Not trying to take over the foyer today but I have been meaning to share this article for a while and keep forgetting. The article below was presented at a conference at Duke earlier this year at Richard Bushman's request, apparently Grant Hardy was there as well (not sure if he presented). If you don't know Grant Hardy, stop what you are doing and click the link. He is a very important voice in Mormonism.
Anyway, Jared Andersen (who is a Mormon Bart Ehrman protege) presented this paper entitled "On Love and Lying: Integrity, Identify and Interpretation in a Pluralistic Mormon Culture." I know Jared's work pretty well and he is very practically oriented towards "what works" and what is "good." And he thinks that Mormonism provides a good framework for a lot of that.
Here are some thoughts on navigating your unorthodoxy in an orthodox setting:
Since I know some of you are navigating these very waters, I thought this might be helpful to you. Thoughts are welcome.
Anyway, Jared Andersen (who is a Mormon Bart Ehrman protege) presented this paper entitled "On Love and Lying: Integrity, Identify and Interpretation in a Pluralistic Mormon Culture." I know Jared's work pretty well and he is very practically oriented towards "what works" and what is "good." And he thinks that Mormonism provides a good framework for a lot of that.
Here are some thoughts on navigating your unorthodoxy in an orthodox setting:
I will turn now to how I apply this perspective in my own life. I actually take a very practical approach to this issue. This is my experience; but I do not desire to export it whole cloth to others. I accept as valid all approaches that work for people, from taking everything at face value, to being reassured by apologists, to tackling primary sourcesand figuring out what you believe. Each of us must forge our own world view. My main concern is to encourage a world view that meets spiritual needs but also minimizes vulnerability to new information. The rhetoric of “just ignore disconfirming information be quiet and obey” simply does not resonate with a generation that googles every question, that can reach millions with a blog or YouTube video, and voices its opinion on everything from political debates to American Idol and advertisements.
I try to share information with people based on their desires and preparation. When a member of my ward told me he wanted to learn more about religion, I asked him whether he wanted the Institute approach, or academic approach, and explained each. He replied Institute, and I respect that. In another memorable experience, at the end of missionary exchanges I was having a discussion with one companion and the other Elder said,“Brother Anderson, if what you have is the gift of knowledge, I don’t want it!” I remain realistic of the fact that for the majority of believers, the details simply do not matter. I don’t want to know how my car works; I just want it to get me from point A to point B. I would never want to deconstruct some one's religion so they can’t drive it.
In order to be as honest as possible, I speak with extreme precision. Instead of “Moroni wrote” I can introduce an idea with “In the Book of Moroni we read…” I bear my testimony about how beautiful I find the idea of the Atonement and how I am grateful for the ability to improve my character because of the power of God in my life. I bear my testimony that the Book of Mormon is inspired of God. I do not bring up the fact that I do not necessarily have a testimony of the Atonement, or that I have doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I speak in such a way that most assume I am agreeing with them, but if people want to hear more about my views, they can ask me and I can explain one-on-one if appropriate.
I would go as far as to say that as a loving last resort, even lying could be justified. When neither precise communication nor tactful silence is an option, and a full honest answer would be destructive to the faith of the listener, I would support a “noble lie”. Some will see this as sophistry or disingenuous, but I see it as prioritizing love and valuing thefunctionality of religion over full or even representative disclosure in every smallestquestion. I would also offer the reminder that we negotiate our communication and identities constantly, though we would prefer to avoid the term “lying”. And rightly so since this negotiation of proper sharing is a natural and necessary part of relationships, not to be cavalierly branded as deception. On one hand, we navitage greater or lesser lies and loyalties and integrities constantly, whether we realize it or not. At the same time, it is worth noting that with explicit lies, even justified ones, something is inevitably lost.
Here is how that works for me. I see this as more translation to the world view and expectations of the listener than outright deception. Our relationships constantly confrontus with a “hierarchy of truths”. Though we have all sorts of thoughts and views, still we censor ourselves based on our love for our spouses, or our desire to keep our jobs for example. One vital balance to this approach is we must be sure we are molding the truth out of love, not the desire to deceive or escape consequences. In order to have integrity, we should also feel peaceful with the prospect of explaining the full truth and previous careful sharing of it if the situation demanded it. It is tragic when a spouse or Church cannot accept the truth of our views or natures. But do we then need to abandon the marriage or community? Owning our choice to prioritize relationships over disclosure when necessary can bring peace to painful dissonance. I would add that it is tremendously beneficial to have some individuals or a community where you can be fully honest about your views and identity. Ideally your closest loved ones should be in this inner circle, but either way this is where internet communities can literally be a godsend.
I try to share information with people based on their desires and preparation. When a member of my ward told me he wanted to learn more about religion, I asked him whether he wanted the Institute approach, or academic approach, and explained each. He replied Institute, and I respect that. In another memorable experience, at the end of missionary exchanges I was having a discussion with one companion and the other Elder said,“Brother Anderson, if what you have is the gift of knowledge, I don’t want it!” I remain realistic of the fact that for the majority of believers, the details simply do not matter. I don’t want to know how my car works; I just want it to get me from point A to point B. I would never want to deconstruct some one's religion so they can’t drive it.
In order to be as honest as possible, I speak with extreme precision. Instead of “Moroni wrote” I can introduce an idea with “In the Book of Moroni we read…” I bear my testimony about how beautiful I find the idea of the Atonement and how I am grateful for the ability to improve my character because of the power of God in my life. I bear my testimony that the Book of Mormon is inspired of God. I do not bring up the fact that I do not necessarily have a testimony of the Atonement, or that I have doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I speak in such a way that most assume I am agreeing with them, but if people want to hear more about my views, they can ask me and I can explain one-on-one if appropriate.
I would go as far as to say that as a loving last resort, even lying could be justified. When neither precise communication nor tactful silence is an option, and a full honest answer would be destructive to the faith of the listener, I would support a “noble lie”. Some will see this as sophistry or disingenuous, but I see it as prioritizing love and valuing thefunctionality of religion over full or even representative disclosure in every smallestquestion. I would also offer the reminder that we negotiate our communication and identities constantly, though we would prefer to avoid the term “lying”. And rightly so since this negotiation of proper sharing is a natural and necessary part of relationships, not to be cavalierly branded as deception. On one hand, we navitage greater or lesser lies and loyalties and integrities constantly, whether we realize it or not. At the same time, it is worth noting that with explicit lies, even justified ones, something is inevitably lost.
Here is how that works for me. I see this as more translation to the world view and expectations of the listener than outright deception. Our relationships constantly confrontus with a “hierarchy of truths”. Though we have all sorts of thoughts and views, still we censor ourselves based on our love for our spouses, or our desire to keep our jobs for example. One vital balance to this approach is we must be sure we are molding the truth out of love, not the desire to deceive or escape consequences. In order to have integrity, we should also feel peaceful with the prospect of explaining the full truth and previous careful sharing of it if the situation demanded it. It is tragic when a spouse or Church cannot accept the truth of our views or natures. But do we then need to abandon the marriage or community? Owning our choice to prioritize relationships over disclosure when necessary can bring peace to painful dissonance. I would add that it is tremendously beneficial to have some individuals or a community where you can be fully honest about your views and identity. Ideally your closest loved ones should be in this inner circle, but either way this is where internet communities can literally be a godsend.
Comment