Ignorance or avoidance of a problematic doctrine?

[Teancum]

What a wonderful thread!  Thank you for reaffirming the incredible dance ya all have to do to be an LDS apologist. 

[bluebell]

19 hours 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 it was an attempt to acknowledge that we don't really know what that couplet means exactly.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What a wonderful thread!  Thank you for reaffirming the incredible dance ya all have to do to be an LDS apologist. 

Where's the dance?  When asked about the potential for men to become Gods, the Time magazine reporter notes that President Hinckley said "yes, of course they can." 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What a wonderful thread!  Thank you for reaffirming the incredible dance ya all have to do to be an LDS apologist. 

I grew up in the era of spandex and cocaine. I don’t know how to do anything else but dance.

 

[Ipod Touch]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What a wonderful thread!  Thank you for reaffirming the incredible dance ya all have to do to be an LDS apologist.

It really is amazing.

 

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Where's the dance?  When asked about the potential for men to become Gods, the Time magazine reporter notes that President Hinckley said "yes, of course they can." 

 

 

It is all of you dancing around this to justify President Hinkley's clear dodge. I  have been around the church long enough to know and hear the LDS leaders teach the ideas of God being a man and men becoming gods quite in depth.  So yea we used to think we knew a lot about it.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Teancum

[Stormin' Mormon]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is all of you dancing around this to justify President Hinkley's clear dodge. I  have been around the church long enough to know and hear the LDS leaders teach the ideas of God being a man and men becoming gods quite in depth.  So yea we used to think we knew a lot about it.

First, there was no dodge on the question of whether men can become gods.  The Time magazine article that kicked off this thread states that President Hinckley said, "Of course they can" in response to questions about that doctrine.

Second, a CFR that his response to the second question (regarding God once being a man) was a dodge.  This CFR is in three parts, corresponding to the three claims that President Hinckley made: that we don't teach it, that we don't emphasize it, and that we don't know a lot about it.

1. Show that we teach this concept.  Not taught.  Teach.  On this point, I'm genuinely curious because in my 30+ years of active membership, I don't recall this EVER being taught as anything other than a "here's a fun thing to speculate about."  I'm genuinely curious how far back through church magazine and manuals we'd have to go before we find something that teaches (not speculates) that God the Father was once a mortal man.  I may be wrong and maybe you can find something from the last 20 or 50 years.  I'm honestly curious. 

2. Show that the concept is emphasized.  So piggy-backing off the first CFR, but show that the concept has been repeated in multiple church magazines or manuals.

3. Show that we know a lot about the concept.  Piggy-backing off the first two CFRs, show that the repeated teachings about the concept were anything more than "God was once a mortal man." 

 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is all of you dancing around this to justify President Hinkley's clear dodge. I  have been around the church long enough to know and hear the LDS leaders teach the ideas of God being a man and men becoming gods quite in depth.  So yea we used to think we knew a lot about it.

I've never done this, Teancum. A disturbed missionary once asked me if we teach that we can become gods. Of course we do,I answered. Why did President Hinckley say what he said in the interview,he asked. I pointed out that the current priesthood manual (it was he Joseph Smith year) has the King Follett Discourse in it. He was still bothered by what seemed like obvious evasiveness. I told him that most people have never been interviewed by the press, especially on TV and radio (there was also the Larry King interview where Hinckley was evasive. Not just the Time print interview). It's hard to answer questions that take some explaining and background and context in a very limited time (it's especially hard when you have the voice in your earpiece telling you 15 seconds to break. I had also just done three radio interviews about the Church at this time,so I had had this thrilling and nerve-wracking experience). You especially don't want to get pulled out into the weeds when you don't know if you're going to have enough time to explain it.

President Hinckley was really the beginning of the PR push to try to deemphasize "weird" Mormon beliefs. 

Romney's dodges on "weird" Mormon beliefs in the campaign trail were worse, but I do sympathize with the situation and setting.

I did get the missionary to understand that Hinckley that wasn't denying the doctrine,he was being cagey in interview settings. I personally would prefer less "dodging" and PR spin approaches,and more proud and confident owning of our "weird" doctrine. We can all act in our own spheres of influence. Eric Hawkins and Carrie Jenkins don't dictate me.

[Metis_LDS]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I  have been around the church long enough to know and hear the LDS leaders teach the ideas of God being a man and men becoming gods quite in depth.  So yea we used to think we knew a lot about it.

I have to agree with you,  I was scratching my head a lot over that statement.  After awhile I had to let it go.  Whatever the definition of Presidents Hinkley's  ""WE""  I never did clearly understand and many of the membership did not also.   Oh well.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Metis_LDS
grammar

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is all of you dancing around this to justify President Hinkley's clear dodge. I  have been around the church long enough to know and hear the LDS leaders teach the ideas of God being a man and men becoming gods quite in depth.  So yea we used to think we knew a lot about it.

Dodging has been a part of the Church from the beginning.  And it usually depends on the audience.  Pearls before swine is still a correct principle.  I have zero issue with the dodge.

[Teancum]

32 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

First, there was no dodge on the question of whether men can become gods.  The Time magazine article that kicked off this thread states that President Hinckley said, "Of course they can" in response to questions about that doctrine.

Second, a CFR that his response to the second question (regarding God once being a man) was a dodge.  This CFR is in three parts, corresponding to the three claims that President Hinckley made: that we don't teach it, that we don't emphasize it, and that we don't know a lot about it.

1. Show that we teach this concept.  Not taught.  Teach.  On this point, I'm genuinely curious because in my 30+ years of active membership, I don't recall this EVER being taught as anything other than a "here's a fun thing to speculate about."  I'm genuinely curious how far back through church magazine and manuals we'd have to go before we find something that teaches (not speculates) that God the Father was once a mortal man.  I may be wrong and maybe you can find something from the last 20 or 50 years.  I'm honestly curious. 

2. Show that the concept is emphasized.  So piggy-backing off the first CFR, but show that the concept has been repeated in multiple church magazines or manuals.

3. Show that we know a lot about the concept.  Piggy-backing off the first two CFRs, show that the repeated teachings about the concept were anything more than "God was once a mortal man." 

 

You continue to prove my point thank you very much.  To many CFRs here.  Pick one and I may consider it.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Just now, Teancum said:

You continue to prove my point thank you very much.  To many CFRs here.  Pick one and I may consider it.

Now that's a dodge.  Physician, heal thyself.

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Dodging has been a part of the Church from the beginning.  And it usually depends on the audience.  Pearls before swine is still a correct principle.  I have zero issue with the dodge.

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?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What a wonderful thread!  Thank you for reaffirming the incredible dance ya all have to do to be an LDS apologist. 

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/

[Teancum]

Just now, Stormin' Mormon said:

Now that's a dodge.  Physician, heal thyself.

Ok.  This is a message board. I don't have time to do a treatise on the subject for you. Nor the interest.  Your CFR was over the top.

[Teancum]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

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/

Thank you for confirming my observation.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you for confirming my observation.

All that has been confirmed is that you lack the capacity (or, perhaps, the will) to read for comprehension and context, and it is you who have done that. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  This is a message board. I don't have time to do a treatise on the subject for you. Nor the interest.  Your CFR was over the top.

Can we at least agree that Hinckley actually did say "yes, of course they can" in response to the question about men becoming gods?  Can we agree that he did not in fact dodge the question of apotheosis? I'll even admit he may have hemmed and hawed to get there, but in the end, he did say those five words affirming a widely-taught Church doctrine.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Gonna be away from the computer for the next couple of hours, so I want to add this real quick.  If we can agree that "yes, of course they can" was not a dodge, would you be willing to retract the bolded part of your earlier claim? 

edited to clarify: retract it because it is not relevant.  Church leaders have in fact taught that, and President Hinckley affirmed that we teach it, so it's not relevant to the current discussion. 

 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It is all of you dancing around this to justify President Hinkley's clear dodge. I  have been around the church long enough to know and hear the LDS leaders teach the ideas of God being a man and men becoming gods quite in depth.  So yea we used to think we knew a lot about it.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All that has been confirmed is that you lack the capacity (or, perhaps, the will) to read for comprehension and context, and it is you who have done that. 

This from the guy who argues all the apologist has to do is raise the level of the Church claim to possible plausibility so someone can pray about it.  I see your rosey disposition has not changed much as well.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:44 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

Can we at least agree that Hinckley actually did say "yes, of course they can" in response to the question about men becoming gods?  Can we agree that he did not in fact dodge the question of apotheosis? I'll even admit he may have hemmed and hawed to get there, but in the end, he did say those five words affirming a widely-taught Church doctrine.

Sure.

You have been here long enough to know that when you are asked for documentation you must provide it or stop arguing.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It is all of you dancing around this to justify President Hinkley's clear dodge. I  have been around the church long enough to know and hear the LDS leaders teach the ideas of God being a man and men becoming gods quite in depth.  So yea we used to think we knew a lot about it.

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. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This from the guy who argues all the apologist has to do is raise the level of the Church claim to possible plausibility so someone can pray about it.  I see your rosey disposition has not changed much as well.

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 Nehor]

2 minutes 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? 
 

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. 

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

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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

I’ve seen them refer to each other that way in a collegial manner, but you’re right that people who do it who don’t know them personally are apt to do it sneeringly. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Scott Lloyd