- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
You gave reasons why they might have resorted to “selective First Presidency letter clause loss”… perhaps these are valid questions, perhaps not. It doesn’t’ change the fact that the mode of dealing with these problems/concerns is somewhat misleading. Where much is given much is required. When you claim to be ethical or even acting on the highest principles of morality, you are held to a high standard. I feel that high standard was not applied in the reporting of the meaning of a full-tithe as originally conceived by the First Presidency.
I don’t know that the LDS church claims to be “true” in the sense that it is absolutely honest, with full disclosure, in every scenario. Even the phrase “lying for the Lord” was coined for when a deception or misleading statement was required for the greater good. I believe that my questions point to valid reasons why full disclosure in this scenario might result in a net loss of goodness. So decisions were made to bring about the greatest amount of good (as the decision makers understood it).
Christine O’Donnell was criticized for saying that honesty is always right.
Quote:O’DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you’re exaggerating or lying to, because it’s not respecting reality.
MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.
IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, ‘do you have any Jewish people in your house?’ and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler.
O’DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!
MAHER: God is not there. Hitler’s there and you’re there.
O’DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.
I do not believe the LDS church has ever shared her perspective.
There are many things that bother me about the LDS church; this just doesn’t appear to be one of them. But then again… You must remember that I’m naturally unscrupulous.
😈 /beginning of rant It’s also important to point out that “lying for the Lord” is NOT a Mormon term. It wasn’t invented by Mormons, and it has never, to the best of my knowledge, been used over the GC pulpit or by an apostle or prophet – especially as something to emulate and practice.
I’ve heard it used as a “positive” thing multiple times by some of my Protestant friends – and even by more than one minister, but it’s not a Mormon term. The first time I heard it used was by an anti-Mormon activist who was passing out fliers at our Seminary building when I was in high school. The fliers had some blatantly inaccurate quotes that supposedly were taken from the JST of the Bible – and when our teacher showed him the actual verses and that the quotes in his fliers were totally fabricated (and it wasn’t even close), the man said, to the best of my recollection:
Quote:“It’s OK. I’m lying for the Lord, and he understands and will bless me for exposing the truth about Mormonism in any way I can.”
Neither is “fake it ’til you make it”. That phrase was applied as a description of the idea that a testimony sometimes is found in the bearing of it – but the actual meaning in the original statement is FAR different than “fake it ’til you make it”.
These are examples of why I believe in parsing. After a while, some things take on a veneer of legitimacy that just don’t deserve it.
end of rant/
Old-Timer wrote:/beginning of rant
My own personal peeve is the quote “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.” I dislike it because according to our records (such as they are) Jesus never did say these words.
Ray, pushing aside the inflammatory nature of the phrase “Lying for the Lord” (wich I simply latched onto as shorthand for a scenario where a deception serves the greater good) for the moment, would you agree that the LDS church as an organization does not practice full disclosure in all scenarios?
Old-Timer wrote:It wasn’t invented by Mormons, and it has never, to the best of my knowledge, been used over the GC pulpit or by an apostle or prophet – especially as something to emulate and practice.
I must agree with you that I’ve never heard situational ethics preached over the pulpit, but my question remains about organizational practice.
Quote:would you agree that the LDS church as an organization does not practice full disclosure in all scenarios?
Of course. Neither do I.
Anyone who does “practice full disclosure in all scenarios” is stupid – or, more charitably, naive and/or idealistic.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:would you agree that the LDS church as an organization does not practice full disclosure in all scenarios?
Of course. Neither do I.
Anyone who does “practice full disclosure in all scenarios” is stupid – or, more charitably, naive and/or idealistic.
… or not trying to hide anything. So are you saying that previous to 1959 (after which the church stopped making financial disclosures in the US, which I think is the part of ‘disclosure’ that is relevant to the context of this thread) that the church was stupid, and now it’s not?
Quote:So are you saying that previous to 1959 (after which the church stopped making financial disclosures in the US, which I think is the part of ‘disclosure’ that is relevant to the context of this thread) that the church was stupid, and now it’s not?
Nope. There’s no need to read between the lines when I write something. If it’s not in the words themselves, I wasn’t saying it.
Prior to 1959, the Church didn’t “practice full disclosure in all scenarios”. It wasn’t stupid then, either, in that regard.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.