Sethbag wrote: I'd like to hear what you think about the article from the New Era.
I have never agreed with the concept that one should not read what critics of the Church are saying, but for some members I think this advice from the GA might be helpful. But we have Gaz here, and he hasn't lost his faith, so it doesn't apply to him. In the end, Seth, the fact is that every member has something called "agency". They can choose to adhere, or ignore what this leader is saying. When my local leaders asked me to seriously consider stopping reading "anti" literature (it was not a condition for anything, including entry to the temple), I said, sorry, but I will continue to read what I want, and I find this literature interesting, controversial, and most of all thought-provoking, and I think it's important to know these things. Signature books and its local outlet in Sydney made a small fortune out of me back in the 80s. I became friendly with the then owner, and asked him what his policy was in regard to this controversial literature, and he said that he would never prohibit members from reading what they want, and would order for me anything I wanted, but he didn't openly display these books in his store. Maybe it's different now, I don't know. I don't believe this is censorship, censorship is when you prohibit people from reading certain literature. The GA was giving advice. Counsel. And here's an irony - FARMS writers are probably the ones most acquainted with both controversial and anti-Mormon literature.
Ray this is fine but the fact is that an article in and official LDS publication tells youth, in general, not to read anything that is negative and would cause them to have negative feelings. To point is the Church does discourage members from reading critical material and the New Era article demonstrates this quite well.
Jason Bourne wrote:The point is the Church does discourage members from reading critical material and the New Era article demonstrates this quite well.
And then later, when the member finds out all this critical stuff, the apologists will jeer that the person was lazy, because they didn't read it earlier in life.
Catch 22. Damned if you do (by the church leaders), damned if you don't (by the church apologists).
Jason Bourne wrote:The point is the Church does discourage members from reading critical material and the New Era article demonstrates this quite well.
And then later, when the member finds out all this critical stuff, the apologists will jeer that the person was lazy, because they didn't read it earlier in life.
Catch 22. Damned if you do (by the church leaders), damned if you don't (by the church apologists).
This is because the apologist do not realize the denial is not just a river in Egypt.