Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Christianity (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Scouting (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Cscr-former.svg 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

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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)

Misc Edits[edit]

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)

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

Mormon Intellectual Underground[edit]

"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[edit]

With the news of Hinckley's death, we need to protect this page! RIP - (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? (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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Wikinews About his Death?[edit]

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 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: RLNoble (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Mitt Romney[edit]

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. (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 (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)

Presidential Medal of Freedom Picture Quality[edit]

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 (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidential succession[edit]

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, which Hypnomental mentioned, "not enough proof"? Okay, well, then, how about THIS?

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)


Any info on the viewing? (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)

Request to add link[edit]

Would it be okay if I add an external link to 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)

All General Conference Addresses as President[edit]

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 Rkm28 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of links. Maybe you can find a link on 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)

Outreach as opposed to proselytization[edit]

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)

Mark Hoffman controversy[edit]

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)

It is completely obvious that many of the editors on this page have an ax to grind and do not even grasp for a scholarly view of the deceased. Nathanbrisk (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ax to grind = selfish aim or motive

My selfish motive was to bring to truth to light. Is that not scholarly? I had hoped for a more in depth analysis, unfortunately, disingenuous tedious bickering and attempts at suppression prevented it. Is attempting to suppress truth scholarly?--Fmatmi (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppression? The Church has nothing to hide. You on the other hand want misleading slander against President Hinckley, and therefore is not light, but darkness. Quit this now. (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC) – Your response above was in reference to what appears to be an observation about Wikipedia editors and their behavior. Ironically your behavior seems to validate the original statement. You might consider coming out the darkness by creating a username. Something like MisledCougar, CougarAdrift, etc would appropriately describe a BYU Freshman experiencing cognitive dissonance from abundant unsupervised internet access.Mormography (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
@Mormography - Fmatmi clearly had motive to portray Hinckley the most negative way possible. That's not scholarship but that's having an ax to grind. How you defend that is beyond me, and your insults are rude, and has no place on Wikipedia. (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL. The user who refuses to get a username believes he/she is a qualified assessor of Wikipedia etiquette. What unscholarly ax is he/she hoping to grind? Mormography (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Iraq War[edit]

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. (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. (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)


Does anyone think these infoboxes are getting out of control? The entire page is an infobox. Some of the information is redundant (Church Pres. ordination), and a lot of the information is already stated in the body of the article. I'd like to see this removed, better integrated into the body of the article, or given its own article. --Eustress (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing that isn't on any other apostle or general authority of the LDS Church. There's one for positions ordained to: President of the Church and Apostle; and then there's one for general authority positions merely set apart to: Ass't to the Twelve, Qof12, Counselor in First Presidency, etc. The fact that they take up a lot of space is more a product of Hinckley having held a lot of different positions in the church, not as a result of the infoboxes being inherently bulky. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. See my thoughts on Template talk:LDSInfobox#Delete or merge?. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Scouting awards[edit]

Did he receive the "Silver Buffalo", the "Silver Beaver" or both from the Boy Scouts? Both awards are mentioned in different places.SHJohnson (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Does anyone object to archiving all of the 2+ year old discussions on this talk page? -- (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Cahill[edit]

The link to Jerry Cahill connects to an article on a Catholic athlete. It is unlikely this person was President Hinkley's press representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelcooper (talkcontribs) 04:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Hinckley 2007 10.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hinckley 2007 10.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Meservy's Claim[edit]

"Hinckley has denied any such arrangement." (by Meservy)

I am unable to find a citation for this. While LDS Church leaders and apologist are uncomfortable with the characterization of suppression, they do not usually shy away from the confidentiality characterization. I was unable to find Turley to address this in Victims, though he has no problem characterizing the McLellin papers a confidential matter. see also "a normal, though confidential, proposed commercial transaction"

At the famous Wednesday October 23 1985 press conference Hinckley refused to divulge the purchase price of the Stowell letter. "Well, I don't know that I'm going to tell you the price, but I'm going to tell you that it was nothing like the kind of figures that you've talked of this morning. Nothing like that." (Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 27, 1985)

Mormography (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ For e.g., The Mormon Murders, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, Tracking The White Salamander.
  2. ^ The Mormon Murders pg. 171-172, Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case pg 101-102.
  3. ^ Allan D. Roberts, "The Truth is the Most Important Thing: A Look at Mark W. Hofmann, the Mormon Salamander Man"