Was Joseph Fielding Smith wrong about the Moon and Space?

[Cowell]

mchlwise and Skmo, if neither of you care to continue discussing the issue, that is fine. I would like someone to come forward and discuss what is in these links. I also did not believe this was important, as it happened a long time ago, until I discovered these discrepancies in the record that had never been shown to me before. For me, the truth is always most important. I felt that some of your explanations, mchlwise, were not half bad, as at least they offered another perspective, although, taken together I think it is hard to explain all those things away. For instance, the dangling effect really struck me, and the multiple light source issues, identical background issue, and doctored photo issues. There doesn't seem to be any explanation for these. As far as the flag issue, the video above is even more clear on this. I considered your statement about him touching the flag, watched the video and it appeared to me that this was definitely not the case. But that doesn't mean I can't discus any of these things further. Even if you guys think I will not agree with you, this is a public forum, and others might agree with you. IMO, by not discussing some of these discrepancies for anyone's benefit, it seems to indicate that some of the things in these links do indeed raise questions that cannot be answered (besides with the answer that is seeming more and more obvious to me).

[mchlwise]

But that doesn't mean I can't discus any of these things further. Even if you guys think I will not agree with you, this is a public forum, and others might agree with you. IMO, by not discussing some of these discrepancies for anyone's benefit, it seems to indicate that some of the things in these links do indeed raise questions that cannot be answered (besides with the answer that is seeming more and more obvious to me).

With the above in mind, I'll give it one last shot, but expect that you won't agree with me and hope you will at least be respectful of differing viewpoints.

Your questions were these:

1) Flags moving without being touched in a frictionless enviromnement (See 2:37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)

We've addressed this before, and I believe that they can be possibly explained by either wiggling the flag pole as it's held, or brushing it as they walked by.


2) actor-nauts who look like they're on strings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related)

First of all, the guy in the video contradicts himself within the first 10 seconds. He says there's no evidence of astronauts jumping as high as they would be able to if they really weighed 1/6 what they do on earth, but then he talks about wires taking the weight off. He can't have it both ways. If they were too heavy and couldn't jump as high as they should have been able to, then their weight wasn't on wires.

Setting his obvious contradiction aside and looking at the video: at about 1:32, you can see there is some kind of antenna on the top of the "backpack". It's apparently metal, as it reflects light quite well. It appears to be the same thing causing the glint at about 1:15. The narrator makes a big deal about a "ping" which appears above the astronaut. This "ping" is easily explained by refraction in the camera lens. When viewing something like a car windshield through a camera lens, if the angle of the sun is right there is a glare or a glint. This frequently refracts in the lens as a line or sometimes a star shape. In both instances in the video (1:15 and 1:32), the "ping" is directly straight above the glinting object. This is approximately where a wire would be, but it is also where a camera refraction would be.

Also, if it is indeed a wire, then it appears to be only a single wire attached approximately in the center of the "backpack". This would be a highly unusual arrangement for someone on a wire, as there are usually two wires attached at the waist to be closest to center of gravity.

At 2:21, the astronaut gets up using only one foot and one hand being held by the other astronaut. The narrator only alleges that the wire took 5/6's of his weight, making the seemingly super-human feat possible. It is equally possible that he only weighed 1/6 of his normal weight because of the lack of gravity on the moon. This part of the video makes no argument whatsoever about wires, simply that he weighed less than normal. This is as much proof that we went to the moon as it is proof of a hoax.


3) obviously doctored photos (See 27:20 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)

The lack of cross hair in white parts of the photographs is easily explainable. Light has the ability to bend slightly around objects. This is why when you hold up your finger in the sunlight, the shadow will be "crisp" if your finger is close to the surface, but gets fuzzy the farther away your finger gets. If you hold up something thin like a knife blade or a strip of paper, and align it precisely, it disappears and casts no shadow at all. Look at the shadow of some trees. If conditions are right it will appear that leaves are just floating because you can see the shadow of the leaf but not the stem.

In that same way, something like a fine crosshair etched onto a camera lens can be "washed out" with bright light - such as the image of something white.

Look at the picture at 27:59, which you also posted a still of earlier. The vertical part of the cross hair appears to be missing where his arm (which is white) is. But look closely at the horizontal part, particularly the part to the left, which is in the red portion of the flag. Is it there? To me it clearly is, but is it as crisp as the rest of the cross hair? No. It is slightly blurry. It is having the same blurred effect as the portions where it is over white, but since it is in the red portion of the flag the effect is lessened, and that part of the cross hair is not washed out entirely.

If, on the other hand, the photo was doctored - then how did the cross hair appear partly behind the astronaut and partly in front of the flag?


4) multiple light sources (See 23:00 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)

This one frustrates me more than most of these theories. Can you see the moon at night? Yes. Why? Because its surface REFLECTS LIGHT. It's mostly grey, light grey, even white. When you are in a dark room at night, if someone comes between you and the lamp or other light source, can you still see their face? Try it some time. Turn on a single lamp in a corner, then have someone stand between you and the lamp. Can you see their face or the front of them, or is their front entirely black because the source of light is behind them? Obviously you can see the front of them. Why? Because light bounces off of the walls behind you and onto them. Your walls probably aren't entirely white or light grey either. It's "ambient light", not another light source.

edit: I'm not saying there were walls behind them, I'm saying that the light reflected off the surface of the moon, and onto the side of the astronaut opposite the light source.


5) dangling effects (See 1:46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related)

See the discussion of "wires" above.


6) The same area of the "moon" filmed twice and NASA claims they are two different locations (See 25:40 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)

It's clearly the same location. NASA said it was a different location in a different day. It's just as likely to me that NASA was wrong/confused/whatever on when the footage was taken as it is that this is proof of a hoax. Actually, I don't see how this is proof of a hoax at all. Unless you subscribe to the "NASA was wrong about that so they must have been wrong and lied to us about the whole thing" theory, which I think is absurd as far as "evidence" goes.


7) Actor-nauts faking a distant image of the earth through their window (See 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqbdjybYeE&NR=1)

She is basing this entire argument on his statement that the window is "filled up with the t.v. camera". What does that statement mean? It could mean that there is a camera filling a window, but it could also have been an awkward and backwards way of saying that the window is filling the camera frame at that time - meaning he was zoomed in on the window. At about 0:55, she even states that the lens was later zoomed out. It seems clear to me that he was on one side of the capsule zooming in on the window which was on the other side. At 1:15 she alleges that "they remove part of the crescent insert" and I have no idea what she is talking about, because I saw no change in the image. At about 1:33, she says "the iris is opened up" which I believe was the case, but I don't see any subsequent recognizable image of the earth being anywhere near the spacecraft. Cameras have settings to allow more or less light based on the conditions. If you have the camera set for low light and you "film" something bright, it will wash out and appear much larger than it would if you had the right setting for the bright object. I believe that is what happens here. I see something very bright in the area of the window, but I can't recognize it as being a near image of the earth at all.

It bears repeating: I don't KNOW if we really went or not. The laser reflector which is still in use today seems pretty convincing. I'm open to theories which say we didn't, but I have yet to see a single theory which in my mind is convincing "proof" of a hoax, or leaves only the explanation that we didn't go. The theories are interesting, but less than entirely convincing. Until I see some "evidence" that conclusively proves we didn't go there, I'm open to the possibility that we did.

[pritchet1]

If that reflector on the moon turned out to be either a pop or beer can, then it would be convincing.

[DayofAwakening]

Reflectors could have been placed by a probe or robotic 'moon lander' We have the technology for that. Robotics or 'non-living' things can pass through the Van Allen belts and other harsh conditions. Man's technology in the late 60's apparently couldn't

[shadow]

Robotics or 'non-living' things can pass through the Van Allen belts and other harsh conditions. Man's technology in the late 60's apparently couldn't

They apparently could! Go back and watch ithinks link.

[ithink]

Reflectors could have been placed by a probe or robotic 'moon lander' We have the technology for that. Robotics or 'non-living' things can pass through the Van Allen belts and other harsh conditions. Man's technology in the late 60's apparently couldn't

Except Van Allen himself thinks the theory you can't go through those belts is not part of his theory.

[AussieOi]

why don't we just go and look at the original video footage to revisit it

oh yeah, that's right, they recorded over it ALL accidentally

yes, that's right, possibly the greatest achievement by mankind, and they recorded episodes of petticoat junction over the top of it. yeah right

that's the nail in the coffin for me, never mind the van allen belt and radiation

[Bridgey]

Alex Jones has an informant in NASA that was part of the moon landing. From my memory, What he said his informant said was that they did land on the moon and did do it all, but the picture quality being sent back to earth was so bad and choppy etc, that they either recreated it or had a created version ready in advance in case of this problem and televised that instead to please the masses. Perhaps the audio was real.

If this is true, it makes sense to me. Quite understandable.

[Cowell]

Alex Jones has an informant in NASA that was part of the moon landing. From my memory, What he said his informant said was that they did land on the moon and did do it all, but the picture quality being sent back to earth was so bad and choppy etc, that they either recreated it or had a created version ready in advance in case of this problem and televised that instead to please the masses. Perhaps the audio was real.

If this is true, it makes sense to me. Quite understandable.

I appreciate the info...but it sounds like a really bad cop out to me, If I'm being honest. I'm surprised Jones would go for that, based on his mind for conspiracies. There is too much evidence that we did not go to the moon for it to just be dismissed like that. I'm beginning to wonder if Gman was right about Jones all along. This seems like a real red flag to me (kind of like the one that moved on the moon when no one touched it.) I can't help but admit what I see with mine own eyes, even when the rest of the world scurries around trying to piece together explanations for what is the obvious truth.

[moonwhim]

Check out this website article: http://www.keithlaney.net/TheHiddenMiss ... ks&start=0
Keith Laney says you can see the left-over space gear on the moon from each moon mission on new photos taken of these areas.

[Mahonri]

I don't see anything on those pictures

[larsenb]

I guess I should weigh in on this. Was trying to ignore it, but it's my birthday and have some free time. Also, just got really good news regarding an operation my son underwent a week ago, so I'm in an expansive mood.

Early '70's I worked for the Branch of Astrogeology, USGS, in Menlo Park, CA. What did I do? Analyzed moon rocks, among other things. Yes, I've held large moon rock thin sections in my hand. Very unusual rock. Normally FerroMagnesium igneous rocks that had been subjected to multiple brecciation stages. Had never seen anything like these before.

Also had access to the full suite of moon photos (hundreds) that I could peruse at my leisure. QUITE impressive!

People I worked with were very intelligent, hard-headed, serious scientists, some of whom trained, briefed and de-briefed Apollo astronauts before and after their missions in Flagstaff, Az.

To indicate how serious these folks were, one of them, Dr. Michael Carr (google him), had severely injured himself when a study he was doing on crator creation using explosives went awry. His face was massively scarred.

Was also involved in other studies of results of the Apollo 15 trip. One of these were experiments trying to explain the peculiar lineaments seen on Mt. Hadley by the astronauts. This resulted in a co-authorship with Dr. Keith Howard on a paper found in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report called Lineaments That Are Artifacts of Lighting. Google it.

Do I believe the Apollo moon landings were real? 'Fraid so. Of course you could say I have a vested interest in maintaining a powerful delusion I've strongly bought into over the years. Certainly don't think that's the case, however.

My wife's father was an engineer w/Allison Corp., a subsidiary of GMC, working on the Atlas rocket engine. He, and many, many, many very practical, clear-eyed, intelligent, no-nonesense engineers were involved intimately with so many aspects of the Apollo program, it is beyond belief that you could pull off a deception of that magnitude with these kinds of people CLOSELY watching/participating. THEY both created the technology and operated it. Think about that for a moment.

As mentioned, the reflecting mirror left on the moon has been used for experiments using lasers for decades now, is very strong proof for moon landing.

Skmo and others who understand all this are correct, based on my direct experience and other powerful considerations.

[Mahonri]

I am still "undecided", but leaning towards hoax.

For those that don't think it was a hoax, what are feelings towards what was behind President Smith's remarks?

[firend]

I guess I should weigh in on this. Was trying to ignore it, but it's my birthday and have some free time. Also, just got really good news regarding an operation my son underwent a week ago, so I'm in an expansive mood.

Early '70's I worked for the Branch of Astrogeology, USGS, in Menlo Park, CA. What did I do? Analyzed moon rocks, among other things. Yes, I've held large moon rock thin sections in my hand. Very unusual rock. Normally FerroMagnesium igneous rocks that had been subjected to multiple brecciation stages. Had never seen anything like these before.

Also had access to the full suite of moon photos (hundreds) that I could peruse at my leisure. QUITE impressive!

People I worked with were very intelligent, hard-headed, serious scientists, some of whom trained, briefed and de-briefed Apollo astronauts before and after their missions in Flagstaff, Az.

To indicate how serious these folks were, one of them, Dr. Michael Carr (google him), had severely injured himself when a study he was doing on crator creation using explosives went awry. His face was massively scarred.

Was also involved in other studies of results of the Apollo 15 trip. One of these were experiments trying to explain the peculiar lineaments seen on Mt. Hadley by the astronauts. This resulted in a co-authorship with Dr. Keith Howard on a paper found in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report called Lineaments That Are Artifacts of Lighting. Google it.

Do I believe the Apollo moon landings were real? 'Fraid so. Of course you could say I have a vested interest in maintaining a powerful delusion I've strongly bought into over the years. Certainly don't think that's the case, however.

My wife's father was an engineer w/Allison Corp., a subsidiary of GMC, working on the Atlas rocket engine. He, and many, many, many very practical, clear-eyed, intelligent, no-nonesense engineers were involved intimately with so many aspects of the Apollo program, it is beyond belief that you could pull off a deception of that magnitude with these kinds of people CLOSELY watching/participating. THEY both created the technology and operated it. Think about that for a moment.

As mentioned, the reflecting mirror left on the moon has been used for experiments using lasers for decades now, is very strong proof for moon landing.

Skmo and others who understand all this are correct, based on my direct experience and other powerful considerations.

Well said.

I personally lean a little more over that it was a hoax, and the motive was there as well.

As for the moon rocks, and all of the things you talked about LarsenB, I believe it, but what is IT is the question.

What I mean is for example. In 1991 a UA Airlines 737 crashed outside Colorado Springs. Everyone knows it was the rudder that malfunctioned and caused the plane to nose dive. This was the official report by the NTSB. It is all over the net, etc. The investigators went through the wreckage, top scientists, etc and the rudder did it!

Well, I can tell you that was not what happened. I cannot tell how I know this other than I know people and am a pilot myself. It was a love triangle in the cockpit and with someone else. It was a murder-suicide.

My point is I am angry at the news a lot, and official reports, etc. For them to show the rudder, and how it caused the crash, and it was all a lie....disgusting.

So maybe LarsenB the moon rocks were not real, and all those scientists are either duped, or muscled into a lie, or just part of the lie. MAYBE.....just something to think about.

Maybe we did go to the moon, but I tend to lean that we did not, and official reports mean nothing to me after what I have learned in aviation. By the way, their are more crashes that the real truth is held back.

[larsenb]

So maybe LarsenB the moon rocks were not real, and all those scientists are either duped, or muscled into a lie, or just part of the lie. MAYBE.....just something to think about.

Maybe we did go to the moon, but I tend to lean that we did not, and official reports mean nothing to me after what I have learned in aviation. By the way, their are more crashes that the real truth is held back.

Firend, I think the Apollo program and 'outing' the results of a single crash are a bit different. The scope of the Apollo program was enormous. Thousands of people intimately involved coming at it from multiple directions resulting in multiple landings on the moon w/several different sets of astronauts.

I suggest you think about all the designers/engineeers involved in the program who also had a hand in making sure their equipment ran, and probably in many cases were the ones that oversaw its operation during the real flights. Then you had families of all these workers glued to their TV's sharing in the work of their husbands, witnessing the whole thing coming together and perhaps watching these husbands perform in the command center, etc. Think of all the people involved in the telemetry and tracking of the flights. These would be the same people involved in both the practise flights and the real ones. How on earth could they be fooled regarding the real flights??

Then you have all the people that 'witnessed' the astronauts entering the rocket modules; saw them blast off in the same rockets; then saw them return and picked up after re-entry. Where did they go all that time? Beggars the imagination how this kind of thing could be staged.

Also, I should emphasize, the rocks I saw were very unusual and fit like a 'T' what you would expect of surface rocks shattered and re-fused multiple times by millions of years of impacts.

Like you, though, I'm aware of coverups; coverups that seem to be getting more blatant in recent years. They exist, including Flight 93. I have inside info on this that I trust. And of course, the official story of 9/11. But for me, 9/11 is easy because the official story violates laws of physics and evidence, in my strongly held, and I think, informed view.

[firend]

LarsenB you do have a point.

I have not researched much into the moon landings. Sounds like you know a lot more about it. You are right about the scope of the NASA programs being much greater than a single crash.

Thankyou for your insights

[A Me]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the aliens on the moon yet, the ones Neil Armstrong saw. (I know... I'm bad.)

[Cowell]

But for me, 9/11 is easy because the official story violates laws of physics and evidence, in my strongly held, and I think, informed view.

larseb, my old friend. Look at the evidence I posted at the beginning of this thread. Better yet, watch the documentary, "A strange thing happened on the way to the moon." This is one of the most interesting examples of mass mind control I have ever seen...which is the sole purpose of these things (including 9/11). I have seen very little evidence that man has been to the moon, honestly. And I believe I am pretty fair about these things. Interestingly, the evidence I keep hearing about always seems to be tangential to man being on the moon...rocks, people tracking the astronauts, reflectors...none of which tell me a man was on the moon. And the only actual evidence we have of man being on the moon happens to be highly questionable, contradictory, and in many cases, obviously falsified. As with 9/11, I have seen footage that raises questions that only lead to one answer...particularly the flag moving when no one touched it (which no one has been able to adequately address), the guy dangling (which no one has addressed), and the fact that there is footage of the astronauts intentionally using a small window in their ship to make it look like the earth from a distance (which no one here has dared adequately addressed). These are the WTC7's and flight 93's of this particular brainwashing bit of history. The public either chooses to not look at them, or not answer them. I like the way you think Larsenb. I agree that you raise some very good points in your above post, but for a different reason... I could not help but think, as I read your statements above (and I mean this in all sincerity based on how well informed I know you are and cognizant of the very good points you were making) I was thinking how incredible it is how deep this whole grand conspiracy goes...that these guys are able to pull this stuff off somehow. It is nearly "unbelievable," but not for us people who see evidence and science for what they are. Take a deeper look, you may be surprised. I certainly was.

[larsenb]

It is nearly "unbelievable," but not for us people who see evidence and science for what they are. Take a look, you may be surprised. I certainly was.

Cowell, there are reams of science, eyewitnesses and participants supporting contention moon landings were real. I was a very minor participant but knew and worked with a number of those who had direct contact with astronauts and handled the many pound of rocks brought back, analyzed them and did papers on them and on the photographs of moon terrain.

None of the evidence I saw was fabricated in my strongly held view. Rocks far too distinctive, and I saw hundreds of amazing photographs. The science performed during the moon walks and by instrumentation left behind and everything else I have mentioned form a very coherent, interlocking compendium of evidence, observations and analyses. Coherence is one of 3 pillars of truth, as is Identity or empirical observations.

The few oddities you mention just can't compete with this, and may well have logical explanations that are every bit as good adductively as those put forth by those you support.

Sorry. I'm dealing with too many personal/work-related issues to delve into something I don't think will be too fruitful. And certainly don't buy into the reasons put forth for such a mega-grand deception. I also lived through the start of space age from very beginning.

Everyday conspiracy is a fact of life. I believe President Benson was right when he said there was A single overarching conspiracy working for the overthrow of all nations. But there are GRAND events that really happened. Moon landings are among them.

Cowell, I generally really like your posts. But for me, this thread is a dog that won't hunt. No offense.

[Cowell]

Larsenb,

I was just about to add to my post and say...one of the reasons I was not interested in this "conspiracy" was because I knew 9/11 was an inside job, and I knew the war was and is a fraud, and I was tired of people lumping me in with "conspiracy theorists." I have never been interested in "conspiracy theories." Like you, I only care about history, the truth, and good science...contrary to what less informed persons believe.

I was stunned when I discovered this was not the "conspiracy theory" I had assumed it was.

Remember, the LDGs depend on the persons who lived through these episodes to pass down the confusion to the next generation. My grandparents didn't know a thing about the truth behind WWII, for instance. Another example...interestingly enough, just about every young man in the M.P. 10th ward believes 9/11 was an inside job, and there's a lot of young men in that ward. This is due to a couple informed young men in the ward spreading the good word...none of their parents believe it of course.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm telling you...I know 9/11 was an inside job, just as many of us do... And like 9/11, I began to conclude the truth about the moon when I began to see that there were glaring unanswered questions being ignored. That answered everything for me. When I saw that an official story could be accepted as true when there were such gaping holes (e.g., Van Allen Belts), it spelled cover-up. Once you come to realize the truth, its kind of odd when you think about it...that you're only sane, in the public's view, if you believe man pulled off the unparalleled and likely impossible feat of going to the moon...and, conversely, you're bonkers if you doubt man's capabilities.

I can't force anyone to look into it deeper, but having recently come into contact with this evidence, and having literally been someone who also intentionally avoided this topic a matter of months ago, I can sincerely say, this is on the same level as 9/11. I just hadn't realized it. I don't go around proclaiming that to everyone, bc I know that will turn people off for sure. But it does seem to be the truth, so I can't help but share it here.

Also, remember, there is reams of "science" that backs the official story of 9/11 too. It's just the kind of science that takes every possible angle aimed at bolstering a falsehood and isn't interested in truth.

[larsenb]

It is nearly "unbelievable," but not for us people who see evidence and science for what they are. Take a look, you may be surprised. I certainly was.

Cowell, there are reams of science, eyewitnesses and participants supporting contention moon landings were real. I was a very minor participant but knew and worked with a number of those who had direct contact with astronauts and handled the many pound of rocks brought back, analyzed them and did papers on them and on the photographs of moon terrain.

None of the evidence I saw was fabricated in my strongly held view. Rocks far too distinctive, and I saw hundreds of amazing photographs. The science performed during the moon walks and by instrumentation left behind and everything else I have mentioned form a very coherent, interlocking compendium of evidence, observations and analyses. Coherence is one of 3 pillars of truth, as is Identity or empirical observations.

The few oddities you mention just can't compete with this, and may well have logical explanations that are every bit as good adductively as those put forth by those you support.

Sorry. I'm dealing with too many personal/work-related issues to delve into something I don't think will be too fruitful. And certainly don't buy into the reasons put forth for such a mega-grand deception. I also lived through the start of space age from very beginning.

Everyday conspiracy is a fact of life. I believe President Benson was right when he said there was A single overarching conspiracy working for the overthrow of all nations. But there are GRAND events that really happened. Moon landings are among them.

Cowell, I generally really like your posts. But for me, this thread is a dog that won't hunt. No offense.

[Cowell]

LarsenB,

I know you don't have the time to look this all up, so I am making it simple.

If after you watch all of these clips, you still don't think there are at least glaring questions, I will be surprised. In any case, before you leave me all alone in my quest for truth behind the moon landings, I wonder if you would at least attempt to provide your best explanation for item number one below (I highlighted in red the most glaring questions to me):

1) Flags moving without being touched in a frictionless enviromnement (See 2:37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)
2) actor-nauts who look like they're on strings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related)
3) obviously doctored photos (See 27:20 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)
4) multiple light sources (See 23:00 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)
5) dangling effect (See 1:46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related)
6) The same area of the "moon" filmed twice and NASA claims they are two different locations (See 25:40 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)
7) Actor-nauts faking a distant image of the earth through their window (See 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqbdjybYeE&NR=1)

[skmo]

I am still "undecided", but leaning towards hoax.

For those that don't think it was a hoax, what are feelings towards what was behind President Smith's remarks?

1) He was misheard.

2) His words are being misinterpreted.

3) He made a mistake.


I'm guessing it was number 3. He was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. I sustain him during his mortal service as such and continue to do so to this day.

He was also human.

[Cowell]

Oddly enough, JFS got it right Skmo.

[Mahonri]

I am still "undecided", but leaning towards hoax.

For those that don't think it was a hoax, what are feelings towards what was behind President Smith's remarks?

1) He was misheard.

2) His words are being misinterpreted.

3) He made a mistake.


I'm guessing it was number 3. He was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. I sustain him during his mortal service as such and continue to do so to this day.

He was also human.

Yes he was human, also a comment designed to end debate. All Prophets are human, so everything they say is suspect now? Come on. That would mean they could "lead us astray", which is what is happening if he made a mistake on this. no?

This isn't oh, he snapped at his kids when he should have, or he ate meat a little more than he should. This was a Prophet making remarks to help teach an over all principle.