It's a seemingly simple question, or at least that's what I thought. Maybe it was just what I hoped for. It's probably part of what attracted me to Mormonism.
Here is my black and white, previously held definition: Truth is truth. It is the way things are. It is concrete and it doesn't change. It isn't relative to an individual. God tells truth to the prophets and they tell truth to us. We have agency to live by that truth or not, but the truth doesn't change based on who we are, when we lived, or what we want.
Like everything else in life what 'truth' is seems to be getting more complicated by the minute.
One of the difficulties I have with the church is the ever widening disparity between the church and it's teachings during the time of Joseph Smith, and the church and it's teachings today. Lots of things have changed, all the way down to pretty core doctrines such as the nature of god, eternal marriage, eternal progression, and prophetic infallibility. I thought that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever? What's up with all the changes? Shouldn't I be able to expect the truth to be consistent?
Recently I came across a very long, detailed essay by Curt Porritt, in which he discusses this very dilemma in detail. It's a great read and highly recommended. It can be found here.
Here is my very brief, one paragraph synopsis of the 117 pages. It won't do the essay justice in the slightest so please don't judge the essay by my pathetic reduction below. Read it in it's entirety for yourself before casting stones.
God's truth to us changes. It is fluid and dynamic. He gives us higher and lower truths and laws based on our ability to accept and live them. In general, we are given lesser truths now than in the early church due to a relative state of apostasy. For example, tithing is still true even though the ideal is the law of consecration. God gave the children of Israel the Law of Moses even though that law was later fulfilled in Christ. Monogomy is true for us now even though polygmay is the ideal. Adam and God really are the same person, but that idea is too far out there for us to accept right now so God gave us a different version of the story that is easier to swallow. Etc...
I don't necessarily buy all that, but it is food for thought.
This is complicated further by the fact that prophets can be and often times are wrong. So we are left up to our own personal revelation to tell us if the prophet is telling a higher truth or lesser truth that may or may not apply to us at the present time, or if he is just giving his own opinion and is wrong altogether. Furthermore, what is false or true today may change tomorrow. It gets even more complicated than that. You'll have to read the essay to see what I mean. Please take a couple hours to do so, and let me know what you think. I need somebody smarter than me to help me wrap my head around all this.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Lying for the Lord... what's up with that?
Lying for the Lord was a term coined by Brigham Young associated with polygamy. Early Mormons often lied about the practice to avoid negative reactions from the US government and the rest of society, most of which did not approve of their multiple wife business. Sure it was a lie, but the end justified the means - at least that's what they thought. Does this mean that sometimes lying is OK? God told Abraham to lie about his wife being his sister to save her life after all.
One of the problems that me and many other people have with the church is the continual whitewashing of church history done by the church itself. Church history is messy and often not very faith promoting. Many things were said and done that leave me feeling sick to my stomach. Yet, the church doesn't talk about these issues, and sometimes puts out information that just isn't true. That's right - they lie.
I often really struggle with this. I expect more from the Lord's church. We shouldn't be afraid of the truth. Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free, right? Right? Why don't the leaders of the church tell us the truth?
I was helping my wife with a young woman lesson this morning when I had a bit of a realization. Her lesson was about making wise choices and we got to talking about ethical dilemmas. I came up with one that I deal with almost on a daily basis:
I work as a physical therapist with patients who have recently acquired a spinal cord injury and are paralyzed. One of the first questions patients often as me is, “Will I walk again?” I have to balance two values which are both important to me – honesty vs. maximizing my patient's recovery and emotional adjustment to their disability. I have an obligation to honor both, but must sometimes choose one at the expense of the other. The whole truth would go something like this - “Based on the thousands of patients before you who have the same injury and presented with your level of recovery at this time, your odds of walking again are around 1/5000. Even if you are able to achieve that, it is highly likely that you will need braces and crutches, will only be able to walk short distances, and even those short distances will be extremely taxing on your body, so much so that you will probably just go back to using to your wheelchair anyway.” Honoring the truth would likely send my patients into an even deeper depression than they are already experiencing, could push them to become suicidal, and would likely decreased their motivation to work hard during the rehab process and maintain a positive attitude, which would further exacerbate their disability. Given the many negative consequences associated with that option my usual response goes more like this - “It's really too early to tell what is going to happen long term. Let's just take it a day at a time and not lose hope that you will have significant recovery. We need to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, working with what function you have now. We will work on your leg strength and walking as soon your strength starts to come back.” That's what I say even though I'm lying through my teeth. And I stand by that decision as I really do know from experience that it is usually best for everybody involved. I know that even without recovery, spinal cord injury patients can often do a lot for themselves and can certainly live full and enriching lives. The thing is, it takes a long time for patients to come to that realization on their own, even with me and others telling them that very thing on a daily basis. Until they do, I'm often better off sugarcoating the truth for their benefit.
I realize that my situation and the situation of the church leaders lying about church history are not the same and you can never really compare apples to apples. Despite the differences, maybe the GAs use a similar logic when choosing what version of history to tell. Maybe, at least for me, that makes it a little bit more OK. I still don't like it, but at least I can empathize with them on some level.
Is this how the Lord works? Does he tell little fibs here and there as necessary for our own benefit?
How does this change what you see as truth?
Are you OK with the Lord letting you believe non-truths for your own benefit?
At the end of the day, I just want the truth. I don't care if it's hard or a bitter pill to swallow. I'm a big boy and I can take it. Just give it to me straight.
One of the problems that me and many other people have with the church is the continual whitewashing of church history done by the church itself. Church history is messy and often not very faith promoting. Many things were said and done that leave me feeling sick to my stomach. Yet, the church doesn't talk about these issues, and sometimes puts out information that just isn't true. That's right - they lie.
I often really struggle with this. I expect more from the Lord's church. We shouldn't be afraid of the truth. Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free, right? Right? Why don't the leaders of the church tell us the truth?
I was helping my wife with a young woman lesson this morning when I had a bit of a realization. Her lesson was about making wise choices and we got to talking about ethical dilemmas. I came up with one that I deal with almost on a daily basis:
I work as a physical therapist with patients who have recently acquired a spinal cord injury and are paralyzed. One of the first questions patients often as me is, “Will I walk again?” I have to balance two values which are both important to me – honesty vs. maximizing my patient's recovery and emotional adjustment to their disability. I have an obligation to honor both, but must sometimes choose one at the expense of the other. The whole truth would go something like this - “Based on the thousands of patients before you who have the same injury and presented with your level of recovery at this time, your odds of walking again are around 1/5000. Even if you are able to achieve that, it is highly likely that you will need braces and crutches, will only be able to walk short distances, and even those short distances will be extremely taxing on your body, so much so that you will probably just go back to using to your wheelchair anyway.” Honoring the truth would likely send my patients into an even deeper depression than they are already experiencing, could push them to become suicidal, and would likely decreased their motivation to work hard during the rehab process and maintain a positive attitude, which would further exacerbate their disability. Given the many negative consequences associated with that option my usual response goes more like this - “It's really too early to tell what is going to happen long term. Let's just take it a day at a time and not lose hope that you will have significant recovery. We need to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, working with what function you have now. We will work on your leg strength and walking as soon your strength starts to come back.” That's what I say even though I'm lying through my teeth. And I stand by that decision as I really do know from experience that it is usually best for everybody involved. I know that even without recovery, spinal cord injury patients can often do a lot for themselves and can certainly live full and enriching lives. The thing is, it takes a long time for patients to come to that realization on their own, even with me and others telling them that very thing on a daily basis. Until they do, I'm often better off sugarcoating the truth for their benefit.
I realize that my situation and the situation of the church leaders lying about church history are not the same and you can never really compare apples to apples. Despite the differences, maybe the GAs use a similar logic when choosing what version of history to tell. Maybe, at least for me, that makes it a little bit more OK. I still don't like it, but at least I can empathize with them on some level.
Is this how the Lord works? Does he tell little fibs here and there as necessary for our own benefit?
How does this change what you see as truth?
Are you OK with the Lord letting you believe non-truths for your own benefit?
At the end of the day, I just want the truth. I don't care if it's hard or a bitter pill to swallow. I'm a big boy and I can take it. Just give it to me straight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)