believe it, including that he was a sinner (which is waaaay out there for Christians, so far out there that Mormons are an alien group).

The whole reason why I brought this up was because Hinckley clearly denied that the LDS faith actively teaches it (anymore), because nobody knows much about it anyway. But the full couplet winds up in the latest class manual c. sixteen years later.

We do actively promote that we can become like our Heavenly Father, i.e. gods, without going into any details on what that means. We don't, for instance, know much about what "becoming gods" means (anymore): because the polygamy aspect of the afterlife is gone also from our teachings; "we don't teach it, we don't emphasize it" either, because that gets into celestialized "pregnancy" amundo, with men as the patriarchs over numerous women in a virtual, cosmic harem. We do quote becoming heirs with Jesus Christ and destined to possess "all the Father has", etc. That is lacking any elucidations and is strictly biblical....

Edited March 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

The first part of "the couplet" is a goofy doctrine, one of the handful that keep coming up and biting Mormons in the keister. Critics and Medía hounds love to ask about them. But also in our classes teachers don't like to address the first part either; as I pointed out up there somewhere, vis-a-vis last week's high priest group lesson. I offered the teacher the opportunity to talk about the first part, and he silently passed onto the next lesson. Why? Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man? A few respondents on this thread seem to believe it, including that he was a sinner (which is waaaay out there for Christians, so far out there that Mormons are an alien group).

The whole reason why I brought this up was because Hinckley clearly denied that the LDS faith actively teaches it (anymore), because nobody knows much about it anyway. But the full couplet winds up in the latest class manual c. sixteen years later.

We do actively promote that we can become like our Heavenly Father, i.e. gods, without going into any details on what that means. We don't, for instance, know much about what "becoming gods" means (anymore): because the polygamy aspect of the afterlife is gone also from our teachings; "we don't teach it, we don't emphasize it" either, because that gets into celestialized "pregnancy" amundo, with men as the patriarchs over numerous women in a virtual, cosmic harem. We do quote becoming heirs with Jesus Christ and destined to possess "all the Father has", etc. That is lacking any elucidations and is strictly biblical....

He absolutely did not deny it. And it is not goofy, it makes considerable sense and is actually part and parcel with our entire structure of the hereafter. But it is something that non-Mormons find objectionable, and Pres Hinckley was very interested in not irritating our new found political allies in the Christian Right so it was a convenient and truthful way of blowing off the question. And then we a short time later re-emphasize the concept by making the couplet the center of Priesthood and Relief Society lessons worldwide.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course "Yes" wouldn't be the only word (although it would be a perfectly acceptable answer, since it's true).

Why not this:

So you are essentially suggesting wording similar to what I already suggested earlier in this thread. Your quarrel with me seems to lack a substantial point of dispute.

If the crux of your complaint is that the prophet didn't explicitly say "yes, we believe it" (to me, it was implied), I will readily acknowledge that his statement would have been clearer had he done so.

[Scott Lloyd]

The interview's timing is recent by any standards.

By any standards? Are you serious? If in a news story I were to identify a 16-year-old event as "recent," I would be taken to task by an editor -- and rightly so.

There were several interviews where the interviewer raised the same question, and Hinckley answered each time with deflective dismissal. Yet the most recent manual of instruction contains the entire couplet at the outset of the lesson. Why? Does the curriculum department of the Church have such short memories, or did none of them even know of the interviews? Or do they consider that Hinckley was dissembling and speaking "only as a man" without authority?...

I'm confident they are well aware of the interview and feel as I do: that President Hinckley's statement does not amount to a disavowal of the doctrine.

Your question is argumentative and assumes a false premise.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

By any standards? Are you serious? If in a news story I were to identify a 16-year-old event as "recent," I would be taken to task by an editor -- and rightly so.

I'm confident they are well aware of the interview and feel as I do: that President Hinckley's statement does not amount to a disavowal of the doctrine.

Your question is argumentative and assumes a false premise.

Agree. He clearly did not deny the doctrine.

[Questing Beast]

I have not said he denied the doctrine. I agree with the pov that he said we don't teach it much if at all, and the reason asserted was that he nor anyone else knows much about it. Clearly, if it is going to go into a current lesson manual we know enough about it to discuss it as doctrine. Yet in my ward the high priests skirted around the first half of the couplet as "we" always do. If that is the way of it, then Hinckley was right; and the couplet ought to stay out of print and die off with the other doctrines that we "don't emphasize", i.e. teach anymore....

[Stone holm]

I have not said he denied the doctrine. I agree with the pov that he said we don't teach it much if at all, and the reason asserted was that he nor anyone else knows much about it. Clearly, if it is going to go into a current lesson manual we know enough about it to discuss it as doctrine. Yet in my ward the high priests skirted around the first half of the couplet as "we" always do. If that is the way of it, then Hinckley was right; and the couplet ought to stay out of print and die off with the other doctrines that we "don't emphasize", i.e. teach anymore....

Well maybe they don't teach in your Ward but they definitely do in our Ward and the discussion leader in HP spent most of the time on both verses of the couplet and it was more appropriate to discuss it in Priesthood and Relief Society than on the Larry King show.

[CASteinman]

The first part of "the couplet" is a goofy doctrine

Not so. It is one of the most remarkable and inspiring parts of the Gospel.

[CASteinman]

Hinckley clearly denied that the LDS faith actively teaches it (anymore), because nobody knows much about it anyway.

I don't know that it was ever taught all that much.

[Stone holm]

I don't know that it was ever taught all that much.

I agree its not something that is generally talked about much especially in venues where investigators are more likely to be present, which is all the more a good reason for President Hinckley to deflect the question it was just not a teaching moment.

[MormonMason]

Speaking for myself, I think President Hinckley made two statements the second of which clarified the first. ie. I don't know that we teach it ( let me rephrase) I don't know that we emphasize it.

Also, what percentage of the membership have read the King Follet discourse ? Let me guess. 15% ?

We do spend a fair amount of time teaching about how we can become like Christ/God. The amount of time spent teaching about how God was man is miniscule.

As an aside, that was how I understood his meaning when I heard the audio for the interview some time ago.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have not said he denied the doctrine. I agree with the pov that he said we don't teach it much if at all, and the reason asserted was that he nor anyone else knows much about it. Clearly, if it is going to go into a current lesson manual we know enough about it to discuss it as doctrine.

We know that the broad concept was expressed by Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow. That's all that was put into the current manual, and it's all that can be put in there, because no further detail has been revealed about it.

Yet in my ward the high priests skirted around the first half of the couplet as "we" always do.

I'm guessing your high priests probably said about as much as they could without getting into conjecture or speculation -- which, in a formal priesthood lesson would be foolish.

If that is the way of it, then Hinckley was right; and the couplet ought to stay out of print ...

He didn't say it should stay out of print.

And to leave it out of a manual purporting to cover the teachings of Lorenzo Snow would have been folly, since it is such a prominent and well-remembered part of his teachings. If it had been left out, the antagonists and other complainers would be moaning now about a "whitewash."

... and die off with the other doctrines that we "don't emphasize", i.e. teach anymore....

It is not going to die off. It is still accepted as true, even as we acknowledge that not much in detail has been revealed about it. The rest of the Church is not bound by your own rejection or disparagement of it; you don't hold that much influence or power.

[Stone holm]

We know that the broad concept was expressed by Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow. That's all that was put into the current manual, and it's all that can be put in there, because no further detail has been revealed about it.

I'm guessing your high priests probably said about as much as they could without getting into conjecture or speculation -- which, in a formal priesthood lesson would be foolish.

He didn't say it should stay out of print.

And to leave it out of a manual purporting to cover the teachings of Lorenzo Snow would have been folly, since it is such a prominent and well-remembered part of his teachings. If it had been left out, the antagonists and other complainers would be moaning now about a "whitewash."

It is not going to die off. It is still accepted as true, even as we acknowledge that not much in detail has been revealed about it. The rest of the Church is not bound by your own rejection or disparagement of it; you don't hold that much influence or power.

Agreed. Way too much is being made of this interview, I suspect that is because of our weird attitude towards Prophets where we hate to admit that they ever just blow off or deflect a question. Wake up people, Prophets have to exercise some judgment about when and when not to discuss doctrines that the world may consider controversial.

[cinepro]

Wake up people, Prophets have to exercise some judgment about when and when not to discuss doctrines that the world may consider controversial.

That's a good point. If I write small enough, I can probably fit that comment into the margins of my scriptures next to Alma 29:1.

Edited March 26, 2013 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

That's a good point. If I write small enough, I can probably fit that comment into the margins of my scriptures next to Alma 29:1.

You should reproduce the annotation and put it with Matthew 7:6 and 3 Nephi 14:6 (the passage in the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament and its repetition to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon about casting pearls before swine and giving that which is holy unto dogs).

Here's a tip: You can put your annotation on a small piece of note paper, run a removable-glue stick along one edge and affix it to the gutter between the pages. Then you don't have to worry about writing small.

That's what I used to do before I switched my scripture study to exclusive use of electronic editions of the scriptures.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

Agreed. Way too much is being made of this interview, I suspect that is because of our weird attitude towards Prophets where we hate to admit that they ever just blow off or deflect a question. Wake up people, Prophets have to exercise some judgment about when and when not to discuss doctrines that the world may consider controversial.

That's a good point. If I write small enough, I can probably fit that comment into the margins of my scriptures next to Alma 29:1.

Just as Alma wanted to have the voice of an angel to cry repentence to everybody, Joseph Smith wanted to have the voice of an angel to explain to everybody the true nature of God. In the King Follett discourse Joseph Smith said:

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 forever.

He went on to say, " I want you all to know Him" and, "I have intended my remarks for all."

I find Joseph Smith's position here congruent. You need to know God in order to have eternal life (John 17:3), and knowing God entails knowing God’s character and how God came to be so. As a prophet, it was his duty to tell the world the truth about these first principles of the gospel.

Joseph Smith wasn’t throwing pearls before swine. He was putting his light on a hill.

[Stone holm]

Just as Alma wanted to have the voice of an angel to cry repentence to everybody, Joseph Smith wanted to have the voice of an angel to explain to everybody the true nature of God. In the King Follett discourse Joseph Smith said:

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 forever.

He went on to say, " I want you all to know Him" and, "I have intended my remarks for all."

I find Joseph Smith's position here congruent. You need to know God in order to have eternal life (John 17:3), and knowing God entails knowing God’s character and how God came to be so. As a prophet, it was his duty to tell the world the truth about these first principles of the gospel.

Joseph Smith wasn’t throwing pearls before swine. He was putting his light on a hill.

Gave you a bump for that, of course the Prophet Joseph also died of high velocity lead poisoning. There were examples, however, of them even keeping their identities secret as well. Its a hard call whether to broadcast a doctrine that other Christians might find repugnant, or to blow off the question. I have no problem with Pres. Hinckley deflecting the question given it was consistent at the time with the ecumenical outreach program the Church had implemented.

[CASteinman]

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 forever.

This is a great quote -- one that will be useful to recall in future years as we face increasing troubles. And the post was good also

[Questing Beast]

...

I'm guessing your high priests probably said about as much as they could without getting into conjecture or speculation -- which, in a formal priesthood lesson would be foolish.

"formal priesthood lesson", that's an almost perfect misnomer. Nobody said anything at all about the first half of the couplet, not a single word. That's because our one and only high priest who loved to say things to elicit a reaction died recently and has not been replaced.

He didn't say it should stay out of print.

I didn't say that Hinckley said it should stay out of print. I said that if we follow what Hinckley said then no lesson would include the couplet at all. It isn't necessary.

And to leave it out of a manual purporting to cover the teachings of Lorenzo Snow would have been folly, since it is such a prominent and well-remembered part of his teachings. If it had been left out, the antagonists and other complainers would be moaning now about a "whitewash."

We already covered this reasoning, by comparing the Snow manual to the B. Young manual. Nothing was more "prominent and well-remembered part of his teachings" than plural marriage, yet not ONE WORD about "the principle" got into the Young manual. And yes the Young Manual was accused of being an egregious whitewash of the true history.

It is not going to die off. It is still accepted as true, even as we acknowledge that not much in detail has been revealed about it. The rest of the Church is not bound by your own rejection or disparagement of it; you don't hold that much influence or power.

Neither is polygamy going to die off. Whether or not it is going to be "accepted as true" is arguable. So is the "doctrine" that God the Father was once a (sinful) man who worked out his salvation like we do, and thus points the way for each one of us to becoming "gods" ourselves one day. It is such a foreign doctrine, especially the first part of the couplet, that not even Mormons agree on it, as this thread shows. So it will "die off" since it has never been part of the canon as a scriptural doctrine in the first place....

[cinepro]

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 forever.

He went on to say, " I want you all to know Him" and, "I have intended my remarks for all."

In Joseph's day, who could have imagined that within 100 years there would be a technological "trump" that would carry a single person's voice to all the world? I can only wonder what Joseph would have done in an interview on such a platform.

[Questing Beast]

@cinepro: Made life difficult for all of us, of course, by not keeping most of his words close to his chest, like Hinckley did....