A Tale of Two Soundbites

[_charity]

While you all chortle yourselves into happy complacency, you could be a little more sensible about it.

Any 3 second soundbyte can be a simple misspeak, no chance to clarify, etc. Cut the guy a little slack. I am sure you have all said things you wish you had said a little better.

[_Some Schmo]

Any 3 second soundbyte can be a simple misspeak, no chance to clarify, etc. Cut the guy a little slack. I am sure you have all said things you wish you had said a little better.

"I know I said that I didn't know that we teach that, but what I really meant is that we teach that. Silly me. Sometimes, I just stumble over my words like that."

[_Scottie]

While you all chortle yourselves into happy complacency, you could be a little more sensible about it.

Any 3 second soundbyte can be a simple misspeak, no chance to clarify, etc. Cut the guy a little slack. I am sure you have all said things you wish you had said a little better.

Charity, I will cut the guy some slack, being as he is almost 100 years old. I can only hope that I am as mobile and articulate when I'm 97!!

[_the road to hana]

While you all chortle yourselves into happy complacency, you could be a little more sensible about it.

Any 3 second soundbyte can be a simple misspeak, no chance to clarify, etc. Cut the guy a little slack. I am sure you have all said things you wish you had said a little better.

I don't doubt Gordon B. Hinckley had adequate preparation for those interviews.

[_Coggins7]

This has been hashed out endlessly before, over and over, and it is a dead issue, for those willing to give Hiinkley the benefit of the doubt, who understand the full context of the questions asked of him, and understand LDS doctrine enough to understand that, on occasion, questions like this are deflected. Jesus did this through his parabolic teachings regarding those who were not prepared to hear them, or who would abuse them if they understood.

As I've said many times heretofore, this is very deep doctrine, and Hinckley is correct; we do not know very much about it. We know that God is our literal Father and arrived at his present state through a mortal probation of some kind. This is the plan of salvation from all eternity to all eternity. All we have is the basics. Hinckley was very clear that he understood the concept and the philosophy behind it, but was not willing to comment any further.

We are, after all, to be "wise as serpents" as well as harmless as lambs, when dealing with the world. This board is ample confirmation of the wisdom of that principle.

[_Coggins7]

This issue is thoroughly dealt with at FAIR, for any who are interested and intellectually honest enough to give the counter argument a fair hearing.

[_malkie]

While you all chortle yourselves into happy complacency, you could be a little more sensible about it.

Any 3 second soundbyte can be a simple misspeak, no chance to clarify, etc. Cut the guy a little slack. I am sure you have all said things you wish you had said a little better.

Charity, I will cut the guy some slack, being as he is almost 100 years old. I can only hope that I am as mobile and articulate when I'm 97!!

Agreed!

The question, then, is: Is there evidence to suggest whether Pres H was consistent in his not knowing about the god/man couplet? or the doctrinal status of polygamy? so that "a simple misspeak, no chance to clarify" can be seen to apply or not.

Did he make the same or similar statements on multiple occasions, or confirm these statements when asked for clarification.

[_Runtu]

While you all chortle yourselves into happy complacency, you could be a little more sensible about it.

Any 3 second soundbyte can be a simple misspeak, no chance to clarify, etc. Cut the guy a little slack. I am sure you have all said things you wish you had said a little better.

No chortling here. What he said isn't all that interesting to me. They're soundbites, nothing more, and people take them way too seriously. What I think is interesting is how people respond to these soundbites. On the one hand, you have people bending over backwards to rationalize the first statement, while some people take the second soundbite as gospel truth. I find it fascinating.

No need to cut him slack when I wasn't criticizing him in the first place.

[_moksha]

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.

I thought he was ending past speculation on the topic by subtly repudiating it. Is this not the case?