When Does Dishonesty Become Lying?

[Xander]

In 1850 Mormon Prophet John Taylor went to France where he had a public debate with some Protestants who were concerned with rumors they heard about the blasphemies practiced by the American Religion. When approached with the subject of polygamy, Elder Taylor responded with numerous scriptures that explicitly reject polygamy. Now I have been recently informed that this doesn't constitute lying, despite the fact that Elder Taylor knew perfectly well his audience was concerned that Mormons were practicing polygamy, and at the time his defense was given, numerous LDS officials, Taylor included, were well engaged with the practice. Mormon leaders willfully misleading the public was one of the factors that troubled me during my "apostasy" process. So now I am curious, after reading what appears to be a useless and misdirected apologetic defense, how many people here are OK with LDS leaders willfully deceiving the general public.

What follows are my responses from a previous thread which was focused on another topic. For those who want to read the full context of the debate that was published by Taylor, along with the follow up comments from the troubled transcriber, go to this link.

By contrast, John Taylor does not, in Xander's words, have "a history of making things up or flat out lying for the sole purpose of protecting Joseph Smith." The one and only example Xander could produce of John Taylor being less than completely honest about something was when he didn't announce to a French audience that the Church practiced polygamy.

No, that isn't the only example I could produce. It was the only example I had produced at that point, but another example is found in the same debate when Taylor lied about the 1839 Haven interview, creating comments from whole cloth and presenting them as if she had said them. This is an indisputable fact as well. Pahoran tries to water down Taylor's blatant dishonesty as a simple matter of "being less than completely honest." Pahoran is apparently willing to fall on the same sword as Taylor, all for the sake of loyalty. Truth is just a nuisance.

However, contrary to what Xander previously argued, Elder Taylor did not "explicitly deny" the existence of plural marriage; nor did he "insist no one in the Church, Joseph Smith included, was engaged in such a practice."

The fact is John Taylor intentionally deceived his audience, and no amount of semantic shuffling will change this fact. He said polygamy was outrageous, and threw up scriptures that rejected it, despite the fact that he and numerous LDS officials had been engaged in polygamy for many years.

We can legitimately say that John Taylor was less than forthcoming, even evasive on the question; but he did not actually lie.

There is certainly evasion going on. If a critic had mislead anyone in this matter there is no doubt Pahoran's indignation would switch gears and he'd call it the worst kind of deception known to man. I know this from experience. He recently said I was worse than a bunch of murderers, and he has called me a liar on numerous occasions, despite the fact that he refuses to produce any examples of my so-called "lies." And according to LDS lit, the worst lies are the ones that mislead without being explicit. Mixing truth with lies is Satan's method, right? It is the best way to deceive. I learned this on my mission and thought it only applied to critics. Imagine my shock when I learned how LDS leaders effectively employed the method with precision. So by every Mormon standard, John Taylor is the worst kind of deceiver. Here is the context of his denial:

We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the "White Veil," the "Black Veil," and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330.

Taylor then goes in a rant listing LDS scriptures from the past that explicitly reject polygamy. And according to Pahoran, Taylor isn't denying the Church practices polygamy at all with this. It isn't deceptive either. He's just refraining from telling the "whole truth."

Nor did he call it "the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting doctrine." That claim was false.

No it isn't. John Taylor rejected polygamy in the same context. The following sentence says "these things", which obviously included polygamy, "are too outrageous." Nowhere does he divorce polygamy from this context, as Pahoran wishes he had. Taylor explicitly refers to the "charge of polygamy," but Pahoran wants us to believe his main focus was on some unspecific complaint about colored veils. What precisely was this about? The transcriber doesn't say. The transcriber said his opponents asked him about sisters of the "white" and "green" veils and asked Taylor to explain what he knew about it. Instead of rejecting it as false, he treated it in the same context of the polygamy charge and blew over it with some D&C passages. Since we know he was being dishonest about polygamy, it is probably reasonable to conclude he knew there was something to this "sisters" subject that he didn't want to get into. I suspect Bennet's version has serious errors, but that it is mingled with elements of truth as well. But since the transcriber doesn't detail any direct complaints about this matter, Pahoran's choice to focus on this is clearly strategic. He wants to avoid the context of Taylor's claims with respect to the charge of polygamy. As far as Bennett's book is concerned, there is no point in discussing what wasn't mentioned at this debate. Pahoran drags this stuff in to muddy the water and shift the focus off of Taylor's blatant rejection of polygamy.

John Taylor was answering a direct question that had been put directly to him by one of his opponents. James Robertson directly asked John Taylor "what was the nature of the sisterhood of the White and Green Veil." Xander loftily brushed that aside, pretending it was not "relevant."

Again, Pahoran is simply wrong. There were numerous issues raised by his opponents, and that is why Taylor responded to numerous charges, including the charge of polygamy which is what his complete response covered the most. The comment about colored veils was brought up in a speech which we do not have a word for word transcription, and to which Taylor objected to being read outloud by his opponent. Pahoran wants to keep pointing out the "veil" comment while ignoring the fact that we already know what Taylor was responding to because he starts off saying, "we are accused here of polygamy." He actually responded to both, but not enough information is said about the colored veils. The follow up rant of D&C passages was clearly designed to refute the charge of polygamy. Why is this so hard to accept?

The so-called "sisterhoods" of the "white and green veil" were a product of John C. Bennett's filthy imagination; they were "seraglios," i.e. brothels, supposedly established in Nauvoo for the entertainment of Joseph and the other leading brethren. That filthy lie is what John Taylor described as "actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived."

Aside from the fact that Pahoran hasn't demonstrated anything here to be a "filthy lie," the fact is none of this changes Taylors public rejection (via scripture) of polygamy. He explicilty references LDS scripture that explicitly rejects it. And as a leading figure in the Mormon heirarchy, how is it a leap in logic to see this as an intent to deceive his public into thinking that he rejects polygamy as well? Why would he be saying that he, a Mormon apostle and Prophet, rejects something that is explicitly forbidden in the LDS scriptures he just quoted? All he is doing here is trying to create a sense of importance from irrelevant portions of the debate while at the same time glossing over the crucial portions which Taylor himself admitted he was responding to. In this case, the charge of polygamy.

That filthy lie is the whole context of Taylor's reply.

Not true. I provided the context twice and here it goes again. The context clearly covers polygamy as well. Taylor responded, and I quote (emphasis mine):

We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the "White Veil," the "Black Veil," and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330.

How many times must I cite this before Pahoran admits he was responding to the charge of polygamy?

Taylor then cited numerous LDS passages supporting a traditional concept of marriage, one of which insists that a man should have only one wife. But according to Pahoran, he wasn't responding to the charge of polygamy? According to Pahoran the "whole context" is about responding to the charge of brothels?

What Taylor did is easily understood as an intentional deception. This is something far more egregious than merely failing to "be completely forthcoming." It is a blatant deception born from the mind of a Mormon Prophet, who I always believed should be held to equal if not higher standards.

Xander plays a whole lot of word games in his attempt to accuse John Taylor of lying when he said that he recognised Caswall's Psalter as Greek. Note that his technique is poisoning the well par excellence:

Epitome of projection. I'm the only person here who doesn't immediately discredit people once their religious affiliation is known. Taylor is not to be rejected because he is a Mormon. His testimony is to be considered worthless because he has a documented history of "lying for the Lord." This would be true no matter what his religious background. Historians have acknowledged his propensity to spin the truth to suit his apologetic agendas. Calling them apostates or whatever doesn't discredit their educated opinions. In fact, all it does is prove my point that it is Pahoran, not I, who is poisoning the well par excellence.

he has no basis to question what Elder Taylor actually said; he merely orders us to reject it on the basis that it was Elder Taylor who said it.

This is absolutely false. I have never "ordered" anyone to accept anything and I have never rejected Taylor's comments "without basis." My basis has been made obvious. It is the fact that he has a documented history of lying for the Church during crunch time. He is one of the guys willing to tell a fib if he thinks it will get the Church or Joseph Smith out of a quagmire. He explicitly lied about Haven's interview and he intentionally deceived his French audience on at least two occasions. This is a matter of indisputable fact (apologetic dispute based on loyalty notwithstanding) For Pahoran to sit there and pretend I have said nothing this past week except, "you have to reject it because it was Taylor who said it," just goes to show how far backwards he has been forced to run. Pahoran is not going to be able to get away with twisting what I have said or presented. .

And he dodges around the fundamental issue: if Elder Taylor was going to "make something up" about Caswall's visit, why would he not "make something up" about his meeting with Joseph Smith?

Pahoran is going to run back to this silly argument that I have already responded to? Disagree if you must, but to say I "dodged" it is a flat out false and this is easily proved by a review of my posts. I responded to it directly at least twice, and I'm pretty sure Pahoran knows it.

The fact that he makes no such attempt demonstrates two things: (1) That he had no reason to do so, because the truth was good enough

I don't need to. Pahoran doesn't understand the burden of proof. When your argument rests on the assumption that Taylor wouldn't lie about anything unless he lied about everything, you lose because that's an untenable position no matter how you slice it.

and (2) that the reckless and spiteful accusation that Elder Taylor had "a history of making things up or flat out lying for the sole purpose of protecting Joseph Smith" is false.

I proved it was true, so continuously calling it false is just rhetoric in the absence of refuting data. I presented two unambiguous examples of John Taylor deceiving his audience, and both took place at this same event in France. If Pahoran insists on fighting over semantics, then I'll rephrase my charge and say he intentionally deceived his audience. But really, is this any better than calling it a blatant lie? Pahoran hasn't even begun to address the second example and the first example he's tried to water down as a simple case of one man failing to share all his religious secrets with a grumpy audience. This is the mother of all understatements and the epitome of apologetic spin.

In his zeal to blindly defend Church leaders at all costs, all he has done is steer the spotlight onto two people who have intentionally deceived their audiences: John Taylor and Hugh Nibley.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Xander

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

Be careful to not be hoist by your own petard.

[ldsfaqs]

Call for references that John Taylor was actually practicing "Polygamy" in 1950..... and not simply the Sealing Ordinance of Plural Marriage???

I would also like to note that John Taylor doesn't per-se deny Polygamy, but states the Churches policy as recorded in the D&C page 330 that Polygamy at that time was forbidden.

It is clear that according to Church policy, John Taylor was actually telling the truth. The Sealing Ordinance was not considered "Polygamy" by the Church, it was only a Sealing Ordinance at the time. Since that was the policy at the time in relation to Sealings and Polygamy, one cannot at all say John Taylor was lying without themselves lying about the issue.

At the time Polygamy was banned by the Church. Thus he wasn't lying. Likewise, Joseph didn't lie when he made his statement. The Church wasn't practicing Polygamy, only the Sealing Ordinance.

As usual, it is the Xanders of the world that lie, creating strawmen to then attack.

Edited August 31, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There is no such thing as “lying for the Lord”. I see no point in him doing so as any converts would have found out as soon as they reached Utah. I think more along the lines; polygamy not being made public as a means of winning converts for reasons other than the truth of Christ’s message. There is a reason as to why the Lord has strict guidelines for Polygamy, which men always seem to break. This is why it is condemned in the Book of Mormon and why D&C 132 was published. Many polygamists were excommunicated for adultery in the early church. No sane man or woman would live this law if not under the edict of God.

[LeSellers]

Aside from this note, I'm choosing to ignore Mr. Graham's topic. 'Tseems impertinent.

Lehi

[Xander]

Xander:

Be careful to not be hoist by your own petard.

Great advice, but directed at the wrong man.

As an apologist I followed the axiom that all LDS critics are liars while the Saints tell the truth. Lying was a fruit of a demonic spirit. Truth was the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was impossible for critics to tell the truth, because they are Satan's helpers, not vice versa.

It seems though, that a critical analysis of history reveals that in many cases this is not true, and in fact quite the opposite. It was a critic, for example, who showed that Taylor lied about the Haven interview. It was a critic, for example, who showed that John Gee and Hugh Nibley had completely misrepresented data pertinent to Book of Abraham apologetics. It was a critic, for example, who showed that numerous apologetic arguments have failed because they were based on numerous false premises. I've seen more LDS people lie to my face than any other group, but perhaps this has more to do with the fact that they're almost always in apologetic mode, given my state of apostasy.

So the weapon by which they have chosen to injure the critics is now being used against them in a very effective way because they were the ones using the principle of honesty as the basis of their credibility. They're the ones who taught me that someone willing too tell one lie about the Church will tell a thousand. In fact, John Taylor says the same thing in his speech in France. So what does this mean when it is shown he has told two lies about the Church? Following his own standard, he is a consummate liar who has no respect for the truth. So all I am doing is pointing this out to others.

The question is, how do they deal with this? For me it shattered my entire world view.

Zakuska has already implicitly accepted the fact that Taylor lied, but tried to rationalize it with Abraham. The lack of apologetic responses to these historical incidents seems to strengthen the case that these people did in fact lie. And of course, I could name dozens of examples where LDS leaders have indisputably deceived their audiences and not always in the contexts of polygamy.

Ultimately the Church loses credibility when it flashes the 13 articles of faith in everyone's face, while at the same time failing to qualify or make exception to the claim that they believe in "being honest" with their fellow man. John 8:32 says we should seek the truth because the truth will set us free. How does the Church handle this while at the same time refusing to be truthful on controversial matters? It seems they're just giving Evangelicals more ammunition to call them unChristian.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Xander

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Great advice, but directed at the wrong man.

As an apologist I followed the axiom that all LDS critics are liars while the Saints tell the truth. Lying was a fruit of a demonic spirit. Truth was the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was impossible for critics to tell the truth, because they are Satan's helpers, not vice versa.

Ok........

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Trashing and bashing

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff