President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[CASteinman]

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

That happens to be one of the great secular prophets of all time. And he has a pretty good reason for being grumpy; He is dead.

Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman

[Scott Lloyd]

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'

We've already been over this. President Hinckley's response makes sense in the context of the question that was asked.

We teach it only in terms of acknowledging from time to time that the concept was introduced by Joseph Smith and reaffirmed by Lorenzo Snow. But we don't enlarge upon or emphasize it, because there is very little there to enlarge upon, unless you indulge in speculation, which one ought not do when speaking authoritatively for the Church.

And this interview took place several years ago. The mention in the priesthood manual has occurred only this year, and in connection with a one-time-only use of the manual on Lorenzo Snow in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series. The couplet is such a prominent and well-remembered part of President Snow's teachings that it would be extremely weird to omit it.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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?'".

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
  

Go back and review the posts.

CASteinman's hypothetical response and my resulting compliment pertained to the accusation that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers, not to the teaching about the origin of God or the doctrine of theosis.

Please try to keep up, Roger.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

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:

Thanks for the compliment. But I was sort of thinking about how to handle the objection of a potential investigator over the notion that Jesus and satan are brothers.

My view of that is that they are NOT brothers, but the explanation for that is technical and goes way past the needs of an investigator. So I said to myself "What would be a better way of handling this?"

My comments really didn't relate to the idea of Eternal Progression but rather more to the idea of focusing on Christ and His Mission on earth to redeem us from the Fall and our sins.

Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman

[mathonihah]

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.

"Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren." (Moses 7:36)

This is what the Lord spoke to Enoch with regard to the wickedness of the antediluvians, which I think is equally applicable to the inhabitants of this earth generally. But there is also a silver lining in that cloud, which a lot of people overlook. This earth may contain the wickedest people in all of God's creation; but it also contains the most valiant and most faithful (and a big range in between). The two forces must balance each other, according to the principle of "opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11). So it is quite possible that this earth was the only place wicked enough to crucify Jesus; but it also has had the most righteous and faithful people in all of God's creations, looking forward to a great destiny for them to be fulfilled that will be made manifest during the Millennium and beyond. How many worlds are the which have experienced, or are going to experience a Millennium like ours? I don't think there are many, given that "worlds without number have I created" (Moses 1:33).

[mathonihah]

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.

I agree with both of those comments, with the addition that although there may be truth in the adage that God was once a man; the theology of it is not that simple. Both the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price affirm that God is an eternal being and has always been God. Teaching that he was once a man appears to contradict that notion, unless the theology of it is correctly understood and taught so as to obviate that difficulty. It is not wise to widely teach or disseminate a doctrine the full ramifications of which we do not understand.

Another difficulty that that doctrine raises is, how did the process begin? Who was the "first God;" or was there none? The idea that there was none is a logical impossibility, and boggles the mind. The inspiration of the Spirit to me is that although the adage that "God was once a man" may be true, the idea of the infinite regression of the Gods is not. The process had a beginning; how and when I have no idea.

[Stone holm]

Another difficulty that that doctrine raises is, how did the process begin? Who was the "first God;" or was there none? The idea that there was none is a logical impossibility, and boggles the mind. The inspiration of the Spirit to me is that although the adage that "God was once a man" may be true, the idea of the infinite regression of the Gods is not. The process had a beginning; how and when I have no idea.

What? The early Church leaders were very clear on this, God developed the same way we are developing -- some seem to think He was the Christ of His generation. Even the hymn book testifies to this in Hie Onto Kolob. It may not be discussed much, but that is because we fear the press and are afraid of offending investigators. All of our doctrine is being dumbed down in the manuals for those reasons.

[Analytics]

Thanks for the compliment. But I was sort of thinking about how to handle the objection of a potential investigator over the notion that Jesus and satan are brothers.

My view of that is that they are NOT brothers, but the explanation for that is technical and goes way past the needs of an investigator. So I said to myself "What would be a better way of handling this?"

My comments really didn't relate to the idea of Eternal Progression but rather more to the idea of focusing on Christ and His Mission on earth to redeem us from the Fall and our sins.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It seems to me, though, that the general tone and basic content of your response to that specific question has bearing on the specific question in the O.P. Say a member or investigator was troubled by the notion that God was once a mortal man with physical death in his destiny, who was working out his own salvation. Isn't the general attitutude of the church that it isn't required to believe it and the whole issue isn't talked about much because it isn't that important and we don't know that much about it?

The question from the O.P. was, "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?

This is the specific question to which President Hinckley said, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know if we emphasize it..."

I just find it interesting to compare and contrast what Joseph Smith said about this issue to what President Hinckley said about it.

Joseph Smith said that you couldn't be saved if you didn't understand the true nature of God and how he came to become God. He said that if he failed to comprehend the true nature of God and successfully explain it, it would be his duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations and to being a Prophet.

In contrast, president Hinckley said he doesn't know whether or not the church teaches it or emphasizes it. He said he hadn't heard it discussed in church in a long time. That he understands the philisophical background behind the idea, but doesn't know a lot about it.

[Stone holm]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It seems to me, though, that the general tone and basic content of your response to that specific question has bearing on the specific question in the O.P. Say a member or investigator was troubled by the notion that God was once a mortal man with physical death in his destiny, who was working out his own salvation. Isn't the general attitutude of the church that it isn't required to believe it and the whole issue isn't talked about much because it isn't that important and we don't know that much about it?

The question from the O.P. was, "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?

This is the specific question to which President Hinckley said, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know if we emphasize it..."

I just find it interesting to compare and contrast what Joseph Smith said about this issue to what President Hinckley said about it.

Joseph Smith said that you couldn't be saved if you didn't understand the true nature of God and how he came to become God. He said that if he failed to comprehend the true nature of God and successfully explain it, it would be his duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations and to being a Prophet.

In contrast, president Hinckley said he doesn't know whether or not the church teaches it or emphasizes it. He said he hadn't heard it discussed in church in a long time. That he understands the philisophical background behind the idea, but doesn't know a lot about it.

You aren't really required to believe much of anything that isn't on the Temple Recommend question list are you -- unless you start expressing your beliefs and they turn out to be inconsistent with what has been taught for decades and the Church hasn't recently distanced itself from...gotta understand that we sometimes feel like we are standing on shifting sands at times of late...but if you can answer the Temple recommend honestly with the correct responses, you are pretty much golden as far as the Church is concerned.

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It seems to me, though, that the general tone and basic content of your response to that specific question has bearing on the specific question in the O.P. Say a member or investigator was troubled by the notion that God was once a mortal man with physical death in his destiny, who was working out his own salvation. Isn't the general attitude of the church that it isn't required to believe it and the whole issue isn't talked about much because it isn't that important and we don't know that much about it?

That we don't know much about it and that it doesn't get much emphasis, yes.

That it's not important or that we won't be required to believe it, either now or at sometime in the future, I don't get that impression.

Your misapplied response to CASteniman's post does not apply as well as you think it does.

My own theory about why the Lord hasn't revealed much further about this concept is that there is so much hostile resistance to it. God tends not to reveal sacred truths to a world unprepared for or too resistant to receive them.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It may not be discussed much, but that is because we fear the press and are afraid of offending investigators.

I don't buy this. It has never been discussed much in my lifetime and that includes a period long before the press got interested or even the big missionary push came.

[Ahab]

I agree with both of those comments, with the addition that although there may be truth in the adage that God was once a man; the theology of it is not that simple. Both the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price affirm that God is an eternal being and has always been God. Teaching that he was once a man appears to contradict that notion, unless the theology of it is correctly understood and taught so as to obviate that difficulty. It is not wise to widely teach or disseminate a doctrine the full ramifications of which we do not understand.

Another difficulty that that doctrine raises is, how did the process begin? Who was the "first God;" or was there none? The idea that there was none is a logical impossibility, and boggles the mind. The inspiration of the Spirit to me is that although the adage that "God was once a man" may be true, the idea of the infinite regression of the Gods is not. The process had a beginning; how and when I have no idea.

Maybe it would be a good idea to just set out what we know about him, aside from what he does for us on this Earth.

1) was once a man, and still is a man, if by "man" you are referring to being a male member of our species who has matured

2) once had a Father, and still has a Father, as well as a never ending chain of Fathers who were born before he was born

3) an individual who is one of a species which has elements of that species which exist within every member of that species, so that when an individual is born they are not created from out of nothing, but from other individuals of that species which is simply reproducing to create more individual members of that species

4) an individual who passed through the same stage of existence we are now passing through as we progress individually as members of our species. Whether or not he ever sinned, he was once mortal like us, or rather he had a mortal body while his spirit remained eternal, like ours

Anything else pop into your mind as something else we know about our Father, aside from what he now does for us on this Earth?

This is very simple stuff which some people seem to want to blow out of proportion with their imaginations. There was never a point when there was nothing, or only one individual member of a species. Life has always existed and our kind of being is and always has been the most intelligent species in all of existence, both male and female. It's just that as individuals some of us have not perfected ourselves as much as our Father is perfect.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Ahab

[cinepro]

Upon re-reading the Time interview, I can now see that I misunderstood the precision of the question, and President Hinckley was probably correct. Assuming that the interview wasn't on a Sunday, the interviewer specified whether the Church was teaching that God was once a man "today" (i.e on that day).

Since little, if any, Church teaching is actually done on non-Sundays, and if it were being taught in a Seminary class or some other semi-official setting President Hinckley certainly wouldn't know about it, his answer is quite correct.*

*This theory shall be known as the "Limited Question Theory", compared to the other theories which incorrectly assume the interviewer meant a period of months, years or recent decades when in fact he specifically said "today". It's in the text people.

Edited March 21, 2013 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Upon re-reading the Time interview, I can now see that I misunderstood the precision of the question, and President Hinckley was probably correct. Assuming that the interview wasn't on a Sunday, the interviewer specified whether the Church was teaching that God was once a man "today" (i.e on that day).

Since little, if any, Church teaching is actually done on non-Sundays, and if it were being taught in a Seminary class or some other semi-official setting President Hinckley certainly wouldn't know about it, his answer is quite correct.

Noting the propensity of some to be ludicrously literalistic in grasping his meaning from off-the-cuff conversation, it is not difficult to understand there has been no Church president before or since President Hinckley who has been as accessible to the news media as he was.

[cinepro]

For those who object to the Limited Question theory, there is also the proposal by some that there were actually two interview questions, not just the one that we have, and President Hinckley was actually responding to the other question. Although reading the interview itself leads us to believe there is only one question, we can tell from the text that there must have been two questions because President Hinckleys' answer makes more sense if it were actually in response to a different question.

[Ahab]

I think some people just think that because we know our Father was once like us that we know a lot about that.

Think about it. In what ways do we know he was like us?

Well, we know he was male, and like us.

Okay, so what else?

Well, we know he had a Father like us.

Okay, and what else?

Uh, well, we know he could have children like us, or like the males of our species.

Okay, and what else?

Well, we know he went on to become as perfect as our kind of being can be, at least as a male of our species.

Okay, and what else?

How much do we really know about how he or his life was way back then, whenever that was, and how much do we teach about how he was like us?

Uh, well, President Hinckly should still have been able to say we know a lot about that, and that we teach a lot about that, even though we don't know very much.

Yeah, right, whatever. You go and have yourself a nice day.

[Analytics]

That we don't know much about it and that it doesn't get much emphasis, yes.

That it's not important or that we won't be required to believe it, either now or at sometime in the future, I don't get that impression.

“Either now or sometime in the future?” Do you mean to imply that church members aren’t currently required to believe that God was once a mortal man, destined to die, working out his salvation with fear and trembling, but eventually they will be required to believe it?

That style of equivocation reminds me of a female friend who wanted to develop a romantic relationship with me. When I told her I didn’t have those feelings for her, she said that she was okay with that, as long as I endeavored to feel that way “sometime in the future.”

In any case, I stand by my original statement: it is in fact interesting to compare and contrast the contents of the King Follett Discourse with the content of the apologetics in this thread.

[CASteinman]

“Either now or sometime in the future?” Do you mean to imply that church members aren’t currently required to believe that God was once a mortal man, destined to die, working out his salvation with fear and trembling, but eventually they will be required to believe it?

I doubt anyone will be required, in the future, to believe things only on Faith. In the meantime, right now, we must accept some things through Faith and belief that God was once a man as we are is helpful but not necessary.

That style of equivocation reminds me of a female friend who wanted to develop a romantic relationship with me. When I told her I didn’t have those feelings for her, she said that she was okay with that, as long as I endeavored to feel that way “sometime in the future.”

That could be "who is that watching me with binoculars" creepy or it could be a really really neat girl you had there.

Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Um, I can't imagine anyone who has been something other than comatose from their baptism onward who hasn't heard the Snow couplet and been told what it means. Really, we may not emphasize it but we certainly talk about it and teach it. We just don't discuss it on late night talk shows.

[cinepro]

I think some people just think that because we know our Father was once like us that we know a lot about that.

Think about it. In what ways do we know he was like us?

Well, we know he was male, and like us.

Okay, so what else?

Well, we know he had a Father like us.

Okay, and what else?

Uh, well, we know he could have children like us, or like the males of our species.

Okay, and what else?

Well, we know he went on to become as perfect as our kind of being can be, at least as a male of our species.

Okay, and what else?

How much do we really know about how he or his life was way back then, whenever that was, and how much do we teach about how he was like us?

Uh, well, President Hinckly should still have been able to say we know a lot about that, and that we teach a lot about that, even though we don't know very much.

Yeah, right, whatever. You go and have yourself a nice day.

You say all that as if it isn't monumentally huge in a theological sense. The fact that you don't find your first four premises remarkable doesn't exactly reinforce President Hinckley's downplaying of the issue.

[blackstrap]

Speaking for myself, I think President Hinckley made two statements the second of which clarified the first. ie. I don't know that we teach it ( let me rephrase) I don't know that we emphasize it.

Also, what percentage of the membership have read the King Follet discourse ? Let me guess. 15% ?

We do spend a fair amount of time teaching about how we can become like Christ/God. The amount of time spent teaching about how God was man is miniscule.

[Scott Lloyd]

Speaking for myself, I think President Hinckley made two statements the second of which clarified the first. ie. I don't know that we teach it ( let me rephrase) I don't know that we emphasize it.

You may speak for me as well in that regard, for that's precisely how I see it. But then, I'm inclined to read/listen for comprehension. I find it to be a great boon to the communication process.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Questing Beast]

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

It was a sidebar: God the Father and Christ are alike or different; to what extent is Christ doing what he saw his Father do, relative particularly to the atonement? Joseph Smith's GtF was a sinner once upon a time? Yet Christ never was, worked out an atonement for all creation, and therefore is greater than his Father. Relative to this is the unlikelihood of Christ coming to this planet, the ONLY ONE capable of crucifying their God. It all segues back into the implications of the first half of the couplet. What exactly is it saying about GtF, and by association Jesus Christ? How believable is it at all that this planet is the ONLY ONE where an atonement took place, and we just happen to be born here to have it in our history?...

[Questing Beast]

We've already been over this. President Hinckley's response makes sense in the context of the question that was asked.

We teach it only in terms of acknowledging from time to time that the concept was introduced by Joseph Smith and reaffirmed by Lorenzo Snow. But we don't enlarge upon or emphasize it, because there is very little there to enlarge upon, unless you indulge in speculation, which one ought not do when speaking authoritatively for the Church.

And this interview took place several years ago. The mention in the priesthood manual has occurred only this year, and in connection with a one-time-only use of the manual on Lorenzo Snow in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series. The couplet is such a prominent and well-remembered part of President Snow's teachings that it would be extremely weird to omit it.

The interview's timing is recent by any standards. There were several interviews where the interviewer raised the same question, and Hinckley answered each time with deflective dismissal. Yet the most recent manual of instruction contains the entire couplet at the outset of the lesson. Why? Does the curriculum department of the Church have such short memories, or did none of them even know of the interviews? Or do they consider that Hinckley was dissembling and speaking "only as a man" without authority?...

[Questing Beast]

"Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren." (Moses 7:36)

This is what the Lord spoke to Enoch with regard to the wickedness of the antediluvians, which I think is equally applicable to the inhabitants of this earth generally. But there is also a silver lining in that cloud, which a lot of people overlook. This earth may contain the wickedest people in all of God's creation; but it also contains the most valiant and most faithful (and a big range in between). The two forces must balance each other, according to the principle of "opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11). So it is quite possible that this earth was the only place wicked enough to crucify Jesus; but it also has had the most righteous and faithful people in all of God's creations, looking forward to a great destiny for them to be fulfilled that will be made manifest during the Millennium and beyond. How many worlds are the which have experienced, or are going to experience a Millennium like ours? I don't think there are many, given that "worlds without number have I created" (Moses 1:33).

Inconceivable! We alone are the ones most wicked. That was the sidebar point, and you raised it again. Mystery solved, about how we got on this topic.

So we have Christ telling Enoch that there has never been such wickedness as here. Christ comes here to get sacrificed. Does anyone find this inconceivable? I do. It is most easily explained as the exegesis of religious creators and manipulators. That this planet would be the ONE where all this occurred stretches my capacity to believe beyond the breaking point. Now, does that mean that there was no atonement? I am not prepared to assert that there was/is no atonement. But I don't believe in a literal atonement in the garden and on the cross, on this planet.

There is no historical evidence outside the circular logic of Christian documents that Jesus of Narazeth ever lived. So the "Jesus Story" is the greatest story ever told, and as far as this planet is concerned, the greatest made up story ever told. It works to illustrate our relationship to "God", showing how "God" manifests as one of us so that we can relate to "him", and in the telling, we find illustration of how much "God" loves us. We don't have to possess physical artifacts of Jesus' literal existence on this planet. But when the story is told to children that way, they grow up believing the "history", only to discover that it is man-made after all without a shred of outside evidence that any of it ever took place, here.

(I pursued a testimony of Jesus Christ only as long as I could accept the BoM as literal history, but when that became unsupportable my effort to believe in a historical/literal Jesus Christ ended as well. Now he is a metaphor, as all scripture and religion are, and the principles are the only worthwhile aspect of any of it: in other words, "what is it for?" is the ultimate question when approaching religion: and if it is to cause the mind to reflect upon "God" and our relationship that is all that matters, all else are man-made trappings and get in the way....)