Why is that the apolgists that try to argue here just end up making themselves look worse and worse. It is an amazing thing!
And I am calling on BC Space here!!!! BC Where the heck are you!??? What we have here BC is a specimen of what I have told you about apologists. They want to ignore things published by the Church and limit doctrine very narrowly, much more narrowly than you.
So the KFD does teach that God the Father was once a man. Any idiot who reads it can see this as it is plainly stated. Whether the Father was a man like us or a man like his Son, a savior of some other world is debatable. But that THE FATHER WAS ONCE A MAN is part of the KFD.
So is the KFD doctrine and the comment that God was a Man-and not referring to the Son Obiwan, but to the Father doctrine? Well it is not canonized, It is not scripture. However, it has been used so frequently and published in numerous manuals and still is! So yes, it is doctrine. Only a fool would argue that it is not.
But let's ask BC. BC is Obiwan right in what he argues below? I mean the statement about God being a man is all over Church publications.
Obiwan wrote:Listen, it's really simple. I'm not "lying" and president Hinkley didn't "lie" either.
Yea you are lying or just full of it. Hinckley I will say simply dissembled and was disingenuous. An outright malicious lie I guess I would not call it. But he certainly was not open and candid about it.
You all should really learn that simply because you can't understand something someone is trying to explain to you, and thus you take the "easy" negative judgment as if that is the actual truth, doesn't mean the those of us who believe things differently are "lying".
Oh please. Let some air out of your arrogant head would you please.
President Hinkley and I are trying to explain very "subtle" but important differences in things. We are trying to show you what the Church actually "IS" rather than what you think it is in your negative and degrading judgments.
Nah Hinckley was trying to avoid the question. You are just being obtuse.
I mean think of your character. You are calling an amazingly righteous man, the Prophet and President of a major faith a "liar", and you are calling a faithful well experienced and learned of the issues Mormon a "liar".
I am not impressed with your so called experience. Not if this is the result. When I was a hobby apologist I would never have argued what you are about this topic. And I never defended President Hinckley. I simply would say it looks like he really did not want to talk about it so he dodged the question. No big deal really. I don't expect perfection.
By the way, many of us here have just as much experience and knowledge about the LDS Church and it doctrine as you. Stop being so smug about your wondrous experience.
There is no "scripture" on the Father once being a man, save implied, thus not official.
There does not have to be scripture to make something doctrine. Church publications contain doctrine. FP statements are doctrine.
There is no Official First Presidency announcement that the Father was once a man as we are.
There is no official revelation from God to the Church proclaiming the Father was once a man.
The KFD is not scripture....
on and on...
Doesn't have to be. Was taught over and over in conference and was published in Church publications over and over. Thus doctrine.
Thus, not doctrine
You are simply mistaken on this one.
Until you have some of those things, you don't have "doctrine", I'm sorry to tell you all. Is the "couplet" good doctrine, sure. But that's the closest we get to it, without actually saying it
I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong. The KFD and what it teaches is LDS doctrine.
Our "doctrine" is that we can become like the Father. Our "doctrine" is that Christ who is God was once a man. That is our doctrine. The Father himself once being a man is nothing more than inspired speculation, not "official doctrine"
And that the Father was once a man, it is doctrine. You cannot back peddle from this and I really find it strange that you and some others really want to. What is it about this that bothers you. Are you a Blake Ostler fan? I know he argues along these lines.