President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[cinepro]

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 guess that's the ultimate question. Would the average non-LDS viewer think that LDS believe "God was once a man as we are" after hearing President Hinckley's answer?

If yes, then it was a good answer.

If no, or they're not sure, then it wasn't a good answer. Because LDS do believe it and teach it.

Edited March 19, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

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

We've already had a Ward and Stake Conference this year, so we may be behind. But I actually taught this lesson last Sunday.

[Stone holm]

I guess that's the ultimate question. Would the average non-LDS viewer think that LDS believe "God was once a man as we are" after hearing President Hinckley's answer?

If yes, then it was a good answer.

If no, or they're not sure, then it wasn't a good answer. Because LDS do believe it and teach it.

We have a differing view of what the strategy was. I don't think he intended to educate the non-LDS viewer, what he intended was to brush off the question so that he didn't gratuitously provide ammunition to apostates and the Evangelicals. That is a doctrine that we don't normally dump on an investigator of the Church, so best to just deflect it. In that it was masterfully done, because he clearly did not deny the doctrine -- he just kind of said, "eh not a big deal, not worth our time...next question please."

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess that's the ultimate question. Would the average non-LDS viewer think that LDS believe "God was once a man as we are" after hearing President Hinckley's answer?

If yes, then it was a good answer.

If no, or they're not sure, then it wasn't a good answer. Because LDS do believe it and teach it.

But we don't emphasize it. To leave that impression would not have been good either.

[Stone holm]

But we don't emphasize it. To leave that impression would not have been good either.

The question had nothing to do with whether we emphasize it or not that was totally irrelevant, he answered the question he wished had been asked. I don't think anyone thought he out and out lied, he just deflected with a totally irrelevant response.

[Scott Lloyd]

The question had nothing to do with whether we emphasize it or not ....

So we can be certain of that, would you directly quote the question that was asked?

... he just deflected with a totally irrelevant response.

Irrelevant to whom? Don't you think it important that readers know whether or not explicit instruction about the nature of God before he became God occupies a prominent place in LDS discourse?

Edited March 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Vance]

I guess that's the ultimate question. Would the average non-LDS viewer think that LDS believe "God was once a man as we are" after hearing President Hinckley's answer?

If yes, then it was a good answer.

If no, or they're not sure, then it wasn't a good answer. Because LDS do believe it and teach it.

You need to notify Pres. Monson that he needs your help so that he doesn't make the same mistake.

[Questing Beast]

... 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.

2 Nephi 10:3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the ^aangel spake unto me that this should be his name—should ^bcome among the ^cJews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall ^dcrucifyhim—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would ^ecrucify their ^fGod.

The Jews could not execute anyone. Execution was Roman privilege.

[Questing Beast]

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

You thought mistakenly, see above. 2 Nephi 10:3 clearly states that the Jews were the only nation that would crucify their own God. That goes right along with Moses 7:33-40. Enoch's generation were wicked enough to kill off by the great deluge. And Nephi's Jews were the only nation wicked enough to slay their own God. God had promised no more floods like the last time, so he used the Romans to kill the Jews instead. They lost their national identity until 1948, a long, long time, for killing their God....

Edited March 20, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

So we can be certain of that, would you directly quote the question that was asked?

Irrelevant to whom? Don't you think it important that readers know whether or not explicit instruction about the nature of God before he became God occupies a prominent place in LDS discourse?

"Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" I agree that the couplet is very relevant to our beliefs, what was irrelevant was the response to the question. The question wasn't whether it was being emphasized, or being discussed much, the question was is it a part of the teaching today. He didn't deny that it was, he just deflected the question.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" I agree that the couplet is very relevant to our beliefs, what was irrelevant was the response to the question. The question wasn't whether it was being emphasized, or being discussed much, the question was is it a part of the teaching today. He didn't deny that it was, he just deflected the question.

OK. Here we get into the matter of connotation or implied meaning.

The phrasing "Is this the teaching of the Church today" to me seems to imply the question of whether it is a prominent component of talks, lessons, sermons, missionary proselytizing, etc.

It's easy to second-guess or Monday-morning-quarterback regarding how President Hinckley handled the situation. Suppose he had said something along the lines of this:

"That was taught in the early days of the Church and is still accepted as true, but it is not emphasized much or understood in any great detail."

That, it seems to me, would have been an appropriate and responsive answer. And it is not far different from what President Hinckley did say. His phrasing was more conversational, but this was, after all, an off-the-cuff interview.

I reject the notion that President Hinckley was intending to dissemble or to be unduly evasive.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

You thought mistakenly, see above. 2 Nephi 3:10 clearly states that the Jews were the only nation that would crucify their own God. That goes right along with Moses 7:33-40. Enoch's generation were wicked enough to kill off by the great deluge. And Nephi's Jews were the only nation wicked enough to slay their own God. God had promised no more floods like the last time, so he used the Romans to kill the Jews instead. They lost their national identity until 1948, a long, long time, for killing their God....

hmm... a few things there. Lets start with this.

Here is 2 Nephi 3:10: And Moses will I raise up, to deliver thy people out of the land of Egypt.

[Stone holm]

Let's see, Abraham can mislead a king about the marital status of his wife with a half truth, but Pres. Hinckley cannot adroitly deflect a question from Larry King...why the heck not?

[Vance]

The Jews could not execute anyone. Execution was Roman privilege.

Seriously?????

So, if the Jews had not insisted that it be done, would Rome have killed Jesus?

Answer = NO!!!!!

If Roman law had not prevented the Jews from doing it themselves, would the Jews have done it without Rome?

Answer = YES!!!!

So, yeah, it was the Jews that killed Jesus.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's see, Abraham can mislead a king about the marital status of his wife with a half truth, but Pres. Hinckley cannot adroitly deflect a question from Larry King...why the heck not?

Whether he could purposely mislead is a separate question from whether he did.

[Stone holm]

Whether he could purposely mislead is a separate question from whether he did.

True. So , what was he doing other than making a clearly truthful statement that obviously changed the subject?

[theplains]

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

I suspect the first part of the couplet was more a focus with the Latter-day Saints in the days of

Lorenzo Snow.

The later part of the couplet seems to be emphasized fairly well in the Gospel Principles' chapter

on Exaltation ... and in other church training manuals. There was an early reference to it in the

1997 version of GP (All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children

become like him--a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the

immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39)" but they removed this in the current version. But

I think there is also a teaching that humans can relate to Heavenly Father because he went through

the same trials as them ... some even believe he was once a sinner who progressed into Godhood.

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

I suspect the first part of the couplet was more a focus with the Latter-day Saints in the days of

Lorenzo Snow.

The later part of the couplet seems to be emphasized fairly well in the Gospel Principles' chapter

on Exaltation ... and in other church training manuals. There was an early reference to it in the

1997 version of GP (All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children

become like him--a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the

immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39)" but they removed this in the current version. But

I think there is also a teaching that humans can relate to Heavenly Father because he went through

the same trials as them ... some even believe he was once a sinner who progressed into Godhood.

Jim

We have no doctrine concerning what God the Father went through. The Church categorically denies that God was ever a sinner.

[Scott Lloyd]

True. So , what was he doing other than making a clearly truthful statement that obviously changed the subject?

Endeavoring to put the matter in perspective.

[CASteinman]

The Church categorically denies that God was ever a sinner.

Really? I am not doubting what you have said, but I have never seen it and would like to know where you read this so that I could reference it.

[Ahab]

Really? I am not doubting what you have said, but I have never seen it and would like to know where you read this so that I could reference it.

I'm not doubting what he said either because I know beyond any doubt he is wrong. We do know that our Father doesn't sin now, but we don't know if he ever did. Just as with us, there are only 2 possibilities. He was either the Savior for others just as Jesus Christ is the Savior for others, or he was one of those who was saved by a Savior. The main point is that we can go on to become like our Father is now, even if he was once a sinner who has been saved by a Savior like ours. That's the beauty of the gospel. Even though we have been sinners we can be saved to become as our Father is now.

[Kenngo1969]

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

http://bycommonconse...ay-deification/

That may be, but posts at By Common Consent bug the heck out of me, because they're all the width of a grocery receipt!!!

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not doubting what he said either because I know beyond any doubt he is wrong. We do know that our Father doesn't sin now, but we don't know if he ever did. Just as with us, there are only 2 possibilities. He was either the Savior for others just as Jesus Christ is the Savior for others, or he was one of those who was saved by a Savior. The main point is that we can go on to become like our Father is now, even if he was once a sinner who has been saved by a Savior like ours. That's the beauty of the gospel. Even though we have been sinners we can be saved to become as our Father is now.

There is at least one more possibility that you refuse to countenance. That God the Father like his Son never sinned.

[Ahab]

There is at least one more possibility that you refuse to countenance. That God the Father like his Son never sinned.

You don't seem to be aware that I mentioned that possibility. Try re-reading what I wrote.

[ERayR]

I reject the notion that President Hinckley was intending to dissemble or to be unduly evasive.

Whether or not President Hinckley was dissembling or unduly evasive I don't know. I do think that his answer was very adroit. He gave an answer that deflected the question and satisfied the questioner without going into areas that required long explanations and did not deny the truths of the couplet.