All of us were taught one of the biggest carrots in Mormon theology, and that is that men can become gods (Sorry Ladies) (Notice how I capitalized "Ladies" so you'll feel "equal" about this)

On your web page about Mormon lying, http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm

I think that you should add the fact that Hinckley Himself taught this doctrine to the entire church and quoted its source.

I was wondering why you don't have this fact right below where Hinckley says he doesn't know that the churches teaches what he personally and specifically told the LDS population in total over the pulpit and then sent out in print in the church magazine Ensign?

"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom. (Conference Report, Oct. 1994)"

It seems that Hinckley becomes a traitor to his own teachings during his public interviews.

Than after the interviews Hinckley lies and inoculates the members again over the pulpit that "the press got it wrong but its all good" to the whole church.


"I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." 1997 October General Conference



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 11:11AM by AmIDarkNow?.

Great find AmIDarkNow

I LOVE Hinckley!

He is the best profit ever!

The "I don't know that we teach that" moment was the first major, major crack in my testimony. My jaw dropped and I Was like - WTF!
Then he compounded it with his stupid Conference statement, trying to deny he'd said anything so obviously against what I'd be taught for decades in the church.

Hinckley got me on the road to thinking more coherently about the church and what it teaches, and I found it wanting.

Thanks Hincks! You are the best!

again, Mormons / LDS is used to having thing s (EVERYTHING) Both Ways.


I agree with him that no 'press' could completely explain LDS beliefs, However, they cherry-pick what's said, quoted - taught themselves!

Mormons ONLY back the party-line, principles / concepts / values are a far-away idea, I was regularly 'put into my place' for standing up for Honesty!

Hinkley has done more than any other modern prophet for the cause of Exmoism, hands down.

He got a pretty good start back in 1968 when he kicked my unworthy ass out of his office, condemning me to a life of exmoism.

Thanks for the quote!

Hinckley did not deny that the church was teaching that men can become gods. He denied that the church was teaching that God was once a man.

There is a subtle difference.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is a subtle difference.

Yes there is. But the "subtlety" of his remarks wasn't lost on me, or many others, who had grown up learning about the King Follet sermon.

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image and very form as a man."

Seem pretty clear what ol' Joe was saying. I don't think he wasn't sure what he was teaching, and he does appear to understand the philosophical background behind it.

You know, that King Follet sermon was so powerful it still makes my skin tingle. Even though I know it is total BS and I have zero respect in Ol' Joe.

Is that "subtle" difference why you did not add that to your site?

AmIDarkNow? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that "subtle" difference why you did not add that to your site?

Yes.
Remember, I'm a lawyer (recovering, but recovery is slow).

OK, I see the subtle difference. So men can become Gods, but that doesn't necassarily mean God was once a man, except both teachings come from the same source.

Richard wrote:

"Hinckley did not deny that the church was teaching that men can become gods. He denied that the church was teaching that God was once a man.

"There is a subtle difference."

But, in the very same year when Hinckley made that denial, the 1997 Priesthood/Relief Society lesson manual stated that very thing:

"President Brigham Young taught ... that God the Father was once a man on another planet who 'passed the ordeals we are now passing through...The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church." ("The Teachings of Brigham Young," 1997, pages 29,34, )

So contrary to Hinckley, the church was indeed teaching that very doctrine.

Hinckley had also taught the doctrine in a general conference talk a few years earlier, but I don't have the quote on hand.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 11:18PM by randyj.

I mention that in my "Mormon Lying" article: http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm

Maybe hinkley just changed his mind? We all choose what we believe anyway. In 1984 he believed in becoming a gwad and then later he decided he didn't believe that anymore? It's not the end of the world, and not the end of mormonism, people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2015 02:53PM by poopstone.

Put it this way: In 1998 when Gordon BS Hinckley told Larry King and the World via Television that MORmON polygamy was "not doctrinal", I was deeply saddened............ That scum bag LYING @$$hole PR-of-it Hinckley did not have to explain that statement to MORmON tyrant and Profit Brigham Young....... through Hinckley's regular LYING mouth and through the new mouth hole in Hinckley's neck created by Brigham Young having the MORmON temple penalties executed on Hinckley.

...... would that count as having two witnesses to the MORmON word of MORmON god? Anyway, MORmONISM might still exist in the world, so it was not the end of MORmONISM in general, but it was the end of MORmONISM for me, and in my world, THAT is what counts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-69awU9ogE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFq2IEsBnPo

That lie of Hinckley's is also on my list at "Mormon Lying" http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm

Hinckley told Larry King that MORmON polygamy was not doctrinal and that it had not been practiced since 1890.......... but Hinckley himself had sealed MORmON profit Howard Hunter to a second wife in 1990 ( imagine those numbers are about 10 feet high and brightly lighted for dramatic effect)
When Inez Hunter died she was given a MORmON state funeral. Hinckley told people that she would be an eternal companion to Hunter in the next life. That would have to be in conjunction with Hunter's first wife, Clara Jeffs, who was sealed to Hunter first. Any man with more than one wife is a polygamist, which makes Hunter into a polygamist. Funny thing, there is reason to believe that practicing polygamy in eternity is a more strident example of practicing polygamy than merely practicing polygamy in mortality, since eternity is much larger than the length of a mortal life. As MORmONS want to complain about this notion, it needs to be pointed out that this scenario comes about by applying MORmON conventions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCN3AvH4JRg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvv4zHiuz48

Great post, Am I Dark Now.

I'm going to e-mail it to some people who need to read it. It satisfies your sense of justice to catch someone in a bold-faced lie, in print and on film, or both. Thank you.

Mormonism's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.

The idea that God still communicates with humans (just as claimed in Biblical times) is very attractive to many religious people. A great deal of the church's growth is due to this claim.

But ... Having made that claim, Mormonism has to live up to it! God (supposedly) is perfect, therefore God's instructions to his "Living Prophets" must also be perfect.

It would be impossible for a perfect God to contradict Himself, therefore it should also be impossible for Living Prophets to contradict themselves.

That's where everything falls apart fast.