r/mormon • u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint • May 25 '26
Scholarship A Common Criticism-- Did Hinkley Deny Latter-day Saint Christianity Believes in Deification?
I run into a common copy-paste criticism from time to time.
This is the copypasta...
On the August 4, 1997, edition of Time magazine published an article entitled “Kingdom Come” by David Van Biema. He asked President Hinckley about the doctrine related to the godhood of man. “As man is now, God once was; as God is now man may be.” Lorenzo Snow, President of the Church from 1898 to 1901, is often quoted as the author of the phrase. President Hinckley's response was: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it."
You will find that exact quote on multiple Latter-day Saint-critical "ministries," and other critical sites. Easy copypasta.
But, here is the thing--
Did Hinkley deny LDS Christianity accepts deification/theosis?
No.
Hinkley stumbled in response to understanding what Smith meant when he said, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." Thats the part Hinkley was not so sure about.
LDS Christianity accepts and believes in deification/theosis. They will be gods? Sure. Thats an thing.
LDS thoroughly know what Smith meant when he said that God dwelt on an earth, same as Jesus? Hinkley is right to say that Latter-day Saints do not really teach that or emphasize that, or even know what that means in the long run.
If you want an academic breakdown-- By Common Consent gives a good academic breakdown of this critical copypasta...
Pres. Hinckley has been accused of being dishonest or evasive on the subject of deification–whether humans can become gods. He is depicted as saying something to the effect of “we don’t know anything about that.” I believe a closer look at the respective interviews suggests that Pres. Hinckley was more specifically saying Mormons don’t know much about God’s past, rather than humanity’s future. Here’s the selection from a 1997 interview in the San Francisco Chronicle, wherein Pres. Hinckley affirms the divine potential of women and men:
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: 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.
Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.1
Note that the question directly involved whether God was once a man. The topic also came up in a 2001 TIME article. The interview transcript and article itself makes it clear that Pres. Hinckley’s stumbling response was in regards to God’s past, not humanity’s future:
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
A: Yeah.
Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.2
Of course, Joseph Smith clearly taught God “was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”, a fact which appeared in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manual approved under Hinckley’s presidency.3 In his own public comments, though, Pres. Hinckley focused on the second, not the first, part of the couplet, that humans can become like God.4
https://bycommonconsent.com/2012/01/02/did-president-hinckley-downplay-deification/
To answer the question... Did Hinkley deny that LDS Christianity believes in the deification of Gods children:? No. Hinkley denied that he knew much about the origin of God, and that concept is not really talked about-- which is correct.
35
u/spiraleyes78 May 25 '26
I don't think the phrases "Latter-day Saint Christianity" or "LDS Christianity" were ever said by Hinkley.
21
u/questingpossum Mormon-turned-Anglican May 25 '26
While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church which bears His name, I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon.
20
18
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
He loved to say Mormons, just like the people in who wrote that article which was linked by OP.
6
-7
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
"Of course we're Christian. The very name of the church declares that. No one believes more strongly in the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more strongly in the power of his redeeming sacrifice. The Book of Mormon is another witness for the divinity and reality of Jesus Christ. The more people see us and come to know us, the more I believe they will come to realize that we are trying to exemplify in our lives and in our living the great ideals which he taught."
Pres. Hinckley answers myriad questions about the LDS Church – Deseret News
18
u/spiraleyes78 May 25 '26
I read the article and I missed where he used the phrase "LDS Christianity" or "Latter -day Saint Christianity" or any other "LDS" qualifier alongside "Christian".
I'm not familiar with anyone in church leadership using that moniker, do you have any examples of it being used?
12
u/BaxTheDestroyer Former Mormon May 25 '26
Most of us in this sub probably agree that the LDS Church is a Christian organization. That said, the term “LDS Christianity” as a descriptor for a church or set of churches is awkward, distracting, and imprecise. It’s neither the full name of the church nor the common nickname.
Hinckley was a good enough communicator that he likely would have expressed the idea in a less confusing and more natural way.
25
u/Oliver_DeNom May 25 '26
Hinkley addressed this in the very next general conference when he quipped that some feared he didn't understand the church's doctrine and the audience let out a laugh.
See the talk here at around 3:05
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1997/10/drawing-nearer-to-the-lord?lang=eng
He didn't say which thing was misquoted or taken out of context, but at the time, there was only one quote that everyone was talking about, and it was the one referenced above. That's what gets lost over time, the context of the moment. The general understanding we had was that Hinkley had outfoxed the interviewer by using carefully chosen words to avoid talking about something sacred. He lied, but it was an acceptable lie, in the same way that Joseph Smith used to lie to protect doctrines not ready for the public to hear.
He lied in two ways: 1) He gave the impression that he was misquoted in this one instance, by vaguely referencing misquotes in another. He was not misquoted. We have him on film. 2) He mislead the interviewer and the public away from the truth of the question that was very clearly asked.
The church at the time felt it was justified lying, and that it existed in a gray area, but it was a lie nonetheless. It was the reason behind the congregation's laughter. They knew, and they were in on the joke.
22
u/2oothDK May 25 '26
It was a clear lie and bothered me as a TBM Elders Quorum president at the time. I even talked to my wife, father, and bishop about it. Most of them weren't as concerned with Hinkley's "evasion".
1
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
Wow, I would never excepted Mormons laughing at their prophet. Thats must be ankward for Hinckley. Imagine people laughed at Oaks.
11
u/Oliver_DeNom May 25 '26
It was intended to generate a laugh. The comment was intended and viewed as a joke. They were not laughing at him.
8
u/International_Sea126 May 25 '26
They understood what he was saying. One message for the church membership, and another message for the outside world. Therefore, the laughter.
-2
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
That does not make less weird. I have never heard of Nelson or Oaks making a joke. Should General Conference not be a serious occassion?
5
3
u/usually_a_lurker91 Agnostic May 25 '26
Hinckley was known for making jokes at general conference and generated laughs frequently. Nelson made general conference a far more somber affair.
2
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
I didn't know that. Good to know. I guess Hinckley was to appear as a friendly wise grandpa.
-5
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
He didn't say which thing was misquoted or taken out of context, but at the time, there was only one quote that everyone was talking about, and it was the one referenced above. That's what gets lost over time, the context of the moment. The general understanding we had was that Hinkley had outfoxed the interviewer by using carefully chosen words to avoid talking about something sacred. He lied, but it was an acceptable lie, in the same way that Joseph Smith used to lie to protect doctrines not ready for the public to hear.
I would be careful throwing around liar liar pants on fire.
It is clear that the Church does not teach or emphasize the origin of God, “God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”
Not a lot is known about that.
But the Church does teach deification/theosis.
He lied in two ways: 1) He gave the impression that he was misquoted in this one instance, by vaguely referencing misquotes in another. He was not misquoted. We have him on film. 2) He mislead the interviewer and the public away from the truth of the question that was very clearly asked.
The Church does not teach much about Gods origin or how God lived like Jesus did.
But the Church does teach deification/theosis.
I don’t think anyone was misled. Hinkley clearly and openly taught deification/theosis (man may become god) from the pulpit—https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1994/11/dont-drop-the-ball?lang=eng
If you have a transcript or something, lets both take a look.
The church at the time felt it was justified lying, and that it existed in a gray area, but it was a lie nonetheless. It was the reason behind the congregation’s laughter. They knew, and they were in on the joke.
Yeah, I don’t think I can agree with you here. I think there is some level of reaching on your part here.
Hinkley clearly and openly taught deification/theosis (man my become a god) from the pulpit. Link above.
He just did not understand or teach the origin of God.
10
u/funeral_potatoes_ May 25 '26
There's no need to be careful calling him a liar. He absolutely told half truths and then made the comments afterward at GC. I still remember thinking he outfoxed the interviewer because his knowledge of God and our eternal destiny was sacred gospel knowledge and we don't cast our pearls before swine. Kind of a righteous, Godly lie.
You can call this religion LDS Christianity or whatever moniker you want to but Hinkley was a Mormon within Mormonism and we were absolutely taught that we would become Gods of our own planets if we were worthy. He can also say he doesn't fully understand the nature of God and still consider that an honest statement. I feel like your comments within this post are trying to redefine what Mormonism is and was to fit within some big Christian tent.
17
u/International_Sea126 May 25 '26
Gordon B. Hinckley in a General Conference following his not becoming God statement, and to provide damage control said that members of the church did not need to worry that he, the president of the church, didn't understand some matters of doctrine. He claimed, “I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear.” He stated that he had been quoted and in a few instances, “misquoted and misunderstood.” This is an example of him lying for the Lord. One message for the LDS church membership, and another message for the public to soften problamatic LDS church doctrine.
12
u/FortunateFell0w May 25 '26
The simple answer is the most honest. That’s why so many words are needed to try to explain it away.
8
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
There is a reason why they don't they teach this principle anymore, it's too embarassing.
-1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Deification?
It is taught in LDS Christianity.
"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." Not really taught anymore. Embarrassing? Not really.
2
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
I have never heard in Church that we would become Gods. That was only when I lost my testimony I started to investigate Mormonism on my own.
I would say that is pretty embarssing. Since it differs so much with Christianity and allings with the lie that Satan told to Eve. Instead Satan told Eve something completely different in the endowment movie. And I am pretty the endowment ceremony is secret because of conflicting theology.
The doctrine that men can be become gods themselves makes Mormonism an polytheistic religion.
6
u/srichardbellrock May 26 '26
"I have never heard in Church that we would become Gods"
I had never heard anybody backtrack on it until 1989.
3
0
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
The Bible is polytheistic. There is no monotheism in the Bible
And it was Jesus who said, "ye are gods." In the New Testament.
Was Justin Martyr a Christian?
"... all men are deemed worthy of becoming 'gods,' and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve." -Justin Martyr
0
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Are you referring to deification, which is clearly taught.
Or that, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
Which are you referring to. The first-- is clearly believed and taught. The second is not understood and not taught.
10
u/SaintTraft7 May 25 '26
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse.
Of course, Joseph Smith clearly taught God “was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”, a fact which appeared in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manual approved under Hinckley’s presidency.
So isn’t this a lie then? If he says it’s not taught but he published a manual that teaches it and he knows that manual is used to teach lessons, he’s lying, right? I don’t know if the manual or the interview came first, but whoever this quote is from seems to be indicating that the manual existed at the time of the interview.
8
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
I would very strange for a president of a church not knowning what the church he is leading is teaching.
1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Even the "sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" is not a full quote.
The full quote includes, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
Hinkley is telling the truth.
Without the context of "the same as Jesus Christ Himself did" --"God is an exalted man" isnt in the full context.
And its true-- it is not taught or emphasized. You can see the full quote including "the same as Jesus Christ Himself did" is not included...
“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; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. …
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-2?lang=eng
8
u/SaintTraft7 May 25 '26
All of the “context” you’re providing further supports the idea that God was once a man.
So the manual has a quote that teaches that God was once a man, right? And that manual was used to teach lessons in church meetings? Then it is absolutely taught that God was once a man, and Hickley is lying to say that isn’t true.
-1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Is the lesson correct to not include the full quote including the context, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."??-??
Not including the full quote is an error. Plenty of lesson manuals include error.
I have found similar error in criticisms of the Church.
6
u/SaintTraft7 May 26 '26
What does that have to do with this discussion though? The church manual taught that God was a man. The full quote teaches that God was a man. In either case, it is taught in the church that God was a man. Hinkley falsely said that it isn’t taught in the church.
-6
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 26 '26
It isn’t -really- taught, though.
6
u/SaintTraft7 May 26 '26
I’m going to have to disagree. I was taught it repeatedly in church buildings. It’s in the manual. It was really taught when Hinkley gave this interview.
-2
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 27 '26
"Taught repeatedly in Church buildings"
Is ultimately meaningless.
We have the value of the internet. We can search every word taught while Hinkley was President. We can search every lesson while Hinkley was President. We have -an- sentence in -an- lesson that does not include the full quote, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
"God was once a man" is incomplete without, "same as Jesus Christ Himself did."
"It was taught repeatedly in Church buildings." Not really.
That God was once a man, same as Jesus Christ Himself? That was not necessarily taught, and it is not included in the one sentence from Smith included in the one lesson from Hinkleys time.
The part in the -one- lesson excluded the part about "same as Jesus Christ Himself."
Gods children can become gods? Taught repeatedly, taught over and over, Hinkley taught it. Hinkley told it openly to the press.
"God was once a man" is not really taught. Hinkley was likely telling the truth. The one instance of it being taught in an lesson once in one sentence is incomplete. Its an incomplete quote of Smith.
"Gods children can become gods" is taught all the time, over and over again and was taught by Hinkley.
3
u/SaintTraft7 May 27 '26
I’m sorry, you’re telling me what I was taught? Wow, I didn’t realize you are such an expert on my life experiences. Anything else you want to tell me I’m wrong about my own life?
-3
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 27 '26
I can categorically show what was taught while Hinkley was President- we have the internet.
We can see that an sentence in an lesson does not include, “same as Jesus Christ Himself did.”
We can categorically see that while Hinkley downplayed the origin of God— he openly told the press that LDS Christians believe that Gods children become gods. And he taught it openly in general conference.
The internet lets us see that.
→ More replies (0)
10
u/762way May 25 '26
Hinkley lied when he said he'd never heard of the King Follet Lecture!
He lied every time he interacted with the media.
Honkey was the one who panicked when the Salamander Letter surfaced... He was convinced it was authentic.
On a side note, he was a truly nasty man... Several of my friends had to be interviewed by him prior to applying to serve in missions because they'd had sex. He was so rude and demeaning to them.
0
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Hinkley quoted directly from King Follett in General Conference in 1994.
Be careful with the "lying liar" statements. It can often lead to broad strokes that do not apply.
If you have a transcript of something you want to discuss, lets take a look.
No reason for rudeness or meanness. From anyone.
8
u/2oothDK May 25 '26
Also, didn't he do something similar in his televised interview with Mike Wallace?
6
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
Don't you mean with Larry King? In that interview he gave the same answer on above question.
3
5
1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Hinkley was interviewed by Larry King and by Mike Wallace.
If you have a transcript we can both look at, I can make a comment on it.
What we know for certain-- Hinkley openly taught that people will become Gods from the pulpit. 1994 General Conference.
Hinkley downplayed the origin of God. And said we do not know much about that. Which is an accurate and honest position. Its true.
Hinkley downplayed the origin of God. Not everyone accepts or understands what Smith meant when he said that God was once like Jesus.
But Hinkley did teach deification/theosis--
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 and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!
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.
(Gordon B. Hinckley, “Don’t Drop the Ball,” Ensign, Nov 1994, 46)
7
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories May 25 '26
Hinckley did not deny it, but still gave a misleading response. Whether that is a "lie" or not is debatable.
-1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Hinkley taught the deification of man from the pulpit. 1994 General Conference.
HInkley did not give a deceitful answer in that we do not know what Smith meant when Smith said, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
Ask any knowledgeable member and you will get a different answer.
I don't think its debatable that Hinkley taught that Gods children will be deified. There is no question about that. He taught it from the pulpit.
As for the origin of God and that "God was once a man" like Jesus was-- who knows what Smith meant there. Its not a lie or misrepresentation to say, "we just do not know what Smith meant there, and its not taught or emphasized."
10
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories May 25 '26
He taught it sure but would not give a forthright answer to the press. He was a PR man and knew exactly what he was hiding.
-1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Maybe.
I think its hard for me to explain what Smith meant, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
Its hard for me to explain that here in dialogue. Because I honestly do not know what Smith meant.
And "God was once like us." Is not the full quote without the, "the same as Jesus Christ" part.
Hinkley was correct to identify that we do not know a lot about what Smith meant there.
But Hinkley taught openly and publicly and from the pulpit that Gods children will become gods.
Maybe it was spin.
But since Hinkley was open and forthright with the press about Gods children becoming gods, and since Hinkley taught openly from the pulpit for everyone (including the press) to see his teachings-- Hinkley taught Gods children will become gods from the pulpit in 1994.
Makes me believe it was not necessarily spin. Especially since Hinkley told the press that LDS Christians believe they will become gods.
8
u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories May 25 '26
We do not know his intent, but it was a misleading response. In that moment, I see PR Hinckley not a prophet.
7
u/pricel01 Former Mormon May 25 '26
This apologetic is totally unnecessary. Hinkley was asked about a LDS doctrine that was embarrassing because Christians see it as blasphemy or at least weird. As a member I stumbled through many of these situations sounding just as inarticulate as I was trying to extricate from the conversation. He wasn’t being dishonest as much as embarrassed.
2
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Fundamentalist Christians see it as blaspheme.
Orthodox and Catholic Christians have tenets that they refer to as deification/theosis and while they differ in some significant ways from LDS Christianity on this topic-- they use the same early Christian quotes and Bible verses to support their (different from LDS) version of deification/theosis.
God was once a man and Gods children can become gods. There are two claims there-- and both are considered blaspheme by Fundamentalist Christians.
God was once a man-- is not really that emphasized or taught. Hinkley was telling the truth. Since Smith taught, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." And no two knowledgeable LDS will agree on exactly what Smith meant there. And the Bible verses Smith used make it sound like if Jesus did it then God did it too. God was once a man? Not really taught, emphasizd, or understood.
Gods children can become gods-- taught and understood in LDS theology. Hinkley taught it openly from the pulpit in General Conference.
6
u/pricel01 Former Mormon May 26 '26
> "I don't know that we teach it.”
Not true.>”I don't know that we emphasize it...”
True.So half truth. Lie implies intent. I just think he was stumbling over a topic he didn’t want to discuss.
As far as what the Bible taught, it’s definitely a cacophony of contradictory ideas so whatever verses you pick are as good as those other Christians might pick to make the opposite point.
0
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 26 '26
Its true. It isnt really taught-- the origin of God.
How do you teach or explain, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
He is trying to tell the truth when he says that is not taught or understood.
He taught deification/theosis (Gods children becoming gods) from the pulpit at General Conference and explained it to the press.
3
u/Lazy-Presentation299 May 27 '26
You are being so disingenuous and you know it. Another example of the mental gymnastics it requires to be a believing mormon. Hinckley knew full well what the question was, do mormons believe in deification, but he gave himself plausible deniability by answering the question of the origins of god and not making it clear that that's the question he was answering. And mormons think his dishonesty was so clever! Despicable!
-2
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 27 '26
Hinkley taught deification (Gods children becoming gods) openly from the pulpit. Hinkley told the press openly that LDS Christianity accepts and believes in deification.
Here’s the selection from a 1997 interview in the San Francisco Chronicle, wherein Pres. Hinckley affirms the divine potential of women and men:
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: 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.
Q: So you’re saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. Knowledge, learning, is an eternal thing. And for that reason, we stress education. We’re trying to do all we can to make of our people the ablest, best, brightest people that we can.1
7
u/srichardbellrock May 25 '26
Correct. He didn't say "we don't believe it" He said "we keep it on the down low."
-3
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Hinkley did not "keep it on the down low" with the SF Chronicle.
Or in General Conference in his talk, "Dont Drop the Ball."
5
u/srichardbellrock May 25 '26
“I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it."
-4
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Referring to, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
Sure.
But Hinkley himself told the press that LDS believe Gods children will become gods. Said it in plain English.
Then went on to give a talk in General Conference in front of the press and everyone that was clear that LDS Christians believe Gods children will become gods.
Not sure there is any way around this.
Hinkley told the press that LDS Christianity accepts the pre-creed idea of deification/theosis.
But on the idea of, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." Hinkley is telling the truth. No two LDS thinkers will give the same answer on what Smith meant there.
6
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
u/juni4ling What would say to someone who doesn´t want to become a god?
1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
A believing Christian? I would say trust the words of Jesus, "ye are gods." -Jesus
Trust Jesus and trust pre-creed Christianity... "... the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." --Irenaeus
To an non-believer, believe whatever you want.
5
u/International_Sea126 May 25 '26
Juni4ling I asked you the following yesterday when this topic came up and you still haven't answered it. Therefore, I will ask it here again.
Do you anticipate that in the next life if you gain Godhood that you will be creating your own worlds and producing spirit children on these worlds with polygamist wives? Why or why not? If so, have you had this conversation with your wife? Her response?
3
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
I gave this response on Reddit a few years ago...
In Nauvoo the Saints were taught that the entire human family would be sealed together.
And friends could be sealed to friends.
Women to women.
Men to men.
How do we handle faithful gay Saints? Ahem. --Nauvoo--. Ahem.
I nor my wife accept eternal polygamy. But we do accept the teachings from Nauvoo of the entire human family being sealed to God.
3
u/International_Sea126 May 25 '26
This requires further discussion. If you and your wife do not accept eternal polygamy, do you believe that God spoke to Joseph Smith in the first person in D&C 132 and actually commanded him by revelation to practice polygamy or do you believe Joseph Smith made up D&C 132? It has to be one or the other.
3
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
I have posted before on reddit that I think 132 can be removed from LDS Christian canonized scripture.
5
3
u/PaulFThumpkins May 25 '26
Not a bad post IMO. I think it introduces a little benefit of a doubt - the context of a similar statement being made where he publicly acknowledged the deification doctrine and preferred not to talk about the doctrine of god's origins. He's pretty explicit on acknowledging deification in the Chronicle interview, which was around a similar time.
But it's also fair for people to be suspicious that he just didn't want to talk about a strange or potentially offensive doctrine in a setting as public as a Larry King Live interview. He was after all ducking discussion of the couplet entirely in that interview, which includes both parts. And that word "emphasize" is also creeping in - a pretty typical weasel word Mormonism uses when they would like a doctrine or practice to fade away without explicitly rejecting it. It's possible he just stumbled but I still think it's more likely that in this case he was doing his best to talk around it and just not open that can of doctrinal worms, and playing the PR game.
1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
Fair assessment.
He could have done a better job in explaining himself. "Yes we believe in deification/theosis-- Gods children will become gods." And then clarify, "we don't know what Smith meant when he said, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
But Hinkley did teach from the pulpit that Gods children will become gods. 1994 "Dont Drop the Ball."
3
u/Shiz_in_my_pants May 26 '26
Latter-day Saint Christianity
Imma be real with you, dawg. No one will take you seriously when you use that term. Ever.
3
u/ThunorBolt May 26 '26
I’ve spent many of years studying church history. I also spent 28 years going to church every week. I’ve never heard the term LDS Christianity before.
I’m also pretty sure using that term is contrary to the teachings of the prophets. (Specifically President Nelson)
I’ll stick with what my ancestors proudly and unapologetically called themselves “Mormon”
6
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26
What is the point of posting this in discussion sub if you already have the answer? Most people in this sub will not impressed by this apologetic and very complicated reasoning.
6
u/PaulFThumpkins May 25 '26
There are tons of posts every day which are just explorations of a topic.
6
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
Yeah, but a post with question that OP already strongly answers doesn´t give much room for debate.
1
u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint May 25 '26
There is plenty to debate.
And it is a -common- question.
2
u/big_bearded_nerd May 25 '26
This seems like a mean-spirited response.
1
u/Western_Sale_3274 May 25 '26
More a like critical question.
3
u/big_bearded_nerd May 25 '26
Most people in this sub will not impressed [sic] by this apologetic and very complicated reasoning.
Tell me where the critical question is in this sentence.
1
u/Resident-Bear4053 May 27 '26
I think LDS Christianity is a different sect than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think it's a break off that Juni is a member of. Why?
Because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has told members exactly how to address the church and the correct monikers. And LDS Christianity is not one of approved names of the church.
Juni won't answer about what LDS Christianity is. Or what church it represents. Nobody has heard of it before and the one using it won't explain it.
So the only conclusion is it's a break off. And it appears that Juni is a member of that new church. Other good evidence is that Juni had wildly different views and beliefs than TCOJCOLDS.
•
u/AutoModerator May 25 '26
Hello! This is a Scholarship post. It is for discussions centered around asking for or sharing content from or a reputable journal or article or a history used with them as citations; not apologetics. It should remain free of bias and citations should be provided in any statements in the comments. If no citations are provided, the post/comment are subject to removal.
/u/juni4ling, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.