416 replies to this topic

[DBMormon]

Recently someone posted in a thread about honesty and the Lord's expectation of being honest, completely honest and hiding nothing.  

We also had a discussion recently about what if withholding information protects the faith of the weak.

Recognizing that the Church chooses to share certain parts of it's history and chooses to withhold other parts, my hope is we can shed some light on when complete and absolute forthcoming of truth is important and when it is ok to with hold info.

Some will jump in here and ask where the church has withheld information or truth.  I will be a broken record and say that it is impossible to discover Polyandry (Joseph's sealings to already married women) from any of the following sources - LDS.ORG, Church lesson manual, Ensign, Liahona, New Era, Friend, General Conference Talk, or any other current LDS sponsored source of info.  While some may have learned this in a church setting or from a class like seminary or institute, we must recognize that occured becasue a teacher or another student brought it up without any encouragement from the manual or the Church leadership


http://www.lds.org/l...03a94610aRCRD#1

Quote

   Honesty Is a Principle of Salvation

Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. An Apostle of the Lord has said: “Honesty is a principle of salvation in the kingdom of God. … Just as no man or woman can be saved without baptism, so no one can be saved without honesty” (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 63; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 72).

God is honest and just in all things (see Alma 7:20). We too must be honest in all things to become like him. The brother of Jared testified, “Yea, Lord, I know that thou … art a God of truth, and canst not lie” (Ether 3:12). In contrast, the devil is a liar. In fact, he is the father of lies (see 2 Nephi 9:9). “Those who choose to cheat and lie and deceive and misrepresent become his slaves” (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 65; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 73).


To Lie Is Dishonest

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when he was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28: . Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.


We Must Not Excuse Our Dishonesty

People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to protect themselves and to have others think well of them. Some excuse themselves for stealing, thinking they deserve what they took, intend to return it, or need it more than the owner. Some cheat to get better grades in school or because “everyone else does it” or to get even.

These excuses and many more are given as reasons for dishonesty. To the Lord, there are no acceptable reasons. President Kimball taught that when we excuse ourselves, we cheat ourselves and the Spirit of God ceases to be with us. We become more and more unrighteous. (See Faith Precedes the Miracle, p. 234.)

We Can Be Completely Honest
To become completely honest, we must look carefully at our lives. If there are ways in which we are being even the least bit dishonest, we should repent of them immediately.

When we are completely honest, we cannot be corrupted. We are true to every trust, duty, agreement, or covenant, even if it costs us money, friends, or our lives. Then we can face the Lord, ourselves, and others without shame. President Joseph F. Smith counseled, “Let every man’s life be so that his character will bear the closest inspection, and that it may be seen as an open book, so that we will have nothing to shrink from or be ashamed of” (Gospel Doctrine, p. 252).

It places us in quite a predicament.  on one hand the Lord and his apostles withheld info at times if they saw fit.  He says as much in his reason for teaching parables and also on occasions where he asks the 12 not to share certain things he has told them.

On the other hand we are taught that absolute and complete honesty are crucial to salvation.  We are taught that we can not only share partial truth or be silent.  That these are just as dishonest as telling a lie.  

When is lying (either telling something untrue, or withholding something true) ok?

If we are completely honest, we have to admit the Church lies at times at least in the sense it holds back information that might trouble it's members or keep investigators from looking into the Church. Even in the church we see milk before meat and yet on some level that is withholding information.  Perhaps it is in their best interest, perhaps it protects the name of the Church but at the end of the day it is according to the quotes above dishonest.  Is some lying or dishonesty justifiable?  We each do it at time Ex:  Santa Claus, Do I look fat in this dress, not narcing out a friend.  But in the case of the Church the standard is higher.  

I am not speaking of when an individual leader does this as that can be seen as an individual sin and not tied to the church.  But when the church as a whole unitedly withholds info..........  or tells the story in a way that is not the whole story but teaches a principle like the cream and strippings with Bro. Marsh

When is dishonesty ok?

Edited by DBMormon, 07 July 2012 - 08:55 AM.

[DH]

Being honest is not the same thing as dumping everything you know on a person at once. If you're teaching math to first graders, it's not dishonest of you to teach basic addition and withhold information about trigonometry. That's the "milk before meat" principle. However, you don't want to keep teaching basic math forever, once the students have learned it. Eventually you want to progress to trigonometry, calculus, etc.

[DBMormon]

So at some point we should expect to get the full story in the church and along the way?

[Tacenda]

I've been knocking myself out that the LDS are so different than other Christians and why do they have to be that way. And wouldn't it be easier to just be like everyone else, than LDS people like me don't have to make a choice between the two.  Well I just had a little eye opening experience.  I watched the Barbara Walter's special on 20/20 on the internet that aired last night.  It's subject was on Heaven and the different religions belief on it.  She interviewed representatives from Muslims, Evangelicals, Catholics and Jewish & LDS faiths.  Our LDS rep did a good job but left out some importatant stuff about our religion.  Where the others were basically the same type of heaven.  Why didn't the rep from our church do a better job of explaining our thoughts of being Gods etc.?  I don't know, because now I see that we should be shouting that fact from the rooftops like say the earlier Saints did.  Why are we afraid, when what there is, is so much more than what the other religions profess?  It is sort of like what DBMormon is saying, that we keep getting the milk but not the meat.  LDS should be proud and open about the belief of being gods & goddesses, that is significant and it is what so many in the earlier church were taught.

Edited by Tacenda, 07 July 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[why me]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

I am not speaking of when an individual leader does this as that can be seen as an individual sin and not tied to the church.  But when the church as a whole unitedly withholds info..........  or tells the story in a way that is not the whole story but teaches a principle like the cream and strippings with Bro. Marsh

When is dishonesty ok?

What church doesn't withhold information? My gosh, if every church would give every detail about their church and if the authors would bang their heads together not to leave anything out, nothing would be published or the book would be a thousand pages long. Why? Because the critics will never be satisfied and something will always be left out.

How often would you suggest the church mention polyandry in the manuals? Every year? Every other year? Once every five years? And what about in the ensign? Every year have an article about it? Every year have an article about the information that the critics claim the church is hiding? The publications would be written to make the critics happy but necessarily the church members.

[wenglund]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

So at some point we should expect to get the full story in the church and along the way?

In addition to the principle of teaching to the level of the students, there are also the principles of practicality, effective, relevence, prioritization, ect., which  suggests that information conveyed in the limited time alotted for instruction ought to be tailored to best meeting the objective of the talk/lesson, which likewise ought to be governed by the over-all objective/mission of the Church.

So, in answer to your question: of course not. It isn't really possible, nor would it make sense.

But, feel free to keep strummming away at this one-note (B-flat?) tune.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

Quote

In addition to the principle of teaching to the level of the students, there are also the principles of practicality, effective, relevence, prioritization, ect., which  suggests that information conveyed in the limited time alotted for instruction ought to be tailored to best meeting the objective of the talk/lesson, which likewise ought to be governed by the over-all objective/mission of the Church.

I am sure there are lesson that could be learned from the experiences in polyandry.  I think at least a many with the cream and strippings story.  I ahve no answer on how often, only that it shuld be there somewhere.  It's non-existance in church sources seems intentional.  We could use it to teach sacrifice, recieving answers in tough situations, ect...  We do not touch it with a ten foot pole though... why... becasue it will cause too great a struggle of faith for those who have never heard it.  Yet the quotes above indicate we should at least include it somewhere.

Edited by DBMormon, 07 July 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[why me]

Tacenda, on 07 July 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

I don't know, because now I see that we should be shouting that fact from the rooftops like say the earlier Saints did.  Why are we afraid, when what there is, is so much more than what the other religions profess?  It is sort of like what DBMormon is saying, that we keep getting the milk but not the meat.  LDS should be proud and open about the belief of being gods & goddesses, that is significant and it is what so many in the earlier church were taught.

Here is the problem as I see it: people who read the internet seem to think that we should be shouting about all that the critics claim that we hide. We should be shouting from the rooftops that mormons will be gods, if they live righteously. But do mormons actually believe this? Some say yes, some say no. If families are together in the eternities, how can they be together if they are gods over their own planets. Now some claim that the idea of god just means that we will have the knowledge to be equal with god. Thus, we will be gods.

I think that we do not seem to know all about it which would make it difficult to shout it from the rooftops.

Edited by why me, 07 July 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[why me]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I am sure there are lesson that could be learned from the experiences in polyandry.  I think at least a many with the cream and strippings story.  I ahve no answer on how often, only that it shuld be there somewhere.  It's non-existance in church sources seems intentional.  We could use it to teach sacrifice, recieving answers in tough situations, ect...

I think that it has more to do with church history than with anything else. Now when books about Joseph are published by Desseret, it could be mentioned by lds authors. That would do the trick.

[bridget_night]

I just came across this video about the Top 10 Mormons problems explained  :

  seems like important things have been hidden or lied about.

[DBMormon]

Quote

I think that it has more to do with church history than with anything else. Now when books about Joseph are published by Desseret, it could be mentioned by lds authors. That would do the trick

Has Deseret ever had a policy allowing books on such subjects... I bet at least up till recently, they did.  Only recently have books like Rough Stone Rolling been permitted.  Try writing a book on Polyandry and see if they publish it... highly doubt it.

[Tacenda]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Has Deseret ever had a policy allowing books on such subjects... I bet at least up till recently, they did.  Only recently have books like Rough Stone Rolling been permitted.  Try writing a book on Polyandry and see if they publish it... highly doubt it.

And books like "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton are taken off the shelves.  It's like this, because we have the world looking at us like we are peculiar, and that sentiment used to be a statement that was a good thing, is no longer politcally correct.  There I said it.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Tacenda, on 07 July 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

I've been knocking myself out that the LDS are so different than other Christians and why do they have to be that way. And wouldn't it be easier to just be like everyone else, than LDS people like me don't have to make a choice between the two.  Well I just had a little eye opening experience.  I watched the Barbara Walter's special on 20/20 on the internet that aired last night.  It's subject was on Heaven and the different religions belief on it.  She interviewed representatives from Muslims, Evangelicals, Catholics and Jewish & LDS faiths.  Our LDS rep did a good job but left out some importatant stuff about our religion.  Where the others were basically the same type of heaven.  Why didn't the rep from our church do a better job of explaining our thoughts of being Gods etc.?  I don't know, because now I see that we should be shouting that fact from the rooftops like say the earlier Saints did.  Why are we afraid, when what there is, is so much more than what the other religions profess?  It is sort of like what DBMormon is saying, that we keep getting the milk but not the meat.  LDS should be proud and open about the belief of being gods & goddesses, that is significant and it is what so many in the earlier church were taught.

O
ne thing we simply have to keep in mind is that it is an election year, and a Mormon is running for the President of our nation. There is simply NO WAY the church is going to say or do anything that is going to cause anyone to look at us agog. They will keep all things very moderate, without shrill, no controversies, problems or issues, etc. NO ONE ROCKS THE BOAT!!! I how the church is going to go through this year. That is why ANY unique understanding we have will simply not be talked out. We will cameleon like every other good Christian denomination for at least this year, without doubt.

[ERayR]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

So at some point we should expect to get the full story in the church and along the way?

At some point along the way those that want to can now and always have been able to get the "full" story.  " I will be a broken record and say" it is not the churches mission or job to be history teacher.  It is the churches mission to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, his atonement, his resurrection and the saving ordinances.  There is not even enough time to get that done without pandering to the desire of some for the intimate details from Joseph's bedroom.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Tacenda, on 07 July 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

And books like "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton are taken off the shelves.  It's like this, because we have the world looking at us like we are peculiar, and that sentiment used to be a statement that was a good thing, is no longer politcally correct.  There I said it.

Yes, peculiar is no longer useful, now we get to get into normal like everyone else.

[wenglund]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I am sure there are lesson that could be learned from the experiences in polyandry.

Sure. Lessons can be learned from most anything. I learned a lesson the other day about spitting cherry seeds out into my hand--e.g. take care because the seed may bounce from your hand onto your nice white shirt and near-perminantly stain it.

My earlier point wasn't that lessons couldn't be learned, but that the lessons conveyed ought to best meet the objective of the lesson/talk and ultimately the mission of the Church.

Quote

I ahve no answer on how often, only that it shuld be there somewhere.

I understand that is what you believe. It is just that from the perspective of effective instructional design, you don't know what you are talking about. Metaphorically, you keep strumming your one-note tune because you haven't a clue about music. This doesn't make you a bad person, just presumptuous and ignorant.

It is best for all parties for you to to leave these kinds of matters to those who are trained and have been called and are in the know and loop, and off-load this great burden you have illegitimately usurped, thereby liberating yourself to rightly do those things that you are actually in a position to do, prepared to do, and that is your business to do.

Quote

It's non-existance in church sources seems intentional.

Indirectly, yes. It's relative non-existence is rightly a function of its relative impracticality, ineffectivness, irrelevence, low prioritization, ect. in meeting the objectives of Sunday lessons and so forth.

Quote

We could use it to teach sacrifice, recieving answers in tough situations, ect...

People who know what they are doing, and who have been called of God to do so, and are in a position to say, have chosen otherwise and more wisely how to teach those precepts.

Quote

We do not touch it with a ten foot pole though... why... becasue it will cause too great a struggle of faith for those who have never heard it.

That may be one of a number of reasons in addition to the one's I have repeated.

Quote

Yet the quotes above indicate we should at least include it somewhere.

Yes...include it where it would do best in meeting given instructional objectives. That is why it is included here and at other academic and historical oriented venues.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 07 July 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[ERayR]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

So at some point we should expect to get the full story in the church and along the way?

Edited by ERayR, 07 July 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[why me]

DBMormon, on 07 July 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Has Deseret ever had a policy allowing books on such subjects... I bet at least up till recently, they did.  Only recently have books like Rough Stone Rolling been permitted.  Try writing a book on Polyandry and see if they publish it... highly doubt it.

It is not up to desseret but to the authors of such books about Joseph Smith. If an author writes a biography about Joseph, it should be in there. Now I have no idea if such information has been left out of biographies of Joseph in the past. Perhaps someone on this forum can enlighten us.

[why me]

Kerry A. Shirts, on 07 July 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Yes, peculiar is no longer useful, now we get to get into normal like everyone else.

Mormons will always be peculiar. The whole concept of mormon sounds peculiar. Will mormons ever be normal? Drinking beer while watching the Yankee game? Having a little action on a friday night? Enjoying some Buds with friends at their birthday party? Wearing short shorts in the mall? We will always be peculiar.

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 07 July 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

I've been knocking myself out that the LDS are so different than other Christians and why do they have to be that way. And wouldn't it be easier to just be like everyone else, than LDS people like me don't have to make a choice between the two.  Well I just had a little eye opening experience.  I watched the Barbara Walter's special on 20/20 on the internet that aired last night.  It's subject was on Heaven and the different religions belief on it.  She interviewed representatives from Muslims, Evangelicals, Catholics and Jewish & LDS faiths.  Our LDS rep did a good job but left out some importatant stuff about our religion.  Where the others were basically the same type of heaven.  Why didn't the rep from our church do a better job of explaining our thoughts of being Gods etc.?  I don't know, because now I see that we should be shouting that fact from the rooftops like say the earlier Saints did.  Why are we afraid, when what there is, is so much more than what the other religions profess?  It is sort of like what DBMormon is saying, that we keep getting the milk but not the meat.  LDS should be proud and open about the belief of being gods & goddesses, that is significant and it is what so many in the earlier church were taught.

We do get the meat.  Temple work I would say is pretty meaty if one takes the time to get into it and temple content is sacred enough that it is not offered to any who do not make at least a minimal effort to prepare to receive it.  Polygamy in all its permutations is not the meat, differences in interpretation of history is not the meat.  Again the meat is individual salvation and exaltation and uniting families together forever.  If you are going to walk on that for polygamy, history and geography I really feel sorry for you.