Ignorance or avoidance of a problematic doctrine?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can’t figure out which choice you are trying to incentivize here.

And I can’t figure out what you are trying to say. 

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I didn't really care at all about the dodge either.  Just the attempt to somehow justify it and pigeon hole it as accurate like you see here.  Do you agree that we actually have had a lot of teaching on both sides of the Snow couplet?

Yes, of course.

A lot of it's been disavowed but since Joseph gave the King Follett everyone from Brigham to Bruce has expressed ideas and doctrinal views surrounding it.  Most don't rise to the level of "official" but they were publicly expressed by Church officials.  And many stuck.

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I can’t figure out what you are trying to say. 

There are remedial courses that teach adults how to read/listen for comprehension. It’s a useful skill to have. Here’s one online resource to get you started; I’m sure there are others:

https://greatspeech.com/7-tips-for-improved-reading-comprehension-for-adults/

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which “LDS leader” (by this, I presume you mean on a General Authority level) has taught “in depth” about God having been a man?

To be fair, I have memorized the statement "As man is God once was. As God is, man may be" only because I have heard it so many times.   Have you never heard this said before?

[webbles]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, of course.

A lot of it's been disavowed but since Joseph gave the King Follett everyone from Brigham to Bruce has expressed ideas and doctrinal views surrounding it.  Most don't rise to the level of "official" but they were publicly expressed by Church officials.  And many stuck.

When's the last time someone publicly expressed views about the first half of the couplet?

And how would you answer the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"  If someone asked me that, I would answer no.  Because I don't believe that the teaching of the church today is that God was once a man like we are.  I might clarify and say that we do believe that God was mortal and resurrected and that's about all we teach.  The rest is theories and speculations.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

To be fair, I have memorized the statement "As man is God once was. As God is, man may be" only because I have heard it so many times.   Have you never heard this said before?

Of course I have. I’m afraid you are quite missing my point. 
 

I’m saying that beyond the extremely brief statement “As man is God once was,” we don’t even have a cursory knowledge or understanding of it, much less an “in-depth” one — which in essence is what President Hinckley was telling the writer. Further knowledge beyond those six words simply hasn’t been revealed to us, and it is neither honest nor prudent to claim that it has. We don’t “emphasize” or “teach” it frequently, because there’s not much revealed knowledge there that we can emphasize or teach. The very concept carries a host of questions and possible implications we can’t, at present, grasp or answer because we lack the revealed knowledge to give such answers. 
 

We have much greater revealed knowledge and understanding about the second part of the couplet, “as God now is, so man may be.” But that’s not the part that President Hinckley was referring to in the portion of the interview that is in question. 
 

Contrary to the insinuation in the title of this thread, President Hinckley was showing neither “ignorance” nor avoidance “of a problematic doctrine.” He was being candid about what is not known about it. 
 

President Hinckley has been maligned far too long regarding this incident, and it’s time that the maligning ceased. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

When's the last time someone publicly expressed views about the first half of the couplet?

And how would you answer the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"  If someone asked me that, I would answer no.  Because I don't believe that the teaching of the church today is that God was once a man like we are.  I might clarify and say that we do believe that God was mortal and resurrected and that's about all we teach.  The rest is theories and speculations.

There are LOTS of doctrines that aren't mentioned that have been taught previously.  Unless counter doctrine is expressed we can't say a doctrine is no longer believed.

[webbles]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

There are LOTS of doctrines that aren't mentioned that have been taught previously.  Unless counter doctrine is expressed we can't say a doctrine is no longer believed.

In my mind, "As man is, God once was" is different from "God the Father was one a man like we are".  I believe the former, I don't believe the latter.  I'm not sure why I see a difference, the latter just doesn't sound right to me.

Also, President Hinckley didn't say we don't believe it, only that we don't teach it or emphasize it.

[rongo]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

And how would you answer the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"  If someone asked me that, I would answer no.  Because I don't believe that the teaching of the church today is that God was once a man like we are. 

Your repeated use of the word "today" is interesting, especially in a discussion specifically about if and how teaching and emphasis have changed between "then" and "now." Referring to "today" kind of makes the point that there has been a shift. It reminds one, for example, of the gospel topics essays ("Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past . . .")

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There are LOTS of doctrines that aren't mentioned that have been taught previously.  Unless counter doctrine is expressed we can't say a doctrine is no longer believed.

Therein lies the problem and the challenge with the needle-threading and fence-sitting the Church undergoes "today" in talking about controversial doctrines and practices. It is unsatisfactory and it gets old for the official communication on everything to be "we don't know," or "there is no official position on this," or a refusal to take a stand when stands were constantly taken in the past. And, it's worse than useless to "disavow" past doctrine without offering authoritative explanations in their place (counter doctrine, as you said). That is a surefire way for the "disavowals" to not take root, and for the past explanations to remain alive and well. But then when people notice the clear shift (and the "scrambling the jets" reactions exhibited here --- to try to make the past explanations still match the shift) --- that is obvious to most people. 

[webbles]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Your repeated use of the word "today" is interesting, especially in a discussion specifically about if and how teaching and emphasis have changed between "then" and "now." Referring to "today" kind of makes the point that there has been a shift. It reminds one, for example, of the gospel topics essays ("Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past . . .")

Good point, but "today" is the word that was in the question that was asked to President Hinckley.  I used the exact question that was asked.

I came across a February 1982 Ensign article titled Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement—“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”—accepted as official doctrine by the Church?  After reading it, I'm not seeing anything in it that gives any more information about the first half of the couplet.  It talks a lot about the second half which is how I feel the teachings of that couplet have been used.  The first half is kind of just a "nice to know" but the second half is what we teach and emphasize.

I'm curious if there has been actual teachings that give more detail about the first half of the couplet.  I think Adam-God teachings could be considered part of that but it has been pretty much disavowed for ~100 years.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

In my mind, "As man is, God once was" is different from "God the Father was one a man like we are".  I believe the former, I don't believe the latter.  I'm not sure why I see a difference, the latter just doesn't sound right to me.

It's the "like we are" part of the second statement that may not sound right.   Joseph Smith said it this way:

"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

If God the Father was a man "like we are", then he might be sinful "like we are".  But if God the Father dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ did (like Joseph said he did), then God the Father would have been sinless and perfect like Jesus Christ is.   And even for Jesus, scripture says Jesus became "like unto" us in "all things" so that he could be a merciful judge:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (Hebrews 2:16-17)
 

[Ipod Touch]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

There are remedial courses that teach adults how to read/listen for comprehension. It’s a useful skill to have.

You are a liar and a fraud.  There is no Christ in you.  You KNOW GBH lied.  YOU KNOW IT!

But, just like the Bishop who told you not to sing harmony, you must defend the lie to the end!

I hope this is only a bad hair day, you are banned from thread.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

You KNOW GBH lied.

CFR on President Hinckley lying.  Here's what he said:

Quote

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.

Where is the lie in that statement?  This answer was specifically about the first part of the couplet (As man is, God once was), not the second part.  So showing that we teach the second part is not evidence of him lying.

[manol]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith said it this way:

"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

Did Joseph "show it from the Bible"? 

If not, can "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" be shown from the Bible?

[Jaydes]

On 6/30/2022 at 2:55 PM, Islander said:

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint?

I don't see how it is problematic from a Christian standpoint. The couplet teaches of Christ's mortal ministry, and the doctrine of theosis/divinization. Both things the majority of Christians believe in.  

Edited July 2, 2022 by Jaydes

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

Did Joseph "show it from the Bible"? 

If not, can "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" be shown from the Bible?

If you take Christ's statement that He never did anything except that He saw the Father do it first at face value, then that can be used as evidence to support the belief that God the Father also dwelt on an earth...as a Savior.

Which is very different than saying that God was once a man as we are though.

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you take Christ's statement that He never did anything except that He saw the Father do it first at face value, then that can be used as evidence to support the belief that God the Father also dwelt on an earth...as a Savior.

This was his exhibit A, and it's compelling. Setting aside the usual and customary trinitarian caveats ("it's a huge mystery, we can't even begin to comprehend, etc."), for those who also accept his logic that the New Testament shows that they are actually different people (Mormons, social trinitarians, Orthodox, etc.) --- if this doesn't mean that the Father had been a Savior as well, what does it mean?

 

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which is very different than saying that God was once a man as we are though.

It is, and it isn't. It isn't if one is talking broadly about Jesus fully experiencing mortal life ("fully man"). While we aren't Saviors, in a real specific sense, He was once a man as we are. 

While I wouldn't expect President Hinckley to get out in the weeds on this, his evasive answers in Time and on Larry King could/should have been better. I think it's obvious that he was knowingly evasive, and this has caused problems for some people. 

[manol]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you take Christ's statement that He never did anything except that He saw the Father do it first at face value, then that can be used as evidence to support the belief that God the Father also dwelt on an earth...as a Savior.

Thank you very much.   I think that's it! 

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which is very different than saying that God was once a man as we are though.

Agreed. 

And if "all things past present and future" are continually manifest before God, our Telestial constructs of time and locality are probably insufficient for comprehending the nature of God.  

Edited July 2, 2022 by manol

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

It is, and it isn't. It isn't if one is talking broadly about Jesus fully experiencing mortal life ("fully man"). While we aren't Saviors, in a real specific sense, He was once a man as we are. 

While I wouldn't expect President Hinckley to get out in the weeds on this, his evasive answers in Time and on Larry King could/should have been better. I think it's obvious that he was knowingly evasive, and this has caused problems for some people. 

"It is and it isn't" is pretty far out in the weeds and still doesn't offer any actual information.  I like Pres. Hinckley's answer much better.  Saying "this couplet exists and makes sense with our doctrine, but we don't really have much of an idea what it means" seems more honest.

Especially since I don't think an answer exists that wouldn't cause problems for some people.  

[Teancum]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:01 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Which “LDS leader” (by this, I presume you mean on a General Authority level) has taught “in depth” about God having been a man? 
 

I require a document citation, if not a link, not just your own conclusory and general assertion. 
 

I’ll wait a reasonable length of time for your response before I put you back on ignore. 

Feel free to ignore me.  You apparently don't like me much and the feeling is mutual.

[Teancum]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:06 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s true. For the most part, defenders only seek to preserve an atmosphere where faith can flourish. It is critics and antagonists who have set for themselves the virtually impossible task of conclusively disproving the Church of Jesus Christ. I’ve never yet seen one who is up to it. 

THe burden of proof is on the one making the fantastic truth claims.  I know that is tough to swallow for you as you only need to rise to the lowest level of plausibility. It is all you have.  See I don't have to prove it false.  You have to prove it true. That  seems to be the impossible task.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

THe burden of proof is on the one making the fantastic truth claims.  I know that is tough to swallow for you as you only need to rise to the lowest level of plausibility. It is all you have.  See I don't have to prove it false.  You have to prove it true. That  seems to be the impossible task.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.  Why do we have to prove it is true? 

As Scott said, all we have to do is provide an atmosphere where people can receive a personal testimony from the spirit.  We don't have to prove anything ourselves.  I agree with your statement to Scott, I don't believe that you have to prove it's false either.  

Which is good for both of us because neither option is even possible.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Feel free to ignore me.  You apparently don't like me much and the feeling is mutual.

So instead of providing the documentation required, you’re going to make it personal? As the moderator just told you, you must provide it or stop arguing. 
 

Added later: I have you on ignore because I have long since grown weary of your aggressive, combative and acerbic approach. That has nothing to do, per sé, with disliking you. I would readily be among those who rejoiced and welcomed you home if you were to repent and return to full faith and fellowship. That’s not the attitude one might expect from someone who doesn’t like you. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

THe burden of proof is on the one making the fantastic truth claims.  I know that is tough to swallow for you as you only need to rise to the lowest level of plausibility. It is all you have.  See I don't have to prove it false.  You have to prove it true. That  seems to be the impossible task.

Typically, defenders of the faith don’t set out to prove anything, not in a conventional debate sense. Our approach is to teach the doctrine and beliefs and then to invite listeners to reach their own conclusions through a faith-based process involving pondering, prayer and personal revelation. So if you go on the attack (which no one requires you to do; it’s a choice you make), that puts the burden of proof squarely on you. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.  Why do we have to prove it is true? 

I know you addressed this to Teancum, but my response would be that we are on a discussion forum not a teaching forum. Obviously other situations would require different levels of proof. 

I believe that here we are required to back up our claims.