"As Man Is, God Once Was..."

[Guest Ammon]

President Hinckley recently stated, via national media, that he didn't "know that we teach" that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints professed that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be." (Hinckley, Time, 1997; Lorenzo Snow, Public Address, 1840.) What is the doctrine here? What do we believe? If we do sustain the statement, why do the scriptures say that God the Father is eternal and has always been God? And why would President Hinckley state that he wasn't sure we (LDS) believed said principle? I find these questions perplexing. Thoughts?

Here's Hinckley's quote:

"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." (Time, 1997.)

[AFDaw]

When did he say this?

[Guest Ammon]

1997... which is recent to me. (Old Timer.) I saw the interview on T.V. I couldn't believe my ears, but it was him saying it. I'll dig up the transcripts. READ THE EDITED OP, which now addresses these issues.

[Rodney]

Where did he say this?

[Rodney]

To whom did he say this?

[Rodney]

How loudly did he say this?

[Rodney]

Did he have a good night's sleep before he said this?

[Rodney]

Are you sure somebody looking like him didn't say this?

[srm]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 12 2004, 02:44 PM

President Hinckley recently stated, via national media, that he didn't "know that we teach" that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints professed that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be." (Hinckley, Time, 1997; Lorenzo Snow, Public Address, 1840.) What is the doctrine here? What do we believe? If we do sustain the statement, why do the scriptures say that God the Father is eternal and has always been God? And why would President Hinckley state that he wasn't sure we (LDS) believed said principle? I find these questions perplexing. Thoughts?

Here's Hinckley's quote:

"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." (Time, 1997.)

Sheesh Ammon...why don't you come clean about who you are and what you want.

[Guest Starsky]

This was given in a interview with Larry King. President Hinckley didn't want to go into the deep doctrinal significance of this sonnet with Larry King on national TV.

If you heard the whole interview, you would have notice President Hinckley trying to dodge a lot of heavy issues.

Somethings are just better taught one on one or in a spiritual setting and President Hinckley, being the wise man that he is, and being the spiritual leader to millions....was thinking about what was best and did what was best under the circumstances.

Of course no matter what he says or does, it always will come under scrutiny by those who are looking for weaknesses to prove him to not be a prophet.

Certainly wouldn't want that burden on my back.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by srm+Apr 12 2004, 05:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Apr 12 2004, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 12 2004, 02:44 PM

President Hinckley recently stated, via national media, that he didn't "know that we teach" that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints professed that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be."  (Hinckley, Time, 1997; Lorenzo Snow, Public Address, 1840.)  What is the doctrine here?  What do we believe?  If we do sustain the statement, why do the scriptures say that God the Father is eternal and has always been God?  And why would President Hinckley state that he wasn't sure we (LDS) believed said principle?  I find these questions perplexing.  Thoughts?

Here's Hinckley's quote:

"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." (Time, 1997.)

Sheesh Ammon...why don't you come clean about who you are and what you want.

What?!

I am an active member of the Canyon Country First Ward of the Santa Clarita Stake of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I currently serve as the financial clerk, hold a temple recommend, and attend church regularly. My forefathers were converted and left Herefordshire, England in the mid-1800s, came across the plains, and settled in the Weber Valley of Northern Utah. I accordingly have a long heritage in The Church. I served a Spanish-speaking mission in San Diego California under President Christensen from 1990-1992. And I've served as both a stake and ward missionary. More importantly, my testimony in The Church is strong.

I also have a desire to do missionary work, which includes correcting false teachings regarding our Church on the Net so that investigators who study our Church by lurking on the Net read what we really believe. I do this via visiting various other Christian websites that preach falsehoods about our Church. On occasion, I will hit a snag and come here for help so that I might help those who lurk and investigate the Church. So far, I've had many who have approached me in private with sincere interest in the Church from that which I write. Thus, I feel that I am doing my task as a member missionary.

That is who I am and what I want.

[Guest Starsky]

This is very to the point...I suggest you all read it very carefully. Any prophet is going to be just as important as the next when it comes to this promise to those who down the prophet.

D&C 121:

11 And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun;

12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness;

13 Also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost;

14 That they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut off;

15 And not many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand by the wall.

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them.

21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.

23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell.

24 Behold, mine eyes see and know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof, for them all;

25 For there is a time appointed for every man, according as his works shall be.

[Guest Ammon]

That's all very nice, but how does that answer the questions in the OP, which are the focus of this post?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 12 2004, 05:35 PM

That's all very nice, but how does that answer the questions in the OP, which are the focus of this post?

You are getting a bit hasty Ammon...this post addresses it....I just added the scripture for those who need it....

This was given in a interview with Larry King. President Hinckley didn't want to go into the deep doctrinal significance of this sonnet with Larry King on national TV.

If you heard the whole interview, you would have notice President Hinckley trying to dodge a lot of heavy issues.

Somethings are just better taught one on one or in a spiritual setting and President Hinckley, being the wise man that he is, and being the spiritual leader to millions....was thinking about what was best and did what was best under the circumstances.

Of course no matter what he says or does, it always will come under scrutiny by those who are looking for weaknesses to prove him to not be a prophet.

Certainly wouldn't want that burden on my back.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Starsky+Apr 12 2004, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ Apr 12 2004, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 12 2004, 05:35 PM

That's all very nice, but how does that answer the questions in the OP, which are the focus of this post?

You are getting a bit hasty Ammon...this post addresses it....I just added the scripture for those who need it....

This was given in a interview with Larry King. President Hinckley didn't want to go into the deep doctrinal significance of this sonnet with Larry King on national TV.

If you heard the whole interview, you would have notice President Hinckley trying to dodge a lot of heavy issues.

Somethings are just better taught one on one or in a spiritual setting and President Hinckley, being the wise man that he is, and being the spiritual leader to millions....was thinking about what was best and did what was best under the circumstances.

Of course no matter what he says or does, it always will come under scrutiny by those who are looking for weaknesses to prove him to not be a prophet.

Certainly wouldn't want that burden on my back.

Actually, the quote above was from an interview with Time Magazine, not Larry King. And when Time printed the initial quote, it was even more derrogatory that the above quote, which they published after President Hinckley told Time that it misquoted him. Thus, the above quote issued, which comes from the actual transcripts of the Time interview, which was broadcast on one of my cable channels last month. Accordingly, your post does not answer the questions that I proffered in the original post, which are specific and therefore require specific answers. I really need some help here, and so far, no one is stepping up to the plate. Sorry to be "hasty," but the Net moves fast, and I've investigators out there who seek answers to such questions quickly. Thanks.

[Lindy]

Starsky is right, maybe Pres. H had to sidestep it just a little to keep those heavy issues from exploding into a bigger problem. You know how some people can take a few words and blow them out of proportion and start the ball rolling.

He may have had some kind of intuition to keep a low profile on some of the questions asked.

I know that there are things that some people ask me out of curiosity, and if I know that they can't handle the answer I give them, I just tone it down to what I know they can handle at the moment. You have to talk to people on a level that they can understand....a child's level, a pre teens....a young adult...a man's level, a female's level, etc. Same thing goes with religious issues.

Of course...this is MHO only.

[Guest Starsky]

Actually, the quote above was from an interview with Time Magazine, not Larry King. And when Time printed the initial quote, it was even more derrogatory that the above quote, which they published after President Hinckley told Time that it misquoted him. Thus, the above quote issued, which comes from the actual transcripts of the Time interview, which was broadcast on one of my cable channels last month.

Nope...it might have been printed later in the time magazine...but I watched this interview myself on cable...as well as reading it in a write up in our local paper.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Apr 12 2004, 06:56 PM

Starsky is right, maybe Pres. H had to sidestep it just a little to keep those heavy issues from exploding into a bigger problem. You know how some people can take a few words and blow them out of proportion and start the ball rolling.

He may have had some kind of intuition to keep a low profile on some of the questions asked.

I know that there are things that some people ask me out of  curiosity, and if I know that they can't handle the answer I give them, I just tone it down to what I know they can handle at the moment.  You have to talk to people on a level that they can understand....a child's level, a pre teens....a young adult...a man's level, a female's level, etc.  Same thing goes with religious issues.

Of course...this is MHO only.

Well, if that was the case, the side-stepping has created more of a backlash than an outright response would have, in my opinion as an attorney.

You see, the antimormon sites, which claim to be "Christian" sites, and which our Church's investigators are reading in record numbers due to powerful search engines like Google, note that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, and Lorenzo Snow all taugh the doctrine that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become. Then they compare the above quote, and various others made by President Hinckley along the same lines, to the teachings of the the four prophets I just listed, and it looks very bad. Do you see the problem? Thus, I seek answers to these questions.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 12 2004, 06:59 PM

Actually, the quote above was from an interview with Time Magazine, not Larry King. And when Time printed the initial quote, it was even more derrogatory that the above quote, which they published after President Hinckley told Time that it misquoted him. Thus, the above quote issued, which comes from the actual transcripts of the Time interview, which was broadcast on one of my cable channels last month.

Nope...it might have been printed later in the time magazine...but I watched this interview myself on cable...as well as reading it in a write up in our local paper.

There was ALSO a Larry King interview, and I have those transcripts as well. From what I've read, both Larry King and Time hit President Hinckley about this. And both times President Hinckley provided a similiar response. Nevertheless, assuming arguendo, that it was from the Larry King interview, the questions remain regardless of the entire interview. I'm an attorney. I know how to read transcripts, and I listened to the interview. Trust me, it did not come off well no matter what length of time you listed to the interview. The questions in the original post are germane, and the people with whom I discuss these issues will balk at this weak side-stepping argument I am hearing here. The investigators that read my interactions with nonmembers need solid answers to each question in the original post. These generalities simply will not do.

The last time I asked for help here, I had to go and spend 8-12 hours researching www.lds.org and the church curriculum for answers to the questions presented. I had hoped to avoid such a large amount of time by coming here... thinking that if I did not have the answers, someone in here might. Thus, if you don't have solid answers to the questions asked in the original post, don't reply to the post. Thanks.

Regarding the Time interview, which you say does not exist, it was part of the magazine issue that had the Salt Lake Temple on the front with the overwording, "Mormons Inc." Here is a discussion regarding the article:

President Gordon B. Hinckley seemed to dodge and dissemble in an August 4, 1997 Time cover story when veteran religion writer Richard N. Ostling asked him about the distinctive Mormon teaching that humans can become gods, and that God the Father was once a man (p. 56).

"At first Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods," according to Time, "suggesting that ‘it’s of course an ideal. It’s a hope for a wishful thing,’ but later he added, ‘yes, of course they can.’"

On whether the LDS Church 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,’" Hinckley told Time.

(Mormons in Transition.)

[Guest Starsky]

Well there are answers and there are answers...

If you are trying to find answers to 'please' the anti's ... good luck.

The Lord Knows the weaknesses of men...and the stumbling blocks...

They are both evidenced in the lack of faith. When one has faith they over look the weaknesses of others. But when they have no faith, the capitalize upon those same weaknesses that they themselves posssess.

I propose that you are not here looking for answers for someone else, but rather here to stir and fetter...like the other thread you posted ...claiming to need help...and then going off and finding almost identical answers as were given by posters on this board...and shucking all others...as if you found them for yourself.

You are shovelling it pretty thick Ammon and have no credibility with me any longer now that I know you are a lawyer....scribe...I mean.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 12 2004, 07:14 PM

Well there are answers and there are answers...

If you are trying to find answers to 'please' the anti's ... good luck.

The Lord Knows the weaknesses of men...and the stumbling blocks...

They are both evidenced in the lack of faith.  When one has faith they over look the weaknesses of others. But when they have no faith, the capitalize upon those same weaknesses that they themselves posssess.

I propose that you are not here looking for answers for someone else, but rather here to stir and fetter...like the other thread you posted ...claiming to need help...and then going off and finding almost identical answers as were given by posters on this board...and shucking all others...as if you found them for yourself.

You are shovelling it pretty thick Ammon and have no credibility with me any longer now that I know you are a lawyer....scribe...I mean.

That's fine. Your pejorative, insulting, ad hominem , unChirstlike comments (e.g., shovel it pretty thick) do nothing to help me. And I fear that you do not carefully read my posts because the things you say manifest that you do not know key bits of information that I just provided in a previous post (e.g., the issue re having to answer my own questions before). Thus, if you wish to not respond to my posts, I will consider that a favor. Adieu. B)

[Guest Starsky]

That was a hogs belly full! LOL You definitely are a scribe.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Apr 12 2004, 05:56 PM

Starsky is right, maybe Pres. H had to sidestep it just a little to keep those heavy issues from exploding into a bigger problem. You know how some people can take a few words and blow them out of proportion and start the ball rolling.

He may have had some kind of intuition to keep a low profile on some of the questions asked.

I know that there are things that some people ask me out of curiosity, and if I know that they can't handle the answer I give them, I just tone it down to what I know they can handle at the moment. You have to talk to people on a level that they can understand....a child's level, a pre teens....a young adult...a man's level, a female's level, etc. Same thing goes with religious issues.

Of course...this is MHO only.

Absolutely Lindy. Right on. :)

[Lindy]

Yes, I do understand the problem, I was once one of those non member Church investigator's searching for the answers to questions like that.

And I have learned that I will know the answers to all of the unanswered questions that I have had, that you have had, and that many others have had, when God gives us the answers. "As man is, God once was" that is one of the questions I don't dwell over, one that I just accept as one of those statement/questions that will be answered.

"As God is, man may become" A missionary told me like he would have told a child, but it was in terms that I could understand. I'm sure that you have heard the analogy of the king and his royal family, that the family members would inherit positions and responsibilities, (being of the royaly family) only after they have proven their worth to the king. I liked that analogy. That the king, being a gracious and fair ruler of the kingdom, chose those who would carry on in his footsteps, the goals and aspirations of what he wanted to acheive for his people.

Of course that is my opinion as a working class female with no degree.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 12 2004, 07:22 PM

That was a hogs belly full! LOL You definitely are a scribe.

More insults? Let us be civil and Christlike, shall we?