A long post about deception…

[Anonymous]

I have little time tonight, but I just want to make one point that Hawk mentioned:

I just don’t see intentional deception from “the Brethren” that can’t be explained accurately, at its worst, as “believing protection”. In other words, right or wrong, I think the “milk before meat” concept is believed, truly and sincerely, by most, if not all, of the leadership – that they really believe a “basic testimony” is foundational to deeper understanding later. I think they view their role as preaching to the masses, with the responsibility to figure out the details left to individual members who are ready.

I also believe that most leaders don’t feel cognitive dissonance in quite the same way as most of us here. I think they really do know most, if not all, of the issues we know and simply don’t place the same importance on them as the “disaffected” do. I know much of my own peace has come from a conscious decision to do nothing more than “devalue” some things and just accept the messiness of life in all its manifestations – and I believe some people never have to make that a conscious decision. They simply do it naturally. Since it’s not how we process information, it’s so easy to impute nefarious motives – when, in reality, it often is nothing more than differing natures.

(I don’t mean that as a “free pass” on issues of disagreement. I simply have found great peace and liberation in meekness, mercy and charity.)

One more thing to consider:

We need to find creative ways to discuss our own concerns with members who don’t see things the same way we do. Are we (should we engage in) “white-washing” or “deceiving” or “manipulating” by trying to find non-traditional, creative ways to explain our beliefs in these situations? I don’t think so, as long as we aren’t intentionally being deceitful. It’s a difficult line to walk without crossing in practice, but I think FAR more people are sincere than deceptive and cynically manipulative – and that includes LDS leaders, imo.

As to the overall issue of deception and manipulation, I wrote the following a while ago:

“Not Everything is Manipulation” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/02/not-everything-is-manipulation.html)

[Anonymous]

Ray has done a good job of expressing my view on this, and I want to echo this sentiment:

Quote:

I don’t mean that as a “free pass” on issues of disagreement.

While I don’t see what the church leaders do as deliberate deceit (mostly because they don’t have the cog dis of the disaffected), there are clearly consequences for the approach that the church takes to these issues, and those consequences are not all positive. For example, if you believe in milk before meat and that you really only provide the milk and people have to get the meat on their own, they may get meat from a bad source (undiscriminating antis). They may decide that meat is actually sinful (the ultra-conservative zealots). They may become lactose intolerant (the disaffected). So there are negative consequences. There’s no free pass.

This interview recap with Marlin K. Jensen, church historian, sheds some interesting light on this topic: http://www.fishtells.com/2009/04/meeting-with-marvin-k-jensen-churchs.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.fishtells.com/2009/04/meeting-with-marvin-k-jensen-churchs.html A couple things I found particularly interesting:

– Marlin Jensen, although he is the church historian, did not know as much about the pet issue of the poster as that person did (the possible polygamous offspring of JS). He knew more about MMM because it was his own pet issue. And he was open in sharing the negative information he knew about MMM, and open to what the poster had to say about Sylvia Sessions.

– While Marlin Jensen was interested in research and disclosure, he shared a story of an earlier issue in which he was discouraged (by either Monson or Maxwell) from sharing his drafted response because of their preference for feelings and testimony over proof and research. [To the credit of this notion, no one ever got fired up to go be a better person because of research. Research, conversely, only seems to have potential to sap spiritual energy, especially if pursued with obsession. This viewpoint has some merit to it even though it’s not my approach, nor that of Marlin Jensen as described in this interview.]

– The poster writes: “He found the tale rather amusing and made a comment about the irony of how the church would send members to the church history center to strengthen their testimonies only to have those same testimonies degraded by work.” I’m sure some would not find it amusing, but it certainly is ironic.

– “He stated that there was just quite a bit that he, and the church in general didn’t know about Mr. Smith.” Again, that’s part of the basis for my statement about leadership not deliberately deceiving anyone about sticky points of history.

It’s an interesting interview anyway and gives some insight into another perspective.

[Anonymous]

Hawk, I appreciate the clarification, and I agree with you that church leaders in general do not deliberately deceive, but the institutionalized, media savvy, sales approach to winning converts does not give all the information that would prevent a TBM from becoming disaffected upon encountering the troubling aspects of LDS history. The evidence of deception does not come from the intent of the deceiver, but in the betrayal of the deceived. On a personal level, church leaders, I do not believe, should be harshly judged for “selling what they themselves have bought,” but that does not mean they are not as members of a large institution liable for that deception. When declaring that something is true, such as the Pearl of Great Price (including its provenance), the idea that JS translated the BOM from gold plates by the power of God, those leaders are responsible to do research, no matter if it does not help them become a better Christian (BTW, I think research, carefully performed with discipline can make one a better person), to make sure the details bear out their claims. Relying on the spiritual testimony alone is perilous.

On another point, I am not certain that historical conundrums constitute gospel ‘meat.’ I think they are just history. When I think of meat, I usually think of difficult doctrines like ‘where does god come from?’ or ‘how does one entity’s suffering benefit me?’ I concede that difficult, meaty doctrines like polygamy and polyandry cannot be separated from the historical difficulties associated with them. It is one of the fuzzy gray areas I like to embrace.

Thanks for the link to the Jensen interview.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

Also, missionary work, for me, is really the ultimate in, what I feel, is deception. We send out 19 year old guys who almost certainly know nothing about real church history.

Now, I recognize that this is the old way. They have Preach my Gospel now (which I haven’t read), but from what I understand there is still no in depth discussion of church history. And the basics are the same, if just a bit less structured.

Great post, jmb – got me thinking about a lot …. made me realize in many respects, I can share your feelings – but I don’t believe necessarily the church or missionaries are trying to be deceitful.

PMG is a little different, but like you said, just allows flexibility for teaching the same primary-level gospel doctrine.

My take is that I believe the church and the missionaries are being honest in their heart. Faith is the first principle of the gospel. Taking things on faith is not to cover up things, is just the way religion is. Pure religion moves you to be a better person. You can “feel” the teachings are good and move you to be better than if you stay where you are without it. It is more about the feelings and how it motivates you to change your life than it is about being proven with facts and details.

I’m not suggesting your post or anyone else’s responses are lacking in faith, in any way, it is just how I’m thinking through this, so these are just my thoughts.

It is an interesting paradox: Seek Truth that will set you free of things that can’t be explained. Miracles are a part of religion, not to dupe people, but just because we move ahead with faith before we can explain away what happened, because we become better by moving than by standing still trying to understand something.

Because of that, I can read Abraham 3:24-26 and have it touch me and change my life, even if verse 16 makes no sense to me. My questions around verse 16 or the facsimiles on nearby pages don’t take away the value found in verses 24-26.

Likewise, Joseph Smith’s account of Zelph does nothing to motivate me to love others or love God. But most of the Book of Mormon does. I can’t believe he just made all the Book of Mormon up. But I don’t care if he made up Zelph or not, it is of no value to me.

Elder Eyring’s talk in conference about Adversity (was that written to me specifically?) confirms to me that the Lord’s work is being done, because I feel it. Likewise, I feel good when my mason friend tells me the service he is doing in his Masonic Temple – he is a great guy and will be rewarded by a Just God who can resolve the issue of authority and baptism, so I don’t have to worry about that.

I guess I am trying to learn that although many things in the church do nothing for my spiritual welfare, those don’t negate the other things that do. I don’t think I’ll ever leave the church, I will just find ways to accept the godly parts and focus on those, and not worry about the historical details that do nothing to raise my spirits whether true or not. That isn’t to say I want to live in ignorance or put blinders on or be deceitful or duplicitous. Only that I accept I can only process so much… so I choose to spend my time reading and processing the things that make me better, and not spend time on other things. That being said, I am more enlightened now to a lot of things about Joseph Smith and church history that I never knew before, and I frankly can see some merit in the arguments against Joseph Smith as a prophet. But I go back to my feeling that being in the church is making me better than giving up on it, so I will have faith in it until I feel otherwise. I hope I can be open-minded, be honest, and accept my shortcomings in being able to know all things so I can move forward in trying to make a difference in this world and for those I love.

I don’t feel I’m appropriately expressing my thoughts, it almost sounds like I’m just saying some church inconsistencies don’t matter…just accept it on faith…when I don’t really mean that. I just think the church is better than any alternative, and I will keep moving forward looking for the godly parts while I striving to learn more.

Again, thanks for your post…it was good for me to think this through.

[Anonymous]

Going along with what Buscador said, if deception were only judged on the intent of the leader we can reasonably infer that Jim Jones was a decent individual who is not at fault since he believed (and even drank) what he sold. I believe Buscador said it very well “relying on the spiritual testimony alone is perilous.” And this is where I believe the deception is. No one encourages investigators or members to do the normally wise things when making important decisions (especially a financial one, which Mormonism is) like doing research on the topic, seeking other opinions, using skepticism, etc. We promote faith over scholarship and skepticism, and even deride scholarship when it doesn’t jive with our faith. Every new scholarly discovery must be put through the Mormon lens. That is the culture that is portrayed and why I believe the leaders share responsibility whether they fully believe what they sell or not. History has taught us that relying on emotional experiences is a poor indicator of truth.

I do not want to condemn the leaders, and I’m not trying to. I have never blamed an individual leader for deception in this regard. It is institutionalized deception brought about through a culture. I believe we have a duty to ourselves to be honest and teach people the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. And surely the Brethren know that Joseph didn’t sit at a table with the plates open, translating the words while Oliver sat there looking at them. If they know that, then it begs the question why not disclose the real method in an honest, faithful way that conveys belief. If we could be more honest then why aren’t we?

One question I have for both Ray and hawkgrrrl. I have heard these kinds of sentiments before. That is, it’s not the leaders fault, they really believe it, etc. etc. and then the follow up “I don’t mean that as a “free pass” on issues of disagreement.” I’m curious as to what this means? My pragmatist mind doesn’t get what this means. It sort of feels like it’s an attempt to justify some behavior, while leaving plenty of potential wiggle room. What, in your view, would constitute something you wouldn’t let a leader get away with in this regard?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It sort of feels like it’s an attempt to justify some behavior

Not justify, just understand.

Quote:

What, in your view, would constitute something you wouldn’t let a leader get away with in this regard?

I’m not sure I understand this sentiment of letting someone else get away with something. I’m in no position to enforce my own standards of morality or my own understanding on anyone else’s behavior (likewise, they are not in a position to enforce theirs on me). My own view is that there are inherent negative consequences for this approach that leaders (and members) do in fact have to deal with on this earth. The leaders are probably insulated from seeing some of the negative consequences that I see because of their other beliefs (the black & white worldview expressed), but that’s not something I can influence in people so far removed from my daily life. People are entitled to their own perspectives. Above all else, I believe that people are free to follow their own conscience, even when I disagree with the effectiveness of their methods. All I can do is share my views with the people I do encounter regularly and point out things I think are poor tactics or uncharitable approaches.

[Anonymous]

I feel the need to point out something else – something that I have learned from close to 20 years of management within multiple departments at companies of varying sizes.

Whenever an organization (any organization) grows to the point that it is impossible to control it centrally, the message from the “corporate office” always needs to be streamlined to a handful of key talking points – simple messages that can be understood by all. If that doesn’t happen, two things can occur:

1) The message that reaches the end of each row is radically different than what leaves the tap – and what reaches the end of the other rows;

2) The risk grows of alienating those who want and need simplicity – and many who would be fine in a secure environment end up drowning from the deluge.

That’s true in business, in religion, in sports, in music, in performing arts, in personal improvement – in everything. The “organization” simply must talk at the level of greatest reach and most common applicability – and it simply must avoid training the custodians and engineers and secretaries and office managers in everything there is to know about being electricians. Any individual custodian or engineer or secretary or office manager is free to learn electronics, but the company can’t force that learning on all.

Just because an organization doesn’t make all its members experts in everything doesn’t mean it is deceiving them. It is ironic to value, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves,” while asking the Church to take responsibility for teaching us every possible controversial or difficult detail of its history – especially when we also complain about correlation in general.

When the only solution is to correlate more . . .

I don’t want blatant lies, but I really don’t want the Church to spend large amounts of time to give me its institutional view of everything possible. Frankly, the more it tries to do so, the more it risks people disagreeing with that view and perpetuating this type of discussion with even more members. As an institution, it simply can’t do that – and no reasonably large organization can. Even many small franchises can’t share some details with all employees.

[Anonymous]

@hawkgrrrl

I apologize, I poorly phrased my question. I guess I’m asking, at what point do you decide that you will not “give them a free pass,” that you won’t endorse what the organization does? Maybe I am poorly understanding you all. Do you agree that there is white-washing, or deception of some form? Are you just giving me ways to understand it, or are you defending it? Is the only difference between you and me the fact that I think white-washing is deceptive based on my interpretation of the word and the tactics, and that you don’t according to yours?

@all

Maybe I am sending the wrong message here. I am not asking for the church to teach us to be history experts. I’m not asking the church to spend each Sunday School lesson detailing the various intricate historical theories related to how Joseph translated the BoM. I’m not asking the church to teach “every possible controversial or difficult detail of its history.” I don’t believe that this is the message I’m sending (as I look back on the posts I have never asked for this). In fact, I’m not asking the church to do anything. My personal opinion is that we are less than forthright (Elder Oaks’ own words in the PBS/Frontline interview), and that when dealing with investigators specifically, it is less than honest.

This is really quite simple. Let me try to illustrate here.

1st discussion:

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I guess I’m asking, at what point do you decide that you will not “give them a free pass,” that you won’t endorse what the organization does?

When I speak of historical issues, I personally endeavor to be more accurate and more complete, similar to what you outlined in your last note, although I disclose even more.

Quote:

Maybe I am poorly understanding you all. Do you agree that there is white-washing, or deception of some form?

Yes, I agree, which I’ve said both here and in my linked post on MM. The word deception feels a little loaded, though, in implying one unified motive that I don’t think holds up under scrutiny.

Quote:

Are you just giving me ways to understand it, or are you defending it?

I do think it’s important to understand it. In understanding it I can see the upside as well as the very serious downside. I don’t consider that justification for it, which is why I don’t personally do it, but I understand how others could justify presenting a simplified version of history to the masses rather than the more nuanced, more complex, and frankly enigmatic and confusion version(s) of events.

Quote:

Is the only difference between you and me the fact that I think white-washing is deceptive based on my interpretation of the word and the tactics, and that you don’t according to yours?

I think you and I are mostly in agreement – maybe you aren’t seeing that because I’m using diplomatic language. But I wouldn’t apply the word “deception” or consider it lying for the reasons outlined above.

I want to reiterate my argument that many of the church leaders aren’t aware of some of the intricacies in the history. While that’s unfathomable to us (they are the leaders of the church after all), the Marlin K. Jensen interview certainly implied that. I think that the idea (that some have) of some vast web of conspiracy is at play at the highest ranking levels is not founded. On the contrary, I believe many of the leaders have avoided depth of research on these issues for the very reasons they caution against it. Some of us, like me and even Richard Bushman, did not have the option of avoiding it as we grew up in places where the historical information was ubiquitous. You couldn’t swing a dead cat without hearing about Joseph’s polygamous wives, treasure digging, seer stones, failed Kirtland bank, and whatnot.

Also, the white-washed version that is presented is not substituting verified facts with known untruths. That would pass the threshold into deception, IMO. But personally, omitting facts that are relevant also goes too far for me, which is why I tend to put it all out there.

[Anonymous]

There’s a difference between “defending” something and seeing it as inevitable. I think a number of unfortunate things are inevitable, and I would like to see them change quickly (and I address them directly as an individual), but I also believe strongly that some things must be pruned carefully and slowly at the organizational level. I really do love Jacob 5, especially the last part that deals with the final pruning. Imo, understanding what it says about the modern LDS Church is powerful – and actually quite liberating.

At heart, I have come to accept the long-term, tenacious roots of apostasy that still linger in the Church – and see them simply as part of mortality – as inevitable – but also as disappearing eventually. When I use the word “accept”, I mean truly accept. There are specific things I can’t accept (like members who won’t let go of the racist justifications for the Priesthood ban, even when the global leadership is begging them to do so), but the overall issue I have accepted fully. I have let go of unrealistic expectations of the organization, while still believing the overarching theology it articulates is inspired and revealed. Complete, absolute, unsullied, pure Truth – no; inspired and revealed and spirit/mind expanding – yes. I love the cosmic outline (the puzzle border, if you will), even while filling in the pieces in the middle can be frustrating and conflicting and a real struggle – and even when sometimes the picture itself seems to change and morph over time.

In the past 25-30 years, I have seen quite a bit of change – enough to be optimistic, and the rate of change has been accelerating over the last decade or so. I’m sure it will continue to ebb and flow, but I am hopeful.

[Anonymous]

Thank you all for your helpful comments, and most particularly your patience with me.

A couple of questions in a related but slightly different topic

@hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl wrote:

When I speak of historical issues, I personally endeavor to be more accurate and more complete, similar to what you outlined in your last note, although I disclose even more.

Would you mind sharing some insight into how you do this? From my standpoint (our bishop is very VERY conservative especially for Bay Area, CA and has no clue about church history) this a very daunting thing for me. I don’t know how to raise my hand in class and answer a question with historical “fact” (as closely as we know) without being viewed as heretical.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I want to reiterate my argument that many of the church leaders aren’t aware of some of the intricacies in the history.

I must admit this is a bit hard for me to swallow in spite of the Marlin Jensen quote. Who looks in those vaults after all? And don’t they ever read the books written by the myriad of Mormon historians? Are they too busy writing their own faith-promoting obedience books? What about President Hinckley. He spent his lifetime in the church and wrote “Truth Restored.” Surely he had to run across some of this stuff?

@Ray

I don’t like the word inevitable. It feels like it takes away my power to try and make a difference. In what ways should we try to correct this problem?

It’s a funny thing you mentioned that some members won’t let go of racist ideas in spite of the leadership begging them to. This is sort of like telling a child that the sky is red repeatedly until they’re 16 and then telling them it is actually blue. The church leadership’s main message is faith and obedience (with a more recent trend of focusing on Christ). And in every conference they reaffirm that they know that the prophet is God’s prophet and we should follow his counsel because he won’t lead us astray. Then, when it turns out they have led us astray, they plead with us to root out the false doctrines while never acknowledging that the mouthpiece was in error. This is largely what I understand when I listen to the thoughts of people like Darron Smith. The leaders will work diligently to straighten out doctrine while not acknowledging the errors from the source of the false doctrine. And of course, at least to me, it’s obvious why they don’t do this – it would undermine their authority. Hence, it is not surprising to me in the least that change within the Mormon church is like trying to steer an aircraft carrier.

[Anonymous]

jmb275, I am going to be very blunt in this comment, so please forgive my departure from my general approach here and elsewhere. [NOTE: I wrote this before reading your “revelation” post, but I decided to not edit it – to let it stand as is even as I hope it is not as accurate as it was before your new post. I hope that is an inspired decision, but I wanted you to know at least that this comment probably would have been written differently if I had read your other post first.]

1) I see “lead astray” as VERY different than “be mistaken” – and you seem to be equating the two. I hear that a lot from lots of people, but I think they are very, very different things. It’s a topic for another post, but I simply can’t equate the two. Making mistakes, even serious ones, is not always “leading astray”.

2) With regard to the ban as an example of your statement that “they plead with us to root out the false doctrines while never acknowledging that the mouthpiece was in error” – that simply is incorrect. There have been multiple statements by current apostles acknowledging that the ban was unjustified – or, at the very least, that the justifications were wrong. These statements have been made publicly and forcefully. I wrote a post on my own blog about that specific issue not long ago:

“Repudiating Racist Justifications Once and For All” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/04/repudiating-racist-justifications-once.html)

3) By “inevitable” I mean simply that the Lord allows agency to the extreme – and there are certain things that simply are so embedded within our natural psyches that we never think to ask about them. To us, they simply “are”. Racism is a good example of something that is absolutely natural – wrong (“natural man is an enemy to God”), but natural. God doesn’t wave a wand and remove racism from people’s hearts – even prophets, as the Bible shows unmistakably. I can’t see how God could have done more to stop the ban than He apparently did without violating agency, so I see the ban as inevitable. I think that’s true of lots of things that are opposed to His will. It doesn’t make them “right”, but it does make them understandable. Again, Jacob 5 teaches this quite directly, imo.

My bluntness comes in now.

When I read your posts and comments, I read lots of absolute statements. This or that “is”; this or that “isn’t”; etc. There is little room for nuance and ambiguity in most of them. I understand that, since it is a classic condition within Stage 4; in most cases, it is “inevitable” that most people who hit the wall in that stage will see things in such black-and-white terms at first. The challenge is to begin to embrace uncertainty – to begin to realize there are far fewer things about which we can be absolutely certain – to eventually embrace that as a good thing and something that allows for MUCH more growth and progress than our former certainty.

I believe the main tension you are feeling is that Hawk and I have accepted uncertainty and chosen to take a merciful and charitable view of many things. That is different than your current mindset, so it feels to you like “justification” and “excuse”. It feels like we are avoiding hard issues, when, in reality, we have reconciled them in a way that brings us peace – and we simply aren’t upset like you still are. Things still bother us, but they bother us differently than they bother you.

I hope that makes sense. It is NOT a negative criticism; it is merely an observation. I think, however, it is critical to say at this point, since I truly want you to understand the disconnect that exists to some degree between what we are saying and what you seem to be hearing.

[Anonymous]

So, Ray, you are saying you agree with the basic spirit behind jmb’s words, “Beware and seek always not to deceive.” Is that right?

By the way, Just so everybody knows, there is nothing wrong with faith stage 4, just as there is nothing wrong with faith stage 5 or 3, though of course stage 6 is most whole and “correct”. The only pathology is arresting or regressing in stage. Prolonged equilibirium at one stage or protracted transition from stage to stage is not bad.

[Anonymous]

Tom, “Yes” to the question in the first paragraph, and I agree completely with the second paragraph. Stage 4, for example, can last for a few days or for years and not automatically be destructive in and of itself. Generally, it’s long-time association with those who bounce from Stage 4 into a bitter Stage 3 (and especially those who mis-characterize that bitter Stage 3 as enlightened / Stage 5) that is damaging – not Stage 4 all by itself.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Generally, it’s long-time association with those who bounce from Stage 4 into a bitter Stage 3 (and especially those who mis-characterize that bitter Stage 3 as enlightened / Stage 5) that is damaging – not Stage 4 all by itself.

Excellent observation. Very useful. I really like it. Thanks.

[Author]

Posts