I became a Mormon at the age of 18. Before I became a Mormon, I never knew about the concept of "God-justified Lies": that God "justifies" some lies. For example:

Joseph Smith lied about polygamy. He condemned polygamy in public, excommunicated those who taught it publicly, but practiced it in private.

Many Mormons think that Emma Smith "place the hand" of a plural wife into Joseph Smith's hand at the "sealing". This is not true. Emma was NEVER there, and, in fact, Joseph Smith NEVER TOLD Emma about his other wives. When she heard the rumors, she threatened Joseph Smith that she would also "take lovers". Joseph Smith asked Emma "Who do you want?" and Emma said William Law (2nd Counselor in the First Presidency) fancied her. So, Joseph Smith told William Law that if Law shared his wife with him, he could share Emma with him. Of course, Law (who was a sincere man) was disillusioned and outraged, and made plans to published "The Nauvoo Expositor" which he hoped would force Joseph Smith to resign, and then put David Whitmer at the head of the Church. Of course, when the Prospectus of "The Nauvoo Expositor" was published, Joseph Smith had it destroyed and all copies burned. Yet, several hundred copies got out to people because the Town Marshall shut it down (on orders of Joseph Smith and the City Council, most of whom were secret polygamists).

When I first discovered this I was SHOCKED and was SURE it was an "anti-Mormon fabrication". It was NOT..........!!! But, that was "ok" I was told because "he had the authority" to take teen girls, and their mothers, and his foster daughters, and any other women he wanted, married or unmarried, because "HE HAD THE AUTHORITY FROM GOD" to do so! And, also he "had the RIGHT to lie about it" because "he had the authority". It was therefore a "God justified lie" to say "I have only one wife and polygamy is of the Devil" when AT THE SAME TIME to be boffing all sorts of beautiful teen girls, his own foster daughters, mothers and their own daughters, sisters, and the wives of other men.


The second example of "God-justified lies".

When Alpha males (womanizers) sexually "use" and throw away women (i.e. "beguile" them), many of these Mormon women become angry, and they seek to "pull the rug" (i.e. emotional devastate) "men". Do they choose Alpha Males to "pull the rug" on? Never. They always choose the Omega Male. Being an Omega Male, I've had many Mormon women "pull the rug" (emotionally devastate) me. In other words, some Mormon women deliberately, with evil intent, "pretended" to be in love with me, for the sole purpose of "dumping" me an causing emotional devastation. No sex was involved. They did not do this for sex, they did this for revenge against the men who "beguiled" them.

When I would tell Mormon Bishops what these active Mormon women did to me they said:

"Why did they do that? What did you do to them to force them to do that to you?"

"Mormon women DO NOT LIE, but if they lived to YOU...they were justified in doing so!"

"A Mormon women can LIE to whomever she wants to, whenever she wants to, to any man she wants to; except her father, her husband, and her priesthood-leader at the time."

In other words, more God-Justified Lies.

Just because your church teaches lying for the lord doesn’t mean it’s good for you. Stay true to yourself and leave the suckers in chains.

In that they both involve deceit, they do overlap. But so does financial embezzlement and political promises overlap with marital infidelity. People lie, some a lot.

Regarding Mormon doctrinal lying: this is something common to cults, called "divine deceit." On one level, it's a bit inoccuous, in that people in cults believe they can mislead, misdirect, misinform people who are not "of us," because people not privileged to be in the wonderful cult cannot understand "the" (i.e. THEIR) truth until such time as they are more spiritually advanced. So difficult (i.e. whacko) teachings are held back.

"Divine deceit" can be more evil by taking advantage of outsiders. The logic is often: People outside the cult are of Satan. Since Satan is a liar, is is permissible to lie to his people (the non-cultists), and even defraud or treat them dishonestly. Religious doctrine may be explicit on this, or not. It's clan loyalty at its most evil.

Regarding deceiving women, David Brooks in the NY Slymes (11/03/17)* has an interesting column, "Lovers, Prospectors, and Predators." (I would replace the word "prospectors" with "players.") He talks about men seeking sexual intimacy with women at three levels. The "lover" seeks to woo and win, and engage in mutual affection and intimacy. The prospector (or "player") seeks to seduce and win, and a certain amount of misrepresentation (i.e. dishonesty) is expected, and tolerated within limits. The predator uses "all of the above," plus anything else: threats, promises, extortion, power.

Here's a keeper: "Harassment is not just sex and it's not just power; it's a wicked mixture of the two. Harassers possess what psychologists call hostile masculinity; they apparently get pleasure from punishing the women who arouse them." (I would replace the word "punishing," --too strong-- with "controlling and exploiting."

Back to your thread, Psychic: Mormons are dishonest in that they misrepresent the nature of JS's exploitation of women. JS also misrepresented religious doctrine, business issues (e.g. Kirkland Bank), and many other things. I think it is best to put these eggs in separate baskets.

*Shout-out to AmyJo--I do read it occasionally!

When an Alpha wolf is having sex with one of the females in the group (the Alpha wolf has sex with ALL the females), the Beta Wolves use this distraction to RAPE the other females. This is the only opportunity for them, since the Alpha wolf would never knowingly LET them have sex with any of the females. So, when the Alpha wolf is "occupied" they cease their "chance" and rape the females. I say "rape" because all the females WANT the Alpha wolf to mate with them, but not the other wolves.

After the female wolves have been briefly raped by the Beta Wolves, the females get into a attack pack, and they violently ASSAULT the Omega Wolf, the only male wolf who didn't rape them.

Why? Because the Omega Wolf is the "whipping boy" of the pack. He is the "go to" for punishment. Although the Omega Wolf is completely innocent of any offense against the females, the females still attack HIM.

Why? Because if the females attack the Beta Wolves, the Beta Wolves will attack them back, but if they gang up on the Omega wolf, there is little he can do: being outnumbered by them.

Human females....do essentially the same thing. When they are "played" by Players, especially repeatedly, they seek out the lone wolf, the "loner" wolf, the "Omega Wolf" (in this case the Omega human male) to "punish" for the horrible things which males have done to them.

I am an Omega human male, and so "that" is why I have been "punished" over and over and over and over and over and over gain, by Mormon females.


Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In that they both involve deceit, they do overlap.
> But so does financial embezzlement and political
> promises overlap with marital infidelity. People
> lie, some a lot.
>
> Regarding Mormon doctrinal lying: this is
> something common to cults, called "divine deceit."
> On one level, it's a bit inoccuous, in that people
> in cults believe they can mislead, misdirect,
> misinform people who are not "of us," because
> people not privileged to be in the wonderful cult
> cannot understand "the" (i.e. THEIR) truth until
> such time as they are more spiritually advanced.
> So difficult (i.e. whacko) teachings are held
> back.
>
> "Divine deceit" can be more evil by taking
> advantage of outsiders. The logic is often: People
> outside the cult are of Satan. Since Satan is a
> liar, is is permissible to lie to his people (the
> non-cultists), and even defraud or treat them
> dishonestly. Religious doctrine may be explicit on
> this, or not. It's clan loyalty at its most evil.
>
> Regarding deceiving women, David Brooks in the NY
> Slymes (11/03/17)* has an interesting column,
> "Lovers, Prospectors, and Predators." (I would
> replace the word "prospectors" with "players.") He
> talks about men seeking sexual intimacy with women
> at three levels. The "lover" seeks to woo and win,
> and engage in mutual affection and intimacy. The
> prospector (or "player") seeks to seduce and win,
> and a certain amount of misrepresentation (i.e.
> dishonesty) is expected, and tolerated within
> limits. The predator uses "all of the above," plus
> anything else: threats, promises, extortion,
> power.
>
> Here's a keeper: "Harassment is not just sex and
> it's not just power; it's a wicked mixture of the
> two. Harassers possess what psychologists call
> hostile masculinity; they apparently get pleasure
> from punishing the women who arouse them." (I
> would replace the word "punishing," --too strong--
> with "controlling and exploiting."
>
> Back to your thread, Psychic: Mormons are
> dishonest in that they misrepresent the nature of
> JS's exploitation of women. JS also misrepresented
> religious doctrine, business issues (e.g. Kirkland
> Bank), and many other things. I think it is best
> to put these eggs in separate baskets.
>
> *Shout-out to AmyJo--I do read it occasionally!

Whoa there!! I am so sorry you have been shit upon by unscrupulous women, but please stop with the alpha male myth. Furthermore, wolves are not humans and humans are not wolves. Humans belong to the PRIMATE family.

God said (allegedly): thou shall not bear false witness


Hence, no type of lying is sanctioned - ever.


Lying makes an individual dishonest and who would trust an organisation full of dishonest individuals?? Why would a god employ someone untrustworthy? A flawed individual, perhaps, but not a liar who no-one can ever trust completely.

Regarding women acting like female wolves: whenever a human, or many humans, behave in a way more commonly found in the animal kingdom, they earn the epithet of an animal: bitches and beasts (female & male), for example. If it hunts like an animal and wounds like an animal, it's an animal. Humans are meant to be higher evolved beings with greater cognitive ability to enable us to rise above primal animal behaviour and use our cognition to be considerate of others. Christians are allegedly even more considerate than non-believers, but that would not include the women the poster is referring to.

As a woman, I freely admit that some of my gender deserve, in some regards, to be called 'bitch' & 'cow' due to their behaviour. I have deserved the monikers myself from time to time. Modern sexual equality seems to mean equality of the immature and or selfish behaviour that feminism has accused men of displaying.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

The addition of "...against your neighbor" makes a whole lot of sense.

Humans lie, with the absolute top reason being to escape consequences. It doesn't take little kids long at all to take the logical step that lying can be useful. "Did you the powdered donut?" "No!", framed by lips liberally coated in white powder.

Lying is instinctual, natural and useful. It's a demonstration of how Survival of the Fittest really works.

What I think the tribal leaders were trying to do with #9 was to promote honest within the tribe. The notion that all the tribe should get along was probably an attractive goal, and not lying, and being forgiven, was what they felt would promote it.

In exchange was the unwritten rule, "if he's not your neighbor, go ahead and screw him over."

In Mexico, there is a business prayer that I read in Oscar Lewis' book, "The Children of Sanchez": Please god, let me take advantage of the people with whom I come in contact.

I guess what I'm saying is that we all lie and ghawd just wanted tribal members to try to be honest with each other. Wouldn't it be nice if mormons followed just this general rule, and stop ripping off their co-religionists?

To look after one's own tribe is a natural, but wrong (read "sinful") thing to do. Mafiosi have a code of honor--with themselves, for example. The Old Testament is replete with requirements to be honest with everybody, and to render mercy and hospitality to foreigners ("sojourners").*

I refer you to the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were tribal mongrels and despised by "proper" Jews. After Jesus insults the Levite and the Priest (representatives of the elite), he describes the mercy the unworthy Samaritan rendered to the beaten and robbed sojourner.

It was a scribe (i.e., a lawyer, a legalist) who had prompted the story by trying to box Jesus into a corner. Jesus, in turn, boxes HIM into a corner with the question, "Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” The lawyer answered, "He who did mercy." (The Lawyer couldn't even bring himself to say the word "Samaritan.")

"Go and do likewise." (Luke 10:25-37)

Jesus' point is that anyone whom we come across should be considered "our neighbor."

*Just this once, let's not get into the wars of annihilation. That's another issue.

I consider the 'be nice to the sojourner' to be window dressing introduced to make for a more presentable product, i.e., the ghawd of abraham, etc.

Here's the story that, to me, says it all about the ghawd of Israel (from Wikipedia):


"Dinah, the daughter of Leah and Jacob, went out to visit the women of Shechem, where her people had made camp and where her father Jacob had purchased the land where he had pitched his tent. Shechem (the son of Hamor, the prince of the land) "took her and lay with her and humbled her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah ... he loved the maiden and spoke tenderly to her", and Shechem asked his father to obtain Dinah for him, to be his wife.

"Hamor came to Jacob and asked for Dinah for his son: "Make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves. You shall dwell with us; and the land shall be open to you." Shechem offered Jacob and his sons any bride-price they named. But "the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully, because he had defiled their sister Dinah"; they said they would accept the offer if the men of the city agreed to be circumcised.

"So the men of Shechem were deceived, and were circumcised; and "on the third day, when they were sore, two of the sons of Jacob and Leah, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords and came upon the city unawares, and killed all the males. They slew Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went away." And the sons of Jacob plundered whatever was in the city and in the field, "all their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses."


And that's how you get ahead, if you're a child of the old testament ghawd! You lie, cheat and steal, all for the greater glory. Oh sure, ghawd talks nice, but his actions are most revealing.

Unlike most ancient texts, the Bible deals honestly with people's failures, sins, and shortcomings--even the pillars of faith like Jacob ("Israel"), David and Elijah. Its purpose is to show us, through narrative, what we should and should not. Just because God's people do something does not mean God sanctions it. God's people do bad things, you know! (Yes, you know that.)

The tragic story of Dinah is powerful. For starters, it shows that sin has repercussions, even after a person had addressed and it and think they have corrected it. Jacob should not have taken two wives, even if he had been tricked by Laban. So Leah (Dinah's mother) was a lesser spouse. Jacob's sin had a ripple effect, and set up Dinah for tragedy. Sure, this is ugly, but consider a man who is unfaithful, thinking "It's just my business..." No, it will eventually affect his own family, even if he keeps it secret for a long time.

Dinah is not blameless here. She should not have been seeking fellowship with the Canaanite women. What happened to her was wrong, and tragic, but she did put herself in harm's way. Perhaps she was disaffected or alienated from the rest of the clan, being the lesser child of the lesser wife? Again, we see how one generation's wrong-doing affects the next. You've seen that yourself, I'm sure.

It also shows us the barbaric nature of the Canaanites: any unattended female was fair game. Something to keep in mind when you cringe at Joshua's annihilation of the Canaanite cities. Shechem took Dinah ("get me this woman for a wife") without exploring the protocols of courtship with the Hebrews. Father Hamor thought a "name your price" response would smooth things over. He was very wrong.

Hamor and the men of Sechem were obviously planning treachery, expecting to acquire the livestock and goods of Jacob--and the daughters in extended Hebrew clan. They got more than they bargained for, as Jacob's sons outwitted them. This was 1) a war of revenge and 2) a war for control of prime land that was prompted by Shechem's crime (rape) which was made possible by Jacob's failures as clan patriarch.

None of this was arranged, directed, ordered, or justified by God. The Law of Moses had not yet been given, but we can say that all this was done in conscious and deliberate contravention of God's will.

And while we're at it, yes, go ahead and turn the other cheek, if you're way outnumbered...

Mormons seem to have perfected the lies for the right reasons!
Totally horrified when people did this to their kids!
Monkey see, monkey do— teach them to lie to you!

Remember reading somewhere, this was a while ago.
Sorta hazy, that it is permitted to not always tell the truth a, if one wants to be humble, b, one can save another’s life, c, to protect another person.
These are never to acquire any personal gain.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2017 07:33PM by itzbeen20.