A convenient way to be "Teflon" and excuse yourself

[Anonymous]

In another thread, Roy posted this,…and it applies doctrinally in ways that I find frustrating.

Roy wrote:

It is an either/or kinda thing. IF you didn’t live the gospel enough in your home then you live with the consequences. IF you did all that you could do in raising gospel centered kids AND you endure faithfully to the end – THEN you can have faith that your kids will be bound to you in heaven.

This is similar to the situation presented in another thread. IF a single LDS woman compromises and marries a decent guy out of the temple she lives with the consequences. IF a single LDS woman never compromises her standards AND endures to the end – THEN she can have faith that she will have a worthy spouse in heaven.

I have felt for a while that this if/then approach is used as a tool of plausible deniability. For example, there is a big discussion happening about seer stones and why this information was kept “private”, or at least not shared more openly for so long. For many, this seer stone topic is their very catalyst for FC. But the church can simply retort with: “Oh, that information is available to everyone who wants it. In fact, it was published [but not promoted, in fact, even avoided] years ago in this and this magazine.”

When the church uses this tactic, is strikes me as a type of information censorship, and at worst, plain dishonesty.

Examples of additional topics that I believe fit this category:

JS and polyandry — this is a big one for me which I still have not been able to resolve. This information, in my opinion, is heavy suppressed

The LDS position about encouraging and counseling gay men to “force themselves” to get married into heterosexual marriages as a way to resolve their “problems”

The position of the church with regards to gay youth, and the suicides happening as a result

All of this falls into the category of “Image Management”. How the church looks becomes more important than disclosing facts that may not be too pretty. If those facts are disclosed (or discovered as if for the first time), the church can retort: “Oh, we made that information available years ago in this [obscure] publication”.

I just feel like this is dishonest, and it disturbs me.

[Anonymous]

I don’t disagree with you in spirit Rob.

However I am having a hard time seeing how it applies to the IF/THEN examples that I posted.

Can you clarify?

[Anonymous]

I had the same question as Roy.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I don’t disagree with you in spirit Rob.

However I am having a hard time seeing how it applies to the IF/THEN examples that I posted.

Can you clarify?

Roy,…my example and piggy-backing on your thread sucks. Bad argument. Sorry.

This is where I was going with this….

The if/then and either/or argument you suggested has to do with choosing between alternatives, and often involves having faith that some future pathway will be superior (if you see it that way). IN a way, information is dealt with by the church in an either/or manner to produce what I consider a CYA, but the end alternative ALWAYS seems to require absolute faith in the message of the leader, like the marriage in the next life.

In the midst of this, there is a control of information by the church. I think this is what the church intends because they may see certain information as being potentially harmful, and to exert control, they censor or manage how information is disseminated as a way to control. This is, unfortunately, what I consider a stepping stone to propaganda. They also want, as it were, for the membership to have faith in what they say (isn’t that the entire message of the BofM or Bible…having faith in what Jesus says?…so I get the argument).

Let me apply this to the seer stone idea because I recall reading a thread earlier where someone in this community just found out about that and found it disturbing.

If you have someone who finds out about the seer stone and it disturbs them–perhaps they are a life long member and just found out, and felt like the church wasn’t very forthcoming with the information, for example–then the argument goes like this:

If you were concerned about this seer stone issue, you should have researched it. Because you didn’t research everything there was about the translation process, you have to live with the consequences of finding out late in the game and having it be disturbing. But, if you had never researched it and just had faith in what we decided to tell you about it, then your faith would be fine and you wouldn’t have all this FC stuff…

Now, this fits more closely with your example (which I know is a pretty bad twist)–but the one thing being left out which I wanted to make my point on is the disclosure piece the church is responsible for. This is where it gets mirky. The church can say: “Oh, well, we didn’t hide this information, because there was an article (this is a fictitious example to make the point) the church published 65 years ago where we made this clear.”

But, how many “members” were even aware of the publication? How many were even taught about this? Is this a convenient piece of information to not disclose because it is considered, by the church, as irrelevant? Or (and this is what I believe) does the church leadership want the membership to learn about and believe ONLY the things they decide the membership should learn and believe?

By having the ability to make the claim that they made the information available, the church is able to CYA it, because sure enough, there was an article. But, the fact that the general membership of the church has no idea, it seems like it is hiding information by many who “find out” later on. I am one of those who feels like the church has hidden information.

I think the church doesn’t believe the general membership, or non-members, for example, can handle the idea of JS sticking his head in a hat and reading a rock. So, the church carefully discloses the information, but in a way that it is missed by most and kept under wraps, and when people say: “Hey,..you didn’t make this clear”…the church can then say–Oh yes we did…its right here…

I was a member my whole life. I served an honorable full time mission, have read the standard works cover to cover, the BofM about 20 times,…and attended all my meetings my whole life.

I just found out about polyandry recently.

I’m pissed.

Someone lied to me…again.

Oh wait,…no they didn’t…it is written about in some book somewhere I didn’t read, and now I get to live with the consequences….

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Rob. The church did not make this information available. From their perspective, if the church is true then all this weird stuff just distracts from the goal of getting to heaven. From a disaffected perspective, if the church is not true then rad flag material facts were withheld form me impairing an honest decision based upon available evidence.

I get that we do not want to be discussing polyandry and seerstones in SS – but what about institutions of higher learning? Can college institute or BYU students not handle the history?

I think a major part of the problem is presentism. We tend to think that the gospel as revealed to JS is the same as we live today. We even go a step further and imagine the Gospel of the NT and OT as largely the same as now. We believe in dispensations where the gospel is present and a pattern of it being lost and restored.

I think that polygamy in general is the biggest example of this. 1) it is such a big part of our history and scripture that we cannot exactly ignore it. 2) It just flat out does not jive with our modern visions of eternal nuclear traditional families. We cannot explain it because it does not fit and so we just take it on faith that someday it will.

Incidentally – in regards to being “Teflon” I think it would be huge for individual leaders to just come out and say “The church was wrong about some of the details and I am sorry – however the guiding light of the gospel has never wavered.” The church is starting to do this more and more with a few mentions in conference of church leaders making mistakes or being imperfect and the essay on the priesthood ban but culture is a hard thing the shape.

[Anonymous]

You’re asking good questions Rob.

Rob4Hope wrote:

If you have someone who finds out about the seer stone and it disturbs them–perhaps they are a life long member and just found out, and felt like the church wasn’t very forthcoming with the information, for example–then the argument goes like this:

If you were concerned about this seer stone issue, you should have researched it. Because you didn’t research everything there was about the translation process, you have to live with the consequences of finding out late in the game and having it be disturbing. But, if you had never researched it and just had faith in what we decided to tell you about it, then your faith would be fine and you wouldn’t have all this FC stuff…

My take on this is:

1) I can learn that others, including the church, will be incentivized to CYA and they do care about their image, even if that bothers me, and that there is nothing I can do about it. It is reality. There are reasons someone chose what they did. That is life, that is their deal. What the church did or didn’t do is out of my control. The good and the bad about the church is what it is. And that is OK. I can accept less than perfection, and even understand why things happened or didn’t, even if I disagree.

2) Since they are looking out for themselves…and that is OK to do (it is actually reality…it is how the world works)…I need to take responsibility for myself. I accept myself for the good and bad in me, with all my limitations and strengths. I am my kind of mormon. And it is just as valid as how the church leaders choose to protect themselves for their self interests. I own my religion and my faith and how I view things. That is IN my control. Others may not agree with me, just as I may not agree with how the church handled burying info they chose to bury. I am responsible for myself…and no longer look to the church to have to do or say or teach something for me to see truth. In a weird way, the more I see flaws in Joseph Smith, the more I see flaws in the church, the more at ease I feel about myself and my flaws. I am responsible for how I react to whatever the church does or doesn’t do, and how I feel about it.

The truth has set me free. This helps me be “Teflon”, and make no excuses for myself and how I believe.

By the way, “you should have researched it” …would be a very unloving response to anyone. Boo. But like I said, that is what others might say.

More important…what do I think? Should I have researched it?

If yes, then I will start researching and learning.

If no, then it doesn’t matter what others think.

“If/then” can be healthy for you.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

In the midst of this, there is a control of information by the church. I think this is what the church intends because they may see certain information as being potentially harmful, and to exert control, they censor or manage how information is disseminated as a way to control. This is, unfortunately, what I consider a stepping stone to propaganda. They also want, as it were, for the membership to have faith in what they say (isn’t that the entire message of the BofM or Bible…having faith in what Jesus says?…so I get the argument).

Here’s my take. I do believe that in the past church leaders deliberately suppressed information that they felt was disturbing. Maybe they weren’t all to different than the people currently struggling with the great reveal, they didn’t want to believe the disturbing information themselves, they may have reached a tipping point with accepting the info, and they may have decided that they didn’t want other people to be damaged by the information so they suppressed it… or deemphasized it, or however someone wants to characterize things.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Let me apply this to the seer stone idea because I recall reading a thread earlier where someone in this community just found out about that and found it disturbing.

If you have someone who finds out about the seer stone and it disturbs them–perhaps they are a life long member and just found out, and felt like the church wasn’t very forthcoming with the information, for example–then the argument goes like this:

If you were concerned about this seer stone issue, you should have researched it. Because you didn’t research everything there was about the translation process, you have to live with the consequences of finding out late in the game and having it be disturbing. But, if you had never researched it and just had faith in what we decided to tell you about it, then your faith would be fine and you wouldn’t have all this FC stuff…

Yes there is a dilemma. At the same time I only see these arguments coming from rank and file members that don’t have a problem trying to explain to someone that does have a problem why they shouldn’t have a problem. It’s not a good argument, even if it were true. I remind myself that these arguments aren’t coming from leaders during GC or in letters to be read to the congregation from the FP, they are coming from some guy in our wards or some guy on a blog that’s either only convincing themselves or trying to raise themselves up above other people.

I look at things like the Joseph Smith Papers as efforts to do better. What I’d like to see is for leaders to be a little more proactive in instructing people about “new” information as it comes to light. For multiple reasons:

1) Can we at least make some token effort to get on the same page? All it takes is one grumpy counselor in the bishopric to shout down someone sharing the new narratives to create another generation of people that will discover a more correct version of events from external sources and wonder why a vociferous Brother Grumpy, and by extension the church because Bro. Grumpy held a leadership position, hid this info and misconstrued a more accurate interpretation of events as a lie.

2) Saying that these things are unimportant, that discussion is undeserving of our valuable time in church, and that we should be focusing more on the gospel is a bit disingenuous. With all the time we’ve spent over the years talking about the whitewashed history I think we could stand to spend a little time talking about a more accurate history. Besides, people learn from the warts and we receive a more well rounded education when the examples we use are grounded in reality, not fantasy land.

3) Boy I’d love for someone to tackle the issues head on during GC. And I don’t mean a talk about seer stones and polygamy. I mean a talk about these little arguments that have broken out in our wards and in the bloggernacle. A talk about allowing the discussions to take place in our wards. An invitation to be more Christlike in our discussions. Call out “you should have known” for what it is. Etc.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Now, this fits more closely with your example (which I know is a pretty bad twist)–but the one thing being left out which I wanted to make my point on is the disclosure piece the church is responsible for. This is where it gets mirky. The church can say: “Oh, well, we didn’t hide this information, because there was an article (this is a fictitious example to make the point) the church published 65 years ago where we made this clear.”

I agree. There was a needle in a haystack and more and more hay was being dumped on the stack every day. Then the information age comes along, burns the haystack to the ground, runs a magnet over the ashes, and presto, there’s the needle.

[Anonymous]

Everyone,…I am really grateful for the detailed and articulate responses.

I have read each of your responses multiple times, and ultimately I recognize the thread of taking personal responsibility to cut my own pathway.

There are so many good things in the LDS faith, things I believe in and embrace. Even my mistakes don’t prevent me from realizing and even loving specific rules of conduct, even though I stand condemned by those very rules.

I was once attending a scout camp many years ago at Bear Lake in Utah. There were probably over a thousand scouts, many who didn’t want to be there and were just causing trouble (the disrespect reached a new high in many levels!)…and I was walking up from the lake toward our camp. I remember looking at those boys who were acting out (can anyone say: “Lord of the Flies” here?), and thinking: “They are not following the standards!” As I thought this, I was grateful, and even said a pray to God thanking him that the standards were set and fixed. Why?…because I didn’t want to sink to such a low and have someone accommodate my conduct by lowering the standards so that I could fit in. THAT, the idea of lowering the standards so that I could fit in,…THAT is a threatening and frightening idea.

I am grateful there are some strong standards, because that resonates with me, even when I stand condemned by those very standards myself. I DO NOT want those standards lowered for me, ever.

Now, imagine my frustration when it appears at face level, that those standards don’t apply to the leaders!? Or, for some reason not published or known (at least not known to me) it appears God is a respecter of persons because those others were not summarily condemned themselves and disciplined for conduct that appears to be quit obscene and unacceptable (speaking of polyandry and polygamy).

I do not like the fact that I feel like an island with holding onto my own standards of what is right and wrong, when there are many around me who have institutionalized a sliding scale which allows for unaddressed miss-conduct.

Thanks again for the comments.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

it appears God is a respecter of persons because those others were not summarily condemned themselves and disciplined for conduct that appears to be quit obscene and unacceptable (speaking of polyandry and polygamy).I do not like the fact that I feel like an island with holding onto my own standards of what is right and wrong, when there are many around me who have institutionalized a sliding scale which allows for unaddressed miss-conduct.

From my study of polygamy I have concluded the following options:

1) Polygamy was not of God or 2) Polygamy was commanded by God for some lager purpose (population growth, obedience test, winnowing out the less devout, etc.) and He turned a blind eye to much of the abuses that followed in implementation. Either way it makes for a very grey and muddled perspective.

Many of the great men of our history have also had significant personal failings. MLK is an oft used example of someone that was simultaneously great and seriously flawed. I personally can afford to be charitable in my estimations of others given the totality of their achievements AND that they simply lived in a different time with different standards.

I do not know what standards God may be using but I assume that His standards are flexible enough to take into consideration the societal standards in place during a particular person’s lifetime. Otherwise God would be a respecter of persons because some individuals would gain advantage based upon the time and place where God originally planted them.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

1) Polygamy was not of God or 2) Polygamy was commanded by God for some lager purpose (population growth, obedience test, winnowing out the less devout, etc.) and He turned a blind eye to much of the abuses that followed in implementation. Either way it makes for a very grey and muddled perspective.

I do agree with this, and also find it difficult to contemplate a 3rd option.

The 3rd option arguments I have heard always have some type of: “Oh, God has a higher purpose in mind which we don’t understand; so, it is our responsibility to obey Him and some time in the future this will all work out and we will all have fullness of joy.”

It comes down to that “Teflon” thing again–having implicit faith in the direction of leadership, even when there are not very good answers to some pretty legitimate questions…

[Anonymous]

The way I look at it and verbalize it is “I am not going to tell God he isn’t allowed to say polygamy is kosher, but for me personally at this time I do not feel the polygamy practiced by the early church came from God”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts