The Lorenzo Snow Couplet And Gordon B. Hinckley

[Sentinus]

Sentinus:

The intent is simple.

To demonstrate that complex subjects can not be sound bitted into a one minute time frame. President Hinckley choose to K.I.S.S..

Keep it SAFE and STUPID?? I still dont know, sorry.

All the best,

Sentinus

[Log]

Who's Teckla?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teckla

[Son]

Who's Teckla?

She was a convert of Paul, a Saint that was translated into heaven.

She has an incredible testimony of overcoming and divine intervention throughout her life.

When she finished her mission a stone in a cave she lived in opened up to heaven, she was received by Christ.

It is in the Lost books by world publishing.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teckla

Wrong Teckla.

[Doctor Steuss]

She was a convert of Paul, a Saint that was translated into heaven.

She has an incredible testimony of overcoming and divine intervention throughout her life.

When she finished her mission a stone in a cave she lived in opened up to heaven, she was received by Christ.

It is in the Lost books by world publishing.

Wrong Teckla.

Was this the German nun, or am I thinking of someone else?

[thesometimesaint]

Sentinus:

There is no "and" in K.I.S.S..

[Olavarria]

Like I said in my OP, this gripe is pointless. Is this how despereate the enemies of the Church are?

Guess so.

[Son]

Was this the German nun, or am I thinking of someone else?

She was a convert of Paul's from Iconium, another spelling of her name is Thecla.

She was not allowed to be in the room where Paul was preaching so she sat day and night at the adjoining window to hear the gospel from Paul, she was to be wed to a rich man in her town. She said she would remain a virgin for the Lord, her mother was wroth and desired her to be put to death, she was burnt at a stake and the flames did not touch her, Lions and wild animals were sent in to devour her and the she lion killed them all to protect her.......etc...

It is a great read. Real sacrafice type of story, triumph, love it has it all...the end being her perfecting and exaltation.

Not a real male cannon type of story, powerful women were shunned in that day. The powers at be tried everything they could to kill the story, but it lives.

[cdowis]

Interviewer: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

Hinckley: Yeah.

Interviewer: About that, God the father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, That God the father was once a man like we are?

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

Before responding, please give us the quote *exactly* as it was published in Time magazine.............

.....................................................................

....................................... (I am giving you a subtle hint)

Then take a look at the thread "Why do the antimormons lie".

Finally, you might want to look at this link http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Does_President...S_Doctrine.html

[Log]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla

I'm not sure the account is historical.

[Son]

Like I said in my OP, this gripe is pointless. Is this how despereate the enemies of the Church are?

Guess so.

Not all critics are enemies. I am certainly not an enemy, if the church is going the wrong direction D&C says it is a must to speak up about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Paul_and_Thecla

I'm not sure the account is historical.

Well if you have been given the keys of the priesthood then you know how to see if it is.

I can only bare testimony of what has been given to me.

The wikipedia is incorrect the last chapter explains that Thecla was translated into an eternal abode that was shone in the rock that opened for her to enter in. No where does it say she died or was buried with Paul.

[Homestar Runner]

Have you read the keys that a real prophet holds? Perfection is one of them (sinless).

Dang, it's a good thing you clarified your comments with "These all overcame sin, and were perfected."

So tell me, with so many prophets that have sinned, during the time they were acting as prophet - how come you hold Pres. Hinckley by a different standard?

HSR

[Son]

Dang, it's a good thing you clarified your comments with "These all overcame sin, and were perfected."

So tell me, with so many prophets that have sinned, during the time they were acting as prophet - how come you hold Pres. Hinckley by a different standard?

HSR

What were the sins of the Prophets I mentioned?

They grew from Grace to Grace as required, then were perfected. Did Paul sin during his missions, John the beloved, James, Moses hit a rock out of frustration, (quickly repented). Enoch ? Elijah? Elisha? Pretty well rounded believers. Techla, super woman..... very devout. Peter learned before the church was handed over to him, no mention of any sins after ward, His writings express his knowledge of the divine nature and exaltation, first hand experiences it would appear...lots of power.

A better question is where is GBH's power ?

He addresses his own weaknesses, and says he is not perfect. Not that a perfect man would ever boast, but he seems to say he is not.

[simply_disappear]

Seth, Noah, Job, Zacharias...

How do you know they were sinless? Noah? hehe don't hold your breath there bud.

[Log]

How do you know they were sinless? Noah? hehe don't hold your breath there bud.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/p/52

*sigh*

[Son]

How do you know they were sinless? Noah? hehe don't hold your breath there bud.

The Book of Job

Chapter 1 verse 1

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God and eschewed evil.

[grego]

Have you read the keys that a real prophet holds? Perfection is one of them (sinless).

Son,

References. Then please explain how all the OTHER prophets (you know, the ones who weren't perfect and sinless) got in the Bible, and why they're prophets.

Wait... you just admitted Moses sinned... yet Moses was perfect, and sinless...

So... if the scriptures don't say a prophet sinned, then he didn't sin? Is this what you are proposing?

How about Jonah?

Wait!! How about this--"a prophet is only a prophet when he's sinless"--whatchya think?

-=-=-=

Lognormal,

Let me congratulate you on what was an extremely diplomatic and kind response to Son. Son, for starters, when that story gets put in the Bible, let me know.

[Son]

Son,

References. Then please explain how all the OTHER prophets (you know, the ones who weren't perfect and sinless) got in the Bible, and why they're prophets.

Wait... you just admitted Moses sinned... yet Moses was perfect, and sinless...

So... if the scriptures don't say a prophet sinned, then he didn't sin? Is this what you are proposing?

How about Jonah?

Wait!! How about this--"a prophet is only a prophet when he's sinless"--whatchya think?

-=-=-=

Lognormal,

Let me congratulate you on what was an extremely diplomatic and kind response to Son. Son, for starters, when that story gets put in the Bible, let me know.

Hi Grego, why don't you show me where the prophets of God sinned.

then we will have something to go on.

Moses hitting a rock to bring forth water? sin?

Looking for sinful prophets, now that is a needle in a haystack. Unless they are false prophets, that has happened.

[solomarineris]

Her Amun:

I don't believe President Hinckley did "GOOF". I believe he presented the couplet as Doctrine, but one which the first part of we know next to nothing about.

I think you know more than you think...So do I.

The problem is you cannot disclose it to the world....It is just too sacred.

[spinner]

NOW I ASK; WHAT DOES GORDON B. HINKLEY THINK OF THESE QUOTES?

"There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think thatâ??s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??Drawing Nearer to the Lord,â? Ensign, Nov 1997, 4

1)He believes he was misquoted.

2)He does not consider the quotes authoritative

WHAT CAN WE ASSUME ABOUT THESE QUOTES?

I think that there are 2 possibilities:

1) he was misquoted

2)he simply choked. He goofed. He was a 90 year old mortal after all.

EITHER WAY

Anything reported in those interviews is not binding in anyway.

Of the quotes you provided, I actually find this last one the most unsatisfactory. I think that your proposed explanations, that he was either misquoted or that he simply fumbled on his words a bit, are perfectly reasonable. His conference quote, however, was almost certainly written with careful forethought. I would have thought that if had he been misquoted as he claims he would have thus taken the opportunity to set the record straight. Since he knew the doctrine and he presumably fears that some may have been confused by the way he was reported to have stated it, why did he not clarify?

I suppose that some will say that I am making too many demands and there is no way to respond to each instance where he was misquoted; perhaps that is so. My feeling, however, is that if he wants to assert that he is being misquoted, he should then make clear when and how he was misquoted and clarify his actual meaning. To do otherwise impugns the integrity and/or competence of those reporters with whom he interviewed while still leaving the membership to guess when he was misquoted and what he actually meant.

[Theophilus07]

NOW I ASK; WHAT DOES GORDON B. HINKLEY THINK OF THESE QUOTES?

"There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think thatâ??s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

Gordon B. Hinckley, â??Drawing Nearer to the Lord,â? Ensign, Nov 1997, 4

1)He believes he was misquoted.

2)He does not consider the quotes authoritative

Now, precisely where in his statement above does he actually say that he feels that the specific San Francisco Chronical interview misquoted him and precisely which statement does he feel was misquoted? I can't tell from your quotation above. Can you elucidate, please?

And where precisely does he say he doesn't consider the quote authoritative?

Theophilus07

[kamenraider]

I think that President Hinckley probably felt that it would be bad for PR and like casting pearls before swine to answer that question, and so he acted like he didn't know much about it and gave a vague and misleading answer. I don't think he was misquoted at all. I think he thought that by mentioning that he has been misquoted and misunderstood, it would help allay LDS members' concerns about the extent of his doctrinal understanding by leading them to assume that the reporting was at fault.

[Stargazer]

Either way stating the couplet in his book affirms IMO that he,

1. Was aware of the teaching

2. Chose to "avoid" a direct answer, his reasons however for doing so are what is in question.

I served my mission in Germany, and early on we tracted out a JW family who were willing to talk with us, and we got two lessons into them before they brought in what I guess I could call the local "Mormon expert." This fine gent brought in the JW book on us, and in a very friendly and cordial way questioned us on a couple of more discussable things that we more or less had in common, then trotted out the Lorenzo Snow couplet. He quoted it to us in German, and indicated that he was rather concerned about this statement, but allowed as how since it was a translation from English perhaps it didn't quite mean what it seemed to mean. This was a clear indication that he was open to allowing us to wiggle out of the thing. My senior companion was unfortunately completely out of his depth in the conversation, because it was going at my speed and comprehension level, not his (I took to German like a fish to water and spoke/understood it at two months in-country better than he did after one year). He had little choice but to allow me to handle the matter -- probably his first mistake. I don't know if he would have done it differently, but I nodded cheerfully and said it expressed the intended meaning just fine. It meant just what it seemed to mean.

At this the JW folks kind of got uncomfortable looking, and the Expert finally said, "Well, it seems that there really isn't much basis for further discussion." I allowed as he was probably right, and we took our leave.

Now, maybe if I had wiggled out of it, the way President Hinckley seemed to have done, maybe we might have been able to teach a little more of how we understand the gospel, and maybe this would have better served our mission, but maybe things were heading to the bad place in a handbasket anyway and going full speed ahead damn the torpedoes was the correct approach. But it makes me think that President Hinckley did the right thing in softening his response to the whole issue.

[GRW]

If President Hinckley was, in fact, "thinking on his feet" when he answered this question, then the entire church public affairs department should have been summarily fired. I work in this business, and I promise you, you DO NOT do an interview with a major, and potentially hostile, media representative without very thorough and very careful preparation. The first step is to sit and brainstorm every possible question you can imagine, and then draft answers to those questions. Once theses answers have been carefully reviewed, screened, rewritten and crafted, then you hold what, in the military, is called a "murder board"--essentially a rehearsal under the harshest conditions possible.

I have every reason to believe that the church public affairs office is very professional, and that they prepared President Hinckley (who is no PR slouch himself) very well for these interviews.

His answer to this question is the best evidence--it is the perfect answer, and the only one possible. He couldn't say, "yes, of course it is true" because it would have caused a firestorm of "A-HA! You admit it!" from the church's critics--if you think what he DID say is a favorite sound bite, imagine how critics would have used an outright assertion of the doctrine. And he obviously couldn't have denied it--because that would have been an outright lie which everyone would have recognized.

Look carefully, and you'll see that what he actually did was to NOT answer the question directly. Now, we can all debate whether it was a prophetic answer, but from a purely PR stance, it was a brilliant answer. To suggest it was a "stumble" is an insult.

[spinner]

If President Hinckley was, in fact, "thinking on his feet" when he answered this question, then the entire church public affairs department should have been summarily fired. I work in this business, and I promise you, you DO NOT do an interview with a major, and potentially hostile, media representative without very thorough and very careful preparation. The first step is to sit and brainstorm every possible question you can imagine, and then draft answers to those questions. Once theses answers have been carefully reviewed, screened, rewritten and crafted, then you hold what, in the military, is called a "murder board"--essentially a rehearsal under the harshest conditions possible.

I have every reason to believe that the church public affairs office is very professional, and that they prepared President Hinckley (who is no PR slouch himself) very well for these interviews.

His answer to this question is the best evidence--it is the perfect answer, and the only one possible. He couldn't say, "yes, of course it is true" because it would have caused a firestorm of "A-HA! You admit it!" from the church's critics--if you think what he DID say is a favorite sound bite, imagine how critics would have used an outright assertion of the doctrine. And he obviously couldn't have denied it--because that would have been an outright lie which everyone would have recognized.

Look carefully, and you'll see that what he actually did was to NOT answer the question directly. Now, we can all debate whether it was a prophetic answer, but from a purely PR stance, it was a brilliant answer. To suggest it was a "stumble" is an insult.

Interesting reply. If that is indeed the case, what do you make of his later quote (the third one Her Amun gave) where he said that he had been misquoted? Granted, he didn't say that this is the specific instance where he was misquoted, but given how soon that conference address came after this story and given the consternation caused, at least in some quarters, by this interview, I think that he realized that some people would assume that he was referencing that interview.

[GRW]

Interesting reply. If that is indeed the case, what do you make of his later quote (the third one Her Amun gave) where he said that he had been misquoted? Granted, he didn't say that this is the specific instance where he was misquoted, but given how soon that conference address came after this story and given the consternation caused, at least in some quarters, by this interview, I think that he realized that some people would assume that he was referencing that interview.

I think it was as carefully planned as his responses. He said nothing specific, did he--not about the doctrine in question, or about which reporter may have misquoted him, or even about whether the doctrine really is correct? And neither did he lie--as I'm 99.999 percent sure that in all the interviews he's ever done, he's been misquoted or misunderstood at least once. He simply allowed his listeners to draw whatever conclusions they were predisposed to draw.

Look at it this way--the president of the church was asked a point-blank question about a controversial, but well known, doctrinal idea. And as a result of his answer, nothing changed. He simply didn't answer the question. What he did is very similar to what military spokespeople are required to say when asked about the presence of nuclear material: "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear material." It's an answer, but it says precisely nothing.