Thinking about the following made me understand why I react the way I do to people who insist that any simplification of a narrative is a lie. In addition, because I do not have visual memories the way many people do, and am an abstract rather than a concrete thinker, I don’t deal in details the same way.
The following is my perspective.
I realized recently that by the standards of some people who insist that all simplification is a lie that I am a gross fraud and liar.
After all, I have said many times that my wife and I buried three children in a five year span. By the standards of many critics of the church, that is a lie. It was really four and a half years. Well, to be precise, that isn’t even true. It was from January 26, 1993 to August 31, 1997. Which isn’t completely accurate. It was late at night on the 26th, early in the morning on the 31st.
Which isn’t even accurate, since the funerals followed the deaths and I don’t really have strong memories of when the funerals were by date. Except by the time Robin died, we didn’t have a funeral, we just had a grave-side service, we couldn’t take a funeral.
And though I’ve been asked to write on the topic (of grief and loss), I’ve not included all the details. Like what it felt to attempt CPR on someone too dead for it to have any effect. Or the autopsy they did on Robin that was so botched a police officer launched a desecration of a human corpse investigation.
=============================
I obviously disagree that all simplification is a lie. Sometimes we simplify because the details are not ones that add to the discussion. Sometimes because the message is enough from the simplification. Sometimes because the details are enough.
=============================
And when we get to memory, memory is about lessons learned, rather than facts, and for most people it is a matter of labels rather than pictures (all the more for me since I lack visual memory for the most part).
Memory is about lessons learned, not facts. Many times it is about emotional lessons learned.
So it isn’t so much a riddle as to what memory is, as it is that memory just isn’t what we think it is and it has some rules it follows that people either have never learned or they have forgotten. That leads many to false conclusions. With that in mind, I am going to repeat some things that accepted science says about memory.
- Every time you use a memory, it changes.
- It turns out your memory is a lot like the telephone game, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study. Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time.
- The Northwestern study is the first to show this. “A memory is not simply an image produced by time traveling back to the original event — it can be an image that is somewhat distorted because of the prior times you remembered it,” said Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of the paper on the study recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience. “Your memory of an event can grow less precise even to the point of being totally false with each retrieval.”
- Memories are edited every time we share them.
- One implication of Schiller’s work is that memory isn’t like a file in our brain but more like a story that is edited every time we tell it. To each re-telling there are attached emotional details.
- So when the story is altered feelings are also reshaped. Schiller says, “My conclusion is that memory is what you are now. Not in pictures, not in recordings. Your memory is who you are now.” So if we tell our stories differently, the emotions that are elicited will also differ. An altered story is also an altered interior life.
- Memories are physical as well as mental.
A simplified memory may be more accurate, especially if it is a label used to avoid recalling and editing the detailed memory in order to preserve that memory unaltered.- Am I lying if I round off to the nearest year rather than focus on narrower measures?
- Does it make a difference if I am a concrete rather than an abstract thinker? How do we bridge the gap between people who find such things — utter concreteness — very important and people who don’t even have such details in their minds?
- When is simplification a lie and when is it the real truth?
- Is simplicity true elegance or is simplification just falseness? Do you side with da Vinci or with his critics? Why?
I’d appreciate our reader’s perspectives.
Wheat & Tares 
People and the church are lying whenever they attempt to deceive. It is their motive rather than their method that creates a lie.
I think I’d agree that intent matters.
I should note that I’m also affected by dealing with non-neurologically typical kids. So many are hyper literal.
“When will the meeting start?”
“In a couple minutes.”
If it starts in ninety seconds or in 130 seconds you will get some who want to jump up and interrupt with “you lied, it isn’t 120 second you started at xxx.”
One example: So-called “faithful history” is nearly always a lie. It may derive from very good intent and the teller may be leaving out (simplifying) certain facts in order for it to be more “faith-promoting.” But, it isn’t the truth and often is told in a way that obscures the “truth.”
I prefer to decide for myself by having all the facts possible. The examples given, while they might be personally very meaningful, are more “straining at gnats” than simplifications meant to obscure truth.
Useful analogies, to me, are terrain maps, or economic models. Both are simplifications used to allow us to see things at a higher level of abstraction. This is incredibly useful, and there’s nothing inherently dishonest in it (though it is possible to hide dishonesty by dressing it up as abstraction).
But I think it would be dishonest to tell people not to look at higher resolution maps, or to insist that the map is correct when it doesn’t agree with the terrain.
As applied to the church, I’m not sure that “simplification” really covers the discrepancy between the correlated narrative and the historical record. The first vision account from Joseph Smith History is not more simple than the 1832 version that he wrote himself. If anything, it’s more complicated.
Likewise for the BoM translation accounts. The story of the interpreters set in bows attached to a breastplate and handed down from ancient prophets is not simpler than the story of the treasure digging seer stone. But it is less embarrassing.
Simplification is necessary, and can be done honestly. There is some truth that is best forgotten. When a child asks a grandparent a question, the grandparent charitably leaves out some details in telling stories about the child’s parent. It is best this way.
Thank you for this post. I think we should all be charitable with each other’s memories, and less dogmatic about our own. It’s hard, because we can picture clearly what happened, when in reality we are recreating the events in our mind based on what happened, prior tellings, and our own life experiences since then.
I thought it was terrible the grief that Brian Williams got for claiming the helicopter he was in was fired on in Iraq. Everyone just assumed evil motive on his part, intentionally lying to boost his ego thinking he would get away with it. But he probably remembered his helicopter being hit, and was surprised to find out it didn’t happen. His mind conflated two experiences and mis-remembered a decade later. That’s the way memory works.
Is portraying polygamy as monogamy simplification or lying? I say it’s lying. It substitutes an apple for an orange rather than a somewhat inaccurate time estimate. The somewhat inaccurate time estimate lies on the same axis, it gets you close to the answer. Monogamy vs polygamy sends you in unreconcilable (different) directions. These two examples are quite different than each other and the difference is more than magnitude.
So is it lying to focus on the seer stone when it appears it was “translate with interpreters until plates and they were taken after the loss of the 118 pages then start up using the seer stone when the plates but not interpreters were returned”?
Fascinating post. I think I’m with Howard and fbisti on this. A lot of the question has to do with intent. So-called “faithful scholarship,” for example, isn’t scholarship at all. Scholarship involves sifting through all of the evidence available to prove or disprove an initially unsubstantiated hypothesis. It also involves having the intellectual courage to admit it when the facts don’t support one’s hypothesis. “Faithful” scholarship does no such thing. Its very label clearly demonstrates a bias and one can therefore deduce that its intent is to promote narratives and “scholarship” that support a Mormon view. It is therefore deceptive, meaning it is carried out by intellectual dishonesty.
I think there are appropriate situations where one might want to simplify things, as you mention near the end of your post, for considerations of time or other factors. That’s not the same thing, though, as simplifying with an intent to deceive. So yes, some simplifying is fine and some is not.
Sometimes, we, as Mormons, have a tendency to give deceptive simplifying a pass. We say stuff like “milk before meat,” etc. Fair enough: we’ve all been at a stage in our spiritual development where we needed milk and not meat. However, if all we’re ever given is milk, there might be some deception behind the simplifying. My .02.
Stephen it’s simple, the church needs to tell the story *without being deceptive*. Period.
As a attorney I’m sure you have a good idea idea of the difference between material and immaterial. To simplify leave out the immaterial and write it for a child’s level, that will suit all but the more concrete but then almost nothing suits them in a practical way.
#2 Stephen, Your comment made me laugh. I have a high-functioning autistic son. Hyper-literal is a good description.
Honestly, I think the crux of the problem is that different people care about different types of facts. And it depends in large part on individual experiences and personality. A lot of church members don’t care about church history. Period. So for those people, discrepancies in retelling of stories aren’t that big of a deal. My husband is brilliant in many ways, but his eyes glaze over when it comes to history.
A lot of people prefer taking the good from the past and leaving the bad behind. When I was recording my dad’s personal history, there was a period in his life that he refused to record details about. It was something that impacted my family (mom and siblings) for years, but he’d felt that it’d taken so much effort to repair the damage (to extended family) that it would ultimately be counterproductive for posterity. Some things are best left in the past, he argued. When I gave his life summary at his funeral, I glossed over that part according to his wishes. My brother got up afterwards and talked about those traumatic events in detail. For my brother, that period in my dad’s life had shaped my dad’s character and testimony. (Years before, my dad shared many details with that brother in some extenuating circumstances, and my brother felt people could better appreciate our dad and value his legacy by understanding that time in his life.)
That’s where we run into a problem – when you take the good and leave the bad, you are making a judgment call on what is good and what is bad. For my dad, all those events were horrible. For my brother, the good that came out of it was irreplaceable.
I know of several stories about ancestors who displayed a lot of spunk – many in defense of church leaders, but some against church leaders. When I shared one of the latter stories at a gathering (I thought it was such a cool story displaying the personality of this girl), several distant cousins shifted uncomfortably in their seats and suggested that we keep those types of stories under wraps. They pointed out that we value above all our heritage of faith, so family stories should work towards that end. For me, I saw a lot of good in the story in helping me better understand the personalities and struggles of past family members. For my cousins, there was no redeeming quality.
So when we say that not all truth is useful, someone, somewhere, is making a judgment call about what is useful. If another person disagrees with that judgment call, then there are problems.
So a lot of members aren’t interested in the truth? Honestly I think you have exposed the very essence of the problem Mary Ann. Truth is whatever Elder Oaks or Elder Bednar say it is, history be damned, let’s go shopping! One live prophet is easily worth ten or twelve dead ones!
Mary Ann — exactly.
It isn’t that they don’t care about the truth, it is that the details bore them. As long as the gist is ok, they see it as good enough and want to move on to what is meaningful to them.
Others disagree.
Brother Sky — you are conflating things. All history has a lens. It is all reconstruction.
Howard — so often the details aren’t as firm as people think. The anti-banking society for example. There was finally a good forensic audit done. It turns out the failure was due to embezzlement by people who wanted to speculate on land. You can see parts of that in the D&C where that is condemned. Joseph Smith was squeezed out in that matter (he was not a part of it).
Yet critics have attempted to portray massively different details.
I’ve been amazed at how much eye witness testimony varies and how wrong it often is.
You are right about that Howard. In church history we have so much that comes from second hand accounts scores of years after the events. Or private journal entries we know are wrong (people writing about sermons they heard when the document history reflects that they were not there).
Or logic that turns out to be wrong (Joseph Feilding Smith rejected the seer stone accounts because Joseph had the interpreters. He did not have the accounts to put together the current understanding that after the 118 pages that Joseph did not get them back).
It is really fascinating.
But I do think that black and white narratives bring one to a bad place.
And that is the trap it is too easy to fall into.
And Mary Ann — I loved your comments. They would make a good post by themselves.
I don’t think some hyper literal black and white thinkers realize just how they can me across. And that it is really too bad we don’t see the value in different perspectives. Your examples were powerful.
I got sucked down the rabbit hole dealing with someone. They would make black and white assertions. If I applied their logic to them, they were lying. I’d say “x” and they would say “y” “and I have an irrefutable source.” I’d track down the source. Sheesh.
The sources would be things like someone citing to Dan Vogel which I found by finding Vogel saying that was clearly not what Vogel had meant and clearly not what the source documents said.
I realized I needed to reject applying their tests to them or I was going to lose a dear friend.
Typo above “can me across” should be “came across”
My problem with applying this to church history is expectations. When I sit down to watch the Disney version of Pocahontas, I completely understand that I am seeing a caricature or simplification. When I open a church manual or listen to a GA, my understanding is that this is an accutate representation of what happened in history. So the life for me is not being open about the simplification.
The lie for me…
A good post Stephen and very interesting points about the nature of memory. Philosophers have argued about this sort of thing a lot. What is reality? Do we create reality through our perceptions and memories? Or is reality something that stands outside our subjective experience?
I believe there is an objective reality apart from our individual subjective perceptions and memories. But this reality is extremely complicated, so complicated that no one can grasp the whole of it. So our brains (and our cultures) take the chaos and simplify it. We create models of reality which help us make sense of the confusion. Our models are like snow globes, giving us a bird’s eye view of the nature of reality. No model can be a perfect representation of reality, but each model points us in the direction of some aspect of that reality, a bit like parables.
I’ve blogged about how someone with a snow globe of New York City might be criticised by nay sayers who say that the snow globe is nothing like the real New York, which is strewn with trash. But by focusing on the trash (and becoming upset because it is missing from the snow globe), we miss out on the truth of the snow globe, which is that New York is a place of beautiful, gleaming skyscrapers, a truth we might not be able to perceive while wandering on the trash strewn streets. Anti-Mormons find lots of details in church history which contradict things in our current correlated gospel snow globe. But by focusing on these contradictions, we miss out on the message of the gospel snow globe, simplified, yet still true: that God loves us and has a plan for us.
So I’m with da Vinci, simplicity is the only way to go, and it is pure hubris to suggest that a more complicated view might reveal the whole truth. The whole truth is unattainable. All understandings are necessarily simplifications.
Nicely said Nate.
RT — what I’m getting from you is that you feel that it needs to be said that the stories we tell are incomplete recreations intended to convey the narrative and that like all history they are incomplete.
Because it is too easy for people to conclude otherwise.
That is a good point.
So on balance it’s highly probable that Joseph was a monogamist after all and the hat and rock had nothing to do with the BoM process? Or those are just pesky details? No wait the church acknowledged the hat and rock, so which is it?
Denial brings such comfort to believers, it smooths out pesky questions like blacks can, blacks can’t, blacks can and in the face of this makes the prophet can’t lead us astray seem reasonable.
Snark is not necessarily comment. 😄
I want to emphasize the places in various comments where people have discussed how intent matters. So, IMO, lying involves conscious intention to deceive. Without that, one could be guilty of many things (being misinformed? Being ignorant? etc.,) but one could not be considered a liar.
When I bring this up, people have such a hard time really buying into that framework. It seems that within one worldview, any untruth is a lie — regardless of intent, motivation, or knowledge. A sincerely held (but nevertheless mistaken) belief is just the same as a story spun to trick people.
All that being said, I think with respect to the church, it’s not entirely unreasonable to take different views regarding the intentions of the various actors. Psychology is difficult if not impossible to tell, so the right answer will probably never be revealed, but I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for people to look at historical data and then conclude that something amiss was occurring.
And I don’t really think that just talking things out or showing more evidence will really sway people one way or another, because one’s explanatory hypothesis is the lens by which they make sense of the data. The people who believe Mormonism is divinely inspired and the people who believe Mormonism is a long con will always be able to take the dots of history and paint their own picture from them.
So, with something like Nate’s comment here:
I would say that it’s not even just about skyscrapers vs trash. Rather, even if one looks *just at the skyscrapers*, skyscrapers can represent to some “beauty” — a triumph of engineering, the symbol of our capitalist prosperity, and so on — but to others, skyscrapers are metonomous for corruption, exploitation, and so on. The skyscrapers remain in either narrative, but what is the “truth”? Well, that really depends on one’s interpretive framework.
You can’t really challenge people who see the skyscrapers as bad by just saying that they are all missing the proverbial forest for the trees — in the same way a believer simplifies the basic elements into a message that “God loves us and has a plan for us,” plenty of other people get the SAME elements but simplifies to a much different conclusion. To a lot of folks, the plan Mormonism’s God and gospel offer doesn’t look like love.
So rather than address the issues raised in my comment directly it’s easier to dismiss my comment by discounting it as snark. The point is it is difficult to rationally address the church’s contradictory positions without resorting to mental gymnastics or psychological defenses. Why is this if those positions represent truth?
Snow globes are fantasy. Have you ever encountered one being seriously passed off as truth?
Howard– to me it looks like either snark or a straw man comment. It is too stripped of content otherwise
Andrew– that was brilliant. Better than my post, really.
No, Howard, you brought up good points. Like RT said, we don’t mind simplification as long as it can still be seen as overall true to the events that happened. By portraying Joseph as loving and faithful husband to Emma in art and church materials, it feels deceptive because it comes across as monogamy when the church openly admits in other avenues that Joseph was a polygamist. When the church lumps Joseph’s polygamy in with the polygamy practiced openly by Mormons in the American West, it feels deceptive because it *wasn’t* like that polygamy. It was secret, going behind Emma’s back, marrying some women who were married to others, and publicly denied.
Can you make a good argument that Joseph was loving and devoted to Emma? Definitely, but it’s incorrect to send a message of a typical marriage/monogamy. It is accurate to say that Joseph practiced polygamy, but it’s incorrect to send a message that his polygamy was the same as others. In this case, intent doesn’t really matter for a member who feels lied to. “Carefully worded” statements, while technically true, can still send inaccurate messages.
Howard — I’ve touched on the seer stone and the interpreters. On how JFS believed what he concluded (and it has previously come up how he came to that belief) because of what he lacked and how as we get a more complete narrative we have a current consensus (which may be as wrong as earlier ones) about how the process was both, with a transition from one to another at the 118 pages point.
The LDS position was mistaken in part and is updated as understanding developed. The core of the narrative (that the transmission was by the gift and power of God) remains the same.
So I’m not sure what, with the details discussed in this thread, remains to be called mental gymnastics.
Stephen do you believe the church’s intention is never to deceive? Or occasional deception? Or for deception to only be used on the hard questions? Or only to deceive when it is in the best interests of it’s members? Under what conditions do you believe it is acceptable for the church to knowingly deceive?
I don’t think we should deceive.
We agree.
Do you think the church has deceived?
It seems God gave us bodies and minds with the limited capacity to communicate that always requires simplification. The test for our character is the intent others mentioned.
But when I simplify, I need to check the response of the receiver of my message from my memory and if they understood it wrong and I care about them, I clarify the message.
Communication isn’t a one time event and then it gets decided if it was a lie or not. It is a process until there is an understanding or a disinterest.
If you tell me the meeting starts in a couple minutes, and I need precision for good reason, I clarify about seconds. I don’t just jump up, and call you liar. And if I do, then you can give me more accurate info.
It goes both ways. The liar is deceiving amid the process of understanding. Not one event. Further questions are ignored or met with distorted answers. Or the person throwing out accusations of lies is the liar by not engaging in a process, but focused only on one statement.
When the church tells a simple story of translation with plates and documents later reveal the stone and hat, and people react emotionally at the feeling of distrust….the church should engage to provide more detail to a simplified story that led to wrong conclusions. If it does not, it is lying either by omission or commission.
I don’t think the church has done enough to expand the simplified stories exposed by the internet. It still has time to respond in the process if they don’t want large groups of people to call them liars and leave the discussion. Time is ticking on their responses. So far, there have only been obscure and veiled responses. They don’t need minutiae. They need only enough accurate detail to establish the truth, or they are deceiving.
At work, if my boss wants an answer and I provide sufficient summary, that is all he needs. If it fails to satisfy what he needs, then he will dig into painful detail until he is satisfied he can trust my response or dig into it himself.
It is a process. It involves trust and intentions and truth.
The church should know that and do what it needs to gain trust and clarify simple primary teachings.
Interesting post. I get the impression and others did do based on responses that it is mainly about church history. The problem is there was often a deliberate attempt by church leaders to hide, cover up and just plain deceive when it comes to church history. The examples are too numerous to post.
Do you think the church has deceived?
No, I do not think the Church has deceived. I think individual members, including those who prepare text and art for curriculum, do the best they can with good intent. I want to be charitable to them and appreciative of their work. As they learn from historians, the text and art changes slowly.
My grandmother chose to remember certain things in a certain way that worked best for her, and some of this came through in some of the stories she told her grandchildren. Later in life, I learned that her recollections did not always align perfectly with “history.” I still love her and call her honest — I don’t want to mock or be scornful.
Is it deceit to put guides in Brigham Young’s house who don’t know he practiced polygamy? It’s clearly bad judgment. Maybe it’s deceit by omission.
ji,
Who approves the text and art content? Is it the writer and the artist? Or someone higher?
What would the point be to corruption if it were simply the sum of all the individual writers and artists opinions?
Correlation
Heber wrote: “[The church] still has time to respond in the process if they don’t want large groups of people to call them liars and leave the discussion. Time is ticking on their responses. So far, there have only been obscure and veiled responses. They don’t need minutiae. They need only enough accurate detail to establish the truth, or they are deceiving.”
I feel the time ticking, too, but I think it’s ticking fastest for my YSA-aged children.
How many would think it fair to call the criticism liars since they tend to be incomplete as well?
Or does accusation go only one way?
Or is that down the rabbit hole to black and white absolute thinking?
Critics don’t claim to be representing the living word of God on earth today (even when they we wrong). When you make that kind of public claim you invite public critism. The fruits must support the claim.
Is the true word of God vulnerable to critics? Of course not! The church is no longer in an incubator fighting for fledgling life let it stand up to it’s critics and answer the criticisms rather than seeking to silence them. Is God concerned that they have a voice? I think not but Elder Oaks seems pretty concerned about it.
“How many would think it fair to call the criticism liars since they tend to be incomplete as well?”
I think this gets to the heart of my point earlier. No one expects the critics to be representing God’s truth. Not those that oppose, not those that agree. No one. But I grew up expecting that when I read something in the Ensign, learned something from a speaker at GA, prepared a lesson from a manual, that this was 100% God’s truth (including history).
A GA stands at the pulpit, holds up a snow globe, and bears testimony of New York City. I believe him deeply. I may even take the lesson into R.S. and hold up my own snow globe. Then I go to New York City and feel deeply lied to and foolish.
It’s about expectations, but it’s also about trust. Who we trust. Who deserves trust. How we deal with our trust being broken.
The critics never had my trust in the first place (although they may have my attention and/or interest). The church had my deep-seated trust and lost it.
Maybe I’m too cynical even for most disaffected folks, but I tend to think that various folks in the church institution are uninformed or ignorant of a lot of the issues.
I mean, when I look at the CES Letter, I think that’s a really boring shotgun list of issues…but I think that the CES Letter reflects about the level that CES is on. No offense to anyone who works in CES or who knows anyone who does, but I just don’t consider it to be the ultimate source of information about Mormon issues. Just because there *is* a correlative process doesn’t mean that people in that process are the most informed folks about numerous issues.
Anyway, I think there is another thing that is happening, based on a lot of the comments.
A lot of people point out that the church institutionally claims more authority than most folks, so this puts them on a higher standard of knowledge. But I think that this assumes that authority and stewardship in Mormonism is meritocratic or merited. In other words, these leaders are leaders because they earned it, or because they have some qualities that the rest of us don’t. (E.g., they are more spiritual, more in tune with God, more knowledgeable, more skilled, etc.,)
Yet, I don’t think Mormonism really works like that. Stewardship is a matter of responsibilities to do work, but that stewardship isn’t necessarily given based on merit.
So, Mormons aren’t supposed to sustain leaders because the leaders are somehow more worthy or more knowledgeable, etc., (implying that lacking knowledge would somehow make the leader less worthy of sustenance). Rather, Mormons are supposed to sustain because the leaders have been assigned that jurisdiction and it’s more likely that they need all the support they can get precisely because they are in the same boat as the rest of us.
As a nonbeliever, I’m not saying that I buy into this model. BUT I at least recognize that this is a very different model, and a lot of disaffection basically reveals that people are approaching Mormonism inconsistently — they want to use the church’s prophetic aspirations against it, but they judge it according to secular critical concepts.
Nicely said Andrew.
RT– I think that it is an issue when one person thinks they are holding up a snow globe and someone else thinks it is a holographic representation.
I think that difference explains why one person feels lied to and the other person looks at them like they are not operating with a full deck.
And that doesn’t do anything to increase communication.
I think we need not only more of the official essays and the encyclopedia of Mormonism and essays like this:
Perhaps you should explain that to Q15 Andrew. Elder Bednar apparently thinks that when he speaks it’s living scripture and Elder Oaks speaks with great legalistic certitude arguing that they are not to be criticized even when they are wrong. The whole act is intellectually insulting to watch.
“I think that it is an issue when one person thinks they are holding up a snow globe and someone else thinks it is a holographic representation.”
Which is fine if the audience knows what a holographic representation is and how to tell the difference between one and a snow globe.
Which I suppose leads to who holds the responsibility for the audience’s knowledge / lack thereof?
Just realized I may have read your comment in reverse of what you intended. My apologies if I did.
re 46,
Howard,
But that’s the thing…if they do in fact have the jurisdiction to speak for the church (and my answer to this question essentially answers the question of whether I have faith in Mormonism itself), then that would imply that if I accept his jurisdiction, then I really shouldn’t criticize him — especially not publicly, especially not according to secular concepts.
Andrew, I’m partial to the model you have outlined, but (like Howard) I believe that some senior leaders *have* declared themselves specially prepared for their callings. Both Elder Bednar (Oct 2015) and Elder Nelson (Oct 2014) gave conference addresses touting the great advantage of having older apostles with “seasoned maturity, experience, and extensive preparation, as guided by the Lord.”
When Elder Ballard addressed CES instructors earlier this year, his point about teachers upping their game in LDS scholarship was that we weren’t able to keep kids away from criticisms of the church. The teachers needed to prepare kids by teaching them *accurate* information about church history from faithful perspectives. White-washed, simple versions couldn’t cut it anymore because we aren’t able to protect them from information coming from outside the Mormon bubble. He also stated that inaccurate, faith-promoting stories, were inappropriate. If Elder Ballard needed to point out that teachers needed to be accurate and truthful, then it indicates we’ve had some problems.
Ballard also indicated that CES should provide the basis for a kid’s exposure to church history (aside from that kid’s family). In a real sense, the church *is* declaring that it should be considered an accurate and authoritative resource.
Both believers and ex-believers participate in the fallibility-infallibility inconsistencies.
Some random thoughts:
The church emphasizes claims to “truth.” Therefore, they themselves have set a high bar.
Andrew: “Stewardship is a matter of responsibilities to do work, but that stewardship isn’t necessarily given based on merit.
So, Mormons aren’t supposed to sustain leaders because the leaders are somehow more worthy or more knowledgeable, etc.,”
But many/most active Mormons do believe leaders have ascended to their callings because they are/were more knowledgeable and more worthy. The church also teaches foreordination with the implication that certain (more) valiant spirits were selected for certain duties in the pre-existance. I know of many church members who will seek to receive blessings from particular leaders because somehow those prayers will have greater weight–grant greater access to God–than those offered by their family member, local home teacher, bishop etc.
It seems unethical to send out uninformed or misinformed YM/YW to prosleytize only to be confronted by legitimate questions from those they seek to convert. (for example why, in the Teachings of Presidents–Brigham Young–does the historical timeline include only 2 wives)?
“1824: Marries Miriam Angeline Works.
1832: baptized into the Church and ordained an elder.
Wife dies.”
and
“1834: Marries Mary Ann Angell. Acts as captain in march
of Zion’s Camp.”
More recently some material used in the Prop 8 campaign by some church leaders contained lies/misrepresentations.
Another excellent discussion on many of these issues:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/867/memory-and-confabulation/
Andrew,
“If I accept this jurisdiction…” means one thing if you accept it with informed consent say as an adult convert and it means quite a different thing to those who were raised in and thereby indoctrinated by the church not only that this IS the order of things but also to not question this premise or anything else for that matter.
Today many raised in the church are beginning to question the validity of Q15 claims while their peers do not. The unquestioning peers circle the wagons claiming moral superiority arguing (a Catch-22 btw) along with prominent members of Q15 that you have already accepted and are therefore now bound by this jurisdiction concept without allowing them to question with the expectation of reasonable answers pursuant to informed consent. The goal is to silence doubters because others may overhear and also notice the Q15 emperors state of undress.
re 50
Mary Ann,
I think that’s a good point. I definitely think there are examples of times when the leaders themselves imply that they have personally accumulated experience that justifies their role…but I think even in the quote, there’s also a way to emphasize that part on being “guided by the Lord”. You know, in the sense that the Lord chooses the weak things to shame the strong, and so on.
And I agree that it’s better for the church to peddle accurate information over inaccurate information. That being said, I think that the address to the CES instructors precisely confirmed that what’s mostly going on is a lack of infomration, not a conscious effort to deceive. In other words, people may think they are experts, may sincerely have believed the issues are nothing but rumor or speculation and have no merit, and thus may have misinformed as a result of that, but that’s different than consciously knowing the complexities of the narrative are true, but withholding them for faith promoting purposes.
re 51
lois,
I would say that there are cultural misunderstandings that reinforce certain non-doctrinal concepts (for example, I think everything relating to pre-ordinance according to pre-mortal worthiness is suspect. I mean, have we really not learned our lesson with the whole race & priesthood speculation?)
But like, I would still say this: if the average can still be surprised to find out the BY had more than 2 wives (because they honestly did not know this), then wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that there are at least some “average members” who work in CES, that even CES employees or correlation commitee people might think that he only had 2 wives, and think that allegations to the contrary are baseless?
And if they sincerely believed this, then how would it be unethical for them to act on their knowledge — even if what they think they know is not accurate?
And if they learned otherwise and then said, ‘Hey, let’s start adding in more information as we can vet it’ (see also: Ballard’s talk to CES instructors), then wouldn’t that be a good sign?
re 53,
Howard,
Let’s be honest though…”indoctrination” is just the term that one uses for socialization or education that one doesn’t like. But if we talk about comprehensive secular education in schools, we don’t usually refer to this as “indoctrination” (unless we are against public schools or something).
Being in a society (whether it is the LDS sub-society or the larger societies among which Mormons live…American or otherwise) requires some sort of socialization process. So, when you talk about people beginning to question the validity of Q15, what you’re really saying is that people are beginning to use the tools of their secular socialization to challenge the tools of LDS socialization.
And I think that’s fine. but let’s not pretend this is a value-neutral process, or that people are somehow being more objective to pick one group’s tools and values over the other.
Let’s be honest, you’re reframing my position Andrew I’m not arguing secular socialization vs religious socialization I’m talking about applying logic to deduce a position of informed concent. Another approach is to check Q15’s position with the spirit.
And indoctrination was correctly used – see link:
“Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you’re talking about a religious environment that doesn’t let you question or criticize those beliefs.”
re 56,
I’m just trying to say that when you start using terms like “informed consent,” you are using tools from a secular toolkit. “Informed consent” is not a native concept to Mormonism for sure. But even if you wanted to use an alternative religious POV, you have to evaluate whether you are using a Mormon POV or not. You can’t really legitimately pit the spirit against the institution in a Mormon normative worldview.
When you start applying dictionary definitions to point out the “correct” usages of words, you miss that dictionaries aren’t objective — they are situated within a particular culture, and present a particular socialization. In other words, indoctrination often refers to religious ideas because from a secular perspective, public schooling is normalized whereas religious ideas are not.
The problem as I see it is church history problems have nothing to do with memory problems or simplification. There was deception from the word go.
Andrew,
It is necessary to step out of the LDS POV (not enter into it) in order to see that it is psychologically unhealthy, irrational and circular: the brethren are always right even when they aren’t! Is God always right even when He is not?
In psychology this is called a defense or a delusion depending on the extent so I will use the term delusion as a description (not in a pejorative way) to make a point. Logic when present in the LDS POV is not used to discover truth it is used to appologize or rationalize often in an attempt to rationalize the irrational! In short people testify “I know that the LDS delusion is the only true delusion!” Your argument is an attempt to normalize a deluded state. We know that people wake up from this deluded state and when they do they they see it both ways. Why? If this is the only true delusion why don’t most people return to it after awakening? I don’t by your equivlancy of the deluded state being somehow equal to the rational state or the awakened state. Nor do I by that a minority tribe’s definition of words carries the same weight as the majority tribes definition especially when the minority tribe is the new comer.
you could say the same thing of basically every culture. You need look from outside any culture to see that they all are irrational and circular.
I really can’t add to much past what Andrew has said.
However I was serious when I gave the link above.
Here is a more direct path:
We need more close attention to what the scriptures teach.
There are probably irrational and circular things about many cultures but few modern cultures position them front and center and demand allegiance to them. However Scientology and Jonestown exploited this approach.
#54 Andrew, in a lot of cases I think you’re correct that the teachers don’t know the correct facts. With Sunday School teachers and volunteer seminary teachers it’s understandable. With CES employees or higher level church leaders (bishop on up), it’s less understandable. It is part of their job description, essentially, to be a reliable resource for members when it comes to the church. In the past, an appropriate answer to a question you couldn’t answer was to deflect and bear testimony. Ballard has now, begrudgingly, declared this unwise.
In other cases, though, decisions have been made that certain facts weren’t useful towards creating a certain narrative. These are times when the church easily comes across deceptive. For example, the beginning of the Joseph Smith manual states that because the manuals are meant to apply Joseph’s teachings to our day, it would not discuss the law of consecration (relating to physical property) or plural marriage. So the timeline only mentions Joseph’s marriage to Emma, and the family chapter emphasizes the relationship between them and their kids. We don’t need to care about plural marriage because it’s not applicable to us today. Except… Mormons are still associated with their historical practice of polygamy, and polygamy was a major factor in the turmoil leading up to the martyrdom and the difficulties the Saints had with the federal government through the beginning of the 20th century. I understand a rationale behind the omission, but the point remains that it was left out because *someone* decided current members have no need to learn about polygamy when studying the life and teachings of Joseph Smith.
We don’t need to care about plural marriage because it’s not applicable to us today.
It seems today’s faithful have chosen to abandon plural marriage as some kind of a lust driven mistake. But don’t forget that (eternal) plural marriages are still being performed by the LDS church today. I assume they have some purpose? Or why continue with it?
Andrew
“But like, I would still say this: if the average can still be surprised to find out the BY had more than 2 wives (because they honestly did not know this), then wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that there are at least some “average members” who work in CES, that even CES employees or correlation commitee people might think that he only had 2 wives, and think that allegations to the contrary are baseless?”
It goes further than that because on the timeline he didn’t marry a 2nd wife until his first wife died–a monogamist, not a polygamist.
The BY excerpts came from the Gospel Doctrine manual. There is no way this manual doesn’t get written and vetted by knowledgable people. In his book “Planted” Patrick Mason noted there is also a place in the BY manual where some of BY references “wives” was changed to “wife.”
Of course people aren’t “lying” if they are merely ignorant. And there may be a great deal of ignorance of the church history involving plural marriage in some parts of the world.
It seems like some comments above seem to suggest critics and church authorities are held to different standards to be considered lying or not.
I think this should be flushed out or clarified a bit.
They can be held to different standards of authority or scrutiny about the topics or teachings, but not morals or intentions. Church claiming authority to speak for almighty and perfectly honest God with power and authority would suggest some topics like knowing doctrine are based on what they say. But lying about it or not is not about authority claimed. Lying or not is on individuals who are fallible, whether a church authority or a critic.
Critics should be held to the same standard to be determined if they are lying or not. But perhaps not all critics are the same in realm of influence. Some individual on the Internet being a critic may throw out claims or lies and I may just dismiss them after considering their points. But an organization with political power or social influence in the community making critical lies about the church matters more if they are lying or not. It doesn’t determine if they lie or not, but if their claims matter or not.
In other words…whether the church “lies” or not is not dependent on the church’s claim for authority. They aren’t held to a different standard of “lying” just because they claim to hold truth.
But they do hold a greater responsibility and stewardship to the people that listen to them…so they should care to clarify what claims they are and are not making…not just throw things out and then not respond to critics. They need to respond enough to know how to defend their intentions or clarify imperfect deliveries by mortals.
I just think there can be 2 different things about defining “lies” with defining appropriate responses to avoid looking dishonest by critics.
But critics don’t get a free pass from that either and are only allowed to be on the offensive and say whatever they want and held to a different standard of lying as the church. If they want credibility in their criticism…they can’t lie any more than the church.
Authority doesn’t determine lying standards.
BTW I was doing some research on the limited geography theory and found the following:
In 1927, Janne M. Sjödahl stated that “students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek and their companions.”[13][14]
In 1938 a church study guide for the Book of Mormon stated that “the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America, and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its writers.”[13][15]
—-
So the simplification of that narrative is interesting.
Well here’s how they “simplified” it in 1975.
First Presidency Message Dec. 1975
Howard (#68) makes a really good point. I read that quote and it seems to be saying one thing about who Lamanites are, and it doesn’t seem to be saying the same things as #67 from Stephen.
Can the 1st Presidency be WRONG with their application and teaching about details without it being “lying”?
I think they can. I think it shapes my views of what the church leaders say. It is not all black and white, truth or lies. It’s not that simple.
They seem to be more correct in 1927 than in 1975. Depending on what is being talked about.
Church leaders can take prior teachings and expand and expound those based on their understnding of prior leaders statements…and they can be wrong and off course, which needs continuing revelation to correct and get back on course.
Correcting isn’t lying.
However, they should know that in today’s society, apoligizing and correcting and humbly admitting there were incorrect statements by former church leaders is better accepted and forgiven than trying to maintain an aura of divinity by sweeping mistakes under the rug. It invites accusations of deceit when that happens. Perhaps not as much in prior generations, but today…they should follow the Pope’s lead in this area.
I think the main point is: They simply don’t know! Which unfortunately makes them blind guides. And worse when they hide the truth from us they become deceivers.
That’s a very black and white statement Howard.
They aren’t blind about everything. They see through the glass darkly. I’m not sure how much they know is darkly seen…which is why I don’t think they are really lying about it. They don’t know things for sure, but are hoping they are “enlightened”. That hope is strong.
Prophets seers and revelators *reveal* which means they make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others. What is the value of guides that sees through the glass darkly Heber13?
Someone must deceiving when they portray Joseph as a monogamist or as a scholarly translator with plates in front of him but without stone hat or interpreters and it can’t just be some mistaken artist because church material approved prior to publication.
Check your bible dictionary. Prophet definition doesn’t match your narrow view, Howard. They can reveal some things needed to be revealed at the time, which doesn’t mean they must see through the glass perfectly clear on every topic on every detail. Revelation is a process. D&C 8-10 tries to teach Oliver this. There is great value in fallible prophets, because the work they are charged with is salvation and bringing people to Christ…not fortune tellers or acedemic or historic accuracies.
Prophets are more about forthtelling that foretelling. There are a lot of earthly or temporal matters the Lord leaves up to mortals to figure out, and apparently allows them to learn and grow, even sometimes through mistakes. On major issues, corrections will be made before a mortal starts to lead the church astray.
I’m personally familiar with revelation Heber. So a revelator doesn’t necessarily reveal?
You see they don’t call themselves prophets with a little p they call themselves Prophets, Seers and Revelators which means they are expected prophesied to have visions and reveal them. You seem to be describing a honorary title no more powerful than Deacon Quarum President but with a larger stewardship. I’ve known a few Deacon Quorum Presidents who were bling guides so with your modle I guess we can expect the same from church presidents and shouldn’t be surprised when we get it.
blind guides not bling guides
My family joined the church in 1958, in a town in Australia. We were the first members in the area, though there was a stake 90 minutes drive away. Our only source of information about the church was the missionaries. Within 4 years we were building chapels for the church in Scotland. Not sure when we learned of the priesthood ban.
I have only lived for 2 years in a church community, Rexburg, the rest of the time in minority settings, where I relied on the church for information about the church. Most of the members I know, are in this situation. I only became aware that there might be problems, when I got access to the internet, and started reading blogs like this.
Most members here, don’t want to be hurt so choose to remain ignorant and faithfull. We do not even raise the essayes at church.
I can accept that mistakes were made in the past, but I have real problems with current behaviour. The discrimination against women and gay people, and particularly the policy response to gay marriage, to my mind undermind the credibility of the 15. The lack of explanation/ justification at conference was baffeling. They seem to take no responsibility for the hurt and concerns of those members who question, it is the world or the spacious building that are blamed.
I am not sure how the leadership can get out of this mess without a change to the succession of Prophet, with a retirement age for Apostles of, say 80, for a generational change. How could we have Nelson after the revelation claim that no one has backed up even Otterson?
Loving Mary Ann’s comments.
Also agree with this Heber:
“in today’s society, apoligizing and correcting and humbly admitting there were incorrect statements by former church leaders is better accepted and forgiven than trying to maintain an aura of divinity by sweeping mistakes under the rug. It invites accusations of deceit when that happens.”
I think Howard you do made the point, that my expectations of prophets, seers, and revelators is perhaps lower than yours. And I respect that, because I think lots of people have different expectations, which leads to different levels of hope and frustration.
The difference between deacons, bishops, SP, and apostles and prophets is the keys that hold different levels of Stewardship, and also the capacity of the mortal in that position, and also the time and place that mortal is standing which requires different messages from God. It seemed that Nephi and Omni held the same position, but brought different/more things to light. Just like Joseph Smith and John Taylor.
Heber I generally agree with what you wrote #78 but I would like to point out some distinctions. Deacon Presidents, Bishops and SPs do not refer to themselves as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. How does a Prophet, Seer and Revelator magnify their calling without prophesying, seeing visions and revealing?
It seems to me that Q15’s title greatly oversells their ability. What’s wrong with calling them President, Counselor or Apostle? Now couple this overinflated honorary title with an admonishment by (a so-called) Prophet, Seer and Revelator to never ctiticize a (so called) Prophet, Seer and Revelatory, and reinforce this with the concept that questions are honored but opposition is not and you have set the stage for Mobots following blind guides with starry eyed celebrity envy.
The church has lost it’s Mojo by replacing it’s Prophet with a bunch of administrators.
I have some of those fears, Howard. Propped up titles lead to unrealistic expectations and mobots following while they sing with pictures of Thomas S Monson walking with Jesus in the SL temple, and no church leaders coming right out and popping their bubble with “well…we don’t actually SEE Christ with our eyes, but we talk with him as if we do…it is almost like what you read in scriptures.”
I wish it was just plain and simple, black and white. What is a revelator and what is not…let’s remove the mystery and then we can remove the accusations of lies.
My son is a deacon. He has the keys to administering angels. That’s no small thing for a deacon. I don’t know that there is this huge difference between how they sell the prophets, seers, and revelators with Deacons, Bishops and SPs. But…I am sure different people have different expectations on it.
Seems to me like Joseph and Brigham would often hedge with the saints that it wasn’t as grand as some propped it up to be. In fact, I think that was the allure of Mormonism early on…the miracles and power to connect to god for everyone…not just prophets. That just got chaotic and priesthood order was established to keep it manageable and then people transferred expectations to someone called. I’m just not so sure what became our mormon culture was reflective of how God always works, or what we wish it would be like to make for great fast and testimony stories.
My son was told miraculous things about his deacon office. Makes him feel special. Makes me cringe. Like they think the priesthood makes him more special than other 8th graders.
While I cringe, I still support that there is something there worthwhile with the church, priesthood, revelation, and prophets. But…my experience and view seems to be less hyped than what I hear others say. And so…I think less of it is intentional lies, but simplifications to teach inspiring things by mortals. And mistakes are made, even by seers.
If the church has lost it’s Mojo, perhaps that is because masses lack faith to believe in the miracles Moroni warned (miracles cease when faith ceases), but perhaps that is becausa members are looking for the wrong kind of miracles, have been disappointed, and stopped believing prophets, seers, and revelators are fitting their definition, and perhaps the deacons are not administering angels because we don’t really understand what that means.
If we think too literal, we don’t leave room for miracles.
Well I’m glad we talked this out Heber I think we’ve arrived at a place that’s much closer than where we began. Personally I would like to see the brethren focus far more on the spiritual side of the gospel and less on the legalistic administrative and $business aspects of the church, thus my criticism of them. To me they sit regally in their red chairs in a partial state of undress.