Exmormon Contradiction

[why me]

Emmett says the notion of “Lying for the Lord,” as it has been called, implies that teaching the whole truth about the church should be avoided. At a presentation on Lying for the Lord at the 2008 Exmormon Foundation conference, Ken Clark addressed the issue. Clark, who worked as a teacher for the LDS Church Education System (CES) for 27 years and also served as a bishop before leaving the church in 2003, tells The Daily Beast, “Lying has become an institutionalized method of administrative control with the church.”

“Every Mormon grows up with the idea that it’s OK to lie if it’s for a higher cause,” says Clark, who now works for a company that markets employment and labor market data. “But what happens is when this becomes a part of your ethical tool kit, you develop a condescending attitude toward people. Like Ann Romney saying 'you people.’ This idea of lying for the Lord gives you license to place people on an inferior level. It’s OK for Mitt Romney to ignore the principle of full disclosure because it’s in his DNA. Look what he’s doing with his taxes, and how he talks only in generic and sanitized terms about his religion.”

And Emmett, despite her issues with Romney and the church, does not want to be cast as a Mormon hater. She says that while she strongly disagrees with many of the tenets and practices of Mormonism, most Mormons are kind, honest people.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/07/exclusive-brigham-young-s-great-great-granddaughter-on-mormonism-and-mitt-romney.html

How can mormons be kind and honest and yet, lie for the lord? I see this as a contradiction by sue emmett, leader of the exmormons. What do you think? Do exmormons slip up when they make this contradiction?

[DBMormon]

We are honest in all things except when we need to lie to protect the church.... duh.

[why me]

We are honest in all things except when we need to lie to protect the church.... duh.

Yea, I think that the point is rather simple. Mormons do not lie to protect the church but they are more or less honest people. Unfortunately for exmormons they need to trumpet the lying for the lord expression and yet, they need to say that mormons are honest. It is quite a contradiction of terms. It makes me wonder if Sue Emmett ever lied about the church in front of nonlds.

[cesc101]

We are honest in all things except when we need to lie to protect the church.... duh.

what a way to define HONESTY!

[yep... cf: Upgraded dictionary by ExMormons.

Oops!

Not yet for sale.]

[KevinG]

When I hear the catalog of dysfunctional behaviors and beliefs experienced by ex-Mormons I know why they left the church.

[cwald]

When I hear the catalog of dysfunctional behaviors and beliefs experienced by ex-Mormons I know why they left the church.

I understand what you are saying, because when I hear the catalog of disfunctional behaviors and beliefs of apolegetics, I understand why they became apolegetists for the church.

[spartacus]

She is limited by her subject. It is impossible to reach the consistency of description you are implying here and be speaking of humans. Humans are self-contradictory in their actions and in their actions and beliefs.

You seem to be assuming that it is possible for humans to be perfectly honest. Surely you don't really believe this. Everyone slips up, many find a limit to their courage, others make excuses.

Now she seems to be saying that LDS lie "for the Lord" and yet are honest (obviously, other than when they are speaking about "the Lord"). This is fair to say because there are no totally honest people, and because people often are one way with many, if not most, areas of their lives, and yet another way with one or two other areas.

Humans are complicated. Human life is complicated. If you are going to describe either, the inherent contradiction of human nature and human life is bound to come through in your description - if the description is at all accurate at least.

Those who try to hold this against her, let alone extend it to all ex-mormons, may want to take a long look in a magnifying mirror.

May God bless us all with His Power, and the circumstances if needed, to face our own contradictions and, with the ensuing humility, learn to relate more honestly with ourselves, others, and with God Almighty.

Edited August 12, 2012 by spartacus

[Storm Rider]

Ex-Mormons that are incapable of leaving the LDS Church alone are such an odd lot. They hang on to that which they say they abhor and seek to destroy; unable to just walk away, lay the burden aside, and enjoy their life. Impossible for them to seek out peace instead they dream up inane, cliches in order to destroy the faith of others. All the while, don't worry about me, it is not for sin that I am here, nor is it because something is wrong; I have just outgrown that simple, stupid church that was holding me back from my real potential. They need to get a life and yet are so broken they cannot leave that which they have condemned. Just make a decision and don't let the door hit you on the way out, as my dad would say.

Are humans perfect and do humans lie? No humans are not perfect and all humans lie to some degree. What is so ridiculous about this attack is that it posits that the LDS Church and LDS families teach their members to lie when it comes to some topics. We don't really know which topics and we don't have a lesson book that addresses it, but all LDS are controlled by a vulcan mind lock that results in everyone thinking and acting in lock-step on this single issue. It is sad to see how ignorant some people can be to believe this type of gibberish.

It all goes to to show you that it does not matter how willing we are to serve the Lord at an earlier stage of life; if we are not willing to serve him today, if we turn our back on him, we can fall to such depths that we willingly do the work of the evil one. They have sold their souls for pride, no silver was even needed.

[Grebdo]

I also have wondered why Ex-Mormons cannot leave the church alone but I don’t really think they are an “odd lot.” Rather, I think many are just normal folks having a difficult time abandoning a religion they have perhaps spent a considerable part of their life in and then found it impossible to believe. It’s all part of the normal grieving process. They discover some of the many things outside of what is taught in the lesson manual and think they have been lied to. I think some are genuinely upset and grieve while others just see it as an easy excuse to get out of a church they were not all that committed to in the first place.

I don’t think the church consciously teaches people to lie but I can certainly see the point of those that do. The phrase: “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is not always apparent in the lesson manuals. We all know about the lesson manual on Brigham Young and his “wife.” Omitting or distorting pertinent information for whatever reason is inherently dishonest.

And no, I don’t see genuine distress at losing ones faith as selling ones soul for pride. I give many Ex-Mormons credit for truly searching out the issues, regardless of the outcome.

[Storm Rider]

I also have wondered why Ex-Mormons cannot leave the church alone but I don’t really think they are an “odd lot.” Rather, I think many are just normal folks having a difficult time abandoning a religion they have perhaps spent a considerable part of their life in and then found it impossible to believe. It’s all part of the normal grieving process. They discover some of the many things outside of what is taught in the lesson manual and think they have been lied to. I think some are genuinely upset and grieve while others just see it as an easy excuse to get out of a church they were not all that committed to in the first place.

I don’t think the church consciously teaches people to lie but I can certainly see the point of those that do. The phrase: “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is not always apparent in the lesson manuals. We all know about the lesson manual on Brigham Young and his “wife.” Omitting or distorting pertinent information for whatever reason is inherently dishonest.

And no, I don’t see genuine distress at losing ones faith as selling ones soul for pride. I give many Ex-Mormons credit for truly searching out the issues, regardless of the outcome.

When ex-Mormon is written we generally are not talking about an individual who has simply left the Church. We are talking about a specific type of individual who leaves the Church and then does not leave it alone. It appears they cannot cease denigrating the Church, its members, its teachings and its beliefs. They spend hours each week in this pursuit; the Church remains a major part of their lives for the simple reason they refuse to move on.

This is not the typical grieving process that is often used by those who seek to excuse this practice. We are talking about individuals who are stuck and consciously refuse to leave. They are filled with bitterness and can't get it out.

There is no comparison between these individuals and those who simply move on to a new faith. Those people who find a new faith are not filled with bitterness or appear compelled to denigrate LDS, the LDS Church, etc. They have just moved on.

[Smith]

Do exmormons slip up when they make this contradiction?

In my opinion they slipped up when they decided to become "Ex".

[Carborendum]

I hate Mormons. But I don't want to be labelled as a Mormon hater.

Mormons are evil. But I don't I don't want to be labeled as a Mormon hater, so I'll say I believe they are not evil just after I said they are evil.

Mormons lie. But I don't I don't want to be labeled as a Mormon hater, so I have to say they're honest.

Mormons are a cult. I don't really know what that word means, so I'm going to just make up a definition just so I can use such a hate-filled word to describe them. But I'm not a Mormon hater.

[robuchan]

For many years (ie 1830's through early 1900's), church leaders lied publicly about the role of polygamy in the church. These men were considered honest, upright men for the most part. So there's a precedent. I'm sure there are other precedents. It can happen when people have a strong commitment to an organization.

[why me]

For many years (ie 1830's through early 1900's), church leaders lied publicly about the role of polygamy in the church. These men were considered honest, upright men for the most part. So there's a precedent. I'm sure there are other precedents. It can happen when people have a strong commitment to an organization.

I don't think so. If knowledge would have gotten out the that saints were practicing polygamy, they would have been wiped out. We already see what happened when in utah the saints were openly practicing polygamy: the US army were on its way. Never mind what would have occurred in Nauvoo. Survival can do this to people.

[robuchan]

I don't think so. If knowledge would have gotten out the that saints were practicing polygamy, they would have been wiped out. We already see what happened when in utah the saints were openly practicing polygamy: the US army were on its way. Never mind what would have occurred in Nauvoo. Survival can do this to people.

So you're saying this was an appropriate time in the LDS church for men to lie publicly for a greater good? OK...

Seems like you've established a large part of the premise you're arguing against.

[thesometimesaint]

robucan:

Your friend runs to your home asking you to save him for a bunch of thugs. So you take him in and minutes later the thugs come to your door. They ask if you know where your friend is.

Now the question is do your lie?

[KevinG]

I understand what you are saying, because when I hear the catalog of disfunctional behaviors and beliefs of apolegetics, I understand why they became apolegetists for the church.

Not quite. I was referring to the fact that our own dysfunctional behaviors as families and ward/branch brethren and sisters is probably responsible for as much apostasy as any "shocking" bit of history or struggle with living the laws of the gospel.

But you took the bait quite nicely and played the blame game. Congratulations!

[KevinG]

I had a professor at BYU that decided he would try to live a completely congruent life. In other words never tell a falsehood or misrepresent anything no matter the cost.

The experiment abruptly ended at a faculty dinner when the department head's wife asked what he thought of her dress.

[robuchan]

robucan:

Your friend runs to your home asking you to save him for a bunch of thugs. So you take him in and minutes later the thugs come to your door. They ask if you know where your friend is.

Now the question is do your lie?

Yes, I lie.

Next question?

[robuchan]

I had a professor at BYU that decided he would try to live a completely congruent life. In other words never tell a falsehood or misrepresent anything no matter the cost.

The experiment abruptly ended at a faculty dinner when the department head's wife asked what he thought of her dress.

It appears this thread has gone 180 degrees from denying the possibility Mormons could lie to protect the organization while being honest and upright in the rest of their lives to defending the concept of righteous lying.

[selek1]

She is limited by her subject.

This is partially correct.

She is limited by her subject only in the sense that Ann Romney and her husband have not provided critics with an endless stream of personal foibles and inconsistencies ala Newt Gingrich.

One almost feels Emmett's pain.

More to the point, however, Emmett is limited by her agenda.

The "you people" meme is a dead-giveaway. While it served as a minor sensation Twitterpate and media "gotcha" for roughly fifteen seconds (rather than the usual fifteen minutes), it has been dismissed/discredited/denounced by every reaosonable listener and even by most of the "mainstream" media.

It is currently accepted as "TRVTH" only in the most rabid enclaves of Obamadolaters.

Emmett's repetition of the discredited meme reveals two things- neither of which are flattering to her agenda:

- first, that this is a political attack, rather than an honest (or not-so-honest) discussion of Mormons in general.

-second, that Obama and his supporters are frantic to land a blow- any blow- on the political opposition.

That's why we've seen Harry Reid circulating the bogus tax nonsense. That's why 86% of the recent media coverage of Romney has been negative- and use exactly the same talking points.

That's why the Obama campaign and the DNC have been circulating the hateful, vile, and utterly desperate Coptic Cancer ad.

They will say anything- no matter how transparently false- to hold on to power.

Emmett's piece is more of the same.

By using a dishonest and dicredited media example to bolster her point, Emmett reveals that her own starched skirts are less than lily-white.

She attempts to assert that Mormons are institutionally (if not personnaly) dishonest by lying herself.

Having seen that she's willing to use falsehoods to advance her agenda. we have no reason to trust anything she says- which brings us to the second point:

A quote attributed to P.T. Barnum states, "You can fool some of the people some of the time."

Rather than focussing on his own accomplishments and agenda to win reelection, the Obama camp is pinning all of their hopes on fooling "just enough" to win an electoral majority.

Emmett's diatribe is nothing more than a means toward that end.*

I understand what you are saying, because when I hear the catalog of disfunctional behaviors and beliefs of apolegetics, I understand why they became apolegetists for the church.

This pathetic, snarly attempt at a tu quoque might have worked before we got to know the real you.

Having seen your agenda and what you are truly capable of elsewhere, one can only conclude "that dog won't hunt".

* Of course, it's equally a sign of desperation that- having discovered nothing they have thrown will stick to the wall- Obama and his people are now recycling other people's attacks in the hopes that they will be more effective.

Edited August 12, 2012 by selek1

[Carborendum]

OK. So, if we're talking about the article being a hit piece, I think we've established most of us think so. But the question (if we can divorce the question from the article) is if we can lie and still be honest.

1)http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+20:12&version=KJV

Abraham said Sarah was his sister to avoid being killed to take her away from him. In the end he pointed out that she was his half-sister, therefore it wasn't really a lie, but it certainly left out important details that would have completely altered the perception of the situation.

2) Old Joke:

Attorney #1: Did you not say to the officer that you "Never felt better in your life?"

Witness: Yes, I did.

Att #1: So, are you lying now or did you lie then?

Witness: I lied then.

Att #1: So we need to trust a liar to tell us that he is telling us the truth now. No further questions.

Att #2: Would you mind telling the court the circumstance in which you told him that?

Witness: After the accident the officer went to the horse and found he had a broken leg. So he took his gun out and shot it. Then he went over to the dog that had a broken jaw. So he took his gun and shot him. Then he came over to me and asked me how I felt...

Edited August 12, 2012 by Carborendum

[Deborah]

Pilate asked the question "What is truth?" But the verse preceding this is what is interesting: "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." (John 18:37)

Some could say that Jesus was being evasive when he said "Thou sayest." He further said that his reason for coming was to bear witness to the truth and then he said that those who hear his voice are of the truth. Lying is an interesting word and needs to be understood in context. It seems from other scriptures that lying is condemned only when one denies God. As has been mentioned all of us lie and sometimes to protect others. How then can that be a sin?

Many of those who accuse the church of lying either don't know or don't bother to tell the whole story, which in itself is a lie and anything historical has to be looked at in context. To ignore the context is also a form of lying. To not respond to something that isn't quite true or because we don't have all the facts or know the context is not lying but simply saying as Christ said to Pilate "thou sayest." The fact was that Christ did come to teach the truth at that time not claim his kingdom. But that is something that has to be understood in the context of the Atonement and the whole pre-mortal existence and afterlife.

Lying for the Lord? Or is it simply not telling the whole story because we either don't have it or the explanation would require groundwork and a more detailed explanation than can be given in the context of the moment?

[cwald]

Not quite. I was referring to the fact that our own dysfunctional behaviors as families and ward/branch brethren and sisters is probably responsible for as much apostasy as any "shocking" bit of history or struggle with living the laws of the gospel.

But you took the bait quite nicely and played the blame game. Congratulations!

You're probably right. I apologize.

Edited August 12, 2012 by cwald

[cwald]

Double post

Edited August 12, 2012 by cwald