Skip to comments.Mormon Profits and Lying
Posted on 04/05/2011 1:15:18 AM PDT by delacoert
I once observed to a Mormon friend that Gordon B. Hinckley, late president of the Mormon Church, publicly lied when it suited him. No, I didnt simply up and assault my friends faith. That would be bad manners. He and I discussed religion often; this happened to come up in the course of one of our conversations.
Lied? said my Mormon friend. Name one instance.
Without having to think hard or research, I came up with three:
1. When Hinckley served as an assistant to his predecessor, Ezra Taft Benson, he repeatedly assured church members that Benson was actively engaged in managing the affairs of the church. Bensons grandson exposed the lie: Ezra was a vegetable, and had been for years. (Curiously, the reaction of church members was to reprimand the grandson, now no longer a Mormon, for stirring up trouble.)
2. During an interview on the Larry King Show, King brought up the Mormon doctrine that humans could attain godhood in the next life. Hinckley said, I dont know that our church teaches that. Attaining godhood in the hereafter is central to Mormon theology. Hinckley of all people knew that.
3. During an interview held in Australia, Hinckley unequivocally stated that polygamy is not doctrinal. He knew better. Section 132 of the Mormons own book of scripture, Doctrine and Covenants, spells out polygamy as not just a doctrine, but a commandment.
In each instance, my friend defended Hinckley with, You can see why he had to say that, and invoked the tired old milk-before-meat argument.
Interesting. He began by denying that his leader lied, and finished by defending his leader for having lied.
Official lying is not new to the Mormon church. In 1838, when asked point-blank if Mormons believed in having more wives than one, founder Joseph Smith said, No, not at the same time. Smith had been practicing polygamy in secret since 1831. In 1890, Smiths successor Wilford Woodruff publicly and officially proclaimed the Mormon practice of polygamy ended. It continued in secret, and not just by grandfathering already-performed plural marriages. For decades, new ones proceeded with official, albeit clandestine authority.
Not that the Mormon church is the exception. Dig through any churchs history and youll find lies, scandals and coverups. Its just that I happen to live in Utah, where the Mormon Church is headquartered, and where Mormons quite naturally abound. And I was once a practicing Mormon convert myself, so I know the churchs doctrines and practices well.
Ping for later.....
The bit at the end is a pathetic dodge under the cover of vestigial Mormon loyalty — “Dig through any churchs history and youll find lies, scandals and coverups.”
The written word from the profits as recorded in the Bible is entirely free of lies. This reference to “lies and scandals” no bearing on the testimony of biblical profits. The walk and works of Mormon profits is an unavoidable shambles, however.
"We all ought to be members of the ACLU," said Michael Young, a Latter-day Saint and a descendant of Utah colonizer Brigham Young, in a question-and-answer session after addressing the LDS International Society at Brigham Young University during a conference on the erosion of religious liberties.
Ironically, I think he was partially correct
Get a life. This is a political not a religious forum. Some free advice: if you nevertheless feel an overwhelming urge to post something containing slander, try and delay the fulfillment of your desire until you are able locate some kind of for it source (not one of the three points of alleged lying has any kind of documentation or source)for your breaking news btw, President Hinckley died three years ago .
What are you talking about? This is the Religion forum! This is the perfect place to put this thread.
Now you are claiming the posted article is slander?! So you deny the 3 examples that were posted? If someone does provide sources, will you retract your statement that it is slander?
If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
Sure, be happy to.
Just curious. Are you saying that the poster didn't provide documentation or a source, or are you saying that there IS no documentation or source for any of the poster's statements and that none of them, therefore, are true statements?
If one wants to engage in pure polemic religious debate there are plenty of pure religion forums for those with that inclination.
My suspicion on the wide majority of religious polemic that gets posted on Free Republic is not that people want to engage in a pursuit of truth...they are mostly recycled ideas...this story is what 3 years old? But rather that people do it fulfill their base desire to slander another religion (and again I will repeat the point that I made in my original post: that Free Republic is not the place for fulfill one's urge to slander another religion).
I’m say both
I’m saying both
Hinckley lying on Larry King
Hinckley on 60 minutes lying about why blacks were not allowed to join
Understood. You have an absolute right to your faith and testimony.
Are you familiar with the term "faith-promoting history," introduced in 1991 by now President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles Boyd K. Packer?
I will be away from the computer for several hours.
Thank You, but my reply was a request for neither faith or testimony...is was for fact. This is a conservative political forum...where is the tie-in to political conservativism in this post? If one can’t help themselves but to post random (unrelated to any current event) self promoting slander at least have the courtesy to provide a source of the slander.
You are on the religion forum - this forum does not have to tie into political discussion. Discussion of religious topics, including whether or not certain religions promote false teachings is completely acceptable on the religion forum. If you don’t like it, stay off the religion forum.
Also, you keep making the statement that the posted article is slanderous. What exactly do you dispute from the article?
Your moniker states you’ve been around since 1999
And you haven’t figured out how things are linked here?
You haven’t figured out that “Browse by Forum”
states “Religion” religious discussions would ACTUALLY take place there?
Provided with additional links substantuating the article you still can’t figure out that the term ‘slander’ is inappropriate?
Even when the RM posts to you, you ignore the guidance and continue to insist upon politics only.
You are a very puzzling person.
This is a conservative political forum...where is the tie-in to political conservativism in this post?
Do you expend this amount of energy telling folks in the Chat forum there is no "tie-in to political conservatism"? How about the Smoky Backroom? Bloggers forum?
You have yet to prove the posted material is slander, so in continuing to assert that it is without substantive proof, is discourteous.
What exactly would you say is the purpose of this post? What is current about it? What is relevant about it? What is conservative about it?
Look at all of the other posts. Everyone else posting seems to recognize that this is a conservative political forum (and if it is a religious topic it should still have a conservative political tie-in). This post sticks out like a sore thumb. It doesn't belong. It has nothing to contribute to contribute to a conservative political discussion
It is unsubstantiated slander and embarrassing.
So - you can still can’t point out one thing that is wrong with the article, yet you continue to call it slander? How are you adding value to the discussion?
You seem to be confused with how the different forums work here, which is strange, since you apparently have been here awhile. If you don’t want to see posts from the Religion forum then you can browse by forum - meaning don’t go the “Everything” forum.
Who made you the arbitrator to decide that every religious topic must tie into current political events? This thread is very much in line what typically goes in in the Religion forum; you apparently are confused with the different forums....
HH, please refresh your memory of the RF rules. But for the record, it is JR who set this forum up for religious discussion w/o the need for a 'political' tie-in. If you have a problem with that - take it up with him.
It is unsubstantiated slander and embarrassing.
It has been substantiated and the only thing embarrassing are your posts.
Courtesy ping to JR because of the reference.
Also, discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Let me help you out a bit. It wasn’t really that hard to find supporting information regarding the thread. A simple search provided many sources...I suppose the only question left is, will the sources be “acceptable”.
1) Benson not managing church affairs -
2) Man attaining godhood -
Question: “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?”
Hinckley: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
3) Polygamy -
Hinckley interview, stating that polygamy was very restricted during it’s implementation and discontinued.
[However, D&C 132 has not been removed/deleted due to the purported “revelation” and eternal polygamy/celestial marriage is still a key component of “exaltation”.]
Most visitors to Free Republic are attracted to our very popular (and, warning: addictive) conservative news and discussion forum which can be found by clicking here or following any of the forum links in the sidebars.
Any topic, including religious topics (maybe especially religious topics) that does not have relation to a current conservative news topic is an abuse of the forum (for the purpose of spreading propaganda with a personal agenda). If you are an adult, it should not require someone else to point this out to you (or that they dont have ballet performances during football games).
You have thus far failed to support your accusation with ANY evidence that the statements that you characterize as slander are actually false and malicious.
Is is presumed that you are capable of understanding the basics.
The RM clarified this forum’s purpose here:
You are just another poster - and as such have no say as to the content of this forum. You can quote the FR home page all you want - you are not in that particular forum. Are you presuming to tell JR what to do with this forum?
You don’t like the discussions here - then leave.
I find that disappointing and puzzling. Well then, best wishes on your random posts that do not even make an attempt to provide a connection to a conservative political discussion or current event. Since that is what I come to the forum for, Ill be sure to avoid your posts in the future. Cheers
Slander: false, and defamatory statement
Please show what is false and/or defamatory in this post.
Thats OK delacoert, HH is a hit and run type mormon poster. Unable to function within the rules of the forum as laid out and unable to argue the facts of the matter, it becomes easier to raise the strawman of ‘political only’ speech as a means to try to shut down discussions. This all at the same time epically failing to prove the claims of slander.
Hint - you won’t see him on anyother FR RF thread speaking the same hog slobber.
The problem, seriously, is how you define 'fact.'
When LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer implemented the LDS Church's policy of "faith-promoting history' in 1991, he specifically stated that Mormon historians should not publish or state facts about the church's history unless they promote faith. He stated his concern that new members ('seedlings in faith", i believe he called them) could be turned away if they knew all of the church's history, so that only positive facts about the LDS church should be published.
All published facts should be filtered through the historian's faith and testimony, not through academic standards. (This was not entirely new; Apostle Ezra Taft Benson had admonished LDS historians in 1976 and 1981, and perhaps on other occasions, that they shouldn't follow the tenets of their profession if it damaged the church or destroyed the faith of members, and BYU professor Louis C. Midgley gave a presentation to LDS historians in 1981 in which he said it was "depressing" to see LDS historians committed to 'objective history" instead of "acting out the role . . . of faithful Saint.")
A BYU professor gave a speech to 40 BYU history students on the conflict between academic truth as a historian and Packer's 'faith-promoting history" standard and the BYU student newspaper published an article about it.
Newsweek published an article on the conflict between LDS church leadership and LDS historians.
The BYU history professor, D. Michael Quinn, had his temple recommend pulled.
Over 50 articles quickly appeared in periodicals such as Sunstone and Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought (both of which are mentioned in the LDS Church's Encyclopedia of Mormonism as having six benefits for Mormons) on the conflict between being a historian and being an LDS historian under the 'faith-promoting' standard. BYU's journal, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies specifically adopted the faith-promoting standard.
Articles appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals on 'how to read LDS history", including how to interpret common words as used uncommonly by LDS historians applying the 'faith-promoting' standard.
The LDS began to excommunicate or disenfellowship LDS historians who published books or articles that were not 'faith-promoting', i.e., were factually accurate, but contained facts that the church felt were damaging to the church or may cause members to question their faith. I believe it was September 1993 that the September Six were all excommunicated or disenfellowshipped. D. Michael Quinn published another book on how Joseph Smith and his family had been involved with divining, astrology, and other magic, and was excommunicated.
Other LDS historians have met the same punishment for disclosing facts that the church felt were unflattering or would cause members to doubt their faith, some recently.
As a result, the LDS church's official biography of Joseph Smith lists him as having only one wife. If you read deeply into the www.lds.org official history of the church, it will list Joseph's Smith's first polygamous wife - but it does not list Fanny Alger, the wife he took before he announced the doctrine of polygamy, thereby avoiding some issues (including the fact that Smith may not have actually married Alger, and an affair isn't seemly for Smith).
The 1997 Church publication on the teachings of Brigham Young, used for the education of adults in the church, refers to Young's 'wife' singular, not his wives. It does not mention Smith's teachings on the priesthood of blacks, Adam-God, or blood atonement.
Because non-LDS historians and non-LDS writers had access to many records (Packer and Benton had closed open access to the LDS archives, and the vault of the First Presidency was closed to virtually all historians), FAIR and other apologetic groups, not recognized by the LDS church, arose. These groups engage in a policy of deny, deny, deny . . . attack, attack, attack, when it comes to unfavorable church history.
Those involved with FAIR could simply rely on their faith and retain their testimony, but they spend their time attacking those who violate the LDS policy of reporting only faith-promoting history.
Members growing up in the church have a right to their religious beliefs, but they are led by the church to believe that they are told the full history of the church when in fact they are told only the 'faith-promoting' history.
I can find the citation and quotes from the FARMS journal if necessary, but one BYU professor wrote an article stating that historians who wrote LDS history that was not faith-promoting and contained historical facts that were detrimental to the church's image, or could cause LDS members to question their beliefs or what they had been taught by the church, or keep the church from gaining new members, were engaged in 'propaganda."
We've seen the term "propaganda" used frequently on FR by former member Paragon Defender, who took this BYU professor's article to heart, and by the writers for FAIR. Any disclosure of early church history, even if true, that casts the church or Joseph Smith in a less than perfect light is deemed "propaganda."
What's interesting is that FAIR publishes a different LDS history than the LDS church. For example, FAIR recognizes Fanny Alger as Joseph Smith's first wife.
At any rate, if you read things about the LDS church that you have not been taught, or that you have been taught by FAIR or apologetic groups are untrue, what's probably going on is application of the church standard of only publishing and acknowledging 'faith-promoting" history. Church members - such as LDS professors at BYU and other institutions - are required to do the same thing, or face possible loss of temple recommend, disenfellowshipment, or excommunication. It's been done; it's still being done.
Some will say this is like the Roman Catholic Church keeping silent when it settles sexual abuse cases against priests. The difference is that the Catholic Church, when confronted, doesn't deny that those cases were filed or that the settlements took place. And the Catholic Church does not kick out of the church priests, Notre Dame professors, and others if they write academic articles that mention abuse by the priests.
So that's why I say it all depends on what you mean by 'facts.'
if you mean hard-core, academic facts, as supported by normal academic standards, which would meet standard for publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then, yeah, the facts are there. If you mean 'facts' as in 'faith-promoting' facts, as determining by the church, that you won't lost your temple recommend for publishing, or be excommunicated for publishing, or at the very least be called before your bishop for publishing, then maybe not that highly controlled and censored set of facts.
Incidentally, Packer's "faith-promoting' speech was "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect." He presented it on August 22, 1981, to seminary, institute, and Brigham Young University religion instructors. It was subsequently published in Brigham Young University Studies 21 (Summer 1981), and issued as a pamphlet by the LDS Church Educational System. You may want to check page 271, where Packer says that distorting LDS church history is justified because "we are at war with the adversary."
BYU scholars agree.
David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson, in their article "Advocacy and Inquiry in Mormon Historiography," Brigham Young University Studies 31 (Spring 1991): 153, defend Mormon historians of faith-promoting motivation who "leave out less-than-desirable episodes, tell only one side of the story, or are incomplete in their treatment." In support of that, on page 176, note 76, they argue "that 'suppression of evidence' is in fact an essential step in the application of a 'viable tradition' of interpretation, not, we may add, merely an editorial right to be exercised."
So, yeah, if you get your information from the LDS church, or LDS historians, or FAIR, they've admitted that they are not going to give you facts that could cause you to question your faith, or show the church or Joseph Smith in an unfavorable light.
I do not want to question your religious beliefs. However, if you want to claim that you've been given all the facts, then I respectfully submit that you're wrong.
And you'll notice I didn't say other faiths disclose all of the facts of their faith.
But I'm not aware that any of them punish members and those in academia who dare to publish factual information if it casts the church in a bad light or could cause people to question their faith because things simply aren't as clean and tidy as you've been taught.
That's the same word that Paragon Defender used immediately whenever anyone stated anything he didn't like.
At least Kamakazi pilots wore helmets. PD (rest his zotted soul) and his compatriots don’t seem to know the definition of “come prepared”.
The Religion Forum has NOTHING to do with Conservatism. It is a place set aside to keep topics like this claptrap OUT of the main political forums ... it’s a good thing...magritte
No problem....this kind of claptrap pops up on my main screen because I like to read the Israel related topics and there’s no clown filter for the anti-Mormon threads...I like to try to keep conservatives out of them when I can...magritte
I'm sorry it was so long. The thing, is, I could have provided links to 80% of what I said, and footnotes to 15% more. I also could have written another 10,00 words on the subject. Some of the articles written BY LDS professors of history of religion on the conflict of academic honesty and being a 'loyal Saint." are fascinating.
Even more interesting is FAIR. Do you remember how PD's "stock" post warned about anti-LDS posters picking and choosing? I took him up on his offer and spent several days on the FAIRLDS website. Fascinating for many reasons. For example, there's a recent book on each of Joseph Smith's wives. FAIRLDS cites it for the premise that Smith may not have had sexual relations with one of the 14-year olds that he married. However, it then warns that the book has been criticized, and links the criticisms - all of which, if I remember, come from FARMS. I read the criticism. They consist of "well, there's not enough evidence that Smith married X, despite the sealing of them as man and wife in the Nauvoo temple records, and the author didn't filter his rewriting to making it spiritually uplifting." (in other words, we don't disagree with the facts, but some of this stuff made Smith look bad, like the fact you produced journals and other evidence that Smith went to the families of teenage girls and told them the salvation of the entire family depended on the girl marrying him, then took the girl in a room and told her that the entire family and the girl was damned unless she married him).
Then, FAIRLDS had a link to the book it had cited as evidence that Smith had never had sex with one of the 14-year old wives - a link that was a placeholder with canned text saying "its been determined this book has anti-mormon material in it and is LDS members shouldn't read it. We'll write about it when we get time."
In other words, we've cited it as authority, but we don't want you to read the authority, and we don't like the book, but we can't explain why and we've just put up this placeholder. The book, by the way, won the Mormon Book of the Year award.
There are lots of places where FAIRLDS comments that something is or isn't true, and has a 'link' or 'source' after it, suggesting that there's authority for the statement. However, if you click on the link, it takes you to a placeholder page, where FAIRLDS apparently intends to put some authority for its statement later, but there's no authority yet.
Sometimes, the authority for a statement is something like "if the reader doesn't understand the outstanding character of Joseph and Hiram Smith, then the reader had problems, because they were of sterling character and should not be questioned."
There's also a page where it says the character of the witnesses listed in the Book of Mormon cannot be questioned, and a link for each of them, suggesting supporting authority. Unfortunately, if you click on one of the links, you get a source stating that the individual was unstable in his religious views, changed them often, and could not be trusted as an individual.
Many of the other 'sources" are short papers written by FAIRLDS members.
You can see why the LDS church is not affiliated with FAIRLDS. FAIRLDS is laughable, but they are like bulldogs - deny, deny, deny, attack, attack, attack. I could write an long analysis of the site, with links, that would kneecap PD.
Why are you here? If you don’t like the RF stay off it.
M you keep repeating anti-mormon there are no anti-moron post it is anti-mormonISM.
Six of one, half dozen of the other...magritte