"lying For The Lord"

[TAK]

SMAC

â?¦.a comment by Robert Millet to a BYU class (and not in an ecclesiastical capacity).

LOL!! .. Thank you SMAC! I was waiting for that..

I will leave it to the reader as to what Dr Millet was implying in his comment â??"Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked."

[Arlon James]

Jerubaal

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

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

Do you not see that answering questions based on false premises is pointless? As a matter of fact, not just pointless, but damaging. Answering questions like 'so, when did you stop beating your wife' or 'when did you guys stop sacrificing chickens in your satanic temples' gives the quesiton validity when it does not merit any.

Other posters have been attempting to illustrate this point for you by asking you some seemingly inflamatory questions, to which, there are no correct answers. So please forgive LDS if we don't entertian poitnless, loaded questions and even (gasp) attempt to correct the record and educate those who may have false notions thanks to detractors who love propagating lies about us.

Thanks.

AJ

[smac97]

TAK,

LOL!! .. Thank you SMAC! I was waiting for that..

What do you mean?

I will leave it to the reader as to what Dr Millet was implying in his comment â??"Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked."

He's not implying deceit.

And why are you disregarding the comments by Elder Oaks? Why do you have to go so far afield (a tendentious interpretation of a comment by a BYU professor to a BYU class) to support your thesis that Mormons believe "lying for the Lord" is okay? And why are you ignoring the express denunciation of that concept by a contemporary LDS leader?

-Smac

[Arlon James]

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?

I'm sorry, but this logic simply falls apart when you take into consideration that the person asking the quesiton may be opperating on a false premis or has the agenda of harming the person being asked.

So which is really decietful, answering a loaded question in a way the asker doesn't like, or asking a quesiton based on lies in the first place? hmmmmmm? You act as if a lot of the quesitons posed to LDS have the intention of creating understanding vs furthering a hostile agenda.

[TAK]

SMAC

And why are you ignoring the express denunciation of that concept by a contemporary LDS leader?

What should I derive from his comments? That because he said something, its not possible that deception may occur within the church?

Perhaps Elder Faust should take note of Elder Oaks comments ..

â??There are different shades of truth-telling. When we tell little white lies we become progressively color blind. It is better to remain silent than to mislead.â?

Address given at Priesthood session

166th Semiannual General Conference

Saturday, October 5, 1996

Good night..

[smac97]

TAK,

What should I derive from his comments?

Several things. First and foremost, you should understand that "lying for the Lord" is not taught or advocated in the LDS Church, but is instead condemned. Second, having understood the first point, you should recant your tortured interpretation of Millet's comment (or, at the very least, acknowledge that that interpretation contravenes the LDS Church's teachings on honesty).

That because he said something, its not possible that deception may occur within the church?

You're just being obtuse. Your anti-Mormon compatriots are suggesting that "lying for the Lord' is something Mormons believe in and advocate. Your citation to Millet was intended to buttress this false notion. Elder Oaks' talk soundly rebuts it, but you totally ignore Elder Oaks.

Perhaps Elder Faust should take note of Elder Oaks comments..

â??There are different shades of truth-telling. When we tell little white lies we become progressively color blind. It is better to remain silent than to mislead.â?

There is no tension at all between what Elder Oaks said and what Elder Faust said. To the contrary, they complement each other.

Good night..

And so TAK signs off, having blithely misrepresented Robert Millet, and in so doing engaged in a delightful bit of ironic hypocrisy.

-Smac

[bluebell]

Perhaps Elder Faust should take note of Elder Oaks comments ..

â??There are different shades of truth-telling. When we tell little white lies we become progressively color blind. It is better to remain silent than to mislead.â?

Address given at Priesthood session

166th Semiannual General Conference

Saturday, October 5, 1996

Good night..

To open that talk elder faust also said-"Honesty is more than not lying. It is truth telling, truth speaking, truth living, and truth loving."

I'm a bit confused on how Elder Faust giving a talk on why we need to be completely honest helps prove your point. Maybe you could elaborate on what you are trying to say in this post.

[Pahoran]

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.

Aha! You didn't answer the question he asked, you answered the question you think he should have asked. By your definition, that is "deceptive and arrogant."

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.

No, he is not saying that.

That is merely what you choose to read into his words. Is that because that is what you do?

That is arrogance of the worst kind.

Now there's a subject you know something about.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

That's very interesting.

By contrast, a lecture on "Truth-Telling and anti-Mormonism," using your hate site as a case study, would be very short, and be able to focus on exactly one question: "when do they intend to start?"

In reality, "lying for the Lord" is what "Christians" falsely so called do when they accuse the Saints of "lying for the Lord."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Arlon James]

That's very interesting.

By contrast, a lecture on "Truth-Telling and anti-Mormonism," using your hate site as a case study, would be very short, and be able to focus on exactly one question: "when do they intend to start?"

In reality, "lying for the Lord" is what "Christians" falsely so called do when they accuse the Saints of "lying for the Lord."

Regards,

Pahoran

So, in other words: watch what your opponent is accusing you of in order to know exactly what they are up to.

I still wonder what these folks really think is added to their cause by misrepresenting LDS? In my opinion, it only weakens their position to constantly shoot straw dogs vs actually dealing with facts and research.

[Scott Lloyd]

SMAC

LOL!! .. Thank you SMAC! I was waiting for that..

I will leave it to the reader as to what Dr Millet was implying in his comment “"Don't answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked."

I'll tell you what this reader's (meaning my) take is on it. Professor Millet is warning his students not to let themselves get fooled by trick questions; questions, for example, that assume false premises. Instead, they should cut to the chase by giving response based on truth, not on the false assumption inherent in the question.

An example of such a question was asked fairly recently on this board in the form of a thread title. It was something along the lines of "Is the statue of Adam and Eve containing Satanic symbolism still on Temple Square?"

It was a question that assumed a false premise.

The only tenable response is to change the question to "Was there ever a statue on Temple Square that contained Satanic symbolism?" It can then be answered truthfully with a "no." Thus, one avoids the unfair or trick question and answers the question that should have been asked.

That TAK should object to this is amazing to me.

[Calm]

I do believe there are a couple things worth pointing out in this quote.

First, "spiritual wifeism" is not the term used to denote Celestial polygamous marriages. What Joseph Smith is referring to is the practice of John C. Bennett to tell women that they were married spiritually in order to have intercourse with them. This is important because Joseph Smith is correct for denying this claim.

Second, to leaders of the Church and its Prophet, Joseph Smith wasn't committing adultery by participating in Celestial polygamous marriages. All felt Joseph has received a revelation from God to restore the practice. This is also important because in context Joseph Smith is correct in denying he committed adultery. He was married to his polygamous wives.

By recognizing these two points this seemingly indicting statement doesn't seem so powerful. The only part of the statement that could be interpreted a lie is when Joseph says: "having seven wives, when I can only find one."

I don't know if this is a denial of polygamy or not. I don't believe it is very clear.

Running out of time so ignore this if it's already been mentioned. Bushman deals with this very well, imo, in Rough Stone Rolling. I think he makes it very clear that Joseph saw priesthood callings resulting in plural marriage very differently than those initiated for other reasons as stated here. Polygamy as the world saw it was not what he was practicing and so it was no lie for him to deny it to the public.

What went on between him and Emma is another and not so clear of an issue, to my view.

PS: if one googles "lying for the Lord," nonLDS references come up. This is not a term exclusively linked to LDS.

[latterdayteancum]

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

Sunstone...thats right Aaron. Go right back to your authoritative sources.

[Hammer]

So, in other words: watch what your opponent is accusing you of in order to know exactly what they are up to.

I still wonder what these folks really think is added to their cause by misrepresenting LDS? In my opinion, it only weakens their position to constantly shoot straw dogs vs actually dealing with facts and research.

You are so right. After all the Lord stated that it isn't what goes into the mouth that defiles it, but rather that which comes out of it.

The anti's do nothing but defile. They do not do works that build, but only works that destroy and defile themselves in the process.

I believe they all need a sturdy course in the NT or teachings of Jesus Christ and His prophets.

[cksalmon]

The anti's do nothing but defile. They do not do works that build, but only works that destroy and defile themselves in the process.

"Can't you feel the loooooooooooovvvveeee tonight..." â??Elton John

CKS

[Hammer]

"Can't you feel the loooooooooooovvvveeee tonight..." â??Elton John

CKS

Yes. Can you?

[cksalmon]

Yes. Can you?

Well, I seemed to find it strangely lacking in the defilement comment directed indiscriminately against all "antis," but I suppose you probably believe pointing out what you believe is the Truthâ??even if it's unpleasantâ??a loving thing to do. It makes sense to me.

Best to you.

CKS

[Hammer]

Well, I seemed to find it strangely lacking in the defilement comment directed indiscriminately against all "antis," but I suppose you probably believe pointing out what you believe is the Truthâ??even if it's unpleasantâ??a loving thing to do. It makes sense to me.

Best to you.

CKS

That is because you are basing your evaluation upon limited understanding of Charity/pure love of Christ.

[cksalmon]

The anti's do nothing but defile. They do not do works that build, but only works that destroy and defile themselves in the process.

Hey Hammer--

So would you say that your indiscriminately indicting all "antis" with doing "nothing but defile" is based on a less limited understanding of "Charity/pure love of Christ?"

Curious...

Best.

CKS

[Dale]

I recall this story of David O. Mckay that had some RLDS people a little more attacking than they should have been of certain LDS leaders. He said something to the effect "If you wish to use a hammer use it in building a house of your own." In other words you shouldn't worry so much about tearing down others houses with the word instead of building your own. If some critic's atack to much one shouldn't respond by attacking their house. Forgive me if I misquested him I read the story 25+ years ago. I have since become RLDS, but the story had a good message I try and keep in mind.

[Hammer]

Hey Hammer--

So would you say that your indiscriminately indicting all "antis" with doing "nothing but defile" is based on a less limited understanding of "Charity/pure love of Christ?"

Curious...

Best.

CKS

I guess I was speaking to the audience here and yes.

I recall this story of David O. Mckay that had some RLDS people a little more attacking than they should have been of certain LDS leaders. He said something to the effect "If you wish to use a hammer use it in building a house of your own." In other words you shouldn't worry so much about tearing down others houses with the word instead of building your own. If some critic's atack to much one shouldn't respond by attacking their house. Forgive me if I misquested him I read the story 25+ years ago. I have since become RLDS, but the story had a good message I try and keep in mind.

Great thought!

[cksalmon]

QUOTE(cksalmon @ Nov 16 2006, 07:33 PM) *

Hey Hammer--

So would you say that your indiscriminately indicting all "antis" with doing "nothing but defile" is based on a less limited understanding of "Charity/pure love of Christ?"

Curious...

Best.

CKS

I guess I was speaking to the audience here and yes.

Follow-up question:

(1) [You have stated that] you believe indiscriminately indicting all "antis" with doing "nothing but defile" is based on a less limited or exceeding (in the sense of being in excess of that which is limited) understanding of "Charity/pure love of Christ" (an understanding in excess of mine, for example: "you [cksalmon] are basing your evaluation upon limited understanding of Charity/pure love of Christ")

(2) Ex hypothesi, it is acceptable to indiscriminately indict all "antis" with doing "nothing but defile"

(3) Indiscriminately indicting all "antis" with doing "nothing but defile" is highly offensive to "antis"

(4) Saying things that are highly offensive to "antis" is acceptable, if it is based on an understanding of "Charity/pure love of Christ" that it in excess of theirs

The above is merely a propositionalization (one that, undoubtedly, could have been made clearer given time) of your stated view.

I wonder, based on your implicit logic, how you would respond to "antis" who attempt to state their own views about the LDS faith--views that are offensive to LDS--because they believe their view of the "pure love of Christ" is in excess of yours. Is it wrong for them to do so? Why?

Would you respond that they are wrong to state offensive things about the LDS faith because, in your mind, you're right and they're wrong?

How would you prevent this logic from being turned back against you?

Best.

CKS

[Programmer]

This phrase, "lying for the Lord" is frequently attributed to Mormons.

In her book, American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857 (p. 212), author Sally Denton makes the following claim:

Denton provides no citation for this quote.

This article purports to be the transcript of a fireside talk given by Elder Oaks on September 12, 1993. He mentions "lying for the Lord" in this way:

And here:

This phrase, "lying for the Lord," is being attributed to Mormons, and the attribution is made in the context of approving of "lying for the Lord."

I have never heard an observant Latter-day Saint use this phrase or an equivalent thereof, nor have I heard an observant Latter-day Saint approve of the underlying concept.

-Smac

Neither have I ever heard this term. That's funny, after all my years interacting with Anti's on the internet, I thought your post would be about lie's that anti's (who call them selves christian) tell about the Mormon church.

[GRW]

I agree that many "antis"--especially the (ahem) Christian ones--use deceptive tactics quite a lot. I also agree that lying, even "lying for the lord" is not doctrinal.

However, I do find that while the church doesn't exactly lie, by its own definition it is not completely honest with investigators. In the chapter titled â??Honestyâ? in the Gospel Principles manualâ??from which my Gospel Essentials lessons came as a new convertâ??is this:

â??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.â?

Just because someone will ask, here are a few things I feel that the church is not forthcoming about:

-- The manner of the translation of the Book of Mormon.

-- The role of polygamy in the early church--I asked, and was told it was only done because there were too few men to care for the widows that resulted from persecution. Granted, that was the missionaries' mistake, but they were left to fend for themselves because the church doesn't teach them how to answer correctly.

-- The lack of clarity surrounding many of the events of the restoration. It is taught as if there is no gray at all.

Again, I'm not suggesting that the church is lying outright, but it is telling "only part of the truth." By the standard it teaches to new converts, that is dishonest.

[Mordecai]

The word "liar" in revelations is a noun form of the word "false," if you check language references on the Bible. I don't believe that lying per se is necessarily bad, not unlike how killing a person is occasionally a good thing. That might sound extreme, but is lying worse than cutting off a person's head? Nephi was a good guy, but he killed Laban for the greater good after the Spirit instructed him to. I think a person can be very good and still lie in order to protect himself, Church members or his family. Who cares if a person tells a lie in order to prevent bloodshed, as with the early Church. People are so busy condemning some relatively innocent misrepresentations, they forget that there were a bunch of bloodthirsty American soon-to-be Confederate army of anti-Mormon mobs ready to murder, destroy, steal and rape. Maybe that's why Paul says, "Don't lie to EACHOTHER." Those early Christians were in serious danger. Misleading Roman soldiers to help prevent attrocities at their hadns seems perfectly fine. Maybe I'm a moral liberal or something, but I think protecting a person's life is more important than being completely forthright. Just my humble opinion.

Being a phony person or baring false witness are wrong and condemned by God. Many quotes on this board are from people pretending to have knowledge about what my "real" doctrines, motives and intentions are. That kind of pretense is deceitful. These people aren't witnesses to anything but testify that Mormons are liars. Pretending to not practice plural marriage to prevent your family from getting raped and murdered seems O.K. to me. Baring false witness/pretending to have knowledge you can't possibly have is deceit. The only motive is hatred, fear or some other satanic motive. I think Abraham said his wife was his sister to deceive Egyptians. It was to protect himself, only. Was Abraham a liar, when the chosen people were said to not lie? Abraham was the person with whom the Lord made THE covenant. HIS descendants were the chosen people. Abraham, of course, was not false and didn't go around pretending to be something he wasn't. He did, on that occasion, deceive people, though. He did the right thing, if you ask me.