Moral Dilemma -- to keep something going even if wrong

[BriansThoughtMirror]

I disagree - the Brethren know people are being hurt, and they don't care. The Church means everything to them. The members mean nothing to them. If saving members means compromising the organization - they will choose the organization every time. That's why it doesn't matter to them how many gay teenagers commit suicide, or how many non-member family members cry outside of temple weddings, or how many marriages break up over one spouse developing doubts about the Church. They aren't trying to help people or serve members - they are trying to enhance the organization. That is all that matters to them.

It may be more complicated than that. Yes, they know people are being hurt. Again, here's some more speculation as to their thoughts (not my thoughts):
Those gay kids should have just repented. Or, probably, God will be lenient to them as he would with people with other mental illnesses. Certainly, God will never condone gayness, and they can't either. It's tragic, but the only thing that will fix it is the atonement.
Those non-members left outside the temple wedding are experiencing sadness because they have not accepted the truth. If they accept the truth, the problem is solved. We can't bend God's laws- eternal truth- to fit the temporal desires of people here. We can't fear man more than God.
As for the spouse who leaves the church and loses his/her marriage- how dare that person deny the truth and break their covenants! They are reaping the obvious results of their wickedness. How can they expect to keep their eternal family if they blatantly disobey God?
To try to serve people in these situations would be counterproductive. It may ease some of their current discomforts, but it may cost them their salvation in the long run. It may also encourage others to do the same, and endanger their salvation as well. It can't and shouldn't be done (See Oaks' talk on tolerance).

So- they may very well care, but they are trying to judge how to proceed for the ETERNAL benefit of the highest number people, not necessarily just for the enhancement of the organization. They are trying to do the right thing in a tricky situation.
This is similar to a strong believing Baptist who tries and tries to change a Mormon's beliefs, and warns them they are going to hell, to the point of being offensive. The Baptist person sincerely believes that he is acting in the Mormon's best interest, even though he is hurting him now. Isn't his eternal salvation infinitely more important than his temporal comfort?
Now, I could be wrong. They could be plotting how to gain power and influence over us, and they may hate gay kids. Or it could be something in between. This is just my guess, and I admit, I'm playing a bit of devil's (or maybe Jesus') advocate. I also think you are totally justified in being super angry at the pain and injustice they bring to us and our families, and I sometimes join you in that anger.

[LaMachina]

I think BTM nails it. NOBODY thinks they are the bad guy unless they get shaken out of their bubble pretty hard.

Take me for example. I'm raising my children without religion, I openly mock a few of it's more ridiculous ideas, I've no issue allowing my likely gay child to explore their sexuality or even question their gender if it comes to that. I'm trying to do right by my kids but if the biblical/mormon god in fact rules the universe then I am a horrible, wicked and short sighted parent. Moral dilemmas appear to be completely dictated by worldview.

The great philosopher George Lucas illustrates it so well with one encounter:


Personally I think the Q15 bubble is very thick and resilient. They do bear responsibility for that but they are trying to do what's 'right' however misguided they may be.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

Haha, thanks...
Yes, but it doesn't mean there's no blood on their hands. Reality is damn complicated.

[Not Buying It]

I don't especially care whether or not they think they are villains, how they justify their deceptions isn't all that interesting to me, and I am not sure it makes much difference to me how they have justified what they do. The end result is all I care about. They probably aren't plotting and conniving to deceive us, but they have found enough ways to self-justify their deceptions to where it doesn't matter. Whether they see themselves as liars and cheats is irrelevant, how it affects other people is what matters.

And again, I maintain they don't act out of our concern for people, they act of concern for the organization. People don't matter to them. They aren't trying to act for the highest eternal benefit of the greatest number of people - they are trying to preserve, protect, and enhance the organization. They'd sacrifice every last one of us if that is what they thought they had to do to protect the Church. You don't matter, the Church is all that matters to them.

[LaMachina]

Haha, thanks...
Yes, but it doesn't mean there's no blood on their hands. Reality is damn complicated.

I completely agree, there is blood on their hands. I don't defend that at all but, like any court of law, I hold a small amount of consideration for intentions and motivations which I think is part of your argument.

And I also agree with aspects of what you say NBI but I personally find how we all justify our deceptions immensely fascinating. And how these ways of thinking lead to our moral frameworks which lead to these horrible outcomes. Personally I think understanding that is the only way to effectively break these chains.

I, like you, find the "Give Joseph (or any church leader) a break" trope nauseating. But I do find there is a small space deep within my soul that has some empathy for them. Potatoes - Potawtoes maybe...

[Not Buying It]

Haha, thanks...
Yes, but it doesn't mean there's no blood on their hands. Reality is damn complicated.

I completely agree, there is blood on their hands. I don't defend that at all but, like any court of law, I hold a small amount of consideration for intentions and motivations which I think is part of your argument.

And I also agree with aspects of what you say NBI but I personally find how we all justify our deceptions immensely fascinating. And how these ways of thinking lead to our moral frameworks which lead to these horrible outcomes. Personally I think understanding that is the only way to effectively break these chains.

I, like you, find the "Give Joseph (or any church leader) a break" trope nauseating. But I do find there is a small space deep within my soul that has some empathy for them. Potatoes - Potawtoes maybe...

We all agree for the most part. I just can't bring myself to cut them any slack.

[alas]

I don't especially care whether or not they think they are villains, how they justify their deceptions isn't all that interesting to me, and I am not sure it makes much difference to me how they have justified what they do. The end result is all I care about. They probably aren't plotting and conniving to deceive us, but they have found enough ways to self-justify their deceptions to where it doesn't matter. Whether they see themselves as liars and cheats is irrelevant, how it affects other people is what matters.

And again, I maintain they don't act out of our concern for people, they act of concern for the organization. People don't matter to them. They aren't trying to act for the highest eternal benefit of the greatest number of people - they are trying to preserve, protect, and enhance the organization. They'd sacrifice every last one of us if that is what they thought they had to do to protect the Church. You don't matter, the Church is all that matters to them.

This is kind of what it comes down to. Their reasons don't matter because they amount to justifications and rationalizations.

They *know* something is wrong. We see all kinds of evidence that they know something is rotten in Denmark. Packer telling historians that they should not teach any history that is not faith promoting is a prime example. They KNOW there is history with the power to destroy testimonies, yet they cover up and obfuscate. They KNOW there are problems with the BoM as a historical document. B.H. Roberts told them that years ago. Yet they just bore testimony that they "know" it is true and refused to consider the overwhelming evidence that he had found.

Let me give you an example from my own life. I was sexually abused as a kid by my father. My mother *knew* something was terribly wrong between my father and myself. Yet she refused to think about it because abuse was the ONLY thing it could be and she was unwilling to face what that could mean to the rest of the family. The rest of the children could be put in foster care. The abusive parent could go to jail or prison. It would be devastating to the family. Well, the very idea scared her and so she decided not to find out what was wrong. So, my well being was sacrificed because she didn't want to face the consequences of really knowing what she had good evidence of. My mother had a responsibility to find out what was wrong and do whatever it took to protect all her children, not just protect the ones who were not being abused from going into foster care. She made a choice not to investigate what was her responsibility to investigate, because she was too chicken shit to face the consequences of what she knew but didn't want to know.

So, back to the general authorities. They know enough to know something is very wrong with the church's truth claims. History, the way JS practiced poligamy, the historical accuracy of BoM claims, BoA translation problems, and so on. But they don't want to investigate further because they don't want to face the consequences of knowing what they have good evidence of.

But don't they have the same kind of responsiblity to investigate further and find out the truth as what my mother did when she saw something was wrong?

I think everyone here would agree that my mother had a responsiblity to investigate, so what is wrong with holding the GAs responsible for not investigating further? They have evidence of the falseness of church claims that they are willfully choosing not to investigate, even if they are not willfully deceiving people. They ARE willfully hiding from the truth.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

alas- I'm so sorry, and I won't pretend to understand what that was like for you and your family.

Others- fair enough. There are plenty of good reasons NOT to cut them any slack, too. I just don't think we can assume they have all of the worst motives, so I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. When I look at those old dudes, I see someone kind of like my dad. He was in it because it changed his life for the better and he wanted to serve others as he had been served. Doubt just didn't make sense to him, and there was no way he could have understood or believed that the church he loved was harming people. I'm sure if he had been presented with negative evidences, his faith would have trumped it all, just as it likely does for the GAs. And he was a good man. I disagree with him on many vital issues, but I still think he was a good man. So, maybe that's my bias.

[Hagoth]

Over the last century or so the church system has developed a process of vetting people for loyalty above all else. It's not so much about good or bad intent as it is about personality types that will sacrifice anything and everything for the cause to which they adhere themselves. Otherwise good men who understand that lying for the Lord is a necessity that they believe transcends ordinary mortal morals.

The leaked COB videos showed us that "church broke" is still a central phrase and concept in their worldview. We outsiders don't really know what '"church broke" means exactly, but The Brethren appear to have discovered/constructed a barrier-of-no-return that for some people, once crossed, assures their absolute devotion.

[Rob4Hope]

As for the Hoffman forgeries, well, crap, that does look bad. I bet they panicked. I'm sure that, in their minds, they could just hide those confusing documents up somewhere until either scholarship or revelation provided some clarity. No need to get the membership all anxious about it. After all, even if it seems bad, there MUST be an explanation. Or, so they assume. That was definitely handled badly, but I bet they felt justified. I won't justify it, though.

You know, I never even thought about the Hoffman forgeries until I started reading NOM. They are like a smoking gun: they show a lack of discernment, a desire to spend dollars to "cover it up"--which I think was their intent, and lives were lost in the mix. Its sad the whole thing happen. A parallel is the Kinderhook Plates...which fable persisted for a LONG TIME with LDS backing.

And the seeing Jesus thing? If any of the apostles imply that they have seen Jesus and haven't, then dammit, that is strait up dishonest. I'll give you that. Of course, a vision could be very subjective. They could have had some experience that seems to them to count, but they know it would seem anticlimactic to members. They could have seen him in a dream, or with their "spiritual eyes". They may then imply a theophany of some sort, knowing that the membership will interpret it to be more miraculous than what really happened, but not actually lie. Yes, this is hypocritical, but I'm sure, again, they have justified it in their own minds. I'll give it to you, though, the last two you mention are hard for me to give a pass to. I think there is a lot of "ends justifying the means" going on, even if the leadership really does believe.
Of course, they may have ACTUALLY seen him. I think Wilford Woodruff at least believed he did. I met plenty of people in Missouri who saw Jesus. Maybe some of the apostles have had similar experiences.

Brians, I can see your point about them believing, and perhaps a level of deception or at the very least a HIGH HIGH level of nuance to allow things to be twisted into a "faithful perspective". I know of a high-ranking LDS GA (now deceased) who never said he was sorry. He did admit once that he could have handled something better,...but to say he was mistaken? NADA.

Somehow this idea of never making mistakes, doing everything intentionally and doing it because GOD WILLED IT....it baffles me. But, there were years where I was in the same mix, and I was as TBM as the rest.

Here's my point- to me, it may seem like these guys are lying through their teeth, but to them, they may very well feel completely (or at least sufficiently) honest. Almost no one is a villain in their own eyes.

With my faith transition, I honestly believe I see more clearly. My perspective about sin and the consequences of sin has changed dramatically. Its this aspect that informs me when I am seeing a "old school" quest to hold onto and defend an idea, even at the cost of incredulity. Its the "sin next to murder" concept.

For example, as a child I was raised on stories like Marion Romeny's better come home in a box than unclean, and SWK Miracle of Forgiveness. Still, out on LDS.org the Sin Next to Murder is defended in a round-about way. But, this idea is preposterous to me in comparison.

Suppose you have 2 engaged people who are getting married in a week. They are in the back seat of a car, and things go a little too far. Now, suppose you have a man who father's 10 children, but emotionally abuses and neglects them through their whole lives, destroying their futures, their hope, their faith, even their very lives...BUT!!!!! (this is important)...BUT!!!! he doesn't kill them.

I say this man is a criminal. A monster! But, those 2 kids with the wondering hands...THEY COMMITTED THE SIN NEXT TO MURDER!!!!!!!!

Thank goodness this man didn't commit that serious horrible sin like those kids.... he doesn't have to come home in a box.

yeh right.

[Rob4Hope]

Others- fair enough. There are plenty of good reasons NOT to cut them any slack, too. I just don't think we can assume they have all of the worst motives, so I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. When I look at those old dudes, I see someone kind of like my dad. He was in it because it changed his life for the better and he wanted to serve others as he had been served. Doubt just didn't make sense to him, and there was no way he could have understood or believed that the church he loved was harming people. I'm sure if he had been presented with negative evidences, his faith would have trumped it all, just as it likely does for the GAs. And he was a good man. I disagree with him on many vital issues, but I still think he was a good man. So, maybe that's my bias.

I have to draw an exception. When someone is that high in an organization, if they don't know the full implications of the history issues, contemporary issues, and so forth--they are negligent. If they really don't know because they just don't know?...they are either themselves deceived or they are ignorantly stupid.

People are complaining ABOUT the history! According to that GA guy who let it slip, the church is experiencing the largest apostasy since Kirtland! Is this false information?

If this is not false information, than how can the Q15 not be aware of this?...and if they are aware, how can they not be aware of the cause?

John Dehlin did a survey, the results of which made it all the way to the top. The Q15 know.

I'll tell you what I think. I think they sit down with a group of high-power image consultant people, and they discuss strategy of how to stem the tide of the leave. I think the goal is political, social, financial....and I don't think spiritual even enters the concerns. Im willing to speculate they say things like: Well, we have a problem with JS and polyandry. How can we handle this situation to best avoid loosing face in the site of the people and keep more members from leaving?....

I bet that is what happens up there at HQ...

[Thoughtful]

Others- fair enough. There are plenty of good reasons NOT to cut them any slack, too. I just don't think we can assume they have all of the worst motives, so I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt. When I look at those old dudes, I see someone kind of like my dad. He was in it because it changed his life for the better and he wanted to serve others as he had been served. Doubt just didn't make sense to him, and there was no way he could have understood or believed that the church he loved was harming people. I'm sure if he had been presented with negative evidences, his faith would have trumped it all, just as it likely does for the GAs. And he was a good man. I disagree with him on many vital issues, but I still think he was a good man. So, maybe that's my bias.

I have to draw an exception. When someone is that high in an organization, if they don't know the full implications of the history issues, contemporary issues, and so forth--they are negligent. If they really don't know because they just don't know?...they are either themselves deceived or they are ignorantly stupid.

People are complaining ABOUT the history! According to that GA guy who let it slip, the church is experiencing the largest apostasy since Kirtland! Is this false information?

If this is not false information, than how can the Q15 not be aware of this?...and if they are aware, how can they not be aware of the cause?

John Dehlin did a survey, the results of which made it all the way to the top. The Q15 know.

I'll tell you what I think. I think they sit down with a group of high-power image consultant people, and they discuss strategy of how to stem the tide of the leave. I think the goal is political, social, financial....and I don't think spiritual even enters the concerns. Im willing to speculate they say things like: Well, we have a problem with JS and polyandry. How can we handle this situation to best avoid loosing face in the site of the people and keep more members from leaving?....

I bet that is what happens up there at HQ...
[/quote

Link to John's survey?

[Red Ryder]

Link to John's survey?

Link fairy swoops in again:

http://www.whymormonsquestion.org/wp-co ... r20121.pdf

[Emower]

The negligence, the hurt, the misdirection/nuance, the thoughtless damaging rhetoric, the thoughtful damaging rhetoric, the willful ignorance which results in blood spilled, to me is all explained by an esoteric abstract force of cult established by Joseph Smith which has evolved over 200 years as a response to American social forces and politics. Seriously, the church is a microcosm of social issues. These guys have given over their will to something else. Like Hagoth said, they have been put in that position specifically because they have no discernable will left. That is the easiest person in the world to have controlled by an evolved ideology over which no one really has any control.

Does this give them a pass? I don't know. I do know that I don't want to act or think in the same vein as they and assume that they are deliberate in their hate just as they think I am deliberate in my hate against them/church.
It sounds what we are debating here is consequentialism vs. deontology.
I think of Les Miserables when I think of this debate. I read the whole thing a while ago. I thought it was going to take me forever, its a long book. But I loved it and ate it up. It is so applicable to everyday life. You would expect that the Prophets Seers and Revelators would be more like Valjean and use more of a virtue ethics approach to become better people. But isn't this our Mormon experience bleeding through and coloring our expectations? They're just old guys! Why do we hold them to a higher standard then we would otherwise? Acknowledge them for who they are; racist, homophobic guys stuck in the 50s' and 60's just like your uncle bill.

[wtfluff]

They're just old guys! Why do we hold them to a higher standard then we would otherwise?

Because they claim to speak for a "god"/Corporation who holds the "eternal salvation" of the entire human race in it's grubby paws.

They are the ones who have submitted themselves to be held to a higher standard. Why shouldn't we hold them to their "word"?

[Linked]

They're just old guys! Why do we hold them to a higher standard then we would otherwise?

Because they claim to speak for a "god"/Corporation who holds the "eternal salvation" of the entire human race in it's grubby paws.

They are the ones who have submitted themselves to be held to a higher standard. Why shouldn't we hold them to their "word"?

Yes, there is a huge difference between the old guy yelling at kids to stay off his lawn and the old guy who carries the authority of God himself telling anyone that walks on his lawn they are going to hell. To those here on NOM they are just old guys, to TBMs they are the source of their morality.

[Not Buying It]

They're just old guys! Why do we hold them to a higher standard then we would otherwise?

Because they claim to speak for a "god"/Corporation who holds the "eternal salvation" of the entire human race in it's grubby paws.

They are the ones who have submitted themselves to be held to a higher standard. Why shouldn't we hold them to their "word"?

I have to agree with wtfluff - they demand that we call them "prophets, seers, and revelations". Darn right they need to be held to a higher standard. They are the ones demanding we sustain them as "prophets, seers, and revelators", if they can't live up to that standard they need to quit demanding we sustain them as such.

[LaMachina]

TL:DR Sorry, went a bit long here. Just getting some thoughts out in cyberspace.

Alas, your story is horrifying and sadly it seems way too common. Any reasonable person would agree your mother failed in her moral duty to protect her children to say nothing of how horribly your father failed!

At the risk of pulling a Bednar *shudder* I think the OP asks the wrong question. To keep something going if wrong? This is not how any TBM views the difficulties in the church. In my attempts to get inside the heads of the Q15 I look at my own head during 30+ years as an active, at times quite confident in my belief, Mormon. The question seems to me to be "How much bad can a good/true thing do before it becomes a bad thing? And does that ever make it a 'wrong' thing?"

What if in someone's twisted mind they didn't merely ignore what was happening to you but felt it was for your own good or that is was a divine commandment? Most shrink at such a thought when it comes to child abuse (thank the gods) but considering some awful beliefs out there it isn't out of the realm of possibility. Hell, child abuse is basically sanctioned in the bible. What moral dilemma is there for someone when what you call evil, they call good?

I think it's quite clear the Q15 are well aware of the issues. It wasn't long ago that Dieter said this, in General Conference no less!:

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations...We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question...And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I understand that this isn't good enough for many. It's not good enough for me. I hate the nonsensical 'Doubt your doubts' quip from this talk. But it's the best we're gonna get and I think it indicates they are well aware of the issues. But they believe anyways. For all it's problems they still cling to it, not because they think it's wrong but because they so desperately believe it to be right!!

With our new eyes we are shocked and flabbergasted at such a thing. How can they know what we know and still believe? They must be moral monsters. I'm not so far along my apostate path that I can't remember my believing mind. There was a time when I was equally shocked that people could know about mormonism and not embrace it. It was so clear, so obvious to anyone with a sincere heart. Ridiculous now, right? But is the position that it's so obviously a fraud and no one could possibly believe it that much more enlightened?

As a believer, I knew about polygamy for at least 2 decades before I left, including some of the uglier aspects. I knew about the Hoffman situation for about 2 decades as well. I still remember how it rocked me, sitting on the living room couch as my mom tried to talk me through it. And yet I processed it and continued on as a believer for 2 DECADES!! I knew about the rock in the hat for at least a decade before I left. I justified it all. God can do anything, sometimes he asks his followers to do awful things like murder their own children, we'll understand someday, these doubts are a test of my faithfulness that God requires of all of us. These were all things that lined up very well with the bible as far as I was concerned.

I know some people here found out about the history and were done immediately. That wasn't the case for some. I was able to fit our history quite nicely into my belief system. It was only when my worldview was rocked that I began to reassess how I viewed our history.

Sometimes I'm just surprised at how some think it should be so obviously fraudulent to everyone. Or that leaders couldn't think anything else except the church is wrong and just keep it going out of fear or greed or something. It seems the human brain doesn't work like that.

[Rob4Hope]

They're just old guys! Why do we hold them to a higher standard then we would otherwise?

Because they claim to speak for a "god"/Corporation who holds the "eternal salvation" of the entire human race in it's grubby paws.

They are the ones who have submitted themselves to be held to a higher standard. Why shouldn't we hold them to their "word"?

The more I see it, the more I see "cult".

Its wrong to teach one thing and defend another. Talking about telling lies, its on record that a few weeks before JS was shot, he preached a public sermon and denounced engaging in polygamy. That is a bald faced lie, told "as the Prophet" speaking in public discourse "as the Prophet".

Apolgists defend him. "Oh, he wasn't speaking as the prophet"....or "Oh, he had to lie, because the people needed milk instead of meat".

MY GAWD! A lie is a lie!

To defend it is defending LIES! Half the apologetic responses I've read defend sin in their own right!

[Emower]

They're just old guys! Why do we hold them to a higher standard then we would otherwise?

Because they claim to speak for a "god"/Corporation who holds the "eternal salvation" of the entire human race in it's grubby paws.

They are the ones who have submitted themselves to be held to a higher standard. Why shouldn't we hold them to their "word"?

Yes, there is a huge difference between the old guy yelling at kids to stay off his lawn and the old guy who carries the authority of God himself telling anyone that walks on his lawn they are going to hell. To those here on NOM they are just old guys, to TBMs they are the source of their morality.

I disagree. The only difference is the deference we give them. You may reply, we are trained from birth and brainwashed to give them that deference. Thats true, so blame the cult that they are just as much brainwashed in as the person who is giving them that power over themselves.

Sometimes I'm just surprised at how some think it should be so obviously fraudulent to everyone. Or that leaders couldn't think anything else except the church is wrong and just keep it going out of fear or greed or something. It seems the human brain doesn't work like that.

True. I dont think we want to acknowledge the whole picture when we discuss the Bretheren because it is messy, and they sure act like a horses rear end.