Whiff, Whiff, and Whiff. Original post’s completely baseless slanderous allegations...remain completely baseless slanderous allegations, i.e.: they remain completely devoid of even the slightest attempt to provide sources (i.e. sources = articles that have actually been published (not something Joe Blow said), date of publication (the normal information that is expected from a source (If you are not familiar with this concept, you are in luck and in the right place - for further information simply see the instructions (and requirements) for posting real news articles here on Free Republic)) for any of the three specific incidents where President Hinckley is accused of lying...how many strikes do you usually get when u play?
Wow, I see that our misguided mormon has returned - and still can’t figure out the purpose and use of the religion forum
Others here have provided many more sources for your lost prophets blunders, so too the source link.
Hinkley spoke his lies on Larry King, and in interviews with major magazines - hardly hidden under a rock (unlike some of the mormon thought on the matter).
SZ, we have here just another bunch of baseless mormon blather.
I really like how source/attribution is your argument, not the information.
Just accuse another FReeper of slander and walk away from the responsibility of proving your remarks.
Others before you have done the same, nothing new here. Even with your attempted “angle” on it.
Tell the folks at FARMS/FAIR they need to get new tactics/material.
I’m bored with these tired games using the rules written by Alinsky, they’re so...1970ish.
During an interview on the Larry King Show, King brought up the Mormon doctrine that humans could attain godhood in the next life. Hinckley said, “I don’t know that our church teaches that.” Attaining godhood in the hereafter is central to Mormon theology. Hinckley of all people knew that.
I think you're picking nits and know that it wasn't Larry King; it was TIME magazine. I don't believe the mistake is intentional. I think the writer is referring to the interview Gordon Hinckley gave to TIME magazine, contained in the August 4, 1997, cover article when senior religion writer/interviewer asked Hinckley about the LDS teaching that humans become Gods and that God was once a man as we are. You'll find the interview on page 56.
"At first Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that ‘it’s of course an ideal. It’s a hope for a wishful thing,’ but later he added, ‘yes, of course they can.'"
"On whether the LDS Church holds that, "God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain, ‘I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it,’" Hinckley told Time."
I don't know if you want more than the cite to TIME, and I don't know if you consider an interview a second-hand source. If you're averse to second-hand sources, then you must have a rough time with LDS history, because so much of it is based on second- and third-hand sources. Mormon apologetic sources go even further.
From this point, I can offer two things. I can provide you with a source purporting to contain letters from the Office of the Fires Presidency clarifying Hinckley's remarks, telephone transcripts from TIME magazine, letters from Time magazine with transcripts of the interview with Hinckley sent to the Office of the First Presidency in response. Aw, heck, why make you do your own work. Here it is.
I can also provide you with links to LDS materials throughout the history of the church to the president, in which the concept is taught that Hinckley doesn't knot whether it is taught.
I won't call Hinckley a liar; I just think it's doubtful that he wouldn't know whether LDS doctrine was being taught.
I'll also point out that in the Larry King interview, Gordon Hinckley said:
The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.
You'll note that I provided a link to a transcript of the interview from an LDS site. There's also a link to the video further up in this thread. I hope those satisfy your request for sources.
At any rate, Hinckley may have been correct that the figures 'he had' were than only 2-5% of people were involved in it; however, well-documented sources put the figure at around 30%. One - and only one - source would be The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power by D. Michael Quinn (Signature Books, 1994), available here.
Now, I know you are going to say that Dr. Quinn, who spent eight years as a professor of history at BYU was excommunicated, but the story of his excommunication is not pretty for the church and was the result of him not following Boyd Packer's 'faith-promoting history' mandate, and his losing his temple recommend for his speech on being an objective LDS historian, and all of that nasty stuff. He is not alone in his story of being excommunicated for writing truthful, but non-faith-promoting, LDS history.
Remember that polygamy was taught as being theologically necessary for salvation. Would you like the sources for that?
As for Hinkley's comment that polygamous marriages were discontinued in 1890, you may want to read LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904, published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1985, pages 9-105). Remember that the LDS's official Mormon Dictionary lists Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought as a journal of value to Mormons. The article documents approximately 250 plural marriages that occurred after the Manifesto, with the authorization of the leaders of the church.
You'll also find in the Larry King interview - watch the video or read the interview, both linked in this post - that when questioned by King about polygamy, Hinkley says ""When our people came west they permitted it [polygamy] on a restricted scale." Do you need me to provide sources that show it was also permitted in Missouri, or can you provide me with any sources at all that show restrictions that were placed upon the practice that would suggest that anyone could honestly say it was 'permitted to be practiced on a restricted scale."
So you are right. Gordon Hinckley did not make the man-god statement on Larry King. He made it in an interview with TIME magazine.
As for Joseph Smith denying that he practices polygamy, I can provide you with sources regarding the 1844 grand jury indictments for polygamy brought against him based on charges by William Law, and the sermon Smith preached on May 25, 1844 when informed of the charges. You know? The sermon where just one of the lines was "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." As for a source, you can find the sermon in the LDS's own History of the Church, Period I, 6:408–412.
I have never - never - posted an article or vanity regarding the Latter Day Saints.
I ignored them for the longest time until the issue of LDS Scouting came up and the issue of whether LDS Scouting is the same as traditional Boy Scouting. Quite simply it's not. Without getting into it deeply, the LDS, as the BSA's first institutional sponsor, signed an agreement in 1913 which permitted it to change the BSA program. The BSA changed its policy and never again permitted an organization to change the standard BSA program. LDS has its own short manual for LDS Scouting, called the Green Book.
LDS Scouting is different than traditional Boy Scouting in many ways - LDS Scout leaders are trained by the LDS Bishop; other training is optional. Traditional Scout leaders are trained through a series of training sessions run by the BSA. Youth leaders in LDS Scouting are selected by the Bishoporic. Youth leaders in traditional Scouting are selected by the youth. I could continue. The result is that the two programs are very different on paper resulting in them being very different in practice. The LDS Scout program accomplishes the goals it specifically sets for itself in the Green Book - "to complement the purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood quorum and primary classes in building testimonies in boys and young men."
The purpose of the Boy Scouts of America is ""to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."
At any rate, that was my introduction - LDS parents and Scout leaders stating that LDS Scouting was identical to traditional Scouting. It's not. I've been a Council Commissioner, on Regional and National BSA Committees, and held other local, District, Council, Regional, and National postions, and it's not. I'm not saying one is better, because you judge the effectiveness of something based upon whether it accomplishes its purpose.
I just stepped in because when LDS Scout parents and LDS Scouters said that LDS Scouting was the same as traditional Scouting, they were mistaken. The programs are two different programs.
My next post on an LDS post was a polite question to Paragon Defender. I had seen his links and went to a couple of them as he asked FR members to do. I asked him about the www.lds.org site's biography of Joseph Smith listing only one wife, Emma. The conversation did not go well. I was accused of being a propgandist.
Since then, I've only posted a couple of times, but only in comments.
I post because of Paragon Defender.
Somebody could post something that was documented and factual and Paragon Defender would essentially call them a liar.
It's one thing for an LDS member to say "that fact is not relevant to my faith and testimony." It's one thing for an LDS member to say "during the 1820s, it was culturally acceptable to be involved in mysticism and magic, and that doesn't mean that Joseph Smith didn't find golden plates and translate them." It's one thing to say "Smith had to deny polygamy because, although it was revealed to him by God, the laws of man were not prepared for it and he could not lead the church from jail."
However, it's another thing to say "YOU LIE!" when someone posts something that's historically accurate, but the church has chosen not to make part of its current version of history under the "faith-promoting" standard. For example, Benton and Packer's policy - and I can find the speeches where they made these statements - directed LDS historians not to re-publish certain LDS documents on the grounds that they had already been published. They specifically addressed the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon (likely because of the two to three thousand changes) and the early version of Doctrines and Covenants (ditto, likely because of changes). They don't have a problem with republishing other old documents.
Those parts of the church history have been thrown down a black hole.
If somebody brings up the changes, or old teachings of the church, it's appropriate to say "we don't teach that any longer." I realize that may raise issues with the infallibility of prophets, but it's more appropriate than yelling "YOU LIE!"
It's at the point where somebody publishes inconvenient LDS history, or LDS doctrine that isn't mainstream, and a LDS apologist jumps in with "YOU LIE!" or "PROVE IT!" that I get testy.
And, if pressed, I can start to cite to links to the campaign when the LDS church decided to emphasize "Jesus Christ" to make the church more mainstream, changing its logo, using a public relations firm to issue a press release to ask the media not to use the term "Mormon" any longer.
And the other stuff - the quote from Brigham Young about Joseph Smith have all of the base human defects that a man could have except when he was receiving prophecies, and comparing that to the "To the Man" white-washed version of the Joseph Smith that apparently some FR members believe can only be posted on FR.
I don't have a motive or reason to post a article on the LDS church, but if LDS members are going to call those who post truthful facts about LDS history liars, then if I have the time, I'm going to step in.
I support the right of LDS members to believe what they wish.
I do not support the right of LDS members to attack others because they dare to print things that are not within the "faith-promoting" approved history of the church.
You are making a truth claim - that the post article is slanderous. Yet, you have offered nothing to demonstrate your claim is true. Do you have anything?
You keep using the "whiff" word. Do you realize you haven't left the dugout yet. You are content to sit there, spit tobacco juice and holler at the players...