As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_Runtu]

And yet, he was a decent fellow. How sad that a person needs to bring up an interview of a ninety year old man to score points. And yet, the rest of his life is forgotten. But...such is skimming for trying to find a life in five minutes.

I certainly don't think Hinckley's life can be summed up by those few interviews. What is interesting to me isn't that he fudged the answers repeatedly (I can only guess why he did) but rather that people are still trying to figure out a way to rationalize what he said. Why is it such a big deal to admit he wasn't completely forthright in his answers? Why, as has been asked before, are people willing to figuratively die on this particular molehill?

[_consiglieri]

ETA: I only bring it up because some Mormons have argued that it may have meant that God was a man in the same way as Jesus was a man. I don't think the context suggests that at all, but I thought that if there was anything that said God was a "sinful man" specifically, it would definitely disprove that idea.

I have heard this idea, too, but it is my perception this is another attempt to take Joseph Smith's radical doctrine of eternal progression and water it down to make it more appealing to the masses.

I think the interview caught President Hinckley between conflicting values: (1) Teach the truth as he believes it to be; and, (2) Make the LDS Church look good.

In most instances, President Hinckley saw the two as synonymous.

In some cases, he saw them as different.

In this case, President Hinckley unfortunately chose to try to make the Church look good at the expense of telling the truth.

The upshot was that he failed on both counts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Darth J]

How sad that a person needs to bring up an interview of a ninety year old man to score points. And yet, the rest of his life is forgotten. But...such is skimming for trying to find a life in five minutes.

Let's not forget the rest of his life. In addition to being a paid public relations cheerleader for the Church for his entire adult life, he also.........

Anyone?

[_beefcalf]

It sounds like an old ninety year old man trying to grapple with his thougths.

Okay...lets hope that at ninety you can give a perfect answer inside a perfect mind when you face an interviewer like larry king.

How sad that a person needs to bring up an interview of a ninety year old man to score points.

Sounds like you're saying God was wrong to put such an old guy in charge...

[_Kevin Graham]

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

So where did he lie? I have shown in the gospel principles manual where it is taught now. But when I read what he said in the interview...he is not denying the principle. And it is true, that we just don't know a lot about the doctrine. He didn't say that we didn't teach it or don't teach it. It sounds like an old ninety year old man trying to grapple with his thougths.

Stop being so obtuse. He knew damn well the question was going to be asked. He wasn't being sand-bagged. He wasn't taken out of context. He was being intentionally vague as possible because he knew damn well the truth would go contrary to his intentions, which were to give the impression that the Mormon faith really isn't that weird, that it is misrepresented, that it consists of everday, regular folks, etc. But this question was asked specifically for the purpose of cutting to the core of that perception, and Hinckley knew damn well that the Church taught this doctrine - as he had not too long prior to his interviews - not just as a mere "couplet" but as a doctrine fundamental to Mormonism's uniqueness.

The questions were all prepared and given to the Church in advance. This question was asked several times while on his "publicity tour," that involved interviews with Time Magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle and Larry King. If you think for a second that he didn't have people coaching him in his responses then you're an idiot. He wasn't caught off guard. He is the President of a multi-billion dollar corporation that operates publicly in cahoots with their marketing and public relations depts. The folks working there receive the same types of training as those running the same kinds of depts for any other corporation.

[_Jason Bourne]

It is in the gospel principles manual. Hinckley didn't lie.

I would say he was disingenous. And he was more than once. He know what he was saying. And the fact that it is in the manuals, he taught and heard it taught all his life, to say he does not know that we teach it????? What is that then?

However, when I see the pope give an interview like Hinckley did, you can chime in with your comments.

What the hell does that have to do with it?

Hinckley was an old man at the time of the interview and the questions were coming rather fast. He did a good job and came across like a nice old man. Give a ninety year old something man a break. May your mind be sharp as a tack when you get that age.

I don't think he was 90 but he was old. But the man was sharp as a tack at the time. He knew what he was saying.

[_consiglieri]

Okay...lets hope that at ninety you can give a perfect answer inside a perfect mind when you face an interviewer like larry king.

I can't give a perfect answer at fifty!


The thing I can't escape is that, regardless of his age, President Hinckely was canny enough to hear the question, understand the question, consider whether he should answer it straight or equivocate, predict the relative consequences, and then decide to equivocate.

All in a fraction of a second, mind you.

It isn't his quickness of thought that is at issue, it is his decision to protect the Church rather than tell the truth.

There was a Sherlock Holmes story, I think, where a valuable item had been hidden in a room and Sherlock could not figure out where it was located. He knew the owner of the house had stolen the item and he had narrowed the hiding place down to a particular room. But he could go no further.

What did he do? He had Watson proclaim a fake fire alarm outside the window and then watched the suspect to see where he glanced first, believing that the thing valued most by the suspect would be the first thing he would think of perishing in a fire.

My concern is that when Larry King set the fake fire alarm, the first thing President Hinckley glanced at was making the LDS Church look good.

I fear Quasimodo has been making an excellent point in this regard . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Nightlion]

And yet, he was a decent fellow. How sad that a person needs to bring up an interview of a ninety year old man to score points. And yet, the rest of his life is forgotten. But...such is skimming for trying to find a life in five minutes.

I certainly don't think Hinckley's life can be summed up by those few interviews. What is interesting to me isn't that he fudged the answers repeatedly (I can only guess why he did) but rather that people are still trying to figure out a way to rationalize what he said. Why is it such a big deal to admit he wasn't completely forthright in his answers? Why, as has been asked before, are people willing to figuratively die on this particular molehill?

Look at the fallout and assess the damage he did. He fractured lots of faith in THE PROPHET which is the real foundation under the LDS Church. The Church never picked up the gospel right. So all they got is the perpetuation of THE PROPHET mystic.

I think GBH was a satanist and could not resist casting a spell of doubt for his legacy. How could the vanity of the moment escape his appreciation as a great PR man that he always was? He had the entire Church holding its breath as he sat there front and center before the world, only to crush the hopes of millions as he let all the air out THE PROPHET mystic and sold his MANTEL for a mess of pottage on stage with the world.

I think he privately laughed himself silly. He obviously never had the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. Never taught it in over thirty years.

[_Jason Bourne]

Do you want to wade through the hooey?

Nope. Not in the least.

Better yet go here and read for yourself.http://www.fireark.org/wonders_of_eternity.pdf

I do not believe god speaks to men through rock formtation in the side of a mountain called Olympus that is part of the Wasatch Mountain Range.

I was proclaimed a prophet by three elders in good standing and two stake presidents (I doubt that the two SP realized fully what they were saying) before I said anything of the kind.

So what? What does that mean to me? Why would I trust them any more than I trust you, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Heber Grant, Spencer Kimball, Moses or any prophet. If God speaks to men in such a limited way then it seems a pretty sloppy way to get his message out. To many limited and selected prophets that are saying "Just trust me I know the way, I am God's anointed."

Why does God speak to only a few men here and there and not to the rest? Answer is he likely doesn't.

[_Nightlion]

Why does God speak to only a few men here and there and not to the rest? Answer is he likely doesn't.

I feel much better being lump together with all my friends.

Christ said, Few there be that find it.

I see you have inverted the man/God inequality to put man above God.