LDS Leaders, Their Ethics and Lying for the Lord

Christian-truths2 ^ | Jan. 9, 2011 | KC

[Colofornian]

This may look like I am trying to "bash" the church, but I have the actual references to all the things I bring up here and encourage Mormons or researchers to verify the accuracy of these statements. This does not look like the Mormonism that the LDS Church portrays in it's TV commercials and public service announcements. Please use historical references if you wish to refute anything here. Please do not write any more "testimonies" to me.

Joseph Smith's ethics

This is quoted from 'The Mormon Hierarchy - Origins of Power' by Dr. D. Michael Quinn, Signature Books 1994. I highly recommend the book. It has over 300 pages of references. It took years to write, and it demonstrates in incredible detail, his lifetime of Mormon historical research.

pg. 88: "Smith remained aloof from civil office, but in November 1835 he announced a doctrine I [Quinn] call 'theocratic ethics'. He used this theology to justify his violation of Ohio's marriage laws by performing a marriage for Newel Knight and the undivorced Lydia Goldthwaithe without legal authority to do so... In addition to the bigamous character of this marriage, Smith had no license to perform marriages in Ohio.

Although that was the first statement of this concept, Smith and his associates put that theology into practice long before 1835, and long after. Two months later Smith performed marriage ceremonies for which neither he nor the couples had marriage licenses, and he issued marriage certificates "agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Theocratic ethics justified LDS leaders and (by extension) regular Mormons in actions which were contrary to conventional ethics and sometimes in violation of criminal laws.

This ethical independence is essential for understanding certain seemingly inconsistent manifestations in Mormonism. Some had already occurred - reversals in doctrine and divinely revealed procedures, and the publication of unannounced changes in written revelations and historical texts. [I have examples of these below.] The Knight marriage was a public example of Joseph Smith's violation of laws and cultural norms regarding marriage and sexual behavior - the performance of civil marriages by legally unauthorized officiators, monogamous marriage ceremonies in which one or both partners were undivorced from legal spouses, polygamous marriage of a man with more than one living wife, his marriage proposals to females as young as twelve, his sexual relationships with polygamous wives as young as fourteen, polyandry of women with more than one husband, marriage and cohabitation with foster daughters, and Mormon marriages of first cousins, brother-sister, and uncle-niece. Other manifestations of Mormonism's theocratic ethics would soon begin in Kirkland and continue intermittently for decades - the official denials of actual events, the alternating condemnation and tolerance for counterfeiting and stealing from non-Mormons, threats and physical attacks against dissenters or other alleged enemies, the killing and castration of sex offenders, the killing of anti-Mormons, the bribery of government officials, and business ethics at odds with church standards."

References for the above:

Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, "Gospel Teachings About Lying", Clark Memorandum BYU (Spring 1994 pg. 16-17). In this Oaks acknowledges 'Lying for the Lord' by early Mormon leaders. Joseph Smith lied about many of his activities and the overwhelming historical evidence forced Oaks to admit the lies. Among Mormons and former Mormons it has become known as "Lying for the Lord".

Bribery was OK: Journal of Discources vol. 9:4-5

Mormon killing of women and children:

• Mountains Meadow Massacre 29 Sep. 1857, which was consistent with Mormon teachings of blood atonement. This is well described in the book by the same title by Juanita Brooks, Stanford University Press 1950. • The Circleville Massacre (Utah Historical Quarterly, Winter 1987 pgs 4-21). This describes Mormon militiamen shooting males, while slitting the throats of women and children, identical to the pattern of in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

• " 'Wild Bill' Hickman and the Mormon Frontier". Signature Books 1988.

Adulterous relationships later revised to be plural marriages

Again, from Mormon Hierarchy... In 1838 Cowdery broke a confidence and spoke to others about the "dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his [Joseph Smith's] and Fanny Algers". Fanny Alger was the prophet's first secret plural wife from early 1833 to mid-1836. This shows Cowdery's long standing bitterness at Smith's double-standard condemnation of Cowdery's "evils" while the prophet was at the same time in a polygamous relationship with Fanny Alger. See "Mormon Polygamy: A History", Signature Books 1985. Another excellent reference to Smith's adulterous affairs which were later "revised" to be plural marriages is in the book "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith", University of Illinois Press 1994.

Smith's secret polygamy put him in conflict not only with Cowdery but with every other member of the First Presidency... First counselor Sidney Rigdon withdrew into sullen inactivity for two years after Smith first (unsuccessfully) proposed polygamy to his daughter...

John Taylor - apostle and later a Prophet

This is from a post in the exmormon mail list about John Taylor. The "I" refers to Richard Packham.

I had told how one of the things that led me to question was seeing a missionary tract among my grandfather's missionary papers which was a report of a debate in 1850 in England between John Taylor (then an Apostle) and a Protestant minister, in which the minister accused the Mormons of practicing polygamy. Taylor responded that such a base and vile accusation was a lie, and proved the lie by quoting the D&C section (as it was then published) affirming monogamy as the only form of Mormon marriage. What shook my faith was the realization that Taylor was lying, having multiple wives waiting for him in Utah at that very moment.

Several months ago somebody asked me about that tract. I had searched my folks' things last summer when I was home, trying to find it, but without luck. I knew I had seen it, because it had made such an impression on me. I had to answer the inquiry by saying that I could not prove that Taylor had said that.

But I have found it! Not the copy of the tract that my grandfather had owned, but another copy of it. It is reproduced in Orson Pratt's Works, and a photocopy is in Sharon Banister's great handbook "For Any Latter-day Saint" at page 288-298. There Taylor says, in 1850: "We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such than [sic] none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore ... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and Coventants,' page 330. [1850 version] ... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again..."

Here are the women to whom John Taylor was married at that time, listed from D. Michael Quinn, _The Mormon Hierarchy: [vol. 1] Origins of Power_, p 597:

Leonora Cannon, md 1833, 4 children

Elizabeth Kaighin, md 1843, 3 children

Jane Ballantyne, md 1844, 3 children

Anna Ballantyne (Allen), md 1844, separated 1845, divorced 1852

Mary A. Oakley, md 1845, 5 children

Mary A. Utley, md 1846

Mary Ramsbottom, md 1846

Sarah Thornton (Coleman) md 1846, div 1852

Lydia Dible (Granger Smith), md 1846

Ann Hughlings (Pitchforth), md 1846

Sophia Whittaker, md 1847, 8 children

Harriet Whittaker, md 1847, 3 children

He had also been married to Mercy R. Fielding (Thompson Smith) for 2 years, 1845-1847.

So much for the outrageous accusations!

[Colofornian]

Re: Mormon ethics -- from the piece: The Knight marriage was a public example of Joseph Smith's violation of laws and cultural norms regarding marriage and sexual behavior - the performance of civil marriages by legally unauthorized officiators, monogamous marriage ceremonies in which one or both partners were undivorced from legal spouses, polygamous marriage of a man with more than one living wife, his marriage proposals to females as young as twelve, his sexual relationships with polygamous wives as young as fourteen, polyandry of women with more than one husband, marriage and cohabitation with foster daughters, and Mormon marriages of first cousins, brother-sister, and uncle-niece. Other manifestations of Mormonism's theocratic ethics would soon begin in Kirkland and continue intermittently for decades - the official denials of actual events, the alternating condemnation and tolerance for counterfeiting and stealing from non-Mormons, threats and physical attacks against dissenters or other alleged enemies, the killing and castration of sex offenders, the killing of anti-Mormons, the bribery of government officials, and business ethics at odds with church standards."

Note: Quinn was a BYU professor of history at one point.

From the piece: Among Mormons and former Mormons it has become known as "Lying for the Lord".

The link here from the piece is to a book entitled Solemn Covenant -- a book I have and is one of the best books on Lds history I've read. Hardy, I believe, is a descendent from Mormon polygamists.

His appendix on hundreds of plural marriages AFTER the 1890 manifesto is superb...giving details of who and when.

[reaganaut]

Ib4PD

[Tennessee Nana]

IB4PD2

[svcw]

According to my lds family there are no ethics and lying for the lord is common practice, yet they have no problem with these issues.

[Colofornian]

In this video Gordon Hinkley admits he follows a “christ” that is not the traditional Christ of the Bible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6TUpblOheI&feature=related I’ll have to watch it again to be able to give the time-reference.

Well, it's admissions like these that more & more Christians need to see. These threads are not simply for Mormons, but for those Christians taken in by some of the "interfaith" things some Mormon wards are doing.

For example, almost a year ago, the Mormon Times ran this piece: Interfaith fireside to focus on Christ

The article started off claiming: Every Christian church shares the objective of helping people to find faith in Jesus Christ.

Of course, my response was to cite the Hinckley quote you mentioned...along with another Hinckley citation...

How is it that even Mormon leaders generically contend their is a distinct one? (Oh sure. They say they worship a "christ," but they maintain they worship a "different" Christ -- and on that, we as Christians agree):

[And here’s your citation, F15Eagle]: "There are those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.” – LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley (LDS Church News, June 20, 1998)

More evidence?:

“It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons.” – LDS publication, Ensign Magazine, May 1977, p. 26

Four years after the Hinckley quote above, he said the following: As a Church we have critics, many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. (Gordon B. Hinckley, "We Look to Christ", from April 2002 General Conference.)

So the Mormon official publication says they worship a different Christ...

The Mormon "prophet" said they speak about, believe and acknowledge a different Christ...

Christians say they worship, speak of and belief another Jesus...

So…given we’re all on the same page...why was this Lds church-owned newspaper – and possibly that "fireside" group -- so out of harmony???

[aMorePerfectUnion]

IB4PDSPAMLINKS!!!

[MHGinTN]

Well, I finally shoveled my driveway yeatserday and got out, so I’ve got plenty of popcorn for the coming debacle as LDS apologists try to squelch yet more truth about their cult. ... BTW, Hinckley proved himself quite adept at this LDS taqiyya when he denied knowing much about the Lorenzo Snow couplet in an Time Magazine interview, yet in close proximity of time addressed the couplet meaning in a General Council session for LDS faithful! And he was such a nice, gentle looking man, how could he ... oh, never mind. It’s time to bake the bread.

[reaganaut]

According to my lds family there are no ethics and lying for the lord is common practice, yet they have no problem with these issues.

- - - - -

I think that stems from the idea that ‘gentiles’ (non Mormons) are ‘less’ than LDS. The common attitude, at least when I was LDS, was that since the gentiles didn’t have ‘full light and knowledge’ (the LDS gospel) they couldn’t really understand the teachings of the ‘one true church’ so lying, or misleading them (or even cheating them in business) was acceptable.

A few of the hardcore ones, born in the LDS church (BIC), and often older, would even compare lying or cheating non-Mormons to ‘bleeding the beast’ since ‘gentiles’ were part of the Whore of Babylon.

[MHGinTN]

You realize of course that the standard last resort response when they cannot squelch the issue is to proclaim LDS worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ... and we are then supposed to ignore that the LDS believe the god of Mormonism was once a man, had a goddess or two as wives in Heaven, had to gain the attributes of godhood, sired the Mormon jesus and satan as brothers, and started his godness career as a singlet, then added the Mormon jesus and the mormon holy spirit, presumeably after they too were appointed to godhood over Earth as ther Mormonism god was by a council of gods. And they will swear that Mormonism isn’t polytheistic, too!

[Tucker39]

I try not to be judgemental, and I have a lot of respect for Glenn Beck for being about the ONLY one in media actually getting to the ROOT of what has been happening to our government. And the only one to name names and play videos and audios of the perpetrators IN THEIR OWN WORDS as they plotted to subvert our government and way of life. For that, I admire him.

I confess I have a few qualms about Mormonism, too; but try to give Glenn the benefit of the doubt. But on occasions like this morning on his radio program, when he repeatedly spoke of Christ and MLK and Ghandi, et al on a pretty obviously equal basis, I was really put off by it.

[NEMDF]

Thank you for the post.

[ejonesie22]

Seekers of truth,
If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There’s an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the “quotation” the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were “only” quoting our own material.

They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.

Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn’t been addressed a hundred times before.

You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That’s a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don’t think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.

Some of them claim being some sort of special witness to you as being supposedly former Mormons. So someone who is an ex-member of any organization would never have an axe to grind or have reason to try to justify their actions by any means? Perhaps not but perhaps so. The LDS Church gains members from other denominations as well as others faiths all the time. This doesn’t make them an expert on anything and you certainly won’t hear them attacking their forner Church.

Frequently they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever “issue” they seem to be “revealing” or “exposing”. I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the “ahah” moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there’s nothing new here. It’s all been addressed many times before.

The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don’t be insulted, look for yourself. It’s not the haystack they want you to think.

Here’s a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the “issues” brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here’s more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/

Now you will likely notice the “you never address or answer our points” posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.

Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won’t know will you? They often state that these sites provide no answer. They just don’t want you looking. It is as simple as that.

Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both “sides”. Make up your own mind.

I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

IAPDSPAM!!!!!

WHOOO HOOO!!!!

[reaganaut]

To those of us who have been Mormon, and those who spend a lot of time studying Mormonism, we have noticed a great increase in the amount of LDS theology and teachings that Beck is ‘slipping’ into his programs. And it is disturbing. Some of it is also mixed with factual, historical errors (like the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden because of Constantine).

What concerns me, is people trusting him without question, especially when he seems to be indoctrinating people toward Mormonism.

[Elsie]

Well, I finally shoveled my driveway yeatserday and got out, so I’ve got plenty of popcorn for the coming debacle as LDS apologists try to squelch yet more truth about their cult.

I don't know. The ones that show up lately don't seem to have much fight in them at all!

[Elsie]

What concerns me, is people trusting him without question, especially when he seems to be indoctrinating people toward Mormonism.

Oh, I think he is about to be called out about it; and THEN it will REALLY be popcorn time!

[reaganaut]

I think they may be boycotting us. Haven’t seen Resty in quite awhile.

Courtesy ping only, Resty.

[Paragon Defender]

Seekers of truth,

If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There's an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.

They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.  

They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.

Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before.

You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.

Some of them claim being some sort of special witness to you as being supposedly former Mormons. So someone who is an ex-member of any organization would never have an axe to grind or have reason to try to justify their actions by any means? Perhaps not but perhaps so. The LDS Church gains members from other denominations as well as others faiths all the time. This doesn't make them an expert on anything and you certainly won't hear them attacking their forner Church.

Frequently they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.

After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.

The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think.

Here's a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here's more:

http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/

Now you will likely notice the "you never address or answer our points" posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.

Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you? They often state that these sites provide no answer. They just don't want you looking. It is as simple as that.

Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.

I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[P-Marlowe]

You're a bit late to the party.

Somebody already posted your spam.

IAPDSPAM