Discussão:Nature of God/Hinckley downplaying the King Follett Discourse

Be sure to sign your discussions

When you leave a post on a talk page, be sure to end it with your signature (the second button from the right on the toolbar, above). That way we all know who's who. --MikeParker 18:35, 6 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Question

Would it be appropriate here to bring in Blake Ostler, Stephen Robinson or others who make a distinction between God as Jesus once being man and God the Father as once being man. I think it would be useful to bring up the notion that Mormons accept Jesus as fully God being man.

Couple of things on this topic

First - this article doesn't mention at all the fact that there are two very different interpretations of the KFD on the point of nature of God the Father. The first of those two interpretations limits the extent of the impact of the KFD by pointing out that the KFD only asserts that God the Father was a man like Jesus Christ prior to his becoming deity. (This limitation may not be exclusive of the couplet, but it can be - the point being that the interpretation of the KFD ought to be limited to a strict reading of the KFD). The second interpretation is represented by the couplet fairly well.

The second issue is that this article doesn't mention another fscinating aspect of the KFD which is the fact that we have multiple sources which have been essentially harmonized into the traditional text - but that the individual variants represented in the sources can alter the way that we interpret that text. It might be useful to have an article just on the KFD itself with links to the several sources, which also links to this article. But, this is an important issue in the notion of "Downplaying the King Follett Discourse" since it certainly is used to do this.