Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

wikiproject

Is there a reason why this article isn't under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement? I would have put it in, but its so obvious so I don't know if there's a reason or whatever...-Mbatman 72 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever, so I have added it now. __meco 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

Although it is convention not to remove vandalism on talk pages - removing personal attacks is common. Trödel|talk 22:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Obstruction?

Issue summary: Is Hinckley a key church official in the Mark Hoffman incident and is it significant to recent Mormon history? Books such as 'Salamander' and 'The Mormon Murders' go as far as to reference Police Dectives in accusing Hinckley of elusive and obstuctionist behavior during the investiagtion. Is this would not be note-worthy and what if anything should be noted in the article?

I have a number of books, notes and papers on the investigation. I'll see what I can dig up. I'm familiar with two officers who claimed this after the investigation, but not in official reports. I'll dig around and look to see what I can find. -Visorstuff 19:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the research is that the obstruction charges come from only two sources - two detectives that were assigned to the case who said that Hinckley said this and that. They were quoted in the tribune, and other papers, but none of their alleged claims ever showed up in police reports that I've been able to find. I'm not trying to be an apologist by saying this, but there's just no data available other than these two guys claims. It there was something substantiating that he denied knowing Hofmann or that he did, etc., then there would be more to write about. However, as it stands (even if these two are quotedin the LA times) it is as unsubstantiated as the claims that Hinckley and Packer visited a Salt Lake brothel for services that was made by a "witness" that Ed Decker quoted. The witness gets sued and it was shown that he lied about it, obviously. We need more to substantiate it. I'm familiar with the books, but it is lacking hard evidence. Perhaps we need to find more, and I'm looking for it, but it may take me some time. Until then, it is hearsay. We could put that he was allegedly involved in the Salamandar Letter case, but that's about as far as we can go. -Visorstuff 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to find additional evidence either way and the charges are hearsay at best. However, as he was a figure in the scandal, I'll add it in. -Visorstuff 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hearsay at best? We need more to substantiate it? Several books substantiating it are not enough? If we substantiate it any more we would be doing original research.

'no police report' does not equate to 'hearsay'. The fact that there is no police report is the whole point. The books clearly demonstrate how the Mormon Church used its power and influence to avoid having Hinckley or the church itself from being investigated. Hinckley insisted on not testifying at trial and the prosecution obliged. The defense used this to its advantage and despite a strong case justifying the death penalty Hofmann got a mere 15 to life. As one of the books laments, a serial bomber/murder got the same sentence as an unarmed petty robber.

As for substantiating that Hinckley denied knowing Hofmann, He denied not knowing Hofmann and Christensen in a press conference. It was the denial of Christensen that sent phones calls into the police. Hinckley justified the not-knowing-them assessment with the assertions that he only met Steve once (apparently letters and phone calls don’t count) and Mark a limited number of times. Hinckley’s Clinton-esque reasoning was, that out of the thousands of people he meets, that doesn't qualify as knowing them. I think page 126 of Salamander points out that car phone records indicated Hofmann had called Hinckley's private line in addition to the church offices general switch board. Turley’s Victims (The Mormon Church's side of the story) lamely defends that there is no indication that he actually talked to Hinckley on those calls. However, people who don't know Hinckley don't get his private number. When asked for his journal entries regarding his meetings with Hofmann, Hinckley amazingly declared that he did not keep a personal journal/daytimer.

Lyn Packer is said to have prepared several exposes that would detail how well Hinckley knew both Steve and Mark. He was never able to get them published and was fired over them by the church owned media he worked for.

The obstruction claims are hardly, 'hearsay at best'. Victims paints an assessment that investigators/prosecutors simply mistook Hinckley’s forthrightness and cooperativeness for duplicity because they were operating under the false premise that revenge was the motive for the bombings. There a two plausible assessments. One: The investigators were so overwhelmed with a complex case that they were unable to cognate all the information and mistook forthrightness for hiding something. The other: Hinckley was indeed trying to hide something as best he could without overtly committing a crime. The later is much more well grounded assessment considering he went to lengths to not have to testify. That assessment became extremely well grounded when Turley revealed in Victims that Hinckley kept the belated discovery of the McLellin Collection from investigators.

There is no need to add claims of obstruction to the article, as I imagine Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a forum for putting people on trial. However, I don't see why mention of well ground assessments should not be fair game on discussion pages of articles.

As the article is now it can only be describe as extremely kind. It relegates Hofmann to “a postscript in the walk of life” (Murders pg. 357) according to Hinckley’s wishes. It would not be unreasonable for an editor to add mention of the Hofmann con-job bringing into question Hinckley's, et. al., inspiration. Nor would it be unreasonable for an editor to mention that a serial bomber/murder got a reprieve from the death penalty so that Hinckley would not to have to face publicly embarrassing himself or the Church by testifying at the high publicity trial. Nor would it be unreasonable for an editor to mention that the Hofmann scandal established Hinckley’s willingness to permit an intricate-plausible-deniability-scheme to secure historical documents unfavorable to the church.--Fmatmi 14:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hinckley False Statements

Why do you not include in your NPOV article in re Hinckley these two undisputed facts?:

1) During the Hoffman scandal Hinckley, in his position as a church GA, publicly declared at least one of the Hoffman forgeries to be genuine. If memory serves, (I was living in Provo at that time and I remember seeing him make at least one announcement on TV), he stated the Lord had revealed to the church leadership the authenticity of the document(s). In at least one of those public statements, he made a little speech about how, regardless of how the information in the documents would affect church history and doctrine, the members must always trust the word of the prophets.

2) During his interview with Larry King in 1996, he gave the now infamous quote regarding his lack of knowledge of the fundamental LDS doctrine of eternal progression: "I don't know that we ever really taught that... I don't really know that much about it..."

You know, the quote so embarrassing as an outright lie that the church sued Time magazine over their repetition of it, and lost the case on trial and on appeal?

You know, the quote so egregiously false it doesn't even make sense?

The President and Prophet of a church claiming that the founding principle of the church's core beliefs does not exist?

Then he claims that even if it ever did exist or was ever taught, it is not taught now?

Then he claims that he '...doesn't really know much about it...'?

Why then, in the next GC, did he refer to his receipt of numerous queries and questions from members about the above claim? Why did tell the members of the church that regardless of what he told the world in the King interview, '...your prophet knows the doctrine!"

Thus admitting in GC that what he told the world was a lie.

Since the first statement is obviously a proof that Hinckley, having been fooled and used the Lord's Name in vain, does not qualify as a prophet; and the second statement is acknowledged in GC by Hinckley himself to have been a lie, why do you not include such facts in your NPOV article?

Whraglyn 10:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) whraglyn

Let me try to answer your concerns.

1. I don't know where you got the information that President Hinckley said at least one of the documents were genuine. The Church has emphatically and repeatedly denied the documents' authenticities, and Mark Hoffmann himself admitted that all the documents, without exception, were forgeries. He was proud of it! But they were all blatant forgeries. See the wiki page on Mark Hoffman for proof of the validity of this statement.

2. You are obviously getting your information from anti-Mormon sites, which would of course twist his remarks. There's a difference between when a prophet speaks as a prophet and when he speaks as a man. And President Hinckley's statement is almost always taken out of context, and is misquoted. He said he didn't know if we taught it. That doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means it isn't emphasized. And why not? Because the members of the church haven't grasped the basic concepts of the gospel yet. "Milk before meat in Christ's Church." Until we grasp the basic stuff, which is repeated in General Conferences because we fail to grasp it, we will not be taught the more complex stuff. And that's what he meant. He meant that we don't teach it because we focus on other things. Then when we grasp those things, we can delve into the more complex issues of doctrine.

Hope this helps. Signed Jgstokes 04:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

From Whraglyn: Thanks for your notes. Please see my response in 'No Contradictions' below.

Both of you may want to go back and read the question asked and read the section below, which has been similarly repeated many times on the wiki including a good explanation [[ here. The modern question that if Mormons beleive that they can become gods and create their own worlds, etc. is not correct. Some may believe that they can become gods and create purple dinosaurs on their own world, but that is simple not doctrinal. It very well may or may not be true, but it has not been revealed. Do we believe we can become gods? Yes. But we don't have a clue as to what that means, aside from snippets in the scriptures, such as Christ's statement that we are all "gods, children of the most high" and that "they become gods" who are not subject to angels, the rest is just philosophy - as hinckley stated: that is "getting into some pretty deep doctrine that we don't know much about" but "i understand the philosophy behind it."

It's really not that hard to grasp folks. What president Hinckley stated was very much doctrinally correct. No scholar has had an issue with it, only those who misunderstand the doctrine, or who don't study the doctrine, or never really paused to think about it because of Mormon culture.

I wrote at Talk:Common_Latter-day_Saint_perceptions: The one on what it means to be a god is a perfect example as President Hinckley has clarified that we don't understand what this means. In fact, during the Mike Wallace interview, he stated, that the Church doesn't teach that people can go about makeing other worlds, being gods over other creations. That is speculation - the church teaches that we can become like God, and have all that he does. The Church, and through it's correelation program is very careful on what it puts in manuals and what is doctrine. Other items are speculative in nature. In this way it is easy to pinpoint what the church "officially teaches" versus what people are speculating. There is also a difference to what the church teachES versus what they taught. Just because a GA says something does not mean the church teaches it. Even among the differences between what GAs believe, they are NOW very careful on what they state as official. That is why I think in many instances, you can say "these doctrines are untrue/speculation" according to official doctrines although many Mormons believe them.

We don't understand that idea. We speculate, and may or may not be right, but the brethren have been very clear that we don't understand this. I find it ridiculous that so many church members don't read the ensign or other church publications, including the scriptures, to understand that this has been clarified a number of times.

Also, can you provide a source as to when the church sued time magazine and then appealed the suit? I've heard this, but never seen anything about it.

Lastly, regarding point #1 - you are incorrect. You may want to read Sillitoe, Linda & Roberts, Allen (1989). Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, 2nd. ed., Salt Lake City: Signature Books. ISBN 0941214877. about the Hofman and the early documents - many of which were indeed speculated to be forgeries before hofmann did any bombings - not only the tanners suspected they were false, but so did the church, and dealers, including Sheets and others who were public about their suspicions - which led to the bombings. About the only folks who thought it was authentic were the sunstone editors and some document experts who were tasked to determine authenticity - the salamander letter for example, was only preliminarily authenticated - it had not gone through full testing (meaning it had been looked at and the paper seemed old and ink had deteriorated properly and the handwriting was close, but had not gone through other forms of dating tests). AND, it would be strange for hinckley to comment on this during the bombings, as the church hierarchal spokesperson at the time on the matter was Dallin H. Oaks, not Hinckley, who was in the first presidency and would not have made any comment, and who was criticized for not being more public or making public statements at the time. The trusting the lords prophet comment you are referring to was by elder oaks at BYU after the bombing, and you are confusing facts. However, the above-mentioned book is the most comprehensive work on Hofmann I know. As far as your points being "undisputed," I think your sources for this info are not only undocumented based on my research and readings, but you seem to be confusing Elder oaks comments and president hinckley comments over the course of about six years. There are many sources out there, such as the police officer's interaction with Hinckley and Oaks, that have since been proven to be untrue. See talk pages at Mark Hofmann and Salamander Letter However, I definately haven't read everything on the matter, but that is my pretty-well-informed opinion. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned here and in M russell Ballards bio a chain letter of this being his last conference. That is speculation though and nothing to verify.

No contradiction

I have a problem with the introduction and conclusion of the 'Controversial Statements' section. The introduction says that President Hinckley contradicted fundamental doctrine. The conclusion says that there was a discrepency, or, in other words, President Hinckley and / or the Church has lied in this matter.

1. The original quote was taken out of context. The statement "Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet." was left out of the original publication. Within this context, President Hinckley's response "I don't know that we teach it", etc., takes on a different meaning.

2. Although portions of the King Follet sermon have been quoted by GA's in General Conference talks, the entire discourse is not considered cannon.

3. There are two parts of the couplet quoted by President Hinckley, one refers to the origin of God, the other refers to the potential of man. When President Hinckley said "I don't know that we teach it... I don't know a lot about it...", I think he was referring to the part on the origin of God. Joseph Smith, Jr. made these statements and then was martyred before he had a chance to fully explain the doctrine.

4. Although many members of the Church have beliefs concerning the origin of God that are derived from the King Follet discourse, we do not teach them as official doctrine. This is certainly not a "...fundamental doctrinal position of the LDS Church...".

5. The Church has long taught and continues to teach that man has the potential to become like God. This is scriptural, it's even in the Bible. Certainly President Hinckley did not intend to contradict this doctrine.

Therefore, all the statements that President Hinckley and The Church made in regards to this matter are completely consistent with each other and with official church doctrine, and so the statements at the begining and end of this section should be changed. 74s181 12:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Unsure how many years you taught Elders Quorum, or how many years you taught Gospel Doctrine classes, or how many years you taught Sunday School 16-17, 12-13, 14-15, or how many years you taught Primary 5, or Primary 9 classes, but the length in years which i taught each of those classes are, in sequence, EQ: 7 years, GD: 3 years, SS16-17: 3 years, SS12-13: 2 years, SS14-15: 2 years, P5: 1 year, P9: 1 year. This was over an approximately 15 year span, and many of those years were spent with multiple teaching callings. The listing is not to brag, but to point out that my exposure to LDS doctrines as put forth in LDS official publications, is as wide, and as deep, as any other lay member.

The treatment and positioning of the doctrine of Eternal Progression in official LDS Church publications, Study Guides for students as well as Preparation Guides for teachers, during those years of prayerful fasting and studying in preparation for those classes cause me to conclude the assertions i made regarding the fundamental nature of the LDS doctrine of eternal progression are correct in their entirety.

2. The portions of the KFD which have been most often quoted by GAs in GC have been those passages most clear on the nature of LDS claims regarding the doctrine of Eternal Progression. The KFD is the primary basis for LDS understanding of the doctrine of Eternal Progression, and that is according to the bold declarations of JS, Jr. as he gave the KFD, as well as numerous other GAs in many official LDS publications and in GC.

Also, as you appear to be LDS, you must know that ALL statements made by GAs, speaking in GC in their role as prophets and priesthood leaders, are officially considered as The Word Of God, and you know that all LDS are counseled at every GC to take the 'teachings' given by GAs in GC to be as inspired, as sacred, and as 'true' as all prophetic teaching through the ages.

3. When Hinckley says he does not '...know much about...' the doctrine of Eternal Progression, which all LDS know is summarized in the couplet of Lorenzo Snow as a means of simply and quickly stating the fundamental LDS doctrine of Eternal Progression, he is either stating his own lack of knowledge of what all prior LDS Presidents have said is THE core of understanding LDS Gospel Doctrine, or he is simply lying to the world, presumably to cover up the fact that LDS are not Christians in any sense.

Are you claiming that Hinckley had no knowledge of these facts regarding the meaning of a question about the nature of LDS belief regarding relations with, and LDS understanding of the nature of, God? Are you claiming that Hinckley was doing his best to be open and honest about what every LDS President prior to Hinckley has boldly declared to the world is the single most important of gospel principles which JS, Jr. taught, and which is the core of the LDS claim to have the whole, and only, 'truth' about the nature of God, the meaning of life on earth, and the relationship of Man to God?

Also, would you be kind enough to give the source or citation for your statement that you 'think' you know what Hinckley meant when he gave his response?

The couplet was not coined by JS, Jr., but by Lorenzo Snow, as LDS records and publications show.

JS, Jr.'s writings, as well as the wording of the KFD, clearly say that JS, Jr.'s teaching on the subject were complete in substance if not in form.

4. See #3 above.

5. The LDS Church does not teach that men may become 'like' God, but can become gods, with ALL that God has, and is. We each are to get our own 'world without end' through Celestial Marriages creating eternal families, eternally progressing to Godhood from generation to generation.

If you are LDS, and you think that is anything less than the basis of the LDS Gospel, you are mistaken. As you know, these teachings are in every study guide, and are clearly the basis of all LDS temple ordinances.

If you truly believe that Hinckley did not intend to contradict the doctrine of Eternal Progression as taught by ALL LDS Presidents from the beginning of the church, and that his purpose was to inform the world of the differences between LDS and Christian understanding of the nature of God as expressed in the LDS doctrine of Eternal Progression, you may be interested in reading Hinckley's very first press statement on his succession to the Presidency of the LDS Church.

He said that his primary focus as leader of the LDS would be to more seamlessly integrate the LDS Church AS AN INSTITUTION, (not as individuals), with the mainstream Christian churches AS INSTITUTIONS. He also said in that statement that he would be tireless in minimizing differences in doctrines, and to emphasize the commonalities between doctrines, of the LDS and those of Christians. His goal appears to put ecumenism before emphasizing the unique claim of the LDS to authority, which is what differentiates the LDS from Christianity.

In light of such statements, as well as Hinckley's career history of being the first LDS official media and press liaison, a position he held for the entire time of his GA tenure to his accession to the Presidency, as well as being his only paying job since his return from his mission in England, it becomes easy to understand how and why he is content to engage in obfuscation and vagueness in his public responses to questions about the differences between LDS and Christian doctrines, rather than boldly declaring the differences between the LDS and all Christian churches as every other LDS President prior to Hinckley has done repeatedly. Whraglyn 10:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC) whraglyn

How can I get a transcript of the Larry King Live Interview?

Point 1: Blatant forgery? They were considered very good forgeries. Gum Arabic that caused microscopic cracks in the ink was the major flaw that slowly led to proof of forgery. This was the type of statement the Church usually made. “we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies.” The end result of the whole fiasco was that the Tanners, critics of the Mormon Church (what Mormons call anti-Mormons), possessed more insight than the divinely inspired Mormon leadership. --Fmatmi 14:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Point 2: There is one problem with the that-was-never-official-doctrine argument that apologist are using so much lately. The argument itself demonstrates that the divinely inspired leadership has been entirely unable to keep incorrect doctrine, speculation, legends, etc. from running rampant in the Mormon Church. The argument essential implies that if I were to join the Mormon Church I would be institutionally misled on doctrine as much as any other church. Or that, Wikipedia editors are more effective at setting the doctrine straight than the divinely inspired leadership. --Fmatmi 14:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Hoffman stuff

I removed this Hoffman stuff because I think it isn't that relevant but wanted to get feedback here. If something does go in, it should be noted that the third party who attempted to purchase them was purchasing with the intent to investigate the authenticity - and it was a result of that investigation that Hoffman started trying to cover stuff up. --Trödel 17:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

...who was also charged with planting three pipe bombs, two of which killed two Utah-based Mormons.

Hinckley managed to avoid testifying in the Hoffman trial, allegedly to avoid further bad publicity for the Mormon church. The claim is that the Mormon Church leadership sought to get Hoffman's forged documents by arranging their purchase through third parties who would then donate them to the Church so that the Church could plausibly deny it possessed the documents. These documents would then be placed into the church's private vaults where they would never again see the light of day.

The Hoffman forgeries were purchased by the Church allegedly because they may have discredited the Church in the eyes of the faithful if they were to be found and made public. Hofmann played on this fear by claiming to have located various documents and offering them to the Church leadership at huge sums before someone hostile to the Church might acquire them and publish their contents. (For further details, see The Mormon Murders by Steve Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, St. Martin's Press, 1988).

Criticism

Why isn't there any Chritism of this man in this articleTjb891 04:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would assume this is because it is written by Latter-Day Saints. What they know about him would not mention criticism, especially anything that would tarnish the reputation of our church. Please do not take your religious bias into Wikipedia. This should be a neutral website and a neutral article. Also, please make sure to check spelling/grammer. This is all in the guidelines.

(Thunderlord 22:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

How can an article be neutral if it doesn't mention any criticisms? Surely it's more bias if there is nothing but praise for the man.

I would agree there is not real criticism, but to add some there needs to be a referance to it. I guess one could referance this siscussion session?

Dallin Oaks has recently stated on the nationally televised PBS segment about the Mormons that criticizing the Mormon leadership is wrong to do even if that criticism is right. Mormons have long been instructed not to read published material critical of the Mormon Church (what they call anti-Mormon literature). Mormon authors have be excommunicated and disfellowshipped for publishing non-faith promoting Mormon books. As long as the LDS articles on wikipedia are dominated by believers you will not be able to get a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmatmi (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

Should we specify in the article that the reason it was unusual for him to be called on a mission was the deemphasis on missionary activity during the Depression? As the article stands now, it sounds like the unusual thing was being called to England. JordeeBec 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

sure, go ahead WP:BOLD jj 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a spot on the page that says there is a citation needed (Hinckley dedicates temple in Santiago Chile but says he probably wont be back). I found a source (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=175288) but am not sure how to add it. I don't want to mess anything up. Can someone help me?

Signifigant leader

Scanning the article, It's unclear why he is a significant leader, and therefore on the template to the right. Is it just because he is the current leader (WP:Recentism), or has he done something significant beyond most of his predecessors? -- Kendrick7 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who millions of people believe talks to God is significant. He has also directed the church for the past 11 years, during unparalelled temple growth.jj 04:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"established by precedent and revelation."

"Additionally, at times when President Hinckley's predecessors were in poor health, Hinckley performed many of the duties of the Church's presidency as established by precedent and revelation."

What does "established by precedent and revelation" even mean, and which duties did he perform? Is there a citation we can get for this? --Lethargy 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Established by precedent and revelation" has reference to the procedures that occur in the event of the President of the Church being physically or otherwise unable to perform his duties as President. During the time so noted, President Hinckley had the unenviable task of trying to move the Church along without getting ahead of his President. Many of the smaller decisions he could make on his own, but matters of Church policy and doctrine and revelation had to be approved and ratified by the President of the Church before President Hinckley could move forward. He could only do so after it was clear that the President of the Church not only understood the matters under consideration, but agreed with the proposed course of action. And President Hinckley could do that because he was the senior official at that time. Let me see if I could make this clearer. Take President Hinckley now. If for any reason he was unable to discharge his responsibilities, those responsibilities that could be taken over would be attended to by Presidents Monson and Faust, and in the event of either or both of them being unable to discharge their responsibilities, in the absence of a fully-functioning First Presidency, the burden would then fall to the Quorum of the Twelve. In the instance under question, President Hinckley, the only vital member of the First Presidency, was assisted by President Ezra Taft Benson, who was President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. And while he was Hinckley's senior in the Apostleship by many years, no one supported or sustained President Hinckley more vocally at this time than President Benson. President Hinckley's biography tells us that when he'd send matters to the Quorum of the Twelve, President Benson would say, "Brethren, we must be about this NOW!" So, I hope that helps you understand more about the way that works. If not, maybe someone else can explain it better. Signed, Jgstokes 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That explains what the "many of the duties of the Church's presidency" were, but where can I find the "precedent and revelation" spoken of? On a side note, his biography which you mentioned would be an excellent book to cite throughout the article, but I don't see it in the references section. Were you referring to Go Forward With Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley by Sheri Dew? --Lethargy 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the biography Dew wrote about him. As far as the "precedent and revelation" matter goes, there is no reference for precedent; however: Joseph Smith's 7 volume History of the Church explained in volume 7 how Smith's successor was chosen after the martyrdom. That has been the precedent, as is explained in the wiki article about Presidents of the LDS Church. After further consideration, I can tell you where you can find a reference for precedent. Joseph Smith once proclaimed to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, "Where I am not, there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." In other denominations derived from the LDS Church, such as the Community of Christ, after the death or resignation of the President, the Counselors in the First Presidency can run things until a new president is chosen. As evidenced from the Joseph Smith quote above (which I don't have a reference for but know for sure he said) we learn that there is no First Presidency over the Twelve where the President of the Church is not. As far as scripturally, I did find a reference. Let me refer you to section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which makes reference to the role of the presiding officers and how their authority compares and differs. In verse 24, we learn that the Quorum of the Twelve is equal in authority to the Quorum of the First Presidency, but (and this is not mentioned, but implied) only when the Prophet is dead or incapable of carrying out his responsibilities, or the First Presidency is dissolved at the death of the Prophet. And this is true because there must, of necessity, be a head, as we learn elsewhere in the revelations. Hope this helps clarify a bit more. If not, I'll try again. Signed, Jgstokes 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

President Hinckley's records as oldest living prophet and apostle

Dear Friends, I have made two corrections to this article to reflect a more accurate calculation. The first was in President Hinckley's record as oldest living prophet. He actually marked that milestone on November 2, because there was no leap year in 1900, which would affect that calculation by throwing President McKay's age off by a day. See the following two links for the explanation of that. http://www.desnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650203647,00.html http://www.ksl.com/?sid=612792&nid=148. The second correction is related to the date listed as the date President Hinckley will surpass the record for oldest living apostle. For some reason, the date listed for him to break that record was May 15, 2008. That's off by a week. Using a calculator specifically designed to configure dates through addition and subtraction, I discovered that the actual date is May 22, 2008. I have changed the article to reflect the change. And yes, I did use that same calculator to find out Elder Haight's exact age when he died before I calculated when President Hinckley would be that exact same age. And that's the way it came out. I have no reason to doubt the calculator. I've tried it on other dates, and it works 100%. Accordingly, I've altered the article to reflect the actual date. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Jgstokes 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant May 22, 2008? That's how it's appearing in the article. -SESmith 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. I have fixed it. Sorry. --Jgstokes 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement tag

The user who is putting up advertisement tags is defacing other Mormonism-related articles. I'm reverting the tagging until otherwise asked. --Gpohara 07:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not me but I can see his point. The article reads like an advertisement. You should not revert the tag. 199.166.15.246 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What specific wording in the article makes it read like an advertisement? I can't see any evidence of an attempt to sell or market anything. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What is it about the article which gives reasonable persons the distinct impression the article is biased? How about: 1) Zero criticism(s) of LDS leadership, actions, or doctrine. 2) Zero links to sites or sources critical of LDS leadership, actions, or doctrines. 3) Zero links to sites or sources neutral to LDS leadership, actions, or doctrines. 4) The article reads, as do all other LDS Wikipedia entries i have read, as if it were written by the LDS as a laudatory text in an LDS Church Relief Society, Priesthood, Sunday School, or Primary manual.

My efforts to insert facts which put Hinckley in something less than a laudatory light have been removed from the page, along with the source citations and links to external sites which treat LDS doctrines either an unbiased manner, or which question LDS practices, beliefs, or history.

Whraglyn 09:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) whraglyn

"Youngest Apostle" On 21 Feb. I deleted the phrase "the youngest person at that time". It seemed to indicate that he was the youngest person to be accepted into the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which I don't think is correct (Heber J. Grant, born 1856, became an apostle in 1882). If somebody thinks I have acted wrongly, I would appreciate an explanation. Raymondwinn (rwinn@egginc.com)

Hinckley not a prophet by his own definition

Mr. Hinckley has gone out of his way in public interviews (such as on the Larry King show) to explain that he has neither prophesied anything, nor wishes to. An encyclopedic entry about Gordon Hinckley should reflect this fact. 69.152.175.14 07:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have quotations from Larry King which say this, by all means include them. Otherwise don't make broad, generalized, unsubstantiated statements. In the meantime, I've included a "prediction" or "prophesy", if you will, from 1995's Proclamation on the Family, though I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the second paragraph of the article, where you've decided to insert this issue. It's more appropriately addressed at a later point in the article. (Most articles with controversial aspects don't address the controversies directly in the introduction.) SESmith 08:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about that controversy not being appropriate for the first paragraph, but then again, if it is going to be up front and center that millions of people believe he is a prophet, it should probably be up front and center that he's not keen on prophecy. The Larry King interview is here http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml ...I don't see a specific repudiation of prophesying in it, but I got the impression when I saw it, that Mr. Hinckley--like many Mormons--considers modern day actual revelation and prophecy to be the domain of "fruitcakes." This is ironic, of course. Anyway, you told me "don't make broad, generalized, unsubstantiated statements" well that's subjective, it isn't too generalized or unsubstantiated to point out that someone considered a prophet doesn't prophesy or encourage prophecy. And he doesn't, nor do any of the general authorities. The example you used is not an UNUSUAL prophecy, it is the sort of thing that any religious person could--and does--say, be they Islamist, Orthodox or Reform Jewish, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Catholic, Buddhist. Or Presbyterian. (being funny there). 69.152.175.14 11:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was specifically responding to this sentence: "Mr. Hinckley has gone out of his way in public interviews (such as on the Larry King show) to explain that he has neither prophesied anything, nor wishes to." I was not responding to your general "impression" that you felt when you saw him on TV.

To Latter-day Saints, Hinckley does "prophesy"; just because it doesn't fit your definition of what a prophecy is doesn't mean he doesn't do it for what it means to the majority of Latter-day Saints. "Prophecy" has at least 2 definitions. The first is to "predict", which seems to be the exclusive sense you interpret it. The second is "to speak or write by divine inspiration" (see Oxford). You completely ignore this second definition, which is probably the sense that most Latter-day Saints view Hinckley as a conduit for "prophecy". Before you get too bold in Wikipedia it's good if you understand how a specific English word is being used by a discrete group because there are often multiple interpretations of an English word, some of which are too subtle for some to pick up on, especially those who have a particular axe to grind.

And you're right that any religious person can prophesy. But that by no stretch means that Latter-day Saints can't apply the label of "prophet" to one of their leaders who they feel fits the mold. SESmith 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your wordiness and condescending tone here doesn't dispel the fact that Gordon Hinckley is considered a prophet by millions of people, but doesn't prophesy or encourage prophecy as it was understood and explained by the church's founder, Joseph Smith, Jr.. 69.152.175.14 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read my last entry? Hello? There are TWO meanings to the word prophesy, thus at least 2 meanings to the concept of "prophet". Who are you to say how Joseph Smith understood the term? I also add my voice in support of the statements made by alanyst below. SESmith 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hinckley is quite humble, which is one reason why he doesn't call gimself a prophet. The Family Proclamation contains prophecy, and his talks typically contain prophetic warnings. jj 13:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then it should be easy to find one or two UNUSUAL 'prophetic warnings' to include in his current job description: 'prophet seer and revelator.' I've not seen one of those yet, and I doubt you have either. And it isn't humble for someone formally ordained the prophet of a major church to 'not call himself a prophet,' it's just weirdly contradictory. Furthermore, you substantiate my generalization that "Mr. Hinckley has gone out of his way in public interviews (such as on the Larry King show) to explain that he has neither prophesied anything, nor wishes to." What I meant is along the lines of what you meant when you wrote 'he doesn't call himself a prophet.' 69.152.175.14 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant. You cannot present your own interpretation of what it means to be a prophet, or whether Hinckley fits that interpretation, without violating the no original research policy. If you can find a reliable and verifiable source that gives that point of view, in accordance with the policy on attribution, then by all means add it. But the association between what Hinckley has or hasn't said and what does or does not define a prophet, is not for some Wikipedia editor to work out; we have to attribute such conclusions to some reliable source. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The article on Gordon Hinckley links right to Wikipedia's articles on prophet (and seer and revelator), and it is the "interpretations" in those Wikipedia articles to which I refer, not "my own interpretations." (i.e., there's your 'verifiable source'). In each case, Gordon Hinckley does not fit the definition of those, and regularly admits it, when for example he 'doesn't call himself a prophet'. This discussion is very relevant, so long as the introduction states: "Hinckley is considered by faithful members to be a prophet, seer, and revelator." Uh...I didn't realize until just now that "prophet" in the introduction of Gordon Hinckley links to "Latter-day Saint concept of prophets" section at Prophet....something which either complexifies this discussion...or indeed, challenges its relevance. 69.152.175.14 17:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not itself a verifiable source, and cannot be cited to substantiate a claim. Linking to other articles does not constitute a citation, but simply provides further background for the interested reader. Your claim that "Gordon Hinckley does not fit the definition of those, and regularly admits it" is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but unless you can cite a reliable source that draws that same conclusion, it has no place in this article. Please review Wikipedia:Attribution if you're not familiar with it. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Prophetic warnings on Pornography, The Family proclamation, prophetic inspiration for building temples. 3 examples of God telling him what to do. there are others. jj 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of HInckley's talks contain prophesies. he told people to get their houses in order in 1998, 2-3 years before the last recession. Just because he didn't say there would be aa recession doesn't mean the counsel wasn't prophetic. jj 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See article on prophet, seer, and revelator which discusses what it means to be each of these three. Based on the information in this article, being a prophet in the LDS sense is not what 69.152.175.14 has assumed it to mean above. -SESmith 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Called verses set apart

One minor question about the "calling verses setting apart" matter. President Hinckley was set apart as a Counselor in the First Presidency on July 23, 1981. He was called to be a Counselor in the First Presidency eight days earlier. For proof of this fact, see his biography. Why is it that the incorrect term is used in recording this event? Jgstokes 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well don't you get called to a local position by your local leader and later that leader sets you apart?jj 14:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, but my question was why is it recorded on this biography about President Hinckley that he was called to that position on July 23, when in actual fact he was set apart in that calling on that date, but he was called eight days earlier? Jgstokes 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe whoever wrote it didn't know about the distinction or didn't care. Usually it's pointless for us all to speculate why an editor did something they did. If you'd like to update it, there is nothing stopping you. -SESmith 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree.jj 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. Thanks. Jgstokes 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Publications

The article lists Standing for Something as one of his publications. There is an entry for that book, but very little info it. If anyone is familiar with the book, it might be worthwhile to give that page some attention. Isaac Crumm 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)