Why did Holland and Purdy lie...?

[_subgenius]

Here was a chance to be bold in answering questions about the Church, something members are exhorted to do with courage week in week out.

So why didn't two full time paid employee's; one an Apostle of the Lord and one a professional PR man, give a straight answer to a straight question?

Purdy, denied knowledge of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. Then, when shown to be lying, said he would get someone from that committee (that he as just denied existed) to talk with the reporter.

Holland denied that the Temple included death oaths and denied that Romney had taken them. Again, when shown to be lying, he stated the opposite, that yes the temple had included death oaths and that Romney had taken such an oath.

To very recent examples of the most senior men in the Church lying to try and cover something up that it doesn't want the world or the members to know about.

Was the Holy Ghost screaming "lie, lie, lie" in their bosom?

after watching the link provided i was struck by a few things...mostly counter to what you are trying to imply, but what else is new?

But to answer your question about the HG's promptings....perhaps the HG was not yelling "lie lie lie", but more likely was warning them that a wolf was in the hen-house. Realizing what Mr Sweeney's motives were likely caused great concern and i can hardly blame anyone for hesitating or even stumbling in their response. They were likely alarmed by the HG and since we are not aware of the pretense for which Mr Sweeney got an interview, Purdy and Holland may have been easily unsettled by suddenly being in the presence of one with nefarious objectives.
The bolo tie wearing conspiracy theorists that gave his stirring ex-moron testimony was not a good choice to add to the edit, it made the whole thing seem rather silly.

But if we are to use short video clips to judge integrity then perhaps Mr Sweeney deserves a turn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI
and then check out his "excuse"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVAeL8Ay ... ure=fvwrel
nice

[_Buffalo]

But if we are to use short video clips to judge integrity then perhaps Mr Sweeney deserves a turn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI
and then check out his "excuse"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVAeL8Ay ... ure=fvwrel
nice

What does his freak out have to do with integrity? He lost his crap. Funny, but what does it have to do with Holland lying to him?

[_SteelHead]

Nice reply.... Pure ad hominem straw man.

[_subgenius]

What does his freak out have to do with integrity? He lost his s***. Funny, but what does it have to do with Holland lying to him?

Clearly Holland was not "lying" as you would characterize it.
The freak out and subsequent excuse speak to his integrity of late. The once awarded journalist has cut his teeth on scientology and now has the church in his sights given the notoriety of the presidential election.
Since we were not given details as to what circumstances he approached Holland or Purdy with, i can easily see that their reactions are reasonable. Though caught flat-footed, they obviously did not want to give fodder to another anti-mormon boob, but rather quickly they corrected themselves and made sure their responses were in context and honest. If their intent was to "lie" they could have easily done so, because Sweeney had no real proof of anything when he challenged them.
Their responses are not that surprising, if anything they are assuring that they are honest men. More nefarious men who had links to CIA and FBI operatives surely would have been able to deflect the likes of Sweeney with little effort, and would have maintained their position at any cost, even to embarrassment.
The condemnations and clamoring going on around this is, at best, amusing - but mostly of little substance and even less revealing of any LDS death squad that is promoted by a roomful of cynics and self-involved adolescents. The woman who cries about her not getting into the temple to see her daughter's wedding was a real joke...she blames the church instead of her daughter, enuff said.

[_subgenius]

Nice reply.... Pure ad hominem straw man.

holy cow, the rebuttal was before the links, clearly- and no straw man was employed (leave that to Darth J)....and my Sweeney attack is easily not straw man, its might be argued that it is just argumentum ad hominem - but with out knowing the circumstance by which he obtained the interviews, one can say either it is or is not an actual fallacy.
.....i don't even know what Pure ad hominem straw man could possibly mean or even how such a mixture could be pure?

[_Buffalo]

What does his freak out have to do with integrity? He lost his s***. Funny, but what does it have to do with Holland lying to him?

Clearly Holland was not "lying" as you would characterize it.
The freak out and subsequent excuse speak to his integrity of late. The once awarded journalist has cut his teeth on scientology and now has the church in his sights given the notoriety of the presidential election.
Since we were not given details as to what circumstances he approached Holland or Purdy with, i can easily see that their reactions are reasonable. Though caught flat-footed, they obviously did not want to give fodder to another anti-mormon boob, but rather quickly they corrected themselves and made sure their responses were in context and honest. If their intent was to "lie" they could have easily done so, because Sweeney had no real proof of anything when he challenged them.
Their responses are not that surprising, if anything they are assuring that they are honest men. More nefarious men who had links to CIA and FBI operatives surely would have been able to deflect the likes of Sweeney with little effort, and would have maintained their position at any cost, even to embarrassment.
The condemnations and clamoring going on around this is, at best, amusing - but mostly of little substance and even less revealing of any LDS death squad that is promoted by a roomful of cynics and self-involved adolescents. The woman who cries about her not getting into the temple to see her daughter's wedding was a real joke...she blames the church instead of her daughter, enuff said.

I suppose that's one way to think of it. Another take is that they lied, realized that you can't get away with lying to outsiders with a video camera, and wisely corrected themselves.

Some of the ex-mos were a little ridiculous, but the LDS church produces a lot of ridiculous people, inside and outside the faith.

[_Buffalo]

Nice reply.... Pure ad hominem straw man.

holy cow, the rebuttal was before the links, clearly- and no straw man was employed (leave that to Darth J)....and my Sweeney attack is easily not straw man, its might be argued that it is just argumentum ad hominem - but with out knowing the circumstance by which he obtained the interviews, one can say either it is or is not an actual fallacy.
.....i don't even know what Pure ad hominem straw man could possibly mean or even how such a mixture could be pure?

Red herring would be a better description.

[_SteelHead]

How did Holland and Purdy not lie?

Please explain.

Language has meaning.

[_Drifting]

How did Holland and Purdy not lie?

Please explain.

Language has meaning.

As understand it, subgenius's rebuttal goes like this.

'Sweeney the reporter lost his rag at some other unrelated point in time so Holland and Purdy are...quick, look over there...'

[_Darth J]

and no straw man was employed (leave that to Darth J)

I don't see anyone on this board stopping you from substantiating that, Law Professor.