Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not to derail, but is this still a thing? 

 

ETA I mean in light of President Nelson’s recent remarks on the word Mormon

It’s still a thing with me. I’m not going to sweat the formalities when referring to anti-Mormons. They’re not worth the trouble. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Drat!  The guy at the comic book store said something similar.  

Oh, well.  It's just a few bucks.

Thats okay by me.  I bought mine for fun and for sharing with a couple friends that I think will enjoy them.  A little touch of Mormon idiosyncratic influence on the Marvel universe.  I find it quaint and fun.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Thanks for posting this Calm. I added the bold to what the question actually was. We should keep that in mind when looking at President Hinckley's answer

The church definitely teaches that God was once a man.  If it didn't teach that then Lorenzo Snow's couplet would not be so well known among members of the church.  That couplet would dwell in the dustbin of all those other quotes from past prophets that are no longer believed.  But it is one of those phrases that most active members of the church could recite.  

Not sure President Hinckley could even rightfully say that we don't emphasize it since the entire couplet is always said together.  

The only part I agree with is that the Church has never talked much about HOW all of that worked. And the Church certainly emphasize the second half of the couplet more as it applies to our trajectory.  But the concept that God was once like us and we can become like Him is firmly found in gospel teaching.  

Also, it is not true that the church does not know the origin of the couplet.  Here is the history of it.  When Lorenzo Snow related his revelation of the couplet to Joseph Smith, this was the prophet's response.

 

And from that same article posted on LDS.org

•  

Notice that the statement from the Church's official website doesn't say only half of the couplet is accepted doctrine in the Church today.

 

 

That is absolutely incorrect since the entire couplet is still in use I still think President Hinckley was not really honest in his answer.  The opinions written on the right-hand side does not match up with church teachings. This is where I have a problem with what President Hinckley said specifically and why the explanation is faulty

 

 

 

I find it incredible that you are still doubling down on this. Any fair-minded observer could see that the quote was taken out of context.

Quote

The church definitely teaches that God was once a man.  If it didn't teach that then Lorenzo Snow's couplet would not be so well known among members of the church.  That couplet would dwell in the dustbin of all those other quotes from past prophets that are no longer believed.  But it is one of those phrases that most active members of the church could recite.

This is not true. Even if the couplet were not famous, President Snow would still be as well known among the Latter-day Saints as the fourth President of the Chruch, he who received the revelation in St. George to re-emphasize the payment of tithing, which got the Church out of financial difficulty, etc. I'm not even certain typical Church members recall off hand who it was that penned the couplet.
 

Quote

 

Not sure President Hinckley could even rightfully say that we don't emphasize it since the entire couplet is always said together.  

The only part I agree with is that the Church has never talked much about HOW all of that worked. And the Church certainly emphasize the second half of the couplet more as it applies to our trajectory.  But the concept that God was once like us and we can become like Him is firmly found in gospel teaching.  

 

All we really know about it is what's in that first half of the couplet. So President Hinckley was quite right: We don't know much about it, we don't discuss it much and we don't emphasize it, because there is not that much to discuss or emphasize. The information is so meager that it raises more questions than it answers.

I call on you to cease smearing President Hinckley's name by impugning his honesty.

Quote

Notice that the statement from the Church's official website doesn't say only half of the couplet is accepted doctrine in the Church today.

President Hinckley never denied that it is accepted doctrine. He only said we don't know much about it, so we don't discuss it much. Which is true.

Quote

Also, it is not true that the church does not know the origin of the couplet.  Here is the history of it.  When Lorenzo Snow related his revelation of the couplet to Joseph Smith, this was the prophet's response.

President Hinckley said he didn't know much about the circumstances under which the statement was made. I don't see a good reason to call his honesty into question for saying that. What you have cited here is not very comprehensive.

The question in my mind is this: Now that you have been corrected regarding the context of this quote from President HInckley, will you in the future still impugn his honor? I notice that this thing keeps resurfacing among the Church's antagonists regardless of how many times it has been corrected That FairMormon treatise has been in existence for years. I myself have cited it on this board though I don't recall who the conversation was with. It could have been sunstoned. It could have been you.

It's just that it is disingenuous to keep dredging it up with no cognizance of repeated rebuttals that have been made.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have two copies, and two more in the works.

If it becomes a sought-after collector's item, perhaps you could sell it for big money and donate the proceeds to the Church's missionary fund. Sort of a way to turn the tables on Runnells and his devotees from the dark side.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I find it incredible that you are still doubling down on this. Any fair-minded observer could see that the quote was taken out of context.

This is not true. Even if the couplet were not famous, President Snow would still be as well known among the Latter-day Saints as the fourth President of the Chruch, he who received the revelation in St. George to re-emphasize the payment of tithing, which got the Church out of financial difficulty, etc. I'm not even certain typical Church members recall off hand who it was that penned the couplet.
 

All we really know about it is what's in that first half of the couplet. So President Hinckley was quite right: We don't know much about it, we don't discuss it much and we don't emphasize it, because there is not that much to discuss or emphasize. The information is so meager that it raises more questions than it answers.

I call on you to cease smearing President Hinckley's name by impugning his honesty.

President Hinckley never denied that it is accepted doctrine. He only said we don't know much about it, so we don't discuss it much. Which is true.

President Hinckley said he didn't know much about the circumstances under which the statement was made. I don't see a good reason to call his honestly into question for saying that. What you have cited here is not very comprehensive.

The question in my mind is this: Now that you have been corrected regarding the context of this quote from President HInckley, will you in the future still impugn his honor? I notice that this thing keeps resurfacing among the Church's antagonists regardless of how many times it has been corrected That FairMormon treatise has been in existence for years. I myself have cited it on this board though it don't recall who the conversation was with. It could have been sunstoned. It could have been you.

It's just that it is disingenuous to keep dredging it up with cognizance of repeated rebuttals that have been made.

 

I reposted exactly what Calm posted from the interview.  If you have more from the interview that provides additional light on President Hinckley's answer other than what Calm posted, feel free to post it.  

From the interview, This is the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

And this is President HInckley's reply to that question

"I don’t know that we teach it."

Really?  He doesn't know that we teach it?

The LDS.org site still states that Lorenzo Snow's couplet is still doctrine.  This principle was not only taught by Lorenzo Snow, but declared to be doctrine by Joseph Smith himself.  He also taught the same doctrine.  Sorry I can't alter the facts just to fit your agenda.  I provided the references from LDS.org.  Your issues are with them not me.  I did not express my own personal opinion on this doctrine.

Attacking me does not change the facts.  You seem to be so sure that the church no longer teaches that God was once like man, show me your reference disavowing that doctrine taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Prophet Lorenzo Snow.  Write a letter to LDS.org and request that they remove the statement I copied directly from the Church's official web site. I would love to be corrected if I am wrong.  Right now, I am the one with all of the documentation. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I reposted exactly what Calm posted from the interview.  If you have more from the interview that provides additional light on President Hinckley's answer other than what Calm posted, feel free to post it.  

From the interview, This is the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

And this is President HInckley's reply to that question

"I don’t know that we teach it."

Really?  He doesn't know that we teach it?

The LDS.org site still states that Lorenzo Snow's couplet is still doctrine.  This principle was not only taught by Lorenzo Snow, but declared to be doctrine by Joseph Smith himself.  He also taught the same doctrine.  Sorry I can't alter the facts just to fit your agenda.  I provided the references from LDS.org.  Your issues are with them not me.  I did not express my own personal opinion on this doctrine.

Attacking me does not change the facts.  You seem to be so sure that the church no longer teaches that God was once like man, show me your reference disavowing that doctrine taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Prophet Lorenzo Snow.  Write a letter to LDS.org and request that they remove the statement I copied directly from the Church's official web site. I would love to be corrected if I am wrong.  Right now, I am the one with all of the documentation. 

Acknowledging the doctrinal basis does not mean that we teach it. I don't recall the last time I heard a lesson in a Church class or a talk from the pulpit at general conference or in a local meeting addressing the matter of God's existence before He was God. And I regularly attend Church meetings and general conference talks and I'm fairly well versed in Church curriculum materials.

The fact is President Hinckley was correct: We don't teach it. You are stretching to find a rationalization for your disparagement of President Hinckley. It is not honorable. Stop it.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s still a thing with me. I’m not going to sweat the formalities when referring to anti-Mormons. They’re not worth the trouble. 

Got it. Interesting to see how your mind works. Mormon should not be used to refer to members of the church or the church itself but is fine for those who oppose the church.  Urban dictionary is great for things like creepy, bad for things like same sex attraction and the singular pronoun they. But it does beg the question , what does the prophet say:

”We have to be careful to protect the name ‘Mormon.’ The media will think that we are tossing it out. We aren't. We just want to be accurate. Mormon was a man. He was a prophet. He was a writer, a record keeper. We honor him and treasure the book that bears his name.”

Is your usage in line with protecting the name Mormon and honoring him?

Edited August 31, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Got it. Interesting to see how your mind works. Mormon should not be used to refer to members of the church or the church itself but is fine for those who oppose the church.  Urban dictionary is great for things like creepy, bad for things like same sex attraction and the singular pronoun they. But it does beg the question, what does the prophet say:

”We have to be careful to protect the name ‘Mormon.’ The media will think that we are tossing it out. We aren't. We just want to be accurate. Mormon was a man. He was a prophet. He was a writer, a record keeper. We honor him and treasure the book that bears his name.”

Is your usage in line with protecting the name Mormon and honoring him?

If my usage is in the endeavor of countering those who vilify the Church of Jesus Christ, then yes, I believe it is in line with this.

Do you know the meaning of the prefix "anti-"?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If my usage is in the endeavor of countering those who vilify the Church of Jesus Christ, then yes, I believe it is in line with this.

Do you know the meaning of the prefix "anti-"?

I’m told by certain apologists that it means facing or which is, but that definitely seems like a derail.

https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/ANTI-NEPHI-LEHI

Like I said I was just curious how you made that work. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m told by certain apologists that it means facing or which is, but that definitely seems like a derail.

https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/ANTI-NEPHI-LEHI

Like I said I was just curious how you made that work. 

 

Do you really believe that is a normative, contemporary definition?

From the Free Dictionary:

 

Quote

 

anti-

or ant-

pref.

1.

a. Opposite: antimere.

b. Opposing; against: antiapartheid.

c. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.

d. Destroying: antiaircraft.

2.

a. Inverse: antilogarithm.

b. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 But it does beg the question , what does the prophet say:

 

Oops. You used the phrase "beg the question" improperly.
 

Quote

 

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "My favorite author is always right because he says so in his latest book." The proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

What is it Not?

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oops. You used the phrase "beg the question" improperly.
 

 

Just seeing if you’d take the bait. Have a great evening!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just seeing if you’d take the bait. Have a great evening!

Or perhaps you forgot and fell back into an old habit.

You have a great evening too!

 

[Calm]

I read a blog somewhere yesterday that pointed out that in some places "I don't know that..." is equivalent to "I wouldn't say that..."  It is always how I have read his comment, a mild disagreement in essence saying "that is not a completely accurate statement..."

Looks like such usage has been noted by others:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/i-dont-know-about-that

Edited September 1, 2018 by Calm

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I read a blog somewhere yesterday that pointed out that in some places "I don't know that..." is equivalent to "I wouldn't say that..."  It is always how I have read that, a mild disagreement in essence saying "that is not a completely accurate statement..."

If that were the case though..wouldn't that have been explained by the Prophet and/or others to clarify?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

If that were the case though..wouldn't that have been explained by the Prophet and/or others to clarify?

I think he did clarified he was aware of the information surrounding the couplet.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he did clarified he was aware of the information surrounding the couplet.

Thanks..you are right!!

[Rising_Darkness]

“I’ve spoken with Marvel about my recent artwork, and I have no animosity toward members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” he said. “My entire family are members, as are many of my friends, and I would never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs. The reference was in regards to a subject I am interested in and a personal decision I made in my life. It has nothing to do with the character, the story or Marvel.”

I find Ottley's apology quote interesting.  Ever since minoring in Philisophy and taken a few semesters that revolve around "critical thinking" (whatever that means...lol), I often look for logical fallacies. I can give you specifically 29 logical (informal) fallacies on the top of my head this very second.  I pay very close attention to HOW words are spoken, and to exactly WHAT is spoken.

What I find interesting is that he posted his decision of his so-called "easter egg" on ole' spidey's outfit to the exmormon reddit page, however, then apologies for his "easter egg" with these words: "I would never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs". 

Sure, the CES Letter, on the outside, is not-mean spirited. Meanspirited defined from vocabulary.com as "unkind, not particularly generous, or even deliberately rude." 

But he trying to explain (justify) his actions to the public as not being rude or unkind?? Odd.   Anyway, and like most know, there are well thought-out responses to each and every question. And...again...well thought out responses to HIS response of the "Fair's Debunking" called "Debunking FAIR's Debunking(Debunking FairMormon)".

Referring to the CES Letter is simply a persuasive letter to those who are on the edge of leaving/staying with The Church.  The argument is for asking questions, but the conclusion of his letter is to LEAVE The Church.  Preaching to the choir...I know..but my point is the CES Letter notion to members in The Church is a negative one.  So I find fault with his claim of "never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs'".  If he was a man of his words, he would of simply said his opinion on reddit and would of left the "CES Letter" sticker off of spidey's outfit and out of the public arena, since the "reference" is a "personal decision". 

In other words - "whoops, I got caught".  And being caught by your boss and the public can have negative monetary results.  This wasn't about expressing his "personal decision", this was about smear campaign in MY humble opinion.

 

 

[Calm]

I got to wonder if he saw it as more of a private community than public because there has to be some sort of downside for trashtalking Stan Lee when working for Marvel even if you praise others.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Rising_Darkness said:

“I’ve spoken with Marvel about my recent artwork, and I have no animosity toward members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” he said. “My entire family are members, as are many of my friends, and I would never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs. The reference was in regards to a subject I am interested in and a personal decision I made in my life. It has nothing to do with the character, the story or Marvel.”

I find Ottley's apology quote interesting.  Ever since minoring in Philisophy and taken a few semesters that revolve around "critical thinking" (whatever that means...lol), I often look for logical fallacies. I can give you specifically 29 logical (informal) fallacies on the top of my head this very second.  I pay very close attention to HOW words are spoken, and to exactly WHAT is spoken.

What I find interesting is that he posted his decision of his so-called "easter egg" on ole' spidey's outfit to the exmormon reddit page, however, then apologies for his "easter egg" with these words: "I would never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs". 

Sure, the CES Letter, on the outside, is not-mean spirited. Meanspirited defined from vocabulary.com as "unkind, not particularly generous, or even deliberately rude." 

But he trying to explain (justify) his actions to the public as not being rude or unkind?? Odd.   Anyway, and like most know, there are well thought-out responses to each and every question. And...again...well thought out responses to HIS response of the "Fair's Debunking" called "Debunking FAIR's Debunking(Debunking FairMormon)".

Referring to the CES Letter is simply a persuasive letter to those who are on the edge of leaving/staying with The Church.  The argument is for asking questions, but the conclusion of his letter is to LEAVE The Church.  Preaching to the choir...I know..but my point is the CES Letter notion to members in The Church is a negative one.  So I find fault with his claim of "never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs'".  If he was a man of his words, he would of simply said his opinion on reddit and would of left the "CES Letter" sticker off of spidey's outfit and out of the public arena, since the "reference" is a "personal decision". 

In other words - "whoops, I got caught".  And being caught by your boss and the public can have negative monetary results.  This wasn't about expressing his "personal decision", this was about smear campaign in MY humble opinion.

 

 

I can’t give you a “like” point until you’ve made more posts, so I’ll simply express agreement with you. My hunch is it was an ill-considered prank that had greater consequences than he anticipated, so now he’s doing damage control. 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Acknowledging the doctrinal basis does not mean that we teach it. I don't recall the last time I heard a lesson in a Church class or a talk from the pulpit at general conference or in a local meeting addressing the matter of God's existence before He was God. And I regularly attend Church meetings and general conference talks and I'm fairly well versed in Church curriculum materials.

The fact is President Hinckley was correct: We don't teach it. You are stretching to find a rationalization for your disparagement of President Hinckley. It is not honorable. Stop it.

 

It is interesting that this subject came up in a thread about the CES letter.  A subject I did not bring up btw.  Most of the letter is calling out revisionist history.  It is that very principle that is causing so many to leave the church.  And now you continue the practice.

Once again, This is the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

And this is President HInckley's reply to that question

"I don’t know that we teach it."

This couplet is currently on the official website of the Church and declared as DOCTRINE.

Whether the church knows much about what that means or how it happened or if it is often discussed are entirely different questions that were not asked.  They would look like this:

Q: Is it a doctrine that is discussed a lot in the church?

A: I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse

Just what are you asking me to stop doing? Calling you out for running President Hinckley's answer through some PR spin cycle to pretend the answer to the question was something that was not said or asked?  He answered the question directly.  He said: "I don’t know that we teach it."  Why he said that, I don't know.  Maybe he was caught off guard.  Maybe he was trying to dismiss what he thought was a complicated question that needs more than a quick answer in an interview and off the cuff, he misspoke.  Maybe he thought the answer needed context.   But it is not a true statement. 

What should immediately STOP is members like you and church leaders when the do misstate something take a moment and clarify what they said or acknowledge that they misspoke.  Everyone misspeaks occasionally.  It is not a sin.  It is human.  Is it so hard for a leader of the church to admit a human mistake?  It would have literally have taken 5 minutes to call the Newsroom and have them issue a clarification. Is it so hard for you to acknowledge that occasionally church leaders misspeak?   

what i will stop doing is responding to your posts on this issue.  I have already provided documentation not only on the origin of the couplet but Joseph Smith's declaration that it is true doctrine still taught in the church.  You can continue to practice revisionary history on this statement as well as all the other whitewashing that the church has done for decades.  But that practice is certainly not a faith promoting practice. That is entirely your choice and the Church's choice.

 

[Kenngo1969]

California Boy,

With respect, I don't know that simply pointing out different, equally-reasonable ways of seeing or interpreting something (though I recognize that, often, reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder: many a lawyer has built an entire career arguing over what a reasonable person might [or might not] do)* is the same as engaging in revisionist history.

My $0.02, actual value, as always, much less.

Warm Regards,

-Ken

*Although negligence, e.g., per se is unreasonable because, by definition, a reasonable person cannot be negligent, noted tort law scholar Harry Kalven once defined tort law as, "The study of the mistakes a reasonable person might make."

 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It is interesting that this subject came up in a thread about the CES letter.  A subject I did not bring up btw.  Most of the letter is calling out revisionist history.  It is that very principle that is causing so many to leave the church.  And now you continue the practice.

Once again, This is the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

And this is President HInckley's reply to that question

"I don’t know that we teach it."

This couplet is currently on the official website of the Church and declared as DOCTRINE.

Whether the church knows much about what that means or how it happened or if it is often discussed are entirely different questions that were not asked.  They would look like this:

Q: Is it a doctrine that is discussed a lot in the church?

A: I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse

Just what are you asking me to stop doing? Calling you out for running President Hinckley's answer through some PR spin cycle to pretend the answer to the question was something that was not said or asked?  He answered the question directly.  He said: "I don’t know that we teach it."  Why he said that, I don't know.  Maybe he was caught off guard.  Maybe he was trying to dismiss what he thought was a complicated question that needs more than a quick answer in an interview and off the cuff, he misspoke.  Maybe he thought the answer needed context.   But it is not a true statement. 

What should immediately STOP is members like you and church leaders when the do misstate something take a moment and clarify what they said or acknowledge that they misspoke.  Everyone misspeaks occasionally.  It is not a sin.  It is human.  Is it so hard for a leader of the church to admit a human mistake?  It would have literally have taken 5 minutes to call the Newsroom and have them issue a clarification. Is it so hard for you to acknowledge that occasionally church leaders misspeak?   

what i will stop doing is responding to your posts on this issue.  I have already provided documentation not only on the origin of the couplet but Joseph Smith's declaration that it is true doctrine still taught in the church.  You can continue to practice revisionary history on this statement as well as all the other whitewashing that the church has done for decades.  But that practice is certainly not a faith promoting practice. That is entirely your choice and the Church's choice.

 

I remember it being taught and emphasized in the church in the 80's and early 90's. However, President Hinckley wanted to soften the teaching as part of his outreach to evangelicals and other christians, who hated the doctrine. So, perhaps his statement of not knowing that it was taught [any more] was more of a hope that his deemphasis had reached the membership at large. Anyway, the comment caused a stir among the members at the time, as I recall, as it seemed that Hinckley was being misleading and dodging the question about a doctrine everyone in the church knew about.  It caused my still believing parents to pause.

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting that this subject came up in a thread about the CES letter.  A subject I did not bring up btw.  Most of the letter is calling out revisionist history.  It is that very principle that is causing so many to leave the church.  And now you continue the practice.

Once again, This is the question "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

And this is President HInckley's reply to that question

"I don’t know that we teach it."

This couplet is currently on the official website of the Church and declared as DOCTRINE.

Whether the church knows much about what that means or how it happened or if it is often discussed are entirely different questions that were not asked.  They would look like this:

Q: Is it a doctrine that is discussed a lot in the church?

A: I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse

Just what are you asking me to stop doing? Calling you out for running President Hinckley's answer through some PR spin cycle to pretend the answer to the question was something that was not said or asked?  He answered the question directly.  He said: "I don’t know that we teach it."  Why he said that, I don't know.  Maybe he was caught off guard.  Maybe he was trying to dismiss what he thought was a complicated question that needs more than a quick answer in an interview and off the cuff, he misspoke.  Maybe he thought the answer needed context.   But it is not a true statement. 

What should immediately STOP is members like you and church leaders when the do misstate something take a moment and clarify what they said or acknowledge that they misspoke.  Everyone misspeaks occasionally.  It is not a sin.  It is human.  Is it so hard for a leader of the church to admit a human mistake?  It would have literally have taken 5 minutes to call the Newsroom and have them issue a clarification. Is it so hard for you to acknowledge that occasionally church leaders misspeak?   

what i will stop doing is responding to your posts on this issue.  I have already provided documentation not only on the origin of the couplet but Joseph Smith's declaration that it is true doctrine still taught in the church.  You can continue to practice revisionary history on this statement as well as all the other whitewashing that the church has done for decades.  But that practice is certainly not a faith promoting practice. That is entirely your choice and the Church's choice.

 

Wasn't the couplet included in the lesson when we taught the teachings of Pres. Lorenzo Snow that year we studied him?  I'd say that's still teaching it!!!

[juliann]

34 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Wasn't the couplet included in the lesson when we taught the teachings of Pres. Lorenzo Snow that year we studied him?  I'd say that's still teaching it!!!

But to be fair, that was not in Hinckley’s day.