Omissions and lies in The Restoration movie

[_Runtu]

Fraudulantly trying to mislead to get gain is not the same thing as simply telling a story from ones past that may not include ALL details, a FULL HISTORY....

Aren't the church films intended to gain members? Is it misleading to show an unarmed Joseph Smith?

If I talk about my Football career, but I don't tell every other aspect of my entire life, including every little thing that might have occured during the periods I played football, but have no relevance to the football story, YOu really think I would be "lying"????

How is Joseph's being armed not relevant?

Hateful ignorant bigots as usual. Straining at a nat while swallowing the camel.

Hey, the Nats may be on a losing streak, but I won't have anyone besmirching their good name.

[_Jaybear]

How is Joseph's being armed not relevant?

The operative question is whether the omission was material.

As the LDS Church wants to portray Smith as a martyr, the omission is material if seeing Smith with gun firing into the crowd would lead some people to conclude that Smith was not a martyr.

[_badseed]

Because it doesn't make Joseph look like a lamb to the slaughter.

Sure it does. A lamb with a loaded pistol but a lamb nonetheless.

[_The Mighty Builder]

It's a feel good spiritual based movie..... It's not designed to tell ALL FACTS of history.
Calling something that is commonly done in all aspects of life, and story telling, movie production etc. "lying" or "lying by ommission" is the game of a fool.

When you tell a story from your past, and you tell the "relevant" only to whatever point you're trying to make, are you LYING? No you're not.
Everyone does this in daily life, this does not equate to lying, and is not the standard for what makes "lying", and if you think either YOU in fact are lying.

This is another PERFECT demonstration of Mormoniciousness. In the example, the sole purpose of the "Film" is to convince viewers that the product of Mormonism is value based and worth trading ones current Religious Product for the one proffered by the Corrupt Mormon Corporation.

Now, in every other aspect where value is to be surrendered for a product, laws and morals dictate FULL DISCLOSURE so the purchaser can make an informed decision. But according to Mr. ldsfaqs, Full Disclosure would probably dissuade the purchaser from purchasing the Mormon Religious product ("It's a feel good spiritual based movie..... It's not designed to tell ALL FACTS of history."), therefore Full Disclosure is not necessary nor desirable.

Yep, Mormons setting the standard for the term "Honest in your dealings with your Fellow Men"

Mormons, lying just to lie.

[_Eyepatch]

It's been years since I've seen the film, but I recall being bothered by a scene in which Hyrum and Joseph are discussing various issues in an ad-hoc "office" of sorts built within the then-in-construction Nauvoo temple.

Basically, Hyrum tells Joe that the Governor has sent them a letter requesting their presence...making it sound like a polite request has been made for them to come chat with the Governor. I think the "letter" is, in fact, a criminal arrest warrant. This is a heavy bending of the truth and is employed to mislead the viewers.

This is the sort of b***s*** that makes me happy to be done with the "church."

[_suniluni2]

Why did LDS Inc leave out the fact that Joseph was not only armed with a loaded gun, but that he fired it?

Is this an omission or a lie?

I think it's obvious why they left it out. Leaving it out is an omission, by definition, and nothing else. If there are other statements that imply he was not armed, or if the scene(s) as a whole imply he was not armed, then that is a lie.

[_beefcalf]

Why did LDS Inc leave out the fact that Joseph was not only armed with a loaded gun, but that he fired it?

Is this an omission or a lie?

I think it's obvious why they left it out. Leaving it out is an omission, by definition, and nothing else. If there are other statements that imply he was not armed, or if the scene(s) as a whole imply he was not armed, then that is a lie.

According to the definition of dishonesty from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not mentioning Joseph's pistol is a lie.

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

from: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

[_suniluni2]

That's fine, I don't subscribe to their definition, although it's not far from mine. My definition of a lie is more of an affirmative statement of deceit, that's all. Is it possible to tell the *whole* truth when telling a story? Not really. If the story doesn't include what the weather was like that day, is it a lie? No. But that is part of the truth of that day, wasn't it? Omitting the fact that he was armed is a lot different though, and it's clear there's an agenda behind the omission. Just as there is with omitting the fact they drank wine the night before. But I don't go so far as to say the omission in and of itself is a lie.

[_beefcalf]

That's fine, I don't subscribe to their definition, although it's not far from mine. My definition of a lie is more of an affirmative statement of deceit, that's all. Is it possible to tell the *whole* truth when telling a story? Not really. If the story doesn't include what the weather was like that day, is it a lie? No. But that is part of the truth of that day, wasn't it? Omitting the fact that he was armed is a lot different though, and it's clear there's an agenda behind the omission. Just as there is with omitting the fact they drank wine the night before. But I don't go so far as to say the omission in and of itself is a lie.

That's cool.

I think for many on this board, the fact that the LDS Church doesn't even meet it's own proclaimed standard of honesty is the real issue...

[_sock puppet]

Because it doesn't make Joseph look like a lamb to the slaughter.

Sure it does. A lamb with a loaded pistol but a lamb nonetheless.

Lambs with guns? But then there is this