Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Secret" Purchase by Hinckley of the Hoffmann Documents

This dispute was resolved, archiving this discussion. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am starting this subject to formally put in writing my violent and vehement objection to the following paragraph in this article: "The Mark Hoffmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. Several books[4] describe the arrangements for acquiring BLAH BLAH BLAHity. However, Hoffmann would later leak its existence to the press, after which the church released the letter to scholars for study, despite previously denying its possession.[5]" It's amazing how one source, no matter how false the information actually is, can make mudslinging at this man an acceptable practice. Because the best defense is a good offense, I will provided as a counterexample a link to an article about the issue in question that has been written by a Church leader and endorsed by headquarters, having been featured in an official Church publication. This article is in the public domain and is therefore attributable and thus verifiable. I refer you to an article featured in the October 1987 Ensign. It's a transcript of a talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, "Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents," http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=309b71ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 I thought the whole "Hofmann" issue had been settled months ago by Wikipedia editors, and I never will understand the need certain editors on here feel to make themselves feel better by casting stones at the good name of a highly respected individual. You may call it truth. I call it bigoted slander. I'll be surprised if my post here doesn't generated some discussion, and I'm already anticipating a smear of my own reputation based on the responders disagreement with me. At the outset, all I can say is that if you have nothing better to do than to cast stones at the reputation of a 97 year-old man who, while self-described as imperfect and as prone to mistakes as any other man, is nevertheless doing much good in the world and is not guilty of even half of the stuff attributed to him in what are supposed to be "fair, impartial examinations of the issue at hand" but are really a desperate attempt to justify dislike of the individual in question by casting aspersions on his good name, then all I can say is that I feel sorry for you and that I don't know what this world is coming to. Btw, before someone attacks me for being bold enough to dig a little deeper on this issue, I would like to say that since there will be a disagreement, I want to make my position clear. I am a member of the LDS Church. I know that President Hinckley is God's mouthpiece on the earth at this time. I would be in favor of removing this obvious and blatant name-smear from what is supposed to be an "impartial and objective" article. And no matter what anyone on here says about the issue, I know that Church leaders have spoken out on this before. The article by Oaks was the only source I could find, but I think it provides enough evidence to justify a change in the content of this article. Thanks for your consideration of this matter. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Sighhh. We will remove the part that offends you until more references with page numbers are found. However, a cursory read of your reference does not contradict what is the article--Fmatmi (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Sourcing is extremely important here. I'd also like to see a primary source that backs up your secondary source's claim that the LDS church denied that it had the Stowel letter. A primary source quoted in a secondary source would be fine, and publications available online would be great. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Fmatmi, perhaps the problem is that you only gave the article a "cursory read". A more in-depth study of it would demonstrate that there was little or no basis for the accusations that previously had appeared in this article. I agree with Remember the dot. A secondary source may not be enough. There have been official statements on this whole issue of suppression that have been put out by the Church. You just have to know where to find them. The secondary source I mentioned referenced a primary source we could go to, a statement written by the man whom this "controversy" is about. I dug around a little but failed to find the primary source anywhere I looked. Perhaps you would have greater success. I have no objections to the article as it now stands. I do, however, find it ironic that the only place where "skeletons in the cupboard" are explored in Wikipedia is articles related to the Church. If you go skeleton hunting, you're bound to dig up a few bones. Whether or not those bones are true parts of the actual skeleton you seek remains to be seen. Until there is something that, beyond reasonable doubt, proves that what was in the article before it was edited was 100% true, then if something is not verifiable, according to my understanding of Wikipedia policy, it should not be included. I hope you understand my position and what I've been trying to say, even though I've said it (both times) rather badly and lengthily. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) No, the cursory read was not the problem. I have since read it in total detail and still find NO CONTRADICTIONS in Dallin Oaks Ensign article and what was in the Wikipedia paragraph. Oaks accused the Los Angeles Times Magazine and other papers of bias and deliberately concealing pertinent facts. However, in the same article he is guilty of the same. In his article Oaks conceals the fact the Stowell letter was only made public because Hofmann had leaked its existence. Hofmann broke his agreement of confidentiality with Hinckley by sending typed copies of the letter contents to the various members of the Mormon underground intelligentsia. The letter was leaked and Church Spokesman Jerry Cahill stated clearly that the Church possessed no such letter. Page 172 of The Mormon Murders illustrates how Cahill took the fall and wrote a mea culpa letter to the Tribune explaining that he had erred. Time magazine was preparing an article on the Salamander Letter that was never published. Page 102 of Victims clarifies that Cahill had previously told those authors that the Church did not possess the Stowell letter only because he misunderstood their question. VERIFIABLE FACT: Hinckley purchased the Stowell letter for $15,000 on the promise of confidential and secretly held on to for two years until Hofmann broke his pledge of confidentiality. Jgstokes initial visceral response is further proof that these verifiable truths belong in the article. Jgstokes reference does not contradict the paragraph, but actually validates the paragraph’s inclusion. In describing the Hofmann fiasco, Oaks states “the news interest was global” and “the whole episode achieved epic proportions.” Is it ironic that Wikipedia Mormon Apologists try to use every possible Wikipedia technique to suppress the pertinent verifiable truth that the Mormon Leadership has attempted to suppress historical documents? If they are just following the example of their leadership then I guess that it is not ironic, but expected. The interesting part to me was how Hofmann avoided the death penalty because Hinckley insisted on not testifying. That was my original aim here. Somehow that aim devolved into bickering over obvious truths. I am completely worn out. I would like to come to an agreement here and then abandon editing on the Mormon articles. HOW ABOUT THIS REWORDING?: For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was secretly purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hoffmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, Hoffmann would later leak its existence to the Mormon intellectual underground. Upon inquiry, Church Spokesman Jerry Cahill would deny that the Church possessed the document. Hinckley corrected Cahill and released the letter to scholars for study. --Fmatmi (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Let me address your contentions one by one. Obviously you didn't read the article closely enough. Were you reading the same article I was reading? Oaks clearly debunks the charges of suppresion, detailing what actually happened compared with what reportedly happened. He addressed all the issues that had been covered in the now-omitted inappropriate paragraph of the article. Oaks reminded the reader that Hinckley said he had purchased two documents, and that the Church History department, with whom he was unconnected, decided on their own to purchase the other documents. Let me say a word now about Church public affairs. Their job is to only tell the press that which they are instructed to tell by Church leaders. For example, in the excommunication of Richard R. Lyman, while the reason for his excommunication was the unauthorized practice of polygamy, all the Church public affairs people said on that occasion was that his excommunication was due to a violation of the Christian law of chastity. That was all they were at liberty to say. I cannot comment on the particulars of this instance, because you did not reference where you found the information about Cahill. But based on what you said, I imagine that Church leaders had no knowledge of what Cahill had done, and that when it was brought to light, he was either discharged or reprimanded. Again, you are only including half the story, and haven’t bothered to explore the other half. Next, in response to your statement: “Is it ironic that Wikipedia Mormon Apologists try to use every possible Wikipedia technique to suppress the pertinent verifiable truth that the Mormon Leadership has attempted to suppress historical documents? If they are just following the example of their leadership then I guess that it is not ironic, but expected.” Let me make it clear I am NOT a “Mormon Apologist.” I do not try to suppress the truth. I do not accept any “dirt” I hear about Church leaders unless I know for a fact, for myself, that these things are true, and when that happens (and it hasn’t yet) I will speak out against them and throw my support to those who desire to bring them to justice. I DO try to follow the examples of my Church leaders, but only when those examples are righteous. Having been a Church member all my life, I know my leaders are not perfect. But I also know that all criticism of major charges against Church leaders is false and bigoted. I know enough about Church procedure to know that if Church leaders ARE guilty of great crimes, the Lord will remove them out of their places, either by his own power or through those in authority over them. And since that HAS NOT happened to Hinckley, I HAVE to believe that this paragraph, reworded or not, is inaccurate, inappropriate, and bigoted. I make no comment on the kind of person you are, because I don’t know you well. But if you’re the kind of person that enjoys mudslinging, I can retaliate with the best of them. Personal attacks were expected, but if sticking up for those I KNOW are the Lord’s anointed makes me a bad person, then that says volumes about the type of people like you who rejoice in mudslinging. I don’t think I need to say any more than that about your personal attack on my own character. Hinckley didn’t “refuse to testify.” If you read up about this issue more, you will easily and quickly discover that defense attorneys opted NOT to have him testify because of his “busy schedule” and the “negative publicity” that would come to the Church as a result of that. If the material HAS to go in, then it needs to be reworded again. I will not, because of my position of the issue, be in favor of a change that has no further verification than a source that has already been countered by another verifiable but secondary source. I hope my position makes sense. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Sighhh...We are not communicating. You must be having a conversation some other person. You are apparently referring to some other “now-omitted inappropriate paragraph” than I am. Please quote the exact parts in the part in the paragraph below that are contradicted by quotes from the Oaks article. I gave you page numbers and books, but you claim I gave no references??? Please try to stay on topic in your next response. UNDISPUTED VERIFIABLE FACTS: Hinckley bought the Stowell forgery on behalf of the Church. The price was $15,000. Hofmann was the seller. There was a promise of confidentiality. ( This is from Hofmann’s deposition. It has not been disputed or denied.) Hinckley did not disclose the purchase for over two years. Hofmann leaked its existence. Church Spokesman Jerry Cahill declared the Church did not possess it. Hinckley corrected Cahill and released the document. When Oaks and internet apologists (such as Lindsay) address the issue they do not DENY these facts. They IGNORE most of them and focus on the last one. This is the correct thing for them to do. When writing Victims, Turley was given access to Oaks and others journals that the other authors were not. Though not an officially endorse book, it is general considered the Church’s side of the whole episode. EVEN this book recognizes these facts and that Cahill had erred. To my knowledge neither Turley nor Allen Roberts (also a co-author of Salamander) have been excommunicated or sued for slander by the Church. Let us think about this following paragraph for a week. If we still can not come to agreement let us request mediation. Otherwise after a week I will put it in the article.--Fmatmi (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC) The Mark Hofmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. Several books describe the arrangements for acquiring supposed historical documents for the LDS Church by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, Hofmann would later leak its existence to the Mormon intellectual underground. Upon inquiry, Church Spokesman Jerry Cahill would deny that the Church possessed the document . Hinckley corrected Cahill and released the letter to scholars for study . I do not try to be an unreasonable person. After having reread my previous response to you and finding no statement that warranted your request for me to "stay on topic in [my] next response", I am willing to overlook what I feel is a misrepresentation of me. If I ever conveyed that attitude of not being on topic, I apologize. Something you have to understand about me is that I sometimes let the convictions of my heart speak before the common sense part of my head has time to react and rethink. Because I am not an unreasonable person, I am willing to admit that I may have allowed the shock of finding what seemed to be biased and bigoted material about a man I respect on an encyclopedia that I believed should have been more objective cloud the sense of reason that now prevails in my mind. Having compared the paragraph originally objected to to to paragraph featured at the end of your last response, I would say that as long as the three sources cited as they were above are reputable and verifiable, I have no objections. The main reason behind my objections was that I believed there was a lot of unsourced material running around in the previous paragraph. I have no objections to the paragraph as it now is reworded. I hope you'll pardon me if I seemed to be bothersome about this. As long as the paragraph, with its three sources, appears as it appears above, there is no further need for discussion, mediation, or anything else to be said. With my agreement to the above reworded paragraph, I'll consider this matter closed and hope you'll do the same.--Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mormon Intellectual Underground

"Around the same time, a number of Mormon scholars, some of them connected to the underground, received in the mail typed copies of Joseph Smith's 1825 letter to Josiah Stowell." Page 146 of The Mormon Murders

In general it is the whole Sunstone community. People who precariously have one in foot in the religion and one foot out. People such as Robert Metcalfe who later left the church and others who never have. The type of intellectual Packer and Oaks are always warning about.--Fmatmi (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what it refers to but without an article to link to, many people won't. That's why I added the {unclear} tag — I think it needs to be explained or other terminology used. I see you added a link to Sunstone, which will temporarily suffice, but without further clarification it should probably be placed in quotes to indicate it is a phrase lifted from the source. It would be better if we could get a source on who exactly he leaked it to, rather than using nebulous phrases that aren't defined in the article or anywhere else in WP. Snocrates 03:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lock this Page

With the news of Hinckley's death, we need to protect this page! RIP - 67.41.228.186 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it. Cool Hand Luke 03:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just about to say, "I Second that", but someone else got to it. Thank you. Drivec (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. On a side note, who else wonders if he is dancing with Marjorie right now? 70.242.97.70 (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews About his Death?

Is someone writing a wikinews article? Should we post a link if there is one? Drivec (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm Making one here http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Gordon_B._Hinckley%2C_President_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_Dies_at_Age_97 Sorry about the bad Wiki-Manners, I'm in a little bit of a hurry...Drivec (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• • ADMIN**

additional press release location for bibliography: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=2560294 RLNoble (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

K... I wrote itDrivec (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

correctly called "...Latter-day Saints..."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You mispelled the church name. It's "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", hyphen and lower case 'd'. Bytebear (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Yeah, spell the name of the church correctly. We don't want the Strangites to get mad. Snocrates 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC) It's not about getting people mad. It's about consistancy, and following proper naming conventions. Bytebear (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Medal of Freedom Picture Quality

A higher-resolution picture of this event would add to the article. The current picture's quality is not so good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.213.199 (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidential succession

There are several editors who insist that Thomas S. Monson will be the next president. While this may be true (due to historic precedent), until the Quorum of the twelve announce it, it isn’t official, and shouldn’t be added as if it were a fact. I believe that Thomas S. Monson will be the next president too, but this isn’t “jaksmatapedia”, and the rules of original research still apply. So: until you have a source saying “Thomas S. Monson is officially the next president,” please don’t add it as if it were a fact. – jaksmata 14:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just historical precedent. It's official church procedure. So essentially, it is a fact.Succession in the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Hypnometal (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact or no, there is no verifiable source saying so. It should be said that the successor is expected to be Monson, but that it hasn't been anounced. Monson is not president until he is sustained by the general body of the church, and officially set apart by the quorum of 12, by the laying on of hands. It is an official process. Bytebear (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is merely a use of tense. To say that he is not currently President and to say that he will be President with all certainty, both statements are true, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. Hypnometal (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot say "he will be", but you can say "he is expected to be". Bytebear (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with going even that far. The cited material doesn't support Monson's ascension being "widely anticipated." Historical precedent and popular anticipation aren't necessarily parallel. I won't edit, but this should be reconsidered. Townlake (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)