THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"GORDON B. HINCKLEY".
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
GORDON B. HINCKLEY
Gordon Bitner Hinckley was the 15th Prophet of the Mormon Church.
| We had the most incredible speaker at October's Exmo conference--it was the son of Steve Christensen, the documents dealer who was one of Hoffman's victims. His son had only been home from his mission about a year and was just the most fascinating and eloquent speaker. I could have listened to him for hours.
Anyway, Young Mr. Christensen (sorry, don't remember his first name), started questioning things on his mission and it wasn't until after his mission that he took an interest in finding out the real story behind his father's murder. He relayed a lot of details I'd never heard, even though I'd read "Salamander" and other books. I can't go into it too much here, but suffice it to say, he did say that he could never again look GBH in the eye or shake his hand. He seemed to have nothing but disdain for the guy, especially how GBH and the church wormed their way into the trial proceedings to assure Hoffman got a plea deal so as not to embarrass the church. He felt like GBH would have been willing to let his father's murderer go free rather than have a trial. He relayed a lot of fascinating details about the McClellan collection and how that all played into it. I never knew that the church had the real collection all along in the church vault (they'd had it since the early 1900s) yet they tried to suppress that because it had been subpoenaed and I guess what was in it would have been very damaging to the church.
| Mormon Church President and Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley toured the flood-ravaged cities of Santa Clara and St. George on Saturday, February 27th, 2005. Filled with the spirit, the prophet took the pulpit and warned that recent floods and earthquakes are "signs of the times."
KUTV News has reported the following:
"Gordon B. Hinckley, addressing a packed Burns Arena at Dixie State College, said the flooding in the area, the Asian tsunami and the earthquake in Iran were "signs of the times" -Biblical prophecies about natural disasters preceding Jesus Christ's return to Earth. He added that while southern Utah braces for more flooding as the mountain snow melts, the church would lend its support to the region.
Of course, the flooding in the area was a natural course of the river. People building their homes in a flood plain is beside the point. It still must be a "Sign Of The Time!"
| Gordon B. Hinckley Tells Reporter All Tithe Payers See Financial Records - An Outright Lie |
Thursday, Mar 3, 2005, at 09:13 AM
Original Author(s): Polygamy Porter
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| When will he keep his word?
He told this to a German reporter just before the 2002 Mo'lympics:
REPORTER: IN MY COUNTRY, THE...WE SAY THE PEOPLE'S CHURCHES, THE PROTESTANTS, THE CATHOLICS, THEY PUBLISH ALL THEIR BUDGETS, TO ALL THE PUBLIC.
HINCKLEY: YEAH. YEAH.
REPORTER: WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOUR CHURCH?
HINCKLEY: WELL, WE SIMPLY THINK THAT THE...THAT INFORMATION BELONGS TO THOSE WHO MADE THE CONTRIBUTION, AND NOT TO THE WORLD. THAT'S THE ONLY THING. YES.
http://www.mormonchallenge.com has the entire interview in both video and transcript.
Hmmmm. President Hinkley has not kept his word. When will he STAND FOR SOMETHING and keep his word to THOSE WHO MADE THE CONTRIBUTION?
| 1. Both are in charge of completely autocratic, immoral kingdoms (i.e. pious lies, lack of concern for the mental illness and bankruptcies among the members).
2. Both control all of the information reaching their subjects.
3. Both try to keep the truth of what goes on in their kingdom from the public (changing temple ceremonies and pretending it never was otherwise).
4. Both lie and completely distort the truth to maintain their control.
5. Both are willing to cover up dreadful acts to stay in power (i.e. still cannot be truthful about MMM and then Hoffman).
6. Both follow communist philosophy (Marx for Kim and The Law of Consecration that they coerce people into in the temple). Actually, The Law of Consecration is more close to Marxism than any other major system on earth today. Kind of funny when you reflect on Ezra Taft Benson’s incessant ranting about communism.
7. Both are into self-worship and idol worship of past leaders (i.e. more references to Joseph Smith than to Jesus Christ, busts of the prophets in the great and spacious building, the Rameumptom in the great and spacious building constructed from Hinckley’s wood, the great and spacious building itself and the 100 temple construction to the glory of Hinckley ).
8. They support belief in a system proven ineffective many times over. (i.e. tithe to increase your financial solvency).
9. Brainwash their subjects from an early age.
10. Hunt down and punish those that try to leave the system.
11. Forbid their subjects from discussing the truth and the problems with the system and its history.
12. They hold farcical votes to make the system appear to be democratic. They make the decision beforehand and they correct people who vote otherwise.
That is correct people. Hinckley is an atheist, commie, dictator. The communist party is alive and well in Utah.
| Here's a link to a transcript of the interview: http://www.lds-mormon.com/lkl_00.shtml |
I'd suggest that you read through it because there are multiple
instances in which Hinckley either lied or otherwise obfuscated the truth.
Example 1: When asked by King about the
church's annual income being $5.9 billion, Hinckley responded, "Well, I don't know about that figure, but we get along." As the
senior officer of the LDS church, with its many holdings, combined with tithing from thousands of members (or tens of thousands),
it is unimaginable that Hinckley would not know whether $5.9 billion was the figure for church annual income or not.
Example 2: Hinckley says in the interview, "I have an accountability. I carry a trust that's incumbent upon me..." He also
said, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law." The
Mormon Murders and other books about Hinckley’s dealings with Mark Hoffman, and the ways in which he and other senior church
officers hindered the police investigation to protect themselves and the church says a great deal about how Hinckley’s
accountability and trustworthiness as a U.S. citizen, and his sense of responsibility concerning “honoring, obeying and
sustaining the law."
Example 3: In the interview, Hinckley said, "...we stand for something. We stand solid and
strong for something. We don't equivocate." How many changes to "eternal" doctrines (e.g., polygamy, blacks and the priesthood,
Adam-was-God, Blood Atonement), "eternal ordinances" (e.g., the temple endowment), and "true" church teachings (e.g., the
indigenous peoples of the Americas, the Hawaiian islands, and Polynesia descended from the Lamanites) have been changed or
deleted from Mormonism during the past century? A great deal! So much for being a "solid" and unequivocating church. For more
info., ref. http://www.utlm.org/navtopicalindex.htm and
Example 4: When asked by King about polygamy, Hinckley responded, "When our people came west they
permitted it on a restricted scale." What Hinckley did not say was that polygamy was practiced prior to the Mormon pioneer
westward exodus. (Ref. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no66.htm and http://www.signaturebooks.com/mp.htm). There are various books about Mormon polygamy. A search on
Amazon.com will provide titles. As well, in the interview Hinckley states that, "In 1890, that practice [plural marriage] was
discontinued." It is inconceivable that, Hinckley, the president of the Mormon church, was not aware of the fact that after
1890, Mormon leaders continued to conduct polygamous marriages in Mexico, Alberta (Canada), and even on at least one ship in
Example 5: Referring to the FLDS polygamists (Mormon fundamentalists) in Utah and elsewhere,
Hinckley says, "They have no connection with us whatever." How could Hinckley, a life-time resident of Utah, not be aware that
Mormon fundamentalists believe in "the Prophet" Joseph Smith, follow Smith's "revelation" on plural marriage, and practiced
Mormonism as Smith created it and it evolved in Utah in the latter 1900’s. Indeed, they believe that the LDS church has
apostatized from Jesus Christ's "true" religion, as "revealed" to Joseph Smith Jr.
Example 6: Also concerning
polygamy, Hinckley said, "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal." First, the
LDS church has never rescinded the doctrine of polygamy. It remains a part of LDS theology per Section 132 of the Doctrine and
Covenants. The Manifesto of 1890 stated that church officers were to no longer conduct polygamous marriage ceremonies, and
plural marriages were not to be conducted in church temples and other buildings (at least in the U.S.). For decades after 1890,
the church continued to teach Latter-Day Saints that the Lord had temporarily stopped the practice of polygamy due to "the
wickedness of men", but after Christ returned, it would be re-instituted. As well, Mormons, including myself as a LDS teenager
in the late 1970's and early 1980's, were taught that if we were faithful members, we would practice polygamy in the afterlife.
We were taught by the church that polygamy was essential to our "eternal salvation", a concept that, quite understandably, no
Mormon teenage girl or woman I knew got enthusiastic about. The church's senior patriarchal leadership has never issued a
declaration revoking the doctrine of polygamy or removing the verses in DandC Section 132 pertaining to that "revelation". Born
into a Utah Mormon family and fully “active” as a Mormon during his life, Hinckley was undoubtedly aware of the church's
teachings about the doctrine of plural marriage.
Example 7: When asked about the church and politics, Hinckley tells
King, "The church does not become involved in politics." As a General Authority during the 1970's, Hinckley was fully aware of
the church’s active campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment (for women). From http://historytogo.utah.gov/equalrights_.html:
"Donations to support the anti-ERA effort were solicited by ward bishops; speeches against the amendment were deemed
appropriate at all church meetings, and church buildings were used as an anti-ERA literature distribution points. Church
sponsored anti-ERA organizations operated in Florida, Nevada, North and South Carolina, Missouri, Illinois and Arizona." The
church was also active in supporting anti-homosexual marriage legislation (e.g., Proposition 22 in California; ref. http://www.lds-mormon.com/doma.shtml). To say that the church
does not become politically involved was misleading of Hinckley.
Example 8: Regarding the church and censorship,
Hinckley said, "No, we don't censor books or films as a practice". For years, the church published materials about Brigham Young
which stated that he practiced polygamy and preached about the “doctrine of plural marriage”. But the 1997 church study
guide/manual about Brigham Young excludes any mention of his polygamous marriages, and gives the reader the distinct impression
that Young was married once (in fact, he had 55 wives). This is but one of many examples of non-faith-promoting facts being
omitted from church materials. I doubt that the church’s propaganda film, Legacy, includes any mention of Mormon polygamy, the
Kinderhook Plates (ref. http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithkinderhookplates.htm), Joseph Smith marrying other men’s wives
(ref. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no66.htm#OTHER%20MEN'S%20WIVES) and other facts about Mormonism that would
cause investigators to leave LDS visitor centres and Mormons to question their church, its leaders, and their religion.
Example 9: When asked by King about the LDS church telling Catholics (for example) to leave their church and faith and become
a Mormon, Hinckley said, "I say this to other people: you develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward any other
church. We do not oppose other churches. We never speak negatively of other churches. We say to people: you bring all the good
that you have, and let us see if we can add to it." This is a dramatic change in position for the LDS church’s senior "prophet"
because for generations, senior LDS leaders were outspoken that people in other religions were being deceived by Satan and led
astray. Hinckley’s predecessors repeatedly declared that the LDS church was the only "true and living church of Jesus Christ" on
the Earth, the only church that had God's authority to preach the "true" gospel of Jesus Christ and administer the "saving
ordinances", and the only church through which people could receive "eternal salvation" in the afterlife. That Hinckley did not
take the opportunity, on national television, to share these fundamental "truths" with viewers, and instead, gave non-Mormons a
message of your-religion-is-just-fine-and-ours-is-too says a great deal about his sense of responsibility as the pre-eminent
"spokesperson of the Lord".
Example 10: With regards to how LDS women feel about not being allowed to hold the
priesthood (by Mormonism’s senior male leadership), Hinckley said, "The women of the church are not complaining about it." and
"They're happy. They sit on boards and governance in the church. I don't hear any complaints about it." These statements by
Hinckley are misleading and side-step a disturbing reality for many LDS women: depression resulting from their 2nd-class status
in the church because Mormon men refuse to allow LDS women to hold the priesthood. As a result of this gender discrimination,
capable LDS women are not only denied opportunities to administer the church, they are perpetually kept in a situation of
inequality to Mormon men. In short, LDS women of all ages are disempowered by Mormon patriarchy. The fact that Hinckley refuses
to be honest and acknowledge these facts/realities to Mormons says a lot about his transparency, ethics, and degree of
| Challenges: LDS leaders warn against pornography, express need for more missionaries as annual conference ends
The instant insight provided by 14-year-old Joseph Smith's vision of God and Jesus in a grove of trees outweighed centuries of religious debate and scholarship about the nature of Deity, said LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley on Sunday.
"This grand theophany is, in my judgment, the greatest such event since the birth, life, death and resurrection of our Lord in the meridian of time," Hinckley told 21,000 people in the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City. "Upon the reality and truth of this vision rests the validity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Hinckley discussed Smith's vision during the first session Sunday of the church's Annual General Conference, which commemorated the 175th anniversary of the church's founding and the 200th anniversary of Smith's birth. Mormons across the world also were listening to their leaders' sermons via satellite in their homes or local chapels.
"How beautiful is the unfolding of the pattern of restoration which led to the organization of the church in the year 1830," Hinckley said. "The very name of the church came of revelation. Whose church was it? Was it Joseph Smith's? No, it was the Church of Jesus Christ restored to earth in these latter days."
The 94-year-old leader, considered a "prophet, seer and revelator" by 12 million Mormons worldwide, went on to enumerate the church's distinctive teachings including the eternal nature of the family, the spiritual authority of its all-male priesthood, and its practice of "baptism for the dead," a proxy ritual for those who died without an opportunity to join the LDS Church.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
Of course the LDS Church forgets that there are over 7 different versions of the First Vision. The First Vision was created by Joseph Smith long after the Book of Mormon was written in order to set the stage for it. The Book of Mormon is a fraud, Joseph Smith is a fraud and Gordon B. Hinckley continues to perpetuate this fraud in order to continue to bilk billions of dollars out of his followers.
| Gordon B. Hinckley Talk: List Of Joseph Smith's Doctrinal Contributions, Guess Which One He Forgot? |
Monday, Apr 4, 2005, at 08:01 AM
Original Author(s): Feeling Henry Jacobs
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| The doctrine that dominated the final years of JS's life.
The one he was willing to go to his grave for.
The one that became a salvation requirement on the order of baptism itself.
The one that gave birth to the whole secret temple endowment ceremony.
GBH giving a talk on the doctrines introduce by the great prophet of the restoration-and leaving out plural marriage-demonstrates that the obfuscation and deceipt starts right at the top of this organization.
| During his General Conference address, President Hinckley quotes from a book banned by Brigham Young, a book in which the First Presidency in 1865 stated "We do not wish such a book to be lying on our shelves, to be taken up in after years I was shocked to see President Hinckley hold up a vintage copy of the biography of Joseph Smith, by his mother Lucy Mack Smith and quote from it during one of his conference addresses.
This book was banned by Brigham Young because of its "inaccuaricies" as it pertained to events in Joseph's life. The book was originally entitled "Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors For Many Generations". This book contains some eyeopners as written by Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith. One such tidbit is the account of Joseph's first vision, wherein mother Smith refers to it as a "dream" rather than a "vision". The church, after substantial revision again released the book under the title "The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother Lucy Mack Smith".
The following footnote concerning "Mother Smith's History" appears in the History of the Church, Vol. 7, p. 519: In the year 1865 Brigham Young told the members of the Mormon Church that he wanted Lucy Smith's history suppressed: "The President then made some remarks on the book entitled 'Joseph Smith and his Progenitors,' requesting those who had copies to let him have them, and receive value for them if they desired it."(Deseret News, June 21 1865)
Joseph F. Smith made this statement concerning the suppression of this book: "It was afterwards discovered that the book contained errors, occasioned by its not being carefully compared with historical data. Some of the statements in the preface written by Elder Pratt were also in error;...For these reasons and others...it was disapproved by President Young on August 23, 1865, and the edition was suppressed or destroyed." (History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, 1954 edition, Introduction VII)
In the Millennial Star for Oct, 21, 1865, Lucy Smith's history was severely condemned by the First Presidency of the Mormon Church: "The inquiry may arise in the minds of some persons, 'Why do you want to destroy this book?' Because. we are acquainted with individual circumstances alluded to in It, and know many of the statements to be false, We could go through the book and point out many false statements which it contains, but we do not feel to do so, It is sufficient to say that it is utterly unreliable as a history as it contains many falsehoods and mistakes. We do not wish such a book to be lying on our shelves, to be taken up in after years and read by our children as true history, and we therefore, expect the High Priests, the Seventies, the Elders, the Bishops, and every one in the Church, male and female, if they have such a book, to dispose of it so that it will never be read by any person again. If they do not, the responsibility of the evil results that may accrue from keeping it will rest upon them and not upon us......Many of the Saints may not know that the book is inaccurate; but those who have been instructed respecting its character, and will still keep it on their tables, and have it in their houses as a valid and authentic history for their children to read, need rebuke, it is transmitting lies to posterity to take such a course, and we know that the curse of god will rest upon every one, after he comes to the knowledge of what is here said, who keeps these books for his children to learn and believe in lies. "We wish those who have these books to either hand them to their Bishops for them to be conveyed to the President's or Historian's Office, or send them themselves, that they may be disposed of; and they will please write their names in the books, with the name of the place where they reside, and if they wish to hand them over without pay in return, state so; and if they wish to get pay for them, state whether they desire it applied on Tithing, or wish the value returned in other books." (Millennial Star, Vol. 27, pp. 657-658)
I wonder if President Hinckley was aware that Brother Brigham had banned this book?
| Pope John Paul feels strongly that Catholic theology on the sanctity of life (I won't mention Fr. Junipero Serra frying all those "Lamanites") should be preserved, and announces that abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are crimes against that sanctity.
As the United States convulses in agony over how best to approach the moral questions raised by the Schiavo affair, Gordon B. Hinckley, prophet, seer, and revelator in possession of Willard Chase's I mean Joseph's seer stone, and the only man with the keys to revelation for the whole word, says..........nothing.
Pope John Paul, apparently a believer in the truth claims of Catholicism, makes Cardinal Ratzinger a chief advisor, and together they seek to uphold traditional Catholic doctrine.
Gordon B. Hinckley, apparently only a quasi-believer in the truth claims of Mormonism, makes Thomas Monson his chief advisor, and together they hire a PR firm which seems to care as little about Mormon doctrine as they themselves do (of course). Hinckley begins publicly denying that the first half of the eternal progression story is official church doctrine (thus undermining the second half, and really, all of Mormon theology), in one stroke achieving the seemingly impossible task of rendering the Mormon temple ritual even more of an absurdity than before (whither temples, if eternal progression isn't "official church doctrine"?).
John Paul concedes that there is some truth to the theory of evolution.
Gordon B. Hinckley continues the 100 year old tradition of avoiding taking any official church stand on how true or false evolution may be, something that Jesus supposedly would care a lot about, since in its current form it raises troubling questions about deity, the purpose of life, etc.
During what is probably the greatest international moral struggle of all-time, that between the Soviet empire and the free world, Pope John Paul gives support to those seeking escape from oppression, and helps bring about the demise of the most murderous regime in world history. Hundreds of millions of newly freed human beings laud him as a hero.
During well over a half century of Soviet genocide and enforced atheism, Gordon B. Hinckley - strangely, for a prophet of God - issues hardly a single bleat of protest; and during his remarks on Pres. Benson's death - AFTER the wall fell! - even goes so far as to seem almost embarrassed by ETB's opposition to communism, like he needs to excuse it, explaining that ETB's "hatred" of communism was probably due to those visits over to Europe he made. Where was Gordon B. Hinckley during the greatest moral struggle the world has ever known? Nowhere. And he has the audacity to *excuse* Pres. Benson?
The Pope calls for an alleviation of world poverty, and even meets with U2 lead singer Bono regarding the issue. They and others help spur a drive to convince lenders to forgive the debts of impoverished third world countries.
Gordon B. Hinckley boldly announces that henceforth, women should not wear more than one earring in an ear.
I could go on, but just let me say this. The pope, in my opinion, presides over a church thoroughly in need of a gutting; there are hundreds of lunatic pedophiles still operating under cover of the authority of the church (and Ratzinger should declare war on them and yank them out root and branch). Beyond this, in many ways, the Catholic church is structurally corrupt. Many of its policies are blatantly unchristian, I believe. Many of its doctrines rival Mormon doctrines in idiocy (transubstantion, papal infallibility, etc.). Historically, it has much to atone for.
That said, John Paul II seemed to possess a moral sense that seems entirely lacking in Gordon B. Hinckley. In a way, I don't really understand Hinckley. Of all of the public persons I know of who might ever comment on the grand questions of life - how we should live, what is right and wrong, etc. - Hinckley is the most pathetic and disappointing. I admit it - just don't get it.
I've travelled all over the world, talked to hundreds of people from all walks of life, in every different kind of job, about just those questions; and literally - I am totally serious - LITERALLY - all of them showed more concern and insight and passion about them than does the man reputed by Mormons to be in contact with Jesus himself. Even creampuff Deepak Chopra puts him to shame.
My stake president admitted to me in our meeting that he knew that "some of this stuff didn't happen", but went on to argue that sticking with the church was a good idea because it was "useful". But what is useful about sticking with a church run by a man who seems less concerned about all of the most important questions in life, literally, than anyone I've ever met in my life?
Hinckley's talks often sound like the old end-of-the-year speeches in the Soviet politburo: "another banner year", "we are making great strides", "another wonderful monument", "everything is marvelous"....it's just....nothing. It's just nothing. And to make it worse - Monson is his counselor! Possibly the one man on earth who seems less concerned about life's profoundest questions than Hinckley! Even Faust dwells more on nostalgic stories than anything that might give guidance to life.
It is a wonder to me now that I can turn on a television and hear a guy like Joel Osteen or some other evangelical preacher really trying to grapple with these things, in a way that literally no Mormon General Authority seems to. So the argument about the usefulness doesn't seem to make any sense either. General Conference is cotton candy; there is virtually nothing there for life. You can find more wisdom in a Farmer's Almanac, more motivation to be good at a local Baptist church, more integrity in a Pope or your local notary public (think Hinckley during the Hoffmann affair), and more sincerity at a Jehovah's Witness convention.
Pres. Hinckley seems to have been unusually concerned about his legacy; the orgy of building strikes some as an expression of this, as do the PR and doctrinal revision experiments. And yet, it is hard now to see any legacy other than one of the strangest, most disappointing (and to many, most disturbing) presidencies in all of Mormon church history.
Maybe Hinckley's focus on creating a legacy out of nothing but nothingness, while his colleages, like the Pope, in other religions were actually trying to change the world substantively for the better, will be the very thing that causes a future president to try to erase that legacy of failed attempts. Maybe Pres. Packer will do to Hinckley's legacy, what Hinckley tried to do to so many parts of the church - erase it from memory.
The truth is, that John Paul II, for all his flaws, and the flaws of the Catholic church, will be remembered as long as future humans bother about the history of their planet. John Paul created a legacy by focusing not on "creating a legacy", but by focusing on the human family - especially those deprived of all the freedoms we all believe to be our birthrights. He tried to build HUMANITY (though we might strongly disagree with some of his positions). Could anyone, knowing anything about the church, ever possibly imagine that this could ever be said of Pres. Hinckley?
Did Pres. Hinckley really build up the human family - or did he just actually build...buildings? Build them, to build up himself? I don't know, but I am afraid that Pres. Hinckley himself, by his own decisions, has moved many to wonder.
| The Effort To Nominate Gordon Hinckley As Person Of The Century Is An Embarrassment To Mormons |
Friday, Apr 29, 2005, at 08:45 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| You probably got the same email I did. "Vote for Gordon B. Hinckley," it urged, then called our attention to a Time magazine online survey, in which people could vote for the Person of the Century.
"I propose that we vote for the prophet," said the email. Then the writer urged us to spell his name exactly right so no vote would be wasted. "Rabin is first, Mother Teresa is 2nd and Billy Graham is 3rd."
I couldn't help but moan. How embarrassing for the Church. First of all, does anyone seriously propose that Gordon B. Hinckley is "person of the century" by any standard, let alone Time's? He is one of the more effective Church presidents, and it has been a joy to all of us to have a vigorous prophet with the common touch. But even within the Church, he has not had the transformative effect of, say, Heber J. Grant (the welfare program) or Spencer W. Kimball (the revelation on the priesthood). And outside the Church, no Mormon prophet since Joseph Smith and Brigham Young has had as much worldwide influence as Ezra Taft Benson.
So if this email campaign succeeded, and President Hinckley won, what would it prove? Only that a whole bunch of Mormons had voted, not wisely, but loyally. And when you consider that Time's standard for its person of the year has been breadth of influence, for good or evil, it's even harder to justify trying to put President Hinckley up against Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or even Milosevic or Saddam Hussein. Time's person-of-the-year, insofar as it is an honor, is an "honor of men," bestowed by the world and not by God. President Hinckley does not aspire to it, for the very good reason that it is not worth having.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| In another thread, there's a discussion going on about a church apostle reminding BYU students of the need to obey the The
Prophet's counsel against earrings. |
Apostle Bednar's teaching only echo what the church is telling members of the
"Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or
woman desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings. Those who choose to
disregard this counsel sow a lack of respect for themselves and for God. They will someday regret their decisions."
Widely-distributed LDS Church Pamphlet, "True to The Faith, a gospel reference."
Sounds pretty serious, doesn't
Here's the living prophet's actual counsel, along with his explanation for why the church takes such a hard stand
"I submit that it is an uncomely thing, and yet a common thing, to see young men with ears pierced
for earrings, not for one pair only, but for several. They have no respect for their appearance. Do they think it clever
or attractive to so adorn themselves?"
"I submit it is not adornment. It is making ugly that which was
attractive. Not only are ears pierced, but other parts of the body as well, even the tongue. It is absurd."
"We–the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve–have taken the position, and I quote, that “the Church
discourages tattoos. It also discourages the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes, although it takes no
position on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings.”"
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Your Greatest
Challenge, Mother,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 97
"Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in
the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be
permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the
Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not,
however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”–one pair only."
- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 50
"May I mention
earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look
better without them, and I believe you will feel better without them. As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings
up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient."
- Text of a talk given to youth and young single
adults on 12 November 2000 at the Conference Center in Salt Lake City and broadcast by satellite throughout the Church.
If the prophet is speaking for God on this matter, why does this same prophet have such a hard time speaking clearly on
more important matters?
As Apostle Bednar pointed out, the issue isn't
really about the earrings. It's about uncompromising loyalty to the church. OBEDIENCE is a constant theme from the church:
| Click here to read the Deseret News account of his upcoming 95th birthday celebration.
A few excerpts:
Mike Wallace, co-editor of the TV news show "60 minutes," and singers Gladys Knight and Donny Osmond are on the program for the 95th birthday celebration planned next month for LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley.
Ninety minutes of speeches and music, which will also feature the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Orchestra at Temple Square, will honor President Hinckley. His birthday is on June 23, but "A Celebration of Life!" is set for Friday, July 22, at 7:30 p.m. in the LDS Conference Center Auditorium.
The last public birthday party, when President Hinckley turned 90 on June 23, 2000, more than 21,000 people from all over the world attended.
"I desire no gifts, but rather I wish to give something to this community in which I have spent most of my life. To this end I am hosting a party." (emphasis mine)
He's hosting it with Church money, I'm guessing, unless he personally is paying for the lights, extra city traffic cops etc....so all of you still signing checks over to the Corporation are the ones who are probably hosting the party. Either that or they'll twist arms for "volunteers" to fund it, but I think those guys are probably getting a little tired of getting tapped for Hinckster's pet projects.
And somehow I think the last thing his "community" needs is 90 more minutes of Church songs and talks. If he wants to give something back how about declaring a tithing moratorium during the month of July.
| I really don't share the anger with some on this site against Gordon B. Hinkley. In fact, I really cannot think of a better person to be a "prophet" for this church at this point in history. His leadership and doctrine is superficial, and shallow. His serious attempts at appeasing the media, other Christain groups, and the world in general open him up to criticism and expose the church for what it is, a corporate church lead by a leader who is no-more a prophet than the pope.
1. He writes "Standing for Something" which clearly stands for nothing mormon and everything mainstream Christian. It does not quote the Book of Mormon, DandC, or Pearl of Great price, yet gives biblical references every few pages. It is a sham, and the leaders know it because they planned the book ; members understand when they read it that it is another PR move by the church (although they will try to suppress such thoughts); and anyone else who reads it will eventually discover the truth about the church.
2. The recorded denials of Doctrine by Gordon B. Hinkley open him up to perpetual criticism, and not even members can justify such deceit. He downplays or does not attempt to justify (implying it was a mistake by the church) on the issues of polygamy and blacks being denied the priesthood. He denies that mormon doctrine includes God being a man, men becoming Gods. And finally, for a prophet of God, he sure seems to say "I don't know alot."
3. More and more information will continue to come out about the lack of transparency with regard to church finances. Even members are uncomfortable with spending a billion dollars on a mall or hotels in Hawaii when there is so much objective good that can be done in the world with chartiable efforts. The church is very American in organization and perspective, including monetary excesses. The sham that the church is a Christain organization trying to help people will be apparent to anyone who investigates it.
My Point: All the excesses, all the denials, all the PR stuff, all the lack of prophetic pronouncements, are easy to see, even to members. Members do not like to hear it, but inside, even those who self-delude on a regualar basis are able to see Truth. Lets just be glad that Gordon does run the church, because if a true Christian leader ran it, with pure motives and true prophetic zeal, it would be difficult to criticize.
My 10 cents.
| Mormon Prophet Admits He Believes In Another Christ - Not The Traditional Jesus |
Wednesday, Jun 22, 2005, at 08:39 AM
Original Author(s): James K. Walker
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| By James K. Walker (Chart and notes by Timothy Oliver)
Paris, France ? In a surprising admission during last month's three nation European speaking trip, Mormon president Gordon B. Hinckley stated that the Christ he believes in is not the same Christ as the one followed by those outside the LDS Church.andnbsp;
Hinckley quoted unnamed critics of the LDS Church who claim that Mormons do not believe in the traditional Christ and then he agreed with them.
The LDS Church News reported: "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times'" (June 20, 1998, andlt;http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/libstory_church?dn98andamp;9806210091andgt;.
Despite this major difference on a pivotal doctrine of the Christian faith, Hinckley maintains that he is a Christian. "Am I Christian?" Hinckley asked rhetorically, "Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life" (Ibid.).
Christians should ask, "Which Christ?" The Bible warns of false teachers who promote "another Jesus whom we have not preached" (2 Corinthians 11:4). The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians not to believe everyone who preached "Jesus." The true Jesus was based on the tradition of apostolic preaching ? the Jesus "we preached." Paul compared the preaching another Christ outside of that tradition with the deception of the serpent in the Garden of Eden (2 Corinthians 11:4, Genesis 3 1:4-5). In the same context, Paul warned the Church to beware of "...false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13).
Who Is Jesus?
Christian creeds contain the basic beliefs of traditional Christians ? including what they believe about Christ. Christians claim that their creeds are based solely on the Bible. Furthermore, the authority of the creeds rests on their underlying scripture. Because the creeds are derived from and dependent on biblical data, there is a remarkable uniformity between the creeds of various denominations and churches. This is especially true on the essential doctrines such as the Person of Christ.
Unlike the traditional Christian view of Jesus based solely on the Bible, Hinckley's Christ is based to a large extent on extra-biblical revelation. It is not surprising then to find significant differences.
Hinckley notes this important distinction: "For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this, the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages" (LDS Church News).
Additional Information, or Actually Another Jesus?
It is interesting that Hinckley states that the beliefs of traditional Christians were so different than that of Latter-day Saints, that their traditional Jesus "is not the Christ of whom I speak." It is not just some different information about the same Jesus but a completely different Jesus.andnbsp;
This is a quite rare confession in recent Mormonism. Early Mormon leaders were quite candid about the differences between LDS doctrine and Christian doctrine. One example is the 1820 First Vision account Hinckley cited which is also recorded in LDS Scripture. In relating this vision, Mormon Church founder, Joseph Smith, makes a similar point to Hinckley's. Smith said that Jesus told him that all of the creeds of existing Christianity were "an abomination in his sight." These Christian creeds would, of course, include those that describe the essential attributes and identity of the Jesus worshipped by traditional Christians.andnbsp;
As Hinckley observed, Joseph Smith's first vision introduced a completely different understanding of God's nature and an entirely distinct concept of Jesus ? in fact a different Jesus ? than the one worshipped by "all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages" (Ibid.).andnbsp;
One may still find today, for sale in LDS bookstores, similar examples of candor in books written by General Authorities. In most cases, however, they are old publications written by former Mormon leaders.
Although they are rare, there are similar statements by LDS leaders in the last twenty-five years. For example, Elder Bernard P. Brockbank, of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking from the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City during General Conference quotes a June 18, 1976 London Times article that states in part, "In fact, there is good reason for regarding them as a new religion rather than as another variety of Christianity.... the Christ followed by the Mormons is not the Christ followed by traditional Christianity."
Elder Brockbank then adds a very frank admission: "It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example from the Church of England's Articles of Religion, article one, I quote: 'There is but one living God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions....' We cannot obtain salvation and eternal life by worshipping fake Christs.... The belief that God has no body parts, and passions is not a doctrine of Jesus Christ or a doctrine of the holy scriptures but is a doctrine of men, and to worship such a God is in vain" ("The Living Christ," Ensign, May, 1977, pp. 26-7).
But Brockbank's frankness may be the exception that proves the rule. LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was one of the last LDS leaders to openly state that the Christ of traditional Christianity was different than the LDS Christ, and false. Also citing Joseph Smith's First Vision, McConkie said Christians worship "false Christs." He specifically named Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists and included all Christianity by implication.
"But in a larger and more realistic sense, false Christs are false systems of religion that use his name and profess to present his teachings to the world. The cries, 'Lo, here,' and 'Lo, there,' which went forth in Joseph Smith's day, when 'some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist' (JS-H 5), meant that each group of gospel expounders was saying, 'Lo, here is Christ; we have his system of salvation; ours is the true church; we know the way; come, Join with us'" (Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p.324).
Since McConkie's death in 1985 such statements by General Authorities are very rare. They have not repealed these teachings ? they continue to publish the older books and Scriptures where the doctrines are clearly taught. Mormon leaders, however, are not prone to publicly repeat or emphasize their belief that all traditional Christian doctrines are an abomination, and that Christians worship a different, and wrong, Jesus.
Today one is more likely to hear Mormons say that they believe in Jesus "too" ? but have some additional information. They may point out a few historical differences (such as Christ's visit to America recorded in the Book of Mormon) but ignore big differences ? the fundamental issue of Christ's very nature and essential attributes.
Reflecting this newer attitude, the notion that the Mormon Jesus is different than the Christ of traditional Christianity is dismissed by the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as simply one of many anti-Mormon misconceptions. "A broad spectrum of anti-Mormon authors has produced the invective literature of this period. Evangelicals and some apostate Mormons assert that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. The main basis for this judgment is that the Mormon belief in the Christian Godhead is different from the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity. They contend that Latter-day Saints worship a 'different Jesus' and that their scriptures are contrary to the Bible" ("Anti-Mormon Publications," vol. 1).
Brigham Young University professor Dr. Stephen E. Robinson attempts to further blur the distinction between the LDS Jesus and the traditional Christian Jesus. According to Robinson, those who claim Mormons have a "different Jesus" are not honestly dealing with real issues but only playing tricks with language.
Robinson argues that, "Evangelicals often accuse Latter-day Saints of worshiping a 'different Jesus' because we believe some things about Jesus that cannot be proven from the Bible.... This charge that people worship 'a different Jesus' if they disagree over any detail of his character or history, is simply a rhetorical device, a trick of language" (Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide?, pp. 136-37).
With apparent reluctance, Robinson confesses in a footnote, "Unfortunately, some Latter-day Saint authors have also resorted to this rhetorical device in describing 'the false Jesus of the apostate sectarians' and the like" (Ibid., p. 220).
Unfortunately for Robinson, he is clearly out of harmony with the Prophet and President of his church. President Hinckley does not appear to regard this as a mere "rhetorical device" or some attempt to play "a trick of language."
Far from it! Hinckley even cited Joseph Smith's First Vision found in Mormon scripture, as proof of his contention that his Jesus is a different Christ than the Jesus of historical Christianity.
This may be one of the few times that evangelical Christians can agree with the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Indeed, the Mormon Jesus is a "different Christ." It should be hoped that Robinson and all others would see this distinction also.andnbsp;
| I know this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I just ran across another of Hinkley's statements that just strike me as so obvious he doesn't prophesy, "see," or reveal anything:
(April 2001 General Conference) "I am so grateful that we live in an era of comparative peace. There are no great wars raging across the world. There is trouble here and there but not a great worldwide conflict. We are able to carry the gospel to so many nations of the earth and bless the lives of the people wherever it goes." (Given only 5 months before September 11th)
Just like when he was on Larry King the day before the tsunami struck Southeast Asia, he is oblivious. He should be embarrassed for himself. I can imagine him thinking "Come ON Lord! Just ONCE couldn't you give me a heads up on something?"
| In a Larry King Live conversation with Gordon B. Hinckley on December 26, 2004, the Prophet of the Mormon Church completely side steps the question presented to him by Larry King. When asked “You're a prophet, so God talks to you”, Gordon avoided directly answering the question by stating “I'm talking to God, yes. I do pray. Of course I do.”
The question wasn't “do you pray or do you talk to God,” the question was, “You're a prophet, so God talks to you?”
Larry asks “What do you do when they're not answered?” This is typical for Larry, the man cannot ask even a single hard question. Hinckley responds, “Well, they are answered, but not always just the way you'd want them.”
So here we have a so-called Prophet Of God. This man runs Jesus Christ's affairs on earth. If Larry King asks if he talked with God, why doesn't Gordon just come out and say it? “Yes, I talk with God, we talk face to face, I meet with him regularly in the Temple and oftentimes he sends Angels to communicate His Will.”
Instead, we get a watered down pre-school response, “Uh, yeah, yes, I think I do, of course I do, yeah, sure that's the ticket!”
Somewhere out there on Kolob, God smacks His hand against His forehead and goes, “DOH!”
Transcript of Interview:
KING: When you pray, what is that? What's occurring? Are you talking to God? You're a prophet, so God talks to you.
HINCKLEY: I'm talking to God, yes. I do pray. Of course I do.
KING: What do you do when they're not answered?
HINCKLEY: Well, they are answered, but not always just the way you'd want them.
KING: Sometimes it's no.
HINCKLEY: Sometimes it's no.
KING: And when it's no, how do you explain that to yourself?
HINCKLEY: You accept it and go forward with faith.
KING: Isn't that hard?
HINCKLEY: Oh, it may be. But after all, that's the challenge of life. Sure.
KING: You ever doubted it?
KING: Never doubted your faith.
HINCKLEY: I don't think so. Can't recall when I have. I have faith in the eternal nature of things.
| From Wrinkley's closing remarks in his Saturday afternoon talk on forgiveness....
"May God help us to be a little kinder, showing forth greater forbearance, to be more forgiving, more willing to walk the second mile, to reach down and lift up those who may have sinned but have brought forth the fruits of repentance, to lay aside old grudges and nurture them no more. For this I humbly pray, in the sacred name of our Redeemer, even the Lord Jesus Christ, amen."
Sounds good Wrinkley.
How about if you start being a little kinder towards homosexuals by not sponsoring homophobic legislation?
How about if you start showing a little forbearance towards women by giving them equal voice and decision making power as men in the church and appologizing for taking an active role in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment?
How about if you start being a little more forgiving towards Mormon scholars and quit violating their constitutional rights to freedom of speech by ordering inquisitions against them?
How about walking the second mile by issuing an unequivical statement rejecting all the racist, bigoted and hatefull statements made in the past 200 years about blacks by so-called LDS prophets.
How about reaching down and lifting up Native Americans by appologizing for referring to them as "Lamanites" every time you've dedicated a temple, since that's a racist term, which has been scientifically disproven?
How about laying aside old grudges by removing the racist, sexist, hatefull lies from Mormon Doctrine?
In other words, why don't you just live the golden rule, like Jesus Christ commanded you to do, before you pray to him asking others to be more like him you arrogant, elitist, white, male, supremicst, sorry excuse for a profit.
| When heads of movements resort to berating the followers for their lack of progress, it's a sign those movements are headed for the toilet. So it is with GBH and Associates. General conference was big on chastizing and laying down more rules, but way short on any kind of divine inspiration.
When the civil rights movement was facing rough times, MLK didn't get up and criticize the audience, he painted a picture of what might be. "I have a dream!" It re-energized the movement.
GBH and Associates don't have a dream, except the continued viability of the church, the maintenence of the status quo. They aren't really leading the church anywhere; they're just trying to keep the members in the corral. Well, the herd might stay there, and a few strays might wander in of their own accord, if there was a compelling enough reason to be there.
If the brethren were truly the Lord's mouthpieces, they would have more to say than platitudes and scoldings. They wouldn't need speech writers. They would just get up there and deliver astoundingly beautiful sermons, and even non-Mormons would flock to hear their sublime wisdom. But we know that's not the case. They're as inspired as a stump. Their dreams are of institutions and empires, not transcendence.
| In 2002 a German reporter interviewed Gordon B. Hinckley. The reporter asked Gordon the following:
“Until 1978, no person of color attained priesthood in your church. Why it took so long time to overcome the racism?”
“I don't know. I don't know. I can only say that. But it's
It's here now. We're carrying on a very extensive work in Africa, for instance. We're carrying a very substantial work in Brazil. We're working among these people, we're developing them. Uh, we have them among the leadership of the Church. And they're able, they do a great work, and we love them, and appreciate them. And respect them, and are trying to help them.”
So according to Gordon B. Hinckley, blacks are in need of development. Blacks are in need of help. And prior to 1978, the Mormon God and the Mormon Church did not consider blacks worthy of being developed or being helped. 150 years of Mormon Doctrine show the countless verses where Mormon leaders have stated that Blacks were an inferior race.
Blacks everywhere should rejoice that the Mormon God has now decreed that they now may be “Developed” and “Helped”, since of course, according to the words spoken above by one Mormon Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley - blacks are in need of development and need help in doing so.
Blacks in Africa are among the poorest in the world. The entire reason that the Mormon Church built a temple and is “Helping” the black people in Africa is a complete PR MOVE. There is no money to be had in Africa. The cost of building and maintaining temples and churches in Africa is exorbitant. Blacks in Africa are taught the “New Gospel” and the old racist teachings of past Mormon Prophets are purposefully hidden from them. Gordon B. Hinckley's response to the question why would be, as he has stated before, “That was the past. We go forward.” Of course, Gordon B. Hinckley doesn't state the obvious fact that the Mormon Church is ridding the African Blacks of their "heathen" ways and "heathen religions" and instituting good clean WHITE MAN rules and regulations and a WHITE GOD to worship.
With the passing of the great Rosa Parks this weekend, I think personally that all blacks have helped themselves and developed themselves - thank you very much. They never needed the Mormon God or the Mormon so-called “Prophet” to step in and “Develop” them and “Help them”.
Mormonism has always been and will always continue to be a racist organization. Gordon B. Hinckley and current leaders of the Mormon Church refuse to apologize for the countless racist writings passed down from the beginning of the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church still continues to teach that Blacks are less valiant and are born “Black” because they were less valiant in the “Pre-Existence” and therefore are cursed to follow the lineage of Cain. THIS DOCTRINE IS STILL TAUGHT IN MORMON CHURCHES TODAY. The Mormon Church now busily eradicates all old doctrines by simply omitting them from current Church History books and lesson manuals.
Mormonism, isn't it about time?
| Gordon B. Hinckley, In The Supremest Of Ironies, Has A Book Out Titled, "Standing For Something"--But, C'mon, What Has He Really Stood For? |
Thursday, Nov 17, 2005, at 09:35 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Applause, maybe. |
Or the hanky-waving Hosannah Twist 'N Shout.
In reality, Gordon B. Hinckley has made a comfy career of standing up for nothing--but kissing up to everybody.
It's not as if Hinckley hasn't been given the chance, time and again, to rise from his righteous, revelatin' rear and at least play-act as a prophet of God.
To be sure, Hinckley has had plenty of public opportunities to step forward and make a courageous defense of Mormonism.
Instead, when given that chance, Prophet, Seer and Repudiator Gordon B. Hinckley has chosen to lean back in his Latter-day Lazy-boy and blubber-waffle his way through bland, deceptive, welcome-to-Pleasantville/Wimpoutville answers.
And, in the process, he's ended up standing Mormonism on its head.
Just exactly how has Hinckley refused to take a stand for something?
Let us count some of the ways:
--Hinckley has publicly denied the bedrock Mormon doctrine of eternal progression from humanhood to godhood.
--Hinckley has publicly refused to personally affirm that he is a prophet called of God, only that devoted Mormon sustain him as such.
--Hinckley has publicly been willing only to say that he thinks God speaks through him.
--Hinckley has publicly admitted that his prophetic "revelation" comes only through personal inspiration via the Holy Ghost, which makes his "revelatory" experiences no different that those of the average Mormon layperson.
--Hinckley has publicly insisted that Mormons aren't a weird (i.e., peculiar) people.
--Hinckley has publicly admitted that he doesn't know how the major military conflicts currently raging in the Middle East will be resolved or when.
--Hinckley has publicly been unable to articulate what Mormons' civic duty is with regard to those military conflicts, even though he nonetheless says Mormonas must shoulder such a duty.
--Hinckley has publicly denied that Mormonism's long and historic record of anti-Black bigotry is anything but a momentary blip.
At best, wiggle and jiggle Gordon B. Hinckley--author of Standing for Something--will go down in Mormondumb's history as the "Gawrsh, I just dunno" prophet:
You get the drift: "The Spirit of Gord, Like a Liar is Burning."
There are, no doubt, many more examples not cited above of how Gordon B. Hinckley has stood stoutly for nothing and firmly planted his rump on a stump for everything.
Please feel free to add your own.
| To me, the most important issue with Mormonism is whether or not it is true. I want to know whether or not Joseph Smith was a liar. The evidence is overwhelming that Joseph Smith was a liar, and that the Church is not true.
Whether Gordon Hinckley is a hypocrite or not, and whether he is a jerk or not, is largely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Mormonism. I lost whatever faith I had in Mormonism before Gordon Hinckley even became the prophet.
Some people claim that Hinckley does not believe in Mormonism, and fault him because he continues to delude the members even when he doesn't believe. The problem here is that the evidence does not clearly show that Hinckley is an unbeliever. Hinckley was deceptive about the Mormon belief that men can become gods when he was interviewed on Larry King Live. This does not prove that Hinckley does not believe in Mormonism. There are other possible explanations for his behavior.
One possibility is that Hinckley believes in Mormonism, but he does not believe in the doctrine that men can become gods. Maybe he thinks that Joseph Smith was wrong on this point, and Hinckley does not want to perpetuate the error, now that he is prophet. This is not as strange as it sounds. TBMs disagree about doctrine all the time, and yet they still call themselves Mormons. Some people disagree with the Church so much that they don't even belong to it (they belong to a splinter group, such as the Reorganized Church), yet they still believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.
Similarly, millions of people have disagreed with certain Christian doctrines, yet they have still believed in Christianity. Martin Luther did not believe in certain Catholic doctrines, yet he was still a Christian. My father has a belief that is at odds with what most TBMs believe, yet he is still a TBM. Most people on this board in their TBM days knew somebody who had radical disagreements with Mormonism, but who still attended Church and bore testimony on Sunday.
There are probably TBMs who are really mad at Hinckley. They probably hate what he said to Larry King on national television. Some of them might be mad enough that they may leave the Church and create a new splinter group that still believes in the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith. Other TBMs who are mad at Hinckley probably will still stick with the Church because they think Hinckley is a believer, notwithstanding some of his idiosyncrasies.
The bottom line is that we have tons more evidence against Joseph Smith and Mormonism than we have against the supposed belief of Gordon Hinckley.
| The fist LDS prophet I can remember was Harold B. Lee. From Harold B. Lee to Howard W. Hunter, the Mormon prophet for the most part has been an old feeble man in poor health with a questionable state of mind. It always seemed like the prophet was a puppet and someone behind the scenes was running things.
That person was Gordon B. Hinckley and he's been in charge since the Kimball years.
Once the ultra conservative church puppets like Ezra Taft Benson were gone and Hinkley became prophet, the focus became more intent on Public Relations and image. The church who was traditionally an "in house" opperation was outsourcing it's PR to Madison Ave. Hinckley was trading hard core Mormonism for lots of media exposure.
The man seems almost cocky in his very old age and the "hold onto the iron rod" of past prophets seems to be gone in Hinckley. The man is a huge celebrity in Mormon circles but now he's compromised his religion and tradition to mainstream so he can rub shoulders with media giants like Larry King and Mike Wallace. I'm expecting to see Hinckley on Oprah before he kicks off.
Meanwhile the yes men in Salt Lake and the stupid church members praise Hinckley for bringing the church out of obscurity. For me, he was a man who was willing to compromise church doctrine for PR. His constant tampering with the temple cerimony shows Hinckley vain attempt to make the church more politically correct but somehow hold on to the old controlling cult ways of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Well, the church can't have it both ways and the smart people are leaving because it's obviousely a twisted organization of man.
| Palmyra Stake President Continues In The Hinckley Tradition Of "I Don't Know That We Teach That", Denies Knowing Specifics Of The Man-God Doctrine |
Monday, Dec 12, 2005, at 02:01 AM
Original Author(s): Marketta Gregory
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| From the Democrat and Chronicle:
"Cook believes, for example, that people will progress throughout eternity because the Bible talks about the faithful being heirs with God and joint heirs with Jesus. Some people say that means individuals have the potential to be gods of their own worlds, "but we really don't know the specifics," Cook said."
Gordon B. Hinckley's continue teaching of "I don't know" and "I don't know that we teach that" is starting to catch on. Gordon's continual denial of actual Mormon Corporation Doctrine is spreading. Mormons can easily dismiss hard-hitting questions simply by stating, "I don't know that we teach that," or in this case, "I don't know the specifics."
Deny. Deny. Deny. Testify. Testify. Testify.
Some references for you on the Man-God doctrine taught by Mormonism:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God........yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...." (from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)
"He [God] is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;" (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333)
"You and I--what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we have, and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms! We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: 'As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.'" (President Spencer W. Kimball in "Our Great Potential" from the April 1977 Priesthood Session of General Conference)
"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven...have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state....they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever." (Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 23)
I'm sure that as the LDS Corporation cleans up it's history and molds Joseph Smith into the new Jesus Christ, this doctrine will be phased out - just as dozens and dozens of previously taught doctrines will also be phased out. As Mormonism becomes more main-stream, expect to see these kinds of responses from Mormons more and more.
| Statements Of LDS Prophets About God - Is Gordon B. Hinckley A True Prophet Of God Like Joseph Smith? |
Thursday, Dec 15, 2005, at 08:13 AM
Original Author(s): Richard Packham
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Joseph Smith andnbsp; ("King Follett Discourse," Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345):
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us.... Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves,... the same as all Gods have done before you..."
Brigham Young andnbsp;(Journal of Discourses 7:333):
"He [God] is our Father - the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being."
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses 3:93):
"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself."
Milton R. Hunter (The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104):
"Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey."
Bruce R. McConkie (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 ed p 250):
"...God...is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man..."
Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation 1:10, 1954, cited from 21st printing 1975):
"God is an exalted man. Some people are trouble over the statements of the Prophet Joseph Smith ... that our Father in heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man..."
LeGrand Richards (private letter to Morris L. Reynolds, July 14, 1966):
"There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church Works, it is accepted as church doctrine, and this is: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.'" (cited by Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, p 164
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young (published by the church as an official lesson manual 1997 [text "approved 10/95"], p. 29):
"President Brigham Young taught ... that God the Father was once a man on another planet who 'passed the ordeals we are now passing through...'"
Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:
Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about. [emphasis added]
Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. andnbsp;
...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.'" [emphasis added]
A spokesman for Hinckley, when questioned about the accuracy of the Time quotation, asserted that Hinckley's words were taken out of context, and that Hinckley was thus misquoted. The Time reporter, however, has made available the pertinent part of the transcript of his interview with Hinckley. Here is the relevant excerpt from President Hinckley's interview with Time:
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.
Q: ... 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 was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it. [emphasis added]
THE PROPHETS SPEAK:
"It is the first principle of the Gospel to
know for a certainty the character of
God and to know...andnbsp; that he was once a
man like us..."
JOSEPH SMITH, JR.:
GORDON B. HINCKLEY:
[Q. Was God once a man?] "I don't
know. ... I wouldn't say that... I don't
know that we teach it... We don't know
very much about [that]... I don't know a
lot about it"
andcopy;andnbsp; 1998 Richard Packham andnbsp;andnbsp;
Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included
| With all the posts here about how Mormons practically worship Joseph Smith, in spite of their denials, I thought I'd re-post Hinckley's First Presidency Message from the December 1997 "Ensign," for those who aren't aware of it. It's amusing that despite all the money the church spends on PR efforts to show that they're a Christian church, and despite their denials of worshipping Smith, they still say or do things which elevate Smith as an object of near-Godlike adoration. All of their painstaking PR efforts are washed away by things like the lame-brain Joseph Smith nativity scene at BYU and Hinckley's remarks quoted below.
Note that although this was Hinckley's Christmas message---you know, CHRIST, and all that---the first 20 sentences of his speech were praise of Joseph Smith. And it wasn't even Smith's 200th birthday, either. Church leaders have 10 "Ensigns" per year, besides Christmas and Easter, in which they can lionize Smith all they wish to; but Hinckley elected to pre-empt Christmas 1997 with a Smithmas message.
Gordon B. Hinckley, "A Season for Gratitude" Ensign, Dec. 1997:
"This is a season for giving and a time for gratitude. We remember with appreciation the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which is celebrated this same month of December, two days before Christmas.
How great indeed is our debt to him. His life began in Vermont and ended in Illinois, and marvelous were the things that happened between that simple beginning and tragic ending. It was he who brought us a true knowledge of God, the Eternal Father, and His Risen Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. During the short time of his great vision he learned more concerning the nature of Deity than all of those who through centuries had argued the matter in learned councils and scholarly forums. He brought us the marvelous Book of Mormon as another witness for the living reality of the Son of God. To him, from those who held it anciently, came the priesthood, the power, the gift, the authority, the keys to speak and act in the name of God. He gave us the organization of the Church and its great and sacred mission. Through him were restored the keys of the holy temples, that men and women might enter into eternal covenants with God and that the great work for the dead might be accomplished to open the way for eternal blessings.
Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.
(“Praise to the Man,” Hymns, no. 27)
He was the instrument in the hands of the Almighty. He was the servant acting under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ in bringing to pass this great latter-day work.
We stand in reverence before him. He is the great prophet of this dispensation. He stands at the head of this great and mighty work which is spreading across the earth. He is our prophet, our revelator, our seer, our friend. Let us not forget him. Let not his memory be forgotten in the celebration of Christmas. God be thanked for the Prophet Joseph."
| Forget The Eyewash Offered By Hinckley: The Real Reason Why LDS Inc. Is Building More Temples In Utah |
Tuesday, Dec 20, 2005, at 08:11 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| In the Saturday morning session of the October 2005 General Conference, Gordon B. Hinckley attempted to justify the flurry of even more temple building in Utah: |
"We have previously announced a new temple in the southeast quadrant of the Salt Lake Valley. We have two other excellent sites in the west and southwest areas of the valley through the kindness of the developers of these properties. The first one on which we will build is in the so-called Daybreak development, and this morning we make public announcement of that. You may ask why we favor Utah so generously. It is because the degree of activity requires it." (emphasis added)
Mormon activity rates in Utah justify more temple building?
There are at least two major reasons to question Hinckley's veracity in making such a claim.
First, how can supposedly busy-bee Utah Mormon activity rates justify Hinckley's insistence that more and more Mormon temples are needed in Utah when, in fact, Utah's Mormon population is steadily declining?
Just three months before Hinckley's defense for putting up more Utah temples, the Salt Lake Tribune reported:
"Within the next three years, the Mormon share of Utah's population is expected to hit its lowest level since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints started keeping membership numbers. And if current trends continue, LDS residents no longer will constitute a majority by 2030."
Second, contrary to Hinckley's assertion that the "degree of [Utah Mormon] activity requires" more temple building in the heart of lyin' Zion, is it not more likely that what is really driving urgent temple construction there is LDS Inc.'s increasing dependancy on decreasing member cash to run its corporate empire in a world where Mormonism growth and activity rates are markedly declining?
In the face of these falling rates, the LDS Cult is most likely finding itself increasingly reliant on cash infusions from its core support group: namely, its tried and true Utah Mormon fanatic fan base.
Money from Mormons is exacted through tithing. Tithing is squeezed out of Mormons who are forced to pay in order to qualify for temple (and eventually, Celestial Kingdom) admission.
Therefore, LDS Inc. is almost without question building more temples in Utah in order to shake down Utah Mormons for more money--not (contrary to Hinckley's claim) because Utah Mormon activity rates are blessedly booming.
Again, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported just three months before Hinckley's questionable justification for juiced-up Utah temple building, Mormon activity rates (and, hence, tithe-paying rates) are taking a hit Church-wide:
"The number of Latter-day Saints who are considered active churchgoers is only about a third of the total . . ."
Exacerbating Mormonism's member-generated cash-flow problem, the Cult's convert baptism rate is also dropping.
Once more, from the Salt Lake Tribune:
"According to LDS-published statistics, the annual number of LDS converts declined from a high of 321,385 in 1996 to 241,239 in 2004. In the 1990s, the church's growth rate went from 5 percent a year to 3 percent."
"When the Graduate Center of the City University of New York [CUNY] conducted an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, it discovered that about the same number of people said they had joined the LDS Church as said they had left it. The CUNY survey reported the church's net growth was zero percent."
Hinckley clearly has profits more than prophets on his mind these days.
The Mormon Cult is taking it on the chin in growth, rates, activity rates and donation rates--all of them closely-intertwined financial facts which are most likely forcing it to throw up more temples in Utah in order to suck more cash out of its core donor base that resides there.
C'mon, Gordon, how dumb do you think we are?
| Gordon B. Hinckley Carries Around A Knife In His Pocket, Takes It Out, Puts It On His Nose And Tries To Stick It In His Desk As A Trick |
Friday, Dec 23, 2005, at 08:29 AM
Original Author(s): Kutv.com
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| From KUTV.COM:
"The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pulls out a pocket knife, balances the tip gingerly on his nose, flips his wrist and lets go. The blade stabs at the top of the walnut desk, an heirloom used by two previous presidents, but doesn't stick.
``My brother and I used to play mumble peg for hours,'' says the 95-year-old Gordon B. Hinckley, retrieving the knife to try again. It was a rare, unscripted moment for the shepherd of 12 million Mormon souls _ one that left his public-relations executives wincing.
To those who know him well, the moment is pure Hinckley, a man revered by his followers as a prophet of God and a third-generation Mormon who became the 15th president of the church in 1995."
| Gordon B. Hinckley was recently interviewed by the Associated Press which was then published in the Deseret News. When asked if the LDS Church is the "only true and living church upon the whole Earth", Hinckley really didn't answer anything:
"This is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole Earth which I, the Lord, am pleased." Now, where does that leave other churches? We believe that all churches do great good. We believe in the virtue in the lives of other people in other churches. We acknowledge the tremendous accomplishments of other churches. Our position is simply this, we say, you bring all the good that you have, wherever you have acquired it, and see if we may add to it."
Hinckley is quite the politician. Answer the question without answering the question. When asked if the Mormon Church was the only true and living church, Hinckley simply responded "This is the only ... Church ... Which I am Pleased." Hinckley of course forgets to mention the Book Of Mormon calls all other religions "Whores" of the earth. He forgets to mention all of the books written by past Prophets and Apostles of Mormonism outright attacking other churches for being "Whores".
When asked why does Mormonism necro-baptise people without permission, Hinckley states:
"there's no injury done to anybody"
Hinckley doesn't seem to understand the personal injury done to the families of those who's dead loved ones are being necro-dunked in Mormon Temples - those who are not of the Mormon faith. And when large organizations stand up to the Mormon Church, the Church says it will change it's ways but goes right ahead and keeps dead dunking any name they can get their hands on.
When Hinckley is asked "Some scholars say historical records point to discrepancies with the official church history. How do you reconcile the differences? And what is the church's position on historical scholarship? Because by extension they try to damage the church in some way?" Hinckley parrots the line back, "Try to damage the church, yes."
Hinckley does a marvelous job of continually standing for nothing. Why doesn't anyone have the balls to ask this old fart the real hard questions? Why don't they ask him follow-up questions when he tows the standard line? These reporters allow the Mormon Church to continue down a path of deceit and outright lies.
| Trusting The Google God Or The Mormon God?--Dissecting Gordon B. Hinckley's Latest Media Act, "Lie Upon Lie, Decept Upon Decept" (part One Of Two ) |
Tuesday, Dec 27, 2005, at 07:59 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Introduction: Hinckley Beguiles and Smiles His Way Through Another Devious Interview with the Press |
In a recent conversation with Associated Press reporter Jennifer Dobner, headlined “Chat with Mormon leader,” LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley uttered some astoundingly false and misleading statements.
(For the complete text of the interview, see:
Those of us in the ex-Mormon community are not, of course, surprised at Hinckley's misdirects and mischaracterizations. After all, he has proven himself to be the Consumate Carnival Barker of Mormonism.
Just for the record, however (and for those perhaps struggling with their Mormon testimonies in false “prophets” such as Hinckley and all his LDS predecessors), let us dissect Hinckley’s deceits--lie upon lie, "decept" upon "decept."
Below are highlighted Hinckley’s breathtakingly dishonest claims made during that interview, counter-balanced with actual, historical reality--just a click away at Google.
What will be demonstrated by this examination is how the Google God trumps the Mormon God and how, in the process, the Intenet is steadily succeeding in undermining the conniving efforts of the LDS Cult’s highest leadership to lie and deceive in public.
HINCKLEY LIES ABOUT THE MORMON CULT BEING CHRISTIAN
AP: ”Why do you think the LDS Church is not perceived as a Christian church?”
Hinckley: ”Of course we're Christian. The very name of the church declares that. No one believes more strongly in the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more strongly in the power of his redeeming sacrifice.
"The Book of Mormon is another witness for the divinity and reality of Jesus Christ. The more people see us and come to know us, the more I believe they will come to realize that we are trying to exemplify in our lives and in our living the great ideals which he taught.”
Google God Fact Check:
According to the “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry,” Mormonism--doctrinally-speaking--clearly does not qualify as a Christian denomination:
”’Is Mormonism Christian?’ is a very important question. The answer is equally important and simple. No. Mormonism is not Christian. . . .
“The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it, like any other cult, denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically), Mormonism distorts two of them: the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation. [original emphasis]
”Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8).
"This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he [Jesus] is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time.
"Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is ‘a’ god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40, [original emphasis]).
"These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). . . .
”Because Mormonism errors in who Jesus is, salvation (the forgiveness of sins) does not occur and the Mormon is still in his sins. Christians are saved from their sins and judgment by putting their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. But, faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. The Mormon Jesus is not the one of the Bible, even though they call him Jesus, say he died for sins, and was born in Bethlehem. The Mormon Jesus does not exist. It is the nature of Jesus that is the issue. Jesus must be God in flesh, (second person of the Trinity) not ‘a’ god in flesh who is the brother of the devil. He must be uncreated, not created. He must be the creator (Col. 1:16-17). This is who the true Jesus really is: God, creator, uncreated, not the brother of the devil. [original emphasis]
”Mormon theology teaches that God used to be a man on another planet, that He became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that He brought one of His wives to this world with whom He produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed. The Jesus of Mormonism is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn't exist. [original emphasis]
”Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, ‘The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil’ (Articles, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience" (Articles, p. 81). This contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18).
”To further confuse the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is two-fold. It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teach it. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible.
“Mormonism, to justify its aberrant theology, has undermined the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible. The 8th Article of Faith from the Mormon Church states, ‘We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.’ The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith allegedly corrected the Bible in what is called the Inspired Version, though it is not used by the LDS church. Though they claim they trust the Bible, in reality they do not. They use Mormon presuppositions to interpret it. For example, where the Bible says there are no other gods in the universe (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), they interpret it to mean ‘no other gods of this world.’ They do not trust what it says and they often state that the Bible is not translated correctly. . . .
”Why is Mormonism a non-Christian cult? Because it adds works to salvation. It denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator. It alters the biblical teaching of the atonement. It contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism. It undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible. [emphasis added]
”[This is not to] deny that Mormons are good people, that they worship ‘a’ god, that they share common words with Christians, that they help their people, and that they do many good things. However, Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, ‘Not everyone who says to Me, “'Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (NKJV). Becoming a Christian does not mean belonging to a church, doing good things, or simply believing in God. Being a Christian means that you have trusted in the true God for salvation, in the True Jesus --not the brother of the devil.” [emphasis added]
HINCKLEY LIES ABOUT MORMONISM’S FOUNDATIONAL DOCTRINE THAT THE LDS CHURCH IS THE SINGULARLY–AND ONLY–TRUE CHURCH OF GOD ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH; INDEED, HINCKLEY LIES ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE MORMON CHURCH HAS DENOUNCED CHRISTIANITY AS BEING UNGODLY
AP: ”In the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith says the [Mormon] church is ‘the only true and living church upon the whole Earth.’ Where does that leave other denominations?”
Hinckley: ” This is what he said: ‘This is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole Earth which I, the Lord, am pleased.’
"Now, where does that leave other churches? We believe that all churches do great good. We believe in the virtue in the lives of other people in other churches. We acknowledge the tremendous accomplishments of other churches.
"Our position is simply this, we say, you bring all the good that you have, wherever you have acquired it, and see if we may add to it.” [emphasis added]
Google God Fact Check:
According to the excellent online site, “Rethinking Mormonism,” ”[w]hile some current [Mormon] church leaders portray the LDS Church as Christian, the [LDS] church actually has a long history of condemning Christianity. The [Mormon] church has also stated repeatedly that no one can be saved without the permission of Joseph Smith. . . .
“Mormon Church Condemns Christians
”’This [the Mormon Church] is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth . . . ‘
- Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pp.164-65 [emphasis added]
“In bearing testimony of [the Mormon Cult’s] Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the [LDS] Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ:’
“’. . . The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'"
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p. [emphasis added] . . .
“’What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world.’
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270, [emphasis added]
”’ . . . [A]ll the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.’
- Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60 . . . [emphasis added]
“’With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.’
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199 . . . [emphasis added]
“’The Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called.’
- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196 . . . [emphasis added] . . .
“’Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom.’
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 10:127 [emphasis added]
”’What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast.’
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:22 [emphasis added]
“’What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing . . . Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God.’
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225 [emphasis added] . . .
”’He that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-Christ.’
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312 [emphasis added]
HINCKLEY LIES ABOUT THE MORMON CULT PRACTICE OF BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD
AP: ”The ordinance of the Baptism for the Dead has been a source of controversy. What is it that people don't understand about it and can you appreciate that some might see it as a form of religious imperialism?”
Hinckley: ”Well, if they wish to so regard it.
"But they must realize the performing of the ordinance does not mean acceptance of the ordinance. Those for who the ordinance is done do not necessarily have to accept it.”
AP: ”On the other side?”
Hinckley: ”On the other side. So there's no injury done to anybody.” [emphasis added]
If offending the descendants of Jewish Holocaust victims (whose loved one were first genocidally exterminated by Hitler, then secretly necro-baptized into the Mormon Cult without their families’ knowledge or consent) does not constitute “injury,” then nothing does.
If the Mormon Cult promising these deeply offended Jews that it will discontinue this grossly violative practice in manhandling their dead (then failing to follow through on that promise) does not constitute “injury,” nothing does.
Google God Fact Check
According to Cable News Network’s international reporting, Jews felt so offensively injured by the boundary-busting practice of Mormon necro-baptism that they demanded (and ultimately received) a meeting with Mormon Cult leaders in their efforts to bring about a cessation of the practice:
”Mormons meet with Jews over baptizing Holocaust victims . . . December 11, 2002 . . .
“SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP)--Mormon and Jewish leaders met Tuesday in New York City to discuss the Mormon church's apparent breach of its agreement not to posthumously baptize Holocaust victims and other deceased Jews.
“Mormon leaders requested the meeting with Ernest Michel, chairman of the World Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors who helped broker the 1995 agreement with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said church spokesman Dale Bills. . . .
“Baptisms for the dead are performed inside Mormon temples, with a church member immersed in water in place of the deceased person. Names of the deceased are gathered by church members from genealogy records as well as death and governmental documents from around the world.
“’For Latter-day Saints, the practice of proxy baptism is a means of expressing love and concern for those who have preceded us. It is a freewill offering,’ Bills said. . . .
“Independent researcher Helen Radkey, who prepared a report for Michel, is certain the agreement has been broken. In her research of the church's extensive genealogical database, she found at least 20,000 Jews-- some of whom died in Nazi concentration camps--were baptized after they died.
“’There shouldn't be one single death camp record in those files,’” Radkey said.
“Radkey has been researching Jews included in the Mormon databases since 1999, when she found Anne Frank and her extended family listed as being baptized.
“Also among those baptized posthumously by the church, according to Radkey's research: Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Buddha.
“Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said the Mormon church needs to rein in its members if it is serious about its pledge to stop baptizing Holocaust victims.
“’If these people did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don't call me, I'll call you,’ Hier said. ‘With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.’”
Google God Fact Check:
According to the online site for National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition,” the Mormon Cult has re-promised to stop its dunkin-the-dead “in behalf” of Hitler's murdered Jewish victims:
Mormons Aim to Stop 'Baptism' of Holocaust Victims [by Howard Berkes] . . .
“April 12, 2005--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes another attempt to address concerns of Jewish groups who complain that Holocaust victims are showing up on Mormon baptism rolls. Mormons believe that after death, baptisms save souls. Ten years ago, Mormon leaders agreed to try to stop this practice. Now, they vow to try again.” . . .
Google God Fact Check:
According to the online encyclopedia “Wikipedia,” under the heading “Holocaust Victim Controversy, the Mormon Church has violated its own guidelines in performing its necro-baptisms,” the LDS Cult has a bad habit of not honoring its word on the matter:
”It is asserted that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made it a long term practice to vicariously baptize the Holocaust's Jewish victims and other prominent individuals. However, Church policy states that Church members submit their own names for these type of ordinances, and require that a surviving family member's permission be obtained for any Baptism that is to be performed of deceased individuals that have died within a certain time period (usually 50-75 years). [emphasis added]
“However, some baptisms were done for Holocaust Victims, without proper approval or permission. When this information became public, it generated vocal criticism of the LDS Church . . . from Jewish groups, who found this ritual to be insulting and insensitive. . . .
"Partly as a result of public pressure, [Mormon] Church leaders in 1995 promised to put into place new policies that would help stop the practice, unless specifically requested or approved by relatives of the victims. [emphasis added]
“In late 2002, information surfaced that members of the [Mormon] Church had not stopped this practice despite directives from the [Mormon] Church leadership to its members, and criticism from Jewish groups began again.
"The Simon Wiesenthal Center, Los Angeles, is on record as opposing the vicarious baptism of Holocaust victims. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Center holds: ‘If these people did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don't call me, I'll call you. With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.’ Recently Church leaders have agreed to meet with leaders of the World Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.
“In December 2002, independent researcher Helen Radkey published a report showing that the [Mormon] Church's 1995 promise to remove Jewish Nazi victims from its 'International Genealogical Index' was not sufficient; her research of the [Mormon] Church's database uncovered the names of about 19,000 who had a 40 to 50 percent chance of having ‘the potential to be Holocaust victims . . . in Russia, Poland, France, and Austria.’
“Genealogist Bernard Kouchel conducted a search of the 'International Genealogical Index,' and discovered that many well-known Jews have been vicariously baptized, including Rashi, Maimonides, Albert Einstein, Menachem Begin, Irving Berlin, Marc Chagall, and Gilda Radner.
"Some permissions may have been obtained, but there is not currently a system in place to ensure that these permissions have been obtained, which has angered many in various religious and cultural communities. [emphasis added]
“In 2004, Schelly Talalay Dardashti, Jewish genealogy columnist for The Jerusalem Post noted that Jews, even those with no Mormon descendants, are being rebaptised after being removed from the rolls. In an interview, D. Todd Christofferson, a [Mormon] church official, told the New York Times that it was not feasible for [Mormon] church to continuously monitor the archives to ensure that no new Jewish names appear. The agreement referred to above did not place this type of responsibility on the centralized [Mormon] Church leadership.”
HINCKLEY LIES ABOUT THE MORMON DOCTRINE OF POLYGAMY
AP: ”The [Mormon] church seems to have difficulty distancing itself from the its history of polygamy. You've said there are no fundamentalist Mormons, but these groups still practice polygamy and still claim Joseph Smith as their own. How do you resolve that dilemma?”
Hinckley: ”Well, let me just say this, the doctrine came of revelation and was discontinued by revelation. We believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. And so, we have very little sympathy with those who disobey the law in this manner.” [emphasis added]
Google God Fact Check:
The way Hinckley slyly tells it, Mormons no longer believe that polygamy is revealed doctrine of the Mormon God.
According, however, to an online analysis of a typically-deceptive LDS press release on polygamy:
”Polygamy is still a canonized doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [emphasis added]
“Many polygamists claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church.
“Many members leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in order to join Mormon faiths that practice polygamy. Many other LDS practice polygamy very discretely within the [LDS] church.
“Many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are descended from polygamous ancestors. . . .
“New polygamous marriages were solemnized from about 1831 until 1904. . . . After 1904 new polygamous marriages were forbidden, but LDS men still continued to cohabitate with their wives until they died, perhaps as late as 1976.
“The LDS church is one of the few Mormon faiths that caved in to the federal governments demand that polygamy be abandoned. The overwhelming majority of the other Mormon churches still practice polygamy.”
Google God Fact Check:
Another Mormon-exposing website emphasizes the fact that despite excommunicating polygamist today, the Mormon Cult teaches (and its followers blindly believe) that the practice of doctrinal polygamy will eventually be reinstated by divine decree:
”Mormons and Polygamy
“A Mormon person who extolls the virtues of plural marriage . . . would be better described as a lapsed or ex-Mormon, or as just a Utah resident!, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints generally excommunicates practicing polygamists.
”Mormons do, however, respect the principle of polygamy. They practiced plural marriage in the late 1800s, and they still believe it was ordained by God. The Mormon Prophet Joseph F. Smith felt so strongly about it that, even after our 1890 Manifesto forbidding polygamy, he allowed the practice to continue. In 1904, he even testified falsely before Congress that there had been no authorized plural marriages since 1890. [emphasis added]
”This is difficult to comprehend unless you realize how deeply engrained the principle is in the Mormon religion. They regard it as a divine order, and also still revere those early polygamists. Mormons believe their marriages were sealed for eternity and that polygamy is the order of Heaven. [emphasis added]
”Mormon leaders have taught that God has at least one wife, our Mother in Heaven, and that Jesus Christ has several wives. And Mormons still perform plural marriages in temples today . . . uniting living individuals in polygamous marriages with deceased Mormons. . . . [emphasis added]
”And although there leaders taught that polygamy would someday return, they might be turning over in their graves if they knew the effort would be spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union, which called for legalization in 1991.” [emphasis added]
Google God Fact Check:
On Jerald Sandra Tanner’s online “Utah Lighthouse Ministry” website, the following question is clearly raised--and promptly answered:
”Does the LDS Church still believe in polygamy?
”Yes, the doctrine of polygamy is still in their scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants, section 132. Mormons are instructed not to practice polygamy during this life but the practice will be permitted in heaven. Today if a Mormon man outlives his first wife (after having a temple marriage) he can marry again in the temple. This would guarantee him two wives in heaven.” [emphasis added]
HINCKLEY LIES ABOUT THE ALLEGED OPENNESS AND HONESTY OF MORMON CULT HISTORY
AP: ”Some scholars say historical records point to discrepancies with the official [Mormon] church history. How do you reconcile the differences? And what is the [Mormon] church's position on historical scholarship?”
Hinckley: ”Well, we have nothing to hide. Our history is an open book. They may find what they are looking for, but the fact is the history of the [Mormon] church is clear and open and leads to faith and strength and virtues.”
AP: “If that's so, why have some people either been disfellowshipped or excommunicated for the things they have written?”
Hinckley: ”There have been very few of them. It's only when they begin to teach what they believe to try to influence others that action is taken against them.” [emphasis added]
AP: ”Because by extension they try to damage the church in some way?”
Hinckley: ”Try to damage the church, yes.”
Google God Fact Check:
As former Mormon Richard Packham states in his website article, “To Those Who Are Investigating ‘Mormonism,’” there are many items of historical reality that the Mormon Cult hides from both members and non-members:
”Since the founding of the [Mormon] church down to the present-day, . . . . [LDS] church leaders have not hesitated to lie, to falsify documents, to rewrite or suppress history, or to do whatever is necessary to protect the image of the [LDS] church. Many Mormon historians have been excommunicated from the church for publishing their findings on the truth of Mormon history.” [emphasis added]
Under the sub-heading, “What the Missionaries Will Not Tell You,” Packham details the official approach of lies and deception that the Mormon Cult employs when recounting its doctrine and “history:”
”Here is a summary of important facts about the Mormon church, its doctrine, and its history that the [Mormon] missionaries will probably not tell you. We are not suggesting that they are intentionally deceiving you--most of the young Mormons serving missions for the [LDS] church are not well-educated in the history of the church or in modern critical studies of the [LDS] church. They probably do not know the all the facts themselves. They have been trained, however, to give investigators ‘milk before meat,’ that is, to postpone revealing anything at all that might make an investigator hesitant, even if it is true. But you should be aware of these facts before you commit yourself.
"Each of the following facts has been substantiated by thorough historical scholarship. And this list is by no means exhaustive! . . .
--“The "First Vision" story in the form presented to you was unknown until 1838, eighteen years after its alleged occurrence and almost ten years after Smith had begun his missionary efforts. The oldest (but quite different) version of the vision is in Smith's own handwriting, dating from about 1832 (still at least eleven years afterwards), and says that only one personage, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. It also mentions nothing about a revival. It also contradicts the later account as to whether Smith had already decided that no church was true. Still a third version of this event is recorded as a recollection in Smith's diary, fifteen years after the alleged vision, where one unidentified ‘personage’ appeared, then another, with a message implying that neither was the Son. They were accompanied by many ‘angels,’ which are not mentioned in the official version you have been told about. Which version is correct, if any? Why was this event, now said by the church to be so important, unknown for so long? . . .
--“Careful study of the religious history of the locale where Smith lived in 1820 casts doubt on whether there actually was such an extensive revival that year as Smith and his family later described as associated with the ‘First Vision.’ The revivals in 1817 and 1824 better fit what Smith described later. . . . [original emphasis]
--“In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the Presbyterians. . . .
--“Contemporaries of Smith consistently described him as something of a confidence man, whose chief source of income was hiring out to local farmers to help them find buried treasure by the use of folk magic and ‘seer stones.’ Smith was actually tried in 1826 on a charge of money-digging. . . . It is interesting that none of his critics seemed to be aware of his claim to have been visited by God in 1820, even though in his 1838 account he claimed that he had suffered "great persecution" for telling people of his vision.
--“The only persons who claimed to have actually seen the gold plates were eleven close friends of Smith (many of them related to each other). Their testimonies are printed in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. No disinterested third party was ever allowed to examine them. They were retrieved by the angel at some unrecorded point. Most of the witnesses later abandoned Smith and left his movement. Smith then called them ‘liars.’ . . .
--“Smith produced most of the ‘translation’ not by reading the plates through the Urim and Thummim (described as a pair of sacred spectacles), but by gazing at the same 'seer stone' he had used for treasure hunting. He would place the stone into his hat, and then cover his face with it. For much of the time he was dictating, the gold plates were not even present, but in a hiding place. . . .
--“The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-Columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-Columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian -definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian. . . .
--“The people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormon there is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it. . . .
--“Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 ‘correct,’ many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the [Mormon} church.
"For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced ‘white’ with ‘pure,’ apparently to reflect the change in the [Mormon] church's stance on the ‘curse.’ of the black race. . . .
--“Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon contained the ‘fulness of the gospel.’ However, its teaching on many doctrinal subjects has been ignored or contradicted by the present LDS church, and many doctrines now said by the church to be essential are not even mentioned there. Examples are the church's position on the nature of God, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, polygamy, Hell, priesthood, secret organizations, the nature of Heaven and salvation, temples, proxy ordinances for the dead, and many other matters. . . .
--“Many of the basic historical notions found in the Book of Mormon had appeared in print already in 1825, just two years before Smith began producing the Book of Mormon, in a book called View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith (no relation) and published just a few miles from where Joseph Smith lived. A careful study of this obscure book led one LDS church official (the historian B. H. Roberts, 1857-1933) to confess that the evidence tended to show that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient record, but concocted by Joseph Smith himself, based on ideas he had read in the earlier book. . . .
--“Although Mormons claim that God is guiding the LDS church through its president (who has the title 'prophet, seer and revelator'), the successive 'prophets' have repeatedly either led the church into undertakings that were dismal failures or failed to see approaching disaster. To mention only a few: the Kirtland Bank, the United Order, the gathering of Zion to Missouri, the Zion's Camp expedition, polygamy, the Deseret Alphabet . . .
"A recent example is the successful hoax perpetrated on the [mORMON] church by manuscript dealer Mark Hofmann in the 1980s. He succeeded in selling the church thousands of dollars worth of manuscripts which he had forged. The [Mormon] church and its ‘prophet, seer and revelator’ accepted them as genuine historical documents. . . . [Mormon] church leaders learned the truth not from God, through revelation, but from non-Mormon experts and the police, after Hofmann was arrested for two murders he committed to cover up his hoax. This scandal was reported nationwide. . . . .
--“The secret temple ritual (the ‘endowment’) was introduced by Smith in May, 1842, just two months after he had been initiated into Freemasonry. The LDS temple ritual closely resembles the Masonic ritual of that day. . . . Smith explained that the Masons had corrupted the ancient (God-given) ritual by changing it and removing parts of it, and that he was restoring it to its ‘pure’ and 'original' (and complete) form, as revealed to him by God. In the years since, the LDS church has made many fundamental changes in the ‘pure and original’ ritual as ‘restored’ by Smith, mostly by removing major parts of it. . . .
--“Many doctrines which were once taught by the LDS church, and held to be fundamental, essential and ‘eternal,’ have been abandoned. Whether we feel that the [Mormon] church was correct in abandoning them is not the point; rather, the point is that a church claiming to be the church of God takes one ‘everlasting’ position at one time and the opposite position at another, all the time claiming to be proclaiming the word of God.
"Some examples are:
*“The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father); . . .
*”the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church);
*”Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven); . . .
*”the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978); . . .
*”Blood Atonement (some sins--apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage-- must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by [Mormon] church authorities); . . .
”All of these doctrines were proclaimed by the reigning prophet to be the Word of God, ‘eternal,’ ‘everlasting,’ to govern the [Mormon] church ‘forevermore.’ All have been abandoned by the present [Mormon] church.
--“Joseph Smith's early revelations were collected and first published in 1833 in the Book of Commandments. God (as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 1 and 67) supposedly testified by revelation that the revelations as published were true and correct. Because the Book of Commandments did not receive wide distribution (most copies were destroyed by angry opponents of the Mormons in Missouri, where it was published), they were republished--with additional revelations--as the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835 in Kirtland, Ohio. However, many of the revelations as published in Kirtland differed fundamentally from their versions as originally given. The changes generally gave more power and authority to Smith, and justified changes he was making in [LDS] church organization and theology. The question naturally arises as to why revelations which God had pronounced correct needed to be revised. . . .
--“Joseph Smith claimed to be a ‘translator’ by the power of God. In addition to the Book of Mormon, he made several other ‘translations:’
*”The Book of Abraham, from Egyptian papyrus scrolls which came into his possession in 1835. He stated that the scrolls were written by the biblical Abraham ‘by his own hand.’ Smith's translation is now accepted as scripture by the LDS church, as part of its Pearl of Great Price. Smith also produced an ‘Egyptian Grammar’ based on his translation. Modern scholars of ancient Egyptian agree that the scrolls are common Egyptian funeral scrolls, entirely pagan in nature, having nothing to do with Abraham, and from a period 2000 years later than Abraham. The 'Grammar' has been said by Egyptologists to prove that Smith had no notion of the Egyptian language. It is pure fantasy: he made it up. . . . [original emphasis]
*”The ‘Inspired Revision’ of the King James Bible. Smith was commanded by God to retranslate the Bible because the existing translations contained errors. He completed his translation in 1833, but the church still uses the King James Version. . . .
*”The ‘Kinderhook Plates,’ a group of six metal plates with strange engraved characters, unearthed in 1843 near Kinderhook, Illinois, and examined by Smith, who began a ‘translation’ of them. He never completed the translation, but he identified the plates as an ‘ancient record,’ and translated enough to identify the author as a descendant of Pharaoh. Local farmers later confessed that they had manufactured, engraved and buried the plates themselves as a hoax. They had apparently copied the characters from a Chinese tea box. . . .
--“Joseph Smith claimed to be a ‘prophet.’ He frequently prophesied future events ‘by the power of God.’ Many of these prophecies are recorded in the LDS scripture Doctrine and Covenants. Almost none have been fulfilled, and many cannot now be fulfilled because the deeds to be done by the persons named were never done and those persons are now dead. Many prophecies included dates for their fulfillment, and those dates are now long past, the events never having occurred. . . .
--“Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots. He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons. At that time he had announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, set up a secret government, and secretly had himself crowned ‘King of the Kingdom of God.’ . . .
”--Since the founding of the [Mormon] church down to the present day the church leaders have not hesitated to lie, to falsify documents, to rewrite or suppress history, or to do whatever is necessary to protect the image of the church. Many Mormon historians have been excommunicated from the church for publishing their findings on the truth of Mormon history. [emphasis added] . . .
--“Mormonism includes many other unusual doctrines which you will probably not be told about until you have been in the church for a long time. These doctrines are not revealed to investigators or new converts because those people are not yet considered ready to have more than 'milk' as doctrine. The Mormons also probably realize that if investigators knew of these unusual teachings they would not join the [Mormon] church. In addition to those mentioned elsewhere in this article, the following are noteworthy: . . .
"*God was once a man like us.
"*God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.
"*God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
"*God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her nor pray to her.
"*We can become like God and rule over our own universe.
"*There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.
"*Jesus and Satan ('Lucifer') are brothers, and they are our brothers - we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father.
"*Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.
"*We should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.
"*The "Lord" ('Jehovah') in the Old Testament is the being named Jesus in the New Testament, but different from 'God' ('Elohim').
"*In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.
"*Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a ‘pre-existence,’ during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.
"*Dark skin is a curse from God, the result of our sin, or the sin of our ancestors. If sufficiently righteous, a dark-skinned person will become light-skinned.
"*The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere."
HINCKLEY LIES ABOUT THE MORMON CULT’S BIGOTED INTOLERANCE TOWARD GAYS AND LESBIANS
AP: ”The First Presidency's Proclamation on the Family issued 10 years ago set the nuclear family--husband, wife and children--apart as the idea. But family structures are changing and some of those include gay and lesbian Mormons who are parents. Is there room in the church for those families?”
Hinckley: ”Let me put it this way. Our hearts reach out to those who have this problem. We try to help them. Friendship them. Love them. Work with them. But if they violate moral standards, then they are just like anybody else. They have done that which causes the church to take action, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.”
Google God Fact Check:
An article entitled, “The LDS Church and Homosexuality: Past and Present” (appearing on a website maintained by the “Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance”), lists the damning historical evidence against Hinckley’s claim of the Mormon Cult's supposed love and tolerance for gays and lesbians:
”Recent anti-homosexual statements and positions:
“1976: The [Mormon] Church may have been the leading religious organization in the fight against the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) which would have given equal rights to women in the US. The LDS President at the time, Spencer Kimball, said that a main concern was that the ERA would lead to changes in civil rights laws to give equal rights to gays and lesbians.
“1976: The [Mormon] Church changed its excommunication rules to allow termination of membership of persons with homosexual feelings. Previously, members could only be excommunicated for homosexual acts. This policy was later reversed.
“1976: [Mormon] Church Apostle Boyd K. Packer delivered a speech on October 2, 1976, which was directed to "young men of Aaronic Priesthood age"; i.e. to young men. His talk dealt with sexuality and the young male. It was widely distributed throughout the LDS church at the time. Packer is currently the acting president of the Quorum of 12 Apostles. With reference to homosexual activities, he is reported as saying:
“’I repeat, very plainly, physical mischief with another man is forbidden. It is forbidden by the Lord.
"'There are some men who entice young men to join them in these immoral acts. If you are ever approached to participate in anything like that, it is time to vigorously resist.
"'While I was in a mission on one occasion, a missionary said he had something to confess. I was very worried because he just could not get himself to tell me what he had done.
"After patient encouragement he finally blurted out, 'I hit my companion.'
"’Oh, is that all?’ I said in great relief.
“’But I floored him,’ he said.
“After learning a little more, my response was ‘Well, thanks. Somebody had to do it, and it wouldn't be well for a General Authority to solve the problem that way.’
“I am not recommending that course to you, but I am not omitting it. You must protect yourself.”
"([Packer’s] message has been interpreted in different ways:
“Many in the homosexual community believe that it is inexcusable for a senior official in the LDS church to imply that physical violence can be an appropriate response to an approach by a same-sex individual. A simple ‘No thanks; that is not my orientation’" would probably have sufficed.
“At least one Mormon believes that Packer's message was that anti-gay violence is justified, but only if absolutely needed to avoid becoming a victim of homosexual rape).
"Packer went on to state that the belief that a person has an unchangeable sexual orientation is a malicious lie. [emphasis added]
”1981: LDS President Kimball wrote, ‘The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. . . . The Lord condemns and forbids this practice. . . . “God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves . . . . ”I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be "that way"?' . . .
“1988: [Mormon Church president] Ezra Taft Benson wrote that the Mormon male '. . . will not commit adultery "nor do anything like unto it" (DandC 59:6). This means fornication, homosexual behavior, self-abuse, child molestation, or any other sexual perversion.' . . .
“1990: A pamphlet sponsored by the First Presidency and titled 'For the Strength of Youth: Fulfilling Our Duty to God' said, "The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including all sexual relations before marriage, petting, sex perversion (such as homosexuality, rape and incest), masturbation or preoccupation with sex in thought, speech or action . . . Homosexual and lesbian activities are sinful and an abomination of the Lord (see Romans 1:26-27, 31). Unnatural affection including those toward persons of the same gender are counter to God's eternal plan for his children. You are responsible to make right choices. Whether directed toward those of the same or opposite gender, lustful feelings and desires may lead to more serious sins. All Latter-day Saints must learn to control and discipline themselves." (This statement was modified in a more inclusive direction during 2001). . . .
“1991: The First Presidency of the LDS Church stated on November 14, 1991, ‘Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexuality and lesbian [sic] behavior, is sinful.’
“1994: The First Presidency issued statements condemning same-sex unions and urging its members to do what they could to oppose extending equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
“1994 (approximate date): A prominent LDS leader, John A Hoag, became the leader of a new group, ‘Hawaii's Future Today (HFT).’ This was the main organization which fought against same-sex marriages in Hawaii. ‘HFT’ was composed mainly of Mormon and Roman Catholic members. Many professors from Brigham Young University, a Mormon institution, testified in defense of a ban on such marriages.
“1995: Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote a definitive article in the magazine Ensign, titled ‘Same Gender Attraction.’ Some points stated in his article were:
"1. God created attraction between men and women in order to promote marriage .
"2. Any sexual activity other than that between a married heterosexual couple are grave sins.
"3. God permits Satan to tempt humans to ‘choose evil and commit sin.’
"4. The terms ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian,' and ‘Gay’ are adjectives, (as in ‘homosexual feelings,’ or ‘lesbian behavior’) and should not be used as nouns to describe people.
"5. Some homosexual feelings appear to be caused by genes; others by experiences; others by a complex interaction between ‘nature and nurture.’
"6. A person can "resist and reform" their feelings through:
"*adsorbing the truths of the gospel,
"*[Mormon] church attendance and service,
"*counsel of inspired[Mormon] leaders, and
“(These beliefs appear to be at variance with reality. Many deeply devout Mormon and other Christian gays and lesbians have fought against their homosexual feelings and have prayed for ‘deliverance’ for decades without success. The success rate of persons attempting to change their sexual orientation appears to be less than 1%).
"7. The [LDS] church and its members should ‘love the [homosexual] sinner, condemn the sin.’
"8. [Mormon] Church membership is open to homosexuals who are honestly trying to resist and change their feelings; it is closed to practicing homosexuals.
"9. ‘Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called 'gay bashing'--physical of verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.’
"10. Homosexuality is not based on genetics. If it were, then 100% of identical twins of gays would also be gay.
"(Studies show that it is only a little over 50%).[Oaks] admitted that he had no specialized scientific knowledge in this area, but relied on other experts. Apparently he was misinformed by his consultants; they were apparently unaware of a function of genes called ‘penetrance.’ . . .
“1995: A group of parents of gay/lesbian children sent a letter to President Hinckley and the Quorum of the Twelve. . . . The parents mentioned:
"‘The 1992 church brochure entitled “Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems” seemed to moderate the position taken by the church as it relates to the parent's role as an etiological factor in homosexuality. A 1995 document, however, published by LDS Social Services for LDS counselors and psychotherapists, attempts to re-establish the position taken by the 1981 [Mormon] church publication on homosexuality which placed most of the blame for homosexuality on poor parenting, i.e. an absent or weak father and a dominant mother.’
“(The 1995 document stated, in part: ‘It is in the three-way relationship between the parents and the child that the homosexual's family background is commonly dysfunctional. Homosexuality is, in part, a symptom of some type of relational deficit.') . . .
“1997: Three Brigham Young University students conducted a student poll at the university.
”One question asked which of four statements best describes the Mormon church's stand on homosexuality. Responses were:
–“41% chose ‘Accepts homosexually oriented persons as long as they change their sexual orientation.’
--“33% selected ‘Accepts in full fellowship homosexually oriented persons who live the Church's law of chastity.’
--“10% believed that the [LDS] church excommunicates gays and lesbians regardless of whether they are celibate or sexually active.
--“10% marked ‘other.’
--“Another question asked whether they knew a gay or lesbian student at BYU. 13% did.
--“80% said that they would not share a room with a gay or lesbian roommate.
--“42% felt that gays and lesbians should not be allowed at BYU, even if they are celibate. The BYU honor code prohibits homosexual behavior, but does not mention homosexual orientation.
“2000: In advance of the annual General Conference in Salt Lake City, UT, some Mormon parents are asking the church to review a group of 20- to 30-year-old pamphlets which they feel condemn their children as ‘latter-day lepers.’ Four brochures mentioned are: ‘To Young Men Only,’ ‘To The One,’ ‘Letter to a Friend,’ and ‘For the Strength of Youth.’
”According [to] David Hardy, a Salt Lake City attorney and former LDS bishop, the [message of these] pamphlets ‘engenders fear and loathing’ toward gays and lesbians. They also convince ‘parents to condemn and turn against their gay children, destroying real families, and drive our gay children to self-loathing, despair and suicide.’ He noted that the ‘To Young Men Only’ pamphlet described, without condemnation, a gay bashing incident. Hardy commented that it is ‘inflammatory, insensitive and troubling.’
”Gary and Milie Watts of Provo, UT said that ‘these pamphlet . . . . characterize our children and other gay and lesbian youth as selfish, perverted, abominable and under the control of Lucifer.’
"Former LDS Church President Spencer Kimball has written that ‘it were better that such a man [a homosexual] were never born.’
"Another tract places homosexuality as a perversion on par with rape and incest. The ‘To The One’ pamphlet describes it as ‘unnatural,’ ‘abnormal’ and ‘an affliction.’
”The parents told reporters, ‘We ask the[Mormon} church leadership to specifically address these pamphlets . . . and either endorse them and everything they say as current, correct and official, or cease their publication and distribution and instruct local church leaders to throw them away.’ . . .
“The LDS church issued a statement saying: ‘These are individuals who are children of God. We love them; we respect them. This [the Mormon] church is a church of inclusion, not exclusion, and we welcome them and want them to be a part of the [Mormon] church.’ . . .
“2001: A new revision to pamphlet sponsored by the First Presidency and titled ‘For the Strength of Youth: Fulfilling Our Duty to Go’ says: ‘Homosexual activity is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.’
“2002: An article in the February 25, 2002, edition of The Nation by Katherine Rosman, titled ‘Mormon Family Values,’ referred to two LDS pamphlets and one speech on homosexuality by a Mormon leader:
“One pamphlet allegedly says that ‘[h]omosexuality Is Sin: Next to the crime of murder comes the sin of sexual impurity.’
“Another pamphlet, available only to [Mormon] church leaders, states: ‘God has promised to help those who earnestly strive to live his commandments.’ It mentions that if homosexuals repent enough, ‘heterosexual feelings emerge.’ . . . “
| Let’s see what he says
October Conf. 2001
"Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways."San Francisco Chronicle April 14, 1997
"No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this time."
"I do not know what the future holds. I do not wish to sound negative, but I wish to remind you of the warnings of scripture and the teachings of the prophets which we have had constantly before us."
"Now, I do not wish to be an alarmist. I do not wish to be a prophet of doom. I am optimistic. I do not believe the time is here when an all-consuming calamity will overtake us. I earnestly pray that it may not. There is so much of the Lord’s work yet to be done. We, and our children after us, must do it. I can assure you that we who are responsible for the management of the affairs of the Church will be prudent and careful as we have tried to be in the past. The tithes of the Church are sacred."
Q: You are the president, prophet, seer and revelator of the Mormon Church? Hinckley’s statement is a bit misleading, “a perception in the mind” is not what the Bible describes happening with God and Elijah (1 Kings 19:11-21) after the “still small voice” came a two way conversation. I have no doubt that Bible scholars would agree that a prophet gets more that than just a “perception” from God. (Personally I don’t rule out schizophrenia).
A: I am so sustained, yes. (Laughter)
Q: Now, how would that compare to the Catholic Church? Do you see yourself as Catholics would see the pope?
A: Oh, I think in that we're both seen as the head officer of the church, yes.
Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?
A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don't need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we've already received.
Now, if a problem should arise on which we don't have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah's experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that's the way it works.
If Biblical prophets like Elijah, or modern prophet’s such as Joseph Smith, or imaginary prophets such as Lehi et al are the measure for a prophet clearly Gordon B. Hinckley knows that he is less than a prophet. He has never made a statement of any prophetic nature; never claimed to have any special conduit to God or Jesus; never even claimed to speak with God beyond a “perception in the mind”.
So do statements like “Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind.” and “I do not know what the future holds.” sound like a man who has a chit-chat with God?
I don’t think so.
But don’t take my word for it
I don’t talk with God
Does Gordon B. Hinckley always tell the truth?
Gordon B Hinckley is president of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the
time he speaks in vague generalities like andquot;be
goodandquot; or andquot;isn't it wonderful?andquot; or
andquot;I don't know.andquot; But sometimes he says
specific things, and when you look closely they
are often not true. Here are some examples of
Gordon B. Hinckley statements that are not true.
longer version of this page
1. Does the church teach that a man can progress to become a
god? 1994: yes. 1997: no.
Gordon B. Hinckley in 1994, repeating perhaps the best
known teachings in all Mormonism:
andquot;On the other hand, the
whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and
upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to
godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the
Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62) and
emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand
and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!
(See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J.
Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1) Our
enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our
reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God
the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator
and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all
and will always be so. But just as any earthly father
wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life,
so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children
that they might approach him in stature and stand beside
him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.andquot; (Gordon
B. Hinckley, Conference Report, Oct. 1994, reprinted in
Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 46)
Gordon B. Hinckley three years later, speaking to the
press in 1997:
Lattin (San Francisco Chronicle religion editor,
interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1):
andquot;There are some significant differences in your
beliefs [from other Christian churches]. For instance,
don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?andquot;
Hinckley: andquot;I wouldn't say that. There was a little
couplet coined, andquot;As man is, God once was. As God is,
man may become.andquot; Now that's more of a couplet than
anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology
that we don't know very much about.andquot;
Quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997: andquot;On whether
his church still holds that God the Father was once a man,
[Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I
don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we
emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background
behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't
think others know a lot about it.'andquot;
Hinckley claimed he was misquoted:
andquot;I personally have been
much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and
misunderstood. I think that'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. (1997 October General Conference)andquot;
But you can check the quotes for yourself - even on the
original video. And he said the same things on more than one
occasion. See www.lds-mormon.com/hwtd.shtml
for details. The first quotation, where Hinckley says he does
know and believe the doctrine, is from a conference talk
called andquot;Don't Drop The Ball.andquot; Did he drop the ball
when he was faced with non-Mormon questions and forgot to
stand for what he believed? You decide.
2. Does the church publish its budgets for its members to see?
Hinckley says yes.
Every other major church makes its accounts public. Every
one. They consider it a question of honesty and openness. Yet
the Mormon church keeps its accounts secret. Before the Salt
Lake Olympics, a German reporter asked Hinckley about this
and other things. A
transcript of the full interview is here.
Reporter: andquot;In my country, theand#133;we say the
people's churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they
publish all their budgets, to all the public.
Reporter: andquot;Why is it impossible for your church?
Hinckley: andquot;Well, we simply
think that theand#133;that information belongs to those who
made the contribution, and not to the world. That's the
only thing. Yes.andquot;
This is a very strange thing to say, because no church
member ever gets to see the church budgets or accounts. Ever.
Most people would say his answer was highly misleading to the
3. Is the DNA evidence against Lamanites in North America
unproven? Hinckley says it is.
the German reporter's interview:]
Reporter: andquot;Now, Mr. President, one ofand#133;one
question which is a little bit complicated for me to
understand, but I heard it and one colleague asked me to
ask it. What will be your position when DNA analysis will
show that in the history never have been an immigration
from Israel to the Northand#133;to North America? It could
be that the scientists will find outand#133;andquot;
Hinckley: andquot;Well, it hasn't
happened. That hasn't been determined yet. All I can say
is that's speculated. No one really knows the answer to
that, not at this point.andquot;
This is a very strange thing to say because Hinckley has
spent most his life in church public relations of some sort,
so he should be aware of the facts. He was specifically asked
about North America. The reporter was being kind, as if the
question had not yet been proven. Yet the DNA evidence
against North America as the Book of Mormon location is
devastating. Even the apologists, FARMS, have accepted that,
and they will not try to defend a North American setting for
the Book of Mormon.
Even if we allow the FARMS theory that the Lamanites were
hiding in some remote corner of Central America, the DNA
evidence is not andquot;speculatedandquot;
as Hinckley said. It
has been established beyond reasonable doubt by the
highest standards of scientific enquiry in peer-reviewed
journals. DNA destroys the Book of Mormon as a historical
record. To say that the issue andquot;hasn't
been determinedandquot; is like saying the earth is
still flat because a few people still believe it.
4. When did polygamy start in the church? Hinckley says it
was after 1847.
On Larry King Live (September 8, 1998, after Hinckley
was asked about polygamy): andquot;When
our people came west they permitted it [polygamy] on a
This is very strange, because polygamy began much earlier
than andquot;when our people came west.andquot; It was practiced
secretly by Joseph Smith since about 1833, when he andquot;marriedandquot;
his first andquot;plural wife,andquot; sixteen year old Fanny
Alger. Alger is listed by official Mormon sources as Joseph
Smith's first plural wife. By 1844 it was practiced by many
LDS leaders. It is very strange that Gordon B. Hinckley does
not remember this.
5. How many Mormons were andquot;involved in polygamyandquot;?
Hinckley says just 2 to 5 percent.
Again from Larry King Live, September 8, 1998: andquot;The figures I have are from --
between two percent and five percent of our people were
involved in it [polygamy]. It was a very limited practiceandquot;
This is very strange, because before moving to Utah, of
the leaders who knew about polygamy, 75 percent practiced it.
See D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: [Volume 1]
Origins of Powers, Appendix 6, and the discussion by Packam.
After moving to Utah, church elders urged ALL good Mormons to
practice it. Numerous sermons say it was essential to
salvation. Every president of the church was polygamous until
George Albert Smith, who became president in 1945. It is very
strange that Gordon B. Hinckley presents it as a very limited
6. Do we oppose other churches? Hinckley says no.
Speaking on Larry King Live, September 8, 1998: andquot;I say this to other people: you
develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward
any other church. We do not oppose other churches. We
never speak negatively of other churches.andquot;
In last General Conference (October 2005, quoting a
poem): andquot; 'I would not sit in
the scorner's seat, Or hurl the cynic's ban; / Let me
live in a house by the side of the road / And be a friend
to man.' That is the way I feel. [I wish] that men might
live together in peace without war and contention,
argument and conflict.andquot;
This is a strange thing to say since Hinckley leads a
church that says that no non-Mormon will go to heaven. He
divides people from the world intot he rightous (Mormons and
those who will one day become Mormons) and the unrighteous (everyone
This was the very first thing andquot;revealed from Godandquot;
in the andquot;First Visionandquot;: andquot;the personage who
addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination
in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt.andquot; (Joseph
Smith - History 1:18-19) The whole reason for a restoration
was that every other church was so corrupt that it was beyond
any hope of reformation.
1 Nephi 14:10 says andquot;And he [God] said unto me: Behold
there are save two churches only; the one is the church of
the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil;
wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of
God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of
abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.andquot; (See
also 1 Nephi 13:6, 14:3, 9; Alma 5:39.)
Until 1990, the temple ceremony included a non-Mormon
minister, a representative of all other churches, and he was
being paid by Satan.
Mormons say they andquot;never speaking negatively of other
churchesandquot; but say that other churches are corrupt and
inspired by Satan. Things that make you go andquot;hmmm...andquot;
7. Is the church run by only men? Hinckley says no.
Mike Wallace ('Sixty
Minutes' TV interview): ''Why must only men run the
Hinckley: '' 'Only men' do not run
the Church. Men have their place in the Church. Men hold
priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a
tremendous place in this church. They have their own
organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet
Joseph Smith, called the Relief Society, because its
initial purpose was to administer help to those in need.
It has grown to be, I think, the largest women's
organization in the world with a membership of more than
three million. They have their own offices, their own
presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the
smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world.''
Wallace: ''But they don't have the power.''
Hinckley: ''They have office. They
have responsibility. They have control of their
Wallace: ''But you run it. The men run it. Look, I'm not
being . . . ''
Hinckley: ''The men hold the
priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this
Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind
his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life
in a great enterprise.''
This is very strange because clearly men do run the church.
It is true that women run some parts of the church, but only
if they get permission from the men to do so.
8. Does the church get involved in politics? Hinckley says no.
an interview broadcast on Compass in Australia, November
DR: andquot;Finally, in Australia
as in the US, I understand you ??? government on social
issues. Especially in the name of protecting the family.
What sort of things would you like to change as far as
Australian society is concerned?andquot;
Gordon B. Hinckley: andquot;I
donand#146;t know much about er your social structure here.
Iand#146;m only... I only come as a visitor and so I
canand#146;t say very much, but I was sorry to read that
the great emphasis being put on gambling down in er ..Victoria?
Victoria, yes. Institutionally the Church speaks out on
moral issues. Other than that we draw a strict line of
separation of Church and State. The Church
institutionally does not get involved in politics. Does
not endorse candidates, does not endorse parties. We
encourage our people as citizens of the land to exercise
their franchises individuals. And to be active in these
things, but as an institution the Church maintains a
strict line of separation of Church and State speaking
out only when there is a moral question at issue.andquot;
Those who remember the Equal Right Amendment Act, or
follow the millions being spent attacking
gay marriage proposals, or all the other examples where
the church gets involved in politics, will know that this
andquot;strict line of separation between church and stateandquot;
is not the case. D.Michael Quinn's book andquot;Extensions of
Powerandquot; goes into great detail about the church's
9. Do the church's doctrines change? Hinckley says no.
same Australian interview:
President Gordon B. Hinckley:
andquot;Yes, sir. We are. We have fundamental, basic
doctrines which have held fast through more than a 150
years of time. We donand#146;t bend with every wind of
doctrine that comes along. Our doctrine is stable,
itand#146;s secure. Programmes change, we make adaptation
according to the circumstances. But the basic doctrine
remains the same and that becomes a solid unshifting
foundation to which people can cling in this world of
instability and drifting values.andquot;
Those who have followed the Adam-God doctrine, or the role
of polygamy, or blood atonement, or blacks in the pre-existence,
will know that the doctrine is anything but stable. In my own
time, the church has shifted significantly. Hinckley's own
statements on this page show that the doctrine regarding the
doctrine of the purpose of life (to become like God) is still
10. Does Hinckley accept the scriptures as they stand, or
twist them to mislead us?
Finally, Gordon B. Hinckley often quotes from scripture.
Some of these scriptures make dramatic claims. If he accepts
them as they stand, they are simply not true. But if he has
some symbolic meaning in mind, is it not dishonest not to say
so? The first example, if literally true, is contradicted by
mountains of scientific evidence. The second example, though
more easily taken as symbolic, does not apply to the Mormon
church unless you twist its meaning violently. Here is the
andquot;There was the great Flood,
when waters covered the earth and when, as Peter says,
only andquot;eight souls were savedandquot; (1 Peter 3:20).andquot;
(A quote from October 2005 conference.)
Discover after discovery has proven that this cannot have
happened as the Bible describes. As prophet, Hinckley claims
the right to reveal new truths about scripture, but shouldn't
he tell us? Many of his listeners wil come away believing in
a literal global flood, and that would be highly misleading.
Here is the second example. Since the days of Joseph Smith,
church leaders have identified the church with the andquot;stone
cut without handsandquot; from Daniel 2. Hinckley is no
andquot;The little stone which was
cut out of the mountain without hands is rolling forth to
fill the earth (see Dan. 2:31and#150;45; Dandamp;C 65:2).andquot;
(Gordon B. Hinckley, and#147;The State of the Church,and#148;
Ensign, Nov. 2003, 4)
This comes from Daniel 2:21-45 which says, in part:.
andquot;Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out
without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that
were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was
the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold [the
nations of the world], broken to pieces together, and
became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and
the wind carried them away, that no place was found for
them: and the stone that smote the image became a great
mountain, and filled the whole earth. ... And in the days
of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,
which shall never be destroyed and the kingdom shall not
be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and
consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.andquot;
(Daniel 2: 34,35, 44)
Hinckley knows enough about church history to know that
the church is not fulfilling this prophecy. First, it does
not break in pieces other nations. Whenever the nations of
the world have confronted the church (most famously in the
troubles in Nauvoo or the Utah war or the polygamy issue) the
church has either run away or lost. Today the church tries
very hard to be friends with all governments - it shows no
interest in breaking them in pieces. Second, church growth is
slowing. While it grew at a reasonable pace up until the mid
1980s, for the past twenty years growth has been slowing.
Even before the 1980s it was not like a stone rolling down
and gathering speed. After 150 years it was still largely
insignificant to non-Mormons. The context of Hinckley's talk
shows he means andquot;filling the earthandquot; in the sense of
having a peaceful presence in every country. So it is highly
misleading for him to use Daniel 2, which speaks of the
church growing to a huge size and breaking the other nations
And so it goes on. These are just ten examples of Gordon B.
Hinckley's teachings. Does he say things that aren't true? Did he
just make a poor choice of words? Is he ill-informed? Does he
accidentally forget things? Are these all innocent mistakes? You
| Message From Gordon B. Huckster To The Dear Women Of The Church: Thank You For Being Our Beasts Of Burden |
Friday, Feb 10, 2006, at 10:33 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| "My dear sisters, you marvelous women who have chosen the better part, I stand in great admiration for all that you do. I see your hands in everything. |
"Many of you are mothers, and that is enough to occupy one's full time.
"You are companions–the very best friends your husbands have or ever will have.
"You are housekeepers. That doesn't sound like much, does it? But what a job it is to keep a house clean and tidy.
"You are shoppers. Until I got older I never dreamed of what a demanding responsibility it is to keep food in the pantry, to keep clothing neat and presentable, to buy all that is needed to keep a home running.
"You are nurses. With every illness that comes along, you are the first to be told about it and the first to respond with help. In cases of serious sickness, you are at the bedside day and night, comforting, encouraging, ministering, praying.
"You are the family chauffeur. You are driving your children about on paper routes, taking them to athletic events, driving them on ward outings, hauling here, there, and everywhere as they pursue their busy lives.
"And so I might go on. . . .
[Really, Gordon, must you?]
"Now we have granddaughters who are mothers. They visit us, and I marvel at their patience, at their capacity to calm their children, to stop them from crying, and it seems to me to do a thousand other things.
"They drive cars, they run computers, they attend the activities of their children, they cook and sew, they teach classes, and they speak in church. . . .
"Well, you dear women, I say thanks to you. Thank you for being the kind of people you are and doing the things you do. May the blessings of heaven rest upon you. May your prayers be answered and your hopes and dreams become realities.
"You serve so well in the Church. You think it is so demanding. It is. . . .
"Now, my dear sisters,. . . [y]ou are doing the best you can . . . Get on your knees and ask for the blessings of the Lord; then stand on your feet and do what you are asked to do. . . .
"Count your blessings; name them one by one. . . . Weigh carefully that which you do. You do not need some of the extravagances that working outside the home might bring."
(Gordon B. Hinckley, "To the Women of the Church," address to the General Relief Society meeting, LDS semi-annual Conference, October 2003, in Ensign, November 2003, p. 113, emphasis added)
Someone among "you dear women," please pass the barf bag--and don't worry about cleaning up.
Let the men do it.
| Does Hinckley Want Women To Only Cry In The Closet? Can This Quote Be True? |
Thursday, Feb 16, 2006, at 08:55 AM
Original Author(s): Jerry The Aspousetate
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Does Hinckley Want Women To Only Cry In The Closet? Can This Quote Be True?
Then put on a happy face outside the closet?
"Now I speak to you single mothers whose burdens are heavy because you have been abandoned or have been widowed. Yours is a terrible load. Bear it well. Seek the blessings of the Lord. Be grateful for any assistance that may come out of the quorums of the priesthood to help you in your home or with other matters. Pray silently in your closet, and let the tears flow if they must come. But put a smile on your face whenever you are before your children or others."
President Gordon B. Hinckley,
Mormon Prophet, Seer and Revelator
"To the Women of the Church"
From an address given at the Relief Society Session of LDS General Conference, October, 2003
Pay Lay Ale
| If Gordon B. Hinckley were to revise the articles of faith to reflect current LDS belief, they might look like this:
1 WE believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We just don't know much about them.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Those with friends in high places will have their transgressions swept under the rug.
3 We believe that through ignorance and suspending critical thinking, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to whatever we tell them.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, obedience; second, obedience; third, obedience; and fourth, obedience.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by committee, with the sanction of an autopen, preferably through nepotism and cronyism by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. We also believe prophets are chosen by the death of the preceding one.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth. We believe that Jesus ordained 12 year olds and took them to Scout Camp.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. We just don't practice any of that.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God as far as it is revised to delete embarrassing references to skin color.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, though today we have only feelings and impressions instead of actual revelation.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes, though no one really knows what that means (all we know is that DNA evidence is irrelevant); that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent (though we're really happy in our Utah homes); that Christ will reign personally upon the earth (but again, we really don't know much about him); and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory, free of gays, feminists, and so-called intellectuals.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. This does not apply to apostates.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, unless we can get around it.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul–We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. And if you believe that, you really are a Mormon.
| The truth came out in this Gordon B. Hinkley interview: |
DR: There does seem to be though an uncritical acceptance of a conformist style?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Uncritical? No. Not uncritical. People think in a very critical way before they come into this Church. When they come into this Church they’re expected to conform. And they find happiness in that conformity.
DR: But not allowed to question?
Gordon B. Hinckley: If what?
DR: They’re not allowed to question?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh they are allowed to question. Look - this Church came of intellectual dissent. We maintain the largest private university in America.
DR: And that continues to this day?
Gordon B. Hinckley: 27,000 students.
DR: And that dissent continues to that this day?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh absolutely, absolutely. We expect people to think for themselves. Now, if they get off and begin to fight the Church and that sort of thing as one or two do now and again, we simply disfellowship them and go our way. But those cases are really very, very few.
From: INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT GORDON B. HINCKLEY
Aired: November 09, 1997
Now, some thoughts from T-Bone:
Notice how he unwittingly tells how Mormon leadership feels about converts.
>> When they come into this Church they’re expected to conform.
Check your brain at the door. Watch him try to change the subject.
>> Oh they are allowed to question. Look - this Church came of intellectual dissent. We maintain the largest private university in America.
A bit of Non sequitur speech there (a comment which is humorously absurd or has no relation to the comment it follows). Then watch him let his guard down:
>> we simply disfellowship them and go our way
That's what people get if they think critically.
Let me try to sum up what he's saying:
* We allow people to think critically before they join, but then they are expected to conform.
* If people dissent, we disfellowship them. (Actually, excommunicate is more accurate.)
* We encourage critical thought. We have a university.
I guess we can leave past leaders along. You really don't need to look any farther than the words of the living president of the LDS church to see how silly it all is. This guy is all over the place. No wonder members do the same thing.
Hinckster took his act on the road to Chile this weekend, and frankly, it was a bomb.
From the Salt Lake Tribune coverage (click here):
A surprisingly spry Gordon B. Hinckley walked on his own into a stadium filled with 45,000 adoring Latter-day Saints on Saturday night.
The stadium holds 50,000; the church blacked out broadcast of the event to all stake centers within 50 miles of Santiago.andnbsp;With a claimed church membership of 500K+ most of which is concentrated in Santiago, they should haveandnbsp;had the stadiumandnbsp;packed.andnbsp; The photo that accompanies the article shows clearly that there are lots of empty seats.andnbsp;
I've gone over their lying about church membership before, but as a quick reminder only some 100K people called themselves Mormon in the 2002 census.andnbsp; Most of those are concentrated in Santiago, so their 45K was about as good as they could hope for.
andnbsp;Hinckley recalled being in Chile on the day in 1973 when socialist Salvador Allende was elected. Allende was deposed in a military coup.andnbsp;
"That was a troubled time for Chile," Hinckley said. "There was an unsettling feeling."
Big no-no there, Gordon.andnbsp; First, Allende was elected in 1970.andnbsp; Second, yesterday was the day that Michelle Bachelet was being sworn in as Chile's new president.andnbsp; Chileans of all political stripes want to put those days behind them, and your bringing it up and mentioning the strife of the 1970s was just dumb.andnbsp; As my TBM wife said when I read the above quotes to her, "doesn't he have anyone that tells him about these things?"
In the 45 years the Mormon leader has been visiting this country, he has seen steady growth in the LDS population. At first, they taught the faith to schoolchildren in a shed, a dark little building.andnbsp;
"Now we have 75 stakes [like a diocese], 25 districts and nine missions," he said.andnbsp;
Hinckley predicted that growth would continue.andnbsp; "Where we now have thousands, we'll have tens of thousands," he said. "I believe that will happen."
He's either senile or lying, or maybe both.andnbsp; He himself stood in a meeting in Chile in 1999 and lamented the horrible retention rate among baptisms there.andnbsp; He's well aware of the 12 stakes they closed in 2002.andnbsp; He knows damn well the growth hasn't been steady.andnbsp; He should know that nothing has changed in missionary predatory tactics:andnbsp; they still dunk minor children without their parents, they still baptize teenage girls, they still bring too many nutcases onto the rolls.andnbsp; All things they were supposed to have stopped years ago, but never did.andnbsp;
After an hour break, the cultural celebration continued; Hinckley did not return, but he reportedly watched the festivities on a monitor at his hotel. In his absence, his two sons, Richard and Clark Hinckley, presided over the exuberant, boisterous display of Chilean and Mormon history.andnbsp;
It began when an army of Mormon missionaries in their white shirts and ties marched in waving Chilean flags and singing the church anthem, "Called to Serve."
Oh brother, now we know where Kim Il Sung's choreographer went.andnbsp; Also, with L Tom Perry in attendance, shouldn't he have presided rather than Hinckster's two dimwits?andnbsp;
Red-and-gold-clad performers danced the mournful tale of the Spanish conquest of Indians. Mormon teens acted out folk tales of roosters pursuing hens or two groups of devils fighting for dominance.andnbsp;
At the end of the performance, the teens all poured onto the field and sang ''God Be With You 'Til We Meet Again'' to Hinckley.
Of course this whole thing didn't even make any of the major Chilean newspapers.andnbsp;
| Gordon B. Hinckley (Prophet, Seer, Revelator and President of the Mormon Church) on 4/1/2003 at the priesthood session, said, "No man who makes disparaging remarks about those of another race can consider himself a disciple of Christ." |
Brigham Young (Prophet, Seer, Revelator and President of the Mormon Church)
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they would be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree." Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, pages 290 291
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.
| Utah media, as well as news organizations in other locations are, with increasing focus, following up on the possibility that Hinckley's health has taken a signfiicant turn for the worse. |
It was, of course, reported a few months ago that Hinckley had been operated on for colon cancer, that he was recovering comfortably from said surgery and that he would be resuming a full schedule shortly.
In the wake of these announcements, the Mormon Church's official news releases have been both vague and upbeat on the matter of Hinckley's reported condition.
However, we recently learned from RfM poster "Schraevus" of a so-called "Mormon e-mail" being circulated which reported that Hinckley's health is in serious jeopardy and that this might be his last General Conference:
Just go this from a TBM friend. Nothing quite as juicy as GA relatives gossip.
I was talking with my friend in North Salt Lake this morning. He lives in a ward with 3 Apostles and the Stake President is Elder Ballard's son-in-law. They had Stake Conference this past Sunday and Elder Ballard, who just had both knees replaced, came and spoke.
Among other things, Apostle Ballard said that General Conference this April (2006) may well be our last chance to hear Pres. Hinckley speak. He said that Pres. Hinckley is suffering from a very serious illness and that, much like King Benjamin gathering his people around to address them one last time, we would do well to listen as intently as the people of that time. It is sad to think that we may lose President Hinckley soon but thought it would be good to know this and treat his testimony even more reverently.
("This Just in on Mo E-mail," post by "Schraevus," Recovery from Mormonism board, 31 March 2006)
I subsequently spoke with my own source a few days ago, which informed me that Hinckley has cancer and that his family was flying in from all over the country to be with him during General Conference.
When I asked if the Hinckley family normally comes in to be with their patriarch at Conference time, I was informed that a gathering by his family of this magnitude is unusual and that requests were being made to have Hinckley family members come who are outside Hinckley's immediate (i.e., nuclear) family circle.
I was informed of Hinckley's situation (and his family's response to it) as I inquired of the source about report (noted above) of Ballard's reported recently acknowledgment that Hinckley has a very serious illness and that this may be the last time he is at General Conference.
In response to those reports, I was told that Hinckley's serious illness was, in fact, cancer and that his family is coming in from far and wide.
Based on what my source told me (if proven accurate), it seemed that things did not look good for Hinckley.
(see "Update on Hinckley's condition from a well-placed source: Looks like a death watch may be in the preliminary making . . .," post by Steve Benson, board, 31 March 2006)
Subsequent to these and other RfM postings, an investigative source in the news media (who covers these matters for a living) has contacted me, inquiring on Hinckley's health and making a few observations, along with noting that the media is in a state of increased alert concerning the subject of Hinckley's health.
The observations include the following:
--Hinckley was scheduled to, but ended up not kicking off, April Conference with his own, planned opening remarks.
--Several glowing references to Hinckley were subsequently made by other Conference speakers.
--Several glowing references were likewise made by other Conference speakers to Monson (Hinckley's heir apparent).
--While Hinckley has assured the Mormon faithful that his obituary should not be written just yet and that he plans on attending this year's October Conference, there has been acknowledgment by the Church that Hinckley is suffering residual effects from his cancer operation. Elements of the media are on heightened alert to the possibility that if, in fact, Hinckley has cancer (particularly if he is suffering from a fast-spreading kind related to the colon), he might not make it to next October, despite his assurances otherwise.
--Continuing investigative efforts are being made by the media to confirm accounts that Hinckley's health is reportedly in a state of significant decline and that he may not be around much longer.
--The media is aware of the RfM board's on-going discussions on Hinckley's health and regards this site as a source of potentially valuable information.
| Hinckley's Anti-Racism Rhetoric At General Conference Was Just A Fig Leaf, Diverting Attention From The Church's Real Bigotry |
Wednesday, Apr 5, 2006, at 09:00 AM
Original Author(s): Mujun
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| On Saturday evening, Gordon Hinckley said that racism is "ugly and unacceptable." |
That's mighty white of him.
It is a bold leader indeed who can stand up and make such a statement in 2006. Here's a bit more of what Mr. Hinckley had to say:
"I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.How indeed? Unfortunately, the Mormon church has a well-documented history of their highest ranking leaders assuming just that.
"How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?"
In 1954, just when the Civil Rights Movement was starting to get some traction, Mormon Apostle Mark Petersen gave a speech at BYU in which he outlined the church's position. You can read his remarks in their entirety at
Here are a few gems from that speech:
"With that in mind, we can account in no other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. There are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, regarding all according to their deeds."Gordon Hinckley and Mark Petersen worked together as members of the Quorum of the Twelve for over twenty-two years, both of them sustained as "prophets, seers and revelators." Do you think that Hinckley ever said a critical word to his senior colleague about his racist rhetoric? Do you think that Hinckley would have ever said anything close to his April Fools Day remarks on racism prior to Petersen's death in 1984?
"Now let's talk segregation again for a few minutes. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation."
"Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them. Who placed the Chinese in China? The Lord did. It was an act of segregation. When He placed only some of His chosen people in the tribe of Judah, the royal tribe, wasn't that an act cf segregation?
And when He gave the birthright only to Ephraim, wasn't that an act of segregation?"
"Now what is our policy in regard to intermarriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church!"
"Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world, but let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?"
Even today, it rings hollow, and reminds me of that 70's song by The Grass Roots:
"Where were you when I needed you?So, in 2006, when racism is an easy target, Hinckley takes a few token shots at it.
Where, .... ere, .... ere?"
Meanwhile, he calls Craig Cardon, the Chairman of the Arizona-based, right-wing, gay-hating organization United Families International as a new General Authority.
Thus spake Mujun.
| Hinckley's legacy will be of decentralizing the power of the prophet into committees, and minimizing the role of prophet altogether.
He wanted the church to be bullet-proof from a senile prophet getting in power and disrupting the money flow with crazy revelations. Revelation goes through committee now.
Hinckley might not have been the first to start the process, but he certainly refined it and made PR the number one priority of the church: Never do or say or print anything that can be used against you.
He didn't always succeed, but he played the game better than any prophet ever has.
Hinckley is, in every respect, the poster boy for milk-toast propheting.
Hinckley understood the administration block and it's politics probably better than any GA. He worked his whole adult life there at every level.
I think another reason Hinckley brought in some corporate America Fortune 500 types to oversee the commitees is Hinckley really didn't want to do that. Hinckley wanted to be out and visable, not sitting in Salt Lake putting out fires. Apparently there are some Temporal Authorities at COB that pull some pretty good slaries who used to be top corporate managers.
Insiders at COB I talk to say they are killing the culture of the church and making it just another corporation. You can see it at the ward level. There's nothing left but boring meetings and a nice well kept corporate box to do it in. There's no money or freedom for ward activities anymore.
If you are into pointing at large, expensive buildings lit up on a hill, with nothing of substance in them, then the new corporate Mormonism or may I say Hinckleyism is for you.
| Update For Gordon Hinckley: Blacks Were Denied The Priesthood Because Of The Curse Of Cain - Brigham Young |
Monday, Apr 17, 2006, at 07:15 AM
Original Author(s): Skeptical
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Hinckley in an interview on November 9, 1997 told Compass in Australia that he wasn't sure why Blacks were denied the LDS priesthood prior to 1978. |
During the interview, Hinckley was asked:
RB [David Ransom]: Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church?
GBH: That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen.
RB: So in retrospect was the Church wrong in that?
GBH: No I don’t think it was wrong. It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them.
RB: What was the reason for that?
GBH: I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at that time.
Hinckley, a student of church history, must have overlooked this discourse delivered by Brigham Young on August 19, 1866 and recorded in volume 11 of the Journal of Discourses, starting at page 266, in which Brigham Young stated:
I have endeavored to give you a few items relating to the celestial kingdom of God and to the other kingdoms which the Lord has prepared for his children. The Lamanites or Indians are just as much the children of our Father and God as we are. So also are the Africans. But we are also the children of adoption through obedience to the Gospel of his Son. Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice, and God brings forth the results of the acts of his creatures to promote his kingdom and subserve his purposes in the salvation and exaltation of his children. If the Lord could have his own way, he would have all the human family to enter into his church and kingdom, receive the Holy Priesthood and come into the celestial kingdom of our Father and God, by the power of their own choice.
[Journal of Discourses Vol. 11, p. 272]
| Much has been made of President Hinckley's efforts to modernize and market the church, especially in the area of temple construction.
Speakers often cite some of the great and marvelous things that Hinckley has done to forward the cause of temple work throughout the world, as if the things he has done clearly are inspired by God.
Let's review some of these "major accomplishments" and see if divine intervention is the only possible explanation:
1. During construction of the Swiss Temple, then-President McKay asked Hinckley to come up with a way for the endowment session to be presented in a way that all who attended could participate in their own language. Hinckley came up with the idea of the temple movie, which could be dubbed in as many languages as they wanted. A miracle!
Seriously, who WOULDN'T have thought of that? The other option is having seven sets of actors up there speaking over each other. I bet the UN stole the headset translator idea from the Mormon endowment ceremony.
2. The faithful members of Hong Kong needed a temple. But there was no sprawling residential neighborhood land to build one on, like all other temples had been built on up to that point. Whatever would they do? Thankfully, Hinckley was inspired to suggest a skyscraper-type temple, with mission office and chapel included in the same building. Surely the heavens were opened and the whisperings of the sweet Spirit were with him.
Give me a break. How is this inspiration? Hmm, we look around, we see skyscrapers, we see businesses and residences and everything else stacked on top of each other, maybe we should do the same! Not inspiration, just observation.
3. In 1997, Hinckley was tormented with the thought of millions of poor Mormon families who couldn't make it to the temple as often as they wanted. Exasperated, he exclaimed, "If only we could build more temples! But at $50 Million a pop, and with all the workers it takes to keep those huge things operating, how can we build more?" Again God smiled upon Hinckley and his lemmings and gave Hinckley the boldest idea yet: build smaller temples with no facilities.
Oh what a blessing! How would anyone have thought of that? Smaller, cheaper temples! Of course! We thank thee, oh God, for a prophet!
Why do they hail these ideas as such great revelations? Is it because that's all they've got? They certainly can't laud Hinckley for his "I don't know that we teach that" quote, or his "We wish to thank the secretaries who labor over our talks and write them time after time" flub.
I wonder what Earth-shattering divine guidance Monson's got up his sleeve.
| For those TBMs saying that the church really doesn't expect members to support their political agenda, Hinckley taught otherwise.
The example Hinckley used in a recent General Conference is very similar to the one now over gay marriage.
"Now may I say a word concerning loyalty to the Church. We see much indifference. There are those who say, "The Church won't dictate to me how to think about this, that, or the other, or how to live my life.""
"No, I reply, the Church will not dictate to any man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein."
"The book of Revelation declares: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:1516)."
"I make you a promise, my dear brethren, that while I am serving in my present responsibility I will never consent to nor advocate any policy, any program, any doctrine which will be otherwise than beneficial to the membership of this, the Lord's Church."
"This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, "They who are not for me are against me" (2 Nephi 10:16)."
"In 1933, there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state. President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel."
"On this occasion I am not going to talk about the good or bad of Prohibition but rather of uncompromising loyalty to the Church."
"How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position. And I am especially grateful to be able to say that among those who are loyal are men and women of achievement, of accomplishment, of education, of influence, of strength–highly intelligent and capable individuals."
"Each of us has to face the matter – either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
- President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.
Doesn't the church expect "uncompromising loyalty" regarding the letter read this week in Sacrament Meeting?
| Well, it happened again. One child was looking through the hymnbook. She stopped on "If You Could Hie to Kolob," and said, "I love this music."
I said, "Yes, the music is beautiful, but the words are so boring."
"What IS Kolob, anyway?" she asked.
"WHAT?!!!" I said. "You don't know what Kolob is?"
Son was standing there also....I asked him, "Have you studied about Kolob in any of your classes?"
"No...never heard of it," he said.
"You have never heard that Kolob is the greatest star...the one closest to the throne of God---the one that directs the time differential between our planet and God's time?"
"WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?" they both said, and started laughing their heads off.
So, I found the scripture in Abraham (that nice little piece of funeral poetry) and read them the passages.
So.......what is the point of going to church if they don't teach anything there. And what is the point of the mormon church if they have stopped teaching anything that differentiates them from other churches. It's a little telling, I think.
| From the D-News. Hinckley doing the ol' self-promotion bit as his role as Prophetseerrevelator. He used his mighty seer powers to consider the toll of human suffering on this planet and came up with is benchmark...
"IOWA CITY, Iowa – Becoming acquainted with God in their most desperate hours on the Mormon Trail, the handcart pioneers who trudged 1,300 miles to the Salt Lake Valley in the 1850s provide an example of faith and courage that Latter-day Saints must never forget, LDS Church leaders said Sunday.
No chronicle of greater suffering?...dear Prophet, sir...can you not see?
President Gordon B. Hinckley told nearly 2,500 gathered in Hancher Auditorium at the University of Iowa – and thousands more via satellite and cable – that 'there is no chronicle of greater suffering and terrible experience than this chronicle. God bless their memories to those of us who live in comfort and ease.'"
Pol Pot's Killing Fields?
MILLIONS killed in China and the Soviet Union during the past 100 years?
...such a short list.
But, no. His benchmark for human suffering on this planet boils down to whatever happened to MORMONS stuck in a blizzard following bad advice from another failed seer...Brigham Young.
| Looking for something to do in Zion this Saturday?...well, steer clear of Draper, and that includes you lurking Mormons.
"President Hinckley will be joined by his first counselor, President Thomas S. Monson, and second counselor, President James E. Faust. Elder Russell M. Nelson of the church's Quorum of the Twelve, will conduct the invitation-only ceremony."
Yeah, invitation-only. They don't want any of the rabble about. God forbid they have to deal with interested members, or the public, for that matter.
No, the dinks are coming out of the Bunker simply for a Photo-op in their Ice Cream Suits. Hmmmm...if they see their shadow, does that mean there will be 6 more months of bullshit?
Maybe if the world is lucky, Hinckley will bring his trusty shovel, "isn't it marvelous that he keeps his old tools?" "Yes, it's wonderful." Make no mistake, this group of geezers doing nothing will be front-page news on Sunday. Oh yeah, count on the press being invited.
But if you've got a question for the Lord's Mouthpiece, better just keep it to yourself. And stay the hell away.
| From October 2006 Priesthood Session:
"I call your attention to another matter that gives me great concern. In revelation the Lord has mandated that this people get all the education they can. He has been very clear about this. But there is a troubling trend taking place. Elder Rolfe Kerr, Commissioner of Church Education, advises me that in the United States nearly 73 percent of young women graduate from high school, compared to 65 percent of young men. Young men are more likely to drop out of school than young women.
Mormon Women deserve an education. Way to go Gordon - continue the LDS Church's position on Women - they are considered "Second Class" and the males must always be placed above them.
Approximately 61 percent of young men enroll in college immediately following high school, compared to 72 percent for young women.
In 1950, 70 percent of those enrolled in college were males, and 30 percent were females; by 2010 projections estimate 40 percent will be males, and 60 percent will be females.
Women have earned more bachelor's degrees than men every year since 1982 and more master's degrees since 1986.
It is plainly evident from these statistics that young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs. And so I say to you young men, rise up and discipline yourself to take advantage of educational opportunities. Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own? We speak of being "equally yoked." That applies, I think, to the matter of education."
| The Hinkster Oct 2006 Conference stated:
"The church is undertaking a huge redevelopment project in the interest of protecting the environment of Temple Square"
The LDS Church is spending an estimated $3 billion dollars on tearing down the old Crossroads Mall and building a new "Mormon Mall". The new mall will have shops and restaurants on the lower levels and luxurious condominiums on the top floors for the wealthy First Presidency and their “Sucking the teats of the Members” Apostles and Quorum of the Seventy.
Of course he had to state this and of course it will be believed by the Members:
"While the costs will be great, it will not involve the expenditure of tithing funds"
Last year the Hinkster stated that restaurants in the lower portion of the mall would be allowed to serve alcohol.
So what the hell is Hinkster talking about protecting Temple Square?
I’ll tell you what it’s going to be: The new Mormon Mall is going to be used as a propaganda mechanism for the LDS Church. Everything in it will be directed towards Temple Square to show people that Mormons are no longer “Peculiar”, but “Christians”.
Mormonism: The ultimate propaganda machine.
| Gordon B. Hinckley - Receiving The Best Health Care Money Can Buy States "My Doctors Have Called The Results Miraculous" |
Monday, Oct 2, 2006, at 07:05 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Gordon B. Hinckley this weekend during October 2006 conference stated, "My doctors have called the results miraculous," he said Sunday. "I know that the favorable results come from your many prayers in my behalf."
NO the results don't come from the members' prayers. Of course the Hinkster's results have been miraculous. Do you think the LDS Church spared any expense in making sure that their Prophet received the absolute very best in health care that money could buy? Of course they spared no expense. I'm sure they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the very best doctors, the very best medicine.
The rest of us, those of us who are lucky to have some kind of health care know about deductibles, out of pocket expenses, lifetime payout maximums and fighting a health care system that wants us to pay - but not use our coverage.
Thanks Hinkster, glad to see LDS Inc. paid to fix your colon, but I don't see it as any kind of miracle - no, just your Corporation paying top dollar to keep you hanky-waving.
| My dad was a big Hugh B. Brown fan and I was taught about Brown's 1967 conference address "Profile of a Prophet" at an early age. Applying the same 19 criteria to the Hinckster, he seems lacking, in many areas. It hit me like a ton of bricks after this conference that dude is an average Joe, trying so hard to pull-off the whole Prophet schtick. Who am I to judge, but hey, if the guy is claiming to be the one and only prophet on earth today, I'm gonna take the opportunity to examine his claim. Based on Brown's criteria, Hinckster gets a D or D-, maybe even an F. Here's the criteria from Hugh Brown's talk, and my analysis of Gordo:
"We agreed that any man who claims to be a prophet should have at least the following characteristics:
1. He will boldly but humbly declare, "God has spoken to me."
I cannot recall any time when Gordon Hinckley said that God had spoken to him. Grade: F
2. His message will be dignified, intelligent, earnest, and honest, but he will not necessarily be a learned person.
Well, giving Gordo the benefit of the doubt, he could be looked upon as dignified, intelligent, and earnest. But he has proven to be dishonest, at least in the Hofmann affair. Grade: B
3. There will he no spiritualistic claims of communion with the dead, no clairvoyance or legerdemain.
I don't really know how JS passed muster on this one. But Wrinkley does ok. Grade: A
4. Generally he will he a young man such as Samuel; a man having good parentage and associates.
Gordo is about as old as a human being can be, he's pushing 100. His parents appear to have been very positive, good people. His associates for most of his adult life have been other GAs, and I would not classify those men as "good associates". Grade:D
5. His message must he reasonable and scriptural.
I think this is open to debate. Is it reasonable that a true prophet of God would answer "I don't know" to a smattering of deep gospel questions? My view is that he should know those things if he claims to be a prophet. Grade: D
6. He will be fearless and positive, unmindful of current opinion and the creeds of the day.
Gordo flames out horribly in this regard. He consistently waffles and hedges in his answers to tough questions, or tries to dodge them with "I don't know that we teach that anymore". Grade:F
7. He will make no concessions to public opinion or the effect upon himself or his reputation or personal fortune.
He has done pretty good on this one. He has consistently supported biggotry against homosexuals, which goes against public opinion. He seems content to perpetuate sexist roles based on his recent comments, which goes against public opinion. Grade: B
8. His message must be current, unusual, but historically consistent.
Gordo has no message. Grade: F
9. He will simply but earnestly tell what he has seen and heard.
Again, I cannot recall any time when Hinckley has told anyone he has seen or heard God, or an angelic messenger of any kind. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) Grade: F
10. His message, not himself, will be important to him.
He utterly fails in this regard. He recently declared that HE will be the longest living prophet if he lives a few more months. At the last conference he went on a speaking spree about himself, and gave the most obnoxious travelogue about all of the important world leaders that HE has met. He is very obviously full of himself and his perceived self-importance. Grade: F
11. He will boldly declare, "Thus saith the Lord!"
I don't recall him using this exact phraseology, but his method of boldness is saved for Conference only. When giving interviews to the media, he does not boldly delcare anything. He recants old doctrines that we still teach (like polygamy and God's progression) and backs away from tough questions like a sissy. Grade: F
12. He will predict future events in the name of the Lord, events that he could not control, events that only God could bring to pass.
Since Gordo did not foresee the Tsunami recently which killed thousands and thousands of innocent people in an "act of God" he also fails miserably on this account. His performance at this prophetic criteria is the most obvious example of his abyssmal failure to qualify as a prophet. Also, WTC comes to mind. Was there any prophetic warning issued in either of these cases. Nope, none. Grade: F- (As a side note: None of the other Q15, who are also sustained as prophets, saw these events coming either. They all get F's)
13. His message will be important not only for his generation but for all time, such as the messages of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah.
Again, Gordo has no important message, unless you consider the "Proclamation" condemning homosexuality to be important. Or the number of earrings on a woman's ear. Future generations will laugh at Gordo's earring directive. Grade: F
14. He will have courage, fortitude, and faith enough to endure persecution and, if necessary, to give his life for his testimony, and be willing to seal his testimony with his blood as did Peter and Paul.
We may never know, this criteria is somewhat speculative in nature. If Gordo's remarks are indicative, it can be surmised that he has little courage or fortitude, because he won't even stand up for doctrines that have been taught for decades. Plus, if someone killed him at age 96, would it be martyrdom or assisted suicide? Tough call Grade: C
15. He will denounce wickedness fearlessly and be rejected and ridiculed therefor.
I think he does ok at denouncing things that he perceives as wickedness. And a lot of his words have been rejected, and he has been ridiculed. Grade: A
16. He will do superhuman things, things that only a man inspired of God could do.
Like what? Comb his hair by himself? Walk without his cane? Give a conference talk without tipping over backwards? Levitate above the Conference Center crowd? Climb a building like a spider? I have not seen any evidence of any superhuman things that Gordo has done. Grade: F
17. The consequence of his teachings will be convincing evidence of his prophetic calling: "By their fruits ye shall know them."
Let's see, are people happier because they have no body piercings, and only two earrings in the same ear? I don't think so. Are they happier because they studied the gospel, or sad because they have discovered the inaccuracies in church doctrine, after studying? I would say that there are many that are damaged after studying the gospel in-depth. I don't know of any "convincing" evidence that there have been positive consequences as a direct result of anything Gordo has taught. Grade: F
18. His word and message will live after him.
Only time will tell. But if past history is any indication, and you take Brigham Young as an example, then after Gordo is dead, he will be a dead prophet and many of his so-called "teachings" will be treated as his own personal opinion, and disregarded in favor of the "teachings" of the living leaders. Grade: F
19. All of his teachings will be scriptural. In fact, his words, writings, and message will become scripture. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet. 1:21.)
Well, this one is interesting. He doesn't really misquote scripture. If his words will become scripture, then I can't wait to quote "We really don't teach that anymore" or "Read the BoM" or any of the other generalities that spew forth from this guy. Grade: D
Let's see Gordo's report card: F, B, A, D, D, F, B, F, F, F, F, F-, F, C, A, F, F, F, D. Looks pretty bad to me, if my child brought this home, they'd get an ass-whoopin for sure.
| Today, GBH is in Finland, dedicating yet another completely unnecessary temple.
Some exerpts from Deseret Morning News of today:
"He noted how Finland has drawn recognition for creating the most competitive business climate, the least corrupt government and the finest school system in the world."
Business is the first thing he mentions? Of course. How appropriate.
"He also noted it is the only country to repay war debts to the United States"
Isn't that pretty old stuff? But of course, he would remember it first hand, being from the bygone era himself.
"and praised the ability by most residents to speak three languages."
What utter BS. They do NOT speak three languages. Finnish is the mother tongue of more than 95 %. Most don't even speak the TWO official ones. Swedish is not an option for Finns, you MUST study it and also pass tests before you can serve in government owned institutions and positions. But most ordinary Finns DO NOT SPEAK SWEDISH. Many do understand English but speak it poorly. So claiming that "most speak three languages" is just poo-poo.
"President Hinckley lamented that after 59 years since the land was dedicated for the preaching of the gospel that there are only 5,000 members out of a population of 5 million."
News for you, Hinkster: There aren't even 5000 members. The official state statistics say there were 3278 members INCLUDING children under 8, in the end of 2005. And the numbers are getting lower year by year. (You are not allowed to be a member of more than one religious institution, and all Finns are registered.) So, if the 3278 is the total number of Mormons, I guess the real ACTIVES number is even lower. Many do fall into inactivity even in Finland, without reporting it to anyone.
"He expressed hope that the recent temple open house – where more than 50,000 visitors were hosted – will prepare others for the church."
Yeah, well. He must know the hope is pretty weak. Yeah, the Mormons counted the visitors to be over 55000, but consider this: Some 3000 wanted the gratis BOM and were foolish enough to give their names and addresses to the Mormons. OF ALL THOSE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VISITORS, ONLY 91 WANTED MISSIONARIES TO VISIT THEM FOR TEACHING.
"The five countries of the Helsinki Finland Temple district constitute the largest geographic area of any temple, crossing at least 12 time zones and five languages with approximately 20,000 members."
Yeah right. 20,000 members. You wish.
| Gordon "Be Orwellian" Hinckley Lies When Claiming He Doesn't Know The History Of Mormon Doctrine On Blacks |
Thursday, Oct 26, 2006, at 07:19 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Not to say that the source of the following, the "Church of Christ Reincarnated," is the reincarnation of all that is good and true, but this is offered up by said group for consideration:
"From 1848 until 1978 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught:
*Negroes are the descendants of Cain, and fall under the Curse of Cain, which is a denial of the priesthood in mortal life.
*Negroes were less valiant in the War in Heaven, and, as punishment, were born into Cain's lineage.
The [Mormon] Church, via its official spokesmen, is now starting to DENY it ever taught these things.
In a 1997 interview on the Australian COMPASS TV program, President Hinckley was asked:
COMPASS: "What was the reason for that? [i.e. denying Blacks the priesthood]"
HINCKLEY: "I don't know what the reason was."
(COMPASS, aired Nov. 1997, Australian Broadcasting System)
Hinckley [has] worked for the [Mormon] Church since 1930. He [has been] a General Authority since 1951. He was in Quorum of the Twelve meetings when the priesthood ban was discussed, for at least three decades.
He was an Apostle during at least 27 years of the priesthood ban.
In 1949 the First Presidency issued this statement (signed by all three members):
"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandement from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)
This is NOT all. Don Jesse, the OFFICIAL spokesman for the
LDS Church, issued a letter in 2003 which DENIED that the Church ever taught that Blacks are cursed or the descendants of Cain.
The [Mormon] Church has become "The Party," as George Orwell wrote, rewriting the past:
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the LIE became the truth." (George Orwell, "1984," chapter 7)
[Interested readers are urged] to [personally] contact LDS Public Affairs. Call them and ask [at]: 1-800-453-3860 (LDS Church Offices. Ask for Public Affairs)
| Gordon B. Hinckley Told Young Mormon Women This Saturday That Paying Tithing Would Insure Virtue |
Monday, Mar 26, 2007, at 08:09 AM
Original Author(s): No Meetings For Me
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Quote, "President Hinckley outlined four ways young women can ensure virture as a staple in their lives: prayer, study, tithing, and church attendance."
(Deseret News Sunday 3/25)
Now I think I've heard it all.
Follow the money is correct. President Hinckley certainly knows how to cover the money game. Throw it into a completely unrelated topic and voila....those revenues will increase. I don't think he cares about the virtue of young women. He cares about the bottom fiscal line.
It is so apparent that the leadership is all about revenue. My General Conference prediction is that tithing will be the most discussed topic, followed by retaining the converts that the church is losing in droves.
Virtue and tithing....GBH knows. He knows it is all a corporational ploy. If he was really concerned he would NOT have mentioned money.
| Our newspaper reported on the recent Young Women's General Conference, and according to the story, Gordon B. "Bee" Hinckley had this to tell them (I'm paraphrasing, because I don't have the article in front of me):
If you want happiness and success in this life, there are only four things which you must do.
Now, aside from the "Get as much education as you can," the rest of this is troublesome to me.
- Pray often;
- Get as much education as you can;
- Always attend your church meetings; and
- Pay a full tithe.
Pray often is a euphamism for "don't think for yourself, but assume that some higher being is going to tell you what to do. In the absence of answers, turn to the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, and the counsel of your priesthood leaders." If prayer was all about gratitude, then I might be more merciful toward this admonition, but my experience is that prayer in the Mormon church is primarily for two purposes. First, to tell God what you want, and second, to receive "personal revelation" from God regarding what you should do. "Should I wear slacks, or a skirt? Better ask God!" Subsequently, when I hear 'pray often,' I am inclined to hear, "Give your mind over to us."
Always attend your church meetings means, "Always do all the things the church would have you do. The institution of the church requires enormous sacrifices of time from it's members, WAY beyond the three hour block of church. They know that if they have their YW (and everyone else) orbiting around the church, they won't have time or inclination to expore anything outside the church. When I hear "Always attend your church meetings" I am inclined to hear, "Give your time over to us."
And Always pay a full tithe is just blatantly absurd. "Give God your money, you'll be happy." In other words, "Turn your money over to us."
It is discouraging to me that the message is "Give up your mind, your time and your money" to the church, and therin you'll find happiness and success. But what about these things:
Honor the diversity of opinion, race, religion and culture of the world, that you might know you are a citizen of planet earth;
Live with an attitude of abundance, knowing that if we live each day with an eye towards the needs of both ourselves and others, we all will have what we need for our health, happiness and prosperity;
Be informed and active in the issues of your community, your nation, and the world, that you might lend your voice to making this a better place to live;
Work hard and honestly to ensure that you do your part to meet your own needs, and have sufficient to help those who cannot help themselves;
Love with abandon the people and the creaturs you share this planet with;
Live a life that seeks at every turn to do no harm. If you must cause harm, ensure that it is appropriate and necessary to further the greater cause of humanity, and life on the planet;
Treat the relationships in your life--your parents, your siblings, your spouse, your children, your friends and neighbors--with honor and respect;
Live a life filled with honesty and inegrity;
...and the list goes on.
Never would I include on MY list of things to ensure success "Pay a multi-billion church corporation a butt-load of money so they can buy more sh*t". Never would I include on my list "give up your mind to someone else".
Am I alone in this, or this admonition by the President of the church shallow, manipulative, and incredibly self-serving?
| This weekend Gordon B. Hinckley again reinforced the rule that women are second class citizens in Mormonism:
"Husbands, love and treasure your wives. They are your most precious possessions. Wives, encourage and pray for your husbands. They need all the help they can get."
Women are still "possessions" and you will need three of them to become a Mormon God.
| Hinckley's Statement That Women Are "Possessions" Show The Philosophical Underpinnings Of Mormonism |
Thursday, Apr 5, 2007, at 01:45 AM
Original Author(s): Grape Nephi
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| I would agree it was probably not meant to be deragatory. But it does show the philosophical underpinnings from being brought up in the Mormon Religion.
This is a theme that he has used for a while. For example in the Jan 2002 ensign:
Regard as your most precious possession in time or eternity the person with whom you joined hands over the altar in the house of the Lord and to whom you pledged your love and loyalty and affection for time and all eternity.
In the young women metting in March 1998 Faust used the same term in describing sexual purity:
Sexual purity is youth's most precious possession; it is the foundation of all righteousness. This implies that the virtue of young women should be equal to the angels.
From the 1996 mariied students regional conference, Hinckley stated:
"My brethren, you will never have in all of your lives a greater asset than
the woman into whose eyes you looked as you joined hands over the altar in
the house of the Lord. She will be your most precious possession in time or
Let's look at the definitions of possession from a number of sites on the web:
- the act of having and controlling property
- anything owned or possessed
- being controlled by passion or the supernatural
- monomania: a mania restricted to one thing or idea
- a territory that is controlled by a ruling state
"Possession is having some degree of control over something else. Generally, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of things is commonly regulated by states under property law. Languages have several means to indicate possession."
The use of the word possession in Hinckley's talks harkens back to a time when women were literally the possession of their husbands such as in Middle Eastern cultures. Are women or men today the possessions of their spouses in the US, Cnada or Europe? I consider a spouse a partner. Using the term possession intones something different than a partner. Perhaps he did not mean it the way it sounds but as the prophet and president of the church he should pick his words more carefully.
"The method recognized by law and used by oneself or by another to hold, detain, or control either personal or real property, thereby excluding others from holding or controlling such property."
| This remark by Gordon B. Hinckley caught my ear during General Conference:
"When the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he became aware of the divisiveness among the clergy concerning the nature of Deity. In an attempt to overcome this he gathered the eminent divines of the day to Nicaea in the year 325. Each participant was given opportunity to state his views. The argument only grew more heated. When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made. It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and its basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.
"Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing.
I'm sure this went completely unnoticed by TBMs, but this is the type of negativity that mormons are highly sensitive to when it is directed toward them, yet they engage in it toward other faiths on a fairly regular basis. Imagine if Pope Benedict stood in front of a large gathering of Catholics and briefly summarized the various versions of the First Visions then told his followers, "Personally I cannot understand it. To me Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of seeing God and Jesus are confusing. How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on one man's opinion concerning the nature of Deity."
"How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith, who, while yet a boy, spoke with God the Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Risen Lord."
It may seem like a minor attack, but it is an official statement coming from the church leader.
And did anyone else find Hinckley's bolded comments above ironic. The Mormon church doesn't rely on man-made statements regarding deity because their knowledge comes from Joseph Smith?
| LDS members have a cult-hero worship relationship with Gordon Hinckley and believe him to be the most important man on earth. Hinckley, for his part, has added to this perception by scheduling interviews with reporters such as Mike Wallace and Larry King.
But do they consider him prominent or important?
Larry King’s internet website lists many note-worthy people he has interviewed, including:
Every U.S. president since the Ford administration
King Hussein of Jordan and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
George H.W. Bush
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
President George W. Bush, first lady Laura Bush
Sen. John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry
Sen. John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards
Former British Prime Minister John Major
Convicted murderers Sante Kimes and her son, Kenneth
Karla Faye Tucker, the first woman to be executed in Texas
Kathryn McDonald, wife of convicted murderer Jeffrey McDonaldv
New York Times journalist Judy Miller
Generals Richard Myers and Hugh Shelton
Queen Noor of Jordan
captured Newsday journalist Matthew McCallester
families of POWs
Ambassadors from Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria and Turkey
The "Central Park Jogger" Trisha Meili
Paul Burrell, butler to the late Princess to Diana
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
interviews with the family of the D.C.-area snipers
Actor Harry Belafonte regarding his controversial comments about Secretary of State Colin Powell
Erin Runnion, mother of murdered 5-year-old Samantha Runnion
Mariane Pearl, widow of slain journalist Danny Pearl
former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling's
Sammy Davis Jr.
John F. Kennedy, Jr.
Dr. Martin Luther King
Religious leaders such as Billy Graham and Scientology’s L. Ron Hubbard appear on King’s list. Even Mike Tyson, Monica Lewinsky, Pete Rose and Prince make the cut. Even Princess Diana’s butler is listed. Guess who’s missing? Yeah, you guessed it no Hinckley mentioned.
Well, what about Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes fame. The two, after Hinckley’s anxious interview, became great friends. Surely, Mr. Wallace considers the Mormon prophet a person of note.
Let’s review the official Mike Wallace website listing those prominent people he has interviewed:
Russian President Vladimir Putin
John Nash, the mentally ill genius on whose life the controversial Academy Award-winning film “A Beautiful Mind” was based,
Louis Farrakhan and the eldest daughter of Malcolm X, who has accused Farrakhan of indirect complicity in her father's assassination,
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
George H.W. Bush,
Ronald and Nancy Reagan
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter
Lyndon B. Johnson
John F. Kennedy
the Ayatollah Khomeini
the Shah of Iran
H. R. Haldeman
Johnny Carson among many others
Not there either. Oh, yeah, in 2005 Mr. Wallace had published his memoirs entitled: “Between You and Me: A Memoir.” Hinckley must be mentioned or included in Wallace’s lengthier book. No, not there either.
Maybe, just maybe, the two most noteworthy journalists to ever interview Hinckley don’t consider him famous, important or even memorable. Any maybe, they don’t even consider the LDS Church prominent enough to include its leader in their biography pages.
| Mormon Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley Acknowledges That Church Continues To Practice Polygamy |
Friday, Oct 26, 2007, at 04:36 AM
Original Author(s): Lulu
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| "President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.
Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990."
| Gordon B. Hinckley was the well liked, highly visible church leader that understood the church members liked to hear a joke or two, be reminded of their pioneer heritage and what those people accomplished, and the feeling that they belonged to something big.
Hinkley also knew the members of the church liked to see the prophet and went around the world on a Gulf Stream jet and private helicopter supposedly thanks to John Huntsman.
Hinckley rebuilt Nauvoo and other church historic sites making them grander than ever. He put Martin's Cove back on the map. LDS summer vacations were now visiting Nauvooland and pulling a handcart at Martin's Cove. Everything the church ran and owned became grander and more wonderful under Hinckley. The historic tabernacle was replaced with a half billion dollar Conference Center. BYU Provo received upgrades while Rick's College became BYU Idaho with a Harvard Business School Dean running the show.
Hinckley did public interviews and hired Madison Avenue to due the church PR work. He liked to refer to the book of Daniel and liken the church to the stone cut out without hands rolling forth.
At first Hinckley's plan seemed to work until in the mid 1990's a software program called Netscape made searching the internet easier. The internet changed the world much like the invention of the PC did. It leveled the playing field allowing the average person to have more of a voice, to more easily search for information and harder to hide information. The mainstream media and large organizations could not withhold information like it used to.
People who had left the church could tell their story in easy to find forums on websites. Church historical information could be looked up and compared. People from all over the world could tell their experiences. All this added up and showed more than ever, the LDS Church was full of bull. This was all happening at the same time while the LDS Prophet was doing public interviews denying basic church doctrine. The church leaders continued business at usual and the emperor had no clothes anymore.
Not to mention terrorist attacks on 9/11 brought attention on the Mountain Meadows Massacre again and when ground was broke to build Hinckley's "We're Sorry!" monument, forensic evidence of the massacre was found to show the surviving children told the truth and the Mormons cooked a story. Add in the FLDS polygamy scandals and abuse and Hinckley's public relations blitz was failing badly.
Now the church is investing $2 billion into a downtown mall project. Not to mention the church bought part of Main Street and turned it into a parking garage. The media and attention loving Hinckley is gone and has been replaced with Thomas S. Monson.
Monson will steer the church the same way Hinckley did but without all the grand public relation stunts. I think he will avoid talking to the press like Hinckley did other than press that he knows if friendly to the church. Monson's reign has already been somewhat of a disaster. Instead of bragging about the strength of the church and the rock rolling forth, the new prophet begs exmormons to return to the fold. It's a far cry from the begining of the Hinckley years where the church was mighty and the fastest growing.
Business as usual is going to run the rest of the sane members from the church and all that will be left will be a bunch of Kool Aid drinking wierdos.
| That the 1997 LDS priesthood/Relief Society lesson manual "The Teachings of Brigham Young", p. 34, states:
"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church."
This lesson manual was published the same year in which Hinckley denied that the church "taught or emphasized" the doctrine.
For the original poster's benefit, the following is from the "I have a question" section of the February 1982 issue of The Ensign magazine:
"Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is,
God once was; as God now is, man may be' accepted as official
doctrine by the Church?"
In response, Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church
Education System answered, and summarized the situation by saying:
"It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both
acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." [The Ensign,
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits
enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of
the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God....yea, that
God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as
Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible....
[Joseph Smith, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345-346.]
"He is our Father the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in
mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being
. It appears
ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous
traditions, that God has once been a finite being;
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 333-334]
"The Gods who dwell in the Heaven from which our spirits came, are
beings who have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed
before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly
body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state. [Apostle
Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1853-1854, 20.]
"You and I--what helpless creatures are we! Such limited power we
and how little can we control the wind and the waves and the storms!
We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single
line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God
once was; and as God is, man may become." [President Spencer W.
Kimball, Our Great Potential, Ensign, May 1977, page 49.]
| This morning, I turned on the car radio just in time to hear the voice of Gordon B. Hinckley solemnly imploring his listeners to know as he did, that "this is God's work." I was momentarily disoriented by the familiar, gravelly drone, but then I was brought back by the chirpy voice of uber-annoying Amanda Dickson reminding me that it's been a year since the man had passed away. She read copy that said Hinckley's 13 years as church president were marked by an unprecedented jump in temple building.
What struck me, however, is how much has changed since he left the scene. Hinckley was always conscious of the church's image and did as much as he could to assure the outside world that Mormons weren't "weird" and that the problematic parts of its history and theology were "behind us" and "in the past." Members of the church around the world spoke in reverent tones about how this one man had raised the church's profile and improved its public image.
But after his death, two things undid much of his PR work. First, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign led the media to investigate the reality behind the church's carefully crafted public face, and what they found was indeed "weird," Hinckley's protestations notwithstanding. People learned for the first time about temple garments, seer stones, institutionalized racism, and a whole host of facts the church had long tried to bury.
Then came Proposition 8. The church's clumsy and ham-fisted excursion into sexual politics has been a disaster for the church. They may have scored some points with right-wing Christian groups, but then those are the same people who have long demonized Mormons as "not Christian," anyway. So, few potential converts are among that crowd. For the rest of the US, however, the church showed its retrograde Victorian attitudes about sex and gender, and of course it aligned itself with the right-wing religious nut jobs. Either way, it did itsef no favors over the last year, except maybe to reassure members that it actually does stand for something beyond tithing.
Anyway, if Gordon B. Hinckley is at all conscious somewhere in the universe, it must be eating at him to see all of his work so completely unraveled.
| "None of us knows what lies ahead. We may speculate, but we do not know."
"I do not know what the future holds."
"I don't know His will. I don't know how He operates."
"I don't know what he meant by that."
"I don't have the remotest idea what you mean."
"...we are given little understanding."
"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."
| What Hinckley Said Regarding The Nigerian Temple And What Really Happened |
Wednesday, Sep 30, 2009, at 08:58 AM
Original Author(s): Former Temple Worker
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| Past LDS President Hinckley, accepted as a prophet, seer and revelator during his lifetime by Mormon members, undertook the unique duties of his special mantra in uttering the inspired words used at the Aba, Nigerian LDS temple on August 7, 2005.
In part, Hinckley, inspired, stated:
"May all who look upon it do so with reverence and respect. May no unhallowed hand vandalize it in any way. May it always be sacred to those who are eligible to come within its walls. Save it from storm and tempest. We pray likewise for the associated structures, that all may stand together to serve Thy purposes."
But within four short years, Hinckley's inspired utterances, priesthood power and prophetic prowess were called into question.
Quietly in June 2009, the LDS church closed its Nigerian Temple indefinitely with no public announcement made until the closure was leaked to the press. Not until August, 2009 did the LDS church announce the indefinite closing stating:
"'Incidences of violence in recent months in the area where the temple is situated are not necessarily related to the temple but could put church members at risk.' LDS church spokesman Scott Trotter stated."
The incidents of violence referenced by the LDS spokesman were reported to the Ogden Standard Examiner newspaper by a Nigerian temple worker's e-mail. The e-mail reported that bullets from at least four AK-47 gunman struck either the temple doors or the"associated" guardhouse located on the temple grounds.
So while inspired Hinckley promises protections from vandals "in any way," the truth is that Hinckley had no ability whatsoever to foresee the future or offer prophetic protection. After all, it was Hinckley, who after the infamous September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks gave the following assurance:
"Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways."
"No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this time."
"I do not know what the future holds."
(Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Times in Which We Live,” October 2001 General Conference (Ensign, Nov. 2001, Page 72))
"I do not know what the future holds." - Gee, you got that one right!
| "Well, It's Either True Or False. If It's False, We're Engaged In A Great Fraud." --- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley; Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007 |
Thursday, Nov 18, 2010, at 09:43 AM
Original Author(s): Beentheredunnthatexmo
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| "Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud." --- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley; Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007...
"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007
If any TBM ever really believed that GBH was a "Twoo Prophet" then that TBM would also have to conclude that yes...GBH called it correctly knowing that it is indeed a fraud that ANY semi-conscious 3rd-grader could figure out...yea even a lowly TBM!!!
This week (circa 4/27/07) Slate Magazine is publishing three excerpts from Christopher Hitchens' new book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything...
Mormonism: A Racket Becomes A Religion
If the followers of the prophet Muhammad hoped to put an end to any future "revelations" after the immaculate conception of the Koran, they reckoned without the founder of what is now one of the world's fastest-growing faiths. And they did not foresee (how could they, mammals as they were?) that the prophet of this ridiculous cult would model himself on theirs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–hereafter known as the Mormons–was founded by a gifted opportunist who, despite couching his text in openly plagiarized Christian terms, announced that "I shall be to this generation a new Muhammad" and adopted as his fighting slogan the words, which he thought he had learned from Islam, "Either the Al-Koran or the sword." He was too ignorant to know that if you use the word al you do not need another definite article, but then he did resemble Muhammad in being able only to make a borrowing out of other people's bibles.
In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon." He had two huge local advantages which most mountebanks and charlatans do not possess. First, he was operating in the same hectically pious district that gave us the Shakers and several other self-proclaimed American prophets. So notorious did this local tendency become that the region became known as the "Burned-Over District," in honor of the way in which it had surrendered to one religious craze after another. Second, he was operating in an area which, unlike large tracts of the newly opening North America, did possess the signs of anancient history.
A vanished and vanquished Indian civilization had bequeathed a considerable number of burial mounds, which when randomly and amateurishly desecrated were found to contain not merely bones but also quite advanced artifacts of stone, copper, and beaten silver. There were eight of these sites within twelve miles of the underperforming farm which the Smith family called home. There were two equally stupid schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in such matters: the first were the gold-diggers and treasure-diviners who brought their magic sticks and crystals and stuffed toads to bear in the search for lucre, and the second those who hoped to find the resting place of a lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups, and to unite cupidity with half-baked anthropology.
The actual story of the imposture is almost embarrassing to read, and almost embarrassingly easy to uncover. (It has been best told by Dr. Fawn Brodie, whose 1945 book No Man Knows My History was a good-faith attempt by a professional historian to put the kindest possible interpretation on the relevant "events.") In brief, Joseph Smith announced that he had been visited (three times, as is customary) by an angel named Moroni. The said angel informed him of a book, "written upon gold plates," which explained the origins of those living on the North American continent as well as the truths of the gospel. There were, further, two magic stones, set in the twin breastplates Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament, that would enable Smith himself to translate the aforesaid book. After many wrestlings, he brought this buried apparatus home with him on September 21, 1827, about eighteen months after his conviction for fraud. He then set about producing a translation.
The resulting "books" turned out to be a record set down by ancient prophets, beginning with Nephi, son of Lephi, who had fled Jerusalem in approximately 600 BC and come to America. Many battles, curses, and afflictions accompanied their subsequent wanderings and those of their numerous progeny. How did the books turn out to be this way? Smith refused to show the golden plates to anybody, claiming that for other eyes to view them would mean death. But he encountered a problem that will be familiar to students of Islam. He was extremely glib and fluent as a debater and story-weaver, as many accounts attest. But he was illiterate, at least in the sense that while he could read a little, he could not write. A scribe was therefore necessary to take his inspired dictation. This scribe was at first his wife Emma and then, when more hands were necessary, a luckless neighbor named Martin Harris. Hearing Smith cite the words of Isaiah 29, verses 1112, concerning the repeated injunction to "Read," Harris mortgaged hisfarm to help in the task and moved in with the Smiths. He sat on one side of a blanket hung across the kitchen, and Smith sat on the other with his translation stones, intoning through the blanket. As if to make this an even happier scene, Harris was warned that if he tried to glimpse the plates, or look at the prophet, he would be struck dead.
Mrs. Harris was having none of this, and was already furious with the fecklessness of her husband. She stole the first hundred and sixteen pages and challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably–given his power of revelation–he could. (Determined women like this appear far too seldom in the history of religion.) After a very bad few weeks, the ingenious Smith countered with another revelation. He could not replicate the original, which might be in the devil's hands by now and open to a "satanic verses" interpretation. But the all-foreseeing Lord had meanwhile furnished some smaller plates, indeed the very plates of Nephi, which told a fairly similar tale. With infinite labor, the translation was resumed, with new scriveners behind the blanket as occasion demanded, and when it was completed all the original golden plates were transported to heaven, where apparently they remain to this day.
Mormon partisans sometimes say, as do Muslims, that this cannot have been fraudulent because the work of deception would have been too much for one poor and illiterate man. They have on their side two useful points: if Muhammad was ever convicted in public of fraud and attempted necromancy we have no record of the fact, and Arabic is a language that is somewhat opaque even to the fairly fluent outsider. However, we know the Koran to be made up in part of earlier books and stories, and in the case of Smith it is likewise a simple if tedious task to discover that twenty-five thousand words of the Book of Mormon are taken directly from the Old Testament. These words can mainly be found in the chapters of Isaiah available in Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews: The Ten Tribes of Israel in America. This then popular work by a pious loony, claiming that the American Indians originated in the Middle East, seems to have started the other Smith on his gold-digging in the first place. A further two thousand words of theBook of Mormon are taken from the New Testament. Of the three hundred and fifty "names" in the book, more than one hundred come straight from the Bible and a hundred more are as near stolen as makes no difference. (The great Mark Twain famously referred to it as "chloroform in print," but I accuse him of hitting too soft a target, since the book does actually contain "The Book of Ether.") The words "and it came to pass" can be found at least two thousand times, which does admittedly have a soporific effect. Quite recent scholarship has exposed every single other Mormon "document" as at best a scrawny compromise and at worst a pitiful fake, as Dr. Brodie was obliged to notice when she reissued and updated her remarkable book in 1973.
Like Muhammad, Smith could produce divine revelations at short notice and often simply to suit himself (especially, and like Muhammad, when he wanted a new girl and wished to take her as another wife). As a result, he overreached himself and came to a violent end, having meanwhile excommunicated almost all the poor men who had been his first disciples and who had been browbeaten into taking his dictation. Still, this story raises some very absorbing questions, concerning what happens when a plain racket turns into a serious religion before our eyes.
It must be said for the "Latter-day Saints" (these conceited words were added to Smith's original "Church of Jesus Christ" in 1833) that they have squarely faced one of the great difficulties of revealed religion. This is the problem of what to do about those who were born before the exclusive "revelation," or who died without ever having the opportunity to share in its wonders. Christians used to resolve this problem by saying that Jesus descended into hell after his crucifixion, where it is thought that he saved or converted the dead. There is indeed a fine passage in Dante's Inferno where he comes to rescue the spirits of great men like Aristotle, who had presumably been boiling away for centuries until he got around to them. (In another less ecumenical scene from the same book, the Prophet Muhammad is found being disemboweled in revolting detail.) The Mormons have improved on this rather backdated solution with something very literal-minded. They have assembled a gigantic genealogical database at a huge repository in Utah, and are busy filling it with the names of all people whose births, marriages, and deaths have been tabulated since records began. This is very useful if you want to look up your own family tree, and as long as you do not object to having your ancestors becoming Mormons. Every week, at special ceremonies in Mormon temples, the congregations meet and are given a certain quota of names of the departed to "pray in" to their church. This retrospective baptism of the dead seems harmless enough to me, but the American Jewish Committee became incensed when it was discovered that the Mormons had acquired the records of the Nazi "final solution," and were industriously baptizing what for once could truly be called a "lost tribe": the murdered Jews of Europe. For all its touching inefficacy, this exercise seemed in poor taste. I sympathize with the American Jewish Committee, but I nonetheless think that the followers of Mr. Smith should be congratulated for hitting upon even the most simpleminded technological solution to a problem that has defied solution ever since man first invented religion.
Or so it seems to me...
| Question: "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 was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."
"On the other hand, the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342-62); and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become!" - Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 1994
"The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church." - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young - Chapter 4: Knowing and Honoring the Godhead - LDS.org
"President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints ... that God the Father was once a man on another planet who 'passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality.'" - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young - Chapter 4: Knowing and Honoring the Godhead - LDS.org
"Joseph Smith taught: 'It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God.
He was once a man like us;
God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." - Gospel Principles: Chapter 47: Exaltation - LDS.org
The seminary manual, Doctrine and Covenants Student Study Guide, teaches the Snow couplet along with Snow's belief that it was a "revelation" from "the Spirit of the Lord" and "a sacred communication."
The Aaronic Priesthood Manual 2 quotes the Snow couplet, approvingly, by all appearances -- and in Lesson 1, no less!
The Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual quotes the relevant portion of the King Follet Discourse after describing it as one of the "truths about the Godhead [that was] restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith."
The relevant portion(s) of the King Follet Discourse and/or the Lorenzo Snow couplet appear, without any indication that such teachings are false, questionable, speculative, opinion, or anything other than the gospel truth, in the following Church-published publications published by the Church, all available at LDS.org:
The Fulness of the Gospel: The Nature of the Godhead, Ensign, January 2006 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge, New Era, January 2007 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
The King Follet Sermon, Ensign, April 1971 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
QandA: Questions and Answers, New Era, April 1971 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Our Great Potential, Ensign, May 1977 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Gospel Art Picture Kit: Lorenzo Snow http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Decision, Ensign, May 1978 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Eliza R. Snow Poetry Contest Winners, Ensign, July 1989 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Funstuf - President Lorenzo Snow Crossword, Friend, March 2002 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Mormonad, New Era, June 1982 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Mirthright, Ensign, March 1983 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
When Our Children Go Astray, Ensign, February 1997 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
Strengthening the Family: Created in the Image of God, Male and Female, Ensign, January 2005 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
And then there's this thing:
I Have a Question: Is President Lorenzo Snow’s oft-repeated statement–“As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be”–accepted as official doctrine by the Church?, Ensign, February 1982 (answer: yes) http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgn...
“I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no [one] who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ.
President Gordon B. Hinckley (19102008), “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2006, 58, 60.
“We are members of the Church of our Lord. We have an obligation to Him as well as to ourselves and others.”
This quote is also in this months Ensign, it is such a farce to deny the racist past of the church 'leaders'.
Below are some quotes compiled on the I4M website, link below
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.
This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."
"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
Mark E Peterson
"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."
"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."
"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.
Brigham Young - Journal Of Discourses
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings." (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."
| 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 |
Friday, Dec 16, 2011, at 01:29 PM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: GORDON B. HINCKLEY -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| 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.
On August 4, 1997, Time magazine had an article about Mormons and words from Gordon B. Hinckley.
Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
Q: ... 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?
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
How could the Hinckley say "I don't know"? It was and still is taught. You can read it in the LDS manual called "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith"
It is below the paragraph heading "When we comprehend the character of God, we comprehend ourselves and know how to approach Him."
“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,–I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form–like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
This manual is not an obsolete book. The lds website even says how to use the book.
"This book can be used to teach at home or at church."
The website formerly known as Mormon Defense League says that Mormons do not teach or excuse dishonesty.
Aren't Mormons supposed to follow the prophet? What about Gordon B. Hinckley? He set a fine example. If Mormons want to appear to be honest, just say "I don't know that we teach it" and dishonesty will be excused.
How to navigate:
- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
|Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated. |
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119