How common is the practice of "Lying For The Lord" in the mormon church?

Milk before meat is definitely a tactic of Mormons. I practiced it when I was a missionary, and was taught to do so. We were taught that as people grow closer to Jesus that they would be able to understand and accept the more strange doctrine. If they found out the strange stuff too soon then they would think it was too weird because they weren't close enough to Jesus to fully understand it.

You see evidence of the milk before meat thing all the time on Mormon related questions on Y!A. A few times I've quoted only Mormon scripture with little more than a preface at the beginning of the post and I've been voted down by the "Mormon Voting Machine." They don't like their own church's history or even many current practices so they try to dismiss them.

If you compare the Mormon missionary discussion process to become a Mormon that can last as little as week, it takes a year or up to two years to become a Catholic because you have to learn about it and it takes months to even become a Jehovah's Witness. The Mormon milk before meat practice is not honest and plain wrong.

5

Oh please.... do we dispense with the Anti-Mormon rhetoric? I did as you reported, "googled" and all i'm getting is a team of Anti BS. this is not a concept it relatively is taught. even however, mendacity and a few questionable honesty could be got here upon interior the scriptures. working example, Abraham mendacity that Sarah replaced into his sister. Joseph deceiving his brothers, Nephi wearing the clothing of Laban and claiming he replaced into Laban to acquire the brass plates and so on., The saving of Moses' existence by way of his family and then the daughter of Pharaoh adopting him and Miriam carry Moses' mom so as that he could desire to be nursed by way of his authentic mom. i'm exceedingly particular their are different questionable honesty practices got here upon interior the scriptures yet those are those i will think of off the authentic of my head. some greater present day examples, human beings for the period of the holocaust hiding Jews or doing each and every thing to declare that Jews weren't Jews. it relatively isn't precisely honesty and forthrightness now's it? however the examples I awesome forth tutor that some thing questionable in honesty is being finished and however the Lord or maybe human beings in society are comfortable with it. i think of you may desire to re-examine your place because of the fact their is slightly a grey and shadow in issues. As for Romney, i won't be able to answer that, no clue if he's being user-friendly or no longer. yet i will assure you that mendacity for the Lord isn't a Mormon coaching, only different BS from people who think of they understand greater desirable than Mormons yet rather do no longer.

Fairly common, I've lived in Utah for nearly 7 years as an inactive member of the LDS Church. These Mormon people on here may want you to feel that you're crazy to even think such a thing, but it happens more than you'd think!

The Mormons won't call it lying though, as the other answerer said, they'll redirect their answer to another topic: the whole "milk before meat" think. Go on lds.org and talk to them on the chat feature. Ask them if all races have always been able to hold the priesthood in the LDS Church, they'll tell you they have, when it's a well known fact that black people could not hold the priesthood before 1978 in the LDS church. That's just one example. There's lots more. I too, think that many Mormons are embarrassed of their church's history, and would rather just push things under the rug than discuss them.

honesty is a foundational value to the LDS. so is integrity. if the LDS church (as an institution)typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth.....accusations of deception would hardly be troubling to members and the whole "the truth is on the internet" theory would fall apart.

things are not ever intentionally omitted, ignored, dodged, distorted, etc......we learn things on the milk before meat theory - no matter what it is we are learning.....math is learned that way - you must learn numbers, then adding, subtracting, multiplication, division and so on.....english is that way - you learn letters, sounds, words, phrases, sentences, reading, and so on. why would religious learning be any different. I certainly have learned more "meat" since I joined the church than I originally understood. things are not hidden. and I have not 'dodged' a question since my dad asked me how I did on that algebra test in 7th grade.....and THAT was a long time ago. the point is that things have to be learned a step @a time - it's the nature of learning.

IME, the LDS are often accused (or its leaders, its missionaries, or its members) of not telling "the truth" about what mormons "really believe." however, that 'truth' generally bears little or no resemblance to what the LDS actually teaches, believes, or practices. calls for "honesty" are often nothing more than a presumptive claim that the LDS must adopt the someone else's perspectives, interpretations, or preoccupations......so is that "lying for the Lord"? no. it's just misunderstanding and sometimes even intentionally being obtuse in regards to what the LDS actually believe.

It's just anti-mormon propaganda - baseless accusations.

Curiously, the practice of lying was commonplace in the Christian church of the 5th and 6th centuries, according to various historians.

Tertullian told of a scholar in Asia Minor who "out of love for the Apostle" wrote the Acts of Paul, which damaged the church. According to the Apostolic Constitutions, two men named Simon and Cleobus published false books and attributed them to Christ and the apostles. One historian remarked "Forgery was viewed by wide circles of the ancient church not merely as an excusable fraud, but a thoroughly legitimate 'oeconomia' in the war against the enemies of the faith." Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hilary and John Chrysostom all recommended the use of deception. Even Jerome, whose translation influenced much of our modern Bible translations, admitted to using deception, and quoted Origen to justify it: "lying is improper and unnecessary for God, but is to be esteemed sometimes useful for men, provided it is intended that some good should come of it." According to Hugh Nibley, it was common practice in the middle ages for religious scholars to alter older texts and put them forth as their own, as well as invent books and put them forth as ancient texts. This has led to more than a little embarrasment. For centuries, the medieval church rested its claims to temporal power on the Isidorian Decretals, which were acknowledged as forgeries from the start.

"...there is such adding and expunging, such altering and disguising things in the body of the councils, and such excusing, falsifying, and shuffling in the Notes, that a Judicious Reader will soon perceive these Venerable Records... do not favor them. " - Thomas Comber

Innocent I, the bishop of Rome and pope of the church, criticised the church of Gubbio, saying "The result is a scandal for the people who, not knowing that the traditions have been altered by human presumption, think either that the churches are not in agreement with each other, or that the Apostles established contradictory things."

I agree with the Pope - traditions have been altered by human presumption. That is why a restoration was needed.

One of the ten commandments is to not bear false witness, or to lie. Mormons strive to live all the commandments, sometimes we fall short. However, we are never encouraged to break any commandments "for the Lord," such as lying. If someone lies, justifying it in the name of the Lord is a terrible thing to do, whether they're Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, or whatever.

edit:

If we were to tell a prospective convert EVERYTHING about our church they'd never get baptized. Not because it would shock them, but because there is no end to learning. This is why people read the scriptures not once, but over and over again, to learn new things, get a different perspective and insight, etc...

Well, I know personally, if someone asks a question about our church that really has no bearing on the plan of salvation, which is the most important part of the doctrine, yes of course I try to answer it. But like others have said, are you going to understand stuff like the priesthood if you don't understand why it's necessary and where in the scriptures to study about it? (just an example.)

I would never never lie about my church to ask someone to investigate it. That's stupid. And nobody I know is taught to do that either.

Give me a break.

Most things that arent immediately addressed are only done so because the knowledge you need to fully grasp it, you dont have yet. You dont teach a 3rd grader calculus. There's nothing to build on. You need the beginning principles first for the later stuff to make any sense at all.

Its not lying. As a missionary, if anyone asked me something that was more complex than what we were teaching I would answer it. But also with a disclaimer that it would make more sense with the foundational info first.

We don't leave any beliefs out. The internet is a great way to find out all of our beliefs and I don't mean antimormon sites. Those sites will not tell you how we believe. There's no tough questions out there. I know the history of the church and it doesn't change the fact that the church is true.

I've been LDS, but I'm afraid I do not completely understand your question. Could you give an example of "Lying For The Lord?" I would be glad to answer if you do.