"lying For The Lord"

[Analytics]

My understanding is a critic coined the term â??Lying for the Lordâ? as a play on Brigham Youngâ??s nickname of â??Lion of the Lord.â?

â??Lying for the Lordâ? reminds me of the following things:

1- Moroni 7:16, which says, â??For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.â?

2- That guy who tells the story about a group of Cal Tech students who made an objective study of the Bible, came up with â??17 points of the true churchâ?, went their separate ways, and all independently found their ways to the church. That story couldnâ??t be true. I presume that the reason the guy spread it was because the story does in fact persuade people to believe in the church, and therefore by Moroni 7:16 is of Christ.

3- Paul H. Dunn. The dishonest nature of some of his stories is well documented. But they were great stories. Why was he dishonest? Did they persuade people to do good and believe in Christ? Therefore they're sent forth by the power and gift of Christ, right?

4- Joseph Smith and polygamy. Joseph went to great lengths to promote the falsehood that he neither believed in nor practiced polygamy. This dishonestly on his part is typically justified as being necessary for the greater-good of the church with rationalizations of how the prophet and the church itself would have been destroyed with a prophet who was honest about how many wives he had.

[Neighbor]

In the trial of Sidney Rigdon after the death of JS, SR was accussed of 'lying for the Lord' in that he gave false prophecy, appointed men to offices that did not exist (prophets, priests and kings?), teaching not to build the temple, threatening to expose the secrets from the meetings of Church leadership and thereby was seeking to divide the Church. Are there earlier references that show it in a possitive light?

This reference is definately negative and said openly before the whole Church.

[Abulafia]

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.

GRW, in the UK we call it being economical with the truth!!! Politicians are very good at it!! (I still think Pontius Pilate was asking a profound question of Jesus when he asked ....what is truth!!)

(Just being light-hearted...I know you are already aware of that..)

[thesometimesaint]

Abulafia:

Or is it like the question. "Tell me Everything you know. I have a minute? ".

Or my personal favorite.

"Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool. Than it is to break that silence and remove all doubt."

[Abulafia]

Abulafia:

Or is it like the question. "Tell me Everything you know. I have a minute? ".

Or my personal favorite.

"Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool. Than it is to break that silence and remove all doubt."

I like the first, but not the second, because it doesn't allow for the development of thought through discussion. Sometimes, we actually learn from making a fool of ourselves, no disgrace in that!!

Back to usual transmission.....................................

[thesometimesaint]

Abulafia:

That's why it is sometimes.

[latterdayteancum]

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

Just for the record, I would not consider CK Salmon "anti" or even anything close to it. He is one of the most open-minded and fair people on this board.

I think he was just pointing out a couple comments made by some posters that were a little mean.

"Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool. Than it is to break that silence and remove all doubt."

HEY! That's my favorite quote by Abe. Leave him out of this!

That's actually the philosophy of my life.

[thesometimesaint]

latterdayteancum:

Great minds think alike.

[Abulafia]

Great minds think alike.

Abe was clearly not familiar with the words of Jesus of Nazareth on the subject....

Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,'

is answerable to the Sanhedrin.

But anyone who says, 'You fool!'

will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Abulafia

[cksalmon]

Just for the record, I would not consider CK Salmon "anti" or even anything close to it. He is one of the most open-minded and fair people on this board.

Hey LDT--

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I really don't consider myself "anti" in the way that some few folks on the board seem to mean it.

I have resignedly accepted DCP's definition of an "anti-Mormon" as one who opposes the CoJCoLDS (though I'd be more comfortable with seeing myself as an "anti" who opposes some teachings of the Church).

Either way, we're dealing with doctrinal differences. If that's all one means by "anti," then I do hereby confess. That's really the most importantreason for LDS faithful and traditional Christians to enter into dialogue with one another here at FAIRboards.org, after all.

I really don't like getting lumped in with the "Mormonism-practices-Satanic-ritual-abuse-just-ask-the-big-lizards-outside-your-window-burning- holes-in-your-stomach-to-steal-your-babies-so-they-can-eat-them" brand of anti-Mormonism. I felt that's what was being suggested. We're a homogenous group whose every action defiles what it touches.

Anyway, again, thanks!

Best to you.

CKS

[Hammer]

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

Logic can be played like a fickle harlot. But when one is fighting against the Lord's church, people, or doctrine he is always wrong.

[cksalmon]

But when one is fighting against the Lord's church, people, or doctrine [it] is always wrong.

Hammer--

I understand that this is your position. But, why is the proposition

(1) It is always wrong to fight [including, to criticize] the Lord's church, people, or doctrine

true?

What is your reason for holding this belief?

Best.

CKS

[Hammer]

Hammer--

I understand that this is your position. But, why is the proposition

(1) It is always wrong to fight [including, to criticize] the Lord's church, people, or doctrine

true?

What is your reason for holding this belief?

Best.

CKS

I guess my reason is that I have witnessed end results of of such behavior. The greatest loss is the loss of the Holy Ghost. Once the Spirit is gone, demons enter in. Matthew and Luke teach about what happens when the Holy Ghost leaves.

[Olavarria]

you beat me to it, I was thinking the exact same thing........ tread lightly Amun

[Olavarria]

The so-called "lying for the Lord".

As I understand it was all about the principle of ................

eh forget it.

[cksalmon]

I guess my reason is that I have witnessed end results of of such behavior. The greatest loss is the loss of the Holy Ghost. Once the Spirit is gone, demons enter in. Matthew and Luke teach about what happens when the Holy Ghost leaves.

Hammer--

But this isn't a primary reason. Something is logically prior to this. This is a result. If true, then it is a good reason not to criticize the Church: namely, one loses the Holy Ghost and becomes, per your statement, possessed by demons.

But why does that result occur, if you believe it does, when one criticizes the Church? What is the logically prior reason that makes it always wrong to criticize the Church?

Best.

CKS

[Hammer]

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.

Who do you consider the church? GAs? Prophet? Members? I have heard all three speak on all of the subjects you have listed. Who is "the church"?

[Neighbor]

Honesty is important. I think the investigators class quote says it very well. You ask an excellent question.

[Dale]

Evangelicals critic's of Mormonism don't always follow honesty is the best policy. A few years ago I met Ed Decker. The They Lie In Wait To Decieve volume on the Godmakers film just came out. I asked him about the book, and he called it slander. He accused his ex-wife of bad conduct with an LDS missionary. A couple of day's later I got his newsletter where he claimed it was just a Mormon rumor he was divorced on morals grounds. That's what his divorce papers said in the Brown's book, but he was trying to do damage control because of the book.

[cougarfan]

I am appreciative that the Church has so many adversaries who maintain a total understanding of morality and then live perfect lives.

Unfortunately, there have many LDS leaders who have been placed in circumstances to either lie or seriously harm the lives of many faithful members. Did hundreds of LDS men again need to face the prospect of imprisonment for living with their families as they had for decades? Did the church need to again put at risk all church properties because of the combinations of evil men (yes the government did attempt to cease all church property including meeting houses and temples).

But of course the answer is that truth is ALWAYS the best policy. No matter who is hurt or what the consequences might be.

[cksalmon]

Hammer--

But this isn't a primary reason. Something is logically prior to this. This is a result. If true, then it is a good reason not to criticize the Church: namely, one loses the Holy Ghost and becomes, per your statement, possessed by demons.

But why does that result occur, if you believe it does, when one criticizes the Church? What is the logically prior reason that makes it always wrong to criticize the Church?

Best.

CKS

I realize it's a bit off topic, but I was really hoping Hammer could provide his perspective on this question.

[bump]

Best.

CKS

[GRW]

Who do you consider the church? GAs? Prophet? Members? I have heard all three speak on all of the subjects you have listed. Who is "the church"?

I was speaking specifically of the missionaries and the materials they use in their work, printed and otherwise.

My point is this: A lot is expected of converts. They are asked to make serious covenants with God and the church, involving their time and wealth (present and future). They are subjected to a very personal interview, during which they are enjoined to hold nothing back. They are expected, if necessary, to put family relationships and friendships at risk.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I feel that because the church did not live up to the same standards of disclosure and risk that it expected of me, any covenants I made with the church are null and void due to the church's bad faith. My covenants with God are another matter, and I carefully separate the two.

[Abulafia]

I was speaking specifically of the missionaries and the materials they use in their work, printed and otherwise.

My point is this: A lot is expected of converts. They are asked to make serious covenants with God and the church, involving their time and wealth (present and future). They are subjected to a very personal interview, during which they are enjoined to hold nothing back. They are expected, if necessary, to put family relationships and friendships at risk.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I feel that because the church did not live up to the same standards of disclosure and risk that it expected of me, any covenants I made with the church are null and void due to the church's bad faith. My covenants with God are another matter, and I carefully separate the two.

I don't know what the missionary program is like now, but when I was a missionary, it was very much a 'fast-track' system. A number of long-standing members bemoaned the fact that when they were investigating, it took them a year or so of studying and searching before finally deciding to commit. (Ironically one of the members who complained about the fast-track system is now inactive, along with all his family)

If I remember correctly, the process from introduction to baptism could be as short as one week, so long as all the discussions were taught, and the interview with the appropriate zone/district leader had occured. The justification for this (when I showed concerns for instance) was that on the day of pentecost people were baptised after only one day. (I never looked deeply into this, and am not sure it is true?)

I suppose it depends, and there should be no hard and fast rules, but surely an investigator really needs to be truly informed, above and beyond the discussions that are given, otherwise there will be a lot of people who feel exactly as you do GRW???

[Hammer]

I was speaking specifically of the missionaries and the materials they use in their work, printed and otherwise. My point is this: A lot is expected of converts. They are asked to make serious covenants with God and the church, involving their time and wealth (present and future). They are subjected to a very personal interview, during which they are enjoined to hold nothing back. They are expected, if necessary, to put family relationships and friendships at risk.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I feel that because the church did not live up to the same standards of disclosure and risk that it expected of me, any covenants I made with the church are null and void due to the church's bad faith. My covenants with God are another matter, and I carefully separate the two.

You mean the missionaries didn't live up to the same??? First you state that the missionaries are the church and then???

[GRW]

You mean the missionaries didn't live up to the same??? First you state that the missionaries are the church and then???

I don't know that I understand what you're objecting to, so forgive me if I don't answer the right question.

The missionaries are official representatives of the church, are they not? It was a missionary who interviewed me for baptism and asked some penetrating, personal questions. It was a missionary who performed the rite of baptism and completed and signed the paperwork leading to my membership.

The missionaries, and therefore the church, did not observe the same level of disclosure and risk as I did. But that is not their fault--they were not trained or equipped to do so.

The fault lies in two places. First, with me for not being more skeptical and insistent on getting answers to some of my questions. Second, with the church, for sending out ill-prepared representatives and for disclosing only that part of the truth that was supportive of its goal.

The bottom line remains the same, however. I disclosed all my secrets and laid my time, talent and wealth on the table. The church did not.