LDS Freedom Forum

I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately. Specifically I've seen threads/youtube postings of Holland lying about Mitt Romney taking a blood oath in the temple, Bruce R. McConkie saying there are no secret ordinances that aren't talked about to the church population when such is clearly the case with the second anointing, and most recently Holland holding up a copy of "the original book used by Hyrum Smith, with the page folded over" etc which, in fact, turned out not to be the actual book.

So I pose the questions 1) what are some other instances that could be called "lying for the lord"?, 2) is it ever okay for a general authority to tell a falsehood in order to promote faith, and 3) what are some apologetic responses to this when an outside Christian group might pose this as evidence that our Church was started by and is led by "false prophets" or "false teachers" according to the tests that Christ, Peter, and others give as written in the New Testament?

Thanks

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm

1) what are some other instances that could be called "lying for the lord"?,

Thanks

Polygamy polygamy polygamy. My personal opinion is that Joseph wasn't lying at all, but the mainstream belief is that he "lied for the Lord" about polygamy.

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm

2) is it ever okay for a general authority to tell a falsehood in order to promote faith
Thanks

Never

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm
3) what are some apologetic responses to this when an outside Christian group might pose this as evidence that our Church was started by and is led by "false prophets" or "false teachers" according to the tests that Christ, Peter, and others give as written in the New Testament?

Thanks

They are men, men are fallible.
David was fallible why wouldn't our leaders be.
Peter denied Christ 3 times.

I'm sure there's more, those are just the ones off the top of my head.

My kids only eat turkey if I tell them it is ham. So, I lie because I want them to eat turkey instead of ham. Because I know the way they interpret the truth is not in their best interest, since they assume if it is turkey they won't like it, which is not true, as they clearly eat it as long as they are told it is ham.

I don't know if that applies here, probably not. But, getting along always had to take into account not only the truth, but people's perception of the truth, which if telling the truth causes the consequence of developing an incorrect perception, then one may have the moral dilemma of saying the truth but giving a false perception, verses giving a true perception but not actually being exactly true.

The right thing to do, is to put the work out to tell the truth exactly and correct the false perceptions. Unfortunately, it can take a lot of work. But, like in music if you want the timing to be right, you have to count it out. Most people just go with the feel and guess it out, and the music never does come together exactly as it should.

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately. Specifically I've seen threads/youtube postings of Holland lying about Mitt Romney taking a blood oath in the temple, Bruce R. McConkie saying there are no secret ordinances that aren't talked about to the church population when such is clearly the case with the second anointing, and most recently Holland holding up a copy of "the original book used by Hyrum Smith, with the page folded over" etc which, in fact, turned out not to be the actual book.

So I pose the questions 1) what are some other instances that could be called "lying for the lord"?, 2) is it ever okay for a general authority to tell a falsehood in order to promote faith, and 3) what are some apologetic responses to this when an outside Christian group might pose this as evidence that our Church was started by and is led by "false prophets" or "false teachers" according to the tests that Christ, Peter, and others give as written in the New Testament?

Thanks

Mitt Romney never made a blood Oath that is true. And there is no secret ordinance if it is common knowledge that the second anointing is done, it's the worst kept secret ever then. The other book claim you made, I have never heard that.

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:55 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately. Specifically I've seen threads/youtube postings of Holland lying about Mitt Romney taking a blood oath in the temple, Bruce R. McConkie saying there are no secret ordinances that aren't talked about to the church population when such is clearly the case with the second anointing, and most recently Holland holding up a copy of "the original book used by Hyrum Smith, with the page folded over" etc which, in fact, turned out not to be the actual book.

So I pose the questions 1) what are some other instances that could be called "lying for the lord"?, 2) is it ever okay for a general authority to tell a falsehood in order to promote faith, and 3) what are some apologetic responses to this when an outside Christian group might pose this as evidence that our Church was started by and is led by "false prophets" or "false teachers" according to the tests that Christ, Peter, and others give as written in the New Testament?

Thanks

Mitt Romney never made a blood Oath that is true. And there is no secret ordinance if it is common knowledge that the second anointing is done, it's the worst kept secret ever then. The other book claim you made, I have never heard that.

At the time Romney was endowed, the temple ceremony still used blood oaths. Holland confirms this in an interview moments after he claims that there are no blood oaths in the temple. I dont want to get on his case....clearly it was a difficult question and he attempted to squash it fast and move on but it's not so simple....the fact is that yes, it used to happen, and yes, it happened at the time Romney was endowed (not sure that matters....but Holland didnt come off looking very good. Many times it seems these GA's do try to give watered-down versions of things in order to avoid difficult truths).

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:58 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:55 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately. Specifically I've seen threads/youtube postings of Holland lying about Mitt Romney taking a blood oath in the temple, Bruce R. McConkie saying there are no secret ordinances that aren't talked about to the church population when such is clearly the case with the second anointing, and most recently Holland holding up a copy of "the original book used by Hyrum Smith, with the page folded over" etc which, in fact, turned out not to be the actual book.

So I pose the questions 1) what are some other instances that could be called "lying for the lord"?, 2) is it ever okay for a general authority to tell a falsehood in order to promote faith, and 3) what are some apologetic responses to this when an outside Christian group might pose this as evidence that our Church was started by and is led by "false prophets" or "false teachers" according to the tests that Christ, Peter, and others give as written in the New Testament?

Thanks

Mitt Romney never made a blood Oath that is true. And there is no secret ordinance if it is common knowledge that the second anointing is done, it's the worst kept secret ever then. The other book claim you made, I have never heard that.

At the time Romney was endowed, the temple ceremony still used blood oaths. Holland confirms this in an interview moments after he claims that there are no blood oaths in the temple. I dont want to get on his case....clearly it was a difficult question and he attempted to squash it fast and move on but it's not so simple....the fact is that yes, it used to happen, and yes, it happened at the time Romney was endowed (not sure that matters....but Holland didnt come off looking very good. Many times it seems these GA's do try to give watered-down versions of things in order to avoid difficult truths).

So he corrected himself?

Here is a dandy from Boyd K. Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22

Not his finest moment to be sure.

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:05 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:58 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:55 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately. Specifically I've seen threads/youtube postings of Holland lying about Mitt Romney taking a blood oath in the temple, Bruce R. McConkie saying there are no secret ordinances that aren't talked about to the church population when such is clearly the case with the second anointing, and most recently Holland holding up a copy of "the original book used by Hyrum Smith, with the page folded over" etc which, in fact, turned out not to be the actual book.

So I pose the questions 1) what are some other instances that could be called "lying for the lord"?, 2) is it ever okay for a general authority to tell a falsehood in order to promote faith, and 3) what are some apologetic responses to this when an outside Christian group might pose this as evidence that our Church was started by and is led by "false prophets" or "false teachers" according to the tests that Christ, Peter, and others give as written in the New Testament?

Thanks

Mitt Romney never made a blood Oath that is true. And there is no secret ordinance if it is common knowledge that the second anointing is done, it's the worst kept secret ever then. The other book claim you made, I have never heard that.

At the time Romney was endowed, the temple ceremony still used blood oaths. Holland confirms this in an interview moments after he claims that there are no blood oaths in the temple. I dont want to get on his case....clearly it was a difficult question and he attempted to squash it fast and move on but it's not so simple....the fact is that yes, it used to happen, and yes, it happened at the time Romney was endowed (not sure that matters....but Holland didnt come off looking very good. Many times it seems these GA's do try to give watered-down versions of things in order to avoid difficult truths).

So he corrected himself?

Here is the 2 minute clip if you are interested. Hard question for Holland...I feel for him. But I do wish these Apostles would just tell the whole truth all the time and let us decide for ourselves.....what is the point in trying to save people in ignorance?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jyU97I12AQ

One of the original occasions that members of the church used the "lying for the Lord" excuse was after the President of the Church said he didn't receive revelation during the Reed Smoot hearings (1904-1907). There were other statements made by Joseph F Smith that many members knew weren't exactly true, but they excused the lies by saying it was necessary in order to keep Smoot in the US Senate. Hence, lying for the Lord.

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:55 pm And there is no secret ordinance if it is common knowledge that the second anointing is done, it's the worst kept secret ever then.

Nah, the only people I've ever known who know what the second anointing are people on blogs and forums.

I've discussed the second anointing with many friends and family and the first time they had ever heard of it was when I brought it up.

It might not be news for the older generation because it was more common in the early 1900s, but the current generation doesn't know it exists and doubts the veracity of the claim that it does exist when it's brought up in conversation.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:17 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:55 pm And there is no secret ordinance if it is common knowledge that the second anointing is done, it's the worst kept secret ever then.

Nah, the only people I've ever known who know what the second anointing are people on blogs and forums.

I've discussed the second anointing with many friends and family and the first time they had ever heard of it was when I brought it up.

It might not be news for the older generation because it was more common in the early 1900s, but the current generation doesn't know it exists and doubts the veracity of the claim that it does exist when it's brought up in conversation.

Weird I've never known anyone not to know about that.

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:34 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:17 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:55 pm And there is no secret ordinance if it is common knowledge that the second anointing is done, it's the worst kept secret ever then.

Nah, the only people I've ever known who know what the second anointing are people on blogs and forums.

I've discussed the second anointing with many friends and family and the first time they had ever heard of it was when I brought it up.

It might not be news for the older generation because it was more common in the early 1900s, but the current generation doesn't know it exists and doubts the veracity of the claim that it does exist when it's brought up in conversation.

Weird I've never known anyone not to know about that.

Haha, even my Mission President and his wife had no idea what I was talking about

Just tell the Egyptians she's your sister.

Go ahead and deceive Zoram and lead him to think you're someone else.

See that passed out drunk guy? Yeah cut his head off.

Oh wait that last one is murder not lying.

Alaris wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 4:19 pm Just tell the Egyptians she's your sister.

Go ahead and deceive Zoram and lead him to think you're someone else.

See that passed out drunk guy? Yeah cut his head off.

Oh wait that last one is murder not lying.

It's one thing if God himself literally tells you to do it.
It's another to hide inconvenient facts and truths because of the inevitable backlash and questions.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 4:22 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 4:19 pm Just tell the Egyptians she's your sister.

Go ahead and deceive Zoram and lead him to think you're someone else.

See that passed out drunk guy? Yeah cut his head off.

Oh wait that last one is murder not lying.

It's one thing if God himself literally tells you to do it.
It's another to hide inconvenient facts and truths because of the inevitable backlash and questions.

What if God tells you to do it to avoid backslash and questions?

What if they're just fallible men?

I like Moronis warning

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

I could not have said that better myself

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:11 pm Here is a dandy from Boyd K. Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22

Not his finest moment to be sure.

What, precisely, do you take issue with?

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:11 pm Here is a dandy from Boyd K. Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22

Not his finest moment to be sure.

Does Father tell you that you are a bitter, angry, fallen mortal? NO! He tells you that you have Godly potential, that you have seeds of Godhood in you. But the Devil sure does tell you all of your weaknesses and failings.
How would you rather act and follow, like the Devil, or like Father and His Son?


Then I would choose the Son and His apostles and how they treat others rather than how a disgruntled, angry, and bitter antagonist does. Choose to embrace the good and refuse the hate. Look for the good and emphasize the good. Leave the bad alone for it is evident enough without having to be pointed out. Build up instead of tear down.

Brother Packer was very wise and truly in a fine moment.

We teach kids in Sunday School to be honest, and then they spend the rest of their lives learning when to lie.

I've seen church leaders and their shady business practices.

A lot of our tactics on a mission were dishonest. I remember in Japan, elders on the street as an approach, asking people where our church was. One guy, a newspaper journalist, finally threatened to expose us as he had seen us there before.

Of course, many under pressure fudge the numbers.

The whole concept of faith is dishonest. You are saying you will intentionally ignore unfavorable information to prove the truth of what you choose to believe. If that was done in science it would be considered fraud.

I recall as a primary teacher, 6 year olds asking honest questions they would later learn to keep to themselves, in order to conform.

So yeah, we should forget the whole honesty thing, or the claim of truth.

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:11 pm Here is a dandy from Boyd K. Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22

Not his finest moment to be sure.

One must wonder what the secretaries in the church office building made of this remark.

djinwa wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 7:18 pm A lot of our tactics on a mission were dishonest. I remember in Japan, elders on the street as an approach, asking people where our church was. One guy, a newspaper journalist, finally threatened to expose us as he had seen us there before.

I don’t understand. You’re saying you didn’t let people know where the church was? Don’t missionaries constantly tell people where it is, so they’ll attend?

gkearney wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 7:27 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:11 pm Here is a dandy from Boyd K. Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22

Not his finest moment to be sure.

One must wonder what the secretaries in the church office building made of this remark.

Wasn't it Napoleon who said that history is a set of lies agreed upon?

I doubt Elder Packer meant you should lie. However, what if a person was doing their family history and found an old journal, buried in their recently-deceased grandmother's attic and, upon reading it, found out when she was young she had been a prostitute before converting to the Church, marrying your grandfather and becoming a fantastic individual? Would you go tell your siblings? Would you tell your children? Sure, a case could be made for the power of repentance but it could also be argued that it would forever be the primary thing the family would remember about her.

One must remember that history is just like modern journalism (clickbait). What stands out, what is unusual, what is catchy and will captivate an audience is what will be presented. It should also be noted also that historians like what will confirm their biases. So even though Trump was not part of some vast right-wing Russian conspiracy the historians, mostly with a leftist bias, will word books they write in such a way as to make it appear he really was. Then documentaries will quote those books and, in 30 years-time, it will be an assumption that Trump was a Russian asset. You think it is any different in regards to our histories? Mormon contributions are either ignored or demonized. Maybe this is the context of what Elder Packer was getting at.

Juliet wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:54 pm My kids only eat turkey if I tell them it is ham. So, I lie because I want them to eat turkey instead of ham. Because I know the way they interpret the truth is not in their best interest, since they assume if it is turkey they won't like it, which is not true, as they clearly eat it as long as they are told it is ham.

I don't know if that applies here, probably not. But, getting along always had to take into account not only the truth, but people's perception of the truth, which if telling the truth causes the consequence of developing an incorrect perception, then one may have the moral dilemma of saying the truth but giving a false perception, verses giving a true perception but not actually being exactly true.

The right thing to do, is to put the work out to tell the truth exactly and correct the false perceptions. Unfortunately, it can take a lot of work. But, like in music if you want the timing to be right, you have to count it out. Most people just go with the feel and guess it out, and the music never does come together exactly as it should.

Ha, if my kids don't eat what I make, they don't eat. Eventually hunger wins. Sometimes they get upset. They deal with it.

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 1:21 pm I have been hearing this phrase a lot lately. Specifically I've seen threads/youtube postings of Holland lying about Mitt Romney taking a blood oath in the temple, Bruce R. McConkie saying there are no secret ordinances that aren't talked about to the church population when such is clearly the case with the second anointing, and most recently Holland holding up a copy of "the original book used by Hyrum Smith, with the page folded over" etc which, in fact, turned out not to be the actual book.

So I pose the questions 1) what are some other instances that could be called "lying for the lord"?, 2) is it ever okay for a general authority to tell a falsehood in order to promote faith, and 3) what are some apologetic responses to this when an outside Christian group might pose this as evidence that our Church was started by and is led by "false prophets" or "false teachers" according to the tests that Christ, Peter, and others give as written in the New Testament?

Thanks

Was looking up info about the book and came across this:

"After some tooing and froing lately, confounded by my living around the world and upside down, I have an update::

First point - The two books are explained on MAaD thus:

Apparently Hyrum, having an idea of his impending martyrdom went around his family and dog-eared all their Books of Mormon at the same point. The book Holland was holding belonged to Joseph F. Smith (six at the time his father was martyred).

Through inspiration apparently, this book is the book designated as being the book mentioned in D&C 135. But his habit of visiting family and dog-earing their books of mormon kind of reduces the impact of his actions on the morning he went to Carthage.

Does YOUR book of Mormon have a Hyrum Dog-Ear tm?"

So, who knows what the family tradition about that particular book is. I don't think we have enough information to accuse brother Holland of lying.

endlessismyname wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 5:12 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:11 pm Here is a dandy from Boyd K. Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22

Not his finest moment to be sure.

What, precisely, do you take issue with?

Isn’t it obvious? Wouldn’t it be nice to know all the truths about church history straight from the horses mouth instead of a white washed narrative that is so easily dismissed with facts and research?

Teancum wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 6:10 pm

thestock wrote: ↑April 18th, 2019, 2:11 pm Here is a dandy from Boyd K. Packer:

"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22

Not his finest moment to be sure.

Does Father tell you that you are a bitter, angry, fallen mortal? NO! He tells you that you have Godly potential, that you have seeds of Godhood in you. But the Devil sure does tell you all of your weaknesses and failings.
How would you rather act and follow, like the Devil, or like Father and His Son?


Then I would choose the Son and His apostles and how they treat others rather than how a disgruntled, angry, and bitter antagonist does. Choose to embrace the good and refuse the hate. Look for the good and emphasize the good. Leave the bad alone for it is evident enough without having to be pointed out. Build up instead of tear down.

Brother Packer was very wise and truly in a fine moment.

The disciples of R. Kelly’s church will be quoting you in 100 years.