Polygamy Killed Honesty, Rob F.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Rob’s been busy since he was kicked out of the church. I guess he may have a bit more free time since he doesn’t hold an official calling.

Anyhoo… new video just posted a few hours ago.

[BuriedTartaria]

Another new video so soon!?

[Robin Hood]

Another new video so soon!?

Now that he's been kicked out, he's free to put the boot in.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

[Baurak Ale]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

No. Sometimes concealment is justified, like when the gentiles wage war against the people of God.

"In a context of war, deception of the enemy is justified just as killing of the enemy is justified. Israelite commanders, for example, are not required to tell the enemy commanders where all of their troops are located, what their numbers are, the kind of weapons they have, their battle strategy, etc. Narratives of battles in Scripture that God approves describe deceptive tactics. The army, for example, may pretend to be in retreat and then send a hidden force of soldiers to burn the enemy city once the troops in that city start chasing them. Deception of the enemy is necessary in the context of just war. So, again, unless God contradicts Himself (and He cannot do that), deception of the enemy in war is not lying any more than killing of enemy soldiers in war is murder" (link).

Exodus 1 (NLT):

15 Then Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, gave this order to the Hebrew midwives, Shiphrah and Puah: 16“When you help the Hebrew women as they give birth, watch as they deliver.c If the baby is a boy, kill him; if it is a girl, let her live.” 17But because the midwives feared God, they refused to obey the king’s orders. They allowed the boys to live, too.

18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives. “Why have you done this?” he demanded. “Why have you allowed the boys to live?”

19 “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women,” the midwives replied. “They are more vigorous and have their babies so quickly that we cannot get there in time.”

20 So God was good to the midwives, and the Israelites continued to multiply, growing more and more powerful. 21And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.

[Reluctant Watchman]

No. Sometimes concealment is justified, like when the gentiles wage war against the people of God.

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[Robin Hood]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

Actually, no.
I believe they believed they were, in effect, lying to the devil. From their viewpoint plural marriage was a sacred tenet of the priesthood, and being economical with the truth was therefore justified.
I think they also, in their minds at least, separated the law of the church from the law of the priesthood. Therefore, when Joseph F Smith was acting as church president he could speak for the church, and when acting as the President of the High Priesthood he was free to speak differently.
I'm not defending or justifying the behaviour, I'm simply exploring what may have been the mindset of the Brethren at the time.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

Actually, no.
I believe they believed they were, in effect, lying to the devil. From their viewpoint plural marriage was a sacred tenet of the priesthood, and being economical with the truth was therefore justified.
I think they also, in their minds at least, separated the law of the church from the law of the priesthood. Therefore, when Joseph F Smith was acting as church president he could speak for the church, and when acting as the President of the High Priesthood he was free to speak differently.
I'm not defending or justifying the behaviour, I'm simply exploring what may have been the mindset of the Brethren at the time.

I can see this type of behavior in people like Mark E. Petersen. He became fanatical in some of his stances on blacks/priesthood.

[ransomme]

Is it shocking to anyone that these men lied, repeatedly?

Actually, no.
I believe they believed they were, in effect, lying to the devil. From their viewpoint plural marriage was a sacred tenet of the priesthood, and being economical with the truth was therefore justified.
I think they also, in their minds at least, separated the law of the church from the law of the priesthood. Therefore, when Joseph F Smith was acting as church president he could speak for the church, and when acting as the President of the High Priesthood he was free to speak differently.
I'm not defending or justifying the behaviour, I'm simply exploring what may have been the mindset of the Brethren at the time.

I can see this type of behavior in people like Mark E. Petersen. He became fanatical in some of his stances on blacks/priesthood.

People will justify anything.

If they don't think that whoredoms are a sin, then lying is nothing.

[Baurak Ale]

No. Sometimes concealment is justified, like when the gentiles wage war against the people of God.

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

[Reluctant Watchman]

No. Sometimes concealment is justified, like when the gentiles wage war against the people of God.

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

[Baurak Ale]

No. Sometimes concealment is justified, like when the gentiles wage war against the people of God.

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

Do you deny that the scriptures show that the Lord justifies deception at times?

[Reluctant Watchman]

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

Do you deny that the scriptures show that the Lord justifies deception at times?

Strategy? Yes. There's a massive gap in what these men did.

[Redpilled Mormon]

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

Do you deny that the scriptures show that the Lord justifies deception at times?

I'm curious. If you believe in a God that endorses lies; how can you trust such a God on anything He says?

If you realize that you're serving a God of Lies, it's probably time to re-assess. Just my 2 cents...

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Obedience is doing what you're told regardless if it's right or wrong. Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you're told.

It seems that Christ's teachings and his exemplary life on earth was, in part, aimed at teaching obedient Jews to become moral jews. In fact, it was the Jewish obsession with obedience that blinded many into believing they could save themselves by living the law of Moses perfectly. They were obsessed with obedience to the law at the expense of morality.

If you're told to lie (as per the Mattias Cowley statement in the Fotheringham video), regardless if it's right or wrong, you may well be considered obedient to the "brethren". But would your actions be moral?

The German doctors and soldiers at Nuremberg used the obedience defense. "We were just following orders". But the trial judges disagreed, pointed out that they acted without morals, and sentenced them to death.

You can claim that early church leaders' lies were an expression of obedience. You can not also claim they were moral.

[Robin Hood]

No. Sometimes concealment is justified, like when the gentiles wage war against the people of God.

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

But from their viewpoint they were at war.
The US army being deployed against them was still a vivid memory. The Federal government had proved itself an enemy to the Saints, and a kind of Coldwar existed between them.

[cab]

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

But from their viewpoint they were at war.
The US army being deployed against them was still a vivid memory. The Federal government had proved itself an enemy to the Saints, and a kind of Coldwar existed between them.

A reasonable take.

But I don’t think they were at war with England in the late 1840s and 1850s when they denied the existence of polygamy to converts. Thus the premise of the video that this doctrine instilled a dishonest culture.

[JandD6572]

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

Do you deny that the scriptures show that the Lord justifies deception at times?

I'm curious. If you believe in a God that endorses lies; how can you trust such a God on anything He says?

If you realize that you're serving a God of Lies, it's probably time to re-assess. Just my 2 cents...

My thought exactly. seems during the history of this Mormon church, when it was contrary to the law of things, the church would cover up, lie, and or deceive, all in the name of God needs his church to move forward, that is why it is being done this way. just as the more recent, approval and support of the gay marriage bill. I hear so many say that God needs his church to continue to go forward, so sometimes we must play along to get along. Do you know what this does, this makes the Mormon God a very weak God. As though he needs the Mormons, or anyone else for that matter, to lie and cheat in order to protect this church.

[BroJones]

I respect the scholarship/research efforts of Hannah Stoddard, e.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkNO014MJ0

Does anyone know what she says about JS - and whether or not he had
sexual relations with any of those woman to whom he was SEALED?

[Reluctant Watchman]

To leap from war strategy to sexual deviancy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

But from their viewpoint they were at war.
The US army being deployed against them was still a vivid memory. The Federal government had proved itself an enemy to the Saints, and a kind of Coldwar existed between them.

This had nothing to do with war. War strategy is one thing. From what I understand, Porter Rockwell used strategy to deter the army. He went up and down the canyon walls starting numerous bonfires to give the impression that their numbers were much greater than they actually were. That is strategy.

Which has nothing to do with polygamy. Repeated, blatant, lies.

I see the same justification from TBMs today w/ the SEC scandal. Heck, you can justify any sin w/ this type of logic.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I respect the scholarship/research efforts of Hannah Stoddard, e.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkNO014MJ0

Does anyone know what she says about JS - and whether or not he had
sexual relations with any of those woman to whom he was SEALED?

I don’t like the Midnight Mormon crowd much at all. I saw parts of a few episodes. Passionate? Yes. Arrogant? Yes.

The problem I have w/ most LDS perspectives on this topic is there research often has a ceiling (or wall) if you will. They cannot contradict the prophets. Their prophets cannot be wrong.

[Baurak Ale]

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

But from their viewpoint they were at war.
The US army being deployed against them was still a vivid memory. The Federal government had proved itself an enemy to the Saints, and a kind of Coldwar existed between them.

This had nothing to do with war. War strategy is one thing. From what I understand, Porter Rockwell used strategy to deter the army. He went up and down the canyon walls starting numerous bonfires to give the impression that their numbers were much greater than they actually were. That is strategy.

Which has nothing to do with polygamy. Repeated, blatant, lies.

I see the same justification from TBMs today w/ the SEC scandal. Heck, you can justify any sin w/ this type of logic.

And why could the midwives lie to Pharaoh and then be blessed by God? They were not at physical war. Israel is and has always been at spiritual war with Babylon/Egypt. The reason the midwives were blessed for lying is because it was stratagem in a non-physical war. It is the same with those who believed their religion included polygamy.

[Baurak Ale]

I respect the scholarship/research efforts of Hannah Stoddard, e.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkNO014MJ0

Does anyone know what she says about JS - and whether or not he had
sexual relations with any of those woman to whom he was SEALED?

She is openly against the Doctrine of Christ people and a supporter of Brigham’s correct and faithful preservation of Joseph’s teachings. Hannah and I are actually acquainted and we’ve discussed items on the subject off and on.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I respect the scholarship/research efforts of Hannah Stoddard, e.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNkNO014MJ0

Does anyone know what she says about JS - and whether or not he had
sexual relations with any of those woman to whom he was SEALED?

She is openly against the Doctrine of Christ people and a supporter of Brigham’s correct and faithful preservation of Joseph’s teachings. Hannah and I are actually acquainted and we’ve discussed items on the subject off and on.

Brigham’s faithful preservation of what Joseph taught? Haha… that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in a really long time.

[Baurak Ale]

Sexual deviancy is your opinion and does not rebut my main point. You must remember that to them plural marriage was a sacred and virtuous tenet of their religion. Under that context, strategic concealment against the enemies of God makes perfect sense.

The point is, whether you agree with polygamy or not, the scriptural precedent to justify their defensive lying exists and justifies it from their historical perspective.

No, there's a huge leap between war strategy and what these men did. They repeatedly, intentionally, blatantly, lied. Sure, they can justify it through false beliefs and tradition, but the correlation is weak at best.

Do you deny that the scriptures show that the Lord justifies deception at times?

I'm curious. If you believe in a God that endorses lies; how can you trust such a God on anything He says?

If you realize that you're serving a God of Lies, it's probably time to re-assess. Just my 2 cents...

Is a God who commands certain things a God of those things? If so, do you realize that you serve a God of genocide? A God of war? A God of blood sacrifices? A God of cousin marriages?