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

[why me]

I have never been encouraged to lie. No one ever instructed me to lie. So, my answer is simple: no, the lds church does not encourage members to lie. Just the opposite.

[wayfarer]

I have never been encouraged to lie. No one ever instructed me to lie. So, my answer is simple: no, the lds church does not encourage members to lie. Just the opposite.

Indeed. The Gospel Principles manual is quite explicit on that point, and I do think that Joanna makes much ado about nothing in her article -- it's a nuanced position to understand mormon polygamy as practiced in the eternities, and the accurate direct answer that most people would recognize is that the CoJCoLDS does not practice polygamy today.

But as we teach the book of mormon, How do we address Nephi's deception with Laban? It was lying, and it directly flies in the face of what Gospel Principles says, which is that lying is NEVER acceptable.

How would you explain that if I came to your gospel essentials class and pointed that out during the lesson on Honesty? (I did this when it was Gospel Doctrine on this topic last year).

[wenglund]

But as we teach the book of mormon, How do we address Nephi's deception with Laban? It was lying, and it directly flies in the face of what Gospel Principles says, which is that lying is NEVER acceptable.

First, according to effective instruction practices, we draw an important distinction between the black/white lesson material for students in the fundamental stage of their spiritual development, and the more nuanced lesson material for students in more mature stages of the spiritual development. In other words, we sensibly teach things in a way best suited to the students development. The Gospel Principles manual is for students in the fundamental stage of spiritual development, which is why things are stated in black/white terms.

Second, for spiritually mature learners, who are capable of grasping nuances, we teach the difference between rules and exceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wayfarer]

The Gospel Principles manual is for students in the fundamental stage of spiritual development, which is why things are stated in black/white terms.

Second, for spiritually mature learners, who are capable of grasping nuances, we teach the difference between rules and exceptions.

I don't disagree with you in the least. We teach to the level. However, for a term, "Gospel Principles" was the manual for the all members for a year. and it was during that year that I asked that question.

Here then is a paradox. the gospel principles manual says that dishonesty is never acceptable, and yet in some scriptural cases it is acceptable. When confronted with this paradox, the most believing members have trouble computing that conflict.

And so at what level is dishonesty no longer acceptable?

If someone asks, "Do LDS still practice polygamy in any form?" Is it ok to say no, when (1) polygamy was never recinded, and (2) it continues to be celestial law?

If someone asks about the book of abraham, is it ok to say that it is "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus," when we now know that that statement is completely false?

Is publishing the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in a way that completely eliminates any teachings of polygamy an accurate an honest representation of the teachings of those two prophets?

Where is the line between acceptable dishonesty and unacceptable dishonesty?

[USU78]

If someone asks about the book of abraham, is it ok to say that it is "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus," when we now know that that statement is completely false?

CFR

[volgadon]

f someone asks about the book of abraham, is it ok to say that it is "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus," when we now know that that statement is completely false?

So much for idioms.

[wayfarer]

CFR

You're kidding, right?

[volgadon]

You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right? My Ukrainian wife who has hardly read any apologetics poked so many holes through that documentary. Was quite proud of her.

[wayfarer]

So much for idioms.

sure. "written by his own hand" could be a non-physical, metaphorical sense, but when the term "upon papyrus" follows it, it sort of loses the idiom flavor, doesn't it?

I have no issue with the concept that Joseph Smith revealed the book of abraham; but that's not what the particular statement is saying, is it? Joseph Smith bought the scrolls and mummies for a considerable amount of money, made numerous claims that they were the book of abraham (and joseph), invented a new egyptian alphabet and then proceeded to translate, letter for letter, what was in the scrolls.

He believed he was translating, or at least went to extraordinary effort to appear like he was (i think he believed he was). Yet, he was not 'translating' abrahams own writings from the papyrus.

to keep to the topic of the thread, once it becomes clear that he did not translate (giving him the benefit of the doubt that he revealed it), then what point is continuing to say that he translated it? To continue to say something is so in the face of it being not so is dishonesty, either with one's self, or with others or both.

And there is no reason to continue the charades. Paul made it clear that even revelation and prophecy was subject to error and partial understanding:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1 Cor 13:9-12

It should be note that the greek for 'perfect' really means whole or complete, as in 'more complete knowledge'. So as we learn, line upon line, precept upon precept, holding on to that which is made false by our greater understanding is done away. This is what Bruce R. McConkie recognized when blacks were given the priesthood. Why can we not do the same with our increased understanding of the history of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham?

They can be scripture, they can be revealed. They are not historical and they are not translations. Recognizing truth is part of learning.

And as I would imagine you are familiar with the textual higher criticism of the bible, what is your thinking about Deuteronomy? Did moses write that by his own hand?

[volgadon]

sure. "written by his own hand" could be a non-physical, metaphorical sense, but when the term "upon papyrus" follows it, it sort of loses the idiom flavor, doesn't it?

I'm not talking a non-physical, metaphorical sense, but an idiom. It is an idiom corresponding to "written by," and doesn't necessitate that the copy you are holding is the exact same one originally written by the author. If it said this very same papyrus, then you might have somewhat of a point.

[Pahoran]

You're kidding, right? Here is an excellent documentary

(Link removed.)

Your standards of "excellent" are not very demanding. One man's "excellent documentary" is another (better informed) man's discredited propaganda flick.

Incidentally, are you aware that the so-called "Institute for Religious Research," aka "Gospel Truths Ministries" is a notorious anti-Mormon clique?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wayfarer]

Your standards of "excellent" are not very demanding. One man's "excellent documentary" is another (better informed) man's discredited propaganda flick.

Incidentally, are you aware that the so-called "Institute for Religious Research," aka "Gospel Truths Ministries" is a notorious anti-Mormon clique?

Yes, I'm completely familiar with them. The fact that they are anti-mormon -- is that a problem? I simply said it was an excellent documentary -- truth is truth, regardless of source.

There is no greater academic consensus than the FACT that the book of abraham facsimiles come directly from the book of breathings, and that the actual translation of the texts in the facsimiles is nothing like what Joseph Smith said they were.

Please, please don't tell me that Joseph Smith's translations of the facsimiles are accurate.

But since you guys asked:

Stephen E. Thompson, 1995 “Egyptology and the Book of Abraham,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 28/1

Lanny Bell, “The Ancient Egyptian ‘Books of Breathing,’ the Mormon ‘Book of Abraham,’ and the Development of Egyptology in America,” in Stephen E. Thompson and Peter Der Manuelian, eds., Egypt and Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon His Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University, June 2005 (Providence, RI: Brown University, Department of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies, 2008)

John A. Larson, “Joseph Smith and Egyptology: An Early Episode in the History of American Speculation about Ancient Egypt, 1835–1844,” in David P. Silverman, ed., For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of Klaus Baer (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994)

H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999)

Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith: Journal, 1832–1842, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992), 45; Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., The Joseph Smith Papers: Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008)

Klaus Baer, “The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3 (Autumn 1968)

Louis C. Zucker, “Joseph Smith as a Student of Hebrew,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 3 (Summer 1968): 51; J[oshua]. Seixas, A Manual Hebrew Grammar for the Use of Beginners (2nd ed., Gould and Newman, 1834)

David P. Wright, “‘In Plain Terms that We May Understand’: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12–13,” in Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 211. See also Wright, “Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah,” in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002)

Edward H. Ashment, “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Reappraisal,” Sunstone 4 (Dec. 1979)

Edward H. Ashment, “Joseph Smith’s Identification of ‘Abraham’ in Papyrus JS 1, the ‘Breathing Permitof Hor’,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33/4 (Winter)

Edward H. Ashment, "Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study", in Dan Vogel, ed., The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990)

And this is just a snippet of the sources available. Many of these references are mormon sources.

[Pahoran]

Yes, I'm completely familiar with them. The fact that they are anti-mormon -- is that a problem? I simply said it was an excellent documentary -- truth is truth, regardless of source.

And their discredited propaganda flick is not "truth."

That doesn't mean that there might not be some snippets of fact among the dross; but it is mostly dross.

There is no greater academic consensus than the FACT that the book of abraham facsimiles come directly from the book of breathings, and that the actual translation of the texts in the facsimiles is nothing like what Joseph Smith said they were.

Wow, "no greater academic consensus?" Really?

And just how great is the "academic consensus" about the significance of that rather trite observation?

Please, please don't tell me that Joseph Smith's translations of the facsimiles are accurate.

If by "accurate" you mean "agreeing with modern Egyptology textbooks," then no.

And this is just a snippet of the sources available. Many of these references are mormon sources.

"Many" of them? Really?

Which ones?

I hope you're not trying to run Thompson, Ashment or Metcalfe past us as honest-to-gawrsh true believing Mormons, are you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wayfarer]

pahoran, I can see you have a firm and fixed point of view, and I respect that. I'm not here to change it. Enjoy your view and be at peace.

Just so you know, posters are required to respond to questions about materials they post.

[USU78]

You're kidding, right?

Thank you for confirming the sources of your fly-by slam at JSJr.

[wayfarer]

Thank you for confirming the sources of your fly-by slam at JSJr.

the documentary was not my source, but rather, a source among many. i hadn't seen that documentary until just before i sent it, but it sounded consistent with everything else i have studied on the Book of Abraham for 20 years. i provided a list of other sources, including members of the church, which y'all say are not honest to gosh mormons. what difference does the source make? i learned enough egyptian characters to see that the facsimiles themselves are clearly not translated correctly. and this was back in the 90s when I was trying to set up the first moderated usenet newsgroup to prevent the types of attack that were prevelant on alt.religion.mormon. what is the issue here?

i have a temple recommend. i work in the temple. i have taught gospel doctrine over and over again. i recently finished a stint as ward mission leader moving our ward from rock bottom of the mission to the top for two years.

i proclaim and testify that joseph smith was a prophet. that is my faith. i also accept as FACT that the papyrus and facsimiles have NOTHING to do with the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith didn't need the papyrus to reveal the BoA. He most likely THOUGHT he was translating it, but he wasn't. Further, i know for a fact that Joseph Smith did not "translate" the inspired version or the Book of Moses, and so do most of you. it was Re-ve-la-tion. Is there any scripture more transcendent than the Book of Moses?

so what is the problem with the scrolls containing the book of breathings? god could have joseph smith translate masonic ritual into a temple ceremony...so what is the issue?

I am not afraid of accepting all truth, even inconvenient truths like the BoA not being a translation. it doesn't shake my faith in the least. never has, never will.

i believe we as LDS look rather silly when we cannot accept the facts when they are painfully obvious, and the BoA is obvious. our faith should be mature enough to accept that all truth is circumscribed by the gospel -- so if something is true, we should accept it. when you tell me my sources are bogus, when nearly all of you reading this know that the book of abraham is not a translation, then i don't believe we are serving the truth.

my faith can accept that nephi "lied for the lord" in deceiving laban and zoram, and that was the will of the lord. my faith can accept that deuteronomy was pious fraud, yet divinely inspired -- a gem among scripture. my faith can accept that joseph smith thought he was translating when he was revealing instead. my faith can accept that joseph had profound flaws, yet was a prophet of god.

when i discover that my faith is in something not true, then it is no longer faith, because faith is to hope for things, without knowledge, that are true. Paul explained that we know and prophesy only in part, and when the more complete comes, we need to cast away the partial and flawed knowledge.

i would hope that we are completely unafraid of any truth, because truth is the gospel.

[wayfarer]

I hope you're not trying to run Thompson, Ashment or Metcalfe past us as honest-to-gawrsh true believing Mormons, are you?

In deference to the requirement to answer your question, i said that many came from mormon sources. since i had already provided ample sources, i did not see further point in discussing this. i said nothing about "honest-to-gawrsh true believing": those are your words, and i am not sure i know what they mean or how they are relevant.

are you saying that the facsimiles and book of abraham constitute an accurate translation? can you accept that they are not, yet accept, as I do, that another process, viz, revelation, was involved?

Edited August 15, 2012 by wayfarer