President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[canard78]

I don't fully agree. God has always been God and eternal just as we are.

Just as we are? Are you saying that we are (all) already a God? I don't think I am... at least not last time I checked. I'm aware of the phrase 'Gods in Embryo' - but that's about it?

[Stone holm]

We haven't ever taught that God is just like us.

Well that is certainly news to me because everything I have ever been taught or read on the subject basically has said it just like Pres Snow taught it. I suppose you could argue that He was a more intelligent intelligence than us as is indicated in the Scriptures, but that isn't really what we are talking about here. And the Church is definitely teaching so in the manual lesson.

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem with Mormon apologetics, is sometimes they won't call a spade a spade. There is a conflict between what Pres Snow and Pres Hinckley said.

In the commentary on the article FAIR state the question and answer:

The FAIR article commenting on it (here: http://www.fairlds.o...nd_lds_doctrine) then says:

The first sentence of both President Hinckley's reply (I don’t know that we teach it) and FAIR's comment (The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.) is wrong, especially the FAIR comment.

Every year we teach this principle to investigators and new members. Quite recently the entire church were taught this as part of the year-long Priesthood & Relief Society 'refresher course':

http://www.lds.org/m...tation?lang=eng

Other examples of the teaching appearing in print include:

It was also included in the 2006 Ensign:

http://www.lds.org/e...-of-the-godhead

And this from a 1982 Ensign article by Gerald N. Lund, when discussing the 'couplet' by President Snow:

http://www.lds.org/e...have-a-question

I'm fine accepting that maybe President Hinckley got caught unexpected and didn't want to discuss it in detail. I'm a little less comfortable with the idea that he might have intentionally given a misleading answer to avoid discussing tricky doctrine that might make us seem 'peculiar.' Most of all, I'm not fine with FAIR pretending what he said was accurate. Their statement of "we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us" is completely incorrect and misleading.

I suppose your quarrel is with the FAIR article more than with me.

But I have to say I think the FAIR article is generally correct. I don't recall the last time I was in a classroom setting in the Church where the teacher dwelt at length on the nature of God before He became God. Certainly I never did so in the several years that I taught gospel doctrine in Sunday School or in any of the other teaching callings or assignments I've had. I reiterate: There's just not enough there that we can teach very much about it other than the fact that Joseph Smith said it (your Ensign quote was from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) but did not elaborate or that Lorenzo Snow formed a couplet that made very brief reference to it.

[canard78]

We haven't ever taught that God is just like us.

Eh?

2006 Ensign:

He was once a man like us

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/01/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-the-nature-of-the-godhead

1982 Ensign:

...he was once a man like us... “As man now is, God once was:”... It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question

Current Gospel Principles Manual (the one every new member should be taught from and the one the entire church spent 2 years doing a refresher course on):

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

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).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

I think we certainly have ever taught that God was/is just like us.

[Questing Beast]

Yesterday, a different high priests group teacher started to give the same lesson we had the week before. He read the Snow couplet and said, "That is the most profound thing I think we have ever read". I said, "Sure, and it's so profound that we can devote two lessons to it. Last week we only talked about the second half, so let's spend this week talking about the first half." He blinked and said "This lesson was taught last week?" And when we assured him it was so, he flipped to the next lesson without a word and started reading it instead.

Nobody wants to go "there" with the first half. I don't wonder why. As Hinckley said, he didn't know anyone who knows much about it. And half a dozen pages in this thread have not shed a whit of further light upon the subject....

Edited March 18, 2013 by Questing Beast

[canard78]

I suppose your quarrel is with the FAIR article more than with me.

But I have to say I think the FAIR article is generally correct. I don't recall the last time I was in a classroom setting in the Church where the teacher dwelt at length on the nature of God before He became God. Certainly I never did so in the several years that I taught gospel doctrine in Sunday School or in any of the other teaching callings or assignments I've had. I reiterate: There's just not enough there that we can teach very much about it other than the fact that Joseph Smith said it (your Ensign quote was from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) but did not elaborate or that Lorenzo Snow formed a couplet that made very brief reference to it.

I'd quoted from your first response but I think you went on to say in several other posts that what was said was reasonable. I'd not had the chance to reply at the time as I was in the middle a work-week from H.E.double-hockey-sticks...

Time asked: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are."

President Hinckley said "I don't know that we teach it."

The FAIR Article said: "The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us."

And here is the current gospel doctrine manual. While it might not be taught frequently, it is taught openly as part of the annual curriculum.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

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).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

I'm not going to give President Hinckley a hard time over it. I imagine he was caught off guard and didn't want to make us seem even more peculiar that we already do. But the FAIR response is fairly typical of trying to defend the indefensible and it's this approach that undermines FAIR. Sometimes it's just better to say 'he slipped up, nobody's perfect.'

As mentioned, my 'angst' on this is on people trying to say that what President Hinckley said was accurate, that we do not teach it in our classes. That is not accurate and actually makes things look worse than simply saying 'he's not perfect, he mis-spoke.'

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd quoted from your first response but I think you went on to say in several other posts that what was said was reasonable. I'd not had the chance to reply at the time as I was in the middle a work-week from H.E.double-hockey-sticks...

Time asked: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are."

President Hinckley said "I don't know that we teach it."

The FAIR Article said: "The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us."

And here is the current gospel doctrine manual. While it might not be taught frequently, it is taught openly as part of the annual curriculum.

http://www.lds.org/m...tation?lang=eng

I'm not going to give President Hinckley a hard time over it. I imagine he was caught off guard and didn't want to make us seem even more peculiar that we already do. But the FAIR response is fairly typical of trying to defend the indefensible and it's this approach that undermines FAIR. Sometimes it's just better to say 'he slipped up, nobody's perfect.'

As mentioned, my 'angst' on this is on people trying to say that what President Hinckley said was accurate, that we do not teach it in our classes. That is not accurate and actually makes things look worse than simply saying 'he's not perfect, he mis-spoke.'

But he didn't misspeak. Acknowledging a statement from the Prophet Joseph Smith that, as far as we have record, he never elaborated upon is not the same thing as dwelling upon or emphasizing it. As I said, it is rare that it is brought up at all in Church lessons and sermons and virtually unheard of that it is expounded upon. We cannot expound without speculating, and that is contrary to what we are counseled to do in formal Church discourse.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

But he didn't misspeak. Acknowledging a statement from the Prophet Joseph Smith that, as far as we have record, he never elaborated upon is not the same thing as dwelling upon or emphasizing it. As I said, it is rare that it is brought up at all in Church lessons and sermons and virtually unheard of that it is expounded upon. We cannot expound without speculating, and that is contrary to what we are counseled to do in formal Church discourse.

And that's the kind of approach I struggle with. He said we don't teach that God the Father was once a man like we are. And that's not the case. We do. I agree it's not prominent. I agree it's often not in depth. But it is taught (as part of the official correlated curriculum, not some obscure sermon once), and that was the direct question (and the response given from FAIR). I'm fine with the idea that President Hinckley hadn't scrutinised every page of every lesson manual before doing the interview. So while what he said was inaccurate, I also think it's quite possible he was unaware of the lesson material when he gave his answer. Maybe the FAIR commentator was too. But it is taught, openly and simply.

Again, from Gerald N. Lund on the couplet: "It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question

[thesometimesaint]

Eh?

2006 Ensign:

http://www.lds.org/e...-of-the-godhead

1982 Ensign:

http://www.lds.org/e...have-a-question

Current Gospel Principles Manual (the one every new member should be taught from and the one the entire church spent 2 years doing a refresher course on):

http://www.lds.org/m...tation?lang=eng

I think we certainly have ever taught that God was/is just like us.

None of those teach that God was "Just" like us.

[Scott Lloyd]

And that's the kind of approach I struggle with. He said we don't teach that God the Father was once a man like we are. And that's not the case. We do. I agree it's not prominent. I agree it's often not in depth. But it is taught (as part of the official correlated curriculum, not some obscure sermon once), and that was the direct question (and the response given from FAIR). I'm fine with the idea that President Hinckley hadn't scrutinised every page of every lesson manual before doing the interview. So while what he said was inaccurate, I also think it's quite possible he was unaware of the lesson material when he gave his answer. Maybe the FAIR commentator was too. But it is taught, openly and simply.

Again, from Gerald N. Lund on the couplet: "It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today."

http://www.lds.org/e...have-a-question

I guess what it boils down to is I'm inclined to view President Hinckleys' (and the FAIR article's) words a bit more charitably than you are. That is, the meaning I get is not that the concept is never, ever mentioned, but rather, that it is not taught or dwelt upon enough to constitute a substantial portion of our curriculum, lessons and sermons.

It's sort of like my saying that I never get emotional to the point of tears when giving a lesson at Church. What I intend to communicate is that as a general rule I don't get moved to the point of tears. I don't mean to say it has never happened. In fact I recall one exceptional instance when it did. (I was extremely non-plussed; I scarcely knew how to recover, because it happens so rarely.)

I submit that, idiomatically, that is often what we as humans mean when we say we "don't" do something or we "never" do something.

By the way, President Hinckley did not say "We don't teach it," he said, "I don't know that we teach it," sort of a shorthand way of saying "I'm not certain it can be said that we teach it."

[Stone holm]

I don't think he misspoke, he was just being a little cunning in his reply for PR purposes.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think he misspoke, he was just being a little cunning in his reply for PR purposes.

I don't think "cunning" does him justice. Careful might be a better choice of words.

[thesometimesaint]

Just as we are? Are you saying that we are (all) already a God? I don't think I am... at least not last time I checked. I'm aware of the phrase 'Gods in Embryo' - but that's about it?

According to God we are all Gods. It is true that we have a long way to go before we sit down on his thrown and have a crown of righteousness placed on our heads however.

I'm fine with Gods in embryo. But that is kinda like asking is there a point at which a chicken isn't a chicken, but something else?

[canard78]

I guess what it boils down to is I'm inclined to view President Hinckleys' (and the FAIR article's) words a bit more charitably than you are. That is, the meaning I get is not that the concept is never, ever mentioned, but rather, that it is not taught or dwelt upon enough to constitute a substantial portion of our curriculum, lessons and sermons.

It's sort of like my saying that I never get emotional to the point of tears when giving a lesson at Church. What I intend to communicate is that as a general rule I don't get moved to the point of tears. I don't mean to say it has never happened. In fact I recall one exceptional instance when it did. (I was extremely non-plussed; I scarcely knew how to recover, because it happens so rarely.)

I submit that, idiomatically, that is often what we as humans mean when we say we "don't" do something or we "never" do something.

By the way, President Hinckley did not say "We don't teach it," he said, "I don't know that we teach it," sort of a shorthand way of saying "I'm not certain it can be said that we teach it."

As a man who is such a lover of words, I think you can be a little more precise than that And please don't get into the 'I'm more charitable than you' game.

Simply stated. We do teach, in one of our most used manuals of instruction, that God was once a man like us.

If you, as a journalist, asked that question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" and they said either of these two, would you be happy that it was an answer that was in-line with the Gospel Principles lesson on Exaltation:

1) I don’t know that we teach it.

2) We do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.

We DO teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. That's almost the exact wording we use. If you or another teacher chooses to skip over that portion of the lesson, that's another matter. But every new member is supposed to be taught this principle if they go through the full new member Gospel Principles course.

So I'm happy to accept that, for a national article, President Hinckley was perhaps trying to deflect the issue. The FAIR statement on the other hand is very specific, for a Mormon audience and is really not being accurate in an attempt to defend President Hinckley.

Out of interest, I can see how President Hinckley's statement has a bit of ambiguity - would you agree that the FAIR statement has gone too far? This is the point I'm making. That FAIR, as great a service as they provide, sometimes go too far and should not try to defend things in such strong terms when there's no cause to.

[canard78]

According to God we are all Gods. It is true that we have a long way to go before we sit down on his thrown and have a crown of righteousness placed on our heads however.

I'm fine with Gods in embryo. But that is kinda like asking is there a point at which a chicken isn't a chicken, but something else?

But not all embryos (chicken or human) become adults. In our theology not all humans will become Gods. So although Gods in Embryo... that's only a potential to become, not a state of already being. It's a symbol, not a biological achieved state.

[Lachoneus]

None of those teach that God was "Just" like us.

Do you honestly think the word "just" makes any difference in this teaching?

[Scott Lloyd]

As a man who is such a lover of words, I think you can be a little more precise than that

As a lover of words I recognize the richness of the language, the existence of idiomatic expression and varying shades of meaning in how things are expressed.

And please don't get into the 'I'm more charitable than you' game.

I'm using the term charitable here to mean "lenient in judging how something is expressed." And I do believe it applies here. In this instance I am being more lenient in judgment than you are.

Simply stated. We do teach, in one of our most used manuals of instruction, that God was once a man like us.

I will acknowledge that we do teach that Joseph Smith made a statement (and Lorenzo Snow formulated a couplet) to that effect, and that we accept it as true without knowing very much about the concept.

If you, as a journalist, asked that question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" and they said either of these two, would you be happy that it was an answer that was in-line with the Gospel Principles lesson on Exaltation:

1) I don’t know that we teach it.

I would hope, as a journalist, that I would be charitable (there's that word again) enough to recognize the non-committal nature of the response and perhaps understand the motive behind it as a desire to be careful with accuracy while at the same time responding in good faith.

2) We do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.

I could accept that as a reasonable reply in the idiomatic sense I have described above. The fact is, I have not heard such a thing said in a class at Church for a long, long time.

We DO teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. That's almost the exact wording we use.

I think you are adding the adverb "just."

If you or another teacher chooses to skip over that portion of the lesson, that's another matter. But every new member is supposed to be taught this principle if they go through the full new member Gospel Principles course.

Taught that we acknowledge and accept it but we don't know much about it.

So I'm happy to accept that, for a national article, President Hinckley was perhaps trying to deflect the issue. The FAIR statement on the other hand is very specific, for a Mormon audience and is really not being accurate in an attempt to defend President Hinckley.

Out of interest, I can see how President Hinckley's statement has a bit of ambiguity - would you agree that the FAIR statement has gone too far? This is the point I'm making. That FAIR, as great a service as they provide, sometimes go too far and should not try to defend things in such strong terms when there's no cause to.

Take that up with FAIR. As I've said, I choose to put a charitable construction on the wording in the article and don't think it unreasonable to do so.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

But not all embryos (chicken or human) become adults. In our theology not all humans will become Gods. So although Gods in Embryo... that's only a potential to become, not a state of already being. It's a symbol, not a biological achieved state.

I know of nothing in Scripture that says we're not adults. We are already Gods. "Ye are Gods" is Scriptural. Resurrected and Perfected in another question.

[thesometimesaint]

Do you honestly think the word "just" makes any difference in this teaching?

Yes it does. We sin. God did not/does not sin.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you honestly think the word "just" makes any difference in this teaching?

Well of course it does. In this instance, it means "exactly" or "precisely."

The mortal Christ could be regarded as "like us" in some ways but not in others. It would therefore be incorrect to say He was "just like us."

[Calm]

Does the author of that article (Michael Fordham) participate here? I'd be interested to understand what he meant by this statement, given it clearly is taught in our classes today.

I don't know if he posts here, but he is not currently a member of FAIR and FAIR does not have the habit of going in and changing other authors' words such as those given in FAIR conferences even if we disagree with them.

The best thing to do it to write the Ask The Apologist, point out your disagreement and it will likely get put into the wiki which is where all the up to date stuff is kept.

[Stone holm]

Well I don't believe that the idea that we are all gods right now was what Lorenzo Snow or Joseph Smith, Jr. had in mind in their development of the doctrine. I don't believe we should perform those kinds of mental gymnastics to a fairly clear doctrine that we believe in generations of gods. "Cunning" may have been not quite the right word, but "careful" isn't either. The answer was intended to deflect the question so that he wouldn't have to explain our doctrine in detail on public TV in view of all the apostates and Evangelical Ministers who love to call us non-Christians and distort our doctrines.

[Calm]

Well that is certainly news to me because everything I have ever been taught or read on the subject basically has said it just like Pres Snow taught it. I suppose you could argue that He was a more intelligent intelligence than us as is indicated in the Scriptures, but that isn't really what we are talking about here. And the Church is definitely teaching so in the manual lesson.

You have been taught God the Father is a sinner?

[Calm]

We DO teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us. That's almost the exact wording we use.

And saying "God was not a man like us" is almost the exact wording as well and yet it has the opposite meaning.

"Just like us" means "identical to us". Do we teach that God the Father is identical in every way to us? Do we teach that he was a sinner and in need of a Redeemer?

PS: I am not just being nitpicky for apologetic purposes, I am this nitpicky in pretty much all things in life to the annoyance of my family.

Edited March 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

"Cunning" may have been not quite the right word, but "careful" isn't either. The answer was intended to deflect the question so that he wouldn't have to explain our doctrine in detail on public TV in view of all the apostates and Evangelical Ministers who love to call us non-Christians and distort our doctrines.

I think you are indulging in attempted mind-reading here. It could just as reasonably be argued that he was being careful (and I'm careful in my use of that term) to respond as accurately as he could to a question that could not be fully answered in the extremely brief time he was allotted.