Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Does The Mormon Church Encourage Lds People To Lie? -- Joanna Brooks


Recommended Posts

Oops, I'm sorry. I didn't realize Ray was out of the thread. Should I delete that last post?

Link to comment

From the standpoint of LDS doctrine, that is true. But that argument only works for those who accept our doctrine, which our critics do not. For those who don't accept our doctrine, eternal marriage may be anything from a silly idea to a sweet romantic notion to something startling that they've never heard of before -- but in no case is it intrinsic to what marriage is. Our marriages are recognised as marriages by the wider world only to the extent that they have key elements in common with all other marriages.

And in that regard, the Mormon widower who remarries is indeed doing exactly the same thing as any other widower who remarries.

Thus, a man who is sealed to one, two, three, five, eight or any other number of deceased spouses while being currently married to one living woman is practicing monogamy as that word is universally understood.

That's all right. My point is that the correct response to anyone who claims that a Mormon widower remarrying is an instance of polygamy is, "Really? Do you believe that his current and previous marriages are actually of eternal duration, and that he will be reunited with both of his wives and living eternally with them?" Because if the critic does not believe that (and they never do) then they don't believe that he is actually married to more than one woman. And thus, they don't believe he is engaged in polygamy.

Thus, when they say they do, they are not telling the truth.

When Mormons talk to Mormons about marriage, we are entitled to talk about marriage in LDS terms. When Catholics talk to Catholics about marriage, they are entitled to talk about marriage in Catholic terms. But as soon as we talk to each other about marriage, we have to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, which means that we have to talk in the terms that everyone understands.

And in terms of a "common ground" discussion of marriage, a remarrying widower is a monogamist, not a polygamist.

Regards,

Pahoran

You made this far too complicated Pahoran... in either case it is not polygamy. This is due to the sphere that we are currently residing in... which is the mortal sphere. While in this sphere we are dictated by the confines of this sphere, and to the meanings of the words as they apply here-- which in this case is "polygamy is the condition or practice of having more than one (living) spouse at one time". What it means in the hereafter is moot to this argument.

Link to comment

I read the reviews on Amazon and I like yours best. Most gave 4 to 5 stars but commented on the difficulty of reading it in parts of it.

I think if he'd written it any differently it probably would have appeared anti and it could have spelled trouble for him.

That should be a not so subtle hint in and of itself....
Link to comment

He was equally harsh in condemning those who would alter eternal law to suit their faddish desire for the customs and habits of Babylon.

Those people, we recall, were the ones who believed they held the authority of God to gather His flocks upon the earth; men assured of their own righteousness while seeking the glory of the world. They were the Pharisees whose forebears once rejected worship of a golden calf only to find new objects of veneration in those tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain. They came to worship their own church, its "eternal law," and its authority as something sacrosanct and beyond all reproach.

Today we have men of that stripe who were given a Church that was meant to beat down all oppression, and the single greatest achievement they have made in terms of mortal means has been to build a magnificent shopping mall to "strengthen" the downtown. To strengthen it? In they eyes of whom? By their fruits we shall know them; by their billboards, their trademarks, and their DVDs that none have asked for.

In Priesthood we learned that the Lord would never again take the gospel from the earth, but surely He will not negate the agency of Man. Could it be that the Lord has never taken the gospel from the earth? For he spoke to Peter, in those days, that the gates of Hell should never prevail against it and yet it was lost. No, the Lord need not take what he has given; we reject it of our own free will and cast it aside.

Who could have guessed that the denizens of that great and spacious building would hurl, with their epithets, the accusation that the humble seekers of truth and righteousness are really they who desire Babylon? Though we wander for a time in mists of darkness, we seek the delicious sweetness of the Fruit of Life--but find only "edifitainment" (as Daymon Smith has it) from a church that grows in affinity ever closer to that once called Great and Abominable. We are lost and thirst after light and knowledge; they call us the seekers of Babylon, but they have found truth in sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.

But whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. Words for our time, when even the priest and the prophet err in vision and stumble in judgment.

Dangerous ideas, to you who know.

Link to comment

indeed. but is the Middle Way fence sitting? I consider myself fully loyal to the church. i do not welcome polemics from either side. i try to focus on truth, and that which we share in common. i have for many years been an official church representative on a major interfaith council. Middle Way simply means finding truth openly from wherever it is available, not rejecting another viewpoint simply because it isn't mine.

that does not mean i am any less LDS, active, faithful, or worthy than anyone else. Sure there are those who say "middle way" and really mean they are on their way out. I am not one of those. I have been on the Middle Way for over two decades, all while active and holding leadership callings. the Middle Way of which i speak does not advocate against the church, does not seek babylon. it only seeks truth and common ground on which we share humanity and values, withou compromise of truth.

I think what I just read between you and Ray was talking past each other. As I read your most recent posts on this page I find a high degree of similarity between the way we think. My commitment is to God the Father through the Son, Jesus and by the power the Holy Spirit provides to follow truth, to be a student of truth, and a disciple of truth wherever it lies. I am LDS and I feel that I observe the teachings of the Church when I seek out truth and claim it as our own teachings.

Too often we speak past one another; I know that I do so often. At times we have an armor of hooks that we wear and too easily these hooks catch onto the perceived words or actions of others and drag us about unmercifully. The Middle Way, the way of Christ teaches us to take off that type of armor and clothe ourselves in the armor of truth. It does not catch on the words or actions of others. It is filled with charity toward all humanity and an eye single to the glory of God. I need to cast off these hooks and be confident in doing the work of our Master. I have a long way to go.

Link to comment

I believe the Middle Way is to objectively seek the truth in things, recognizing that truth has many dimensions. That a myth is not literally true does not mean it does not contain moral truth.

Objectivity is a myth.
we avoid extremes

In your view is the "middle way" moderation in all things?

Is not giving our all to God pretty extreme? Is not God requiring it of us pretty extreme?

Link to comment

If by "middle way," Wayfarer has in mind seeking out what is good and true from all sources, as per the 13th Article of Faith, I suppose he is on the right track.

The problem is in recognizing what is good and true and sifting it out from what is worthless or harmful. Or perhaps even a bigger difficulty, avoiding the rejection of what is true and good.

I fear that too often, paying lip service to the philosophy of "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" may be given as a way to rationalize the syncretism that Brant Gardner and Mark Wright wrote about in their very recent article on Book of Mormon apostasy in the new on-line journal, the Interpreter.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

Objectivity is a myth.

I appreciate that opinion, and often hold it, especially on matters of faith. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things, so on matters of faith, we often need a separate hermeneutic than what epistemology offers us.

As well, there are normative things which do not lend themselves to objectivity. Adam obeyed the law of sacrifice without requiring a reason -- he knew not, save the lord commanded him. In his case, he 'knew' the lord commanded him, having had a direct conversation with the Lord, but he did not know why nor what he would get out of it. Therefore faith led him to sacrifice without inventing things, making things up about the reason for his obedience. Adam objectively obeyed based upon subjective faith -- an interesting concept, true?

However, on matters of history and science, truth needs to be based upon facts and evidence. Joanna in her article is trying to be factual about the principle of polygamy. The truth is that LDS practice polygamy in the eternal sense, but not in this life any longer. Joanna tried to express the 'truth', but it wasn't exactly something you can simply state to someone who is not going to accept the argument that eternal marriage exists. So, the other person gave an non-nuanced answer that was kind of true and kind of false.

I don't think the person was 'lying for the lord' -- in my concept of Middle Way, using the pejorative 'lying' serves nothing -- he was simply trying to be straightforward in the simplest answer possible, one that wouldn't raise questions. But he did know, I'm sure, that the nuance of eternity (heavens, not a nuance at all, is it?) makes his statement not quite true.

To state that 'objectivity is a myth' is too broad or blanket of a statement to hold up. Some things are objectively true. Being a servant of truth is what Joanna tried to do, but it was neither the time nor place for her nuanced answer. I'm not sure what answer I would give in this case -- being authentic has to recognize timing as being essential.

In your view is the "middle way" moderation in all things?

Is not giving our all to God pretty extreme? Is not God requiring it of us pretty extreme?

Middle Way is not 'moderation in all things'.

Sometimes, our beliefs impell us to think the church is perfect and everything else is wrong. We get into a false dichotomy between extremes:If you are not with me, you are against me. It's either all true, or all fraud. "I KNOW" the church is the only true church on the face of the earth... etc.

Once we come to realize that the Lord's plan was not one of perfect compliance with all law, but rather, we would learn through our own experience to distinguish good and evil -- we come to realize that all human institutions, including the church, are subject to human error. If we hold to the picture that the church is all perfect or all fraud, then we have unreasonable expectations. It will lead us to ruin if we're not careful, for once we discover that there are profound problems with the historical and current truth claims of the church, it is highly likely that the True Believer goes to the other extreme of emotion: hatred. So one emotional extreme morphs into another: joy in the gospel that everything is wonderful turns into rabid hatred of the church. These two extremes are not on the Way. I suggest that instead of starting from a position of one pole, it's better to center your life -- to calm the mind of emotion, and find the pivot point of the Way: the glorious Middle. From this position of the Middle, it's ok to send out emotion, but you remain anchored in the Middle Way.

In this sense, to be on the "Middle Way" is to be balanced in one's view of the church: to be in harmony with the Spirit of the Gospel, while recognizing that the physical manifestation of that spirit is subject to a lot of human error. It is to be open minded and not strident in one's beliefs, to accept the value in both the church as well as other belief systems, while being true to one's authentic self and the truth.

I am truly suggesting that the Middle Way is more enlightened and divine than a position of extreme and Blind Faith in the Church and it fundamentalist-styled teachings; or, on the other hand, divorcing oneself entirely from the church in anger. I'm also saying that by adopting the Middle Way, you can better see the truth in the church, remain loyal to it, and not react to its problems through another extreme emotion: hostility. The Middle Way is to be balanced, to be centered.

This "Middle Way" is not a movement or an organization -- it is not anything organized at all -- it is an individual approach to life that finds the center in Jesus Christ, the pivot point of the Way, and then joyfully expresses thought and feeling from the authenticity of the center of one's soul.

Link to comment

Objectivity is a myth.

I appreciate that opinion, and often hold it, especially on matters of faith. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things, so on matters of faith, we often need a separate hermeneutic than what epistemology offers us.

As well, there are normative things which do not lend themselves to objectivity. Adam obeyed the law of sacrifice without requiring a reason -- he knew not, save the lord commanded him. In his case, he 'knew' the lord commanded him, having had a direct conversation with the Lord, but he did not know why nor what he would get out of it. Therefore faith led him to sacrifice without inventing things, making things up about the reason for his obedience. Adam objectively obeyed based upon subjective faith -- an interesting concept, true?

However, on matters of history and science, truth needs to be based upon facts and evidence. Joanna in her article is trying to be factual about the principle of polygamy. The truth is that LDS practice polygamy in the eternal sense, but not in this life any longer. Joanna tried to express the 'truth', but it wasn't exactly something you can simply state to someone who is not going to accept the argument that eternal marriage exists. So, the other person gave an non-nuanced answer that was kind of true and kind of false.

I don't think the person was 'lying for the lord' -- in my concept of Middle Way, using the pejorative 'lying' serves nothing -- he was simply trying to be straightforward in the simplest answer possible, one that wouldn't raise questions. But he did know, I'm sure, that the nuance of eternity (heavens, not a nuance at all, is it?) makes his statement not quite true.

To state that 'objectivity is a myth' is too broad or blanket of a statement to hold up. Some things are objectively true. Being a servant of truth is what Joanna tried to do, but it was neither the time nor place for her nuanced answer. I'm not sure what answer I would give in this case -- being authentic has to recognize timing as being essential.

In your view is the "middle way" moderation in all things?

Is not giving our all to God pretty extreme? Is not God requiring it of us pretty extreme?

Middle Way is not 'moderation in all things'.

Sometimes, our beliefs impell us to think the church is perfect and everything else is wrong. We get into a false dichotomy between extremes:If you are not with me, you are against me. It's either all true, or all fraud. "I KNOW" the church is the only true church on the face of the earth... etc.

Once we come to realize that the Lord's plan was not one of perfect compliance with all law, but rather, we would learn through our own experience to distinguish good and evil -- we come to realize that all human institutions, including the church, are subject to human error. If we hold to the picture that the church is all perfect or all fraud, then we have unreasonable expectations. It will lead us to ruin if we're not careful, for once we discover that there are profound problems with the historical and current truth claims of the church, it is highly likely that the True Believer goes to the other extreme of emotion: hatred. So one emotional extreme morphs into another: joy in the gospel that everything is wonderful turns into rabid hatred of the church. These two extremes are not on the Way. I suggest that instead of starting from a position of one pole, it's better to center your life -- to calm the mind of emotion, and find the pivot point of the Way: the glorious Middle. From this position of the Middle, it's ok to send out emotion, but you remain anchored in the Middle Way.

In this sense, to be on the "Middle Way" is to be balanced in one's view of the church: to be in harmony with the Spirit of the Gospel, while recognizing that the physical manifestation of that spirit is subject to a lot of human error. It is to be open minded and not strident in one's beliefs, to accept the value in both the church as well as other belief systems, while being true to one's authentic self and the truth.

I am truly suggesting that the Middle Way is more enlightened and divine than a position of extreme and Blind Faith in the Church and it fundamentalist-styled teachings; or, on the other hand, divorcing oneself entirely from the church in anger. I'm also saying that by adopting the Middle Way, you can better see the truth in the church, remain loyal to it, and not react to its problems through another extreme emotion: hostility. The Middle Way is to be balanced, to be centered.

This "Middle Way" is not a movement or an organization -- it is not anything organized at all -- it is an individual approach to life that finds the center in Jesus Christ, the pivot point of the Way, and then joyfully expresses thought and feeling from the authenticity of the center of one's soul.

Link to comment

I'm thrilled to have read your comments Wayfarer, on being a middle wayer. I believe if there wasn't a middle way and only one way or the highway I would be on the highway. I'm thankful the church welcomes middle wayers too. At one point in my faith walk I wasn't this way but was trying so hard to be perfect in every way which is what we're taught, but then when I saw that the church had mostly man made teachings (when prophets were speaking as men) then I didn't subscribe to everything that is taught and took the middleway therefore getting my faith not just from man but myself without running away from institutionalized religion but staying in according to my own personal revelations and relationship with God.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

I find a particular verse in Isaiah to be helpful to understand the Middle Way.

And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

Isaiah 35:8

Link to comment

Well, it does indeed. And it has some affinity for the Mormon ideal of thrift and industry. It is distincly an American facet of an American church. In that commentary, however, I am expressing more of my own opinion than of what I think is Daymon Smith's opinion. I really can't speak for him, and everything I've said about it has been merely my own view. It's not an easy thing to have an argument with brother Smith vicariously!

In case "Crazy Israeli" hasn't tipped you off, I've lived the greater part of my life outside the USA. I'm not sure that ideals of thrift and industry have much to do with intellectual property protections, as I see it, this has more to do with moments in our history such as the loss of the 116 pages and the JST, or of the various slanderings, accusations and other persecutions. Protecting our intellectual property gives us the control we need over our writings.

Link to comment

I'm not really sure this supports a "middle way," context considered, but do please elaborate.

My definition of Middle Way is explained here. I do not see the Middle Way as being the way of mediocrity or being lukewarm. It is simply to be centered on the One, that is Jesus Christ for me, and to be focused on truth. You will find much more about what I believe on my blog.

Isaiah 35:8 speaks of the Way of holiness. Is not Jesus Christ the Way? If we follow the Way, then are we not journeying in the Middle of our Eternal Lives, as spoken by Dieter Uchtdorf in the July Ensign?

In responding, I would hope that you first understand that I do not use the term Middle Way in the same way as many who try to disparage the term. It is a way of discipline, a way of observance. It just avoids the extremes of emotion and polemic, trying to find common ground in dialog about things.

Link to comment

My definition of Middle Way is explained here. I do not see the Middle Way as being the way of mediocrity or being lukewarm. It is simply to be centered on the One, that is Jesus Christ for me, and to be focused on truth. You will find much more about what I believe on my blog.

Isaiah 35:8 speaks of the Way of holiness. Is not Jesus Christ the Way? If we follow the Way, then are we not journeying in the Middle of our Eternal Lives, as spoken by Dieter Uchtdorf in the July Ensign?

In responding, I would hope that you first understand that I do not use the term Middle Way in the same way as many who try to disparage the term. It is a way of discipline, a way of observance. It just avoids the extremes of emotion and polemic, trying to find common ground in dialog about things.

Sounds like what I would refer to as a "balanced" approach, in contrast to extreme or apathetic.

Sounds good to me.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment

Very much like your definition of "middle way", Wayfarer. Good posts.

Link to comment

My definition of Middle Way is explained here. I do not see the Middle Way as being the way of mediocrity or being lukewarm. It is simply to be centered on the One, that is Jesus Christ for me, and to be focused on truth. You will find much more about what I believe on my blog.

Isaiah 35:8 speaks of the Way of holiness. Is not Jesus Christ the Way? If we follow the Way, then are we not journeying in the Middle of our Eternal Lives, as spoken by Dieter Uchtdorf in the July Ensign?

In responding, I would hope that you first understand that I do not use the term Middle Way in the same way as many who try to disparage the term. It is a way of discipline, a way of observance. It just avoids the extremes of emotion and polemic, trying to find common ground in dialog about things.

I'm still not sure that this verse can support a "middle way" that avoids "extremes of emotion and polemic." Extremes of polemic are sometimes- though rarely- necessary, and an ecstatic experience is certainly not discouraged. If we turn to the verse itself, we see that a highway will be built in the desert, exclusively for the use of the covenant people, a road forbidden to the impure. This road will be built so well that even imbeciles (in the technical sense) and those travelling on foot will be able to cross it without stumbling over rough surfaces. This is talking of a physical road for gathering the scattered people. While one can allegorise anything to fit whatever interpretation one wants, I don't see it as supporting a middle way unless it is greatly twisted.

Link to comment

This road will be built so well that even imbeciles (in the technical sense) and those travelling on foot will be able to cross it without stumbling over rough surfaces. This is talking of a physical road for gathering the scattered people. While one can allegorise anything to fit whatever interpretation one wants, I don't see it as supporting a middle way unless it is greatly twisted.

There is much more involved in the Way/Middle Way than just not being at extremes. When Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", was he referring to a physical road in the desert? Or, do you think it possible that since Isaiah 35 is entirely focused on the gathering, and that the gathering is all about coming to Jesus Christ, that the Way is not a physical highway at all?

Link to comment

There is much more involved in the Way/Middle Way than just not being at extremes. When Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", was he referring to a physical road in the desert? Or, do you think it possible that since Isaiah 35 is entirely focused on the gathering, and that the gathering is all about coming to Jesus Christ, that the Way is not a physical highway at all?

I don't think that Jesus was referring to a physical road, but he wasn't referring to Isaiah 35:8 either.

There is more to the gathering of Israel than just coming to Christ. To borrow a phrase from Martin Buber, it is the " holy marriage of a "holy" people with a "holy" land. " This requires a physical aspect as well as an abstractedly spiritual one.

Link to comment

I don't think that Jesus was referring to a physical road, but he wasn't referring to Isaiah 35:8 either.

There is more to the gathering of Israel than just coming to Christ. To borrow a phrase from Martin Buber, it is the " holy marriage of a "holy" people with a "holy" land. " This requires a physical aspect as well as an abstractedly spiritual one.

I bow to your knowledge on this. Of course there is more to gathering than just coming to Christ, and as with many verses in Isaiah, there are physical aspects as well as the spiritual values. In the course of understanding spiritual values, we liken the scriptures to ourselves.

peace.

Link to comment

The thread has certainly gone far afield . . . and that has taken us far away from the central thesis in the Joanna Brooks material, that Mormons lie . . . a lot.

The origins of this notion go back a long, long way. JSJr [and Mormons generally] as liar is the clarion call of the Hurlbut affidavits, and even the earlier material from the New York period. We cannot ignore this chestnut in its new dressing by Brooks. Chatting about whether the Master's Way and the Zen-Buddhist Golden Mean have much or anything at all in common is quite beside the point.

Fact is, there's a slander going on here, based upon scant evidence, that's kept alive both inside and outside the Church.

We need to combat this slander whenever it raises its head.

USU "Who remembers well an entire chapter of a Hoffman-related book being titled "Lying For The Lord." 78

Edited by USU78
Link to comment

The thread has certainly gone far afield . . . and that has taken us far away from the central thesis in the Joanna Brooks material, that Mormons lie . . . a lot.

Maybe I'm crazy, but that's not what I interpreted her as saying. Perhaps you could quote where she says that Mormons are liars? To me it sounded like she was saying that being uncomfortable with questions and wanting to correct stereotypes is what leads to misleading and incomplete answers, not the church teaching people to "lie for the Lord." Her article answers the question "Does Mormonism Encourage LDS People to Lie" with a "no." She doesn't say that Mormons are always honest, but I see no indications that she thinks that Mormons are less honest than other people.

Edited by mapman
Link to comment

Maybe I'm crazy, but that's not what I interpreted her as saying. Perhaps you could quote where she says that Mormons are liars? To me it sounded like she was saying that being uncomfortable with questions and wanting to correct stereotypes is what leads to misleading and incomplete answers, not the church teaching people to "lie for the Lord." Her article answers the question "Does Mormonism Encourage LDS People to Lie" with a "no." She doesn't say that Mormons are always honest, but I see no indications that she thinks that Mormons are less honest than other people.

It's where the question arises from . . . this tradition by antiMos to call Mormons liars and thieves. She finds herself smack dab in the middle of it . . . and by raising it as she does, she drags that tradition with her into the public square. The antiMos know exactly what she's referring to. Stewart? Not so much. His faith tradition is secular Jewish. He's unlikely to have been exposed. That's more the fief of our evangelical protestant minority.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...