fetchface wrote:But it depends on where you are getting your "standards of morality" within Mormonism. I already pointed out D&C 19 where there is a clear example of God using deceptive language to motivate people to obey. Where in Mormon theology is it definitively settled that lying is always bad? I'm not making an argument that they should deceive, but I don't think that one can say that their own standards unambiguously settle this for them. An LDS leader who wants to justify dishonesty in their own mind, unfortunately, has material to work with (not to mention a 2nd anointing get out of jail free card).
No one is claiming the Mormon theology is consistent. And scriptures can be used to justify any action any time. Perhaps one can find examples in "scripture" that appear to justify immoral actions though they still are immoral actions done in a "higher cause". I disagree that D&C 19 is analogous. What they were hiding and from who is not very clear since it was published for the world to see anyways, but even so, from an LDS point of view, I hardly think it justifies what we are looking at as far the nearly 200 years long institutional effort by the church to mislead and lie to their own members. This isn't a "milk before meat" issue, this is a forced IV that is never removed whose contents are a "secret" because it's better for the patient that way.
cinepro wrote:fetchface already made my point for me, so I'll just ask what you read in the scriptures that makes you think the Mormon God has any problem with using a "crafted narrative" to get people to do what He wants?
I don't remember stating that there is a specific scriptural reference to my claim, but certainly you are familiar enough with the P.O.S. (plan of salvation) to know that we are here to be tested. Now if you want to argue that there is not specific reference to the immorality of purposefully withholding information from members to make sure they pass that test, I'd find that the kind of defense SMAC or Crocket at MADD would make, technically true but not a good look for religious leaders claiming to talk directly to God and preaching free will and honesty with your fellow man from the pulpit. And. of course, there is the 8th commandment.
cinepro wrote:Mormonism (and the Mormon ideal as presented by God and the Prophets in the scriptures) is that you believe and do what you are told based on faith. Faith means believing something without having all the information (or in spite of contradicting information).
We are not just talking about making decisions based on a lack of information, we are talking about making decisions based on a long history of false, purposefully withheld, and/or misleading information. I think even LDS leaders would agree that faith in a false narrative is a false faith. In Mormonism, Satan's plan was one of blind obedience.
cinepro wrote:You can certainly argue that Church leaders are violating "their own beliefs", but you haven't really presented much evidence for your argument. Heck, Elder Packer even spelled it out explicitly in
his infamous talk, which is still on the Church website to this day:
BKP once told me directly "you don't need to know that" when I asked him about the second anointing. He is hardly the poster boy of ethical behavior when it comes to his actions as a LDS leader. His actions and teachings regarding gays led directly to church sponsored physically and psychologically damaging efforts to "cure" gay people. If his actions don't rise to the level of immoral behavior even by church standards, nothing does I suppose. Another evidence of not following LDS teachings would be the lack of apology or even public recognition on his part that he was wrong about Gay people. "The church does not apologize" sort of thing.
Someone told of the man who entitled his book "An Unbiased History of the Civil War from the Southern Point of View". While we chuckle at that, there is something to be said about presenting Church history from the viewpoint of those who have righteously lived it. The idea that we must be neutral and argue quite as much in favor of the adversary as we do in favor of righteousness is neither reasonable nor safe.
In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.
I get that the church wants to protect itself, but if the standard of comparison is pointing to a book on the Civil war from a Southern point of view, morality no longer seems to be part of the discussion. It should act like a religious organization purporting to follow basic moral beliefs like not lying to it's own members, not a government bent on winning a war by any means or justifying the war afterwards through hagiography.. Honestly I can't point to a line in the sand and say up to this point their actions are probably still moral and beyond that they are acting contrary to their own beliefs, but certainly the excommunication and shunning of members who publicly point out the flaws in our past and present, crosses it.
In the end you and Fetch may be right. It may really be that the whole point of today's Church is just to teach obedience, that we are here to learn how many earnings to wear, what the difference is between hot and cold caffeine, and to ignore the man behind the curtain. Get them all back to a God who now seems to value blind obedience over all. Pay. Pray and Obey may be all that is necessary for salvation.That may be what the church is right now, but it certainly does not represent anything that could be labeled a restoration of the message Christ was teaching or doing as it claims to be.
