NOM

Over on Reddit Exmormon they are using this as an example of Elder Ballard and Elder Oaks lying in the "Face to Face" Broadcast. Were they lying? You decide, I know what I think:

Elder Ballard spoke of criticisms to the effect that the Church has hidden the fact that there is more than one rendition of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.

“The facts are we don’t study; we don’t go back and search what has been said on the subject. For example, Dr. James B. Allen of BYU in 1970 produced an article in the Church magazines explaining all about the different versions of the First Vision.”

He added, “We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.”

Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers project, “we’re learning more about the Prophet Joseph; it’s wonderful we are,” Elder Ballard said. “Just trust us, wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that; that’s the Lord’s way.”

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... dcast.html

They can say this because there are those odd articles out there produced by the church that talk about some issues. There was an article about the seerstone, there was an article about the first vision, but the problem is that those were not available through means that we were told were acceptable. All other means were not acceptable. Someone else on reddit notes that that article about the first vision is available neither on LDS.org of anywhere on BYU's website. The only readable version he could find was on Mormonthink. So, no they are not lying, but they are not being entirely truthful either. As usual. Although you could point to JFS ripping the page out of Joseph's diary, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence there.

What year did the 1832 account become known to the modern general authorities? Between that date and the 1970 article it would have been hidden right? Also didn't it take the Tanners finding out about it to force the issue to be acknowkledged?

I suggested to an apologist friend that we should go over the history of Joseph's teenage polygamy in a series of lessons with the Young Women and Relief Society classes during church. He simply thought that would not be a good idea at all, but not because we were hiding anything. His final answer was that everyone needs to come to a personal testimony of plural marriage and we cannot reasonably expect apostles to talk about this openly. Not because it's scandalous or anything. But simply because it's spiritual or not appropriate or something like that.

Of course there are dozens of examples of hiding things. It’s a tradition. I point out that when Joseph did not explain that he used a seer stone and a hat at the 1832 conference he was hiding a fact. When today’s apostles will not clearly state that they have seen or not seen Jesus, they are hiding something. If they are witnesses, they should be clear on what they’re witnessing about.

Well if Elder Ballard is being completely honest, then there will be no problem whatsoever if I get up in Fast and Testimony Meeting and talk about Joseph Smith's "wives", along with interesting facts and colorful anecdotes abut their relationships. Nobody is hiding anything, therefore we can talk about these things openly without fear of reprisal, right? Everything is all open, and honest, and aboveboard, just like it has always been.

I have to chuckle. Seems to me that if inspiration and revelation truly were imbued in the 15 (past and present) they would have simply remembered Matt 5:37. Such communication would have provided precise and unambiguous answers to the questions now plaguing the church. Come to think of it, the missionary lesson pertaining to the restoration would have been a whole lot shorter. (Note: I'm of the age when the lessons were taught from the old "rainbow" binders. You memorized them word for word.)

Michael Quinn wrote: When Elder Packer interviewed me as a prospective member of Brigham Young University's faculty in 1976, he explained: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."

and yet

Marvin Ashton wrote: A lie is any communication given to another with the intent to deceive . . . A lie can be effectively communicated without words ever being spoken. Sometimes a nod of the head or silence can deceive . . . Failure to divulge all pertinent facts is another way to communicate the lie.

The history of Joseph Smith and this church is rife with embarrassing, messy, tough-to-explain stuff. And time and again the leaders, either by outright lies or by failing to divulge pertinent facts, have hidden, obfuscated and conspired to conceal the truth -- the truth that they have always known would prove damaging. Sometimes I have great sympathy for them because I think they are caught in a tangle that started long before any of them were born. That sympathy evaporates when I see two old farts like Oaks and Ballard laugh so smugly and condescendingly. They are not prophets; they are not shepherds. They are Pharisees and hypocrites.

I KNEW I shouldn't have opened this thread; I get so aggravated!

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:17 pm What year did the 1832 account become known to the modern general authorities? Between that date and the 1970 article it would have been hidden right? Also didn't it take the Tanners finding out about it to force the issue to be acknowkledged?

If you look closely at the 1832 account on the JSPP, you will notice that there is tape attaching it to the rest of the book. The reason that tape is there is that Joseph Fielding Smith cut the account out of the book in which it was written. He hid it in a safe. It was discovered by others when another member of the Q12 got permission from the 1P to see the contents of the safe.

Fifi de la Vergne wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:31 pm

Michael Quinn wrote: When Elder Packer interviewed me as a prospective member of Brigham Young University's faculty in 1976, he explained: "I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."

and yet

Marvin Ashton wrote: A lie is any communication given to another with the intent to deceive . . . A lie can be effectively communicated without words ever being spoken. Sometimes a nod of the head or silence can deceive . . . Failure to divulge all pertinent facts is another way to communicate the lie.

The history of Joseph Smith and this church is rife with embarrassing, messy, tough-to-explain stuff. And time and again the leaders, either by outright lies or by failing to divulge pertinent facts, have hidden, obfuscated and conspired to conceal the truth -- the truth that they have always known would prove damaging. Sometimes I have great sympathy for them because I think they are caught in a tangle that started long before any of them were born. That sympathy evaporates when I see two old farts like Oaks and Ballard laugh so smugly and condescendingly. They are not prophets; they are not shepherds. They are Pharisees and hypocrites.

I KNEW I shouldn't have opened this thread; I get so aggravated!

There is a BIG difference in not mentioning the fact that an overweight woman is fat, and portraying the BoM was translated byJoseph studying the markings on the gold plates. One is not mentioning something you got no business mentioning in the first place. The woman didn't ASK, and probably knows already, so there is no purpose in saying anything unless you want to hurt her. It is not your place. The other is portraying something falsely that you do have a responsibility to portray truthfully. It is the church's place to provide correct information. The example of telling the woman she is fat might be more accurate if the woman's Doctor fibs when she ASKS about her weight being a problem. Sort of like assuring her she has nothing to worry about that she is morbidly obese, because not everyone of her weight dies young. The doctor OWES her the truth, not just assurances that she shouldn't worry about it. But the church DOES give people assurances that they shouldn't worry. And the church OWES us the truth. Or say the doctor discourages her from doing research on losing weight as the church discourages people from researching about Joseph lying to Emma, marrying 14 y o girls and having sex with women who had a legal husband at the time and was living with the legal husband. Take for example Mrs. Lyons. She told her daughter, Josephine that Joseph was her father, but DNA shows that her legal husband was really the father. Now women don't get confused about who is the father unless they are sleeping with more than one man. This is adultery in anybody's book. But the church discourages us from doing research. The church may not tell outright lies, but it does hide information by claiming that certain facts should not be taught because they are not inspirational. This is like the doctor grabbing diet information out of the fat woman's hands. The church acts like it wants people to remain ignorant of certain facts about Mormon history, and a doctor who wanted the fat woman to remain ignorant about the risks of obesity would be charged with malpractice. Yea, not even comparing apples and oranges, but comparing apples with the Titanic. No similarity at all.

So, really, if they are not hiding stuff, that means they are going to open their vaults to researchers and publish all financial information......yeah, I didn't think so

For some strange reason I feel the need to quote from Gospel Principles Chapter 31: Honesty; Section: To Lie Is Dishonest, partial second paragraph:

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.

Let's say that I have a special coin.

I believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of my identity. I believe that it's very important for you to believe it as well.

So I flip the coin. It's heads, and I show you.

Throughout the day, I flip the coin. When it's tails, I'm a little disappointed. When it's heads, I show it to you or tell you about it.

I never count. I tell myself that that's not how this is supposed to work.

I never grab the coin after it lands tails-up and turn it over. That would be cheating. I never cheat.

You'll sometimes catch me flipping the coin but not showing you the outcome. Early on, you ask me about these times. Maybe I tell you that those outcomes aren't useful. Maybe I say that they might give you the wrong idea. Maybe I say that you shouldn't pry into sacred things.

When you're old enough, I confide in you that the coin doesn't always land heads-up, but that it does often enough. I actually never said that it always does. Besides, I needed you to trust me and my special coin.

When your friend wants to observe and count, I say no way. That's not how this works. If you listen to him, he'll warp your beliefs. I know what's true, and I know you won't discover the same truth for yourself if you don't approach this like I do. Now that you're getting old enough to have your own coin, it's critical that you treat it with the same respect and reverence that I treat mine with.

One day, I give you your own special coin, just like mine. You believe that flipping this coin results in heads far more often than tails. This belief is a big part of your identity. You believe that it's very important for others to believe it as well...

Have I lied?

Have I hidden anything from you? Or have I only given you the evidence I thought was important?

Let's say that friend of yours who wanted to observe and count became so persistent that I had to discredit him so you wouldn't listen to him. Is that hiding anything?

Let's say I occasionally kept a journal of coin flips as a faith-promoting exercise, and once I recorded despairing over getting 10 tails in a row. I didn't show you this entry because I thought you weren't ready for it - your testimony was still too weak. Is that hiding anything?

Am I honest?

Reuben, that's an awesome analogy.

I have a friend that is using the "Milk before meat.." phrase about this, and that misleading and gas-lighting is not deceptive. I am not quite sure how to respond. He is also saying the Q15 just never looked into the history so they really don't know.

I should have included this in my previous post, but it didn't come to mind then.

Here's a prime example right now of how they literally try to hide church history:

Go to lds.org, and try and do a search for: "Helen Mar Kimball" and see what happens.

(Hint: They have literally trained the search engine on LDS.org to lie / attempt to hide the truth.)

There has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody.

This is the sad lie that has been told often & loud so often that it has become fact to many LDS. This is part of why LDS people often become excellent liars--they're taught to lie by example.

Other than the outright falsehood Elders Ballard and Oaks propagated in the Face to Face that the Church hasn't ever tried to hide anything, there are a couple of other things about it I find very troubling:

• The mockery of those who dare suggest that the Church hides things. Since thy can't refute criticisms of the Church, is mocking those who make them going to be their go-to childish response now? They are intelligent men, they realize there is some merit to this criticism.

• Labeling those of us who point out that the Church has misled us liars. Yep, that's right, Elders Ballard and Oaks have made us out to be liars, pretty ironic.

• "Trust us". Never before have they been so blatant about saying "never mind about the facts, just trust us".

• They don't even try to hide the gaslighting. "Yeah, how can you say we were hiding the multiple accounts of the First Vision when there was an obscure article about in 1970? That's a long time to hide things (chuckle chuckle)". And the audience just laughs along with them.

It isn't just their lies that trouble me about this, there are all kinds of things wrong with this.

Sister M had this on while I was doing something else, and when they said this I laughed out loud. Like, watching Seinfeld laughing out loud. When she asked what was funny, I said that she wouldn't find it as funny as I did. And dropped it quickly.

I'm so glad that was my reaction, further proof of my pure apathy for all things church related.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:17 pm What year did the 1832 account become known to the modern general authorities? Between that date and the 1970 article it would have been hidden right? Also didn't it take the Tanners finding out about it to force the issue to be acknowkledged?

On a serious note, this is why I laughed so hard. We have an 1970 article talking about the 1832 version? What about the 140 years in between? Or finally I get a picture of the brown seerstone I had only read about? Or the 2013/2014 essays on topics that have never been talked about in church magazines? Who are they kidding? What a joke.

However, one thing is remember the audience here - Ballard could care less about us skeptical, cynical old "sinners," this was a message to the true believers, and a soothing one at that. So in the immortal words of George Costanza, "It's not a lie, if you believe it."

Ballard has to be tired of answering these questions that keep coming up. He did a fireside with Rasband awhile back and AZFlyer asked a similar question to Rasband. Ballard jumped up and nearly pushed Rasband out of the way and was a little feisty and said "I'll answer this one". He went on to say how the church put out the essays, and has been transparent, and gave lip service to all the wonderful things the church has done. He was fuming that anyone would suggest such terrible things of the church.

I'm glad to see him continue to answer the same questions with the same lip service. It's a good indication it's not working. I'm also left wondering how Ballard got this assignment? He's not very good at it.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:18 am I'm also left wondering how Ballard got this assignment? He's not very good at it.

Ballard may actually be the best among the apostles in proclaiming the party line. In any case, he is likely the most willing to be the spokesman for this line of thinking.