There is a common concern among those who have experienced doubts in the church as to how much they should disclose about their doubts, to whom, and what the consequences of that disclosure might be. A recent internet discussion involving someone whose temple recommend was withheld for sharing her struggles and doubts with a well-meaning Stake President resulted in a discussion of the well-written essay on StayLDS.com about how to effectively navigate interactions in the church while working through doubts. Whenever this topic is raised, the discussion inevitably turns to integrity. Can a person maintain integrity in these circumstances while still maintaining a desired relationship with the church and full insider status? If so, how?
A recent post at BCC also talked about the high social cost to repentance in a church where we hold public callings and can be asked to speak or pray publicly at any time. The post observed that being honest and coming clean with priesthood leaders exacts too high a cost socially, and that most of our conversations about repentance are theoretical as a result. This problem creates even more of a conflict of interest for employees of the church whose employment is contingent on having a valid, current temple recommend. That post referred to bishops providing “pastoral care,” which is a common expectation from church goers toward their clergy, and yet, a point made by wayfarer on StayLDS.com also brings up a great point about the role of a bishop in our church:
“The inherent problem is that the BP is the ‘judge in israel’, not a spiritual counselor. When you have a major sin to confess . . . [the bishop] lays out the punishment path so that you have adequately ‘repented’ of those sins. . . [The system] does not allow for ‘advice’ without consequence. So, in the scenario, you go to the BP or any other priesthood leader with an honest interest in sorting out disaffection or doubt. Sitting on his side of the table, he has to interpret what you’re saying as ‘confession’ because you need to repent of something. The obvious major sin that involves ‘doubt’ is ‘apostasy’. So the only tools he has to offer are the means to punish your apostasy and prevent you from contaminating his ward or branch.”
I recently finished reading famous atheist Sam Harris’ book “Lying.” Atheists have a reputation for being tactless and relentless in telling the truth. Mormons, OTOH, may be truthful to a fault because tend to be very trusting and not too good at creating boundaries in relationships with authority. Is honesty always the best policy?
Honesty is an investment in a relationship. When you tell someone the truth, you increase intimacy; the more unsavory or difficult the truth, the greater the potential for intimacy. When you tell someone a lie, you erode trust and decrease intimacy.
“People lie so that others will form beliefs that are not true. The more consequential the beliefs—that is, the more a person’s well-being depends upon a correct understanding of the world—the more consequential the lie.”
Harris specifically calls it deception to misrepresent our beliefs to others.
“Sincerity, authenticity, integrity, mutual understanding—these and other sources of moral wealth are destroyed the moment we deliberately misrepresent our beliefs, whether or not our lies are ever discovered.”
Telling someone a lie is a rejection of the relationship. People who deceive others lose respect for those they deceive and also come across as inauthentic. One study showed that 10% of communication in marriages was deception in some form [1]. Another study showed that 38% of interactions between college students were deceptive [2]. So why do we lie? From Harris’ book:
“People tell lies for many reasons. They lie to avoid embarrassment, to exaggerate their accomplishments, and to disguise wrongdoing. They make promises they do not intend to keep. They conceal defects in their products or services. They mislead competitors to gain advantage. Many of us lie to our friends and family members to spare their feelings.” And of course, we lie when we deem someone untrustworthy, when we deliberately divest ourselves from that relationship. We lie to enemies. When we lie to our own people, we make them enemies.
Why are lies so bad?
- They are less efficient than the truth. “Unlike statements of fact, which require no further work on our part, lies must be continually protected from collisions with reality.” And all other vices require lies to cover them up and so that people can avoid consequences.
- They are anti-social. “Lying is, almost by definition, a refusal to cooperate with others. It condenses a lack of trust and trustworthiness into a single act. It is both a failure of understanding and an unwillingness to be understood. To lie is to recoil from relationship.” This recoiling can also be recoiling from perceived consequences or judgments we would receive if we accurately represented ourselves.
- Lies linger. “We seem to be predisposed to remember statements as true even after they have been disconfirmed. For instance, if a . . . story is later revealed to be false, some significant percentage of people will recall it as a fact—even if they were first exposed to it in the very context of its debunking. In psychology, this is known as the “illusory truth effect.” Familiarity breeds credence.”
As perennial liar George Costanza says: “It’s not a lie if you believe it!” Consider whether the following are lies:
- Omitting facts. “Nor does truthfulness require that one speak the whole truth, because communicating every fact on a given topic is almost never useful or even possible.” In a court of law, a defendant is not required to self-incriminate (which only seems polite to me), and witnesses are confined to answering the questions asked without elaboration. And that’s for good reason. More often than not, the incremental information is more misleading than its omission would be.
- Not disclosing one’s personal subjective views. “To speak truthfully is to accurately represent one’s beliefs. But candor offers no assurance that one’s beliefs about the world are true.” This relates mostly to subjective information, like our opinion about something or our beliefs. Here the strength of our conviction is what matters in whether we are accurately representing ourselves. If the jury is still out, we don’t have to strongly avow in either direction to be honest. There is a fine line between doubt and disbelief.
- False encouragement. “False encouragement is a kind of theft: it steals time, energy, and motivation a person could put toward some other purpose. This is not to say that we are always correct in our judgments of other people. And honesty demands that we communicate any uncertainty we may feel about the relevance of our own opinions. But if we are convinced that a friend has taken a wrong turn in life, it is no sign of friendship to simply smile and wave him onward.” Again, this relates to strength of conviction and the confidence we have in our opinions.
- Responding to the subtext. “If the truth itself is painful to tell, there are often background truths that are not—and these can be communicated as well, deepening the friendship.” The classic example is “Does this dress make me look fat?” Is the question behind the question “Do you still find me attractive?” or “Do you love me?” If so, you can answer that question honestly without addressing the particular demerits of the dress.
- The politician’s trick. This is usually an evasive tactic: answering the question you wish they had asked rather than the one they did ask. Sometimes politicians even admit that is what they are doing because they can put the questioner on the defensive in the process. IMO, this is one of the most effective ways to avoid telling a lie (or an unsavory truth).
- Lying to protect lives. “If lying seems the only option, given your fear or physical limitations, it clearly shifts the burden of combating evil onto others. Granted, your neighbors might be better able to assume this burden than you are. But someone must assume it. If nothing else, the police must tell murderers the truth: Their behavior will not be tolerated.” While this seems a noble lie, it may still have unforeseen consequences. The criminal you lie to may act on that misinformation and commit a different crime than the one you averted. And you are merely kicking the problem forward to the next person, who may or may not be better equipped to deal with it. Come to think of it, this sounds like an excellent premise for a movie plot.
- When the person can’t be trusted with the truth. Matthew 7:6 says “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” In the book, Harris points out that the problem with unjust laws is that they tempt otherwise good people into lying about their behavior to avoid consequences for behavior that is ethically blameless. IOW, people tell lies when it is unsafe to tell the truth, even when the truth is not indicative of wrongdoing.
The essay from StayLDS.com that I referenced in the beginning includes the following statement toward the end:
“[W]e are not in any way advocating dishonesty or deception here. We are simply noting the undeniable reality that many of these questions are subject to at least some private interpretation. We should feel assured in knowing that the brethren ultimately and wisely have left this decision between us and God — and for good reason. In conclusion, always answer honestly. But do not unnecessarily exclude yourself from the blessings of the temple because of rigid interpretations if it is something that you feel might be good for you spiritually.”
So what do you think? Do you ever feel pressured to lie at church or about your beliefs? Do you succumb to that pressure or not? How do you navigate it, and do you consider yourself honest in the process? Do you experience a conflict of interest in the TR interview process? Are people being dishonest in a TR interview if they have doubts? Where do you draw the line?
Discuss.
I’m off to work, to take a couple depositions of people who may be lying under oath. I’ll have to respond when I get back.
Hawk,
“Atheists have a reputation for being tactless and relentless in telling the truth.”
Where does this come from? I do not see how this statement holds any water. I would argue that atheists are no better nor worse than anyone else. And I still maintain that atheists fool themselves by not recognizing that moral imperatives are derived from the great religions of the world and not out of thin air.
I see a lack of honesty as a prevailing trait in today’s society regardless of religious beliefs.
OP: “Is honesty always the best policy?”. Sure it is__that’s why it comes with the highest premium!
My testimony is based on hope and when I’m asked in a recommend interview if I have a testimony of the restoration, the answer is yes. Same for the atonement. It may not be the same kind of testimony as the stake president but it’s all I’ve got and for now it will have to do.
Will anyone argue that the truth is not useful? Or that truth is over-rated?
Part of the issue, to my mind, is the difference between spiritual knowledge (a spiritual witness as described in Moroni 10:4) and actual facts (whether or not your car hit another car). When those things are equated as the same, it puts many people in an awkward position.
On top of that, when people express doubts, they are often told that they are being worthy enough. What does worthy mean? Does it mean I don’t drink diet coke?
I believe it’s really an impossible bind, a double standard for many people. It becomes open for personal interpretation. If you start comparing the answers for the temple recommend to the standards in a court of law, that really opens up a can of worms that many people would prefer not to open. Like examining many parts of the mormon faith/truth claims with that same standard. I don’t think many people are willing/interested in pursuing that line of inquiry.
I’d modify Paul in 1 Corinthians and say:
The leaders are often witch-hunters [taking the “judge in Israel” thing to the extreme], looking for someone to judge as unfaithful, apostate, etc.
The only valid reason, in their minds, for “contrary” points-of-view or “unapproved” behavior is worthiness issues.
Although the scriptural law is innocent until proven guilty, when leaders see dissension, they take a guilty until proven innocent stance. This has been my experience.
Which is why I’ve taken Alma’s admonition to “trust no one…” to be my marching orders and usually keep my mouth shut.
One can proof text anything from the scriptures…… just sayin’
No, you’re not “just sayin'” — because you didn’t say anything. I don’t know if you are referring to my admitted re-wording of 1 Cor., or if you are referring to Alma’s admonition to:
Or if you are even referring to me…
But I’ve seen that most implicitly trust the leadership, not living Alma’s admonition to “trust no one” unless you know beyond a reasonable doubt that they are men of God.
When a person trusts another person, they will often say more than is expedient to say and can quickly get into trouble.
I’ve been protected by a revelation I received some years ago that the word of the day for me is, “Shhh” — or that it is always best to be silent, to say nothing, to answer no questions to church leadership.
To just let my,
But there I go proof-texting again I guess — lol.
One thing the system creates is an inability to decide for oneself if they’re “ok”. For some they have to get the bishop to review what they believe or do to feel sure they’re on the right side of the law. It’s a bit like the branch president I clerk for who was complaining about YSAs that seemed to have to keep confessing to the same thing over and over.
mormonism teaches that if you are having doubts either you are sinning, or you are deceived. so if i tell another lds person i have doubts they just try and figure out what sins im doing, or tell me how i have been deceived. its not very productive, and i choose to avoid unproductive conversations.
There’s lots of lying at church. Home teaching stats and missionary experiences probably constitute the majority.
I believe in being honest, but I also believe in being careful in how I express that honesty – and that applies to ALL my intereactions, not just (or even primarily) my religious/church ones. I believe in creative honesty – and I don’t think that’s a paradox in any way. (I also believe in being flat-out, unambiguously, blatantly dishonest in some rare instances, like the protection cases mentioned above. If I was hiding a Jew and a Nazi asked me if I knew where any Jews were hiding, I have no problem whatsoever lying to protect someone else in that type of situation.)
If my wife asks if a dress makes her look fat, and if the dress does, in fact, make her look fat, I’ll answer her honestly and say, “Yes, it does.” I’ve been married for 25 years next week, so I have the social capital to answer that question honestly. If, however, she says, “How do I look in this dress,” I’m NOT going to say, “Fat!” I’m going to say, “It’s not very flattering” – or something ambiguous like that. If she says, “Do you like this dress,” I’m going to say, “Not really. It does’t bring out your best qualities very well” – or something similar.
In the temple recommend interview, I can be totally honest in answering the questions the way they are asked – with a “Yes” or “No” – or, in two cases, “Not always, but I try hard.” As GB said, my more extensive answers might be different than the Bishop’s or Stake President’s – but I don’t care, because the questions don’t ask about that type of difference. They only ask if I believe, do, accept, etc. – with no deeper digging required unless I open the door and give the interviewer the shovel. I have no desire to do that, since I am totally sincere in my simple “Yes” and “No” answers.
“Will anyone argue that the truth is not useful?”
A certain Boyd K. Packer talk comes to mind.
While on the subject of Boyd K. Packer, honesty, and leadership interviews, I supposes a relevant question is whether honesty is only a policy reserved for our interactions with Church leaders. I know this has been hashed out in other forums, but we sort of have this leap of faith admonition where we are taught that “a testimony is often found in the bearing of it”. Jeffery R. Holland, in the PBS interview with Helen Whitney was asked whether it was okay to doubt, or not believe in the Book of Mormon as a literal history. His response was:
“There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church — firmly, in their mind, in this church — and the church isn’t going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn’t going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: “Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve.” At that point, we’re going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. … “Patient” maybe is a better word than “tolerant.” We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can’t go….”
I see this statement from Elder Holland quite troubling in the context of this post. How do we discriminate honest expressions of belief from “advocacy”. It would seem that Elder Holland is saying, “look, you can discuss it with Church leaders, or you can remain silent, but you may not discuss it with your neighbor”. In which case, I find that the Church is not always really interested in endearing honesty. So, why is it that the entire responsibility for honesty, integrity, etc, rests squarely on the shoulders of those who don’t believe, when the culture seems to foster this kind of “privacy”?
Jeff:
Your argument on moral imperatives being derived from religion is quite ironic, given this post was based on a book from Sam Harris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Cowboy:
Thank you for the link to Sam Harris (& TED.com). I agree with Harris__ Man can have moral thoughts outside of the supernatural. The “natural Man” is capable of morality as much as he is capable of love.
Great post, as always Hawk, I really like this quote:
“To speak truthfully is to accurately represent one’s beliefs. But candor offers no assurance that one’s beliefs about the world are true”
It seems then that lying, according to this quote, is not actually about the truth per say. But, it is about the level of accuracy, or the fidelity, of what we say with what one really beliefs. We can say what we think is the truth, but it might be not true. I tend to think that lying is more about honesty then it is about truth. Yet, we tend to associate truth with lying.
In terms of TR questions they do not ask you to explain your answer (although in my experience some bishops may probe) to the questions, nor do they clearly define what is meant by the questions. Ie. It asks ‘Do you believe in God?’ It does not say ‘Do you believe in a being who once lived on an earth, became a God, gained multiple celestial wives, lives next to a planet called Kolob, had sex with Mary, and ordered people to sacrifice goats thousands of years ago?’ (as some people may understand the word God to mean) This ambiguity about what is meant by the question means that I think that there is a huge latitude in regards to what we personally believe when we answer the questions. It does not require us to answer ‘yes, insofar as you define God in the following way…’
For all those who state that doubters are told that they are sinners or that they are less worthy, where are you getting that data from? From personal experience? Do you have any other source of data (anecdote is not data) that would back up your conclusions?
There seems to be an awful lot of declarations of what leaders in the church do with doubters, but I haven’t really seen any hard data on that. This is especially relevant because my experience has been the opposite.
Hard data? You have to be joking, right?
I have seen people treated poorly because of doubts, and I have seen people who have doubts treated wonderfully. That’s why anecdotes are all we have, really, when discussing issues like this. It’s also why you and others can disagree about something like this and both be telling the truth – and both be right.
That’s a good illustration of one of the points of this post.
Justin,
Gees, buddy, lighten up a bit. I was just referring to the fact you only used the “Trust no one” part and not the “Except he be a man of God.” that tends to modify it to a more positive approach then “trust no one….”
But what I said is still true…. 🙂
A statement [from Harris] like:
seems to put the burden on the person doing the speaking/answering — whereas, I didn’t hear anything about the burden placed on the person doing the receiving/asking to create an intimate environment of emotional safety for the person to be honest/frank/etc.
I had said previously that in a scenario of a husband and wife — in which every time the wife brings up a certain issue she has with her husband — he gets all defensive, belittles her, yells, etc. — and nothing ever changes.
When he asks, “Honey, what’s wrong?”
If you’re married, you know her answer is, “Nothing.”
Now — it’s not nothing, it’s definitely something. Why does the wife in this scenario say “nothing”? Either:
(A) She’s a liar who doesn’t care about getting the marital issue resolved.
(B) B/c of her experience with her husband, she knows that bringing the issue up will only result in a fight and nothing will be resolved.
Is the marital problems between them her fault because she’s “lying” by saying nothing’s wrong when something is in fact wrong?
Or are they his fault because he’s failed to provide an environment where his wife is comfortable talking about her issues in emotional-safety?
And dpc — I’d be more interested in hearing reports from people who’ve told leaders about this-or-that doubt, telling what happened [those non-data anecdotes you mentioned], than in some cold-hard numbers.
“…I still maintain that atheists fool themselves by not recognizing that moral imperatives are derived from the great religions of the world and not out of thin air.”
I am tempted to reply to ‘not out of thin air’ with “You mean where religion came from.”, but I am better than that……
I hear often that morality came from religion. I understand that religion has certainly done its part to perpetuate morality but what proof is there that it originated with religion? I have looked for books/articles that cover this but have not come up with any.
Ray:
I’ve been inactive from the bloggernacle for a few years and having come back, I see a lot of things I don’t like. Part of that is people making blanket statements without facts to back it up. Or at least, without an analysis of the facts to back it up.
If people are making blanket statements about what church leaders do and don’t do, I would like to see those kinds of statements backed up by empirically verifiable information. If the only dog I had ever seen had three legs, would I be justified in saying all dogs have three legs. If I saw only two dogs and one had three legs and one had four legs, can I say that 50% of all dogs only have three legs?
If someone is a doubter or questioner and feels they have to lie, is that reasonable? Why do they feel that way? Who do they feel they can bring their doubts to? To a friend? To a family member? To a spiritual advisor? To a bishop or stake president? If not, why? Why is there a barrier there? Because they’ve done it before and it turned out bad? Or is it because they know someone for whom it turned out bad? Or is it because they don’t know what kind of reaction they will get and they are afraid to find out?
Jeff —
The scriptural directive is to “trust no one”. That’s the assumed state of things, or the null hypothesis.
That means that unless I can know with a reasonable level of confidence that a leader:
I have to assume I can’t trust him.
D&C 121 backs Alma’s admonition up as well — because “it is the nature and disposition of almost all men,” to be ecclesiastical abusers. It is more likely that I cannot trust men in leadership positions than it is that I can trust them.
Now, I’m guessing that you take the opposite approach — implicitly trusting leadership by virtue of the priesthood and their calling, rubber-stamping their actions by always voting in their favor, being open to any inquiry without jurisdiction, etc.
Or — did I also proof-text D&C 121?
Cowboy,
“Your argument on moral imperatives being derived from religion is quite ironic, given this post was based on a book from Sam Harris”
How so?
Justin,
“Or — did I also proof-text D&C 121?”
Actually, you did. It is the essence of the definition of the term. To bounce around to link together a set of passages that makes your point, but might be totally unrelated to the context of the original passages.
It is a great sport we all do.
“Now, I’m guessing that you take the opposite approach — implicitly trusting leadership by virtue of the priesthood and their calling, rubber-stamping their actions by always voting in their favor, being open to any inquiry without jurisdiction, etc.”
And that would be a WAG on your part and a poor assumption.
So Jeff, what are you suggesting is the proper context for:
I notice you said, “but might be totally unrelated…”
Does a selection of scriptures only have to have the possibility of being unrelated to a particular context?
Can anyone just shout, “Context!” without having to explain how the words don’t mean what a person said they mean?
dpc, so in this post about truthfulness and lying, you focus on whom a person can tell about their doubts? If they really exist (people who are worthy, have expressed doubts but are not penalized for them)?
Maybe it doesn’t happen. Maybe I could express doubts that men are only in leadership roles and in the proclamation of the family without having to surrender my temple recommend. I think it does happen, both bishops who listen to those doubts without taking away the recommend, and those who do. I’m certain we could find examples of both types, here, in former mo circles, in a ward.
Why is it anathema to talk about doubts to anyone but one’s bishop? Are you speaking ill of the priesthood? There is a strong social stigma against it. In some churches, people can get up and talk about their search for God, meaning, the literal truth of the bible and no one bats an eyelash.
A good signal to people who doubt would be to 1-not excommunicate people who write and publish anything about lds church history that isn’t approved. 2- they start promoting people who talk openly about doubts with other members and outside the membership. Both would not necessarily make the lds church look good, and might make proseltyzing more difficult. In the end, what’s most important for the church? What’s the goal? Having members who are open and honest in all their dealings?
Jeff:
Well the link should have been obvious, but to spell it out for you, it is because Sam Harris is the current champion and trend setter for arguing:
1) Secular reasoning/Science does provide insight into determining morals and moral behavior
2) Secular reasoning/Science are in fact superior to religion in their ability to influence and direct moral thought and behavior
and lastly:
3) Religion isn’t really all that moral in the first place. Religion has a very bad track record for morality.
Traditionally even many atheists have accepted that science is and ought to be a neutral voice in social morality. Sam Harris is kind of a popular and contemporary pioneer kicking back at that element of the status quo.
Fine post, H-grrrl. I don’t think much of Harris (based on reading his first book). Honesty or truthfulness is not a simple concept because there are so many other competing virtues or values that must be balanced. Life is complicated and so are real-life ethical scenarios. Usually those who get on their soapbox about honesty are just as selective about what they disclose, edit, or omit as the rest of us.
That said, there are issues lurking in LDS practice that are problematic. As you note, there seem to be organizational features that act as disincentives to honest communication. But it is a mistake to take personal virtues or values like honesty or kindness or patience and apply them directly to organizational actions or behavior. Organizations aren’t people. Different rules often apply to organizations.
DPC:
I love data based solutions, thorough root-cause analysis, etc. Still, while yes “hard data” would be nice, soft-data is better than no data when the collection of hard-data is not possible. Who has the time and interest for these studies.
Furthermore, I might ask, when you attend fast and testimony meeting do you express a similar amount of disdain for the soft data that is used to express religious certainty? When Church leaders claim the authority to act as Judge’s in Israel, do you demand hard data verifying that claim? Do you have hard data verifying the claim that the Book of Mormon is both a true history and Another Testament of Jesus Christ?
Or, do you only appeal to the authority of “hard data” when it serves as a suitable defense? Your arguments for thorough investigation in reporting history are much better than this.
The greatest argument against Mormonism is that none of it can be backed up by anything more than sporadic anecdotes. The entire culture of faith is built this way. I have had a hypothetical research project in the back of my mind for years now, randomly selecting a group of people who are completely unfamiliar with Mormonism. Having this group participate in the discussion then reading and praying about the Book of Mormon, and comparing this group to a group of Mormon raised control group, to test the significance for those who will then claim to recieve a witness versus those who don’t.
It would be a worthy study, but probably the only kind of thing that could be undertaken by a University team, because who else would have the time. That falls into abou the same category as your lame request for hard data on doubters experiences with Church leaders.
“If people are making blanket statements about what church leaders do and don’t do”
I haven’t seen anyone here doing that. (Justin’s comments are the closest, but he says very clearly that those comments and conclusions are based on his own experiences.)
That’s my point. In cases like this, there is NO “hard data” – since even “hard data” would be subjective, as it only can be based on anecdotal experiences (which, themselves are subjective, since multiple people involved in the exact same situation can and often do see that situation in very, very different ways).
That’s all I’m saying: You’re asking for the impossible in asking for “hard data” and not accepting anecdotes. This issue is squarely in the arena of anecdote only.
Justin,
“Can anyone just shout, “Context!” without having to explain how the words don’t mean what a person said they mean?”
They could. But since you are using a juxtaposition of Alma to D&C 121:39, you are creating the impression and you even said, that really you shouldn’t trust anyone ina leadership position because chances are, they will exercise unrighteous dominion.
However a full reading of passages tells me that “all men” is the entire population of men and that the “few” spoken of in the next verse are those holding the Priesthood. And the text goes on to describe how men holding the Priesthood should conduct themselves.
It does not equate to “not trusting leadership” as your reading of ALma is meant to suggest.
Unrighteous dominion is transgression of the law, not a character trait.
Cowboy,
I listen to about half of that you tube and i found it convenient that Harris uses examples as strawmen and then tears them down.
For example, saying with an absolute certainty that some states retain corporal punishment, which, as he describes as beating, for religious reason is a falsehood even on face value. And then, making the statement ” We all argee that its wrong…..
We all agree what is wrong? Corporal punishment or beating children?
Nice try, Sam
This discussion seems to be wandering off, but I just wanted to relate my personal thoughts if I can.
I do believe in being honest, but I also believe in maintaining good relationships with my family, children and friends. My concern is that if I were completely honest with my local leadership about my views on the church then it would jeopardize those relationships.
I don’t see the benefit of proclaiming my personal doubts (which are significant) about whether the current church is “true,” so I go through the motions and act like a TBM when the reality is every different. But I am still deeply conflicted about this. Am I being dishonest when I teach Gospel Doctrine or participate in ordinances and services? Am I living a lie? Probably. But in my mind my relationships matter more to me than my integrity (in this issue, but not others). Its a choice I can make and have made. I and I don’t think I’m the only one.
Jeff,
I was going to write an exposition of the statement by Alma and D&C 121:39 — but in light of what Porter noted:
I decided to delete it — and instead just ask you if,
Does this interpretation of yours come by way of the spirit of prophecy and revelation, or is this your own idea?
Cause, then I think comment #19 was the last thing I said that related to the post — and I woudn’t want it to get any more off topic.
Knowing how borderline hypocritical this is, given what I often say about threadjacks, I’ll continue this one: 😀
I think “nearly all men” means “nearly all men”
– and I think it’s instructive that it comes at the end of the section where Joseph finally loses it and begs God to wipe out the enemies of the early saints. I think “WE have learned by SAD experience” relates to realize that even he [as part of nearly all men and someone who held great authority], was succeptible to the exercising of unrighteous dominion.
That entire section, when read as one message, is perhaps the most poignant, powerful, instructive passages in all of our recorded canon – and I think taking “nearly all men” to mean anything other than “nearly all men” dilutes and weakens it in disheartening ways.
Justin,
“Does this interpretation of yours come by way of the spirit of prophecy and revelation, or is this your own idea?”
I always hope that the thoughts of my mind and feelings of my heart are given to me by the Holy Ghost. But I am not declaring doctrine to you, if that is what you mean.
But, back to the topic. I enjoyed the exchange!
Ray,
“I think “nearly all men” means “nearly all men”
While I don’t disagree with you, I do take an exception (a friendly one) that those who have been converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ have an opportunity to lose and minimize that nature.
I think President Benson said it like this:
“The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature” (Witness and a Warning, Page 64)
So, while we are all sinner and come short ofthe glory of God, I do not think it correct to assume that “all men” includes those who are truly converted. To me they are the “few.”
I’m shocked at the blase attitude people have towards someone asking for information before weighing in on an issue. Maybe we could elevate the discussion from one of pure speculation to one with real-world practical application. Everyone says that no hard data exists because no one has bothered to look for it. If smart, educated people such as the readers of this blog don’t demand more information, more facts and more data, who will? I thought the bloggernacle was the self-selected intellectual vanguard of the Mormon church.
The whole point of this post is whether one is lying (or being dishonest or lacking integrity) when concealing doubts from a bishop.
Statements like this in the original post:
The inherent problem is that the BP is the ‘judge in israel’, not a spiritual counselor. When you have a major sin to confess . . . [the bishop] lays out the punishment path so that you have adequately ‘repented’ of those sins. . . [The system] does not allow for ‘advice’ without consequence. So, in the scenario, you go to the BP or any other priesthood leader with an honest interest in sorting out disaffection or doubt. Sitting on his side of the table, he has to interpret what you’re saying as ‘confession’ because you need to repent of something. The obvious major sin that involves ‘doubt’ is ‘apostasy’. So the only tools he has to offer are the means to punish your apostasy and prevent you from contaminating his ward or branch.”
count as a blanket statement. He’s talking about the system. (e.g. “The system does not allow for advice without consequence”) About how a discussion with your bishop is supposed to go if doubts are raised. He doesn’t qualify it as something that he’s experienced or something that happened to a friend of a friend. Is this a true scenario? I don’t think that it is. Does it happen? Possibly; I would want a statement from several bishops that this is how they perceived the process to be.
There’s all kinds of hard data to be had. To be analyzed. To be discussed. Just because it’s hard to get, doesn’t mean it’s not relevant or useful. You can’t knock BKP for saying that the truth is not always useful and then say that the truth is tough to get, so let’s just deal with the low-hanging fruit.
I think that the whole basis for not wanting to share doubts is fear of the unknown. We don’t know exactly what will happen. We’ve heard of people getting their recommends pulled. But we’ve also heard of people being dealt with kindness and understanding. Honesty is based on trust. Harris says that honesty builds trust and dishonesty leads to distrust. But what if you don’t trust that person to begin with? Can you be honest with them? Is it wrong to withhold information until that trusting relationship is built? I submit that it is not.
I used to lie all the time to protect myself, but now I’ve worked far too hard on changing myself to make a lie worth the cost. Lying is a VERY rare thing for me now.
In order for me to lie to you, you have to have done something to lose all of my respect by punishing me repeatedly for being honest and open, and the lie has to be something that benefits you and not me.
Even then, I lie as little as required. I generally prefer to remove people who require lying from my life.
But I can see why people lie. I have lost several relationships because I am unwilling to lie to the other person. And that hurts.
I think it’s really interesting to have a discussion on W&T’s about honesty/lying at this time…considering I’ve written at Irresistible (Dis)Grace on whether or not honesty is overrated.
To me, it seems that having too high of a valuation of honesty and truth may be naive. To counter your ideas that lying is a refusal to cooperate with others, I’m beginning to think that lying is all about cooperating with others. One’s choice to disclose different things about him or herself, omit information or change information, it’s about managing impressions with another person. It’s an intensely social activity — one usually doesn’t try to lie to himself, but to others. As a result, a person who lies doesn’t lie for her sake along, but for her sake with respect to another person’s sake. People who value honesty too highly miss out on the social nature of dishonesty, and so they stick out of the crowd, are disharmonious, etc.,
At this point, I am not really comfortable with some of the methods that people (e.g., the stayLDS method, some of Dan’s answers for a recent Mormon Matters podcast on integrity) advocate for getting through temple recommend interviews. I am not really comfortable with Ray’s “creative honesty.” But I’m willing to suspect that maybe my sense of morality is just on overdrive, is out of whack, and I need to figure out how to lighten up in order to get along with others better. I am willing to consider that I missed the point of religion to be practice at playing the social games of life.
I will say as an aside that I really am lovin’ Justin’s comments.
IMO, one can have ‘doubts’ or unresolved questions and STILL qualify for a recommend. If you’re keeping the Gospel, including paying a full tithe, you’re not doing it for ‘squirts and giggles’. The issue is largely self-correcting. The job of actually validating a TR rests at the stake level (SP himself when other than a renewal), but procedure allows for the TR interview with the Bishop (since he’s already a High Priest he has ability to deal with the Temple), so he can function as a gatekeeper and work with the member, and presumably should be well acquainted. It’s in that setting that a detailed discussion should happen. IMO, the answers to the SP should be short, sweet, and to the point. I’d also say if you didn’t feel that you needed to discuss it with the bishop, don’t volunteer it to the SP either.
Still, you might be surprised at what you get asked sometimes. A good lady friend had experiences with lesbianism prior to her baptism and still describes herself as bisexual. Her bishop had no problem signing her TR when she became eligible since she’d refrained from immorality or anything that could be construed as such. The SP inquired thoroughly about her prior ‘lifestyle’, and when she let it slip that she still felt attracted to women, wouldn’t sign the TR. He insisted that she attend a support group for members dealing with homosexuality and try again in six months. She was disappointed but did as directed. I advised her before she went again to just tell the SP what he wanted to hear if she was confident that she could keep her temple covenants. Else, she was to stonewall him and volunteer nothing. Lying? I don’t think so. I call it working around someone whose expectations were unrealistic. She got her recommend.
dpc has requested empirical data that people are treated poorly who express doubts. The various ‘nacle blogs and sites like StayLDS are full of stories of people whose temple recommends were denied when they shared doubts in answering the “belief” questions. But those are just stories. Are they accurate? Were there other factors? Certainly no one is stating that all bishops behave the same way. It is this unpredictability combined with their role as “judge in Israel” that builds a low-trust scenario. However, many members naively and perhaps ineffectively share their doubts or misjudge the role of leaders in helping them overcome doubt.
DPC:
The problem is not that anybody has a “blase” attitude towards empiraclly blased arguments, it’s that I wonder if you really understand what it takes to get the kind of data you are asking for. Even if such a study were performed, there are so many variables at play that it would be very easy to dispute the validity of such a survey.
“You can’t knock BKP for saying that the truth is not always useful and then say that the truth is tough to get, so let’s just deal with the low-hanging fruit.”
First of all, yes you can. Boyd K. Packer’s intent was to “protect” a persons faith, whereas I was simply pointing out that your request is cost prohibitive. Not that the data wouldn’t be useful, but that my energies are better spent elsewhere.
Here what is wrong with your argument. You criticize Hawkgrrrl for making a “blanket statement” unsupported by rigorous research, and then finally close your argument with a generic assertion of your own:
“I think that the whole basis for not wanting to share doubts is fear of the unknown. We don’t know exactly what will happen. We’ve heard of people getting their recommends pulled. But we’ve also heard of people being dealt with kindness and understanding.”
What is funny to me though, is that I actually agree with your observation. I think Hawkgrrrl makes some great points, and highlights why a threat may at least be percieved, but I think your observation is more in line with the aggregate experiences. So, here we are. We haven’t quit jobs and invested in trivial research, but we have reached some consensus. If the issue were more important, perhaps this would be inadequate – but its not, so I am of the opinion that this was a better way to go.
There is no way to gather hard data on this issue that is not open to question and disbelief. That’s not “blase”; that’s realism.
Look, I’m a data guy. I want data before making decisions. I want to analyze something before reaching a conclusion. In this case, however, analyzing this issue and acquiring “hard data” is nigh unto impossible – so I go with the innumerable anecdotes that say, while MOST LDS Church leaders won’t over-react to sincere “confession” of doubt (and I really hate that word in that situation, but it’s how it’s seen), there are plenty who will.
I know too many people I trust as much as I can who have had bad experiences to believe otherwise.
#44: Cowboy:
“Boyd K. Packer’s intent was to “protect” a persons faith”. That’s a poor reason for not telling the truth. But that’s the way of the Church and most of it’s members. They value faith over truth.
#46 – B***S***
That’s all.
The best person to express your doubts to is God. I’d love to meet one person that has not ever had doubts about their faith, religion, or God. OK, maybe a 5 year old, but seriously….we will all come to a place when doubt creeps in about something related to our beliefs at some point in our lives. Do we need to tell people about our doubts in order to be considered truthful or authentic? I say no. Many of our thoughts and feelings should never be expressed to people, God is our most reliable source to express things to which vex others. If I am worthy and want to go to the temple, yet have a doubt about something related to Joseph Smith, I will not share that with my bishop because the value of going to the temple outweighs my doubt. Some things just aren’t worth bringing up to bishops, they do have a family and a life and would much rather be home with them then listen to your doubts anyway. God is always available to hear our prayers and if our doubt remains after praying for it to disappear, we can at least know that God knows where we stand, that we are trying and that he loves us and appreciates our honesty with Him.
Jen brings up another point I wanted to make. Our advocate (aka “lawyer” or “representative”) is Christ. Our bishop is a “judge” in Israel. Interesting that people cut out the middle man (in this case Jesus) and instead represent themselves to the judge. As they say, a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. I think we should ask ourselves if we believe more in Christ or the arm of flesh (the bishop). If the former, take your doubts directly to him. If the latter, seek human help.
#49 – Hawk, though your advice of in effect using the “attorney-client privilege” seems right, it’s ignoring a few things:
1) The Savior is ultimately our Judge, though he’s reserved holding the ‘final verdict’ until later. This brings about where the fleshly part of the Church’s jurisprudence, namely the bishop and Stake President, comes in:
2) A “judge” in Israel was also seen as a counsellor, more than merely the one that proclaimed guilt or innocence and in case of the former decreed the sentence. We fear going to a bishop at times because of the possibility of Church discipline, and unfortunately some bishops approach virtually every matter in a hard-assed fashion, like dealing with a difficult employee. I experienced something like this on my mission, wherein the MP told me that he’d fire me if I worked in one of his companies for my insubordinate attitude. To which I retorted, I wouldn’t choose to work for a prick like him (yes, literally, and the APs with their ears pressed to the door though they’d be filling out an airline ticket shortly…). The only thing that MP and I could agree on was that we didn’t like each other but we’d have to put aside our differences and work it out. I have no doubt that particular MP was dedicated and loved the Lord, but his tyrannical managerial style, while probably best for his construction business, put myself and many other missionaries off. Of course, we ‘sensitive types’ also learned that the Lord can still use a hard-ass, and if HE wanted that type working for Him, then we had to suck it up…
Hopefully one’s bishop can either render effective counsel or point someone to the specialists (when their skills are needed), and reserve the heavy hand of a disciplinary council for those that are just begging for it.
I heartily agree with you and Jen that we can always take our doubts and other issues directly to the Master. Seems to me that’s why the Church in the first place…
A lot of time is spent on defining faith, truth, and belief, but not much on what a ‘doubt’ is. Mormonism begins with doubt. It’s Joseph Smith with questions, not answers. He was wanting truth, not faith. My understanding, in obtaining a TR, members are asked what they have belief or faith in, not what they know is truth(?)
Ray feels (#47)(?), that Mormonism is based on truth, not faith. I feel that doubt is an unwelcome challenge to faith. Truth welcomes that doubt’s challenge.
I think that the only problem with:
and
is that I think most people would like there to be an actual person they can sit down with and talk back-and-forth to/with.
They want to feel like other human-beings they associate with hear them and [perhaps] can counsel with them — or at least just get what they’re saying.
Saying that doubters can “just talk to God” is still basically telling them to keep their doubts to their self — when I think people are really asking for a community in which they can be heard by the other human-beings there too.
Justin is still on a roll here.
I suppose what I am saying is that some bishops are very good at the administrative side – only. Some are great with people. They aren’t always chosen because they are wise counselors.
Yeah — if only the LDS church had some form of supernatural ability to be able to discern which people would be better served by being placed in certain church positions and which wouldn’t.
And then [perhaps as some sort of fail-safe] have some sort of mechanism whereby once leaders have extended a calling based on this supernatural ability — rank-and-file could then vote on whether they consent to that person holding that position in the church or not.
And regardless of the bishop needing to balance admin. duties with spiritual advisory duties — I think it still comes down to the kind of environment leaders provide.
I think most people with doubts/disaffection/etc. feel towards their church leaders the way a wife feels towards her husband [a la what I described in #19] when he doesn’t provide an open atmosphere for her to come to him with problems she’s having with him.
While I think the church is better served by members who have issues staying in the church and being open and vocal about their issues — I can’t say I would expect them to do so, or that I would fault them for keeping mum — given the environment at church as it relates to dissenting opinions or issues/doubts with things.
#55 Justin:
I think this comment would be even better with the word “supernal” in place of “supernatural”. That seems to be the word du jour.
Great comments, BTW.
Justin,
“Saying that doubters can “just talk to God” is still basically telling them to keep their doubts to their self — when I think people are really asking for a community in which they can be heard by the other human-beings there too.”
I get your point and agree that people do like to be heard and understood by another human being. I don’t agree that “just talking to God” is basically telling people to keep doubts to themselves though. I think many of us have had experiences where we take our doubts or anger or whatever feelings we have to God and have noticed a difference in how we feel after “just taking it to God”. So, I definitely agree that talking to someone face to face is important and necessary, but my comment was more in relation to whether or not we should express doubts to a human and risk losing a valued TR or just take them to God and continue in faith that things will work out. Maybe it just comes down to what type of bishop a person has and whether or not he will be understanding of doubters.
Jesus asked Peter why he doubted, but he also extended his hand to him in the process. He didn’t put his foot on his head and push him under water for his unbelief. Some bishops seem to take that approach and think that belief will magically appear by taking privileges. It just doesn’t work that way.
I once knew a teenager who refused to serve the sacrament because he did not believe in his parent’s LDS religion at marked personal social and familial cost. I find that deeply honorable.
I would not lie to my bishop. I might not tell him everything, but I would be honest about that.
There are two reasons I would not lie to my bishop. First, he is not important enough to lie to in some respects, such as certain aspects of my personal discipleship. Secondly, he is too important in his function as a judge in Israel for me to disrespect that, even if I didn’t believe he was truly a judge in Israel, and even if I didn’t believe in the authenticity of the divinity of the Church.
Much like the guy who would not serve the sacrament when he didn’t believe in it, I respect other people’s sacred beliefs too much to lie to take advantage of them for my own personal comfort or convenience.
#59
“Much like the guy who would not serve the sacrament when he didn’t believe in it, I respect other people’s sacred beliefs too much to lie to take advantage of them for my own personal comfort or convenience.”
Not everyone is in a place where they feel safe expressing doubt to a man they may barely know. Just because a man is a bishop doesn’t mean we should tell him very personal things. Sometimes doubting can be a very painful thing and to choose to work through that process with the Lord and not share it with a bishop does not automatically make that person a liar. We are part of a religion that makes a big deal about honesty, yet sometimes when we choose to be completely honest, we can be punished for it.
I feel completely fine going to the Lord and saying “Lord, there is something I am really struggling with and I don’t like feeling doubt. I want my doubt to be removed and replaced with faith, but I’m not sure how to do this. I know that you can help me through this process, and I am not comfortable enough to talk to the bishop about it at this time. Please help me.” That’s honesty, that’s the truth and just because I don’t tell the bishop at that time doesn’t mean I am taking advantage of him because I am trying to be comfortable. As you can see, the discomfort already exists within me and I want it to go away.
Ultimately, I will face the Lord and he will know the true intents of my heart and fairly judge me. A bishop cannot always do that because he judges us by our words many times and not by our intents and true desires. Everything isn’t black and white, there are many gray areas and just because you choose to express things to a bishop doesn’t mean others who don’t are liars.
Justin said:
“given the environment at church as it relates to dissenting opinions or issues/doubts with things.”
What is your basis for making statements like this? Where are you getting your information on what the environment at church is vis a vis those with doubts? Is it possible to at least get some kind of justification for making a blanket remark on what “the environment” at church is like?
You are also conflating doubt and dissent. Dissenting opinions are substantially different than having doubts. A person who believes that the Mormon church is a man-made organization with no divine revelation is obviously going to have a chilly reception from those who believe it is a divinely-inspired, divinely-led institution. And it would be exactly the same chilly reception a die-hard believer would have if that person were to attend a gathering of atheists and voice his/her ‘dissenting’ opinion.
A person who is merely “unsure” is not likely to get that kind of chilly reaction. Doubt can lead to dissent, but it’s not an ineluctable path to it.
How many people here have been approached by someone with doubts? I have. And my first instinct was not to testify to them or make them feel inferior and wonder if the bishop ought to know so he could start disciplinary proceedings against someone who had so clearly started on the sure path to apostaty. Can any one reasonably claim that they would do that? Unfortunately, the path for someone with doubt (i.e. EVERYONE) is something that has to be navigated alone. There are no easy answers. There are no golden bullets. Others can give support or suggestions, but ultimately it comes down to each and every one of us on an individual level to reach our own conclusions based on our own intellect, experience and intuition.
Question:
“What is your basis for making statements like this? Where are you getting your information on what the environment at church is vis a vis those with doubts?”
Answer:
“ultimately it comes down to each and every one of us on an individual level to reach our own conclusions based on our own intellect, experience and intuition.”
Here’s my experience:
Younger brother entrusted local leadership with everything in his heart and mind. Wound up being called to a Utah mission after a stint in some LDS clinic for overly-honest teenagers.
Older brother (me) knew better than to treat local priesthood like honest brokers and wound up overseas on a fast-track to mission glory.
Conclusion: He’s still living the consequences of his honesty and I’m still regretting that I never pulled him aside for some real talk about how the world operates.
Doubts should be celebrated. They are a path from not understanding to knowledge. Faith does not lead to knowledge if it stops you from searching for it by thinking you already have it.
Too cute, Cowboy, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. My question asks about the basis for making a universal statement that should be supported by empirical facts. The answer is my opinion on the ethical question of the best way to deal with doubt.
Compare
Question: How many people attended the football game on Sunday?
Answer: Ultimately it comes down to each and every one of us on an individual level to reach our own conclusions based on our own intellect, experience and intuition.
with
Question: Should I have more children?
Answer: Ultimately it comes down to each and every one of us on an individual level to reach our own conclusions based on our own intellect, experience and intuition.
True – but I think you are misunderstanding the comments being made. I don’t think people are trying to make absolute statements about how the “Church is”, without variation. Rather, I think they know they are making broad generalizations about how they percieve the Church to be, and how they weigh their expectations about how Church leaders will react. This is a common way of communicating.
I did take some liberties with your comments because you are starting to sound like a broken record. I work quantitatively with data all day long, on a broad range of subjects. I mean it when I say that I agree, data driven systems, methodologies, solutions, outperform intuitive judgement all day long. I believe it as religiously as some people believe Mormonism. Still, we are all required to interact in a multi-dimensional world where we need to form opinions and develop expectations on a broad range of issues very quickly, but we don’t have the time, energy, or resources, to devote the kind of rigor necessary to be totally objective. The best way to handle this is to prioritize those things that deserve rigorous analysis, ahead of those things that are less important.
So, for example. Let’s say a person has doubts. How should they handle things with their Bishop. In your argument, they need to collect a random sample of some number of Bishops. Then they need to develop some kind of survey, test, or observation, and a manner in which to collect and analyze the results. Next they need to make inferences about the findings to try and get a good prediction on how to weigh the probabilities of a Bishop responding either favorably or unfavorably. Lastly they need to submit their findings for peer review.
Or….
They could just use their “intellect, experience, intuition” to sort of take the temperature and make their best guess. Yes, the first solution would probably yield greater results, but nobody is going to do that. Still, even though we haven’t gone through a detailed analysis, part of how we “test” the validity of our expectations is to throw them around in a conversation like this to see if others share our view. It’s not exactly science, but it works well enough.
Wow, Hawkgrrrl is on a roll with the awesome posts! At the outset, let me say that I agree pretty strongly with both Ray and Andrew. I absolutely think lying is appropriate at times. I also think honesty is overrated as Andrew is suggesting.
Having said all that, this is something I struggle with regularly. I feel that I should be able to attend the temple. I absolutely do not “know” that most parts of the Gospel are true. In fact, I would dare say for certain I don’t know that ANY of them are true. As GBSmith alluded to, I like to frame my testimony in terms of hope. That’s the best I can do.
But for me, I don’t think some issues are really being addressed here. Hawk’s post is about beliefs. What about actions? For example, can one claim they keep the WoW if they occasionally have a cup of tea? Can one claim they’re a full tithe payer if they only pay what they feel is appropriate (but clearly not 10% of one’s income) or perhaps pay 10% to a charity? I dunno. I’m comfortable with people getting temple recommends even if they don’t believe everything. But I’m not sure about the actions part. I mean sure, I don’t think drinking a cup of tea is a big deal at all. But that’s not really the question. The question is, “do you keep the WoW?” I feel like that’s pretty straightforward if we apply the interpretation that has been set as the standard. OTOH, I also don’t think for a second that someone should not go to the temple if they drink tea. So I’m caught between what I really think is the right answer, and what the church thinks is the right answer.
And this is why I would make a spectacularly bad bishop (well I guess this depends on one’s perspective). I imagine I would let most people go to the temple because to go to the temple is to receive the highest blessings, and who am I to deny them those blessings? Someone would need to virtually answer “no” for every question for me to deny them a TR.
“Doubts should be celebrated. They are a path from not understanding to knowledge. Faith does not lead to knowledge if it stops you from searching for it by thinking you already have it.”
I agree, and I’ve said that exact same thing multiple times in multiple ways on my own blog and around teh Bloggernacle.
If I misread the meaning of your first comment, Bob, I apologize.
re 67
jmb,
I think the issue is that there is spillover on the question of beliefs and question of actions with respect to treating questions of the temple recommend interview. It gets to what you said last that I quoted: “I’m caught between what I really think is the right answer, and what the church thinks is the right answer.”
See, I’ve seen over and over people arguing that the temple recommend interview is for YOU to evaluate YOURSELF. So, you answer the questions with what YOU think, not what anyone else — the bishop, the church, etc., — thinks. So, for belief, it’s how *you* interpret it. Same thing for actions.
I’ll use one example. If you are caught between what you think and what your bishop thinks, who do you go by? Suppose you know that your bishop thinks Pepsi is against the word of wisdom (but you don’t). Do you tell him “yes, I keep the WoW” when he asks, aware that he may interpret that to mean you don’t drink caffeinated soda? Or does what he gets out of it even matter?
So, that’s just an example. The underlying principle is that people bring a lot of baggage to these questions that really doesn’t have to be there. Even action questions like the Word of Wisdom that seem to be clear actually have baggage to them.
So, you say tea is definitely against the WoW. But, aren’t we also advised to eat meat sparingly. Barley-based mild drinks is good for the food of man…so, is beer ok or not ok? Our awareness of “hot drinks” to mean coffee and tea (whether hot or iced), or of “wine or strong drink” to mean *all* alcoholic beverages…one could argue that these are “baggage” points that do not universally define the WoW.
I mean, I’m with you…I think there are some common understandings of these things in our time (that may not align with the bare words on the pages of the D&C, or the common understanding 100 years ago or whenever). So for me, I’m not comfortable with these things…but neither am I comfortable with squirming around the belief questions. But it seems to me that others are comfortable.
I think we are talking about two different things. 1. Doubts 2. TR interviews.
I don’t think a TR interview is the time/place to express doubt. Is the temple a place you want be in? Do you feel worthy to be there? Then go answer those yes/no questions and get your recommend. The questions are vague on purpose. If you have doubts that make you unsure if you are worthy to be in the temple or if you even want to go the the temple, those doubts need to be dealt with before the interview.
If you have doubts, your bishop may or may not be the person to help you with that. I happen to have a saint for a bishop and I would trust him with anything. I’ve definitely had bishops that I wouldn’t feel safe sharing doubts with in the past, though. If that is the case and we need an actual person to talk to about our doubts, we should look to family, friends, or even professional counselors to whom we can trust and work on our doubts there (and with God, too).
In terms of lying about having faith when you have none to protect yourself, I think it gets tricky. There are lots of people who pretend to have faith for fear that their spouse will leave them and take the kids or they will have negative consequences at work, etc. Just check out the NOM board and you will see story after story about that. I get that, and I think God would understand, but I think that kind of deception/lying comes with a huge personal price.
Re Andrew-
If I may prod you further:
Indeed. But is there no line? If so, when does one cross it? One could use this reasoning ad infinitum!
Okay, this is interesting. Now don’t get me wrong, I agree with you here, and I’ve argued this too. But I’ve also argued, and remain somewhat convinced that at some level this crosses a line, and that’s the line I’m interested in. I mean let’s be clear here, my bishop’s opinion of caffeinated colas is irrelevant as far as official church policy goes. The church doesn’t draw clear lines in very many places, but some parts of the WoW are pretty clear I’d say. No tea. No coffee. Those are crystal clear in official church publications (not just opinions of leaders). Now we might debate what “tea” is, or what “coffee” is and I agree there is some discussion worth having there, but a survey of adults would likely indicate a particular interpretation of coffee. If we take that to be ground truth, we could probably gauge our obedience to this rule. How can one drink coffee, and report with integrity that one doesn’t just because one doesn’t agree with the rule? Like I said, at some point this crosses a line.
So wait, I’m confused now. What do you mean by this? You seemed to have just argued against this?
I have a few more thoughts after reading the post at BCC. I’d like to post there but I’m regularly ignored, so I’ll post them here.
The real question here is about worthiness as an incentive. The BCC post indicates this incentive’s downside is that we avoid real repentance in favor of social grace. I agree. But clearly there is also the intended incentive – that we are discouraged from making what many would agree are foolish mistakes in the first place. And my argument to the BCC post would be that it appears to me that worthiness is successful in Mormonism at largely preventing troublesome behavior. Perhaps it is precisely this – the large social consequence that we pay – that prevents much of the behavior. If that’s the case, do we really want to remove it?
The BCC post ends with this:
I absolutely 100% agree. And if I were in charge, this would be my only TR interview question. But I won’t deny that the way it is does appear to have some merit, especially for shaping the lives of impressionable youth, though it clearly has a high cost as well.
Andrew,
Your point about the distinction between what YOU think and what the Bishop thinks is being asked is a bit irrelevant. This is the case with every bit of language that we say. Everything we say involves us guessing what is really being meant by what is said and is full of baggage. I can’t think of many statements that aren’t loaded with our beliefs about the world.
If we are to take the TR as being a case of being about us, then it does not matter how the bishop understands the question, nor does it matter how he interprets what we answer. As long as I feel I am answering honestly insofar as I understand the questions to mean (not what others might understand them to be) then its not lying.
Jmb,
In terms of the word of wisdom (I also worry about this as it tends to open a whole can of worms and thread-jacking) but the TR question does not ask do you drink tea and cofee, but simply ‘do you keep the word of wisdom?’ So if I drank coffee, tea and drank, I could still say that I keep it and I wouldn’t be lying, insofar as I keep it as a piece of advice, and don’t interpret it as being a prescription and definitive rule about what I should eat and drink. Outside of the TR interview I would agree that the church is very clear about what they think it means to keep the word of wisdom, but inside the interview it is very different it does not have that clarity of meaning nor should it IMO. This ambiguity makes it easy to avoid lying.
I think this is the crucial point it is easy to take what is said outside of the bishops office by the church and impose that upon the meaning of the questions. Yes, many do thing it means the same. But the realm of the public discourse and private interview are two distinct spheres.
The TR does not ask us what we understand the word of wisdom to be, its the same as the God question. It doesn’t define what kind of God we have to believe in, and it doesn’t say what we have to do to be keeping the word of wisdom.
I am having a hard time with statements of people who say they are willing to lie __and then do( and to themselves ). But then blame it on someone else. “My family would run away”. “The Church’s TR interveiw doesn’t ask questions in a way I need to be truthful”. “The Bishop can’t be trusted”.”People would wrongfully judge me if I told the truth”. Etc.
re 71:
jmb,
The line is within someone’s conscience.
How can one drink coffee and report with integrity that one doesn’t just because they don’t agree with the rule?
The issue is, they aren’t saying, “I don’t drink coffee and tea.” They are saying, “Yes” to a question, “Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?” They are saying “yes” not simply because they don’t agree with the rule, but because they don’t agree that’s what the rule is. If you think that’s what the rule is, then you’re not going to have integrity answer yes if you drink coffee/tea. But here’s the deal: it’s between you and God, not between you and the Bishop, you and the church as an institution.
I think this was lost in my last comment (69) . I’m presenting a case that I’ve seen over and over (e.g., the Mormon Matters podcast on authenticity from recently…check out the comments, like this one…check out “How to stay in the church after a crisis to your faith”. Check StayLDS threads. I am pointing out what a wide range of people have thought of.)
So, when I present it, I may not personally agree with the extent with which some people take it. But that’s part of their system (if they are right that the interview is more of a guided self-evaluation more than anything) — if you’re ok with x, go as far as x. If not, only go as far as y.
One thing that has been a common thread of a lot of conversations is this theme of dropping baggage. Don’t let yourself fail to get where you want to go just because of baggage, people tell me all the time. Some of that baggage is what you think terms mean, what people have told you terms mean, your own sense of morality, etc., etc., In order to be whole, you have to be able to move past that. Or something like that.
I’ve hemmed and hawed a lot, but Jake really summarizes the position I’m trying to talk about in comment 73. if the TR is about us, then it doesn’t matter how the Bishop (or the church as an institution or…) interprets what we say. The TR questions are kept open enough, so why not assume it’s because the church wants the blessings of the temple to be available more broadly, not less so?
Great discussion. Great post, HG.
First of all, regarding hard data…I’d like to see the hard data that proves people on the ‘naccle are blase about demanding hard data. Otherwise, its not worth discussing the rest of dpc’s points on requiring hard data. You have to admit, dpc, all the claims your making about what bothers you from others on these boards is exactly what you are doing on this board.
But in relation to the OP, I was mostly thinking that my decisions on handling myself is not so centered on honesty for the sake of honesty, but more around my experiences in life and how honesty fits into who I want to become. It makes no sense to lie to get into the temple, as if I can lie my way to heaven. God knows my heart, he knows what I’m going through. I can’t escape the consequences of my actions or beliefs/doubts, so I benefit nothing by lying to keep a TR, or going to the other extreme of being simplistically honest in a complex situation that I am struggling to make sense of myself. I have some doubts, I don’t HAVE to broadcast them, and I can’t hide them if asked about them. Other things I don’t doubt…so I’m good in most respects.
Therefore, my interactions with family and priesthood leaders are driven by what I think leads to my best outcome long-term, which typically is to try to strengthen relationships while also allowing a buffer of discretion to cover the uncertainties of communication fallout. Then the chips will fall where they may, and I deal with it best I can. I have faith God knows my intent. For everyone else, it is a process to understand each other, one that requires discernment.
Just my opinion, I have no data other than experience to share.
To go back to one of Sam Harris’s points, when you misrepresent yourself to someone else, even to protect yourself or others, you are creating more distance in the relationship with the person you deceive (maybe that’s too strong a word). You have the opportunity to create intimacy, but instead you reject the relationship.
Not every relationship is worth having, but you have to be honest with yourself about what you are doing and why. You may not have the skill to handle a heavy-handed bishop or to express yourself rationally and to represent yourself accurately. You may be too emotional. You may have hidden fears. I think there is one level of power in owning up to that. There is another level of power in learning how to accurately represent yourself. Sometimes people are just not there yet.
#77 – Hawk, in principle, couldn’t agree more. However, I can think of no requirement to spill one’s gut in excruciating detail when doing a TR interview. I’d say if there’s really a big problem, just work it on its own and if it’s better that you not attend the temple for awhile, so be it. Otherwise, I would keep the answers to the TR questions short, preferably yes or no and that’s it. As long as you’re being truthful and can go into the Lord’s house with a good conscience.
Perhaps the way I’d approach TR intervies if I’m on the other side of the desk is that I’m looking for reasons to sign that bugger, not reasons to deny it. Some bishops, though, IMO, act as if their tending goal like Arturs Irbe and the candidate is charging with a shot on goal. In that scenario, they’d actually think they’ve done the Lord service if they get a “shutout”! And I would want lying hypocrites shut out of the Lord’s house if they’re in dire need of repentance. But criminy, in many cases what the candidate has done or failed to do just isn’t that serious! We can be our own worst critics and judges.
I can testify that in my own experience I did once have an indiscretion that I was hoping to get past on my own (since it involved someone that worked for one of my contractors, if it’d leaked out at the time it could have impacted my job). I had let my recommend lapse and was going to sit it out for a while and just see if I could maintain my resolve to straighten up and fly right. But before I felt that I had enough time where I was comfortable with it, I was put into a situation where I had to lay it on the line with my then bishop, and lying about it wasn’t even considered. Now, asking to keep the situation under wraps was reasonable, but I got more than I asked for…even after full disclosure, I got the TR, which I didn’t expect.
“I can think of no requirement to spill one’s gut in excruciating detail when doing a TR interview.” Nor can I, except a case of verbal diarrhea.
To lie or not to lie? That is the question, but it doesn’t really matter what we say in the interview either way. Because If I am lying then the Bishop using the gift of discernment (that I have been told all Bishops have) should have alarm bells ringing in his head that say ‘Do not give this liar a temple reccommend.’ So I guess I can say whatever I feel like saying and if I am lying then he’ll know.
#80 – not guaren-dammed-teed. The Lord expects you to be truthful, and won’t necessarily override your free agency. Do Bishops have a BS detector? I’ll say they do, but if it were always on and perfect, no one could ever lie their way into the temple.
Jen #60—“Not everyone is in a place where they feel safe expressing doubt to a man they may barely know. “
Nothing that I said required that. As I stated, if I wasn’t comfortable telling the bishop something, I would tell him that. Honesty isn’t the same thing as full disclosure. Honesty is being up front when there is something you are not disclosing.
Again, I strongly believe that respect for others beliefs is important, and I would never violate the sacredness of their beliefs for my own personal convenience. I wouldn’t con my way into any religious ceremony, or any ceremony at all, for that matter. If I had doubts, I would refrain from participation until those doubts were resolved one way or the other. I don’t perceive that as respectful or honorable.
And by “that,” I mean mocking another’s beliefs because doing otherwise is inconvenient or uncomfortable.
And I believe that sometimes a bishops “BS meter” might be going off, but he signs off on the recommend anyways. If you lie to the bishop, you will have to account for that to God. He is God’s representative, and anything that happens in there is between you and God, not really you and the bishop. It’s not the bishop’s trangression if you choose to deceive.
re 80:
Jake,
Earlier, I liked to a comment from Katie L on the recent Mormon Matters podcast on Integrity…here’s another snippet. Just anecodtal, but still, it shows how at least some people think:
So, on the one hand, while some people say it’s the onus of the Bishop/etc., to use discernment to rout out dishonesty/lying, other people believe that it’s part of the system not to do that, even if the Bishop suspects lying, precisely because it really is all about an individual and his own conscience.
EDIT: Basically, Silver Rain’s last paragraph of her last comment covers this.
Is it OK for “iffy” Mormon parents to lie to get a TR to attend their child’s Temple marriage? Neither my wife’s or mine did. They picked honesty over self. I am more proud of that than if they had deceived to get in.
A friend of mine who was a bishop said he did feel (and had been instructed) that he could withold a TR based on instinct / the spirit. He wasn’t my bishop, so I honestly don’t know if he ever did that, but it was his view.
“It’s not the bishop’s trangression if you choose to deceive.” I agree with that statement whole-heartedly. But the bishop who is intimidating or domineering may in fact have his own separate transgression going on. That’s not an excuse for our own, IMO. Each person has to be accountable for his/her own actions. So I advocate being honest with yourself about whatever you are doing and accepting responsibility for that.
@cowboy
Ok, now I think we’re starting to get on the same page here. You said:
“Rather, I think they know they are making broad generalizations about how they percieve the Church to be, and how they weigh their expectations about how Church leaders will react. This is a common way of communicating.”
I believe this statement to be accurate and I agree with you. My concern, however, is what if those generalizations are wrong? By what means could we change a wrong idea? I submit that only real data can do that. I’m not demanding hard data as some kind of esoteric exercise. Rather, I worry that our discussions may be meaningless (or worse, misleading to readers) if we allow false ideas to float around. And the problem with the blanket statements I see here is that I don’t have any means to validate them as being accurate. Those statements seem contrary to my experiences. Perhaps my experiences are the exception and not the rule; I simply don’t know. And I can’t say we don’t have *any* data on this issue, we just don’t have enough of the right kind we need to analyze the issue properly. If there is conflicting data, I submit that you need more in order to evaluate and resolve the conflict. The issue of this post is how should you respond to TR questions and there is a lot of angst as to how an expression of doubt would be viewed. I suggest that the viewpoint of the interviewer rather than the interviewee may give a better perspectives on how a doubt would be received. As interviewees, we can only surmise what may happen. And that speculation could be way off base. I would like to know what would really happen. Can you fault me for that?
Re Andrew
Perhaps I don’t understand enough of the context of this discussion. Perhaps I’m trying to draw too many generalities. Perhaps we haven’t really defined the parameters.
(BTW, I sort of gathered you were arguing for a point you’ve heard over and over, and that you just don’t agree with it, I just wanted to make sure)
But if you really don’t agree with it, why are you not agreeing with me? I mean I already understand what their point is, shoot I’ve argued it myself, and use it in some measure as justification for my own TR. But I continually second guess myself and ask “am I really being honest here?”
I’m not following this line of reasoning at all. The WoW is a term invented by the institution. It has roots in D&C 89. There is no “if you think that’s what the rule is.” The rule is what it is, and that’s my point. Jake’s argument is moot in my view because the question being asked is completely worthless without a definition of the term ” The Word of Wisdom.” This is clearly not the case for words like “testimony,” “restoration,” “God,” “atonement” where those words carry colloquial meaning beyond the context of Mormonism. But specific Mormon-isms like WoW and tithing (though perhaps that is debatable) are clearly defined.
What you’re trying to argue is that one’s view of the WoW, or tithing, need not coincide with what the church says, even though it is the one defining the terms, and entering into the TR contract with you. Shoot, most of us on this thread will probably agree that God couldn’t likely care less whether or not we drink green tea. But The TR interview has little to nothing to do with my relationship with God, it is a contract between me and the institution. I mean read the fine print on the recommend if you don’t believe it! It says, at the bottom (referring to the TR itself) “It remains the property of the Church, is not transferable, and must be surrendered on demand.” One is not elaborating on their spiritual relationship with God in a TR interview, they’re declaring allegiance to the institution and I think that is obvious in several of the questions (“do you agree with any groups whose teachings contradict that of the church” for example). I admit that might not be the ultimate spiritual purpose, but I think it is the reality nevertheless.
The reason the waters are muddy (surely you wouldn’t argue this in a business like contract) is because in reality we do realize there’s a separation between the spiritual and physical, so we look for the spiritual principle behind the rules. What concerns me is the very few clear cut rules that I don’t feel leave much room for interpretation.
re 90
jmb,
Let me summarize the argument I’ve been presenting:
So, the way that I disagree with this statement is that I’m not sure the TR recommend interview is just about an individual and God. If it’s about more than that, then I should be taking into social (LDS) conventions about what terms mean, what expectations the questions have behind them, etc., (This is a point you later bring up.)
But there’s another sense to agree with the basic premise of the quoted position above, yet disagree with application. Suppose someone agrees that it’s between and individual and God, so whatever’s ok with your conscience is ok for the interview. But then, you have to evaluate whether certain answers are ok for your conscience. Anyone who thinks that the answers are dishonest, duplicitous, deceptive, whatever, is already begging the question that the answers are not ok. And this is the point to which I am also not comfortable with many of the answers. But the issue is: whether an answer is dishonest or deceptive is not a decided question. For many people, they do not think in the slightest they are being dishonest/deceptive when they answer yes to the various questions in the TR interview.
Addressing your post in depth,
D&C never says “tea” or “coffee.” We have to interpret what a “hot drink” is — and that is invented and reinvented by the institution (e.g., the arbitrariness of a hot drink: hot drinks include iced tea, dis-include hot chocolate.) The rule does not exist in a void, and you ALWAYS have to consider whether or not the rule’s interpretation colloquially or institution is what it’s meant to be divinely.
So, basically, you’re saying you simply disagree that the TR interview is between you and God. What all these other people are saying is that they think it is between a person and God. It’s not between you and an institution. The Bishop only acts as a proxy for God. The church as as an instrument for God. Without God, the church, Bishop, leaders, etc., are all moot.
So, to the extent that most of us on this thread will probably agree that God couldn’t likely care less about whether or not we drink green tea should impact how we answer the questions (supposing we do drink green tea). Because it’s ABOUT God.
The moment you start saying the TR interview has little or nothing to do with your relationship with God, you might as well say the church, the temple, etc., as an institution is not worth your time.
why are you going to the temple? If it’s just to commune with the institution, what is the point? If you don’t think it has anything to do with your relationship with God, what is the point?
SilverRain
“I wouldn’t con my way into any religious ceremony, or any ceremony at all, for that matter. If I had doubts, I would refrain from participation until those doubts were resolved one way or the other.”
I agree there are definitely people who blatantly lie to go to the temple, and I think the term “con” applies to them. But, a person who has had a testimony of Joseph Smith, then finds out more information about him and is struggling with it…that’s not a person who should stay out of the temple because they don’t know what to think anymore. I think we are talking about two different types of people. I know the type of people who lie because they want to go to their friend’s wedding or don’t want their family to think badly of them, that’s not what I am talking about. I’m talking about those who doubt and don’t really want to.
You mentioned that people shouldn’t mock someone’s sacred beliefs, but what about the feelings that arise when a person finds out their church hasn’t been open and honest with them about the prophet of the restoration? Truly, each of us has to be accountable to God for what we do and say to others and that includes the leaders of the church. It is easy to feel as members that we are being mocked because we are only given some information in the church. Every member has a right to feel doubt when they learn new information that hasn’t been taught in church about the prophet Joseph Smith or other subjects. Maybe a person doesn’t express it to a bishop because they feel the pressure of what the leaders teach, “if it isn’t faith promoting, don’t say it”. So, to say that one is mocking sacred beliefs, to me, just depends on if that is what they are truly doing or if they are just experiencing the many different feelings that come when they find out the church hasn’t been honest with them. Doubt is not a sin, nor is it something that we have to express to our bishop if we are trying to work through it. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I think honestly is not the only quality that we need to be concerned with. Kindness and compassion come to mind. To me those are more important that blatant honesty. My husband believes in honesty at almost any cost. He says things to people that I find rude and inconsiderate just to be honest. His relationships with others suffer because of it.
I also do not feel emotionally equipped for total honesty. If I were totally honest with my bishop right now about my doubts it would be emotionally crippling for me to be called on those doubts and called an apostate by even the most well meaning bishop. I am not emotionally able to handle the fallout if I were disfellowshipped. It is not worth the risk to me. I think God understands my trepidation.
Some things have been said about the WOW for example and if we are answering honestly. I think that is your own personal understanding of the WOW. We can answer honestly if we are living it the way we interpret it. But what of the question (I don’t remember the exact wording because it has been several years since I held a temple recommend) if we believe President Monson to be prophet of God? Either we do or we don’t in my view.
June,
It actually says nothing about believing him to be a prophet of God in the TR questions. It actually asks ‘do you sustain him as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?’
It mentions nothing about actually believing it. Seeing as ‘Prophet, Seer and Revelator’ is simply a title given to him by the church as part of his role as President you can sustain him in that without actually literally believing he is God’s one and only spokesperson on the earth. Obviously, this is counter-intuitive to what most people would understand by sustaining him, as why would you sustain him if he didn’t believe God put him there. But again the question allows for a broad scope of interpretation.
SilverRain,
One more thing, people also may choose not to express doubt to a bishop about certain things because the bishop may have no idea what the answer is and the person already knows that.
I remember questioning my bishop about Nephi killing Laban. I wondered why the Lord didn’t just have Laban die from alcohol poisoning and Nephi could have found him dead already. He was so drunk he had passed out, why didn’t the Lord just finish him off then and there? Nephi not only killed a defenseless man, but he stole his clothing after killing him and then lied to Laban’s servant to get the plates. He then basically “encouraged” Laban’s servant to come with him in the wilderness. If it was the Lord that wanted this accomplished, He could have taken care of Laban on His own without expecting Nephi to end his life. If someone were to use this defense today: “Well, God told me to do this so I get these plates, because they’re REALLY important and the guy I offed was a MAJOR loser anyway, God even said so!”, it wouldn’t go over well. But, because it is written in a sacred book, we sing songs about it in primary and consider Nephi a hero. There are even cool posters we of Nephi and he is HUNKY. Could it be possible that this confuses kids and adults just a little bit? Nephi could kill and steal and lie, but we aren’t ever supposed to and this was an exception and exceptions NEVER happen anymore!! Just sing the song kids, and DON’T think about it.
My bishop’s response to my questioning was that it was related to war and killing in war is sometimes necessary. That was how Nephi beheading a defenseless man was explained to me. So, why share doubt about things like that with a bishop when REALLY he has no idea why anyway? I think it is always good to question God when you want answers. He knows everything, the bishop doesn’t. Don’t lie to the bishop and say you don’t drink if you do, that’s obvious. But don’t assume you are unworthy if you doubt some things that don’t make sense, especially if they are related to God’s laws and how they have been contradicted.
Jen, I would agree to disagree if we WERE disagreeing, but we’re not. -l-
#87 hawkgrll, I agree completely. But I’m not really in the business of evaluating other’s sin so much as my own. And since I’ll never be a bishop . . . .
DPC:
Ouch! We are starting to agree. You said:
“And the problem with the blanket statements I see here is that I don’t have any means to validate them as being accurate. Those statements seem contrary to my experiences. Perhaps my experiences are the exception and not the rule; I simply don’t know. And I can’t say we don’t have *any* data on this issue, we just don’t have enough of the right kind we need to analyze the issue properly. If there is conflicting data, I submit that you need more in order to evaluate and resolve the conflict.”
I agree entirely with this statement, however I would add that your experiences that seem to conflict with the “blanket” statements are good enough to challenge the absolute validity of the said blanket statements. You aptly point to the real problems with obtaining “data”, not that it doesn’t exist, but that collecting and managing it propery would be too arduous.
This is my whole point – what we are really talking about here is “measurement theory”. Measurement is all about reducing uncertainty, which is exactly what I liked about your comment #38. The best way to get a sense of how accurate our assesments are is to perform a rigorous study, but as has been stated, it’s not feasible. Still, we would like to calibrate our expectations by closing the gap of uncertainty more than it is on our own. While it isn’t scientific necessarilly, these conversations allow us pool experiences, albeit from a possibly biased population. This makes your objections all the more relevant when you say:
“Those statements seem contrary to my experiences.”
Explaining those experiences will at least provide one more dimension of consideration, and in and of themselves serve to weaken the absoluteness of the prevailing opinion. Still, even the acknowledgement that this group is probably biased ought to give anybody pause as to how much stock they place in the groups dominant attitude. I would further submit that this should be particularly true of anybody who is capable of digesting “hard data” properly. In the right hands “hard data” is highly invaluable. In the wrong hands its just “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
Jen – Grant Hardy offers a better explanation of the Laban killing in his book “Understanding the Book of Mormon.” Nephi as author is justifying his actions which resulted in his family’s permanent exile from Jerusalem, rightly upsetting them all. His father Lehi doesn’t even sanction his actions, which Nephi certainly would have mentioned if he did. Essentially, it was Nephi’s action that resulted in his elder brothers’ permanent loss of inheritance and status. The family was only in temporary hiding until that point.
Hawk,
I’ll have to read that book. I’ve always wondered what Lehi thought about it and why nothing was ever said in the BOM. Thanks for the reference.
And Comment 100!
I always thought the whole “honesty” thing was based on being honest with yourself and God. Where does the Bishop come in?
Methinks that even the BoM had some “plain and precious” things taken out of it with respect to WHY Laban was offed. Keep in mind that Nephi was reluctant to kill him while he was drunk and helpless. He’d have probably had no issue with challenging Laban to open combat (e.g., a duel) since the former was seeking to kill he and his brothers, and had stolen their family fortune. I would wonder if Lehi had been acknowledged as a prophet. If so, then Laban’s actions could reasonably be construed as open rebellion against the Lord’s anointed, wherein the death penalty was appropriate. It’s also the nature of combat…at times you have to do things which ordinarily you’d consider heinous.
Door Gunner: (Manically firing his M60) “Get some! Hah Hah! Get Some! Everyone that moves is a VC (Viet Cong)! Everyone that stands still is a well-disciplined VC!” (Fires off another burst).
Sgt. Joker: “How can you shoot at women and children?”
Door Gunner: “Easy! Ya just don’t lead ’em so much! Ain’t war hell?”