"lying For The Lord"

[Abulafia]

Another thought:

Is lying ever justified? I can think of some cases when lying might be morally acceptable:

Examples:

Gestapo: Any Jews hiding out in your attic? We want to kill them!

Good Dutch family: (Lying) Of course there are no Jews here in this house!

Mob: Is Joseph here? We want to tar and feather him!

Emma: (Lying) No he is out of town right now.

JRF, I think you make a really good point, I would certainly lie to protect my family in such a circumstance.

I wonder though how much the two situations are comparable. (Lying over polygamy, not the example you quoted..) The Jews were being hounded, persecuted, rounded up, and taken to the death chambers on mass. This was a matter of life and death, with Nazi leaders, that were totalitarian in outlook and hell bent on destroying anything that even resembled a Jew.

Obviously the leaders of the church did not wish to 'bow down' to the wishes of the prevailing American culture of the time, thus the duplicity, but I am not sure they were justified (or Joseph Smith for that matter) in being deceitful over the issue, in the same way that Anne Frank's protectors would be praised and considered justifed today, since they were truly putting their lives on the line to protect an individual's life.

[Dale]

Joseph Smith was legally exonerated after his death of polygamy based on valid legal reasons in the Temple Lot case. The decision is online in the Church In Court article in the LDS Issues section at http://www.centerplace.org/library/ The claim of William Law in the Expositor was based on perjury & Joseph Smith knew it.

As I read the sermon it suggests Joseph Smith told William Law about a revelation where a man may have seven wives. So that to me it's an admission by Joseph Smith of making sealing arrangements with women other than just Emma for the eternities. He denied having seven wives for the here & now though which Joseph Smith had the legal right to deny as it was based on rumors & not legally binding delivered in court testimony. And he wasn't going to confess to earthly polygamy based on misrepresented platonic sealings.

Disputes over the content of the July 12th 1843 revelation that William Law saw has existed for years. William Law said it had to do with earthly polygamy. Jame's Whitehead said he saw it briefly in manuscript form, and that D.&C. 132 had been tampered with in publication to sanction polygamy in the here & now. The LDS witnesses in regards to the document held D.&C. 132 was an authetic published copy of the original. Who is to know whether William Law was telling the truth, or not? I assume that this matter boils down to what historical witnesses you side with.

In Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy it demonstrates critical flaws in some of the earthly wives testimonies. Richard & Pamela Price have a good alternative view on Eliza R. Snow. It's online to read at http://www.restorationbookstore.org in the JSFP section. The other seven earthly wives I can think of include her & a few others as the seven earthly wives are as legally substantiated as her claim.

I get hit with a few reputed documents like William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal, but I think he cooked up his journal to implicate Joseph Smith in earthly polygamy. I see things in it that look like interlopations to me. So until the LDS Church historical archives turns them over for independent scientific testing I consider this a may, or may not be authentic kind of source.

[latterdayteancum]

Maybe this is a dumb thought, but wouldn't it be expected that Joseph Smith would lie during his lifetime? Doesn't everyone lie? No one ever taught that Joseph was perfect.

Maybe I am being naive but Joseph Smith telling certain lies during his lifetime doesn't bother me. I know that he did not lie about seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ, receiving the gold plates and translating the Book of Mormon, an being called by God to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ.

A few quotes denying the practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith and other church leaders really doesn't sway me.

Also, in Dallin H. Oaks talk that people have taken out of context his says that the doctrine of "lying for the Lord" is false. Shouldn't that be the end of the story?

[TAK]

A few quotes denying the practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith and other church leaders really doesn't sway me.

When Robert Millet says "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked." â?? Its deceptive and arrogant..

[Jerubaal]

When Robert Millet says "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked." â?? Its deceptive and arrogant..

TAK, do you still beat your wife? A simple yes or no will do.

Perhaps that little bit of hyperbole illustrated what Millet was getting at.

[Arlon James]

When Robert Millet says "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked." â?? Its deceptive and arrogant..

No more deceptive and arrogant than anti's repeatedly asking loaded questions based on utterly false premises, over and over agin. No more arrogant than the anti's insitance on clinging to baseless charges and outright lies thinking that it adds to their cause and that the audience at large is too stupid to know the difference.

Personally I don't find modifying someone's question to correct a false premis arrongant, rather, I find it instructional.

[emeliza]

Another thought:

Is lying ever justified? I can think of some cases when lying might be morally acceptable:

Examples:

Gestapo: Any Jews hiding out in your attic? We want to kill them!

Good Dutch family: (Lying) Of course there are no Jews here in this house!

Mob: Is Joseph here? We want to tar and feather him!

Emma: (Lying) No he is out of town right now.

Good point and I am glad someone brought this up.

I wonder though how much the two situations are comparable. (Lying over polygamy, not the example you quoted..) The Jews were being hounded, persecuted, rounded up, and taken to the death chambers on mass. This was a matter of life and death, with Nazi leaders, that were totalitarian in outlook and hell bent on destroying anything that even resembled a Jew.

As for whether or not JS lied about polygamy or didn't or just rephrased to get the wording so it wasn't really a lie....I don't know. However I am pretty certain from what I have read the Church was run out of Missouri and some members were killed or seriously injured there. Then after polygamy was revealed many people were persecuted and rounded up. I would have to say many of the Saints lied to keep from what they thought would be death. Also it seems for a time the government or at least many people within were hell bent on destroying the Church or anyone in it.

[TAK]

Jerubaal

TAK, do you still beat your wife? A simple yes or no will do.

Perhaps that little bit of hyperbole illustrated what Millet was getting at.

I am not married and itâ??s not even remotely close. He is saying the person asking the question is not intelligent enough to see the truth as you perceive it and you need deceive them with an answer to a question they did not ask. That is arrogance of the worst kind.

Arlon James

Personally I don't find modifying someone's question to correct a false premis arrongant, rather, I find it instructional.

I suspect the other person would have a different point of view. I would.

[bluebell]

[He is saying the person asking the question is not intelligent enough to see the truth as you perceive it and you need deceive them with an answer to a question they did not ask. That is arrogance of the worst kind.

First off-I'm pretty sure that this is not even something that millet himself said-it is a tactic that he learned from someone else (i'm away from home so i don't have the source but i just read the book a few days ago where he talks about it).

Second, that's not what millet (or the original speaker) is saying at all. Anyone who has read millet's books and knows that he is well known for his works in partner with the clergy of other denominations knows how much he respects others who may not believe as he does.

What he is saying, as Jeruball pointed out, is that people sometimes ask loaded questions. They don't want an answer, they want to set up the person they are asking to further their own agenda.

Also, sometimes people ask questions based on false assumptions (though they may be well-intentioned but simply ignorant of what they are talking about). When that occures than a person needs to be able to give the answers that the person is actually trying to find, even though those answers may not be in direct response to the person's own questions.

Just as someone who askes you 'are you STILL beating your wife?' may be either trying to imply that you used to and still might be (to degrade your character) or may just believe that you used to do such because they heard it somewhere.

However, perhaps it be more productive, if you, instead of answering the question they asked, answered the question 'WOULD you ever beat your wife?'. If all they want to know is whether or not you ever have or ever would-then THAT is the question that they should have asked anyway.

[smac97]

TAK,

You said (speaking of Robert Millet):

He is saying the person asking the question is not intelligent enough to see the truth as you perceive it and you need deceive them with an answer to a question they did not ask.

This is the sort of hostile, tendentious reading that gives rise to the false claim that Mormons advocate "lying for the Lord." Millet doesn't impugn the intelligence of anyone. Millet doesn't endorse deceit.

"[Millet] is saying...you need [to] deceive them." No, he isn't. You are falsely accusing him of deceit. The irony of that is amusing.

-Smac

[Kadahow]

In all my years as a member I have never been taught to "Lie for the Lord," to ever lie or decieve a non-member or member.

I have been told that sometimes one should hold back and not tell everything because the other person may not be ready to hear all I know. If I hold something back, does that mean I am lying? I don't think so, it means that you start with the simple and go to the complex as the other person is able to process the information you are giving them.

I might add the story of Abraham who lied, commanded by the Lord, to the Pharoah that his wife Sarah was his sister and not his wife. It made the Pharoah hot, but it was worked out. Hmmmmm! Should we now discount everything Abraham said, and throw out the Old Testament?

I have to admit that I'm not so intune that I have ever been told to lie, so I just tell the truth, or admit that I don't know everything (I hate to eat humble pie).

[latterdayteancum]

A few quotes denying the practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith and other church leaders really doesn't sway me.

When Robert Millet says "Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked." â?? Its deceptive and arrogant..

Forgive me for being slow but what does that have to do with what I said?

[TAK]

SMAC

Millet doesn't endorse deceitâ?¦

When a person gives a misleading answer- an answer not intended to address the original question but rather designed to lead the person asking the question to a false conclusion I think thatâ??s considered deceit by most people. Maybe you just think its clever?

[latterdayteancum]

SMAC

When a person gives a misleading answer- an answer not intended to address the original question but rather designed to lead the person asking the question to a false conclusion I think thatâ??s considered deceit by most people. Maybe you just think its clever?

Here is an idea: WHO CARES?

Who cares about Millett's suggestion on how to answer anti-Mormon questions? He is explaining a method that worked for him. If you feel its deceiving send him a letter and let him know. If you want I can get his publishers address for you to send that letter.

[thesometimesaint]

TAK:

Have you stopped hitting your mother? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[selek]

TAK:

Have you stopped hitting your mother? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm probably the last person who should say this, but:

BE NICE.

Tak may be misguided, wrong, or just plain mistaken in his position.

Address his issue, not his morality.

If you really want to demonstrate that the question is a set-up and a false choice, you can do so without attacking him in this regard.

Yes, I know....the beam in your own eye, Selek.

TAK hasn't been nearly as annoying, however.

[TAK]

TAK:

Have you stopped hitting your mother? A simple yes or no will suffice.

How can it suffice if its the wrong answer? Unless of course you dont want the right answer ..

[thesometimesaint]

TAK;

You're equivicating. Just answer the question as asked.

[bluebell]

SMAC

When a person gives a misleading answer- an answer not intended to address the original question but rather designed to lead the person asking the question to a false conclusion I think thatâ??s considered deceit by most people. Maybe you just think its clever?

again-you are assuming (and promoting) a motive behind millet's ideas that he is not endorsing himself.

He is not advocating leading 'the person asking the question to a false conclusion' in the least. You have taken something that millet has spoken about and completely run away with it (in a direction that he never intended it to go).

I know from personal experience that sometimes we make judgements on what we 'think' a person is trying to say without ever stopping to find out if what we think is actually what they meant. In this thread your words come across as a hastily made conclusion that is not substanciated in the least by anything else that millet has ever expressed to believe. Instead of assuming that he meant the worst by the remark-why not read some of his books dealing with those who believe differently than he does and find out for yourself whether your accusations hold any water.

You will discover that he works in partnership with many clergy from other denominations-going around the country and doing partner workshops with them and trying to promote unity and open correspondance among all sects of Christianity. He often speaks highly of those of other denominations and counts them as friends.

[TAK]

TAK;

You're equivicating. Just answer the question as asked.

I have no idea what "equivicating" is..

If you should mean equivocating, then I would be if I replied w/ a yes or no as you requested because neither in the context of your question is correct.

[thesometimesaint]

selek:

I'm one of the nicest people I know.

But TAK has impuned the motives of LDS with nearly every post he has made. It get annoying and tiresome.

[TAK]

selek:

But TAK has impuned the motives of LDS with nearly every post he has made. It get annoying and tiresome.

Do you mean impugned? Nonsense ...

[smac97]

TAK:

When a person gives a misleading answer

Millet was not advocating giving a misleading answer.

an answer not intended to address the original question but rather designed to lead the person asking the question to a false conclusion

Milled was not advocating giving designed to lead the person asking the question to a false conclusion.

I think thatâ??s considered deceit by most people.

Perhaps, but so what? Millet wasn't doing that.

Maybe you just think its clever?

No. I think Millet was not advocating deceit, and your misrepresentation of him to the contrary is ironic and amusing.

You really have to go far afield to find advocacy for deceit in Mormonism. You disregard the explicit denunciation of deceit by Elder Oaks (an apostle) and instead resort to a tortured interpretation of a comment by Robert Millet to a BYU class (and not in an ecclesiastical capacity).

-Smac

[Tarski]

TAK:

Have you stopped hitting your mother? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I can't speak for TAK but this is how it would go if you had asked me that question.

YOU: Have you stopped hitting your mother? A simple yes or no will suffice.

ME: No.

YOU: Oh so you hit your mother still?

ME. No. I thought you said a simple yes or no would suffice. I guess it didn't suffice after all.

[aaronshaf]

Sunstone, a magazine for more or less intellectual Mormons, recently held a symposium and hosted a lecture called, "Truth-Telling and Mormonism". Here's the blurb:

TRUTH-TELLING AND MORMONISM

SCOT DENHALTER, M.A., English literature; vice-president of NEAT, Inc.; Cybersaints editor, SUNSTONE; official contributor, SunstoneBlog.com.

RYAN WIMMER, B.A., art history; entering graduate program in history this fall; 2nd Lt., Utah National Guard

This session features two reflections on the issue of Mormon truth-telling. Scot Denhalterâ??s presentation focuses on the musings of Princeton moral philosopher Henry G. Frankfurt about a quality of misrepresentation that falls on the continuum between telling the truth and lying (somewhere just short of a lie), which he names â??bulls*it.â? Denhalter asks if this type of discourse exists in Mormon culture and, if so, to what extent? Is there a different type of it in Mormonism than is found elsewhere? Does the Church employ social mechanisms that increase or decrease the incidence of â??b.s.â? in Mormon culture? Ryan Wimmer explores a religious principle, taqiyah, that Shiâ??a Muslims use as a means to protect their faith. Taqiyah means to â??safeguard or defendâ? as well as â??to fearâ? (as in the sense of being pious) and allows members of the faith to be untruthful when their life or religious faith is in danger. Wimmer argues that a similar principle exists in Mormonismâ??though itâ??s unnamed and has yet to achieve a recognized status as an aid to faith. He asks, â??Should it?â?

http://sunstoneonline.com/symposium/new/2006-slc-prelim.pdf