What Does it Mean to "Stay LDS"?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The “middle way” is centered in the more mature understanding that the institutional LDS church is deceptive in its teachings and practices.

Fwiw, that also is far too broad for me to accept as written. I also have no problem accepting our current top leadership as prophets, seers and revelators – since my own view of those terms appears to be different than Bob’s.

That’s the heart of my point – that I have to live according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all people everywhere, the same privilege. Thus, I don’t see many views as more or less “mature”. Some are, and sometimes it’s obvious, but I’m very wary of those that define my own view as mature and the differing views of others as immature – and I got that sense from the quote above.

I also don’t like the implications of the word “deceptive” – even though as the resident parser I understand it doesn’t always mean “intentionally dishonest”.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

The “middle way” is centered in the more mature understanding that the institutional LDS church is deceptive in its teachings and practices.

Fwiw, that also is far too broad for me to accept as written.

I tried to pick a word with less load attached to it, than, say, “lying”, but it’s a subtle point to get across. The LDS church attempts to create impressions of things that aren’t true in a lot of the lessons and official communications. It’s all for noble intent, but still these things aren’t true. For example not mentioning Joseph Smith’s polygamy and creating the impression that he was either not a polygamist or that it was maybe just Emma and Eliza R Snow. GBH’s “I don’t know that we teach that anymore”, when he knows full well we teach it. Russell M Nelson solemnly intoning that marriage is between one man and one woman when he’s sealed to two wives that expects to be his in the afterlife. When they talk about how there is no paid clergy (in small print “at the local level”) while at the same time knowing GAs are generally receiving six figure “living allowances”. The recent newsroom item about how doctrine is determined by the standard works, when of course it’s the leaders who interpret what they mean. These things are done to protect people’s faith and to present a positive image of the church to the outside world, and from a legal standpoint are not really “lies”, because they are not specifically saying things that are not true, but incorrect impressions are being intentionally created by what is not said or by what is carefully said, and this meets my definition of “deceptive”.

Being able to hold this in your head without going crazy is what the “middle way” is about, not just doing 50% of your home teaching or closing your eyes during half of the R rated movie.

[Anonymous]

As I said, Bob, I understand that. You’re new here, but I’m the resident parser.

I still wouldn’t use “deceptive” – especially in a couple of the cases you listed. In at least two cases, there was no deception whatsoever, unless that term is defined so broadly that your own comment can be called deceptive (since it also didn’t include every possible aspect and, therefore, wasn’t totally comprehensive).

I don’t think your coment was “deceptive”, so I don’t want to define the word that broadly.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

As I said, Bob, I understand that. You’re new here, but I’m the resident parser.

I still wouldn’t use “deceptive” – especially in a couple of the cases you listed. In at least two cases, there was no deception whatsoever, unless that term is defined so broadly that your own comment can be called deceptive (since it also didn’t include every possible aspect and, therefore, wasn’t totally comprehensive).

I don’t think your coment was “deceptive”, so I don’t want to define the word that broadly.

Just seeking understanding and not being argumentative . . . which two cases did you not think involved deception? Just wondering whether we are working from different facts, different interpretation, or different definition of the word.

In general my issue is not with the history or the doctrine. 33 wives for JS? Cool by me as long as no “priestcraft” is involved. Adam/God? Bring it on. Denying Blacks the priesthood? Wrong, but well intentioned. My issue is invariably the “deception”, so I want to understand other viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Uh…”Parsing”…oh never mind…You can use the word any way you want

I see the point of how “deceptive” is a word with negative connotations. I think some of us like to call a spade a spade, but it’s not helpful to turn people off.

I hope we can agree on this statement: “The church is not forthright on telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” And while the justification is that the church’s role is to edify and to sustain and defend the kingdom of god, the fact that information is readily available today that contradicts the prevailing church messaging can leave a bad taste in one’s mouth, and can be a stumbling block to those whose only access to truth is through anti- or nonmember sources. It’s bad optics, and it looks like deception in all of its “intentional dishonesty” connotation.

I believe much of this is because of the siege mentality that is often found in the church. So, instead of unapologetically saying, “I’m a Mormon and here is why”, using terms that any reasonable person would say, “that makes sense”, we don’t have a rational basis of belief, and therefore some feel the need to cover up the absurdities of our history, and vigorously defend each and every policy and commandment as doctrine.

I object to coverup, partial truths, and illogical defense, and call such practices “deceptive”, because they are beneath the dignity of god’s church. And because I believe that the LDS church is god’s church for me, I care that it be represented in the best possible light.

One of my DDs had a little problem with this thing called “the truth”. She once got caught in a web of deceit that only a teenager can make up. As I learned more and more about the situation, I sat down with her giving her enough data that indicated to her that I knew the story, but I held back certain details to measure whether she would fess up. She wouldn’t and couldn’t, and thus had to learn that if she wants my trust for teenage liberties, she needs to earn that trust.

The church expects it’s members to trust the leadership completely. We are putting our faith that the prophet will never lead us astray, that our substantial sacrifices in being members are appropriately invested. Yet the church does not disclose any accountability for its dealings. Ok, trust is trust, so I guess we should trust, right?

But what if the church has shown deceptive behavior in the past, and then continued to cover it up until it was forced to “fess up”? And when it does “fess up”, it still omits material details? Hakuna matata, that’s all behind is now, why do you worry about it?

If this were your spouse or kids, how would you react?

The church enforces rigorous standards on its members. How can it be exempt from the standards of integrity?

I so want to say, “The church is true,” and really mean it. I personally feel that it is directionally true most of the time, but to “be” true, rigorous honesty may be involved, especially in light of past subterfuge and coverups. I want to be able to say in church that Joseph Smith was just like Warren Jeffs in many ways, yet different in important other ways, and we as members need to understand that in order to better sift out the truth of the church. I want to speak truth in church, and not have it be a surprise or a destruction of faith. I want us to celebrate the humanity of our leaders, and that it is our job to sustain them and make them successful.

Most of all, I want to say with conviction that the Gospel as taught by the church is “all truth”, and if something is true, regardless of source, it is the gospel, and if something is false, it is not. How can I say this as long as the church has a flexible attitude toward “truth”?

[Anonymous]

Hi Bob,

I remember you from NOM and that other community you mentioned. I always loved your thoughts. Is this the right place for your needs? I don’t know, but you’re welcome to find out. I know you are a thoughtful and spiritual guy that I admire.

What does it mean to “StayLDS?” Different people have different answers, but to me it means having some level of desire to explore a continued connection to Mormonism. That may only be a continued appreciation for some of the theology and ideas, or the social/spiritual community. That is all fine. It could also mean trying to become fully active, etc.

Whatever the case, we intentionally try to remain positive and constructive. It’s fine to talk about problems, but the goal is to work on solutions (which could be no longer believing in something too). Our community is geared towards filtering out most of the angst and anxiety that happens in other online communities. Those are fine, and there needs to be places to express those feelings, but we’re not about THAT part of the faith journey. We’re trying to support more of the process after the painful deconstruction process is mostly done.

[Anonymous]

So Brian, forgive me for being less than positive in the above post. I think it’s necessary to a sustainable position of staying LDS that we in the Middle Way embrace “truth” in all of it’s gory details, without fear or coverup. We don’t need to talk about it with everyone, but I am looking for honesty here.

Does that make sense?

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Does that make sense?

Sure. It makes sense to me. When I talk about being positive, I don’t mean being naive and Pollyanna-ish about faith. It just means that we are ultimately working toward building something better for ourselves. If that requires us to strip down history, concepts and beliefs to the core, so be it. It’s the spirit in which we engage in the process that, to me, makes it positive or negative.

[Anonymous]

BobDixon wrote:

“Are You My On-line Forum?” Most people arrive at NOM with a pretty similar level of shock over what they have learned. They adjust, they develop bad attitudes, and generally just spin out of the church and move on… My journey was different. I was stuck in the middle. Not so much in the anger phase, but I was pursuing sort of a middle way which was part anger and part exploring the evangelical Christian side of my Mormonism.

I really have nowhere to discuss this in depth and would like to be able to discuss with smart people who see the flaws in much of what happens, but yet still care enough to discuss it and not just dismiss it as irrelevant to their lives… Just wondering if my path qualifies as “Staying LDS?” I don’t want to be fully active, because there’s not enough Jesus in the LDS church, but at times there’s not much “community” in the non-LDS world. I want both and remain stuck in the middle, to the end most likely.

Personally I think focusing more on Christianity and less on Mormon traditions would be the most realistic way the LDS Church could possibly be effectively reformed without completely alienating the support base and even if they end up losing some support as a result I still think it would be the right thing to do in response to anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet and increasing inactivity and defections. However, I don’t know if there is any website specifically focused on this idea.

It seems like most NOM types are agnostic/atheist and after that some type of pantheism would still probably rank higher than traditional Christianity almost as if it is a general backlash or allergic reaction to organized religion in general as a result of their experiences with the LDS Church. So here you will hear the same kind of skepticism you get at NOM along with more nuanced defense of the Church and different ways of dealing with the Church warts and all than you will typically get from TBM apologists. At least the discussions are fairly open so you can usually ask questions or express your opinion freely as long as it isn’t anything too offensive.

[Anonymous]

Bob, the examples of non-deception deal explicitly with the idea that something can be totally true but not comprehensive without being deceptive.

1) We have talked about this in an earlier thread (and I wrote more extensively about it on my personal blog), but Pres. Hinckley was asked ONLY about the first part of the famous couplet – the idea that God used to be a man like us in mortality – and only if the LDS Church “still” teaches that. Of course, the Church used to do so – and many members still believe it. However, that wasn’t the question. The question was directly and obviously about what the LDS Church teaches now, and it simply doesn’t teach that officially now and hasn’t for quite some time – especially when you add Pres. Hinckley’s clarification that we don’t “emphasize” it. His answer wasn’t comprehensive, but it was an accurate answer to the actual question he was asked.

2) Elder Nelson can say unambiguously that we now believe marriage is between one man and one woman, since the statement obviously was about mortal marriage. In order to be deceptive, the question would have had to address eternal sealings – and it obviously didn’t do so. Just to go further with that, that statement also isn’t true if we apply it to divorcees or widow(er)s remarrying – but not mentioning those obvious exceptions doesn’t make the statement deceptive, again, since the question wasn’t directed at those exceptions. It just makes the response incomplete and not comprehensive – as was your comment and almost every comment I’ve ever written and almost every statement I’ve ever spoken.

Nobody has a moral obligation to answer questions that aren’t asked, and not doing so is not deceptive in any way. There’s a HUGE difference between non-comprehensive and deceptive. (just like answering the temple recommend questions without explaining exact perspective and belief is non-comprehensive but not deceptive)

I would phrase it like wayfarer did, but tweaked a little bit – that the Church doesn’t tell the whole true all the time and that, sometimes, it actually is deceptive. That’s totally fine with me in some cases and not fine with me in other cases – but framing it that way allows for a much more accurate and non-polemic discussion of the multiple issues involved rather than implying lack of honesty in every case by using a word like “deceptive” in such a broad-brush manner.

[Author]

Posts