Stop Saying That We?????ve Been Lied to by the Church - WWE

[_consiglieri]

I think this blog by Brian Whitney is important, as it gives the other side of the argument from the position advocated in the Rational Faiths blog he links to in his first paragraph.

Whether Church leaders intentionally deceived their own membership about Church history is the subject of a lot of discussion lately.

It is one thing for Church leaders to just be spouting the same white-washed history they grew up with, not knowing the real facts were quite a bit more complicated.

It is another thing entirely for Church leaders to know about some or all of the "complicated" facts and nevertheless continue to spout the same white-washed history.

I am unconvinced by Brian Whitney's argument that the motive of Church leaders in deceiving their members is what is important here. Unless it is to argue that deceiving another because you think the deception is good for them is morally superior to deceiving another while believing the deception will inure to their harm.

I suppose one may be more venal than the other.

But it is still deception, no matter how you slice it.

And to the soubriquet of patriarchal may be added that of paternal.

[_consiglieri]

This is the non sequitur I feel lies at the heart of Brian Whitney's article:

While the church is, without question, paying the price for promoting an overly-simplified “heritage” approach to history, I don’t think the motive was based in intentional deception; rather, I think the disinclinations towards academic approaches to history were based in sincere love for the church and a desire to protect it.

[_Fence Sitter]

This is the non sequitur I feel lies at the heart of Brian Whitney's article:

While the church is, without question, paying the price for promoting an overly-simplified “heritage” approach to history, I don’t think the motive was based in intentional deception; rather, I think the disinclinations towards academic approaches to history were based in sincere love for the church and a desire to protect it.

What's worse is it is an open admission that leaders intentionally hid their head in the sand because they were afraid of what they might find. Long gone is the type of leader like J Ruben Clark who declared “If we have the truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” to be replaced with the BKPs who feel it is their duty to hide that very truth from general membership.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Sure, it makes little sense to be angry at a faceless corporation.

On the other hand, corporations themselves can be the real villains when they have systems and cultures that push people to engage in bad behavior. I would go so far as to say that the LDS Church has a "culture of lying," because every member is taught and pressured to say they "know the Church is true" regardless of the real state of their knowledge. It also calls people to teach and proselytize regardless of their actual willingness or preparedness. In effect, when general authorities whitewash the Church's history, they aren't doing anything that hasn't already been asked of them at every other level of Church participation on their way to apostolic office.

[_Sammy Jankins]

This is the non sequitur I feel lies at the heart of Brian Whitney's article:

While the church is, without question, paying the price for promoting an overly-simplified “heritage” approach to history, I don’t think the motive was based in intentional deception; rather, I think the disinclinations towards academic approaches to history were based in sincere love for the church and a desire to protect it.

Using his reasoning just about every religious leader could be let off the hook. As long as they were just protecting their church.

[_sock puppet]

On the other hand, corporations themselves can be the real villains when they have systems and cultures that push people to engage in bad behavior. I would go so far as to say that the LDS Church has a "culture of lying," because every member is taught and pressured to say they "know the Church is true" regardless of the real state of their knowledge. It also calls people to teach and proselytize regardless of their actual willingness or preparedness. In effect, when general authorities whitewash the Church's history, they aren't doing anything that hasn't already been asked of them at every other level of Church participation on their way to apostolic office.

I agree. This is the corporation that is known for "Lying for the Lord". Corporations can be held liable for crimes. And conspiracies are often considered more heinous than the underlying crime for which the participants conspire.

If you think of LDS culture on its micro level--the next closest geographically other handful of LDS households--the benefits are palpable. But go up to the ward level, where you first face the bureaucratic stratifications, with a bishop operating with the handbook from SLC, and those benefits start to thin out. And it just keeps getting worse, exponentially, as you then go up to the stake level and so forth until at the COB. It is in the oppressiveness and strain of that bureaucracy that lies the pernicious elements of the organized religion known as the LDS church that harm individuals.

[_Kishkumen]

This New Mormonism is the nerdy version of the Paul Dunn syndrome, an intellectual attempt to create a miracle in the absence of objective spiritual experience. It's like the 3D art photos. The miracle is already there to be witnessed, you just have to look at it the right way.

Great analogy.

[_Kishkumen]

I think Brian Whitney may want to consider rewording this sentence from his post:

Spurred on by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the publications division of the Church History Department became re-invigorated with initiatives beginning with the 2008 publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard. To date, this is the most candid look at the history of a troubling event approved by the church;

I'm not sure if this is Freudian.

Nice catch, and I do believe BY bears a large share of the blame for MMM. I thought that book was pretty awful.

[_honorentheos]

While the church is, without question, paying the price for promoting an overly-simplified “heritage” approach to history, I don’t think the motive was based in intentional deception; rather, I think the disinclinations towards academic approaches to history were based in sincere love for the church and a desire to protect it.

How is the motive to protect the Church not essentially saying there was intention to deceive? So the author believes it was justified deception; call it what it is, at least.

[_honorentheos]

Sure, it makes little sense to be angry at a faceless corporation.

On the other hand, corporations themselves can be the real villains when they have systems and cultures that push people to engage in bad behavior. I would go so far as to say that the LDS Church has a "culture of lying," because every member is taught and pressured to say they "know the Church is true" regardless of the real state of their knowledge. It also calls people to teach and proselytize regardless of their actual willingness or preparedness. In effect, when general authorities whitewash the Church's history, they aren't doing anything that hasn't already been asked of them at every other level of Church participation on their way to apostolic office.

Brilliant. Really a great insight into how ingrained the idea becomes that this type of dishonesty isn't just excuseable but desireable or even necessary to get to a place of understanding. From the youth being whispered to at a F&T meeting to the apostles at GC, this really shines a light on how ingrained this is into the culture. Thanks for sharing it.