A Tale of Two Soundbites

Post by **_Runtu** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:21 pm

It's interesting to me how a couple of soundbites from President Hinckley are interpreted by some apologists.

The first, "I don't know that we teach it," refers to the central doctrine of Mormonism: that humans can become like God. This statement has been parsed and rationalized ad infinitum so that President Hinckley would not be seen as renouncing church doctrine.

The other statement concerns polygamy: "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal." This statement, rather than being picked to pieces, is trumpeted as proof positive that plural marriage is not a doctrine of the church; see the "other board" for details.

It seems to me that these are both instances of seeing what we want to see, no matter what it is. People do not want to believe that the prophet would trivialize a core doctrine like deification, but they also don't want to be bothered with polygamy anymore. He said it, so it isn't doctrine anymore. Never mind the scriptures.

Post by **_Scottie** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:26 pm

What is so hard to understand about this, Runtu?

Living prophets supercede dead ones. Period. End of story.

GBH said it, it overrides anything any old prophet or scripture said. Done.

Post by **_malkie** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:32 pm

Scottie wrote:What is so hard to understand about this, Runtu?

Living prophets supercede dead ones. Period. End of story.

GBH said it, it overrides anything any old prophet or scripture said. Done.

But should a tentative "I don't know"-type of statement from a living prophet supersede a definitive statement from a dead one?

Post by **_Doctor Steuss** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:36 pm

Then there's the other sound-bite that further complicates things where Hinckley in a conference said (paraphrased) not to look at his interviews with the press for doctrinal pronouncements

(Currently trying to find original quote).

Post by **_amantha** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:38 pm

Scottie wrote:What is so hard to understand about this, Runtu?

Living prophets supercede dead ones. Period. End of story.

GBH said it, it overrides anything any old prophet or scripture said. Done.

Exactly. And scripture like D&C 132 is left in the canon to provide a valuable test of faith for god's chosen ones.

Post by **_Mary** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:57 pm

John,

I don't understand this either. I didn't actually know about the retraction later given at conference.

To me, it seems like President Hinckley didn't wish to admit to an 'embarrassing' or 'controversial' doctrine in public, but is happy to give
a wink and a nod to the members.

I just don't think that as a matter of course he or future leaders will be able to get away with it, simply because of how the internet has changed things and
because of the public interest in Mormonism because of Romney.

How do you think he should have handled it?

Out of interest?
Mary

Post by **_Blixa** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:04 pm

I think he should have just given a quick and simple explanation of the doctrine. Its really at the heart of Mormonism and is arguably one of its most interesting (some would say beautiful) features.

Post by **_Scottie** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:11 pm

I think the more disturbing thing about this is just how much GBH doesn't know about the religion that he is the head of!

I mean, it's not like someone was asking him some obscure thing about the 4th paragraph in the King Follet Sermon or something.

These are basic core principles and doctrines.

When apologists ask what we expect from their prophets, well, one thing I would expect is that your prophets at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the doctrines of your church. Is that so much to ask?

Post by **_Mary** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:15 pm

Blixa wrote:I think he should have just given a quick and simple explanation of the doctrine. Its really at the heart of Mormonism and is arguably one of its most interesting (some would say beautiful) features.

I agree Blixa. Best in my opinion, for the church to stand tall for what it believes in. I think he could have said that past leaders have taught it, and even speculated, but we really don't know, though it is informally and formally taught and is an integral part of the Mormon idea of how things are, whether it is true or not.

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:15 pm

Scottie wrote:When apologists ask what we expect from their prophets, well, one thing I would expect is that your prophets at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the doctrines of your church. Is that so much to ask?

I would say so. When you're constantly making it up as you go along, it's hard to keep track of all the BS prophets have come up with in the past. Hell, even your own BS can be difficult to keep track of.

Oh, the webs we weave when we practice to deceive.