Why can’t church leaders be more straightforward?

Welcome Diamondback! I hope you find some of the support you seek here at StayLDS.

I’d like a dialogue on why these men who stress being honest in their dealings with their fellow men seem to not adhere to their own admonitions. …I just want to know why telling the truth, the whole truth, seems to be so hard for our leaders.

I’m sorry I don’t have an easy answer to your questions. In my view the problem is complex, so the answer will likely be complex. In my mind it involves perceptions of those receiving the message, the understanding of those giving the message, and the judgment of the addressers regarding the receptivity of the receivers. The situation does kind of knock down the impression that there are always clear and easy distinctions between right and wrong, truth/error, black/white. In my view the human condition is messy. It’s too bad but I see people go through efforts to “clean up” or “simplify” their positions in life, to call everything as they honestly see it – only to fall back into the “mess” after people don’t receive all their honesty as eagerly as they had hoped. Yes, I would like to hear many things worded more clearly in church; but for now I try to understand and develop compassion for people where they are – and try to understand why people say the things that they do. (Much the way you are by asking these questions.)

Let me try to address a few specifics:

– Why can’t there be a simple article in the Ensign that tells us why the word “among” was added to the book of Mormon introduction?

I think I did see an “explanation” on this somewhere. It basically said that the introduction was not given by revelation, but was written by church leaders from their understanding at the time. Today a limited geography theory is the most widely held, where in the past it was a hemispheric theory.

– Why not clear up everything we know about Joseph Smith’s polygamous period? There are plenty of new books (Smith papers, etc)…why not one on this topic? Or is In Sacred Lonliness correct and they just don’t want to admit it?

Personally I think “In Sacred Lonliness” is mostly correct and they probably just don’t feel the need to “endorse” it as it has nothing to do with our current direction and lifestyle. Yes, the history is important in context of revelation to leaders – so there is probably also something for the church to learn or come to terms with there.

– Why do I hear at Sunday School that Joseph was so progressive in giving the preisthood to blacks yet we all know somewhere, we are told, God decides blacks are barred from the priesthood after Joseph’s death. If it was a mistake or a policy, say so. Right now, we are to believe it was God’s will, not man’s. But there is no discussion on the inconsistencies. So when friends outside the church ask about the when God decided to stop giving the PH to blacks after Joseph’s day, why can’t I give them a statement from the Church with all the details?

Actually, you may be interested to hear more of the recent statements on this topic by church leaders. Unfortunately it’s not an official church statement, but I think you could comfortably tell a friend outside the church that there was never any revelation (that we have) stating that blacks should not be ordained to the priesthood. Leaders are men, men can make mistakes. The priesthood ban was a policy, we cannot point to the origin. Today it has been done away, and all the speculation around why it was in place was probably wrong. It is not doctrine that black Africans are descendents of Canaan.

This may be of further interest on the topic: http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/04/repudiating-racist-justifications-once.html

Again welcome, I hope you enjoy your time here! We all wish these things were cleaner and “simpler.” I think we also try to be optimistic that in time the statements we hear in church will become closer to our understanding of what the “truth” really is.

For now all we can do is our part.

This behavior has really hurt me at a very deep level. I am so tired of a PR spin machine that rivals anything we see in “the world” we are supposed to be in but not of. I just want to know why telling the truth, the whole truth, seems to be so hard for our leaders.

Welcome diamondback! I can relate to all of your issues, and my response will be (as usual for me), quite different than most, I think.

First, bluntly, I think and believe today (might be different tomorrow) that it is possible that Joseph (or other men) made up much of what we read about his life. I believe the first vision, with all its reported contradictions, didn’t physically happen the way most members believe it. I think there is much truth in what Compton reports in his book about Joseph’s “marriages.” I think Brigham was possibly more involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre than what the church admits today. There was much racism, sexism, and many other isms in the early church that I don’t agree with today. I think the temple ceremony was “borrowed” from the Masons, presented to the church as “sacred inspiration,” when it was one way to secretly participate in and cover up many illegal, polygamous, polyandrous marriages. I believe it is possible that Joseph intentionally administered hallucinogenic substances to members in meetings (as sacrament) to elicit visions and other spiritual experiences helpful to “confirm” their testimony of his “work.” I believe Brigham, and his Danites, were quite heavy-handed and unfairly violent in their administration of the “church and temporal affairs” in the 19th century. I have ancestors whose barns were burned down due to lack of tithing payment.

Now, before you conclude that I am just another “anti-Mormon,” please hear me out, I am on the earth today because of “the principle” (my great-great-grandparents were all polygamous). I’m a BIC, RM, once temple-married, former high counselor, bishopric member, and acting bishop. I respect and love the LDS Church. I am a member of good standing today. My wife is a member as well. I am an intermittent church attendee — I also attend a few other churches (went to the Utah Valley Unitarian Universalist church yesterday).

I went through a difficult time as I learned of many of these things over a decade ago. There was a time I felt lied to, deceived, and unfairly treated by the “church.” I was mad at them for their dishonesty and deception.

I see things differently now. They are/were all “men” of their time, doing the best they can/could to survive. As with everything in politics, business…and of course, religious history (all religions that I know of), these kinds of actions were and are common.

I see the church members and leaders today as mostly compassionate, loving, service-driven, good human beings — born into, or converted into a culture that has this history. For most of the church’ history, this information was not available to the members — or was hidden, to keep the image of the church, and its former leaders, as positive as possible. This is true of almost every large business, government, or other religion I know of.

Is it right? Probably not. But it is what it is. I think the better question for us is:

What should I/we do about it today?

The church is a financially viable and strong organization today. It has, and is helping millions of people living today — to survive, and live better lives spiritually and temporally. I don’t think it is led by corrupt, money-hungry leaders like many others today. It has the capacity and position to teach healthy morals and principles that are good for society. It is mostly doing a good job of that.

So (sorry for the long-windedness there), I try to see the positive present and future of the church. We can’t change the past, but we can help to mold the church from within, to evolve to a more honest, truthful organization…that has and will continue to provide necessary community and spiritually based principles to many.

I’m not quite as jaded as Rix, there , but he does make sense. And he has more experience than I, though I’ve probably done as much as he (but not the ‘acting bishop’ thing).

Then again, Rix probably doesn’t carry with him the ‘divorce’ curse that I have… (Every ward I move into, one of my home teaching families divorce within a year or two – let’s see, it’s now involving 4 wards…). 👿 I swear it’s not my fault!

Anyway…

While we are not to be of the world, we are nevertheless firmly stuck IN the world, and IMO to survive we must do what is done in the world to survive. The difference would be whether hypocracy is in effect or not.

I think a small percentage of LDS Church leaders are either hypocrites or are deceptive. The larger portion, I am positive, are earnstly seeking the greater good in their actions and beliefs. I think the LDS system produces such sincere leaders at a wonderful rate. They have to preserve the institution, though, and that requires PR and spin. It just does. Otherwise, the Church is goin’ down for the count.

What I love is that this Church has enabled me to experience God personally. And does this for many others as well. It’s really cool.

HiJolly

I like what Rix said. I agree with about 95% of his statements. The challenge I think we are facing as a church is the future. The working model we have now may not work in the future. With the advent of the internet and the information more widely available it is possible a time will come when there are just to many members asking to many questions. Right now the church discourages the use of the internet to find out anything about the church. It preaches correlation to control the message. I am not sure how long that can last. It may be that it will last for a long time, but the real determining factor will be the actual growth rate of the church. NOt the published growth rate but those who stay active in the faith. If this starts to take a dip then things may change.

I just wrote a long response and deleted it . I think my last two sentences said : In short you don’t NEED to know what the leaders think/know about certain policies/doctrine/opinion anymore than you NEED the answers themselves. Being responsible for your thoughts and faith can be scary but I personally think it is progression at it’s best.

This is so fantastic, LaLa!! Thanks!

I just wrote a long response and deleted it . I think my last two sentences said : In short you don’t NEED to know what the leaders think/know about certain policies/doctrine/opinion anymore than you NEED the answers themselves. Being responsible for your thoughts and faith can be scary but I personally think it is progression at it’s best.

This is so fantastic, LaLa!! Thanks!

Except that it kind of came out weird. What I kind of meant to say (?) was You know* an answer will have bias/opinion/prejudice etc .. So now that you have realized that the leaders don’t have all of the answers let alone possibly the “right” motives, why waste time hoping for complete honest answers, when through trial and error, of your own studies, has showed you that through history the same “half truths” in our history are repeating themselves through current interpretations. The best person to find answers from is yourself, through logic/reasoning/prayer/revelation/your conscience etc! The same person that has always been around-just safe and taken care of-the same person that was happy with what they were given, trusted and obeyed in faith. It is great to have the humility to listen to advice, to listen to others revelations but ultimately it needs to make you feel “good”, something needs to click..and it still can, but if it doesn’t let it go. You don’t need their approval or ok that things were wrong or right, prejudice, opinionated, true or false .. Follow your intuition, be open to new ways of looking at things, if you feel differently about a doctrine or aspect of culture take responsibility for your belief and feelings-you don’t need an apology..you don’t need the leaders to spell it out for you or help you to make sense of everything – that is what this opportunity you have is for, to think and live for yourself. Ok I hope that makes more sense.

Thank you for all the thoughtful responses. And I have to be honest that there is still some resentment in me which will color this final response for this thread and I apologize in advance for that.

But…

1. It was the leaders themselves that made this issue so black and white as to preclude some of the responses that I can just believe what I want to or the church can be what I want it to be my rejecting those things I disagree with and accepting those I do. What you are “required” to believe if you want a temple recommend, don’t want to be a social pariah in the ward, and hold callings may be too much to ask with what we know. It is all or nothing, church of God or abominable church, it is all true or a fraud. Those are the types of things we have heard over and over. That position is untenable as many of the responses here indicate but I do not see it changing, unfortunately. And to me it would be the same as being in a club where you don’t agree with what the club stands for. You may have fun and the club may do great things for the community but we are defined by the associations we keep. Keeping the LDS moniker, taking on us the name of Christ (as we have been taught by the LDS church), and participating in the temple ceremony with its associated covenants, requires you have to accept it all (or at least appear to) to maintain personal integrity to what you say you are (i.e. LDS). Unlike various sects of other religions, we don’t have wards that accept everything but the first vision or everything but the BoA or everything but the concept of prophets. You can do that in your mind but you really, in my opinion, only fool yourself since you have to keep that to yourself. Whether that be not to offend others, or not cause contention, or not be excluded from the group, it is the same…you are not being true to yourself. And not being true yourself is not how I think you should have to feel as you find a church to worship God.

2. I can never again look at a guy like President Hinckley the same when he and others like him conduct temple recommend interviews asking whether or not we are honest in our dealings with our fellow men when it is obvious the organization as a whole does not follow that requirement. That is probably me seeing what I should have the whole time (i.e. they are fallible, human, just like every one else, etc) but it still is disappointing. Sure he was a nice guy and had a great heart…but it has become apparent to me that he and the other leaders are not the only ones on the earth who are prophet, seers, and revelators who have the direct line to God. However, having that perspective makes you feel like you can’t state it without offending your ward family or that you can’t truthfully answer some temple recommend questions in the manner in which you should. That, by default, makes you a second class citizen in the church where you can’t even do things like attend the sealing of your own children or participate in a ward temple night.

3. I know many have said that we should find our own answers like LGT or whatever to help things make sense but they are not official by any means. If it turns out to be correct, great for the leaders. If not, it was only some academics who postulated that anyway. In fact, the church tries very hard to not get pinned down on any particular statement or position. The intro change to the BOM is a perfect example. A press release from the church says the change was because the intro was written by a man and was not official doctrine. But it was there for decades (indicating at least tacit approval) and no one ever acted like it was anything less than inspired before the change. And a press release? Again, it is too easy for folks to simply say it didn’t come from the GAs/conference/Ensign so they it isn’t official. That leads to the same “I’m sure they have their reasons because President Monson gets his direction as God’s prophet” mentality. It really is playing both ends against the middle such as Hinckley saying one thing to one audience (non-mormons watching TV) vs. another (mormons at GC). That seems dishonest knowing what we know. Is it so hard to have a column in the Ensign that said the FP and apostles were inspired to make the change or whatever and that is why it was done? It is if you don’t want to be accountable for something. So you see why it is hard for me to listen to a lesson where some church leader tells a story of how he stole a candy and his dad made him go back and return it because of personal accountability. The actions of the organization as a whole which claims to be the true church with Jesus at its head fails to do the very same thing. Is this, to coin a phrase, what Jesus would do?

I have a lot to ponder and pray about. But one thing is for sure…my world view will never be the same again. That the prophets will never lead us astray (and for me the definition is that they won’t try to trick or lie to us or teach us false doctrine) seems to be a PR technique to get us to follow without question rather than provide us the comfort that this is God’s one and true church that I thought it was. This is all very disappointing to say the least. We all find ways to cope. Apparently, I still need to find mine.

Thanks again for the responses.