President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[Ahab]

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.

I think he was media savy enough to realize the people who generally watched those interviews weren't all that interested in hearing him expound on our doctrine. If they wanted to hear more from him on issues like that there were better venues for them to learn more.

[cinepro]

When I was on my mission in the american south, my companion and I were invited to dinner with a youth pastor from a local Church (after we tracted into him). He was nice, but very "energetic", and when we got to discussing the doctrine, one of the points he brought up and most strenuously objected to was the idea that Jesus was Satan's "brother".

Obviously, my companion and I did the best we could to explain the idea behind this, but in the end, would it have been better for me to say

About Jesus and Satan being brothers, I don’t know that we teach it. 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. 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.

Is this kind of answer a tool that would be more frequently used when difficult subjects are raised?

Edited March 20, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

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

If I thought he would ever be giving an interview to a non-LDS reporter for the rest of his life, I might.

Although I do honestly wonder how Elder Holland would answer the same question. I somehow suspect that the first word out of his mouth would be "Yes".

Edited March 20, 2013 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

If I thought he would ever be giving an interview to a non-LDS reporter for the rest of his life, I might.

Although I do honestly wonder how Elder Holland would answer the same question. I somehow suspect that the first word out of his mouth would be "Yes".

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.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

When I was on my mission in the american south, my companion and I were invited to dinner with a youth pastor from a local Church (after we tracted into him). He was nice, but very "energetic", and when we got to discussing the doctrine, one of the points he brought up and most strenuously objected to was the idea that Jesus was Satan's "brother".

Obviously, my companion and I did the best we could to explain the idea behind this, but in the end, would it have been better for me to say

Is this kind of answer a tool that would be more frequently used when difficult subjects are raised?

Seems to me an entirely different approach might be better: "You don't have to believe it -- it is not important and in fact, we do not consider it to be true the way you are thinking about it -- so if you do not want to believe it, we are in agreement -- a far more important issue is really ' Who is Jesus? What is His relationship to God the Father and what is our relationship to Them -- don't you think so?'".

Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

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

Where have you read the "categorically denies" part? Yes, we do have a smidgen of information as to what God the Father went through as Christ said He is doing what His Father did, namley laying down his life and picking it up again. Some GAs have taken this to mean that God the Father was the Christ of His generation -- my personal, with absolutely no basis for it, is that seem against the odds, though possible. I suspect that you are referring to references that God is without sin and cannot tolerate it, etc. I suspect that is referring to His present condition. If we reach exaltation, we will be without sin as well because it will all have been washed or burned out of us.

[Questing Beast]

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.

Jesus stated without any exception that he only did what he saw his Father do. That means that Jesus Christ cannot be greater than the Father by being a Savior working out an atonement if his/our Father did not....

[Questing Beast]

You cited a scripture, I looked it up and could find no relevance.

This hardly amounts to me being a horrible person deserving of being abused.

I said, "You thought mistakenly, see above." And all you saw was the scripture reference, which bore zero context to what was being discussed. You did not bother to "look above" (directly above, in fact), or notice that part. I apologize for "abusing" you, but your response was anything but helpful.

Now, would you like to return to the topic, which was the unlikelihood of this planet having THE Savior of all creation come to it alone? That is the doctrine. And supporting doctrine is that this planet is the only one where any people were wicked enough to crucify their God, and the Jews of that place and time were the only people on this most wicked of all planets who would crucify their God: that, to me, is an even bigger stretch of credibility than saying that God the Father was also a Savior: when in fact the Savior said himself that he only did what he saw his Father do, ergo his Father atoned for creation also, and the Son was following his Father. If the Savior of all creation (this time around) came HERE, then there is nothing unbelievable that his Father also was a Savior. And this planet, being the most wicked of all God's creations, being just as unbelievable (since his creations are numberless, think of the odds against our planet being THE ONE that got the Savior of creation), is not impossible, just unbelievable. Unless you have the faith to believe it, in the place of the obvious explanation: that the doctrines of the atonement, requiring a singular sacrifice that was worked out here, and the assertion that this planet is the most wicked of all God's planets, are just man-made and manipulative....

Edited March 20, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

Jesus stated without any exception that he only did what he saw his Father do.

Yes, at the point where Jesus could see him as his Father. There was a time before that, though, when his Father (and our Father) wasn't his/our Father, yet, except in the sense that he was always the one who would someday be his Father. Just as a man and woman who aren't married yet, and haven't had children yet, there was a time when our Father had not yet begat us as his children and we don't know much about how he was at that time except that at some point he became our Father, and without sin.

That means that Jesus Christ cannot be greater than the Father by being a Savior working out an atonement if his/our Father did not....

You don't seem to realize what the "atonement" does for us. It makes us equal with Christ, as Christ is equal to our Father. That's what it does whether or not any of us have ever sinned, as long as we're covered by the atonement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Seems to me an entirely different approach might be better: "You don't have to believe it -- it is not important and in fact, we do not consider it to be true the way you are thinking about it -- so if you do not want to believe it, we are in agreement -- a far more important issue is really ' Who is Jesus? What is His relationship to God the Father and what is our relationship to Them -- don't you think so?'".

This may be the best response I have yet heard to that accusation.

[CASteinman]

Now, would you like to return to the topic, which was the unlikelihood of this planet having THE Savior of all creation come to it alone?

Until this moment I had no idea that was the topic. I have been discussing something else entirely.

[CASteinman]

This may be the best response I have yet heard to that accusation.

Thank you. Not sure -- but it seems to me you are the first person to have a kind word toward me all day.

[Scott Lloyd]

Until this moment I had no idea that was the topic. I have been discussing something else entirely.

If that was indeed the topic, it was not reflected very well in the thread title -- or in the opening post, for that matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you. Not sure -- but it seems to me you are the first person to have a kind word toward me all day.

A pity. From what I've seen, you've had much of value to contribute.

[CASteinman]

A pity. From what I've seen, you've had much of value to contribute.

Well, thank you again!

[Ahab]

Now, would you like to return to the topic, which was the unlikelihood of this planet having THE Savior of all creation come to it alone? That is the doctrine. And supporting doctrine is that this planet is the only one where any people were wicked enough to crucify their God, and the Jews of that place and time were the only people on this most wicked of all planets who would crucify their God: that, to me, is an even bigger stretch of credibility than saying that God the Father was also a Savior: when in fact the Savior said himself that he only did what he saw his Father do, ergo his Father atoned for creation also, and the Son was following his Father. If the Savior of all creation (this time around) came HERE, then there is nothing unbelievable that his Father also was a Savior. And this planet, being the most wicked of all God's creations, being just as unbelievable (since his creations are numberless, think of the odds against our planet being THE ONE that got the Savior of creation), is not impossible, just unbelievable. Unless you have the faith to believe it, in the place of the obvious explanation: that the doctrines of the atonement, requiring a singular sacrifice that was worked out here, and the assertion that this planet is the most wicked of all God's planets, are just man-made and manipulative....

I understand that he came to this one because we are the only one at this stage of development where we have/had people living here wicked enough to do that, with all the others he created now in a more advanced stage of development.

He does create everything, in the sense that he creates every kind of thing wherever it is, but not everything he creates is now at the same stage of development, and those who are in a more advanced state than we are know enough to know he is the one who was appointed to be the Savior of our Father's children, both in the past and forever into the future.

[Ahab]

Thank you. Not sure -- but it seems to me you are the first person to have a kind word toward me all day.

Well, darn it! I guess the best I can hope for is to be the first person to be nice to you tomorrow, or some other day.

I don't agree with everything you say, but you do throw out a few jewels of true and precious thought every now and then.

Personally, I think it's just as important to understand our Father as it is to understand our Lord, as well as our relation to them.

[CASteinman]

Well, darn it! I guess the best I can hope for is to be the first person to be nice to you tomorrow, or some other day.

:-) But this gives me an idea for a goal each day that I might set aside for myself.

I don't agree with everything you say, but you do throw out a few jewels of true and precious thought every now and then.

Every now and then is enough to make me very happy and -- drained. I do not have more than a little bit in me.

Personally, I think it's just as important to understand our Father as it is to understand our Lord, as well as our relation to them.

That is something I have thought about. I once tried to suss out of the scriptures every instance where it appeared to me to be God the Father speaking. Not someone speaking for Him, but Him-- actually speaking.

I made a list of those times. They are very rare. And it seems that mostly, He is trying to get us to listen to and follow Christ.

[Ahab]

:-) But this gives me an idea for a goal each day that I might set aside for myself.

Yeah, me too, like I'd like to be the first person to be nice to my wife every day, and my kids too, and anyone else I meet.

Every now and then is enough to make me very happy and -- drained. I do not have more than a little bit in me.

You'll get more and more every day as you keep progressing, just as I will, and just as everyone else will who keeps progressing.

That is something I have thought about. I once tried to suss out of the scriptures every instance where it appeared to me to be God the Father speaking. Not someone speaking for Him, but Him-- actually speaking.

I made a list of those times. They are very rare. And it seems that mostly, He is trying to get us to listen to and follow Christ.

Funny. I think of Christ being the one to try to get us to listen to our Father as our Father speaks to us through Christ as the one he has appointed to show us the way back to our Father. I know our Father is behind every thought Christ shares with us, whether our Father is speaking to us each time or Christ is simply repeating what he has heard our Father say at some time. Those are his thoughts, and their thoughts, regardless of who gives us the words. And then there's the Holy Ghost, too. Pretty awesome!

[canard78]

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

Wow... talk about going round in circles...

Time: Do you teach it?

Answer: Yes we do, every year in fact in our lessons to new members (and recently in Priesthood and before that in the world-wide refresh on Exaltation), but we don't emphasise it

Time didn't ask 'Do you emphasise it'

[canard78]

Until this moment I had no idea that was the topic. I have been discussing something else entirely.

I'd have to agree with you... no idea when it changed to what Questing beast is saying

[Analytics]

CASteinman, on 20 March 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Seems to me an entirely different approach might be better: "You don't have to believe it -- it is not important and in fact, we do not consider it to be true the way you are thinking about it -- so if you do not want to believe it, we are in agreement -- a far more important issue is really ' Who is Jesus? What is His relationship to God the Father and what is our relationship to Them -- don't you think so?'".

This may be the best response I have yet heard to that accusation.

I agree that CASteinman's answer does a great job of representing the church's current position on the matter. I'll just say it's interesting to compare and contrast the current position to what Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett discourse. Joseph Smith taught:

• There are very few people who rightly understand the true character of God.
  
• If you don't know God and don't know what kind of being he really is, you can't have eternal life.
  
• That if he [Joseph Smith] failed to explain the true chracter of God, it would be his duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations and of being a prophet.
  
• That he was going clearly to speak about the nature of God as one having authority
  
• "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret."
  
• That it is necessary to understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so.
  
• God was not God from all eternity
  
• These ideas are simple
  
• It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.
  
• God the father died and was resurected.
  
• Eternal life is to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you.
  
• God the father worked out his salvation with fear and trembling
  
• We must do what God did: work out our salvation with fear and trembling
  
• These ideas are "plain beyond disputation" and constitute some of the first principles of the gospel
  
• These remarks are intended for all, both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small
  

[Tacenda]

Well, thank you again!

Glad you've returned from a long absence!

[CASteinman]

Glad you've returned from a long absence!

Thank you! I don't know how long I shall stay though, but thanks!

[Stone holm]

Thank you! I don't know how long I shall stay though, but thanks!

It's probably that grumpy face you use as an icon...lol