I just finished reading a book called “Man Without A Face”. It is the autobiography of Markus Wolf, the head of East Germany’s Foreign Intelligence Service for over 35 years, from the end of WW2 to three years before the wall fell.
Besides weaving the history of the division of East and West Germany with his spy exploits, the book is also a confession of sorts. Wolf takes blame for some bad things, but also sidesteps the worst atrocities of the GDR. The killing of would-be defectors trying to cross the wall and the supporting of terrorist were not under his authority, so he makes a distinction between “guilt” and “responsibility”
The debate over the different definitions of “guilt” and “responsibility” has become more and more intense in recent years. To put these terms in their historical context, only a small minority of Germans were actually guilty of the terrible crimes that were committed under the Nazis, but all Germans who lived willingly under the Nazis bear a responsibility for them. This is not an academic distinction. Crimes are a matter of law, responsibility a matter of conscience.
Man Without A Face, page 279
Wolf goes on to say they he is not guilty of those atrocities, but he is morally responsible for them by willingly supporting the East German Government. He feels responsible for not speaking out more forcefully. After reunification, he was investigated for violent acts against the German people, but nothing was ever found. He went so far as to file libel suits against newspapers that reported he knew that the GDR was sheltering terrorist. He maintains his innocence, but still says he is morally responsible.
Is this a legitimate argument he makes? If so, can it be applied to religious and secular leaders of our time? Take Trump for example. He is not guilty of white supremacy violence in Charlottesville or anyplace else, but is he morally responsible for the carnage by not condemning them? (he said there were “very fine people on both sides”)
What about church leaders? In Rick B’s post a few weeks ago, he talked about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Lets assume Brigham Young did not cover it up, and he was certainty not guilty of the actual killings, but was he responsible for the events of that day by supporting the rhetoric and social environment that caused the massacre?
Could we as members of the LDS church be morally responsible if we do not speak up against racisms and sexism we see in the church? We did not implement the Policy of Exclusion in 2015, that was our leaders. But are we responsible for not speaking out? Are there Apostles that might not be guilty of that policy, but are responsible for it?
What do you think? Is there a difference or did Markus Wolf just make up this distinction to placate his guilty conscience? Or maybe there is little we can do, as Wolf writes in the epilogue of his book:
I’ve wondered whether I waited too long before saying loudly what I really thought and felt. It was not lack of courage but the futility of the protest throughout the history of the GDR that made me hold my peace. Too often I had seen how vehement protest only served to heighten oppression and further freedom of thought. I believed that patient, quiet negotiation would, in the end, be more productive in a country where any open debate was doomed to be denounced by a leadership that was too hysterical and insecure to act sensibly. Was I wrong?
Man Without a Face, Page 387
Wheat & Tares 
We have a moral obligation to speak up when our inner self tells us. I did so on many occasion in the LDS mission and various wards, even as a leader. However, the LDS system does not allow for ANY dissent. In the end, as history shows those who speak the truth aganist LDS leaders or system, at ANY level, are cast aside. Even when they speak the truth. It is a culture of “protecting the good name of the church”. What happened to Dare to do right?
The LDS church will continue to loose its best and brightest, until they discard the obidience culture and learn how to have a TRUE council. Not the shams they currently present.
Speaking out in church can be dicey. I gave a talk in the Genisis Group (an official priesthood auxiliary for Black members – we have a daughter who is Black). It was a few months after the November 2015 policy announcement on children with gay and lesbian parents and that those in same-sex marriages or cohabitating were apostates. I mentioned it – said that I “could not get my head around it” and referred folks to the official “Mormons and gays” website, as it was called back then, so that people could read what the church’s official positions are. I had people waiting for two hours after the meeting to talk about the policy. It was clearly something that was important for them to talk about – but not something they felt free to discuss in their wards. Luckily for me, the Area 70 assigned to “oversee” Genesis wasn’t there or I probably would have had some repercussions.
I once make an LGBTQ affirming statement (very mild) as a Sunday school teacher and was released within two weeks. Knowing we have a gay son, a bishop asked my wife if she supported same-sex marriage after asking her to accept a calling. When she said yes, and I said yes, and our daughter popped her head in and said yes, the calling was rescinded and we were told no temple recommends for us. The stake president got wind of that and came by. He said we could have temple recommends, but no teaching kids.
So – a responsibility to speak out? Absolutely. But be ready to be marginalized and willing to take your lumps. I admire those who can inhabit the borderlands for years, fighting the good fight. Eventually, I couldn’t do it anym0re.
It seems Herr Wolf was taking responsibility for his own sins, rather than pointing the finger at others to insist that they take responsibility for sins that he is imputing to them.
If the original poster is mindful of any of his own sins, certainly he may take responsibility for them. Pointing his finger at others serves no useful purpose.
I believe in guilt by association. If an individual knowingly and willingly supports any organization or religion that discriminates, denegrates, or abuses a fellow human being, then they are guilty as well. Guilt verses responsibility is a weak attempt at justification.
I think Herr Wolf is very accurate in his distinction; after all, don’t the articles of faith that we will be punished for our own sins. Faith and BeenThere are right that the Church is not open to opposition and tends to excommunicate those who speak up against it’s positions and get much attention.
That doesn’t mean you haven’t done anything wrong by supporting the organization and leadership. There may still be some punishment coming; but, certainly not to the same extent as those guilty of the actual actions.
Great post Bishop Bill 👍
This reminded me of something Pres. Oaks said at the Be One celebration a couple of years ago (and has been rattling around my head every since). He said, “I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple.” (copied from the Church News). It is this tension between “no testimony” (not sure what the parallel would be in Wolf’s government work) and “loyalty” (I expect a big part of Wolf’s government work). I think it is a significant moral conundrum — especially in religion where morality and theology and Church and institution all get kind of muddled together. When your personal sense of right and wrong conflicts with the Church’s or the prophets sense of right and wrong, what is the morally correct thing to do? Should loyalty to yourself trump loyalty to the prophet/Church? Or should loyalty to the prophet/Church trump loyalty to your own testimony (or lack thereof)?
Interestingly, I recall a prior comment on this board where I mentioned this that was followed up by someone commenting that he/she (I forget who it was) did not believe that God was the author of “loyalty tests.” [insert picture here of Data saying, “Processing…”]
Obviously, it cuts both ways. Meaning that the supporters of queer lifestyles get to take responsibility for the heartbreak, pain and death (physical and spiritual) that emerge from those choices. Maybe this is why so called liberals don’t feel fully accepted . We know which side you’ve chosen, and that it’s different than what we believe the Lord has decreed.
It’s trickier in the LDS context, where we are taught: “For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.” There’s no asterisk here that says “except when the Church or your bishop tells you to do something, then put your conscience on a shelf.” I think this ratchets up our responsibility and possibly a measure of guilt for the harms the Church might inflict on marginalized members or others.
Greatest as always, Bishop Bill.
I like the distinction between collective guilt and direct responsibility. And having lived in Germany Years ago, those who lived through the war did feel that sense of collective guilt. Being young Americans, the Berlin people wanted to talk about it with us in a way they never Would with a fellow German. Americans “saved” them during the airlift, and 25 years later, the old folks felt a sense that they owed us their freedom from communism. One of them even shared some canned cheese that he still had 25 years after the Airlift and by this time it was inedible but sacred. So we humans valso have a collective sense of owing someone, because as someone who was a toddler during the airlift, my husband was not personally responsible for the Airlift, but he was US Air force and those were the people who saved them so collectively they felt they owed him a huge debt of gratitude.
As far as do we have a responsibility to speak out, I think it depends. It depends on the consequences of speaking out, as well as how great the sin is you are speaking against. In the days of Helmut Huebner, did the Mormon church have a responsibility to support him against the Nazis And refuse to excommunicate him? They were sacrificing one man instead of many because if they had supported him, many Mormon leaders would have been arrested and sent to concentration camps. The whole church in Germany would have been seen as enemies of the state.
I have had many opportunities to speak out against wrongs I see the Mormon church doing. The first time I remember doing so was in junior high in 1965 when I told my friends that the ban on giving blacks the priesthood was wrong, that God doesn’t punish us on earth for anything in the pre-existence. That is Karma, basing where and when you are born on something from a past life and Mormons don’t believe in Karma. Then in high school my friend and I were discussing a lesson from our psychology class that said that being gay was in born, people were born straight or gay. We both agreed that the church’s stand that homosexual attraction was a choice and was a sin to even feel attracted to same sex was wrong. We concluded that behavior might be a choice, but the attraction was not and therefore could not be a sin.
As I got older and the church fixed some of these problems, I became aware of other problems. I was a feminist and a dragon mama. Even though I only voiced my heretic opinions to friends, I was always marginalized at church. I never wrote blogs or collected a following because I knew that led to trouble but I couldn’t help voicing my opinion to friends. Well, as a result, I dint have many Mormon friends. I went 15 years at one point fully active but without a calling or being asked to talk in church.
Finally like Been There, I decided, on top of other issues, that I just didn’t fit, belong, or was wanted in the Mormon church and that it’s controlling nature and using shame to control members was emotionally abusive. Then I investigated church history.
But as a dragon mama, I did feel collective guilt for even attending church and not actively fighting against it. My daughter was out of the church and knew that her dad and I supported her in her marriage to her partner. But still, my attendance and relative silence sent a message that I agreed with what the church was doing. My even allowing my husband to pay tithing on my behalf is still sending a financial message that I support the church. But still, sometimes the cost of protesting is greater than someone in a mixed faith marriage is willing to pay.
ly
The parable of the good Samaritan is very powerful. We all like to think that we are the ones that would bind up the wounds. But the attitude you express – which is unfortunately very common in the church – often makes us good members the robbers that inflict the wounds.
If I’m wrong in supporting the *queer lifestyle* (dear Lord there is so much wrong in that phrase), I’ll take my licks from God. And if members inflict wounds on their brothers and sisters in His or any other name – they’ll take theirs too.
Context matters. The penalty for Herr Wolf and those of similar mindset was very high–death–and would arguably have had little impact on the GDR regime. Time acquits his decision as what ultimately led to the downfall of the GDR was the demise of their patron, the USSR, brought about by dysfunction and economic decay. Where the penalty is less dramatic and may foment change, however, it seems incumbent on those who voluntarily associate with a certain philosophy to speak up if they are so inclined or disassociate if they are not. In the history of the Mormon church, I can think of no significant changes that were not preceded by some form of opposition.
Sidebar: The Lives of Others is a fantastic film about how society functioned in the GDR. Highly recommended.
I have to periodically thank those who share their true-blue perspectives like ly. I need a periodic reminder of why I found the Mormon church to be an inhospitable, intellectually dishonest and judgmental culture.
Jaredsbrother: What you said–and especially your recommendation of The Lives of Others. It’s excellent.
ly,
If I support heterosexual marriage (which I do), does that mean I have to take responsibility for the heartbreak, pain and death caused by divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse, and family abandonment in these marriages?
Beautifully said Anna, and great post Bishop Bill – very thought provoking.
I relate to so much of what has been said. I randomly speak out but not often and lately that has all been sidetracked by the pandemic anyway. For the times that I have spoken up on issues that I find damaging I can almost feel folk getting out the crosses and garlic to put between them and me. I can see this coming to a head if we fully get back to church again and I no longer pay tithing and will let my recommend expire. There is no place in the church for serious questioning or dissent – even in my neck of the woods where folk a fairly decent and not too over the top. It’s just that I don’t think I have too much common ground anymore with most Church friends – I know many think I’m still all in and would be quite shocked. I almost hate to disappoint them but it’s also a lonely place being unauthentic.. I just don’t get why more people aren’t disturbed by what I see as very significant issues in the church.
Hope this isn’t too off-topic…
The discussion of guilt vs responsibility reminds of the discussion of sins of commission vs. sins of omission. And in that context, I think you have to judge the Church not only for what it says but what it does not say.
We can dissect and discuss the Church’s statements on all kinds of topics. But what is more difficult to do is discuss what they have not said. Here’s a great example: the Church has never apologized for it’s past race policies with respect to blacks and the priesthood and the temple. And the silence is deafening. This is the most obvious example I can think of but there are many more.
We live in a very complicated and conflicted country and world. And yet you’d never know it based on most conference talks – unless by complicated and conflicted you mean evil in the last days. The Church seems to have many many blind spots and tends to often focus on internal talking points. This last GC was a pleasant exception…they actually dared to mention race. But would the Church ever dare discuss discrimination against women and gays? It’s a strange culture in which we worry about modesty and tattoos and piercings but not the exploitation of women. It’s a strange culture in which we worry about being unworthy to receive the spirit but blind to mental health dangers that are often accelerated by our teachings.
When I watch General Conference, I look for messages about what the Brethren are worried about. But when I want to know what we as a people should really worry about, I find more and more that I have to look elsewhere.
Bishop Bill, exactly. And therein lies the ridiculousness of foisting guilt and responsibility on those who aren’t involved. Regardless of the shrieks of cultural elites.
Josh, I don’t know if you got off topic or not, but I liked your post. Reading your post, it struck me that not speaking up about the wrongs we see is a sin of omission. This concept of when are we obligated to speak up, and when we might sort of excuse our own silence, might be made easier if we consider the difference between sins of commission and sins of omission. It may help us forgive ourselves for that guilt of belonging to an organization that does bad things.
I know that difference helped me forgive the church for some of the things it needs to say and hasn’t. Not apologizing for its past racism stinks, but it isn’t as bad as the active racism was.
By coincidence, I am finishing reading “The Berlin Wall,” by Frederick Taylor, a respected British journalist. In it, I learned that Markus Wolf was the head of the Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (HVA), the Stasi’s foreign intelligence department, and the Deputy Minister of State Security. Taylor describes Wolf as an “ever-plausible chameleon of the secret world.” Taylor also notes that secret policemen are “notoriously skillful survivors,” and characterizes Wolf’s account of his role in the days immediately before the breaching of the Berlin Wall as a “spectacularly disingenuous account.” It might be wise to take Wolf’s autobiography with a grain of salt.
None of which diminishes the value of Bishop Bill’s excellent post and the comments thus far. Thank you very much.
The problem for me is, how to deal with the question of accountability in a society that was so massively morally compromised by the Stasi, which at its peak employed hundreds of thousands of people in a country of less than 20 million, and had a massive network of informants.
If you hold everyone fully accountable in such a situation, then a society effectively stops functioning. How does a group both function and be moral and atone for the sins of the past?
I don’t have the answer. Forgetting and covering sins is wrong, but overly strict accountability that does not allow for mistakes can also paralyze.
I think the distinction raised in the comments between sins of commission and sins of omission is helpful. The Catholic Church also has a rather neat practice: when a Pope dies, a special Mass is said for his soul, because of the sins he committed while fulfilling his office as Pope. It is inevitable that one will exercise unrighteous dominion when one leads.
Thanks again for a great post.