"Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5779
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

"Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by drumdude »

Mormonism Live and Mormon Stories have amassed quite a collection of examples of Mormon leaders and apologists being caught in lies. From DCP's 2nd Watson letter, to Russell Nelson's flight of death, to Elder Holland's temple interview, to Hinkley's "I don't know that we teach that." On and on and on, there is a seemingly endless mountain of lies to dig through.

What is Mormonism's preeminent apologist's response to all of this? Complete silence, it seems. A cursory search for the phrase "lying for the lord" comes up empty on his blog. There are by my count 12,580 entries on Sic Et Non. And not a single one is devoted to refuting the notion that LDS leaders engage in the practice of lying for the lord.

Why might this be? A simple oversight? Or something more deliberate?

If I were to hazard a guess, it's because Daniel thinks that lying for the lord is not morally wrong. He can't refute the clear evidence that it happens, so he has to interpret it as all part of the plan. Perhaps this explains his own issues with the truth? Why not employ such an effective weapon, why hold yourself to the standard of truth if lying is not only morally permissible, but seemingly necessary to spread the restored gospel around the world?
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 4347
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist

Post by Gadianton »

I think your reasoning is circular. I see what you're saying, but what do you mean by lying? Is there anything in the scriptures that relates truth to facts?

Maybe it's implied sometimes. Like, when the tomb is said to be empty, we're supposed to believe this is factual in the ordinary sense. But even that's complicated, because apologists have also argued that embellishment is an mark of ancient authenticity. For instance, in the limited geography, there wouldn't have been hundreds of thousands dead in the final battle, but the Nephites exaggerated this as we'd expect ancient record keepers to do, therefore giving credibility as an ancient record.

When Paul H. Dunn got caught and there was a scandal, I was at the Y. My Book of Mormon teacher quickly mentioned there was a news item for that morning but we wouldn't be talking about it. He claimed to have known for ten years it had been going on. I assumed he was just bragging about being in the know, but a very strange thing to reveal. If this guy knew about it for ten years and he was a relative nobody, then it must have been an open secret among the brethren for much longer. Why let it continue? Because it was true. Everything about it was told in a spirit of loyalty to the core mission of the Church. He wasn't gently set aside for factual incorrectness, but because of controversy, and the Church will maintain appearances at times because they know the gentiles don't understand what real truth is. It's a "render Caesar" thing. On my mission, one of my comps knew Paul; he was a friend of the family. He shrugged the whole thing off as no big deal. The guy was brilliant and otherwise down to earth; definitely would be in my friend category.

You just have to understand what honesty means for a religious mindset. I don't have to refer you to truth social, where the definition of truth is literally whatever you say in a spirited way for the cause of Donald Trump. That's the actual definition. Lying is grounds for banning.

I should point out my dad didn't take the news about Dunn very well and flipped his lid when on TV, Dunn's statement was shown to say he was teaching a parable like Christ. I can't explain that, hopefully my dad repented.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5779
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist

Post by drumdude »

Gadianton wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2024 2:08 am
I think your reasoning is circular. I see what you're saying, but what do you mean by lying? Is there anything in the scriptures that relates truth to facts?

Maybe it's implied sometimes. Like, when the tomb is said to be empty, we're supposed to believe this is factual in the ordinary sense. But even that's complicated, because apologists have also argued that embellishment is an mark of ancient authenticity. For instance, in the limited geography, there wouldn't have been hundreds of thousands dead in the final battle, but the Nephites exaggerated this as we'd expect ancient record keepers to do, therefore giving credibility as an ancient record.

When Paul H. Dunn got caught and there was a scandal, I was at the Y. My Book of Mormon teacher quickly mentioned there was a news item for that morning but we wouldn't be talking about it. He claimed to have known for ten years it had been going on. I assumed he was just bragging about being in the know, but a very strange thing to reveal. If this guy knew about it for ten years and he was a relative nobody, then it must have been an open secret among the brethren for much longer. Why let it continue? Because it was true. Everything about it was told in a spirit of loyalty to the core mission of the Church. He wasn't gently set aside for factual incorrectness, but because of controversy, and the Church will maintain appearances at times because they know the gentiles don't understand what real truth is. It's a "render Caesar" thing. On my mission, one of my comps knew Paul; he was a friend of the family. He shrugged the whole thing off as no big deal. The guy was brilliant and otherwise down to earth; definitely would be in my friend category.

You just have to understand what honesty means for a religious mindset. I don't have to refer you to truth social, where the definition of truth is literally whatever you say in a spirited way for the cause of Donald Trump. That's the actual definition. Lying is grounds for banning.

I should point out my dad didn't take the news about Dunn very well and flipped his lid when on TV, Dunn's statement was shown to say he was teaching a parable like Christ. I can't explain that, hopefully my dad repented.
Very enlightening perspective to see how the faithful dealt with Paul Dunn.

I do think this is how Daniel sees the world, in a very postmodern way. There is no objective “truth” except the story of Mormonism.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6281
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by Moksha »

drumdude wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:29 am
What is Mormonism's preeminent apologist's response to all of this? Complete silence, it seems. A cursory search for the phrase "lying for the lord" comes up empty on his blog.
There is no reason to bore readers with sacred apologetic methodology.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6849
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by Kishkumen »

Excellent point, Dean. The definition of truth is the rub here. The words of the prophets are the truth by definition, right? If that doesn’t match the apparent facts, then the facts may not be the facts. Truth in the service of salvation trumps apparent facts any day. I think this must be factored into any consideration of how Mormon apologetics work.
"Great power connected with ambition, luxury and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman Empire." ~Cato, New York Journal
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 4347
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by Gadianton »

drumdude wrote: do think this is how Daniel sees the world, in a very postmodern way. There is no objective “truth” except the story of Mormonism.
This is an entire topic of its own with lots of moving parts. Afore admitted back in the day on Z to his fondness for the book Fashionable Nonsense by Allan Sokal. Yet at that time, there was a conference about Mormonism at Yale and the Mormon scholars invited to present were all postmodernists. I couldn't get Afore to comment on his fondness for Alan Sokal while at the same time promoting this Yale conference geared to preach the gospel in postmodern terms to fellow postmodernists. The future FAIR crowd on Z were big into that angle, there was a religion scholar at that time who published a popular book thinking through religion in postmodern terms, unfortunately, I can't remember the guy's name. But the future FAIR people on Z were totally into this this guy. And I couldn't get through to them that the route they were going was right in the face of FARMS, which superficially necessitates facts to be real in order for the Book of Mormon to be true as an ancient record.

The New MI went the official pomo route. Afore hasn't been consistent portraying this. A few articles from early Mormon Interpreter made fun of the new MI in Allan Sokal "be as much of a dick as possible about it" fashion. But Afore also would say that he had no problem with the new MI doing Critical Theory, but didn't understand why the new MI would be so insistent about keeping old school spade-in-dirt defenses out of their program.

Aside from tension between the objectivity vs. constructivist schools of thinking, we know that the embarrassing level of quality for serious papers on Book of Mormon archeology could be a problem. Do they want to risk getting made fun of over tapirs and all that? It's an unknown whether the postmodern route will work better for Mormonism. I can think of reasons it would and reasons it wouldn't.

Postmodernism must be okay with contradictions within itself to a degree. It was pointed out a long time ago that "no man stands in the same river twice" requires the man saying the statement to be standing in the same river many times. And so It's conceivable that one could believe both in objectivity and constructivism at the same same time as a unique kind of postmodernism, but another person might think of Afore as postpostmodern. Anything but the kitchen sink, anything including the kitchen sink, anything except the kitchen sink, anything necessitating the kitchen sink are all welcome, so long as the world's largest hedge fund is portrayed as pure and faultless in every word and deed.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5779
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by drumdude »

Gadianton wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2024 2:17 pm
drumdude wrote: do think this is how Daniel sees the world, in a very postmodern way. There is no objective “truth” except the story of Mormonism.
so long as the world's largest hedge fund is portrayed as pure and faultless in every word and deed.
That to me is the big problem. It’s all fine and well to believe that Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism is your base truth. Those are religious traditions that transcend any one leader.

But in cults like Scientology and Mormonism, the leaders are the religion. Any doctrine can be changed at any time, even ones considered the “new and everlasting covenants.” The brethren are essentially filling the role of God, morality, and truth. If they say 2+2=5 then they are right by definition.
User avatar
DrStakhanovite
Elder
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by DrStakhanovite »

Gadianton wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2024 2:17 pm
The future FAIR crowd on Z were big into that angle, there was a religion scholar at that time who published a popular book thinking through religion in postmodern terms, unfortunately, I can't remember the guy's name.
Massimo Introvigne?
Image
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9246
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

The Mormons have replaced Jesus with the Current Prophet, and by extension the priesthood Line of Actual Authority (right down to the male in the home) as their center of devotion and, arguably, worship.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, trumps The Church. Even if Jesus Himself told you to do something, unless it’s been blessed off by some swinging dick, it won’t happen.

Jesus is Dead. The Church is God. DCP worships neither, since he believes himself to be a god, so why not take that vacay to Austria to gawk at mountains and brag to the plebes over a dish of semmeln, cold cuts, boiled eggs, and a side of butter and zwetschgenmarmelade.

“F” the Africans, a blog post awaits!

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5187
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: "Lying for the Lord" appears to be a taboo topic for our favorite apologist.

Post by Philo Sofee »

drumdude wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:29 am
Mormonism Live and Mormon Stories have amassed quite a collection of examples of Mormon leaders and apologists being caught in lies. From DCP's 2nd Watson letter, to Russell Nelson's flight of death, to Elder Holland's temple interview, to Hinkley's "I don't know that we teach that." On and on and on, there is a seemingly endless mountain of lies to dig through.

What is Mormonism's preeminent apologist's response to all of this? Complete silence, it seems. A cursory search for the phrase "lying for the lord" comes up empty on his blog. There are by my count 12,580 entries on Sic Et Non. And not a single one is devoted to refuting the notion that LDS leaders engage in the practice of lying for the lord.

Why might this be? A simple oversight? Or something more deliberate?

If I were to hazard a guess, it's because Daniel thinks that lying for the lord is not morally wrong. He can't refute the clear evidence that it happens, so he has to interpret it as all part of the plan. Perhaps this explains his own issues with the truth? Why not employ such an effective weapon, why hold yourself to the standard of truth if lying is not only morally permissible, but seemingly necessary to spread the restored gospel around the world?
Lying for the Lord makes them pious frauds, no? I wonder why DCP made such a whoop tee do about Dan Vogel's accurate assessment of this restored dispensation's first prophet being a pious fraud?
Post Reply