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

[_sock puppet]

Praise from Caesar.

Indeed, it has been acknowledged by the great one to be brilliant obfuscation, the Mopes' tool.

[_Kishkumen]

My vote for interesting insight OTD.

Thank you, Steelhead!

[_consiglieri]

Looks like Denver Snuffer just weighed in . . .

[_Kishkumen]

Looks like Denver Snuffer just weighed in . . .

I know he is kinda out there, but he actually made the most sense of any of the true believer posters. Probably because what he believes is not "the leader is always right."

[_Sammy Jankins]

A reply by Whitney in the comments.

Well, Gary, I really hit a raw nerve, didn’t I?

I recognize that people are legitimately frustrated with my suggestion that “we’ve been lied to” is an oversimplification that maybe we should stop saying. I’m not suggesting that people should just believe the shoddy history that has been produced, I’m only suggesting that the shoddy history may not have been produced with malicious intent to deceive the membership–but rather from a shortsighted preference for a “heritage” approach to history over an academic approach. As a historian yourself, you understand historiographical trends and how easily bad history can be produced, even by people with overall good intentions. History has always been manipulated to serve political ends. I’m not saying we should excuse that, but rather recognize it for what it is and move on—cheering when better history is produced and calling the church out when shoddy history is produced. But it’s a misnomer to say that the “facts speak for themselves.” In most cases, the “facts” of history require interpretation. How we interpret them, what lens we look through, is very much a product of what our interests and priorities are the at present. We assume that what is important to us now must have been equally as important to people fifty, one hundred, two hundred years ago. We will never be “done” with History, because we will always find a new interpretive lens to apply on the past and arrive at different conclusions about it. I’m suggesting that the bulk of church leaders for the past half century believed in the overly-simplified narrative that they promoted, and quickly cast aside anything that challenged that narrative without serious examination. Packer’s statements to CES were not, I argue, the remarks of a man well-versed in the history, but rather of willful ignorance. And that is the mess we are in: the result of a “consensus” narrative, willful ignorance, stubbornness in many cases, fear in some cases, and a bias against history that they felt threatened the spiritual aspects of our heritage. I’m arguing that it serves us very little to stand around pointing our fingers, calling out “LIARS!” We would be better served with a modicum of charity; a recognition that the leaders of the church are products of their generation, upbringing, and surroundings, as much as anyone else; and easing up on the “us vs. them” mentality.

Could I have framed it differently? Or chosen a less “clickbait” title? Sure. Guilty as charged. And I apologize to anyone that I offended through carelessness (ironic, since that’s what my post is about). One of my favorite comments that I think really summarizes why I wrote this is:

I actually think understanding how and why we got here allows us to approach where we’re at as a church body with more grace, learn from it and move forward in ways to prevent this from replaying in future generations. I think it’s far more valuable than simply assigning blame.

[Guest]

Well, Gary, I really hit a raw nerve, didn’t I?
I recognize that people are legitimately frustrated with my suggestion that “we’ve been lied to” is an oversimplification that maybe we should stop saying.

Packer plainly advocated omitting facts that weren't "useful." Like I said in my OP, if a corporation did the same, we wouldn't think twice about calling that lying.
But again with the mantra of Internet Mormons. Call any opposing position an "oversimplification."

I’m not suggesting that people should just believe the shoddy history that has been produced, I’m only suggesting that the shoddy history may not have been produced with malicious intent to deceive the membership–but rather from a shortsighted preference for a “heritage” approach to history over an academic approach.

What is with this history vs heritage dichotomy?

As a historian yourself, you understand historiographical trends and how easily bad history can be produced, even by people with overall good intentions. History has always been manipulated to serve political ends. I’m not saying we should excuse that, but rather recognize it for what it is and move on—cheering when better history is produced and calling the church out when shoddy history is produced.

"History has always been manipulated to serve political ends." So the excuse for the church is everybody does it? That's great if you just look at the church as a purely human organization. If God were in any way involved, if God really does communicate with his leaders, there is no excuse for intentional deception.

But it’s a misnomer to say that the “facts speak for themselves.” In most cases, the “facts” of history require interpretation. How we interpret them, what lens we look through, is very much a product of what our interests and priorities are the at present. We assume that what is important to us now must have been equally as important to people fifty, one hundred, two hundred years ago. We will never be “done” with History, because we will always find a new interpretive lens to apply on the past and arrive at different conclusions about it. I’m suggesting that the bulk of church leaders for the past half century believed in the overly-simplified narrative that they promoted, and quickly cast aside anything that challenged that narrative without serious examination. Packer’s statements to CES were not, I argue, the remarks of a man well-versed in the history, but rather of willful ignorance. And that is the mess we are in: the result of a “consensus” narrative, willful ignorance, stubbornness in many cases, fear in some cases, and a bias against history that they felt threatened the spiritual aspects of our heritage.

They still omitted facts, whatever their motivations.

I’m arguing that it serves us very little to stand around pointing our fingers, calling out “LIARS!”

The social utility of it has nothing to do with whether or not it's true. I think it's completely fair for a member to say they were intentionally not told pertinent information. Is that useful? Who knows. Who is Whitney to say it isn't useful to someone?
It sure would be useful to the church if people stopped saying it. Maybe that's what Whitney really means.

We would be better served with a modicum of charity; a recognition that the leaders of the church are products of their generation, upbringing, and surroundings, as much as anyone else; and easing up on the “us vs. them” mentality.

I should have charity for leaders who explicitly decided not to tell the lay membership the whole story? Out of the the people in the world to have charity towards? No thanks Whitney.

[_consiglieri]

And now Brent Metcalfe has weighed in.

[_SteelHead]

By the church's own definition of the truth, it has been lying to us. Funny how those who defend this behavior are also the same who condemn a nomish approach to answering the temple recommend questions.

[_Sammy Jankins]

And now Brent Metcalfe has weighed in.

I would understand what Whitney was trying to say if we didn't have Packers talk and the examples where they conciously and intentionally stifled information.

[_SteelHead]

And now Brent Metcalfe has weighed in.

As he should.
It must be a bitter irony indeed, being excommunicated for discussing that which the church now admits to in its own essays.