Ignorance or avoidance of a problematic doctrine?

[Islander]

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Islander said:

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

Maybe a way of not throwing pearls before swine. Pres Hinckley said something about it later to a group of members but will have to scrounge up the reference to get the exact wording, unless someone else can find it sooner.

ETA: Found this from Fair:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Why_didn't_Gordon_B._Hinckley_say_more_about_the_King_Follett_Discourse_in_the_TIME_Magazine_interview%3F

Edited June 30, 2022 by Tacenda

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, Islander said:

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

What has God revealed in that regard?  We have revelation about exaltation - we can become like God; but do we have revelation about the other side of it that says that God was once like us?  

[Stormin' Mormon]

The couplet has two parts.  The second part (as God now is, man may be) is fairly standard LDS doctrine.  It's taught pretty openly and any half-competent missionary can cite half a dozen proof texts from the Bible in support of the idea. 

It's the first part of that couplet (As man now is, God once was) that is much more mysterious and speculative.  I think President Hinckley was responding to that portion of the couplet.  It may have been taught back in pre-Manifesto pioneer Utah, but I'm not sure that it's been taught in my lifetime.  Speculated on, yes.  Authoritatively pontificated on by the local Sunday School blow-hard, yes. But not taught in official channels or publications. 

President Hinckley was correct.  We don't emphasize that part of the couplet, we don't teach it, we don't know a lot about it. I personally reject the concept, and remain a member in good standing.

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

His answer was correct.  It is a Church belief.  He did not deny it.  We don't spend a whole lot of time teaching it in comparison to many other things.  We don't know all the details of how it all works out.   He probably did not want to waste a whole lot of time on it, especially trying to explain it to a non-LDS audience and a news source that probably would edit much of it anyway.

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, Islander said:

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

I think his response was perfect. I can’t think of a single church produced handbook that talks about this outside of two or three single sentences in the gospel principles book and the teachings of the presidents.

The truth is, when compared to everything else we teach, we don’t know really anything about. If we were to talk about it in church, it would be 10% authoritative source and 90% conjecture. The closest thing we have is our knowledge of eternal families and that we are literal children of God. Who gets what planets, how we will master the elements, establishing future rounds of creation, and everything else that comes with the assumption of being like God has not been revealed. There would be nothing to teach.

Despite it being one of the more interesting and provocative beliefs we have, it takes up shockingly little of our time. It simply does not matter. What does matter, though, is how do we become perfect on Christ? How do we overcome sin? How do we love our neighbor?

[strappinglad]

It is a 2 part couplet. Unless you are thinking that Jesus is the God of the first part, we know little if anything about God the Father's mortal existence. As for the second part, that is where there is room for interpretation. Christ commanded us to be perfect, and we are supposed to be trying to return to live with God and be exalted like Him, however, we have little info on the exact path and timeframe.

Oh, and while you are at it, bring up the " money digging stuff " and the "head in the hat "  problem .  

Seems like I am the world's slowest typist. 🥴

Edited June 30, 2022 by strappinglad

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The couple has two parts.  The second part (as God now is, man may be) is fairly standard LDS doctrine.  It's taught pretty openly and any half-competent missionary can cite half a dozen proof texts from the Bible in support of the idea. 

It's the first part of that couplet (As man now is, God once was) that is much more mysterious and speculative.  I think President Hinckley was responding to that portion of the couplet.  It may have been taught back in pre-Manifesto pioneer Utah, but I'm not sure that it's been taught in my lifetime.  Speculated on, yes.  Authoritatively pontificated on by the local Sunday School blow-hard, yes. But not taught in official channels or publications. 

President Hinckley was correct.  We don't emphasize that part of the couplet, we don't teach it, we don't know a lot about it. I personally reject the concept, and remain a member in good standing.

 

For me its a very easy to accept.  The Father and Mother are our parents.  We are  their children.  What is a child but an immature, developing and growing individual that become as their parents are in time.   I have the capacity to become a God because my Heavenly Father is a God.  I can't get to that point on my own but since God has all power, he has the capacity to bring me to his level if I qualify myself for it.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

It is a 2 part couplet. Unless you are thinking that Jesus is the God of the first part, we know little if anything about God the Father's mortal existence. As for the second part, that is where there is room for interpretation. Christ commanded us to be perfect, and we are supposed to be trying to return to live with God and be exalted like Him, however, we have little info on the exact path and timeframe.

Oh, and while you are at it, bring up the " money digging stuff " and the "head in the hat "  problem .  

I love the head in the hat problem.  Imagine how hard it was for Joseph Smith to memorize thousands of words of Isaiah and then repeat those words by memory to his scribe while while his face was in a hat and get it so right.   I have a hard time reading Isaiah vocally without stumbling over the words yet Joseph did it by memory with his face in a hat.   There is no way I could have done it. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/does_president_hinckley_understand_lds_doctrine

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, Islander said:

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

He was probably admitting genuine ignorance. We know very little about it. Some people have drawn up big logical and reasonably frameworks around the few points of actual doctrine we have on the issue but we don’t teach those. Everyone who hears that doctrine has questions about how this works but for 99%+ of the questions the answer is “I dunno” or “Here is what I think.” The former is boring for an interview and the prophet really probably doesn’t want to engage in sharing their theories when many of the member listeners will take it as gospel truths.

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

This is not a problematic doctrine.  As Man is now, Christ once was(had a body).  A Christ is now, Man may become (resurrected).  This is fairly straight  forward Christian doctrine.

I realize that Many LDS interpret the couplet in another manner.  But I'm not sure why Pres. Hinckley dodged the question.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man.  “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

Old news. A quarter-century old, in fact. 
 

But thanks for asking. It has given several people here the opportunity to set you straight on it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

This is not a problematic doctrine.  As Man is now, Christ once was(had a body).  A Christ is now, Man may become (resurrected).  This is fairly straight  forward Christian doctrine.

I realize that Many LDS interpret the couplet in another manner.  But I'm not sure why Pres. Hinckley dodged the question.

He didn’t dodge it. He was referring to the part about God’s state before He became God, and President Hinckley spoke the truth: We know and understand very little about it, and it is virtually never explored in detail in our teaching. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I love the head in the hat problem.  Imagine how hard it was for Joseph Smith to memorize thousands of words of Isaiah and then repeat those words by memory to his scribe while while his face was in a hat and get it so right.   I have a hard time reading Isaiah vocally without stumbling over the words yet Joseph did it by memory with his face in a hat.   There is no way I could have done it. 

For me I love it because it is so matter of fact, practical.  He tells his family/friends he needs to block out light to read the seer stone better, instead of making a big production, he grabs what is handy, an old white hat and sticks his head in it…Which probably looks quite silly.  He is not attempting to look like a prophet, he probably isn’t even thinking about how it looks, but getting the job done.  That says sincerity to me, not fraud.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Obehave said:

Do "we" as a church teach "it" (As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be)? 

This part, yes, we teach it.  It is in the Gospel Principles manual.  But that wasn’t what the answer was about, it was only about the first part.

I personally think he misspoke and corrected “teach it” to “emphasize it”.  But it is clear in the interview the interviewer is asking about the first part and depending on what President Hinckley meant about teaching, if he means discussing in class or talking about over the pulpit, we don’t actually teach about the first part of the couplet, since what only gets mentioned is the couplet itself.

See Ken’s link to FAIR that shows they had been talking about the second part, men becoming exalted, but then briefly specifically switched to the first, as in God’s way, way, way back past….

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?

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

This is not a problematic doctrine.  As Man is now, Christ once was(had a body).  A Christ is now, Man may become (resurrected).  This is fairly straight  forward Christian doctrine.

I realize that Many LDS interpret the couplet in another manner.  But I'm not sure why Pres. Hinckley dodged the question.

It was not interpreted that way by the author.

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe a way of not throwing pearls before swine. Pres Hinckley said something about it later to a group of members but will have to scrounge up the reference to get the exact wording, unless someone else can find it sooner.

ETA: Found this from Fair:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Why_didn't_Gordon_B._Hinckley_say_more_about_the_King_Follett_Discourse_in_the_TIME_Magazine_interview%3F

What he said was not truthful.  It has nothing to do with pearls.

Quote

"On the other hand, 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 (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!" -

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

Edited July 1, 2022 by sunstoned

[OGHoosier]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

What he said was not truthful.  It has nothing to do with pearls.

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

He only affirmed one half of the couplet in your quote.

[webbles]

35 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

What he said was not truthful.  It has nothing to do with pearls.

Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994

What he said was truthful.  Here's what's in the Time article - https://archive.org/details/TimeMagazineMormonIssueAug1997/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

Quote

And not just the converts. In an interview with Time, President Hinckley seemed intent on downplaying his faith’s distinctiveness. The church’s message, he explained, “is a message of Christ. Our church is Christ- centered. He’s our leader. He’s our head. His name is the name of our church.” At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that “it’s of course an ideal. It’s a hope for a wishful thing,” but later affirmed that “yes, of course they can.” (He added that women could too, “as companions to their husbands. They can’t conceive a king without a queen.”) On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, “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.”

He did affirm the second half of the couplet ("As God now is, man may become").

It is the first half of the couplet that "he sounded uncertain".  Here's the transcript of the interview:

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.

Notice the question.  He answered truthfully about that question.  We don't really teach that God the Father was once a man like we are.  We definitely don't emphasize nor do we discuss it in public discourse.  I've heard many different theories on what it means, ranging from God the Father was more like Christ (perfect) to just like us (imperfect who needed another Savior).  But none of those theories have been taught in any public way for decades.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Obehave said:

The "it" being referred to was the entire couplet, not only a part of it, so I am with Gordon. I don't know that we teach it, the entire couplet.

No, it wasn’t, not in the interview.

English requires a pronoun to be attached to the antecedent noun/phrase, which would be “God the Father was once a man like we are”, which is not the full couplet, but only the first part. 
 

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?

 

“We commonly use the pronoun it as both a subject and an object pronoun:

Don’t drink the milk. It smells terrible.

Has anyone seen my phone? I can’t find itanywhere.

We often use it in question tags:

That furniture is lovely. It isn’t too expensive for us, is it?

You know the flat with three bedrooms by the supermarket? It’s the best one we’ve seen so far, isn’t it?”

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/it

And seriously “Gordon?  Were you personal friends, on a first name basis?

Edited July 1, 2022 by Calm

[Ipod Touch]

8 hours ago, Islander said:

“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." 

Was that answer an attempt to distance himself and the church from a very problematic doctrine from a Christian standpoint, or, did he just not know about what allegedly God has revealed in that regard? 

He was willfully lying and later joked about it in a general Priesthood meeting.  Of course GBH would be familiar with King Follett.  Or Mormon Doctrine.  Perhaps he didn't personally agree with the doctrine, but it well understood.  Or at least it was when I was still a member.

General Authorities have a pretty bad track record when it comes to dishonesty with the press.  Elder Oaks had to release a public statement because he lied to the press about his conversations with the moronic Steve Benson.  Joseph lied about polygamy.  So did Wilford Woodruff as Polygamy was openly practiced until the 1920s.  In Mormonism, just as with the Patriarchs, lying is acceptable if it accomplishes a greater purpose.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Ipod Touch

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Referring to someone by their Christian or given name is common in society today.

The only people I know who typically refer to apostles by their first name are exmormons with grudges. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

9 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

He was willfully lying

CFR.  I'll even help you out by directing you to the Time magazine article in question:  https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,986794-7,00.html

Here's the money quote, emphasis mine:

Quote

In an interview with TIME, President Hinckley seemed intent on downplaying his faith's distinctiveness. The church's message, he explained, "is a message of Christ. Our church is Christ-centered. He's our leader. He's our head. His name is the name of our church." At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that "it's of course an ideal. It's a hope for a wishful thing," but later affirmed that "yes, of course they can." (He added that women could too, "as companions to their husbands. They can't conceive a king without a queen.") On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, "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."

On the question of whether man can become gods (part 2 of the couplet), Time Magazine acknowledges that Hinckley said, "yes, of course they can." 

On the question of whether god was once a man (part 1 of the couplet), that's when Hinckley said "we don't teach it...we don't emphasize it."  Which is absolutely, irrefutably true.. 

The real question is, when faced with an ambiguous interpretation of an event, why jump so conclusively to the most mean-spirited and graceless interpretation possible? 

Edited to add: if anyone is willfully lying here, it's the OP, who framed the question to create an illusion of ambiguity that was not actually in the published article.  The article itself makes it very clear that President Hinckley had different responses for each part of the couplet.  

Edited July 1, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I am not an exmormon. Hello. 

We know Ahab.