To continue the topic of truth I started a few months ago here with “You can’t handle the truth”, let’s talk about the opposite, lying. The bases for my thoughts is a Hidden Brain podcast called Liar Liar. In the podcast the host talks to Dan Ariely, a professor at Duke University and author of the book “The Honest Truth About Dishonesty” Ariely also did a Netflix documentary in 2015.
Some interesting points that Ariely makes is that the most likely types of people to lie are not the smartest, or most dishonest, but the most “creative” type of people. Also, they usually don’t do a cost benefit analysis about lying, (if I get caught, this bad thing will happen, but if I don’t, then this benefit for me will happen), but it is usually just opportunity. People take lots of little steps that lead to the bigger lies.
But what I found most interesting is how not all truth is useful (sound familiar?) Ariely was burned over 70% of his body as a boy by a fireworks accident. He said on the podcast that if the doctors had been truthful about his prognoses and what kind of life he would lead, he probably would have committed suicide. He said there was probably a lot of self-deceiving that went on as he became older, recognizing that he would never be the same, and had a lifetime of painful surgeries ahead of him, but he chose to believe the doctors as a kind of self-medication.
In one story he told, he said that during a surgery as an adult, he had nails put into his hands to hold them steady for a skin procedure. When he set the appointment to have them removed three weeks ahead of time, he ask the nurse which surgery room would be used to remove them, thinking he would be under general anesthesia. The nurse said that it would be done in the office, and it would not hurt at all. Well guess what, it hurt a lot! But Ariely was grateful to the nurse for lying to him, because it saved him three weeks of agonizing anticipation. The pain was the same, but it only lasted a few minutes, not three weeks!
So did Elder Packard have a point when he said Some things that are true are not very useful? Is the pain of knowing that Joseph Smith married teenage girls, other men’s wives, and used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon worth the church’s deceitful handling of this history? Is lying about polygamy to not cause pain to new converts any different from a Doctor lying about how much the procedure will hurt? Would Elder Packard have made a good doctor?
Wheat & Tares 
If a good doctor is one who really cares about the health and welfare of a patient, and who proposes treatment options with the best intentions of healing the body and soul, then yes, Elder Packer would have been a good doctor.
I would say the role claimed by religious institutions—like the LDS church—of being purveyors of truths and of teaching people to tell the truth is fundamentally different than the role a Dr. plays. The church claims a moral high ground, and as a result ought to be held to a high standard.
I disagree with Elder Packer. Maybe I’m too idealistic(?) but I think it not right that we send young people out into the mission field with incomplete and inaccurate knowledge of church history. And, we claim to not practice polygamy anymore yet we do allow polygamous temple ceilings. Being sealed in the temple is the primary form of marriage
promoted by the church.
To paraphrase RL Stevenson: telling the truth is not necessarily stating facts, but leaving a true impression. We all engage in “lying” by sometimes leaving out pertinent facts — especially in marketing, politics, gaming, etc. . A useful example related to missionary work would be courtship. Most people dont reveal all of their ugly secrets on the first date — we present an incomplete picture of ourselves to reel in a mate. But there had better be full disclosure before a long-term commitment. Before baptizing anyone, we should engage in a maturity-appropriate discussion about the skeletons found in the closets of all religions and the likely disappointments that come with committing to any institution administered by humans.
When your potential spouse (investigator) can learn anything about you (true and not) with a quick internet search, hiding ugliness in your background is counterproductive.
With such things as church history, I believe that honesty is the best policy, and the authenticity that comes from transparency is much more godly than continuing to promote convenient and attractive falsehoods. Often, the trauma of betrayal from discovering the lie is more hurtful than the lie itself; even more so when it’s revealed that the truth was intentionally kept hidden for a long time.
I think it comes down to whether an untruth or failure to disclose the truth is beneficial to the one being deceived or diverted from a short-term reality. If it’s intended to manipulate someone in the long-term or if it’s self-serving rather than compassionate, then I’d have to find it indefensible.
Was Packer safeguarding the faithful’s salvation or was he avoiding questions that could challenge his and the institutional church’s authority? There’s the question. Only he could know, of course, but there’s a pattern in the church’s approach to the truth that is unsettling and runs counter to what we all understand is expected of us. Why is that? Is it something to accept?
“[Liars] usually don’t do a cost benefit analysis about lying, (if I get caught, this bad thing will happen, but if I don’t, then this benefit for me will happen), but it is usually just opportunity.”
This is definitely true of past church leaders. They did not foresee the faith crisis their whitewashing would fuel.
Is this another hoax?
Malpractice: Taking those nails out without anesthesia. Give him one dose of a couple of Lortabs or Dilaudids. I’ve been to the ER with some extremely painful conditions; meningitis, kidney stones. Once they are sure the pain pills will not screw up their diagnosis, they relieve the pain.Nobody wants a dramatic scene in a doctors office, it is bad for business. It is very easy with the huge number of options in a modern pharmacy to relieve pain for a few minutes. (Long term is another story.) .
I get the placebo effect. I have had doctors lie to me when I knew they were doing it and when I was glad they did because we sort of both knew and it helped a lot. Another difference is that those nails had to come out.
Joseph Smith did not have to diddle little girls and 30+ women. Not necessary. That was plain wrong. The Mormon church did not have to struggle and suffer under 40 years of polygamy. It served no useful purpose greater than the social havoc it wrecked. Those hopeless deluded fanatics still practicing it are not doing the world or God any favors.
Like those nails, the story of polygamy will come out. We do converts no favor lying to them about it.. Eventually they will have a faith crisis. Lying might have worked in the past (which still does not justify it) but it ain’t gonna work no more.
These layers and layers of lying about it has perpetuated and magnified the problem because common sense tells people it was not right.. I have as many polygamous ancestors as most, and it is my family history. I don’t admire those people, I pity them. Some lying in other situations might be good and some might be questionably justified. Lying about polygamy was/is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
The problem is that it depends. Most people don’t have a problem with the idea of simplifying stuff for kids. When it comes to teenagers and adults, it’ll depend a lot on personality and situation. I believe that all members have the RIGHT to know the nitty gritty details of church history, but not all members will care or even want to know a lot of those details.
When I read some of Packer’s words, I got the sense that his concern wasn’t just that details of history would damage testimony. He was suspicious of secular techniques towards viewing history, and personally felt that studying Church history from a secular perspective was incompatible with viewing Church leaders as prophets and believing in miracles. He didn’t like when CES teachers appeared to him more like academic scholars instead of spiritual caretakers. So when he said that not all truth is useful, it was within the context of wanting to see CES as a more devotional effort rather than an academic effort. I don’t agree with that perspective, but I get the logic.
To me, a good doctor will not only know her field inside and out, but will also have good discernment on what a patient needs to hear at that moment. Sometimes they need a harsh wake up call. Sometimes they need a reason to hope. I feel like in conversations about Church history, there are similar considerations that happen. But, as a parent, teacher, missionary, or conversation partner, do you ever have the right to make that call? I don’t know.
“Malpractice: Taking those nails out without anesthesia … ” I was wondering why no nerve block and no local.
Otherwise, this post invites certainty about what we know now that others did not.
I re-listened to the podcast. He did not say there was no anesthesia, what he said was that he was told they would not put him to sleep (general anesthesia). He was told it would be done in the office, and would not hurt. He was probably given a local,or something, but he does not say. That is what I thought I expressed, but I guess one could read into it that no anesthesia was given. Listen for yourself . The main point was he was told it would not hurt, and it did!
The issue of truth and prevaricating is much bigger than just history, it also applies to issues related to science.
The Church teaches (or has taught) that the WoW is a health code. But the leaders recently announced that caffeinated carbonated soft drinks are okay, but still include coffee and tea on the no-no list. Yet soft drinks are much worse for you than coffee or tea ever were. With obesity and diabetes a serious problem, this conundrum is needs to be resolved.
At displays at grocery stores in Utah County, Coke is endorsed by BYU. Is telling half truths being honest.?
Half of Church members don’t believe in evolution and many believe in a literal OT. Yet evolution is treated as foundational to biology at BYU. And world history disputes OT “facts” and timelines. Yet reading the Ensign you get a lot of fiction. Stories of floods and towers are treated like real events. Is teaching fiction as fact being intellectually honest? Isn’t avoiding the truth as bad as lying?
I’m with those who say “it depends” although it’s perhaps not a satisfying or useful answer since there doesn’t seem to be a widely accepted norm for when to lie. I’ll up the ante with the doctor analogy – is it ok for a triage nurse to tell a wounded soldier who is clearly going to die that he’ll be ok so he doesn’t spend the last 10 minutes of his life in wretched terror? I’d argue that’s a mercy and a “good” lie. Good bedside manner, which many of us appreciate, could well mean oversimplification and white lies that make difficult medical situations marginally more bearable. Maybe if the information is “material” then perhaps a white lie becomes not ok.
The difficulty comes in deciding what is “material” because it differs so much by person. I resent the church and my parents in a real way for not being more open with me about aspects of church history but they would argue that it’s not pertinent to my salvation. So clearly the “material” test doesn’t work.
However we all know a tactless person who believes brutal honesty is the best policy and nobody likes to be around that person for long. We all want grandma to tell us we are her favorite grandchild and we pretend that she would never tell another grand child that same lie. Perhaps white lies are the lubricant of society. I don’t want my wife to be honest with me about my all shortcomings all the time.
Perhaps we’re ok with lies from people who acknowledge their faults but we expect more from organizations claiming to be the single true and living church with a prophet who speaks directly with God.
Why did Joseph Smith lie?
Was it merciful to lie about polygamy to his wife? Was it to enhance his credibility to translate the Book of Abraham? Did he need the money raised by the illegal bank to build the Kirtland temple? Did he come to believe the lies he was telling to be the truth?
Sincerely deluded? Pious fraud? Scoundrel? Prophet of God?
Would he have accomplished more good works if he had not lied so much? Or without the lying would he have accomplished very little and now be forgotten? The real challenge is trying to determine exactly what were lies and what was not. So much of it is not verifiable either way
It reminds me of an old television show my mother would not allow us to watch (which included about every show) called- To Tell The Truth. Three dudes were asked questions about themselves. Two were imposters of the third and allowed to lie shamelessly. The third really was the person and had to tell the truth. A panel of four celebrities asked the questions and acted as judges and generally made asses of themselves and ultimately voted who they thought was the real person. At the end, the voice of the MC would announce: Would the real Joseph Smith please stand up.!
Mary Ann: I understand the distinction you are drawing about academic and devotional.It is my understanding that since we have a God who exists in time and matter, who is subject to some of the laws of nature, that this distinction is blurred. Academic methods are as valid as devotional ones. Studying scientific principles is one of the most inspirational things we can do. The power and love of God expressed in the beauty of the creation is hard to ignore. Ignoring the academic denies one of the essential elements of the Glory of God (intelligence). One can be gentle, sensitive, firm and still be academic. (Maybe not me.). Elder Packer and his useful truthfulness is mentally lazy and smacks of mysticism of which he has little depth beyond orthodox traditionalism.
I would only add one question to the discussion here. In your opinion, how much and what specific Church history should missionaries be teaching to investigators prior to baptism? I am aware of no other Christian sects that require proselytes to be taught about the less than seemly history of that particular sect prior to baptism/entry into membership (if I’m wrong, please let me know). I’m certainly not saying that the Church shouldn’t be more honest about its past, but I’m curious as to what that should look like. Some comments I’ve read on the subject of openness on Church history seem to suggest our missionaries should essentially be talking people out of joining the Church because of its history. That certainly isn’t going to happen, so what SHOULD the process look like?
Not a Cougar:
Not what you teach. The items on the list don’t matter as much our attitude about the information. Deceitful, evasive defensive-not good. Openness, apologize, ask for forgiveness-better but not ideal.
It is the approach. We have a wonderful heroic near perfect history. We lie about it and expect people to buy into it. We live off our white-washed history. Joseph Smith is right up there with Jesus. Everything that fell from his lips is manna from heaven. Yeh, right- that dog don’t bark no more.
Teach people to do their own searching and have our history easily available. The problem with our real history is that it really is pretty rotten and we can’t change it..And the internet is making that more and more visible to everyone except our most narrow-minded members and our missionaries who have little to no access to the negative information.
Whose fault is it when telling even the most basic church history is talking people out of joining? Those are the natural consequences of disgraceful behavior and lying about it unsuccessfully. Maybe we shouldn’t be asking people to join our church until we get some of these problems straightened out and put some distance behind us. Except when we ignore them they stay in the present and never become exclusively in the past..
When we do something wrong, and lie about it repeatedly, we might reach a point where there are no good options left.
There are very negative consequences to truth telling/openness for older people who have devoted their lives to the Kingdom and have lost spouses and face failing health and social isolation and digital illiteracy. The church is everything to them. It is cruel to pull the rug out from under them at this late date. Yet that only perpetuates the problem and makes it worse later when we continue to be dishonest.
Here is how it should look:
Once upon a time my father decided to take the family for a ride up in the mountains. He ignored the warnings of a snow storm. He didn’t turn around when he saw the snow falling. He was in an Impala not a jeep, on dirt roads. He drove faster instead of slower. At some point he ran the car off the road over a steep embankment. He lost control over the car; gravity and the placement of trees and boulders were to determine his fate. So now what should he do? He has no choice as to whether the family survives the impacts and over roll. Or if anyone happens to come along to save them from freezing to death. Too late to postpone the trip, borrow the jeep, turn around sooner.
He hiked out leaving me to guard the rest of the family. A bunch of crazy drunken 4-wheelers happened along and had a great time pulling the car out to the road ruining it. We road home in a VW microbus with a bunch of pot smoking hippies who looked hungry for my little sister. It could have been worse. It probably is for the good ship Mormonism
Our previous worshipful leaders left us in this pickle. Not much we can do but let the cards fall where they will.
Not A Cougar (Is your name a reference to your University, or choice of dating partners?)
You make some good points about “what should our missionaries teach”. They should probably not change what they are currently teaching, but they could be more truthful when questions are asked.
Investigator: Do Mormon’s still practice Polygamy?
Current Missionary: No, that ended in 1890
Future Missionary: Not in this life, but men can be married to several dead wives in the temple.
Bill, thanks. It’s more a college thing but I guess it could be a dating thing too (not surey wife would want to be called a cougar). I had meant to respond to Mike’s comment yesterday but got OBE. My only response to him is that telling the Church to “burn this mother down” isn’t a workable strategy. I don’t see the Church being willing to relinquish its grip on “the one true Church” and fundamentally change what it is. However, I can see a Church that is willing to admit to serious mistakes by its leaders who nonetheless were called of God to establish His kingdom. Bill, I get your comment, but I’m concerned that such an overwhelming answer might be unnecessarily forward. I’d prefer that we have a longer teqching period for investigators. That way, you don’t overwhelm people up front but also have the time to cover some of the thornier issues. I would hope that retention might be higher too.
I always thought “Not a Cougar” was a woman. Thanks for solving the mystery!
If you can’t convince ’em, confuse ’em, MH.