Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[Calm]

Julie and ALarson, can you tell me what details we have learned about God the Father's mortal existence outside of him having one from these teachings you are referring to? (Sincere question)

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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).

He was not mistaken as pertaining to the first part of the couplet, the context of the question that was put to him. If this portion (God was once as man now is) has been “expounded upon” authoritatively, then provide a quote or a reference. No one has yet done so. 

And cease the personal attacks. 

[JulieM]

43 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. 

Here's more (this was taught  and approved by Pres. Hinckley the year of his interview):

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997:

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)

God is the source, the fountain of all intelligence, no matter who possesses it, whether man upon the earth, the spirits in the spirit-world, the angels that dwell in the eternities of the Gods, or the most inferior intelligence among the devils in hell. All have derived what intelligence, light, power, and existence they have from God—from the same source from which we have received ours. (p. 31)

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? (p. 34)

We receive these truths, and go on from glory to glory, . . . gaining a knowledge of all things, and becoming Gods, even Sons of God. (p. 55)

Edited September 3, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Julie and ALarson, can you tell me what details we have learned about God the Father's mortal existence outside of him having one from these teachings you are referring to? (Sincere question)

If you read all the quotes above, there's info that's been taught (maybe start a new thread to discuss it more in detail)..  But what Scott is disputing is that the teaching that God was once a man wasn't taught at the time President Hinckley gave the interview and that's where he's been proven wrong.  

But what we've specifically learned is another topic and I'd love to discuss that separately!

Edited September 3, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If you read all the quotes above, there's info that's been taught (maybe start a new thread to discuss it more in detail)..  But what Scott is disputing is that the teaching that God was once a man wasn't taught at the time President Hinckley gave the interview and that's where he's been proven wrong.  

But what we've specifically learned is another topic and I'd love to discuss that separately!

No. What I’m saying is it was not discussed or emphasized in detail beyond the basic concept given by President Snow. That President Hinckley was not wrong in telling the interviewer that. 

If it was, please show us. We don’t need to start another thread. 

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He was not mistaken as pertaining to the first part of the couplet, the context of the question that was put to him. If this portion (God was once as man now is) has been “expounded upon” authoritatively, then provide a quote or a reference. No one has yet done so. 

Numerous sources have been given you proving the ENTIRE COUPLET was being taught at the time of the interview.  I can't help it that you refuse to acknowledge you're wrong in making the argument you're attempting to make here.  If you won't accept a talk given by President Hinckley in General Conference teaching about the entire couplet and the manual of teaching for the year of the interview discussing and teaching the entire couplet, you are very much in denial here.  He was mistaken in his statement in the interview.  I give him a pass as he's human and as rongo expressed, I understand why he did what he did.  But it was not accurate.

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Julie and ALarson, can you tell me what details we have learned about God the Father's mortal existence outside of him having one from these teachings you are referring to? (Sincere question)

Great topic!  But not the one being discussed here.  As JulieM stated, it would be a good topic to start in a new thread and I would definitely be interested in it.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here's more (this was taught  and approved by Pres. Hinckley the year of his interview):

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997:

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)

God is the source, the fountain of all intelligence, no matter who possesses it, whether man upon the earth, the spirits in the spirit-world, the angels that dwell in the eternities of the Gods, or the most inferior intelligence among the devils in hell. All have derived what intelligence, light, power, and existence they have from God—from the same source from which we have received ours. (p. 31)

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? (p. 34)

We receive these truths, and go on from glory to glory, . . . gaining a knowledge of all things, and becoming Gods, even Sons of God. (p. 55)

You've definitely proven that Pres. Hinckley misspoke.  It was very definitely being taught the very year of the interview.

 

[JulieM]

46 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You've definitely proven that Pres. Hinckley misspoke.  It was very definitely being taught the very year of the interview.

Yes, I agree.  Now Scott is moving the goal posts and saying he meant “in detail”, not just that it was taught.  That’s not his original claim and not what was stated in the interview.  And, there are some details about the couplet’s teachings in President Hinckey’s talk I quoted and in the lessons being taught that exact same year.  

Edited September 3, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Numerous sources have been given you proving the ENTIRE COUPLET was being taught at the time of the interview.  I can't help it that you refuse to acknowledge you're wrong in making the argument you're attempting to make here.  If you won't accept a talk given by President Hinckley in General Conference teaching about the entire couplet and the manual of teaching for the year of the interview discussing and teaching the entire couplet, you are very much in denial here.  He was mistaken in his statement in the interview.  I give him a pass as he's human and as rongo expressed, I understand why he did what he did.  But it was not accurate.

I didn't deny that the entire couplet has been mentioned. Numerous times. But only the second half of it has been enlarged upon in any significant detail.

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, I agree.  Now Scott is moving the goal posts and saying he meant “in detail”, not just that it was taught.  That’s not his original claim and not what was stated in the interview.    

I am not "moving the goal posts." You have failed to understand me from the time you joined the conversation.

If you mean the quote from the Brigham Young manual, all that did was restate in flowery phrasing what had already been stated succinctly in the Lorenzo Snow couplet.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Great topic!  But not the one being discussed here.  As JulieM stated, it would be a good topic to start in a new thread and I would definitely be interested in it.

Again, there's no need to start a new thread. Calm’s post is right on point. If you have examples of the first part of the Snow couplet being taught in detail with greater information and explanation, go ahead and post it here.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You've definitely proven that Pres. Hinckley misspoke.  It was very definitely being taught the very year of the interview.

 

She has not proven that he misspoke, and he, in fact, did not misspeak. What happened is that you joined the pack in taking his words out of context.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Great topic!  But not the one being discussed here.  As JulieM stated, it would be a good topic to start in a new thread and I would definitely be interested in it.

I agree with Scott on this.   I think what is and is not taught along with the couplet is key to the discussion because just putting what is in essence a label on .God (human being) doesn't tell us any more that that.

I also don't think it has been proven the entire interview was mistaken.  I personally believe and I don't think it is a stretch that President Hinckley started out with "I don't know that..." meaning mild disagreement as a not uncommon usage as I demonstrated earlier with the link to the dictionary and then realized that was unclear and therefore he clarified with 'we don't emphasize it', meaning the basic fact of God once being mortal is known as a couplet/doctrine, but we don't go into detail on what that was nor do we spend a lot of time and effort on it.  Given how much material the Church puts out through talks, magazines, and manuals, a handful of references over decades cannot be said to be a frequently taught doctrine, imo.

If you can't come up with details of what is currently taught is meant that God the Father was once like us when we have tons about Christ's life and what the details mean to us, I think that provides context for what Pres. Hinckley was expressing in that interview.

Otoh, teaching deification/exaltation is pretty constant a feature in our lessons.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If you can't come up with details of what is currently taught is meant that God the Father was once like us when we have tons about Christ's life and what the details mean to us, I think that provides context for what Pres. Hinckley was expressing in that interview..

Currently taught? Now you’re changing your request.  What was being asked was if the couplet was being taught at the time President Hinckley made the statement.  I’ve shown that it was, in general conference and in lesson manuals.  There were some details and more information on the teachings from both at that time as well (which is also what was asked for here).

If you want to shift the discussion to what is taught today, that’s a different topic, imo.  What does that even have to do with what President Hinckley answered to the question?

No where in his answers does President Hinckley say anything about what he thought we would be teaching 20+ years from then (in 2018).

He stated:

“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.”

But he had just taught about it and quoted it in his general conference talk just 3 years before that and it was taught that year (the year of the interview) in RS and Priesthood (I’ve quoted the manuals for that year and I assume the Prophet would approve of and know it was taught).  There is quite a bit of information on the teachings in that manual (for 1997).

It was also in several other manuals over the next years and in the Ensign too.

If you want to shift the discussion to current teachings, that’s fine.  But I’m done on this part of the topic and feel I’ve shown it was most definitely being taught at the time of the interview.

Edited September 3, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Currently taught? Now you’re changing your request.  What was being asked was if the couplet was being taught at the time President Hinckley made the statement.  I’ve shown that it was, in general conference and in lesson manuals.  There were some details and more information on the teachings for both at that time as well (which is also what was asked for here).

If you want to shift the discussion to what is taught today, that’s a different topic, imo.  What does that even have to do with what President Hinckley answered to the question?

That is what .I meant by "currently taught", past 50 years.  Sorry.  Used "currently" (defining in my head my lifetime more or less) to eliminate the speculative comments one can find in older talks.

I do not think the interviewer was referring to the whole couplet, but rather just the first part.

This was his question:

Quote

about that, 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?

There is nothing in that question about the second part of the couplet.  So Pres. Hinckley was speaking directly towards the doctrine that God had once been a mortal man.

He started out with "I don't know that we teach it.."  Could be a misstatement or could be the common usage of "I don't know (about) that..." that means "I wouldn't say it that way" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/i-dont-know-about-that .  He then clarifies either way, error or minor disagreement with "we don't emphasize it".

Do you think we emphasize the teaching "God was once a mortal man" in our lessons or in conference talks?

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

For me, his comment "we don't emphasize that" needs to be explained.  If it had been first, it could be read as "we don't emphasize that; heck, we don't even teach it", but it wasn't first, it was second.

Just holding the first comment and ignring the rest seems likely to lead to misunderstanding more than clarity.

Quote

 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 don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. 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.

If Pres. Hinckley intended his "I don't know that we teach it" to mean "it never gets taught", then it would certainly be a given that we also never emphasize it.  There is no reason to add " I don't know that we emphasize it" except to clarify what he meant in the first phrase.  Therefore I think we should be paying closer attention to that then the first because it was either a misstatement or he may have realized he was using an idiom that would likely be misunderstood by many.

So do we emphasize God was a mortal man once in our lessons and talks or magazines?  I don't believe we do.

add-on:  to clarify, for me emphasizing would be frequent mentions and possibly some significant details.  For me, the Restoration is emphasized, the Atonement is emphasized, the Priesthood is emphasized.

google's definition:

em·pha·size...

give special importance or prominence to (something) in speaking or writing.

"he jabbed a finger into the tabletop to emphasize his point"

synonyms:stress, underline, highlight, focus attention on, point up, lay stress on, draw attention to, spotlight, foreground, play up, make a point of; More

lay stress on (a word or phrase) when speaking.

synonyms:stress, underline, highlight, focus attention on, point up, lay stress on, draw attention to, spotlight, foreground, play up, make a point of; More

make (something) more clearly defined.

"a one-piece bathing suit that emphasized her build"

Add-on:

not emphasized is not the same as not taught; not discussed is not the same as not mentioned; all is not the same as some; "I don't know a lot about it" is not the same as "I don't know anything about it".

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That is what .I meant by "currently taught", past 50 years.  Sorry.  Used "currently" (defining in my head my lifetime more or less) to eliminate the speculative comments one can find in older talks.

I do not think the interviewer was referring to the whole couplet, but rather just the first part.

This was his question:

There is nothing in that question about the second part of the couplet.  So Pres. Hinckley was speaking directly towards the doctrine that God had once been a mortal man.

He started out with "I don't know that we teach it.."  Could be a misstatement or could be the common usage of "I don't know (about) that..." that means "I wouldn't say it that way" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/i-dont-know-about-that .  He then clarifies either way, error or minor disagreement with "we don't emphasize it".

He had just spoken in general conference about the first part of the couplet (and the second part too).  I've supplied quotes from the lesson manual teaching both parts of the couplet (the year of the interview).  I'm not sure what he meant by "emphasize it" and neither do you or anyone but President Hinckley.  As far as I know he never clarified what he meant.  The doctrine and beliefs expressed in the couplet (both parts) were most definitely taught.  Now, he did choose to include it in his talk in general conference to all members of the church 3 years before the interview.  One could say that whatever the Prophet desires to teach the members is important to him and something he's emphasizing.

I'm not going to argue about this.  There are many sources here showing the beliefs from the couplet were being taught. 

I'm moving on from this and simply believe he made a mistake and misspoke.  I understand the awkward position he was in being asked that question.  But he had to know it was still being taught because it was in the current year's lesson manual for RS and the Priesthood lessons.  

Edited September 3, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

Here's this quote by Henry B. Eyring (more current, Calm and interesting):

"I bear you my witness that God the Father lives, a glorified and exalted Man. He is the Father of our spirits. He and His Beloved Son, both resurrected and glorified, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in a grove of trees in New York." Henry B. Eyring, CES Fireside for Young Adults. September 10, 2006.

To me, that sounds like he believes God was once a man.

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He had just spoken in general conference about the second part of the couplet (and the first part too).  I've supplied quotes from the lesson manual teaching both parts of the couplet (the year of the interview).  I'm not sure what he meant by "emphasize it" and neither do you or anyone but President Hinckley.  As far as I know he never clarified what he meant.  The doctrine and beliefs expressed in the couplet (both parts) were most definitely taught.  Now, he did choose to include it in his talk in general conference to all members of the church 3 years before the interview.  One could say that whatever the Prophet desires to teach the members is important to him and something he's emphasizing.

I'm not going to argue about this.  There are many sources here showing the beliefs from the couplet were being taught. 

I'm moving on from this and simply believe he made a mistake and misspoke.  I understand the awkward position he was in being asked that question.  But he had to know it was still being taught because it was in the current year's lesson manual for RS and the Priesthood lessons.  

The fact that his answer needs to be explained to be understood is a good indication that he should have done that himself after the interview to clear up the confusion that his statement caused.  The Church and those who heard his interview deserved that.  It would have taken 5 minutes.  I would much rather hear HIS explaination of what he meant than Calms or anyone else's.

Personally it just made me distrust church leaders even more than I already did.

Edited September 3, 2018 by california boy

[Calm]

Quote

me, that sounds like he believes God was once a man

Not arguing it is actual doctrine.  Just saying it wasn't a common (as in frequent subject...mentioned several times a year instead of several times a decade) topic nor are there additional details provided.  All the doctrine is was God was once mortal.  We don't know if he was mortal and a sinner like us or mortal and sinless like Christ.  We don't know where he was born, to whom, or even it was in our universe.  We don't know how he died, did he get married, did he have kids?  Where he lived, did they have the gospel or did he receive it after his death?  

If you know of more details taught about God the Father's mortality outside of him being mortal, I would love to hear it.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 I think what is and is not taught along with the couplet is key to the discussion because just putting what is in essence a label on .God (human being) doesn't tell us any more that that.

And JulieM has supplied numerous sources regarding what was taught (information that didn't just state the couplet, but included teachings and our, beliefs).  These same teachings was included in talks and lessons at that time and I'm amazed anyone would argue that they weren't.  If Scott is hung up on what the word "emphasize" meant, it's difficult to really know what Pres. Hinckley was even saying there.  I think he may have been caught off guard by the question and he knew what critics had said about those beliefs that we have.  He'd mentioned that in his conference talk when he stated: "“Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this", so I'm sure he wasn't anxious to get into it on national T.V.

I'm fine if you and others disagree, but with what I've read here, I believe he knew the teachings (and that they were taught), but just didn't want to discuss them.  He did the best he could in a difficult situation, IMO.  I agree fully with rongo's assessment. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

The fact that his answer needs to be explained to be understood is a good indication that he should have done that himself after the interview to clear up the confusion that his statement caused.  The Church and those who heard his interview deserved that.  It would have taken 5 minutes.  I would much rather hear HIS explaination of what he meant than Calms or anyone else's.

 

I recall President Hinckley bringing up the matter in general conference and reassuring the Latter-day Saints that despite media reports, they need not worry that he does not understand the doctrines relating to God and the plan of salvation, that he understands them quite well.

Quote

Personally it just made me distrust church leaders even more than I already did.

Well, that is unfortunate, but I really don't believe President Hinckley is to blame for your taking his interview response out of context.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And JulieM has supplied numerous sources regarding what was taught (information that didn't just state the couplet, but included teachings and our, beliefs).  These same teachings was included in talks and lessons at that time and I'm amazed anyone would argue that they weren't.  If Scott is hung up on what the word "emphasize" meant, it's difficult to really know what Pres. Hinckley was even saying there.  I think he may have been caught off guard by the question and he knew what critics had said about those beliefs that we have.  He'd mentioned that in his conference talk when he stated: "“Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this", so I'm sure he wasn't anxious to get into it on national T.V.

I'm fine if you and others disagree, but with what I've read here, I believe he knew the teachings (and that they were taught), but just didn't want to discuss them.  He did the best he could in a difficult situation, IMO. 

 

He stated quite correctly to the interviewer that the matter of God having once been a man is not a doctrine that is emphasized or discussed much in the Church, or that it is well understood.

If you choose to continue to take umbrage over it lo these many years later, that is up to you, but President HInckley is not to blame for your personal choice.

Quote

I agree fully with rongo's assessment. 

It appears that rongo got caught up in the wave of those who did not grasp the context of either the question that was put to President Hinckley or of his reply to it.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not arguing it is actual doctrine.  Just saying it wasn't a common (as in frequent subject...mentioned several times a year instead of several times a decade) topic nor are there additional details provided.  All the doctrine is was God was once mortal.  We don't know if he was mortal and a sinner like us or mortal and sinless like Christ.  We don't know where he was born, to who, or even it was in our universe. 

If you read the source that JulieM provided here, you'll read that Brigham Young's teachings included much more information on that (and it was taught in 1997 when the interview took place).  Also, it didn't need be a "common" teaching to still classify as being taught.

ETA:

Here's some of it:

Quote

 

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997:

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)

 

I think Joseph Smith taught quite a bit on this too (and other past Prophets and leaders).

I'll try to look more up tomorrow if I can, but I do think this may be an interesting topic to start another thread on....just a suggestion.

Edited September 3, 2018 by ALarson