- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://www.withoutend.org/stop-weve-lied-to-church/ An interesting article. Thoughts?
It is good and it has some very good points. I just listened to a Mormon matters “why is this so hard” (why is a faith crisis so hard) and Lindsey Park talked quite a bit about her “History” vs “Heritage” framing. That is quite good. Every family creates a heritage and they generally won’t make that out to be “we have a tendency to be alcoholic’s.” You put your best foot forward.
I do think there is something to be said that Joseph Fielding Smith was “too close” to be objective, and that probably set the path for correlation.
The one most profound statement is, “Then the Internet happened.”
The only (albeit cynical) thing I would say is “wouldn’t it have been good to have a prophet / seer that could have seen this coming and started adjusting to prepare instead of doubling down on the September 6 crew and others?”
Even if I give JFS a pass, I can’t give such a liberal pass to current leaders that are still (even a few weeks ago in conference) saying “Internet can’t be trusted” instead of more of a, “Don’t believe
everythingon the Internet is 100% true.” I am not sure that some leaders don’t equate the Internet to satin himself. I see it as just having an entire library of books with quick access. Gutenberg cause a revolution in knowledge, and Al Gore created another one (YES – I am being cynical on the Al Gore comment). It is an interesting article, thanks for sharing. I’m going to parse words a little. “Church” I’m going to interpret as the Q15, not 70s and not BYU professors or local leaders such as stake presidents and lower. I’m going to interpret “lied” as conspired as a group to mislead everyone else who is not a Q15. I doubt that the Q15 set out to actively lie to the church but I think they omitted significant pieces of information that people would find unsavory. I’d wager they tacitly agreed to spin church history in a faith promoting way but I don’t know that the upper echelon flat out lied. I strongly suspect that some of my BYU religion professors lied to me because I think sometimes they are familiar with church history details more than the Q15.
I’ll compare it to this. In the temple in the mid 1990s once I asked a temple president what changes had been made to the temple ceremonies. He got angry and told me it’s none of my business and that the ceremonies as they are now are the ceremonies I should be concerned with. His wife was next to him and she said, you might as well tell him, he’s just going to go look it up elsewhere. Then he got angry at her. That’s what I think the Q15 did as a group over decades – omitted details that inquiring minds wanted to know and generally “committing spin.”
Roadrunner wrote:In the temple in the mid 1990s once I asked a temple president what changes had been made to the temple ceremonies. He got angry and told me it’s none of my business and that the ceremonies as they are now are the ceremonies I should be concerned with. His wife was next to him and she said, you might as well tell him, he’s just going to go look it up elsewhere.”
Good example – and you can go look it up and it will probably not be on a site that has a positive slant. Own it brethren – OWN IT!The more I listen to the divided sides I come away with a different aspect, it isn’t the lies, it’s the sacrifice, the perceived robbery that garner’s the problem. If church had just been something to attend on Sundays, and a place to volunteer at and experience community, it wouldn’t have mattered so much whether accuracy, heritage, skill or unskill had happened.
But LDS-ness is a life mantel. Endless dollars and hours are given to feed the experience. Judgments about personal character can cut you out of the pack so fast. Most everyone who is “Saying the Church Lied” is hurting deeply. The passed on the info with complete trust. They ran hard, gave much, believed hole-heartedly in the institution and it’s narrative. They defended against nay-sayers, and were diligent to the cause. This group wasn’t just some whiny fringe element of people looking for an excuse. They got the legs cut out from under them.
Sadly the church has had 15 years to make a public pronouncement, and nothing is forth coming. Even the essays were tucked away. The only real roll-out came through blogs. Most standard practicing members don’t even know 15 essays were written or what they mean, or why they came about. So – Up front, candid – no. I understand why the church made that choice, it’s not one I support, but we can’t throw rocks at people who say The Church Lied. It has lots of slants of deceit, and this article to me only makes it messier.
Most of us were as devoted to the church as to our spouse and family. Betrayal, however it happens hurts deep, and reasons and excuses especially for the person hurt most are pretty empty. Of my divorced friends, the most betrayed spouse hurts the longest, while the one doing the divorcing just moves along. The complaints are coming from the betrayed spouse.
The comments were very interesting especially this quote Quote:“I think that it is far better to make a bold admission of facts and truth, and do it now, than wait until it is forced down our throats at a later date when it will be embarrassing to us” – T Edgar Lyon’s personal manifesto to writing history
The other point in the main post was Elder Packer’s comment about our being belligerents in a war against good and evil. It explains the GA’s approach and response to history but whether that rises to the level of lying, I don’t know and interestingly don’t much care. It’s done and out there and the “truth” has had it’s effect, for me at any rate and there’s no putting the cat back in the bag.GBSmith wrote Quote:there’s no putting the cat back in the bag
For me that cat is fine, it’s the darned toothpaste I can’t get back in the tube.
It’s interesting to me that the author sort of does the same thing she accuses JFS, BHR, and others of doing – presenting a cleaner history for the sake of making it palatable to those who do or would believe. Heritage or history, it’s all semantics. I agree with the majority of the commenters on the blog (at least the early ones) in that a lie is a lie, regardless of its intent. I will give the caveat that RR points out above – we can only say the church lied if we consider the church to be the Q15. In this case I think that’s a fair definition. Otherwise I’d say individuals within the church lied, and some of them could be given the pass in that they didn’t have correct information. Milk before Meat. I’ve been told that my entire life. So when is the meat going to be served? I had questions about the temple. I was told that my questions would be answered when I attended. They weren’t. I was told to attend more often for increased understanding. Apparently, I’m a slow learner. No one in the temple seems willing to sit down and explain it all to me in easy terms. I’m told the concepts are simple. So explain.
Church History is wild and woolly. Maybe it is time to just claim it. We have had too many leaders who would rather see individuals professionally and personally ruined rather than have the church embarrassed. I have a problem with that. I like to think that God would have chosen differently.
mom3 wrote:GBSmith wrote
Quote:there’s no putting the cat back in the bag
For me that cat is fine, it’s the darned toothpaste I can’t get back in the tube.
Some truths are eternal and that’s a fact.
I was all set to react to the thread title, and then saw that the blog post is subtitled, “ Maybewe should stop saying we’ve been lied to….” That’s a little different. There’s room for some discussion, and some people may find the history of how we got here interesting. But he asks at the end whether it “serves any good to continue the ‘We’ve been lied to!’ mantra.” You bet it does. It serves me
very wellto remember that I can’t assume I’m being told the truth. My trust is gone, and that’s okay. The author makes several good points but I believe that there’s a better wrapper to put things in. It’s like the opposite of J. Thomas Fyans’ pearl of great price. You have a pearl and you put it in a box that’s so ugly that the ugly box becomes the sole focus. After reading the initial title of the article (it has since been changed, the article has been softened since it was written) and after consulting with Uchtdorf over internet slang I believe kids these days would call the box “click bait.” Want traffic? Write an article to the disaffected community called “Stop Saying That We’ve Been Lied to by the Church” The title is dismissive. How does a real person that has faced real trials feel when reading that title? The implication is that the church hasn’t lied; the article also explores the question, “did they
reallylie when you look at it from this angle?” Invalidating people’s suffering only prolongs their suffering. Invalidating people’s feelings doesn’t help people heal, irregardless of whether their feelings appear to be justified to us. The article talks about the perspective of leaders and how they acted in good faith. Can we extend that same courtesy to people that feel as though the church has lied to them? The article does try to smooth things over in the last two paragraphs. Still I think the good points that were raised fall to the wayside as the focus becomes the wrapper the message was placed in.
Quote:But does it serve any good to continue the “We’ve been lied to!” mantra without trying to understand how we got to where we are today?
Sometimes. Can you make someone move from one of Kübler-Ross’ stages of grief to another or do they have to reach a point where they are ready to move on? Maybe people can help others move from stage to stage but I don’t think “you shouldn’t be angry” solves anyone’s problems.
What’s the legacy of this article? Will the disaffected share the article with one another to help them overcome bitter feelings or will the article be shared by the orthodox with the intent of correcting a wayward family member?
Quote:But does it serve any good to continue the “We’ve been lied to!” mantra without trying to understand how we got to where we are today?
I’m going to briefly revisit this quote. “No you haven’t!” is fuel for the “We’ve been lied to!” mantra. That’s also a part of what got us to where we are today. You want the “We’ve been lied to!” mantra to stop? Acknowledge the lie or acknowledge that the person is probably going to repeat the mantra until they burn out.
Validate someone’s feelings. Again, you don’t have to agree, sometimes you’ve got to shut up and be an ear, sometimes you’ve got to dig deep to find
somethingto validate. The red sky is hurting my eyes.
The sky is blue.
No, it’s red and it’s hurting my eyes!
Dude, the sky is blue.
Maybe the sky really is blue, maybe dude is staring at a red sunset. Sometimes you’ve got to say, “Yeah, I hate it when the sky makes my eyes hurt.”
I don’t think we need to get into whether the church lied. How do you define church? What is a lie? We can probably get creative with our definitions to say that the church clearly lies or say that the church clearly doesn’t lie.
mom – I agree with your words above. I think all of us are really bothered when we see how really good people in the church “got their legs cut out from under them” and they become the enemy. I can easily see why so many slightly disaffected can quickly become full-tilt anti-Mormon based on the very non-Christ like reaction. amatuerparent – “where’s the beef?” I was just saying the same thing this morning. The only place I have gotten any meat is outside of the church and generally from books and groups that the church would not approve of. So for me, the church giving no meat has the affect that I have started going elsewhere for meat and less time on the milk (plus I don’t drink milk with my steak as a good strong Dr Pepper is sooo much better).
Nibbler – you are right. A bit of acknowledgement / validation would help many (and give some fuel on the fire for others). Much better than, “Some things that are true are not very useful” (which is a true statement, but it sounds a bit lawyer-ish speak for not telling the whole truth).
To me I keep seeing fear as the motivator. “The church” has many that fear the hard history will make people leave. They are more loyal to the church (that they have invested so much in) than to pure truth. I think that some that have dedicated their entire lives actually fear that maybe there is some truth as to why others are leaving and it scares them to death – including knowing how they would be treated by others.
I just want to say once again how grateful I am for this community. It has really helped me in trying to figure this all out. I don’t live where there are a lot of LDS folks so I worked through the first part of my faith crisis by myself (with some blogs, Mormon Stories, and some books). I got past the anger stage about the time I got here. I am sure you all can still see some frustration coming from me on many areas. Part of me right now feels like, “I feel I have been duped, but before I do anything major – I am doing to be damn sure I don’t get duped again.”
Click Bait. Exactly. Nibbler nailed it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.