Integrity is one of those complex virtues that has a broad meaning that carries a lot of moral baggage. If you say that someone lacks integrity, that doesn’t tell you anything specific (like say if you called someone an adulterer) but it throws a lot of negative implications, implying that person is dishonest, unreliable, untrustworthy, and so forth. If you say someone *has* integrity, it implies there was some situation where that person’s values or duties came into conflict with some antagonist (the law? peer pressure? a personal threat?) but despite some pressure, they did the right thing. But who’s to say what the right thing is in various circumstances when morality and ethics are, in all their varieties, hotly contested subjects? So don’t expect a humble blog post to resolve what you might call “the integrity dilemma.” And let me restate clearly what the integrity dilemma is: most all of us would like to have integrity, most of us would admit it’s hard to give a clear definition of it, but when we observe a particular person’s bad acts, questionable behavior, or malicious words on a specific occasion or over time, we are quite confident in saying, “That person lacks integrity.”
This topic arises because of a comment to a post here at the blog last week that spurred some reflective conversation backstage on the W&T List. Here is the comment:
I feel most permabloggers are a bit coy on where exactly their beliefs are …. I do wish authors were a little more upfront about where they stand, as it does seem to chip away at the integrity of the blog (however strong it may be) at times.
I’m not sure what “integrity of the blog” means, as I do not think a blog is an entity to which integrity or other moral virtues can be ascribed. It’s just a website, folks. The comment might be a reflection on the integrity of the blog contributors as a whole, so if you could assign a numerical integrity score to each of the ten or so authors who presently contribute posts at W&T, then take an average of those ten scores, that might represent the integrity of the blog. And who knows, like everything else in America after Trump, maybe our collective integrity score has fallen a bit since 2016. But I think the label is properly applied to persons, not to institutions. Either you have integrity or you don’t. I’m not sure you can have a little integrity or 50% integrity.
So here’s a quick road map. First, I’m going to look at Elder Jack N. Gerard’s recent Conference talk, “Integrity: A Christlike Attribute.” Then I’ll return to the question of integrity and what it means to me and, by extension, the blog, although I am speaking only for myself, not for other permabloggers, who may choose to weigh in with their own comments.
Integrity Does Not Mean Institutional Loyalty
Print that out and clip it to your fridge: Integrity and institutional loyalty are not synonyms. In fact, in many circumstances an individual shows integrity by REJECTING institutional loyalty in favor of doing the right thing, whether telling the truth to authorities or warning a third person they are at risk for some unwarranted action or simply being candidly honest when an institution demands or expects you to be helpfully dishonest or misleading when talking about the institution. And here is the problem: When LDS leaders talk about integrity, they mean institutional loyalty. Which means that when they talk about integrity, they don’t know what they are talking about. Please, read on.
I already commented on Elder Gerard’s talk in my Conference post three weeks ago. That was posted before transcripts were available, so now I can quote from the actual talk. In the first section of the talk, he said this: “Integrity means we do not lower our standards or behavior to impress or to be accepted by others. You ‘do what is right’ and ‘let the consequence follow.‘” I have no problem agreeing with that, although I would note in many cases awareness of the consequences of one’s words or actions informs the “what is right” determination. If you are a Utilitarian, believing that “what is right” means what brings to pass the greatest good for the greatest number, then consequences are of supreme importance in deciding “what is right.”
Here is where it gets tricky. He leads the second section by saying this: “A life of integrity requires us to first and foremost be true to God.” Now if that meant using and applying the moral virtues gleaned from a reading of the New Testament, that might be a workable plan for “a life of integrity.” But Elder Gerard is a senior leader in the LDS Church, regarded as the Kingdom of God on Earth, with the President himself generally held out as an inerrant mouthpiece for God. When Elder Gerard says, “be true to God,” what that means is be loyal to the institution and to whatever its leaders tell the membership to believe or ask the membership to do. This expected loyalty and deference largely extends, of course, to local leaders, the stake president and the bishop. As noted earlier, equating integrity with institutional loyalty is simply wrong in most cases. I would restate the claim as follows: “A life of integrity sometimes requires us to place other virtues or values above loyalty to an institution, even the LDS Church.” I’m sure you can easily think of a dozen examples of my restated claim.
Here’s a paragraph from Elder Gerard’s talk that raises this issue of a conflict between the two duties (to love God and to love one’s neighbor).
Just as integrity flows from the first great commandment to love God, being true to each other flows from the second, to love our neighbors as ourselves. A life of integrity is not a life of perfection; it is a life in which we strive every day to foremost be true to God and within that context to be true to others. President Oaks reminds us, “Our zeal to keep [the] second commandment must not cause us to forget the first.”
This quote shows that Elder Gerard was linking his “true to God” and “true to others” discussion to what President Oaks said five years ago in the October 2019 Conference. You might re-read that talk, where Oaks does say some nice things about treating others, even those who we disagree with or who don’t follow LDS rules for behavior, with kindness and civility. Re-reading it myself, it is rather vague on specifics, but (1) it does seem to imply that there are often conflicts between loving God and loving your neighbor, and (2) it does seem to equate “loving God” with following what President Nelson tells you to believe and practice. So it shows the same confusion between integrity and institutional loyalty that I noted above in Elder Gerard’s talk, albeit with some very good counsel to treat all people with kindness and civility.
Here is another paragraph from Elder Gerard’s talk that is quite relevant to online discussions like ours:
The oppositional pull of this world is an essential part of God’s plan of salvation. How we respond to the pull is the essence of who we are—a measure of our integrity. The worldly pull can be as direct as to destroy fidelity in marriage or as subtle as posting anonymous comments critical of Church doctrine or culture. Exercising integrity in our choices is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.
That brings us back to our initial discussion of “blog integrity.” What does integrity mean in the context of speaking online, whether in a blog post, a blog comment, a Facebook post, or whatever?
The Ethics of Teaching and Speaking
What does integrity mean in the context of teaching or speaking in the LDS Church? From the two talks above, my impression is that LDS leadership thinks this would be teaching or speaking only things that mirror (and certainly never contradict) what LDS leaders are presently teaching. And when the doctrinal or policy wind shifts, you ought to quickly come about, so “I’m a Mormon” was a good thing to say ten years ago, but not anymore.
Here’s my own approach. I have been a Gospel Doctrine teacher (that’s the LDS adult Sunday School class) at least five times in my life. My approach is that I will not teach anything false or misleading. Which means I ignore much of what is in the manual and just use the scripture block for that week as my foundation. For decades now, the official counsel in the teacher’s manual and from LDS leaders is to stick to the manual and only the manual. That leads to a pretty dull class and, more to the point, often conflicts with my own sense of ethical teaching, defined above. If I have to bring in outside material to explain a tricky scriptural passage or make a relevant doctrinal point, I’ll try to use an LDS Conference talk or an LDS book (an LDS publication or a Deseret Book book) to make my point. But there is a lot of stuff in the Old and New Testament that only makes sense in light of commentary and explanation by biblical scholarship as a whole. Sometimes I just use a scholar’s comments or insights to explain a passage; once in a while I’ll actually read a helpful sentence or paragraph prefaced by, “Here’s what one biblical scholar said …”.
Here’s a wider view of my personal ethic of LDS teaching. First, it’s not a lecture. Those in the class get a lot more out of attending if class members contribute comments and their own insights. I structure my lessons around four or five discussion questions, and I use scripture quotes or my own comments to set up the discussion question and hopefully set up class members to have comments to add to the discussion. Whether as a teacher or class member, when someone says something screwy or simply wrong, I’ll usually step into a response with something like, “Well, there is another way to think about that issue …”. Gospel Doctrine is not a graduate seminar, where spirited and critical discussion is the modus operandi. It’s a devotional exercise where people attend to learn a thing or two about the scriptural text, to add a comment or two of their own, and to leave hopefully encouraged or uplifted to be a better person and a better Mormon.
My approach, my own personal ethic of LDS teaching, carries over almost entirely to online discussion and blog posting in particular. I don’t write anything false or misleading. I try to do a positive post (here’s something nice about the Church …) at least once a month to balance out the other stuff. I try to address topics of interest to LDS readers (and fringe LDS readers and former LDS readers and non-LDS readers) and do so in a way that leads to a good discussion in the comments. While it would be wrong to judge the success of a post by how many comments it garners, I generally feel good about a post if there is enlightening discussion in the comments and feel a bit disappointed when no one has much to say in response. If there are no comments, I have in some sense failed with that post. There are some issues I pass on writing about or choose to not post on. There are some books I read that directly or indirectly say something relevant about the Church or its history, but I just can’t figure out a good or productive way to talk about in a blog post. Like “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief.” Or several books discussing recent scholarship on ancient Israelites, their ancestors, and the Hebrew Bible. Or books or current events when applying it to LDS life is just too big a stretch, even when I would really like to talk about the book or event. Take the recent protests on campus all over the country. When I can figure out a way to do a good blog post on that in the context of W&T, an LDS blog, I’ll post. If I can’t, I won’t.
A final word. There’s a difference between self-criticism and criticizing a third party or (in this context) another church. If I’m writing a post that points out a problem or issue with an LDS doctrine, belief, or practice, that’s self-criticism because I’m LDS. When an Evangelical do-gooder points out problems or issues with LDS doctrine or practice, well that’s her right to do so, but my initial reaction is generally that’s the pot calling the kettle black. She’d do better to look at her own Evangelical denomination and beliefs, because Lord knows there is plenty of material to work with. There is a large dose of integrity associated with self-criticism. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates, the ultimate exemplar of moral integrity, at the trial in which he was sentenced to death for annoying the citizens of Athens with unwelcome questions concerning justice and integrity.
As for the permabloggers or regular contributors here at W&T, all of them have some strong connection to the LDS Church (not necessarily current membership or activity) and a continuing interest in some or all things LDS. That’s obvious — otherwise they wouldn’t be here and writing posts. There are no flat-out critics here. There are plenty of online sites hosted by LDS critics and some of what they post is informative or insightful, but that’s not what W&T is about. I think we do a good job of posting material across the whole spectrum: posts that are positive about the Church, posts that are neutral on some topic or address both sides of a tricky issue, and posts that are critical on some doctrine or topic because sometimes that’s just where the chips fall. We allow wide-ranging discussion in the comments, and only rarely de-publish a comment or block a commenter in order to keep comment discussion friendly, civil, and relevant. I welcome comments from any W&T contributor who has something to add to my description of the blog and what it’s about. Like General Conference, we don’t coordinate or script our posts here. Everyone does their own thing.
So that’s that, a short discussion of integrity in the context of the LDS Church and in particular in teaching classes or posting online. Maybe you think differently about this topic. The floor is yours.
- Am I off-base in thinking that when LDS leaders talk about integrity what they really mean is institutional loyalty?
- Have you encountered a conflict between your conscience (telling you to do the right thing) and an institutional directive (telling you to do something else)? That could be a business, government, or other institution, or it might be the Church.
- If you teach an LDS class, what guides your decisions about what to teach? What do you do when the manual is misguided in its approach to a topic?
- What do you think about the recent LDS leadership claim that the two great commandments, loving God and loving your neighbor, are sometimes or often in conflict?
Hi, and great post!
I am a moral utilitarian. For example, I will happily tell a lie if, after careful consideration, I deem it will serve the most people and the overall consequences are better for everyone. I guess that makes me a law unto myself. But aren’t we all?
Actually, I think for quite a few people the idea of being a law unto themselves is insupportable. This is part of the reason that I think the Church’s definition of integrity appeals. Yes, I think that “integrity” and “institutional loyalty” are synonyms in the minds of 90-95% of Q15 and Q70s. I also think that they are synonymous in the minds of quite a number of TMBs. My mother comes strongly to mind. If you were to press my mother, whose beliefs and convictions are sincere, she would say, “Of course integrity and following the prophet are the same; the Church/prophet = God’s will; God knows better than I ever will; therefore, I act with integrity when I follow the prophet.”
Making moral decisions on your own is really, really hard. I get it wrong a lot. But I won’t outsource it to anybody else.
I mean, it doesn’t remotely mean what Gerard thinks it means.
Posting an anonymous comment doesn’t mean someone lacks integrity. It could mean they fear reprisals from loved ones or Church leadership. That says more about Church culture and discipline than it does the anonymous poster.
I like the definition of integrity as wholeness. Acting consistently with my internal compass & my own values and morals. And unfortunately, I don’t think the Church teaches us how to do this. It teaches us how to follow rules it sets. It doesn’t teach us how to identify and live consistently with values & a moral compass.
I agree with the assertion that the church tends to conflate integrity with institutional loyalty. I also agree that they are most definitely not the same. When I was in high school and getting ready to go on a mission, my home ward bishop was a professor in the Marriott School of Business. I came home one weekend from BYU and attended a ward campout in Provo canyon. In the morning, the bishop gave a wonderful devotional to the ward members centered on the infamous Stanley Milgram experiment.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Stanley Milgram experiment, the Stanley Milgram experiment was a psychological study conducted in the 1960s to investigate obedience to authority figures. Participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to another person (who was actually an actor) when they answered questions incorrectly, illustrating the willingness of individuals to obey authority even when it conflicted with their personal conscience.
The bishop talked philosophically and compellingly about the spiritual dangers of blindly following authority and being willing to outsource moral decision making to an authority figure. In his devotional he discussed horrific attrocities committed by rank and file soldiers during WW2 to drive home the point. To be very clear, my bishop was not advocating going against the brethren in any way. Rather, he was speaking more generally of warning that there could be instances in any of our lives when even leaders we know and trust could ask us to obey something that was morally wrong, sometimes severely so. It was a lesson on integrity that I have kept dear in my heart most of my life. My take-away from that is that when this happens, we will need to have the integrity to stand up for correct principles and truth, even if it means standing up against an institution or revered leader or authority figure. Do what is right, let the consequence follow!
From Elder Gerard’s talk, and quoted in the OP above: “The worldly pull can be as direct as to destroy fidelity in marriage or as subtle as posting anonymous comments critical of Church doctrine or culture. Exercising integrity in our choices is an outward expression of an inner commitment to follow the Savior Jesus Christ.”
Two issues, one on church doctrine and one on church culture. What is doctrine? The dictionary says that it is what a church teaches as true. And this changes. When doctrine changes, we are told that what was previosly taught as doctrine was actually practice, and practice can change but doctrine never does. Thus one cannot know what is doctrine until it no longer is. A silly, but true, example. Not that long ago, members were told thar our doctrine included avoiding the dole, and as a matter of doctrine church members were to go to their bishops for assistance, and never to the state. This doctrine has turned 180 degrees, because today we tell members to go to their governments first. Since we can’t tell what is doctrine, because EVERYTHING taught by our leaders is doctrine, until it becomes practice, then Elder Gerard would silence almost all discussion.
On culture, why can’t we talk about our church culture? What exactly is our church culture? Is church culture Utah culture? Would a joke about green jello salad at a Mormon funeral be speaking ill of church culture? If we cannot define what church culture is, then maybe we should not condemn people who talk about it, for fear of criminalizing all talk. My wife’s aunt, who teaches second grade in a heavily LDS community in Zion, told my wife recently that some LDS parents will invite the whole class to a birthday party, except for non-member children. Is this speaking ill of church culture?
I think that we should be willing to allow respectful and thoughtful discussions about doctrine and culture. I heard a really funny joke about the pope a few weeks ago, told to me by an active and practising catholic friend. We both had a good laugh, and no, it wasn’t dirty or embarrassing. I thought: if I told this same joke but replaced the pope with our church president, and I told it to some LDS friends, would there be a laugh, or would there be horror? We should be able to tell an inoffensive and clean joke about ourselves and about our culture.
Hey, make sure everyone that you are crushing your single-use water bottles from the top and not from the sides.
As a former TBM who is now 99% out (the other 1% would be having my records removed), one concept I initially struggled with when I left was that I was no longer “keeping my covenants”. My lifestyle didn’t really change much (I still don’t drink or go to strip clubs) but I was not attending meetings, taking the sacrament, attending the temple, paying tithing, wearing garments, etc. So I felt some normal Mormon guilt and I started to question my own integrity.
But then it was explained to me that if you make a covenant or agreement, that is only valid if both sides are honest and forthcoming. In my case, I was. But I don’t see how the Church can say the same given their efforts to mislead and coverup historic AND current actions. So I came to realize that my integrity is intact and in fact leaving the Church was an example of my integrity. (I know this sounds self-serving…just telling you the way I now see it).
I think Josh H hits on a very important point regarding church activity and integrity. I don’t believe any of the issues he mentions (e.g., attending meetings, taking the sacrament, attending the temple, paying tithing, wearing garments, etc.) really fall into my own personal definition of integrity. I think this is another example of conflating two distinct and separate ideas, namely church activity and integrity.
When I was at BYU, a common story that was often told was of Karl G. Maeser as it relates to the Honor Code (e.g., church enforced dress and grooming standards): “I have been asked what I mean by “word of honor.” I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls—walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground—there is a possibility that in some way or another I might be able to escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of that circle? No, never! I’d die first.”
As important as one’s word may be, I think sometimes even this can lead us astray, especially in the church. If one make’s a promise to do something without fulling knowing the repercussions of such a promise, deciding to revisit the initial decision in light of new information strikes me as not only reasonable, but healthy and compatible with integrity.
In my limited understanding of the law, there is the idea of “unconscionable contract” which is a contract that is so unfair or one-sided that it is against the conscience. I think a lot of what we term “covenant path” might fall into this bucket of zealous adherence to things that aren’t really all that important. I am reminded of my dad’s famous “we’re going to play the silent game” when we went on road trip. The game was just as it sounded: every kid tried to be as silent as long as possible. I remember my younger brother didn’t make a peep for like 2 hours. I think my dad gave him a dollar or something! Sometimes I think a lot of what we like to think of as integrity is actually adhering to things that aren’t all that important in the grand scheme of things, much like the silent game. Breaking the rules of the silent game isn’t the same as stealing from your sibling.
In my view, integrity is honesty, trustworthiness, and a committment to strong moral principles. It means doing what is right, even when no one is watching and even if it is not in our own self-interest. It think it also means actively speaking out for the downtrodden, the marginalized, or against those who suffer prejudice, discrimination, or unfair treatment.
“Have you encountered a conflict between your conscience (telling you to do the right thing) and an institutional directive (telling you to do something else)?”
The first thing that came to mind was Prop 8 in California. I was deep into the “proving my worthiness” stage. Ignoring the discomfort in the pit of my stomach, I did what we were pled with to do: hold placards at busy intersections, place yard signs, go canvassing, contribute money to the cause. It all felt wrong, but I put discomfort aside to follow the brethren, who later denied they pressured members to promote Prop 8 (oh, that I had recorded those talks and special meetings!) In retrospect, this clearly was a case of integrity being defined as loyalty to the institution, not to conscience.
When it comes to the first and second great commandments, I am confused by the current rhetoric dismissing the second if it comes into conflict with the first. When does the second commandment come into conflict with the first? I am not seeing any such possibility.
Keeping the First commandment is easy. Outwardly, all it requires is lip service. Loving your neighbor is MUCH more difficult. And I point at Jesus’ own explanation justifying the designation of these two great commandments in Matt 22:40, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” It takes both to fulfill the commandments of the Almighty. If either one is neglected, we are certainly committing sin. To justify dismissing either is to justify sin. To neglect adherence to the second makes it possible to commit acts of violence, hatred and malice in God’s name. THAT worries me.
I pretty much agree with the OP, and I want to add a dimension that may sound like a counterpoint. In my experience, integrity is hard, and sometimes seems (and probably is in fact) impossible. Because integrity is a virtue, almost universally respected, I am tempted to define whatever I’m doing into the ambit of integrity. But I think that’s a mistake.
For example, I agree with Elder Gerard that posting a comment anonymously is not an exercise in integrity. There are good reasons, sometimes life-saving reasons, to stay anonymous. I’ve done it myself and I don’t have second thoughts or regrets about my anonymity on occasion. But it’s not integrity. I also know the risk-taking feeling of take a stance publicly under my name. It’s different. I know the feeling of sitting on my hands when the classroom discussion takes a horrible turn. I know the feeling of speaking up and walking out. They’re different.
I want a life of integrity. My efforts along that line have resulted in significant rifts with the church and the community (which is my reply to the question does the church version of integrity equal institutional loyalty). There is a cost and I am not there yet, both.
“…as subtle as posting anonymous comments critical of Church doctrine or culture.” Which part of posting the anonymous critical comment is a violation of integrity? Is it the anonymous part (so posting under my actual name is better)? Or is it the act of voicing criticism (lack of institutional loyalty)?
In years past, church leaders typically stressed conflict between loving God and loving your neighbor when rebuking members for being too tolerant of LGBT+ people/activities. I have a hard time hearing talks referencing the two great commandments without sensing a call for greater institutional loyalty and more “musket fire” in defense of whatever issue the Church prioritizes at the moment. Currently, it appears that members show their love of God over their (literal) neighbors by petitioning for larger temple spires.
I do not think that posting anonymously is inappropriate; anonymous posting does not violate integrity unless the poster is duty bound to remain silent, most likely due to holding high office or being closely related to such a pwrson. John Q. Member, who is unknown and whi does not hold high office, can and should post anonymously; otherwise, he or she would have absolutely no voice whatsoever.
Georgis, that is a great point. Posting anonymously, especially without reference to my gender or membership status, may mean the Church pays more attention to my words. Because for all they know, I could be somebody they actually care about.
I’d like to respond to the original comment that prompted this post:
It is my belief that people want to know if authors are active or not so they can write the blog off as too faithful/too anti. (it works both ways.) Rather than an integrity issue as the commenter alleges, it is simply a shortcut for the reader to avoid engaging an argument. If the author is anti, then a faithful person can write the argument off as anti. If the author is faithful, the argument can be written off as too pro-Church. It is much harder to evaluate an argument if one has to work it out themselves.
The reader simply wants a shortcut to evaluate arguments, and since we, the authors of this blog, want the arguments to stand on their own, it does become frustrating for some readers, which this particular commenter wants to call an integrity issue.
But that is a complete mischaracterization. Judge righteous judgment on each argument, without judging the authors by their activity or belief status. We did the hard work. You can too.
“Like everything else in America after Trump, maybe our collective integrity score has fallen a bit since 2016.”
I don’t think it has at W&T, but after I read this post I went and read a couple of posts and the comments from another Mormon blog that I used to respect, and some of the comments made by a couple of bloggers there (not random commenters, but people who regularly post) were startling in their rudeness. We really have gone downhill since 2016.
I think having integrity is not a binary proposition and although we are quick to do it, it is even harder to judge someone else’s integrity. Life is messy and complicated. I think that our basic desire to be as kind and good as we can be in any situation is what should govern our efforts and intent. For example, in 2008, my stake president asked me to go to a few wards in our stake to talk about Proposition 8 in California (we lived in another state, but they were trying, I suppose, to get church members on board with supporting it in any way that they could). I hadn’t really been paying attention, but I did some research and said I would talk to the wards that he wanted me to talk to (on 5th Sunday combined meetings, 3 different wards). I spoke what I thought was the truth. I said “the people that support Prop 8, including SLC church leadership, are saying this . . . . and the people that are against it are saying this . . . . ” I think I was objective about each side– I tried to be. I was also at a different place spiritually back then, probably leaning toward TBM, but I was careful with my words because I had my doubts about the church’s position. I did the best that I could with who I was and what I knew. If someone asked me to do that same task today, I would decline and I would not hesitate to openly oppose Prop 8 if asked, if commenting in a lesson, etc. Messy and complicated. We did to allow each other grace as we all learn through experience.
I also see no problem with writing posts on the Internet under a pseudonym. When I began teaching school in a district that was extremely punitive towards any employee who dared to call attention to significant problems in the way the district was run and the way that teachers were treated both by principals and the superintendent and board of education I first learned about the power of staying anonymous in order affect healthy change. The district’s motto appeared to be “Fire first, ask questions later.” At one point in my teaching career we teachers became aware through a couple of secretaries in the district office that the board of education and the superintendent were having private meetings (illegal in themselves according to state law) to plan an illegal move to deprive the teachers and staff to of their right to collective bargaining when it came time for us to negotiate our yearly contracts. A few teachers wrote letters using their own names to the editors of the local news media to bring the illegal meetings and proposed plans to the public’s attention. They were all promptly fired.
The same holds true for the church. If someone advocates for necessary change within the church and uses their own name in doing so, chances are that this person will be punished, if not by the bishop then likely by the SP. Think about the September 6, Sam Young, Natasha Helfer and others who were exed for speaking truth to power and daring to advocate for needful and spiritually healthy changes.
I find it both sad and maddening that church members can’t openly discuss the problems that the church has and offer possible solutions to the problems without realizing at the same time that the chances are extremely high that they will have to pay for their concerns by having their membership withdrawn. And because the members are muzzled and/or punished by the church the leaders don’t have to be accountable to anyone, including our Heavenly Parents. Think about all the crazy stuff that happened in Kirtland, Missouri and Nauvoo, Mountain Meadows, the supposed end of polygamy, the ERA, the Race and the Priesthood issue, the POX, the SEC issue and so much more. The church has clearly shown that they don’t play by the rules even as they expect the members to do so. If anonymity is the only way to safely bring serious ethical issues to the attention of the members then so be it.
Integrity = Institutional loyalty makes perfect sense if you believe the institution and those leading it are incapable of making significant errors. I suspect that a pretty high percentage of the bloggers and commenters believed that at some point in their life. I certainly believed it more strongly than I do now. If you are of the opinion that church leadership can and does make errors, then integrity must on occasion require some degree of “disloyalty”. I would argue that maintaining moral integrity and speaking/acting out against an institutional mistake may be showing loyalty to the values of an institution, even (and particularly) when the institution is not living up to its values. This could easily be compared to civil disobedience, in which breaking laws may, at times, be the most patriotic thing you can do.
I went through both temple recommend interviews in the last couple of weeks, which gave me a chance to question my own integrity. In scheduling the interview, I had already decided I considered myself worthy of a recommend, and so I gave the necessary answers to receive one. When it comes to questions about sustaining church leaders, I have a few personal caveats these days, and I’ll take those up with God when the time is right. I’ll accept His judgement one way or the other there. But I’m not seeking the counselor’s approval. In essence, I chose to answer what I feel the questions are intending to ask, which is perhaps not exactly what the phrasing of all the questions might imply. Undoubtedly, there are some who would call this the exact opposite of integrity.
As for anonymous comments, the name I use here is certainly part of my name. Just not a particularly useful part of my name if you were trying to figure out who I am. 🙂
To me acting with integrity means to stand up for what you personally believe is the right way to treat other people (this means Christ like in my definition) even if you know others will disagree with you. The deepest integrity also means you will be honest and authentic about where you stand. You will not be deceptive or support something you know is wrong to maintain or enhance your own personal gain, reputation, influence or standing in the community. The only deception that is justified is in never outing a person without their permission or in never breaking a personal confidence by sharing it without permission.
A person with integrity is an upstander rather than a bystander, and never allows anyone in their presence or protection to be bullied (including themselves).
My parents taught me what it means to have integrity and it is never about supporting or defending the status quo, our personal self interest as a leader, or defending any institution. My parents served on a rural mental health board in Wyoming. I remember that everyone on the board chose to make a decision they both felt would hurt people in our community that needed mental health services. They were pressured and threatened to vote a certain way or they would be voted off the board. They chose to vote the way they saw as correct. Then they stood up and walked out together.
I cannot agree with Elder Gerard’s definition of integrity. I post my disagreements publicly using the same user name I use on the church sites. I will not be silenced by his pressure or anyone else’s pressure to conform to their version of what is right. I know what the Spirit tells me is right. If someone does something hurtful to me for doing what I believe is right, I can walk away with a clean conscience.
I believe I have an obligation to change my mind when I come to understand new information. I believe it is an act of integrity to apologize when I find I have hurt others, even inadvertently. It’s an act of integrity to be transparent and clear about mistakes or errors.
On this basis, I have trouble stomaching Elder Gerard’s call to have integrity. Based on my definition of integrity, the church has failed to act with integrity on a number of fronts, but most clearly and specifically in how they have handled tithing. They not only hid their assets from the knowledge of general church membership, but they broke the law to do so, and had to pay a 5 million dollar fine to the SEC. In church statements on this topic there has been no open apology, but only an insinuation it was their lawyers fault. They have not become more transparent about spending either.
I don’t expect the church to be perfect. No one is. They could still take efforts to apologize and act with more transparency and integrity. I am still waiting……
So they would be wise to keep their mouths shut about integrity. I am not going to change the meaning of integrity for them, or the meaning of preside and equal either.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Christian, Georgis, and others, I didn’t really address anonymity in the OP. Here goes. First, a lot of people want to know who you are and what your “Mormon status” is (active, inactive, ex, never LDS) just so they can short-circuit the substance of your post or comment and leap to a dismissive judgment. As if the quality or validity of your argument or reasoning depends on who you are, which is obviously false, but understandable. So anonymous posting (quite frequent online, so deal with it) actually *contributes* to more serious discussion. I recognize it may also empower some to make snarky or aggressive comments, but most of us can identify and dismiss that sort of behavior. It’s not hard to distinguish the clowns from the serious discussants.
Second, anonymity protects the poster or commenter from overreaction by a fellow ward member, a family member, or a local leader who recognizes you and is upset you talk more openly or freely or honestly online than you do in church on Sunday. That seems like a perfectly legitimate use of online anonymity. Why give these folks the info they need to unreasonably stir up trouble for you? As if I or anyone else is somehow obligated to help someone stir up trouble. I admire Christian’s position on this, but I don’t think it holds for everyone or even most people who prefer a degree of anonymity. It’s worth pointing out that most LDS material posted on the Church website or published in book or pamphlet form DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE AUTHOR. Yup, the Church itself rarely identifies the authors of its published material. As is so often the case, it is hypocritical for an LDS leader to criticize those who comment anonymously about LDS issues when the Church itself regularly employs anonymity in its publications.
Finally, and I hadn’t thought about this much until now, I suspect some female posters or commenters see a degree of security from posting anonymously. There is the issue of simple security in a world with a few creepy guys who somehow feel justified in mouthing off to or even threatening women (likely because they are offended by women who appear smarter than they are). Second and somewhat related, I’ve heard a few women state their comments get taken more seriously if their posting name is neutral or suggestive of being male.
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need anonymity. In the real world, whatever degree of anonymity you choose to employ is fairly defensible, at least in LDS blogging and posting.
PS — While I was composing this long comment, several comments came in (the four or five above this comment) making some of the points I make in this response. Well done, Georgis and Rick B. and Wayfaring Stranger and Dave W.
Once as a young bishop, I found myself in opposition to the stake presidency on a serious issue. I knew I could not support the matter, which would involve a public sustaining. I could not sleep at night regarding the issue, despite long discussions with those in authority over me. I stuck to my guns and the stake backed down. One of the most agonizing times I experienced. But, I learned much and would not have done it any differently.
Side note, I offered to resign as bishop, though it didn’t ultimately come to that. But I had made up my mind that I would.
Integrity means that you actually are the person you present yourself as. You are the same inside as you are on the outside. When we speak of structural integrity, we mean there’s no hidden weakness or damage. Whatever our particular beliefs, we walk the talk.
I agree with Rick B. Let the merit of the argument stand rather than letting people default back on “well they are just deceived bless their hearts.” Perfectly said.
With respect to anonymity, we all have our reasons for selecting our usernames that vary from our real names to pennames to nicknames based on our privilege. I think using them consistently could be considered ethical as it allows us here to build relationships. Using different usernames in order to get around being banned or to troll is less ethical. YMMV.
I have no problem with anonymous comments or bloggers using a “pen name”.
With regular reading of the comments and blog articles I get a very good ideas as to who is who and what they believe and support.
Benjamen Franklin used the pen name “Silence Dogood” to get published when he was a 16 year old boy trying to get into the newspaper business.
Hamilton, Madison and Jay shared the pen name “Publius” to publish their writings during the ratification of the US Constitution.
Dave B, you are so right when you suggest that female’s use anonymous names for the sake of safety and some protection.
This is something most female’s must think about their whole lives.
We are constantly aware of our physical, mental and spiritual safety and never quite relax.
No everyone obeys the second greatest commandment and care must be given as to who is trustworthy.
This topic reminds me of something Pres. Oaks said. Speaking at the “Be One Celebration” in 2018, Pres. Oaks talked about not receiving a testimony of the reasons given to justify the priesthood and temple ban, but explained that he determined to be loyal to the church and the brethren.
“I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. 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. — church news report of his talk https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration/ “
In so many ways, it was a brief portion of a much larger talk, and not the central point of his message that day. Since he first gave that talk, I have wanted to ask him to put this brief comment into the context of post like this one. How do we balance our integrity in regards to our own sense of right and wrong, and our desire to be loyal to the church?
When I think about the priesthood and temple ban, and think about the hard work that led up to receiving the revelation in ’78, I can’t help but wonder how choosing loyalty to the church delayed that revelation. I think of a hypothetical scenario where a Utah Supreme Court justice or a President of BYU-P publicly declares that he doesn’t believe the reasons being given for the policy. Even if he follows that with a public declaration of loyalty, how might things have progressed differently for the entire church (or, at least those who would pay attention to statements by a Utah Supreme Court justice and president of BYU) to know that such a person did not have a testimony of certain troubling teachings (that, I might mention in 2024, were disavowed by the church in 2013)?
I don’t know how to answer the question of integrity versus institutional loyalty, and maybe it depends on specific circumstances. It seems like a topic that needs a lot more thought and nuance and fleshing out than Elder Gerard could give it in a 10-20 minute GC talk.
Old Man:
“When it comes to the first and second great commandments, I am confused by the current rhetoric dismissing the second if it comes into conflict with the first.”
We don’t dismiss the second commandment. Rather we allow the Lord’s counsel to inform us as to how we can best serve our neighbors. I love this paragraph from D. Todd Christofferson’s talk on the subject:
“Putting the first commandment first does not diminish or limit our ability to keep the second commandment. To the contrary, it amplifies and strengthens it. It means that we enhance our love by anchoring it in divine purpose and power. It means that we have the Holy Ghost to inspire us in ways to reach out that we would never have seen on our own. Our love of God elevates our ability to love others more fully and perfectly because we in essence partner with God in the care of His children.”
Mr. Shorty: amen. Very well put. My thoughts on Elder Gerard’s thoughts went directly to the SEC violations that the church went to great strides to commit. I could not listen to his words without thinking of those members (mostly leaders) who intentionally lied, deceived, threatened, and yet answered their temple recommend questions well enough to hold recommends. We know they did. That is because in their minds, they were being true to the institution. They felt good about that. That outweighed any internal compass that may have been trying to point them towards honesty. That is absolutely the antithesis of integrity. I still cannot get past that. His talk was sacrilegious, in my opinion. (Which I know does not count for much).
Like Josh H, for me personally, leaving the church was acting with integrity. I understand that isn’t necessarily the best choice for everyone, I’m only speaking for myself and my personal situation.
As far as posting anonymously, if the Strengthening the Members Committee didn’t exist then maybe people wouldn’t feel the need to protect themselves. Having a little-known to the general membership department tracking online comments hardly seems above board or acting with integrity. As A Poor Wayfaring Stranger points out, there are consequences for outing yourself if you dare to share anything that could be considered critical, even if 1000% true.
“I’m not sure what ‘integrity of the blog” means”
Admittedly, I could have worded my original comment a little better, but I can tell you what, roughly, I meant by it.
“Wheat and Tares is a group of eclectic bloggers who like to blog about stuff. The stuff is admittedly quite random.”
While technically true, 90% of topics revolve around Mormonism. That alone is enough to turn off most of my evangelical friends and coworkers who stumble onto the blog expecting a deep-dive into a parable. They’re obviously smart enough to figure out the emphasis on Mormonism after one or two paragraphs of one post, but as an Evangelical, I’d probably find that a bit on the deceptive side. As an active, mostly Orthodox LDS, it also comes across a bit deceptive.
Taking it a step further, roughly 80-90% of the posts on Mormonism are generally negatively critical of the Church, its teachings, or the active members, further distancing itself from the technically still true About section of the blog.
Whether you’re an active, orthodox Mormon, an inactive Mormon, an ex Mormon, or a non-member, what are some of the first thoughts you’d associate with the name “Bishop Bill?” I can’t say with certainty, but I’d probably initially associate some amount of active membership and orthodox belief from any one of those positions. And yet, from reading BB’s posts and comments over the last eight years or so, I know he’s a cafeteria Mormon, doesn’t believe the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and hasn’t attended Church since the 100 billion story, among other things, though some of that may have changed. Even if I wasn’t active, I think I’d still feel the blogger name was a small snare for the active and believing member who may make his or her way over here unassumingly. I’ve seen BB have to clarify his position to newcomers multiple times.
I knew Hawkgrrrl was “active in her LDS ward” despite a hatred of polygamy and patriarchy, among other things, but was caught off guard by the mention of not really believing in an afterlife. I greatly appreciated her clarification of being unable to update the author description. Maybe that’s something that can be fixed in the future.
Even reading your posts, Dave B, I’ve come to know that you’re frustrated with leadership and a lot of membership. I also know you generally reject the Garden of Eden Story and the Flood. I’ve never been able to ascertain exactly where you fall with regard to the general truthfulness of the Church, though I know you have a fascination with the theology and history. I often get the impression you subtly go out of your way to make it that way.
When it comes to topics, there is very little recognition that whether are not you are an active, orthodox member, radically changes how you approach 90% of the subjects brought up here. That’s not so much a compromise in integrity as it is adding a superficial element to all conversations here (though it might mistakenly give off a vibe of the former—or maybe just integrity in the “structural” sense, which was as much on my mind originally as the “honesty” meaning of the word). I get that people can converse with anyone about anything, but I speak differently with active members and non-members not out of deception, but to make the conversation more efficient. Avoiding efficiency does sometimes make one wonder if the other is hiding something, but I admittedly realize that’s difficult to navigate not just in the bloggernacle, but the internet in general. However, a lot of that can be avoided with more background information, which the authors give very little of.
Yes, bloggers here come from varied backgrounds. I get that. But just like wards, Sunday School classes, high school classes, clubs, and sports teams, a blog develops its own personality over time, to the point that you can describe it with some amount of confidence. If I were to describe the general blogger personality vibe of W&T, it’s “Wheat and Tares is a group of bloggers who have read some things, used logic, and are enlightened. Here we can discuss these things because active, orthodox members, in general, simply aren’t those things. But we can all find some value in the greatest social aspects of the religion.”
And for better or for worse, commenters and the commenting system contribute a large portion of the blog personality. I’ve written it before, but I generally get a tone of down votes at this blog. It rarely, if ever, bothers me. But I have seen beautiful comments I didn’t even agree with get a ton of down votes, and comments I thought were depraved get a ton of up votes. The vote function says far more about the people (or a minority obsesses with the vote function) who frequent a blog than it does about an actual comment.
W&T frequently attracts new arrivals who are active, orthodox members, only to have them get pepper sprayed by down votes and scared away by other frequent commenters. Could the blog just own up to the unorthodox, liberal Mormon country club vibe and infuse that idea in the blog description a little more? In all honesty, as much as I hate to see orthodox members get scared away by down votes, I also feel a bit of sympathy by those commenters who feel their safe, unorthodox, conversations were terribly interrupted by the former. By owning the overall vibe, not dissuading people from coming but also giving them realistic expectations of what’s to come in the conversation, wouldn’t that be a huge time saver for everyone involved? I honestly think it would add to the “structural integrity” of the blog.
The question of Anonymity actually never crossed my mind in writing that original comment.
I realize I’ve already written way too much. Just let me say that I have learned a few things from W&T over the years. I’m much more cognizant of how I handle myself around the doubting or former believer. I’ve gained some empathy and sympathy I didn’t have before. But I’ve also sought to offer the same in return at times.
I’ve never thought of W&T as an anti-Mormon blog. I’ve never thought of it as a pro-Mormon blog. But what it says it is and what it actually is never really seemed to add up, even if it technically does.
I had a few thoughts on your excellent post in addition to some of the great comments above. First, integrity = institutional loyalty is literally the opposite of integrity, but to those in power, I can see why the word “integrity” meaning “wholeness” would apply. They are thinking of the institution’s ability to perform the leader’s goals unopposed, without dissent. That’s a tortured definition for sure when applied to the individual whose personal interests may diverge from the institution’s, and whose personal values (or whose actual person) may not align with the leader’s expectations and agenda.
I’ve also given a lot of thought to the idea of anonymity in voting. Watching the current congress, would the impeachment trials have gone differently if there was an anonymous vote? Would various aid packages benefit from an anonymous vote? Of course, the downside is that someone could anonymously vote in their own interest (e.g. for something a donor wants) and against their constituents’ interests with reduced accountability. But, bear in mind, a whole bunch of legislators in the last few years tried to take credit for popular legislation that they literally voted against, and it’s in the record. Most voters aren’t paying that close attention and still vote straight party, something church leaders very recently (and for the first time I can remember) cautioned against.
Now apply that anonymity to LDS leadership. Are leaders in the Q15 allowed to hold opposing views to what the biggest red chair wants? Not in any meaningful sense. We are told that there are vigorous debates behind closed doors, but when they come out in public, they have to pretend to be in lock step. This leads to things like E. Gong telling his gay son not to post a photo of him eating with his son & his son’s partner in a restaurant lest others “get the wrong idea.” What exactly is the “wrong idea”? That E. Gong maintains a relationship with his gay son? That he hasn’t cast him out and cut off the relationship? That he has mixed feelings about LGBTQ rights despite the Church’s stance?
Requiring everyone to be in “lock step” with one person’s opinion (the top church leader), including doctrine and policies, is a recipe for NOT having integrity. It leads to two things: 1) people pretending to be aligned when they aren’t really, and 2) people getting out of touch with their own values or not having them. Obeying orders isn’t the same as a moral compass, and if we do decide that people get their own planets after all, I would not want to be on the planet of someone whose entire life was based on following someone else’s moral compass without developing their own.
A very timely post.
Currently, the church is in the midst of getting the McKinney Texas temple plan approved by the local city. The actual temple will be in the city of Fairview. Fairview does not allow any structure higher than 35 feet. The church wants the temple to include a spire that is something like 179 feet.
There is a lot of pushback from the community. The local neighborhood homeowners do not want a huge spire.
The church sent out an email to all the local members asking them to write to the city of Fairview and tell them why a tall spire is part of their religious identity, belief system and why a tall spire is important to them to properly worship God.
Me? I find that entire argument and twist by the church to be one of falsehood. It lacks integrity.
While I do not live in that area, I know the area well. Building a huge spire would not fit the community. My opinion is that the church ought to focus on being an excellent neighbor and attempt to integrate into the community.
Lying about religious beliefs in order to get around building codes seems absolutely absurd; and yet, here we are.
If the church institution can lie so easily about such a thing, find myself wondering what else they are comfortable lying about. The church was where I learned, as a child, that little lies lead to bigger ones.
I know a lot of people didn’t like Elder Gerard’s talk on integrity, but I loved it! It takes a lot of guts to call the First Presidency to repentance in front of the whole church membership like that.
Eli: “I’ve never thought of W&T as an anti-Mormon blog. I’ve never thought of it as a pro-Mormon blog. But what it says it is and what it actually is never really seemed to add up, even if it technically does.” I’m not really sure what you think we say we are vs. what you think we actually are, so I can’t really speak to that. To me, the concept of wheat & tares kind of says it all. Just like in the parable, we can’t tell the difference between them, only the Lord does, and only after they’ve reached maturity and it’s harvest time (the final judgment), not as they are growing. So long as we are alive, expect variation within us. Our views are going to change, and each person holds idiosyncratic views to start with. We didn’t call ourselves “Wheat & Wheat” or “Tares & Tares. And of course, within each of us are both critical and positive perspectives regarding things. We each contain both wheat & tares.”
As to your observation that 80-90% of what we write tends to be critical, I think that’s fair, but I’m not sure how to avoid it. For one thing, it’s kind of like how 80-90% of the news is critical (and the rest is water-skiing squirrels). It’s just hard to create something thought provoking if the post is basically “all is well in Zion.” The stuff worth discussing is going to be poking at something that doesn’t quite work. The other issue I see is something Lee Hale (formerly with NPR / Radio West) observed. The closer you look at it, the worse it looks. That’s a total paraphrase, obviously. If you want to lose your faith in an institution, become a journalist and start digging into what’s wrong with it. And lastly, these conversations online exist because they no longer exist in most wards. There is a real culture of policing for orthodoxy in most wards (not in the best ones, of course). Like mercury in the desert, you can step on it, but it will just roll away and reconstitute itself elsewhere. Like here.
@Eli, I’m honestly so baffled that it was Angela’s description of her ideas about the afterlife (in a comment, no less) that so disturbed you. I actually think that’s kind of funny, given that Angela has written entire posts on Un-Ordain Men, and all sorts of other stuff that’s quite critical of the institution. Why would Angela’s theories about the afterlife (which BTW literally no one knows any actual proven facts about) be any more or less problematic or interesting or worthy of reflection or discussion if she goes to Church??? FWIW, I know people who attend church every week and don’t believe in an afterlife. (I also know people who attend church every week and don’t pay child support and lie and cheat and drink and steal, but I digress.)
I don’t dispute that this blog has a liberal bent. I also don’t dispute that a lot of the blog is expressing frustration with an institution that is making so many unforced errors and that has become increasingly difficult to engage with positively over the years (at least, that’s my experience).
But that’s a super different position than claiming that the bloggers therefore somehow lack integrity.
Bishop Bill literally was a bishop. Also, who cares. If I called myself BishopElisa, that would be awesome. I should have done that, in hindsight. Dangit! Anyway, why should it matter if he is, or was, or never will be, a bishop? Does that make his ideas any more or less valid? If so, I guess that’s too bad for all the women who write here. We will never get that credibility stamp.
I’m not sure the problem with an orthodox person coming on here, commenting, then realizing it’s a tough crowd. Move along if that hurts your feelings. Stay if you want to convert readers or see how other people see things. We aren’t doing SEO to intentionally attract trick orthodox people to get them into our clutches and lead them down slippery paths into inactivity AFAIK. Nobody’s making any money here. One only needs look at the home page and post titles to have a pretty good idea of what they’ll find here. There’s lots of blogs I stopped reading because the content was not useful to me (but not because the bloggers were more or less active than I expected). Occasionally when I post I’ve put a very specific “this is where I’m coming from personally” if I do think it’s relevant to what I’m posting about or am worried about, I dunno, tricking people into thinking I’m a temple-recommend holding person telling them not to pay tithing and that they should do as I say because I go to the temple daily. Generally, though, 100% agree with comments above that poking around at someone’s activity level is just a heuristic for deciding whether you trust them or their ideas without engaging with them, which is not great critical thinking.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Eli, I understand you would be happier if you had a complete church bio of every W&T poster (and commenter, I imagine) so that you could sit back and pass judgment or give us an orthodoxy score in your little book of righteousness. Perhaps you do the same thing with fellow ward members, gleaning from a comment in Sunday School or an overheard conversation who is a 110% loyal Mormon versus who is only an 85% Mormon and deserves some righteous correction from you or another person like you.
Let me suggest that mental attitude is the wrong way to go about having a friendly and productive online discussion, at least here at W&T. That’s even spelled out in the comment policy linked at the top of the page, which you have no doubt read as you researched the blog. Now I have reviewed a lot of your earlier comments on the blog, and you certainly know how to participate in a blog discussion and engage with the topic rather than trying to analyze the person writing the post or making the comment.
It would be nice if you returned to that productive commenting approach. What do you think of Elder Gerard’s take on integrity (I’ll bet you’re an institutional loyalty guy). What do you think of Pres. Oaks’ suggestion that the two great commandments are somehow in conflict some or much of the time? How do you handle tricky issues or misleading sections of a manual when you teach an LDS class? If you ran your own LDS weblog, what would you post about? Those things are great to comment on in this discussion. I know you have some things to say on those topics.
Regarding Gerard’s warning about “posting anonymous comments critical of Church doctrine or culture”, I have no doubt that he was trying to discourage people from posting critical comments. That said, I wonder if Gerard is actually more concerned about orthodox believers reading critical comments online–thereby potentially becoming less orthodox (and, therefore, having less “integrity” according to his definition of the word). Probably some of both. It seems like his comment is more likely to scare orthodox believers away from reading critical comments than it is to discourage anyone from posting if that person has gotten to the point where they are actually frustrated enough to consider posting something.
Speaking of integrity:
I loved it when a 4th emphasis was added to the previous 3 missions of the church:
Caring for the Poor and Needy
(December 2009)
Not sure how that squares with the actual emphasis of investing money for growth.
Not sure how investing money for growth squares with Jesus’ Great Parable of the sheep and the goats:
“Inasmuch as ye have done it into one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”
Each person can evaluate whether paying tithing to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is following Christ.
There are A LOT of real people with real needs all around us, near and far. Waves from a pebble thrown in the water increase.
I remember when this was announced, but I never understood it, or I never saw real steps taken to make this mission real. Individual members can do things, but this is a Church mission. In my Eastern city there is one ward and a lot of welfare in the city. If we put a sign out front saying come here and get your light bill paid, or your car insurance, or your rent, or food, and the poor and needy came in droves, would their needs be met? If this is a church mission, then why now do we tell people to go to the government for assistance first? I don’t understand all things, and I do not understand this. I do what I can.
I was thinking that “Integrity” could be defined as “Fidelity/Commitment to one’s Personal Values” – which makes sense when someone expects “Personal Values” to reflect “Institutional Values” and they get conflated.
Sometimes, circumstances force an individual into reflecting on “what are my personal values and what I am going to do about them?”. Astute observers point out that an individual authentically saying “No” to something, to making a specific decision leads to saying “Yes” to something with a measure of resentment. However, our culture choses to voluntold our lay leaders (primarily men) into contributing hours of community service they may not be qualified for doing and at unknown cost to their family (that is the leadership side of things), and would prefer resentful calling-holders who do staff those positions instead of changing the culture around church ministries.
In my opinion, there is a respectable amount of organizational fear around those who decide that their greatest acts of integrity (fidelity to one’s values) takes them outside of the church influence, church culture, and obedience to church teachings It is far easier to focus on judging those individuals as “acting without integrity” and writing them off rather then a clean separation of diverging paths. Apparent “faithlessness” could drive people away from the pews, after all.
I think that there is also some concern about the double-standard of lay members being held to a specific financial standard that the church organization does not feel applies to the church organization’s financials. Whether the SEC finding and fee that the church paid is more of a “doing business” situation or a gross breach of the trust of the members’ is up for debate – and has driven people to make different decisions about tithing and church engagement. There is a reason why “putting your money where your mouth is” is in a sense, a litmus test of “integrity” and “what really matters to you”. The church is supposed to be “the standard” for personal conduct – so it’s a bad look that “the church leaders did not forecast that they would be in violation of financial policy” at an earlier point in time, thus preventing the massive fee being paid now OR “the church didn’t hire the people who would act in financial integrity consistently enough to prevent the situation from requiring government intervention in the first place (and the payment)”. The church’s counter that “the church organization was the victim” while paying out and trying to portray the situation like being pulled over by the police for speeding (everyone does it and pays their fines – but it doesn’t prevent people from doing so) isn’t exactly comforting either.
With this turn in the discussion toward the church’s financial dealings, I couldn’t help but think of a story recently shared on Reddit regarding this quest to build a temple on every block worldwide. A wealthy church family generously offered to donate a parcel of land to the church for temple building purposes. It was large enough for the temple and for the required parking & access. The church countered that they would only “accept” this land if the family ALSO paid to have utilities and roads added to the land so that the church wouldn’t have to pay for all that. The family withdrew their offer. Now, I have no doubt that a wealthy family willing to give up a valuable parcel of land is also paying a faithful 10% tithe to the church. Why then was their extremely generous offer to a church as wealthy as ours rejected unless they were willing to pay substantial amounts out of pocket? It’s honestly hard to fathom. Again, this is just a story on Reddit, so I can’t verify particulars, but it’s both totally plausible and also not great.
A link to that discussion (language warning): tiny.cc/w5uwxz
This is a simplistic take. I think leaders use the word integrity as a weapon against members who have broken (from their point of view) the promises they made in the temple. They use it to insinuate that we have abandoned Christ like petulant teenagers who want out of their parents’ house. Like some others have said, many of us feel like the church alienated us. I’m left with greatly diminished admiration, trust, or understanding of the church. I made a promise to something that no longer exists for me.
If leaders only knew how much effort it takes to participate at all under these circumstances. That effort is my integrity operating. It’s me being honest with myself about whether I can still worship and serve. So far, I can. But I understand that others can’t.
” They use it to insinuate that we have abandoned Christ like petulant teenagers who want out of their parents’ house.” – Ruth
Sometimes this theme is felt in conversations with people in my family who have testimonies (though in some cases, they are less “active” in church observations and participations then I am). I find it disconcerting that about every 6 months to a year or so, it comes up and I have to remind them about the “actual storyline” in as much as it wasn’t about my “devoutness (or lack thereof)” that caused my faith transition and it wasn’t something I was looking for.
When individuals go down the “She wasn’t enough – couldn’t hack it” rabbit hole, I feel that it allows them greater leeway to condemn me, and simplify a personal relationship to God without God’s dimension being included. If “I’m the one who did wrong, who didn’t get the memo, etc.” then that excuses God from making sure that I got the memo (which is what Holy Ghost is supposed to do after all). If I have to choose a narrative for the “who did sin – Amy or God” judgement call in the situation, I’d like to think that I can lean into the “Neither – these things happened to make manifest the Glory of God (which I am not necessarily seeing yet – and that’s ok)” instead of being condemned as “not enough”.
Georgis- in part, what you said makes sense – if the church helps people in a hodge podge way, we will get hodge podge results. Though, that little starfish stranded on the beach will be grateful it was thrown back into the ocean. And if the starfish has someone in their family using lifesaving medical equipment, a life will be saved.
Next, consider the reverse scenario: anyone (or institution) with an accumulation of money, doesn’t do anything because 🤷♀️
Perhaps Alma’s description of faith applies here, too. Plant that little seed, and see what happens next!
A plan is a good place to start. Hiring qualified consultants to identify various needs where a consistent infusion of money can be applied to help a number of people in a meaningful way will be a great first step.
Sam Brunson addressed this on By Common Consent. His viewpoint has a lot of merit:
https://bycommonconsent.com/2024/02/19/up-and-to-the-right/
Edit: Sam Brunson explains it a thousand times better than I can
Amy – I like the attention you brought to the tension that exists between “personal values” and “Institutional values”. For the sake of my comment, I’m changing the second set to “community values”. This contrary begins in the origin story of Adam and Eve. God sets up seemingly contradictory commandments, making it impossible to do both. However, this mythological story holds many truths about our human existence and development. The first perhaps being that choice is inevitable, that there is no way to prescribe every possible situation and remove the element of loss. Every choice has something gained and something lost. The challenge we LDS folk have as ardent legalists, committed to exact obedience, is we don’t accept the challenge of agency and the fact that the law will never be sufficient on its own. The law only guides, it does not hold the moral choice for every possible situation. Adam makes the choice to reject the forbidden fruit and protect his personal interests, while Eve makes the much more nuanced choice of personal sacrifice, not scapegoating, but sacrifice of self for the sake of mankind. Adam’s choice was self-driven, Eve’s was community driven. Adam’s prevented life, while Eve’s propagated life with a willingness to die to bring it about. Thank you Eve.
Jesus’ entire ministry is packed with this tension between what is morally right, in effort to preserve life (Shalom), and what is legally right according to the exactness of the law. He illustrated over and over, as situations presented themselves, that exact lawful behavior could in fact be sinful behavior (you won’t hear this from a pulpit). Jesus healed on the Sabath, touched lepers, talked with women in broad daylight, shared meals with known sinners, fraternized with publicans and Samaritans, and walked the second mile when the first was all that was legally required. The Dalai lama once said, “know the rules well so you will know how to break them properly”. Jesus knew the law, but more importantly he knew how to break the law for integrity’s sake. The good stuff really never happens until the second mile, where we learn to act beyond obligation and legality. The toughest choices are the ones that potentially expose us to invalidation from our group, but are nevertheless the ones Jesus shows are truly “whole”.
Ruth, I appreciated what you called your simplistic take that church leaders have weaponized integrity to use it as a club against members who stray. We probably should not lead by guilt and coercion. Calling people out on integrity when they stray seems to me to be leading by guilt, using shame to coerce the desired behavior. I would rather that we encourage, assist and invite to the desired behaviors. And we should remember that repentance is part of the plan, even daily repentance according to Pres. Nelson. We can’t ask for daily repentance unless we are prepared to accept daily sinning. We should not attack and pile shame upon people who stray, because we all stray in some way(s). Thus we all have need of the physician, and we don’t need to point out someone’s failings when we also fail. Yes, covenants are important, but it isn’t the covenant that saves, is it? Can one not do all manner of good and great things, and yet miss the boat? Charity, faith, a good heart, kindness to one’s fellowman–people can have these traits and fall short in our legalistic views. Remember, it was the Pharisees who were legalistic, committed to the leyter of the law, pointing fingers at those who did not measure up to their standards. Thanks, toddsmithson, for your reminders. For those who don’t read their four gospels, the Pharisees (as a group) and the Sadducees (the leaders) were the bad guys, and Jesus taught against the man with a beam his eye railing against the man with a mote. What does this mean in the 21st century? That is for each person to figure out. Out here.
Sasso – you said, “There are A LOT of real people with real needs all around us, near and far. Waves from a pebble thrown in the water increase.”
This seems like such a commonsense statement that would guide what the Church’s priorities ought to be, but it really just highlights the gap that defines conservative religious priorities and progressive priorities. The conservative side would present that there are A LOT of real people with eternal needs which trump their temporal needs. This is how the Church justifies spending untold Millions on Temples rather than using those funds for humanitarian improvements. They honestly hold a firm conviction that these Temple ordinances are essential to securing a future heavenly home. I have become quite leery philosophically about justifying the neglect of present needs to fulfill needs we know nothing about. Does this mean religious ritual is useless? No, not at all, but religious practices ought to be turning my heart to people. Placing all emphasis on our next life seems like a very slippery slope to rationalizing staying our hand now, stockpiling massive cash reserves, and even exploiting people for tithing dollars that are required to get “said Eternal rewards”.
The cause of my crisis of faith was this exact issue-I couldn’t make myself believe everything the church taught when it felt wrong to me. It happened a few times-once was when Pres. Packer said God would never create people gay-why would God be that mean? That shocked and appalled me. The second was when our stake president asked us not to feed our kids during Sacrament meeting. At the time, Sacrament meeting was lunchtime for my little kids. If I fed my kids I could stay in the meeting and listen to the talks. If I took them to the hall, I would chat with all the other parents in the hall and not hear the talks. I thought it was better for me to get the spiritual experience of listening to talks, but also thought we had to follow our leaders. That God justified them even when they made mistakes. I really couldn’t get over this. Living with integrity looked like staying in the meeting and feeding my kids and also not presuming to think I knew everything God thinks or does. Living with integrity led me to think that maybe the church isn’t also true or right or best. Oops.
kww: Here’s the best counterpoint I ever heard to Packer’s assertion that a loving God would never make gay people because that would just be cruel (which is basically his implication). This was from a former bishop, very faithful guy who is also a doctor: “If being gay were a choice there would be no gay people in Arkansas.” You can substitute trans for gay as well. The thing that makes life harder for these folx is that people are mistreating them, not that they are inherently defective. (I know you know that, but I think it’s a good rebuttal to this harmful teaching). I know there are a lot of people in the church who, like this good former bishop, don’t believe that it’s right to hurt and marginalize our LGBTQ fellow humans, but it’s become impossible to square that with support for an institution that does hurt and marginalize them in God’s name, speaks at and supports World Congress of Families (an anti-LGBTQ hate group) and uses church funds to pay lawyers to file briefs to oppose gay rights. The fact that I disagree that mistreating queer people is Christ-like is exactly the sort of thing the church is calling a “lack of integrity” here, but how could I have integrity and support what is morally wrong?
Hawkgrrrl,
I get that people change. I change. There are enough “aha!” moments there though to merit ongoing changes on a life “resume” of sorts. A short blog bio would take less time and be much easier.
Also, I wasn’t actually being critical of W&T for being critical of the Church or even for creating a space for that. I was criticizing how it represents itself in those regards. I stumbled upon W&T completely by accident years ago (though I’m sure the algorithms say otherwise), but ultimately ended up staying to engage with people who don’t think as I do (not even to win them over—at least most of the time).
Elisa,
My testimony is a hierarchy of sorts. The reality of God the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and the resurrection far exceed any other aspect of my testimony. I suppose I falsely assumed the same of others, especially given the bio. It’s only in the last few years that I’ve come to realize there are actually people who attend Church who have no basic testimony, but a need for community. That idea still feels somewhat foreign to me. I’m a people person purely because of the Restored Gospel. That’s what’s largely keeping me from the living the life of a Hermit. If it wasn’t for that knowledge, I’d probably be gone and on to other stuff (bring on the Singularity?). I do kind of feel my own sense of self-integrity would be compromised by continuing to attend and associate with those of a once similar background, and by extension, how others might perceive my integrity. But at the same time, I also know I try hard to welcome anyone and everyone who attends, so it’s probably a double standard I could do well to eliminate. I guess at worst, the frame of reference for the conversation shifted unexpectedly. As mentioned twice now, I did appreciate her clarification.
And should you be baffled by my surprise? One of the things W&T seems to yell to rafters and has successfully impressed upon me over the years is that there really are members who may reject an idea or two but embrace the truth as a whole, whereas I once believed that a rejection of one or two ideas was indicative of a much larger problem with belief. By stating I shouldn’t be surprised that rejection A and B also means a likely rejection of deeper C, you’ve started to reinforce my previous notions. Maybe I should be more trusting of my instincts.
Yes, BB was a Bishop. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t associate the title with some amount of orthodoxy. In fact, my last Bishop refuses to allow others to use the title on him because he thinks it confuses nonmembers and new members of the ward. A blog probably just exacerbates that problem on a number of levels. And this goes along with one of your next points, but if not intending a façade of orthodoxy, why deal with the inconvenience of repeatedly having to clarify your position to those who quite understandably were given the opposite impression?
I did not mean to conflate liberalism with a lack of integrity and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. Somewhere I transitioned from integrity to structural efficiency.
I really have no problem with people ultimately being scared away because the blog wasn’t what they expected, but some heads up would be nice. As I get older, time is a very precious commodity. W&T bloggers have no problem listing parts of the Church they won’t waste their time with. Why not help newcomers to W&T avoid a similar problem? And if newcomers get attacked and the unorthodox, liberals get annoyed who wins then? Isn’t that something both parties would like to avoid for the sake of entering the meat and potatoes discussion with eyes wide open?
“Generally, though, 100% agree with comments above that poking around at someone’s activity level is just a heuristic for deciding whether you trust them or their ideas without engaging with them, which is not great critical thinking.”
Maybe it’s just my technical background, but I always thought getting a general baseline reading of where everyone and everything was at was a great way of jumping straight to the critical thinking.
Dave B,
100% off the mark with that first paragraph of your last comment, and full of enough condescension and snark to pretty well further some of my earlier points. Look at my very last paragraph to Elisa above. That’s one large reason I want to know. Beyond that, I want to know because I care, like I do in all other settings. And again, time is also a precious commodity. I don’t want to keep talking past a blogger and them me, incessantly, until we each hit a point of reference far later than was possible. Judgement truly wasn’t on the radar (though we all naturally have a tendency to do that on some level in conversation), but I wouldn’t expect you to believe me.
You brought up the comment. Explaining it in depth felt completely appropriate for the conversation.
I honestly find it a little difficult getting lectured on productive discussion from you. You lost a lot of my trust and sense of goodwill years ago with your post essentially comparing members seeking change with the Nazi resistance. Gaining that trust back has been slow. You made an appalling comment early in the pandemic essentially musing that COVID could more or less serve as a heavenly hitman for reorganizing the Q12 (not your exact words). You insist the manual doesn’t allow any straying. That’s simply not true. Twice in the last four years (not a lot, I’ll admit) I’ve read blurbs in the manual that state it’s okay to go elsewhere as the Spirit directs. I don’t care enough to point you exactly where they were, but sadly, I do remember thinking “Wonder if Dave B has read this?” Maybe you never bothered to open it in the first place. You’ve also repeatedly butchered the Korihor story and used it to disparage everyday members with a characterization that exists in very, very few numbers that I have ever encountered, alleging they use a justification that really doesn’t exist in the story in the first place as you purport it does. That’s either a willful misrepresentation of the facts, or a huge lapse in memory.
. . . It does occur to me that the latter is very possible, and if that truly is the case, you have my sincere apologies. That can happen to anyone. Not trying to insult your memory, but I’m desperately trying to assume or hope for the best at this point.
I’m not the most prolific commenter here, but I’m not the least prolific. I spend just enough time (and less as time goes by) here that I can describe the personalities of at least a dozen or two regular commenters with relative ease. The fact that you had to review who I was and not already recognize that cordiality is a trait I humbly seek to employ more than most, more often than not, is something I imagine I’d be little hurt by had I any ego of significance. I do realize our lives don’t revolve around the bloggers and commenters of sites we frequent.
I do apologize for not immediately coming back to the rest of the post. I had written a lot and it was time for bed, but it was my intent to return to the subject matter at hand. Having four 12 hour shifts ahead in the next few days don’t make for a quick response times either.
I works Saturdays and missed the Saturday Session. I didn’t get to Elder Gerard’s talk until recently, so I haven’t had time to ponder it at length.
Nowhere did I get the impression “Integrity=Institutional loyalty.” But trying to walk a bit in your shoes, I can strain to see it.
His comment on anonymous online critiques didn’t sit well with me initially, but I’m guessing he’s working under the assumption that those making the criticisms know deep down they’re false. I have no problem with anonymity and see it more as a matter of practicality more than anything else.
Years ago you did a post entitled “On Becoming a Pragmatic Mormon,” where you stated “A FIM has internalized LDS institutional goals and priorities as their own goals and priorities.” I felt it more appropriate to say “A FIM has realized most LDS institutional goals and priorities line up with their own newfound goals and priorities.” My conversion to the Restored Gospel and the revelation that has come since largely transcend the Institutional Church, though the Church is obviously part of it. As a lifelong member, I do owe it a small debt of gratitude to it for introducing me to that path. Loyalty is merited on some level.
Like any organization, there are bad apples within, some incompetency, and bureaucracy. It’s still one of the best organizations I’ve been privileged to associate with.
And—not to be confused with a tolerance for moral relativity—I do think the fact that two people can witness the same accident, give wildly different accounts, and yet both still be right, does come into play with how we regard both small and large moral situations, more often than we notice or care to admit.
As blogging goes, I’ve actually had multiple family members and friends ask me start one. It’s tempting. If I did, I would probably dabble in apologetics from time to time. More often though, I think I’d speculate about future interactions between the Church and Science and Technology. BB has done some posts about this and they’re some of my favorite. I’ve thought about submitting a guest post for such a thing. How would the Church deal with a sentient artificial intelligence? What if this artificial intelligence straight up dismissed religion? What if this artificial intelligence actually came to the conclusion the Church had a high probability of being exactly what it claimed to be? What would change? (Spoiler Alert: With the exception of a few individuals, I think life for most—at least as it pertains to those questions—would largely carry on as normal.) I know some think those discussions would be a waste time, but just as the speculation of science fiction can provide valuable insight for here and now, I think those discussions can do the exact same thing.
Thanks for asking.
Eli,
The range of beliefs varies greatly in the church even among members who consider themselves orthodox. Even the Q15 aren’t uniform in some beliefs. That doesn’t mean people aren’t acting with integrity. What you seem to be asking for is full disclosure of all beliefs and all past statements, etc. Or something unreasonable like that. I mean this blog is subtitled “the philosophies of men mingled with the philosphies of women.” If that is clear enough to an othodox memeber coming to site, then others concerns are at stake. I mean, it’s directly playing with the words of ‘Satan’ from the temple. That isn’t enough to provide you with a sense of what happens here?
Also, would apply the same rigor to the Church itself. I mean, how much do people really know when they get baptised? Isn’t it a bit, just a little bit, lacking in itregity to not inform people all the past situations in the Church, the racist statement, the problemic and dangerous rhetoric toward women, the outright despicable language towards LGBT+ people–some of these still remain, some of which have changed? What about what really happens with tithing? What about . . . .
I’m all about transparency. But what you’re looking for is something different: not intregity and not transparency. You’re looking for everyone to particiapte in your worldview of belief and presentation. A clearly limited one with a very specific end in mind.
*If that is NOT clear enough . . .
*Also, would YOU apply the same rigor . . .
Excuse the typos. Working on a mango salsa for a Stake RS activity.
Eli,
What I think you may be looking for is safety and predictability. Maybe you imagine that someone who is active can be counted on to say and think certain things. I come to W&T because I want the freedom to say what’s on my mind without worrying I am putting someone into faith crisis or offending someone in some way with my heterodox thoughts.
I also want to hear interesting, different points of view. I want to think and speak without being required to adhere to a loyal predictable, safe, way of communicating that matches how people speak at church.
For me, the current activity or inactivity of bloggers is irrelevant to what they are saying. We all have history with the church that informs our thoughts and comments. If I am looking for current church stands on things, I know how to refer to the handbook and conference issue. What anyone here says is irrelevant to that.
Each post and discussion varies. It’s not predictable and that’s why I like it. That’s the point of W&T. A place to say what’s on your mind “mingled with scripture”.
You are welcome here for that if you want it. But I really can’t be required to reliably report my activity levels before I post. First of all it’s none of your business. Second it’s irrelevant to my discussion. Thirdly, every Sunday I struggle with that question. I don’t have a definitive answer to my future church participation.
I follow Christ. I love my church family. I like to take the sacrament and commit to following Christ one more week. I love to pray and sing the hymns.
But I can’t focus in fully on the testimonies and lessons. Some topics and talks hurt me inside so I distract myself on my phone so I can stand to stay in the meeting. Sometimes I have to make an excuse and get up and leave because of the strong emotional reaction I am having.
I have given up on listening to conference because “Think Celestial” felt like an ambush that made me unable to feel safe listening any more. That’s where I am at this week. I don’t know where I will be at next week, or the week after. But regardless, I still have thoughts about the church and I am grateful to have a place to share them with people that aren’t afraid to think and talk and consider.
So no. It isn’t reasonable to expect a stable declaration from bloggers as to current activity, belief, or orthodoxy. We are just us, here, today. That’s all we can do and it’s all you can expect of us.
I’ve been following along with this thread and will try to chime in with some organized thoughts.
Eli, for someone who shared his wisdom, somewhere up thread, that time is precious, you sure gave us a lot of reading. I tried to read and understand it all, did not quite succeed, but I can say this— Man up and read the room, and give everyone else, whether new or a regular, credit for their responsibility to do the same. If you find that increases your anxiety — well, this is a tolerant place if you don’t go overboard. But since your prior comment is referenced in the OP, you get a pass from me. This time.
Amen LWS, the current activity or inactivity of a commenter is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the thoughts of a living breathing person. What makes it interesting is when that person shares their unvarnished (uncorrelated) experience with the topic du jour.
I keep returning to this OP because it has me thinking and learning. Many thanks for clarifying the disconnect between personal integrity and institutional integrity. In my experience, I feel that’s intuitively obvious, but I needed to see it spelled out.
One quibble – in the OP and some comments, I read folks referring to “having” integrity, as if one could possess it, or as if it’s a milestone one can achieve. Our need for determining trustworthiness is strong, it’s woven into our culture, it’s one of the reasons we pore over peoples’ bios, scouring them for status markers so that we can award them our own private medal of worthy or unworthy, should they be admired or pitied?
This need to categorize people has fueled many paragraphs from Eli in these comments alone, and I recognize in myself some of the same impulses regarding others. However, when assessing my own integrity, I know too much. I know better than to pin a medal on myself and trot out for show. In consideration of this, I don’t think integrity is something that we are, but something we do, and badly at times. But we keep trying. It’s what repentance was created for. Or we can quit trying and hone the skills of manipulation and lying. Sometimes people do both. It’s a messy world we inhabit.
And last, regarding the discussion of the conflict between the first and second great commandments. There is no conflict between the first and second great commandments, unless you tie yourself in knots to create one. The first great commandment, to love God, is fulfilled in obedience to the second great commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself. It’s that simple. Anyone who says otherwise has an integrity issue.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
lws329, I enjoy your many comments. You really seem to get something out our posts, which is the real payoff for a writer/contributor.
Eli, thanks for continuing the conversation. Let me note a couple of nice things about Eli. He visits the blog and reads the posts. And regularly makes substantive comments. Those are the good things. Enough has been said about the other things.
I don’t quite see the point in revisiting posts from a year or two ago — which received their own discussion in the associated comment threads — but since Eli brings them up in a negative way, I’ll give brief responses (and anyone who wants to follow up can go read those posts from the W&T archives):
— “… your post essentially comparing members seeking change with the Nazi resistance …” I don’t think that fairly summarizes that post (which was rather controversial and died quickly), but in any case those in occupied countries who resisted the Nazis showed great courage, whether their resistance was open and active or quiet and hidden. There were also accommodators and collaborators. Human behavior in extreme situations can be instructive. Maybe a better application of those categories would be Republicans who oppose Donald Trump’s takeover and corruption of the party. If you don’t like history or think it has nothing to teach us in the present day, then just ignore the post.
— Something about the Covid pandemic and the Big 15. Hey, it’s the leaders themselves who put out the idea that God chooses the next President of the Church by who lives long enough to take that office (implying those in the line of succession who aren’t chosen will somehow die in time to make God’s choice take the office). If you are unhappy with that idea, complain to the senior leaders, not me. Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s not an idea I endorse. Every Conference they tell us a dozen times how inspired they are, revelation this, revelation that, they ought to be able to meet in a big conference room and get revelation on who the next President of the Church should be rather than automatically defer to the oldest one (technically, the apostle who has served in the Twelve the longest). If they can’t do that, that sort of undercuts their expansive claim to revelation, doesn’t it?
— “You insist the manual doesn’t allow any straying.” That directive is made regularly. If you haven’t heard it before, I can’t really explain how you missed it. They want teachers to stick to the manual. I’m not saying all teachers do this, most good ones bring in some outside material when appropriate, but good teachers also know when and when not to do that, and exercise discretion in what they bring in.
— The Korihor story. Honestly, I can’t think of a single time I have heard that story brought up in an LDS lesson where the lesson to be learned from it was not wrongheaded if not simply offensive. I shouldn’t have to point out to you that the lesson of the story is not “don’t trample beggars.” You should read the other comments in that comment thread, where others agree the LDS use of that story is, in pretty much every case, just utterly misguided. I’m sure it makes every DezNat greatest hits list.
Brian,
I’m totally going to factor in your salsa making skills in all our future encounters here. That’s awesome.
Some good points, and I know I won’t convince you my motives are otherwise. The transparency issue is tricky. I’ve brought up in past discussions whether W&T believes it holds itself to some of the same standards it holds the Church to in those regards. I never got a clear response (I suppose it was obvious and not worth answering in their eyes), but I haven’t always been convinced they do. Integrity seems an overall appropriate word, if somewhat weak. As far as making sure people see the Church for what it is (or what we think it is), most people I know already took that upon themselves before I or anyone else had any chance to. Your points deserve more discussion in the future.
I took the philosophies line in playful jest and a play on words, initially. Looking back, it was rather naïve.
Lws329,
Love every one of your comments, even if I don’t always agree. In all sincerity, maybe you could do a guest post on what “Safety” means because I get more confused all the time. One of the main reasons I got into blog participation in the first place was to get out of my comfort zone. One of my favorite, largely defunct, forums all but required a two paragraph bio, and with our social media accounts no less. I found it generally more hostile to the Church than anything I’ve seen here, but man, did I learn a lot. Although it did get dicey a couple of times, it was to the point. Still, the politeness often even exceeded a lot of the discussion here.
I suppose I’ve grown comfortable routinely being uncomfortable, but I don’t think that’s what you were hinting. Would it be fair to say “safety,” comfort, and support are bigger priorities at W&T than learning from others? If so, I’ll fully admit I’ve been clueless all these years.
MDearest,
Brevity is my weakness.
Dave B,
Thanks for addressing those issues despite sourced from other threads. I’m sorry you’ve experienced that in wards. It’s never been my experience at all. I won’t discount yours.
Rabbi Yechuda named his Mishna based upon the בנין אב/precedent that Moshe Rabbeinu named דברים the Mishna Torah — which means common law. The Mishna codified by Rabbi Yechuda in 210 ce follows the משנה תורה common law model established by the Book of דברים. The Common law legal system stands upon precedents. The Hebrew for precedent: בנין אב.
The Gemara, compiled by a later set of scholars AFTER Rabbi Yechuda “sealed” the Mishna, based upon the precedents of the sealing of the T’NaCH, which in its turn caused Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina to seal the Gemara in about 450 ce. The purpose of sealing this Oral Torah methodology of common law? To prevent some tumah perversion which would modify or change both T’NaCH and Talmud. These the sealed masoret/traditions, thereby protected, think fence around the Torah, from counterfeit imposters like the New Testament replacement theology, whose “good news” seeks to cause Jews to assimilate and intermarry with Goyim; to pervert the sealed masoret/traditions unto tumah avoda zarah – Old and new testaments.
A second primary purpose of sealing the masoret/traditions: that all downstream generations of Israel, they equally inherit the identical masoret; thereby preventing an equally vile Av tumah avoda zarah commonly known as ירידות הדורות – falsely understood, that later generations cannot dispute the rulings made by earlier generations. This Av-tumah avoda zarah collapses when confronted with Oral Torah logic which validates that no one generation enjoys a monopoly of Torah logic over later generations.
The correct understanding of ירידות הדורות refers to the idea of “domino effect”.
Talmud, which means learning (Yeshivot fail to learn Talmud, when they study Gemara.), the Gemara brings halachic precedents from across the Sha’s Bavli as בינין אב depth analysis. The purpose of learning by way of compative similar precedents, (this unique Oral Torah logic format) the Common Law Baali Tosafot commentary/criticism of Rashi p’shat on the Talmud, none the less fundamentally erred and failed to learn a halachic precedent to re-interpret משנה תורה the k’vanna of the language of a Gemara sugya, to likewise employed that revised depth anaysis of that sugya of Gemara to re-interpret the Home Mishna which the Gemara brings outside precedent halachic sources to most essentially re-interpret the k’vanna of the language of Rabbi Yechuda’s specific Mishna.
This failure of Reshonim scholarship went across the board, some Reshonim learned with greater clarity than did others. The B’hag, Rif, Rosh common law halachic commentaries, like the Baali Tosafot – correctly learned and understood the Gemara commentary, restricted to a specific Mishna as Common law. Not so the super-commentaries written on these excellent Reshonim scholarship of Talmudic common law. The later scholars confused and perverted Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law. Students in Yeshivot across the world, never receive any instruction which differentiates between T’NaCH/Talmudic common law from Roman statute law. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued g’lut Jewry down through the Ages.
In like manner, and equally as bad: the Reshonim scholars abysmally failed to discern (One and All, they failed to make the מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה with discerns “like from like” the basis: which observance of all Torah and halachic mitzvot most fundamentally require. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued Jewry down through the Ages. The Av/toldot relationship between tohor time-oriented commandments — from positive & negative “toldot” commandments. The primary/secondary relationship expressed throughout the entire Torah.
Even Rashi’s common law commentary to the Chumash (as opposed by his “טיפש פשט” reading of the Talmud. Rashi changed his sh’itta of p’shat learning from wisdom. He correctly foresaw that the Church hated and feared the Talmud. Rashi changed his sh’itta of p’shat as learned from to Chumash and contrasted by his sh’itta of p’shat made upon the Talmud to prevent church barbarians to learn how to learn Talmud as common law!
Reshonim scholarship disgracefully failed to note this fundamental contradiction in Rashi scholarship. Proof that the Reshonim learning had derailed itself and gone off-track. Why? Because the Reshonim and their later rabbinic lackeys failed to understand how the concept of ירידות הדורות refuted the Xtian avoda zarah known as “Free Will”.
A colossal error made by a great Jewish leader: be it King Shlomo who built an assimilated Catholic Cathedral, rather than prioritize the judicial pursuit of justice; or the Rambam who perverted Talmudic common law unto Roman statute law. Once a great sage/leader worships avoda zarah, (Shlomo perverted the priority of establishment of Federal Great/Small Sanhedrin courtrooms as the k’vanna of building the Beit HaMikdash), the Av tumah of this perversion which validates the 2nd Sinai Commandment, all down-stream generations likewise pursue this Av-tumah avoda zarah abomination, from generation to generation to generation! Hence the concept of ירידות הדורות invalidates the Xtian dogmatism of “Free Will”.
The Torah mitzva of Moshiach does not learn from a NaCH sources as the Av tumah gospel avoda zarah declares. Torah mitzvot learn from Torah sources. Why? Because Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest of all prophets. The failure of Reshonim scholarship to correctly grasp how the Chumash learns the mitzva of Moshiach (as just one example), proof of the cursed existence of g’lut Jewry who lacked the wisdom to do mitzvot לשמה.
The Torah operates upon a most basic: Av/Toldot relationship. The Book of בראשית, together with the tohor time-oriented commandments codification known as the Siddur, commands Av tohor time-oriented commandments. “Time” not tied to a watch, but rather to crisis situations which threaten the chosen Cohen people with Shoah; like Akadat Yitzak, or the mitzva to remove the sciatic nerve! The latter explained by targum Uziel. Esau approach “toast” Yaacov with an Army lead by 400 officers. NaCH precedents: D’vorah and HaDassah, whose רשות מצוה likewise defines the k’vanna of תפילת ערבית according to rabbi Yehoshua. Av tohor time-oriented commandments learn from women, that doing mitzvot with k’vanna — a רשות rather than a חיוב.
In the defence of the Reshonim: in the Gemara of ערבין the Baali Tosafot did not know how Rav Ashi could change the halachic dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yose haGelili in favor of the latter. According to the כלל, the halacha should follow the opinion of rabbi Akiva. The Baali Tosafot clearly did not have access to the Targum Uziel. Otherwise, they would have understood that Rav Ashi’s recognition that Uziel agreed with the opinion expressed by rabbi Yose haGelili, and therefore changed the halacha expressed in that halachic dispute as recorded in the Gemara of ערובין.
Therefore, the First Book of the Torah serves as the Primary אב טהור זימן גרמא מצוות. The second, third, and forth Books of the Torah serves as the secondary ביטול תולדות מצוות; hence the B’hag ruled in his Hilchot G’dolot: that 100 blessings, nar shabbat, nar hannuka, kre’at m’gillah, Shemone Esrei דרבנן (as opposed to ק”ש דאורייתא etc) qualify likewise as mitzvot from the Torah!
The Rambam, whose Yad Chazaka perversion worshipped avoda zarah: (understood as a) assimilation b) intermarriage with Goyim), as opposed to the Xtian avoda zarah Av-tumah abomination, which erroneously translates avoda zarah as idolatry; the 30 year-war slaughtered as many as did WWI when western Europe’s population about 1/3rd of 20th Century European populations, over a debate over the catholic crucifies and worship of saint statues.
The Rambam abomination of avoda zarah assimilation to ancient Greek logic, that fool did not understand the kabbalah of how Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic, interprets the k’vanna of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued Jewry down through the Ages.
The last and 5th Book of the Written Torah משנה תורה commands the generations to learn the Torah through the wisdom of common law ie Rabbi Yechuda and the Gemara sages as codified in the Talmud. And likewise enforced and emphasized through the mitzva of lighting the lights of Hannukah.
The disasters of ירידות הדורות Av-tuma avoda zara, this opening question, fails as a consequence, to equally differentiate Geonim Midrashic scholarship which defines the contribution made by the Geonim, much like as does the halachic codifications stamps Reshonim scholarship.
As a loom has its warp/weft relationship, the Talmud designated by its halacha/aggadita relationship. Midrash functions as the Geonim scholarship, which delved into the Aggadic portion of the Talmud. Yeshivot across the world do not know how to learn, not only Midrash as the primary source-commentary which links the דרוש-פשט with T’NaCH prophetic mussar, but how to interpret the k’vanna of prophetic mussar. This disgraceful ignorance similar to Yeshiva rabbinic scholarship whose drivel commentaries on Rashi’s chumash fails to inspire down-stream talmidim to study Rashi’s Chumash דרוש\פשט sh’itta of common law. As contrasted by the halachic Oral Torah logic of רמז-סוד. A most basic and fundamental error. Which has plagued Jewry down through the Ages.