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

[Tacenda]

FYI, Joanna will be on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" tonight, if you might like to tune in.

http://www.sltrib.co...church.html.csp

Edited August 9, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bill Hamblin]

It seems that the only one who has admitted to lying about Mormonism is Ms. Brooks. Odd that.

[DavidB]

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?

Reno quotes a former LDS Church employee, who states, “Every Mormon grows up with the idea that it’s OK to lie if it’s for a higher cause.” That doesn’t quite ring true to my [Joanna Brooks] own experience, though I do understand well the truth-swerving phenomenon Emmet and Reno describe.

What part do you wish to give her thumbs down for?

[Pahoran]

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…

Are we?

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."

Fascinating. Now compare this to a First Presidency statement from December, 1969. They said that the Priesthood ban existed "for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man."

What President Hinckley said was perfectly true.

Maybe "lie" is a strong word for what is in your post; but whatever the correct word is, it applies to your commentary and not to President Hinckley's statement.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DavidB]

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

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.

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

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.

I understand your point, yet, I think you misunderstand to a degree.

Marriage and Spouse are usually defined by civil law, as would polygamy or cohabitation. By your definition every person who ever remarries after their first spouse is a polygamist, yet by law this is not the case. Death do you part, is the standard in the United States, so when polygamy is mentioned in the public areana "two living spouses" is the standard. While the second "marriage" is null, if there is a lawful living spouse to whom a there has not been a legal divorce the the person who entered into the second marriage - most likely by fraud - has violated the law.

From a religious point of view, Yes, plurality of spouse for men is part of the LDS Teachings, yet such a concept is lost on the person who simply uses the common meaning of polygamy as being two current living spouses.

If you look at the Brown family, they claim one living legal spouse and multiple current living "spiritual" spouse, yet if Mr. Brown claims anyone is his wife other than his legally recognized wife he is in violation of the law.

[Pahoran]

I understand your point, yet, I think you misunderstand to a degree.

Marriage and Spouse are usually defined by civil law, as would polygamy or cohabitation. By your definition every person who ever remarries after their first spouse is a polygamist, yet by law this is not the case. Death do you part, is the standard in the United States, so when polygamy is mentioned in the public areana "two living spouses" is the standard. While the second "marriage" is null, if there is a lawful living spouse to whom a there has not been a legal divorce the the person who entered into the second marriage - most likely by fraud - has violated the law.

From a religious point of view, Yes, plurality of spouse for men is part of the LDS Teachings, yet such a concept is lost on the person who simply uses the common meaning of polygamy as being two current living spouses.

If you look at the Brown family, they claim one living legal spouse and multiple current living "spiritual" spouse, yet if Mr. Brown claims anyone is his wife other than his legally recognized wife he is in violation of the law.

You're right, but the question is even simpler than that.

If a Catholic widower remarries, is he practicing polygamy or monogamy?

If a Methodist widower remarries, is he practicing polygamy or monogamy?

If an atheist widower remarries, is he practicing polygamy or monogamy?

A widower who remarries is practicing monogamy, simpliciter. To argue that a Mormon widower -- who is doing exactly the same thing -- is somehow practicing "polygamy" only because he believes something different about a post death reunion with his first wife -- is special pleading, and is not a valid argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

I have little reason to believe 1) that the church leadership has any real knowledge as to why the church has/had certain policies, practices and teachings and 2) they are in the position to know. They do as they are told and they are not to ask questions.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Valentinus

[pmccombs1]

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.

I enjoyed the book. I don't think that many faithful Mormons would care for it, though. Yes, it is highly critical of the Church, but I did not think it was anti-Mormon. I've met Daymon and I know he takes Mormonism very seriously; he honors and respects the prophet, Joseph Smith, and the work that Joseph did. My opinion is that Daymon's viewpoint is worth considering.

[Tacenda]

I enjoyed the book. I don't think that many faithful Mormons would care for it, though. Yes, it is highly critical of the Church, but I did not think it was anti-Mormon. I've met Daymon and I know he takes Mormonism very seriously; he honors and respects the prophet, Joseph Smith, and the work that Joseph did. My opinion is that Daymon's viewpoint is worth considering.

Thanks for your opinion. I'll for sure consider buying either the book or read on an ereader!

[Ahab]

I understand your point, yet, I think you misunderstand to a degree.

Marriage and Spouse are usually defined by civil law, as would polygamy or cohabitation. By your definition every person who ever remarries after their first spouse is a polygamist, yet by law this is not the case. Death do you part, is the standard in the United States, so when polygamy is mentioned in the public arena "two living spouses" is the standard. While the second "marriage" is null, if there is a lawful living spouse to whom a there has not been a legal divorce the the person who entered into the second marriage - most likely by fraud - has violated the law.

You said a lot of the right words but I think you still missed the point, somehow. With a "death do you part" marriage the marriage is over when one spouse dies, so if the remaining spouse remarries their marriage doesn't include more than 2 people. We LDS don't do "death do you part" marriages, or at least not only that, because we can be wed eternally to our spouses, so in our case if a remaining spouse weds someone else there are more than 2 in that marriage.

From a religious point of view, Yes, plurality of spouse for men is part of the LDS Teachings, yet such a concept is lost on the person who simply uses the common meaning of polygamy as being two current living spouses.

Lost on the person who doesn't accept it as truth, yes, but it's still true that LDS can be married to more than 1 spouse at the same time today.

If you look at the Brown family, they claim one living legal spouse and multiple current living "spiritual" spouse, yet if Mr. Brown claims anyone is his wife other than his legally recognized wife he is in violation of the law.

The beauty of our marriage laws now is that it isn't considered to be polygamy when one spouse dies, even though LDS can still be married to the spouse who died. The LDS is still married to more than 1 spouse, though, so technically it is still polygamy, even though those of the world don't recognize it as such. Ironic, and kinda sad since they don't see the truth, but there is still a beauty in that.

[Ahab]

You're right, but the question is even simpler than that.

If a Catholic widower remarries, is he practicing polygamy or monogamy?

If a Methodist widower remarries, is he practicing polygamy or monogamy?

If an atheist widower remarries, is he practicing polygamy or monogamy?

A widower who remarries is practicing monogamy, simpliciter. To argue that a Mormon widower -- who is doing exactly the same thing -- is somehow practicing "polygamy" only because he believes something different about a post death reunion with his first wife -- is special pleading, and is not a valid argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

Wow, I rarely catch you in error. I think I'll take a screen print of this event, at least mentally.

The flaw in your argument is in this little ditty: To argue that a Mormon widower -- who is doing exactly the same thing -- is somehow practicing "polygamy" only because he believes something different about a post death reunion with his first wife -- is special pleading, and is not a valid argument.

First of all, the Mormon widower who marries another spouse eternally isn't doing exactly the same thing as someone who marries "until death do you part", whether those words are part of the ceremony or just a matter of fact because it is without true priesthod authority.

Secondly, it's not only because he believes his marriage is something different, but because it is different, as a matter of fact.

And No, I'm not gloating over your error, I'm just surprised and noting the fact that you are wrong, in this case.

[Avatar4321]

Considering we cant get a temple recommend unless we are honest in our dealings with our fellow man, the answer is obviously no. It's absurd to think that the Church is encouraging us to lie while expecting us all to live up to the standards of the temple that require us not to lie.

[CV75]

I'd rather just throw the truth out there and let people choose to accept it or reject it.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are not to do:

http://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-no-greater-call-a-resource-guide-for-gospel-teaching/lesson-8-use-effective-methods-part-1

I lke the story unde the subheading, "We should use teaching methods that help individuals understand, remember, and apply gospel principles."

I also like D&C 41:6, in principle.

[CV75]

This defense of how most people see polygamy::

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

Doesn't square with this one:

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.

I don't think you understood my post any more than you understand the world "out there." Now that I think of it, Ms. Brooks doesn't either, if she squares a nation-wide American audience's general understanding of the subject with a cultural Mormon's and frets and replies accordingly.

[Ahab]

Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are not to do:

http://www.lds.org/m...-methods-part-1

I lke the story unde the subheading, "We should use teaching methods that help individuals understand, remember, and apply gospel principles."

I also like D&C 41:6, in principle.

Well, "throw" might have been too strong a word to use. How about "scatter", as someone does when they sow seeds?

I'll also usually go a second mile to try to help someone understand what I'm teaching, and remember, and apply what I'm teaching.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Ahab

[ERayR]

Thanks for your opinion. I'll for sure consider buying either the book or read on an ereader!

There you go again headed for a book with a critical point of view. Not much in the way of testimony building there.

[Ahab]

This defense of how most people see polygamy::

Doesn't square with this one:

We can all find the meaning of the word in a common dictionary, but some people have some other idea in their mind for what it means.

Better now?

I don't think you understood my post any more than you understand the world "out there." Now that I think of it, Ms. Brooks doesn't either, if she squares a nation-wide American audience's general understanding of the subject with a cultural Mormon's and frets and replies accordingly.

You can think I don't understand as long as you want but I think I do and I'm willing to live with that.

[William Schryver]

I have little reason to believe 1) that the church leadership has any real knowledge as to why the church has/had certain policies, practices and teachings and 2) they are in the position to know. They do as they are told and they are not to ask questions.

This is incoherent.

Perhaps you could try again to express just what it is you're trying to say.

[William Schryver]

I enjoyed the book. I don't think that many faithful Mormons would care for it, though. Yes, it is highly critical of the Church, but I did not think it was anti-Mormon. I've met Daymon and I know he takes Mormonism very seriously; he honors and respects the prophet, Joseph Smith, and the work that Joseph did. My opinion is that Daymon's viewpoint is worth considering.

Smith is just one of the many fifth-columnists out there who have chosen, by design, to feign faithfulness while simultaneously working to undermine both the faith of the Saints and the progress of the Church.

[teddyaware]

We are told to not discuss sacred things that happen inside the temple outside of the temple. This is considered a form of unhealthy secretiveness and deception by some LDS critics. Is this lying?

Jesus often spoke in parables and not plainly, so that those who heared him would hear not and, those who see would see not. Was he being misleading?

Daniel, Ezekiel and John spoke and wrote with strange, enigmatic symbolism. Could those who do so be considered unforthright and decetively cryptic?

Jesus also taught to his followers to not cast one's pearls before swine, necessitating that a Christian might be placed in a position where being forthright and open about things he or she knows would be commiting a serious sin. Why? Because the unworthy (or unready) person might take those sacred things and tear them apart, and then trample them under his feet.

The Church teaches us to be honest but also discreet.

[CV75]

Better now?

No, I still don't think you get it.

[CV75]

I'll also usually go a second mile to try to help someone understand what I'm teaching, and remember, and apply what I'm teaching.

I really don't think you get it!

[Hamilton Porter]

Joanna Brooks makes me vomit some times. I remember when an NPR caller asked her if blacks were allowed to be Mormons. Instead of answering the question first, she went our history, showed how smart she was, then by the time no one cared anymore, she said "Yes."

[Tacenda]

There you go again headed for a book with a critical point of view. Not much in the way of testimony building there.

I am critical of things people do in the church that are wrong. If this book is respectful, but points to areas that need work, like what may be a problem of materialism in the church operational system of which I'm only assuming, I've forgotten the content of the John Dehlin interview, what's wrong with that? The church in the past has conducted surveys from members to get feedback on certain procedures, for instance, things done in the temple. Therefore, they just might see other areas in the church that might need changes.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I am critical of things people do in the church that are wrong. If this book is respectful, but points to areas that need work, like what may be a problem of materialism in the church operational system of which I'm only assuming, I've forgotten the content of the John Dehlin interview, what's wrong with that? The church in the past has conducted surveys from members to get feedback on certain procedures, for instance, things done in the temple. Therefore, they just might see other areas in the church that might need changes.

So am I critical of things that are not right in "Zion". If you doubt me I could probably connect you with a couple of Gospel Doctrine teachers who would verify that claim.

However, I do not need people who make it their life being critical of the church to tell me what to be critical of.