John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_fetchface]

I think in the leader's mind (someone like Boyd K. Packer), there is some future moment in the afterlife where the LDS member will thank him for filtering the information and keeping the member on the covenant path. They'll laugh together about how they avoided a sticky situation of being confounded by those pesky, less than useful facts. I can recognize that the leaders genuinely believe that the ends they are working toward justify the means (just like they do for God in D&C 19 when God admits to lying to keep people on the path). These leaders may feel they are making a small moral sacrifice but they feel that the goal is so infinitely good that it can justify playing a little hardball with the devil.

I can recognize that these things are going on in their head and accept that they are trying to do good and I can still be pissed off about the right to informed consent that they deprived me of and all of the emotional harm they caused me when I was young. I think they are self-absorbed assholes for not trying harder to step outside themselves and see the world through the eyes of others. Are they immoral? Not in their moral system, but in mine they are. I feel confident that mine is the right system, but so do they.

[_kairos]

Anyone think the pressure on children and young people to follow/live/comply/carryout the life "package" we have been discussing comes mostly from non-local leaders, local leaders, ward members, friends/relatives or close family?? i see pressure from all angles in my TBM family (me the nevermo). Like the Mormon life package is just assumed to be the way to go and it is emphasized at every level. Case in point, grandchild had numerous athletic scholarship offers but chose YBU because of the nonmormon influences at the other schools which included ivy league and stanford 4 year full ride scholarships. Seems like BYU fit the life package being dealt and even though this young person could become much more educated and career oriented in the other environments, parents felt she might also 'lose" her faith and applied some pressure in the decisionmaking.
maybe blame is not the game to be played here- perhaps every child and young person currently caught in the web of the Mormon life package needs someway to discover other life packages! but how?

what do you think?

k

[_Kishkumen]

Let's toss in a specific example and ask: was the decision to quote the entire Wentworth Letter in a PS/Relief Society 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

I suppose that depends on what the purpose of the lesson is, and the motivations that drove the focus on certain aspects of the letter versus others. In my mind, I see some topics, while ancillary, sucking up all the time. Now that I am once again teaching Late Republic as a prelude to Empire, I am reminded of how tempting it is to try to cover everything. It all seems very important, but, considering time limitations and the need to focus on more limited goals, I need to trim important topics or even skip things.

So, is the failure to include the whole letter a devious plan to hide history or a practical measure to focus the discussion on certain things in the allotted time? Yes, the stuff cut is bound to be more controversial (or less useful), but it is not exactly scandalous or mind-blowing. Distraction or deal-breaker? I say distraction.

I’m just not seeing immorality behind the decision not to include the whole letter in this manual.

[_moksha]

Fox News is kewl, then? ;)

Fox News is not “kewl.”

Pretty sure Honorentheos was specifically using the Obliblishian word "kewl", meaning a purveyor of bogus rhetoric.

[_Kishkumen]

Anyone think the pressure on children and young people to follow/live/comply/carryout the life "package" we have been discussing comes mostly from non-local leaders, local leaders, ward members, friends/relatives or close family?? i see pressure from all angles in my TBM family (me the nevermo). Like the Mormon life package is just assumed to be the way to go and it is emphasized at every level. Case in point, grandchild had numerous athletic scholarship offers but chose YBU because of the nonmormon influences at the other schools which included ivy league and stanford 4 year full ride scholarships. Seems like BYU fit the life package being dealt and even though this young person could become much more educated and career oriented in the other environments, parents felt she might also 'lose" her faith and applied some pressure in the decisionmaking.
maybe blame is not the game to be played here- perhaps every child and young person currently caught in the web of the Mormon life package needs someway to discover other life packages! but how?

what do you think?

k

So many people are fixed on the webs of their cultures, including upper-middle-class secular kids. What are they missing out on? What great tragedies are they being set up for? Where are their blind spots?

Some people find genuine peace and contentment living a religious life. Some people don’t want or need a thousand options to choose from. The opposite of these statements is also true.

I really don’t see that being Mormon is necessarily a bad thing unless it really does not suit you. Will bad things happen to Mormons? Yes. Will bad things happen to non-Mormons? Yes. Are some Mormons miserable? Yes. Are some non-Mormons miserable? Yes.

May we all live decent, productive, and happy lives. May we be grateful for the good things and lighten the loads of those who find life difficult to bear. Let us not be busybodies looking to stir up trouble for others. These are my prayers this evening.

[_Res Ipsa]

Amen, Reverend.

[_Meadowchik]

So many people are fixed on the webs of their cultures, including upper-middle-class secular kids. What are they missing out on? What great tragedies are they being set up for? Where are their blind spots?

Some people find genuine peace and contentment living a religious life. Some people don’t want or need a thousand options to choose from. The opposite of these statements is also true.

I really don’t see that being Mormon is necessarily a bad thing unless it really does not suit you. Will bad things happen to Mormons? Yes. Will bad things happen to non-Mormons? Yes. Are some Mormons miserable? Yes. Are some non-Mormons miserable? Yes.

May we all live decent, productive, and happy lives. May we be grateful for the good things and lighten the loads of those who find life difficult to bear. Let us not be busybodies looking to stir up trouble for others. These are my prayers this evening.

I repeat the spirit of your prayers, Kish, and yet for me, that means generating some discomfort and living with discomfort indefinitely. I think that lightning loads, and being productive and decent requires it, (and I don't think that qualifies as being a "busybody," though we might disagree.) The LDS church is a human institution that makes human mistakes, and as a human beings who have experienced it from within and without it is completely reasonable and decent to call upon it to improve its relationships with human beings.

The church as an institutional is immoral. As an institution, it claims authority over human beings and while doing so, it has has covered up and avoided unflattering facts about it and it has persistently marketed itself without full disclosure. The church consistently secures premature adherents to lifelong commitments who have little to no knowledge of its doctrines and policies. Calling it out, expecting it to account for itself for its actions is a moral expectation and it is precisely something that can help it adapt and change and continue to exist so that it can be an institution that contributes value to peoples lives.

The church is not alone in its immorality, but we have the experience and interest to bring forward insight relevant to it in particular. I want it to be better.

[Guest]

I repeat the spirit of your prayers, Kish, and yet for me, that means generating some discomfort and living with discomfort indefinitely. I think that lightning loads, and being productive and decent requires it, (and I don't think that qualifies as being a "busybody," though we might disagree.) The LDS church is a human institution that makes human mistakes, and as a human beings who have experienced it from within and without it is completely reasonable and decent to call upon it to improve its relationships with human beings.

The church as an institutional is immoral. As an institution, it claims authority over human beings and while doing so, it has has covered up and avoided unflattering facts about it and it has persistently marketed itself without full disclosure. The church consistently secures premature adherents to lifelong commitments who have little to no knowledge of its doctrines and policies. Calling it out, expecting it to account for itself for its actions is a moral expectation and it is precisely something that can help it adapt and change and continue to exist so that it can be an institution that contributes value to peoples lives.

The church is not alone in its immorality, but we have the experience and interest to bring forward insight relevant to it in particular. I want it to be better.

Hey, Meadowchik. I think it is great to want to improve things out of a sense of responsibility. The question is always how one best goes about that. Calling the LDS Church immoral is an interesting choice of tactics. I would guess that it does not work well with most people who enjoy their church experience as Mormons, not that you would do that in addressing Mormons in person.

Do I like the LDS Church’s lack of financial transparency, heavy emphasis on authority, interviewing practices, and policies on gender? No, there is a lot there not to like. Impugning the church as an immoral organization, however, seems to me to be extreme and off-putting. Is the entire organization immoral? Does it have no redeeming traits? I think it does have its good points and redeeming characteristics. Calling it immoral occludes those positive characteristics.

[_Meadowchik]

I repeat the spirit of your prayers, Kish, and yet for me, that means generating some discomfort and living with discomfort indefinitely. I think that lightning loads, and being productive and decent requires it, (and I don't think that qualifies as being a "busybody," though we might disagree.) The LDS church is a human institution that makes human mistakes, and as a human beings who have experienced it from within and without it is completely reasonable and decent to call upon it to improve its relationships with human beings.

The church as an institutional is immoral. As an institution, it claims authority over human beings and while doing so, it has has covered up and avoided unflattering facts about it and it has persistently marketed itself without full disclosure. The church consistently secures premature adherents to lifelong commitments who have little to no knowledge of its doctrines and policies. Calling it out, expecting it to account for itself for its actions is a moral expectation and it is precisely something that can help it adapt and change and continue to exist so that it can be an institution that contributes value to peoples lives.

The church is not alone in its immorality, but we have the experience and interest to bring forward insight relevant to it in particular. I want it to be better.

Hey, Meadowchik. I think it is great to want to improve things out of a sense of responsibility. The question is always how one best goes about that. Calling the LDS Church immoral is an interesting choice of tactics. I would guess that it does not work well with most people who enjoy their church experience as Mormons, not that you would do that in addressing Mormons in person.

Do I like the LDS Church’s lack of financial transparency, heavy emphasis on authority, interviewing practices, and policies on gender? No, there is a lot there not to like. Impugning the church as an immoral organization, however, seems to me to be an extreme and off-putting. Is the entire organization immoral? Does it have no redeeming traits? I think it does have its good points and redeeming characteristics. Calling it immoral occludes those positive characteristics.

Hiya. Calling it immoral, though, is no different than calling "the natural man...an enemy to God." Except that the church has built an internal culture of assent, where criticism and dissent are characterised as attacks. This is an unhealthy environment that it has created.

I agree that I am using language that is uncommonplace and unpleasant in the church, but that is due to the church's unhealthy management of criticism.

[Guest]

Hiya. Calling it immoral, though, is no different than calling "the natural man...an enemy to God." Except that the church has built an internal culture of assent, where criticism and dissent are characterised as attacks. This is an unhealthy environment that it has created.

I agree that I am using language that is uncommonplace and unpleasant in the church, but that is due to the church's unhealthy management of criticism.

Elder Oaks' declaration that it is wrong to criticize the leaders even if the criticism is true is one of my least favorite public comments of any. Yes, you are right. The LDS Church does not handle criticism well, and, as a result, those who are flexing their freedom muscles like to criticize the church with gusto. I am a case in point there.

But, I do not agree that the church's unhealthy management of criticism (great writing there, by the way) is the sole reason why critical language is unpleasant and rare in church. It may also have something to do with the fact that other Mormons are happy being Mormons under the terms which the church has established for membership.

It may seem crazy to us, but some people like having an uncomplicated, pleasant experience in church in which they intone the same old lessons every week. Some people like to have strong male leaders who are set up as divine oracles for the people. Some people like to go confess their sins to a paternal leader who will mete out God's punishment and forgiveness. Some people like life in a cis-gender world where dad wears the pants and goes to work, while mom wears a skirt and stays at home.

We may not be those people. But such people exist. I think fewer of them exist than once did, but I would be surprised if they ceased to exist altogether. So, it may be that the LDS Church will continue to shrink over time, but I doubt it will disappear, and I doubt it would be fair to say that the people who lead this Mormon life and those who lead their church are altogether bad people, such that it would be accurate to call the whole thing "immoral."

I think it is important to take account of all of the good things the LDS Church, its leaders, and its people do as well. That list is pretty long, I think. I have a hard time imagining myself as having been a bad person when I was a member of the LDS Church. I have a hard time thinking that my time serving other people was poorly spent. I have a difficult time believing that sitting in meetings and talking about being a good person, so that I could go out during the week and live the life of a good person was an immoral activity. I do not think that it was immoral of me to go on a mission, or immoral for the LDS Church to send me on one. I don't believe my experience in the temple was immoral. I didn't find attending General Conference to be immoral. I did not think that being a leader in Young Men's was immoral, or that serving in Scouts was immoral. I can't think of singing hymns, praying, or partaking of the sacrament as immoral.

That does not mean there is nothing to criticize there. There is plenty to find fault with, sure. And I think there are serious problems. Very serious indeed. I quit going for a reason.

And yet, to look back at my experience as a Mormon and say, "Man, I can't believe I was so immoral," or, "How did I ever involve myself in that immoral organization?," well, that just sounds unreal to me. And, I think it sounds unreal because it is, at the end of the day, simply inaccurate.

I can easily imagine a better LDS Church, but I doubt I will ever participate in one. I think the best thing to do in this situation, however, in which one really has the idea of making a better LDS Church is to go out and make one. I doubt that many of us will commit the time and energy to doing this sort of thing. I know I am unlikely to do so. The other alternatives, including hanging out on this board and venting our spleens, which, by the way, is practically my avocation, are probably not going to achieve that goal.

But, again, I am not against criticism. I am not against trying to nudge the LDS Church in a better direction. In my opinion, however, nurturing and expressing a kind of dark caricature of Mormonism and the LDS Church is probably not the way to bring about positive change. If you tell happy Mormons that they are immoral, or that their church is immoral, they're probably just going to look at you as though you are some kind of nut.