Welcome to Mormonkoolaid, where I will make an attempt to make sense of what I know of Mormonism. I'm not anti or pro Mormon, as I am pretty ambivalent towards the church at the present time. I just want the truth. Maybe we can help each other find it.

Don't be afraid to leave comments, even on the older posts. I'd love to hear your opinions.

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment