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

[_honorentheos]

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....

Honorentheos,
As you may be aware, a letter from church leaders was read from the pulpit some time ago (a few years ago I believe) that asked that the whispering of a testimony to children was inappropriate and should not continue.

I wasn't aware.

I was reading an article this morning on pre WW2 American literature and found a thought similar to the subject raised. The writer made the comment that Prohibition had instilled a structural dishonesty into American society. We have a few laws today that I'm sure do more to weaken our regard for the justice system than they do to promote the general welfare of the people.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Whitney in the comments writes:

I still see Packer’s attitude as willful ignorance, emphasis on “willful,” as opposed to involuntary ignorance. To me, it’s a perfect example of chosing heritage over history. Was his motive to be deceptive? Or was it to defend the narrative that he has bought into largely because he has not committed himself to serious investigation.

If it is "willful ignorance" it is a willful ignorance he imposed on church teachers and the church at large. If one is willfully ignorant, isn't it fair to say they deceive themselves? If they impose that willful ignorance on others, haven't they decieved?

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Brent Metcalfe is superb. We are so lucky to have a guy like that in the conversation.

Agreed. His comments are excellent.

As a lifelong member of the Church, I don't regret being brought up as a member of the LDS Church. My parents were good people. I gained some very good friends who I might not have obtained otherwise, and there were many hard times that the Church helped me through.

However, there are a lot of pieces of the LDS Culture which, in my opinion, are harmful to the lay members. The encouragement to be judgmental, and to "tattle-tale" to the bishop or other leaders for the person's "own good"; the preaching to kids that masturbation is evil; encouraging young adults who are in love to marry in a temple where not all family is allowed to be present; telling people that if you don't walk the straight line, by following all of the many rules that the Church has set up, you will lose the ability to be able to be with your family in the next life....these are just a few.

I have an 11 year old son. I'm not comfortable with him being preached to that masturbation is wrong. I'm not comfortable with him feeling that he is obligated to serve a mission for a Church that preaches things that are questionable.

There are good things about the Church, but there are a lot of things that need improvement. And it is obvious that leaders have certainly not had a first line communication with God all the way along like they said they have.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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.

I still struggle with this idea of "knowing." Is it really so simple? Can people feel they know something emotionally without knowing it factually? I agree that the fake it 'til you make it approach is bad. So too is the kiddiemony. Frankly, I don't understand testimonies at all. But I do allow for the sense of knowing that comes from spiritual conviction, and I don't think that is dishonest.

The way I remember my time in the church, I absolutely felt that I "knew" and the lack of any real evidence or facts never gave me a second thought. Seems like that was simply immature thinking, and literal thinking (which is my cross to bear to this day) but who knew it then? I'm not so sure there can be a sense of knowing coming from spiritual conviction. At least to my present understanding, "spirituality" leads to the realization of how little one knows for sure.

OTOH, and tell me if this seems hypocritical, I do feel very sure of some things that aren't true. I could stand and testify that the Church is not true easily. It just doesn't fit into my world view at this stage of my life that there is a participating God. Maybe I'm just under the same delusion I was decades ago in the church? Just hope not!

edit to add: My testimony was pre-internet and it never had any real opposition in the way of cold hard facts. I doubt if it would have stood up so well and so long if I'd had any idea of the history/issues.

[_honorentheos]

At least to my present understanding, "spirituality" leads to the realization of how little one knows for sure.

OTOH, and tell me if this seems hypocritical, I do feel very sure of some things that aren't true. I could stand and testify that the Church is not true easily. It just doesn't fit into my world view at this stage of my life that there is a participating God. Maybe I'm just under the same delusion I was decades ago in the church? Just hope not!

edit to add: My testimony was pre-internet and it never had any real opposition in the way of cold hard facts. I doubt if it would have stood up so well and so long if I'd had any idea of the history/issues.

Great thoughts. I especially resonated with the first sentence bolded above.

I wanted to say something about how it's interesting that we've evolved minds that are better adapted at falsifying information than determining actual truth, but then backtracked on how that isn't actually accurate, either. But I agree. I feel much more confident of the things I don't think are accurate than those I do believe to be justified.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Christopher Smith has a follow up article.

Leaders Have Lied about Church History, but Maybe It’s Not Their Fault

[_Sammy Jankins]

From the article published by Christopher Smith.

So when Benson, Packer, and Oaks admonished historians to keep damaging information “secret or confidential” and to write “as Mormons,” the real scandal was not that they advocated pious deception. It wasn’t even that they forced academic discourse into a devotional mode. Rather, it was that they laid bare the deceptive processes at work in testimonial discourse throughout the Church. It was that they exposed how our institutions have made liars of us all.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Sure every organization that markets itself engages in hyperbole and is sometimes less than completely honest. But if they were engaged in it conciously would we ever think to excuse them?
Say there was a corporation where the CEO had said that "sometimes there is a temptation to tell everything, whether it sells the product or not, but some things are true that are not very useful." Is concious organizational deception so par for the course the Mormon leaders should be excused?

[_I have a question]

From the article published by Christopher Smith.

So when Benson, Packer, and Oaks admonished historians to keep damaging information “secret or confidential” and to write “as Mormons,” the real scandal was not that they advocated pious deception. It wasn’t even that they forced academic discourse into a devotional mode. Rather, it was that they laid bare the deceptive processes at work in testimonial discourse throughout the Church. It was that they exposed how our institutions have made liars of us all.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Sure every organization that markets itself engages in hyperbole and is sometimes less than completely honest. But if they were engaged in it conciously would we ever think to excuse them?
Say there was a corporation where the CEO had said that "sometimes there is a temptation to tell everything, whether it sells the product or not, but some things are true that are not very useful." Is concious organizational deception so par for the course the Mormon leaders should be excused?

Perhaps Volkswagon Executives will try that defence...

[_I have a question]

Christopher Smith has a follow up article.

Leaders Have Lied about Church History, but Maybe It’s Not Their Fault

Here is the official position on what constitutes 'lying'

Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. President Brigham Young said, “If we accept salvation on the terms it is offered to us, we have got to be honest in every thought, in our reflections, in our meditations, in our private circles, in our deals, in our declarations, and in every act of our lives” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 293).

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... y?lang=eng

We've been lied to by Church Leaders and (according to the official Church position on the matter) they are very much culpable for doing so.

[Guest]

From the article published by Christopher Smith.

So when Benson, Packer, and Oaks admonished historians to keep damaging information “secret or confidential” and to write “as Mormons,” the real scandal was not that they advocated pious deception. It wasn’t even that they forced academic discourse into a devotional mode. Rather, it was that they laid bare the deceptive processes at work in testimonial discourse throughout the Church. It was that they exposed how our institutions have made liars of us all.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Sure every organization that markets itself engages in hyperbole and is sometimes less than completely honest. But if they were engaged in it conciously would we ever think to excuse them?
Say there was a corporation where the CEO had said that "sometimes there is a temptation to tell everything, whether it sells the product or not, but some things are true that are not very useful." Is concious organizational deception so par for the course the Mormon leaders should be excused?

I liked much of Chris' piece, except when he gets to that highest LDS eschelon: the FP/12. Sure, with elder's quorum presidents, bishops, stake presidents, area authorities, and even the GAs who are 70s, this might be true. They are just the best participants in this group self-deception of "I know..." when they don't. But with each of those levels, there is yet a mysterious curtain beyond, further and higher up the ladder of LDS advancement. But those that are FP/12 have glimpsed and are now enshrouded behind the last curtain, where Oz isn't. Packer tells us that it's too sacred to tell us what the apostles of old claimed (if Packer has seen the resurrected Jesus in the flesh) or that it's too sacred to tell us that he hasn't. The FP/12 are the full-on liars. No excuses for them. Chris extended his theory to one level too far for me.