Covering Up a Lie Feels More Betraying Than the Initial Lie

There were at least two lies spoken by elders at the Bethlehem meeting on 7/11/21.  Instead of acknowledging this and apologizing, the elders further evaded the truth in the smaller Q&As a month later.  In many ways, the secondary deception felt even more betraying than the initial lies, because it confirmed that the elders knew there were problems with what certain elders had said on 7/11, and yet their response was cover-up, not confession.

Here are the two examples.  Brian Tabb lied when he claimed he did not solicit character references from BCS alumni in regard to congregant grievances. In reality, he had (Daniel Kleven read at the mic the request a classmate had received from Tabb).  At the 8/12 Q&A, the elders read a statement from Brian that, rather than admitting the lie, further obfuscated and confused the issue.  That clarifying statement conflated language, claimed that he misunderstood the intention of the original question, ignored the actual lie, and instead claimed that the questioners misunderstood the nature of confidentiality, sidestepping the issues.  It was deception through obfuscation.  

The other lie was by Ken Currie.  On 7/11, he said the elders had never even talked about doing an NDA for a former employee (this was in the context of Ming-Jinn and Bryan's resignations).  But in reality, Ken Currie and the organizational elders had in fact discussed an NDA for Ming-Jinn (details here), though they never acted upon it.  On 8/12, the elders read a prepared statement to the effect, "An NDA and lawyer was discussed at an org elder meeting and it was decided not to go that route."  The words of this statement were true, but the elders didn't explain that they were correcting a lie from 7/11.  It was such a bland statement that Mickey wrote it down in his notes, but had no idea of any importance to it.  He didn't realize the statement was being read as a correction for something Ken had said.  It was just one of many prepared statements/updates read that night.  It wasn't until we saw the email proof of the NDA discussion that we realized, "oh, that's why they read that statement on 8/12.  They knew a lie was spoken on 7/11 and felt obligated to 'clarify'."

I wish the elders on 8/12 had said something like, "Ken Currie said X on 7/11.  That actually wasn't true.  He wants to put that right.  Here is what is actually true."  That would have made it clear that a lie was spoken, and this is the correction.  But they didn't do that. 

I think I feel more hurt and betrayed by the coverup than I did the initial lies.  Had either elder apologized to the congregation for lying, I would have been happy to forgive them.  And I would have sympathized.  I wouldn't have wanted to be up on stage on 7/11 fielding questions in front of hundreds of people.  I can sympathize that self-defense kicks in and you don't want yourself or your organization to look bad.  All of us have told lies and had to put things right.  If those two elders had just confessed the lies to the congregation, it could have led to healing and restoration.  But when the elders' response to a lie is to confuse the issue, cover it up, or further evade the truth, it is essentially a second deception and compounds the first offense.  And it makes the initial lie linger, because it hasn't yet been adequately addressed.  

Also, the fact that other elders were involved breaks trust even more.  The five elders present on 8/12 (Chad Geyen, René González, Charles Kim, Tom Lutz, and Jared Wass) stood by those two statements and were part of covering up the deception.  And presumably the same statements were read at the other four smaller Q&As that week, hosted by other elders.  This compounds the problem.  Now trust is broken not just because Brian and Ken have lied, but because the other elders have helped cover it up.  It feels betraying, and it makes it hard to trust any of the Bethlehem elders.