Curious To Know If An Apologtic Ever Defended Something And It Turned Out To Be False

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Hinckley, in the quote you emphasized, does not "repudiate" the King Follett Discourse; he says he doesn't know a lot about it. Nothing in Hinckley's remarks suggest that he thought Joseph Smith had strayed theologically in that discourse.

I would also ask on what basis you would make Hinckley's comments to a reporter (i.e., not made in a context normally regarded by Mormons as authoritative, as in General Conference) trump statements made by Joseph Smith and quoted with approval by numerous LDS prophets and apostles and in LDS manuals right up to the present time?

[zerinus]

Hinckley, in the quote you emphasized, does not "repudiate" the King Follett Discourse; . . .

He repudiates the doctrine that God was once a man, and became a God, which is the most significant (and controversial) teaching of the KFD.

. . . he says he doesn't know a lot about it.

He says that he doesn't know much about that particular doctrine--meaning that it is not a revealed doctrine, but speculative.

Nothing in Hinckley's remarks suggest that he thought Joseph Smith had strayed theologically in that discourse.

I gave you the reference. Read more carefully.

I would also ask on what basis you would make Hinckley's comments to a reporter (i.e., not made in a context normally regarded by Mormons as authoritative, as in General Conference) trump statements made by Joseph Smith and quoted with approval by numerous LDS prophets and apostles and in LDS manuals right up to the present time?

Hinckley is speaking as the President of the Church, holding the priesthood keys to speak authoritatively on Church doctrine. KFD is not canonized scripture, and and does not represent official doctrine of the Church. Hinckley has every authority "trump" that statement. The venue in which it was spoken is irrelevant.

[treehugger]

Does it matter that "God was once a man" is in either the current Teachings of the Prophets or a very recent past issue?

[CASteinman]

My words were backed up by the article that I cited.

That is false.

[CASteinman]

That would appear to be a pious way of saying that he fibbed. Is that right?

Maybe... if you can consider Jesus to be a fibber when He did things like that or that He was encouraging fibbing when He told people not to say some things.

Is that your view of Jesus or are you inconsistent?

Edited July 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Does it matter that "God was once a man" is in either the current Teachings of the Prophets or a very recent past issue?

Matter in what way? It might matter in some ways and not matter in others.

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

You wrote:

That is false.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I had written, with regard to Kevin's claim that Hinckley was keeping a pearl in the LDS treasury so it would not be trampled by swine:

"That would appear to be a pious way of saying that he fibbed. Is that right?"

You replied:

Maybe... if you can consider Jesus to be a fibber when He did things like that or that He was encouraging fibbing when He told people not to say some things. Is that your view of Jesus or are you inconsistent?

Those are not the only two choices. (Your argument here is a false dilemma fallacy.) Jesus never did anything of the sort. He never feigned ignorance about any supposedly sacred pearls of doctrinal truth. Nor did Jesus tell his disciples not to be forthcoming about what they really believed. Jesus did ask some people not to tell people that he had healed them, and he discouraged people from referring to him as the Messiah in contexts where that title would be understood politically. But Jesus never fibbed in any way.

[CASteinman]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

You are certainly welcome for when I share my opinion, however, I did not share my opinion. I stated a fact. It was false.

Those are not the only two choices. (Your argument here is a false dilemma fallacy.)

This is your unsupported opinion.

Jesus never did anything of the sort. He never feigned ignorance about any supposedly sacred pearls of doctrinal truth. Nor did Jesus tell his disciples not to be forthcoming about what they really believed. Jesus did ask some people not to tell people that he had healed them, and he discouraged people from referring to him as the Messiah in contexts where that title would be understood politically. But Jesus never fibbed in any way.

Then Hinckley also never fibbed in any way.

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay, and how does that help us in our current debate?

For perspective, brother. Our current debate will apparently be unresolved till then.

[Robert F. Smith]

This answers your first question as well. Hinckley felt that at the time Joseph Smith preached that sermon he may have been acting under pressures which may have caused him to have strayed theologically.

Is this your interpretation of President Hinckley's words in Time, or are you commenting on another source? Because I just don't see that rationale being expressed by Joseph in any source.

[Zakuska]

Those are not the only two choices. (Your argument here is a false dilemma fallacy.) Jesus never did anything of the sort. He never feigned ignorance about any supposedly sacred pearls of doctrinal truth. Nor did Jesus tell his disciples not to be forthcoming about what they really believed. Jesus did ask some people not to tell people that he had healed them, and he discouraged people from referring to him as the Messiah in contexts where that title would be understood politically. But Jesus never fibbed in any way.

Was Christ being... forthcoming when he taught in Parables?

Mark 4

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Hmmm... thats some big secret... not teaching people how to be forgiven of their sins! And what he really knew to be true.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Was Christ being... forthcoming when he taught in Parables?

Mark 4

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Hmmm... thats some big secret... not teaching people how to be forgiven of their sins! And what he really knew to be true.

This is a different issue. No one asked Jesus if he taught something and had Jesus respond by feigning ignorance on the question. The purpose of the parables was not to keep people who wanted to know the truth from knowing it or to mislead people as to what Jesus was really teaching.

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

You wrote:

You are certainly welcome for when I share my opinion, however, I did not share my opinion. I stated a fact. It was false.

When you dismissed my statement about Hinckley without any explanation or evidence against what I said, I pointed out that the article I had cited provides documentation and analysis supporting my statement. In response you said only "That is false." Merely asserting "That is false" is not a helpful contribution to the subject even if you are right. It is not constructive, informative, or illuminating on the subject at hand. All it tells us is that according to CASteinman, what I said was false.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives as its first definition of opinion, "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof." So far, I believe that definition fits what you have offered. An opinion may be correct, in which case it is also a fact; but without any substantiation presented in support of what you say, it is properly described as an opinion.

[halconero]

From the Time Magazine article:

This answers your first question as well. Hinckley felt that at the time Joseph Smith preached that sermon he may have been acting under pressures which may have caused him to have strayed theologically.

I think that's reading to much into that statement. Read it as it is, i.e., I don't know what context Joseph taught that doctrine in and I don't know much about it. We don't focus on it at Church.

Hinckley is speaking as the President of the Church, holding the priesthood keys to speak authoritatively on Church doctrine. KFD is not canonized scripture, and and does not represent official doctrine of the Church. Hinckley has every authority "trump" that statement. The venue in which it was spoken is irrelevant.

Using the logic that President Hinckley used his priesthood keys in an interview with Larry King to repudiate a doctrine because he is the living prophet in a way makes sense. Living prophet trumps the dead prophet right?

Also using that logic we could say that President Monson used his priesthood keys to repudiate the repudiation of President Hinckley by authorizing the teaching of that doctrine in an official church manual focused on expounding basic doctrines of the Church to those unfamiliar with them. Living prophet trumps dead prophet right?

[Tacenda]

I never thought I'd say this because I was at one time of the opinion that Pres. Hinckley maybe told a fib also. But now I've changed my mind. He couldn't really get into the nitty gritty of that topic during the interview. I also don't think he fibbed because we may not know fully how it all will play out. And does anyone know of anytime in history of one catholic pope who was interviewed? I can't think of one.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Tacenda

[CASteinman]

When you dismissed my statement about Hinckley without any explanation or evidence against what I said, I pointed out that the article I had cited provides documentation and analysis supporting my statement. In response you said only "That is false."

You have correctly described the conversation. Just as I correctly characterized your view as false.

Merely asserting "That is false" is not a helpful contribution to the subject even if you are right. It is not constructive, informative, or illuminating on the subject at hand. All it tells us is that according to CASteinman, what I said was false.

I agree with what you have said above.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives as its first definition of opinion, "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof."

Other dictionaries give a different definition. Who shall decide which is better? I feel I can do this.

So far, I believe that definition fits what you have offered.

I can see how you would feel that way.

An opinion may be correct, in which case it is also a fact; but without any substantiation presented in support of what you say, it is properly described as an opinion.

Does the dictionary definition require that someone other than me have the positive knowledge -- or can I have it and by virtue of me having it, that would be sufficient for the definition of opinion to not apply?

Please be sure to confirm that your answer is objectively, verifiable truth and not just your opinion.

(Oh, by the way, the burden of proof on the original issue was on you, not on me. Indeed, you have asked me to prove a negative).

Edited July 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

An interesting story:

The Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand. [Jesus'] brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. (For neither did his brethren believe in him.)

Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.

When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

Edited July 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[KevinG]

Kevin,

You wrote:

That would appear to be a pious way of saying that he fibbed. Is that right?

Rob share the details of your intimacy with your wife or I will accuse you of fibbing to me.

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

Rob share the details of your intimacy with your wife or I will accuse you of fibbing to me.

How embarrassing for you. First of all, Hinckley did not simply refuse to answer the question put to him; he claimed that he didn't know that it was something taught or emphasized and made other statements that were misdirecting in nature. Second, the details about my marital relations are, of course, no one's business other than our own. The question is illegitimate on its face. The question posed to Hinckley was obviously quite legitimate: it was based on statements spoken by Joseph Smith and other LDS Church presidents and published where anyone in the world can read them. It's too late to claim that the doctrine in question is too sacred for the swine: your church has already made the doctrine public knowledge.

Talk about a Mormon apologetic that turned out to be false!

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

Typical Mormon strategy: trying to excuse their own prophets' errors by citing alleged parallels from the Bible, ignoring context, and offering no explanation of your own.

What do you make of the passage in John 7 that you quoted? Do you think Jesus actually fibbed? If not, how do you explain the passage?

An interesting story:

The Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand. [Jesus'] brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. (For neither did his brethren believe in him.)

Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.

When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

The term opinion has no relevance outside the context of a discussion or disagreement. I can't remember ever saying to myself, "Sure, Rob, you think you're right, but that's just your opinion"!

[CASteinman]

Typical Mormon strategy: trying to excuse their own prophets' errors by citing alleged parallels from the Bible, ignoring context, and offering no explanation of your own.

You have charged me falsely and I insist that you act honorably and withdraw this false accusation.

[CASteinman]

The term opinion has no relevance outside the context of a discussion or disagreement.

Is this an objective fact or an opinion you have?

I can't remember ever saying to myself, "Sure, Rob, you think you're right, but that's just your opinion"!

In time, you may learn humility. There is hope.

[ERayR]

KevinG,

You wrote:

How embarrassing for you. First of all, Hinckley did not simply refuse to answer the question put to him; he claimed that he didn't know that it was something taught or emphasized and made other statements that were misdirecting in nature. Second, the details about my marital relations are, of course, no one's business other than our own. The question is illegitimate on its face. The question posed to Hinckley was obviously quite legitimate: it was based on statements spoken by Joseph Smith and other LDS Church presidents and published where anyone in the world can read them. It's too late to claim that the doctrine in question is too sacred for the swine: your church has already made the doctrine public knowledge.

Talk about a Mormon apologetic that turned out to be false!

You reject ccorrections of your limited understanding of all things LDS and continue to feed at the anti's swill trough.

[Rob Bowman]

CASteinman,

You wrote:

You have charged me falsely and I insist that you act honorably and withdraw this false accusation.

I'll be happy to do so--when you have explained the point of your "interesting story" and the underlined parts (all quoted from John 7) in the context of this thread, showing that what I said was incorrect.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Rob Bowman