Recently Happy Hubby asked if white-washing is still happening today. He referenced two embellished faith-promoting stories: one related to missionaries miraculously saved from the tsunami, and another about a fire in a stake center in California. Both stories were portrayed in an idealized manner to promote their miraculous nature, but in so doing, details that didn’t match the faith-promoting narrative were scrubbed away. Happy Hubby referred to this as “white-washing.”
- To whitewash is a metaphor meaning “to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data”.
I tend to think it’s more about mythologizing.
-
To convert into myth or mythology; make the subject of a myth. To create or promote an exaggerated or idealized image of.
In an excellent post about the types of heroes and heroic stories that appeal to different generation, Carter Hall wrote:
Everyone knows Superman. He is simply the most powerful superhero ever created. Invulnerable to almost everything, his list of abilities includes flight, speed, strength, heat vision, x-ray vision . . . the list goes on. His private life also seems pretty sweet. He was raised by two stead parents (although in some versions Pa Kent dies when Clark is young), has a good career, and in recent years is married to the love of his life. Director Richard Donner went so far as to present Supes as a Christ figure in the 1979 film, with Jor-El (God the Father?) sending his only son to earth to help mortals realize their potential for good.
Many early DC heroes are also larger than life: Wonder Woman is an Amazon princess, with powers, weapons and gifts from the Greek Gods themselves (plus she can really fill out that costume!). Batman, despite his psychological issues and lack of super powers, has seemingly unlimited financial resources. Others were similar: rich, with god-like powers and very heroic. Practically too good to be true.
Then there’s Spiderman, a decidedly less perfect hero. Peter Parker’s parents are gone, and even his Uncle Ben dies early on, leaving him with only Aunt Mae. He gets bitten by a radioactive spider and gains powers including strength, speed, agility, wall-climbing, and “spider-sense.” Depending on the version of the story, he may also shoot web from his arms (in others he creates the web mechanism and materials). Impressive abilities, to be sure, but nothing compared to Superman. He also struggles with issues like unemployment, unpopularity, and girl problems to a much greater degree than his DC counterparts. He’s a real person, dealing with real problems, plus he fights crime.
Other Marvel heroes are similarly flawed. The mutant X-Men are freakish pariahs. The Fantastic Four bicker. And the Hulk is essentially a monster with an anger management problem.
These heroes reflect the eras in which they were born. In the late 1930s, the United States was exiting the Great Depression and entering World War II; out of this vulnerability came these perfect DC superheroes to confront the evils of the world (Hitler, poverty, and corruption to name a few). In the 1960s, when the country had become skeptical of the establishment and technology, everyday down-to-earth superheroes like Spiderman emerged from more humble backgrounds, exhibiting a more reluctant heroism.
So, what does all this have to do with the Church?
The individuals who have run the Church for years are, for the most part, members of a more black and white generation that created more perfect, less subtle heroes in comics and movies and even in the news. Individuals of this generation not only led the Church, but also ran the departments and programs. Did the way they viewed heroes impact their presentation of historical figures?
Happy Hubby and Carter Hall both correctly identified problems with mythologizing: 1) it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny which can leave people feeling disillusioned (Paul H. Dunn effect), and 2) larger-than-life heroes are less appealing than “flawed heroes” in generations from Baby Boomers onward; there is much less trust in authority than in prior generations, and that’s a trend that shows no sign of changing any time soon.
There is, however, psychological value in mythologizing our own lives according to Psychology Today:
Another advantage of mythologizing your actions and of giving them a heroic quality can be seen in the work of the religion scholar Mircea Eliade. He observed that for people to have meaningful lives they must put their lives into a narrative, a story, a myth. For example, because I love my family, I want to make sure they have enough food to eat and a place to live, so I, alas, must work for a living, which means that I have to drive to work. This means that I have to keep my car maintained, which means that I have to call to make an appointment with the service department. The receptionist puts me on hold and I am stuck listening to music that is dull enough to lull a young otter to sleep. Even though attending to the insipid music is a fifth-order derivative from my prime motivation of taking care of my family, my putting up with it is motivated by my deepest values. Knowing this makes tolerating it, well, tolerable. Mythologizing your actions helps to sensitize you to what poet May Sarton has called “the sacramentalization of the ordinary.”
As I recall, when I was a young missionary in the MTC, this “sacramentalization of the ordinary” played into motivating missionaries to clean the bathrooms. We weren’t cleaning bathrooms–we were fighting Satan by keeping the bathrooms clean so missionaries could learn without getting sick, or something like that. It’s like the story about the janitor at NASA headquarters who said he was putting a man on the moon. Tying mundane tasks to a higher purpose can make them not only bearable but can improve our performance of the tasks.
See yourself as a hero in a story and every obstacle, rather than bringing you down, can draw out greater qualities of your character.
And yet, this is not really what’s happening in the examples shared in Happy Hubby’s post or in the fabricated stories of Paul H. Dunn. These stories are not sacramentalizing the mundane, but are scrubbing away counter-mythologizing material to fluff up a story. Why do this? Personally, I think it’s a type of sign-seeking.
One problem with sign seeking is that it’s fraught with confirmation bias. People who already believe love miraculous stories as a way to prove they are right and skeptics are wrong. Disbelievers love signs because they can debunk them, proving they were right to doubt. Other people look for a sign due to their own indecision about the right course of action. They want to know what to do, and they don’t want to figure it out for themselves, so they let a “sign” decide for them. But ultimately, signs don’t create lasting spiritual skills and probably undermine personal growth by replacing faith and character with superstition. Some people seek signs because they think they are “cool” or thrilling, and they want to witness the inexplicable.
Although the concept of sign-seeking is also found in the Bible, it’s bolstered by modern-day scripture in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants. As a result, it’s a religious topic that is more often discussed in Mormon forums than other Christian sites.
And he that seeketh signs shall see signs, but not unto salvation. D&C 63:7
What do you think?
- Do you think mythologizing is sign-seeking? Why or why not?
- Do you think church members tend to seek signs? What examples have you seen?
- Is mythologizing important to help us stay motivated or is it dangerous because it’s dishonest?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Interesting read, I have no other comment than to say I really enjoyed it.
Mythologizing and whitewashing are both psychologically dangerous because they are inherantly dishonest and obscure and distort reality with an unrealistically Pollyanna view of almost everything except the (evil) world. I think it can be seen as being rooted the common but twisted LDS interpretation of 13th Article of Faith that elevates anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy above honesty by ignoring the beginning which reads: We believe in being honest… Well we may say we believe in being honest but do we take it to heart the way we do our Pollyanna world view filters? This grossly twisted and dishonest Sunday best world view is oddly revered and considered a desirable trait by much of the LDS tribe.
I like what Greg Prince said about Joseph Smith and his success as a religious leader. 1. He had communications with the divine; and 2. He provided tools for others to have similar experiences. I think that is what initially excited people about Mormonism and what has traditionally been energizing. We’ve spent the last 60-100 years phasing out the mystical aspects and have been left with something that can be pretty corporate and boring. It’s evident that the general membership is thirsting for miracles, spiritual experiences and something much more exciting than what we have been getting in General Conference. I think these mythologized stories try to give people what they want. At the same time, it’s a dangerous thing to do in the internet age when people can easily uncover the exaggerated parts of the stories, like we saw with these two examples. In an age when people are already losing trust in the institution for whitewashing historical details, it is dangerous. However, it’s also dangerous to remove some of the mystery and miraculous aspects of Mormonism that make it interesting.
I’m with Howard on this and I love the point that Carter Hall makes about heroes. It’s always been difficult for me, for example, to read the Book of Mormon as anything but a dark, violent tragedy and so it’s odd to experience so many members who see it as a kind of glowing, inspirational text. And ironically, I’ve always thought that God wanted to give us a dark, violent tragedy because I think tragedy can teach us things that comedies/happy endings cannot. And yet, when I try to make this point at church, what Howard calls the Pollyana worldview seems unable to consider different interpretations or functions of our central mythological text. I don’t seek to tear down anyone else’s view of things, but if that viewpoint can’t take even the most benign attempt/request to consider some of our central mythology in a different light, it strikes me as a bit fragile in ways that are unhelpful.
And, in a post-truth world (and to Howard’s point), maybe this isn’t so important, but I think there’s a pretty thin line between mythologizing and lying, though I do think the impulse towards creating a narrative isn’t always a bad thing. It’s just that we need to be aware both of why we’re creating the narrative we are and of what potential consequences could arise if we’re called to document our narrative and we aren’t quite able to do that. I do think, to concur with some of what felixfabulous says, that there is a tension between the correlated, sanitized church of the latter part of the 20th century and the more mystical (more vital and energizing?) early Mormon way of thinking about and accessing God and other mysteries of the universe. I do think we’ve lost something and I agree with felix that people are so thirsty for these kinds of things that they’re willing to buy anything the creators of myths are selling. That’s a difficult and hazardous spiritual path, IMHO. If we’re so hungry for things that we’re creating them out of thin air and a few unreliable anecdotes, we’re more likely to distance ourselves from Christ than to approach him more closely.
Hawgrrrl sharing Carter Hall’s words about comic book heroes? This naturally generates curiousity as to what Ray Palmer may have to say on the topic.
Very good point Hawkgrrrl on the clarification on white-washing vs mythologizing, but the two can be used together with great effectiveness.
I do feel that leaning on mythologizing and white-washing shows a lack of deeper faith or belief. A bit of trying to convince oneself of something that doesn’t fully stand on its own merits.
I do think I have seen even in the last few months of people getting up and sharing their faith promoting stories, but to me the stories seem like nothing more than what I would have expected to happen. I don’t like to go and pop people’s bubbles, so I keep it to myself. One was as simple as the fact that healthy moist green grass that has a sprinkler system keeping it healthy in the middle of the summer won’t burn from a grass fire coming from a field of dry dead weeds. I saw zero miracle in that miracle-a -mony, but they saw God rewarding them for their good behavior.
Mythology is great for stories/movies and I enjoy it there. I have not yet done my 23 and me DNA test, but when I do, I expect the results to say I have a fair amount of Vulcan DNA. So I lean a bit more towards it not mythologizing unless it is understood it is such and certainly not for basing a big chunk of your salvation on it.
Currently working my way through Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces, so I was interested to hear Hawkgrrrl’s thoughts.
The “sign-seeking” insight is interesting. A sign seeker could be interpreted more broadly as someone who wants to see the working mechanics of their beliefs demonstrated in the outside world, through faith promoting stories. A lot of theology is mere “mechanics.” It is explaining the “why” of life in ways that resolve the paradoxes and mysteries of existence. A sign seeker has it all figured out, or thinks he can figure it all out by witnessing the full mechanical power of his beliefs. A faith promoting story is one that encourages faith by showing these mechanics working perfectly. It reinforces confidence in one’s own beliefs, helping to squash any pesky doubts and give’s one strength to continue to endure to the end.
Mythologizing is entirely different I think. It transcends mere mechanical details which are only meant to validate belief. It is about seeing yourself in the great heroes of myth, religion, history, and theatre. It is about finding inspiration for your own individual journey by embracing the archetypes you share with these heroes. These stories can call you out of your small world of conformity into a new adventure, a new birth, a new battle or mission, with new demons to conquer. A myth is all about continual rebirth, reinvention, creation, evolution. It is NOT about inspiring yourself to endure to the end by listening to an endless string of faith promoting stories.
I sincerely hate to do this but I am going to be a party pooper on this thread as well. I repeat my criticism of the whitewashing post: I don’t see any actual proof that these GAs did anything that any of us don’t do on a fairly regular basis. This is focusing on the motes of others while having a beam in one’s own eye. We may not tell miracle stories, but we all tell stories that we perceive and we give at good faith effort at telling the truth as we perceived and remembered it. Third parties looking at our recollection of the facts (especially third parties with an ideological opposition to what we are saying) will be able to find plenty of errors, omissions, and “whitewashing.” I imagine most of us perusing the bloggernoccle have a general skepticism towards miracles or any reported abnormalities in the laws of nature as a result of say prayer, therefore, our brains naturally look for alternatives.
Heck, I am probably going to be too harsh in these comments because I disagree with these recent posts so my mind will find 100 things wrong with them, when the authors and those who agree with them might not see any. One person’s deception, avoiding facts etc is another person thinking that they are conveying a truthful message.
What I find most frustrating about this whole series of post is how it strikes me as the mind or intellect of the body of Christ turning to the heart or to the eye of faith in the body and saying “I have no need for you!” Or even worse, “you actually are not as good at being part of the body because you are not like me. Your testimony and experience with the divine do not mirror mine.”
I don’t know about any of you but I have been hurt when people have told me that my intellectualism was a form of “sign seeking” and proof that I had a weak testimony. I think what those members are attempting to describe to me is that the way they experience Christ, the church and testimony is quite different then mine, and if they were in my shoes and doing what I was doing, those actions would be sign seeking and evidence of a weak testimony. And they would be right. Some people have the eye of faith and can perceive and bring about miracles. If they attempted to be like me they would be failing in what it is that they are supposed to be doing.
Quick example: on my mission in Bolivia one of my ward mission leaders was a carpenter. He needed work and it was pouring rain one day. He told me he read a chapter in the Book of Mormon then got on his knees and said, “Heavenly Father, I depend on you for everything. I know you are all powerful. I need you to stop the rain right now.” He told at that exact moment the rain stopped. Now, I don’t use this as an example of a bona fide miracle. I am commenting on this website so believe me I have more in common with you than I do with this ward mission leader. My only point is this: that was not an experience he used to “prop up weak faith” it was part of who he was. Praying to stop the rain was something he did to get to work and when God helped him out he wanted to acknowledge God’s hand. Aren’t we told in the scriptures to acknowledge the Lord in our blessings?
If he knew the types of discussions I get involved in (church history, mistakes in scripture, doctrine, leaders, etc.) from his perspective I would be “ye of little faith.” However, I have had people come up and thank me because of ideas I’ve shared, people I’ve been able to reach, and controversies I’ve been able to resolve. The fact is the conversations and ideas I participate in are part of my faith, part of how I experience the divine. I couldn’t do what God needs me to do if I was more like him, and he couldn’t do what God needs him to do if he was more like me.
I think both are lying. Either way mythologising and whitewashing are misrepresentations of the truth and are not in harmony with the Gospel.
I have always wondered why such is relatively common in the church. Surely there are enough real miracles to talk about, rather than making up stuff.
Jason –
I can see your point and there are situations where I’d agree with you. However, the moment the purpose of telling the ‘story’ becomes about motivating other people rather then acknowledging God, your argument looses me. And GC is motivational rather than group worship. Personally, I find that the moment ‘acknowledging God’ goes public, then it is very rarely about God himself anymore. I say that speaking of my own such moments (and thus I try to keep my deepest gratitude to God private).
Err… Sorry about the horrendous typo!
ReTx, if the typo fits, own it! 🙂
I don’t know that I see mythologizing as sign-seeking, except perhaps retroactively. Most Mormons seem to justify it by “acknowledging the hand of the Lord in all things.” (Really? He killed so-and-so with cancer at 42, with 3 small kids, etc.?)
The confirmation bias comes in that we seem perfectly ready to acknowledge the Lord’s hand in all good things, but all bad things are sheer accident, Satan’s doing, or (if we had a really poisonous upbringing) punishment for our sins.
That was brilliant
ReTx-
I appreciate you engaging with my comments. I have two disagreements.
“the moment the purpose of telling the ‘story’ becomes about motivating other people rather then acknowledging God, your argument looses me. And GC is motivational rather than group worship.”
First, who says it is motivational rather than group worship? Or why not both? When my branch mission president shared how he “stopped the rain” it was both group worship and motivational. He wanted me to know that I could trust God to answer my prayers because the Lord answered his prayers. Was this wrong? Is no one ever allowed to share any cool stories that happened to them (at least by their perception) because somebody out there could fact check them later?
Second, what I find most ironic about these series of blog posts is how none of them actually read the story in context. The context of the story does not support a “sign seeking” generation narrative at all.
Hint 1 that it is not about sign seeking- It is under the section “Light of Christ” and says things like:
“The Light of Christ will help us see others through the Savior’s eyes. We will be more loving and understanding of the struggles of others. It will help us be more patient with those who may not worship as we do or serve as we might. It will help us understand the great plan of happiness more fully and see how we all fit into that great loving plan.”
Hint 2- If the story is building faith in anything, it is building faith that people who are not Mormon’s are capable of being incredibly generous and sensitive people. If this story is “whitewashed” it wouldn’t hurt my faith in the church or Jesus Christ it would just hurt my faith in humanity since apparently they were not as generous and sensitive as described in the story.
Below is the story in its entirety:
“I felt that joy when I heard about the efforts of a brave group of firefighters who fought to save a burning stake center in Southern California in 2015. As the fire raged, a battalion commander called an LDS friend to ask where the sacred relics and sacrament cups were kept so they could be saved. His friend assured him that there were no sacred relics and that the sacrament cups were actually very, very replaceable. But the commander felt he should do more, so he sent firefighters back into the burning building to pull every painting of Christ off of the walls that they might be preserved. They even placed one in the firetruck in the hope that the firefighters might be watched over. I was truly touched by the commander’s kindness, goodness, and sensitivity to the Light during a dangerous and difficult time”.
Notice again, there is nothing in the story to say “church is true, book is blue. The moral of the story is in the last sentence: “I was truly touched by the commander’s kindness, goodness, and sensitivity to the Light during a dangerous and difficult time.” If this story is untrue, the thing that gets disproved isn’t the truthfulness of the church, it is the kindness, goodness as well as the ability of a non-Mormon firefighter to receive revelation. Given the story’s context, can we acknowledge this is quite different than people wanting Jesus to heal someone or do some miracle to show he was the Messiah?
Final question: isn’t the use of this story in a post on sign seeking and mythologizing also an act of mythologizing and narrative making? GAs/the Church lies/intentionally misleads its members is a common narrative around the bloggernoccle. These recent posts seem to want to take for granted that Radio Free Mormon’s conclusions are right and then preach a sermon with them. Which is fine, but again, isn’t that what we are really accusing Elder Stevenson and Elder Bragg of doing? Not being sufficiently careful with context and other facts?