Abraham Lied

[Calm]

I think the issue of propets being intentionally and carefully deceitful is of far greater importance than whether or not stYro is, or was, "truly faithful".

And yet you were the one who brought up the subject in the first place acting as if such claimed deceitfulness was an excuse for your own behaviour.

Do you believe that JS wrote the scripture as revelation or as a way to justify his alleged deceitfulness.

[stYro]

Once again, I assert that one of the most profound elements of the restored gospel is this teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another."

A most interesting quote. The context is a letter that Joseph Smith wrote to Sidney Rigdon's daugter, who was appalled and offended at his proposal that she become one of his plural wives. The letter was Joseph's attempt to get her to change her mind, and in that it was unsuccessful.

If you've ever wanted to do something that was against the rules, that letter is a very supportive document. I first encountered it in an old book entitled "Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith", and did not learn the circumstances surrounding it until many years later. I know of instances where that letter - and in particular that quote - have been used to help justify some rather appalling behavior. It opens a lot of doors, not all of which lead to the promised land.

And while I'm no doubt not scoring many points with the faithful by criticizing the prophets, consider the possibility that criticizing the prophets is wrong under one circumstance but may be, and often is, right under another.

stYro

[Zakuska]

Once again, I assert that one of the most profound elements of the restored gospel is this teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another."

A most interesting quote. The context is a letter that Joseph Smith wrote to Sidney Rigdon's daugter, who was appalled and offended at his proposal that she become one of his plural wives. The letter was Joseph's attempt to get her to change her mind, and in that it was unsuccessful.

If you've ever wanted to do something that was against the rules, that letter is a very supportive document. I first encountered it in an old book entitled "Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith", and did not learn the circumstances surrounding it until many years later. I know of instances where that letter - and in particular that quote - have been used to help justify some rather appalling behavior. It opens a lot of doors, not all of which lead to the promised land.

And while I'm no doubt not scoring many points with the faithful by criticizing the prophets, consider the possibility that criticizing the prophets is wrong under one circumstance but may be, and often is, right under another.

stYro

It sounds to me like he was reading the book of Ecclesiastes when he penned that!

Ecc 3

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

I say Abraham knew it was a time to keep silent about sarah being his wife.

[stYro]

And yet you were the one who brought up the subject in the first place acting as if such claimed deceitfulness was an excuse for your own behaviour.

Do you believe that JS wrote the scripture as revelation or as a way to justify his alleged deceitfulness.

My point is, the deceit engaged in by Abraham and Joseph Smith sets a very bad example and can be used to justify us doing the same thing in a variety of circumstances.

Seems you really want to examine my faithfulness and my beliefs. The only thing I was deceitful about in my last temple recommend interview (over 10 years ago) was sustaining the then-prophet, Gordon B. Hinkley. I had some doubts, but didn't outright dis-believe, so my answers on the subject were weasely and deceitful... but not outright lies.

I don't know what Joseph Smith's sources and/or motivations were. But it looks to me like nearly all of the quotes and examples that justify circumstantial morality can be traced back to him. Perhaps that was one of his great innovations; if so, then in my opinon there is a shortage of teaching within the church on the subject of making correct circumstantial morality decisions.

I'm not saying deceit is never justified (Nazis at the door & Jews in your basement), but I think Joseph set a bad precedent with his weaseling, self-serving denial of polygamy.

stYro

[William Schryver]

A most interesting quote. The context is a letter that Joseph Smith wrote to Sidney Rigdon's daugter, who was appalled and offended at his proposal that she become one of his plural wives. The letter was Joseph's attempt to get her to change her mind, and in that it was unsuccessful.

If you've ever wanted to do something that was against the rules, that letter is a very supportive document. I first encountered it in an old book entitled "Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith", and did not learn the circumstances surrounding it until many years later. I know of instances where that letter - and in particular that quote - have been used to help justify some rather appalling behavior. It opens a lot of doors, not all of which lead to the promised land.

And while I'm no doubt not scoring many points with the faithful by criticizing the prophets, consider the possibility that criticizing the prophets is wrong under one circumstance but may be, and often is, right under another.

stYro

I like to believe I consider all the possibilities.

BTW, I dig the name. stYro. Do you recycle? Is this styro immortal?

As for the letter to Nancy Rigdon, I think it should be canonized.

[William Schryver]

And when Mrs S reads this, can we expect a new term for 'WS will be spending his nights on the sofa'?

Not in her vocabulary. She can't live, or sleep, without me.

Force of habit, I suppose.

[stYro]

I like to believe I consider all the possibilities.

BTW, I dig the name. stYro. Do you recycle? Is this styro immortal?

As for the letter to Nancy Rigdon, I think it should be canonized.

I'm open to the possibility of recycling.

Far as I know, we're only immortal for a limited time.

The Nancy Rigdon letter is plutonium; its effect depends on how it's used.

stYro

[Glenn101]

And while I'm no doubt not scoring many points with the faithful by criticizing the prophets, consider the possibility that criticizing the prophets is wrong under one circumstance but may be, and often is, right under another.

stYro

I would think that criticizing a prophet (or any other person) is only correct when one has all of the facts in their possession, know all of the circumstances, including all information provided by the Lord to the object of criticism, and the person is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

The Savior admonished us to "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)

Glenn

[Darth J]

The only justifiable worry would appear to be that you spend precious little time focusing on gospel doctrine.

Yeah. I would hate it if Sunday School was full of folk mythology, Mormon urban legends, Protestant ideas with a Mormon veneer, vacuous platitudes, and the Republican Party platform. Good thing it's always focused on gospel doctrine!

[Darth J]

Of course he lied. Lying isn't always wrong. For example, if someone has a gun to your head, lying might be a pretty good idea. After all, "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

"It's not a lie if you believe it." -George Costanza

[stYro]

I would think that criticizing a prophet (or any other person) is only correct when one has all of the facts in their possession, know all of the circumstances, including all information provided by the Lord to the object of criticism, and the person is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

Glenn, the conditions you stipulate would realistically preclude ever criticizing a prophet, or any other person.

No one should be above being challenged for their actions. Not Tiger Woods, not Bill Clinton, not Joseph Smith... even though none of us have all the facts in our possession, know all the circumstances, nor have all information provided by the Lord on the subject.

stYro

[katherine the great]

Sorry if this was allready brought up: Is God a liar because he withheld the whole truth when he told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit?

Ooooooo...Good question! I suppose that would depend on whether or not they reckoned time according to our understanding or according to a different measurement wherein a "day" didn't really mean a "day."

[consiglieri]

I was just watching BYU-TV where four professors of ancient scripture are sitting around talking about Sarah laughing when she overheard the statement that she would bear a child in her old age.

The professor acknowledges that the Hebrew word means "laugh," but hastens to add that it also means "rejoice," and then states that Sarah "rejoiced" when she heard the promise of the Lord; she believed he could do what he promised; she was not a doubter.

I'm not sure that this link will work, but it is from 11:00 to 11:33 of the program dealing with Abraham.

http://www.byu.tv/

At any rate, nobody brought up the fact that when Sarah was accused of "rejoicing," she denied having "rejoiced" at this promise.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Glenn101]

glennthigpen, on 26 February 2010 - 02:22 AM, said:

I would think that criticizing a prophet (or any other person) is only correct when one has all of the facts in their possession, know all of the circumstances, including all information provided by the Lord to the object of criticism, and the person is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

Glenn, the conditions you stipulate would realistically preclude ever criticizing a prophet, or any other person.

No one should be above being challenged for their actions. Not Tiger Woods, not Bill Clinton, not Joseph Smith... even though none of us have all the facts in our possession, know all the circumstances, nor have all information provided by the Lord on the subject.

stYro

Yes, I went a bit overboard there, for a purpose. I think that too many people criticize without having a knowledge of enough of the facts and circumstances to make an informed critique. This is especially true when the person we are critiquing is far removed from us in time.

Consiglieri's critique of Abraham as having lied is one example. Just relying on the Genesis account would seem to indicate that Abraham did indeed lie about Sarah being his sister, because the text indicates that Sarah was cousin. However information from an article by S. Kent Brown indicates that Sarah could have and very probably was adopted into the family by Abraham's father and that Sarah was indeed his sister.

The assertion that Abraham acted out of fear for his life in making that statement is at least brought into doubt by the book of Abraham account where the Lord is the one advising Abraham to tell Pharoah that Sarah was his sister and Abraham was being obedient to the Lord in doing so. This all is information one would need in analyzing Abraham's actions and motives.

At this point in time, I do not know enough about problems that Tiger Woods has to make any type of judgment upon him. I do know that adultery is wrong, a sin, and he has admitted to such. I do not know the depths of his problems. I do know a bit about addictions after undergoing therapy for about five years for other reasons, but I was taught a lot by my therapist about many different mental problems during this period of time. Of course this does not make me an expert. It was during this period of time that Jimmy Swaggart's problems burst into the media view. My therapist remarked that Jimmy exhibited the symptoms of sexual addiction. I did not know that such a thing existed and I learned not to make a rush to judgment on anything or anyone without being in possession of enough facts to make a sound decision.

As far as bill Clinton is concerned, there was a huge temptation for a rush to judgment because I was far from being a Bill Clinton fan. He has admitted to making some wrong choices in the arena after denying them for quite some time. The Paula Jones issue was one case. I just did not know what to make of it. It came off as a he said/she said affair and I really could not decide the truth of the matter because I did not feel that there were enough verifiable facts on which to make a stand. I am sure there were some errors in judgment on both sides in that case.

Now as for Joseph Smith and polygamy. Here is a case where we have to include the unknown here, i.e. what did God tell/advise Joseph on the matter? For those who do not believe that Joseph was a prophet, the issue is black and white. Joseph was a liar, charlatan, and sexual pervert. But for those who believe that Joseph was a prophet and that polygyny was part of the restitution of all things, we see the issue played out in much more complex terms.

Joseph surely denied practicing "spiritual wifery". This was the sin for which John C. Bennett was excommunicated, and which he promptly turned and accused Joseph of.

There are just too many factors of which we just do not have enough information about for us to render a righteous judgment on Joseph. I will leave that to God, who does have all of the facts. It is enough for me to know that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to be the leading instrument in the restoration of the gospel.

You, and everyone else, of course are entitled to you opinions.

Glenn

[stYro]

Glenn, that was a fine response and I don't see any reason to argue with anything you said there.

Thank you for taking the time.

stYro

[volgadon]

The professor acknowledges that the Hebrew word means "laugh," but hastens to add that it also means "rejoice," and then states that Sarah "rejoiced" when she heard the promise of the Lord; she believed he could do what he promised; she was not a doubter.

That old nonsense. It does not mean rejoice. i agree with you on Sarah denying having rejoiced! God must be a sourfaced Scottish Presbyterian!!!!

[Smith]

Within which the only thing possibly worse would be Clint Eastwood's singing.

But o how I can identify with him....

I talk to the trees but they dont listen to me...

[Glenn101]

Glenn, that was a fine response and I don't see any reason to argue with anything you said there.

Thank you for taking the time.

stYro

Thanks also to you for the way you replied to my original post. People can disagree without being disagreeable. I have walked a mile in a lot of different people's shoes and it really makes a difference to me, as I learned from those experiences.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

In analyzing the Abraham cycle in Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, I was surprised at how much resistance there was to the seemingly straightforward Genesis story that Abraham had Sarah lie about their relationship to Pharoah (and again later in what appears to be the same story with Abimilech).

One class member said that was how everybody referred to their wives, was as "my sister," so there was no deception.

I threw in that that must be the reason Abraham had a huddle with Sarah beforehand to make sure she said it the way everybody said it and didn't goof it up.

Another member said that Abraham was telling the truth, but that he just wasn't telling the whole truth in order to give an impression that was correct, but not entirely correct.

I remarked, "So you're saying that Abraham is the first lawyer mentioned in the Bible?" (Mucho laughter.) "Like Abraham Lincoln. Hey, he was a lawyer, too. I think you're onto something."

At bottom, in order to keep the class from revolt, I modified my statement that Abraham lied to saying, "One thing I think we can agree on is that Abraham made sure that the entire truth about his relationship with Sarah was not revealed."

I added that this was especially interesting because God had promised Abraham protection, but this is one instance (among many) where Abraham feels that God may need a little help keeping his promise; hence the dissimulation.

Any thoughts as to why this story about Abraham met such resistance in class?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

After all of the comments and posts, I went back and reviewed the lesson and could find no mention of this event in the lesson manual on "The Abrahamic Covenant", "Living Righteously in a Wicked World", or "God Will Provide Himself a Lamb". I will not speculate as to Consiglieri's motives in introducing this in his own lesson (although I do believe that consig is a bit the iconoclast), but the method of presentation apparently did more to cause contention than it did to promote the theme of the lesson.

Is it possible that the method and accuracy or inaccuracy of a presentation may have as much to do with the resistence to an idea as the idea itself?

Glenn

[SlackTime]

In thinking about the story of Abraham in Egypt, the Pharoah actually comes across as a pretty nice guy. The issue seems to be why Abraham might have been killed had he gone into Egypt as husband and wife instead of brother and sister. Having seen first hand how cronies to persons in power can act in what they believe are the intents and desires of the person in power, I think I can see a perfectly good scenario for Abraham being directed on this course.

Had Abraham come in as husband and wife, and Pharoah's eye dwelt long enough on Sarah for for an aide to see that the Pharoah was attracted to her, Abraham might well have been killed and Sarah prepared in anticipation of the Pharoah's whim. The Pharoah might never have got to know Abraham at all. Since getting Abraham out of the way would have been step one in the process of making Sarah the Pharoah's newest wife.

Because they came in as brother and sister, other steps became the first steps and Pharoah actually got to know Abraham and possibly develop a fondness or friendship with him. The Pharoah, being warned by dream that Sarah was Abraham's wife was the first to act on this information and could make sure that Abraham was kept safe.

While this is all speculation, in a seat of power, like Pharoah of Egypt, I think this is not an unreasonable scenario.

- SlackTime

[consiglieri]

Had Abraham come in as husband and wife, and Pharoah's eye dwelt long enough on Sarah for for an aide to see that the Pharoah was attracted to her, Abraham might well have been killed and Sarah prepared in anticipation of the Pharoah's whim. The Pharoah might never have got to know Abraham at all. Since getting Abraham out of the way would have been step one in the process of making Sarah the Pharoah's newest wife.

* * *

While this is all speculation, in a seat of power, like Pharoah of Egypt, I think this is not an unreasonable scenario.

- SlackTime

No, it is not an unreasonable scenario.

The problem, if problem there be, is that Abraham, who had received a promise of protection from God himself, felt the need to "help" God keep his promise by a misrepresentation to Pharoah, rather than simply telling Pharoah the truth and relying on God to intercede should his protection be required as a result.

This helps me see Abraham as a person who is growing in faith until he reaches the point at the climax of the cycle where he is able to obey God's mind-bending and heart-breaking command to sacrifice his own son.

It also fits in nicely with the theme of human agents who feel the need to "help" God keep his promise of an heir, with first Abraham's proposal of Lot, then Eliezer, then Sarah's solution of Ishmael, all of whom are rejected in favor of an heir that only God could provide--Isaac.

And then God tells Abraham to kill him . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SlackTime]

No, it is not an unreasonable scenario.

The problem, if problem there be, is that Abraham, who had received a promise of protection from God himself, felt the need to "help" God keep his promise by a misrepresentation to Pharoah, rather than simply telling Pharoah the truth and relying on God to intercede should his protection be required as a result.

This helps me see Abraham as a person who is growing in faith until he reaches the point at the climax of the cycle where he is able to obey God's mind-bending and heart-breaking command to sacrifice his own son.

It also fits in nicely with the theme of human agents who feel the need to "help" God keep his promise of an heir, with first Abraham's proposal of Lot, then Eliezer, then Sarah's solution of Ishmael, all of whom are rejected in favor of an heir that only God could provide--Isaac.

And then God tells Abraham to kill him . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So why does it seem you want to call Abraham's statement recounting of the Lord's instructions to him in Abraham 2:22-24 a lie? Abraham has always struck me as the type to acknowledge when he made a mistake. If it had been his idea to have Sarah say that she was his sister, then he would have said that.

- SlackTime

[volgadon]

all of whom are rejected in favor of an heir that only God could provide--Isaac.

And then God tells Abraham to kill him . . .

That was the focus of my lesson.

[consiglieri]

That was the focus of my lesson.

It was the focus of my lesson yesterday, as well.

I also brought in how Abraham was required to sacrifice two sons; Ishmael and then Isaac.

The funny thing when I think about it is that Abraham was required to do a bloodless sacrifice of Ishmael which was permanent, but a bloody sacrifice of Isaac which was not permanent.

I left it as a thought question for the class as to which would be the more painful in the long run.

Because Abraham had to sacrifice Ishmael twice (once not permanent and the second permanent), it totals three such sacrifices required of Abraham.

I also threw in that Lot was prepared to sacrifice his two daughters to the rowdy Sodomites (literally!) in devotion to the ideal of hospitality and caring for strangers in his custody; and how this balanced Abraham's sacrifice of his two sons.

I didn't quite get to Jepthah, judge of Israel, who actually had to go all the way and literally sacrifice his daughter in compliance with an unfortunate pledge he made to God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

So why does it seem you want to call Abraham's statement recounting of the Lord's instructions to him in Abraham 2:22-24 a lie? Abraham has always struck me as the type to acknowledge when he made a mistake. If it had been his idea to have Sarah say that she was his sister, then he would have said that.

- SlackTime

I am actually focusing on the Genesis account here rather than the Abraham account.

But if you insist on the Abraham account, does it make it any less a lie because God commanded its telling? A good question, that.

I think that the author of Genesis is quite candid about Abraham's bout of disingenuousness; nothing is hidden; it is out there for all to see.

The interesting point of this thread, and the primary reason it has gone on longer than I anticipated, is due to modern readers of Genesis who insist on reading out of the narrative something the author plainly wanted understood.

As I read further on in Genesis at the unsavory actions taken by subsequent patriarchs (especially Jacob!), I was led to make the following pithy comment to my wife yesterday:

Reading the Old Testament is for many an exercise in justifying bad behavior.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri