President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[Scott Lloyd]

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:

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.

While I wish he had been clearer in his explanation, imperfection in expression is not a justification for making a man an offender for a word. I try not to do that, especially when it pertains to God's anointed prophet.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

He could have distinguished between the first part of the couplet and the second part, responding essentially as he did regarding the first part but regarding the second, saying that we believe what the apostle Paul taught, that those who are true and faithful will be joint-heirs with Christ of all that the Father has (see Romans 8:17).

But as I've already said here, I'm not inclined to make him an offender for a word. I'm not certain that, under the pressure of being interviewed by a national news medium, I would have done as well as President Hinckley.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

http://en.fairmormon...llett_Discourse

Thank you for pointing that out, calmoriah. That makes a great deal of difference. It's always good to examine the context in which a statement or response was made.

[Scott Lloyd]

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....

It is, after all, a manual and course about the teachings of Lorenzo Snow. The couplet is a well-remembered part of his teachings; to leave it out of the manual would have been extremely conspicuous.

I don't see any harm in affirming that we believe it to be true (God having been as man is) while acknowledging that not much has been revealed on it and therefore we don't know enough about it to dwell upon it in our teaching.

[Storm Rider]

We have always been Gods.

I think that is playing with words and definitions. If you are saying that we are gods as in the NT testifies, then yes. Though we are the progeny of God we are not gods as in the context of already possessing that which the Son gives us. We cannot become exalted without Jesus and his atonement; he makes it all possible and it is the gift and grace of the Godhead that it is so.

[Questing Beast]

It is, after all, a manual and course about the teachings of Lorenzo Snow. The couplet is a well-remembered part of his teachings; to leave it out of the manual would have been extremely conspicuous.

I don't see any harm in affirming that we believe it to be true (God having been as man is) while acknowledging that not much has been revealed on it and therefore we don't know enough about it to dwell upon it in our teaching.

It is the first part of "the couplet" that attracts attention. The second part can be argued from the scriptures and interpreted but the first part, as has been pointed out, has no basis in scripture. The assertion that GtF was once a mortal and worked out his salvation with fear and trembling (as I am sure BY elucidated it, but I don't know the reference) as we do is not a scriptural/biblical doctrine. It has never been a doctrine for the Church, but has been taught like a doctrine, because it is attached to the second part, which is a doctrine, even the core doctrine of the purpose of this world.

As asserting that God was once a mortal man like us (and not just like Jesus Christ), is troubling and even offensive to non Mormons, I think it is good if we don't "go there" any more.

The Brigham Young Manual did not have a single word about "patriarchal marriage" i.e. polygamy, quite possibly the single facet of BY's life that is the most (in)famous about him, so there was no reason to put "the couplet" into the Lorenzo Snow manual either....

[Scott Lloyd]

It is the first part of "the couplet" that attracts attention. The second part can be argued from the scriptures and interpreted but the first part, as has been pointed out, has no basis in scripture.

Whether or not something can be "argued from the scriptures" is not, nor should it ever be, a litmus test for revelation. There is much in the way of modern revelation that cannot be definitively argued from ancient scripture due to the fact that either it was not had among God's ancient covenant people or it was had among them but record of it was lost.

The assertion that GtF was once a mortal and worked out his salvation with fear and trembling (as I am sure BY elucidated it, but I don't know the reference) as we do is not a scriptural/biblical doctrine.

See above regarding whether it is necessary that it be a Biblical doctrine.

It has never been a doctrine for the Church, but has been taught like a doctrine, because it is attached to the second part, which is a doctrine, even the core doctrine of the purpose of this world.

I don't concede that it has never been a doctrine for the Church. In my view the fact that it has been consistently taught and accepted by prophets and apostles down through the years to the present day, when it is included in one of our current manuals, makes it a doctrine as much as anything else.

As asserting that God was once a mortal man like us (and not just like Jesus Christ), is troubling and even offensive to non Mormons, I think it is good if we don't "go there" any more.

It's good not to "go there" in the sense of not expounding upon it when we don't know enough about it to do so. But acknowledging our lack of information about it at present is not the same thing as disavowing it or ignoring it.

The Brigham Young Manual did not have a single word about "patriarchal marriage" i.e. polygamy, quite possibly the single facet of BY's life that is the most (in)famous about him, so there was no reason to put "the couplet" into the Lorenzo Snow manual either....

In hindsight, I'm not persuaded that it was a good thing to leave out any mention of plural marriage in the Brigham Young manual. I think a lesson was learned from all the subsequent criticism, and subsequent manuals in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series dealing with Church presidents during that era have at least mentioned that they practiced plural marriage.

That said, I think this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Some of what was taught regarding plural marriage prior to the Manifesto was from the perspective that the principle would be practiced permanently; now we know better. It would not make sense to put into a 20th or 21st century manual teachings that were given many years ago that have since been superseded with new light and knowledge.

That's not the case with the concept of God having progressed to a state of godhood, a concept we believe in but don't know much about.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

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

http://en.fairmormon...llett_Discourse

Thank you. It bothers me too when people don't put much time into research or when forming their questions.

The idea that "God the Father was once a man as we were" doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at it, as stated. God the Father was once a man? As if he isn't any more? Or what did the questioner mean by "as we were". As we were? What point of reference does the questioner have in his mind? Was that really the best the questioner could do as an interviewer? Couldn't he have found a statement or two where what he was referring to was taught and explained a little better before asking that question?

If I had been President Hinkley I may have taken the time to try to straighten him out on our teachings, but then again maybe I wouldn't because maybe I would see that wasn't the right time to really get into it. Some things have been taught regarding some of those words he put in his question, though, and anyone who cares to do the research can find out what we have taught and still teach regarding those ideas.

[halconero]

To be honest, the doctrine that God the Father has a body is enough of a reason for me to believe that he had a mortal experience. That's just me though.

[Stone holm]

Am thinking you all should read that other quasi Scripture that we use repeatedly in our meetings called the hymn book which clearly states that we don't even know when the first generation of gods came to be. Pres. Hinckley was just following recent policy of dumbing down the Gospel to avoid giving ammunition to the Evangelicals.

[Scott Lloyd]

Am thinking you all should read that other quasi Scripture that we use repeatedly in our meetings called the hymn book which clearly states that we don't even know when the first generation of gods came to be. Pres. Hinckley was just following recent policy of dumbing down the Gospel to avoid giving ammunition to the Evangelicals.

We sang that as a choir selection in sacrament meeting yesterday. So in my ward, at least, we're not dumbing down the gospel.

[Ahab]

Am thinking you all should read that other quasi Scripture that we use repeatedly in our meetings called the hymn book which clearly states that we don't even know when the first generation of gods came to be. Pres. Hinckley was just following recent policy of dumbing down the Gospel to avoid giving ammunition to the Evangelicals.

There wasn't a first generation of the kind of being we refer to as God. Sheesh. When are people going to realize that?

We didn't evolve. There has always been the kind of being we refer to as God. Always. There was never a time when there wasn't anything in existence, and there also was never a time when all that existed was a very basic form of life which over time evolved into more complex life forms. That's not the way reality was, ever. Instead, all forms of life have always existed, and they have always reproduced however each kind of being reproduces. Chickens come from other chickens, including the eggs of chickens, and dogs come from dogs, etc. Like begats like, not some other kind of being. It's all about the birds and the bees.

It's really amazing that some people have the wool pulled over their eyes so much that they can't see what is so blatantly obvious.

The kind of being we are is the kind of being our Father is, and we also have a Mother in heaven. In fact, we have many Fathers and Mothers, although some might prefer to refer to them as Grandfathers and Grandmothers. And there is no end to how many we have. There isn't a first one, and there will never be a last one, with some of us eventually also becoming Fathers and Mothers.

Wake up and smell the roses! Take the blinders off ASAP! There's no good reason you should go on believing in fairy tales.

[cinepro]

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.

I recognize that the interview was from the late 90's, but as far as I can tell, both the "couplet" and the supporting Joseph Smith quote from the King Follett Sermon have been regularly taught in official Church lessons and publications over the last century, up to today.

The quote from the King Follett Sermon is this one:

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 veil were rent today, 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 today, 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.

Ensign, April 1971

I suppose it's possible that Joseph Smith wasn't saying that God was once as we are now, but that's what it sounds like to me.

To see this teaching's reoccurrance on the Church website, just search for "yonder heavens".

Here's a recent usage, in the official LDS magazine for teenagers:

Joseph Smith taught us much about the true nature of God because he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and received many revelations.

What kind of being is He? “God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”

New Era, Feb 2012

The couplet itself is also found in many official LDS publications, lesson manuals, and talks by General Authorities. It was even used to "clearly" teach our origin and destiny to the young men:

Each Young Man Can Become like His Father in Heaven

Explain that since the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ in the latter days, Church members have known of their origin and destiny as children of God. A latter-day prophet, Lorenzo Snow, summarized this teaching clearly when he said, “As man is God once was; As God is, man may be” (in Thomas C. Romney, The Life of Lorenzo Snow [salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1955], p. 46).

That being the case, here is how I would have wanted/expected/wished the interview to go:

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

President Hinckley: Yeah

Time: …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

President Hinckley: Yes, we teach "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." This doctrine originated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, but we don't know much more about it. As we just discussed, we focus more on our marvelous potential to become more like our Heavenly Father.

Time: (follow up question about God having once been a man)

President Hinckley: Like I said, this is one of those things that we don't know much about. If I ever learn more, you'll be the first to know (wink).

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?

Here is what I might have wanted/expected/wished to hear as follow up in Conference:

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 the answers to my questions weren't as clear as I wish they had been. I think that's to be expected. In one exchange, regarding Joseph Smith's teachings about "God having once been as we are now", my answer was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand this doctrine. I affirm, as Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow did, that "As man is God once was, as God is man may become." This is just as true today as it was in 1844 when Joseph Smith first* taught it.

*Have the Church History Department make sure this was the first time we know about.

Edited March 11, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

There wasn't a first generation of the kind of being we refer to as God. Sheesh. When are people going to realize that?

So you're saying it's turtles all the way down?

[cinepro]

While I wish he had been clearer in his explanation, imperfection in expression is not a justification for making a man an offender for a word. I try not to do that, especially when it pertains to God's anointed prophet.

It could be argued that it's more respectful to hold God's anointed prophet to a higher standard than a lower one.

[Ahab]

The problem I see with saying something like "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." to someone who isn't familiar with what we mean by that is that we'd have to basically rephrase the whole question or go into very minute detail to explain all the issues involves.

The word/name/title "God" has more than one meaning, so in this case it should be understood that we're referring to our Father in heaven, although we could also be referring to the kind of being he is, which is also the same kind of being we are now although we're not as perfect and perfectly good as our Father in heaven, but in that case we probably wouldn't phrase the statement in the same way. We'd probably say as God now is man also is, although not all are as perfect and perfectly good as our Father in heaven. But we all can become as perfect and perfectly good as our Father in heaven. We're already the same kind of being, which we refer to as God, so we've already good a little jump on it.

Anyway, the point is, as I see it, is that all we know about it isn't even half as much as there is to known about it. Not even a quarter. We're barely even scratching the surface. Do you really have any idea of ALL that is and will be involved in becoming as our Father in heaven. Do you even know enough to know that we're already the same kind of being he is? So what are the heights and depths of his powers? Do you know how much he knows? No. You barely have a smidgeon of knowledge about all that there is to be known about our Father in heaven, or all that he knows, and we can't even begin to teach about what we don't know about him. It's not that we can't comprehend him,, though, as if it's not possible, ever. It's just that we don't, now, and we don't know all that we don't comprehend.

[Ahab]

So you're saying it's turtles all the way down?

For turtles, yeah. For us there have always been parents to produce offspring of the same kind as the parents.

[Scott Lloyd]

It could be argued that it's more respectful to hold God's anointed prophet to a higher standard than a lower one.

It could be argued that it's disrespectful to presume to tell the anointed prophet his business.

[MormonMason]

I suppose it's possible that Joseph Smith wasn't saying that God was once as we are now, but that's what it sounds like to me.

The key to the way in which I understand the meaning is when Joseph Smith used the words "the same as Jesus Christ" in his contextual comments. Jesus Christ was born, lived and died as we did. Joseph Smith's other comments regarding the Son doing nothing but what he saw his Father also play a part in my understanding of the passage. I do not see this as offensive at all. I see it as representing God the Father having done the same things on another earth that Jesus did on this one, many eons before we or God's creations ever were created.

[Questing Beast]

...

That's not the case with the concept of God having progressed to a state of godhood, a concept we believe in but don't know much about.

That's just the point: many of "us" don't believe any such "doctrine". I for one do not. "God" never progressed. God the Father could have done so, but then GtF is not the Cause of Existence in the First Place, he's merely part of Existence, ongoing, never-ending, just like the rest of us....

[Stone holm]

There wasn't a first generation of the kind of being we refer to as God. Sheesh. When are people going to realize that?

We didn't evolve. There has always been the kind of being we refer to as God. Always. There was never a time when there wasn't anything in existence, and there also was never a time when all that existed was a very basic form of life which over time evolved into more complex life forms. That's not the way reality was, ever. Instead, all forms of life have always existed, and they have always reproduced however each kind of being reproduces. Chickens come from other chickens, including the eggs of chickens, and dogs come from dogs, etc. Like begats like, not some other kind of being. It's all about the birds and the bees.

It's really amazing that some people have the wool pulled over their eyes so much that they can't see what is so blatantly obvious.

The kind of being we are is the kind of being our Father is, and we also have a Mother in heaven. In fact, we have many Fathers and Mothers, although some might prefer to refer to them as Grandfathers and Grandmothers. And there is no end to how many we have. There isn't a first one, and there will never be a last one, with some of us eventually also becoming Fathers and Mothers.

Wake up and smell the roses! Take the blinders off ASAP! There's no good reason you should go on believing in fairy tales.

"Do you think that you coulld ever, Through all eternity, Find of the generation Where Gods began to be?"

[tyler90az]

"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....

What have Joseph Smith or other Prophets taught? Is God the Father the first God or are there many before him?

Edited March 12, 2013 by tyler90az

[Darren10]

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.

Don't ever come to my Gospel Doctrine class and say such a thing witout expecting a blatant correction. I'd do so by opening up the question to the class and allow them to respond. If I'm not satisfied with that I'll have scriptures ready to correct such a false doctrine. And you'll be corrected lovingly, of course, but with no doubt of firmness. Same goes for Elder's Quorum. It's stange that you'd declare such a thing followed by an admission that we know little about what was before the Father. That we can even "dispense" with such thinking.

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.

Again, following along what you yourself admitted, here's the title of the manual in question: Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow. The one thing Lorenzo Snow is known to have said perhaps more than anything else is, "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” This is within Lesson 5 whose title is, Chapter 5: The Grand Destiny of the Faithful. Note that the emphasis is explicitly on what man may become which is a crucial part of President's Snow's famous remark. the lesson manual notes:

[quote

Feeling that he had received “a sacred communication” that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it.² Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently.

In addition to making this truth a theme for many of his sermons, he adopted it as the theme for his life. His son LeRoi said, “This revealed truth impressed Lorenzo Snow more than perhaps all else; it sank so deeply into his soul that it became the inspiration of his life and gave him his broad vision of his own great future and the mighty mission and work of the Church.”³ It was his “constant light and guide” and “a bright, illuminating star before him all the time—in his heart, in his soul, and all through him.”⁴

[tyler90az]

To be honest, the doctrine that God the Father has a body is enough of a reason for me to believe that he had a mortal experience. That's just me though.

I agree.

I do not think he neccesarily had to have a mortal experience similar to ours. That is where it seems people get shaken a little bit. The couplet does not say he had the same mortal experience as us. He could have been mortal for a day or anything else.

[Questing Beast]

...

Note the inspiration of the future, not the past was prevalent. There's no need whatsoever to dwell on the past before God. Today man knows virtually nothing about it, nor is there any indication that he has ever known, nor ever will in mortality. All things start with the Father. That is solid, knowledgeable doctrine. So is, as you pointed out, knowledge of man's eternal progress in becoming like God. Or rather, becoming God.

"No need to dwell on the past before God"?? Are you really sure about that? What a concept anyway, that there could be a time "before God", when Abraham informs us that intelligence has always existed, and GtF claims that his intelligence is greater than all (combined) other intelligences. I have no reason/evidence to doubt his word/assertion. But the theology still asserts that existence itself transcends GtF and Is responsible for GtF's existence; levels of comparative intelligence have nothing to do with the core question, "Why Existence instead of nothing?" GtF is admittedly not responsible for his own existence, anymore than you or I.

The universe exists "always". But that Existence requires a reason/cause. It can't simply exist in this form without being caused. And in a lesser organized form it cannot attain to a greater state of existence without a Cause behind it. Matter does not will itself into greater complexity, it breaks down into its simplest elements without an outside Cause working upon it. And GtF cannot be that Cause, because we are told that matter and intelligence have always existed, which GtF is himself part of, not the Cause of

All of this is incumbent upon me to pursue endlessly. Your assertion that "there is no need to dwell upon the past" may apply to only yourself, you can't make that judgment for anyone else. I feel a continual pull upon my core being to seek "God In Total", the Cause Of Existence In The First Place. Joseph Smith's GtF is not remotely big enough to worship, imho, since I have this concept growing inside my mind that transcended GtF a long time ago....

Edited March 12, 2013 by Questing Beast