Editing talk pages
Although it is convention not to remove vandalism on talk pages - removing personal attacks is common. Trödel|talk 22:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Obstruction?
Issue summary: Is Hinckley a key church official in the Mark Hoffman incident and is it significant to recent Mormon history? Books such as 'Salamander' and 'The Mormon Murders' go as far as to reference Police Dectives in accusing Hinckley of elusive and obstuctionist behavior during the investiagtion. Is this would not be note-worthy and what if anything should be noted in the article?
- I have a number of books, notes and papers on the investigation. I'll see what I can dig up. I'm familiar with two officers who claimed this after the investigation, but not in official reports. I'll dig around and look to see what I can find. -Visorstuff 19:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- The problem with the research is that the obstruction charges come from only two sources - two detectives that were assigned to the case who said that Hinckley said this and that. They were quoted in the tribune, and other papers, but none of their alleged claims ever showed up in police reports that I've been able to find. I'm not trying to be an apologist by saying this, but there's just no data available other than these two guys claims. It there was something substantiating that he denied knowing Hofmann or that he did, etc., then there would be more to write about. However, as it stands (even if these two are quotedin the LA times) it is as unsubstantiated as the claims that Hinckley and Packer visited a Salt Lake brothel for services that was made by a "witness" that Ed Decker quoted. The witness gets sued and it was shown that he lied about it, obviously. We need more to substantiate it. I'm familiar with the books, but it is lacking hard evidence. Perhaps we need to find more, and I'm looking for it, but it may take me some time. Until then, it is hearsay. We could put that he was allegedly involved in the Salamandar Letter case, but that's about as far as we can go. -Visorstuff 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm still struggling to find additional evidence either way and the charges are hearsay at best. However, as he was a figure in the scandal, I'll add it in. -Visorstuff 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hinckley False Statements
Why do you not include in your NPOV article in re Hinckley these two undisputed facts?:
1) During the Hoffman scandal Hinckley, in his position as a church GA, publicly declared at least one of the Hoffman forgeries to be genuine. If memory serves, (I was living in Provo at that time and I remember seeing him make at least one announcement on TV), he stated the Lord had revealed to the church leadership the authenticity of the document(s). In at least one of those public statements, he made a little speech about how, regardless of how the information in the documents would affect church history and doctrine, the members must always trust the word of the prophets.
2) During his interview with Larry King in 1996, he gave the now infamous quote regarding his lack of knowledge of the fundamental LDS doctrine of eternal progression: "I don't know that we ever really taught that... I don't really know that much about it..."
You know, the quote so embarrassing as an outright lie that the church sued Time magazine over their repetition of it, and lost the case on trial and on appeal?
You know, the quote so egregiously false it doesn't even make sense?
The President and Prophet of a church claiming that the founding principle of the church's core beliefs does not exist?
Then he claims that even if it ever did exist or was ever taught, it is not taught now?
Then he claims that he '...doesn't really know much about it...'?
Why then, in the next GC, did he refer to his receipt of numerous queries and questions from members about the above claim? Why did tell the members of the church that regardless of what he told the world in the King interview, '...your prophet knows the doctrine!"
Thus admitting in GC that what he told the world was a lie.
Since the first statement is obviously a proof that Hinckley, having been fooled and used the Lord's Name in vain, does not qualify as a prophet; and the second statement is acknowledged in GC by Hinckley himself to have been a lie, why do you not include such facts in your NPOV article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whraglyn (talk • contribs) .
- Let me try to answer your concerns.
- 1. I don't know where you got the information that President Hinckley said at least one of the documents were genuine. The Church has emphatically and repeatedly denied the documents' authenticities, and Mark Hoffmann himself admitted that all the documents, without exception, were forgeries. He was proud of it! But they were all blatant forgeries. See the wiki page on Mark Hoffman for proof of the validity of this statement.
- 2. You are obviously getting your information from anti-Mormon sites, which would of course twist his remarks. There's a difference between when a prophet speaks as a prophet and when he speaks as a man. And President Hinckley's statement is almost always taken out of context, and is misquoted. He said he didn't know if we taught it. That doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means it isn't emphasized. And why not? Because the members of the church haven't grasped the basic concepts of the gospel yet. "Milk before meat in Christ's Church." Until we grasp the basic stuff, which is repeated in General Conferences because we fail to grasp it, we will not be taught the more complex stuff. And that's what he meant. He meant that we don't teach it because we focus on other things. Then when we grasp those things, we can delve into the more complex issues of doctrine.
- Hope this helps. Signed 209.90.93.10 02:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)James Stokes, A Friend and Fellow Church Member
- Both of you may want to go back and read the question asked and read the section below, which has been similarly repeated many times on the wiki including a good explanation [[ here. The modern question that if Mormons beleive that they can become gods and create their own worlds, etc. is not correct. Some may believe that they can become gods and create purple dinosaurs on their own world, but that is simple not doctrinal. It very well may or may not be true, but it has not been revealed. Do we believe we can become gods? Yes. But we don't have a clue as to what that means, aside from snippets in the scriptures, such as Christ's statement that we are all "gods, children of the most high" and that "they become gods" who are not subject to angels, the rest is just philosophy - as hinckley stated: that is "getting into some pretty deep doctrine that we don't know much about" but "i understand the philosophy behind it."
- It's really not that hard to grasp folks. What president Hinckley stated was very much doctrinally correct. No scholar has had an issue with it, only those who misunderstand the doctrine, or who don't study the doctrine, or never really paused to think about it because of Mormon culture.
- I wrote at Talk:Common_Latter-day_Saint_perceptions: The one on what it means to be a god is a perfect example as President Hinckley has clarified that we don't understand what this means. In fact, during the Mike Wallace interview, he stated, that the Church doesn't teach that people can go about makeing other worlds, being gods over other creations. That is speculation - the church teaches that we can become like God, and have all that he does. The Church, and through it's correelation program is very careful on what it puts in manuals and what is doctrine. Other items are speculative in nature. In this way it is easy to pinpoint what the church "officially teaches" versus what people are speculating. There is also a difference to what the church teachES versus what they taught. Just because a GA says something does not mean the church teaches it. Even among the differences between what GAs believe, they are NOW very careful on what they state as official. That is why I think in many instances, you can say "these doctrines are untrue/speculation" according to official doctrines although many Mormons believe them.
- We don't understand that idea. We speculate, and may or may not be right, but the brethren have been very clear that we don't understand this. I find it ridiculous that so many church members don't read the ensign or other church publications, including the scriptures, to understand that this has been clarified a number of times.
- Also, can you provide a source as to when the church sued time magazine and then appealed the suit? I've heard this, but never seen anything about it.
- Lastly, regarding point #1 - you are incorrect. You may want to read Sillitoe, Linda & Roberts, Allen (1989). Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, 2nd. ed., Salt Lake City: Signature Books. ISBN 0941214877. about the Hofman and the early documents - many of which were indeed speculated to be forgeries before hofmann did any bombings - not only the tanners suspected they were false, but so did the church, and dealers, including Sheets and others who were public about their suspicions - which led to the bombings. About the only folks who thought it was authentic were the sunstone editors and some document experts who were tasked to determine authenticity - the salamander letter for example, was only preliminarily authenticated - it had not gone through full testing (meaning it had been looked at and the paper seemed old and ink had deteriorated properly and the handwriting was close, but had not gone through other forms of dating tests). AND, it would be strange for hinckley to comment on this during the bombings, as the church hierarchal spokesperson at the time on the matter was Dallin H. Oaks, not Hinckley, who was in the first presidency and would not have made any comment, and who was criticized for not being more public or making public statements at the time. The trusting the lords prophet comment you are referring to was by elder oaks at BYU after the bombing, and you are confusing facts. However, the above-mentioned book is the most comprehensive work on Hofmann I know. As far as your points being "undisputed," I think your sources for this info are not only undocumented based on my research and readings, but you seem to be confusing Elder oaks comments and president hinckley comments over the course of about six years. There are many sources out there, such as the police officer's interaction with Hinckley and Oaks, that have since been proven to be untrue. See talk pages at Mark Hofmann and Salamander Letter However, I definately haven't read everything on the matter, but that is my pretty-well-informed opinion. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned here and in M russell Ballards bio a chain letter of this being his last conference. That is speculation though and nothing to verify.