John Dehlin on Radio West.

[Hantlers]

Not really.

How do you interpret it? How do you decide what parts to believe in literally and what parts to view as parable? Which rules do you live by and which do you ignore? It seems to me that what the bible says depends on who's reading it.

I'm a fundamentalist. The parts where the Bible says it's a parable, it's a parable. I take the Bible literally...why wouldn't I? If I'm going to believe some of it, and not others, then why bother believe some of it? It's all from the same source (IMO). I just don't think it makes sense to pick and choose which ones to believe, I think it makes more sense to believe all of it, or none of it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Personally, I feel that the evidence today in favor of the Book of Mormon is far stronger than the evidence was 50 years ago. Consider Jeff Lindsay's list of "Book of Mormon evidences", for example: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml. Whether or not you feel that any of his points are valid, the fact is that nearly all of those evidences would not have existed 50 years ago. So I actually feel pretty good about the chances that the next 50 years will see even more evidence for the Book of Mormon come to light.

I'll take that bet. I seriously doubt experts in the relevant fields related to ancient American civilizations will find any of Lindsay's 'evidence' compelling. It apologetics written to convince those who already believe, or those wavering in the faith, not to provide anything remotely close to scientific evidence.

LDS truth claims with regards to the BoM are unique to much of religious belief, which falls in the realm of non-falsifiable beliefs. LDS truth claims about BoM civilizations, however, fall squarely within the realm of science and should thus be subjected to normal, rigorous standards of scientific evidence.

If and when the day arrives that objectively verifiable, scientific evidence supporting the existence of a Hebraic, Christ worshiping, horse riding, chariot driving, etc. civilization in pre-Columbian America is published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, then I'll take such claims seriously. Until then, Mormon apologetics is on par with Big Foot, Loch Nes Monster, UFO etc. apologetics, all of which if considered in a vacuum, and particularly among believers, would appear quite compelling, but when subjected to the standards of scientific inquiry, fail the test.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

fossilized horse bones were found in a cave a few miles from my ranch, dated to the Lake Bonnevile geological era. They have also been found in the La Brea tar pits dating pre-Spanish time.

I think it's clear there were humans in this hemisphere well before the end of the last ice age, going back to over twenty thousand years ago. The caves overlooking Lake Bonneville, and shoreline sites with human artifacts, go back to more than ten thousand years ago. Human remains of that time indicate a relation of those peoples with European groups.

I consider these issues to be open scientifically, and I refuse to drink the contemporary "scientific coolaid" that some scholars have fed us during the past hundred and fifty years.

Joseph Smith never spoke of Meso-American cultures as being anything to do with the Book of Mormon. He did say the Book of Mormon spoke of the native Americans in the Missouri-western New York area as being the relevant remnants of the people of the Book of Mormon.

If I remember correctly, there were horses in the American continent, but they died out in the Pleistocene age. There is no expert in the field who will agree that horses existed in the Americas circa 600BCE-400AD, the time of the BoM.

I believe you are correct, JS never associated Nephite/Lamanite peoples with MesoAmerica. If I remember correctly, this was done by LDS scholars and apologists who selected MesoAmerica as the likely location because it best matched the geography of BoM lands described in the book (e.g., narrow neck of land, etc.)

Scientific cool-aid, huh? You mean the science that cured diseases, solved the problem of manned light, split atoms, built computers, put men in space, etc. That science?

So instead of science, you prefer people just pulling things out of their *** based on hunches, anecdotes, ideology, cultural constraints, etc.? What just would you replace with science that you consider to be, on average, more accurate?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Well, yes. That means that such evidence has not yet emerged, right?

Neither has evidence for Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, fake moon landing, etc. Yet all have adherents who are convinced in their own mind that the evidence is compelling. So, are you willing to apply the same suspension of disbelief to all claims that so far lack evidence to support their truthfulness? I think not. So I ask, what is it about LDS truth claims, and particularly the historicity of the BoM, that merits suspension of disblief, when others don't, just because . . . someday evidence may emerge, no matter how unlikely?

So how about answering his question... what if the non-LDS scientific community finds evidence of, say, horses in Book of Mormon times? Would that change your belief or disbelief?

They haven't yet. But let's assume they do, that's one hit relative to several misses. Do we dismiss the misses because there's been one hit? So if scientists find evidence of horses circa 600BC-400AD, does that mean that we no longer note that Native Americans have Asian, not Hebrew, genetic markers, or that no evidence of steel during BoM times exists, or that no civilization has been found that worshiped Christ, etc.?

That's how conmen hook their victims; they get a few hits correct, and suddenly everyone forgets all the misses.

Frankly, I doubt it... because even right now it's very possible for a scientist such as myself to reconcile the best current scientific evidence with what the Book of Mormon teachers.

it's very possible for you to reconcile the evidence because you already believe, so you have a vested interest in reconciling the evidence. You want to believe, so, viola, you do. You are not immune to the common human tendency toward cognitive dissonance. (so am I, it's not a criticism of you, but merely pointing out you are human.) The power of the human mind to believe what it wants to believe is significant. I dare say that were you not already invested in Mormonism being true, you would view the 'evidence' in an entirely different light.

Newton was able to reconcile his conviction for science with an ardent belief in alchemy. It didn't make alchemy any more true.

 

[babe]

If I remember correctly, there were horses in the American continent, but they died out in the Pleistocene age. There is no expert in the field who will agree that horses existed in the Americas circa 600BCE-400AD, the time of the BoM.

I believe you are correct, JS never associated Nephite/Lamanite peoples with MesoAmerica. If I remember correctly, this was done by LDS scholars and apologists who selected MesoAmerica as the likely location because it best matched the geography of BoM lands described in the book (e.g., narrow neck of land, etc.)

Scientific cool-aid, huh? You mean the science that cured diseases, solved the problem of manned light, split atoms, built computers, put men in space, etc. That science?

So instead of science, you prefer people just pulling things out of their *** based on hunches, anecdotes, ideology, cultural constraints, etc.? What just would you replace with science that you consider to be, on average, more accurate?

there is a lot of good science.

however, those who simply accept the basics of what is taught as "science" today don't know much about it.

The dominance of British, in particular, but also somewhat "European" and "American" or more general "Western" educational establishments has resulted in an intellectual bias on how to knit it all together into a world view.

The "scientific cool-aid" I see consists of established dogmas accepted today despite contradictory evidence, which is routinely dismissed by out intellectual elites.

The generally-accepted view that people first came here from northern Asia over the "land bridge" that is thought to have existed with lower sea levels near the end of the last ice age is one example.

Not so many years ago, on the banks of the Columbia River near the town of Kennewick, Washington, some human remains were found. Some tests were done which indicated the subject was more likely a European in origin. Other reports, published in peer-reviewed literature, indicate that there was a sea-faring culture that ranged from Japan to San Diego and on down to Chile over 15,000 years ago. Independent reports suggest Africans reached Brazil nearly 30,000 years ago, and Europeans reached the eastern coasts of the United States nearly 25,000 years ago.

While it is true that these peoples may have just declined and gone extinct, and while it is also true that the genetics of smaller groups sorta die out in the gene pool of a much larger group, it is just simplistic to declare it's impossible that there were any migrations except the land-bridge peoples.

Generally, when you see people touting "science" as either conclusive or beyond question in support of politically useful assertions, if you just believe it simplistically, you are not a scientist but a heavy drinker of "scientific cool-aid".

It's actually sorta funny to see folks who want to take down religious beliefs because time has moved the information base well beyond the understanding of people hundreds or thousands of years ago, because the science they are touting has a credibility life span of tens to maybe a hundred years.

It's a given that religious people hundreds of years ago knew nothing of science, and had nothing but comforting simplistic little concepts to frame their belief systems.

The essence of religion has nothing to do with "factual" information, a lot to do with sentiment, hope, love, and feelings. I know a lot of good scientists. I just think if they can't walk out of their labs and go home and live a life based on positive human emotions they are not doing justice to their intelligence.

 

[colton]

I'll take that bet. I seriously doubt experts in the relevant fields related to ancient American civilizations will find any of Lindsay's 'evidence' compelling. It apologetics written to convince those who already believe, or those wavering in the faith, not to provide anything remotely close to scientific evidence.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Many of the things on Linday's page are simply facts. For example, it's a fact that a burial place named NHM was discovered right where the Book of Mormon placed it; that wasn't known in Smith's time. It's a fact that cement has been discovered, something that wasn't known in Smith's time. Etc., etc. Whether one considers things like that to be evidence is up to the individual. But your pooh-poohing of those facts because they are not "remotely close to scientific evidence" is nonsensical.

LDS truth claims with regards to the BoM are unique to much of religious belief, which falls in the realm of non-falsifiable beliefs. LDS truth claims about BoM civilizations, however, fall squarely within the realm of science and should thus be subjected to normal, rigorous standards of scientific evidence.

If and when the day arrives that objectively verifiable, scientific evidence supporting the existence of a Hebraic, Christ worshiping, horse riding, chariot driving, etc. civilization in pre-Columbian America is published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal, then I'll take such claims seriously.

I guess you're not religious at all, then? Or do you not similarly demand incontrovertible scientific evidence for the resurrection of Christ, etc.? And if not, why not?

Assuming you are not religious at all, then this discussion seems kind of pointless--if scientific evidence is all you accept, then of course you won't be a believer in any religion. That's nearly a tautology.

Until then, Mormon apologetics is on par with Big Foot, Loch Nes Monster, UFO etc. apologetics, all of which if considered in a vacuum, and particularly among believers, would appear quite compelling, but when subjected to the standards of scientific inquiry, fail the test.

Well let's see... have Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs all left writings behind which have touched the lives of tens of millions of individuals to the extent that the believers consider their words to be scripture? If not, it's hardly the same thing at all. But you are conveniently neglecting that single biggest piece of evidence of all, namely how the teachings in the Book of Mormon affect people's lives, and the witness of the Holy Ghost that these people feel they have received.

To make it clear, my main point here is not that science proves the Book of Mormon to be true. It certainly does not. My main point is that if you are a believer for other reasons, then there are certainly ways to reconcile that belief with what is known about the scientific evidence.

 

[colton]

Joseph Smith never spoke of Meso-American cultures as being anything to do with the Book of Mormon.

I believe you are correct, JS never associated Nephite/Lamanite peoples with MesoAmerica.

This is likely incorrect, or so it seems to me. See my post #87 earlier in the thread.

 

[colton]

If I remember correctly, there were horses in the American continent, but they died out in the Pleistocene age. There is no expert in the field who will agree that horses existed in the Americas circa 600BCE-400AD, the time of the BoM.

But are there experts in the field who will agree that immigrants often give new animals the same names as animals from "back home"?

 

[Harambe]

Jesus' teachings and conduct, as set forth in the New Testament, includes some admonitions about this subject. Although clearly the Ten Commandments includes the one "Thou Shalt Not bear false witness. . . . ", Jesus teaches his disciples to "Agree with thine adversary quickly whiles thou art in the way with him. . . .".

Another I would consider as possibly related is "Blessed is the peacemaker. . .", as well as negative injunctions like the one about sowing discord among brethren in OT lore. Paul teaches believers to accommodate the sensitivities and consciences of other believers by trying not to be offensive, at least not deliberately.

Another principle taught by Jesus was "Let your communication be yea, yea and nay, nay. . . ." in association with the teaching that we should not "forswear ourselves" but perform unto the LORD our oaths. I would take it that this means we should not put our acceptance by others, including bishops, ahead of personal integrity.

The injunction against "casting pearls before swine" generally refers to exposing ourselves by statements of our belief to the rude abuse of those who just won't appreciate them. Not that people are "swine" but sometimes we have about the same kind of understanding of one another.

It all adds up to using good sense when talking to others.

Getting back to Devlin's case, he reminds me of former President Spencer W. Kimball, who was seriously in love with a young woman he never married, and left a florid pack of letters in her possession attacking the beliefs of the LDS Church in the days of his youth.

Being married to a descendent of that lost love, and having an extensive family connection with the woman he did marry and knowing these people as family, gives me a sense of things that weighs heavily on the side of tolerance for those who have issues with the Church.

Joseph Smith taught that "Bad doctrine does not make a bad man".

It is a fact of our human condition that organized religions are centered on creeds or statements of beliefs which often are not sufficient statements of fact. When people find themselves needing to "move on" somehow past the supposedly settled tenets of the faith, they ask questions, and those among us who find such questions unsettling are prone to react in a way that will push the questioners out.

A guy like Dehlin, as I take the information I've seen, was perhaps a little too aggressive in pushing his preferred ideas. I could dig up scores of scriptures which would tend to indicate he was mistaken, and he is trying to play the part of a "progressive" advocate for a better future. He seriously believes he can help change things.

His case is inherently the same as Spencer W. Kimballs' case was with the girl he wanted to marry. Ultimately, he found a girl who agreed with his views, and in the process of time they became the eulogized standards of right faith and conduct for another generation of Mormons.

I didn't agree with Spencer when he was the "Prophet", and some folks wanted to excommunicate me. Some general authorities had their axes sharpened up and were impassioned to get me out of the Church. It took a moderate minded man named Spencer Kimball to stand up for me and defend me against them, saying I had the right to ask questions.

While in dealing with those elements he also said they had the right to give their answers to my issues, and stood up for their right to their own views as well, I found the graciousness of Spencer W. Kimball quite a balm for my wounds. The man was a peacemaker, and one who cared what "truth" is enough to ask questions and take his best principled stand in his own teachings.

I don't think folks who choose to take a course into GLBT lifestyle issues are on the path to happiness in eternity, but hey, Jesus apparently accepted as a fact of life that some men choose to be "eunuchs". It's just the fact that in a world view that puts a heterosexual marriage relation and procreation/propagation of the human race as a high first command of God, living in GLBT relations will not take you in that direction.

The critical issue in the Dehlin case is that made the stand that he was the superior, more enlightened principled man and he taught that current LDS doctrine was morally reprehensible. If Spencer W. Kimball didn't agree with his leaders, he at least held back from going out to specifically take them on, and his letters were his personal opinions, and not particularly revolutionary opinions. The LDS leaders today would not, I think, go out hunting down folks with opinions to take them out of the Church. You practically have to ask for that kind of attention. Actually, you have to make yourself so obnoxious you force them to take a stand in their own defense.

I had a companion when I was a missionary who organized some "Elders" into an oath-bound little club they called "The Resistance to the President", and for laughs specifically defied and disobey some "mission rules". When the President of the mission called him in to discipline him, he confessed he deserved his punishment.

Dehlin deserves his excommunication, and if he were an honest, principled believer in Mormonism, he would have to confess he deserved his excommunication. Until he does that, I think he is a seriously mistaken person lacking fundamental character attributes or virtues. The modern term "sociopath" applies to his state of mind. Well, if he does have the humility and caring for others to moderate that description, it is still going to be a fact in organized religions and other social institutions, even those with no belief in "God" like the Council of Foreign Relations, that these organizations will exclude the those individuals who rock the boat with such activities inimical to the basic tenets of those organizations.

No band of social progressives today would really be all that nice to someone who intends to take over their organizations and move them into a new direction. There would actually be some serious infighting for control of the groups. . ..

Oh Babe, I missed your ability provide an essay answer to two yes or no questions.

Still waiting an actual response though.

 

[Hantlers]

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Many of the things on Linday's page are simply facts. For example, it's a fact that a burial place named NHM was discovered right where the Book of Mormon placed it; that wasn't known in Smith's time. It's a fact that cement has been discovered, something that wasn't known in Smith's time. Etc., etc. Whether one considers things like that to be evidence is up to the individual. But your pooh-poohing of those facts because they are not "remotely close to scientific evidence" is nonsensical.



I guess you're not religious at all, then? Or do you not similarly demand incontrovertible scientific evidence for the resurrection of Christ, etc.? And if not, why not?

Assuming you are not religious at all, then this discussion seems kind of pointless--if scientific evidence is all you accept, then of course you won't be a believer in any religion. That's nearly a tautology.



Well let's see... have Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs all left writings behind which have touched the lives of tens of millions of individuals to the extent that the believers consider their words to be scripture? If not, it's hardly the same thing at all. But you are conveniently neglecting that single biggest piece of evidence of all, namely how the teachings in the Book of Mormon affect people's lives, and the witness of the Holy Ghost that these people feel they have received.

To make it clear, my main point here is not that science proves the Book of Mormon to be true. It certainly does not. My main point is that if you are a believer for other reasons, then there are certainly ways to reconcile that belief with what is known about the scientific evidence.

I'm assuming you believe the Koran to be true as well, since it has also touched the lives of millions (probably billions) of people.

 

[colton]

I'm assuming you believe the Koran to be true as well, since it has also touched the lives of millions (probably billions) of people.

No... but I believe it's legitimate to call that evidence of its truthfulness. And I certainly wouldn't put it in the same category as Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs.

 

[babe]

Here's a Wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propo...statements_regarding_Book_of_Mormon_geography

It says, "His published statements indicate that Book of Mormon peoples or their descendants, migrated from “the lake country of America” (near Lake Ontario) to Mexico and Central America." So your statement is not quite correct.

However, it also says, "It is not certain that Joseph Smith placed Book of Mormon lands in Central America," so there's apparently some uncertainty as to what he said and didn't say. Nevertheless that also implies that it's not certain that he DIDN'T place any Book of Mormon lands there.

Anyway, to me it seems likely Smith believed that the Book of Mormon encompassed most if not all of North America--not just the heartland of America.

Most Mormons in Joseph Smith's time likely thought all the peoples of both North and South America were remnants of Israel, including Meso-America, much like you presently believe, say, space aliens could be from the Ten Lost Tribes.

It's just that there was no basis in the text from which to make a distinction.

Joseph Smith however, never spoke of other people than natives of the old US Northwest, from New York through to Missouri, with one allusion to the Rocky Mountains as a place of refuse.

Well, I have read every word Joseph wrote, and every written account of what he spoke, but hey I could have missed something. . .

It is, however, a fact that the Book of Mormon itself does speak of one man who left onto the sea"west" in a boat, who came back to engage some other migrants, and there was a common belief that the Polynesians and maybe others sprang from that.

No, I can't see people coming all the way in to the present Midwest to get a few folks to take to the "west sea"

There have been things come up in my lifetime that nobody imagined of a better world.

 

[babe]

If I remember correctly, there were horses in the American continent, but they died out in the Pleistocene age. There is no expert in the field who will agree that horses existed in the Americas circa 600BCE-400AD, the time of the BoM.

I believe you are correct, JS never associated Nephite/Lamanite peoples with MesoAmerica. If I remember correctly, this was done by LDS scholars and apologists who selected MesoAmerica as the likely location because it best matched the geography of BoM lands described in the book (e.g., narrow neck of land, etc.)

Scientific cool-aid, huh? You mean the science that cured diseases, solved the problem of manned light, split atoms, built computers, put men in space, etc. That science?

So instead of science, you prefer people just pulling things out of their *** based on hunches, anecdotes, ideology, cultural constraints, etc.? What just would you replace with science that you consider to be, on average, more accurate?

dunno, but I bet you don't "remember" those times. You've read something about them and you feel it reliable, from some examination of some evidence.

science generally allows further enquiry on "settled science". When it begins to deny that it assumes the certainties of our beliefs.

 

[Hantlers]

No... but I believe it's legitimate to call that evidence of its truthfulness. And I certainly wouldn't put it in the same category as Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs.

Well then surely a large multitude of people believing that the Earth was flat was evidence of truthfulness as well.

 

[colton]

Well then surely a large multitude of people believing that the Earth was flat was evidence of truthfulness as well.

Why? How are the situations at all similar? I'm talking about people reading a book, being inspired by it, feeling the working of God on their lives, and so forth. You know...exactly the same reasons you believe in the Bible.

 

[Hantlers]

Why? How are the situations at all similar? I'm talking about people reading a book, being inspired by it, feeling the working of God on their lives, and so forth. You know...exactly the same reasons you believe in the Bible.

The number of people influenced by a book does not make it more or less true. Because people are inspired by the Bible does not make the Bible true. Because people are inspired by the BoM does not make it true. Because people are inspired by the Koran, does not make it true.

 

[babe]

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Many of the things on Linday's page are simply facts. For example, it's a fact that a burial place named NHM was discovered right where the Book of Mormon placed it; that wasn't known in Smith's time. It's a fact that cement has been discovered, something that wasn't known in Smith's time. Etc., etc. Whether one considers things like that to be evidence is up to the individual. But your pooh-poohing of those facts because they are not "remotely close to scientific evidence" is nonsensical.



I guess you're not religious at all, then? Or do you not similarly demand incontrovertible scientific evidence for the resurrection of Christ, etc.? And if not, why not?

Assuming you are not religious at all, then this discussion seems kind of pointless--if scientific evidence is all you accept, then of course you won't be a believer in any religion. That's nearly a tautology.



Well let's see... have Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, and UFOs all left writings behind which have touched the lives of tens of millions of individuals to the extent that the believers consider their words to be scripture? If not, it's hardly the same thing at all. But you are conveniently neglecting that single biggest piece of evidence of all, namely how the teachings in the Book of Mormon affect people's lives, and the witness of the Holy Ghost that these people feel they have received.

To make it clear, my main point here is not that science proves the Book of Mormon to be true. It certainly does not. My main point is that if you are a believer for other reasons, then there are certainly ways to reconcile that belief with what is known about the scientific evidence.

I share this point of the discussion.

I did my most extensive "research" into BofM "science" in 1977. I have to do a little "brag" here. . . . Jeff Lindsay is kindred spirit. He doesn't come around to discuss things with me, and I look at some of his work with some doubts.

In 1977 I read Solomon Spaulding's "Manuscript Found", you know. . . . an actual copy of the original that is in the special collections of the Salt Lake Library. I found it interesting that a yarnster living in the Ohio frontier of the late 18th century, when the woods were still full of natives, would have a short work of fiction that coincided on maybe 5 of 8 general themes with the Book of Mormon. You know, two races, white and brown, fighting wars of extinction with one another until one was actually wiped out. . . . claimed relation to the Biblical folks for both deriving from a single "lost" ship coming from Eurasian empires of the Mediterranean, within a few hundred years. Spaulding's folks were from the Roman age, not the Greek or earlier age of the Babylonian empire.

A lot of people in early America had believed that the American natives were a lost remant of the tribes of Israel, or specifically, of the Jews. The idea was first put out in a serious scholarly/religious work in the early 18th century.

I have never been "sure" the Book of Mormon was not possibly a true translation from the gold plates done by Joseph Smith. There are some things that just need better explanation in my mind. The most enduring consideration in favor of the tale is Joseph Smith's last day on earth, where his friends recorded the events inside the jail of Carthage, while he was powerless to save his own life and knew he would be dead within a few hours.

The guy read some passages from the Book of Mormon, and turned the corner of a page down on one he considered to be most important. They sang some hymns, and shared their "testimonies" of the Restoration of the Gospel. It strikes me as rising to the level of making the point that he, Joseph Smith, was affirming his life's work with the testimony of a true martyr.

I'm gonna keep that fact in mind until I see the face the God.

 

[colton]

The number of people influenced by a book does not make it more or less true. Because people are inspired by the Bible does not make the Bible true. Because people are inspired by the BoM does not make it true. Because people are inspired by the Koran, does not make it true.

No argument on any of that from me.

 

[babe]

Oh Babe, I missed your ability provide an essay answer to two yes or no questions.

Still waiting an actual response though.

If you want an answer as to whether I can "imagine" situations where it would be right to lie to bishop or to break a promise I made, the answer would be yes, of course, to both. But the circumstances where it would be "right" to do so would be way out of the stream of practical reality in everyday life. It would require, for example, a direct revelation from God that. . . . for example. . .. a bishop is going to murder me and my children if he can find out where I am going to be tomorrow night. Hell yeah I'd lie to save my kids' lives.

What I was addressing in my own life circumstances would be more in the line of keeping my integrity in dealing with people who would influence me to do something wrong. I would not think it right to put a bishop's opinion of me, or even my Church membership, in front of my conscience before God, as I understand God expects me to do.

 

[Harambe]

If you want an answer as to whether I can "imagine" situations where it would be right to lie to bishop or to break a promise I made, the answer would be yes, of course, to both. But the circumstances where it would be "right" to do so would be way out of the stream of practical reality in everyday life. It would require, for example, a direct revelation from God that. . . . for example. . .. a bishop is going to murder me and my children if he can find out where I am going to be tomorrow night. Hell yeah I'd lie to save my kids' lives.

What I was addressing in my own life circumstances would be more in the line of keeping my integrity in dealing with people who would influence me to do something wrong. I would not think it right to put a bishop's opinion of me, or even my Church membership, in front of my conscience before God, as I understand God expects me to do.

See, I can imagine a less grandiose, much simpler scenario where I had a family, and I wanted them to live in harmony with my neighbors, and have everyone get along like any other family regardless of what I thought and felt. While in that same scenario, I can see my kids being treated differently because of something I said to my brethren, my ward, or even my Bishop in confidence. Given the choice between giving my family the easier, healthier life for my family or being treated like outcasts for something they didn't even do, guess which one I'd choose.

We're not talking doctrine or theory here... we're talking reality. What ACTUALLY happens. The society and environment that the LDS church itself has created and fostered.