Moral Dilemma -- to keep something going even if wrong

[Rob4Hope]

I went for a walk tonight and quieted my mind and heart. The sky was overcast and the wind was warm, yet not as blistering hot as the past several days. I had a thought: the LDS leadership teaches moral (depending on which day) absolutes. We are accountable to God, and as such, we must follow rules lest we be punished. The idea kindof hit me...

These guys -- if they are not delusional, they must have information the rest of us don't have to remain "believers". But if they don't have that information, how can they remain involved and committed, while at the same time teaching things they themselves deep down don't believe?

So I found myself wondering about the moral dilemma they are in, and the rational they must use to justify their approach. I came up with a few things:

1. They stay in because they believe if they pulled out and told the truth, they think it would do more damage than just keeping the ship going even though it's not sea-worthy.
2. They stay in because they have sunk so low into "confirmation bias", they are unable or unwilling to see the trees through the forest.
3. They stay in because they are, at the base level, financially and socially invested to the extent that they see this as a job and don't want to part ways with their source of income.
4. They are completely deluded and believe what they believe because they themselves subscribed to a "correlated life" that dominates their very existence.
5. They are addicted to the pomp and worship they receive.

I could go on.

Any comments on the rationalizations these guys must have going on?


=======
“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
J. Reuben Clark, D. Michael Quinn: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24

[Palerider]

I lean towards 2, 4, and 5.

I think in many respects they are just like many of us were as believers, but to have access to the secrets and still believe, takes an extra dose of self delusion.

I remember in one of Bednar's first talks, he mentions being given a set of books and documents he was required to study before he was to be set apart. He said it required "in depth study" and he repeated that phrase with emphasis. I had the impression it was historical stuff, not policy and procedures.

The upshot was that none of it phased him and he was fully able to commit to the work and his calling.

I thought about the mouse and the cheese experiment done by psychologists. The mouse has a string tied to him to measure strength of pull. The closer he gets to the cheese the harder he pulls.

Can you imagine having the subconscious goal of being an apostle all your life and then right when it's so close you can taste it, deciding you no longer believe? Imagine the humiliation, the disappointment, the rejection by family and the lds community.
I figure at that point you could read about Joseph doing orgies with Brigham, Heber and a bunch of naked gals smoking dope and you would say, "I'm not going to judge."

The Lord will explain all of this later....no biggie....

Yeah, at that point wild horses couldn't stop them from accepting the calling. Then once they're in, escape is virtually impossible. That would take real and Godly courage, not that fake stuff they offer up in conference when they're preaching to the choir.

[Janus]

Maybe having #3 makes it easier to doubt your doubts. Kind of like the spoonful of sugar helping the medicine go down.

[LostGirl]

I get frustrated when I think about them carrying on when they must know that there are serious issues but then I think, am I not doing the same thing? Aren't I carrying on the pretense to prevent trauma to myself and my family? And in doing so am I not providing an example for the youth and children of my ward to just carry on and keep silent? I often wonder if the majority of members are doing this to one extent or another. How sad would it be to one day realise that we were all pretending for everyone else and they were pretending for us?

[Hagoth]

Rob, I think all of your justifications apply in various mixtures, depending on the GA in question. I'm quite sure that Dieter Uchtdorf's justifications don't align perfectly with Boyd Packer's, but they both draw from various combinations of those things. Apart from everything else, I imagine that some of them believe that the church gives people hope, regardless of its truthfulness, and that they are giving meaning to the lives millions of people who would otherwise be lost and unhappy.

[Hagoth]

I remember in one of Bednar's first talks, he mentions being given a set of books and documents he was required to study before he was to be set apart. He said it required "in depth study" and he repeated that phrase with emphasis. I had the impression it was historical stuff, not policy and procedures.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to know what those books and documents are. Are they just Jesus The Christ, History of the Church, and stuff that is accessible to all of us, or are they special documents with esoteric knowledge designed to make them feel like they are on the inside of something that makes them special.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

I think this is an unfair characterization, similar to saying disaffected Mormons are evil, sinful, lazy, or deceived. There are intelligent, honest informed people who believe in Mormonism (and Islam, and Evengelical Christianity, and Buddhism, and atheism, etc.). I'd guess that from their perspective, it really does appear to be the truth. They may weigh and interpret evidences differently than you do, and they may be willing to give the benefit of the doubt in places that you won't. Either way, a person doesn't have to be deluded to believe. I see things one way, I have loved ones who see them another. Neither of us are stupid or evil.

[blazerb]

I think this is an unfair characterization, similar to saying disaffected Mormons are evil, sinful, lazy, or deceived. There are intelligent, honest informed people who believe in Mormonism (and Islam, and Evengelical Christianity, and Buddhism, and atheism, etc.). I'd guess that from their perspective, it really does appear to be the truth. They may weigh and interpret evidences differently than you do, and they may be willing to give the benefit of the doubt in places that you won't. Either way, a person doesn't have to be deluded to believe. I see things one way, I have loved ones who see them another. Neither of us are stupid or evil.

I don't think there was an intent to say they are stupid or evil. We all know Holland went to "a pretty good school." But there is a question. Why do they say and do the things they do? I cannot believe that an independent researcher, without any prior knowledge, could read the church history primary sources and come up with the story that we have been told. I don't think the hypothetical researcher could adequately defend that story using primary sources. So why does that story persist at the highest levels of the church?

In my opinion, 2 and 4 cause a decrease in incentive to really study the issues. 3 and 5, to the extent that they operate at all, would probably be subconscious.

[Rob4Hope]

Either way, a person doesn't have to be deluded to believe. I see things one way, I have loved ones who see them another. Neither of us are stupid or evil.

I agree they don't need to be deluded to believe, but I do contend its a willful choice, and it requires a great deal of "double standard" thinking as well. How can, for example, God not be a respecter of persons, and JS then be exempt from the laws regarding adultery? The apologetic approach is: "Oh, it was a different time..." or "they didn't have sex"...as if that clears it all up. With the case of Sylvia Sessions, you can't dismiss polyandry that was sexual in nature. Brian Hales, the man himself, has waffled over that for years.

I believe these Q15 at least must be aware of these things. If they are not, I have to take it to the next level--they are stupid. But I dont' think they are--I think they know. So, how do they justify this "give Joseph a break" type of mentality? According to the LDS doctrine, (still published mind you), sexual sin is next to MURDER in seriousness. And yet according to the then published doctrines, JS was in violation of the law of the land and the law of God. Why does he get a pass?...and why do the GAs continue to defend him? These are not rhetorical questions: I really want to know.

Now regarding evil, I have to take exception on one specific. There is immense cultural/religious power that exists in Utah communities. That cultural power was created and maintained to enable social structures to maintain power and conformity. From all the research I've seen, it appears a clear correlation exists between the LGBT community and youth suicide--many of these kids ARE disaffected and hurt LGBT Mormons.

For the LDS leadership to talk about love and acceptance, and then take a stand that pushes LGBT kids further out, affecting their mental state to the point of suicide and not own it for what it is?...I think that's evil.

I believe that the Q15 have blood on their hands.

So another not rhetorical question: if someone wields immense social, political, financial and ethical power in your life, and because of something in your life you don't fit in and feel horrible about it--and are in a position where you are faced, in order to conform and be accepted, living the rest of your life as an outsider and misfit--if that causes you to feel worthless and fundamentally flawed, does the person or people with the power have any responsibility for that? Or, are you just a "victim" for feeling this way...and if you are young and in your formative years, does that change things up at all?


Say I have a little boy and for his entire life I tell him he is really just a girl, and needs to be like a girl, and if he doesn't do it, he will go to hell--and suppose that child over a period of years is emotionally devastated and takes their own life...well, I would consider myself guilty of child abuse.

So, here is the question--again, not rhetorical: what is the difference between the church's position and a parent's? What makes the parent's position child abuse and the church gets a pass on it?

Brian,...I'm being direct, but none of this is personal. This is a hot topic for me. Please share perspective. I want so hear what you have...

[blazerb]

Say I have a little boy and for his entire life I tell him he is really just a girl, and needs to be like a girl, and if he doesn't do it, he will go to hell--and suppose that child over a period of years is emotionally devastated and takes their own life...well, I would consider myself guilty of child abuse.

So, here is the question--again, not rhetorical: what is the difference between the church's position and a parent's? What makes the parent's position child abuse and the church gets a pass on it?

Well, when you put it that way, I want to rewrite my previous comment.

[Rob4Hope]

Say I have a little boy and for his entire life I tell him he is really just a girl, and needs to be like a girl, and if he doesn't do it, he will go to hell--and suppose that child over a period of years is emotionally devastated and takes their own life...well, I would consider myself guilty of child abuse.

So, here is the question--again, not rhetorical: what is the difference between the church's position and a parent's? What makes the parent's position child abuse and the church gets a pass on it?

Well, when you put it that way, I want to rewrite my previous comment.

I had mixed feelings when I posted that last one. You have local leaders who do their best--some better than others and some loving. And I think you even have GA folks doing good--trying to be loving.

But I heard quote posted somewhere on this site about Dallin Oaks saying if someone takes their own life, the church can't be responsible for how that person used their own agency.

Its that type of attitude that makes me wonder about the "evil" question. Just because the LDS leader's didn't pull the trigger, does that make them not culpable in what is happening out there? That is where I'm coming from on this.

[Emower]

I believe these Q15 at least must be aware of these things. If they are not, I have to take it to the next level--they are stupid. But I dont' think they are--I think they know. So, how do they justify this "give Joseph a break" type of mentality? According to the LDS doctrine, (still published mind you), sexual sin is next to MURDER in seriousness. And yet according to the then published doctrines, JS was in violation of the law of the land and the law of God. Why does he get a pass?...and why do the GAs continue to defend him? These are not rhetorical questions: I really want to know.

What I think we all forget when we talk about this is the kind of God these guys believe in. They dont feel like they are giving him a pass, they feel like God is/has. Oaks said that God is not in the habit of giving reasons for commandments and it is up to us to not ask for them. It is not the pattern. So, even if they feel deep down that something is wrong, they defer to God. Its the ultimate cop-out, but still an out. That way they can feel good about doing/saying things that are not in harmony with decency.

I think it is a combination of the stuff you mentioned in the original post. Ultimately they just give their will to the God they feel has called them.

My patriarchal blessing outright tells me that I will be involved in Melchizedek Priesthood administration, and will preach the Gospel in many lands and on many continents. It exhorted me to find a wife who would stay in the home and support me in my callings that would take me away from family. It told me that I would have a facility for languages and that I would preach in many different tongues. To my young mind this told me to prepare for a life as a general authority. This was so exciting for me! I was going to be on a path the allowed me to see things, to be respected as a spiritual giant, be blessed more than your average member, etc yada yada.
If I had not had so many people leave the church, I would still be chasing that dream. Then, like Palerider said, if someone actually offered the position to me, a dream and a prophesy would be fullfilled. I would do anything to keep my worldview at that point. Including giving my will to an unknown force allowing me to distance myself from the icky parts.

I get frustrated when I think about them carrying on when they must know that there are serious issues but then I think, am I not doing the same thing? Aren't I carrying on the pretense to prevent trauma to myself and my family? And in doing so am I not providing an example for the youth and children of my ward to just carry on and keep silent? I often wonder if the majority of members are doing this to one extent or another. How sad would it be to one day realise that we were all pretending for everyone else and they were pretending for us?

I have thought of this before. My wife and I are constantly doing things because we think the other wants it, then we find out later that neither one of us actually wanted it. I think those guys are a little to insistent and zealous for this to be the case for them.

[Rob4Hope]

What I think we all forget when we talk about this is the kind of God these guys believe in. They dont feel like they are giving him a pass, they feel like God is/has. Oaks said that God is not in the habit of giving reasons for commandments and it is up to us to not ask for them. It is not the pattern. So, even if they feel deep down that something is wrong, they defer to God. Its the ultimate cop-out, but still an out. That way they can feel good about doing/saying things that are not in harmony with decency.

This part here jumped out at me.

I think you are right, at least as far as the attitude of some of the essays seem to denote. Don't they say in the essays they don't know why GOD would command polyandry or something?

The question these guys NEVER ask is: "How do I know for sure this feeling in my pants is GOD telling me to take this other man's wife?"

Everything JS said, or BY or these other guys...its considered from God. And they never ask or allow themselves to think that just maybe these people are making it up as they go, or they are receiving revelations from someone or something other than God, or maybe there is no GOD after all that reveals like they say.

There is one tenet that is NEVER questioned--and that is the link of revelation between the supposed God in Heaven, and the prophet on the earth. That is NEVER even allowed to be discussed--it is inviolate.

So the question is never: "Was JS saying God told him to do this because he was a sex addict?"...no. That is not allowed. The question is: "Well,...we don't know why God commanded JS to do that. We just need to have faith."

What a cultish way to look at it.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

Rob4Hope-
I agree that apologists and better informed believers tend to use logic that I wouldn't accept. There is indeed a lot of "double standard" thinking and confirmation bias going on. But, my point is that such people are not necessarily dishonest. To a true believer, it may be that the entirety of their life experience points to the church's validity. They have had spiritual experiences, answered prayers, and miracles that support their beliefs. They have felt a "mighty change of heart", prompted by the BOM. Maybe they have read a lot of the better Mormon apologetic research, and find it compelling. Also, they see the influence the church has had on many generations of their family and loved ones, and see only positive effects (this does happen for some). To such a person, it seems absolutely, obviously apparent that the church is true. To them, to discard their beliefs because of historical or theological problems would feel terribly dishonest. Of course we won't understand everything now! The little "flecks of history" are not really important. When that is your actual experience, you can be perfectly honest and intellectually consistent in accepting apologetic explanations that, to me, don't seem to hold water.

I can honestly disagree with them, and we can still both be decent, honest, intelligent humans who have thought out our beliefs to our own satisfaction. My point is- I don't think they are teaching things they don't believe.

To respond to your point about the damage done to young children by the church- I absolutely agree. Some of the things that are taught in LDS churches are incredibly damaging. I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to damage us or our kids, but it definitely happens, and makes me mad as hell. So, I'm conflicted- I see good people, trying to do good, and occasionally inadvertently doing serious harm. It's messy.

[1smartdodog]

It is one thing for the average member to believe and push the agenda, It is quite another for the leaders todo it. When you lead any organizations it is your responsibility to know what you are doing and saying is accurate.To justify what you are dong because you have deluded yourself into believing it is good for the masses is no excuse. If you want to do good go start a hospital or something. Not put up buildings that have little function than to get people to conform.

Personally I think think there are tow types of GA's. Those that believe at least enough in the whole narrative to maintain a testimony and push forward despite the evidence. Then there are those that have the "sunk cost" fallacy. I am in this deep can't turn around now. There are probably more of the former. I don't think this makes them evil or stupid just human.

Regardless of their motivations it is not an excuse, brave men own up to mistakes and change course, sometimes in spite of the consequeses. That way the problem is not perpetuated from generation to generation.

[Hagoth]

Personally I think think there are tow types of GA's. Those that believe at least enough in the whole narrative to maintain a testimony and push forward despite the evidence. Then there are those that have the "sunk cost" fallacy. I am in this deep can't turn around now. There are probably more of the former. I don't think this makes them evil or stupid just human.

Dog, I would take this a step further and suggest that most GAs probably begin as Type1 and pursue their ascent through the ranks with great enthusiasm and sincerity, only to reach the top and find out that Oz wasn't what it was cracked up to be, at which point they begin the transition to Type2.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

If leaders are staying in and pushing the corporate agenda because of the "sunken costs fallacy", then yes, I believe that's wrong. I did it long enough myself, and it's not something I'm proud of. However, I don't think we can say how many people are true believers and how many are just in it for convenience. It's not something we can accurately poll. We can all think of examples of someone who is on either side of that question, but that won't give us an accurate sample of the whole active Mormon population. To assume it does is to fall victim to the availability heuristic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availabil ... robability

[Not Buying It]

I've said it before - the Brethren don't get a pass from me because they are "doing their best". Fudge that. When Elder Anderson gets up in Conference and tells us to "Give Joseph a break", he knows damn well exactly what he is asking us to overlook. But he doesn't come out and say it so members who don't know about it don't find out about it. When Elder Holland pounds the pulpit in Conference and tells us the Book of Mormon holds up to scrutiny, he does so knowing full well that no evidence of swords, horses, chariots, wheat, or "reformed Egyptian" have ever been found in either North or South America prior to Columbus. When the First Presidency was trying to buy up all the forged documents Mark Hoffman was selling them that talking about salamanders and all kinds of crazy stuff, they believed those things were legitimate and wanted to hide them from the members. They know about a lot of things - and they lie about them.

Besides, every single one of them knows they haven't seen Jesus like they love to insinuate they have, and they know they can't heal the sick like the New Testament apostles. If I ever find myself in a wheelchair I am going to find one of them and ask to be healed like the apostles did in the New Testament just to watch them squirm.

They are liars and cheats. Whatever success they have had in rationalizing that to themselves is irrelevant, the rest of us are lied to and cheated regardless. Don't excuse them, they don't deserve it.

[Not Buying It]

To respond to your point about the damage done to young children by the church- I absolutely agree. Some of the things that are taught in LDS churches are incredibly damaging. I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to damage us or our kids, but it definitely happens, and makes me mad as hell. So, I'm conflicted- I see good people, trying to do good, and occasionally inadvertently doing serious harm. It's messy.

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.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

Not Buying It-
Here's my speculation, for what it's worth (maybe not much): Anderson says to give Joseph a break, because he really believes, regardless of his failings, that he was a prophet, and revealed the truth, and focusing on his errors will distract us from that truth. I disagree, but I think Anderson is sincere. In a paternalistic way, I think he wants us to just trust his judgement and not dig into historical facts, for our own good. He thinks we aren't spiritually mature enough to either dig past uncomfortable facts until we can see the real, nuanced truth or to just trust God that it will all be sorted out later. I think that's bull crap, but I bet that's what he thinks. He's sincere, but I think his approach is harmful and offensive.
Holland believes the apologetics. He believes that there IS evidence for swords, horses, chariots, wheat, etc., and that anything that seems wrong now will eventually be made clear. He thinks those who leave the faith gave up too soon. Again, I disagree, but I think he's sincere. I also find him incredibly aggravating to listen to.
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.
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.

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.