Does The Mormon Church Encourage Lds People To Lie? -- Joanna Brooks

[gtaggart]

So "Does the Mormon Church Encourage LDS People to Lie?" I'd say a big two thumbs down on Joanna Brooks's answer. And you?

[KevinG]

Some of the comments are good:

Bill Beardall • an hour ago

Does Mormonism encourage LDS people to lie? As a lifetime member, I was taught to always tell the truth by my parents, grandparents, church instructors and leaders. I have never found any justification for telling anything other than the truth. However, when it comes to Church history, one may not always be aware of the full context of an incident or practice. There is often disagreement by historians. So how can we can give an accurate account when there is such disagreement? We simply do the best we can with the knowledge we have.

I was bothered by Romney's 60 Minutes statement regarding polygamy. Like him, I have no desire to enter into the practice, but I was always taught to have pride in my heritage, which includes polygamous ancestors. They were pioneers who sacrificed all they had to build the "kingdom of God." I have shared that pride in my ancestral past when asked by those outside of the Church.

Fred • an hour ago • parent

The question, my friend, was whether Mormons currently practice polygamy or not. I'm reasonably convinced that belief in some future situation that can only arise after the death of all parties involved does not constitute the practice of polygamy in the minds of either questioner or responder, except in the minds of people engaged in sophmoric hyper-logic.

[Freedom]

I understand her point, although it is not lying. The problem is answering to the audience. The general population does not consider a widow to be practicing polygamy when he/she remarries so for this audience, no we do not practice polygamy.

[thesometimesaint]

As we read the Bible polygamy is a cultural fact. We can no more eliminate polygamy from our D&C than we can from the Bible. But that doesn't mean I have any desire to practice it in this life.

[cesc101]

Well, not a bad perspective per se. Especially the part were she reference Daymon Smith on her concept of "mormon cultural phenomenon"; kind of reminds me of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:6.

[Tacenda]

Well, not a bad perspective per se. Especially the part were she reference Daymon Smith on her concept of "mormon cultural phenomenon"; kind of reminds me of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:6.

I listened to a Mormonstories podcast where Daymon Smith was interviewed for his book "The Book of Mammon". I guess I was surprised that he is active LDS. But he is using his God given free speech, I guess. I'm glad he hasn't been reprimanded as long as he isn't lying or misrepresenting the church in any way. Of course I've never even read the book, maybe it isn't as derogatory to the church as I'm presuming. (sorry if I've derailed the topic)

For those that have read the book, is it worth the money? It was quite expensive when I saw it at the Sunstone Symposium recently.

[Craig Paxton]

Lie...is a strong word for what I believe actually takes place within Mormonism...a more accurate word might be...deflect...or less than completely forthcoming (ok thats more than one word).

We all are aware of President Hinckley’s…Ummmm…less than honest responses to tough questions…

In a 1997 interview on the Australian COMPASS tv program, he was asked:

COMPASS: "What was the reason for that? [i.e. denying blacks the priesthood]

HINCKLEY: "I don't know what the reason for that was."

(COMPASS, aired Nov. 1997, Australian Broadcasting System)

And then...

Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about. [emphasis added]

Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?

Hinckley: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly. We believe that the glory of God is intelligence and whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the Resurrection. ...that's one thing that's different. Modern revelation. We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, we believe he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

And then…

Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.'" [emphasis added]

[Q. Was God once a man?] "I don't know. ... I wouldn't say that... I don't know that we teach it... We don't know very much about [that]... I don't know a lot about it"

During his Larry King Live interview, President Hinckley was asked about polygamy. He responded, "It's not doctrinal."

So…what word would be appropriate? Lie is to strong….but honest would not be correct…

You are out of the thread along with anyone else who thinks they can judge another's honesty.

[KevinG]

Lots of ellipses in those quotes.

[cwald]

I thought it was a good article. Cant wait to see what happens tonight when Joanne Brooks appears on the Daily Show.

[happy]

I think it is similar to Joseph Smith dodging the polygamy question himself. A simple watch of the current Presidential Campaign is a very clear example of how people hear a fragment of a statement and take it out of context to use it against you. I think none of us really understand having to explain controversial ideas to an audience with a limited attention span and a limited drive to research what they are told.

[KevinG]

I think it is similar to Joseph Smith dodging the polygamy question himself. A simple watch of the current Presidential Campaign is a very clear example of how people hear a fragment of a statement and take it out of context to use it against you. I think none of us really understand having to explain controversial ideas to an audience with a limited attention span and a limited drive to research what they are told.

Rules for Radicals... RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

[happy]

What is more fascinating is that this hasn't been addressed in discussions on Muslims. They have a concept that is DOCTRINAL that allows for lying if it furthers the cause of Islam. It is referred to as "Taqiyya"

[thesometimesaint]

Woe unto the liar for he shall be thrust down into hell. Notice not gently placed, but thrust.

[bluebell]

Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted in Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997:

"On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, [Hinckley] sounded uncertain, `I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.'" [emphasis added]

[Q. Was God once a man?] "I don't know. ... I wouldn't say that... I don't know that we teach it... We don't know very much about [that]... I don't know a lot about it"

Pres. Hinckely was asked specifically about the King Follett sermon, where JS allegedly taught some very specific things about God the Father's mortal past that are not a part of the LDS church's doctrine today.

Here is the entire conversation uncut-

"Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah.

Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

There is nothing dishonest in his reply. We certainly don't teach the things about Heavenly Father in church today that JS allegedly spoke of in that sermon.

[cesc101]

So…what word would be appropriate? Lie is to strong….but honest would not be correct…

I wish i knew "what word will be approriate", but the article calls it "mormon cultural phenomenon".

I believe it is a normal (or more like a regular pattern of) religious practice, tagged, "line upon line"; Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, all told the people what was meet for them at a particular point in time.

I don't think that is telling a lie, its actual being honest as much as it benefit your audience.

[happy]

We certainly don't teach the things about Heavenly Father in church today that JS allegedly spoke of in that sermon.

Certainly we could apply "allegedly" in that sentence if everything else about temple worship and eternal progression and statements in the D&C were collectively ignored.

[USU78]

Pres. Hinckely was asked specifically about the King Follett sermon, where JS allegedly taught some very specific things about God the Father's mortal past that are not a part of the LDS church's doctrine today.

Here is the entire conversation uncut-

"Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah.

Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

There is nothing dishonest in his reply. We certainly don't teach the things about Heavenly Father in church today that JS allegedly spoke of in that sermon.

Most of us, in fact I daresay nearly all of us, who inhabit this here board have read the King Follett Discourse and have seen both the redacted and unredacted conversation quoted in tendentiously snipped form by M. Paxton in Post # 7. My question: Did Mr. Paxton know about the redaction before he posted it, or did he first learn about the redaction from kind bluebell? I'm curious, if he never heard about it or read it, if he views this as blunting his [perhaps now previously held] views on Mormons and lying.

[bluebell]

Certainly we could apply "allegedly" in that sentence if everything else about temple worship and eternal progression and statements in the D&C were collectively ignored.

I'll just quote Jeff Lindsay to save time-

"I respectfully but completely reject your claim that LDS theology teaches that we will become like God in exactly the same sense or in a sense "just like" Him. To say that we will be "as" God can mean many things. God Himself in Genesis 3:23 said that Adam had "become as one of us" because he now knew good from evil. John wrote that when Christ returns, the righteous will be "like him" (1 John 3:2). The concept of man becoming "like God" or "as God" is thoroughly, solidly Biblical and Christian - but it doesn't mean becoming exactly like Him. There is no doubt - no question at all - that we will always give glory to the Father, and that He will always be our God to whom we will give humble reverence forever, and that He will always be vastly above us. We may share in His glorious lifestyle and be joint heirs with Christ, but He is the Father and we are the children.

"Indeed, the official LDS canon is replete with clear and plain teachings about the existence of a Supreme Being, the One who was the most intelligent of all and who organized all things in the beginning (Abraham 3:19,21; Moses 1:1-6), making Him the unchangeable Source of all (Doct.& Cov. 20:17-36), the one true and wise God (Doct.& Cov. 132:24), the God of gods (Deut. 10:17); the Head God of all other gods (Doct. Cov. 121:28,32), the Almighty God (Doct.& Cov. 20:17), the Being to whom all "gods" will forever be subservient (Doct.& Cov. 76: 50-70;92-95;119); to whom we will be priests and kings at his right hand (Doct.& Cov. 66:12), to whom we will always belong (Doct.& Cov. 76:55-59); in whom we will glory, not in man (Doct.& Cov. 76:61); etc. The Temple Endowment ceremony in particular makes no mention of godhood but says that we can become priests and priestesses, kings and queens to God the Father, clearly teaching that our relationship to Him is one of children to Father or of vassal to Lord.

Regardless of how God the Father obtained His glorious body and regardless of what Christ meant by saying that He only did the things He had seen the Father do (John 5:19), there is no foundation for claiming that we will become exactly the same as the Father. He shares all that He has with those who love Him, but they are the creations and He is the Creator, we are the sinners and He is the Savior, we are the children and He is the Father. But if the children grow up, the glory of the Father is not diminished, nor is the honor that the children give the Father. May we all grow up in Christ, as subjects to our glorious King and God."

As to why i said 'allegedy' in regards to the King Follett discourse-

"

it is not canonical and has never been voted on by the body of the Church as an official source of doctrine;

• it was recorded by someone other than Joseph Smith (Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock and William Clayton), and first published in the Times and Seasons of August 15, 1844, after Joseph's death, so he could not review and approve it;
  
• there are some obvious errors in the written report, as evidenced by footnotes to the record in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, so there is the potential for other less obvious scribal errors to exist (have you ever tried to write down a lengthy sermon? did you get everything quoted properly?);
  
• therefore, we are not accountable for all that is taught there, especially if it conflicts in any way with the established canon, although some elements of it have been given credence and support by subsequent Church leaders."
  

It was not said in a nefarious way but just to retain the correct impression that there are some issues with the sermon in regards to exactly what JS was teaching.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bluebell

[KevinG]

I'm curious, if he never heard about it or read it, if he views this as blunting his [perhaps now previously held] views on Mormons and lying.

This information has been available to Craig and anyone else reading this board for months. Somehow debunking these myths about Mormons never prevents critics from repeating them.

The good news is we get new lurkers and posters on a daily basis so the service of answering these perpetual slanders is useful for them.

[CV75]

So "Does the Mormon Church Encourage LDS People to Lie?" I'd say a big two thumbs down on Joanna Brooks's answer. And you?

I just read a little (sorry, I hate blogs and dn't give 2 cents about who J. Brooks is)...

RE: “polygamy” via widowed/divorced men having successive sealings of one marriage at a time, it is only because women have to be sealed to a man with the priesthood, and multiple sealings to one man facilitate this. He can offer the same priesthood as it operates at a certain level of temple covenant to many sealed women.

On another level, men must also be sealed to a woman with the priesthood (she has it upon receiving all the temple ordinances), but she has it by virtue of being sealed to the first man, not many. She has nothing to give in the way of priesthood enhanement, so to speak to more than one sealed man.

It’s probably not a matter of lying about it, but a matter of not being able to articulate a principle that is sensed on a spiritual or perhaps subconscious level.

I see that she admitted, “Or was I a regular Mormon struggling to tell a complicated story to a world that often reduces us to stereotypes?” which seems to be an honest introspection regardless of whatever it was she said that i didn't read.

Edited August 9, 2012 by CV75

[William Schryver]

Ms. Brooks is obviously exercised by the principle of plural marriage, as are many Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That's fine. She won't be compelled to practice it, either in this life or in the "great beyond."

As for myself, I am not bothered by "The Principle," and I certainly don't feel compelled to lie about this or any other doctrine of the restored gospel.

Edited August 9, 2012 by William Schryver

[Ahab]

I understand her point, although it is not lying. The problem is answering to the audience. The general population does not consider a widow to be practicing polygamy when he/she remarries so for this audience, no we do not practice polygamy.

The truth applies to everyone whether people accept it or not, so No, for this audience and all other audiences they do. , they just don't accept that as the truth and think they're not when they really are.

I'd rather just throw the truth out there and let people choose to accept it or reject it. I don't give different answers - as in contradictory answers - to the same question, regardless of the audience.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Ahab

[CV75]

Ms. Brooks is obviously exercised by the principle of plural marriage, as are many Mormons and non-Mormons alike. That's fine. She won't be compelled to practice it, either in this life or in the "great beyond."

As for myself, I am not bothered by "The Principle," and I certainly don't feel compelled to lie about this or any other doctrine of the restored gospel.

OK this piqued my interest in reading the whole thing.

What does polygamy mean, and to whom? To me and I suspect to 99.99% of the world, and especially the press, it means a man being simultaneously wed to more than one living woman and cohabitating and raising families with them. LDS do not practice that any more. Wedging multiple sealings as LDS have them today into this construct is an apples-and-oranges, square-peg-in-a-round-hole, gnat-choking/camel swallowing exercise—there is no concurrent “-gamy” going on amongst the participants.

The part about the radio interview and the "quandary" reminds me of this: http://twitter.com/NowImworried

[Ahab]

OK this piqued my interest in reading the whole thing.

What does polygamy mean, and to whom?

You can find the definition in a common dictionary. It means to be wed to more than one spouse at the same time.

To me and I suspect to 99.99% of the world, and especially the press, it means a man being simultaneously wed to more than one living woman and cohabitating and raising families with them.

You're adding some elements that aren't necessarily part of the definition of polygamy. The definition doesn't specify if the spouses are living or dead. It also doesn't mention cohabitating or raising families. Look a little more at the definition.

LDS do not practice that any more.

We actually do, although as you say most people don't think we do. Are you amazed?

Wedging multiple sealings as LDS have them today into this construct is an apples-and-oranges, square-peg-in-a-round-hole, gnat-choking/camel swallowing exercise—there is no concurrent “-gamy” going on amongst the participants.

Actually, they are wed to more than one spouse, so that "gamy" is still going on, just not in the way they think it has to be to be considered polygamy because their understanding of what polygamy is is screwed up.

[ksfisher]

I have to admit that I regularly read Joanna Brooks column. But, I also rubber neck when passing traffic accidents. The two spectacles both seem to appeal to the same base instinct.