Mormon Infobia...

[_Runtu]

It would be easier to sit back and let LDSFaqs continue to make my point but since I am a fence sitter, I have to point out I do not consider him representative of any LDS.

It is funny, isn't it, how people like that say we put the church in a bad light. If I really wanted to do that, I'd just sit back and watch him work.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Dear ldsfaqs,

Here are the relevant rules for the Celestial Forum:

2. No personal attacks allowed whatsoever. This includes personal attacks against a person's family members.
3. No disrespectful communications allowed. Address the ideas, not the person who posts them.

To this end, please do not call anyone names. To make this easier for you, please do not type any sentences that follow the general format, "You are a _____."]

[_DrW]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Dear ldsfaqs,

Here are the relevant rules for the Celestial Forum:

2. No personal attacks allowed whatsoever. This includes personal attacks against a person's family members.
3. No disrespectful communications allowed. Address the ideas, not the person who posts them.

To this end, please do not call anyone names. To make this easier for you, please do not type any sentences that follow the general format, "You are a _____."]

ROTFL.

Words to live by if I ever heard 'em.

[_SteelHead]

Faqs,
Do you ever actually post anything besides for calling people liars? By that, I mean do you actually ever forward any information, or positions?

Just wondering...

[_Runtu]

Faqs,
Do you ever actually post anything besides for calling people liars? By that, I mean do you actually ever forward any information, or positions?

Just wondering...

Not that I've seen.

[_Drifting]

You comments are the fantasy of your own warped mind, not the truth about the Church.
The Church or anyone in it encouraging people to not study things because they might be "scary" occurs so little, that I don't actually remember the last time someone said it.

In contrast, almost every Sunday someone says something about learning, growing in wisdom, etc. seeking out the best information, etc.

Anyway, nothing like more anti-mormon lying.....

Why is Jensen particularly concerned with the current great apostasy caused by members searching for answers in the great wide non-mormon world because the Church doesn't provide them through official sources?

Is Elder Jensen in fact, just deliberately furthering the anti-mormon lying agenda?
P.S. Before refutting the facts about Jensen, read his words and then quote them when disputing what I state.

[_Drifting]

This is an oath that all witnesses in the UK are required to make when testifying before a court of law.

I swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Allah) or the name of the holy scripture] that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As a missionary did you tell/were you encouraged to tell, potential converts the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or were you encouraged to miss out or gloss over some of the less palatable things they were signing up to and being expected to believe in?
What does 'milk before meat' mean in terms of potential converts?

If people go on Mormon.org for a chat and raise some of the less mainstream aspects of Mormonism, is the discussion welcomed or is it avoided and closed down as quickly as possible?

When you went to the temple for the first time were you told what covenants you were going to be expected to make or was that kept a secret until you were right in the middle of it?

[_subgenius]

Then why is Jensen worried and advocating that the Church start to publish the material that is causing a great many members to apostatise when they see it and realise they haven't been told an accurate truth?

He must be worried about nothing, right?

worried? probably just concerned. Jensen essentially advocates the 1st Pres counsel of presenting information "in the form of a positive explanation of the doctrines and practices of the Church" (Church News, Dec. 18, 1983, p. 2).
whereas, it seems, that you advocate a position of presenting information ""in the form of a negative explanation of the doctrines and practices of the Church" and exclaim that explanation to be the "fact".

Even Ben M acknowledges the Church does not do a good job of accurately presenting the historical facts surrounding Church history.

oh, well if Ben M acknowledges it.....Even i can admit that the church is not perfect, but there is no logic nor reason for the church to promote negative opinions or negative renditions of events. But they certainly do not "hide" and "prevent" as is being characterized in the OP.

The Church has kept information away from members and portrayed things as Anti-Mormon that have subsequently been shown to be factually true and accurate.

arguable

Since the advent of the Internet, members have been able to find it themselves. They find it and realise the Church could've, should've, been the place where it was published.

some people do and some people do not, the former obviously being the weaker minded.

Either the Church has been incompetent in accurately portraying its history, or, as the OP postulates - it has a phobia of this type of information being read by members.

or neither of these options, because the church may have also:
heeded its own advice of portraying history "in the form of a positive explanation of the doctrines and practices of the Church".

Your proclamations about what is "accurate and true" seem to coincide with other people's opinion and speculation. You seem to take your own bias conclusions, sprinkle a few actual facts on top and serve it up like a big heaping bowl of "accurate truth" and insist everyone slurp it up with a big spoon.
unfortunately for you, i am fasting.

[_SteelHead]

Sub, how many references to their practice of and the supporting doctrinal basis for polygamy were in the Joseph Smith and Brigham Young "Teachings of" manuals?

[_Drifting]

Sub the faster,

When teaching members about the translation of the Book of Mormon, in seminary or institute or any other programme of the Church, does the Church accurately portray how it was done?

I'm not advocating the Church portray things negatively, just factually and honestly.