Pious Fraud

[Calm]

Perhaps he thought it justified it in God's eyes as well. So clearly he thought that lying was at times justified by God.

How do you get from "perhaps he thought it justified by God" to "clearly he thought it justified by God"?

You don't know that. He might have believed he was going to be punished by God for lying, but felt the punishment from God would be less of a problem than being killed or whatever he feared from man. He certainly wouldn't be the first man to allow that fear to rule him.

The scripture of Abraham and Sarah may well have led him to believe it was justified. You need more though than just this possibility of connection to demonstrate first a isolated attitude here that God justifies lying in the case of life-threatening events, and then second a global attitude for lying in other cases that do not have the limitation of life-threats.

yes, the context is the issue. That is part of Dan's point, and the point some of you seem to be missing, to my view.

No, I am merely arguing D&C 19 is not part of this context.

[X-O]

I

[USU78]

X&O said: "Julian did not have the warrants in her presented argument to justify her outrageous and unjustified personal attack on Dan which legally in a court would in all likelihood find her guilty of defamation of character."

I do not believe Prosser would agree with you here.

[Confidential Informant]

I’ve been following the threads and I believe there may be grounds for a legal suit by Dan Vogel for defamation of character.

Oh good heavens!

I may be wrong

You are. Trust me.

but that is the way it appears to me

Based on what? Your expansive knowledge of defamation law? Your broad understanding of the law as it regards public figures?

and I will explain why in this post.

[John Russell]

Curse you, CI! I had put together a list of about 20 anonymous reviews whose authors I was ready to chase down for defaming my publicly published work (and part of my livelihood). These reviewers challenged my work and training more pointedly than Juliann did with Dan, and after X-O's comments, I thought I had boarded the gravy train. A pox upon you, CI

[Confidential Informant]

Curse you, CI! I had put together a list of about 20 anonymous reviews whose authors I was ready to chase down for defaming my publicly published work (and part of my livelihood). These reviewers challenged my work and training more pointedly than Juliann did with Dan, and after X-O's comments, I thought I had boarded the gravy train. A pox upon you, CI

LOL, yep a pox on all attorneys....right up to the point that you need one. Then we become very popular.

C.I.

[Calm]

Julian did not have the warrants in her presented argument to justify her outrageous and unjustified personal attack on Dan which legally in a court would in all likelihood find her guilty of defamation of character.

Man, if you think these were "outrageous and unjustified personal attack," then I suggest you stay out of the academic arena. There you might be able to get away with "unjustified" opinions.

Note: This is not a personal evaluation, just a comparitive analysis.

[Dunamis]

Take it to another thread, X-O. Please, no more replies to X-O here. Start a new thread if you'd like to continue the discussion that X-O started.

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

Well, it looks like were legally represented. What now? A divorce and fight over property? Now, really, Juliann, lets kiss and make up before this whole thing gets out of hand. What do you say?

I

[Calm]

Dang, I was hoping Juliann would share with me what she got in the property settlement if I promised to testify on her behalf.

[wenglund]

Since this appears to have been overlooked, let me pose it again:

I am not turning the texts on their head, but rather I

[Dr. Shades]

. . . wouldn

[wenglund]

. . . wouldn

[Dr. Shades]

Dear Wade:

HELPFUL HINT: Read first, respond second.

[sidewinder]

"As a pretend "doctor", you can't be expected to know what a paradigm is.."

Is Stephen Covey a doctor?

"its encapsulated nature.."

LOL. false.

"why paradigm shifts may occur, and so forth.."

No, you're confusing neo-Kantianism with plate techtonics.

"In the future, however, it may be wise to let those who actually know what they are talking about be the ones to respond."

yes it would be.

"It also may help you to know that the "strength, rigor, and believability of said analysis, reasoning, interpretation, and conclusions" is entirely a function of one's paradigm."

So where do you get the vantage point to criticize Shades'?

[wenglund]

Dear Wade:

HELPFUL HINT: Read first, respond second.

Yes, that was, in part, my point to you. I am glad to see that you got at least that much from what I said.

Now, if your reading were to become informed, then your contributions here may become of value.

We can work on your logic and manners later. First things first.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Cal,

Juliann seems to think I insulted you, and that I said something about a medal. Honestly, I don

[wenglund]

"As a pretend "doctor", you can't be expected to know what a paradigm is.."

Is Stephen Covey a doctor?

I have no idea. Nor do I care. Nor does Covey's educational attainments have any relevance to this discussion.

"its encapsulated nature.."

LOL. false.

Your paradigm (seemingly rudimentary as it is) apparently prevents you from believing otherwise (or at least believing what I stated to the contrary according to my paradigm), thus, ironically, proving my point and contravining your own. Way to go!

"why paradigm shifts may occur, and so forth.."

No, you're confusing neo-Kantianism with plate techtonics.

Actually, your confusing innanity with humor.

"In the future, however, it may be wise to let those who actually know what they are talking about be the ones to respond."

yes it would be.

Then we agree at least on that point.

"It also may help you to know that the "strength, rigor, and believability of said analysis, reasoning, interpretation, and conclusions" is entirely a function of one's paradigm."

So where do you get the vantage point to criticize Shades'?

My having actually educated myself on the subject through personal study, if not my post-graduate studies in philosophy.

I hope this helps.

Will you be contributing anything of relevance or value to the discussion?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mighty Curelom]

I had always figured the "endless torment" and "endless damnation" REALLY meaning "god's torment" and "god's damnation" was just an attempt by JS to reconcile his universalist theology with what the bible actually says. JS didn't believe anyone should go to hell forever just because they didn't believe in Jesus. In his plan, everyone goes to heaven; you just go to a better heaven if you're nice. I had never considered D&C 19 to be a justification for deception, but on a closer reading, the part where it says "to work upon the hearts of men" pretty much spells it out.

Personally, I think Smith's original intent was to reinterpret the bible to justify universalism, and the deception part is just an unintentional byproduct.

[sidewinder]

"Your paradigm (seemingly rudimentary as it is) apparently prevents you from believing otherwise..."

How is it, mr. Englund, that a "paradigm" gets "encapsulated" in nature?

"My having actually educated myself on the subject through personal study, if not my post-graduate studies in philosophy."

Then impress us, mr. Englund, with your big graduate education in philosophy and answer the above question.

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

You said to Dr. Shades:

In the future, however, it may be wise to let those who actually know what they are talking about be the ones to respond.

As I remember our last conversation, you seemed to have the same opinion of me. So, now it seems you want me to answer your post, should I assume your opinion has changed? Didn

[Beowulf]

I have been gone from this thread for several days, and have not really kept up. But my thoughts from what I have seen so far:

I had always figured the "endless torment" and "endless damnation" REALLY meaning "god's torment" and "god's damnation" was just an attempt by JS to reconcile his universalist theology with what the bible actually says. JS didn't believe anyone should go to hell forever just because they didn't believe in Jesus. In his plan, everyone goes to heaven; you just go to a better heaven if you're nice. I had never considered D&C 19 to be a justification for deception, but on a closer reading, the part where it says "to work upon the hearts of men" pretty much spells it out.

Personally, I think Smith's original intent was to reinterpret the bible to justify universalism, and the deception part is just an unintentional byproduct.

Curelom, this statement of yours completely undercuts Dan Vogel, does it not?

As I understand this entire discussion of D&C19, Dan Vogel sees the BofM as a tract attacking Universalism as it was taught in early 19th century America. There are certainly verses in Alma and elsewhere that can be construed that way.

But then along comes D&C19 and throws the whole concept on its ear, because it appears to say that Universalism, in some sense, is actually valid!

So Dan, to rescue his thesis, instead uses the verse as an example of JS dissembling (pious fraud).

I am, frankly, puzzled. (Correct me, Dan, if I have summed up your stance here incorrectly. I simply cannot seem to get it even after reading pages and pages of discussion on it.)

As a believing LDS member, I have never seen contradiction between D&C19 and Alma 42 anyway. They are merely different ramifications of the same discussion about God's mercy and justice, in my opinion. And therefore have little to do with early American Universalism anyway, pro or anti.

Beowulf

btw Dan, I ordered your book from Amazon.com, and it arrived today, just two days after I placed the order! Have you got a special connection with that bookstore?

Anyway, I will read it over Christmas. Perhaps my puzzlement above will be cleared up.

[Dan Vogel]

Beowulf,

The solution is simple: JS was privately a Universalist while attacking Universalism publicly. The anti-Universalist stance of the BofM is quite clear. And in addition to D&C 19, JS

[beastie]

How do you get from "perhaps he thought it justified by God" to "clearly he thought it justified by God"?

You don't know that. He might have believed he was going to be punished by God for lying, but felt the punishment from God would be less of a problem than being killed or whatever he feared from man. He certainly wouldn't be the first man to allow that fear to rule him.

The scripture of Abraham and Sarah may well have led him to believe it was justified. You need more though than just this possibility of connection to demonstrate first a isolated attitude here that God justifies lying in the case of life-threatening events, and then second a global attitude for lying in other cases that do not have the limitation of life-threats.

Ok, I

[Dan Vogel]

CI,