Lying for the Lord – OK or not?

[Anonymous]

LIP wrote:

I think the church is happy to let us think that everything in general conference and the Ensign is Official Doctrine, while at the same time keeping close to its chest the technicality that almost nothing is Official Doctrine and could be changed at any moment.

Does labeling something doctrine mean that it is unchanging? Is changing doctrines/policy/practices par for the course? There were a few significant changes made back in the days of the original 12 apostles.

Circumcision, giving the green light on eating “unclean” meats (what god hath cleansed, that call not thou common), including the gentiles, doing away with animal sacrifice, etc. Those changes were every bit as big as the changes we’ve seen take place in the LDS church (if not bigger). We’re also 2000 years removed from those decisions. We’ve had a long time to justify the changes and come up with ways that Jesus’ sacrifice was meant to bring about all those changes but if we were there perhaps we would interpret it as the changes coming about due to public pressure or changes that were only made to make the gospel appeal more to outsiders.

Do changes in policy reflect the teaching of growing grace by grace until the perfect day? If we didn’t allow for change how could we grow? It seems to fit the pattern of the old church.

I think the real mistake are those statements by church leaders that claim something along the lines of, “This is the will of the lord, this will never change.” You’d think they would know better by now.

LIP wrote:

It’s happy to let an apostle claim the prophet received revelation while the prophet himself doesn’t say that. It’s happy to let us think there is more revelation at the upper echelon than there might really be.

From what I’ve observed I think the prophets and apostles feel like all the decisions they make on behalf of the church are revelation. It may be a stewardship thing. It’s easier for me to talk in terms of the local level so… if I am the EQP I have stewardship over the quorum, I may feel like any decision that I have authorization to make is revelation for the quorum. If I were the bishop I may believe that any decision I make on behalf of the ward is revelation. God probably didn’t part a cloud and tell me ithat I was receiving a revelation, it’s probably more of a “this feels right” thing which leaves the process up to my own biases, perspective, and limited knowledge. The prophet and the apostles probably aren’t all that different, they just have a wider stewardship.

LIP wrote:

It’s happy to talk about an open canon but not actually canonize anything new.

This is a big one for me. At times it feels like tradition and revealed scripture hinder progress. We’re not open to new revelation because we’ve venerated the old revelations to too large a degree.

LIP wrote:

It’s happy to hide the finances of the church when right from its inception the Brethren tried to profit from our tithes (are today’s Brethren so flawless when compared to JS that we can trust them more than him with our money?).

Yeah, shout the books from the rooftops. Cloak and daggering the finances makes people feel like there is something to hide.

LIP wrote:

We are taught from sunbeams until we die that the church is either the only true church, or it is a fraud. My bishop said this to me not 2 months ago. The church has created the black-and-white concept of truth, and I don’t think it stands up to its own rule.

Yes. For me the True or fraud thing is just something else that people were wrong about. You’re right, the church doesn’t stand up to its own rule… and you would think that would help them see gray or even the colors that exist. Some members might acknowledge a world of color but need the world to be black and white to help them cultivate their faith.

I don’t mean to be apologetic. I like your points and they are valid, I’ve seen them myself. I’m just hoping to helptake some of the edge of the bitterness away. The church is going to be the church whether we hold onto the bitterness or let it go. I’ve found that letting go of bitterness is a process, it takes time, as with anything.

[Anonymous]

LIP wrote:

I feel angry right now.

LIP. That’s completely natural. I’ve felt that at times, so I know what you are talking about. For me, I’ve tried to temper the anger. Doesn’t mean I can’t feel frustration or sadness. But anger is an emotion that (to me) provides no benefit. It goes hand in hand with black & white thinking. It makes us see other people as perpetrators rather than fellow sojourners. My number one go-to technique for avoiding anger is to try to have empathy. I try to see it from their perspective. I try to understand why… and not in an inquisition-style, posing all questions in the form of an accusation, but in a sincere attempt to understand them for them.

[Anonymous]

I voted “yes” because I think some of the examples critics of the Church like to call, “Lying for the Lord” are only human and to be expected under the circumstances based on the existing Church culture and organization. Also I would go one step further to say that I think the idealistic notion that, “Honesty is always the best policy” is one of the biggest lies of all because in many real life situations in marriage, business, politics, etc. brutal honesty is actually a terrible policy and it is actually white lies that will often produce much better results for everyone involved. On top of that, I’m not sure it is very fair to call some of the things Church leaders say lying if they honestly believe it themselves.

Personally I think many Church leaders rationalize and compartmentalize things to some extent so that they don’t even realize how deceptive the Church has really been in many cases. I do think there is some element of the general mindset that, “The ends justify the means” where they don’t feel like they can or should be as open and honest as possible. For example, I think the general policy of presenting whitewashed history in lessons, missionary discussions, conference talks, etc. is mostly a product of them fearing that many Church members/investigators can’t handle the truth without losing or never gaining a testimony. So even though I think this is clearly unethical and unfair to the members making fairly significant decisions (full-time missions, who to marry and when, tithing, etc.) based on misleading information I think Church leaders measure success based on a completely different set of values where they think the most important thing is for people to believe in the Church supposedly for their own good.

[Anonymous]

LIP wrote:

I feel angry right now. I think it’s clear that the church has repeatedly been dishonest when it served the church, and it’s illogical to believe that it has stopped doing this.

LIP, part of the solution for me, in addition to the charitable approach others have talked about, is valuing and expressing myself. I was recently asked to play the organ for a stake conference session, opening hymn – Praise to the Man. I offered play for a different session and said aloud that I wasn’t on board for that hymn, particularly as an opening. So, I am. I spoke my mind and it felt good. I try not to be consciously angry, but I’m busy building better boundaries and exploring new ideas.

[Anonymous]

Recently Elder Nelson talked about the process of creating the gay marriage HB policy. He basically said:

Quote:

We sustain 15 men.

They fast, pray, discuss, receive impressions, counsel & share together…. then “watch the Lord move upon the President of the church to proclaim the Lord’s will.”

same with this latest HB change. Met repeatedly in the temple considering countless permutations, fasting/prayer, and sought further direction/inspiration. “Then the Lord inspired his prophet TSM to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord. Each of us felt during that sacred moment a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to Pres. TSM. Revelation from the Lord to his servants is a sacred process.”

I assume that they consulted with a legal team on what the legal ramifications of different policies might be. Perhaps there could be a special committee that might be formed with representatives of different specialties. There could be legal and public relations and others interests represented. It could be presided over by a member of the 15 or even TSM himself. They put in months of work to put out the most effective, well rounded policy possible for all concerned. Would that not seem like the prudent/business oriented thing to do?

Technically Elder Nelson’s comments do not preclude any of that from happening. And yet he gives the impression that it was just the Q15 that were pondering, fasting, praying, and waiting patiently for God to give them the words. I believe that Elder Nelson is emphasizing the portions of the process that he finds important for his immediate purpose and is deemphasizing or even omitting portions that would contradict or distract from his purpose.

[Anonymous]

Not long ago my 10 year old daughter was asked to talk in primary about the importance of temples. My wife has an ancestor that worked on the Nauvoo temple.

I wanted to say that this ancestor worked on the Nauvoo temple that was later abandoned and destroyed by arson/fire. He then traveled to Utah where he continued to apply his skills at raising a new SLC temple in this new land. I felt that it would be a good opportunity to show a picture of the SLC temple that most of the kids can identify and have a sense of the history and personal connection to the story. Such a nice story arc with the two temples serving as “book ends” to round it out.

Unfortunately, the part about the SLC temple was not true. This ancestor was assigned to settle north Ogden and it would have been impractical for him to work on the SLC temple. My dear wife feels more strongly about honesty than I do and would not let me craft the story inaccurately. I knew that nobody from the primary was going to fact check us – but for DW it was the principle of honesty at stake.

Is there a time and a place for taking creative license for the purpose of storytelling or emphasizing a principle? I think that there is.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate all the replies, everyone. You’ve helped me expand and improve my views on the issue of institutional deceit and dishonesty.

I think I pretty much agree with the comments about the apostles and other top leaders sincerely believing that what they are doing is for the best. Unfortunately, I think the sum of little deceits or obfuscations add up to a dangerous landmine for people like me, because when their curiosity finally leads them to dig deeper, it’s pretty hard to swallow. And it adds fuel to the fire of doubt about the church as a whole.

nibbler wrote:

Do changes in policy reflect the teaching of growing grace by grace until the perfect day? If we didn’t allow for change how could we grow? It seems to fit the pattern of the old church. I think the real mistake are those statements by church leaders that claim something along the lines of, “This is the will of the lord, this will never change.” You’d think they would know better by now.

Yes, I think you’ve said this well. I’m okay with doctrine changing, but it often gets presented as unchangeable until the moment it is changed. And then the words of a previous prophet get discounted, which to me puts all uncanonized doctrine into question in a church that almost unquestioningly accepts every word that comes out of the living prophet’s mouth.

On Own Now wrote:

For me, I’ve tried to temper the anger. Doesn’t mean I can’t feel frustration or sadness. But anger is an emotion that (to me) provides no benefit. It goes hand in hand with black & white thinking. It makes us see other people as perpetrators rather than fellow sojourners. My number one go-to technique for avoiding anger is to try to have empathy.

Good advice. I think the anger has been helpful for me as a temporary emotion, but the people I see that can’t let that go over time seem to eventually damn their own progress because they haven’t found closure on what they’re angry about.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Not long ago my 10 year old daughter was asked to talk in primary about the importance of temples. My wife has an ancestor that worked on the Nauvoo temple.

I wanted to say that this ancestor worked on the Nauvoo temple that was later abandoned and destroyed by arson/fire. He then traveled to Utah where he continued to apply his skills at raising a new SLC temple in this new land. I felt that it would be a good opportunity to show a picture of the SLC temple that most of the kids can identify and have a sense of the history and personal connection to the story. Such a nice story arc with the two temples serving as “book ends” to round it out.

Unfortunately, the part about the SLC temple was not true. This ancestor was assigned to settle north Ogden and it would have been impractical for him to work on the SLC temple. My dear wife feels more strongly about honesty than I do and would not let me craft the story inaccurately. I knew that nobody from the primary was going to fact check us – but for DW it was the principle of honesty at stake.

Is there a time and a place for taking creative license for the purpose of storytelling or emphasizing a principle? I think that there is.

I see your point, but I tend to side with your wife, and this is why: I feel like made-up stories that engender an emotional response walk a fine line in gospel teaching.

When we knowingly read or watch a fiction story, we know it’s not real, but we still allow ourselves to learn or change because of it. I think that’s healthy because there’s no dishonesty there. We suspended disbelief, but we went in with our eyes open and took something away from it.

When we induce emotions through fiction and then lead others to believe that they felt the Spirit, I feel that we’re being dishonest. Maybe it wasn’t the Spirit; maybe it was just emotional response to a feel-good story. I’m not saying that’s what you wanted to do, but this kind of thing happens. Paul H. Dunn is case-in-point. I sort of distrust the Children’s Friend for this reason…I’m not sure how much “faith-promoting fiction” they put in it.

I think your story would have been innocent enough, but some people don’t know where to draw the line.

[Anonymous]

LIP wrote:

Uh…still sounds bitter, doesn’t it?

It is ok to be bitter for a little while. Eventually, you’ll move from that place because it isn’t a happy place, but it is OK for a while to feel that way.

Others have given good advice. These concepts are life concepts to figure out how to be a good person. If we weren’t mormon, these questions would still be something we would work through in our jobs, government, and social interactions.

Despite what you were taught in primary, the Church is more complex because it is mortals trying to find revelation and do God’s will. Some will lie, some will not. Some is your perceptions of what they are doing.

How we handle ourselves through the ups and downs strengthens us and helps us grow.

In principle, I can’t see it a good thing to lie, as a weaker or lesser approach to good intentions. But I would hope for the greater choice. I don’t know if I can always do it.

I don’t know that all church leaders can do it. It doesn’t make it right. It just is understandable when it happens, and it brings consequences to the church when it happens.

[Anonymous]

LIP wrote:

I see your point, but I tend to side with your wife, and this is why: I feel like made-up stories that engender an emotional response walk a fine line in gospel teaching.

When we knowingly read or watch a fiction story, we know it’s not real, but we still allow ourselves to learn or change because of it. I think that’s healthy because there’s no dishonesty there. We suspended disbelief, but we went in with our eyes open and took something away from it.

When we induce emotions through fiction and then lead others to believe that they felt the Spirit, I feel that we’re being dishonest. Maybe it wasn’t the Spirit; maybe it was just emotional response to a feel-good story. I’m not saying that’s what you wanted to do, but this kind of thing happens. Paul H. Dunn is case-in-point. I sort of distrust the Children’s Friend for this reason…I’m not sure how much “faith-promoting fiction” they put in it.

I think your story would have been innocent enough, but some people don’t know where to draw the line.

Yes, I think we are on the same page with this. I just have a higher comfort level with twisting the truth and that is ok. I look at church pictures and movies and realize that these are works of art. We (as Christians) almost universally portray Jesus as white even when we now know that this portrayal is not ethnically accurate. There is something to be said for creative license/artistic expression in artists’ renderings. Art that is limited to hard facts at some point ceases to be art at all. Even photography is manipulated by light, perspective, exposure time, etc. etc.

History is similar. There is no such thing as unbiased history. It is a mess of competing perspectives. Historians must wade through what is left of these voices of the past and tease together a coherent narrative.

Religion is similar. Religion has more to do with art and storytelling than the more precise, black and white fields of math or science.

Religious History (such as scriptures) is therefore a double minefield of artistic expression.

OTOH, I get that people are making important life decisions based on the information presented being 100% true – of a more reliable and trustworthy nature than that from any other source. It can be devastating when someone has a faith crisis and realizes that the narrative that they had been spoon-fed since they were little is loosely based on a true story.

What I do believe could and should be done is for our church to develop more tolerance for a variety of perspectives and faith levels. This could begin by an appreciation for use of the word “believe” as an acceptable alternative for “know”. I would also like to see more lessons that address the perspective of scripture stories being figurative or symbolic.

[Anonymous]

DA and I don’t agree on a lot of things, but I agree with his last comment.

[Anonymous]

I think everyone lies to some extent. Some much more than others. As for church leaders I think it is more a case of avoiding the truth as it is outright lying.

When you are so steeped in a certain belief it is difficult to face the truth of things when they contradict your belief. Most church leads just avoid knowing the truth I think. But I am sure there have been a few that know and lie about it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I voted “yes” because I think some of the examples critics of the Church like to call, “Lying for the Lord” are only human and to be expected under the circumstances based on the existing Church culture and organization. Also I would go one step further to say that I think the idealistic notion that, “Honesty is always the best policy” is one of the biggest lies of all because in many real life situations in marriage, business, politics, etc. brutal honesty is actually a terrible policy and it is actually white lies that will often produce much better results for everyone involved. On top of that, I’m not sure it is very fair to call some of the things Church leaders say lying if they honestly believe it themselves.

I agree with that part — emphasis on “white” or unconscious lies.

My issue is the systemized lying in the lesson manuals characterized by shallow, vague explanations of things (like JS was arrested on a “trumped up charge”, when he destroyed a printing press — someone else’s property and violation of the inspired constitution which permits freedom of speech as a bedrock principle).

To really answer this question well, I think there needs to be examples of lying on the continuum of white to black, unintentional to intentional, unconscious and conscious, light outcomes or heavy outcomes. I could handle lying about why a Bishop, who was guilty of thieving tithing funds, was no longer in office for confidentiality reasons….but only in an obfuscating kind of way, or by sharing reasons proximal to it “the calling was difficult given other challenges in his life” or something like that, particularly if he was in debt or vulnerable to dishonesty…this is grey, as it is somewhat true, it is conscious, and intentional, but the outcome is good to the Bishop who has received his institutional punishment in being released, and for members who can get on with supporting their new Bishop.

On the other hand, I have a REAL problem with the way we lie about our history, or share only selective facts. For example. Truth Restored — GBH was involved in getting that published, and historians with knowledge of the truth CHOSE to leave out the true, but objectionable parts, whitewash the blemishes, etcetera…it was deliberate, and the consequences that people like myself sailed blissfully into 10% per year tithing commitments, which I kept for a couple decades, giving my time at the expense of my career, my personal fulfilment, and at one point, even my personal health.

When the consequences are significant like this, people need to know the truth, particularly when we teach that we have the truth. We are in the truth business, and to violate the truth when it serves our needs puts us on the same footing as ANY temporal organization, not one with a divine commission.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I voted “yes” because I think some of the examples critics of the Church like to call, “Lying for the Lord” are only human and to be expected under the circumstances based on the existing Church culture and organization. Also I would go one step further to say that I think the idealistic notion that, “Honesty is always the best policy” is one of the biggest lies of all because in many real life situations in marriage, business, politics, etc. brutal honesty is actually a terrible policy and it is actually white lies that will often produce much better results for everyone involved. On top of that, I’m not sure it is very fair to call some of the things Church leaders say lying if they honestly believe it themselves.

I agree with that part — emphasis on “white” or unconscious lies.

My issue is the systemized lying in the lesson manuals characterized by shallow, vague explanations of things (like JS was arrested on a “trumped up charge”, when he destroyed a printing press — someone else’s property and violation of the inspired constitution which permits freedom of speech as a bedrock principle).

To really answer this question well, I think there needs to be examples of lying on the continuum of white to black, unintentional to intentional, unconscious and conscious, light outcomes or heavy outcomes. I could handle lying about why a Bishop, who was guilty of thieving tithing funds, was no longer in office for confidentiality reasons….but only in an obfuscating kind of way, or by sharing reasons proximal to it “the calling was difficult given other challenges in his life” or something like that, particularly if he was in debt or vulnerable to dishonesty…this is grey, as it is somewhat true, it is conscious, and intentional, but the outcome is good to the Bishop who has received his institutional punishment in being released, and for members who can get on with supporting their new Bishop.

On the other hand, I have a REAL problem with the way we lie about our history, or share only selective facts. For example. Truth Restored — GBH was involved in getting that published, and historians with knowledge of the truth CHOSE to leave out the true, but objectionable parts, whitewash the blemishes, etcetera…it was deliberate, and the consequences that people like myself sailed blissfully into 10% per year tithing commitments, which I kept for a couple decades, giving my time at the expense of my career, my personal fulfilment, and at one point, even my personal health.

When the consequences are significant like this, people need to know the truth, particularly when we teach that we have the truth. We are in the truth business, and to violate the truth when it serves our needs puts us on the same footing as ANY temporal organization, not one with a divine commission.

Well said!

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I voted “yes” because I think some of the examples critics of the Church like to call, “Lying for the Lord” are only human and to be expected under the circumstances based on the existing Church culture and organization. Also I would go one step further to say that I think the idealistic notion that, “Honesty is always the best policy” is one of the biggest lies of all because in many real life situations in marriage, business, politics, etc. brutal honesty is actually a terrible policy and it is actually white lies that will often produce much better results for everyone involved. On top of that, I’m not sure it is very fair to call some of the things Church leaders say lying if they honestly believe it themselves.

I agree with that part — emphasis on “white” or unconscious lies…My issue is the systemized lying in the lesson manuals characterized by shallow, vague explanations of things (like JS was arrested on a “trumped up charge”, when he destroyed a printing press — someone else’s property and violation of the inspired constitution which permits freedom of speech as a bedrock principle)…On the other hand, I have a REAL problem with the way we lie about our history, or share only selective facts. For example. Truth Restored — GBH was involved in getting that published, and historians with knowledge of the truth CHOSE to leave out the true, but objectionable parts, whitewash the blemishes, etcetera…it was deliberate, and the consequences that people like myself sailed blissfully into 10% per year tithing commitments, which I kept for a couple decades, giving my time at the expense of my career, my personal fulfilment, and at one point, even my personal health…When the consequences are significant like this, people need to know the truth, particularly when we teach that we have the truth…

To me an example of a white lie would be if my wife asks what I think of her new hairstyle and I say, “Looks good” mostly to avoid hurting her feelings even though I don’t really like it. Personally I wouldn’t call people saying something false that they actually believe lying at all as much as simply being a delusion. Certainly I wouldn’t call some of the deliberate white-washing of Church history either a white lie or delusion because, like you said, the results were not necessarily positive or relatively harmless for many Church members intentionally kept in the dark this way.

However, at the same time I’m not sure Church leaders really know any better and I think that to some extent they are actually victims of the same culture that discourages any dissent and encourages conformity so much that many of the rank-and-file members are. From their perspective, they could easily rationalize this with excuses such as, “don’t worry about those little flecks of history”, “it’s behind us”, “it’s not essential for salvation” whereas they apparently think believing in the Church is absolutely essential. That’s why I don’t really expect them to be much more honest than they have been so far and it doesn’t surprise me that they don’t want to disclose information that isn’t faith-promoting toward traditional LDS doctrines.

[Author]

Posts