President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[Calm]

This is the FAIR wiki page on the matter. Do you find disagreement with it as well?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse

[Scott Lloyd]

This is the FAIR wiki page on the matter. Do you find disagreement with it as well?

http://en.fairmormon...llett_Discourse

This is a fine analysis of the matter. I commend it.

[Stone holm]

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.

No. A fair number of Brethern have been a bit more literal than I am willing to go, and have asserted that Heavenly Father was the Christ of His generation -- in which case, no He would not have been a sinner. I personally, think the odds are against that being the case and that when Christ referred to His Father having laid down His Life and picked it up again his meaning that we out of all the possible Heavenly Father's happened to have the one who was the Christ of His Generation is being a little too much to expect. But I don't have any basis for saying they are wrong other than the odds against it. Obviously, it is possible for repentant sinners to become heavenly fathers or we are wasting our time contemplating exaltation. I don't mind nitpicking. I believe the couplet goes "We are as God, once was" That is talking about Heavenly Father's past, not His present -- for those who are insistent that Heavenly Father never had a beginning as a god, well I simply have a problem with that and I don't think it can be reconciled with what has been consistently taught.

[Calm]

I think you are indulging in attempted mind-reading here.

My own mindreading attempt is that he started out saying "we don't teach that" having in mind that there are no recent GC talks or SS lessons whose main theme is focused on what God once was, but then decided to clarify it with "we don't emphasize it" having thought of the specific quotations that are mentioned from time to time but are not gone into detail about. So the "emphasize it' is a modification of "teach it" to make the first description more precise.

It is quite common for people to do this so I don't see it as a stretch at all.

[Scott Lloyd]

My own mindreading attempt is that he started out saying "we don't teach that" having in mind that there are no recent GC talks or SS lessons whose main theme is focused on what God once was, but then decided to clarify it with "we don't emphasize it" having thought of the specific quotations that are mentioned from time to time but are not gone into detail about. So the "emphasize it' is a modification of "teach it" to make the first description more precise.

It is quite common for people to do this so I don't see it as a stretch at all.

Makes sense to me.

God grant us the awareness and wisdom to distinguish between spoken and written discourse as pertaining to different nuances.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Makes sense to me.

God grant us the awareness and wisdom to distinguish between spoken and written discourse as pertaining to unique nuances.

There is no need for the "we don't emphasize it" if he meant outright that we don't teach it at all, the "we don't emphasize it" is only required if it is taught some....as in quoted here and there, but is not a major theme that discourses focus on.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is no need for the "we don't emphasize it" if he meant outright that we don't teach it at all, the "we don't emphasize it" is only required if it is taught some....as in quoted here and there, but is not a major theme that discourses focus on.

Exactly! The "emphasize" phrasing is irrelevant if he has already ruled out that it is ever taught at all.

It is as if to say, "I don't know that we teach it very often, and when we do, I don't know that we emphasize it."

Sometimes I just want to say, "People, please, listen for comprehension."

Edited March 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Exactly! The "emphasize" phrasing is irrelevant if he has already ruled out that it is ever taught at all.

It is as if to say, "I don't know that we teach it very often, and when we do, I don't know that we emphasize it."

Sometimes I just want to say, "People, please, listen for comprehension."

Agreed, it was a nice way to deflect the question to another topic without having to go into it in depth. People read way too much into it.

[CASteinman]

Why is this a matter of so much discussion? Is it seriously that controversial?

[Scott Lloyd]

Why is this a matter of so much discussion? Is it seriously that controversial?

You wouldn't think so. But it is one of the recurring little points antagonists try to use to confuse people and defame the Church.

[canard78]

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."

First, trying to get FAIR off on a technicality like "just" is weakening the whole position of those defending them. With or with "just" - what impression is the reader left with?

Besides, Time didn't ask if God was a man 'just' like us. FAIR introduced that word:

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."

For you to excuse FAIR because they said "just" is to say they didn't bother addressing the issue at hand and instead answered a different, new, question as a way of deflecting attention from the original question is a poor reflection of FAIR's approach to apologetics.

I have, however, seen it done by FAIR before, so it wouldn't surprise me. Politicians do it too. Reframe the question so you avoid the question you don't want to address.

Having said that, if you presented the material from the official publications like Gospel Principles and the Ensign next to the 3 statements from Time/Hinckley and FAIR (even with the word 'just' in FAIR's statement), most reasonable people would look at it and say it's fair to say the simple answer to Time's question would be "yes, we do teach it in the church."

[Questing Beast]

No. A fair number of Brethern have been a bit more literal than I am willing to go, and have asserted that Heavenly Father was the Christ of His generation -- in which case, no He would not have been a sinner. I personally, think the odds are against that being the case and that when Christ referred to His Father having laid down His Life and picked it up again his meaning that we out of all the possible Heavenly Father's happened to have the one who was the Christ of His Generation is being a little too much to expect. But I don't have any basis for saying they are wrong other than the odds against it. ...

Coupled with that unlikelihood is the assertion in the Enoch passages in the book of Moses that this world is the only one wicked enough to slay Christ. Really? Out of all of God's numberless created worlds, ours is the one where the atonement for all the universe took place? How absolutely, mind-bogglingly unlikely! But such an assertion fits right into the modus operandi of religious dogma manipulators....

[CASteinman]

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.

I would say this is exactly what Hinkley was referring to when he said that we do not teach this very much -- that we do not know much about it.

I agree that we do not. Which in a way I sort of like. It allows us to use our imagination and picture it as we want to.

[canard78]

My own mindreading attempt is that he started out saying "we don't teach that" having in mind that there are no recent GC talks or SS lessons whose main theme is focused on what God once was, but then decided to clarify it with "we don't emphasize it" having thought of the specific quotations that are mentioned from time to time but are not gone into detail about. So the "emphasize it' is a modification of "teach it" to make the first description more precise.

It is quite common for people to do this so I don't see it as a stretch at all.

And this is probably a much better reading of his intention. My main issue in this conversation is those (such as the FAIR article) who go further and make it sound like he was right to say we don't teach it:

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."

As for 'just like us' - the idea that God was a man like us is clearly taught. The idea that we will become a God like him is also clearly taught.

I can't think of a case in mainstream church media that teaches God was a saviour of a wold rather than a man among many. If we believe the forward progression, we have a model for the backward origin. In the absence of any other definition of 'a man like us' beyond the one in Gospel Principles and the two ensign articles, we would be fair to (as said) answer Time's question with a simple 'yes.'

[CASteinman]

Coupled with that unlikelihood is the assertion in the Enoch passages in the book of Moses that this world is the only one wicked enough to slay Christ.

Cite please.

[cinepro]

There is no need for the "we don't emphasize it" if he meant outright that we don't teach it at all, the "we don't emphasize it" is only required if it is taught some....as in quoted here and there, but is not a major theme that discourses focus on.

Well, maybe we only emphasize every once in a while.

Coming soon to an EQ, HPG or RS near you.

I especially like how the origin of the "couplet" is noted as revelation.

[CASteinman]

Well, maybe we only emphasize every once in a while.

Would you like to point out a case in the official doctrines of the Church where the item specifically brought up by the OP is emphasized at all?

[Questing Beast]

Cite please.

Oh please. Read it, chapter seven. If this world is the only one where men "hate their own flesh", and the only one that God weeps over, and the ONLY ONE where Christ came, then the correlation is obvious; "we" are the most wicked of God's creations (which are without number, we are told), ergo Christ came here to die at "our" hand, and even then, only the Jews were wicked enough to kill their own Messiah, if Christ had come to ANY other people they would not have killed him but rather accepted him. That's not in the "Enoch parts", but we are taught that elsewhere, though I am blanking on the reference....

Edited March 19, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

Oh please. Read it, chapter seven. If this world is the only one where men "hate their own flesh", and the only one that God weeps over, and the ONLY ONE where Christ came, then the correlation is obvious; "we" are the most wicked of God's creations (which are without number, we are told), ergo Christ came here to die at "our" hand, and even then, only the Jews were wicked enough to kill their own Messiah, if Christ had come to ANY other people they would not have killed him but rather accepted him. That's not in the "Enoch parts", but we are taught that elsewhere, though I am blanking on the reference....

Can't go with the sentiments expressed in this comment. As I have understood, the planet has the best and the worst human inhabitants -- including the most intelligent. I believe the Jews at the time of Christ were a microcosm of that situation -- they had some of the very best (Christ was a Jew, as were all of the original Apostles, and women leaders like the various Marys, and Martha). There is absolutely no support for the idea that if Christ had come to any other ethnic group that he wouldn't have been killed as well. Remember when the rubber hit the road, it was the Romans, not the Jews that executed him -- although clearly the Jewish establishment wanted Him dead. But many Jews didn't. Social establishment types nearly always pounce on people who threaten to disrupt their control over society and/or the economy, and they quite frequently stir up the poor and uneducated to do their dirty work for them -- that is not a trait that is limited to the Jews.

[CASteinman]

Oh please. Read it, chapter seven. If this world is the only one where men "hate their own flesh", and the only one that God weeps over, and the ONLY ONE where Christ came, then the correlation is obvious; "we" are the most wicked of God's creations (which are without number, we are told), ergo Christ came here to die at "our" hand, and even then, only the Jews were wicked enough to kill their own Messiah, if Christ had come to ANY other people they would not have killed him but rather accepted him. That's not in the "Enoch parts", but we are taught that elsewhere, though I am blanking on the reference....

So no cite then. Speculation not actually supported by the text (and involving false assumptions). As I thought.

Edited March 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Can't go with the sentiments expressed in this comment. As I have understood, the planet has the best and the worst human inhabitants -- including the most intelligent. I believe the Jews at the time of Christ were a microcosm of that situation -- they had some of the very best (Christ was a Jew, as were all of the original Apostles, and women leaders like the various Marys, and Martha). There is absolutely no support for the idea that if Christ had come to any other ethnic group that he wouldn't have been killed as well. Remember when the rubber hit the road, it was the Romans, not the Jews that executed him -- although clearly the Jewish establishment wanted Him dead. But many Jews didn't. Social establishment types nearly always pounce on people who threaten to disrupt their control over society and/or the economy, and they quite frequently stir up the poor and uneducated to do their dirty work for them -- that is not a trait that is limited to the Jews.

More importantly, there is no evidence that this is the ONLY place wicked enough to slay Christ. Which is what is claimed.

It happens to be the place where it occurred. Perhaps this is associated with the notion that he descended below all things. Not that there aren't other very wicked places.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, maybe we only emphasize every once in a while.

Coming soon to an EQ, HPG or RS near you.

I especially like how the origin of the "couplet" is noted as revelation.

You are behind schedule. We had this lesson a couple of weeks ago.

And it is as has been stated here: There is no expounding or elaboration here beyond an acknowledgment that the concept was taught by Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow, no detail regarding the origin of God beyond a broad statement of the concept.

And it should come as no surprise that President Snow received the knowledge by revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Having said that, if you presented the material from the official publications like Gospel Principles and the Ensign next to the 3 statements from Time/Hinckley and FAIR (even with the word 'just' in FAIR's statement), most reasonable people would look at it and say it's fair to say the simple answer to Time's question would be "yes, we do teach it in the church."

It is very often the case that "the simple answer" does not properly address the question or convey proper understanding. I submit that the Time interview is one such occasion, where a "simple answer" such as you are calling for would have left the wrong impression in the minds of readers or listeners. President Hinckley wisely was endeavoring to give a nuanced reply to avoid leaving such a false impression, namely that the origen of God the Father is a frequent and substantially discussed and explored topic in our formal lessons and discourse -- which, of course, it is not.

I am wary of "the simple answer" -- and those who insist on it.

The situation is rather like the oft-cited example of a question where a "simple answer" will not do: "Are you still beating your wife?" If the person had not been beating his wife in the first place, then the simple answer "no" would convey the wrong impression.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

It is very often the case that "the simple answer" does not properly address the question or convey proper understanding. I submit that the Time interview is one such occasion, where a "simple answer" such as you are calling for would have left the wrong impression in the minds of readers or listeners. President Hinckley wisely was endeavoring to give a nuanced reply to avoid leaving such a false impression, namely that the origen of God the Father is a frequent and substantially discussed and explored topic in our formal lessons and discourse -- which, of course, it is not.

I am wary of "the simple answer" -- and those who insist on it.

The situation is rather like the oft-cited example of a question where a "simple answer" will not do: "Are you still beating your wife?" If the person had not been beating his wife in the first place, then he simple answer "no" would convey the wrong impression.

I agree it was not the simple answer, but it was also not really much of an anwser and it certainly suggests that he was simply trying to deflect the question, kind of like from Star Wars "Nothing of interest here, move along."

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree it was not the simple answer, but it was also not really much of an anwser and it certainly suggests that he was simply trying to deflect the question, kind of like from Star Wars "Nothing of interest here, move along."

It may have been as good an answer as could have been given under the circumstances, considering what you suggested earlier in this thread:

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 would add that with that particular concept, you can't get very far in trying to explain it in detail without getting into the realm of speculation -- which one ought not do when endeavoring to clarify sacred teachings before a profane public.