http://en.fairmormon.org/Nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse

look to our general authorities as the authorities on church doctrine. just dont write to them or call them!

It was an odd thing for GBH to say, considering that he used the public press to deny that he himself was not an authority on the doctrines of the Church. Of course, I don't know that we teach that ...

Right. So we believe it when we say it among ourselves and when our leaders say it at church, but we don't when asked about it.

Or, our prophets speak for the church except when in public.

I just love these apologists! They sound like high-school lawyer kids:

"Teaching" can be understood in at least two senses:

"doctrine"/"belief," in the sense of "does the church still hold this belief?"
"something that is taught or preached," "actively taught"

The reporter seems to have meant the question in the first sense; President Hinckley seems to have responded in the second sense—the first part of his answer was "I don't know that we teach it" (emphasis added). That is, it is not topic upon which the Church or its leaders spend much time, simply because very little is known about it. This misunderstanding of the sense it which "teach" is understood is a good example of the logical fallacy of amphibology at work.

Furthermore, President Hinckley seems to have understood the question as he did because of the reporter's prelude to the question. The interviewer noted that "[t]his is something that Christian writers are always addressing." I suspect that he meant that "This is a point of LDS doctrine which always troubles non-LDS Christian authors, and they write a lot about it."

President Hinckley's reply that "I don't know that we emphasize it" seems a clear response to this idea—other writers or other denominations may spend a lot of time on the issue, but we don't. Again, this shows that he understood "teaching" in the second sense, and not the first
----------------------

And I call BS on their claim that Hinckley "understood" the second or irrelevant portion of the question. GBH was a PR man for the church for many years- in fact he is a Professional Public Relations man. And as the PR and the President of the church and acting president during ETBs term as well as fully involved in the correlation committee, you can bet your bottom dollar that not only does he understand the teachings, but knows exactly how much it is taught.

This has got to be the most tortured argument that FAIR has come up with recently, and that's saying something. But as Tal Bachman has said, we should never underestimate the church's ability to change its doctrines: The only doctrine that has not -- and probably will never -- change is "Obey."

This sounds like a rehearsed nonspecific denial that a lawyer probably came up with.

disingenuous
disingenuous 1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating. 2. Giving a false appearance of frankness. 3. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf (French: a pretense of simplicity or innocence).
Found on http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/inf

The article says: "Critics have claimed that this means that President Hinckley has admitted to altering LDS doctrine, or discarding a teaching from the past."

No, I thought critics were simply saying that he lied.

Thread Killer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The article says: "Critics have claimed that this
> means that President Hinckley has admitted to
> altering LDS doctrine, or discarding a teaching
> from the past."
>
> No, I thought critics were simply saying that he lied.

Either he lied, or he was woefully ignorant of what his church was teaching. At that very moment, the official teaching manual for priesthood and RS was "Teachings of the 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...'"

Notice that Hinckley specifically said "I don't know that we teach it" at the same time the church was publishing a lesson manual teaching it. Either Hinckley was lying, or he was woefully ignorant of what is being taught by his church.

Celebrities love the paparazzi until they start chasing them down the street or climbing over fences in order to get "candid" shots. They love the paparazzi as long as the pictures are flattering and public but once they start prying into their private lives the paparazzi are disdained.

That's like the GAs. As long as they can control and manipulate the press a love affair exists. But once the press starts digging under the surface, the honeymoon is over.

The internet is terrific for not only digging under the surface but getting right to the rotten core and exposing it for the world to see. As someone once said, the internet is where religions come to die.

TIME: Just another related question that comes up is the King Follet discourse by the prophet.

HINK: Yeah.

TIME: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 ?

HINK: 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.

Liar Liar Pants On Fire.

He sounds like a criminal in a police interview.