Exmormon Contradiction

[supersnail]

“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.”

Imagine someone saying something like that about Roman Catholicism or Islam.

[selek1]

Imagine someone saying something like that about Roman Catholicism or Islam.

They already have- and worse, because of the contraception mandate, the opposition to homosexual adoption, and support for Prop 8.

This sort of character assassination is old hat for the Chicago machine.

Now that Paul Ryan is the Veep nominee, the attack dogs will become far more focussed and explicit in their anti-Catholic smears.

[supersnail]

I suppose when one is introduced to Brigham Young as a young child, that may not be the best time to get into the details of the history and theology of plural marriage. If Latter-day Saints talked about plural marriage in a brief biography for young children that presented Brigham Young as a role model, no doubt anti-Mormons would see another reason to accuse Mormons of conspiring to promote an illegal perversion.

Not that their thinking is correct, but to a degree I understand where some ex-Mormons, who were Mormons as children before the advent of the World Wide Web, may be coming from. I really don't understand how adult converts can claim they were lied to. FAIR has been around for some 15 years. That should tell you something. An adult who expresses surprise about Brigham Young and plural marriage may either be lazy or have an integrity problem themselves.

"Polygamy"-related defamations of Mormonism are still common two centuries later. If an adult wanted to explore the topic, he or she could do so. No Mormon has ever lied to me, and the church quite publicly says, "In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it." If you didn't see that practically on the front page of mormon.org, that's your problem.

Edited August 12, 2012 by supersnail

[spartacus]

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.

Thus what I said above:

Humanity's inherent self-contradiction.

And again, the OP was about an unacceptable contradiction on Emmett's part. Others have tried to spread this to all ex-mormons, but the contradiction is unavoidable when speaking in any comprehensive way about humans.

As for Emmett's intentions, that is a different subject, which appears to be where this thread is going.

[why me]

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.

Unfortunately, the saints were not free to practice their religion at that time. There was much persecution. If polygamy would have become public knowledge the barbarians would have been at the gates. For public safety, it needed to be denied.

[why me]

Yes, I lie.

Next question?

Also, not telling the truth about nauvoo polygamy was not lying for the lord. It was lying to save lives.

[why me]

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.

What is lying for the lord? Can you define it? I don't consider the nauvoo denial lying for the lord. The people of nauvoo suffered much persecution while in Missiouri and sought peace and safety in Nauvoo. If you were a resident of nauvoo in 1841 would you want the hords at the gate to know about polygamy?

[Buzzard]

What is lying for the lord? Can you define it? I don't consider the nauvoo denial lying for the lord. The people of nauvoo suffered much persecution while in Missiouri and sought peace and safety in Nauvoo. If you were a resident of nauvoo in 1841 would you want the hords at the gate to know about polygamy?

"Lying for the Lord" is whatever the ex- and anti-mormons deem it too be. I guess the first discussion would need to be changed to a presentation on polygamy and what BY said about Adam-God, but they would still find something to whine about. If I may wax bold, they seem to be somewhat tinged with dishonesty themselves.

[LyleJ]

Quinn McKay has a book titled "Is Lying Sometimes the Right Thing for an Honest Person to do?" Fascinating book.

He asked some students in a business ethics class what it means to be an honest person. "A feeble mental struggle ensued. Do we have to be 100 percent honest to merit the title? Honest 95 percent of the time? Will 75 or 51 percent do? We agreed not to use the term "honest person" until the class had devised a definition. Three months later when the class concluded no student was willing to use the term....Just like my students, most people are simply unaware of the nature of unethical behavior."

Regarding the laws of the land, tens of thousands exist on the books. Everyone breaks some kind of law all the time. My favorate question on this is: what is a "law-abiding" citizen? How many laws do we need to keep in order to be a law-abiding citizen?

When the bishop asks you in your interview for a temple recommend "are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?" do you say "yes" or "I try?" The former is the expected answer but the latter is more likely the realistic answer. y/n?

[CV75]

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?

I would say this reflects the difference between intention and intent (just like the difference between “wish” and “hope”, or “belief” and “faith”). "Intention" is having decided to do something while "intent" is the sincere will to actually do it. So "intent" is the stronger indicator of one’s future course of action (just like hope is stronger than wishing and faith is stronger than belief).

In this case, she may be saying that Mormons intend to be honest (they have the intention) but lack the actual intent – they cannot actually be honest within the parameters set for them by their religious standards. Where their ability to possess intent has been removed, they are not aware of their dishonesty and are good people doing the best with the light they have within a faulty system. Kind of like when we invite people to keep all the good they have (though they have a lot of error) and add to it with what we have.

The slip-up of course is in 1) making the generalization (without being honest about having rejected LDS standards) that LDS behave differently than any other person immersed in a particular set of religious or cultural mores (and how honesty is observed therein), and 2) the suggestion that Mormons lack her truer standard of honesty.

[Alvino]

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

Ahem!

If you don't like people naively generalizing from their experiences with some bad apples to all Mormons, don't do this with us (I'm an ex-Mormon). Neither have you taken the time to really getting to know a fraction of the people who have left the Church, nor do we seriously know most members of the Church.

[CV75]

I suppose when one is introduced to Brigham Young as a young child, that may not be the best time to get into the details of the history and theology of plural marriage. If Latter-day Saints talked about plural marriage in a brief biography for young children that presented Brigham Young as a role model, no doubt anti-Mormons would see another reason to accuse Mormons of conspiring to promote an illegal perversion.

I agree--it would be very dishonest to tell someone all you know when you know they will not honestly understand it, doing them more harm than good.

I don't see any of this kind of step-wise communication (line up line, precept upon precept) as designed to protect the Church. It protects the person's agency by giving him enough to act on. Too much truth at once results in paralysis / inaction / rejection and disables progress. This is a matter ofdiscernment and good judgement, and the most benevolent means of sharing information.

[Alvino]

"Lying for the Lord" is whatever the ex- and anti-mormons deem it too be.

No. Lying is saying something you believe to be false as if it were true with the intention of being believed as true.

[Stargazer]

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.

I suppose that the Dutch people who knew that their neighbors were harboring Jews when the Gestapo came to question them should just have fessed up and ratted their neighbors out. Their neighbors were breaking the law, after all. And honesty is the best policy, sure.

[KevinG]

You're probably right. I apologize.

Classy. Thank you. I will drop my indignation and admit to laying a trap.

Sorry.

[Alvino]

Unfortunately, the saints were not free to practice their religion at that time. There was much persecution. If polygamy would have become public knowledge the barbarians would have been at the gates. For public safety, it needed to be denied.

I would defend that lying is indeed some times all right or good and being honest is immoral at points. However, I'm not a believer.

You should ask yourself some questions here, believers:

1) Is there any situation conceivable in which God Himself should lie and has He? That is, is there ANY situation conceivable in which we would ask "What would Jesus do in this situation?", who was also God, and answer with "He should lie"?

2) When and why is lying ever necessary for Mormons if you think God, the most powerful being of all, is on your side? (I ask this because there are several stories in your holy books where God protected those who put themselves in some serious risks by being honest and choosing not to lie... why them but not you?)

Edited August 12, 2012 by Alvino

[Carborendum]

When the bishop asks you in your interview for a temple recommend "are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow men?" do you say "yes" or "I try?"

For many years I said something along the lines of the latter. I explained there are times like that BYU professor was asked how a lady looked in that dress. But with every bishop and stake president I've had (and I've had a lot of them) they simply said,"Yeah. That's not what we're talking about."

[Carborendum]

No. Lying is saying something you believe to be false as if it were true with the intention of being believed as true.

So you agree that omissions, incompletions, and unqualified answers are NOT lies. I agree.

1) You cannot ever give a complete answer to a complex issue in a 30 second sound bite. And often we're not even afforded that much time.

2) People lose interest when you put in too many qualifiers and exceptions.

3) Even if you give one general qualifier like "there are exceptions to this" they still see it as you dodging the issue--or LYING.

I say the above from personal experience of trying to be as complete and as honest as possible. If someone is set on you being wrong/evil/dishonest, then it doesn't matter how much you explain things. They'll just ignore 99% of what you said and pull out the one sentence that they deem to be controversial and spin, spin, spin.

Given that, I'd rather just give a short answer and have them spin that. Oh, look. They already did.

[Alvino]

So you agree that omissions, incompletions, and unqualified answers are NOT lies.

They may or may not be. The kicker is that you have to say stuff with the intent of making someone believe it is true when you know it's false (inaccurate is a better word, I should have used that one). If you speak about an issue omitting key details, therefore, portraying an issue in a way that you know is not the correct way so as to deceive them into a falsehood, then you are lying. I'm not talking about stating false propositions or propositions that you believe are false, but about doing something much more general. That is, to paint a picture that you believe is false or misleading with the intent of being believed as if it were true.

1) You cannot ever give a complete answer to a complex issue in a 30 second sound bite. And often we're not even afforded that much time.

What issues and what situations where sound bites are required are you talking about? You obviously are trying to defend specific instances here where some have believed Mormons had lied. What are they?

2) People lose interest when you put in too many qualifiers and exceptions

3) Even if you give one general qualifier like "there are exceptions to this" they still see it as you dodging the issue--or LYING.

This doesn't justify much in real life. If what you say isn't found to be interesting by folks, one shouldn't look for ways to introduce entertaining falsehoods or half truths but should look for ways to state the accurate more interestingly.

Even if we forget the option of making what we know to be accurate interesting as even a viable option, the question becomes, how much of an inaccurate picture are you willing to paint for making it how much of an interesting picture? How much inaccuracies are you willing to consciously tell someone for gaining (or not losing) someone's attention? Doesn't seem like that much of a worthy cause even on those terms.

I say the above from personal experience of trying to be as complete and as honest as possible. If someone is set on you being wrong/evil/dishonest, then it doesn't matter how much you explain things. They'll just ignore 99% of what you said and pull out the one sentence that they deem to be controversial and spin, spin, spin.

Given that, I'd rather just give a short answer and have them spin that. Oh, look. They already did.

This is more of a pedagogical problem, than an honesty problem (which is the issue of the thread).

Carborendum, I still think we are not addressing the real principles behind these "lying for the Lord" problems and if you were to attempt to answer the questions I posted, then I think that would really help. Here they are again:

"1) Is there any situation conceivable in which God Himself should lie and has He? That is, is there ANY situation conceivable in which we would ask "What would Jesus do in this situation?", who was also God, and answer with "He should lie"?

2) When and why is lying ever necessary for Mormons if you think God, the most powerful being of all, is on your side? (I ask this because there are several stories in your holy books where God protected those who put themselves in some serious risks by being honest and choosing not to lie... why them but not you?)"

Edited August 12, 2012 by Alvino

[DavidB]

A interesting article. Nothing of substance to it in my opinion.

Mormons are good people, but some Mormons lie.

People are general good people, but some people lie.

[selek1]

Ahem!

If you don't like people naively generalizing from their experiences with some bad apples to all Mormons, don't do this with us (I'm an ex-Mormon). Neither have you taken the time to really getting to know a fraction of the people who have left the Church, nor do we seriously know most members of the Church.

While I am figting (desperately) to surpressing the urge to snicker at the pious affrontery on display, I also feel compelled to point out that it is the litany of complaints that are being derided, not necessarily the complaintants.

In that regard, there really is nothing new under the sun.

[Carborendum]

The kicker is that you have to say stuff with the intent of making someone believe it is true when you know it's (inaccurate)...

I agree. But I found too many that are too willing to judge ANYthing to have the "intent" of deceiving.

What issues and what situations where sound bites are required are you talking about?

The OP referred to the radio interview with Joanna Brooks. On a personal level, the various verbal attacks I was hounded with in my youth were perfect examples where I couldn't even finish a sentence before the opposition would jump in and interrupt me.

If what you say isn't found to be interesting by folks...

You missed my point. But that was a perfect example of ignoring 99% of a position and cherry picking what you want to argue about.

And, no, honesty is not the subject of the thread. The OP asked if there is a contradiction in saying "They are taught to lie, but they are honest people."

1) Is there any situation conceivable in which God Himself should lie and has He?

Not God Himself. But I pointed out in a previous post that God told Abraham to lie specifically to withhold information that would alter the perception of the whole story.

As to the second question. Same reference.

EDIT: I'll also add that to ask those questions in the manner you did presupposes that we are lying when we omit details that we feel don't matter. It is only those who are looking for fault will believe this to be deception.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Carborendum

[why me]

So you agree that omissions, incompletions, and unqualified answers are NOT lies. I agree.

1) You cannot ever give a complete answer to a complex issue in a 30 second sound bite. And often we're not even afforded that much time.

2) People lose interest when you put in too many qualifiers and exceptions.

3) Even if you give one general qualifier like "there are exceptions to this" they still see it as you dodging the issue--or LYING.

I say the above from personal experience of trying to be as complete and as honest as possible. If someone is set on you being wrong/evil/dishonest, then it doesn't matter how much you explain things. They'll just ignore 99% of what you said and pull out the one sentence that they deem to be controversial and spin, spin, spin.

Given that, I'd rather just give a short answer and have them spin that. Oh, look. They already did.

The problem comes from the expression Lying for the Lord. This is what Emmett brings up. That people lie in the church for the lord and yet, mormons are kind and honest. I see it as a contradiction that many exmormons make. Now did mormons lie about polygamy to protect themselves in the early 1840's. I think so. But it wasn't lying for the lord. It was lying to protect their homes, lives and religion. We also need to remember that the mormons had quite a large mormon militia more than willing to protect the saints. It would have been a bloody encounter.

So, where does the lds church lie for the lord? It seems that this has become an exmormon soundbite often repeated and yet, not proved.

Edited August 13, 2012 by why me

[why me]

A interesting article. Nothing of substance to it in my opinion.

Mormons are good people, but some Mormons lie.

People are general good people, but some people lie.

The problem doesn't come with lying. It comes with lying for the lord, which is what exmormons enjoy proclaiming about lds leaders and its members. However, mormons are kind and honest.

[DavidB]

The problem doesn't come with lying. It comes with lying for the lord, which is what exmormons enjoy proclaiming about lds leaders and its members. However, mormons are kind and honest.

"lying for the Lord"....yes this concept is a very unfortunate criticism of the Church.