Is Authenticity Over-Rated?

I just want to share my thoughts on this subject. I think authenticity is overrated. Many people think authenticity is being true to yourself, being bold, being an individual, and praiseworthy, but I would argue that it is not that way, particularly when used in the wrong context…First, being brutally honest about divergent attitudes can be perceived as disrespectful — particularly when it opposes deeply held religious beliefs of others…in being somewhat “inauthentic” (read, “sensitive to the beliefs of others”), you are actually being professional and kind. Professionalism and kindness are admirable character traits too…Third, realize that authenticity is not always bright. If I was totally authentic in my work right now, I would have gone into my the manager’s office two levels above me, and said the following. “I think you’re incompetent…Even if I softened the language, it would also be socially unwise, as I would get fired, written up for insubordination, or downsized — thus losing the “value” my job holds. Similar losses occur when you are too authentic in your relationships — particularly when you lack power to change the organization or person to whom you are being authentic…When authenticity is of value, in my opinion, is when there is a practical reason for it. You are a change agent. You are trying to resolve a conflict with someone who is likely to listen…What do you see as the role of authenticity in your relationships at church?

Yes; as far as I’m concerned truth, honesty, integrity, authenticity, etc. are all overrated and impractical ideals that generally sound good in theory but quite often simply do not work all that well in practice. For example, whenever my wife asks me if I have been looking at porn (again) the only acceptable answer is “no” and anything other than that will almost certainly lead to much more trouble than it is worth dealing with. As far as the Church goes, I would much rather just tell other members that I don’t want to pay tithing or accept any callings right now than the brutally honest explanation that I actually believe that Joseph Smith was some kind of con-man and/or pathological liar and furthermore the LDS Church currently has too many cult-like traits for my taste because I think most TBMs will typically not feel nearly as threatened by the idea of less active members than they are by members that used to believe in the Church changing their mind and openly disagreeing with the Church and its doctrines and policies and I suspect that most of them don’t really want to hear why I disagree with the Church.

I think the issue is, as with SO many things, how we define the term.

I can be totally authentic and totally honest and never disingenuous or hypocritical and yet not share everything I think or feel or believe (or even much of anything).

I think authenticity defined as complete openness, without filter, is highly over-rated and actually harmful, as you say in your post; I think authenticity defined as living according to the dictates of one’s conscience, even when it includes filters on actions (including the spoken word), cannot be over-rated.

I think the proper kind of authenticity is MUCH harder to achieve than the improper kind – since all extremes (complete openness vs. complete hidden-ness) are simple. They aren’t easy, necessarily, but they are simple. Finding a balanced middle way is hard – but it is SO rewarding to be an agent unto one’s self while remaining a valued member of a group.

I don’t think that authenticity (as opposed to rude, impolitic and socially-unacceptable behavior) is overrated.

I am defining authenticity as “The civil, open sharing of beliefs that are in direct opposition to time honored, highly-valued norms and doctrines within the modern LDS Church”.

Even when expressed civilly, openly expressing that you don’t believe JS was a prophet, and that you think he was likely may a philanderer and a con-man to me, is being authentic in the modern church (If you believe that. I’m not saying I do). Or openly saying that you don’t believe in tithing 10% of income should be necessary for a temple recommend, would also be authentic (if you believe that). But saying those things are just insensitive to the people who believe them. They also make you a target for name calling (apostate) and other forms of ostracization. I also think it’s a bit disrespectful to the beliefs of the people who believe in tithing and JS. To me, that kind of authenticity is overrated.

Now, the kind of authenticity associated with being yourself, and even expressing beliefs within a certain range where judgment is “allowed” in our church — fine. But that’s not the kind of authenticity I’m talking about.

Or, if it’s overrated, it’s because that’s what being LDS is all about. Our founders were seekers, people rejecting their faiths for what I think you could call authenticity. Our missionaries are out there asking people to leave their native churches because we hope they recognize their own authentic beliefs – about God’s ways, redemption, and eternal life with family – and change their affiliation to match.

That’s how I feel on a frustrating day.[/quote]

In the latter-day, primitive church (JS’s time) I think that kind of authenticity is fine. But that is not the context in which I’m defining authenticity. Back then, the norms that typify our church hadn’t hardened yet. Plus, he was creating a movement (totally discouraged in our church) and was an acknowledged leader and ideator for the movement. Totally fine in that respect to come out with ground-breaking ideas. But not in the modern institutional church. The nail that sticks up, gets knocked down again.

You don’t have to open the kimono for random strangers either.

That is both hilarious and DEEPLY profound – with lots and lots and lots of applications here in this forum.

I agree that it’s hilarious. But I think forums like here are actually good places for getting feedback on items you can’t get feedback on, in face to face situations (taking the Kimono analogy to its most literal meaning). ON the other hand, I agree that it’s part of being socially aware and sensitive to first understand what the cultural values are in any situation before you open the Kimono. Nudist colony? No problem. Joint HP/RS social? Nope!

Maybe we should change our site name to KimonoOPENERS instead of StayLDS.

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

I don’t think that authenticity (as opposed to rude, impolitic and socially-unacceptable behavior) is overrated.

I am defining authenticity as “The civil, open sharing of beliefs that are in direct opposition to time honored, highly-valued norms and doctrines within the modern LDS Church”.

I believe some doctrines of the church; I don’t believe others. Taken together, that’s my authenticity, so I’m not always in opposition to the church. Is authenticity over-rated, as in, worth the risk, worth the damage it could do? The church right now makes the answer to that, “Yes.” But in my mind I rate it highly, and I love the places (like this site) and people that allow me to be more authentic.

But I think considering that it could be overrated is good exercise and helps me to be patient. So, thanks!

I suppose I could refine my definition even further…

“The civil, open sharing of beliefs WITH TRADITIONAL BELIEVERS that are in direct opposition to time honored, highly-valued norms and doctrines within the modern LDS Church”.

So, I agree that the mixture of ortho and unorthodox beliefs you have is what makes you unique. In contexts where it is safe to do so, it’s great to be authentic; I wouldn’t have it any other way. But I am talking about when nakedly authentic (going Open-Kimono, as Hawk puts it) is a recipe for hardship, hard-ache, and hard-times in the church. And that happens when we misplace that authenticity in contexts where we know people will disagree, and where we have very little power to make changes.

One wonders… is Charles Manson authentic?

He most certainly was. And look where it got him when he displayed such authenticity in the context of a society that considers murder illegal, and cult-behavior unsavory. The exerted their power and put him in jail.

That is the context in which I think authenticity is overrated. Not that unorthodox people are like Charles Manson, but they do not have power, are not in the active pursuit of a cause (like Ghandi) and normally don’t have widespread local support even fi they wanted to start a movement. And we see what happens to people who start movements in the church — John Dehlin, Kate Kelly….