Thinking Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 LDS doctrine affirms that Satan is the "father of all lies." (see 2 Nephi 2:18)If some lies are OK, how can Satan be the the father of ALL lies? 1
why me Posted August 13, 2012 Author Posted August 13, 2012 LDS doctrine affirms that Satan is the "father of all lies." (see 2 Nephi 2:18)If some lies are OK, how can Satan be the the father of ALL lies?Who said okay. But they are understandable, especially to save a life or avoiding confrontations. And I am sure that lying would be understandable in other circumstances too, especially if married. Nothing worse than for a husband to say to a wife that she looks fat in that dress if asked. A no answer is understandable.
why me Posted August 13, 2012 Author Posted August 13, 2012 "lying for the Lord"....yes this concept is a very unfortunate criticism of the Church.They play it for all it is worth. I think that exmormons claim this because it sounds good and gives them some justification for their choices, regardless if it is false.
Storm Rider Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 To be honest I do not need to answer every question posed to me. To be honest I can still deflect or respond with another question. The Savior was quite adept at this practice; would anyone call him a liar for not answering every question posed to him? I reject the entire premise that leaders lied. The Savior counseled us in Matt 10:16 ¶Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Again, I do not have to anwer every question to maintain my honesty. I can and should be wise a serpent when dealing with wolves. 2
why me Posted August 13, 2012 Author Posted August 13, 2012 I reject the entire premise that leaders lied. The Savior counseled us in Matt 10:16 ¶Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. There was some lying over polygamy. But this lying was justified for the sake of saving lives. It was not a deceitful lie. But a life saving issue. It wasn't until felt that the saints were safe from harm that they make polygamy more public. Not coming clean in Nauvoo save countless lives since the outsiders would have been pretty riled up against the mormons.
robuchan Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 There was some lying over polygamy. But this lying was justified for the sake of saving lives. It was not a deceitful lie. But a life saving issue. It wasn't until felt that the saints were safe from harm that they make polygamy more public. Not coming clean in Nauvoo save countless lives since the outsiders would have been pretty riled up against the mormons.The lying that is done now is not deceitful. It's justified to save lives. The spiritual lives of so many members or investigators who might lose their testimony by being faced with unnecessary and unhelpful historical facts which are not vital to salvation. Not coming clean in the 21st century is saving countless lives since outsiders would be pretty riled up against Mormons.
Carborendum Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) The issue of polygamy in the Joanna Brooks article is a perfect example of not lying that some perceive as lying. In her case it was two issues.1) Why was this issue on her mind so much?She, personally, has a problem with polygamy. So in her mind those exceptions and conditions and so forth are a huge deal to her. I'm well aware of all the same issues. But I never really spend much time thinking about them. So, why would I take the time to even talk about them unless directly asked? I essentially consider it irrelavent. I think she was making a mountain out of a molehill.2) What was the question behind the question?For any honest, innocent, curious questioner who says,"Hey I've heard something about Mormons and polygamy. Do you guys still practice it?" The question behind that is, "If I were to stay with your family for a year and get to know every aspect of your family life, would I ever see you going back and forth between two women in your bed?" Answer "NO". There is no lie, because that answers the real question.For a critic, the actual question is,"What is the worst aspect about your past with polygamy and your current practices of faith that I can twist into something completely decadent to defame your faith?" Answer: "We don't practice it today."For Joanna Brooks, "As a feminist, I really hate the concept of polygamy. I know my faith has stopped the practice in all practical ways. But my goodness it bugs me. So, what little issues can I bring up to justify complaining about something that may or may not affect me in eternity?" Answer: "Let it go, man." Edited August 15, 2012 by Carborendum
Carborendum Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) A note on characterization and labelling contributing to whatever the "truth" is.The Arizona Republic (local newspaper) did an expose' on Mormons. They brought up polygamy. My companion read,"Although the church has abandoned polygamy about a century ago..."I said,"At least they got that part right."(continuing) "...they still practice a form of spiritual polygamy today."Scratching my head for a moment. "Maybe they're talking about if a wife dies and the husband gets remarried?""Yeah, that's what they describe here.""Whatever."A doctor found my blood was low in iron. I joked,"I need to rust more?""What?""Well, blood rusts because of iron. So, I need to rust more."Quizzical look."Rust is oxidized iron. Hemoglobin has iron in it. That iron is what transports oxygen by oxidizing at the right time. Thus it rusts.""Well, yeah. But that's not rust.""What part of my syllogism was incorrect?""Well...none of it, I suppose...but I'm not going to say it's rust."In the same vein, they can blabber about this "spiritual form of polygamy" all they want. I just don't consider us as practicing it today.See, what I did? "Vein"... Get it? Uh. a-hem. Edited August 16, 2012 by Carborendum
Recommended Posts