Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Gordon B. Hinckley is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 11, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Scouting WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) Gordon B. Hinckley is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

page: 1

Contents 1 WikiProject class rating 2 Misc Edits 3 "Secret" Purchase by Hinckley of the Hoffmann Documents 4 Mormon Intellectual Underground 5 Lock this Page 6 Wikinews About his Death? 7 Head Priest 8 Mitt Romney 9 Presidential Medal of Freedom Picture Quality 10 Presidential succession 11 Viewing 12 Request to add link 13 All General Conference Addresses as President 14 Outreach as opposed to proselytization 15 Mark Hoffman controversy 16 Iraq War

[edit] 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)

[edit] Misc Edits

Removed reference to the "10 degrees" earned at the University of Utah. No evidence of more than one degree (journalism, as mentioned in some internet sources) on the LDS website's official biography. Rozenlime (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Secret" Purchase by Hinckley of the Hoffmann Documents

This dispute was resolved, archiving this discussion. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. 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 supposed historical documents for the LDS Church by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was secretly purchased by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hoffmann on the promise of confidentiality. 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[1] 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 [2]. Hinckley corrected Cahill and released the letter to scholars for study [3]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I don't have any doubt he is, unless he's telling her a joke instead.:') I'll miss him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffhistorian (talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How long does the article stay locked?

The current lock expires 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC). Was there something you wanted to add or edit? – jaksmata 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 is an archived debate. 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)

[edit] Head Priest

Condolences sent to Church for Hinckley by the GM / PS ... the GM / PS being the real head pope of the earth, etc

[edit] Mitt Romney

With Mormon Church Leader Mitt Romney set to attend Hinckley's funeral mass shortly ... what are the chances that Mitt Romney will be named as the new President of the Mormon Church ??

I would give it less than 1:1,000,000. The LDS Church has a process unbroken from Brigham Young, it's unlikely they'll change it this time, and even if they did it's unlikely that Romney would be chosen. The President is a spiritual rather than temporal position. I wouldn't be too surprised if Romney was picked to help manage the church's assets in his gray years, but he will certainly not be named president now. Cool Hand Luke 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no chance whatsoever... Romney is a politician who happens to be a Mormon, but he is not a leader in the Church. He was a local leader over a few congregations, a stake president, but never anything like a general authority of the church. BTW, the office of the Presiding Bishopric handles the church's finances. – jaksmata 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

99% chance it is going to be the President of the Quorum of the Twelve, President Monson.166.82.94.162 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You ignore the commandments of founder Joseph Smith who prophecied that in these End Times,

a Mormon king would rule all; and the only person those remarks could possible apply to is King Mitt Romney , president of USA and Prophet, & so also then President of the LDS, Church of the Latter Day Saints, head of all the theo-democracy, prophecied to rule the globe by the Saintly Joseph Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.202.121 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And YOU ignore the fact that Joseph Smith never mentioned specifically who that would be. Unless you intend to establish yourself as a prophet, who are you to say that Mitt Romney is who Smith had reference to? Your rationalization falls on its face when the facts can be disproved. And IF you can prove that Mitt Romney is the one spoken of, and that he WILL be the next leader of the Church, where are your sources and where is your signature? I find it laughable that the most ridiculous beliefs about what Wikipedia's position should be are promulgated by editors who don't intend to list sources or signatures on comments. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

You want a verifiable source saying so? Here you go: Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said during Pres. Hinckley's funeral that the senior apostle always becomes President of the Church. [1] I'm surprised you didn't consider the official post at the LDS Newsroom to be a verifiable source, so maybe you'll consider this one to be. Hypnometal (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I watched the funeral, and I heard Packer's remarks. I was suprised, because as far as I know there is no scriptural reference to succession. Perhaps tradition has become scriptural, because this is the first time I have heard it declared as doctrine, and I have been around for a lot of LDS presidents. Also from the official LDS site, it says only this: "6. If a motion to reorganize the First Presidency is passed, the Quorum of the Twelve unanimously selects the new president of the Church". It says they select the new president, not that it is automatically the senior member. Bytebear (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything I've heard in Sunday School classes, from priesthood leaders, etc. has indicated that it is always the senior apostle, and the statement from the church says nothing to contradict it. I suspect that, even if Elder Packer's statement today is the only recent reference that can be quoted for bibliographical purposes, there must be some documentation in ages past that indicates that this is the proper procedure, even if that documentation isn't in the D&C. I wouldn't know where to find any other documentation, though. Hypnometal (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

MaxxFordham writes:

Hmm, "no verifiable source saying so"? How was that post from LDS.org, which Hypnomental mentioned, "not enough proof"? Okay, well, then, how about THIS? http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2562203

Is that not proof enough for ya?

There are other places that mention it, as well.

Isn't that what I and others have been saying? "Likely" successor, but not actual successor. The wording cannot be definitive. Bytebear (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the Monson page from "he will be the next president" to "he will likely be the next president". This should be enough for all issues. Remember there are no emergencies on Wikipedia, and this will be resolved in a few days. Nobody panic. Bytebear (talk) 19:32, 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)

Okay. I'm going to stick my nose into this one as well. I commented about this on Monson's talk page, but will reiterate my comments here. I agree that while in all probability Monson will be the 16th President of the Church, it might not happen that way. Just because there appears to be a precedent doesn't mean it's set in stone. One of the other apostles COULD be chosen as Hinckley's successor. However, if that happens, the inspiration of who that would be would have to come through President Monson, as would the ordaining and setting apart of another individual besides Monson. Hope that helps. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypnometal, according to the source you gave, the Quorum of the Twelve will first decide "should Church continue to function with the Quorum of the Twelve presiding?" (see point #4 thru #6) So they could decide that there will be no new president for now. Joseph Smith died June 27, 1844, and Brigham Young wasn't ordained to the presidency until December 27, 1847 (more than 3 years later). A similar gap occured between Young and John Taylor, and between Taylor and Wilford Woodruff. To quote President of the Church, "The tradition of waiting for two to three years before selecting a new president continued until the death of the fourth president of the church, Wilford Woodruff, in 1898." So there's a possibility that Monson will not be president any time soon. We're talking about traditions not official church procedure.

Also, that same source says that "...the longest-serving apostle has always become the president..." it doesn't say "...the longest-serving apostle will always become the president..." Your assumption that Monson's future presidency is a "certainty" is false. The Twelve could call someone else.

Like I said before - I too believe Monson will be the president (and soon), but this isn't a forum for what I think, nor what you think. Wait until it is officially announced, then add it as a confirmed fact. That he will has yet to be determined. – jaksmata 19:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, there are no emergencies in Wikipedia. In a few days this will all be moot. Bytebear (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

True :-) I've already made two revert-like edits to this article today, so to avoid an edit war, I'm going to bow out now. – jaksmata 19:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No emergencies, but remember WP:BOLD - if something is incorrect, it should be fixed rather than tolerated or negotiated down to something slightly less incorrect. Jaksmata, your reverts were good ones. Townlake (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is always, with the exception of Joseph Smith, as there was no prophet he was an apostle under, the apostle who was called first into the quorum of the twelve who still lives because that, according to the LDS belief, God's house is a house of order and this is the way which presidents of the church are to be called. According to church procedure, Thomas S. Monson will be called as the next prophet unless he dies before he's ordained--Buffhistorian (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Once he is ordained, you can change the page to reflect that. Bytebear (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to readers/editors: contributions to this thread have gotten out of order chronologically... It's probably a good idea to put new posts at the end rather than in the middle...

That being said, responding to Hypnometal's comments of 2/3/2008 above, Elder Packer's comments at the funeral (and reported by ABC) seem sufficient to me to say that President Monson will succeed President Hinckley. As far as I can tell, Elder Packer's comments were a first in church history. He went beyond what has been officially reported up until now. Because of his position as Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, there's no reason to doubt what he said. – jaksmata 19:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me like there's no reason to not just wait for it to be official. Yes, Monson is going to be the next prophet, but it's not killing anyone to not put that until it's official (meaning he's been set apart and whatnot). There is no rush, there are no emergencies on Wiki. Darkage7 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

President Packer was merely just explaning what normally happens. Because it's the exception rather than the rule, he omitted metioning that IF President Monson felt otherwise inspired, someone else could be called, ordained, and set apart BY President Monson. I agree that in all probablity Monson is already the new prophet (press conference is just to announce the change. The actual change, according to the official Church Public Affairs statement released today actually happened this morning) but as I and so many others have pointed out, the press conference is now only 17 hours away and I think we can wait that long. I concur fully. As far as basing the validity of Packer's statement on his seniority, he is no longer Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve and was speaking from personal experiences witnessed rather than commenting additionally on the atypical case. So while his remarks should be taken into consideration, doing so because of a position he no longer holds seems a bit impractical. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will point out that you cannot have a president without a presidency, and right now we have no idea who the councelors will be. Bytebear (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viewing

Any info on the viewing? 199.91.34.33 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The viewing will be held tomorrow and Friday from (I believe) 9 AM-7 PM MST. Originally to have been at the Church Administration Building, it will now be held at the Conference Center to allow for inclement weather and large turnout. The funeral is on Saturday at 11 AM MST, also at the Conference Center. For more information, check Utah News Stations, who carry further details during every newscast. Hope this helps. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to add link

Would it be okay if I add an external link to gordonhinckley.com? We've just launched the website today and it has various quotes, images, and videos from President Hinckley, with no ads or commercial intent. Rkm28 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You tell us. Does it meet the requirements of WP:EL? What is the added value of your link? Townlake (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All General Conference Addresses as President

It would be interesting to add a list of all of his addresses given as president of the LDS church.

You can find a list at russpage.net. Rkm28 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of links. Maybe you can find a link on lds.org that covers all these. like a search result or something. Russpage is a good resource by itself, except that it may not pass muster of WP:EL. Bytebear (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outreach as opposed to proselytization

Hinckley was famous for his media image, his savvy with reporters, and using his charisma to "introduce" Mormonism to the wider-world. Most non-LDS would know him best this way. I really think the article needs a section on his more "secular" efforts. --Ebakunin (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Hoffman controversy

I don't see any mention of the Mark Hoffman controversy here - this article is a bit incomplete without it don't you think? --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to see the archived resolved discussion on this topic that is herein contained as the 3rd subject on this talk page. The issue was hashed and rehashed, searched and researched, and the compromise as outlined in that discussion resolved the issue. I cannot speak for my fellow editors, but I personally feel that enough has been said about the issue. What good does it do to flesh out a treatment of a topic relating to the life of a now deceased man? Since Hinckley is dead, we should have enough respect for his memory that we can let this issue alone. At least, that's my opinion. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a matter of respect. There is no significant connection between Hoffman and Hinkley. There was a lot of speculation, but the church's dealings with Hoffman were no different than any other historical document dealer. Bytebear (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"the church's dealings with Hoffman were no different than any other historical document dealer" is an overstatement. Not all of the church's dealings with document dealers were for the intent of hiding its history. Your opinion that an institution's leader trying to hide the institution's history is not significant is very much a minority opinion.--Fmatmi (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The only misstatement I see is yours in assuming that there was any "history" in those documents to hide. The documents in question were proven counterfeits and were therefore slander, not history. Every person, organization, etc. labors to prevent, suppress or refute slander; therefore, only rather infamous instances are actually notable. While it may have been a misstep to purchase the documents in order to suppress them, it is only because it has given them a counterfeit sense of legitimacy that is wholly undeserved. In any case the link between Hinckley and Hoffman is tenuous at best and the incident in question is covered in detail in a separate article. No legitimate reason has been provided for its inclusion in this article. Your opinion is the one in the minority (as Jgstokes has already pointed out,) since you contend that a minor incident of suppressing slander should be included on a only peripherally related page. F-451 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The only misstatement I see is yours in assuming that Hinckley knew the documents were counterfeits. If he knew the documents were frauds all he had to do was pick up the phone and call the police. There were fraudulent documents which shed a positive light and those were enthusiastically publicized. If he knew those were frauds, then Hickley would have been an accomplice to fraud. You see, you are caught in a contradiction. If it is such a non-issue as you and Jgstokes insist, then you would not be responding so viscerally (see cognitive dissonance). --Fmatmi (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, this issue was already discussed and settled, in a debate that you were a part of. There is nothing vehement about stating that there is inadequate evidence or reason to depart from the current status quo. Judging by your user page and edit history you seem to have a noted anti-mormon bias, which brings in POV issues, and is probably why you keep on insisting on including a negative incedent on the page of a man who if anything, was the victim. In any case I don't see this contradiction of yours. The positive documents were consistent with the church's history as he knew it so there would have been no reason to question their authenticity. The negative ones were inconsistent, and even if he did not know they were frauds it would still have been prudent of him to investigate further before garnering any publicity. In any case, it is fruitless to speculate on what Hinckley should or should not have done or his motivations far what he did do. What is important is verifiability. Unless someone can produce some verifiable new information tying Hinckley to the Hoffman scandal, then there is no reason to re-hash this issue yet again . Without new information to change the status quo, it is nothing but POV pushing. F-451 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are resorting to Ad hominem arguments which further weakens your position. The assessment that the negative documents were inconsistent is nonsense. Authenticate documents verifing the Bainbridge, NY examination occurred more than a decade before the Stowell forgery. The contradiction and cognitive dissonance I was referring to was NOT Hinckley's but YOURS. That is not a criticism, but a simple statement of fact. You are responding in a very reactionary way to solid facts in the article. Your position is that the facts are non-issues worth mentioning in the article with extremely pro-Mormon reasoning. The contradiction is: If the facts are such non-issues then why such the excited response? This issue was settled long ago, but you and Bytebear insisted on bring it up again. I am merely responding to your responses. I have no problem doing that.--Fmatmi (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One more comment from me, and that's all I'm going to say on the issue. I agree with F-451's comment wholeheartedly and add this thought for Fmatmi: Hinckley only knew the documents were forgeries AFTER the purchase was complete. All the sources WP lists for this issue say so. If you have any sources to the contrary, post them for the study of all WP editors. If not, then trying to justify your viewpoint with accusations of so-called cognitive dissonance just serve to prolong the resolution of this issue, which has already been resolved BEFORE any of this was brought out, and was done so to the satisfaction of at least 5 WP editors, as evidenced by the previous discussion. The sources cited plainly state that Hinckley only knew the documents were forgeries after the fact, and that he had no knowledge of what was said about them until the remarks of a Church spokesman about the issue were brought to his attention. When that happened, the Church spokesman in question was dealt with. But all that was covered in the previous discussion. You can read it there. In the meantime, let the record show that I never said Hinckley knew the documents were forgeries. What I said was, "I invite you to see the archived resolved discussion on this topic that is herein contained as the 3rd subject on this talk page. The issue was hashed and rehashed, searched and researched, and the compromise as outlined in that discussion resolved the issue. I cannot speak for my fellow editors, but I personally feel that enough has been said about the issue. What good does it do to flesh out a treatment of a topic relating to the life of a now deceased man? Since Hinckley is dead, we should have enough respect for his memory that we can let this issue alone. At least, that's my opinion." You will note that NOWHERE did I state that Hinckley knew the documents were forgeries. If you find my comments cognitively dissonant because of their so-called viscerality, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. However, when comments are taken out-of-context, particularly after the issue the comments are about has been resolved long ago, then perhaps such viscerality is justified. If you have any new sources substantiating what has newly been claimed, state them. If not, we are only prolonging an already-resolved discussion unnecessarily, and throwing about accusations that are not only untrue but are unfounded (and I speak of those both raised against Hinckley and against F-451 and myself, which is not profitable to the issue at hand or to WP. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider, and hold no ill-will against you for your unfounded slander of me and the editor who agreed with me. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. F-451 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Unfortunately, Bytebear and F-451 chose to revive the issue. This new thread is the consequences of THEIR decisions. --Fmatmi (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your edit and what I saw as your attacks against bytebears argument. In the end our personal opinions and attacks against one another are irrelavent to the issue. Unless someone has something new to contribute to this discussion that has not already been brought up either here or in the archived discussion, then we should let this issue drop. I will agree to bury the hatchet if everyone else will. F-451 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

During cognitive dissonance the facts crash with an individual’s paradigm so violently that the path of least resistance is to reinterpret the facts in order to resolve the conflict. This is exactly what occurred when this statement was made “The positive documents were consistent with the church's history as he knew it so there would have been no reason to question their authenticity. The negative ones were inconsistent, and even if he did not know they were frauds it would still have been prudent of him to investigate further before garnering any publicity.” VERIFABLE FACT – The Bainbridge, NY examination (long denied to have ever occurred by apologist) was proven to have occurred by an authentic document over a decade before the Stowell Forgery. VERIFABLE FACT – Both Hinckley and Hoffman were very much aware of this. The implications of gold digging in the Stowell Forgery were consistent with the Bainbridge, NY examination. VERIFABLE FACT – No one in the institution’s leadership seem to known of the Stowell Forgery’s existence resulting in Jerry Cahill denying its existence. VERIFABLE FACT – After two years of possession Hinckley did not do the “prudent” thing and commission someone to “to investigate further” (that is no one is known to have been commissioned). VERIFIABLE FACT – It was not until after Hofmann leaked the forgery’s existence that it was release to scholars for study.

Accusation of bias resulting in a lack of objectivity on my part greatly concerns me. That is why since this discussion first began months ago I presented the facts to acquaintances that have little familiarity with Mormonism. To quote one, “it doesn’t pass the smell test”. To paraphrase another, if it looks a like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. That is attempts at suppression are so obvious one has to go out of their way to pretend there was no attempted suppression. The Wikipedia pro-Mormon cabal is unable to see what is obvious due to a phenomenon known as cognitive blindness (some would say even self-deception). This obviousness is why I am perfectly content at leaving the article the way it is and allow the disgeneous Wikipedia pro-Mormon cabal censor blanant truth. Furthermore, the attempted suppression is consistent with the institution’s behavior, from Joseph F. Smith institutionally losing the McLellin collection, to the September six, to Wikipedia editors in the pro-Mormon cabal suppression of the truth.

Agreeing to bury the hatchet, agreeing to disagree, etc are all cop-outs. That is, they are admitting one is wrong without admitting it. The reason I so soundly won the debate above is because the VERIFIABLE facts are on the side of TRUTH. I have no desire to add to the article, but when bogus arguments are presented here, I WILL respond.--Fmatmi (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How did I "revive" anything? I was the third to comment on an issue. and it was a simple minor comment. It seems you give me far too much credit. It almost seems like you have a personal grudge against me, even though I have never directly commented on anything (to my knowledge) that you have ever said on this or any other Wikipedia article. Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Descartes1979, but Descartes1979 is yet another INDEPENDENT editor to notice that the article’s treatment of the Hoffman controversy is lacking. Jgstokes appropriately pointed out that the issue has already been discussed in the archives. That should have been the end of it, but Bytebear chose to re-phrase a bogus position already discussed in the archives thereby reviving the issue. Then F-451 kept it going with extreme POV pushing on F-451’s part. In the 02:43, 4 June 2008 post we see a classic hit and run tactic. It consisted of further bogus arguments sandwiched between –this has already been discussed—statements. As if to say let me make the last statement and you shut up. I call this a hit and run. F-451 and Jgstokes complained that the issue has already being discussed. However, the complaint was wrongfully directed at me and should have been directed at Bytebear. I hold no grudge against against Bytebear, I was merely pointing out who should be responsible for reviving the issue. In my opinion reviving the issue my have been an innocent mistake on the part of Bytebear.--Fmatmi (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War

It strikes me that the paragraph on Hinckley's talk on the Iraq War is a bit unbalanced. It does not mention that Hinckley made it clear that these were his personal views and not a binding statement of doctrine. Also, Hinckley balanced the comments that are quoted here with other comments mentioning his distaste of war generally (he lost a brother in World War I) and his opposition to imperialism. 128.165.87.144 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But all that appears to be self-evident when you consider that all those facts are contained in the actual text of the actual address, which is cited in the sources. If the reader has any questions about the context of the quotation, they can go to the source. What other course of action would you suggest to make it "more balanced," and how would you suggest we do that? It's all well and good to say that something needs improvement, but if you don't have any suggestions how to do that, it's not very productive to just say that something needs to be done. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to bother quoting from the speech at all, rather than just citing it as a statement of his views, then what you choose to quote should be balanced. It seems self-evident that the way to do that is to quote his condemnation of imperialism and his feelings about his brother's death along with quoting his views on when war may be just.118.90.4.111 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I say, do you have any suggestions about what in particular to include, where it should be included, how this passage should be rewritten complete with new citations for the additional information, and how to make it all readable without being too cumbersome? I would welcome any input you have on what, in your opinion, could make this section be worded better. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)