John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Meadowchik]

Original quote -

"There’s this massive amount of decisions that you make, you know in a finite life, and to base that life on a narrative, when not only the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, when leaders know the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, and intentionally - for as long as they could - withheld the information that would allow people to make an informed decision about how they spend their finite time and resources –that’s profoundly immoral."

When big tobbacco does the above related to the health impacts of their products, we probably agree that is/was immoral. When big pharmaceutical hides side effects or markets their products for off label uses that expose people to more risk than they are knowingly accepting, we probably agree that's immoral. When the LDS church leverages the commitment of the membership to consecrate to the Church their times, talents and all that the Lord has blessed them with into channels that oppress others in the name of God, most of us here probably agree that is immoral.

We don't agree if we pretend that adults don't deserve to have access to information that affects them where an authority is abusing their role as gatekeeper. It shouldn't even be controversial.

And the more gates they're keeping, the greater their responsibility.

[_fetchface]

An obvious example is also the financial impact on women. An educated LDS woman is generally expected to raise children at home unless not possible. As a consequence, there are women who bypass secondary education or career preparation altogether, women who leave school when children are born, women who graduate but do not enter the workforce, women who do work and in Utah are paid much less than their male counterparts, arguably due to the Mormon expectations of women in Utah.

And a woman's financial autonomy has impact on her and everyone else.

Right? I don't see many women who forego higher education because of the social influence that the food industry exerts on them. To say that the church leaders are amateurs at exerting social pressure is imho not accurate.

[_Kishkumen]

When big tobbacco does the above related to the health impacts of their products, we probably agree that is/was immoral. When big pharma hides side effects or markets their products for off label uses that expose people to more risk than they are knowingly accepting, we probably agree that's immoral. When the LDS church leverages the commitment of the membership to consecrate to the Church their times, talents and all that the Lord has blessed them with into channels that oppress others in the name of God, most of us here probably agree that is immoral.

We don't agree if we pretend that adults don't deserve to have access to information that affects them where an authority is abusing their role as gatekeeper. It shouldn't even be controversial.

ETA: There are now classic studies on the effects of people blame shifting off individuals to the umbrella institution that seem to apply here. The leadership are just victims of a system that has a cultural narrative they are powerless to affect or modify, right? The edifice that is Mormonism is to blame for whatever harms may occur but since institutions can't be moral agents, no one is making morally dubious decisions or really at fault if they themselves believer the narrative and therefore perpetuate the official version of LDS history. The whole thing is being any person's role or responsibility so blame the game not the player...

If I am the CEO of a corporation, making millions of dollars a year, and I know the corporation produces carcinogenic products, then, yeah, I think it is pretty obvious to any of us that the immorality of the CEO is something that needs to be called out and more. Mormonism is not a exactly a product in this sense, and the harm that aspects of the policies and doctrines clearly do to certain people are not exactly suppressed information. In part they represents differences in worldview that are very nearly irreconcilable.

If Mormonism works reasonably well for a large number of its adherents, then it is not as though everyone will easily and quickly recognize that there is an urgent, endemic problem, such that the failure of leaders to respond swiftly is a clear example of callousness to human life for the purposes of gaining selfish personal or corporate gain.

In my mind, there are two things that represent the sort of threat to which the leaders have morally failed in their response.

1. Gender: Here is a clear area where the Church's teachings pose a real risk to a certain percentage of the membership. The failure to act on this has cost many young people their lives and well being. If I were not able to see that for others (not generally speaking me and my friends) that this issue is poorly understood and threatening to the core of Mormon religious theology and identity (not my views but evidently those of others), then I would quickly conclude that the men who are failing to save lives based on a faulty reading of LDS theology are immoral.

I tend to think that, yes, in this area, what is happening is a moral failure. It is the clear failure of understanding that human life is far more important than controlling individuals' expression of their gender identity. I think that failure reflects on the people who are making these choices for the rest of the LDS Church. For this reason, most of all, I no longer have anything to do with the LDS Church. I do not advocate that anyone join the LDS Church as long as it poses a risk to non-cisgendered people.

2. Interviewing Children: Similarly, I think the failure to put the safety of children before interrogating vulnerable children away from the observing eyes of their parents is another unacceptable moral failure. In my mind, the morality of both of these issues is so clear, that, again, I could not advocate that anyone join the LDS Church or participate myself.

Those are the things that I find completely unacceptable and make me question the morality of the leaders of the LDS Church. You will notice that history is not among them. Having studied a few religions and their faith narratives, which often correspond poorly to academic history, the LDS Church does not stick out in my mind as being particularly egregious in misrepresenting its narrative. The relationship between history and faith is a complicated one, not really all that similar to the relationship between manufacturing a carcinogenic product, knowing that it causes cancer, and then hiding that fact.

[_honorentheos]

When big tobbacco does the above related to the health impacts of their products, we probably agree that is/was immoral. When big pharma hides side effects or markets their products for off label uses that expose people to more risk than they are knowingly accepting, we probably agree that's immoral. When the LDS church leverages the commitment of the membership to consecrate to the Church their times, talents and all that the Lord has blessed them with into channels that oppress others in the name of God, most of us here probably agree that is immoral.

We don't agree if we pretend that adults don't deserve to have access to information that affects them where an authority is abusing their role as gatekeeper. It shouldn't even be controversial.

ETA: There are now classic studies on the effects of people blame shifting off individuals to the umbrella institution that seem to apply here. The leadership are just victims of a system that has a cultural narrative they are powerless to affect or modify, right? The edifice that is Mormonism is to blame for whatever harms may occur but since institutions can't be moral agents, no one is making morally dubious decisions or really at fault if they themselves believer the narrative and therefore perpetuate the official version of LDS history. The whole thing is being any person's role or responsibility so blame the game not the player...

If I am the CEO of a corporation, making millions of dollars a year, and I know the corporation produces carcinogenic products, then, yeah, I think it is pretty obvious to any of us that the immorality of the CEO is something that needs to be called out and more. Mormonism is not a exactly a product in this sense, and the harm that aspects of the policies and doctrines clearly do to certain people are not exactly suppressed information. In part they represents differences in worldview that are very nearly irreconcilable.

Not true. You've been presented with multiple examples in this thread outlining how the LDS Church, choosing to manipulate information to it's own advantage, has meaningful life-changing impacts on pretty much anyone who is an adherent. From the youth that give up scholarships to serve missions and spend thousands of dollars on them while postponing college, women who pass up higher education to become homemakers, the push to marry early, the message that living together prior to marriage is a sin all leading to early life-altering behaviors, to tithing over paying bills and senior citizens leaving family and spending their own private resources on missions...those are simple, almost universal ways the LDS church isn't offering different options in the worldview market but putting up cattle catchers maneuvering people into life-choices presented as black/white, right/wrong, Godly/devilish. And those are just the most universal, culture-wide examples that were already mentioned or that come immediately to mind.

You're defending the indefensible, Kish.

If Mormonism works reasonably well for a large number of its adherents, then it is not as though everyone will easily and quickly recognize that there is an urgent, endemic problem, such that the failure of leaders to respond swiftly is a clear example of callousness to human life for the purposes of gaining selfish personal or corporate gain.

Cool. Let them make that and other life decisions based on the information available rather than deciding for them by withholding the information that might lead them to choose differently.

[_Kishkumen]

Not true. You've been presented with multiple examples in this thread outlining how the LDS Church, choosing to manipulate information to it's own advantage, has meaningful life-changing impacts on pretty much anyone who is an adherent. From the youth that give up scholarships to serve missions and spend thousands of dollars on them while postponing college, women who pass up higher education to become homemakers, the push to marry early, the message that living together prior to marriage is a sin all leading to early life-altering behaviors, to tithing over paying bills and senior citizens leaving family and spending their own private resources on missions...those are simple, almost universal ways the LDS church isn't offering different options in the worldview market but putting up cattle catchers maneuvering people into life-choices presented as black/white, right/wrong, Godly/devilish. And those are just the most universal, culture-wide examples that were already mentioned or that come immediately to mind.

You're defending the indefensible, Kish.

Uh, no. I am failing to condemn something that you believe is indefensible and egregiously bad. In the scheme of things, the values and community of Mormonism are, relatively speaking, innocuous and wholesome. Millions of people have lived decent, happy lives with similar values and practices, and our difference of opinion with the Church does not invalidate their experience. If you feel you were victimized by Mormonism, then I am so genuinely happy that you are out and living a life more fulfilling to you. But that is quite different from insisting that other Mormons are victimized and robbed of something, and that the leaders are immoral men for their role in guiding and sustaining this community.

We aren’t going to agree on this. I can’t find moral certainty in judging others in such a complicated situation. Maybe that’s my weakness. You seem to be a lot more certain about it. That’s you. I accept it. I am not persuaded that I must embrace judging all top LDS leaders as immoral people.

[_honorentheos]

Uh, no. I am failing to condemn something that you believe is indefensible and egregiously bad. In the scheme of things, the values and community of Mormonism are, relatively speaking, innocuous and wholesome. Millions of people have lived decent, happy lives with similar values and practices, and our difference of opinion with the Church does not invalidate their experience. If you feel you were victimized by Mormonism, then I am so genuinely happy that you are out and living a life more fulfilling to you. But that is quite different from insisting that other Mormons are victimized and robbed of something, and that the leaders are immoral men for their role in guiding and sustaining this community.

We aren’t going to agree on this. I can’t find moral certainty in judging others in such a complicated situation. Maybe that’s my weakness. You seem to be a lot more certain about it. That’s you. I accept it. I am not persuaded that I must embrace judging all top LDS leaders as immoral people.

You seem quite dismissive of the value of democratized information. Interesting.

You claim I'm certain and you are letting live as let live. That's about as flipped from the facts as can be. I'm arguing that adults ought to be able to have the information to make those choices for themselves. Period. Let them then choose to stay, I don't care. That you are casually arguing for authoritarian control is...disturbing. Let them love Big Brother, and let Big Brother love them, right?

[_kairos]

The Mormon church through its leaders at least for a generation or 2 or 3 has laid out a preexistence, life and life after death "package" that it hopes everyone exposed to Mormonism will adhere to the package they say is ordained of God. Leaders have not been open to admit there may be serious "holes" in the package; in fact they may know parts of package may be not of God at all. Nevertheless the package is promoted as from God and all humans on the planet should accept it and live it if they want to become exalted in the next life.

Suppose a child born today is provided another life package- one that contained truth/ contained alternative narratives to FV, need for Baptism, nonpower of the priesthood, different paths to a healthy lifestyle, education alternatives , marriage possibilities without temples Or even same faith requirements, no tithing requirement just give $ as you are led, no need/requirement to be a mish - etc?

I would suggest that baby would grow up and make life choices entirely different from the past. Would the child lead a happy ? I would guess every current Fab 15 would answer " no way".

And me ? Perhaps yes and perhaps no!

k

[_Kishkumen]

You seem quite dismissive of the value of democratized information. Interesting.

You claim I'm certain and you are letting live as let live. That's about as flipped from the facts as can be. I'm arguing that adults ought to be able to have the information to make those choices for themselves. Period. Let them then choose to stay, I don't care. That you are casually arguing for authoritarian control is...disturbing. Let them love Big Brother, and let Big Brother love them, right?

That’s a thoroughly bizarre caricature of what I am saying, and, indeed largely irrelevant to most of what I am saying.

I love democratized information. I swim in democratized information. Information is largely democratized thanks to the internet whether the LDS Church likes it or not. But that was not really the question we were discussing. I thought we were discussing whether the leaders of the Church were being immoral in creating a situation in which members would not learn everything about Mormon History from the Church.

I disagreed that they were immoral because I believe the situation is complicated by many factors. The Church is trying, it seems to me, to do a better job, and I am happy for that, but it is a lot to ask for them to flip the entire narrative just because we don’t think the story of the faith matches our view of history. You have your moral certitude about this, and it does not seem to allow for the great responsibility of leading such a large organization in a way that does not destroy it and turn people’s lives upside-down.

Are they doing a bang up job? Maybe not. But they are trying. The essays were an attempt at something. Funding the Joseph Smith Papers and making historical documents available is doing something good. Are these things immoral? No.

I don’t see, in any case, that adults don’t have sufficient information to make up their own minds for themselves. We don’t live in a totalitarian state with a lockdown on all complicated facts that can challenge people’s assumptions. The LDS Church does not seem to be trying to create such a thing in its own community. It’s not like there is no discussion of the negative facts, but it would be a lot to ask any organization to push an interpretation that counters its own belief system and brings grief to its members.

Look, you and I may find most LDS apologetics unconvincing, but isn’t that because there was enough openness that allowed discussion of the problems in the first place? Were the apologists supposed to argue against Mormonism? If they believe, would we expect them to? They believe and they think there are good reasons to, so they interpret the facts differently from the way we do. But the facts are not hidden, and the Church does not prevent apologists from mentioning them.

It just seems to me that, in the real world, people who value a community enough to devote themselves to it will try to nourish and promote it, and this will lead to a rosier view of uncomfortable facts, or even the ignoring of uncomfortable facts. But I don’t see these people who believe and promote their rosy view of the faith as immoral or liars. It is sometimes tough to know what is the right thing to do when so much is at stake. It is hard to be objective about something you love and are emotionally invested in.

These things will work themselves out over time. They will probably not work themselves out to our satisfaction on our timetable. But really, to say that I am now pro-authoritarian and against democratization of information is just silly.

[_honorentheos]

Let's toss in a specific example and ask: was the decision to quote the entire Wentworth Letter in a PS/RS manual except for a couple of controversial, problematic sentences morally justifiable in your opinion? Would it be more or less morally justifiable to have quoted the entire letter instead and let the membership have the discussions they would have as they chose to have them?

viewtopic.php?p=669331#p669331

[_Meadowchik]

Another example: woman has a career, but it's as expected because she is unmarried. She wants to marry, though, but the only interest she experiences from men is from non-member men. Of course she cannot choose them, she has faith in the gospel, in temples, and must have the priesthood in her home?

How many LDS live life alone when they don't want to be alone, because of their faith?