Why did Holland and Purdy lie...?

[_ldsfaqs]

Holland didn't "lie" at all.... You people are so warped.

He was asked a direct question, he answered, then the question was clarified to include 30 whatever years ago, and so he clarified. It was a perfectly normal question and answer.

Although, he was clearly uncomfortable with the "hit piece" questioning.
He wasn't prepared to answer certain questions, such as the Joseph being convicted one.
Joseph WAS NOT convicted by the way. It was a pre-trail hearing and he was acquitted.

[Guest]

He was asked a question, he lied, he was caught in the lie and then he clarified.

There is no way to say he did not lie. He was asked if Mitt would have made the oaths. He responded "no". Problem is Mitt did make those oaths pre 1990. So he was caught lying.

Purdy is the same thing. Asked a question, lies, caught lying, dissembles.

[_Buffalo]

Holland didn't "lie" at all.... You people are so warped.

He was asked a direct question, he answered, then the question was clarified to include 30 whatever years ago, and so he clarified. It was a perfectly normal question and answer.

Although, he was clearly uncomfortable with the "hit piece" questioning.
He wasn't prepared to answer certain questions, such as the Joseph being convicted one.
Joseph WAS NOT convicted by the way. It was a pre-trail hearing and he was acquitted.

Q: He would have sworn an oath to say he would not pass on what happens in the temple lest he slit his throat. Is that true?

A: It's not true.

[_SteelHead]

Q: He would have sworn an oath to say he would not pass on what happens in the temple lest he slit his throat. Is that true?

A: It's not true.

Language has meaning. Holland lied.

[_Themis]

Holland didn't "lie" at all.... You people are so warped.

He was asked a direct question, he answered, then the question was clarified to include 30 whatever years ago, and so he clarified. It was a perfectly normal question and answer.

I would say Holland was not being fully truthful, and a little deceptive. If I had been asked the question, I would have been honest and said they used to be, but have been removed. Very simple, direct, and no need for further clarification from the questioner. Obviously he knew enough to ask further about it. I don't think Holland is a bad guy, but he was not fully forthcoming with the truth, and I was always taught to by the church. He made a mistake like many do when being confronted with uncomfortable questions. I suppose maybe he did not realize how much the questioner actually knew about the subject, but then that would be worse.

Although, he was clearly uncomfortable with the "hit piece" questioning.
He wasn't prepared to answer certain questions, such as the Joseph being convicted one.
Joseph WAS NOT convicted by the way. It was a pre-trail hearing and he was acquitted.

My understanding is that he was not acquitted, but was given leg bail. Lets face it. He was glass looking for money, which is why he was brought to court. That is the real issue anyways.

[_consiglieri]

I am not an expert, but I thought the 1826 trial involved an accusation of disorderly conduct rather than being a "con-man" as the interviewer asked.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_ldsfaqs]

Q: He would have sworn an oath to say he would not pass on what happens in the temple lest he slit his throat. Is that true?

A: It's not true.

Language has meaning. Holland lied.

Language IS meaning.... The question wasn't even correct in the first place, it was a misrepresentation a LIE of what the actual oath and action was in reference to.

Did you really expect Holland to be thinking some 30 years before when Romney might have first taken his oaths out?
See, what you anti's don't understand is that the average Mormon doesn't have "anti'ism" on the brain. Holland is an Apostle of the Lord, not an Apologist.
Yes, if I had been asked the question, I would have answered differently similar to how you likely would have (in this case), because I know how you idiots think, and I would have seen the trap.

Holland doesn't wallow in the mud with the lack of basic decency like you all, and even we apologists do having to respond to your kind.

[_ldsfaqs]

My understanding is that he was not acquitted, but was given leg bail. Lets face it. He was glass looking for money, which is why he was brought to court. That is the real issue anyways.

Read up and learn something:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/L ... king_trial

[_SteelHead]

Does your compounding their lies with your own, make a truth?

Holland heard the question, parsed it as well as you or I, and lied expecting to not be called on it. Thinking the questioner would not know any better.

He lied and was caught at it.

[_hatersinmyward]

Hatch is a prime example of how temple oaths affect politics, It follows him to church on suday, He will do anything to be looked upon in a favorable way in sacrament meeting.

While Hatch isn't Romney, Romney doesn't hold himself like a cry baby as opposed to Hatch and Huntsman.