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

[_Runtu]

all right. He did it again. To be somewhat fair here, not all Mormons believe it. But oh well. I won't fight on that point.

Not all Mormons believe in Jesus, but the church teaches that He is the Savior of mankind.

Not all Mormons believe in keeping the law of chastity, but the church teaches it.

Not all Mormons believe God was once a man, but the church teaches it.

I would chalk this up to a stumble in a live broadcast, except he said it more than once, and when given the opportunity to clarify, did not choose to do so. I don't know that I'd say he "lied," but he certainly fudged the answer. My guess is that he didn't want to deal with a controversial topic publicly. Milk before meat, and all that.

all right. Then take objection. Hold it over his head and other LDS'. I'm over it. I don't hold it against him, personally. His responses surely were deceptive. Sure, it seems he wished to make the religion seem more mainstream at the time. I think it was a mistake. I think he didn't need to do that at all. I think it was a lie and a big mistake. But it was a mistake. It was a miscalculation. It was something that people will now fight tooth and nail over, it seems. I don't think the lie is made worse because of what it was about. Lies are lies. They are about all sorts of things. Oh well. That's my perspective. Not much else I'll be able to do about it. Thanks for listening.

I'm not holding it over his head. I just find it weird that people will defend this to the death. Why bother? He fudged an answer to a controversial question. Politicians and PR guys do this all the time. Since Hinckley was a lifetime PR man for the church, why would we expect anything else?

[_Ceeboo]

Dear Stem,

Your contributions in this thread are mind-numbing.

Peace pep Peace pep
Ceeboo

[_stemelbow]

I think you need to ask yourself why he lied. You are equivocating when you say that all people lie. Yes, all people have lied about something in their life. But people usually lie for a reason. So why did GBH lie?

I don't actually know. I can only guess. It seems to point to, as I've already explained, his desire to make the religion appear to outsiders as more mainstream. He wished to de-emphasize some of the lesser known, lesser discussed teachings of the religion and stick to the simple things that he was comfortable with. I really don't think that makes him a bad man. I think it shows that his error was in thinking he needed to make it appear more mainstream. If that was his goal, and he wished to reach that goal, then I suppose he convinced hmself that he had to lie to himself and think that that particular teaching really isn't' a teaching and belief. That people can be LDS and still reject it, perhaps. I don't really know the nuances of why he thought it. Just general guesses.

[_stemelbow]

Dear Stem,

Your contributions in this thread are mind-numbing.

Peace pep Peace pep
Ceeboo

thanks. Pep pep. I do admit this is not an easy discussion to get involved in. Sorry to disappoint you, Ceeboo. by the way, you asked me to for some testimony sharing on that other thread of yours. I gave it my effort and voil-la, I don't hear back from you. My heart is torn into two thinking that my sincere efforts are so easily ignored. Just kidding. I hope my response there was what you were looking for.

[_stemelbow]

Not all Mormons believe in Jesus, but the church teaches that He is the Savior of mankind.

Not all Mormons believe in keeping the law of chastity, but the church teaches it.

Not all Mormons believe God was once a man, but the church teaches it.

I would chalk this up to a stumble in a live broadcast, except he said it more than once, and when given the opportunity to clarify, did not choose to do so. I don't know that I'd say he "lied," but he certainly fudged the answer. My guess is that he didn't want to deal with a controversial topic publicly. Milk before meat, and all that.

I agree with ya. I simply don't htink these errors constitute a whole lot is all.

I'm not holding it over his head. I just find it weird that people will defend this to the death. Why bother? He fudged an answer to a controversial question. Politicians and PR guys do this all the time. Since Hinckley was a lifetime PR man for the church, why would we expect anything else?

As you can see, I won't defend this to the death. I'll gladly accept the criticisms on this particular point, and move on. I don't hold all criticisms of individuals as an all that serious thing.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

I agree with ya. I simply don't think these errors constitute a whole lot is all.

Theoretically, could you describe a lie from a prophet that WOULD bother you?

What if he denied the inspiration of the Book of Abraham (which I consider a real, although remote, possibility)?

Or if he denied the Book of Mormon as a whole?

Or that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Is there any line that the prophet might cross that would make you think twice about the truthfulness of the Church?

[_consiglieri]

That's "Scandal in Bohemia," the first story I teach in my Detective Fiction course. Irene Adler, the only person to ever outsmart Holmes, and a woman to boot, was betrayed by glancing at where she had hidden the photograph of her and her then lover, the King of Bohemia. (However, she realized the ruse, and removed the photograph before Holmes could return to steal it. Also, she fooled him earlier in the story by cross dressing. Irene Adler was quite a woman and Holmes never referred to her without a sigh and a faraway look in his eye).

But Hinckley? I'm afraid that was the kind of lie, fib or prevarication that even Watson could have picked up on.

You are brilliant!

Of course, Irene Adler, whom if memory serves, Holmes always referred to simply as "the lady."

I wish I could be in your class . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Runtu]

I agree with ya. I simply don't htink these errors constitute a whole lot is all.

I see it as PR spin, but I understand why people expect more from a prophet.

As you can see, I won't defend this to the death. I'll gladly accept the criticisms on this particular point, and move on. I don't hold all criticisms of individuals as an all that serious thing.

No, it's just that it's part of a long pattern of spinning and hedging on difficult questions. Goes hand in hand with that Robert Millet talk about how we should answer the questions that should have been asked, not the ones that were actually asked.

[_Tchild]

I would chalk this up to a stumble in a live broadcast, except he said it more than once, and when given the opportunity to clarify, did not choose to do so. I don't know that I'd say he "lied," but he certainly fudged the answer. My guess is that he didn't want to deal with a controversial topic publicly. Milk before meat, and all that.

It is the 'why' that is bothersome to me. Hinckley equivocated -- lied, because he didn't want to expound or admit a teaching that is wildly unpopular to other Christian faiths. That is dishonest. "milk before meat" is irrelevant in this case. Mormons teach it, have taught it and that is the truth.

I'm not holding it over his head. I just find it weird that people will defend this to the death. Why bother? He fudged an answer to a controversial question. Politicians and PR guys do this all the time. Since Hinckley was a lifetime PR man for the church, why would we expect anything else?

You and I do not expect anything more....now as unbelievers, but as a believer I surely did. LDS believers don't consider their prophet to be a "PR" man, but the living oracle and mouthpiece for God. The prophet is the closest you can get to know the will of God. The prophet speaks for God (in the believer's mindset), so watching the prophet waffle and lie like a little bitch was so disappointing.

I didn't lie as a missionary to sway people into Mormonism. I told the truth the best I knew it unequivocally and always. Then, to have the prophet author a book called "Standing for Something"? It just brings bile to the mouth

[_Runtu]

It is the 'why' that is bothersome to me. Hinckley equivocated -- lied, because he didn't want to expound or admit a teaching that is wildly unpopular to other Christian faiths. That is dishonest. "milk before meat" is irrelevant in this case. Mormons teach it, have taught it and that is the truth.

Yes, that is the truth. I'm sure he knew that.

You and I do not expect anything more....now as unbelievers, but as a believer I surely did. LDS believers don't consider their prophet to be a "PR" man, but the living oracle and mouthpiece for God. The prophet is the closest you can get to know the will of God. The prophet speaks for God (in the believer's mindset), so watching the prophet waffle and lie like a little bitch was so disappointing.

It was kind of startling to me back then, but as I said, it was the later comments he made that bothered me more.

I didn't lie as a missionary to sway people into Mormonism. I told the truth the best I knew it unequivocally and always. Then, to have the prophet author a book called "Standing for Something"? It just brings bile to the mouth

I "lied" only once on my mission, when a black man asked me why black people could not have the priesthood. I did exactly what they taught me to do in the MTC: I told him that God is no respecter of persons and welcomes all into His kingdom, regardless of race. Technically that was 100% true, but I still feel bad about that. If I knew how to reach that man, I would apologize for lying by omission.