Institutionalized denial?

[Anonymous]

I have a question I want to ask, but not sure quite how to frame it because it is multi-faceted.

Greg Prince, in interview, indicated that most GAs don’t have a clue about the history, and so they themselves are ignorant to a lot of the things that trouble some of us. First off,…I want to cut those unexposed GA folks off the hook: they are innocent as far as I am concerned.

With regards to others who are in the know….guys like BKP, DHO, and others who are VERY aware of the history,…I want to ask a question about them.

I’ve read things printed by BKP where he indicated that if history detracts from the character of the story, in any way showing a humanity that isn’t “faith promoting” (which he defines in his own way), it is inappropriate and should NOT be discussed. This idea disturbs me because it paints an optimistic perspective that can push the facts to a point of fantastical proportions. I’ve read a rebuttal from D. Michael Quinn on this,…and Quinn’s ideas make a lot of sense.

So, here is the question:

At what point in the narrative does the quest to present the history in a positive light, or a “sanitized” light, cross the line into denial at best, and flat out distortion that approaches and crosses the line of fabrication at worst?

This question fits with other threads on this board about “lying for the Lord” and so forth.

Have at it.

(PS. I have discovered in my own question that “forgiveness” is easier than “denial”. I am struggling, however, with the idea that some types of denial have become institutionalized, and this is very disturbing to me.)

[Anonymous]

Interesting question and I look forward to comments from the folks here that have a higher IQ than I do (I think that would be most).

I think on the question of where is the line between “just showing your best side” and crossing over to covering up is a hard question to give a concrete answer. I assume many people will have different takes on that – even just at a theoretical level not even including the church. But my guess would be that most TBM’s cut the church a LOT more slack than they would any other institution. I think of JS saying, “I can only see but one wife” when he is already married to multiple women as crossing the line. But then we get to the “Legacy” film that shows Joseph and Emma as an ideal couple without the slightest hint that he is married to multiple women and sleeping with several of them. That to me is getting way over into the middle of the grey area.

But I would have to say the issue that upsets me most is way any non-correlated information is painted by church leaders. Growing up in the church I felt like some anti-Mormon books and such actually had the power of the devil to seduce you if you even read a single page. That extreme vilification of anything outside of LDS.org or Deseret book (along with the two-faced preaching of “we love all knowledge”) is more problematic to me.

[Anonymous]

R4H. Fully believing members, even those at the top, think that they know “the history” better than we do. We think we know it better than they do. Where an individual’s “knowledge” lies is at the heart of seeing denial or fabrication in others.

Put another way, you referred to “the history”. I can assure you that no such thing exists, though we all think the version of history that we accept is “the history”.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the majority of GAs don’t know any more deep history than the average member. I have wondered at times who knows what and how they came to that knowledge. I would assume that the Q15 might have more access and knowledge than others, but that would only be if they avail themselves to it. Did BKP really know more than his peers? What do the new guys know? What do TSM, RMN and DHO know, and do they know the same things. Enough with the tangent.

I’m not sure where the line is. I recognize that the church only wants to show its best side – what major entity (or individual for that matter) doesn’t? It certainly wouldn’t be good for the missionary effort if the missionaries started with things like plural marriage or Mountain Meadows and even worse if Adam-God is thrown in. So the real question in my mind is as what point should potential members be exposed to such things? My first exposure to questionable stuff was after I had been a member for a few weeks (it was becoming gods and Heavenly Mother I knew nothing about when asked by someone outside the church). After I had been a member a few weeks was too late, I had already committed. I have often thought that this is what happens to many new converts who leave after a couple months – and “OMG, what have I gotten myself into 😯 ” moment. I don’t know what the answer is.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

So the real question in my mind is as what point should potential members be exposed to such things?

I have felt that suppression of “such things” is what is becoming institutionalized, but it is not potential members who are being targeted,..it is ALL members. It’s as though the goal is not to just control how things are disseminated, but to prevent such things completely, even to the point of locking history away and throwing away the key. I can’t get the image of kristallnacht out of my mind–and I know that this is extreme,…OK…I get it. But that image is in my mind.

Juanita Brooks was almost cut from the fold for apostasy, and had DOM not come through and protected her, she would have been cut. Do you realize that when a GA takes such action, they are in essence saying: “You are, at this moment, going to hell unless you get in line.” And to get inline, they have to cease to write, perhaps even disavow (which is a loaded term at this point) what they have written, etc. Its almost like burning books to me…because we just don’t want that history.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

That extreme vilification of anything outside of LDS.org or Deseret book (along with the two-faced preaching of “we love all knowledge”) is more problematic to me.

I heard a quote from BY:

Brigham Young wrote:

I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it.

This is from a priesthood manual. Truth and “good” are used synonymous. But, if the truth is not sanitized, or is printed in an anti-mormon book (but happens to be factually accurate), it is bad?

Do we make a distinct between factual truths and “spiritual” truths that preclude factual happenings, even to the exclusion of denying at most, and suppressing at lease, their existence?

I am reminded of Christmas Carol: “these are the children all all living” referring to the children under the cloak of the Ghost of Christmas Present. “beware the boy” [ who was ignorance ], and even if you deny their existence, they do exist. Why are we better people to discount history, deny it exists when we say we seek truth, and yet see no evil (or humanity) when it plainly exists?

Knowledge is things as they were, are and will be. I see no proviso in there “except when we don’t like it, or it makes our leaders seem more human after all”.

We are in the business of coming close to worshiping our leaders, when we should be worshiping God and, when necessary, forgiving our leaders instead of denying they have ever made a mistake.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I can assure you that no such thing exists, though we all think the version of history that we accept is “the history”.

I can understand that being in possession of facts (and arguably “partial facts”) often is seen as knowing “the history”. But if we agree (and we do) that history is often different from one person to another, and as such shifts with new understanding or perspective, then would it not make sense to have open dialogue about what “the history” really is?

How then is suppression of history (or dialogue about factual events) positive? In my mind, curtailing the questioning mind (when the questions are honest) is akin to stifling that which makes humans capable of advancement–namely, the ability to learn by asking questions.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

I can assure you that no such thing exists, though we all think the version of history that we accept is “the history”.

I can understand that being in possession of facts (and arguably “partial facts”) often is seen as knowing “the history”. But if we agree (and we do) that history is often different from one person to another, and as such shifts with new understanding or perspective, then would it not make sense to have open dialogue about what “the history” really is?

I do not believe that many GA’s would accept that premise. To them the differences of perspectives are representative of the confusion of the secular world. The true history is that we existed with God in the pre-mortal realm. God presented a plan and there was an opposition to that plan. This opposition continued in the act of “the fall”. The opposition has been defeated in the atonement but will be allowed to continue until the world fulfills the measure of its creation and Christ returns as its king. To them it is the secular world that is confused and ignorant of these facts.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

To them the differences of perspectives are representative of the confusion of the secular world.

To know something truly, should we not be allowed to see if from every perspective?

If they see it that way, doesn’t matter to me in the least–they get to have the freedom of intellectual and spiritual discovery themselves. But, when they use their authority to prevent others from seeing things from a different perspective, this is censorship. And, when they use their authority to suppress those who see things differently and in as honest a way as possible disclose that information, threatening them with going to hell for doing it,..(and I am not talking about divulging temple ceremony things, but just historical fact), this is something different all together.

I believe JS could have been a prophet and still a man–with failings, problems, and a side of himself that wasn’t the best. Why is the decision being made by someone other than myself as to what I am taught and get to know about JS? Is there no room for someone to be human and prophetic still?

That is just another question, rhetorical in nature because the answer is YES! Prophets can still be human and make mistakes. Look at Job….who really got the whale’s share of problems (hahahaha)….

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I have a question I want to ask, but not sure quite how to frame it because it is multi-faceted.

I believe this is the very essence of the discussion on this thread. Since it is difficult to frame exactly right, we do our best to talk about ideas to get closer to the true meaning behind words and questions and fact finding. But truth is on a different level than the facts to be presented in the case for truth.

There are no facts that I know of that disprove these statements:

Roy wrote:

The true history is that we existed with God in the pre-mortal realm. God presented a plan and there was an opposition to that plan. This opposition continued in the act of “the fall”. The opposition has been defeated in the atonement but will be allowed to continue until the world fulfills the measure of its creation and Christ returns as its king. To them it is the secular world that is confused and ignorant of these facts.

There does not need to be any deceit or denial in these teachings. You believe them or you don’t. But they are presented as truth for you to choose what you believe.

There are no facts that show that the GAs are somehow dishonest or ignorant. Because there is more to talk about than historical facts. Those may be a piece of the puzzle, some parts of the puzzle we don’t all see yet, but it is not the whole puzzle. It just goes back to your first statement…it is multi-facted and not quite sure how to discuss it with our mortal limitations of language and thought capabilities.

The church is true despite it’s history we don’t know how to talk about. It is true when we are loving our fellow human beings and growing stronger as good people. All else is details to wrestle with.

That doesn’t dismiss your statements or questions. They are valid. And they are to be wrestled with…and then…you choose to get to church on Sunday, or not. It’s up to you.

What I believe helps a person navigate this inward uneasy feeling of knowing bad things about the church and how those “in the know” keep believing it is to start to open up to the idea of paradox in this world. Find all the historic facts that show bad things about the church…AND…balance them with all the good you feel when you get involved with it to help people.

Faith helps one see beyond imperfections. That is what the GAs do, and so many others who know stuff, but choose to stay. There is no “one way” or “silver bullet” that shows it is true or false. It is multi-faceted. Paradox. It is as true as a ham sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

[IF] the church is true despite it’s history we don’t know how to talk about [?]

Is that more in line with what you were saying Heber? I got lost here…

[Anonymous]

BRM says in Mormon Doctrine:

Quote:

Broad-Mindedness

(Broad-Mindedness )

See CONVERSION, GOSPEL, TESTIMONY, TOLERANCE, TRUTH.

From the generally accepted and worldly standpoint, broad-mindedness consists in entertaining liberal

opinions and in having tolerant views, particularly on religious matters. Those who so classify themselves

take pride in not accepting any particular creed or following any selected dogma; they suppose that theirs

is a broad perspective which makes them receptive to all truth; invariably they reach the conclusion that

all religions are equally true and equally false and that salvation if there is such a thing, is not found in,

through or because of any one of them in particular.

It is not difficult to see how this sort of broad-mindedness comes into being. When inquiring and

scientific minds delve into the narrow and bigoted creeds of the apostate sects of Christendom it is not

surprising that they rebel against those dogmas falsely set forth as the tenets of true religion. If this

modern broad-mindedness leads to an open-minded state in which men investigate and receive the true

principles of revealed religion, it has served a beneficial purpose. But if it results in an aversion and

contempt for all religions, the restored Church of our Lord included, it leaves the scientific-minded person

no better off than the bigoted adherent to the narrow creeds of the apostate world.

In a very real sense this worldly broad-mindedness is of the devil, not of God. Lucifer is willing and

anxious that men believe any and every conceivable notion so long as they do not accept Joseph Smith

and the restoration. The devil is the most broad-minded person in all eternity; he is tolerant to every view,

particularly those leading to ungodly practices. “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to

destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.” (Matt. 7:13.)

In the true gospel sense of the word, however, broad-mindedness is the state of mind of those who

know the truths of the gospel, who reject the false creeds of the day, and who walk in the light of revealed

truth. The broad-minded man is the one who knows that baptism is essential to salvation and celestial

marriage to exaltation; he is the one who knows the truth. In the eternal sense it is narrow-minded to reject

the laws and ordinances of the gospel, for they are the way and means whereby men can go on without

limit, restraint, or curtailment in attaining perfection and enjoying eternal progression.

I know that BRM is not very politically correct or tactful in his statements but I believe that the sentiment described in this entry more or less describes the feelings of leadership towards alternative viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

[IF] the church is true despite it’s history we don’t know how to talk about [?]

Is that more in line with what you were saying Heber? I got lost here…

I believe Heber is saying that the church can be directionally true or functionally true and the history can be irrelevant…ancient history as it were.

Below is the seminal article by Eugene England “Why the Church is as True as the Gospel”

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/054-30-36.pdf

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

BRM says in Mormon Doctrine:

Quote:

Broad-Mindedness

(Broad-Mindedness )

See CONVERSION, GOSPEL, TESTIMONY, TOLERANCE, TRUTH.

From the generally accepted and worldly standpoint, broad-mindedness consists in entertaining liberal

opinions and in having tolerant views, particularly on religious matters. Those who so classify themselves

take pride in not accepting any particular creed or following any selected dogma; they suppose that theirs

is a broad perspective which makes them receptive to all truth; invariably they reach the conclusion that

all religions are equally true and equally false and that salvation if there is such a thing, is not found in,

through or because of any one of them in particular.

It is not difficult to see how this sort of broad-mindedness comes into being. When inquiring and

scientific minds delve into the narrow and bigoted creeds of the apostate sects of Christendom it is not

surprising that they rebel against those dogmas falsely set forth as the tenets of true religion. If this

modern broad-mindedness leads to an open-minded state in which men investigate and receive the true

principles of revealed religion, it has served a beneficial purpose. But if it results in an aversion and

contempt for all religions, the restored Church of our Lord included, it leaves the scientific-minded person

no better off than the bigoted adherent to the narrow creeds of the apostate world.

In a very real sense this worldly broad-mindedness is of the devil, not of God. Lucifer is willing and

anxious that men believe any and every conceivable notion so long as they do not accept Joseph Smith

and the restoration. The devil is the most broad-minded person in all eternity; he is tolerant to every view,

particularly those leading to ungodly practices. “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to

destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.” (Matt. 7:13.)

In the true gospel sense of the word, however, broad-mindedness is the state of mind of those who

know the truths of the gospel, who reject the false creeds of the day, and who walk in the light of revealed

truth. The broad-minded man is the one who knows that baptism is essential to salvation and celestial

marriage to exaltation; he is the one who knows the truth. In the eternal sense it is narrow-minded to reject

the laws and ordinances of the gospel, for they are the way and means whereby men can go on without

limit, restraint, or curtailment in attaining perfection and enjoying eternal progression.

I know that BRM is not very politically correct or tactful in his statements but I believe that the sentiment described in this entry more or less describes the feelings of leadership towards alternative viewpoints.

It (all of it interestingly) also pretty much describes me to a tee. I can’t go look it up because even though it went against the grain of my being to burn a book, I burned Mormon Doctrine :shh: .

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

So the real question in my mind is as what point should potential members be exposed to such things?

I have felt that suppression of “such things” is what is becoming institutionalized, but it is not potential members who are being targeted,..it is ALL members. It’s as though the goal is not to just control how things are disseminated, but to prevent such things completely, even to the point of locking history away and throwing away the key. I can’t get the image of kristallnacht out of my mind–and I know that this is extreme,…OK…I get it. But that image is in my mind.

Juanita Brooks was almost cut from the fold for apostasy, and had DOM not come through and protected her, she would have been cut. Do you realize that when a GA takes such action, they are in essence saying: “You are, at this moment, going to hell unless you get in line.” And to get inline, they have to cease to write, perhaps even disavow (which is a loaded term at this point) what they have written, etc. Its almost like burning books to me…because we just don’t want that history.

I agree that it is directed at all members, and used investigators/new members to illustrate and because that was my experience. The same could certainly be said of those who were raised in the church and taught only what is in the Primary and youth Sunday School and Seminary manuals. I do think that the church, with the essays and with the remodeled museum, etc., has made some effort of late to shine some more light on these historical subjects. I mentioned in a recent post elsewhere on the board that a missionary at the priesthood restoration site did make it a point that the hat was on the table in Joseph and Emma’s home for a reason, and did specifically mention the seer stone and its use (although I also noted I wasn’t sure she would have done so if there were nonmembers in our group).

I should also say that history is not a science, and I don’t think there is anything that relies more on point of view than history. Almost all history books are written by the winners and those in power (which are often the same). While I don’t know a lot about Juanita Brooks, I do know some about Terryl Givens and Richard Bushman – and I’m sure it’s better for them to be living and writing now than it would have been 50 years ago. Leonard Arrington is also worth mentioning because of his pioneering work. Our history has been written by those in power for a very long time and to express a certain point of view. However, other points of view are now tolerated and to an extent approved (with some reservation methinks).

[Author]

Posts