Institutionalized denial?

[Anonymous]

I see so many contributing factors, no decision is truly made in a vacuum and it’s hard to reign in all the variables that were in front of someone when they were put in a position to make a decision.

In some ways I see the correlated presentation of church history as being similar to how we talk about people during funerals. The recently deceased enjoy a fleeting moment of infallibility as people actively choose to focus only on the good. I’m sure there was some of that going on with early church leaders and I believe that it was only compounded by people’s faith in the restoration. No one was willing to entertain talk of some of the more unsavory aspects of our mythical figures in church history because it was too soon (we still wanted to show reverence and respect for people that were well loved) and bringing the mythical figures back down to earth indirectly brought the origins of the church back down to earth. Introducing the harsh realities of life back into the equation could cut into beliefs of a divine origin. The hand of god becomes less apparent as the hand of man is revealed. It became a bridge too uncomfortable to cross.

People in general make myths out of historical figures and events in order to tell stories. George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and from that event we know that he never lied. I don’t think many people built a religion around that one but it’s in our nature and things can really get interesting when religion is involved. Look at the stories of Moses or Abraham. If scrutinized either one of those stories dwarfs any problems with Mormonism.

Correlation. I bet church leaders lost a lot of sleep when they thought about the problem of maintaining doctrinal purity (uniformity) and a worldwide, growing church. They probably felt like the narrative had to be controlled, otherwise each unit of the church would have their own teachings and version of events. They may have had a bias, promulgating the only version of events that they knew. If they were aware of nuances they may have found themselves in the position of holding a mini first council of Nicaea for Mormons. It seems only natural to use the opportunity to underscore the divine and downplay the human element.

Projection. There are some things in church history that are very faith promoting. There are also things that can be faith destroying. If BKP and DHO are very aware of history when they “hide” something it’s probably more of an indication that they fear that telling the full story would damage people’s faith because that’s what it did to them. We do this too, all the time. I don’t go to church looking for opportunities to tell a story that ends in “now you know… the rest of the story” because I don’t want to be the guy that causes someone else to have a faith crisis (Besides, I’d be shouted down before getting 5 words out anyway. Correlation was too successful. ). What if BKP and DHO are/were in a similar boat? That can influence decision making.

Somewhere along the way church leaders were sitting at the funeral of Joseph Smith’s church and chose to remember all the good. The good became legend and it intertwined with people’s faith. Somewhere along the way church leaders were sitting at the funeral of the isolated Utah church and chose to correlate the good. The good became legend and it intertwined with people’s faith. You and I may be sitting at the funeral of the church of legend. What’s the good that we will carry forward? What new legend will be told and how will that intertwine with our faith?

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

I can assure you that no such thing [“the history”] 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.

Rob, that’s not how religion works. Religious belief bends and adapts history as it seeks to rationalize; to see it in the context of a larger and more certain spiritual truth. We know, for example, that Jesus was crucified. That fact alone meant that he could not possibly be the Messiah as understood right up to that moment. Yet, believers came to accept the execution of their teacher as part of a larger mission… a divine mission.

Then there is the resurrection. Jesus was resurrected. Or he wasn’t. How you see it depends entirely on your own perspective; not on what actually happened. In fact, let me point out the irony of this particular case. The case for resurrection is supported by history and the case against it is based, in spite of the historical record, entirely on a very specific belief: that resurrection is impossible. History supports it because there are numerous attestations about witnesses, but there is (understandably) a lack of witnesses saying that it didn’t occur. Imagine, instead of a resurrection narrative that the narrative had said that Jesus got a tattoo and there were many followers who saw it and bore record of it. That Thomas didn’t believe at first until Jesus showed him the tattoo. In that case, there would be no reason to dispute it and historians would accept the fact. The scholarly view would be that we only really know four things about Jesus: he lived, he had followers, he had a tattoo, and he was crucified. But because the narrative IS about resurrection, then secular scholars believe that that particular part of the story is not historical.

It’s fine for people here at this site to have open dialogue about history. I welcome it. IMO, we have to be very careful about saying that others, people of faith who do not join our dialog, are suffering from institutionalized denial. I have heard believes say that atheists are blinded. I’ve heard atheists say that believers are blinded. I have exactly zero interest in categorizing the beliefs of other people. When faced with historical oddities or inconsistencies, or even down-right scary narratives, believers will frequently rely on the idea that those are anomalies for which we don’t have a clear picture, and that there must be an alternate version that matches the goodness of God… a truer version that is likely obscured to us specifically to make us rely on faith. That is not “suppression of history”.

They are free to believe and to see “the history” how they see it and I concern myself only with my own beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Nice funeral analogy nibbler

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the line is when we deny someone else the right to draw their own line.

[Anonymous]

Hello OON. You brought up an interesting point I will try to respond to.

On Own Now wrote:

Rob, that’s not how religion works.

I wasn’t talking about religion; I was talking about a trend in an organization, and asking a question. I believe there any organizations that institutionalize denial. In the case of my question, there is “religion” (or a belief system), and an organization that promotes and controls that religion, namely the Church. Religion and organization are 2 different things to me.

I think you would agree that the LDS Church teaches doctrine. Is the LDS Church an organization?..and regardless of their doctrines, can an organization have a perspective that curtails and controls what it considers history?

I love the example of Juanita Brooks and her book. There are records of apostles who wanted her excommunicated (See Greg Prince biography of DOM).

question:

Why was she targeted as being an apostate for reporting history?

Why is reporting history (not interpreting it,…but reporting factual events that transpired) considered grounds for apostasy inquiry?

Those are good questions. There was, IMHO, a clear attempt by those in power who had some control over the organization, to curtail and suppress the factual reveal of what happened. As someone above said, he who wins the battle writes (or in this case controls) the history.

On Own Now wrote:

Religious belief bends and adapts history as it seeks to rationalize; to see it in the context of a larger and more certain spiritual truth.

I agree with this statement–it is the trend of organizations to see things through a lens that supports a perspective. The ideal spiritual truth becomes the lens, and all things are bent or adapted (as you say) to support that perspective.

The problem comes when there are factual events that can’t be bent. In that case, they are suppressed. This is where the denial part comes in IMHO.

On Own Now wrote:

IMO, we have to be very careful about saying that others, people of faith who do not join our dialog, are suffering from institutionalized denial.

…

They are free to believe and to see “the history” how they see it and I concern myself only with my own beliefs.

Again, the line between religion and institutional denial is fuzzy here. I agree that people are free to believe what they will–I am a proponent of freedom of choice and belief. I maintain, however, that organizations can and do use their influence to color the interpretation of events (as you referred to above with the lens anology I mentioned), but that is the institution doing that.

My concern comes from this: if information is presented in such a way as to provide how to interpret a historical event, rather than allowing someone to form their own interpretation, that is a leading type of approach–and all religious organizations do that. I agree this is the case. If an organization has historical concerns that can NOT be lead easily, or at all for that matter, to a predefined interpretation, then if that information is suppressed because it is damaging, either through suppression or denial, or more likely through extreme de-emphasis, then that is what I call institutional denial.

OON,…can you recognize that perhaps, the LDS church has done that, at least in the case of Juanita Brooks book as an example?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

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

Yes, thanks, Roy. I’m not sure I’d use the word “irrelevant” for history…but I think you are getting the gist of what I was saying. History is only partially important…one piece in the puzzle…not the whole shibang…especially since without video cameras we can’t tell exactly what history was. But it is ok to accept some uncertainty and imperfection as long as we are moving towards the light.

I think there is value in the discussion, Rob. We share a little about each other as we have discourse. We deepen our thoughts as we see others’ views. It takes effort to know exactly what we are and are not talking about, and compartmentalize things, so the buffet can be enjoyed.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

I wonder if the line is when we deny someone else the right to draw their own line.

I actually agree with this RR.

I want to be allowed to know all the facts for myself,…without fear of reprisal or being branded a heretic or apostate. And, I want to draw my own conclusions.

With this analogy that BKP used over and over of milk before meat, I get the impression sometimes that those guys on top feel that everyone is too stupid to think for themselves. I’m sorry, but I can’t put this any other way without loosing the truth of what I feel.

Those guys on top can’t understand, even for a moment, how someone could look at the facts and even conceive of coming to a different conclusion than they themselves have come to. To see things differently, to them, is to be deceived. I get that impression.

Surely I am not the only one who feels this way….

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

BRM says in Mormon Doctrine:

Quote:

Broad-Mindedness

[Snip]

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 is a good entry, Roy. Thanks for posting that.

I agree with you that this viewpoint is likely how leaders see things, which influences how they talk about events in history and current events today, and what they choose to share or dodge publicly.

There is an underlying truth and premise that I can agree with on some things, even if at the surface where the words become expressed about specific topics like correlated history or social issues of the day I do not reach the same conclusions as they do. I know we are talking from the same deep meaning of things, just tweak it a bit to try to apply it to the real world we experience from our perspective.

If BRM is wanting to establish that it is narrow-minded to believe that nothing matters, all religions are fine and there are no false creeds, we just accept everything and remove any premise of opposition in the world, there is no good or evil, right nor wrong, church of God vs church of the devil…that is what I hear him trying to establish and if he is saying that than I agree with him. There are false creeds in other religions that do not align with truth. There are truths restored to Joseph Smith and LDS prophets that are taught in the church. Just as there were prohibitions to giving blacks the priesthood in our religion for a time. And that got corrected. And the false creeds of other religions may get corrected over time. And the good we find in other religions we adopt into our faith as we learn from them, and we preach missionary work to share truth with other religions for those that will listen.

Truth is truth. Wherever you find it. No one has a monopoly on it…that is a statement all leaders would agree with.

So, my broad-mindedness agrees with his statements on the level that truth is eternal, and there are right and wrongs, truths and false creeds. I have no problem with eternal laws and ordinances of the gospel being necessary for eternal life.

But I think too many people in the church took his statements with narrow-mindedness, and the book became discontinued and not accepted by church as doctrine.

One entry in his book is not sufficient to establish truth, or even to establish Mormon Doctrine. But he did a good job giving some reference points to consider. It would be narrow-minded to think BRM’s thoughts do not matter, and narrow-minded to think only those things in his book matter.

I think the leaders would agree with that too.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I want to be allowed to know all the facts for myself,…without fear of reprisal or being branded a heretic or apostate. And, I want to draw my own conclusions.

You have the freedom to search and believe whatever you want to, Rob. I dont think we get the freedom to decide if others will call us apostate. I’ve been called that, and had to sit with the bishop and the SP to defend myself about it. I can’t control what others do. But I have shown them over time what I am and what I am not. I am not ostracized.

But you do have the ability to control if you have fears of reprisals or being branded. That is something that you can do something about. And seeking to rid yourself of fears and find peace and calmness inside knowing who you are is the journey to enlightenment.

Quote:

With this analogy that BKP used over and over of milk before meat, I get the impression sometimes that those guys on top feel that everyone is too stupid to think for themselves. I’m sorry, but I can’t put this any other way without loosing the truth of what I feel.

Those guys on top can’t understand, even for a moment, how someone could look at the facts and even conceive of coming to a different conclusion than they themselves have come to. To see things differently, to them, is to be deceived. I get that impression.

Surely I am not the only one who feels this way….

You are not the only one that feels that way. By far. And your impressions and your thoughts are valid for you to feel how you do based on what you’ve read and seen.

But your feelings are not facts. I believe the leaders know very well that everyone else is not stupid, and that everyone has access to the Internet, and so…they feel inadequate to do their calling and speak what is truth. And yet…they believe they can with God’s help, because of their faith. They know the messiness of things, they’ve seen the insides of the church. They are just trying to rise above it and do good to build the kingdom. And they will make mistakes, but they are trying to do good.

Your feelings are real, and you feel “those guys on the top feel that everyone is too stupid to think for themselves.” I believe you when you say you feel that way. I can see where you are coming from. And for a time, that is what you will believe and how you will feel.

You are wanting unbiased truth on history from church, while you are also simultaneously infusing your emotion on history of the church and claims about the church.

I think when you are ready to move past those feelings, you’ll find a more realistic way to describe the brethren and how they see their roles and how they see others and how they want others to think for themselves. And then you’ll move closer to truth.

Don’t wait for the church to spoon feed you the truth about history (pssst…they don’t want to). Find your faith to see the truth yourself, and establish what you believe. It really is what the church leaders want from everyone. If they are in denial…it is no more than other well-meaning mortals, and it doesn’t ruin the truth because of their weaknesses.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

I wonder if the line is when we deny someone else the right to draw their own line.

I like it. Short, sweet, to the point. Maybe a “broad minded” person feels comfortable drawing their own line whereas someone from a more black and white background sees their line as the line and believes it applies to everyone universally.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

You are wanting unbiased truth on history from church, while you are also simultaneously infusing your emotion on history of the church and claims about the church.

Not exactly. I have spoken with a little emotion above,…I know I did that in the post. The branding of being called apostate or heretic (which you say is their choice to do so–something I don’t have control over), I understand. But, it is part of the institutionalized culture.

I have found that TBM folks (and I live in SLC where it is a LARGE percentage) follow a culture of being rather critical and judgmental of those who think or interpret things differently than the “orthodox” approach. If you don’t live here and have experienced it, you can’t speak to this. I can, and I know I am not alone. It is “institutionalized” here. I’m sure it is like that elsewhere as well, but I just know from experience here the levels are significant.

I good example is the level of suicide here in Utah for LGBT LDS youth. I can’t speak to the statistics in other states, but here they are pretty high. Is it because these children are feeling loved and wanted?…or is there an institutionalized problem that is hardly ever addressed or even acknowledged? as in denial?

Heber13 wrote:

I think when you are ready to move past those feelings, you’ll find a more realistic way to describe the brethren and how they see their roles and how they see others and how they want others to think for themselves. And then you’ll move closer to truth.

Heber, this sounds condescending to me. How is my way of seeing something not realistic?. You speak from a perspective of someone who, at least in his own eyes, knows better, because you have authoritatively said that “you’ll find a more realistic way”. I respectfully submit that there is nothing wrong with my way right now, nor is it “unrealistic”.

I’ve read your posts in the past, and I don’t think you meant it the way I unfortunately have read it. Can you please elaborate a little so I can understand what you are saying better? Or can you say this in a different way so that it doesn’t come across condescendingly? Your way is not right (or wrong)…it is just your way. I see things differently and neither is my way right (or wrong).

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

Those guys on top can’t understand, even for a moment, how someone could look at the facts and even conceive of coming to a different conclusion than they themselves have come to. To see things differently, to them, is to be deceived. I get that impression.

Surely I am not the only one who feels this way….

Nope. Just in the last week I have had some calming down when I had a thought that framed things differently than I had before.

Part of me feels that clearly there is a narrative when studying church history (not just early history) that logically leads me to the conclusion, “It is made up, even if there is a BIT of God in there somewhere – the vast majority is just pure made up and coincidence.” And if I take the church’s word that I shouldn’t look at it that way as I should be being told by God that it is true. OK, I can give them that. God may have it where the vast majority of indicators point one way, but he wants to have his spirit tell us to go the other way. Sounds a bit like a trick test, but I run with that. I have to admit to myself that I have not had any spiritual experience telling me to go the “other way” and despite all the indicators against the church that it is his church. It isn’t that I don’t feel God never talks to me. all the times I feel like God is speaking to me, it isn’t saying “the church is true”. It is at times where I see Christ-like charity and love. So where does that leave me? It leaves me thinking either that the logic that the church puts forward is not true (and many just “feel” things and turn them into a testimony), or I don’t have my “spiritual receiver” tuned correctly. Well – I have been trying for about a 1/2 century – probably 2/3’s of my expected lifetime – being a “good Mormon” and I still can’t say I feel God has told me that the LDS church is his one and only. So when do I cut bait and move on? Or have I done the experiment and I need to reach my conclusion? Is it logical for the church to even admit, “OK, you tried but you got your answer.”

I am not talking about resigning, but pulling a “Sheldon” or “DarkJedi” and live among the TBM’s in peace. I am still trying to figure out how to do the “in peace” part.

Sorry for rambling, but believe it or not, in those jumble of words I have found some peace – at least at this moment.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

…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…

On Own Now wrote:

Rob, that’s not how religion works. Religious belief bends and adapts history as it seeks to rationalize; to see it in the context of a larger and more certain spiritual truth…Then there is the resurrection. Jesus was resurrected. Or he wasn’t. How you see it depends entirely on your own perspective; not on what actually happened. In fact, let me point out the irony of this particular case. The case for resurrection is supported by history and the case against it is based, in spite of the historical record, entirely on a very specific belief: that resurrection is impossible…I have exactly zero interest in categorizing the beliefs of other people. When faced with historical oddities or inconsistencies, or even down-right scary narratives, believers will frequently rely on the idea that those are anomalies for which we don’t have a clear picture, and that there must be an alternate version that matches the goodness of God… a truer version that is likely obscured to us specifically to make us rely on faith. That is not “suppression of history”…They are free to believe and to see “the history” how they see it and I concern myself only with my own beliefs.

Having people interpret the same basic historical narratives differently is one thing, literally removing significant parts of the historical narratives and then having many typical chapel Mormons remain completely unaware of these points to this day as a direct result of them being left out of the story is something else entirely. For example, based on the Nauvoo plural marriage essay it looks like most of the top Church leaders already believe that Joseph Smith married women that were still married to other men and young teenagers but they apparently think there is nothing wrong with this because it was supposedly commanded by God. However, the first time I ever heard about these details was from what Church leaders would call “anti-Mormon” sources, “servants of Satan”, etc.

That’s why I don’t think there is any question that the Church already crossed the line as far as failing to live up to their own teachings about honesty regardless of what you want to call it. And I don’t think it is any mystery why this type of deliberate white-washing happened. Think about it, what would happen if the missionary discussions talked about Joseph Smith marrying other men’s wives and young teenagers as if it was an inspiring example of having faith and being obedient to God no matter what? My guess is that it would quickly result in significantly fewer convert baptisms and more importantly significantly more missionaries losing their testimonies before completing their missions.

I think that’s what Boyd K. Packer meant when he said, “Some things that are true are not very useful” and basically discouraged CES teachers from talking about information that he feared would destroy faith. Personally I see this as largely a by-product of overzealousness based on the general notion that, “We know what’s best for you” where Church leaders don’t really separate the Church from God and basically think it is not alright for people to reject the Church’s teachings and that’s why I don’t really expect things to change much anytime soon because the same general overzealous and overprotective mindset remains and entertaining ideas that are not faith-promoting toward LDS doctrines simply does not serve the purpose of getting people on board with the Church’s program and helping them remain loyal and committed followers after that.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I think that’s what Boyd K. Packer meant when he said, “Some things that are true are not very useful” and basically discouraged CES teachers from talking about information that he feared would destroy faith. Personally I see this as largely a by-product of overzealousness based on the general notion that, “We know what’s best for you” where Church leaders don’t really separate the Church from God and basically think it is not alright for people to reject the Church’s teachings and that’s why I don’t really expect things to change much anytime soon because the same general overzealous and overprotective mindset remains and entertaining ideas that are not faith-promoting toward LDS doctrines simply does not serve the purpose of getting people on board with the Church’s program and helping them remain loyal and committed followers after that.

Yeah, If those church members who endure to the end become Gods and those that bail because of hard to reconcile history become damned forever in one of the lower kingdoms, wouldn’t nearly anything be justified to keep members in the church? By hook or by crook – the ends in this case can justify the means. In the wrapping up scene, maybe those that you withheld information from will thank you for keeping their decision to stay in the church a relatively simple proposition. If we can justify murder (a la Nephi and Laban) for the rolling forth of the Godly cause, what is all the fuss about withholding some troubling but also immaterial church history facts?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I think that’s what Boyd K. Packer meant when he said, “Some things that are true are not very useful” and basically discouraged CES teachers from talking about information that he feared would destroy faith. Personally I see this as largely a by-product of overzealousness based on the general notion that, “We know what’s best for you” where Church leaders don’t really separate the Church from God and basically think it is not alright for people to reject the Church’s teachings and that’s why I don’t really expect things to change much anytime soon because the same general overzealous and overprotective mindset remains and entertaining ideas that are not faith-promoting toward LDS doctrines simply does not serve the purpose of getting people on board with the Church’s program and helping them remain loyal and committed followers after that.

Yeah, If those church members who endure to the end become Gods and those that bail because of hard to reconcile history become damned forever in one of the lower kingdoms, wouldn’t nearly anything be justified to keep members in the church? By hook or by crook – the ends in this case can justify the means. In the wrapping up scene, maybe those that you withheld information from will thank you for keeping their decision to stay in the church a relatively simple proposition. If we can justify murder (a la Nephi and Laban) for the rolling forth of the Godly cause, what is all the fuss about withholding some troubling but also immaterial church history facts?

I’m loving the discussion as it is rolling on.

Roy, you asked a question: “…what is all the fuss about withholding some troubling but also immaterial church history facts?” Two points: first) the decision of whether they are immaterial or not is MY choice. If someone makes that decision for me because they think that perhaps I don’t need to know, or worse, because they are going to save my soul because they know what is right for me to know and not to know, then that is intrusion and coercion. It is just not right. and second) its about agency. This whole discussion comes down to agency.

In my mind, if someone controls the narrative and omits factual events, then that omission, regardless of the intent, colors the outcome. I can’t make an educated decision UNLESS I am aware of the facts. If someone decides for me that I don’t need the facts because if I had those, I might make a decision that they don’t agree with,…well, that is coercive.

This whole thing comes down to agency.

I can’t speak for others so I wont. I will say how I feel. The idea of someone making decision for me, telling me what I can and can’t believe, and deciding what points of historical fact are or are not relevant triggers a defensive instinct inside of me that goes to my core. Don’t tread on me. Ever.

That is why I feel strongly about this topic. The choice is mine to make….period.

[Author]

Posts