By Micah

LDS Church: Do as I say, not as I do

When it comes to evaluating or scrutinizing the LDS church, most members will tell you that the doctrine or church is perfect, but run by imperfect people. While this may sound good in theory to the members, it should be a blaring red flag. This is actually a “stop think” method utilized to keep members from thinking critically about the organization and blaming themselves for it’s (the organization’s) shortcomings. To continue this discussion, I would like to distinguish and segregate LDS faithful into two groups. The first group is comprised of the average member, serving in their local vicinity in various capacities and generally trying to do their best to fulfill what has been asked of them and what they believe is right. The second group is what I would call “upper management”, those at the top of the pyramid dictating the direction of the church whole. This group includes the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, Seventy and some of the many office positions that keep the church running.

This second group is where I would like to focus and apply my theme of “Do as I say, not as I do”. Though there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of examples of this, today I will play nice and only focus on one, which in a way, covers most of the rest. To setup this example, let’s establish from the LDS Church’s own Gospel Essentials what it means to be honest:

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when he was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

While I was on my way out of the church in June of 2008, I met twice with my Stake President. In trying to understand my reasons for leaving, he asked me several questions. “Have you been offended?” No. “Do you have any unresolved transgressions or sins?” No. (Side note: These are the typical off hand reasons that LDS members think of when hearing about a member going inactive or falling away. While this is sometimes the case, it is usually not the norm for stalwart members who leave unexpectedly.) “What is your main concern regarding the church?” My response to this question was the lying and deception to cover up and withhold the full history of Mormon origins.

How do I know the church is covering up or withholding the full story? Because Apostles themselves have admitted and admonished to not teach the full version of church history. Their reasoning is the whole “milk before meat” mentality. However, the diet of church history is never transitioned to “meat” and members are forever left to subside on “milk”. Church educators for seminary and institute often take it upon themselves to learn the “meat” of church history but when they attempt to share this “meat” with eager students, they are sometimes disciplined, threatened, or even fired. So while the “upper management” of the church preaches “honesty”, they themselves are failing to be honest themselves under their own definition of the term: “We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth”. Essentially what is taught in seminary, institute, primary, and Sunday school doctrine classes around the globe is a severely biased, watered down, and even modified version of the real events.

“It is . . . my conviction that God desires everyone to enjoy freedom of inquiry and expression without fear, obstruction or intimidation. I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the General Authorities, who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites--access to information, uninhibited inquiry and freedom of expression.”
-Michael Quinn, ex-LDS Historian

The following quotes are excerpts from a discourse given by Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1981 to LDS church educators during a conference at Brigham Young University. This clearly depicts the lengths and means the “upper management” is willing to enforce to keep the LDS faithful on a steady diet of “milk” while withholding the more filling and needed “meat”. (source: "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect", Boyd K. Packer PDF)

"Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer."

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

"The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment. The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy or trust.”

"That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. Do not spread disease germs!" (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271, emphasis mine)

While I understand the LDS church’s concerns and reasons to build faith instead of “destroying” it, my question is, if the full version of history and events is such that faith would likely not be established when taught, then perhaps it’s not a foundation one would want to have faith in anyways. Notice that Elder Packer’s concerns are not whether truth is being taught, but whether faith is being established. Using this logic, one could freely modify and teach the history of events of any cause to recruit followers, gain power, wealth or whatever and feel that the ends justify the means. However in the LDS church’s case, this is in clear contradiction to their own values and creed.

“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil they set out to destroy.” -- Christopher Dawson

When history is modified such that it only paints a positive light for any organization, it is easier for people to get warm fuzzies about it, such that they falsely think they are joining a good cause and fail to recognize or accept all of the skeletons in the closet from both the past and present. They only see and accept what the organization want them to. Unfortunately, when combining this control of information with other subtle means and tactics, the free agency and authentic identity of individuals is literally robbed from them.

“For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” -- Thomas Edison

Teaching a biased, watered down version of history is, in a very real sense, teaching fiction, spun to the benefit of the organization at the expense of the individual. Deception, lies, and cover-up are normally attributes of evil. An organization that preaches one thing but does another is not an organization worthy of loyalty.

“The prophet himself stands under the judgment which he preaches. If he does not know that, he is a false prophet.” -- Reinhold Niebuhr

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” -- Aldous Huxley

Views: 2635

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well written! Exactly the reason I am still waiting for my "out" papers.
Thank you, I will distribute as strategically as possible.

This is the very reason my father left the church. His leaving directly resulted in my questioning and desire to learn about culture and religion in a broad objective/relativist kind of way which quickly led to my 'apostasy'.
You have pulled together some basic truths that I wouldn't have considered seriously a year ago. I will save this as a succinct reply to those who may ask why I am not anxiously engaged finding my way back into full fellowship.
I started asking tough questions when I was a young girl. I quickly learned that this was unacceptable (especially from one who would never hold priesthood power). If I wanted to be accepted, I had to act on faith when my questions couldn't be answered. This always bothered me. But, trying to be the "good girl" that I was suppose to be, I tried my hardest to keep my doubts to myself. My Mother set me up at a very young age when she told me that if it wasn't for me, my parents would not go to church. She told me heavenly father sent me to them to make them become strong. What a burden to bear. Now, as a grown women with quite a bit of education behind me, I will no longer keep the questions to myself. Thank you for this. It sums up how I feel and I could go on and on with questions!
This is part of why I left the church. Too many questions and not enough answers. If the church were true then the teachings would stand up to scrutiny. The reality is, you see a lot of discrepency if you look too closely. That is why they teach you to not question.
So true Jen! ...all of the inspiration and revelation stuff is the most clever disguise I've ever seen ~ telling us to search, ponder, and pray... the answers are always indirect in a certain way ~ the way that teaches us not to question.
I'm so glad I finally scratched my head and ASKED myself to scrutinize what I thought I believed.

The saddest thing is that if they were open & honest about the church's history many of us would have stayed in the church. I know I'd be very inclined to excuse the frailties of the early leaders if their descendents hadn't been so secretive.
I agree. Had the truth been taught from the beginning, those born and raised in the church would likely have had less reason's to leave. At the same time, they would likely not be very successful since they would clearly not be able to make the claims they do now as the one true church and such.
That's very open of you, but I find Joseph Smith's sexual addiction to be so outside the character of any man who supposedly was issued the call to be a prophet of God on earth that there is no way I could accept such a flaw. Using the Bible to justify his physical/sexual failings appalls me and always did.
Great example of the double-think and irrationality that is perpetuated. I remember free agency being such an important right given to us all yet members and especially leadership suffocate it.

Well said, the talk from Packer was a sly way to attempt to get teachers to put faith over truth...simply unacceptable.
Sorry to sound so out to lunch here ~ but now I'm really curious Rick ~ which talk from Packer? I hear a lot of references about it lately and am not "up to date" ~ sounds like valuable info. the way you put it ~ as much as I hate going back to any more church sites and searching information, again! I'm still so mad...

Well done. I have read the Paker talk given at BYU. It was one of the things that confirmed "they" know the true history but if it is not self-serving.... BURY IT!!!!!

RSS

Support LAM through Amazon Purchases!

Our Stories

Follow us on
Facebook & Twitter

Videos |Stories |Chat |Books |Store |Forum
Your Donations are appreciated
and help to promote and fund LAM.
Make a Donation
 

Privacy Tip: Setting your profile/My-Page visibility to "Members Only" will make your status updates visible to members only.

Community Links

Map

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

We are an online social community of former mormons, ex-mormons, ex-LDS and sympathizers. Stay C.A.L.M. - Community After Leaving Mormonism

© 2014   Created by MikeUtah.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service