My credibility being on the line here is tantamount to Robert Bork's credibility being on line at the ACLU. Of course its on line. Its always on line here because that's the kind of place this is. If my credibility weren't on line here I would be more than seriously concerned.
Your credibility is on the line because of so much of what you say and how you say it. Not because you are some valiant defender of the faith as you seem to think.
What should worry you Jason, is the credibility of the people that have credibility here; people you support and defend. You are known, for good or ill, by the company you keep.
Well Coggins, I don't hang out with anyone here in real life. However, based solely on board personalities there are a number here that I think would be more pleasant to share a dinner with then you. I will hold out that in real life you may be a wonderful fellow.
As to emphasis, I used to emphasize this idea all the time when I taught Gospel Doctrine. Its a true principle so I taught it. Has the Church emphasized it? Not in my life time, not officially. Had they emphasized it in the past. Maybe. If so, so what. A number of things were emphasized in the past that are still part of the Gospel but not emphasized.
So you have taught it, it is in lesson manuals, it is in a manual for new members, Church leaders have written about it, Ensign article have discussed it, some talks in conference have referred to it, I was taught it in seminary, in SS, in priesthood. Heck we used to be proud of it. In my life, which overlaps yours, it has been emphasised and was even more so iin the 19th century. To say that it is not emphasized is just plain silly.
You're problem here Jason is that, like so many other of your tempests in proverbial teapots, your worries have to do with precisely nothing. There is no contradiction when Hinckley's words are taken in context. He didn't deny the doctrine, only its importance in the general scheme of all things Mormon at the present time.
And this is your problem Loran. I did not, do not nor have I ever complained about Pres. Hinckley's comments. I do not defend them either by disingenuously arguing that we really don't emphasize this teaching because we have and do. The only comments about Hicnkleys comments I have ever made is that he clearly did not want to delve into it and back peddled. I wish he hadn't but he did. Do I really care that he did? Nope. He is a man makes mistakes and clearly did not want to get into it for whatever reason. I think critics make an issue out of nothing here and that apologists make it worse be trying to defend it as anything other then what it was. A dodge. Big deal.