As man is rears its head again

Good luck Thoreau. Like you I like the principle. It’s kind of cool, in whatever style it gets carried out in in the next life. I also appreciate the struggle, since I was gal the road through it last week. (You no doubt have read the whole thread). I am coming to a personal realization that it’s going to be a challenging year in the area of instruction. Between Church History and Pres. Snow, there are going to be some tough days.

I assumed we had passed the lesson, but no – the couplet and the ensuing issue it had caused was addressed today, in a gentle and not so gentle way, by the Relief Society President today. I understand her position. I had already come to my own place of peace on the event, but to have it sort of re-hashed was a bit gut wrenching. Fortunately I had some note paper and a pen and I just distracted myself with other thoughts till that passed.

Additionally the Relief Society President called this week and asked if I would read and share with the sisters two of scriptures from the lesson today. I think this was her good faith, fence mending effort. Again I totally understand, I’ve been in leadership and rowing the boat is hard, but I would have been fine just letting last weeks events, remain last weeks events.

I’m still sticking to my plan of keeping something to do with me even just note paper and when the lessons begin to creep up, I will write until I can think clearer. That way when a topic is a struggle for me, I can let others share their opinion, and I can keep mine. It’s not a race and I willingly step aside.

Good luck to you. You’ll find an answer. I know it.

I’m not understanding the significance of uncoupling the couplet. Is it to not dwell on God’s past, or so that we won’t teach something incorrect about his past?

And just a little “wow” re. the FAIR/FARMS (sorry don’t know how to click back and see) article, I sure wish there was a different writing style:

The individuals from Time who were involved with the published article are not members of the LDS Church, nor do they understand LDS doctrine. The same is true of Mr. Wilson. Those who do not attend Sunday School, Sacrament meeting, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, Ward Conference, Stake Conference, General Conference, or read the Ensign, scriptures, nor study LDS manuals, have no right to define for those that do, just what the beliefs of the members of the Church are. Perhaps those that criticize President Hinckley for what they think he understands about the nature of God should spend their time trying to understand the incomprehensible God they claim to believe in. After all, it is important for our eternal salvation to know God.

In my opinion, this just doesn’t create a good impression of the people writing there.

There is precedent of course… Joseph Smith told a few ‘bare faced misrepresentations’ about polygamy – which Brian Hales scoffed aside in his recent interview for Mormon Stories as being ‘for the milk drinkers.’

Right – lie to the milk drinkers.

Ray, I agree that Pres Hinkley was talking specifically about the first part of the couplet – but I also still think it’s a little misleading of him to say: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it.”

How can he say we don’t teach it… it’s in bloomin’ Gospel Principles! They even kept it in the revised version that was recently reprinted.

Old Version:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=7eab7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

New Version:

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as he did.

How could President Hinkley say that we don’t teach that when it’s in the manual we use to teach the very basics to investigators and new members??!!!

It was also included in the 2006 Ensign:

Not only do we know that God possesses a glorified body of flesh and bones, but from this restored understanding of the nature of God flows the Latter-day Saint belief regarding our nature and potential. The Prophet Joseph Smith once taught: “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, … and that He was once a man like us. … When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/01/the-fulness-of-the-gospel-the-nature-of-the-godhead

And this from a 1982 Ensign article by Gerald N. Lund, when discussing the ‘couplet’ by President Snow:

“Numerous sources could be cited, but one should suffice to show that this doctrine is accepted and taught by the Brethren. In an address in 1971, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said:

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

“After this doctrine had been taught by the Prophet, President Snow felt free to teach it also, and he summarized it in one of the best known couplets in the Church. …

“This same doctrine has of course been known to the prophets of all the ages, and President Snow wrote an excellent poetic summary of it.” (Address on Snow Day, given at Snow College, 14 May 1971, pp. 1, 3–4; italics added.)

It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question

Ray, in the article FAIR say: “The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.”

This is utterly incorrect. We teach it to our investigators and new members. We all went through Gospel Principles as a church. So very, very recently this principle was taught clearly and explicitly:

Here’s the new edition of Gospel Principles:

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Here’s the quote again:

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”

President Hinkley was wrong. FAIR was wrong. Call a spade a spade.

What I’d much prefer is for FAIR to stop trying to defend the indefensible. I’d much prefer it if they and we could all just hold up our hands and say: “Yup, President Hinkley did not give an accurate answer.” Does that mean he was intentionally misleading or lying? I don’t know, but probably not. Maybe he panicked. Maybe he really was thinking of the “milk drinkers.” But what is absolutely clear is that we do teach it. Today, yesterday, last decade and for the last 180 years!

I understand, Thoreau. I really do – but I still think it’s being unfairly critical to claim he lied or that what he said was inaccurate. I won’t add more, since I explained why I feel that way in the other current thread about this topic, than to point out that he immediately corrected himself and said we don’t emphasize it – and we don’t. We just don’t.

There’s nowhere else for me to go with this, so I’m letting it drop. Everyone else can comment, obviously, but I need to bow out, since I don’t want it to turn into an argument. Not here.

Thanks Ray. I really do appreciate and respect your input. I can see your point of view.

No problems. I didn’t and don’t want an argument either.