Mormon church now regards The Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible resource”

[longview]

7 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I didn’t say whether it was right or wrong. I just maintain the position Joseph smith lied about it. A lot.

You sound agitated.

7 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

here is a good modern day example of “parsing” words:

missionary: hi we r members of tcojcolds, would you like to hear about Jesus Christ?

investigator: aren’t you guys the Mormons?

missionary: no sir, we are missionaries from tcojcolds. 

Correction - - - missionary: Our church publishes the Book of Mormon. Our prophet is teaching the members to use the formal name of the church more consistently.

It is more likely our youthful missionaries do have the presence of mind to NOT fall into the mistake of replying with a "no sir" but to offer a gentle clarification.

7 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

that’s Mormon lying for you right there. Joseph Smith invented it

Going overboard with your agitation?

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Institute manual lesson #23

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-material-2019?lang=eng

 

“ The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter. “
SLANDER

This exact statement is repeated in the Joseph Smith “Teachings of the Prophets” manual chapter 46

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith?lang=eng

 

https://archive.org/details/Primary5/page/n218/mode/1up

lesson 37

“Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies. Joseph Smith, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, called a meeting of the city council, which was composed of both Church members and nonmembers. The city council declared the newspaper a "public nuisance" and ordered the town marshal to destroy the printing press used to print the newspaper.”

All kids ages 8-11 were taught this lesson from 2014 till probably when CFM started.. so at least four years every 8-11 year old was taught this. 
 

as you said, i did state it was as I recalled. I have never once heard in any discussion about the expositor in church attributing any truth to anything in it. That combined with having read various things over the years in church manuals I was surprised to see the Church refer to it as a credible source. 
 

im sure if someone with lots of time peruses the archives there is likely more. 

Thank you, I figured you would refer to these kinds of references. In the spirit of open-mindedness, can you also provide instances of "slander" and "vicious lies" published in the Expositor that provoked the saints as a "public nuisance"? Was it a credible source for slander, lies and public nuisance?

The examples you provided, in context and purpose, do not establish "the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies…" In context and purpose, the footnote you shared does not establish a parallel, that the Church now always views the Expositor as a credible source establishing the veracity of its articles. Affidavits should be taken at face value until proven false.

Given what you remember, I am not surprised you were surprised. I figure the referenced discussions in Church, and your participation in them, would not have addressed what was and what wasn't reliable in/about the Nauvoo Expositor -- but clearly the writers of the Gospel Topics article have. And that is a good thing.

[Notatbm]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Thank you, I figured you would refer to these kinds of references. In the spirit of open-mindedness, can you also provide instances of "slander" and "vicious lies" published in the Expositor that provoked the saints as a "public nuisance"? Was it a credible source for slander, lies and public nuisance?

The examples you provided, in context and purpose, do not establish "the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies…" In context and purpose, the footnote you shared does not establish a parallel, that the Church now always views the Expositor as a credible source establishing the veracity of its articles. Affidavits should be taken at face value until proven false.

Given what you remember, I am not surprised you were surprised. I figure the referenced discussions in Church, and your participation in them, would not have addressed what was and what wasn't reliable in/about the Nauvoo Expositor -- but clearly the writers of the Gospel Topics article have. And that is a good thing.

Historically the church has not discussed the contents of the expositor and whether what was written is true, not  true etc. at least in my fifty plus years it has not been discussed in seminary, Sunday school, priesthood, mia, over the pulpit in sacrament meeting or conference. I may have just missed it.
 

Anyway- yea I’m not doing a research project for you.  You are welcome to do so and publish your findings. I’ll even read it. 

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Is slander really all that different than “viscious lies?” Actually in the case of the expositor we are talking about”libel” but that is just verbal vs printed word. Same thing though. Either one is based on a lie. 

slander

1 of 2noun

slan·der ˈslan-dər 

1

: the making of false statements that damage another's reputation

2

: a false and harmful oral statement about a person

 

the church … err the Nauvoo city council passed a law (ex post facto) outlawing “libel” and then went and trashed the expositor.

Viscious is just an adjective the church added to the lying part to make it more… you know more bad. The church is just as guilty as the expositor in terms of making inflammatory statements not to mention creating a law after the fact to go after the paper with. Thats obviously how Jesus would have done it. 

 

Ok, so if you think slander and vicious lies are the same, then the Expositor has them.

I mentioned the statements about Jeremiah Smiths which has several lies.  This includes both stating partial truths that give the wrong impression without the rest of the truth (I know of several modern court cases where this is ruled as slander).

Then there is the statement about Joseph H. Jackson which says:

Quote

We have received the last number of the "Warsaw Signal;" it is rich with anti-Mormon matter, both editorial and communicated. Among other things it contains a lengthy letter from J.H.Jackson, giving some items in relation to his connection with the "Mormon Prophet," as also his reasons for the same. It will be perceived that many of the most dark and damnable crimes that ever darkened human character, which have hitherto been to the public, a matter of rumor and suspicion, are now reduced to indisputable facts. We have reason to believe, from our aquaintance with Mr. Jackson, and our own observation, that the statements he makes are true; and in view of these facts, we ask, in the name of heaven, where is the safety of our lives and liberties, when placed at the disposal of such heaven daring, hell deserving, God forsaken villains.

Joseph H. Jackson would later write an expose on Joseph and Nauvoo called "The Adventures and Experience of Joseph H. Jackson" which does have truths but also a bunch of lies.  But that is in 1846 and the Expositor is talking about a letter that he sent into the Warsaw Signal.  You can read the letter he wrote over at http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1844.htm.  The Expositor doesn't list which of the statements are true or false, it seems to say all of them are true.  In his letter he makes the following statements, which are probably all false:

• Joseph Smith attempted to have him killed
• Joseph Smith is an athiest
• Joseph Smith knows the Book of Mormon is a "humbug" and was copied from Spalding's manuscript
• Joseph Smith sent Rockwell to kill Governor Higgs
• Joseph Smith offered Joseph H. Jackson money to kill Governor Higgs
• Joseph Smith requested Joseph H. Jackson to kill his enemies in Nauvoo

 

Additionally, it appears Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo council had access to the 2nd edition of the Nauvoo Expositor.  We don't as every single copy was destroyed.  But in the Nauvoo Council minutes, it says

Quote

Mayor said— if he had a city council who felt as he did. the establishm[e]nt. (refering to the Nauvoo Expos[i]tor) would be a Nuisanc[e] before night.— and read an Editorial from the 2d No of the Nauvoo Expositor who ever said a word vs Judge [Sylvester] Emmons until he has atta[c]ked this coun[c]il.— or agint [against]. J[oseph] H. Jackson. or the Laws until they have come out against the city?

These minutes are from June 10th and later that day, they destroy the press and all copies of the second edition.  It is highly likely that the second edition contains lies as well.  It might even contain more lies, but we have no way of knowing it.

And the Expositor was absolutely a public nuisance.  Besides all of its arguments against the Nauvoo charter (which I feel is the worst thing it did), it also stated that it would see no problem with force used against Nauvoo.  Having a newspaper call out for military force against the town would be a cause (at that time) to shut down the press.

[webbles]

1 minute ago, Notatbm said:

Historically the church has not discussed the contents of the expositor and whether what was written is true, not  true etc. at least in my fifty plus years it has not been discussed in seminary, Sunday school, priesthood, mia, over the pulpit in sacrament meeting or conference. I may have just missed it.

I would absolutely agree with you here.  The church has barely talked about the Nauvoo Expositor and its contents.  It hardly says anything about it except that it was declared a public nuisance and how it was linked to the martyrdom of Joseph Smith.  Which kind of goes against your original statement that the church "always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of vicious lies".  A single primary book that shows it was taught possibly once every 4 years is not a great argument that the church always said it.  I don't know when I first read the Nauvoo Expositor and realized that it had a lot of truth, but it was decades ago.  And I used that primary manual when I taught Primary and apparently didn't notice that line since I had to figure out where the "vicious lies" statement is coming from.

[Notatbm]

57 minutes ago, webbles said:

A single primary book that shows it was taught possibly once every 4 years is not a great argument that the church always said it…And I used that primary manual when I taught Primary and apparently didn't notice that line since I had to figure out where the "vicious lies" statement is coming from.

You actually taught it and didn’t even realize it. As for “always” which it would seem many posters are hung up in was My recollection. I do not ever remember any mention of the expositor in church without it being also labeled as lies in pretty much the same sentence. 
 

one would probably be hard pressed to find church materials outside of maybe institute or some byu history course that goes in-depth on the expositor. I believe the church would prefer we not dissect it as it leads to even more questions. 

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I didn’t say whether it was right or wrong. I just maintain the position Joseph smith lied about it. A lot. 
 

here is a good modern day example of “parsing” words:

missionary: hi we r members of tcojcolds, would you like to hear about Jesus Christ?

investigator: aren’t you guys the Mormons?

missionary: no sir, we are missionaries from tcojcolds. 
 

that’s Mormon lying for you right there. Joseph Smith invented it

I think you're losing ground and clinging to the one issue you think you can maintain; That all forms of non-disclosure is lying. But what is the point of insisting that something is a lie, if it's also true, and even if it we conceded they were lies, you've now also just conceded it's not always morally wrong to lie, so I'm not sure what this is, you don't seem to care about truth anymore - you only care about control of the narrative that "Joseph Smith lied".

But "Joseph Smith lied" is an unfalsifiable statement, we haven't yet accepted what counts for what we call a lie. Your personal definition a "lie" doesn't distinguish between intent, defensive silence under persecution, careful wording to avoid mob violence or political harm, and incomplete answers to protect sacred or complex truths. This is just a rigged game where every move by Joseph is "proof" of "something"... What exactly? Immorality? That can't be it, you don't claim what is moral, in fact, if you won’t allow any context or complexity, then this isn’t an honest conversation.

Edited August 2, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

25 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I think you're losing ground and clinging to the one issue you think you can maintain. That all forms of non-disclosure is lying. But what is the point of insisting that something is a lie if it's true, and even if it we conceded they were lies, you've now just conceded it's not always morally wrong to lie, so I'm not sure what sort of psychosis this is. You don't care about truth anymore - you only care about control of the narrative.

"Joseph Smith lied" is an unfalsifiable statement, we haven't accepted what counts as a lie. Your claim of a "lie" doesn't distinguish between defensive silence under persecution, careful wording to avoid mob violence or political harm, and incomplete answers to protect sacred or complex truths. This is rigged game where every move by Joseph is proof of something... What? Immorality? You don't claim what is moral, in fact, if you can’t allow any context or complexity, then this isn’t an honest conversation.

Thanks for your response 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Historically the church has not discussed the contents of the expositor and whether what was written is true, not  true etc. at least in my fifty plus years it has not been discussed in seminary, Sunday school, priesthood, mia, over the pulpit in sacrament meeting or conference. I may have just missed it.
 

Anyway- yea I’m not doing a research project for you.  You are welcome to do so and publish your findings. I’ll even read it. 

Yes, that is your experience (you previously posted, "I have never once heard in any discussion about the expositor in church...") and my experience is similar, but that does not translate into Church History, where we have, for example D&C 123 written as a letter to the saints years before the Nauvoo Expositor and included in the canon several decades later. So, there is indication that the Church discussed the contents and determined what was true, not true, etc. but found no reason to include what was true in the manuals used for class discussion of particular events.

You created a thread asking, "What else was printed in the Nauvoo Expositor that is true?" based on your impression -- I did not take that as a request to do a research project for you. My request of you to provide instances of "slander" and "vicious lies" published in the Expositor that provoked the saints as a "public nuisance" and whether you consider it a credible source for slander, lies and public nuisance, was in the spirit of open-mindedness, as I am sure you would likewise expect to be perceived, not because I am a lazy learner or suggesting that examples of published falsehoods from the Expositor somehow undermines your conclusion.

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

You actually taught it and didn’t even realize it. As for “always” which it would seem many posters are hung up in was My recollection. I do not ever remember any mention of the expositor in church without it being also labeled as lies in pretty much the same sentence. 
 

one would probably be hard pressed to find church materials outside of maybe institute or some byu history course that goes in-depth on the expositor. I believe the church would prefer we not dissect it as it leads to even more questions. 

I never read the Primary book verbatim to the kids.  I would read the lesson and then build the lesson around what was in it.  I never taught the kids in my classes that the Expositor was vicious lies.

I have no recollection that the Nauvoo Expositor was labelled all lies.  I heard libel, slander, public nuisance, half truths, contains lies, etc.  But saying that the entirety of the Expositor was all lies, no recollection of hearing that.  And since I apparently read the Primary 5 book (maybe I was lazy that week and didn't really read the lesson), that one line did not stand out to me.

I think dissecting the Expositor is really useful.  It explains why the Nauvoo Council felt it was libel.  Unfortunately, I think most people who have heard about the Expositor just think it has something to do with polygamy.  But it is much, much more than that.  It was libel.  It was dangerous.  Governor Ford even admitted that to John Taylor.  He suggested that Joseph Smith should have just incited a mob instead of creating a legal justification.  See page 47 at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4336&context=byusq.

Also, the definition of libel has changed over the years.  Now a days, if you can prove that you spoke the truth, you are not libel.  But that wasn't always the case.  There is a famous case in 1804 where Alexander Hamilton argued before the New York Appeals Court that his defendant should be able to use truth as his defense and that the fact that New York doesn't allow it was a disgrace.  In the end, the judges deadlocked over it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Croswell).  It wasn't until 1964 (!) that the US Supreme Court ruled that libel must actually be falsehoods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan).  So yes, the Nauvoo Expositor was definitely libel and definitely a public nuisance.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, webbles said:

I never read the Primary book verbatim to the kids.  I would read the lesson and then build the lesson around what was in it.  I never taught the kids in my classes that the Expositor was vicious lies.

I have no recollection that the Nauvoo Expositor was labelled all lies.  I heard libel, slander, public nuisance, half truths, contains lies, etc.  But saying that the entirety of the Expositor was all lies, no recollection of hearing that. 

This is what I did as well (taught Primary for over 20 years, starting at age 17 with Sunbeams).  Never just read the lesson to the kids. That would have been foolish as they would lose attention quickly.

As far as any discussion (more than just a sentence) about the content of the Expositor, the overall memory is while it was seen as mainly lies and some nasty ones at that, the Expositor was also seen as much more dangerous than just a list of lies because there was some truth mixed in with those lies, thus making it more likely the lies would be believed.

Quote

And since I apparently read the Primary 5 book (maybe I was lazy that week and didn't really read the lesson), that one line did not stand out to me

Why would it when it was accurate?

Quote

These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith.

It was not all vicious, it was not all lies.  But there were many (imo) vicious (intentionally inflammatory imo) lies in it.

Edited August 2, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I’ll pass. Sounds boring

Much more interesting then copying “gotcha” takes from others on the internet but it also requires effort and intellect so I understand your reluctance.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would it when it was accurate?

Quote

These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith.

It was not all vicious, it was not all lies.  But there were many (imo) vicious (intentionally inflammatory imo) lies in it.

I don't think there were many vicious lies about Joseph Smith in it.  For me, I think there are only really 2 lies about him.  There's one about him wanting to be president and put his followers in as governors of the state.  And then the comment about Joseph Jackson.  The later, though, isn't the Expositor writing the lies, but just stating that he is telling the truth in the Signal paper.

So that's why I would disagree with that sentence.

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Ironically, that is a form of word-parsing, therefore by your definition is a lie. Also, it's a sweeping generalization

Parsing ≠ Lying. Parsing words means: Carefully choosing words for precision. Distinguishing between similar but not identical meanings. It's often necessary for truth-telling, especially in legal, diplomatic, or theological contexts.

The Church does not teach strict moral absolutism - not in the sense that every secret, lie, or every kill is always evil. We are taught to follow the spirit/intent of the law. Intent is central to the Church's own definition of lying. 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught: "Some acts, like lying or even taking a human life, may be, in exceptional circumstances, not only morally justifiable but morally necessary." ("Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, 1999)

God's people have always served as spies and soldiers. The scriptures are full of stratagems and secrecy, disguises and deceptions. Yet they are not judged as liars and murderers. There are righteous lies. Lying to protect the innocent, fulfilling a vow/covenant, or obey God’s timing = sometimes righteous. Withholding the truth isn’t always deception - it can be mercy, wisdom, discretion and stewardship.

"Unto you it is given to know the secret of the kingdom... but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11). "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 3:2). Some truths you are not ready to receive. “For the unbelieving the truth is harmful... it may rather do harm than good, if it be not presented in the proper time and manner.” (Clementine Recognitions (Book II, ch. 5))

I saw a fascinating back and forth about this in the New Oxford Review a couple years back. One side arguing for absolute honesty in all circumstances- including not lying to SS officers to protect Jews- and the other for general honesty, but if needed bending of the truth, such as leaving out info. or wording things in such I way to not lie, but also not convey the truth.

I prefer the latter argument.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I don't think there were many vicious lies about Joseph Smith in it.  For me, I think there are only really 2 lies about him.  There's one about him wanting to be president and put his followers in as governors of the state.  And then the comment about Joseph Jackson.  The later, though, isn't the Expositor writing the lies, but just stating that he is telling the truth in the Signal paper.

So that's why I would disagree with that sentence.

I see certain descriptions of him as vicious lies, but perhaps they really believed such things and this could be qualified as just vicious and not lies.  But perhaps my definition of viciousness is different than most. 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I saw a fascinating back and forth about this in the New Oxford Review a couple years back. One side arguing for absolute honesty in all circumstances- including not lying to SS officers to protect Jews- and the other for general honesty, but if needed bending of the truth, such as leaving out info. or wording things in such I way to not lie, but also not convey the truth.

I prefer the latter argument.

I am not going to make my mother, who was suffering from dementia, feel unnecessary anxiety by telling her that her granddaughter no longer believes in the Church (she would not feel anxiety because of the loss of belief of my daughter, but by her own inability to provide the comfort and support she would think my daughter needed…which my daughter didn’t as it wasn’t an emotional thing for her except for when it bothered others).  So yeah, I deceived by not correcting my mother when she said a few things which obviously meant she saw my daughter as an active believer.

While it made me uncomfortable because I tend to want to provide clarity and accuracy to the best of my ability, I am not feeling the least bit ashamed about it and never have.

Edited August 2, 2025 by Calm

[Notatbm]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not going to make my mother, who was suffering from dementia, feel unnecessary anxiety by telling her that her granddaughter no longer believes in the Church (she would not feel anxiety because of the loss of belief of my daughter, but by her own inability to provide the comfort and support she would think my daughter needed…which my daughter didn’t as it wasn’t an emotional thing for her except for when it bothered others).  So yeah, I deceived by not correcting my mother when she said a few things which obviously meant she saw my daughter as an active believer.

While it made me uncomfortable because I tend to want to provide clarity and accuracy to the best of my ability, I am not feeling the least bit ashamed about it and never have.

There are many who do the same with temple recommends (lie to get one) and do it for years to avoid disappointing their parents. Meanwhile they don’t pay full tithe, drink coffee /alcohol, rarely go to church etc. bishop’s discernment fails, they keep their recommends and they do it for a whole generation till mom and dad die. I don’t blame em. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

There are many who do the same with temple recommends (lie to get one) and do it for years to avoid disappointing their parents. Meanwhile they don’t pay full tithe, drink coffee /alcohol, rarely go to church etc. bishop’s discernment fails, they keep their recommends and they do it for a whole generation till mom and dad die. I don’t blame em. 

That’s a Bad Faith argument. If someone lies, that’s proof the whole system is flawed or dishonest? Well then, every school with a cheating student is a scam? Every police officer who doesn't discern a lie proves the law is invalid? Every sin proves the religion is false? No.

A Bishop's discernment is not a lie detector, even if it were, he's not allowed to call you out. A bishop's interview not an interrogation. He’s there to ask the questions, give spiritual guidance, and trust people to answer for themselves before God. LDS doctrine is built on personal agency and accountability. It's the Lord they are accountable to.

I don't blame those who fudge their interviews, because I don't usually see hardened deception, rather they often want to be good, they just don’t feel strong enough to admit where they’re falling short. Lying in an interview is often its own consequence. Youth who lie in interviews often carry guilt, feel distant from God, and sometimes even feel trapped by their own dishonesty. Then they may feel like they’re in too deep to confess later. In this way, the act becomes its own punishment.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yep… cv75 acknowledge the iirc part and asked for several examples it was taught. I provided three examples of which one actually said “viscious lies.”

he hasn’t been back to comment on it so he is possibly satisfied the church actually did teach it. 

What I was looking for was evidence that "the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies…" I am not at all satisfied that you established that with the quotes you provided or otherwise. It is a mischaracterization; do you consider it a lie, rhetoric, bias, off-the-cuff banter (or what)? How has your understanding evolved over the last day or so?

[Notatbm]

14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

That’s a Bad Faith argument. If someone lies, that’s proof the whole system is flawed or dishonest? Well then, every school with a cheating student is a scam? Every police officer who doesn't discern a lie proves the law is invalid? Every sin proves the religion is false? No.

A Bishop's discernment is not a lie detector, even if it were, he's not allowed to call you out. A bishop's interview not an interrogation. He’s there to ask the questions, give spiritual guidance, and trust people to answer for themselves before God. LDS doctrine is built on personal agency and accountability. It's the Lord they are accountable to.

I don't blame those who fudge their interviews, because I don't usually see hardened deception, rather they often want to be good, they just don’t feel strong enough to admit where they’re falling short. Lying in an interview is often its own consequence. Youth who lie in interviews often carry guilt, feel distant from God, and sometimes even feel trapped by their own dishonesty. Then they may feel like they’re in too deep to confess later. In this way, the act becomes its own punishment.

Where did I take the position someone lying to their bishop is proof a religion is false? Now you are making stuff up I definitely never said. I’m empathizing with calm as I know people who lie or withhold the truth to avoid hurting others. 
 

I know you dont like me or my posts that is quite clear. If you need to make up false statements about what I just posted perhaps you should find a different hobby. Nowhere in  my post did I say what you said I did. Libel much?

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I’m empathizing with calm as I know people who lie or withhold the truth to avoid hurting others

And yet instead of focusing on those people, you chose to phrase no bishop or counselor challenging them on their lies (which could happen for multiple reasons) as “bishop’s discernment fails”.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Where did I take the position someone lying to their bishop is proof a religion is false? Now you are making stuff up I definitely never said. I’m empathizing with calm as I know people who lie or withhold the truth to avoid hurting others. 
 

I know you dont like me or my posts that is quite clear. If you need to make up false statements about what I just posted perhaps you should find a different hobby. Nowhere in  my post did I say what you said I did. Libel much?

 

If I misunderstood your intent, then I apologize - but it wasn’t libel, just an attempt to engage with the implications as I read them. I don’t dislike you personally - I just sometimes interpret your tone as so steeped in ex-mormonism that even your anecdotes (people lying in interviews) seem like actually a subtle criticism of the Church. Secondly;

Step-by-step Implied Argument

"Joseph lied about it. A lot." Yet somehow you are claiming no direct moral judgment, just a blanket claim framed as factual.

Next you connected it to whole church, via modern missionaries: “Missionaries say they're from TCoJCoLdS, not ‘Mormons.’ That’s lying.” Even though it's a branding correction, you are framing it as intentional deception.

Then you expand it to "many" members who lie to bishops about worthiness. From the pattern thus far, you're implying, if only subconsciously, that dishonesty within the church is systemic. Though unstated, you are implying lying is embedded in the whole church.

While you deny explicitly making a truth claim about the Church being false, you are building an accumulative argument that erodes credibility. Then when challenged, you retreat and build a rhetorical shield that lets you spread your notions without taking responsibility for it. Whether or not you intend it, you've built a pretty clear narrative. It reads as accusatory, even if indirectly.

Edited August 3, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/1/2025 at 11:12 PM, Notatbm said:

I did say “if I recall correctly iirc.”  Proved it with a lesson manual we used to teach the little kids with. 

Joseph smith himself said they ( expositor) were lying about his practicing polygamy. Perhaps the church can now feel safe in coming out and just straight up say Joseph smith was a liar when it came to polygamy. 
 

a carefully worded denial falls clearly within the definition of a lie according to to the church’s own definition of lying: 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have its "own definition of lying."  Any dictionary definition will do quite well.

Victor Hugo said: “To lie a little is not possible: he who lies, lies the whole lie.”  Yet, his character the nun, sister Simplice,  who had never told a lie, lied twice to protect Jean Valjean from evil Javert.

On 8/1/2025 at 11:12 PM, Notatbm said:

“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 28:8⁠). 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.”

look, I merely made a comment about the church recognizing th ed expositor as a legitimate source of information which is true. I was taught growing up ( also the primary manual says as much) that the expositor was a lie. 

.................................

Cite the date and page of the primary manual with that statement -- quoting it in context.  I never saw such a silly claim and I am now 84.

What is clear is that it makes no sense at all to claim that the Expositor lied about Joseph's practice of polygyny after Brigham publicly acknowledged the practice.  Of course the RLDS Church did claim through most of its history that Joseph did not practice polygyny.  Your false statement was that Latter-day Saints "always" denied the practice of polygyny by Joseph -- plainly absurd.

[Tacenda]

On 8/2/2025 at 4:37 PM, Calm said:

I am not going to make my mother, who was suffering from dementia, feel unnecessary anxiety by telling her that her granddaughter no longer believes in the Church (she would not feel anxiety because of the loss of belief of my daughter, but by her own inability to provide the comfort and support she would think my daughter needed…which my daughter didn’t as it wasn’t an emotional thing for her except for when it bothered others).  So yeah, I deceived by not correcting my mother when she said a few things which obviously meant she saw my daughter as an active believer.

While it made me uncomfortable because I tend to want to provide clarity and accuracy to the best of my ability, I am not feeling the least bit ashamed about it and never have.

I'm on your side of this! We need to be in their world, those with dementia. They are often living far in the past with their memories and that would most likely be when your daughter was active. 

I also think lying is a good thing if it is making a situation better for someone. Such as giving a compliment we may be not entirely honest about. And other ways as well, as long as it's not hurting someone. 

[Pyreaux]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I also think lying is a good thing if it is making a situation better for someone. Such as giving a compliment we may be not entirely honest about. And other ways as well, as long as it's not hurting someone. 

You're grasping the spirit of "skillful means" (Sanskrit: upāya-kauśalya), a core Mahayana Buddhist concept. I've been studying Bodhisattva Buddhism, which is my favorite branch, especially the concept of "skillful means" (upāya). It's a powerful idea often used to explain how different teachings or paths can all lead to Buddhahood, even when they appear to contradict each other. Each path or teaching may be true in its own context or stage of development.

For example, one school's teaching might focus solely on fasting, while another emphasizes fasting and serving others. Even if they seem to conflict, each is valid for the stage of spiritual growth it's meant to address. What matters is that each method helps beings move forward on the path.

This idea is beautifully illustrated in the Lotus Sutra, particularly in the Parable of the Burning House. In the story, a father sees his children playing inside a house that's on fire. They are too distracted to notice the danger, and they won't come out despite his warnings. So, he uses a skillful means, a lie: he tells them he has wonderful toys waiting for them outside. The children run out, only then do they know why they truly needed to follow him out of the house, and once they're safe, the father gives them even better gifts than he had promised.

The parable shows that the father’s "lie" wasn’t a malicious lie, it was a method to save his children. In the same way, the Buddha may offer teachings suited to people's capacity at the time, even if those teachings are provisional or symbolic. Once someone progresses further on the path, they can see the deeper truth behind what they were taught. These different teachings can be true at different stages, like steppingstones. Always meet people where they are, all learning will lead to the One Vehicle (the path to Buddhahood), even if they seem different on the surface.