Informed Consent

[Kishkumen]

One of the things John Dehlin has been hammering on lately is the idea of informed consent. The LDS church has, so goes his claim, failed to teach Mormon history according to the standard he and many of us would prefer. Now Leo Winegar and Dan Ellsworth at Public Square have written a kind of rebuttal of John Dehlin’s position.

https://publicsquaremag.org/dialogue/pe ... BXU0XzmWB0

I have to say that I am a lot less up in arms over this issue than I used to be. At one point in time I would have been outraged that the LDS Church does not teach about all of the “warts” in its history. I think it should do a better job in teaching its history, but I also think that the answer to this problem is a lot less simple than I had thought.

It is not the case that everyone will necessarily come to the same negative conclusions about Mormonism we did, when we first learned about the warts. This raises in my mind the question of what I can reasonably expect those who see the warts and yet believe all the same to share about the history. A good example is Don Bradley’s recent visit to correct claims about Joseph Smith visiting prostitutes. I was inclined to believe the claim, but it turned out to be an unlikely one.

Should the Church teach every possible problem?

It is also not obvious to me that a faith narrative should be identical to an academic history. John Dehlin seems to think that people should read the equivalent of a graduate degree’s worth of material before committing to a faith tradition. I don’t know of many cases like that—there are a few—and, as the linked article points out, New Testament tradition cuts in the opposite direction—sudden conversion and commitment.

Finally, cultural biases and preferences have changed. The people who de-emphasized or even excised references to seer stones and the like were moving away from these things because they were unsympathetic to their use, not because they were hiding things to deceive others, in my opinion. Divining remained pretty popular into the early 20th century in Utah and then became much less popular. Leaders did not want members to use these things.

In short, the reasons for telling different stories over time are organic and complex. Christian critics of Mormonism have used this against the LDS Church as an effective mode of attack, but even a passing familiarity with Christian history shows that Christianity in general is filled with similar phenomena. I like Sandra Tanner as a person, but nothing like an objective view of her ministry can save it from charges of applying a double standard.

John Dehlin is simply engaged in his own secular ministry against the LDS Church. He is secularism’s Sandra Tanner. I understand that he means well and does a fair amount of good. The LDS Church’s failures to meet certain challenges created his job. His argument about informed consent certainly sounds compelling on the surface—obviously right—and yet I think this is just another category error that results from inadequate understanding and thought.

[drumdude]

While you may be right, John is still morally correct in using this argument to take down the corporation. You could use the same argument against other Multi-Level Marketing scams.

Should MLMs be required to tell people that they likely will spend more than they will ever make? How well informed should people be before they start working for an MLM?

Mormonism is even worse than an MLM, because at least the MLM promises a return on your investment in this lifetime. The Mormon promise is a return on your tithing only after death.

[dastardly stem]

There is no religion out there that is as forthcoming to the degree its critics would expect it to be. Plus on many points as you point out, good Reverend, there is dispute particularly when comparing the views of critics and faithful.

The added issue of religion is its often far less about historic issues far less about doctrinal particulars and more about community or internal spiritual activity. For many intellectual issues have no impact on spiritual response and that is often what religion is about.

I feel similar. It used to be I'd expect far more from Mormonism in disclosing the difficult matters which often trip people up. These days I'd rather see more acceptance for people who don't get intellectually or spiritually fulfilled by the religion and wish to move on to other ventures.

[Dr Moore]

My view is that John Dehlin’s informed consent is just a slogan for the catch-22.

Inform too much, people will not join. Inform too little, people will eventually find out and leave. The way John captures this fundamental product problem is “informed consent.”

[Kishkumen]

While you may be right, John is still morally correct in using this argument to take down the corporation. You could use the same argument against other Multi-Level Marketing scams.

Should MLMs be required to tell people that they likely will spend more than they will ever make? How well informed should people be before they start working for an MLM?

Mormonism is even worse than an MLM, because at least the MLM promises a return on your investment in this lifetime. The Mormon promise is a return on your tithing only after death.

I don’t see how a church is like an MLM. A church does not sell a product or promise to make you rich; it is a voluntary religious community.

I understand that the LDS Church’s wealth is distasteful, but it results from taking full advantage of a permissive legal structure for non-profits. Ensign Peak’s existence is offensive to me, but it is not a scam, not criminal activity.

I am also not sure that destroying the LDS Church is a net good. Improving the LDS Church would be, and the extent to which efforts like John Dehlin’s do that is for the better. I don’t always agree with him, however.

[Kishkumen]

I feel similar. It used to be I'd expect far more from Mormonism in disclosing the difficult matters which often trip people up. These days I'd rather see more acceptance for people who don't get intellectually or spiritually fulfilled by the religion and wish to move on to other ventures.

Thank you for those excellent thoughts, Dr. Stem. I think the LDS Church could do better, and I hope it does. The difficult questions are what constitutes better and for whom? It would be nice to see more understanding for those who move on to other things. It is possible, after all, to look at the history and come to different conclusions. No one should be faulted for that. If anything, LDS Church leaders and educators should keenly feel the weight of their own responsibility to find a better way to teach their Gospel and history. I think it can be done, but it requires a pretty thorough reorientation to achieve.

[drumdude]

While you may be right, John is still morally correct in using this argument to take down the corporation. You could use the same argument against other Multi-Level Marketing scams.

Should MLMs be required to tell people that they likely will spend more than they will ever make? How well informed should people be before they start working for an MLM?

Mormonism is even worse than an MLM, because at least the MLM promises a return on your investment in this lifetime. The Mormon promise is a return on your tithing only after death.

I don’t see how a church is like an MLM. A church does not sell a product or promise to make you rich; it is a voluntary religious community.

I understand that the LDS Church’s wealth is distasteful, but it results from taking full advantage of a permissive legal structure for non-profits. Ensign Peak’s existence is offensive to me, but it is not a scam, not criminal activity.

I am also not sure that destroying the LDS Church is a net good. Improving the LDS Church would be, and the extent to which efforts like John Dehlin’s do that is for the better. I don’t always agree with him, however.

I completely disagree. The LDS church advertises that if you give them 10% of your income, you will become successful in this life and have eternal reward in the next life. Also, men have the ability to climb the MLM leadership chain and eventually profit from the organization and from all the lowly people paying their 10%.

The LDS church is a MLM on steroids. Like many evangelical churches that teach the prosperity gospel, they hoard the wealth of their members. It's not about the amount of money they have, it's about the system they have set up to generate it. It's about coercing people to pay. Tithing settlement is completely unheard of in most other churches.

Not all churches are like this. Most Christian churches teach that tithing is completely voluntary. Most do not teach that it must be 10%. The LDS church is very different than most churches in that regard. Simply watching your child marry requires a huge investment in time and money to the LDS church.

[Kishkumen]

My view is that John Dehlin’s informed consent is just a slogan for the catch-22.

Inform too much, people will not join. Inform too little, people will eventually find out and leave. The way John captures this fundamental product problem is “informed consent.”

Interesting thoughts, Dr. Moore. What do you think he hopes to achieve by pressing on this point? The LDS Church put out those well-meaning essays, and it looks like that was, unfortunately, a costly endeavor. If I were in their shoes, I might not be eager to continue down that road. John Dehlin knows this, and yet he insists on informed consent. What should we make of his insistence in this context?

[Kishkumen]

I completely disagree. The LDS church advertises that if you give them 10% of your income, you will become successful in this life and have eternal reward in the next life. Also, men have the ability to climb the MLM leadership chain and eventually profit from the organization and from all the lowly people paying their 10%.

The LDS church is a MLM on steroids. Like many evangelical churches that teach the prosperity gospel, they hoard the wealth of their members. It's not about the amount of money they have, it's about the system they have set up to generate it. It's about coercing people to pay. Tithing settlement is completely unheard of in most other churches.

Not all churches are like this. Most Christian churches teach that tithing is completely voluntary. Most do not teach that it must be 10%. The LDS church is very different than most churches in that regard. Simply watching your child marry requires a huge investment in time and money to the LDS church.

I understand why you disagree, and I share your dislike of some of the very same characteristics. The LDS Church has always been a total-commitment kind of organization. If you believe it started as a scam, then it seems to follow that it remained one, more or less, up to the present. The LDS Church aspired to be, and considers itself, the Kingdom of God on earth. That is no polite neighborhood congregation with humble goals.

So, if you genuinely believe and embrace the idea that the LDS Church is the Kingdom of God, then which of these unusual characteristics seems wrong to you? To put yourself in the shoes of a believer, that is. You don’t believe, but you can probably see that others do and that it is possible to judge the organization on its own terms rather than those of the community Baptist church, I suppose.

[drumdude]

So, if you genuinely believe and embrace the idea that the LDS Church is the Kingdom of God, then which of these unusual characteristics seems wrong to you? To put yourself in the shoes of a believer, that is. You don’t believe, but you can probably see that others do and that it is possible to judge the organization on its own terms rather than those of the community Baptist church, I suppose.

You hear the same things from people who join MLMs. "You think I'm stupid for joining!" in my opinion it's about convincing people to critically examine the MLM/religion that they're in. Some MLMs may work for some people, especially the ones who get in early. LDS church works great for the rich well connected families too, the ones who got in early. The families where every son becomes a bishop, stake president, or mission president.

With an MLM I would encourage people to keep track of their expenditures and income, because many MLMs have creative ways to hide the fact that you're not making money. Similarly with the LDS church, I would encourage members to keep track of how much time they spend, how much money they give, and the mental health effects on themselves and their families. If the MLM member is making money, good for them. If the LDS member is happy, good for them. John has said this many times, in the same breath as his argument for informed consent. As long as you know all the tricks that MLMs/LDS uses to keep you in the organization, and you consent to them, then everything is good.