Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_Runtu]

1) Were there any higher-order intentions at play in situations where it appears the truth was being manipulated?

Not from my vantage point.

2) Who or what was being protected/insulated from harm when it appears that the truth may have been manipulated?

Well, the answers range from men who didn't want others to know with whom they were sleeping to church leaders who didn't want people to know about embarrassing historical information.

3) Lying involves more than just deceptive intent; the liar must also say something that they genuinely believe is false. Where are the shades of gray in particular instances where it appears that the truth may have been manipulated?

I could mention GBH's clear prevarication in his interview with police during the Hofmann business, but I suspect Wade would once again call me uncharitable. ;)

4)Traumatizing and/or confusing situations/events in which one finds the line between revelation and an illusory auditory/visual perception to be somewhat fuzzy/incomplete.

True enough.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't see where size matters.

Tell that to Lucretia MacEvil. :)

I'm going down to a stargazing get together in Bryce Canyon this next week. It's a heck of a lot more fun looking out at a big universe through a large telescope than have everything end at a black wall at the edge of space. Ever seen Truman Show? Why would God stick us in a tiny little box that we can see the end of? <g>

I loved the Truman Show. Great flick.

But to your question, god could have stuck us in a much smaller box that we still couldn't see the end of. The point I was making was that for all the perfect balance of conditions that support life on this tiny spec of dust in the universe, there is a ton of wasted unneeded space that will kill us instantly were we exposed to it. If there's a god that really did create all of this, he's got to be the most wasteful, inefficient creator ever. And he really is sloppy about taking care of his things. It's not a very intelligent design on several levels (assuming some creator did this "all for us").

Just because you'll enjoy looking out at the universe doesn't mean it was created so you can look out at it.

I'm often struck with the egocentricity and hubris that accompanies a belief in a god that made the world for humans. Our importance in the universe is only important to us because we think we're important. It reminds me of an old Emo Philips joke: "I used to think that the human mind was the most fascinating part of the human body, and then I realized... well, what's telling me that?

by the way, have you ever thought about how large the earth would seem to a little ant living in an ant colony?

I don't think the earth was created for the sake of ants, either.

[_mentalgymnast]

1) Were there any higher-order intentions at play in situations where it appears the truth was being manipulated?

Not from my vantage point.

2) Who or what was being protected/insulated from harm when it appears that the truth may have been manipulated?

Well, the answers range from men who didn't want others to know with whom they were sleeping to church leaders who didn't want people to know about embarrassing historical information.

3) Lying involves more than just deceptive intent; the liar must also say something that they genuinely believe is false. Where are the shades of gray in particular instances where it appears that the truth may have been manipulated?

I could mention GBH's clear prevarication in his interview with police during the Hofmann business, but I suspect Wade would once again call me uncharitable. ;)

4)Traumatizing and/or confusing situations/events in which one finds the line between revelation and an illusory auditory/visual perception to be somewhat fuzzy/incomplete.

True enough.

Here is a lesser known talk given by Elder Dallin Oaks that sheds a bit of light on this particular topic. It's worth the read.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml

Especially sections 4 and 5.

Theocratic ethics, as Michael Quinn refers to it (pg.88 The Mormon Hierarchy - Origins of Power), may have been at work in the mix also. It may still be, as in the example you alluded to with GBH.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I don't see where size matters.

Tell that to Lucretia MacEvil. :)

I'm going down to a stargazing get together in Bryce Canyon this next week. It's a heck of a lot more fun looking out at a big universe through a large telescope than have everything end at a black wall at the edge of space. Ever seen Truman Show? Why would God stick us in a tiny little box that we can see the end of? <g>

I loved the Truman Show. Great flick.

But to your question, god could have stuck us in a much smaller box that we still couldn't see the end of.

Maybe he did. Think about it.

Regards,
MG

[_Runtu]

Here is a lesser known talk given by Elder Dallin Oaks that sheds a bit of light on this particular topic. It's worth the read.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml

Theocratic ethics, as Michael Quinn refers to it (pg.88 The Mormon Hierarchy - Origins of Power), may have been at work in the mix also. It may still be, as in the example you alluded to with GBH.

Regards,
MG

I'm familiar with Oaks's talk. If I recall correctly, I was at that talk at BYU (I rarely missed things like that when I was in school), but I'm not 100% sure.

Anyway, Elder Oaks is quite right that it's difficult, if not unfair, to draw conclusions about the truth of the church by the actions (in this case, lies) of some of its leaders. I do not believe that lying is standard practice in the church, and I'm willing to believe that Joseph and GBH may have thought they had some higher ideal in mind.

You asked some questions, and I answered. Implicit in the questions was a justification for lying? As I said, I don't see a higher ideal at work, but clearly you do.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I don't see where size matters.

Tell that to Lucretia MacEvil. :)

Lord, you have a good memory!

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Here is a lesser known talk given by Elder Dallin Oaks that sheds a bit of light on this particular topic. It's worth the read.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml

Especially sections 4 and 5.

I agree that truths used out of context are as much as a lie. I agree that there is usually no generally no imperative to tell everything you know even if it is the truth. But mostly Oaks is talking about inconvenient truths. On the level of mortal existence, I wouldn't want to argue about whether truth should be denied or not, but on God's level, I cannot imagine a God who would require or even condone untruths. Only a very weak God would resort to lying to protect his church. The Mormon God has come down to man's level. I believe in rising to the level of a God of Truth.

[_mentalgymnast]

On the level of mortal existence, I wouldn't want to argue about whether truth should be denied or not, but on God's level, I cannot imagine a God who would require or even condone untruths.

MG: this is one of those areas that you appear to be thinking in an either/or manner. At face value what you say sounds good and black/white right. But the fact is, there are many more of us humans running around here on the planet than there are of God. Is he somehow obligated to be the one man "lie cop" and reinforce/penalize every word that escapes out of the mouths of everyone of his children at all times and in all places? Is he that all powerful...or should he be? Remember the book 1984? Would you have God be the big brother and regulate every lie/truth that we tell?

For any one of the reasons I mentioned above (7:12am on this page) God may step back and watch things take their course when someone tells an untruth or leaves out elements of the truth. Even when it's someone who from our point of view "should know better" than to lie under any circumstances.

The Mormon God has come down to man's level.

We're all he has to work with.

I believe in rising to the level of a God of Truth.

I'm sure he would be just as happy as pink if we would all do so. <g>

Regards,
MG

[_marg]

MG:

this is one of those areas that you appear to be thinking in an either/or manner. At face value what you say sounds good and black/white right. But the fact is, there are many more of us humans running around here on the planet than there are of God. Is he somehow obligated to be the one man "lie cop" and reinforce/penalize every word that escapes out of the mouths of everyone of his children at all times and in all places? Is he that all powerful...or should he be? Remember the book 1984? Would you have God be the big brother and regulate every lie/truth that we tell?

For any one of the reasons I mentioned above (7:12am on this page) God may step back and watch things take their course when someone tells an untruth or leaves out elements of the truth. Even when it's someone who from our point of view "should know better" than to lie under any circumstances.

Once an individual asserts an entity God, for which they offer no evidence which can be objectively verified, from there they can continue and typically do make additional claims regarding this God of whatever they wish ...of course without evidence. MG is one such person, who believes he is reasoning well.

There is nothing intellectually honest about it, nothing which takes any critical thinking, no way to determine liklihood or probabilities. It's a pile of claims of nonsense unless or until evidence is provided. And in this case the claims are piled on top of the basic assumption or claim..that a particular God (of in this case MG's choosing) exists.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG:

this is one of those areas that you appear to be thinking in an either/or manner. At face value what you say sounds good and black/white right. But the fact is, there are many more of us humans running around here on the planet than there are of God. Is he somehow obligated to be the one man "lie cop" and reinforce/penalize every word that escapes out of the mouths of everyone of his children at all times and in all places? Is he that all powerful...or should he be? Remember the book 1984? Would you have God be the big brother and regulate every lie/truth that we tell?

For any one of the reasons I mentioned above (7:12am on this page) God may step back and watch things take their course when someone tells an untruth or leaves out elements of the truth. Even when it's someone who from our point of view "should know better" than to lie under any circumstances.

Once an individual asserts an entity God, for which they offer no evidence which can be objectively verified, from there they can continue and typically do make additional claims regarding this God of whatever they wish ...of course without evidence. MG is one such person, who believes he is reasoning well.

There is nothing intellectually honest about it, nothing which takes any critical thinking, no way to determine liklihood or probabilities. It's a pile of claims of nonsense unless or until evidence is provided. And in this case the claims are piled on top of the basic assumption or claim..that a particular God (of in this case MG's choosing) exists.

Hi marg. You're back. The evidence is the Book of Mormon. I know what the arguments are against the Book of Mormon, but I'm sure that you are also aware of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Until you are able to put the evidences for the Book of Mormon to rest once and for all, and if you are intellectually honest yourself, I think you have to look at the Book of Mormon as a possible and readily available artifact/evidence for God/Jesus Christ.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Regards,
MG

Matthew 13:9 "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."