Mormon Church Denies Prior Knowledge of Susan Brock Affair With Teen Boy, Which is a Lie

Phoenix New Times ^ | April 18, 2011 | James King

[Elsie]

I don't KNOW...

In case you don't recognize the title of this post, it is part of President Hinckley's answer to a reporter's question that appeared in the August 4 1997 issue of Time magazine. The reporter referenced the King Follett discourse. The answer supplied and the manner in which it was delivered caused the reporter to draw some false conclusions about a very important doctrine.

In that discourse, the prophet Joseph Smith said, "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." (See also D&C 130:22)

The article referred to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man is now, God once was; as God now is, man may become." The reporter said, "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing." President Hinckley was then asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

The bothersome reply

"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 think others know a lot about it."

The reporter wrote, "On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain." That's an unfortunate conclusion. Of course I wasn't at the interview and neither were you but I'll bet the reporter mistook careful thoughtfulness for uncertainty. This doctrine is indeed deep territory and not something that is taught outside the LDS Church.

An earlier and similar interview

The San Francisco Chronicle, published an interview with President Hinckley in April of 1997. The reporter asked, "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?" President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'"

He then said, "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." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."

President Hinckley's response

President Hinckley said in October 1997 General Conference: "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." And there lies the whole point of my post today. Some members did indeed become a little concerned by the exchanges they read in the press reports of those interviews.

Does the Church still teach this?

I know this is old news but it still bothers some people when they discover the anti-Mormon attacks floating around on the Internet. President Hinckley was right. We really don't know much about how our Heavenly Father became a God. The idea that he passed through a mortal probationary state like you and me is certainly not documented in any scripture of which I know.

However, it is still taught. In the Gospel Principles manual in the chapter on exaltation we read, "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)."

Summary and conclusion

I don't know why this should bother anyone. The doctrine is true. Joseph Smith knew a whole lot more about this than I do. President Hinckley also knew a whole lot more about this doctrine than he was willing to share with reporters who did not have the background to understand it. It must have been difficult for President Hinckley to hold back and not teach it in those interviews.

It didn't bother me when I read the interviews back in 1997 and it doesn't bother me today. However, I know it does bother some people. We each have trials of our faith. I have never depended on an intellectual understanding of the gospel in order to accept it and live it. There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.

---

---

 There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith. 

[Colofornian]

Furthermore, this statement really torques me off: When abuse does occur we work to see that it is reported to the authorities."
You either report it or not. You don't "work to see" that it is reported.

Excellent cach, TMF.

[Colofornian]

I never pinged or FREEPmailed any moderator on this thread -- and rarely do on any thread.

False accusation.

Either apologize for your false assumption leading to a false accusation or you're on permanent ignore -- something I'll encourage others to do as well. (You gotta be held responsible for your loose keyboard mouth sometimes; and if you don't like the mod holding you accountable, I'll reinforce it by asking for an apology)

As for your other accusation, I didn't write the article. If you gotta a beef with how it was written, contact the writer & the publisher.

[svcw]

Mind boggling that there are those so willing to defend mormonISM that they will attack posters rather than condemn an admitted child rapist, which the article is about. place marker

[magritte]

He probably beats his wife too...magritte

[svcw]

I suppose that was meant to be funny, however I am failing to see how child rape is funny. I also am not amused by people who fail to condemn child rape but instead focus on attacking the poster of the article.

[Religion Moderator]

There have been no abuse reports on this thread. I pulled your post 32 because it was a personal attack.

Your post 35 attributes motive to another Freeper and reads her mind and for that reason it is "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.

[MissesBush]

Wow, what a nitpicky bunch of nonsense. You don’t like the way something is worded, as if there’s any difference between working to cause something to happen and causing something to happen? You people are a joke. The LDS Church cannot do anything right in your eyes even right down to the wording of statements that “torque you off.” You people are so full of hate and bigotry towards the LDS Church you have no credibility. You will nitpick ANYTHING the LDS Church does. Go practice your faith and stop obsessing about the wording in a statement released by some other faith. I’ve always said if you have to practice anything by tearing down something else, you are showing a distinct lack of confidence in your own beliefs.

[magritte]

Do you honestly believe that anyone on this thread is “for” child rape? C’mon, this thread wasn’t posted for that reason and you know it...it’s just an anti-Mormon slam thread...magritte

[Elsie]

The LDS Church cannot do anything right...

NOW you are catching on!

That heretical Religious Organization was started by a lying conman, deceived by two LYING 'personages' and continued by opportunistic 'leaders' who are no more 'prophetic' than my GOATS!

HEY!!

I prophecy that it's time to EAT!

[Elsie]

Darn!

A known Noahide can read the obvious as well!

What have YOU against "Mormon slam threads"?

YOU have managed to SLAM CHRISTIANS about every time you post!

[Elsie]

(Pay no attention to Jack: he ALWAYS thinks it’s time to eat!)

[Colofornian]

You people are so full of hate and bigotry towards the LDS Church you have no credibility.

(She says, full of hate & intolerance toward others' religious views, apparently -- by her vantage point -- undermining her own credibility)

[Colofornian]

YOU have managed to SLAM CHRISTIANS about every time you post!

'Fess-up time Magritte...seems Elz has a point here...you've made it a career on religious threads to slam others' religious viewpoints.

How could the Noahide Slammer [sounds like a good professional wrestler's 'handle' eh? :) ] objectively object to any negative slams that come down on religion when that's been a hobby of his for a while?

[greyfoxx39]

So they did exactly the same thing Catholic Bishops did for decades, then.

[svcw]

And you dear margi make my point, don’t condemn the perp attack the posters. I see you haven’t condemned the perp either but you have made jokes and you have ragged on posters.

[svcw]

Are you able to condemn the perp without ragging on the poster? This was pedophilia, condemn it. It does not matter who committed it, it is disgusting and vile. I don’t care who the poster is. I don’t care what group the perp came from. The woman is slime and she deserves the punishment she is getting. The people who knew and did nothing allowing it to continue aren’t any better.

[T Minus Four]

Hate? Bigotry? Obsession? Those are pretty strong words you’re aiming at me Missy. Care to back them up?

[magritte]

And I don’t beat my wife either !! I barely rag on any of the anti-Mormons...no one takes them seriously...I just hate for any lurkers to think they in any manner represent conservatives...magritte

[svcw]

Well dear, at least you are consistent. Still no condemnation of the perp, just ragging on the posters as being anti-mormon when it is anti-mormonISM.