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

[_why me]

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 can't give Joe or Gordie or any of the others a pass like you are.

Since the TIme interview mentioned the King Follet Discourses I think that I would agree with Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I have seen it no where taught. But at times members can mention it but I don't see the Discourses taught anywhere in the meetings.

The Time interviewer mention a specific discourse and not exactly the principle itself. I can see the misunderstanding between the inteviewer and hinckley.

[_Tator]

Listen, it's really simple. I'm not "lying" and president Hinkley didn't "lie" either.
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".

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.

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".

There is no "scripture" on the Father once being a man, save implied, thus not official.
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....

Thus, not doctrine. 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.

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".

Well let me add inspired speculation to the "What is doctrine" confusion. Was it doctrine for Joseph Smith to bed Fanny and lie to Emma and the church about it? Oh I guess not. So it was OK to lie.

Yep, we are all idiots because Gordon was explaining delicate nuances and subtle differences about things that we know nothing of. Guess what your "amazingly righteous man, the Prophet and President of a major faith" did a very poor job of explaining to all us exes that have Mormon backgrounds....can you imagine how asinine and confusing it is for the general public?

Larry King is married to a Mormon, he was throwing soft balls to this theological giant of yours. It was three striking lies and he was out.

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".

You have mastered condescension, not sure you can go lower. You take the "easy" path to tap dance around the actual truth and make the flimsiest of excuses.

Now, inspired speculation???? from a true living prophet, mouthpiece of god that leads the only truuuue church on the face of the earth, on world wide TV. What a joke!!!

I have a lizard letter for sale are you interested?

[_Tator]

Since the TIme interview mentioned the King Follet Discourses I think that I would agree with Hinckley: I don't know that we teach it. I have seen it no where taught. But at times members can mention it but I don't see the Discourses taught anywhere in the meetings.

The Time interviewer mention a specific discourse and not exactly the principle itself. I can see the misunderstanding between the inteviewer and hinckley.

Make any excuse you would like, see whatever misunderstanding you would like. Taught in a meeting not taught in a meeting, wow.

I bet your crotch is nothing but a mass of bruises, cuts and sores. A real raw mess from straddling that Mormon/Catholic fence and running from one end to the other chasing one excuse after the other.

Does it ever get tiresome?

Are your excuses the balm that heals your wound?

[_Rambo]

There is no "scripture" on the Father once being a man, save implied, thus not official.
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....

Thus, not doctrine. 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.

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".

Obiwan, can you CFR what doctrine is.

BCspace, can you clarify this for us?

[_Themis]

Obiwan, can you CFR what doctrine is.

He has a misguided understanding of Doctrine. Doctrine is the teaching s and practices of a religion, but to Obiwan doctrine=truth. If something is taught by the church and is not true it never was doctrine. Obiwan is also the arbiter of what is doctrine. Look at the priesthood ban. I believe he says is was not doctrine, but was taught and a mistake, but where does he get this idea except from himself.

[_why me]

Make any excuse you would like, see whatever misunderstanding you would like. Taught in a meeting not taught in a meeting, wow.

I bet your crotch is nothing but a mass of bruises, cuts and sores. A real raw mess from straddling that Mormon/Catholic fence and running from one end to the other chasing one excuse after the other.

Does it ever get tiresome?

Are your excuses the balm that heals your wound?

I do believe that by mentioning the King Follet Discourses, the interviewer gave a confusing situation. Was the question about the doctrine or the King Follet discourses? In answering this question, it seems that Hinckley was focusing on the discourses.

And I don't think that the church is that concerned about the idea that god was once a man. For most christians, it would not matter what Mormons believe. The LDS church has no reason to keep this teaching secret since it was mentioned in the Teachings of Joseph Smith, a book that was studied a while ago by members of the church.

[_Themis]

I do believe that by mentioning the King Follet Discourses, the interviewer gave a confusing situation. Was the question about the doctrine or the King Follet discourses? In answering this question, it seems that Hinckley was focusing on the discourses.

And I don't think that the church is that concerned about the idea that god was once a man. For most christians, it would not matter what Mormons believe. The LDS church has no reason to keep this teaching secret since it was mentioned in the Teachings of Joseph Smith, a book that was studied a while ago by members of the church.

Face it, Hinkley lied, and even believing members in this thread admit it. He lied when he said he didn't know that we teach it. He did know, and has taught it. It's in our manuals, and plenty of evidence has been presented in this thread. Continue to ignore it as you usually do on subjects in other threads. I think he should have been more honest about it. I have never seen this teaching as bad. I always liked the teaching. One of the church better ones even though the church is not true.

[_why me]

Face it, Hinkley lied, and even believing members in this thread admit it. He lied when he said he didn't know that we teach it. He did know, and has taught it. It's in our manuals, and plenty of evidence has been presented in this thread. Continue to ignore it as you usually do on subjects in other threads. I think he should have been more honest about it. I have never seen this teaching as bad. I always liked the teaching. One of the church better ones even though the church is not true.

So, the LDS church teaches the king discourses as doctrine? I don't think that he lied. He had no reason to lie. And since this interview was being published in Time, he knew that members would be reading the interview. Who was he lying to?

[_Joseph]

why me, hinckley was talking to an audience on tv when I heard the bald faced lie. No explanation ever came from him as to what he meant by denying eternal progression before a worldwide audience.

Was he really so feeble minded he just forgot what he had preached over the pulpit for years? Or was he coming closer to the truth that no one really knows what lds-inc believes?

[_Themis]

So, the LDS church teaches the king discourses as doctrine? I don't think that he lied. He had no reason to lie. And since this interview was being published in Time, he knew that members would be reading the interview. Who was he lying to?

Deal with the evidence already presented in this thread where they show that yes it has been taught, and that God was once a man has been taught, which means it is doctrine. It's in our manuals and talks by our leaders. Again deal with the evidence.