Containing 5,403 Articles Spanning 369 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1
Total Articles:
23
Gordon Bitner Hinckley was the 15th Prophet of the Mormon Church.
|
|
We had the most incredible speaker at October's Exmo conference--it was the son of Steve Christensen, the documents dealer who was one of Hoffman's victims. His son had only been home from his mission about a year and was just the most fascinating and eloquent speaker. I could have listened to him for hours.
Anyway, Young Mr. Christensen (sorry, don't remember his first name), started questioning things on his mission and it wasn't until after his mission that he took an interest in finding out the real story behind his father's murder. He relayed a lot of details I'd never heard, even though I'd read "Salamander" and other books. I can't go into it too much here, but suffice it to say, he did say that he could never again look GBH in the eye or shake his hand. He seemed to have nothing but disdain for the guy, especially how GBH and the church wormed their way into the trial proceedings to assure Hoffman got a plea deal so as not to embarrass the church. He felt like GBH would have been willing to let his father's murderer go free rather than have a trial. He relayed a lot of fascinating details about the McClellan collection and how that all played into it. I never knew that the church had the real collection all along in the church vault (they'd had it since the early 1900s) yet they tried to suppress that because it had been subpoenaed and I guess what was in it would have been very damaging to the church.
|  | Gordon B. Hinckley Declares That Recent Disasters Are Signs Of The Second Coming
Tuesday, Mar 1, 2005, at 12:40 PM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | Mormon Church President and Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley toured the flood-ravaged cities of Santa Clara and St. George on Saturday, February 27th, 2005. Filled with the spirit, the prophet took the pulpit and warned that recent floods and earthquakes are "signs of the times."
KUTV News has reported the following:
"Gordon B. Hinckley, addressing a packed Burns Arena at Dixie State College, said the flooding in the area, the Asian tsunami and the earthquake in Iran were "signs of the times" -Biblical prophecies about natural disasters preceding Jesus Christ's return to Earth. He added that while southern Utah braces for more flooding as the mountain snow melts, the church would lend its support to the region.
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_058222601.html
Of course, the flooding in the area was a natural course of the river. People building their homes in a flood plain is beside the point. It still must be a "Sign Of The Time!"
| | | Gordon B. Hinckley Tells Reporter All Tithe Payers See Financial Records - An Outright Lie
Thursday, Mar 3, 2005, at 09:13 AM
Original Author(s): Polygamy Porter
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | When will he keep his word?
He told this to a German reporter just before the 2002 Mo'lympics:
REPORTER: IN MY COUNTRY, THE...WE SAY THE PEOPLE'S CHURCHES, THE PROTESTANTS, THE CATHOLICS, THEY PUBLISH ALL THEIR BUDGETS, TO ALL THE PUBLIC.
HINCKLEY: YEAH. YEAH.
REPORTER: WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOUR CHURCH?
HINCKLEY: WELL, WE SIMPLY THINK THAT THE...THAT INFORMATION BELONGS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE CONTRIBUTION, AND NOT TO THE WORLD. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. YES.
http://www.mormonchallenge.com has the entire interview in both video and transcript.
Hmmmm. President Hinkley has not kept his word. When will he STAND FOR SOMETHING and keep his word to THOSE WHO MADE THE CONTRIBUTION?
| 1. Both are in charge of completely autocratic, immoral kingdoms (i.e. pious lies, lack of concern for the mental illness and bankruptcies among the members).
2. Both control all of the information reaching their subjects.
3. Both try to keep the truth of what goes on in their kingdom from the public (changing temple ceremonies and pretending it never was otherwise).
4. Both lie and completely distort the truth to maintain their control.
5. Both are willing to cover up dreadful acts to stay in power (i.e. still cannot be truthful about MMM and then Hoffman).
6. Both follow communist philosophy (Marx for Kim and The Law of Consecration that they coerce people into in the temple). Actually, The Law of Consecration is more close to Marxism than any other major system on earth today. Kind of funny when you reflect on Ezra Taft Benson’s incessant ranting about communism.
7. Both are into self-worship and idol worship of past leaders (i.e. more references to Joseph Smith than to Jesus Christ, busts of the prophets in the great and spacious building, the Rameumptom in the great and spacious building constructed from Hinckley’s wood, the great and spacious building itself and the 100 temple construction to the glory of Hinckley ).
8. They support belief in a system proven ineffective many times over. (i.e. tithe to increase your financial solvency).
9. Brainwash their subjects from an early age.
10. Hunt down and punish those that try to leave the system.
11. Forbid their subjects from discussing the truth and the problems with the system and its history.
12. They hold farcical votes to make the system appear to be democratic. They make the decision beforehand and they correct people who vote otherwise.
That is correct people. Hinckley is an atheist, commie, dictator. The communist party is alive and well in Utah.
| Here's a link to a transcript of the interview: http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml
I'd suggest that you read through it because there are multiple
instances in which Hinckley either lied or otherwise obfuscated the truth.
Example 1: When asked by King about the
church's annual income being $5.9 billion, Hinckley responded, "Well, I don't know about that figure, but we get along." As the
senior officer of the LDS church, with its many holdings, combined with tithing from thousands of members (or tens of thousands),
it is unimaginable that Hinckley would not know whether $5.9 billion was the figure for church annual income or not.
Example 2: Hinckley says in the interview, "I have an accountability. I carry a trust that's incumbent upon me..." He also
said, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law." The
Mormon Murders and other books about Hinckley’s dealings with Mark Hoffman, and the ways in which he and other senior church
officers hindered the police investigation to protect themselves and the church says a great deal about how Hinckley’s
accountability and trustworthiness as a U.S. citizen, and his sense of responsibility concerning “honoring, obeying and
sustaining the law."
Example 3: In the interview, Hinckley said, "...we stand for something. We stand solid and
strong for something. We don't equivocate." How many changes to "eternal" doctrines (e.g., polygamy, blacks and the priesthood,
Adam-was-God, Blood Atonement), "eternal ordinances" (e.g., the temple endowment), and "true" church teachings (e.g., the
indigenous peoples of the Americas, the Hawaiian islands, and Polynesia descended from the Lamanites) have been changed or
deleted from Mormonism during the past century? A great deal! So much for being a "solid" and unequivocating church. For more
info., ref. http://www.utlm.org/navtopicalindex.htm and
www.lds-mormon.com
Example 4: When asked by King about polygamy, Hinckley responded, "When our people came west they
permitted it on a restricted scale." What Hinckley did not say was that polygamy was practiced prior to the Mormon pioneer
westward exodus. (Ref. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no66.htm and http://www.signaturebooks.com/mp.htm). There are various books about Mormon polygamy. A search on
Amazon.com will provide titles. As well, in the interview Hinckley states that, "In 1890, that practice [plural marriage] was
discontinued." It is inconceivable that, Hinckley, the president of the Mormon church, was not aware of the fact that after
1890, Mormon leaders continued to conduct polygamous marriages in Mexico, Alberta (Canada), and even on at least one ship in
international waters.
Example 5: Referring to the FLDS polygamists (Mormon fundamentalists) in Utah and elsewhere,
Hinckley says, "They have no connection with us whatever." How could Hinckley, a life-time resident of Utah, not be aware that
Mormon fundamentalists believe in "the Prophet" Joseph Smith, follow Smith's "revelation" on plural marriage, and practiced
Mormonism as Smith created it and it evolved in Utah in the latter 1900’s. Indeed, they believe that the LDS church has
apostatized from Jesus Christ's "true" religion, as "revealed" to Joseph Smith Jr.
Example 6: Also concerning
polygamy, Hinckley said, "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal." First, the
LDS church has never rescinded the doctrine of polygamy. It remains a part of LDS theology per Section 132 of the Doctrine &
Covenants. The Manifesto of 1890 stated that church officers were to no longer conduct polygamous marriage ceremonies, and
plural marriages were not to be conducted in church temples and other buildings (at least in the U.S.). For decades after 1890,
the church continued to teach Latter-Day Saints that the Lord had temporarily stopped the practice of polygamy due to "the
wickedness of men", but after Christ returned, it would be re-instituted. As well, Mormons, including myself as a LDS teenager
in the late 1970's and early 1980's, were taught that if we were faithful members, we would practice polygamy in the afterlife.
We were taught by the church that polygamy was essential to our "eternal salvation", a concept that, quite understandably, no
Mormon teenage girl or woman I knew got enthusiastic about. The church's senior patriarchal leadership has never issued a
declaration revoking the doctrine of polygamy or removing the verses in D&C; Section 132 pertaining to that "revelation". Born
into a Utah Mormon family and fully “active” as a Mormon during his life, Hinckley was undoubtedly aware of the church's
teachings about the doctrine of plural marriage.
Example 7: When asked about the church and politics, Hinckley tells
King, "The church does not become involved in politics." As a General Authority during the 1970's, Hinckley was fully aware of
the church’s active campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment (for women). From http://historytogo.utah.gov/equalrights_.html:
"Donations to support the anti-ERA effort were solicited by ward bishops; speeches against the amendment were deemed
appropriate at all church meetings, and church buildings were used as an anti-ERA literature distribution points. Church
sponsored anti-ERA organizations operated in Florida, Nevada, North and South Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Arizona." The
church was also active in supporting anti-homosexual marriage legislation (e.g., Proposition 22 in California; ref. http://www.lds-mormon.com/doma.shtml). To say that the church
does not become politically involved was misleading of Hinckley.
Example 8: Regarding the church and censorship,
Hinckley said, "No, we don't censor books or films as a practice". For years, the church published materials about Brigham Young
which stated that he practiced polygamy and preached about the “doctrine of plural marriage”. But the 1997 church study
guide/manual about Brigham Young excludes any mention of his polygamous marriages, and gives the reader the distinct impression
that Young was married once (in fact, he had 55 wives). This is but one of many examples of non-faith-promoting facts being
omitted from church materials. I doubt that the church’s propaganda film, Legacy, includes any mention of Mormon polygamy, the
Kinderhook Plates (ref. http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithkinderhookplates.htm), Joseph Smith marrying other men’s wives
(ref. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no66.htm#OTHER%20MEN'S%20WIVES) and other facts about Mormonism that would
cause investigators to leave LDS visitor centres and Mormons to question their church, its leaders, and their religion.
Example 9: When asked by King about the LDS church telling Catholics (for example) to leave their church and faith and become
a Mormon, Hinckley said, "I say this to other people: you develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward any other
church. We do not oppose other churches. We never speak negatively of other churches. We say to people: you bring all the good
that you have, and let us see if we can add to it." This is a dramatic change in position for the LDS church’s senior "prophet"
because for generations, senior LDS leaders were outspoken that people in other religions were being deceived by Satan and led
astray. Hinckley’s predecessors repeatedly declared that the LDS church was the only "true and living church of Jesus Christ" on
the Earth, the only church that had God's authority to preach the "true" gospel of Jesus Christ and administer the "saving
ordinances", and the only church through which people could receive "eternal salvation" in the afterlife. That Hinckley did not
take the opportunity, on national television, to share these fundamental "truths" with viewers, and instead, gave non-Mormons a
message of your-religion-is-just-fine-and-ours-is-too says a great deal about his sense of responsibility as the pre-eminent
"spokesperson of the Lord".
Example 10: With regards to how LDS women feel about not being allowed to hold the
priesthood (by Mormonism’s senior male leadership), Hinckley said, "The women of the church are not complaining about it." and
"They're happy. They sit on boards and governance in the church. I don't hear any complaints about it." These statements by
Hinckley are misleading and side-step a disturbing reality for many LDS women: depression resulting from their 2nd-class status
in the church because Mormon men refuse to allow LDS women to hold the priesthood. As a result of this gender discrimination,
capable LDS women are not only denied opportunities to administer the church, they are perpetually kept in a situation of
inequality to Mormon men. In short, LDS women of all ages are disempowered by Mormon patriarchy. The fact that Hinckley refuses
to be honest and acknowledge these facts/realities to Mormons says a lot about his transparency, ethics, and degree of
enlightenment.
| Challenges: LDS leaders warn against pornography, express need for more missionaries as annual conference ends
The instant insight provided by 14-year-old Joseph Smith's vision of God and Jesus in a grove of trees outweighed centuries of religious debate and scholarship about the nature of Deity, said LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley on Sunday.
"This grand theophany is, in my judgment, the greatest such event since the birth, life, death and resurrection of our Lord in the meridian of time," Hinckley told 21,000 people in the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City. "Upon the reality and truth of this vision rests the validity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Hinckley discussed Smith's vision during the first session Sunday of the church's Annual General Conference, which commemorated the 175th anniversary of the church's founding and the 200th anniversary of Smith's birth. Mormons across the world also were listening to their leaders' sermons via satellite in their homes or local chapels.
"How beautiful is the unfolding of the pattern of restoration which led to the organization of the church in the year 1830," Hinckley said. "The very name of the church came of revelation. Whose church was it? Was it Joseph Smith's? No, it was the Church of Jesus Christ restored to earth in these latter days."
The 94-year-old leader, considered a "prophet, seer and revelator" by 12 million Mormons worldwide, went on to enumerate the church's distinctive teachings including the eternal nature of the family, the spiritual authority of its all-male priesthood, and its practice of "baptism for the dead," a proxy ritual for those who died without an opportunity to join the LDS Church.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
Of course the LDS Church forgets that there are over 7 different versions of the First Vision. The First Vision was created by Joseph Smith long after the Book of Mormon was written in order to set the stage for it. The Book of Mormon is a fraud, Joseph Smith is a fraud and Gordon B. Hinckley continues to perpetuate this fraud in order to continue to bilk billions of dollars out of his followers.
| | | Gordon B. Hinckley Talk: List Of Joseph Smith's Doctrinal Contributions, Guess Which One He Forgot?
Monday, Apr 4, 2005, at 08:01 AM
Original Author(s): Feeling Henry Jacobs
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | The doctrine that dominated the final years of JS's life.
The one he was willing to go to his grave for.
The one that became a salvation requirement on the order of baptism itself.
The one that gave birth to the whole secret temple endowment ceremony.
GBH giving a talk on the doctrines introduce by the great prophet of the restoration-and leaving out plural marriage-demonstrates that the obfuscation and deceipt starts right at the top of this organization.
| During his General Conference address, President Hinckley quotes from a book banned by Brigham Young, a book in which the First Presidency in 1865 stated "We do not wish such a book to be lying on our shelves, to be taken up in after years I was shocked to see President Hinckley hold up a vintage copy of the biography of Joseph Smith, by his mother Lucy Mack Smith and quote from it during one of his conference addresses.
This book was banned by Brigham Young because of its "inaccuaricies" as it pertained to events in Joseph's life. The book was originally entitled "Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors For Many Generations". This book contains some eyeopners as written by Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith. One such tidbit is the account of Joseph's first vision, wherein mother Smith refers to it as a "dream" rather than a "vision". The church, after substantial revision again released the book under the title "The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Mack Smith".
The following footnote concerning "Mother Smith's History" appears in the History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 519: In the year 1865 Brigham Young told the members of the Mormon Church that he wanted Lucy Smith's history suppressed: "The President then made some remarks on the book entitled 'Joseph Smith and his Progenitors,' requesting those who had copies to let him have them, and receive value for them if they desired it."(Deseret News, June 21 1865)
Joseph F. Smith made this statement concerning the suppression of this book: "It was afterwards discovered that the book contained errors, occasioned by its not being carefully compared with historical data. Some of the statements in the preface written by Elder Pratt were also in error;...For these reasons and others...it was disapproved by President Young on August 23, 1865, and the edition was suppressed or destroyed." (History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, 1954 edition, Introduction VII)
In the Millennial Star for Oct, 21, 1865, Lucy Smith's history was severely condemned by the First Presidency of the Mormon Church: "The inquiry may arise in the minds of some persons, 'Why do you want to destroy this book?' Because. we are acquainted with individual circumstances alluded to in It, and know many of the statements to be false, We could go through the book and point out many false statements which it contains, but we do not feel to do so, It is sufficient to say that it is utterly unreliable as a history as it contains many falsehoods and mistakes. We do not wish such a book to be lying on our shelves, to be taken up in after years and read by our children as true history, and we therefore, expect the High Priests, the Seventies, the Elders, the Bishops, and every one in the Church, male and female, if they have such a book, to dispose of it so that it will never be read by any person again. If they do not, the responsibility of the evil results that may accrue from keeping it will rest upon them and not upon us......Many of the Saints may not know that the book is inaccurate; but those who have been instructed respecting its character, and will still keep it on their tables, and have it in their houses as a valid and authentic history for their children to read, need rebuke, it is transmitting lies to posterity to take such a course, and we know that the curse of god will rest upon every one, after he comes to the knowledge of what is here said, who keeps these books for his children to learn and believe in lies. "We wish those who have these books to either hand them to their Bishops for them to be conveyed to the President's or Historian's Office, or send them themselves, that they may be disposed of; and they will please write their names in the books, with the name of the place where they reside, and if they wish to hand them over without pay in return, state so; and if they wish to get pay for them, state whether they desire it applied on Tithing, or wish the value returned in other books." (Millennial Star, Vol. 27, pp. 657-658)
I wonder if President Hinckley was aware that Brother Brigham had banned this book?
| Pope John Paul feels strongly that Catholic theology on the sanctity of life (I won't mention Fr. Junipero Serra frying all those "Lamanites") should be preserved, and announces that abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are crimes against that sanctity.
As the United States convulses in agony over how best to approach the moral questions raised by the Schiavo affair, Gordon B. Hinckley, prophet, seer, and revelator in possession of Willard Chase's I mean Joseph's seer stone, and the only man with the keys to revelation for the whole word, says..........nothing.
Pope John Paul, apparently a believer in the truth claims of Catholicism, makes Cardinal Ratzinger a chief advisor, and together they seek to uphold traditional Catholic doctrine.
Gordon B. Hinckley, apparently only a quasi-believer in the truth claims of Mormonism, makes Thomas Monson his chief advisor, and together they hire a PR firm which seems to care as little about Mormon doctrine as they themselves do (of course). Hinckley begins publicly denying that the first half of the eternal progression story is official church doctrine (thus undermining the second half, and really, all of Mormon theology), in one stroke achieving the seemingly impossible task of rendering the Mormon temple ritual even more of an absurdity than before (whither temples, if eternal progression isn't "official church doctrine"?).
John Paul concedes that there is some truth to the theory of evolution.
Gordon B. Hinckley continues the 100 year old tradition of avoiding taking any official church stand on how true or false evolution may be, something that Jesus supposedly would care a lot about, since in its current form it raises troubling questions about deity, the purpose of life, etc.
During what is probably the greatest international moral struggle of all-time, that between the Soviet empire and the free world, Pope John Paul gives support to those seeking escape from oppression, and helps bring about the demise of the most murderous regime in world history. Hundreds of millions of newly freed human beings laud him as a hero.
During well over a half century of Soviet genocide and enforced atheism, Gordon B. Hinckley - strangely, for a prophet of God - issues hardly a single bleat of protest; and during his remarks on Pres. Benson's death - AFTER the wall fell! - even goes so far as to seem almost embarrassed by ETB's opposition to communism, like he needs to excuse it, explaining that ETB's "hatred" of communism was probably due to those visits over to Europe he made. Where was Gordon B. Hinckley during the greatest moral struggle the world has ever known? Nowhere. And he has the audacity to *excuse* Pres. Benson?
The Pope calls for an alleviation of world poverty, and even meets with U2 lead singer Bono regarding the issue. They and others help spur a drive to convince lenders to forgive the debts of impoverished third world countries.
Gordon B. Hinckley boldly announces that henceforth, women should not wear more than one earring in an ear.
I could go on, but just let me say this. The pope, in my opinion, presides over a church thoroughly in need of a gutting; there are hundreds of lunatic pedophiles still operating under cover of the authority of the church (and Ratzinger should declare war on them and yank them out root and branch). Beyond this, in many ways, the Catholic church is structurally corrupt. Many of its policies are blatantly unchristian, I believe. Many of its doctrines rival Mormon doctrines in idiocy (transubstantion, papal infallibility, etc.). Historically, it has much to atone for.
That said, John Paul II seemed to possess a moral sense that seems entirely lacking in Gordon B. Hinckley. In a way, I don't really understand Hinckley. Of all of the public persons I know of who might ever comment on the grand questions of life - how we should live, what is right and wrong, etc. - Hinckley is the most pathetic and disappointing. I admit it - just don't get it.
I've travelled all over the world, talked to hundreds of people from all walks of life, in every different kind of job, about just those questions; and literally - I am totally serious - LITERALLY - all of them showed more concern and insight and passion about them than does the man reputed by Mormons to be in contact with Jesus himself. Even creampuff Deepak Chopra puts him to shame.
My stake president admitted to me in our meeting that he knew that "some of this stuff didn't happen", but went on to argue that sticking with the church was a good idea because it was "useful". But what is useful about sticking with a church run by a man who seems less concerned about all of the most important questions in life, literally, than anyone I've ever met in my life?
Hinckley's talks often sound like the old end-of-the-year speeches in the Soviet politburo: "another banner year", "we are making great strides", "another wonderful monument", "everything is marvelous"....it's just....nothing. It's just nothing. And to make it worse - Monson is his counselor! Possibly the one man on earth who seems less concerned about life's profoundest questions than Hinckley! Even Faust dwells more on nostalgic stories than anything that might give guidance to life.
It is a wonder to me now that I can turn on a television and hear a guy like Joel Osteen or some other evangelical preacher really trying to grapple with these things, in a way that literally no Mormon General Authority seems to. So the argument about the usefulness doesn't seem to make any sense either. General Conference is cotton candy; there is virtually nothing there for life. You can find more wisdom in a Farmer's Almanac, more motivation to be good at a local Baptist church, more integrity in a Pope or your local notary public (think Hinckley during the Hoffmann affair), and more sincerity at a Jehovah's Witness convention.
Pres. Hinckley seems to have been unusually concerned about his legacy; the orgy of building strikes some as an expression of this, as do the PR and doctrinal revision experiments. And yet, it is hard now to see any legacy other than one of the strangest, most disappointing (and to many, most disturbing) presidencies in all of Mormon church history.
Maybe Hinckley's focus on creating a legacy out of nothing but nothingness, while his colleages, like the Pope, in other religions were actually trying to change the world substantively for the better, will be the very thing that causes a future president to try to erase that legacy of failed attempts. Maybe Pres. Packer will do to Hinckley's legacy, what Hinckley tried to do to so many parts of the church - erase it from memory.
The truth is, that John Paul II, for all his flaws, and the flaws of the Catholic church, will be remembered as long as future humans bother about the history of their planet. John Paul created a legacy by focusing not on "creating a legacy", but by focusing on the human family - especially those deprived of all the freedoms we all believe to be our birthrights. He tried to build HUMANITY (though we might strongly disagree with some of his positions). Could anyone, knowing anything about the church, ever possibly imagine that this could ever be said of Pres. Hinckley?
Did Pres. Hinckley really build up the human family - or did he just actually build...buildings? Build them, to build up himself? I don't know, but I am afraid that Pres. Hinckley himself, by his own decisions, has moved many to wonder.
| | | The Effort To Nominate Gordon Hinckley As Person Of The Century Is An Embarrassment To Mormons
Friday, Apr 29, 2005, at 08:45 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | You probably got the same email I did. "Vote for Gordon B. Hinckley," it urged, then called our attention to a Time magazine online survey, in which people could vote for the Person of the Century.
"I propose that we vote for the prophet," said the email. Then the writer urged us to spell his name exactly right so no vote would be wasted. "Rabin is first, Mother Teresa is 2nd and Billy Graham is 3rd."
I couldn't help but moan. How embarrassing for the Church. First of all, does anyone seriously propose that Gordon B. Hinckley is "person of the century" by any standard, let alone Time's? He is one of the more effective Church presidents, and it has been a joy to all of us to have a vigorous prophet with the common touch. But even within the Church, he has not had the transformative effect of, say, Heber J. Grant (the welfare program) or Spencer W. Kimball (the revelation on the priesthood). And outside the Church, no Mormon prophet since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young has had as much worldwide influence as Ezra Taft Benson.
So if this email campaign succeeded, and President Hinckley won, what would it prove? Only that a whole bunch of Mormons had voted, not wisely, but loyally. And when you consider that Time's standard for its person of the year has been breadth of influence, for good or evil, it's even harder to justify trying to put President Hinckley up against Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or even Milosevic or Saddam Hussein. Time's person-of-the-year, insofar as it is an honor, is an "honor of men," bestowed by the world and not by God. President Hinckley does not aspire to it, for the very good reason that it is not worth having.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| In another thread, there's a discussion going on about a church apostle reminding BYU students of the need to obey the The
Prophet's counsel against earrings.
Apostle Bednar's teaching only echo what the church is telling members of the
church:
"Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or
woman desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings. Those who choose to
disregard this counsel sow a lack of respect for themselves and for God. They will someday regret their decisions."
-
Widely-distributed LDS Church Pamphlet, "True to The Faith, a gospel reference."
Sounds pretty serious, doesn't
it?
Here's the living prophet's actual counsel, along with his explanation for why the church takes such a hard stand
against earrings:
"I submit that it is an uncomely thing, and yet a common thing, to see young men with ears pierced
for earrings, not for one pair only, but for several. They have no respect for their appearance. Do they think it clever
or attractive to so adorn themselves?"
"I submit it is not adornment. It is making ugly that which was
attractive. Not only are ears pierced, but other parts of the body as well, even the tongue. It is absurd."
"We–the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve–have taken the position, and I quote, that “the Church
discourages tattoos. It also discourages the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes, although it takes no
position on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings.”"
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Your Greatest
Challenge, Mother,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 97
"Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in
the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be
permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the
Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not,
however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”–one pair only."
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 50
"May I mention
earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look
better without them, and I believe you will feel better without them. As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings
up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient."
- Text of a talk given to youth and young single
adults on 12 November 2000 at the Conference Center in Salt Lake City and broadcast by satellite throughout the Church.
If the prophet is speaking for God on this matter, why does this same prophet have such a hard time speaking clearly on
more important matters?
http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/Hinckley_lame.htm
As Apostle Bednar pointed out, the issue isn't
really about the earrings. It's about uncompromising loyalty to the church. OBEDIENCE is a constant theme from the church:
http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm
| Click here to read the Deseret News account of his upcoming 95th birthday celebration.
A few excerpts:
Mike Wallace, co-editor of the TV news show "60 minutes," and singers Gladys Knight and Donny Osmond are on the program for the 95th birthday celebration planned next month for LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley.
Ninety minutes of speeches and music, which will also feature the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra at Temple Square, will honor President Hinckley. His birthday is on June 23, but "A Celebration of Life!" is set for Friday, July 22, at 7:30 p.m. in the LDS Conference Center Auditorium.
The last public birthday party, when President Hinckley turned 90 on June 23, 2000, more than 21,000 people from all over the world attended.
"I desire no gifts, but rather I wish to give something to this community in which I have spent most of my life. To this end I am hosting a party." (emphasis mine)
He's hosting it with Church money, I'm guessing, unless he personally is paying for the lights, extra city traffic cops etc....so all of you still signing checks over to the Corporation are the ones who are probably hosting the party. Either that or they'll twist arms for "volunteers" to fund it, but I think those guys are probably getting a little tired of getting tapped for Hinckster's pet projects.
And somehow I think the last thing his "community" needs is 90 more minutes of Church songs and talks. If he wants to give something back how about declaring a tithing moratorium during the month of July.
| I really don't share the anger with some on this site against Gordon B. Hinkley. In fact, I really cannot think of a better person to be a "prophet" for this church at this point in history. His leadership and doctrine is superficial, and shallow. His serious attempts at appeasing the media, other Christain groups, and the world in general open him up to criticism and expose the church for what it is, a corporate church lead by a leader who is no-more a prophet than the pope.
Examples:
1. He writes "Standing for Something" which clearly stands for nothing mormon and everything mainstream Christian. It does not quote the Book of Mormon, D&C;, or Pearl of Great price, yet gives biblical references every few pages. It is a sham, and the leaders know it because they planned the book ; members understand when they read it that it is another PR move by the church (although they will try to suppress such thoughts); and anyone else who reads it will eventually discover the truth about the church.
2. The recorded denials of Doctrine by Gordon B. Hinkley open him up to perpetual criticism, and not even members can justify such deceit. He downplays or does not attempt to justify (implying it was a mistake by the church) on the issues of polygamy and blacks being denied the priesthood. He denies that mormon doctrine includes God being a man, men becoming Gods. And finally, for a prophet of God, he sure seems to say "I don't know alot."
3. More and more information will continue to come out about the lack of transparency with regard to church finances. Even members are uncomfortable with spending a billion dollars on a mall or hotels in Hawaii when there is so much objective good that can be done in the world with chartiable efforts. The church is very American in organization and perspective, including monetary excesses. The sham that the church is a Christain organization trying to help people will be apparent to anyone who investigates it.
My Point: All the excesses, all the denials, all the PR stuff, all the lack of prophetic pronouncements, are easy to see, even to members. Members do not like to hear it, but inside, even those who self-delude on a regualar basis are able to see Truth. Lets just be glad that Gordon does run the church, because if a true Christian leader ran it, with pure motives and true prophetic zeal, it would be difficult to criticize.
My 10 cents.
| | | Mormon Prophet Admits He Believes In Another Christ - Not The Traditional Jesus
Wednesday, Jun 22, 2005, at 08:39 AM
Original Author(s): James K. Walker
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | | By James K. Walker (Chart and notes by Timothy Oliver)
Paris, France ? In a surprising admission during last month's three nation European speaking trip, Mormon president Gordon B. Hinckley stated that the Christ he believes in is not the same Christ as the one followed by those outside the LDS Church.
Hinckley quoted unnamed critics of the LDS Church who claim that Mormons do not believe in the traditional Christ and then he agreed with them.
The LDS Church News reported: "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times'" (June 20, 1998, <http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/libstory_church?dn98&9806210091>.
Despite this major difference on a pivotal doctrine of the Christian faith, Hinckley maintains that he is a Christian. "Am I Christian?" Hinckley asked rhetorically, "Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life" (Ibid.).
Christians should ask, "Which Christ?" The Bible warns of false teachers who promote "another Jesus whom we have not preached" (2 Corinthians 11:4). The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians not to believe everyone who preached "Jesus." The true Jesus was based on the tradition of apostolic preaching ? the Jesus "we preached." Paul compared the preaching another Christ outside of that tradition with the deception of the serpent in the Garden of Eden (2 Corinthians 11:4, Genesis 3 1:4-5). In the same context, Paul warned the Church to beware of "...false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13).
Who Is Jesus?
Christian creeds contain the basic beliefs of traditional Christians ? including what they believe about Christ. Christians claim that their creeds are based solely on the Bible. Furthermore, the authority of the creeds rests on their underlying scripture. Because the creeds are derived from and dependent on biblical data, there is a remarkable uniformity between the creeds of various denominations and churches. This is especially true on the essential doctrines such as the Person of Christ.
Unlike the traditional Christian view of Jesus based solely on the Bible, Hinckley's Christ is based to a large extent on extra-biblical revelation. It is not surprising then to find significant differences.
Hinckley notes this important distinction: "For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this, the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages" (LDS Church News).
Additional Information, or Actually Another Jesus?
It is interesting that Hinckley states that the beliefs of traditional Christians were so different than that of Latter-day Saints, that their traditional Jesus "is not the Christ of whom I speak." It is not just some different information about the same Jesus but a completely different Jesus.
This is a quite rare confession in recent Mormonism. Early Mormon leaders were quite candid about the differences between LDS doctrine and Christian doctrine. One example is the 1820 First Vision account Hinckley cited which is also recorded in LDS Scripture. In relating this vision, Mormon Church founder, Joseph Smith, makes a similar point to Hinckley's. Smith said that Jesus told him that all of the creeds of existing Christianity were "an abomination in his sight." These Christian creeds would, of course, include those that describe the essential attributes and identity of the Jesus worshipped by traditional Christians.
As Hinckley observed, Joseph Smith's first vision introduced a completely different understanding of God's nature and an entirely distinct concept of Jesus ? in fact a different Jesus ? than the one worshipped by "all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages" (Ibid.).
One may still find today, for sale in LDS bookstores, similar examples of candor in books written by General Authorities. In most cases, however, they are old publications written by former Mormon leaders.
Although they are rare, there are similar statements by LDS leaders in the last twenty-five years. For example, Elder Bernard P. Brockbank, of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking from the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City during General Conference quotes a June 18, 1976 London Times article that states in part, "In fact, there is good reason for regarding them as a new religion rather than as another variety of Christianity.... the Christ followed by the Mormons is not the Christ followed by traditional Christianity."
Elder Brockbank then adds a very frank admission: "It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example from the Church of England's Articles of Religion, article one, I quote: 'There is but one living God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions....' We cannot obtain salvation and eternal life by worshipping fake Christs.... The belief that God has no body parts, and passions is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ or a doctrine of the holy scriptures but is a doctrine of men, and to worship such a God is in vain" ("The Living Christ," Ensign, May, 1977, pp. 26-7).
But Brockbank's frankness may be the exception that proves the rule. LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was one of the last LDS leaders to openly state that the Christ of traditional Christianity was different than the LDS Christ, and false. Also citing Joseph Smith's First Vision, McConkie said Christians worship "false Christs." He specifically named Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists and included all Christianity by implication.
"But in a larger and more realistic sense, false Christs are false systems of religion that use his name and profess to present his teachings to the world. The cries, 'Lo, here,' and 'Lo, there,' which went forth in Joseph Smith's day, when 'some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist' (JS-H 5), meant that each group of gospel expounders was saying, 'Lo, here is Christ; we have his system of salvation; ours is the true church; we know the way; come, Join with us'" (Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.324).
Since McConkie's death in 1985 such statements by General Authorities are very rare. They have not repealed these teachings ? they continue to publish the older books and Scriptures where the doctrines are clearly taught. Mormon leaders, however, are not prone to publicly repeat or emphasize their belief that all traditional Christian doctrines are an abomination, and that Christians worship a different, and wrong, Jesus.
Today one is more likely to hear Mormons say that they believe in Jesus "too" ? but have some additional information. They may point out a few historical differences (such as Christ's visit to America recorded in the Book of Mormon) but ignore big differences ? the fundamental issue of Christ's very nature and essential attributes.
Reflecting this newer attitude, the notion that the Mormon Jesus is different than the Christ of traditional Christianity is dismissed by the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as simply one of many anti-Mormon misconceptions. "A broad spectrum of anti-Mormon authors has produced the invective literature of this period. Evangelicals and some apostate Mormons assert that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. The main basis for this judgment is that the Mormon belief in the Christian Godhead is different from the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity. They contend that Latter-day Saints worship a 'different Jesus' and that their scriptures are contrary to the Bible" ("Anti-Mormon Publications," vol. 1).
Brigham Young University professor Dr. Stephen E. Robinson attempts to further blur the distinction between the LDS Jesus and the traditional Christian Jesus. According to Robinson, those who claim Mormons have a "different Jesus" are not honestly dealing with real issues but only playing tricks with language.
Robinson argues that, "Evangelicals often accuse Latter-day Saints of worshiping a 'different Jesus' because we believe some things about Jesus that cannot be proven from the Bible.... This charge that people worship 'a different Jesus' if they disagree over any detail of his character or history, is simply a rhetorical device, a trick of language" (Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide?, pp. 136-37).
With apparent reluctance, Robinson confesses in a footnote, "Unfortunately, some Latter-day Saint authors have also resorted to this rhetorical device in describing 'the false Jesus of the apostate sectarians' and the like" (Ibid., p. 220).
Unfortunately for Robinson, he is clearly out of harmony with the Prophet and President of his church. President Hinckley does not appear to regard this as a mere "rhetorical device" or some attempt to play "a trick of language."
Far from it! Hinckley even cited Joseph Smith's First Vision found in Mormon scripture, as proof of his contention that his Jesus is a different Christ than the Jesus of historical Christianity.
This may be one of the few times that evangelical Christians can agree with the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Indeed, the Mormon Jesus is a "different Christ." It should be hoped that Robinson and all others would see this distinction also.
| I know this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I just ran across another of Hinkley's statements that just strike me as so obvious he doesn't prophesy, "see," or reveal anything:
(April 2001 General Conference) "I am so grateful that we live in an era of comparative peace. There are no great wars raging across the world. There is trouble here and there but not a great worldwide conflict. We are able to carry the gospel to so many nations of the earth and bless the lives of the people wherever it goes." (Given only 5 months before September 11th)
Just like when he was on Larry King the day before the tsunami struck Southeast Asia, he is oblivious. He should be embarrassed for himself. I can imagine him thinking "Come ON Lord! Just ONCE couldn't you give me a heads up on something?"
| In a Larry King Live conversation with Gordon B. Hinckley on December 26, 2004, the Prophet of the Mormon Church completely side steps the question presented to him by Larry King. When asked “You're a prophet, so God talks to you”, Gordon avoided directly answering the question by stating “I'm talking to God, yes. I do pray. Of course I do.”
The question wasn't “do you pray or do you talk to God,” the question was, “You're a prophet, so God talks to you?”
Larry asks “What do you do when they're not answered?” This is typical for Larry, the man cannot ask even a single hard question. Hinckley responds, “Well, they are answered, but not always just the way you'd want them.”
So here we have a so-called Prophet Of God. This man runs Jesus Christ's affairs on earth. If Larry King asks if he talked with God, why doesn't Gordon just come out and say it? “Yes, I talk with God, we talk face to face, I meet with him regularly in the Temple and oftentimes he sends Angels to communicate His Will.”
Instead, we get a watered down pre-school response, “Uh, yeah, yes, I think I do, of course I do, yeah, sure that's the ticket!”
Somewhere out there on Kolob, God smacks His hand against His forehead and goes, “DOH!”
Transcript of Interview:
KING: When you pray, what is that? What's occurring? Are you talking to God? You're a prophet, so God talks to you.
HINCKLEY: I'm talking to God, yes. I do pray. Of course I do.
KING: What do you do when they're not answered?
HINCKLEY: Well, they are answered, but not always just the way you'd want them.
KING: Sometimes it's no.
HINCKLEY: Sometimes it's no.
KING: And when it's no, how do you explain that to yourself?
HINCKLEY: You accept it and go forward with faith.
KING: Isn't that hard?
HINCKLEY: Oh, it may be. But after all, that's the challenge of life. Sure.
KING: You ever doubted it?
HINCKLEY: No.
KING: Never doubted your faith.
HINCKLEY: I don't think so. Can't recall when I have. I have faith in the eternal nature of things.
| From Wrinkley's closing remarks in his Saturday afternoon talk on forgiveness....
"May God help us to be a little kinder, showing forth greater forbearance, to be more forgiving, more willing to walk the second mile, to reach down and lift up those who may have sinned but have brought forth the fruits of repentance, to lay aside old grudges and nurture them no more. For this I humbly pray, in the sacred name of our Redeemer, even the Lord Jesus Christ, amen."
Sounds good Wrinkley.
How about if you start being a little kinder towards homosexuals by not sponsoring homophobic legislation?
How about if you start showing a little forbearance towards women by giving them equal voice and decision making power as men in the church and appologizing for taking an active role in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment?
How about if you start being a little more forgiving towards Mormon scholars and quit violating their constitutional rights to freedom of speech by ordering inquisitions against them?
How about walking the second mile by issuing an unequivical statement rejecting all the racist, bigoted and hatefull statements made in the past 200 years about blacks by so-called LDS prophets.
How about reaching down and lifting up Native Americans by appologizing for referring to them as "Lamanites" every time you've dedicated a temple, since that's a racist term, which has been scientifically disproven?
How about laying aside old grudges by removing the racist, sexist, hatefull lies from Mormon Doctrine?
In other words, why don't you just live the golden rule, like Jesus Christ commanded you to do, before you pray to him asking others to be more like him you arrogant, elitist, white, male, supremicst, sorry excuse for a profit.
| When heads of movements resort to berating the followers for their lack of progress, it's a sign those movements are headed for the toilet. So it is with GBH & Associates. General conference was big on chastizing and laying down more rules, but way short on any kind of divine inspiration.
When the civil rights movement was facing rough times, MLK didn't get up and criticize the audience, he painted a picture of what might be. "I have a dream!" It re-energized the movement.
GBH & Associates don't have a dream, except the continued viability of the church, the maintenence of the status quo. They aren't really leading the church anywhere; they're just trying to keep the members in the corral. Well, the herd might stay there, and a few strays might wander in of their own accord, if there was a compelling enough reason to be there.
If the brethren were truly the Lord's mouthpieces, they would have more to say than platitudes and scoldings. They wouldn't need speech writers. They would just get up there and deliver astoundingly beautiful sermons, and even non-Mormons would flock to hear their sublime wisdom. But we know that's not the case. They're as inspired as a stump. Their dreams are of institutions and empires, not transcendence.
| To me, the most important issue with Mormonism is whether or not it is true. I want to know whether or not Joseph Smith was a liar. The evidence is overwhelming that Joseph Smith was a liar, and that the Church is not true.
Whether Gordon Hinckley is a hypocrite or not, and whether he is a jerk or not, is largely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Mormonism. I lost whatever faith I had in Mormonism before Gordon Hinckley even became the prophet.
Some people claim that Hinckley does not believe in Mormonism, and fault him because he continues to delude the members even when he doesn't believe. The problem here is that the evidence does not clearly show that Hinckley is an unbeliever. Hinckley was deceptive about the Mormon belief that men can become gods when he was interviewed on Larry King Live. This does not prove that Hinckley does not believe in Mormonism. There are other possible explanations for his behavior.
One possibility is that Hinckley believes in Mormonism, but he does not believe in the doctrine that men can become gods. Maybe he thinks that Joseph Smith was wrong on this point, and Hinckley does not want to perpetuate the error, now that he is prophet. This is not as strange as it sounds. TBMs disagree about doctrine all the time, and yet they still call themselves Mormons. Some people disagree with the Church so much that they don't even belong to it (they belong to a splinter group, such as the Reorganized Church), yet they still believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.
Similarly, millions of people have disagreed with certain Christian doctrines, yet they have still believed in Christianity. Martin Luther did not believe in certain Catholic doctrines, yet he was still a Christian. My father has a belief that is at odds with what most TBMs believe, yet he is still a TBM. Most people on this board in their TBM days knew somebody who had radical disagreements with Mormonism, but who still attended Church and bore testimony on Sunday.
There are probably TBMs who are really mad at Hinckley. They probably hate what he said to Larry King on national television. Some of them might be mad enough that they may leave the Church and create a new splinter group that still believes in the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith. Other TBMs who are mad at Hinckley probably will still stick with the Church because they think Hinckley is a believer, notwithstanding some of his idiosyncrasies.
The bottom line is that we have tons more evidence against Joseph Smith and Mormonism than we have against the supposed belief of Gordon Hinckley.
| The fist LDS prophet I can remember was Harold B. Lee. From Harold B. Lee to Howard W. Hunter, the Mormon prophet for the most part has been an old feeble man in poor health with a questionable state of mind. It always seemed like the prophet was a puppet and someone behind the scenes was running things.
That person was Gordon B. Hinckley and he's been in charge since the Kimball years.
Once the ultra conservative church puppets like Ezra Taft Benson were gone and Hinkley became prophet, the focus became more intent on Public Relations and image. The church who was traditionally an "in house" opperation was outsourcing it's PR to Madison Ave. Hinckley was trading hard core Mormonism for lots of media exposure.
The man seems almost cocky in his very old age and the "hold onto the iron rod" of past prophets seems to be gone in Hinckley. The man is a huge celebrity in Mormon circles but now he's compromised his religion and tradition to mainstream so he can rub shoulders with media giants like Larry King and Mike Wallace. I'm expecting to see Hinckley on Oprah before he kicks off.
Meanwhile the yes men in Salt Lake and the stupid church members praise Hinckley for bringing the church out of obscurity. For me, he was a man who was willing to compromise church doctrine for PR. His constant tampering with the temple cerimony shows Hinckley vain attempt to make the church more politically correct but somehow hold on to the old controlling cult ways of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Well, the church can't have it both ways and the smart people are leaving because it's obviousely a twisted organization of man.
| | | Statements Of LDS Prophets About God - Is Gordon B. Hinckley A True Prophet Of God Like Joseph Smith?
Thursday, Dec 15, 2005, at 08:13 AM
Original Author(s): Richard Packham
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | Joseph Smith ("King Follett Discourse," Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345):
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves,... the same as all Gods have done before you..."
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 7:333):
"He [God] is our Father - the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being."
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 3:93):
"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself."
Milton R. Hunter (The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104):
"Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey."
Bruce R. McConkie (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 ed p 250): "...God...is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man..."
Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation 1:10, 1954, cited from 21st printing 1975):
"God is an exalted man. Some people are trouble over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith ... that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man..."
LeGrand Richards (private letter to Morris L. Reynolds, July 14, 1966): "There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church Works, it is accepted as church doctrine, and this is: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.'" (cited by Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, p 164
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (published by the church as an official lesson manual 1997 [text "approved 10/95"], p. 29): "President Brigham Young taught ... that God the Father was once a man on another planet who 'passed the ordeals we are now passing through...'"
Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
Hinckley: 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. [emphasis added]
Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
Hinckley: 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.
...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:
"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `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.'" [emphasis added]
A spokesman for Hinckley, when questioned about the accuracy of the Time quotation, asserted that Hinckley's words were taken out of context, and that Hinckley was thus misquoted. The Time reporter, however, has made available the pertinent part of the transcript of his interview with Hinckley. Here is the relevant excerpt from President Hinckley's interview with Time:
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.
Hinckley: 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?
Hinckley: 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. [emphasis added]
THE PROPHETS SPEAK:
JOSEPH SMITH, JR.:
"It is the first principle of the Gospel to
know for a certainty the character of
God and to know... that he was once a
man like us..."
GORDON B. HINCKLEY:
[Q. Was God once a man?] "I don't
know. ... I wouldn't say that... I don't
know that we teach it... We don't know
very much about [that]... I don't know a
lot about it"
© 1998 Richard Packham
Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included
| With all the posts here about how Mormons practically worship Joseph Smith, in spite of their denials, I thought I'd re-post Hinckley's First Presidency Message from the December 1997 "Ensign," for those who aren't aware of it. It's amusing that despite all the money the church spends on PR efforts to show that they're a Christian church, and despite their denials of worshipping Smith, they still say or do things which elevate Smith as an object of near-Godlike adoration. All of their painstaking PR efforts are washed away by things like the lame-brain Joseph Smith nativity scene at BYU and Hinckley's remarks quoted below.
Note that although this was Hinckley's Christmas message---you know, CHRIST, and all that---the first 20 sentences of his speech were praise of Joseph Smith. And it wasn't even Smith's 200th birthday, either. Church leaders have 10 "Ensigns" per year, besides Christmas and Easter, in which they can lionize Smith all they wish to; but Hinckley elected to pre-empt Christmas 1997 with a Smithmas message.
Gordon B. Hinckley, "A Season for Gratitude" Ensign, Dec. 1997:
"This is a season for giving and a time for gratitude. We remember with appreciation the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which is celebrated this same month of December, two days before Christmas.
How great indeed is our debt to him. His life began in Vermont and ended in Illinois, and marvelous were the things that happened between that simple beginning and tragic ending. It was he who brought us a true knowledge of God, the Eternal Father, and His Risen Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. During the short time of his great vision he learned more concerning the nature of Deity than all of those who through centuries had argued the matter in learned councils and scholarly forums. He brought us the marvelous Book of Mormon as another witness for the living reality of the Son of God. To him, from those who held it anciently, came the priesthood, the power, the gift, the authority, the keys to speak and act in the name of God. He gave us the organization of the Church and its great and sacred mission. Through him were restored the keys of the holy temples, that men and women might enter into eternal covenants with God and that the great work for the dead might be accomplished to open the way for eternal blessings.
Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.
(“Praise to the Man,” Hymns, no. 27)
He was the instrument in the hands of the Almighty. He was the servant acting under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ in bringing to pass this great latter-day work.
We stand in reverence before him. He is the great prophet of this dispensation. He stands at the head of this great and mighty work which is spreading across the earth. He is our prophet, our revelator, our seer, our friend. Let us not forget him. Let not his memory be forgotten in the celebration of Christmas. God be thanked for the Prophet Joseph."
| | | Gordon B. Hinckley Carries Around A Knife In His Pocket, Takes It Out, Puts It On His Nose And Tries To Stick It In His Desk As A Trick
Friday, Dec 23, 2005, at 08:29 AM
Original Author(s): Kutv.com
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 -Guid- | ↑ | From KUTV.COM:
"The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pulls out a pocket knife, balances the tip gingerly on his nose, flips his wrist and lets go. The blade stabs at the top of the walnut desk, an heirloom used by two previous presidents, but doesn't stick.
``My brother and I used to play mumble peg for hours,'' says the 95-year-old Gordon B. Hinckley, retrieving the knife to try again. It was a rare, unscripted moment for the shepherd of 12 million Mormon souls _ one that left his public-relations executives wincing.
To those who know him well, the moment is pure Hinckley, a man revered by his followers as a prophet of God and a third-generation Mormon who became the 15th president of the church in 1995."
http://kutv.com/topstories/local_stor...
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the red arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copythe "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2013
Compiled With: Caligra 1.121
HOSTED BY
 |
| |
AvoBase is a light-weight robust point of sale software tool.
If you sell Avon, Stampin-Up, Scentsy, Mary-Kay? AvoBase is for you.
AvoBase can sell from any of them - and even sell from ALL of them at the same time.
And not just Avon, AvoBase can sell nearly ANYTHING.
Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.
Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.
|
|
|
