On Love and Lying: Integrity, Identity, and Interpretation

[Anonymous]

This isn’t so much seeking support as offering it; Silent Dawnings poignant plea for a new theology and way of thinking prompted me to post this paper I wrote. It is more an approach to living Mormonism than a specific theology, but perhaps we can discuss specific philosophical and theological ideas here as well.

ON LOVE AND LYING: INTEGRITY, IDENTITY, AND INTERPRETATION IN A PLURALISTIC MORMON CULTURE

Imagine that you are organizing a dinner for your religious community. As you are planning the delicious and healthy menu, you come across a problem: You discover that the majority is allergic to precisely what the minority needs. What do you serve? How do you nourish all, giving to each what is needed without triggering the others?

Here is the quandary as I see it: On one hand, the spirituality enjoyed by most believers works. Within a clear framework of particular religions, God answers prayers, grants miracles of guidance and healing, transforms character. Specific religious beliefs and practices within a particular religious community provide great benefits. On the other hand, I would carefully suggest that a rigorous, critical examination of religion deconstructs every denomination it touches. I do not think it is possible to take seriously both the conclusions of academic investigation and the literal and particular claims of individual religions, though critical inquiry cannot fully challenge spirituality in general. Thus the intractable problem: How do we sustain the straightforward belief of the majority, while addressing the concerns of the minority who take the path of critical and historical investigation? Unprecedented access to information and a “google generation” predisposed to search it out makes this a crisis we must address immediately. On a personal level, this is where we must balance love and lying, factor in integrity and interpretation.

This paper will be unavoidably personal, as I take seriously the lack of a programmatic “right answer” to this inherently insoluble paradox. I can only share how I have negotiated these tensions in a satisfying and productive way, and make observations and suggestions based on my experience. I would add, however, that I don’t think this paradox needs to be solved, only addressed. I suggest we grapple honestly with the tension between faith and scholarship and move forward with an approach that maximizes the benefits to as many people as possible.

I have become persuaded that critical examination of religion can only work in one direction. First, I need to distinguish spirituality from exclusive claims of particular denominations. I maintain a firm belief in spirituality and believe that in addition to the primacy of personal experience, scholarship, history, and even scientific investigation can support the reality of spiritual phenomena. On the other hand, there are philosophical, theological, and critical reasons for suspecting the claims specific religions, namely:

1) If there really is a supreme Creator of the Universe who interacts with all things, it is logical that He/She/They would be far beyond our comprehension.

2) Mormon theology (and I would say theology in general) supports the idea that whatever God’s form or nature, God adapts Himself (I use the pronoun flexibly) to our understandings, expectations, and limitations (see 2 Ne. 31:3, Ether 12:39; D&C 29:33; 50:12; 88:46, which all imply that God speaks to us in a way we will understand more than the way “things really are”).

3) Finally and significantly, study of the religions of the world and human history demonstrates that humans conceptualize gods and the divine in their own image. So whatever the reality of God and spiritual truth may be, human religions clearly constitute cultural constructions designed to meet human needs and reinforce the values and practices of leadership in the community. Most particular religions teach that theirs is the true way, or at least the best way!

I believe that scholarship and critical analysis can support a denomination as beneficial or even among the best, but not the “Only True Church.” So though I love the LDS Church and find Mormon theology, scripture, and lifestyle better than any other religion with which I am familiar, I gently suggest that the idea that Adam and Eve were Mormons and the subsequent story of the apostasy and restoration of truth and authority is untenable. Apologetic arguments and investigation can weaken counterclaims and thereby allow (or create) room to believe, but they cannot, in my view, create an overall theory more plausible than the academic ones they are opposing.

Seeing value in what may be fiction works for some but not others, and inevitably something is lost. It can be argued that not only do religious myths maintain power in our lives, but that for most people, some of that power is predicated on taking myths literally. Belief in a literal, loving Father you can talk to and will someday return and embrace increases the effectiveness of prayer. Accepting narratives of healing at face value establishes expectation for miracles in our lives. What do we do when certainty is yearned for yet unattainable?

When this intractable conundrum collides with the culture-changing information provided by the internet, the crises of faith and activity ensue. The current approach of evading problems, affirming traditional interpretation, and at most brushing on a veneer of apologetics can propel people into either agnosticism or Gnosticism. Either questioners feel dissatisfied and alienated by a community they often still love, or “Internet Mormons”, like Gnostics of old, read the same texts and attend the same meetings as the majority while secretly coming to radically different conclusions. This is not just an LDS problem; a majority of atheists are under the age of 35. But the literal and exclusive claims of Mormonism intensifies the tension between faith and knowledge.

So how do we proceed? I hope that the Church will increasingly adopt an approach that continues to provide the simple narratives that enable people to enjoy the practical benefits of their religion, but that they will also provide the framework for the more complicated reality. Given the ever increasing chance most people will come across potentially troubling information, this preparation is vital. This is not to say that we should throw the messy picture at everyone! Few if any would want their parents to sit down with them and say “I just wanted to spend a few quality hours with you and tell you every mistake I have ever made.” At the same time, it is critical we all understand our parents are human, so when we come across that journal entry or story, we have the framework to handle it. My other hopes for the Church in general would be that those faithful who are trying to deal with the complex issues be seen as resources rather than being disciplined or marginalized (hopefully this is not happening?) and that every priesthood leader is trained to tell the inquisitive: “It is ok to have questions” and “there is more than one way to be a good member of the Church.”

Proper understanding of issues such as the humanity of Church leaders, the role of agency, the influence of personal expectation and cultural presuppositions on revelations, and human nature in general would both be consistent with a straightforward faith but also prepare the believer for a more complex understanding. This approach would enable the decreasing majority who never comes across further information to better deal with the challenges of life. But for the increasing population who comes across information on the internet or through friends, this preparation would also help the believer both incorporate the new information and help them understand the need for the simple narrative! So ideally he or she would say “I never heard of that before, but I can understand how that fits into my belief and why the simple story accomplishes the purposes of a spiritual life”.

To bring up just one example of how this works, I believe that the 1838 account of the First Vision most likely reflects not what happened to Joseph, but his theology of the time. I believe he had a vision of Moroni, another where Jesus forgave him of his sins, later came to the understanding the members of the Godhead were distinct individuals (and there were a plurality of Gods), and then his 1838 account told a simple, effective story that described what was true in his view, if not what was historical. Given the evidence and precedent we have, can we think of an equally effective narrative for general consumption?

I will turn now to how I apply this perspective in my own life. I actually take a very practical approach to this issue. This is my experience; but I do not desire to export it whole cloth to others. I accept as valid all approaches that work for people, from taking everything at face value, to being reassured by apologists, to tackling primary sources and figuring out what you believe. Each of us must forge our own world view. My main concern is to encourage a worldview that meets spiritual needs but also minimizes vulnerability to new information. The rhetoric of “just ignore disconfirming information, be quiet and obey” simply does not resonate with a generation that googles every question, that can reach millions with a blog or YouTube video, and voices its opinion on everything from political debates to American Idol and advertisements.

I try to share information with people based on their desires and preparation. When a member of my ward told me he wanted to learn more about religion, I asked him whether he wanted the Institute approach, or academic approach, and explained each. He replied Institute, and I respect that. In another memorable experience, at the end of missionary exchanges I was having a discussion with one companion and the other Elder said, “If what you have is the gift of knowledge, I don’t want it!” I remain realistic of the fact that for the majority of believers, the details simply do not matter. I don’t want to know how my car works; I just want it to get me from point A to point B. I would never want to deconstruct some one’s religion so they can’t drive it.

In order to be as honest as possible, I speak with extreme precision. Instead of “Moroni wrote” I can introduce an idea with “In the Book of Moroni we read…” I bear my testimony about how beautiful I find the idea of the Atonement and how I am grateful for the ability to improve my character because of the power of God in my life. I bear my testimony that the Book of Mormon is inspired of God. I do not bring up the fact that I do not necessarily have a testimony of the Atonement, or that I have doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I speak in such a way that most assume I am agreeing with them, but if people want to hear more about my views, they can ask me and I can explain one-on-one if appropriate.

I would go as far as to say that as a loving last resort, even lying could be justified. When neither precise communication nor tactful silence is an option, and a full honest answer would be destructive to the faith of the listener, I would support a “noble lie”. Some will see this as sophistry or disingenuous, but I see it as prioritizing love and valuing the functionality of religion over full or even representative disclosure in every smallest question. I would also offer the reminder that we negotiate our communication and identities constantly, though we would prefer to avoid the term “lying”. And rightly so, since this negotiation of proper sharing is a natural and necessary part of relationships, not to be cavalierly branded as deception. On one hand, we navitage greater or lesser lies and loyalties and integrities constantly, whether we realize it or not. At the same time, it is worth noting that with explicit lies, even justified ones, something is inevitably lost.

Here is how that works for me. I see this as more translation to the worldview and expectations of the listener than outright deception. Our relationships constantly confront us with a “hierarchy of truths”. Though we have all sorts of thoughts and views, still we censor ourselves based on our love for our spouses, or our desire to keep our jobs for example. One vital balance to this approach is we must be sure we are molding the truth out of love, not the desire to deceive or escape consequences. In order to have integrity, we should also feel peaceful with the prospect of explaining the full truth and previous careful sharing of it if the situation demanded it. It is tragic when a spouse or Church cannot accept the truth of our views or natures. But do we then need to abandon the marriage or community? Owning our choice to prioritize relationships over disclosure when necessary can bring peace to painful dissonance. I would add that it is tremendously beneficial to have some individuals or a community where you can be fully honest about your views and identity. Ideally your closest loved ones should be in this inner circle, but either way this is where internet communities can literally be a godsend.

Now that I have bared my perspectives, borne my “nuancimony” if you will, one could confront me with a variety of questions: Aren’t I lying when I answer the temple recommend questions with simple “yes” or “no”? Am I not manifesting a lack of integrity when I speak words that, though technically true, I know very well are being understood differently by my audience? Do I have integrity in my faith community if very few know what I really believe? Am I really a Mormon if those in authority would question that status if they knew the details of my world view?

Mormonism is unavoidably pluralistic, and we must come to terms with that fact. The approach of careful disclosure modeled in this paper represents my answer to the differing needs conundrum presented at the beginning meal analogy. There is more than one way to be a good Mormon. How many caring, faithful members have left the Church because they no longer felt welcome or belonging? Yes, it would be wrong for a member to go “double agent”, deceiving the community in order to harm it. But as I have argued, there is a form of lying motivated by love, not selfishness or pride. I would even be bold enough to say that ultimately it is the member who should make the final decision about membership within the community, not priesthood leaders—that is, if that member truly feels in good conscience that he or she belongs and is living a life pleasing to God.

Though I experience rare sensations of loss where I wish I could be that scholar who despite all his learning still believes the standard stories, I am very happy with my spirituality. I see religion as a symbolic system that points to a reality that, though unknowable, really does WORK. Miracles do happen, religion really benefits people, people experience visions and answers to prayers. Religion is a shortcut to accessing metaphysical insight and power few would be able to access otherwise. So I use the Mormon language, for example, to interact with and point toward transcendent principles I do not understand. And for me, the Mormon language and framework works. This is my faith language. These are my people. With this understanding of my faith, I can both be agnostic but also trust in the power of faith, prayer, ordinances, and religion in general, about as much as I did when I accepted things literally.

I think this view even has advantages over a more straightforward acceptance of Mormon theology. I appreciate being able to talk to anyone without knee-jerk prejudgment of “God says that is wrong.” My view of spirituality both encompasses and transcends Mormonism. It makes sense to me that God would give everyone as much truth and saving principles as they will accept. Religion for me is about maximizing Love, Growth, Peace, Joy, and increasing Freedom and Consciousness. As I have said, I think Mormonism does this better than any other religion of which I am aware, and has the potential to do it far better. Further, a more open, even agnostic approach to Mormonism and religion in general preserves benefits while minimizing costs. If Mormonism were not the only true Church, if every point of accepted theology were not true, if we ceased to exist upon death, would we still make the same choices? I hope so. If not, it is worth reevaluating such a risky gamble. We must make religion our own, forge our own understanding and meaning that both respects and justifies our understanding of spiritual reality.

I am also acutely aware that not everyone sees things as I do, however. So in my discussions with individuals and groups, I try to speak in such a way that they will receive the same meaning and message as I receive with my nuanced views and beliefs. In translation, there is formal equivalence with word for word correspondence, and dynamic equivalence with thought for thought correspondence. But the goal of translation is to effect in the reader or listener of the target language the same feeling and experience enjoyed by the original audience in the source language. For me, this is how love, lying, integrity and interpretation fit together. I translate what I think and feel based on my best understanding of where my audience is, motivated by love. I hold beliefs and spirituality sacred, both mine and those of others. If I know that my words and experiences will be interpreted differently by my listener in such a way it does not respect the sacred nature of our differences, to show integrity to love and individuality I will translate myself in such a way so that my listener gets my “deep meaning”, even if on the surface I must translate yes to no and no to yes.

[Anonymous]

Very insightful and a good read. I wish I could share your enthusiasm about the tribe … I’m working at it.

[Anonymous]

Enoch wrote:

…Seeing value in what may be fiction works for some but not others, and inevitably something is lost. It can be argued that not only do religious myths maintain power in our lives, but that for most people, some of that power is predicated on taking myths literally…When this intractable conundrum collides with the culture-changing information provided by the internet, the crises of faith and activity ensue. The current approach of evading problems, affirming traditional interpretation, and at most brushing on a veneer of apologetics can propel people into either agnosticism or Gnosticism…Given the ever increasing chance most people will come across potentially troubling information, this preparation is vital…My other hopes for the Church in general would be that those faithful who are trying to deal with the complex issues be seen as resources rather than being disciplined or marginalized…and that every priesthood leader is trained to tell the inquisitive: “It is ok to have questions” and “there is more than one way to be a good member of the Church.”…I would go as far as to say that as a loving last resort, even lying could be justified. When neither precise communication nor tactful silence is an option, and a full honest answer would be destructive to the faith of the listener, I would support a “noble lie”.

These are some good ideas and observations. Rather than calling this kind of behavior “lying” I would describe it more as simply a case of playing along with others and acting the way they want or expect you to act because to me shameless lying implies more deliberate maliciousness than we really have here. This general lack of complete (brutal) honesty and openness is similar to the story of the Emperor with no clothes because nobody really wants to be the only one to recognize the obvious when everyone else around them is acting like it is not so obvious and that things are supposedly different than they appear.

Not only does peer pressure make it hard to openly acknowledge what we suspect to be true sometimes but there is also a significant amount of denial going on where people basically don’t want to face the facts mostly because it is painful and inconvenient so they try to hide from problems they don’t want to deal with. That’s why I don’t know if it is really fair to expect people to just tell the truth no matter what because it’s not always that simple and in some cases they already think they are telling the truth because of denial and rationalization to the point that they honestly believe their own lies.

As far as the value of perpetuating myths, I think some myths are clearly worse than others to the point that they are not necessarily worth the effort of trying to defend. For example, if some popular belief is relatively easy to discover or expose to be false then I don’t see the point of worrying too much about its long-term survival. Another point to consider is the question of how much will it cost to be wrong if you believe in something that is false? That’s why I have a lot less patience for the nearly infallible prophet myth than I do for isolated ideas like the resurrection because in my opinion it will do more harm than good at this point and it is also fairly easy to disprove. If we had a little more freedom and flexibility to think for ourselves without negative consequences then members wouldn’t feel like they need to hide from the facts and make excuses for the Church quite so much anymore.

[Anonymous]

Great post. Great thoughts. I’m kind of with Doug – I wish I had this kind of optimism. It’s good Stage 5 type of thinking and strategies to help folks move forward.

I have lost a lot of “hope” in the things you talk about, like this

Quote:

So how do we proceed? I hope that the Church will increasingly adopt an approach that continues to provide the simple narratives that enable people to enjoy the practical benefits of their religion, but that they will also provide the framework for the more complicated reality. Given the ever increasing chance most people will come across potentially troubling information, this preparation is vital. … My other hopes for the Church in general would be that those faithful who are trying to deal with the complex issues be seen as resources rather than being disciplined or marginalized (hopefully this is not happening?) and that every priesthood leader is trained to tell the inquisitive: “It is ok to have questions” and “there is more than one way to be a good member of the Church.”

I guess hope is all one can do at this point.

[Anonymous]

That would be nice — but I don’t see it happening. There is too much of a corporate mentality that dominates our way of thinking — perhaps because the people who lead our Church tend to come from corporate/business/industry/government backgrounds. So the way then enact policy and guide the affairs of the Church tends to follow formal ways of doing things from industry and government.

And this tends to be mechanistic, in my view, with an emphasis on consistency, processes, policies, operating procedures etcetera — as is present in any large-scale organization. I don’t see this changing.

Perhaps that’s why there is such a strong internet culture for LDS people. For being such a small minority, there are a ton of places to talk about our religion in a non-judgmental way with others who are divergent thinkers on the Internet. That is the place for it. I suspect the Church is well aware of our thinking, and may well consider it when deciding policy. So, perhaps posting on sites like these is the strongest voice we have — even though it may well be an unintentional voice, not aimed consciously as the Church leadership — provided we don’t come across as enemies of the Church.

[Anonymous]

Devil’s Advocate, I intentionally chose to use word “lying” to be provocative of course. I like the model of “translation” and think it works.

SilentDawning, I am still hopeful. I think the internet has radically restructured society and we are all trying to catch up, including the Church. You know how the saying goes–“change will not happen until the pain of the pain becomes greater than the pain of the change.” I have hope that this point will come for the Church, and soon. Already I have heard that growth in the US has come to a standstill with so many people leaving, that about 40% of return missionaries go inactive right away, etc.

In the meantime, I will live Mormonism the way I think it should be while striving to maintain as much legitimacy as possible to maximize the chance I will have opportunities to do good for the community. If I cannot make it work with the Church, it will be after I have done all that I can to model and influence a progressive form of Mormonism. Of religion as a whole, really.

[Anonymous]

Enoch wrote:

SilentDawning, I am still hopeful. I think the internet has radically restructured society and we are all trying to catch up, including the Church. You know how the saying goes–“change will not happen until the pain of the pain becomes greater than the pain of the change.” I have hope that this point will come for the Church, and soon. Already I have heard that growth in the US has come to a standstill with so many people leaving, that about 40% of return missionaries go inactive right away, etc.

I agree that the Internet is definitely changing things — that’s for sure. That’s why I sometimes look at the Internet as a place for the Church leadership to see themes in the mind and will of the people who are on the verge of leaving. There are lots — Church as a corporation, tired worn out programs like home teaching, exclusion of women and same sex individuals, and concerns with lack of transparency, undue levels of sacrifice required by some, inability to address concerns at Church without risk of some kind of disadvantage, and the list goes on. It would be interesting to list the themes — not the personal gripes and conundrums, but the themes that come up across sites and individuals.

Also to address slow growth — a while ago, when I was a priesthood leader, we had a meeting over the fact that the growth of the Church in America had slowed significantly compared to other parts of the world. This led to efforts to increase missionary work at the Ward level. I’m not sure if it led to any real changes in the way we do things as a Church, however. What it DID lead to was more emphasis on missionary work.

Quote:

In the meantime, I will live Mormonism the way I think it should be while striving to maintain as much legitimacy as possible to maximize the chance I will have opportunities to do good for the community. If I cannot make it work with the Church, it will be after I have done all that I can to model and influence a progressive form of Mormonism. Of religion as a whole, really.

I think this shows a level of patience and hope like we have seen in other advocates for change through history.

Like you, I try to maintain as much legitimacy as possible, although sadly, my motivation to be an agent for good and service seems to have left me after years of dutiful service, given increasingly with an unwilling heart. I hate to say it, but that desire has left me, except as it relates to areas in which service is also a passion or affects my immediate family. How terribly unChristlike of me. I feel more preoccupied with getting my finances in order since health issues have arisen for my son, and probably myself, and there is no way I want to turn to the Church for help. The times I have turned to them — an adoption through LDS Social Services, and when I wanted to serve a mission, the results were disastrous to my perception of the Church as living its own principles. I don’t think I can stand another brush with that again.

As far as effecting change in the Church goes — I have little interest in that, beyond posting on discussion forums. I’m reminded of the parable of the sower. At first blush, it might appear that the message is to sow widely in hoping the seeds will eventually hit fertile ground. After years of sucking air this way as a priesthood leader, I feel a more appropriate interpretation is to seek the fertile ground first, and then sow primarily there. Otherwise, it’s not a good use of seeds. I don’t see changing the Church as fertile ground, nor do I see changing my family in a progressive Mormon way as necessarily good either as it may well confuse them during their tender and non-critical-thinking years. And Mormonism is the best religion I’ve been exposed to for clean living out there so far…my plan — develop my own philosophy and then be ready and waiting with it when they come to me with their own concerns about it. Until then, I must live with the tension. It’s highly unpleasant. There are times when I wish I could just return to being a TBM. But I’m pretty sure those days are gone.

[Anonymous]

Just want to say I hear and support you Silent Dawning. I am young and enthusiastic… let’s see how I feel in 10 years. But for now I will drive this optimism and energy as far as it will take me.

I am also very self-centered, which helps. I do things for my reasons largely independent of what else is going on.

[Anonymous]

Enoch wrote:

Devil’s Advocate, I intentionally chose to use word “lying” to be provocative of course. I like the model of “translation” and think it works…I am still hopeful. I think the internet has radically restructured society and we are all trying to catch up, including the Church. You know how the saying goes–“change will not happen until the pain of the pain becomes greater than the pain of the change.” I have hope that this point will come for the Church, and soon. Already I have heard that growth in the US has come to a standstill with so many people leaving, that about 40% of return missionaries go inactive right away, etc.

I figured you probably meant that lying is not always as bad as it sounds which makes sense, I just thought a combination of denial and tactful diplomacy is more of a fair and accurate description of what is really going on more than deliberate lying. Personally, I am optimistic that the Church will change eventually but I don’t know how soon or whether it will be able to survive some of the changes that have already happened mostly outside their control such as active members having fewer children than before and many of the ones that would have typically put up with the Church in the past are now leaving or becoming completely inactive because of anti-Mormon propaganda.

The Church will definitely start to shrink fairly soon unless something changes drastically but it could easily take a few more generations before the top leaders realize that many of these same old doctrines just aren’t working as well as they did before the internet made it so much harder to ignore some of these problems. I doubt that Church leaders like Monson, Packer, and Oaks really understand just how bad it is for many longtime members to be blindsided by some of these hard questions and then have their spouse, bishop, etc. be completely unsympathetic and act like it’s their own fault and they are evil sinners for not believing all this anymore. They want to blame it all on Satan deceiving people as if all these problems can easily be dismissed with a few apologetic answers. Oh well, I guess all I can do is to sit back and watch it all play out.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that.

I think I understand your idea of the “noble lie”, but in my mind I cannot imagine a situation where some version of the truth would not work. The “lie” can actually be truth within the context of the situation. Not to simply justify here, I’m serious. I see everything in religion or spirituality properly placed in a personal framework. If you’re talking about religious truths, you’re talking about personal truths – there is no universal. If the discussion goes to a specific claim of universality, I would simply say “that is not my understanding.” I could continue with an explanation that “revelation” to me is personal, I will never claim to obtain revealed understanding that applies to anyone but me …and perhaps those whom I am responsible for. A claim to know the church is the only viable option for salvation for the entire world is in effect a claim to receiving revelation for everyone else in the world. I don’t understand revelation to act in that way. I understand it to act on me, with my particular views and ability to comprehend. I can only say with confidence that the church is true “for me.” Anything else becomes absurd.

I also realized while reading this that I embrace the TBM moniker. I believe that describes me. I don’t think most people look at it as having the same meaning that I apply though. I see myself as believing all truth that I can comprehend. I am a “Truth” believing Mormon. I don’t claim to be an illusioned believing Mormon. Not to say others are, but there is always the possibility.

[Anonymous]

Orson,

I agree with you that outright lies should be avoided, and that living within a mainstream definition of the truth is a far simpler way to go. I can think of three examples where I feel lying is justified, however.

1) To protect yourself from “priesthood leader roulette.” A friend told the the following story: His brother was about to get married, and his interview went fine. His fiancee’s bishop, however, said in a pre-interview meeting, “I just want to let you know that I consider ‘deep kissing’ a sin, and if you have done that I will not give you your recommend to get married.” So my friend’s brother asked him for advice, and he replied, “Well, your fiancee needs to be comfortable with her decision, but I would say…. lie!” Yes, it would be possible to respectfully protest and say “I have already answered that I keep the law of chastity,” but I could imagine some leaders withholding the recommend until a clear answer was given to all follow up questions. I think in those cases the leader easily could be wrong, is overstepping his bounds, and I would never sacrifice my wedding day to some one else’s misguided standards.

2) I think the situation I will describe can be avoided almost all the time by speaking carefully, but I could imagine being cornered by a loved one, either in family or Church, where the best solution would be to lie. This is such a tricky situation, but I know situations where once a wife knew her husband was struggling with doubt, it was game over. I do not think the only answer is to fess up and force the marriage into ending. I think the spouse should reserve the right to navigate the truth/lie boundary until he/she decides how to proceed. Of COURSE ideally marriages and membership should be honest. But I intentionally pushed this point to its extreme in order to define boundaries. The same could be said for Church membership.

2b) This is less of an outright lie, and I am less confident about the need to speak like this, but I could imagine needing to speak about a historical event in such a short hand way that you could call it a lie, in order to preserve the faith of your audience. But this is a weak example since it is so easy to get around.

3) As I said, I think at the end of the day we are the ones who determine whether we want to be in this community or in our relationships. I underscore what I said about communicating the “deep truth” of our desire to remain in the community and *especially* if we feel worthy to be in the community, go to the temple, etc. I am not going to jump through hoops “just because”. If I feel my relationship with God is what it should be, I will “translate” my communication accordingly.

I am glad engaging with my views led to self-illumination.

[Anonymous]

Lying is a sin. It is one of the 10 commandments. So is murder. Yet everyone’s favorite Book of Mormon hero was ordered to murder Laban because the alternative was worse. This says to me that God doesn’t have a zero tolerance policy and looks at things on a case by case basis with an open mind. Maybe I am trying to justify my own actions. I have lied many times when I thought telling the truth would cause more problems than it would solve. I think we all have brains so we can figure these things out.

[Anonymous]

Brown wrote:

Yet everyone’s favorite Book of Mormon hero was ordered to murder Laban because the alternative was worse. This says to me that God….

Even the Book of Mormon itself says it has errors of men that we aren’t to ascribe to God. I can’t think of a greater error in the Book of Mormon than the idea that there was cosmic good in Laban’s murder. Instead, it was a classic case of Nephi’s winning the battle, but losing the war. God wouldn’t be so short-sighted.

I think that letting go of short-term outcomes and having faith in our highest ideals can lead us to the kind of love and honesty we really want to experience. I like “translation”. I like “disclosure”. And I like honoring people’s agency. There is always a more excellent way, even when we can’t see it. One idea a friend of mine shared is to make a goal of being totally honest, then when a potential need for translation arises, say something like. “Do you want the short and sweet answer or the long and tangy answer?” “I have more to say about that question than you may have intended to ask for. Are you looking for a complete and open answer or a short and sweet answer?”

Letting go. When I first decided that honesty in the temple recommend interview would be more blessed than holding a temple recommend, it freed me to go in and say, “Before we start this interview, I simply want to let you know a little about my faith journey. OK. Now that you understand where my head and heart are, let’s do the short and sweet interview.” And what do you know? I walked out with a recommend (and with a heart full of love and compassion for my ecclesiastical leaders) every time (not that it really mattered to me).

Tom

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Brown wrote:

Yet everyone’s favorite Book of Mormon hero was ordered to murder Laban because the alternative was worse. This says to me that God….

Even the Book of Mormon itself says it has errors of men that we aren’t to ascribe to God. I can’t think of a greater error in the Book of Mormon than the idea that there was cosmic good in Laban’s murder. Instead, it was a classic case of Nephi’s winning the battle, but losing the war. God wouldn’t be so short-sighted.

I think it is short-sighted to assume that death is always a bad thing.

Quote:

I think that letting go of short-term outcomes and having faith in our highest ideals can lead us to the kind of love and honesty we really want to experience. I like “translation”. I like “disclosure”. And I like honoring people’s agency. There is always a more excellent way, even when we can’t see it. One idea a friend of mine shared is to make a goal of being totally honest, then when a potential need for translation arises, say something like. “Do you want the short and sweet answer or the long and tangy answer?” “I have more to say about that question than you may have intended to ask for. Are you looking for a complete and open answer or a short and sweet answer?”

People are never going to ask for a lie if you give them the choice. I can just imagine telling my wife, “do you want the truth or the answer you want to hear?” I’ve already revealed the hurtful truth just by asking. Last time I told my wife I didn’t really believe in a lot of the teaching of the church and wanted to take a break, she cried herself to sleep for two days straight. I’d rather fake it and have my wife happy than be totally true to myself and make my wife cry.

Quote:

Letting go. When I first decided that honesty in the temple recommend interview would be more blessed than holding a temple recommend, it freed me to go in and say, “Before we start this interview, I simply want to let you know a little about my faith journey. OK. Now that you understand where my head and heart are, let’s do the short and sweet interview.” And what do you know? I walked out with a recommend (and with a heart full of love and compassion for my ecclesiastical leaders) every time (not that it really mattered to me).

I am glad it worked out for you that way, but it could have just as easily resulted in disciplinary actions from the church. I don’t have faith in men to always do what is right an noble. We’ve all had spiritual leaders that lead more by the letter than by the spirit of the law.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Lying is a sin. It is one of the 10 commandments.

No, actually, Brown, it isn’t. The commandment is to not “bear false witness” – and that is a VERY different thing than lying. I think we’ve discussed that here in a previous thread, so I’ll try to find and link to it here.

“What Is Bearing False Witness” (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=390&hilit=lying) – 9 comments

Hawkgirl’s first comment is an excellent definition of what it meant in the Old Testament to “bear false witness” – which is VERY different than “lie”.

[Author]

Posts