Honesty for the Saints versus the Church

Funny you create this thread. Let me tell you a bit about last Sunday.

During PH the missionaries were put on the spot, minutes before class started they were told that they would be giving the lesson. This sort of thing happens quite often and it always results in the same thing: ditch whatever the lesson was supposed to be about that week and make the topic… drum roll… pause for suspense… missionary work. I can’t fault the missionaries, they were put on the spot and they are going to seize every opportunity to motivate the members to participate in missionary work. The problem is that this happens all too often. I’ve heard way too many lessons on missionary work this year. Far too many. I abandoned ship on PH and went to the primary.

The primary lesson was on honesty. It was a good lesson but it brought to mind some of the sentiments that you shared.

The lesson started out with a definition of honesty. Tell the truth, don’t lie, don’t lead people to believe something that is not true, telling the truth even if it is to our detriment, etc. The primary teacher then spun an obvious (to children) yarn. Once all the kids were in on the game the teacher asked if telling stories like that was okay. No was the unanimous answer.

I probably don’t need to tell you the thoughts that surfaced. In my mind I retold a faith promoting version of the exact same story and asked myself… is telling this type of story okay?

I went back to priesthood to take my Hasten the Work™ licks.

In the face of doubts surrounding institutional honesty allow me to be the devils advocate: We should go to church to learn lessons that bring us closer to Christ. Church lessons shouldn’t be history lessons. That’s my way of saying that lessons don’t give a complete story, just the bits that promote faith. That said there are many instances where a story that represents something less than truthful is used to promote faith.

Tangent vent: I’d love for some fresh material. How about looking OUTSIDE the church for faith promoting material.

—

I see the church coming clean with some of the difficult issues (the articles on lds.org) as a part of their repentance process. Leaders in the organization are finally in a place where they have recognized the sin, now they are trying to make amends. The nature of their motives and whether their efforts are sufficient will always be up for debate but I see it as a net positive.

I suppose the church has just as much to learn about honesty as we all do.

I share the frustration. The idea that we can’t look outside church materials for information or other perspectives bothers me. If all I could read were church books, I would be bored to tears. I actually had a quote from a Science Fiction novel in my talk on Sunday, but skipped it because I was short on time.

In EQ on Sunday the lesson was on Living by Every Word that proceedeth from the mouth of God, which basically turned into a Follow the Prophets lesson. There were some other good observations made during the lesson, but I have a hard time with the follow the prophet mentality. My first internal reaction is: oh yeah, well listening to prophets denied blacks the priesthood for 150 years (probably not a very Christ like reaction).

Frankly, I cope by coming to sites like this one and the bloggernacle. Without this outlet, church would be much more difficult. I do try to make comments in class that present a mildly different perspective as to not offend anyone or appear too out of synch. I don’t know that it makes a difference, but perhaps we can slowly turn some hearts and minds to some other view points.

Good point Roy.

I watched Noah with DW the other day.

I actually liked some of the themes that the movie invited me to ponder.

I liked that God’s communication was sparse & cryptic. Even prophets are left to figure things out & fill in the blanks on their own.

I liked that the good and the evil was found in each individual. Noah’s family brought their hang-ups with them onto the boat.

I liked the concept that God might place humanity’s fate in the hands of one of our own (Noah deciding whether or not to end his bloodline).

I liked the concept of having an Abrahamic “test” and passing by deciding not to kill.

Roy,

I loved the movie for the same reasons you stated above. I found it profoundly moving and think it might be one of the best movies I have seen in the last couple of years.

-SBRed

The perspective I try to keep is “the church” somehow has to find a way to come together and respond to actions and words of individuals. What JS did in his lifetime is in some ways more public today than it was when he was alive, now the organization is left holding the bag and trying to figure out what to do. I think part of the problem is the organization is made up of many different personalities, and I’m sure they are not all in agreement.

Even the article in the Friend about Zina was written by somebody, yes it must have been approved for publication but for all we know somebody was upset about the inaccuracy – but was overruled and it was cleared to print.

I don’t assume anything is clean and cohesive, even if the message is often whitewashed.

History has been about telling stories from a particular perspective with a specific purpose for as long as history has been written. Even textbooks, which are supposed to be factual and objective, have done so – sometimes as egregiously as any religious storytelling.

I am glad the Church is trying now to publish historical accounts that are more accurate than in the past, but I can’t condemn the stories of the past for leaving out details (as important as they are) that don’t contribute to the stories being told when that is a standard almost nobody in the past held. I wish our predecessors had been able to rise above that particular aspect of “the natural (wo)man”, but I am glad the current leadership is trying to be academically accurate – and I’m not hung up on possible motivations. I’m happy for the change.

Sorry But I do not agree that a few mediocre essays that do not even address the issues, buried on the church website qualify as academic integrity. All the church is trying to do is manage the hemorrhaging. I fear it has little to do with honesty. If that were the case they would address the issue head on in a public forum. As it is all we get is apologist of different strips beating the drum for the church. I think it is blatant lying when evidence dictates one thing and you insist it says another. When you continue to perpetuate a story that is contradicted by new evidence you are lying. At a minimum you should own up to the fact that there are discrepancies and admit you do not have all the answers. To weave a crazy narrative that supports your world view in spite of obvious errors in fact is dishonest.

End of rant

History has been about telling stories from a particular perspective with a specific purpose for as long as history has been written. Even textbooks, which are supposed to be factual and objective, have done so – sometimes as egregiously as any religious storytelling.

I am glad the Church is trying now to publish historical accounts that are more accurate than in the past, but I can’t condemn the stories of the past for leaving out details (as important as they are) that don’t contribute to the stories being told when that is a standard almost nobody in the past held. I wish our predecessors had been able to rise above that particular aspect of “the natural (wo)man”, but I am glad the current leadership is trying to be academically accurate – and I’m not hung up on possible motivations. I’m happy for the change.

Many people don’t have problems with the past/history but they wonder why the church continues to tell the same incorrect versions of stories today. Perspectives change but often we don’t update the current version of the story to reflect the changed perspective. Juxtaposing a supposedly more enlightened perspective with a perspective that is viewed as outmoded and unyielding is going to create rifts.

I feel like challenges present themselves more often than they should because we often fixate on instances of church history that have been molded to promote a gospel principle. In some cases it’s more than the detail, the entire story is skewed. So much of church is spent in pioneer/history worship. In some ways it is unavoidable, religious organizations are in the uncomfortable position of communicating and defending their claims to exclusive divine authority. As much as I’d like to see us focus on other things on Sunday, history is going to come up.

The direction of the church reflects the attitudes of her leaders, the church isn’t going to come around to new perspectives until the majority of the leaders do. Church leaders have the same hurdles to overcome as we do: being taught a perspective from the previous generation, decades of belief in that perspective, black and white thinking, resistant to change, etc. Change certainly takes time and it’s harder to move a group than it is an individual.