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.
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.
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 There was a lot of speculation, but the church's dealings with Hoffman were no different than any other historical document dealer.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"the church's dealings with Hoffman were no different than any other historical document dealer" is an overstatement.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)
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)
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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
220.127.116.11 – 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. 18.104.22.168 (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)
changes fit MOS (number, the/The, etc.) and take out poor grammar and weak writing; change it back if you prefer - just trying to improve 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. MOS or no MOS, that's the way it is. As for the other changes, they were worded much better before you did your thing. The only change I can see worth keeping is the change from fifteenth to 15th, and I thank you for that. With the paragraph that begins with "In the early 1950's..." you changed a grammatically correct "there would be a need" to "they would be a need" which doesn't make sense. Under the "President of the Church" section, you changed a file name of an image rather than a sentence, which makes the image unable to be viewed. I don't think you wanted to do that. You further altered the end of the image text so it wouldn't be viewed properly anyways. You also apparently felt the need to remove some necessary wikilinks. I can understand your not wanting to overlink, which is fine, but make sure you don't take out links that are necessary. I am therefore reverting all your edits except the change from fifteenth to 15th, which was a needed one. And may I suggest that in future you follow an often recommended practice here on Wikipedia? Rather than making many changes to the page all at once so that they may all have to be reverted, try doing it in smaller steps, explaining things as you go. Doing so will let other editors know what your intentions are with each edit and will lessen the likelihood of your edits needing to be reverted. Finally, I would like to advocate that you get an official user account. As long as you edit from an anonymous IP address, your edits may be called into question. Your edits are much more likely to be accepted and not questioned if you have a regular user account. In the meantime, I would chalk this up as a learning experience. --Jgstokes (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
For all who may be interested, I changed the first reference of this article, the one that talks about Hinckley's record as oldest living prophet. The article that was cited just made a passing reference to his record as oldest living prophet. I inserted instead a better reference which gives the actual dates upon which Hinckley tied and broke these records. I believe this makes the article better. However, I am open to discussing it. If any of you have any objections or just want to comment on this issue, please post here. I know it's not a requirement of Wikipedia, but I would ask as a matter of common courtesy that this change not be reverted until it is discussed and the consensus decides whether to keep this reference or go back to the other one. That said, let the discussion begin! Any thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The ref is solid, but I did tweak it just a bit, along with the several other refs on this article. How does the article look now? —Asterisk*Splat→ 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)