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

[_SteelHead]

I think Chris smacked one out of the park, even if he claims it was trolling.
And Sethbag, points out why.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Grindael, the discussion was about modern leaders. And I didn't argue that we're all culpable of leaders crimes. Just that the same Church institution that turns them into liars does the same to people lower in the ranks. Many of us lied by omission in the mission field (with varying degrees of intentionality and awareness of what we were doing). And I think some (not all) of the anger against leaders really may be scapegoating them for our own guilt. Ethical integrity is another thing religion took from many of us, along with years of our lives, ten percent of our income, and our relationships with our relatives who shun us.

[_grindael]

Grindael, the discussion was about modern leaders. And I didn't argue that we're all culpable of leaders crimes. Just that the same Church institution that turns them into liars does the same to people lower in the ranks. Many of us lied by omission in the mission field (with varying degrees of intentionality and awareness of what we were doing). And I think some (not all) of the anger against leaders really may be scapegoating them for our own guilt. Ethical integrity is another thing religion took from many of us, along with years of our lives, ten percent of our income, and our relationships with our relatives who shun us.

My question was only for clarification, Chris. Thanks.

[_cwald]

Simply put, I'll stop saying that I've been lied to by the church when the church stops lying.

[_cwald]

As IHAQ pointed out this isn't just another organization. It's a religion that advocates for honesty. It's an organization that has leaders prying to the most private personal details of a young persons life and expecting honesty. I hold them to their own standards. I expect honesty from them and I hold them responsible for the concious intent to deceive.

AMEN.

This is my big issue. Yes, big organizations work to survive and thrive in ways that do not accord with individual ethical demands, but this becomes especially pernicious when an organization's claims are absolute. The LDS Church claims to be the Kingdom of God on Earth, as any endowed person well knows. People are routinely taught that a priesthood leader acting in his stewardship is God's voice for the person under that stewardship. The upshot is that the LDS Church implicitly claims to be God. God demands your obedience as he did of Abraham. No matter how immoral the command, if God extends it, it is the individual's requirement to follow on threat of damnation.

Just look at how Joseph convinced women to become his wives.

This is really well said Sammy and Kish.

[_grindael]

My thing is this. Are we to believe that these guys never looked up any of this stuff? That they are unfamiliar with the documents? That they just don't want to know? They were never asked? Never were in any discussions about this stuff? I know we have the whole JSP thing going on and the Presiding Bishopric's Office has unloaded a ton of documents on archive.org, but why do this so low key? Jeffrey Holland once said, "I'm not a dodo". But sometimes, they sure act like they are. Why the whole anonymous Essay Schtick? Why are all the current manuals and teaching tools still filled with "faithful history" with omissions that are almost criminal in nature? When they ask people to trust them with their eternal welfare, how can we do that when they can't be honest about their own history? When they are still excommunicating people for teaching factual things they don't want taught? They are culpable. When they claim that they just don't know why the Priesthood Ban was instigated and support that blatant lie in the anonymous Essay they had published, it doesn't speak well about their honesty.

[_suniluni2]

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fou ... t?lang=eng

*ahem* Priesthood Ban.

Is there a better example of a prophet leading the church astray?

Present day political correctness requires the church to say "We don't know why" when confronted with this issue, but I've heard several plausible explanations. The 1949 (Or '59?) 1st presidency letter says that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence. When I was a missionary I would simply say that God had exclusionary practices in the past, such as the levites being the only ones who could hold the priesthood, or that Jesus only came for the jews and that the gospel was only preached to the gentiles after his death, stuff like that (actually, those are the only 2 I can think of).

When I asked my TBM uncle why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, he would say, "It's god's priesthood, he can do what he wants with it." Not sure why the church doesn't just stick with that.