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

[Guest]

Maybr We Should Stop Saying That We’ve Been Lied to by the Church - WWE

In this post on Worlds Without End Brain Whitney argues that the disaffected should not say the church lied to them.

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. Many, including President Packer, felt that advertising our flaws was tantamount to handing our critics information on a silver platter that they could manipulate against us. I believe that the leaders of the church who were reticent towards candid historical examination were not so because they had some sense that the church was built on lies, but instead because they sincerely believed it to be true; and that they distrusted the historian’s craft that tended to remove the spiritual aspects of the faith that were (and still are) viewed as vital to building and maintaining a testimony. I have no doubt that, in their eyes, they were not suppressors of truth as much as they were being the dutiful watchmen along the tower.

I see this point of view sometimes and I'd like to engage it a little.

Yes, it's worthwhile to understand how we got here. And yes their intention might have been good from their own point of view. But none of that changes the end result, which was a history taught and seminary and sunday school that had been almost completely whitewashed.

Packers intent was clear, promote faith by telling one side of the story. How is not that dishonesty? If I sold you a car only telling you the positive information, have I not deceived? Or is it because it's a religion that it is suddenly not a lie? Should I hold religion to a different or lower standard?

I think the intent here is to neuter criticism of the church. You can contextualize and add nuance all day but the end result still stands. They intentionally told half truths and intentionally omitted information to sell their religion. How is that not a lie?

[_sock puppet]

Maybr We Should Stop Saying That We’ve Been Lied to by the Church - WWE

In this post on Worlds Without End Brain Whitney argues that the disaffected should not say the church lied to them.

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. Many, including President Packer, felt that advertising our flaws was tantamount to handing our critics information on a silver platter that they could manipulate against us. I believe that the leaders of the church who were reticent towards candid historical examination were not so because they had some sense that the church was built on lies, but instead because they sincerely believed it to be true; and that they distrusted the historian’s craft that tended to remove the spiritual aspects of the faith that were (and still are) viewed as vital to building and maintaining a testimony. I have no doubt that, in their eyes, they were not suppressors of truth as much as they were being the dutiful watchmen along the tower.

How, Whitney, is denying the existence in the late 1800s of the Council of 50, then yet convening and admitting new members, innocent lying?

How, Whitney, is claiming that the Nauvoo Expositor was lying when it was not, just full of opinions and facts, innocent lying?

The 'desire to protect' the church is the very motivation for the deceit perpetrated for decades, and yet continues.

Those leaders may have believed, but they wanted others to continue their belief and so intentionally left out those sordid, historical details. The whitewashing was intentional deceit.

[_Maksutov]

Maybr We Should Stop Saying That We’ve Been Lied to by the Church - WWE

In this post on Worlds Without End Brain Whitney argues that the disaffected should not say the church lied to them.

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. Many, including President Packer, felt that advertising our flaws was tantamount to handing our critics information on a silver platter that they could manipulate against us. I believe that the leaders of the church who were reticent towards candid historical examination were not so because they had some sense that the church was built on lies, but instead because they sincerely believed it to be true; and that they distrusted the historian’s craft that tended to remove the spiritual aspects of the faith that were (and still are) viewed as vital to building and maintaining a testimony. I have no doubt that, in their eyes, they were not suppressors of truth as much as they were being the dutiful watchmen along the tower.

I see this point of view sometimes and I'd like to engage it a little.

Yes, it's worthwhile to understand how we got here. And yes their intention might have been good from their own point of view. But none of that changes the end result, which was a history taught and seminary and Sunday school that had been almost completely whitewashed.

Packers intent was clear, promote faith by telling one side of the story. How is not that dishonesty? If I sold you a car only telling you the positive information, have I not deceived? Or is it because it's a religion that it is suddenly not a lie? Should I hold religion to a different or lower standard?

I think the intent here is to neuter criticism of the church. You can contextualize and add nuance all day the end result still stands. They intentionally told half truths and intentionally omitted information to sell their religion. How is that not a lie?

To be fair, I bet there isn't any institution on Earth more than a couple of generations old that doesn't have some history they're not proud of. If you look just at the United States federal government since 1830, how many instances of deception can you find? Look through the NYT, Washington Post, WSJ in the last 50 years--any lying stories? Any hoaxes, fraudulent reporting? You betcha. Did they report on it themselves or did they have to be busted? Yeah, I thought so.

This is NOT an excuse, by the way. I'm deathly sick and tired of all the asinine (but THEY did it, too!) excuses of Rs and Ds. It's wrong, whether it's motivated by greed, piety, fear, hate, love, whatever. It's just further evidence, if that were needed, that this is a man-made institution, founded and operated and administered by men according to men's understanding, with the expected ambiguous consequences typical of the endeavors of men.

[_Fence Sitter]

If there wasn't any effort to deceive then why were members discouraged to avoid investigating the church's past? Why are members even now being told to be careful when using the internet to investigate the truth claims of the church? Why is the church still publishing inaccurate depictions of the translation process? Why are they still redacting information from the Council of the Fifty minutes? Why aren't the contents of the 1st presidency's vault public knowledge? Why are people still being excommunicated for offering different interpretations of its past? Why does correlation still exist? Why doesn't the Lord's university offer a religious studies program? Why isn't there a single trained theologian or even a historian in church leadership?


The church is still lying to its members and punishing those who disagree with a whitewashed version it still is strongly promoting.

[_Kishkumen]

Can one be upset at Joseph Smith for lying... a lot?

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

But it makes a fair amount of sense to be cross with Joseph Smith, Elder McConkie, and Elder Packer. It makes sense to be angry with John Gee.

Better yet, however, is to move past it and refuse to be hoodwinked again by pious frauds or well-meaning but ethically challenged believers.

[_Maksutov]

Can one be upset at Joseph Smith for lying... a lot?

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

But it makes a fair amount of sense to be cross with Joseph Smith, Elder McConkie, and Elder Packer. It makes sense to be angry with John Gee.

Better yet, however, is to move past it and refuse to be hoodwinked again by pious frauds or well-meaning but ethically challenged believers.

I fear that Mormons will do that about the time that Southerners give up their attachment to the Confederacy, and for the same reasons. A tribal myth with poisonous shoots.

[_cognitiveharmony]

I could probably give any type of man made organization a pass on this if it had moved past the embarrassing mistakes of it's past. Not to excuse it per se, but rather to accept that it no longer advocates these wrongs. But in the case of a church that claims to have been founded and run by God Himself and derives authority from that claim, they either need to disavow the authority, or explain exactly how it is that God and his doctrines for man can change so fundamentally over a mere 200 years.

[_fetchface]

The fact is that church leaders withheld truthful information because they knew it would affect whether or not people like me would stay in the church. They knew that some portion of the church would walk out if they knew certain *facts* about Joseph Smith. They purposely chose to avoid bringing up these facts. In fact, Packer explicitly directs people to avoid these facts so that they would keep people in the system who would otherwise leave if they were introduced to more information.

Now, they may have thought they were doing the right thing by doing this, but that doesn't mean that they were actually doing the right thing.

And yes, I do consider this to be lying. So does the Gospel Principles manual.

[_Fence Sitter]

What makes this so bothersome is that these actions were taken by men who also believe in free agency, in allowing people to make their own decisions. In effect, by intentionally hiding negative information that are acting contrary to their own beliefs.

[_Sammy Jankins]

The church still dodges the whole truth where they think they can. Like in the polygamy essay when even a complete novice like me was able to catch them trying to mislead by saying Emma likely didn't know about all of Jospeh's polygamous marriages, when we have concrete examples she didn't.

Maybe Whitney can explain how that wasn't really lying either.