As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_Jason Bourne]

I feel much better being lump together with all my friends.

Christ said, Few there be that find it.

I see you have inverted the man/God inequality to put man above God.

I am sure you are a nice fellow. And maybe even sincere. But God speaks no more to you than he does to anyone else.

[Guest]

FAIR's "point", if you can call it that, is that if you parse words, Mormons don't "teach" that God was a man anymore, at least not publicly, but that doesn't mean that GBH and Mormons don't believe it. (Most of the ex-Mormons here say that it WAS and some say IS taught.) So I pointed out to you that in another place, GBH even denied that Mormons believe it, a clear lie even by the very restrictive standards that you and FAIR are promoting.

So, do you agree with FAIR that GBH, who presumably is a Mormon, believes it as well as other Mormons and therefore his denial that Mormons believe that God was a man is a lie?

the only thing, I see which can be said to be GBH lying would be his comment that he doesn't know that we teach it. Other than that he did not deny that Mormons believe it.

I think I've been quite fair about this, probably moreso than anyone else here, but I'll draw the line when people lie about the lying. Lets keep it straight before we start making mountains out of molehills, or that's my advice.

With that, i still am a bit perplexed why this is such an issue for anyone. GBH seemed a little jumbly, a little rambly when he went on to answer the question. It fair to say he lied when he said, "I don't know that we teach it", but we all lie. It seems silly to be so hung up on this moment from years ago, that amounts to nearly an every day occurrence for nearly everyone. But, we are talking about people who wish to criticize, afterall. I don't mean offense by that, but perspective seems important.

[_Tator]

the only thing, I see which can be said to be GBH lying would be his comment that he doesn't know that we teach it.

Let's compare the three statements, "I don't know that we teach it" and "I don't know that we emphasize it" and "I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it". These statements are pathetic coming from a prophet of god, the mouthpiece of god representing the truest church on earth. So, stem, you are comfortable with the first statement being a lie and you are comfortable with an uninformed, un-knowledgeable, out of touch leader of your church? That is what I get out of your post.

Other than that he did not deny that Mormons believe it.

He didn't deny ________ fill in the blank. What does that help?

I think I've been quite fair about this, probably moreso than anyone else here, but I'll draw the line when people lie about the lying. Lets keep it straight before we start making mountains out of molehills, or that's my advice.

OK pat yourself on your back for being fair, in your view.

With that, i still am a bit perplexed why this is such an issue for anyone. GBH seemed a little jumbly, a little rambly when he went on to answer the question. It fair to say he lied when he said, "I don't know that we teach it", but we all lie.

Good to know that the 10 commandments doesn't mean anything to you and your prophet can get a pass on them. Did you and the prophet lie in your temple recommend interview? Your quote, "but we all lie."

It seems silly to be so hung up on this moment from years ago, that amounts to nearly an every day occurrence for nearly everyone. But, we are talking about people who wish to criticize, afterall. I don't mean offense by that, but perspective seems important.

Perhaps you need to revisit your perspective.

[_Jason Bourne]

I feel much better being lump together with all my friends.

Christ said, Few there be that find it.

I see you have inverted the man/God inequality to put man above God.

I am sure you are a nice fellow. And maybe even sincere. But God speaks no more to you than he does to anyone else.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

the only thing, I see which can be said to be GBH lying would be his comment that he doesn't know that we teach it. Other than that he did not deny that Mormons believe it.

Yes he did.

"Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

"I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." - Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

.With that, i still am a bit perplexed why this is such an issue for anyone. GBH seemed a little jumbly, a little rambly when he went on to answer the question. It fair to say he lied when he said, "I don't know that we teach it", but we all lie. It seems silly to be so hung up on this moment from years ago, that amounts to nearly an every day occurrence for nearly everyone. But, we are talking about people who wish to criticize, afterall. I don't mean offense by that, but perspective seems important.

It's what he lied ABOUT that is so objectionable. If he had lied about having only one piece of cake when he actually had two, maybe we could say that is not such a big deal. But he is lying about a historically important doctrine of the Church in order to mislead people and to make Mormonism more palatable to the larger population.

[_stemelbow]

Hi tator,

It seems many critics here will wish to die on this particular ant hill. Perhaps some LDS will do the same. But, I stand by my assessment that we all lie. We're all prone to error. I stand by my assessment that GBH's response was a bit rambly, and the only thing that can reasonably be seen as a lie is when he started out by saying "I don't know that we teach it". Lie. Okay. Whatever. I'm over it. I've agreed with critics. I simply don't see the big deal.

I was quite comfortable with Hinckley as prophet. And this little mishap didn't change that for me. He's now gone. Its all over, yet critics will use it to throw in LDS' faces for some reason. Why? Do critics expect LDS prophets to be perfect? LDS might, but that's a different story. Why would critics? Are they just trying to play off the assumptio of some LDS that prophets need to be perfect? I don't know. It seems like a game to me-getting all dramatic about his mess-up. Who cares?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Stemelbow,

Critics care because of the truth claims made by these prophets. If the prophets are liars or unreliable then their truth claims can be summarliy dismissed.

V/R
Dr. Cam "I don't know that we preach that. I don't know much about that." NC for Me

[_stemelbow]

Yes he did.

"Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

"I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." - Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

Alright. He did it again. To be somewhat fair here, not all Mormons believe it. But oh well. I won't fight on that point.

It's what he lied ABOUT that is so objectionable. If he had lied about having only one piece of cake when he actually had two, maybe we could say that is not such a big deal. But he is lying about a historically important doctrine of the Church in order to mislead people and to make Mormonism more palatable to the larger population.

Alright. Then take objection. Hold it over his head and other LDS'. I'm over it. I don't hold it against him, personally. His responses surely were deceptive. Sure, it seems he wished to make the religion seem more mainstream at the time. I think it was a mistake. I think he didn't need to do that at all. I think it was a lie and a big mistake. But it was a mistake. It was a miscalculation. It was something that people will now fight tooth and nail over, it seems. I don't think the lie is made worse because of what it was about. Lies are lies. They are about all sorts of things. Oh well. That's my perspective. Not much else I'll be able to do about it. Thanks for listening.

[_stemelbow]

Hello Mr. Stemelbow,

Critics care because of the truth claims made by these prophets. If the prophets are liars or unreliable then their truth claims can be summarliy dismissed.

V/R
Dr. Cam "I don't know that we preach that. I don't know much about that." NC for Me

Then use it for your reason to dismiss it. But that doesn't mean my reasons aren't sound. They are. Everyone lies. I don't expect anyone to live their lives and not lie. I'm over it on that basis. I can trust others at various times in life, and they all lie. And if anyone trusts anyone, then they are trusting someone who has lied. I don't see that as a big deal at all.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Hi tator,

It seems many critics here will wish to die on this particular ant hill. Perhaps some LDS will do the same. But, I stand by my assessment that we all lie. We're all prone to error. I stand by my assessment that GBH's response was a bit rambly, and the only thing that can reasonably be seen as a lie is when he started out by saying "I don't know that we teach it". Lie. Okay. Whatever. I'm over it. I've agreed with critics. I simply don't see the big deal.

I was quite comfortable with Hinckley as prophet. And this little mishap didn't change that for me. He's now gone. Its all over, yet critics will use it to throw in LDS' faces for some reason. Why? Do critics expect LDS prophets to be perfect? LDS might, but that's a different story. Why would critics? Are they just trying to play off the assumptio of some LDS that prophets need to be perfect? I don't know. It seems like a game to me-getting all dramatic about his mess-up. Who cares?

I think you need to ask yourself why he lied. You are equivocating when you say that all people lie. Yes, all people have lied about something in their life. But people usually lie for a reason. So why did GBH lie?