Reading time: 8 minutes.
Hi Friend,
You might remember that last time we talked about challenging dualistic thinking, that all-or-nothing or black-and-white thinking that leads us to think in extremes.
Today, I want to apply it to a particular topic: people.
What kinds of people? Historical people. But also, people today.
Let’s start with historical:
As your views evolve, you may see historical figures, church leaders, or even family members differently. Someone you once admired may seem deeply flawed, while someone you dismissed may now appear insightful. This happens a lot in our society today. And it can happen equally with members of the Church, especially those in church history.
Recognize that people then are just as complex as people today are.
Try to hold space for complexity—people are not just “good” or “bad” but a mixture of both. Understanding this can bring both heartache and a newfound sense of compassion.
At first, this realization can feel unsettling. If someone made mistakes, does that mean everything they taught or stood for is invalid? If they did great things, does that mean their flaws don’t matter? Both can be true at once. A person’s failures don’t erase their contributions, just as their achievements don’t excuse their shortcomings.
This idea of being complex doesn’t excuse what they’ve done…wrong is still wrong. And I am not trying to let anyone off the hook for bad, sometimes horrendous behavior.
But this is hard because in the LDS faith tradition we are extreme all or nothing thinkers, especially about people. We are very good at hagiography, a form of idolizing and creating idealized biographies of church leaders. That idolizing by telling heroic faith-inspiring stories and leaving out the negative stuff only sets us up to be disappointed, or worse, feeling like we’ve been deceived.
More and more we understand this. When I introduced a gospel doctrine class to the word hagiography and wrote it on the whiteboard, I turned around to see half the class either writing it down or looking it up on their phone (or texting their friends to say, “can you believe this guy?”)
Yet, we still have a hard time believing that people are complex and nuanced, despite repeated attempts by prophets themselves who tell us that they are not perfect. So, you will hear people defend those in history until their last breath.
Let’s listen to what voices from the past said about their own weaknesses:
Joseph Smith said, “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.”
Brigham Young repeatedly stated something to the effect that, “I am not infallible and never claimed to be.”
And today, Elder Dieter Uchtdorf commented in General Conference, “To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.”
I think this applies to today’s leaders and teachers as well.
Elder Henry Eyring affirmed this idea: “The Lord has said that He is willing to work with us, imperfect as we are, because He loves us. That must be true for His servants as well.”[1]
Elder Jeffrey Holland put it even more plainly: “Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we.” (General Conference, April 2013, Lord, I Believe)
There are four reasons that I see why we should not waste a moment trying to categorize people because of their mistakes. In fact, we should consider giving them some grace.
First, recall our discussion about all-or-nothing thinking.
If we expect perfection from our leaders, we set ourselves up for disappointment. Doing so, we rob ourselves of valuable insights from imperfect but inspired individuals. Understanding that truth can come through flawed messengers allows us to discern with both wisdom and humility.
Second, it’s too easy to judge historical figures by today’s standards, and it doesn’t work out well.
This tendency is known as presentism.
This happens when we evaluate people from the past using modern values, overlooking the cultural norms, knowledge, and limitations of their time. While it’s important to acknowledge mistakes and learn from history, we should also strive for fairness. Just as we hope future generations will understand the complexities of our time, we should extend that same consideration to those who came before us.
Recognizing presentism allows us to hold a more balanced view of history. Rather than seeing past leaders as either wholly good or irredeemably flawed, we can appreciate their contributions while acknowledging their imperfections and the harm they caused. This doesn’t mean excusing wrongdoing but rather striving for a deeper, more compassionate understanding—one that reflects the reality that all people, past and present, are shaped by their circumstances.
Third, we can recognize someone has done something, but we can’t fully understand their motivations.
When we look back, we can see past actions. But, unless we have someone’s record, thoughts and motivations are not understandable. So, how could we judge?
Maybe more importantly, why should we be the ones to judge?
The fact of the matter is that there are many things that have happened in the Church where people were motivated to protect the Church.
Can I relate to that? Well, in my call to the journey, I can think of countless times when I saw or heard something I thought was wrong, maybe a policy or a bit of history, and I just assumed that it would all work itself out. As long as the church was true, I reasoned, it would be okay.
Fourth, a reminder that people are just complex.
Think of someone you admire. What qualities make them inspiring to you? Now, consider someone whose actions trouble you. What might have shaped their decisions? Doing this doesn’t mean excusing harm or ignoring truth—it means embracing a more honest, complete picture of humanity.
The more we learn to see people in their full complexity, the more grace we can offer—to others and to ourselves. And perhaps, in doing so, we will find it easier to navigate our own faith journey with patience, humility, and hope.
With history behind us, let’s turn to current people. I know…there are times when current members of the church are obstacles to our healing, perhaps even to your belief.
Do you remember how I said people are complex? Here’s a switch: they (we) can be both complex, and simple.
We can be complex in that we can hold two or more conflicting positions. For example, having a desire to follow the Savior, and exhibit a serious lack of charity for others.
And we can be simple in that we often will follow a simple script that we’ve been taught our entire lives. Here’s the simple pattern related to many in the church when they know you are going through a faith crisis:
First, they will want to fix you, and when they can’t, they will want to avoid you and label you.
And rare is the person that will truly want to understand you.
Here are two scripts that people can adopt. The first is following a script about people who are going through a faith transition or leaving the church.
You’ve heard these before:
- “They must have been offended.”
- “They wanted to sin.”
- Or a not-so-subtle variation, “They prefer the great and spacious building.”
- “They were deceived by anti-Mormon material.”
- “They lost the Spirit.”
- “They never really had a testimony.”
- “They leave, but they can’t leave the church.”
The second is that familiar script of what they think you need which is to “come back.” The holy trinity of prayer, scripture study, and keeping the commandments (or, often the variation of going to the temple).
Their script is, that if your testimony is in question, it’s because you’ve stopped doing those things. So, if you want to get it back, just start doing them again.
And if you’ve been doing them, do them more…because that’s what worked before.
I like to think of prayer, scriptures, commandments, as good things. But, in some ways, they are like the basics of water, soil, and sunlight to a garden.
It’s difficult to grow anything without them. But at some point, if you want to create a flourishing, vibrant garden, you need more.
So, try not to worry about others. Just keep moving ahead.
With warmth,
Your friend
P.S. I’m going out on a bit of a limb today with my recommendation. It’s a short one. Open your favorite podcast app and look up “Mel Robbins Let Them Theory.” It will help you because the real problem isn’t those people—historical and today. The problem is that you’re letting them impede your healing and reconstruction.
You’ll get it when you listen to the podcast, but by the end, hopefully you’ll be saying, “Let them be whatever they are or were.” And “Let me work on my own healing.”
P.P.S I am going to point out something you may have already noticed. When referring to Church leaders, I don’t use middle initials. It might have served a purpose when Joseph Fielding Smith and Joseph F. Smith were in the same quorum. I don’t think it serves any positive purpose and may just carry some negative “hagiographic” side effects today.
[1] The Power of Teaching Doctrine, Ensign, May 1999