NOM

All the religions that I've had anything to do with, and I will add to that, any society that I've been aware of, agrees that it is immoral, and basically wrong to lie about something, or to steal or cheat. Not only that, but once it is discovered that an untruth exists, moral people overwhelmingly agree that the untruth should be exposed for what it is, so that we can move on, and so that others can made be aware and not fall victim to those who lie or cheat or steal. We see naughtiness as one thing, but outright deceit, like those who chose to steal information or money from people over the internet or other ways- that's just immoral. No rational thinker would feel otherwise.

There are oodles and globs of examples- and I'll mention a few secular or scientific examples- teaching that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth instead of the other way around- simple things that we think someone would have to be silly to believe, or illiterate, as many people in the world are, or uninformed, or whatever reason. It is immoral to teach or persuade someone about something you know is untrue.

Also, to add to this, it is agreed that no one should be persuaded and especially not forced to believe something unless it is true.

That said, if a church or a people who call themselves honest, and true, even more honest and worthy and good than anyone else- if that is the case, why is it so difficult for a church or a people who, when they find out that they have been lied to or cheated out of time or money or whatever else- why is it that people find it so difficult to accept that they are wrong, admit that they are wrong, and move on?

I often wonder where this lack of humility comes from in the church...

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2 ... on-apostle
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JxyiHLg59ks
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tUJns80itNE

It's not just about facts and incontrovertible proof. People hold onto beliefs for reasons that are very much their own. Reasons that are based in their experiences and values.

Gatorbait wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:27 am

That said, if a church or a people who call themselves honest, and true, even more honest and worthy and good than anyone else- if that is the case, why is it so difficult for a church or a people who, when they find out that they have been lied to or cheated out of time or money or whatever else- why is it that people find it so difficult to accept that they are wrong, admit that they are wrong, and move on?

To apologize means you have made a mistake. To admit mistake is (in leadership's minds) to undermine ones power base. LDS leadership power is based on priesthood and revelation given directly from God. Therefore they are in the place of God in His dealings with us mere mortals and as we all know, God doesn't make mistakes "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Contrary to what Dallin Oaks said in his statement regarding the church not asking for "apologies".... as I recall, Joseph Smith was screaming bloody murder to the U.S. government about wanting redress for all the harm the saints had suffered in Missouri. I guess Oaks had forgotten that little detail.

The old John Wayne movie line where he emphatically states "Never apologize" may sound tough and stoic but real men know that apologizing can be a source of power in the effort to reconcile, find common ground and work together. Which brings up another fallacy in church leadership thinking.

The idea that, "If you don't go along with us, then good riddance.....we don't need you." is exactly the opposite of what the Savior tried to portray in His teachings. He was looking for ways to help people to be reconciled to their Creator, who loves and cares for them, not for ways to send them to Hell.

I'm a perfectionist. I don't like to be wrong. But, even though it is unpleasant for me to be aware of & admit my mistakes, I am committed to awareness & taking responsibility for the ways that I fall short. I just cannot understand or empathasize with an organization (LDS, Inc.) that can't admit to faults & do the same. Because we all screw up....so do they. I don't understand why they can't just take responsibility for past errors & move on. It causes me great grief...to my own detriment.

I too was hung up on this problem with the dissonance between the "talk" and the real game of the church.

Perhaps it is a similar phenomenon that comes about when people find they have been a victim of a Ponzi scheme or other fraud. Often the victim never comes forward to authorities or even confronts the con man because they either still believe the "money" will come or they feel embarrassed that they fell for it to begin with.

Perhaps many with creaking shelves somehow hope things will realign with their original testimony and simply cling to that hope. Maybe they just don't trust their ability to navigate life without a guru and are afraid to try.

In any case I think we harm ourselves when we don't admit mistakes and move on, whether it's an organization or an individual.

It was a great relief for me when I finally admitted I was wrong about my deeply held convictions and could finally really look at what I was a part of. Then, when I determined there were other plausible explanations for the questions the church gave absolute answers to, I could move on and make decisions which resonated with and seemed more rational to me.

This has made all the difference.

Give It Time wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:22 pm

It's not just about facts and incontrovertible proof. People hold onto beliefs for reasons that are very much their own. Reasons that are based in their experiences and values.

Good point.
I believe the heart of philosophy is not too different from psychology - because it's about recognizing one's own subjective biases.

It is easier to fool a person than to convince them they have been fooled- Mark Twain? (I think)

As I understand it, admitting you are wrong is the first step in both repentance and recovery. I suppose if one wanted to remain unrepentant, refusing to admit a wrong would be helpful.

Some good comments here, and I agree with all of them. I especially liked Moksha's short comment.

The thing is, many of us were taught at an impressionable age, that we should avoid or correct any evil. We were told that we should avoid even the appearance of evil. We have heard the stories..."Don't go in the bar because other Mormons might see you...bla, bla bla. We have had masterful gilt spinners con us into thinking all sorts of silly things- all religions have.

But when you have found the one true, and the only true church, and you are taught that it is pointless to keep searching for any other religion or belief, that this is it. Search no further. We have the truth. We are the truth.

That said, is it okay to gloss over something that needs to be repented of? I thought the Church'es explanation of the Mountains Meadows massacre was a good starting point for the Church when they wrote an apologetic article in the Ensign a few years ago. But historians have uncovered all sorts of facts that these people, who were members of the Church, murdered innocent men, women and children. Murdered in cold blood. They were ordered to do it- commanded to do it. The Church knows this. How could the one and only true and living church allow someone to uncover a truth that they have not already uncovered, admitted, resolved, and made restitution? How could this be?

Gatorbait wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:16 pm

But historians have uncovered all sorts of facts that these people, who were members of the Church, murdered innocent men, women and children. Murdered in cold blood. They were ordered to do it- commanded to do it. The Church knows this. How could the one and only true and living church allow someone to uncover a truth that they have not already uncovered, admitted, resolved, and made restitution? How could this be?

Wait.....you weren't actually expecting them to fess up of their own volition were you?

Not after spending decades trying to hide the facts which all of leadership knew to be true from the beginning? You're expecting a lot from an organization that was built on lying liars.

Joseph started by being fraudulent in his treasure digging, then lying to cover up that he was a fraud, then seducing Emma and lying to her father that he had mended his ways. Then came the fictitious Book of Mormon, the lies about priesthood revelations and angelic visitations. And don't forget the lying to Emma regarding Fanny Alger and all those deceived women who followed. The attempts to have Governor Boggs assassinated.... and how about those Apostle missionaries being sent to Europe and England telling the people there that they absolutely weren't practicing polygamy when they actually had numerous plural wives at home?

Brigham was Watching Joseph's example very closely. So when it came time to tell the truth about what had actually occurred at Mountain Meadows we don't really expect Brigham to spill his guts do we?

The concept of "being wrong" in the first-person present tense does not exist.

For example, nobody says "I know such-and-such belief is wrong, but I am going to believe it anyway". The instant an individual recognizes that they were "wrong", that is the same instant when they change their belief regarding that thing. And that instantly puts the idea of "being wrong" into the past tense (I *was* wrong), and not present tense (I *am* wrong). And thus the human mind remains in balance, and always believes that it is right.

This means that *everybody* believes that they are 100% right, 100% of the time.

Even when you are not sure if a given idea is truth, or correct, you are 100% certain of that doubt. So your mind remains in balance.

If you want more on this subject, watch the following TED talk, by Katheryn Schulz, "On being wrong":

https://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong

And remember, this applies to you, to me, and to everybody. We *all* believe we are 100% right, 100% of the time. And this, of course, creates quite a barrier in correcting our misconceptions about *anything*.

It's because if you apologize you are admitting you were wrong and regret it. When everyone believes that you speak for God, that raises a lot of questions and doubts.

However, by not apologizing you are saying that you agree with that bad behavior in the past (hurt caused to blacks, women, LGBT, etc.) and feel that it was the right thing to do and that makes you cruel, uncaring, and definitely not very loving or Christlike.

They continue to back themselves into these corners, and they do it because they truly believe that they are super special and that God is guiding and inspiring all of their opinions.

Just Curious wrote,"And remember, this applies to you, to me, and to everybody. We *all* believe we are 100% right, 100% of the time. And this, of course, creates quite a barrier in correcting our misconceptions about *anything*."

With all do respect, I don't see it that way, whether or not you were using this tone for something other than a direct response, be it sarcasm or whatever- in all seriousness there are some issues that need to be addressed, at least the way I see it.

One example:

When Paul H. Dunn's ridiculously incredible stories were exposed by Lynn Packer back in the 90's, I was thunderstruck. I remembered that Mr. Dunn said at one time that he played big-league baseball, but I understood from previous talks given, that he never made it to the major league- he played minor league baseball. Big difference. He said he played in the St. Louis Cardinals organization- always implying that he played big league baseball. If he got called up to play for the Card's there was no record of it. Yet later in his life he said that he played big league baseball for the St. Louis Cardinals.

Either I am right about what I just wrote, or I am wrong. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think I am. But if I am wrong, I hope that someone is kind enough to correct me so that I don't go on telling a false story. The thing is- if I am wrong, I'm wrong even if I don't admit it. And that is exactly what Paul H. Dunn did- didn't admit it, until he was forced to. His reason, the embellished stories were more interesting than the real ones, he said.

Being wrong is human. Lying about being wrong after being exposed, well that is something else all together.

Gatorbait wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:17 pm

Being wrong is human. Lying about being wrong after being exposed, well that is something else all together.

I agree that it's possible and common to know you're mistaken but refuse to admit it. Maybe a major reason for doing this is the hope to avoid pain or discomfort of feeling wrong - as if we tied what we thought or acted regarding a particular issue with who we are.

Scott Peck suggested something to the effect of sin is not evil. We all sin. The real evil is denying our sin - which damns us (keeps us back) from moving past it.