Why did Holland and Purdy lie...?

[_Drifting]

Hi Liz, what's your view on why Holland lied?

I don't think it was purposeful. It really looked to me like he was tripped up. I suspect that he had been goaded or agitated by the interviewer, and that footage either didn't make it to print...or...it was done off camera. If you take a look at that special, it really seems to me that there was some splicing done.

Liz, let's say you suspect that your husband has been cheating on you.
You accuse him of having the affair and he says:
"that's not true, that's not true. I am not having an affair."

Is that telling the truth?

Was he still telling the truth when responding to your original enquiry, if you go on to ask...
"but you used to?"
To which he responds:
"yes, I used to"

Bear in mind you had surprised him and tripped him up...

[_Yoda]

Hi Liz, what's your view on why Holland lied?

I don't think it was purposeful. It really looked to me like he was tripped up. I suspect that he had been goaded or agitated by the interviewer, and that footage either didn't make it to print...or...it was done off camera. If you take a look at that special, it really seems to me that there was some splicing done.

Liz, let's say you suspect that your husband has been cheating on you.
You accuse him of having the affair and he says:
"that's not true, that's not true. I am not having an affair."

Is that telling the truth?

Was he still telling the truth when responding to your original enquiry, if you go on to ask...
"but you used to?"
To which he responds:
"yes, I used to"

Bear in mind you had surprised him and tripped him up...

Yes, he is telling the truth, if he had, indeed, ended the affair. Would I be happy about it? Obviously not. Does that mean that he didn't cheat? No, it doesn't. But he did technically answer my question honestly, if he had, in fact, ended the affair.

I think that you are giving a pretty rotten example, but I went with it, anyway. You went with an example that would obviously have a lot of emotion attached to it that would require analysis of other circumstances not related to the actual topic at hand.

[_Drifting]

Liz, Holland was asked if Romney had taken the oath to cut his throat in the Temple if he let slip the secret of his covenants (or words to that effect).

Holland said "that's not true, that's not true."

When in fact, it was absolutely true and Holland knew it.

He lied.

[_Yoda]

Liz, Holland was asked if Romney had taken the oath to cut his throat in the Temple if he let slip the secret of his covenants (or words to that effect).

Holland said "that's not true, that's not true."

When in fact, it was absolutely true and Holland knew it.

He lied.

Yes, he lied because he had sworn the same oath, and it probably took him by surprise that someone actually knew about the penalties, and was disrespecting a religious rite.

My argument is not that he didn't lie. My argument is that it was understandable, and not a blatant attempt to deceive. I think he honestly had trouble trying to figure out how to handle the question, which is unfortunate.

But let's get real here for a moment. We all lie, at times, to protect people. I admit that I have done it, and don't regret it. Do I make it a practice? No, but there are times when I have found it necessary to do so. Maybe "white lie" is a better term, or softening the blow? I don't know. Maybe I am a terrible person.

[_Drifting]

Liz, Holland was asked if Romney had taken the oath to cut his throat in the Temple if he let slip the secret of his covenants (or words to that effect).

Holland said "that's not true, that's not true."

When in fact, it was absolutely true and Holland knew it.

He lied.

Yes, he lied because he had sworn the same oath, and it probably took him by surprise that someone actually knew about the penalties, and was disrespecting a religious rite.

My argument is not that he didn't lie. My argument is that it was understandable, and not a blatant attempt to deceive. I think he honestly had trouble trying to figure out how to handle the question, which is unfortunate.

But let's get real here for a moment. We all lie, at times, to protect people. I admit that I have done it, and don't regret it. Do I make it a practice? No, but there are times when I have found it necessary to do so. Maybe "white lie" is a better term, or softening the blow? I don't know. Maybe I am a terrible person.

Liz, we are not all Apostles, Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.
He is an Apostle of the Lord who is guided through his daily life by the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Things he could have said.
"the practices of the temple are sacred and as such I am not at liberty to discuss them".
"you will have to ask Mitt Romney that question".
"yes, Mitt Romney took that oath"

If he has made a human error in lying when he should have responded differently then he owed to the membership to use General Conference to apologise for bringing the Church and the office of Apostle into disrepute by lying on TV.

He has form and this is not a one off incident.

[_Buffalo]

Hi Liz, what's your view on why Holland lied?

I don't think it was purposeful. It really looked to me like he was tripped up. I suspect that he had been goaded or agitated by the interviewer, and that footage either didn't make it to print...or...it was done off camera. If you take a look at that special, it really seems to me that there was some splicing done.

It appeared to me that he pulled a well-known politician's trick - answered the question they DIDN'T ask, which in this case resulted in a lie. There was a famous BYU lecture instructing missionaries to engage in this very tactic.

[_Buffalo]

Here it is - Bob Millet's "answer the right question" strategy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zA-rZQB-xQ

[_Themis]

When did I EVER say he "didn't" glass look for money???

To me it's a PRO, not something against Joseph. A young boy starting to discover his prophetic powers, what else would he do if not treasure hunt??? Didn't YOU do that as a boy? I did growing up some in small towns.

Ya we call that fantasy, which is normal for very young boys. Later we start to grow up.

Plus, he WAS successful. Just because sometimes he wasn't as successful, etc. doesn't somehow mean he was doing something wrong. Further, if you read the article, he wasn't even doing anything illegal.

He never found any treasure. The rest was easy parlor tricks.

It is YOU who need to "learn something". I'm a convert and an ex anti-mormon. I know a 1,000 times more than you concerning Mormonism.

LOLOLOLOLOL Why is it some people who want to defend LDS claims always become some former anti, atheist. Do you somehow think that gives your words more weight. Do you really think saying you know a 1000 times more about the church then I gives you more credibility, or does it make you look like an immature child.

[_subgenius]

Liz, let's say you suspect that your husband has been cheating on you....

why the urge to re-package what has clearly been addressed? Changing the circumstances and characters does not confirm your original premise here...are you somehow insulted that you did not get an affirmation so now you try another tactic, sneak in through the back door?
So, if the ex-husband is lying, then that must mean Holland is - kind of a reverse straw man, don't you think?

a more accurate, and perhaps less clumsy, analogy would have been for her to ask her husband if his friend was having an affair, to which he responds "no, he is not"...and then she asks "but he was probably having one years ago - because we all have proof that everyone was supposed to be having affairs then, right?"....and then he responds "well, yes...he had an affair."

[_Buffalo]

Liz, let's say you suspect that your husband has been cheating on you....

why the urge to re-package what has clearly been addressed? Changing the circumstances and characters does not confirm your original premise here...are you somehow insulted that you did not get an affirmation so now you try another tactic, sneak in through the back door?
So, if the ex-husband is lying, then that must mean Holland is - kind of a reverse straw man, don't you think?

a more accurate, and perhaps less clumsy, analogy would have been for her to ask her husband if his friend was having an affair, to which he responds "no, he is not"...and then she asks "but he was probably having one years ago - because we all have proof that everyone was supposed to be having affairs then, right?"....and then he responds "well, yes...he had an affair."

You don't seem to understand the purpose of an analogy. Never mind. Holland's actual words are clear enough:

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.