LDS Question:Lying for the Lord

[SteveVH]

Anytime I write something on this forum, I am going to be withholding important (to me) information about my beliefs, or in other words, I don’t say all that I know because it is not going to be important to others (who read this forum) and would do them not one bit of good other than give them reason to go off grumbling.

I think the Savior taught an important principle when He taught in parables. Parables allowed the listener to have it go “over their head” if they were only ready for partial knowledge (or no knowledge) about what He was teaching.

God gives mankind knowledge at the level they are ready to receive it.

I think there is a difference in offering too much information or information that is not specifically relevant to a conversation, and witholding information that you believe might make people grumble.

When Jesus taught in parables, he wasn’t just making them up on the spot. The depth of their meaning is still being uncovered even today and must be read within the context of all of the senses of scripture, literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. The prodigal son has meaning for us personally as well as for the Jewish nation in general. But Christ left nothing out by teaching in parables. Truth was not withheld, rather it was penetrating and purposeful, every word of it.

I can think of nothing I would leave out if one were to inquire about the Catholic faith. One may not be ready for a discussion on the hypostatic union but it surely would not be withheld if necessary to the conversation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Matter of fact, make sure you ask everything you want to know about the Catholic Church and Faith. We want you to know the real deal. And theres nothing that isn’t discussed including the dirt here. Wouldn’t have it any other way. I wouldn’t feel right.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Campeador,

Speaking for myself, yes.

Anytime I write something on this forum, I am going to be withholding important (to me) information about my beliefs, or in other words, I don’t say all that I know because it is not going to be important to others (who read this forum) and would do them not one bit of good other than give them reason to go off grumbling.

What about withholding information that you reasonably believe to be important to the other person? For example, I have no problem if you withhold information about polygammy, when we are discussing the LDS understanding of the Trinity. But if you are withholding information about the LDS teaching on the Trinity while we are discussing this very subject, because you think I will reject the teaching as “too hard” or too “different” from the mainstream, then I think you are selling me (and the rest of the audience) short. Also, you’re not really fostering the kind of open communication that is necessary for real dialogue. Why should I discuss issues with you when you’re not being open with me about the LDS position? What does that get me, if I know you’re going to avoid the real issue.
Parker D:

I think the Savior taught an important principle when He taught in parables. Parables allowed the listener to have it go “over their head” if they were only ready for partial knowledge (or no knowledge) about what He was teaching.

First, neither of us are the Savior. So, I don’t think that’s relevant to the discussion about lying for the Lord. He’s the Savior you’re lying for, for Pete’s sake! But even if we are to follow his example, you’re not even providing that opportunity. You’re withholding facts from a fact discussion, not responding to a query with a parable. Finally, I don’t think the parables were leaving out anything doctrinal in their teaching. Rather, it was the hearer that simply refused to hear the truth. Your “lying for the Lord” removes even that from the possible outcome.
Parker D:

God gives mankind knowledge at the level they are ready to receive it.

True, and since we are all members of mankind… we should be open and honest about what the Lord has revealed to all of us, right? Or are you saying that
“some are more equal then others?”

Peace,
Robert

 

[RebeccaJ]

Or are you saying that
“some are more equal then others?”

Peace,
Robert

Mormons teach some are more worthy than others.

 

[SteveVH]

Mormons do not talk about those things they hold most sacred.

Why? I love to talk about the things I hold most sacred and so does the Catholic Church. It is exactly the things we hold most sacred that should be given to the world, not withheld.

There is a difference between lying and keeping things sacred.

Yes there is. Do you equate keeping things sacred with keeping things secret?

Do you feel comfortable telling strangers about your inner-most feelings? Of course not! It is no surprise that Mormons feel just like Catholics and everyone else.

The only time I’m not comfortable with telling strangers about my innermost feelings is when those things should be told in a confessional.

Context is vital to comprehension. Millet’s context was about doing missionary work. It appears that few of the participants know about such things, but when trying to teach, “teachers” guide the topic and the conversation. It is not dishonest or insincere, but it is an effective teaching method. Trying to make this sound heinous is itself dishonest.

It is especially effective when trying to promote an agenda. Any honest teacher will be honest in answering the student’s questions and if the teacher cannot answer the question he should admit it and seek the answer himself so that he may subsequently impart it to the student. Keeping the teaching on task is far different than withholding information which may not please the student.

As a Catholic website we should be the exemplary in our manner of speech and in how we discuss other religions. How I dislike anti-Catholics and the manner in which they twist the truth about the Church. I have the exact same disdain when supposed members of our Church do the same thing about others. It is not Christian, it is not Christ-like, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think anyone would argue the merits of charity, JeanMichel. We should also not argue the merits of integrity when answering questions about our faith.

 

[lax16]

Since the Savior withheld information and Paul did also and John did also, I hope you don’t consider that they were doing what your question has suggested.

Hi Parker - What type of information do you think is okay for Mormons to withhold from prospective converts, if any?

Also, withholding information and lying can be two different things.

The young man I met several years ago who had just moved here (to Utah) from central California explained to me that he converted to Mormonism because “the missionaries told me that there is a great amount of archaelogical evidence to prove the Book of Mormon is true” and that “it proves my people are part of the Chosen People.”

At the time, I just wished him well in his new home, but have been burning mad every time I think about it!
Next time, I will know enough to challenge the missionaries and their lies.
Admit it, those were lies. There is no proof!

 

[ParkerD]

…Why should I discuss issues with you when you’re not being open with me about the LDS position? …
True, and since we are all members of mankind… we should be open and honest about what the Lord has revealed to all of us, right? Or are you saying that
“some are more equal then others?”

Peace,
Robert

Robert,

I have been open about the LDS position whenever I have posted a comment that related to a question, in trying to answer the question.

I disagree as to being “open and honest about what the Lord has revealed” since some things are sacred and some things can’t really be “learned” by reading about them, other than catching a beginning glimpse–one has to experience it.

I think Matthew 25:1-13 applies to kinds of knowledge that are experiential knowledge and some knowledge gained by exercising faith in Jesus Christ and in the revelatory power of the Holy Ghost.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - What type of information do you think is okay for Mormons to withhold from prospective converts, if any?

The kind of knowledge that condemns them if they share something they learn that shouldn’t be shared because it is covenant knowledge that is sacred and holy, or if they learn something in their head that they don’t apply in their heart and come closer to Christ because of it, and therefore they are under greater condemnation for having learned it in their head.

 

[Javl]

Witholding information is serious but not life threatening. Lying is very serious and is life threatening since lying is a tool of the Devil. The Catholic Church does not lie in its teachings, actions, or whatever. But I now learn that the LDS church does. Can the LDS church be trusted in anything?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[SteveVH]

The kind of knowledge that condemns them if they share something they learn that shouldn’t be shared because it is covenant knowledge that is sacred and holy, or if they learn something in their head that they don’t apply in their heart and come closer to Christ because of it, and therefore they are under greater condemnation for having learned it in their head.

I realize that this post is not directed to me, but can you please explain why something “sacred and holy” should not be shared? Are you in a position to determine whether or not someone will apply this knowledge in their heart?

I may be wrong, but if I understand your logic, we should never share our faith because there is always a chance that someone may learn the truth and therefore be subject to greater condemnation if they don’t apply it in their lives. Christ commanded us to preach the Gospel to the whole world, not to pick and choose based upon our opinion of how that truth may be used by those who hear it. That is for God alone to judge.

 

[ParkerD]

I realize that this post is not directed to me, but can you please explain why something “sacred and holy” should not be shared? Are you in a position to determine whether or not someone will apply this knowledge in their heart?

I may be wrong, but if I understand your logic, we should never share our faith because there is always a chance that someone may learn the truth and therefore be subject to greater condemnation if they don’t apply it in their lives. Christ commanded us to preach the Gospel to the whole world, not to pick and choose based upon our opinion of how that truth may be used by those who hear it. That is for God alone to judge.

1. Describe the third heaven Paul wrote about.
2. Describe the vision John had in words besides the words he used. (He saw more than he wrote about.)
3. Describe in minute detail exactly what went on in the Holy of Holies.
4. Describe why Christ told the apostles if they had the faith of a grain of mustard seed, they could move mountains.

I was not talking about the general “Gospel”, which is the good news and is quite simple. I was talking about the hidden wisdom/knowledge that Paul wrote about, and that John gave a glimpse of.

 

[ParkerD]

Witholding information is serious but not life threatening. Lying is very serious and is life threatening since lying is a tool of the Devil. The Catholic Church does not lie in its teachings, actions, or whatever. But I now learn that the LDS church does. Can the LDS church be trusted in anything?

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,

Evidently, you didn’t read the talk I linked earlier, or if you did you didn’t understand it.

I would say as to your statement that the shoe is on the other foot in many ways that anyone who reads a newspaper these days can find out. (In the British Isles, for example, and elsewhere.) But how about we change subjects, to something helpful to people?

 

[SteveVH]

1. Describe the third heaven Paul wrote about.
2. Describe the vision John had in words besides the words he used. (He saw more than he wrote about.)
3. Describe in minute detail exactly what went on in the Holy of Holies.
4. Describe why Christ told the apostles if they had the faith of a grain of mustard seed, they could move mountains.

I was not talking about the general “Gospel”, which is the good news and is quite simple. I was talking about the hidden wisdom/knowledge that Paul wrote about, and that John gave a glimpse of.

Are you now claiming that you have some “special” knowledge not fit for us mere mortals? Why is it so difficult for you to just give a straight forward answer to a question? The “hidden wisdom/knowledge” of which you speak is the very definition of Gnosticism. Christ told us to be as a lamp placed upon a stand, not a light hidden under a bushel. Perhaps the Gospel is not quite as simple as you believe it to be.

 

[ParkerD]

Are you now claiming that you have some “special” knowledge not fit for us mere mortals? Why is it so difficult for you to just give a straight forward answer to a question? The “hidden wisdom/knowledge” of which you speak is the very definition of Gnosticism. Christ told us to be as a lamp placed upon a stand, not a light hidden under a bushel. Perhaps the Gospel is not quite as simple as you believe it to be.

So call me, Paul, John, and Moses Gnostics if you wish. Whatever you want to call us is fine with me.

The Gospel really is simple. “Ask, and ye shall receive. Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”

When the deaf “hear the words of the book” and the “eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness”, then it will be because they could hear and see because they sought the kind of knowledge that was hidden from the world. That knowledge leads on an upward path–one that requires applying the Savior’s teachings about asking, seeking, and knocking. Those are simple concepts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would say as to your statement that the shoe is on the other foot in many ways that anyone who reads a newspaper these days can find out. (In the British Isles, for example, and elsewhere.) But how about we change subjects, to something helpful to people?

I thought the discussion was about doctrine. So, what does bringing up a sex scandal have to do with doctrine?

The Catholic Church has no hidden doctrines. Converts are taught everything before they are baptized. There are no doctrines, teachings, practices or acts related to doctrine kept secret from converts, or anyone else for that matter.

On the other hand, when Joseph Smith was asked about practicing polygamy, he lied, and said he had only one wife. Polygamy is a Mormon doctrine.

 

[lax16]

The kind of knowledge that condemns them if they share something they learn that shouldn’t be shared because it is covenant knowledge that is sacred and holy

Hi Parker - I am assuming that “they” are the missionaries and the info not to be shared are the sacred/holy ceremonies in the Temple?

or if they learn something in their head that they don’t apply in their heart and come closer to Christ because of it, and therefore they are under greater condemnation for having learned it in their head.

Learn something in their head? Missionaries are taught everything they need to know at the MTC, right? So I am assuming they are teaching potential/new converts everything they need to know since they are led by the Holy Spirit (at least our missionaries told me that they were speaking with the authority of the HS).
How could “they” learn something in their head? Missionaries are not allowed to read/listen to any non lds material, so where does this learning in their head come from?
How could they be wrong and led by the HS at the same time when spreading the faith?

 

[KathleenGee]

My issue with Mormonism, Number One is its beginning that all creeds of Christianity are an abomination, etc.,…particularly the Roman Church…

My issue Number Two is the willful misrepresentation and cover-up’s… I see it being done to some of the Mormons who come on here, not aware of what goes on…now may be is the time to stop being used by this organization here.

The more I participate on Mormon threads --and must say doing it is beyond myself – the more apparent it is that this very thread really touches the true core…even more than the theological dispute of the apostasy red herring…

The true core of our issues --in spite of all the nice Mormon people – we respect them—

is the issue of Institutional Lying from its origin and modus operandi, beginning with its its founder…(I now even doubt J. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon), to those surrounding him, and the succession of their elders.

Thank you everyone…it is difficult, people do not intend to malign or hurt…but this thread is drawing out the darkness into the light of Christ.

Again, how much we need to pray for these Mormon people. God bless you all.
I pray more and more people will find out the truth of Mormonism and its ways and means.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker -
(1) I am assuming that “they” are the missionaries and the info not to be shared are the sacred/holy ceremonies in the Temple?

(2) Learn something in their head? Missionaries are taught everything they need to know at the MTC, right?
(3) So I am assuming they are teaching potential/new converts everything they need to know since they are led by the Holy Spirit (at least our missionaries told me that they were speaking with the authority of the HS).
(4) How could “they” learn something in their head? Missionaries are not allowed to read/listen to any non lds material, so where does this learning in their head come from?
(5) How could they be wrong and led by the HS at the same time when spreading the faith?

Lax16,
(1) No–Since your question was about “prospective converts”, then I had assumed you were talking about missionaries on the one hand and “prospective converts” on the other, and I was responding that the latter would be put in a position of having greater condemnation if they were taught about temple covenants. “The greater the light, the greater the potential condemnation” if a person sins against light.

(2) I was referring to the “prospective converts” who were the people being taught–not to the missionaries who were doing the teaching.

(3) Here is where our religions differ completely, it seems. The LDS believe the path of knowledge means growth, and that you don’t get there all at once. Jesus learned “grace for grace” according to John. So we just plain differ about the gaining of knowledge. New converts aren’t expected to “know everything”. They are expected to understand the basics, to have faith in Christ, have the desire and repent, and then receive the Holy Ghost to begin a path toward conversion, sanctification, and growing in their understanding, which if they don’t then they soon loose interest in the church anyway, since that would mean they were probably looking for the wrong thing.

(4) I was referring to the “prospective converts”.

(5) Ditto.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
(1) No–Since your question was about “prospective converts”, then I had assumed you were talking about missionaries on the one hand and “prospective converts” on the other, and I was responding that the latter would be put in a position of having greater condemnation if they were taught about temple covenants. “The greater the light, the greater the potential condemnation” if a person sins against light.

So if people knew about the sacred rituals in the temple and rejected them, they would be in a position of condemnation?

(2) I was referring to the “prospective converts” who were the people being taught–not to the missionaries who were doing the teaching.

Okay.

(3) Here is where our religions differ completely, it seems. The LDS believe the path of knowledge means growth, and that you don’t get there all at once. Jesus learned “grace for grace” according to John. So we just plain differ about the gaining of knowledge. New converts aren’t expected to “know everything”. They are expected to understand the basics, to have faith in Christ, have the desire and repent, and then receive the Holy Ghost to begin a path toward conversion, sanctification, and growing in their understanding, which if they don’t then they soon loose interest in the church anyway, since that would mean they were probably looking for the wrong thing.

Obviously Parker, the LDS are not the only ones who believe that we grow in knowledge as we move along on our journey of faith. I don’t know how a Catholic could get there all at once when we have a catechism that is quite lengthy, sacraments that are not received all at once, and 2,000 years of history to learn.
This isn’t about teaching knew converts “everything” and that was not my question. It was obvious from my story that the missionaries GREATLY EMBELLISHED the archaelogical findings of the BoM. Is that wrong?

(4) I was referring to the “prospective converts”.

Okay.

(5) Ditto.

You lost me on this one. What Catholics are you referring to?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert,

I have been open about the LDS position whenever I have posted a comment that related to a question, in trying to answer the question.

This comment seems inconsistent with what you posted previously… Your earlier comment implied you were withholding teachings that you felt others might not fully understand.

ParkerD:

I disagree as to being “open and honest about what the Lord has revealed” since some things are sacred and some things can’t really be “learned” by reading about them, other than catching a beginning glimpse–one has to experience it.

And yet the LDS church withholds the experience from others? And it seems to me that the criteria from experiencing these mysteries is simply related to proving loyalty to the church by tithing, etc.

ParkerD:

I think Matthew 25:1-13 applies to kinds of knowledge that are experiential knowledge and some knowledge gained by exercising faith in Jesus Christ and in the revelatory power of the Holy Ghost.

[13] Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour. Mt 25:13.

So, do you think that there is only so much LDS “oil” to go around? Is truth a limited commodity?

Peace,
Robert