Does Thomas S Monson tell lies...?

[Guest]

"In the grand scheme of things, how were those people hurt? If Dunn's stories uplifted them, and inspired them to live righteously, or have hope, how were they hurt?

"How was their comfort or strength in getting through a difficult time any less real?

"I can understand someone feeling tricked...but I can also see that same person weighing things out from a big picture perspective as well. If Dunn's story inspired that person to do good, then how is the situation all that horrible?"

People can get uplifted, no doubt, even when pseudo prophets tell lies during the Uplift Moment.

People can also get deflated when they later discover those lies. Any "inspirational high" they may have felt simply means that some people can be emotionally manipulated by a story that they thought was true in all respects (and that was presented by the fabricator/exaggerator as true in all respects).

It also means that this fabricating/exaggerating "prophet of God" simply lied or played loose with the so-called "events" in order to achieve the desired emotionally reactive result.

Your defense of the indefensible does not come across as much of an inspiring fight song for purported "prophets" who peddle fabrications in order to build faith, hoping that in the process they won't be discovered (but then, as in Monson's case, who resort to changing their story when they are eventually exposed. Exhibit A: the differences between his first failed run at it in 1969 and his second in 2007, when he went back, changed the script and didn't bother to tell anybody).

That speaks volumes for trying to get away with it.

Maybe when the Mormon Church realizes the problems with Mr. Monson's myth making, his 1969 version will disappear from the archives or will be changed again. It has happened many times before in the course of rewriting and/or deleting inconvenient Mormon history. Anything goes, it seems, when it comes to defending or justifying a Mormon "prophet"-leader--even when he's been unmasked. One would expect more from cheerleaders for a Church that not only claims to be "true," but declares that it is "the one and only true Church."

Since when does posing fables as facts advance "truth"? In the end, Mormons do not seem all that concerned about truth. They seem much more concerned with protecting their wavering faith from unwanted assault by the facts.

And, again, why lower the bar for "prophet" Thomas S. Monson to the level for non-Mormon fiction writer Napolean Hill? Monson is supposed to be telling the truth for and in behalf of God. At least Jesus gave a heads-up to his listeners by informing them when he was about to deliver a parable. Why shouldn't Monson do the same?

[_Steve Benson]

from liz "I can understand someone feeling tricked...but I can also see that same person weighing things out from a big picture perspective as well. If Dunn's story inspired that person to do good, then how is the situation all that horrible?"

Official Mormon canonized doctrine, as interpreted by Mormon "prophets" like Monson and their excuse-offering supporters like "liz":

"The glory of God is intelligence; in other words, the end justifies the means."

[_Chap]

They certainly did hurt Dunn, as they should have, since he was the one who told the untruths.

They also hurt those who had sincerely believed them to actually be true but who then eventually found out he had made them up.

Again, kinda llke Monson--as the truth comes out.

In the grand scheme of things, how were those people hurt? If Dunn's stories uplifted them, and inspired them to live righteously, or have hope, how were they hurt?

How was their comfort or strength in getting through a difficult time any less real?

I can understand someone feeling tricked...but I can also see that same person weighing things out from a big picture perspective as well. If Dunn's story inspired that person to do good, then how is the situation all that horrible?

I just don't get it. Sockpuppet posts an entire speech from Dallin H Oaks, explaining that it is never right to tell lies, even for a good cause.

Now liz asks what was wrong about Dunn lying in General Conference.

"How is the sitution all that horrible?"

I'll hazard an answer. It leads faithful LDS like liz to feel they need to argue that it may be a good thing to tell lies, if one is doing it in a good cause. Case in point.

[_jon]

Chap,

It certainly does seem that in order to argue in favour of what Dunn did on the basis of his intentions being right and it promoted good principles and action, one would have to argue against what Oaks stated.

[_Steve Benson]

Judging from the pretzel antics by the faithful, Mormonism is not based on principle, except on the principles of power and convenience.

[_Chap]

Chap,

It certainly does seem that in order to argue in favour of what Dunn did on the basis of his intentions being right and it promoted good principles and action, one would have to argue against what Oaks stated.

Yup. It would be interesting to see liz explain to us why and in what way the teaching given by that particular Apostle was wrong.

More on that 'what harm did it do if it helped people find strength and hope to deal with difficulties' argument of liz's:

I should think it knocked the bottom out of their universe when they found out that their hope and strength was based on lies. That's pretty harmful. I suspect in many cases it will have left them worse off than before.

What if it turned out that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead was a faith-promoting lie concocted by the disciples? Would it have been wrong of them to do that, according to liz? Think of all the hope and strength people have derived from it over the last two thousand years ...

[_Morley]

Who did Dunn's stories hurt?

Dunn was actually the one who suffered the most...when the truth came out.

Perhaps this is the same reasoning my ex-wife expressed when she wanted to know who her infidelity hurt. She, too, maintained that I would have been better off to believe her fiction. She still believes that she "was actually the one who suffered the most...when the truth came out."

[_Morley]

Does it dilute my argument if the above is a made up story? Is it strengthened if it's real?

[_sock puppet]

So there must be an exemption from Oaks' understanding of the LDS doctrine on lying, so long as the lies spew forth from the GC pulpit.

If it produces GC warm fuzzies, that Trump's the need to tell the truth.

Funny, don't true stories produce warm fuzzies?

[_Cardinal Biggles]

I'm done with this place.

You mean, you're DUNN with this place. Ba-dum ching!