Sometimes I think Dave B and I are ruminating about the same things completely separately, and with slightly different takes. Today’s post is similar to his about the prevalence of lying in talking about the ways culture is shifting away from accountability and becoming more partisan, and how those same political games sometimes manifest in the Church.
First, a quick rundown of what I’m calling political dirty tricks. Specifically, a “dirty trick” is something that is not illegal, but it’s still unethical. Neither political party is immune to playing dirty tricks, but in recent years, the GOP under Trump has certainly been pushing some of these farther than they’ve been pushed before. But again, it’s not hard to think of examples from politicians of all stripes.
These strategies are often used to gain advantage, discredit opponents, or manipulate public opinion, even though they skirt the edges of ethical conduct. Here are some common examples of these “dirty tricks”:
1. Gerrymandering. Redrawing electoral district boundaries to benefit a particular political party, ensuring that a party can maintain power even if it doesn’t have majority support.
- Why it’s legal: The party in control of the state legislature is typically responsible for redrawing districts after the census, and they can legally manipulate the boundaries to their advantage.
- Why it’s unethical: Gerrymandering undermines democratic fairness by diluting the voting power of certain groups, allowing politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their representatives.
2. Dog-Whistle Politics. Using coded language or statements that have a surface meaning understood by the general public but carry a specific, often prejudiced or divisive, message for a particular audience.
- Why it’s legal: Dog-whistles are typically subtle and don’t cross the legal boundaries of hate speech or discrimination.
- Why it’s unethical: It manipulates emotions and preys on underlying fears or prejudices, creating divisions within society without being overtly accountable for the message.
3. Astroturfing. Creating the false appearance of grassroots support or opposition for a cause or policy, often through fake social media accounts, paid protests, or coordinated letter-writing campaigns.
- Why it’s legal: As long as the activity doesn’t violate specific campaign laws, it’s difficult to prove that the support isn’t genuine.
- Why it’s unethical: It misleads the public into thinking there is broad support or opposition to an issue when, in reality, it’s orchestrated and paid for by interest groups, corporations, or political entities.
4. Push Polling. A type of poll that is designed not to collect data, but to influence voters by asking leading or manipulative questions that spread false or biased information about an opponent.
- Why it’s legal: Push polls are framed as legitimate survey questions, which makes it difficult to regulate them under election or campaign laws.
- Why it’s unethical: They disguise smear campaigns as legitimate polling and spread misinformation or exaggerated claims that can unfairly sway voters.
5. Character Assassination via Smear Campaigns. Using half-truths, innuendo, or misleading information to damage the reputation of an opponent without directly lying. This can include twisting facts or publicizing personal scandals.
- Why it’s legal: These tactics are often based on facts, even if they are misrepresented or taken out of context. Freedom of speech protections make it difficult to regulate.
- Why it’s unethical: It distracts from substantive policy discussions, manipulates public perception, and often ruins the reputations of political figures without offering constructive debate.
6. Selective Disclosure or Omission of Facts. Politicians might strategically disclose only favorable information or omit critical facts that could change the interpretation of a situation or policy.
- Why it’s legal: As long as the information they present isn’t factually false, they aren’t breaking any laws.
- Why it’s unethical: It misleads the public by giving an incomplete or biased view, preventing people from making fully informed decisions.
7. Filibustering. Prolonging debate or using procedural tactics to delay or block legislation from being voted on, often without any intent to contribute substantively to the discussion.
- Why it’s legal: Many legislative bodies, such as the U.S. Senate, have rules that allow for filibustering to protect minority interests.
- Why it’s unethical: It can be used to obstruct the democratic process, preventing the majority from passing laws or engaging in meaningful debate on important issues.
8. Flooding the Media with Disinformation. Politicians or their teams spread false or misleading information across media outlets or social platforms, hoping that by the time the truth comes out, the damage will have been done.
- Why it’s legal: Many forms of disinformation don’t technically violate libel or defamation laws, and policing falsehoods can be challenging.
- Why it’s unethical: It manipulates the public’s understanding of key issues or candidates and erodes trust in legitimate information sources.
9. Voter Suppression Tactics. Using legal loopholes to make it harder for certain demographic groups (typically minority or low-income voters) to vote, such as by implementing strict voter ID laws, reducing polling places, or changing voting hours.
- Why it’s legal: Many voter suppression tactics are couched in the language of preventing voter fraud or protecting the integrity of elections.
- Why it’s unethical: These tactics disproportionately target vulnerable groups, undermining the democratic process by limiting access to the ballot for those less likely to support certain candidates or parties.
10. Bait and Switch. Campaigning on one set of policies or promises to appeal to a particular group, then abandoning or changing course once elected, often because of hidden agendas or pressure from donors.
- Why it’s legal: There are no laws requiring politicians to fulfill their campaign promises once elected.
- Why it’s unethical: It betrays voters’ trust and makes a mockery of the democratic process, where citizens expect elected officials to follow through on their stated positions.
11. Pork-Barrel Spending. Politicians secure funding for local projects in exchange for political support or votes, often inserting these funds into larger, unrelated bills.
- Why it’s legal: Lawmakers can propose amendments to bills, and pork-barrel spending is often buried within larger legislative packages.
- Why it’s unethical: It prioritizes personal or political gain over the common good and often results in wasteful government spending that benefits a select few at the expense of broader public interests.
12. Exploiting Loopholes in Campaign Finance. Using legal loopholes to bypass campaign finance limits, such as funneling money through Super PACs or nonprofit organizations that aren’t required to disclose donors.
- Why it’s legal: Loopholes in campaign finance laws, particularly after the Citizens United ruling, allow for these indirect channels of funding.
- Why it’s unethical: It allows wealthy individuals and corporations to have disproportionate influence over elections and policy decisions, undermining the principle of equal political representation.
13. Rhetorical Evasion (Dodging Questions). Politicians avoid answering direct questions by giving non-answers, changing the subject, or responding with vague or irrelevant statements.
- Why it’s legal: There’s no law requiring politicians to directly answer questions from journalists or the public.
- Why it’s unethical: It prevents transparency, accountability, and honest public discourse, making it difficult for voters to assess a candidate’s true position on important issues.
14. Vague or Misleading Campaign Promises. Politicians make broad, feel-good promises during their campaigns without concrete plans for implementation, knowing they are unlikely to be held accountable later.
- Why it’s legal: As long as these promises aren’t explicitly false, there’s no legal requirement for politicians to fulfill them.
- Why it’s unethical: It manipulates voters by playing to their hopes and concerns without any intention of follow-through, leading to disillusionment with the political process.
These tactics often exploit loopholes in laws, take advantage of public trust, or manipulate social dynamics in ways that are technically legal but ethically questionable. By using these strategies, politicians can gain a significant advantage while eroding the integrity of democratic institutions and trust in the political process.
Now obviously, despite the concept of “common consent” voting that was briefly the basis for policy changes in the Church, the Church is not by any stretch of imagination a democracy. Even sustaining votes, which used to result in a meeting with the leader one voted “against,” now just lands the dissenter in a meeting with a local leader who has no power to do anything whatsoever and will likely convene a disciplinary court to boot. But that doesn’t mean that the church doesn’t have internal politics (all organizations do), or that they can operate with impunity against the wishes of members. The “success” of the ongoing race ban depended on the fact that nearly all Church members were white, and that they were also willing to go along with it (even if they wanted it to change). That’s not a “vote” per se, but it is an example of tacit consent of the governed. If those in charge piss off too many people in the ranks, accountability occurs in the form of membership losses, loss in tithing revenues, lower attendance, callings that can’t be filled, and the horror of horrors–negative press.
While quite a few of the political dirty tricks mentioned above don’t really have Mormon parallel, there are a few for which ready examples spring to mind:
Dog-Whistles. There is a strong tradition in the Church of saying one thing publicly, but in a way that members know is really something else. Polygamy was something that was being practiced secretly, while making very carefully worded public denials. Likewise today with the way the policy for sealing to more than one spouse differs for men than for women, and how the sealing ceremony is not an equal exchange of vows. We say we don’t practice polygamy, but these carefully worded ceremonies and policies point to what’s really going on. Additionally, statements like those on so-called political neutrality, and the statement about black lives matter protests, do a superficial both-sides lip service, but are really a dog whistle to conservatives, a wink and a nod that church leaders agree with them, not with those wicked Democrats.
Astroturfing. Two big examples I can think of for this one are the ERA and Prop 8. Whether church members really supported the Church’s position or not, they were assigned to phone bank and take political action to oppose women’s rights and gay rights through these two campaigns. This visible action created the impression that there was no dissenting view among the membership, that Mormons as a group were against women’s equality and against gay rights. Smaller examples of this approach (or you could just call it straight up lying) were when the Church claimed that there were no working mothers among the ranks of paid seminary teachers because they all chose to quit (when the policy was that they would be fired when they had a child), or when BYU claimed there was no demand for caffeinated drinks on campus, or when Pres. Hinckley claimed that there was “no agitation” for female ordination.
Character Assassination via Smear Campaigns. The Church has been engaging in smear campaigns of specific dissenters since Joseph Smith’s day, but has also pretty consistently engaged in smearing doubters as a group: lazy learners, didn’t really pray with sincere intent, left to sin, were easily offended, have a dark spirit now, and are “miserable” without the Church. These are all familiar refrains we’ve heard over the pulpit.
Selective Disclosure or Omission of Facts. Steve Hassan (creator of the BITE model) calls this undue influence, when people are asked to make important life decisions without all the information. Basically, Church history is full of unsavory facts that most members don’t know, and there was enough of a freak out when they published the gospel topics essays that they quickly buried them on the church’s website (not that people really read anything anyway). As a missionary, the lessons were definitely heavier on feelings and spiritual stuff and lighter on “10% of your income for life,” “no coffee or tea or alcohol,” and “Law of Chastity.” Additionally, the temple requires a lot of commitment on the spot in front your family when you don’t really know what you are agreeing to yet.
Bait and Switch. The example that immediately came to mind is the recent comments by E. Bednar and some others that once you’ve been baptized at age 8, you no longer have any choice in whether to follow Church teachings or not. If you’re a boy, you have no choice about serving a mission, etc. Clearly an 8 year old is not equipped to make fully adult commitments for life, so to me this feels like a bait & switch. Another bait & switch (to me) is changing the definition of apostasy to include any disagreement with a church policy. That’s never been the case during the first 55+ years of my life, and now suddenly it is? OK, boomer.
Dodging the Question. There have been quite a few “town hall” style meetings with leaders to address issues the youth are facing that have used planted questions or where the answers were to a different question than was asked, or where a letter that sounded fake as hell was used to ask the question leaders wanted to answer, worded in a way that supported their unpopular views.
Vague or Misleading Promises. The only real example that comes to mind is the hand-waving of concerns by saying that we don’t know how it will be worked out in the eternities, but it will all be fine, when someone raises a concern that the church either doesn’t have an answer to, or knows the answer is going to be unacceptable. I’ve also called this the “celestial lobotomy” approach. Somehow we’re going to be OK with things we find morally repugnant once we are dead. The simple fact of religion is that they can promise anything they want about what happens after you die because it’s unfalsifiable.
- Can you think of examples of political dirty tricks that you’ve seen at church?
- Do you think it’s justifiable since these actions are in an ethical gray area / not illegal, or do you think churches should be on morally higher ground?
- Is it justified to use whatever means necessary to protect the church’s image?
- Do dirty tricks protect a church’s image or hurt it in the long run?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Thanks for reminding me why I’m not voting for either candidate (Harris vs Trump) and why I will never again be a part of an organized religion. Also, it pains me to say this but I think the party I grew up on (R) seems more guilty of the above than the D alternative (thanks MAGA). It also pains me to say that I think the COJCOLDS is probably more guilty of the above than most other religions. I could be wrong about that but I think the corporate CYA culture of the Church makes it worse than average.
The idea of being an agnostic libertarian seems more and more appealing by the week.
Joe Biden has mastered all of those tricks over 50 years. He’s the Democrats best electoral politician and has made a lucrative career out of it. We should all be thankful that he is finally a lame duck. Whichever wins in November is a great improvement for the country.
Timely and well written OP – thanks.
Speaking of dirty tricks, my profession has enabled me to witness firsthand how, at times, the Mormon hierarchy has handled large real estate transactions.
Common tactics include negotiating paying less than market price and persuading TBM sellers to take multi year tithing ‘credits’ to make up the difference – as well as paying large commissions to Q15 family members rather than attorneys or licensed brokers. The church knows their RE transactions are lightly regulated and typically not subject to full disclosure rules.
Under the vague or misleading promises category, look no further than the temple building boom. Using the specter of the approaching second coming to generate attendance and support is at best duplicitous. The choice is simple – either attend the temple or burn.
The church has dodged questions for nearly two centuries now. The one that bothers me most is the issue of the black priesthood/temple ban. I continue to be infuriated that the official stance is “we don’t know why this was in place,” when the two most prominent options to explain it are 1) God is racist and exclusionary and we need to own that, or much more palatable, 2) we had 19th century leaders with some racist tendencies that managed to get solidified and passed down without question. I am baffled that someone “doing the math” among leadership still thinks that the institution is coming out ahead with its current approach of dodging the question, rather than issuing a well-worded and heartfelt apology. Sad thing is, they may be right in their math: the institution may have more to gain by bolstering the ultraorthodox members who would never accept the implication of flawed leadership than it has to gain by making the church seem more human and Christian.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by the straight ticket downvoting I get here. Biden is a lame duck and you’re still voting for him. It’s Blue MAGA-ism. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.
Kamala Harris would not be a candidate if Biden had had a coherent debate. And he would be losing in a landslide right now. He’s the scapegoat that carried all the mistakes made in the last four years, leaving Kamala a clean slate.
I think Biden learned his trade from LBJ, who was the timeless master of dirty tricks….as well as a master of awful foreign policy. I recommend reading Dallek’s Lone Star Rising. A great primer on dirty tricks.
Interesting post, and I agree with the general thrust of the argument. Yes, it would be nice if the Church and the leadership scored higher on some ideal corporate integrity metric. But realistically, all institutions have these problems, even ones you would expect to do better. The Boy Scouts. The Catholic Church.
I try to cut the Church some slack at times, given how during the 19th century the government, the press, and other churches were all practicing negative PR against the Church, often with misleading or completely false claims and narratives. In the 20th and 21st century, it’s mostly those darned Evangelicals still playing that game –and lately the Church itself manages to create plenty of its own negative PR. But I’ll give the Church some leeway in tooting its own horn (and selectively publishing its own good data and trying to gloss over bad info) just as a way to compensate for the bad stuff others throw at us.
The Gospel Topics Essays — the Church ought to get some credit for commissioning and publishing these, but it was never more than half-hearted to start with. I think the lesson top leadership took away from the whole effort was “Hey, we tried to be more candid and directly addressed tough issues, and look what it got us.” So now they are back to the whole bag of rhetorical and informational tricks.
thhq, I feel compelled to put in a good word for Joe Biden. Trump did his best to undermine Ukraine by trying to get personal gain by holding up an approved military aid package (and it got him impeached). Biden, on the other hand, worked hard to get more aid for Ukraine and encouraged allies to do the same, which is why there is still a Ukraine. Trump constantly badmouthed NATO, then Biden repaired the ruptured trust Trump left behind and strengthened both NATO and the US-NATO alliance. When the Russians send troops into Poland or Latvia, we are all going to be happy that a rejuvenated NATO is now unified and willing to respond forcefully, and Biden gets credit for that. I am 100% certain that in coming decades, as historians look back, Trump is going to rank as one of the worst presidents in US history and Biden will definitely be top third. That’s assuming Trump doesn’t get re-elected and blunder us into World War 3, in which case there may not be historians a few decades from now to write anything.
A dog whistle the church recently made was their statement of political neutrality issued earlier this past month. The first part I expected and that was they could not make a recommendation about who to vote for because of political neutrality. The dog whistle came when they said they could make statements about issues and then named only, the sanctity of life and abortion.
On the same page, the same day this was published, was the Catholic statement, which stated basically the same thing but further said that both candidates did not support the sanctity of life in their platforms, mentioning abortion and immigration and that a person needed to pick the lesser of two evils. At least this was honest and prompted people to think.
With only abortion named, we can’t vote for a Democrat, which it seems was all there was to the statement by the LDS Church. Yet, when you think about the lesser of two evils and the sanctity of life, it becomes much more complex. At least the Catholic statement invited us to think and compare.
In terms of numbers, there are a lot with abortion, but how many with immigration, gun control, lack of universal healthcare, lack of housing, worldwide climate change, and wars in Ukraine and Gaza? What about ethical issues as well, which I’ll leave to you? Finally, there is the character of the candidate, their demeanor, how they treat others, how they speak, and if they promote or create division.
The LDS Church ignores all this. The Catholic Church at least hints at it. I know I prefer to think about the lesser of two evils and make my vote accordingly.
Bait and Switch: Temple worship- I was promised the mysteries of the universe. What I got was Masonic handshakes.
Wow, what a list!
Propagandization is another dirty trick which involves subtle manipulation and coordination of media outlets to cover for lies and to use fallacious logic to ward off attacks from opponents. The Republican Party has long engaged in propagandization through Fox News and other outlets. Of course, the Republican Party doesn’t directly oversee Fox News, have ownership in it, or tell the media personalities what to say (at least not in the open). But it exerts a number of indirect pressures on a number of useful idiots to do its bidding. Republican tentacles have reached YouTube as well. A large number of useful idiots are essentially paid off to spout lies and propaganda, including Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, Megyn Kelly, and quite a few others. The coordination doesn’t happen between the GOP and the media personality. It happens between the GOP and a particular donor class who is promised protection from regulations and high taxes through aggressive GOP legislative maneuvers and in exchange the donor class pays off media personalities who do the bidding of the GOP, host GOP politicians regularly and give them softball questions.
Propagandization happens in a similar way in the church. The apologists are propagandizers. They don’t directly coordinate with church leaders, but the leaders coordinate directly with the people who pay many of them and pressure local leaderships (all while maintaining plausible deniability) to excommunicate the academics who get out of hand. Early apologetics was launched through BYU. Nowadays there are lots of wannabe volunteers who are not paid by church-funded organizations. But apologetics wouldn’t thrive like it does without church money.
Lawyer armies is another dirty trick. With lots of money and lots of desperate lawyers who need jobs, you can create an army of minions who play all sorts of dirty tricks within the justice system. The lawyers effectively become liars and do your bidding. Trump has Alina Habba and many others (many of whom are facing criminal charges). The church has Kirton McConkie.
Gaming the courts. An unfortunately large number of judges and justices in Utah and Idaho are church-broke and make biased rulings and decisions in favor of the church. Similarly the GOP manages to find blind ideologues and pack the courts with them, who end up not pursuing justice, but allowing the GOP to break the law (i.e., Aileen Cannon).
Abortion is the business of individuals.
When there was a national health crisis, when 1.1 million Americans died the sitting President Donald Trump told us it would go away. He said horse tranquilizers could prevent it. He ruminated that taking bleach internally or figuring out how to apply light internally could be solutions. And the direct action he took was to send scarce respirators and test kits to Moscow.
Anyone who relies on Donald Trump to put the interests of the American people first is a fool. To treat Trump and Harris as equivalent negatives is willful ignorance. To fail to vote is neglect of duty as an American citizen.
The bait and switches that upset me most was when they changed the definition of revelation from revealed by God to the prophet to the 15 old men agree.
Vague or Misleading Promises: Temple announcements in Russia and China. That sure generated a lot of excitement! Prophets! Last days! Second Coming! When will construction start in Shanghai again? When will we even decide which city to build the Russia temple in again?
Another misleading promise is the health benefits of following the Word of Wisdom’s ban on coffee and tea. There is a lot of evidence that coffee, and especially tea, have health benefits. Even if you think that their may be some potential health issues, there really is no debating that they are very minor.
Character Assassination via Smear Campaigns: They seem to have stopped doing this, but Church leaders used to frequently add “so-called” in front of someone’s title or profession in order to imply that these people weren’t to be trusted over “prophets, seers, and revelators”. You know, a “so-called psychologist” said that gay people can’t change (because they don’t understand the “truth” about human sexuality like “prophets, seers, and revelators” do), or a “so-called scientist” said that humans descended from monkeys (because they don’t understand the scriptures like “prophets, seers, and revelators” do). Looking back at these quotes, “so-called” should be changed to “qualified” or “professional” since it is now perfectly clear that whatever the scientist, psychologist, or whoever was probably much more accurate than whatever the so-called prophet, seer, and revelator had to say about the topic.
Use of the term “The World” is also frequently used to demonize anything that Church leaders don’t like, but 30 years later we frequently discover that “The World” was right after all. For example, Ezra Benson taught (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/womens-divine-roles-and-responsibilities/to-the-mothers-in-zion-institute?lang=eng):
Of course, the “Lord’s way”, according to Benson, was for every mother to stay at home and not pursue a career. Since the current General Relief Society President ignored this advice and chose to work full-time as a lawyer while she raised her children, we now know that Benson was wrong and “the world” was doing thing the “Lord’s way” all along.
Bait and Switch: I think a lot of young members of the Church choose to serve missions because they actually want to teach the gospel to other people. They are young and naive, but many of them have pure motives. The Church states over and over again that serving a mission is all about spreading the gospel. Little do they know that most of them are going to waste most of their time attempting to get strangers interested in the gospel by harrassing them on the street or knocking on their door. They also don’t understand how completely the Church is going to control their lives by giving them a bunch of unnecessary rules to follow, many of which don’t help them become better gospel preachers, and then assign them a companion to make sure they follow all these rules.
Filibustering: The Q15 have to be unanimous on any important decision. There are a number of accounts of how just one or two apostles can prevent needed change. For example, this is one of the main reasons that God’s “One True Church” was behind most other churches with regards to racial equality.
Gerrymandering: I frequently return to the country I served my mission, which is far across the ocean in a place where the Church is still relatively new. I have observed the Church go through a number of rounds where they cycle through larger congregations and smaller congregations in an effort to stimulate growth. Right now, the Church has made wards in cities in these countries so, so small that it’s very depressing attending Church there. There’s hardly anybody there, the people that are there are burned out, etc. This is happening in places where there are 3 wards meeting in the same exact building (and other wards meeting in other buildings that aren’t that far away), so it would be very easy to combine them. Indeed, many of these wards have been combined into larger, more vibrant wards in the past, but some Church bureaucrats keep thinking they can spark more growth by meddling with ward boundaries.
Great post and excellent comments so far. Two thoughts come to my mind:
Firstly as mentioned above there is no accountability for church leaders. When both social media posts from women leaders about priesthood and working outside the home blew up, the site owner commented that the feedback in these posts would be reviewed by church leaders and appropriate action would be taken. This was some months ago. Yet we wait. Prediction: there will be no follow up and there will be no action taken.
Second, the church cherry picks its stats in an effort to mislead. The church likes to gloat they are still growing faster than other churches. But seventh day Adventist and Jehovah’s Witness are growing in Africa at multiples larger than the church, and that’s without 80,000 missionaries. One example of many.
Two points:
Since I’m not a Mormon, the analogies to church politics aren’t too interesting. But the real politics are. The dirty trick I’m most concerned about is the one we play on ourselves.
We vote for more debt.
I live in the blue wall coastal states. These used to be red states 50 years ago. But California now has 25% of its population on welfare and close to 60% on Medicare or Medicaid. Oregon is similar, Washington a little better. The majority of the people here need government money to survive because well-paying jobs/businesses have gone elsewhere. And they reliably vote for whoever poses the least threat to their paychecks. They vote for more debt.
For those of you living in Idaho and Utah it’s somewhat different. Oregon has 18% of the population on SNAP, Utah has less than 5%. The number of people voting for more SNAP is far smaller in Utah, explaining one of the major differences between blue and red voting.
Do you want to be like Oregon? Marijuana shops everywhere. Abortion legal to time of birth. Forest fires burning out of control, wiping out two or three towns in a summer. Worst schools in the country. Not too many Mormons. Welcome to my Welfare State. And be careful what you wish for.
I think pretending all church callings are inspired is a dirty trick. It’s refreshing when a leader extends a calling to someone by saying something like, “This is a role that needs to be filled and we feel like you would do a good job. Does this calling feel right for you?” It’s humanizing and practical.
The D&C even says that God doesn’t command in all things. So saying things like, “The Lord wants you to be ward clerk” is just a manipulation tactic meant to exert pressure on the member to accept. Perhaps the bishop felt right about extending that calling. But that’s no reason to steamroll over someone’s agency.
SacrilegiousScotty:
“Bait and Switch: Temple worship- I was promised the mysteries of the universe. What I got was Masonic handshakes.”
When you receive the former the provenance of the latter doesn’t matter so much.
@Jack, in a “Bait and Switch” situation, the thing that is promised (the “bait”, which in this case are “the mysteries of the universe”) is never delivered and is replaced instead with something much less valuable, or even worthless (the “switch”, which in this case are the “Masonic handshakes”). Had SacrilegiousScotty actually received any part of “mysteries of the universe” from his temple worship, he would likely not be complaining about the Church’s bait and switch claims with regards to temple worship.
I personally have never felt that I’ve received any thing special from temple worship that I couldn’t have received outside of the temple. In fact, for me, temple attendance is kind of a hindrance to spirituality. I think that there are many who would agree with me on this, even amongst orthodox believers if they’re being honest with themselves. So, yeah, temple worship really does feel like a bait and switch: Church leaders constantly talk it up and make endless promises, but instead of getting some incredible spiritual insights, I could have done much better by just going for a walk through the forest. “Just keep going,” they said. “You’ll learn something new every time if you just keep going.” Been there. Done that. Sincerely tried. For a long time. Nothing.
Some things may look like a bait and switch when they’re really not–or when they don’t have to be. It’s like parenting–I think many folks would agree that parenting potentially offers the greatest rewards that can be had in mortal life. But even so there’s no question that some folks have felt–or will feel–like they’ve been sold a bill of goods on that score. And so without meaning to assign blame to anyone for not having a good experience as a parent or as a temple patron–I can only say that for many folks–including myself–temple work has been a wonderful journey of enlightenment.
@mountainclimber
My grandma was lamenting to my mother about all of the blessings I’m missing by not going to the temple. When I asked which blessings I was missing, there was no answer. Just generic blessings, I guess.
I remember hearing in EQ over and over how the temple was the only way for anyone to be truly happy. At the time, the thought of the temple only made me sad. I didn’t want to go because my wife had no desire to be there. It sounded lonely and the loneliness felt painful. I feel much happier without that obligation if I’m being honest.
It’s a great place for some, but far from a great place for all. I love the idea of binding the whole human family together as a part of worship. However, I am starting to think we are already all bound together by our relation in the same way that my kids are related by their existence and not by ceremony.
I observe logical fallacies often, but am not always able to define or explain the weakness. This list is darn helpful. Thanks.
Two areas I’d like to add some nuance to:
1-gerrymandering can be illegal. Federal courts have chastised states (particularly southern states) that create congressional districts that exclude Black representation. It violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Courts have upheld the Act, despite Republican politicians’ attempt to weaken it.
A similar example has unfolded recently in Utah. Voters exercised our citizens’ initiative rights in the state constitution to require congressional districts be created by an independent committee. The R legislator threw out maps by an independent commission, and implemented their own.
This summer, The Utah Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the legislators were in the wrong. The top House & Senate leaders said it was the Supreme Court’s worst decision ever. (side note: all the justices were appointed by Republican governors.)
(Shoutout to Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) & The League of Women Voters Utah, who brought the lawsuit!)
The R legislative leaders called an emergency session to put some amendments to the Utah Constitution on the November ballot. One was to weaken citizens’ rights while giving power to legislators. The language they used to describe the intent and effect of the proposed amendments was straight out of Orwell’s Animal Talk. Deliberately grossly misleading.
Utah’s Supreme Court once again voted unanimously, ruling that even though the proposals will be on the ballots, the votes will not be counted.
Another horrendously misleading amendment they proposed combined 1-removing a requirement that all of Utahs income taxes be used to fund education and needs r/t disability
with
2-removing tax on food.
Creepy stick and carrot in a state that is consistently in the lower ranks of per pupil spending.
(musing question: should I vote against them, anyway?)
The other thing I wanted to point out is that no 8 year old child can legally enter into a contract, let alone one claiming to be a lifelong loyalty to an institution. That’s so creepy.
sorry I used a wonky, confusing numbering system : (
Gov. Cox, in his campaign, brags about his billion-dollar tax cut, the largest in state history. Where did it come from? Utah’s Income Tax, which is 100% dedicated by the Utah Constitution, is to be spent on Education. So, the state’s largest tax cut came at the expense of the state’s children. He then brags about a $6000 dollar pay increase for teachers. 1 Teachers didn’t ask for it. 2. It was done without public input, even the school superintendents were locked out of the discussion. It was tied to what eventually became Amendment A, to take away the Constitutional mandate to spend Income tax on Education. There was a promise of taking away the food tax, which the legislature could do at any time, and it was tied to funding vouchers, which give money to parents to spend on private and, many times, religious schools (it’s against the State Constitution to fund religious schools). Finally, the pay raise circumvented the district’s use of the money for programs it may need or how to pay its teachers.
In the Salt Lake Tribune, there was an article with questions to all the senate and congressional candidates. All of the Republican candidates refused to answer any of the questions. All of them said, “No comment.” These were questions about social security, the economy, climate change, and so on. Since all of the candidates are LDS, I found this odd, but the more I think about it, the madder I get.
Both the Governor and Republicans in Congress are LDS, and all use Dodging the Question, Omission of Facts, Selective Disclosure, and Vague Promises as a justification for a campaign that either doesn’t answer anything or is misleading. What’s going to happen, we already know since they are elders in Israel and are going to preserve our Constitution. Average LDS members who have been told to study out the issues and vote will not think about it and just vote Republican trusting without verification.
Granted, we are talking about how the Church may do things, and politics sometimes even enters the church, but the real issue, as I see it, is in Utah, it’s how the Church enters politics and changes it for the worse.
Jack: “temple work has been a wonderful journey of enlightenment” For you, maybe, but for those whose experience is not the same it sounds a whole lot like “The emperor’s clothes are so beautiful. Only the truly special people with great taste can see them.”
I’m with Kirkstall on issuing callings.
I can accept and magnify a calling that comes from a human whom I have sustained as a leader. There is no need to put the imprimatur of God himself on every calling in the church.
Thanks for censoring my comments hawkgrrrl. It’s your blog and it’s as closed as you choose to make it.
As Kamala said to the words “Jesus Is Lord”, you’re in the wrong place. As a Mormon.
Thanks for censoring my comments hawkgrrrl. It’s your blog and it’s as closed as you choose to make it.
As Kamala said to the words “Jesus Is Lord”, you’re in the wrong place. As a Mormon.
thhq: Nobody on the blog is censoring you. For some reason our Akismet spam filter flagged you as spam. This happens, and it’s happened to a lot of commenters over time. Nobody knows why–I wish we did. I found several comments including on other posts that you had made that were in spam, so I moved them to “approved.” Do I disagree with a lot of what you say? 100%. But nobody is actually suppressing your speech. You are welcome to comment, and everyone is welcome to downvote you or reply to you if they disagree.
@Jack:
In the right situations, I’ve tried sincerely asking people who had claimed that they had learned something or been enlightened from a recent temple visit for some specifics. “What did you learn?” or “Tell me a little about what you experienced.” I can recall receiving three types of answers:
1. “I learned that this fold in the garment symbolizes X or this string coming off the hat symbolizes Y” or just some other understanding of the symbolism of the endowment ceremony or clothing. Some of these “revelations” no longer seem useful at all because these elements of the endowment have now been removed…because, well, I guess they weren’t important. Even if accurate, these insights just seem like temple trivia. Oh, those creases represents the offices of the Aaronic priesthood, or something like that. That’s nice, but it’s not life changing.
2. “I felt very peaceful.” or “The Spirit confirmed that I should marry X or accept job offer Y.” That seems nice. If people feel that way, then that’s great. Does everyone need the overhead of the temple to receive this sort of inspiration? I really don’t think so.
3. No reponse. A confused look. This is the most common response I get. In other words, the person telling me how great their temple visit was probably said that because that’s just what you’re supposed to feel and say about the temple. In reality, they probably didn’t get much out of their recent temple attendance at all.
Sure, members will be quick to say that they simply can’t talk about these special experiences, yet some of these people I’ve talked to have a pretty darn hard time keeping secrets. I think that if they’d experienced anything beyond these three things, something that most people would be willing to call “a wonderful journey of enlightenment”, then they couldn’t have stopped themselves from spilling the beans even if they wanted to. Lots of people talk big about all these things they have learned from the temple, yet when pressed for specifics, it’s always something super vague like “temple worship has been a wonderful journey of enlightenment”. Something seems off.
Hawkgrrrl:
Jack: “temple work has been a wonderful journey of enlightenment” For you, maybe, but for those whose experience is not the same it sounds a whole lot like “The emperor’s clothes are so beautiful. Only the truly special people with great taste can see them.”
As a blue collar type I–and millions of others like me–might view those who have made their way through the academy with the same kind of suspicion that you mention above. Even so, I would be wrong to assume that the credentialed could not have found any enlightenment at the university.
It’s the same with the temple. But because what we learn there is more spiritual in nature it’s not as easy to objectively verify as the learning we get at the university. But that doesn’t mean that it’s any less real.
Hawkgrrl you run the blog. Your management dropped my comments out of discussion for a few days. Many times, on many threads, and most of them never appear. It takes time to write a concise post and I don’t like wasting my time.
What bothers me about the downvotes is the anonymity. What is it you disagree with? Brad D displays his straight ticket partisanship, which I expected, and it’s not worth rebutting because I’m not here to play “I’m not but what are you?” Is everyone here like Brad D? Is this just an echo chamber?
mountainclimber479,
Not being able to share all we know is a real phenomenon among the saints. It’s as real today as it has been in every age. I’m sure this verse from Alma 12 isn’t new to you:
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
@Jack, what I’m saying is that I know many people who speak the same way you do about their miraculous temple experiences that can’t keep a secret to save their lives–no matter what strict command God or anyone else might give them. Maybe Alma could keep a secret, but a lot of other people making such claims cannot. Something doesn’t add up.
I also suspect that a big reason that people from “every age” make miraculous claims that they are unwilling to share the details of is because it’s a very convenient excuse. Hey, look at me, I’m a part of the in-group now. Yes, indeed, I just had one of those miracles happen to me like the chief shaman said would happen at the next full moon. What exactly happened, you ask? Oh, uh, hmm, well, like the chief shaman always says, “Sorry, but it’s too sacred to share.” Yes, indeed, this phenomenon is “as real today as it has been in every age.”
Like Jack says, he would be wrong to assume people did not find enlightenment at a university, I think I would be wrong to assume people to do not have good experiences or learn things when they go to the temple.
My experience is, that in the temple they don’t actually teach the mysteries of the universe. For those who benefit from going to the temple it seems to be like someone who goes to a university where they don’t actually teach anything, but the student then reports, “I had a wonderful time at the University and I learned a lot! They didn’t actually teach me anything in the classes there, but while I was on campus, I meditated and was able to sort through a lot of my thoughts. I left with more clarity than before I attended. It’s a fantastic university and there’s no limit to what you can learn there!”
And I say, “Good for you, I’m glad you’ve had a positive experience.” But my experience is that I have had better experiences of meditating, sorting my thoughts, communing with God, and learning spiritual truths in nature than I have in the temple. I was sort of hoping that in the temple they were going to TEACH me something that I couldn’t get anywhere else, (like the mysteries of heaven), and I found that what was TAUGHT to be a bit disappointing.
Jack: The thing I always used to think about the temple, based on what everyone said it was going to be like (the Lord’s real university, the place where the mysteries of God are unfolded) was that it seemed that somewhere along the line, the actual secrets of the universe got lost. I have attended sessions when someone came in to explain all the wonderful mysteries that average people missed and left thinking that the speaker actually didn’t know anything at all, and that the so-called mysteries they were unfolding were really just threadbare pablum.
I have been to places of great spiritual power where it’s nearly impossible not to marvel with wonder, some ancient, some in nature, many man-made. The Mormon temple feels like the lobby of a Doubletree where you can get in a good nap and shut off your phone. I have literally not heard (despite much searching and listening) one new thing in the temple that was unique, spiritual or mysterious. But for those who do, more power to you. Different strokes and all.
While worshiping in the temple can certainly be a powerful experience in the moment, my experience with learning the meaning of “temple theology” has, for the most part, come about by going to the temple on a semi-regular basis for most of my adult life. I’ve pondered and prayed over the meaning of those things for many years–and its come to me at a pace that is commensurate with my preparations: at about the velocity of poured molasses. And as I’ve gotten older and more curmudgeonly — and I’ve perhaps been a little less cautious than I should be when approaching Deity for answers — I’ve learned that the Lord will–with great patience–teach us all things as fast as we are able to bear them.
And just to be clear: I’m not saying that I’m in a special class of people. I’m of the opinion that the majority of members who continue faithfully obtain the “record of heaven” as did father Adam when he was converted–albeit over time. I am the least of those who have a hope in Christ.
Jack,
Thou “doth protest too much.”