Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[rongo]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wasn't the couplet included in the lesson when we taught the teachings of Pres. Lorenzo Snow that year we studied him?  I'd say that's still teaching it!!!

I had the missionaries ask me (while President Hinckley was president) about this. They were concerned specifically because he had downplayed it. I referred them to the King Follett Sermon chapter in the manual for that year (during the 2 years of Joseph Smith), and told them, "Of course we teach it. I know we do, and you know we do. That's why you're concerned." The obvious next question was why he said it, and I described for them what it's like to be on TV or radio. It's really hard to fully flesh out things like this when you have extremely limited time, and don't know exactly how much time you will have. You have to avoid opening a can you won't be able to finish or getting pulled out in the weeds in settings like that. It was also during this time that I had done three radio shows with two ministers (great experience, and a real eye-opener if you've never done anything like that). 

That helped them. They weren't concerned, because they knew that we really do teach it, and would have been much more concerned with a disavowal or outright denial.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

I remember it being taught and emphasized in the church in the 80's and early 90's. 

I don't remember ever hearing the God was a man taught in Church outside the couplet which was used to teach deification, though there was discussion among my friends when a teen and college years (70s and 80s, not in Utah except BYU).  I suspect there was quite a lot of local variation.  I was also a Primary teacher, but my husband never mentioned it coming up in his classes.  I have looked at older Gospel Principles manuals and it is not in there.

If you mean conference talks or the Ensign, which would have churchwide reach and be determined by leadership as opposed to the local leaders brining it up as a personal interest, all that stuff is online and should be easy to find, so this is a CFR if that is what you mean.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't remember ever hearing the God was a man taught in Church outside the couplet which was used to teach deification, though there was discussion among my friends when a teen and college years (70s and 80s, not in Utah except BYU).  I suspect there was quite a lot of local variation.  I was also a Primary teacher, but my husband never mentioned it coming up in his classes.  I have looked at older Gospel Principles manuals and it is not in there.

If you mean conference talks or the Ensign, which would have churchwide reach and be determined by leadership as opposed to the local leaders brining it up as a personal interest, all that stuff is online and should be easy to find, so this is a CFR if that is what you mean.

It's in this lesson (not 80's or 90's, but do you believe the leaders taught it, then stopped teaching it and then taught it again?):

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-4?lang=eng

"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church. How do you feel, knowing that God, through His own experience, “knows all that we know regarding the toils [and] sufferings” of mortality?"

 

And this (from the 90's in the Ensign):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/04/the-purpose-of-life?lang=eng

"At the close of his life and in an address that brought to a crescendo all he had been teaching the Saints, Joseph Smith declared: “[God] was once a man like us; yea, … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. …

“Here, then, is eternal life—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, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory.”

 

Here's one from 1997:

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young:

"God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who "passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality." (p. 29)

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator [absolute ruler] who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He [God] lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; he has passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality, for he has passed through the whole of it, and has received his crown and exaltation and holds the keys and the power of this Kingdom; . . . " (p. 30)

 

There's more:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-3?lang=eng

"What we know about God is limited to what he has chosen to tell us through his prophets. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s first vision in 1820 (see Joseph Smith—History 1:11–20) and the famous King Follett discourse given shortly before Joseph’s martyrdom in 1844 (see Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 343–62) are significant doctrinal teachings on the nature of God. From the beginning of his ministry until its end, the Prophet shared his increasing understanding of his Heavenly Father. The First Vision taught us that—

God and Jesus Christ have glorified bodies.

The Father and the Son are two separate beings.

The Father presides and works through the Son.

In the King Follett discourse, Joseph Smith declared that the first principle of the gospel consists of knowing the character of God. Joseph taught that God “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” (Teachings, p. 346; or Supporting Statements B on pp. 7–8 of the student manual). The twenty-four-year ministry of Joseph Smith was characterized by continual revelation about the nature of God."

 

From the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 2007:

"God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret." (p. 40)

"Here, then, is eternal life—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, . . ." (p. 221)

 

There are a lot more references to lesson manuals during Pres. Hinckley's years of service.  So, it's puzzling for me to think that a living Prophet wouldn't know that we teach this!

Edited September 1, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

Yes, I do think somethings got stopped being focused on and generally taught.  Haven't there been plenty of complaints that JS's polygamy, for example, wasn't mentioned at Church by some (though it had quite a bit of mention in the preChurch History in the Fulness of Times Institute manual and minimal mention in that manual now, Louisa Beaman is mentioned iirc, but not sure if any other wives are...but I don't remember any nonInsitute manuals covering it)?  Now it is being taught again generally.

Good finds, but I think you need references to be made prior to Pres. hinckley's comment, so I am thinking the '93 comment in the Ensign works, but the others not so much.

I read his comment as correcting "teach" to "emphasize"....why would he say "emphasize" at all if he was claiming we never taught it, after all?

If his "I don't know that..." meant "I wouldn't say that...", it reads to me as he is not rejecting the full claim of teaching it, but pointing out it is not a major teaching, it is not emphasized like the Atonement, the Restoration, or even deification in the sense of becoming one with God, being part of his eternal family, etc.

And one mention in the Ensign and assuming a few others that have not been found yet would qualify imo as not emphasizing it, imo.

I am not saying the couplet wasn't used in its complete form and certainly anyone who was paying attention to that would pick up on God was once a mortal man (though big debate as to whether he was fully like us in the sense of sinning---few I have discussed it with believe that---or if he was a Christ for his time and place/universe/?.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Good finds, but I think you need references to be made prior to Pres. hinckley's comment, so I am thinking the '93 comment in the Ensign works, but the others not so much.

There’s the one above from 1997 manual too. (Wouldn’t Pres. Hinckley have had to approve of that manual for that year’s teachings?)  That was the year of the interview.  If he didn’t want it taught he could have made sure it wasn’t in that manual like other things regarding Brigham Young or his teachings.

And this Ensign article from 1982 ( it’s all good but look at the bottom of this link at the statement from 1971):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question/is-president-snows-statement-as-man-now-is-god-once-was-as-god-now-is-man-may-be-accepted-as-official-doctrine?lang=eng

Those combined (plus there may be more if I keep searching) convince me that it was still being taught during Hinckley’s time of service.

I think he just misspoke and should have corrected it after it was made public.  I think members would have understood.  I know it upset and confused my parents to hear him say that because they knew it was still being taught.

 

Here’s this from Pres. Hinckley himself (just 3 years before the interview):

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, "Don't Drop the Ball," Ensign, November 1994, p. 46

"Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."

Edited September 1, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

On August 31, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

President Hinckley never denied that it is accepted doctrine. He only said we don't know much about it, so we don't discuss it much.

That's not true.  He also said he doesn't know if we teach it.

But it was in the lesson manual for that year (RS and Priesthood teachings). And he had just taught it 3 years before this (look at my links above for the Ensign article).  So why would he state that he didn't know if we teach it?

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by JulieM

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

There’s the one above from 1997 manual too. (Wouldn’t Pres. Hinckley have had to approve of that manual for that year’s teachings?)  That was the year of the interview.  If he didn’t want it taught he could have made sure it wasn’t in that manual like other things regarding Brigham Young or his teachings.

And this Ensign article from 1982 ( it’s all good but look at the bottom of this link at the statement from 1971):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question/is-president-snows-statement-as-man-now-is-god-once-was-as-god-now-is-man-may-be-accepted-as-official-doctrine?lang=eng

Those combined (plus there may be more if I keep searching) convince me that it was still being taught during Hinckley’s time of service.

I think he just misspoke and should have corrected it after it was made public.  I think members would have understood.  I know it upset and confused my parents to hear him say that because they knew it was still being taught.

 

Here’s this from Pres. Hinckley himself (just 3 years before the interview):

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, "Don't Drop the Ball," Ensign, November 1994, p. 46

"Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."

Thank you for doing the hard work.  I agree that the church has never commented or expanded much on the nature of God once was a man.  But the couplet has never been absent in all the years I was involved in the church.  This is not one of those "I never heard that before" quotes for most active members of the church.  There is plenty of references to that couplet in teaching situations.  I have never heard only the last half of the couplet used to teach the Church's beliefs on exaltation.  The entire principle is always quoted together.

I certainly am going to give President Hinckley plenty of slack in any impromptu answer given live on TV.  But I do wish he would have clarified later. It would be hard for me to believe that he didn't know about the uproar his statement caused amongst many active members.

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That's not true.  He also said he doesn't know if we teach it.

But it was in the lesson manual for that year (RS and Priesthood teachings). And he had just taught it 3 years before this (look at my links above for the Ensign article).  So why would he state that he didn't know if we teach it?

I know you know this, and Scott's head will explode at this, but he was speaking off the cuff in a pressure broadcast setting, and wanted to minimize any weirdness factor as much as possible. In those settings, you also have no idea how much time you're going to have, and you can have the little voice in your ear say "20 seconds to break" at any time. And, time melts away fast. 

It's as simple as that. Almost every active member knows that it was taught and that we teach it. They also know that President Hinckley knew this. 

I would say to critics seeking to make hay out of this, or people with concerns about it: how would you do under similar circumstances and in a similar setting? It's easy from the comfort of your computer screen to say what you would answer and how you would say it, but people really have no idea what it is like. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by rongo

[california boy]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I know you know this, and Scott's head will explode at this, but he was speaking off the cuff in a pressure broadcast setting, and wanted to minimize any weirdness factor as much as possible. In those settings, you also have no idea how much time you're going to have, and you can have the little voice in your ear say "20 seconds to break" at any time. And, time melts away fast. 

It's as simple as that. Almost every active member knows that it was taught and that we teach it. They also know that President Hinckley knew this. 

I would say to critics seeking to make hay out of this, or people with concerns about it: how would you do under similar circumstances and in a similar setting?

1

I agree and have said so repeatedly.  But it was hugely disappointing that he didn't take 5 minutes to have the press office issue a clarification on the error.  That to me is more disturbing than the misspeaking of the doctrine not being taught.  Leaving it uncorrected just makes him look bad imo.  And people who try to defend his statement as not a mistake also in my opinion just pours gas on the flames. Your belief, one that I share, is much more palatable.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know you know this, and Scott's head will explode at this, but he was speaking off the cuff in a pressure broadcast setting, and wanted to minimize any weirdness factor as much as possible. In those settings, you also have no idea how much time you're going to have, and you can have the little voice in your ear say "20 seconds to break" at any time. And, time melts away fast. 

It's as simple as that. Almost every active member knows that it was taught and that we teach it. They also know that President Hinckley knew this. 

I would say to critics seeking to make hay out of this, or people with concerns about it: how would you do under similar circumstances and in a similar setting? It's easy from the comfort of your computer screen to say what you would answer and how you would say it, but people really have no idea what it is like. 

I'm sure you're right.  I'd hate to be in the situation of being interviewed and get asked some of those questions on national TV!  I'm honestly only frustrated with members here like Scott who are trying to manipulate this or twist it (thus my question to him).  Like I said earlier, I think Pres. Hinckley just misspoke (or maybe just said something off the cuff like you said to avoid getting into a deeper discussion about it).  That's understandable, IMO.  I do wish that he'd clarified or corrected it afterwards though for church members.  I think most would be understanding too.

Edited September 1, 2018 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

If it wasn’t taught in your church, it was at least taught in Battlestar Galactica 😊 I loved that show as a kid and have re-watched it a few times. The Angels of Light (Seraphs) say something quite similar to that couplet. From Wikipedia:

“When asked about their origins, the Seraphs claimed to have ascended to their present state: "As you now are, we once were; as we now are you may yet become." This references the concept of deification in Mormon cosmology,^[1] which was succinctly summarized in a couplet by Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be."^[2][3]

 

[Calm]

Quote

think he just misspoke and should have corrected it after it was made public

I think he did clarify it immediately with the "we do not emphasize it"  It is a given something is not emphasized if it is not taught, so if it is not a correction, it is nonsense imo.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, I do think somethings got stopped being focused on and generally taught.  Haven't there been plenty of complaints that JS's polygamy, for example, wasn't mentioned at Church by some (though it had quite a bit of mention in the preChurch History in the Fulness of Times Institute manual and minimal mention in that manual now, Louisa Beaman is mentioned iirc, but not sure if any other wives are...but I don't remember any nonInsitute manuals covering it)?  Now it is being taught again generally.

Good finds, but I think you need references to be made prior to Pres. hinckley's comment, so I am thinking the '93 comment in the Ensign works, but the others not so much.

I read his comment as correcting "teach" to "emphasize"....why would he say "emphasize" at all if he was claiming we never taught it, after all?

If his "I don't know that..." meant "I wouldn't say that...", it reads to me as he is not rejecting the full claim of teaching it, but pointing out it is not a major teaching, it is not emphasized like the Atonement, the Restoration, or even deification in the sense of becoming one with God, being part of his eternal family, etc.

And one mention in the Ensign and assuming a few others that have not been found yet would qualify imo as not emphasizing it, imo.

I am not saying the couplet wasn't used in its complete form and certainly anyone who was paying attention to that would pick up on God was once a mortal man (though big debate as to whether he was fully like us in the sense of sinning---few I have discussed it with believe that---or if he was a Christ for his time and place/universe/?.

bold mine..

Calm, IMO it's not been taught that JS lived polygamy/polyandry, in that sense of the word. 

This website is hysterical though, at trying to explain polyandry and comparing it to Mary and Joseph in the Bible.

http://ldsanswers.org/how-could-joseph-smiths-polyandrous-marriages-be-explained/

Edited September 2, 2018 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If it wasn’t taught in your church, it was at least taught in Battlestar Galactica 😊 I loved that show as a kid and have re-watched it a few times. The Angels of Light (Seraphs) say something quite similar to that couplet. From Wikipedia:

“When asked about their origins, the Seraphs claimed to have ascended to their present state: "As you now are, we once were; as we now are you may yet become." This references the concept of deification in Mormon cosmology,^[1] which was succinctly summarized in a couplet by Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be."^[2][3]

 

No surprise here, as the series was created and developed by Glen Larson, a Latter-day Saint who was a luminary in network television series in the 1960s and 1970s. It has long been known that Larson laced BG with a number of Latter-day Saint allusions.

[MiserereNobis]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No surprise here, as the series was created and developed by Glen Larson, a Latter-day Saint who was a luminary in network television series in the 1960s and 1970s. It has long been known that Larson laced BG with a number of Latter-day Saint allusions.

I'm sure I would have enjoyed a Battlestar Galactica marathon with President Hinckley

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

bold mine..

Calm, IMO it's not been taught that JS lived polygamy/polyandry, in that sense of the word. 

This website is hysterical though, at trying to explain polyandry and comparing it to Mary and Joseph in the Bible.

http://ldsanswers.org/how-could-joseph-smiths-polyandrous-marriages-be-explained/

I am referring to the Gospel Topic Essay which is on LDS.org, which Topics are meant to be used in teaching, personal study, and missionary work.

I don't remember polyandry being taught in the past in Church, just Joseph's polygyny.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If it wasn’t taught in your church, it was at least taught in Battlestar Galactica 😊 I loved that show as a kid and have re-watched it a few times. The Angels of Light (Seraphs) say something quite similar to that couplet. From Wikipedia:

“When asked about their origins, the Seraphs claimed to have ascended to their present state: "As you now are, we once were; as we now are you may yet become." This references the concept of deification in Mormon cosmology,^[1] which was succinctly summarized in a couplet by Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be."^[2][3]

 

I distinctly remember when that aired.  I thought, wow, Church doctrine just made prime time TV.  This same concept was also taught in "Contact" starring Jody Foster, though not so directly with the modified couplet.

[JulieM]

On 9/1/2018 at 8:44 AM, juliann said:

But to be fair, that was not in Hinckley’s day. 

But other manuals were (including the teachings for that very year) and also Pres. Hinckley himself taught it just 3 years before the interview (see sources above).  

I agree with what rongo states here about what most likely caused him to say what he did.  And I think it’s understandable.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

But other manuals were (including the teachings for that very year) and also Pres. Hinckley himself taught it just 3 years before the interview (see sources above).  

I agree with what rongo states here about what most likely caused him to say what he did.  And I think it’s understandable.

 

 

Can you quote any manuals or teachings from President Hinckley that go into detail God once being as man now is, detail beyond what is expressed in the Lorenzo Snow couplet? Or did they merely give passing reference to the concept in the couplet?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/1/2018 at 11:24 AM, rongo said:

I had the missionaries ask me (while President Hinckley was president) about this. They were concerned specifically because he had downplayed it. I referred them to the King Follett Sermon chapter in the manual for that year (during the 2 years of Joseph Smith), and told them, "Of course we teach it. I know we do, and you know we do. That's why you're concerned." The obvious next question was why he said it, and I described for them what it's like to be on TV or radio. It's really hard to fully flesh out things like this when you have extremely limited time, and don't know exactly how much time you will have. You have to avoid opening a can you won't be able to finish or getting pulled out in the weeds in settings like that. It was also during this time that I had done three radio shows with two ministers (great experience, and a real eye-opener if you've never done anything like that). 

That helped them. They weren't concerned, because they knew that we really do teach it, and would have been much more concerned with a disavowal or outright denial.

It's too bad you weren't better acquainted with the context of the question and the quotation. You could have given a better answer.

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you quote any manuals or teachings from President Hinckley that go into detail God once being as man now is, detail beyond what is expressed in the Lorenzo Snow couplet? Or did they merely give passing reference to the concept in the couplet?

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, "Don't Drop the Ball," Ensign, November 1994, p. 46

"Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."

Edited September 2, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, "Don't Drop the Ball," Ensign, November 1994, p. 46

"Perhaps there is something else that we will learn as we perfect our bodies and our spirits in the times to come. You and I—what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were said by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.” This is a power available to us as we reach perfection and receive the experience and power to create, to organize, to control native elements. How limited we are now! We have no power to force the grass to grow, the plants to emerge, the seeds to develop."

I asked for something that went beyond giving passing reference to that portion of the Lorenzo Snow couplet. This doesn’t do that. Is this the best you’ve got?

[JulieM]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I asked for something that went beyond giving passing reference to that portion of the Lorenzo Snow couplet. This doesn’t do that. Is this the best you’ve got?

It’s exactly what you asked for (and read the rest below for more).  This was only 3 years before he made his statement that he doesn’t know if it’s taught.  You’re in denial if you believe he wasn’t wrong or mistaken or just misspoke.  It was definitely still being taught.  Look at all the references above (and there are many more that I didn’t post).  The entire couplet was quoted, taught and discussed, just as he did in the Ensign above.

Here’s the rest of the quote (from his talk in General Conference):

“Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.

Today is a part of eternity.”

Edited September 2, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It’s exactly what you asked for (and read the rest below for more).  This was only 3 years before he made his statement that he doesn’t know if it’s taught.  You’re in denial if you believe he wasn’t wrong or mistaken or just misspoke.  It was definitely still being taught.  Look at all the references above (and there are many more that I didn’t post).  The entire couplet was quoted, taught and discussed, just as he did in the Ensign above.

Here’s the rest of the quote (from his talk in General Conference):

“Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.

Today is a part of eternity.”

I’m not in denial. You are refusing to grasp what was asked for. Where is an example of a detailed discourse on what God was like before He was God? The “rest of the quote” you provided pertains to man’s potential to be like God (theosis or deification) but it does not enlarge at all upon the concept that God once was as man now is. All we are left with is that very brief  portion of the Snow couplet. If you can’t come up with a better example than this, just say so. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not in denial. You are refusing to grasp what was asked for. Where is an example of a detailed discourse on what God was like before He was God? The “rest of the quote” you provided pertains to man’s potential to be like God (theosis or deification) but it does not enlarge at all upon the concept that God once was as man now is. All we are left with is that very brief  portion of the Snow couplet. If you can’t come up with a better example than this, just say so. 

Good grief Scott.  You're making a fool of yourself here.  You've been provided link after link proving that this entire couplet was still being taught and expounded upon in lessons (even the very year President Hinckley gave the interview).  He spoke himself about the couplet in General Conference just 3 years prior to the interview (and did give details regarding the teaching).  You state over an over here that you believe Prophets are fallible, but then go to ridiculous lengths to avoid the simple truth that President Hinckley was wrong when he stated that this was no longer taught.

Give it up.  You're wrong here and have been proven wrong with great sources.  Do you really need more? 

I give President Hinckley a pass on this as I think he found himself in a difficult situation.  He had stated in General Confernce that "Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this [the couplet]", so he knew what he may be stepping in if he started more of discussion on it during the interview.  But he was very definitely mistaken that it was no longer taught (and if he didn't remember it was still taught, he had a very short memory because he'd just taught it in conference and hr had to have approved the lesson manual containing teachings regarding it for that very year).

Edited September 3, 2018 by ALarson