Merry Christmas!!

[malkie]

For me, as an outsider, hearing Boyd K. Packer’s admonition that some things that are true may not be useful has led to a healthy skepticism toward LDS truth claims. Once truth is filtered by usefulness, trust becomes fragile regardless of sincerity. It doesn’t cast members in a particularly flattering light, because it lets the listener know that full candor may not be on the table from the beginning.

"Lying for the Lord" is a well-established Mormon practice.

I began this list when I was a full time employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). I worked as a Seminary Principal/teacher, Institute teacher/Director, and Stake CES Coordinator from 1975-2002. My last assignment was brief. I signed a Letter of Agreement with CES to serve as the Director of the Pullman, Washington LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Washington State University in July 2002. I resigned from CES a month later. I carry fond memories of the students, ward leaders and others I grew to respect in the LDS Church. I started this list in an effort to defend the church from its detractors.

As an informal defender, I discovered that those accusing the church leaders of being dishonest sometimes had the facts on their side (when I took the time to check). I guessed there may have been occasional isolated examples of premeditated deception but it was not a pattern or standard practice.

My belief was that those who accused church leaders with deception were deceivers themselves. But as I read more church history my list leaders' prevarications grew, and at some point it occurred to me that Joseph Smith established a pattern of institutionalized deception.

Evidence presented in this list establishes that when the church or its leaders needed protection, it was, and is, okay to fib, deceive, distort, inflate, minimize, exaggerate, prevaricate or lie. You will read quotations by church leaders who admitted that deception is a useful tool to protect the church and its leaders "when they are in a tight spot," or "to beat the devil at his own game." They admit engaging in moral gymnastics; that God approves of deception ? if it's done to protect the "Lord's Church" or "the brethren."

Lying for the Lord

Note: I am not saying that this practice was in play in this case, although I'm not 100% convinced of the correctness of some aspects of MG's story, in spite of his emphatic statement to that effect:

There might be another excuse—those types of responses don’t assume MG is being straightforward about his personal situation. Sympathy is appropriate if the claims are accurate, but they don’t obligate everyone else to suspend skepticism.

I've been strictly accurate.
...

[Limnor]

For me, as an outsider, hearing Boyd K. Packer’s admonition that some things that are true may not be useful has led to a healthy skepticism toward LDS truth claims. Once truth is filtered by usefulness, trust becomes fragile regardless of sincerity. It doesn’t cast members in a particularly flattering light, because it lets the listener know that full candor may not be on the table from the beginning.

I think it was unfortunate he said that. Elder Ballard and Elder Snow were forced to make course corrections years later.

One thing to consider in forming your opinions/judgements is that members of the church are individuals with brains. We're human just like you!

We should be judged accordingly.

Regards,
MG

Have you held things back that might not be useful?

[malkie]

I think that Boyd K. Packer’s admonition was an excellent example of thoughtlessly blurting our the truth, a.k.a. saying the quiet part out loud. It was official confirmation of a practice that had been observed and talked about almost since the origin of the church.

Although this was reportedly said in another context, I think that a quote attributed to then Elder Oaks about Elder Packer: "You can’t stage manage a grizzly bear.", probably applies here too, since, as MG points out, there has been a need for damage control.

However, Elder Oaks himself strongly implied that truth may be suppressed by the church if the cause is worthy enough:

My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything else may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.

my colouring

Elder Oaks Claims Apostolic Duty to Sacrifice Anything That Makes The Church Look Bad

By implication, this statement is true for at least all of the Q12, but likely to be understood as true for all church leaders, especially GAs.

[Limnor]

I think that Boyd K. Packer’s admonition was an excellent example of thoughtlessly blurting our the truth, a.k.a. saying the quiet part out loud. It was official confirmation of a practice that had been observed and talked about almost since the origin of the church.

Although this was reportedly said in another context, I think that a quote attributed to then Elder Oaks about Elder Packer: "You can’t stage manage a grizzly bear.", probably applies here too, since, as MG points out, there has been a need for damage control.

However, Elder Oaks himself strongly implied that truth may be suppressed by the church if the cause is worthy enough:

My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything else may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.

my colouring

Elder Oaks Claims Apostolic Duty to Sacrifice Anything That Makes The Church Look Bad

By implication, this statement is true for at least all of the Q12, but likely to be understood as true for all church leaders, especially GAs.

My own assessment is also based on other posts that reveal the epistemic variability that MG employs.

It is evident in the Hoppy Taw game where errors, falsehoods, injustices, and misstatements are described as being able to be reclassified after the fact based on whether they can be integrated into a presumed divine outcome.

Additional evidence includes introducing authorities, namely historians, without specifying claims and then withdrawing rather than addressing claims, and reframing critique as personal unkindness rather than analytical differences.

Lastly, my judgment of MG is informed by his own described frameplonet regarding objective truth.

I wouldn’t say I’m making an assessment based solely on institutional association, I’m also considering his own portrayal of his approach to truth.

I hope this adds clarity to my judgment.

[I Have Questions]

Ok, so I guess as a Christmas offering to show solidarity (maybe?), MG has graciously placed Paula Fredriksen on the table, like a figgy pudding, and then… wandered off. Sitting at the table, it is unclear whether we’re meant to eat it or wonder if there is a point somewhere in there about the Great Apostasy. This is an example of the type of move that might end up with a poster being labeled a troll, just so it’s clear.

The Fredriksen pudding, when spooned out in delicate bite-sized goodness, reminds us that Christians thought the world was ending any minute. They still thought of themselves as Jews, so long as you don’t include the gentile converts, and were unaware and uninterested in founding a new religion, let alone establishing a long-term authority structure. She also treats us to the delicious news that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD was a moment that changed everything, and forced all Jewish movements to adapt.

All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?

Has MG now responded to your question about Paula Fredriksen and why he introduced her to the discussion?

[I Have Questions]

This is where we are up to on MG's Christmas Miracle (all quotes are from MG's posts within this thread):

Dec27th “My wife was in a major auto accident on the I-15 on Dec. 6th.”
Dec28th “My wife's injuries were due to a six car accident on the freeway that left her with manageable injuries.”
Dec28th “My wife ran into a police vehicle (he was at fault) that had jackknifed up ahead of her on the freeway. She plowed into him at 70 miles per hour without ever having a chance to hit the brakes (she was in a Subaru/tank thankfully). Broken sternum, fractured C-7 and severe air bag burns/contusions.”
Dec28th “As I said, the police car had jackknifed into her lane. His vehicle (he was off duty) was either number two or number three in line...we don't know at this point. He had not allowed himself enough space in the lane he was in and in the process of whatever happened ended up spinning into the lane my wife was traveling in (different lane than the other cars). My wife hit the passenger back side of the vehicle. Thankfully, he was unharmed. At the scene with multiple witnesses he admitted fault for being in the wrong place which then created the crash situation.”
Dec30th “By the way, in an earlier post I said, "Thankfully, he was unharmed." The "he" I was referring to was the officer in the Dodge Durango that jackknifed into my wife's travel lane.”
Dec 31st “We reached a settlement on the car. Obviously the Subaru was a total loss. We now have a new Toyota Corolla Cross.”
“I could post pictures of the car after it was totaled and I went up to the storage lot in Salt Lake.”

MG has a remarkable level of detail (which increases over time, like the First Vision retelling), despite not being present. The incident reporting and insurance claim process and new vehicle acquisition process, has been incredibly fast - 25 days from incident to picking up the new vehicle. I definitely believe MG is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I'm totally convinced, despite malkie not being able to locate a single mention of such a major incident (which would have caused horrendous tail backs).

Happy New Year MG 2.0

[Limnor]

Ok, so I guess as a Christmas offering to show solidarity (maybe?), MG has graciously placed Paula Fredriksen on the table, like a figgy pudding, and then… wandered off. Sitting at the table, it is unclear whether we’re meant to eat it or wonder if there is a point somewhere in there about the Great Apostasy. This is an example of the type of move that might end up with a poster being labeled a troll, just so it’s clear.

The Fredriksen pudding, when spooned out in delicate bite-sized goodness, reminds us that Christians thought the world was ending any minute. They still thought of themselves as Jews, so long as you don’t include the gentile converts, and were unaware and uninterested in founding a new religion, let alone establishing a long-term authority structure. She also treats us to the delicious news that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD was a moment that changed everything, and forced all Jewish movements to adapt.

All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?

Has MG now responded to your question about Paula Fredriksen and why he introduced her to the discussion?

No, my good sir, he has not. And I don’t think either of us expected otherwise. Although it could be said that even a non-response is meaningful.

I think he follows the guidance of his prophet. Much like Joseph Smith, who under examination admitted he “pretended,” MG appeals to authority selectively—asserting certainty when it supports a claim and flexibility when it does not.

[MG 2.0]

Has MG now responded to your question about Paula Fredriksen and why he introduced her to the discussion?

No, my good sir, he has not. And I don’t think either of us expected otherwise. Although it could be said that even a non-response is meaningful.

I think he follows the guidance of his prophet. Much like Joseph Smith, who under examination admitted he “pretended,” MG appeals to authority selectively—asserting certainty when it supports a claim and flexibility when it does not.

This is what makes it difficult to take either of you seriously. I listen to a Christmas podcast (linked to on pg. 7 of this thread) which discusses the early roots of Christianity...Bari Weiss is a practicing Jew...and this is worthy of discussion and/or ridicule along with whether or not I was/am telling the truth in regards to my wife's accident on Dec. 6th?

I've discussed the early days of what we now call Christianity elsewhere. Indid not believe I needed to rehash that again.

If there isn't an element of trust and giving the benefit of a doubt, no matter what you think about Elder Holland and his stories, then I think we have very little to talk about in good faith. IHQ is already on my 'naughty list' and it appears as though Limnor and I will not be able to have a conversation in good faith from what I've heard him say thusfar in posts here and there.

Unfortunate. Critics.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

No, my good sir, he has not. And I don’t think either of us expected otherwise. Although it could be said that even a non-response is meaningful.

I think he follows the guidance of his prophet. Much like Joseph Smith, who under examination admitted he “pretended,” MG appeals to authority selectively—asserting certainty when it supports a claim and flexibility when it does not.

This is what makes it difficult to take either of you seriously. I listen to a Christmas podcast (linked to on pg. 7 of this thread) which discusses the early roots of Christianity...Bari Weiss is a practicing Jew...and this is worthy of discussion and/or ridicule along with whether or not I was/am telling the truth in regards to my wife's accident on Dec. 6th?

I've discussed the early days of what we now call Christianity elsewhere. Indid not believe I needed to rehash that again.

If there isn't an element of trust and giving the benefit of a doubt, no matter what you think about Elder Holland and his stories, then I think we have very little to talk about in good faith. IHQ is already on my 'naughty list' and it appears as though Limnor and I will not be able to have a conversation in good faith from what I've heard him say thusfar in posts here and there.

Unfortunate. Critics.

Regards,
MG

Mentalgymnast's rewrite attempts are legendary. The above post in no way truthfully captures the events of the thread, but it does showcase his disingenuity, which mg is remarkably consistent in illustrating.

[I Have Questions]

This is what makes it difficult to take either of you seriously. I listen to a Christmas podcast (linked to on pg. 7 of this thread) which discusses the early roots of Christianity...Bari Weiss is a practicing Jew...and this is worthy of discussion and/or ridicule along with whether or not I was/am telling the truth in regards to my wife's accident on Dec. 6th?

I've discussed the early days of what we now call Christianity elsewhere. Indid not believe I needed to rehash that again.

If there isn't an element of trust and giving the benefit of a doubt, no matter what you think about Elder Holland and his stories, then I think we have very little to talk about in good faith. IHQ is already on my 'naughty list' and it appears as though Limnor and I will not be able to have a conversation in good faith from what I've heard him say thusfar in posts here and there.

Unfortunate. Critics.

Regards,
MG

Mentalgymnast's rewrite attempts are legendary. The above post in no way truthfully captures the events of the thread, but it does showcase his disingenuity, which mg is remarkably consistent in illustrating.

He’s desperate to avoid responding to Limnor’s questions. He first blamed his wife’s “incident” for why he hadn’t been able to respond, despite posting up an absolute storm on all sorts of other things. Now that excuse has fizzled out he needs another excuse for his weaseling out of that discussion. So he’s resorted to blaming Limnor for offending him in some way. It’s pathetic. But also, I find it very predictable behaviour and it’s amusing to watch when I have the time.