Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_TrashcanMan79]

In the "Is It Any Wonder People Think Mormons Are Deceptive?" thread on MAD in which a couple statements made by JFS are being fussed over to determine if he was being two-faced or not, Tarski brought up an example of a less-than-forthright statement made by Joseph Smith:

well we always have the classic
"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one"

The very next response in the thread is DCP's:

Not to mention the appalling "You're looking much better!" and "No, the dress looks just fine on you" and "Stay with me, you're going to make it!"

Tarski soon followed up with the exact question that occurred to me when reading DCP's response:

A public denial of polygamy is an innocent "white lie" in your opinion?

DCP's response:

Oh yes. Yes indeed. And I said precisely that, didn't I?

My question is: isn't that exactly what DCP has done? He didn't come out and actually type the words
"white lie," but what other conclusion is one to draw in determining the intent of his post? I know DCP sometimes writes things and then appears to be outraged when people assume he is saying outrageous things, all the while never clarifiying what he meant or how it would be relevant, but in the instance above, has DCP been caught in an instance of less-than-forthright-ness himself?

The link to that MAD thread:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208417155[/quote]

[_beastie]

in my opinion, DCP is admitting that Joseph lied about polygamy. Unless you're one of the folks who deny he practiced polygamy at all, then it's obvious Joseph Smith lied about it.

The game is to portray it as a justified lie, like refusing to tell the Nazis where the Jews are hidden. So this makes it morally "innocent". DCP's problem is that he used poor examples to make his point, thus making it appear that he really was saying that the lie was about something insignificant (like how a dress looks).

I don't think DCP is a good internet apologist, due to examples such as this. He isn't very careful, and then gets huffy when people follow his carelessness to the logical conclusion.

[_Tal Bachman]

By now Tarski should be very familiar with this one. It's as old as it is obvious what it's about.

[_Imapiratewasher]

I think it depends how you interpret it. I personally would have taken it to be that he was suggesting denying polygamy was a white lie, but I also don't think that was DCP's intention. The first post you quoted is what makes me unsure, because Tarski's first post is unclear (The part where it says "when I can only find one" makes it unclear). Like Joseph Smith was mocking as though almost to cover up polygamy.

[_Mike Reed]

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one"

The answer is obvious to me. Smith probably meant "when I can only find one of my wives in the crowd as I give this speech?"

[_Mister Scratch]

Huh. Very interesting. It seems that DCP has offered up a really elephantine Mopologetic response to this. Check it out:

Now that I have a minute, let me unpack what I've said above.

(1) I would very much like to see the specific questions to which, and the contexts in which, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote his responses. Call me pedantic, but I think such things can make a crucial difference.

(2) No, I would not call Joseph Smith Jr.'s denials of plural marriage "white lies."

(3) But I do believe that there are "white lies," and, more to the point, justifiable lies. (I've brought up this example before: You're hiding Jewish children in your attic. Hauptmann Strasser, of the Gestapo, asks you whether you know where any Jews might be hiding. You answer "No." I say, Good for you!)

(4) Once it's acknowledged that some lies might be justifiable in certain situations, the question becomes more complex. What situations might justify (or even morally require) lying?

(5) Were Joseph Smith's denials justifiable lies? Maybe. Maybe not. Such things can be debated everlastingly.

(6) If, in calm and secure retrospect, sitting comfortably in front of our computers, we conclude that Joseph should not have handled things in some cases in the way that he did, does this prove him not a prophet? No. Nothing in the scriptures suggests that prophets have to be perfect, or to handle every situation perfectly. Several examples in the scriptures suggest quite the opposite.

(7) In his situation, what would I have done? I don't know. Joseph knew that plural marriage could mean his death. And it probably did.

(8) Would disingenuousness or lying on Joseph's part, assuming (for purposes of discussion) that that's what it was, demonstrate that plural marriage came not by revelation but by lust? No. That seems a separate question. Both lust-motivated plural marriage and divinely-directed plural marriage could have left Joseph in a situation where he felt threatened by violence against himself and his people, and in which he concluded that dissembling would be the better course until he (and they) were more secure.

(9) Would even several cases in which Church leaders were less then forthcoming demonstrate a pervasive policy of lying on the Church's part? This is, again, a subjective question. It seems, further, to be linked with the so-called "Sorites paradox," or the "paradox of the heap." When does a lack of perfect forthrightness become lying? How many acts of less than perfect forthrightness does it take to make a person a liar? How many acts of less than perfect forthrightness on the part of how many individuals are required to make an institution to which they belong "dishonest"? What positions, if any, do these individuals need to hold in that institution? And so forth. There seems no obvious black and white answer to such questions.

(10) My strong sense of Joseph Smith, based in particular upon Dean Jessee's collection of his "personal writings," which were not intended for publication, is that he was a fundamentally honest and sincere person.

(11) Can honest and sincere people get into situations where they feel that lying is the only sound course available to them? Yes.

(12) Can lying sometimes really be the only sound course available to them? See (3) and (4), above.

(13) I myself do not think that characterizations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as fundamentally dishonest are even close to the truth.

(14) I also do not think, specifically, that the Church has been dishonest about its history, let alone that its many fine and professionally trained historians have been or are liars.

(15) But then, in some circles, I myself am portrayed as a consummate (albeit generally incompetent) professional liar ("lying for the Lord"), so perhaps nothing that I say can be trusted, on this or any other topic.

(16) I would very much like to see the specific questions to which, and the contexts in which, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote his responses. Until I've seen those, I will suspend judgment on this matter, and I will not concede that his answers represent deliberate deception.

(17) If Joseph Fielding Smith's answers don't represent deliberate deception, they certainly don't represent further evidence that the Church as a whole is fundamentally deceptive.

(18) They may not represent further evidence that the Church as a whole is fundamentally deceptive even if they were deliberately misleading. See (9), above.

There are a bunch of different thoughts here sort of jumbled together. He is trying to:
---deflect accusations that Joseph Smith lied
---defuse accusations that the institutional Church is in any way "dishonest"
---issue a CFR for the JFS quotes
---trying to explain how lying is okay sometimes

As Beastie pointed out, it is relatively rare for him to engage in actual, real apologetics. I guess this big posting helps explain why.

[_Some Schmo]

It's DCP's job to obfuscate and distract. He has no choice. It's the mandate of trying to make a falsehood seem plausible. What's that old saying? If you can't impress them with your brilliance, baffle them with bulls***.

That's the number one reason I think he's a dumbass. It reminds me of Michael Vick being caught for dog fighting. There's no reason for him to do it, and he's sacrificing what could be a very good thing (the perception of his career) for a personally destructive addiction.

*shrug* Some people just aren't that bright. What can you say?

[_moksha]

I think I understand both Joseph Smith and DCP's positions. Joseph Smith knew that he was legally married to only one women despite any other dalliances. DCP acknowledged only the appearance of a "so called" white lie in an indirect manner and did not actually come out and say it. He did not appreciate Tarski rubbing in that acknowledgment.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think I understand both Joseph Smith and DCP's positions. Joseph Smith knew that he was legally married to only one women despite any other dalliances. DCP acknowledged only the appearance of a "so called" white lie in an indirect manner and did not actually come out and say it. He did not appreciate Tarski rubbing in that acknowledgment.

Well, now Prof. P. is stating very openly that, even from the perspective of his Mopologetic eyes, the Church is sometimes dishonest:

I've observed several cases where statements from Church members or even from the Public Affairs Department have seemed to me not to be as straightforward as I would have preferred.

[_Nightingale]

Well, now Prof. P. is stating very openly that, even from the perspective of his Mopologetic eyes, the Church is sometimes dishonest:

I've observed several cases where statements from Church members or even from the Public Affairs Department have seemed to me not to be as straightforward as I would have preferred.

I've been around long enough now to know the answer to this one:

Statements from church members or the PAD do not constitute statements from The Church!

Therefore, it is not The Church that is being "not straightforward".

I am not sure, in fact, which statements *are* attributed to "The Church". It could be only The Big Three or maybe only The Prophet but even then, only sometimes.

This is one of the major reasons why it is so difficult to extract "doctrine" and "practice" from what the body of Mormons think and do. So much seems to be at just the ward or stake level, depending on what individual local leaders are about. It seems quite contradictory for a church that focuses so much on following the prophet. Everything gets kind of snarled up. I remember my frustration when trying to be a good member missionary and wanting to make sure I had the core doctrine nailed down. Uh, very difficult. I won't reiterate my story on that. Suffice to say that even when I found direct quotes from the current church leader local leaders didn't necessarily believe it or follow it. And yet believe and obey is so much a part of Mormonism. Very very confusing for a would-be convert. Too many dichotomies for my little brain to sort out. I remain convinced that The Church likes it that way. If no direct statements are made no chickens can come home to roost.