Frequent Rebuttal to My Faith Crisis Argument

It’s hard to judge what people believe. Half the time I don’t even know what I believe :crazy: let alone someone else. It’s hard to label things as stupid or smart when it comes to belief, in many ways belief is completely irrational. Maybe a better term than stupid would be naive or even better yet, innocent.

Knowing that there were orthodox, believing members of the church much smarter than me and that they knew all the things I was discovering kept me hanging on for a while. In some ways it still does. I figured I just need to discover something they had already discovered.

Most people I know that have had some exposure to some issues but remain orthodox tend to look at the overall fruit over the long haul. They have witnessed that obedience to gospel principles can make people happy and that’s all the evidence they need to keep their belief going. All these issues that at times weigh me down just fall by the wayside because for them they truly aren’t important, it’s all about the power that belief has to bring about positive change. For the record I think I’m on that same path but I don’t feel like I need a structured religion to achieve the same result. Some people do.

It’s impossible to say. Heck I know all the problems and I still attend every Sunday, rain or shine. I still hold a calling, give talks, and substitute teach classes all the time. I keep my unorthodox views to myself. If some people suspected or knew I had issues I might be deemed a liar but I think the truth of the matter is that I’m struggling to exercise faith as best as I can with what I’ve got to work with… just like all of us.

I know probably every imaginable issue and remain an active, calling-holding, temple recommend holding and attending, believing, etc. member. I’ve been in Bishoprics and High Councils, taught Seminary (in multiple states), Institute, Sunday School (all levels) and Primary, etc. I am a full tithe payer. I am orthoprax in almost every way, meaning I live the traditional life. I simply see and believe quite a few things differently than other members – all along the scale.

I’m not stupid (by any stretch), and I’m not a liar (although I believe strongly in “creative honesty”).

Getting past the polarization of condescension, assumption, ridicule and dismissal of others who simply see through their glasses, darkly, in a different way than you see through your own glass, darkly – or recognizing that you don’t see through yours clearly while their vision is dark – is a MAJOR step in finding peace, joy, understanding, charity and liberation.

But does anyone really argue that the institutional church (as run by the 1st Pres and the Q12) has been totally honest with the rank and file?

I do.

I don’t think they have ever knowingly told me something that wasn’t true, which is the definition I use for ‘totally honest’. Now, they haven’t shared Church financials with me since the mid 60s but they aren’t obligated to and it isn’t dishonest not to. They also haven’t spent any time explaining the Mountain Meadows Massacre or the apparent similarities between the Temple ceremonies and Masonic rituals to me but I don’t see those omissions as dishonesty. They aren’t hiding the information, they just don’t consider the teaching of those things to be their responsibility. It’s even a fact that they have taught me in the past certain things that aren’t true like black skin being the curse of Cain or that polygamy was to ensure that all those poor widows were taken care of but this isn’t dishonesty. It’s not dishonest to be in error. It’s just error.

So, yes, the institutional Church as run by the Prophet and the Quorum of the 12 has been totally honest with the rest of us.

I know ‘liar’ is a strong word. I like how Ray calls it ‘creative honesty’.

But does anyone really argue that the institutional church (as run by the 1st Pres and the Q12) has been totally honest with the rank and file?

I don’t feel like they have.

On matters of church history, whether Apostles have seen Christ, and the payment of top GA’s they have not been honest with us. They have used a policy of omission rather than commission, to perpetuate untrue beliefs about these items They allow the imaginations of the members to fuel the myths, and don’t say anything about it.

From reading a lot of different reports from people online who know church employees, and applying some common sense, I believe the people at the top ARE paid. I don’t think they are making millions or being like Jimmy and Tammy Baker, but if they are accepting lifelong callings, full-time, and they aren’t wealthy, I would argue they HAVE to be paid.

Yet, there are comments made all over the place in our teaching to investigators and in church materials that we are a “lay ministry”. I even heard a very intelligent lawyer teaching gospel doctrine perpetuate the half-truth of non-paid GA’s when someone in the class indicated that the higher ups are paid. He responded “no one is paid in our church”. And I don’t blame them for being paid — but I do take exception with their not correcting the myth that they are doing all that for free.

The whitewashing of history is famous – read Truth Restored and all you hear is that the Saints were persecuted and “driven west”. You never hear the contributions the early Mormons may have made to their own demise. Heck, it was on the PBS.org documentary that I learned Joseph Smith was brought up on charges that ultimately led to his death because he ordered the destruction of a printing press. I learned this only after 30 years in the church, a mission, and many local high profile leadership callings, and teaching assignments. Truth restored called the charge that led to JS imprisonment a “trumped up charge” rather than fully explaining the circumstances that led to his arrest. Learning that he ordered the destruction of the printing press on PBS.org was like finding out I’ve been kicked out of the band on facebook.

The mountain meadows massacre (something I learned about for the first time on the doorstep of a non-member on my mission) is something you never hear about at church or in lessons on church history during that era.

And of course, who knows if the Apostles have seen Christ. Everyone believes they have, and I am open to the fact that some of them have, potentially — or at least, believe they have. But God is so diverse in the way he interacts with men and women, it wouldn’t surprise me if many, if not most have NOT seen him.

Anyway, I don’t see the GA’s as liars by any means, but I do feel they emphasize those aspects of our history and finances that are “faith promoting”. And they do tend to omit the aspects that are true, but that might cause people to doubt. I find that in conflict with the emphasis we put on asking God for wisdom, studying problems out in our mind, etcetera, seeking the truth, and our general commitment to being honest.

On matters of church history, whether Apostles have seen Christ, and the payment of top GA’s they have not been honest with us. They have used a policy of omission rather than commission, to perpetuate untrue beliefs about these items They allow the imaginations of the members to fuel the myths, and don’t say anything about it.

As an example of this, when I was in the MTC Elder Scott came and spoke to us. I quoted a few sentences in my study journal:

We do not speak of the event that qualifies us to be apostles of Jesus Christ. Let the Spirit flesh out what I do not say.

The other missionaries in my dorm room and I discussed this after the meeting. We all took it to mean that the apostles must have seen Christ to be qualified. Elder Scott also visited my mission when I was about to come home. He made a similar statement when speaking to us then.

“We do not speak of the event that qualifies us to be apostles of Jesus Christ. Let the Spirit flesh out what I do not say.”

The other missionaries in my dorm room and I discussed this after the meeting. We all took it to mean that the apostles must have seen Christ to be qualified. Elder Scott also visited my mission when I was about to come home. He made a similar statement when speaking to us then.

I feel for the apostles in this regard. They are in a no win position. People put them on a very high pedestal and then look to them for answers on how to make important life decisions. Part of that pedestal is the understanding that apostles are “special witnesses” or have had some sort of visitation or unique experience that qualifies them for the office.

If an apostle is explicit in saying that the Q15 has discussions and makes decisions in a similar way than a ward council might – then some may become disillusioned in their faith.

“Let the Spirit flesh out what I do not say.” is pretty ingenious in that it allows those that need to think that the apostles see Christ to think that without actually saying so.

There are sins of omission, but not sharing everything with everyone is not one of them. … Not bombarding someone with doubts and issues who can’t handle it is not a sin.

Ray, I’m not convinced on this part of it. When missionaries teach converts, they are asking them to make huge, sweeping changes in their lives. For me, the missionary discussions and my conversion determined a) where I went to school, b) where I would put more disposable income than I could afford, and c) who I married and d) where I put most of my disposable time and d) my eventual relationship wtih my non-member family.

I really did feel hoodwinked when I stood on the doorstep of that non-member who was the first to use the words Mountain Meadows Massacre. If I was selling a car, then caveat emptor prevails — then I think your logic holds fast. But for a church that is in the truth business, I really do believe that at some point, there should have been disclosure about our history so we don’t learn about it on the Internet, or PBS.org and find it’s true, and that it had been kept from us. Particularly for people who the church trains to send forth to represent the church. How embarrassed I was, and how I understood the brainwashing concept this man perceived (although I never considered myself brainwashed — but I saw how he might think that if I knew so little about our history, in spite of being an avid reader of church-approved materials).

Frankly, I think our current top leadership, collectively, is as honest and open as any we’ve ever had – and I think there is ample proof of that. Some people can dismiss it as just responding to the availability of information on the internet – but that doesn’t change one bit the fact that they are, in more ways than ever before, more open than ever before.

I would agree. And although you sort of pre-empted this statement, I do believe its because they have to be — the Internet is far too powerful to ignore. I honestly believe that if the Internet did not exist, we wouldn’t see articles on polyandry, the priesthood disavowal, etcetera.

Uchdorft has shown tendencies toward the kind of church we would like to have, and others have broached it, but we’re not there yet.

Finally, not sharing church finances is NOT an example of dishonesty – unless they are intentionally diverting money into endeavors that are contrary to how they say they are managing the funds. It simply is an example of confidentiality and lack of transparency – and those are very different things.

I agree. But I do think that allowing the general population to believe that “no one is paid” is also not honest when it not true. Allowing myth to promulgate through our membership because it is convenient and advantageous to the leaders at the top is not my idea of the truth standard that matches our own claims of truth.