Recent press release from the LDS church.

[_truth dancer]

Clearly, few who do know the issues still believe in what they once did.

You are saying there are only a few members of the church left throughout the world who know the issues and yet still believe that the church, more likely than not, is true? That's a stretch, isn't it TD?

No, I'm saying that those who know the stuff no longer believe it as they once did... Paul Osborne is the only one I can think of who knows the stuff and still believes it as the church teaches it.

Most folks who discover the truth expand the box! ;-)

Quote:

I believe it is honest, decent, and healthy, to not present a knowingly false story...

TD, you and I both know that the church hasn't presented a false story. They've presented a whitewashed story.

I think it goes far beyond "whitewashing." They present a false story... intentionally! I do not see this as honest.

From Joseph Smith lying about his extra marital relationships, to missionaries telling potential members polygamy was to take care of the many, many extra women in Utah, the church is filled with dishonesty.

Quote:

And the whole, "milk before meat" nonsense is an attempt at hiding its condescention! (IMHO)!

What does condescension really have to do with it? Could there be other reasons?

Another reason for what? Oaks is clearly stating the church was not ready for the truth... sounds condescending to me! He didn't think the church members were strong/smart/dedicated/indoctrinated/immersed/whatever enough to handle the truth.

Either that or he just hoped it would all go away.... :-) (Like things tended to do, pre-Internet)!

~dancer~

[_harmony]

As has been mentioned ad nauseum, the church leaves the apologetics to those that have the expertise to do so. The church itself doesn't see itself as being in the business of apologetics even though many critics would love to see them add a fourth mission of apologetics to the three fold mission that they are busy administering. The church sees itself as being in the business of saving souls when it comes right down to it. Before the church moves forward on anything I'm sure they look at the cost/benefit ratio. What ever decisions are made, there are going to be losses and there are going to be gains.

By whitewashing or withholding information the church hopes that the losses will be minimal (hoping that members and investigators will read through and assimilate the apologetics...and seek after the spirit as they read the Book of Mormon) in opposition to taking the stance that all the information that's out there should literally be dumped onto the church website.

Regards,
MG

You keep saying "the church". What exactly do you mean by that? Because "the church" does nothing. "The church" is not human. "The church" is an earthly institution like the post office.

[_mentalgymnast]

Quote:

I believe it is honest, decent, and healthy, to not present a knowingly false story...

TD, you and I both know that the church hasn't presented a false story. They've presented a whitewashed story.

I think it goes far beyond "whitewashing." They present a false story... intentionally! I do not see this as honest.

From Joseph Smith lying about his extra marital relationships, to missionaries telling potential members polygamy was to take care of the many, many extra women in Utah, the church is filled with dishonesty.

TD, you and I both also know that if the church threw everything out there and rather than stick to the basic missionary discussions decided to pull all the skeletons out of the closet and hang them out for all to see, there would be problems. The idea that there should be complete disclosure by the church through its missionary system and/or for new converts is ridiculous.

You had been an active member for many years before you came in contact with church related issues and look what happened. Even though the church wasn't up front with you, you still gained access to information. That information, from whatever its source, took its toll.

To understand and assimilate the issues which have caused such a great deal of anguish and pain for many here on this board and elsewhere it takes time, maturity, and the ability to put things in context with life experience, church experience, educational and learning curve experience, spiritual experience, human frailty experience, comparative religion experience, weighing the alternatives experience, reading experiences... the list could go on .

Many members of the church and obviously investigators may not be at a stage/place where they can or have or want to muddle their way through all this stuff. The powers that be know this. The gospel and church membership are basic and really not too complicated. The three fold mission of the church is not that complicated. The church sticks with the basics.

When the new Mormon history hit me full force back in the early nineties I was thrown against the wall and didn't know what hit me. It's taken years of study, pondering, experience, and looking at things contextually to reach a point that I can come down on one side of the fence rather than the other.

Even though I find myself often being a fence sitter. <g>

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

As has been mentioned ad nauseum, the church leaves the apologetics to those that have the expertise to do so. The church itself doesn't see itself as being in the business of apologetics even though many critics would love to see them add a fourth mission of apologetics to the three fold mission that they are busy administering. The church sees itself as being in the business of saving souls when it comes right down to it. Before the church moves forward on anything I'm sure they look at the cost/benefit ratio. What ever decisions are made, there are going to be losses and there are going to be gains.

By whitewashing or withholding information the church hopes that the losses will be minimal (hoping that members and investigators will read through and assimilate the apologetics...and seek after the spirit as they read the Book of Mormon) in opposition to taking the stance that all the information that's out there should literally be dumped onto the church website.

Regards,
MG

You keep saying "the church". What exactly do you mean by that? Because "the church" does nothing. "The church" is not human. "The church" is an earthly institution like the post office.

Those that conference/counsel together at a church administrative level which gives oversight over the policies/practices throughout the units of the geographical/organizational church.

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

You keep saying "the church". What exactly do you mean by that? Because "the church" does nothing. "The church" is not human. "The church" is an earthly institution like the post office.

Those that conference/counsel together at a church administrative level which gives oversight over the policies/practices throughout the units of the geographical/organizational church.

Regards,
MG

Why not just say "church leaders"? Or GA's?

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

You had been an active member for many years before you came in contact with church related issues and look what happened. Even though the church wasn't up front with you, you still gained access to information. That information, from whatever its source, took its toll.

First, if I had known some of the basic stuff I would never have joined the church in the first place.

I had no idea the church had a ban on blacks, or that polygamy even existed. Stupid me... for not asking. I also didn't ask if they believe in child abuse, drug use, or lying. (smile)

So, you have a point... if it requires that a pretend story be told, or truth not shared in order for people to join the church, and one is not concerned with honesty and one wants people to join the church, then best go with the pretend story or the withwashed story, or the less than honest story.

Or if you want people to maintain believe and you know that by sharing the truth they will leave, and you don't care about honesty, they yes, by all means hide the truth.

I just find it really odd that the church must be so worried about membership that they feel they must not share the truth.

Just to be clear, I had NO idea of church history prior to my disbelief.

My disbelief came because the teachings/doctrines of the church do not seem right/correct/holy/good to me, nor do they fit with my experience, observations, and awareness of life.

The church history stuff came much after and just reconfirmed what I felt in my heart to be true. It did indeed make it much easier to let go for sure.

So basically... we agree that the truth may create some problems for the church.

Where we differ is in what the church should do about it.

I hold to the idea that lying, not disclosing, pretending, tricking, manipulating truth is not an honest way to portray what is claimed to be the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

I find it odd that leaders and others want members even if their belief is based on falsehoods and misrepresentations. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

~dancer~

[_mentalgymnast]

You keep saying "the church". What exactly do you mean by that? Because "the church" does nothing. "The church" is not human. "The church" is an earthly institution like the post office.

Those that conference/counsel together at a church administrative level which gives oversight over the policies/practices throughout the units of the geographical/organizational church.

Regards,
MG

Why not just say "church leaders"? Or GA's?

Because I think you would also have to include the stakes and units of the church also. There is a feedback loop that circulates throughtout the units and stakes of the church that plays an important part in decisions/policies that are then disseminated throughout the church as a whole.

Hey, while I got you here...what are your thoughts in regards to why Elder Packer's and Elder Oak's interview transcripts were left off of the PBS site? Did you think that the video segments that made it into "The Mormons" showing Packer's and Oak's interviews did justice to the depth and breadth of the written transcripts that the church finally put up online?

Regards,
MG

[_harmony]

Because I think you would also have to include the stakes and units of the church also. There is a feedback loop that circulates throughtout the units and stakes of the church that plays an important part in decisions/policies that are then disseminated throughout the church as a whole.

Since when? And where's the documentation that shows that? You realize what slippery slope you're tiptoeing around, right?

Hey, while I got you here...what are your thoughts in regards to why Elder Packer's and Elder Oak's interview transcripts were left off of the PBS site? Did you think that the video segments that made it into "The Mormons" showing Packer's and Oak's interviews did justice to the depth and breadth of the written transcripts that the church finally put up online?

Regards,
MG

Could be a number of things: space, interest of the people who visit the site, oversight, requests from outsiders, etc. And I didn't see "The Mormons", so have nothing to add to any discussion about it.b

[_mentalgymnast]

Because I think you would also have to include the stakes and units of the church also. There is a feedback loop that circulates throughtout the units and stakes of the church that plays an important part in decisions/policies that are then disseminated throughout the church as a whole.

Since when? And where's the documentation that shows that? You realize what slippery slope you're tiptoeing around, right?

A number of years ago I was serving on the high council in our stake. Elder Todd Christofferson came to our stake and conducted a leadership session on a Sat. evening. He used an analogy that related to irrigation and how water moves from source to destination. He then taught us that SL is quite interested in having a greater degree of communication going both ways between the stakes and church headquarters so that those that sit in councils up in the COB know what the needs/concerns are out in the units of the church. I would assume we weren't the first ones that he had shared this information with.

Do you have a problem with that concept? What slippery slope are you referring to?

Regards,
MG

[_Dr. Shades]

You had been an active member for many years before you came in contact with church related issues and look what happened. Even though the church wasn't up front with you, you still gained access to information. That information, from whatever its source, took its toll.

We gained access to that information from anti-Mormon sources. Your scenario wouldn't be so much of a problem if the church didn't actively brainwash its members into running away screaming from anything even slightly resembling an anti-Mormon source.

To understand and assimilate the issues which have caused such a great deal of anguish and pain for many here on this board and elsewhere it takes time, maturity, and the ability to put things in context with life experience, church experience, educational and learning curve experience, spiritual experience, human frailty experience, comparative religion experience, weighing the alternatives experience, reading experiences... the list could go on.

You're missing the point. The entire reason it "caused such a great deal of anguish and pain" is because the church wasn't forthcoming about any of this. The information itself doesn't cause anguish and pain; the fact that there is an active campaign of suppression is what (eventually) causes it.