As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_Themis]

That's the general rule, but of course repentence is a personal thing.

much of it is, but when the offense is against one or more people then by LDS teachings the repentance process has to include making amends to those you offended. In this case it would mean going public an apologizing for lying. Simple as that, and I think you know that, but of course have a desire to protect an LDS President.

I don't think messing up when interviewed is something he needs to apologize to you about, for instance.

For lying, yes he would need to. If he got his facts wrong no.

He clarified to all he felt it necessary when he suggested that they need not worry, he knows and understands the teachings.

It didn't really cover what the church teaches about repentance. He did not admit to lying to the world. His admission to the members also wasn't really an admission of wrong doing.

And apology could've worked, but then all we're doing is berating him at this point. If his lack of apology was a mistake too, then I still don't see it as a problem, necessarily. It is that we all fail to apologize from time to time.

I have never made a big deal out of it, but he did intentionally lie and never tried to rectify that lie.

[_stemelbow]

Themis,

I have never made a big deal out of it, but he did intentionally lie and never tried to rectify that lie.

I simply disagree with your assessment here. Its must be due to our personal biases which have made us reach different conclusions. I've tried to be fair here. But I simply don't think his messing up in an interview necessarily equates to intentionally lying (I've chosen to categorize it as unintentional lying). neither do i assume that his mistake need be something he apologize to the masses for. As it is, repentence is personal and its up to him to figure out if he needed to apologize to the masses or not...not you. Such would be LDS teaching on the matter.

With that, it seems we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. We've reached different conclusions. We've heard each other's points. I don't see any stellar reasoning for me to accept your view and I'm sure the opposite is true. IMpasse...agree to disagree I guess.
Take the last word if ya like.

[_Darth J]

What a nice mand he was. Lying just doesn't seem like something he'd do very often.

Well, he would certainly never lie to the Salt Lake County district attorney's office about the extent of his interactions with Mark Hoffman.

No, lying is not the kind of thing he would do very often.

[Guest]

Hey stemelbow, I hear ya...

I was TBM when I saw the interview. After a very short WTF moment I wasn't concerned; I figured he must have mis-understood the question, or that they edited the footage misleadingly, or that he had an inspired reason for answering as he did. Basically, it didn't matter because I felt the church was true and that my belief came from a nobler source than the wisdom of men and that my faith couldn't be derailed by some silly slip-up.

Now that I no longer believe, I look at it from very different eyes. Now, it just seems like he's a guy who was trying to make the best of an awkward situation, and fibbed. But, supposedly being gods one true rep on Earth, it comes across very bad - and to a non-believer it is just further evidence the church is false.

How we describe an Elephant is really quite different if we're on its back or under its foot.

[_Quasimodo]

pep pep...I think its an overstatement to say our leaders have to lie about it. Sure, I can buy that Hinckley unintentionally lied about it in the interview. I don't' mind that.

I think the point is that Hinkley chose to abandon the teachings of his religion in order to present a less disagreeable front to the Nation. It points to a church hierarchy that doesn't believe it's own dogma. What else don't they believe?

It's as if the Pope said "I don't think the Catholic Church is against abortion. I don't know that we teach that"

[_stemelbow]

Well, he would certainly never lie to the Salt Lake County district attorney's office about the extent of his interactions with Mark Hoffman.

No, lying is not the kind of thing he would do very often.

nice unrelated links, DJ. All I can say it oh boy, but don't worry I'm sure you'll find your supporters here.

This all just seems to I wish to fight you tooth and nail to me, DJ. But perhaps you'll get a taker around here. I don't know.

[_Runtu]

Well, he would certainly never lie to the Salt Lake County district attorney's office about the extent of his interactions with Mark Hoffman.

No, lying is not the kind of thing he would do very often.

I find it interesting that we can say "what a nice man he was" about someone we never met. I have no idea what kind of man Gordon Hinckley was. I have friends who had personal interactions with him, and what they describe isn't always "nice." But I don't know because I didn't know the man.

I have learned, through personal experience, that the public image of the current prophet is quite different from the real man. I'm not saying he's a bad guy or anything like that, but he is pretty different from his public persona.

As for the Hofmann episode, Hinckley wasn't the only church leader who lied to the police. One of my good friends is a close family member of one of Hofmann's victims, and he chalks up Hinckley's actions to "panic" and a desire to protect the church, which I think is a reasonable explanation.

[_stemelbow]

Hey stemelbow, I hear ya...

I was TBM when I saw the interview. After a very short WTF moment I wasn't concerned; I figured he must have mis-understood the question, or that they edited the footage misleadingly, or that he had an inspired reason for answering as he did. Basically, it didn't matter because I felt the church was true and that my belief came from a nobler source than the wisdom of men and that my faith couldn't be derailed by some silly slip-up.

Now that I no longer believe, I look at it from very different eyes. Now, it just seems like he's a guy who was trying to make the best of an awkward situation, and fibbed. But, supposedly being gods one true rep on Earth, it comes across very bad - and to a non-believer it is just further evidence the church is false.

How we describe an Elephant is really quite different if we're on its back or under its foot.

I don't think we've described anything all that different. What you have said as coming from a non-believers' perspective seems pretty close to what I described it all as being. He, I'm sure, had his reasons. I simply don't care to speculate on thos reasons and hope to incriminate him for it. I just find myself being too forgiving whether believer or not, to make this a fuss.

[_stemelbow]

I think the point is that Hinkley chose to abandon the teachings of his religion in order to present a less disagreeable front to the Nation. It points to a church hierarchy that doesn't believe it's own dogma. What else don't they believe?

It's as if the Pope said "I don't think the Catholic Church is against abortion. I don't know that we teach that"

I get the perception that it causes. Mistake. Oopssie. Perhaps he's still kicking himself up in heaven. I don't know.

[_Runtu]

nice unrelated links, DJ. All I can say it oh boy, but don't worry I'm sure you'll find your supporters here.

This all just seems to I wish to fight you tooth and nail to me, DJ. But perhaps you'll get a taker around here. I don't know.

When you say someone wouldn't lie, and then you are pointed to actual lies the person in question told, I wouldn't say they were unrelated. I understood DJ's point. Maybe you didn't.