Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.

No one is denying that God was once a man. What  has been challenged here is the bringing of President Hinckley into disrepute for correctly telling an interviewer this is not something that is taught or emphasized much in the Church because not much is known about it.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

BTW, in his previous interview in April 1997, he actually used "I wouldn't say that..." rather than "I don't know that..."

Quote

I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.”

https://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/

I personally prefer leaders being open about the limits of our revealed knowledge rather than acting like we have all the answers.  Maybe that is why this doesn't bother me or I read it differently than some others.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 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 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.

Also, we don't know whether there was another being who bore the same or similar relationship to God the Father during HIs mortality that God the Father bears to us.

There is just too much about this doctrine that is unknown for us to teach or emphasize it in any substantive detail. Which is why we don't. Which is what President Hinckley wisely told the interviewer(s).

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

BTW, in his previous interview in April 1997, he actually used "I wouldn't say that..." rather than "I don't know that..."

https://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/

I personally prefer leaders being open about the limits of our revealed knowledge rather than acting like we have all the answers.  Maybe that is why this doesn't bother me or I read it differently than some others.

 

We have already experienced the folly of leaders acting like they had all the answers with the now disavowed theories that were propounded in attempt to explain the priesthood ban. That alone should give us reason to be circumspect about overstating our position and, as you say, "acting like we have all the answers."

 

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

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

 

Do you have a reference to what he said?  I would love to see it.  While that would go a long way in correction the problem for members, it does nothing to correct the problem for the audience the interview was directed towards, the general public.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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:

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.

To me all that just says he was mortal like us, which is what the couplet said, but nothing more.

Was he a Christ, an Adam, a prophet, or unbeliever or something else entirely?  Did he have the gospel while living or was his world in apostasy?  Did he have a family as in married with or without kids?  Did he fight in wars or live in a time of peace?  Was he healthy or had chronic illness?  Was he a carpenter or a computer programmer?  Was he learned or uneducated?  Was he a leader of men spiritually, politically, militarily, or did he live a quiet, retired life?  Did he live in an advanced society or a primitive one?  Did he die in his old age or was he martyred for teaching the Gospel?

I personally treasure this teaching that we not only can become like God in the future, but even right now in mortality we are like him.  I always have since .I first understood it at least back in my early teens.  I am his family.  He is mine.  Just like all the human beings that have lived on earth and will live on earth.  Humanity is eternal.  We aren't the isolated blips of lonely communities, but something that has been here and will be here (whatever that actually means) forever.

It makes me very curious about what his life was like, so I have thought about it in the past and looked for doctrinally supported info.  Closest I have gotten is the likelihood he was a Christ as the scriptures say Christ did as his Father had done and .Joseph Smith says something comparable, but that is vague enough I don't think his role of as Christ is a given.  Everything else comes across as speculation to me, something reasoned out from assumptions.  Philosophical, Iow.

However much I love this teaching, I prefer not to pretend we know more than we do, so I am grateful Pres. Hinckley didn't turn it into a "LDS have an answer to all the important questions" moment, but was instead imo humble about our lack of knowledge.

Nice thing is, that knowledge we will eventually get, maybe through revelation or maybe reminiscences around the fire at family reunions.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you have a reference to what he said?  I would love to see it.  While that would go a long way in correction the problem for members, it does nothing to correct the problem for the audience the interview was directed towards, the general public.

As it happens, I just found it. It is in the October 1997 general conference (opening session, first talk) and it is substantially as I remember it. President Hinckley said:

Quote

The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, this was the first general conference after the publication of the Time magazine article of Aug. 4, 1997, in which appeared the interview with President HInckley, the one with his statement that was taken out of context. Given the content of this general conference quote, it is a safe assumption that he was obliquely referring to this Time magazine piece.

Hope this helps.

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As it happens, I just found it. It is in the October 1997 general conference (opening session, first talk) and it is substantially as I remember it. President Hinckley said:

(Emphasis mine)

Now, this was the first general conference after the publication of the Time magazine article of Aug. 4, 1997, in which appeared the interview with President HInckley, the one with his statement that was taken out of context. Given the content of this general conference quote, it is a safe assumption that he was obliquely referring to this Time magazine piece.

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks Scott.  I am glad you found the quote.  I guess that is probably the closest he ever got to clearing up what he said, though he actually never addresses what the confusion was about.  It is weird to me that he couldn't have been more specific and/or been more clear with the public in general.  But this seems to follow a pattern when these issues come up.  Elder Holland issue for example.  

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Thanks Scott.  I am glad you found the quote.  I guess that is probably the closest he ever got to clearing up what he said, though he actually never addresses what the confusion was about.  It is weird to me that he couldn't have been more specific and/or been more clear with the public in general.  But this seems to follow a pattern when these issues come up.  Elder Holland issue for example.  

I agree.  I'm glad to read what Pres. Hinckley stated, but he doesn't really address the fact that what he answered with wasn't the truth and that he misspoke or was mistaken.  He throws the press under the bus and says he was "misquoted and misunderstood" and "incompletely reported".  So, did he not say these words (below) in response to these questions?  If not, he should have clarified and stated, something like...."Here is what my response REALLY was.....".  But if they are what he stated, I wish he'd said something like, "I should have stated an emphatic YES, that's what we believe!  It's part of our doctrine."  After all,, he was the Prophet who taught that we should not be afraid to "stand for something", not be afraid to speak out about our beliefs and be honest about them.  I remember youth lessons telling the youth to do this.

But when his first words in response to these question is to deny we believe or teach it,, it's not being accurate:

Quote

 

Question: "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

Pres. Hinckley,: "I wouldn’t say that." 

 

And....

Quote

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Pres. Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it." 

I'm glad he made an attempt to at least address it, but I wish he'd taken responsibility and corrected it.  Once again, I cut him a lot of slack in those interviews and believe he got flustered and misspoke or just didn't' feel like it was the right time to delve into the fact that we do believe this and we do teach it.

And, if he understands the doctrine "thoroughly", why did he state:

Quote

"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."

There's a great deal written about this doctrine, Brigham Young teaches much about it as did other Prophets starting with Joseph Smith.

For me, it's disappointing to see that when Prophets and other church leaders make mistakes and say things that aren't accurate, they just can't simply correct it and admit they were wrong.  Members would appreciate and accept that.  Instead they are either silent about it or blame others as President Hinckley did here.  That's the part that is disappointing to me.

Edited September 3, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No one is denying that God was once a man. What  has been challenged here is the bringing of President Hinckley into disrepute for correctly telling an interviewer this is not something that is taught or emphasized much in the Church because not much is known about it.

Here's what President Hinckley called this teaching in general conference (1994):

"..... the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon ; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!"

Calling it "the whole design of the gospel" isn't putting emphasis on it?  Choosing to speak those words to the members as a living Prophet of God isn't emphasizing these teachings (and he does address the entire couplet's teachings at this time as already quoted on this thread)?  I think every member knows how important the teachings are that God was once a man, so he understands our trials and pains (that is emphasized) and that we can become Gods and Goddesses in following the same path that He did.  I'm amazed that some here are claiming he was correct that this isn't emphasized in the church.

This is currently on lds.org ("Becoming Like God) and it emphasizes how important these teachings are and how important it is that we learn and comprehend them::

Quote

 

Joseph Smith spoke about the nature of God and the future of humankind to the Saints, who had gathered for a general Church conference. He used the occasion in part to reflect upon the death of a Church member named King Follett, who had died unexpectedly a month earlier. When he rose to speak, the wind was blowing, so Joseph asked his listeners to give him their “profound attention” and to “pray that the L[ord] may strengthen my lungs” and stay the winds until his message had been delivered.35

“What kind of a being is God?” he asked. Human beings needed to know, he argued, because “if men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves.”36 In that phrase, the Prophet collapsed the gulf that centuries of confusion had created between God and humanity. Human nature was at its core divine. God “was once as one of us” and “all the spirits that God ever sent into the world” were likewise “susceptible of enlargement.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'm glad to read what Pres. Hinckley stated, but he doesn't really address the fact that what he answered with wasn't the truth and that he misspoke or was mistaken.  He throws the press under the bus and says he was "misquoted and misunderstood" and "incompletely reported".  So, did he not say these words (below) in response to these questions?  If not, he should have clarified and stated, something like...."Here is what my response REALLY was.....".  But if they are what he stated, I wish he'd said something like, "I should have stated an emphatic YES, that's what we believe!  It's part of our doctrine."  After all,, he was the Prophet who taught that we should not be afraid to "stand for something", not be afraid to speak out about our beliefs and be honest about them.  I remember youth lessons telling the youth to do this.

But when his first words in response to these question is to deny we believe or teach it,, it's not being accurate:

And....

I'm glad he made an attempt to at least address it, but I wish he'd taken responsibility and corrected it.  Once again, I cut him a lot of slack in those interviews and believe he got flustered and misspoke or just didn't' feel like it was the right time to delve into the fact that we do believe this and we do teach it.

And, if he understands the doctrine "thoroughly", why did he state:

There's a great deal written about this doctrine, Brigham Young teaches much about it as did other Prophets starting with Joseph Smith.

For me, it's disappointing to see that when Prophets and other church leaders make mistakes and say things that aren't accurate, they just can't simply correct it and admit they were wrong.  Members would appreciate and accept that.  Instead they are either silent about it or blame others as President Hinckley did here.  That's the part that is disappointing to me.

I have a slightly different take on it. I think Pres Hinckley was saying that it is not part of the doctrine we teach. It is in our history, but has not been officially accepted as "Church doctrine." Indeed, it seems to me that the teaching was disappearing from Church materials at that time as part of a push to make the Church more mainstream.  However, I agree that the Church did not understand it. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have a slightly different take on it. I think Pres Hinckley was saying that it is not part of the doctrine we teach. It is in our history, but has not been officially accepted as "Church doctrine." Indeed, it seems to me that the teaching was disappearing from Church materials at that time as part of a push to make the Church more mainstream.  However, I agree that the Church did not understand it. 

The teachings were in the lesson manual for that year and has also been in manuals for many years since then.  He’d just spoken about in it GC himself.  So, he had to know it was still being taught.  But I get your point too.

And you don’t believe it’s church doctrine that God was like us once and that we can become like him? (I know it’s difficult to pin anyone down on what is really considered “doctrine”, but this is a core belief of our church). 

Edited September 3, 2018 by JulieM

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

To me all that just says he was mortal like us, which is what the couplet said, but nothing more.Was he a Christ, an Adam, a prophet, or unbeliever or something else entirely?

For Yeshua to do everything He saw the Father do, it follows that He saw the Father die as a Savior of the world, and was doing likewise as His Son for this world. This agrees with the King Follett discourse statements of Joseph Smith. If the Father was once like us, it also follows that He and Yeshua once had an earthly family like us. What is the status of those marital unions? I do not know.

Quote

Did he have the gospel while living or was his world in apostasy?  Did he have a family as in married with or without kids? Did he fight in wars or live in a time of peace?  Was he healthy or had chronic illness?  Was he a carpenter or a computer programmer?  Was he learned or uneducated?  Was he a leader of men spiritually, politically, militarily, or did he live a quiet, retired life?  Did he live in an advanced society or a primitive one?  Did he die in his old age or was he martyred for teaching the Gospel?

To follow the Father as a Christ on a prior world it seems Yeshua, would have lived at a time after the Father was sacrificed as their Savior, apparently at a time when the gospel had been restored as a part of that restoration and resurrection. Obviously He was not in apostasy, but a good portion of the world was probably in a lost state. If it is anything like our world, the world would have been in an industrialized state and in a somewhat advanced state of scientific knowledge.

Quote

I personally treasure this teaching that we not only can become like God in the future, but even right now in mortality we are like him.  I always have since .I first understood it at least back in my early teens.  I am his family.  He is mine.  Just like all the human beings that have lived on earth and will live on earth.  Humanity is eternal.  We aren't the isolated blips of lonely communities, but something that has been here and will be here (whatever that actually means) forever.It makes me very curious about what his life was like, so I have thought about it in the past and looked for doctrinally supported info.  Closest I have gotten is the likelihood he was a Christ as the scriptures say Christ did as his Father had done and .Joseph Smith says something comparable, but that is vague enough I don't think his role of as Christ is a given.

see above

Quote

 Everything else comes across as speculation to me, something reasoned out from assumptions.  Philosophical, Iow.

However much I love this teaching, I prefer not to pretend we know more than we do, so I am grateful Pres. Hinckley didn't turn it into a "LDS have an answer to all the important questions" moment, but was instead imo humble about our lack of knowledge.

Nice thing is, that knowledge we will eventually get, maybe through revelation or maybe reminiscences around the fire at family reunions.

It already exists. See Revelation.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'm glad to read what Pres. Hinckley stated, but he doesn't really address the fact that what he answered with wasn't the truth and that he misspoke or was mistaken.  He throws the press under the bus and says he was "misquoted and misunderstood" and "incompletely reported".  So, did he not say these words (below) in response to these questions?  If not, he should have clarified and stated, something like...."Here is what my response REALLY was.....".  But if they are what he stated, I wish he'd said something like, "I should have stated an emphatic YES, that's what we believe!  It's part of our doctrine."  After all,, he was the Prophet who taught that we should not be afraid to "stand for something", not be afraid to speak out about our beliefs and be honest about them.  I remember youth lessons telling the youth to do this.

But when his first words in response to these question is to deny we believe or teach it,, it's not being accurate:

And....

I'm glad he made an attempt to at least address it, but I wish he'd taken responsibility and corrected it.  Once again, I cut him a lot of slack in those interviews and believe he got flustered and misspoke or just didn't' feel like it was the right time to delve into the fact that we do believe this and we do teach it.

And, if he understands the doctrine "thoroughly", why did he state:

There's a great deal written about this doctrine, Brigham Young teaches much about it as did other Prophets starting with Joseph Smith.

For me, it's disappointing to see that when Prophets and other church leaders make mistakes and say things that aren't accurate, they just can't simply correct it and admit they were wrong.  Members would appreciate and accept that.  Instead they are either silent about it or blame others as President Hinckley did here.  That's the part that is disappointing to me.

Exactly, and it's thing that makes our church stand above the rest in the eyes of the church.

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The teachings were in the lesson manual for that year and has also been in manuals for many years since then.  He’d just spoken about in it GC himself.  So, he had to know it was still being taught.  But I get your point too.

And you don’t believe it’s church doctrine that God was like us once and that we can become like him? (I know it’s difficult to pin anyone down on what is really considered “doctrine”, but this is a core belief of our church). 

Well, I believe it. I just didn't really see it as a Church doctrine, but if the Church did, I accept that. It certainly was in GCs, so I think that could qualify it as a Church doctrine in the eyes of much of the Church. I think Hinckley was saying the idea was not fleshed out enough to be a full doctrine.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, I believe it. I just didn't really see it as a Church doctrine, but if the Church did, I accept that. It certainly was in GCs, so I think that could qualify it as a Church doctrine in the eyes of much of the Church. I think Hinckley was saying the idea was not fleshed out enough to be a full doctrine.

I agree with all you state except the last sentence.  He stated we didn’t believe it or teach it (in two separate interviews).  He had just called it the “whole design of the Gospel”.  So, he appears to know it is an important teaching or doctrine.  I can’t imagine that he hadn’t studied all that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (and others) had taught about it as well.

i agree with others here who simply believe he downplayed it and didn’t want to get into that topic in the interview.  That’s understandable, but he shouldn’t have blamed the reporter or press afterwards, and just explained why he said what he said.  

Edited September 3, 2018 by JulieM

[cinepro]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Interesting.  Here's the fully reported interviews where he addressed the topic:

Quote

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: I wouldn’t say that. There was a little couplet coined, “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” Now that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.

Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.

articles.sfgate.com/1997-04-13/news/17747492_1_mormon-church-gordon-b-hinckley-full-time-missionaries

 

Look at what President Hinckley does here.  The question is specifically "don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"  That's the question.  It isn't a question about a couplet, or education, or eternal progression.

First, President Hinckley sidesteps (or forgets) that Joseph Smith was the origin of the teaching, not a fit of poetry from Lorenzo Snow, as shown in this recent LDS Manual:

Quote

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

But he answers by focusing on safer topics like "education" and being "bright."  But the interviewer didn't ask about that.  He asked "don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?" If the reporter had access to today's LDS.org. he could find statements such as this in official Church publications:

Quote

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today

 

There is also the issue of a second interview in Time magazine.  When the issue of "context" was raised as an explanation, the interviewer released the transcript of that portion of the interview.  Here's how it went:

Quote

 

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: ... 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?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I 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.

Everything he says is fair, except the idea that "I don't know that we teach it."  Now, it's possible that President Hinckley hadn't sat in a Sunday school class for decades, or reviewed articles in Church magazines.  But this would have to be a case of him being ignorant of what's being taught in the Church, not a case of him being taken out of context.  The only rational response would be "Yes, we do teach it, but President Hinckley apparently didn't know that or forgot."

But the "context" theory is a good try, especially for those who aren't actually going to read it in, you know, context.

Edited September 3, 2018 by cinepro

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I agree with all you state except the last sentence.  He stated we didn’t believe it or teach it (in two separate interviews).  He had just called it the “whole design of the Gospel”.  So, he appears to know it is an important teaching or doctrine.  I can’t imagine that he hadn’t studied all that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (and others) had taught about it as well.

i agree with others here who simply believe he downplayed it and didn’t want to get into that topic in the interview.  That’s understandable, but he shouldn’t have blamed the reporter or press afterwards, and just explained why he said what he said.  

Well, let me put it this way. I believe that the Father was once a Savior as Yeshua is now, and that Yeshua followed Him in the which He became the Savior of this world. That, I believe, incorporates the couplet "As man is God once was, and as God is man may become," but I don't think the Church at large is ready to call that doctrine, so in my view the "doctrine" was not fleshed out enough, or there would be no disagreement. 

[Jeanne]

You know...all I can see in this is that Hinckley was put in a tough spot.  But what I see is that he denied what I had at that time learned previous years before and loved it.  The very thought that I could talk to my Heavenly Father and He knew me and my mortal existence and struggle...could understand His daughter better.  I learned it and loved it...when I saw this interview on TV and in many transcripts of late ...I cry.  Do I believe in Prophets...I dunno know...but this one for all I loved him for at the time..was a disappointing one.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You know...all I can see in this is that Hinckley was put in a tough spot.  But what I see is that he denied what I had at that time learned previous years before and loved it.  The very thought that I could talk to my Heavenly Father and He knew me and my mortal existence and struggle...could understand His daughter better.  I learned it and loved it...when I saw this interview on TV and in many transcripts of late ...I cry.  Do I believe in Prophets...I dunno know...but this one for all I loved him for at the time..was a disappointing one.

I remember my parents talking about it when it happened.  They were pretty disheartened over it and couldn’t understand why he wouldn’t take those questions as an opportunity to set an example for all members (especially the youth) to practice what he preached.  He stressed to not be afraid to stand for something!  Stand up and be proud of our beliefs.  But instead he backed down and waffled.  They are over it, but I remember they were disappointed and wondered why he’d answer that way.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You know...all I can see in this is that Hinckley was put in a tough spot.  But what I see is that he denied what I had at that time learned previous years before and loved it.  The very thought that I could talk to my Heavenly Father and He knew me and my mortal existence and struggle...could understand His daughter better.  I learned it and loved it...when I saw this interview on TV and in many transcripts of late ...I cry.  

I didn't cry when I saw the interview, but I was disappointed and I have to say somewhat dismayed. In retrospect though, if Hinckley had answered in the affirmative, what would have happened? Then the questions would come, how did that happen? That is where I don't think the Church was prepared to answer, and I think Hinckley's answer reflected that. So rather than get into that Hinckley staved it off by saying we don't know much about it. However, I contend that the answer has been staring the Church in the face since the days of the King Follett discourse, and indeed even before that in the scriptures of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, from LDS posters on other forums, I know that LDS aren't prepared for that answer, and indeed often call it evil, and some GAs have said things which contradict it. 

That said, I am glad you found comfort in this "doctrine" and in the idea that Heavenly Father identifies with us so intimately, and indeed went through the same struggles Himself. I hesitated to give you a pos rep though because of your doubt in "prophets." Read Rev 11. Are those two witnesses prophets? Rest assured the Lord is not done bringing His mysteries to light, and His mystery should not be finished until these two have finished testifying per Rev 10:7.

[cinepro]

I'll just add that it's entirely justifiable (and honest) to acknowledge that the teaching that "As man is, God once was..." is a teaching and belief in the Church today, but beyond a few brief mentions, we don't know much about it. 

[Exiled]

I think Pres. Hinckley made a mistake in wanting to move the church toward the evangelicals. It hasn't changed how mormons are viewed at large. This media epsode is part of that mistake.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'll just add that it's entirely justifiable (and honest) to acknowledge that the teaching that "As man is, God once was..." is a teaching and belief in the Church today, but beyond a few brief mentions, we don't know much about it. 

Which is how I would phrase it.  I am finding it interesting that so many read Pres. Hinckley as saying something different while I have always read his comments as saying the above. Human communication is often a mystery to me.