DiscussMormonism.com

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities

The Church is permeated with a seemingly irrational fear of its members finding stuff out.
The amount of information that a member can have about the Church and its restoration has a cap. You are allowed a certain amount of fitered information from a single controlled source but anything else not only is frowned upon, but is actually feared.

You are discouraged from searching to deeply into historical or doctrinal matters and you are likewise discouraged from having too many or too searching questions. You are to believe what the Church tells you about itself and its doctrines and only what the Church tells you about itself and its doctrines.

Is this a phobia or is this just a sensible way of treating this type of information?

In terms of German history and in particular the Nazi party - would you consider it reasonable for questioning Nazi party members, or people contemplating joing the Nazi party to be restricted in their searching of Nazi history, to just the materials sanctioned and produced by the Nazi party themselves?

Is this a phobia or is this just a sensible way of treating this type of information?

What has God's true Church on earth got to fear from the documented history of its divine restoration and the open and frank discussion of its doctrines past and present? If it's the truth and God's word then it should not be hiding from discussion, witholding information that members seek about it. It should have nothing to fear and everything to gain from people investigating properly and thoroughly the claims of the Church.

Is this a phobia or is this just a sensible way of treating this type of information?

When a jury is faced with making a difficult decision about the future of the person placed before them. Would it be fair and reasonable for them to consider only the evidence placed before them by one of the parties involved?

Mormon Infobia - the irrational fear of truthful discussion of all the salient facts pertaining to the truth claims of the Church.

It's definitely a phobia. If you were to present a chapel Mormon with a book written by Quinn, the result is akin to presenting Count Drakula with a crucifix.

Bruce Hafen (a long time member of the first quorum of the seventy) wrote this in his book The Believing Heart:

We need to develop the capacity to form judgments of our own about the value of ideas, opportunities, or people who may come into our lives. We won't always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is "Church approved," because new ideas don't always come along with little tags attached to them saying whether they have been reviewed at Church headquarters. Whether in the form of music, books, friends, or opportunities to serve, there is much that is lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy that is not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction. Those who will not risk exposure to experiences that are not obviously related to some Church word or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends.

The problem with your post, Drifting, is that it looks good on paper (perhaps from a certain perspective) but it doesn't occur in my world. I have never had any member of the church, or my leadership, tell me that what I read or look at is inappropriate. The church doesn't actually have that kind of control over its members. Now, perhaps part of this is because I don't live in Utah (but then, neither do most members of the church). In the long run, the church doesn't have this fear. Naturally, the church does not recommend that people read books whose narratives they contest.

What organization do you know that when someone wants to learn about it will recommend polemical texts written by those that oppose it?

So, you suggest that a jury needs to hear from all parties involved - and yet, in this scenario you paint, who are the parties involved?

To Buffalo, there is something humorous about your comment. Most Mormons (and I really do reject that artificial dichotomy of chapel versus internet Mormons), simply have no idea who Quinn is - they don't have some kind of pre-programmed response to his books.

Benjamin, thank you for your response.

Our experiences are obviously different.

Perhaps you might consider trying a little experiment.
Approach your Sunday class teacher and ask them where, other than LDS.org, you might find the historical details of Joseph Smith's polygamy and marriages to already married women (which you believe to be contrary to section 132 of the D&C) and the details of actually how the Book of Mormon was translated. Explain that you have perused MormonThink.com and the information on there doesn't tally up with what the Church teaches nor what it says in the LDS canon and you want to get to the bottom of it.

See how that goes for you and let us know.

Benjamin McGuire wrote:The problem with your post, Drifting, is that it looks good on paper (perhaps from a certain perspective) but it doesn't occur in my world. I have never had any member of the church, or my leadership, tell me that what I read or look at is inappropriate. The church doesn't actually have that kind of control over its members. Now, perhaps part of this is because I don't live in Utah (but then, neither do most members of the church). In the long run, the church doesn't have this fear. Naturally, the church does not recommend that people read books whose narratives they contest.

The Church DOES tell members not to discuss disturbing aspects of its history with other members under penalty of discipline. My Bishop has told me not to discuss these things with other members (although without the threat of discipline since things are pretty amicable between us).

Benjamin McGuire wrote:What organization do you know that when someone wants to learn about it will recommend polemical texts written by those that oppose it?

No doubt. The Church is no different than your average corporation, fraudulent investment scam, or charismatic religious cult. None of these recommend studying what their detractors have to say either.

This is easy to test. Just take a copy of " No Man Knows My History "to church. Lay it on a pew or table and watch reactions to it.

Fence Sitter wrote:This is easy to test. Just take a copy of " No Man Knows My History "to church. Lay it on a pew or table and watch reactions to it.

Or, perhaps, invite members to listen to the songs from the -BoM musical. My H won't listen to them. I wouldn't have as a believer, either.

I think we could think of several examples of things that members will have nothing to do with because they are afraid of those things.

Drifting,

I am the Sunday School teacher. When people raise difficult questions in class, I answer them. I don't have any issues because, as far as I can tell, my local leadership generally think I do a terrific job keeping people interested and coming to class. Having perused mormonthink I also find that I disagree with their take on many of the narratives. Which brings us back to the issue of contested narratives. At what point is the church obligated to send people to sources that they believe are fundamentally misrepresenting reality?

Now, dblagent007 writes:

The Church DOES tell members not to discuss disturbing aspects of its history with other members under penalty of discipline. My Bishop has told me not to discuss these things with other members (although without the threat of discipline since things are pretty amicable between us).

This has never been my experience. I know of no one (personally) who has ever had this happen to them. So, while I do not contest your statements, I simply want to say that I do not believe that it is entirely representative.

and

No doubt. The Church is no different than your average corporation, fraudulent investment scam, or charismatic religious cult. None of these recommend studying what their detractors have to say either.

And likewise, at least with regard to this particular aspect, the church is no different from any exemplary, truly good organization. None of them should feel obligated to send their members/customers/recipients to sources of information that they believe are in error and are promoting polemical agendas. Why you think the church should be any different frankly puzzles me.

Just me writes:

Or, perhaps, invite members to listen to the songs from the -BoM musical. My H won't listen to them. I wouldn't have as a believer, either.

And a few members of my branch went and saw it. So, the anecdotal evidence doesn't really demonstrate a whole lot - other than to suggest that members of the LDS Church are in fact a fairly diverse group. Some are more open minded than others. It isn't a phobia of the church that attempts to keep people from looking at a variety of information sources.

Ben M.

So, why does the church strive to keep members from looking at certain information? They actively discourage the use of any and all "outside" material. This often includes even study Bibles!

Also, I know there is diversity among the Mormons. Case in point, some think that dry humping is perfectly fine outside of marriage. Some think drinking beer is fine. Etc, etc, etc.

Thanks Benjamin.

I think you will find that you, and your branch are the exception.

As you know this years study is the Book of Mormon.
I ventured a question about how it was translated. It was shut down as not vital to know exactly and the teacher scurried on and never mentioned it again. When challenged after the lesson he maintained that he was instructed to keep the lesson in the mainstream and not allow it to drift into some of the 'flecks of history'.

The phobia exists.