Lying to Congress

[_moksha]

It was interesting to watch the 4th installment of the Shannon Montez interview on the Mormon Stories podcast and hear how President Joseph F. Smith told a bald-faced lie to the United States Congress during the Smoot Hearings about the practice of polygamy. Turns out the First Presidency had sent Anthony Ivins, as Stake President, to Colonia Juárez for the express purpose of performing polygamous marriages after the First Manifesto and continued on after that. Anthony Ivins became an apostle in 1907.

I assume President Smith justified this lie via the Oath of Vengence against the United States he swore to in his sacred and secret ceremony.

Minute 40 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HivE1b5KLuc

[_Kishkumen]

Or he justified it by recognizing the hypocrisy of a nation with a Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion forcing him and his co-religionists into this corner.

[_Philo Sofee]

Well they can always justify lying for the Lord to save his works, but it becomes quite damning when they do it so steadily and all the time. One can't help but wonder if it is they or their God who is a habitual liar in order to get their ways. If the truth has to continually be lied about, of what, if any, actual value is that putative truth?

[_Dr Exiled]

Or he justified it by recognizing the hypocrisy of a nation with a Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion forcing him and his co-religionists into this corner.

There are limits to freedom of religion and sometimes it is used to justify wrongful and hurtful conduct like polygamy. There is an interesting line of prisoner cases where prisoners tried to use freedom of religion to get certain privileges. My favorite was the church of steak where prisoners claimed they needed a steak dinner with wine each sunday as part of their worship services. Steak was sacramental as was the more traditional wine. However, each prisoner wanted their own bottle. Too bad the claim was denied.

Every once in a while, I dream of being a member of the church of steak ..... aaaaahhhhhhh.

[Jersey Girl]

That part 4 interview with Shannon Montez has so much good information. The secret Mormon meetings of 1922 were the start of so many changes in the Church. Changes in Church policies, in new coverups, even the start of Mormon apologetics.

[_Kishkumen]

Well, I am not a proponent of polygamy, but in general I think consenting adults should be able to marry as they please. So, no, I don’t think the government should have infringed on the religious freedom of Mormon polygamists.

[_moksha]

The part of the story where the First Presidency had the police break down apostle Richard Lyman's door and have the Salt Lake Police Chief drag him out, clad only in his garments, to the station to be confronted by the Brethren. Then to have a banner headline of his polygamous adultery ready for print the next day in the Deseret News. Does any of that peak your interest in listening to this outstanding episode of Mormon Stories?

[Guest]

Or he justified it by recognizing the hypocrisy of a nation with a Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion forcing him and his co-religionists into this corner.

There are limits to freedom of religion and sometimes it is used to justify wrongful and hurtful conduct like polygamy. There is an interesting line of prisoner cases where prisoners tried to use freedom of religion to get certain privileges. My favorite was the church of steak where prisoners claimed they needed a steak dinner with wine each sunday as part of their worship services. Steak was sacramental as was the more traditional wine. However, each prisoner wanted their own bottle. Too bad the claim was denied.

Every once in a while, I dream of being a member of the church of steak ..... aaaaahhhhhhh.

"Polygamy" was Joseph Smith's theme to get more flesh. The prisoners were just more honest about steak being the way for them to get more flesh. From my study of Smith's escapades beyond Emma, I do not think he is any more genuine in claiming such were a genuine religious belief than the prisoners who petitioned for more steak claimed their's was.

[_Holy Ghost]

There are limits to freedom of religion and sometimes it is used to justify wrongful and hurtful conduct like polygamy. There is an interesting line of prisoner cases where prisoners tried to use freedom of religion to get certain privileges. My favorite was the church of steak where prisoners claimed they needed a steak dinner with wine each sunday as part of their worship services. Steak was sacramental as was the more traditional wine. However, each prisoner wanted their own bottle. Too bad the claim was denied.

Every once in a while, I dream of being a member of the church of steak ..... aaaaahhhhhhh.

"Polygamy" was Joseph Smith's theme to get more flesh. The prisoners were just more honest about steak being the way for them to get more flesh. From my study of Smith's escapades beyond Emma, I do not think he is any more genuine in claiming such were a true religious belief than the prisoners who petitioned for more steak claimed there's was.

[_Kishkumen]

"Polygamy" was Joseph Smith's theme to get more flesh. The prisoners were just more honest about steak being the way for them to get more flesh. From my study of Smith's escapades beyond Emma, I do not think he is any more genuine in claiming such were a genuine religious belief than the prisoners who petitioned for more steak claimed there's was.

Yes, that is the prevalent view. Since we operate in a predominantly materialist paradigm, the only reasons that count are the material ones. Stories, myths, beliefs, and philosophical arguments that do not fall into the materialist paradigm will not be taken seriously. It is, however, the case that there are people who genuinely operate in a different paradigm. Maybe a materialist will say this person is kidding him- or herself, but I don't think it is fair to say that what they genuinely feel they believe is not to be taken seriously as their genuine belief, wrongheaded though it may be.