Originally Posted by Tex (Post 299812)

I really don't want to get into yet another debate on how the church has handled its history. You clearly have your opinion and I have mine.

I see a testimony as something that transcends all that. If a person actually believes God spoke to their heart via the Spirit about the truth of the gospel, it should "innoculate" them against untidy parts of church history. But for some, it doesn't. Even Oliver Cowdery who had a specific relevation given to him reminding him of that moment, still couldn't keep his grasp on it.

The Savior also spoke multiple times of this struggle: wise men build on a rock, the parable of the sower.

Understand, this is not a criticism of your friend. We all stand at different spots on the testimony continuum. But I don't think it's the church's fault for his failure to cling to what he once thought was true.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 299816)

Yes, but it begs the question. Once said person has obtained this higher witness, why would that person then feel compelled to suppress or obfuscate information?

The bottom line is that any notion of suppressing information is outdated and naive. The internet has changed everything. If the church refuses to address certain thorny issues then they are ceding the stage exclusively to their enemies.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 299815)

You think you understand.

I remember sitting in meetings where the condescending, but well-meaning leader would talk about those "lost" members, opining they knew their plight and if they would just pray, fast and attend church all doubts would go away.

It is the orthodox way.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 299816)

Yes, but it begs the question. Once said person has obtained this higher witness, why would that person then feel compelled to suppress or obfuscate information?

The bottom line is that any notion of suppressing information is outdated and naive. The internet has changed everything. If the church refuses to address certain thorny issues then they are ceding the stage exclusively to their enemies.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 299819)

Offhand I can't think of any leader I've worked with who thinks so simplistically.



Again, I'm not interested in yet another discussion of the church's supposed sins on suppressing information. I am interested, though, on discussing how such behavior, real or perceived, impacts (or ought to impact) our testimonies.

I certainly don't think the solution is to shove every controversial doctrine or story in every new convert's face to ensure some mythical "innoculation." Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 299821)

Reducing their words and actions, that's what they mean and say. In short, anybody who doesn't follow the orthodox lifestyle and thought pattern is chaff thrown out. I suppose some CPA did an efficiency study with the costs-benefits concluding, "we're going to lose Xpercent, but them's the breaks." Transactions costs are what they are. Shot birds flutter.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 299822)

Reductio ad absurdum.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 299824)

We are losing a phalanx. The question is whether this a valuable phalanx, and if so, how can it be saved?

I really do think it is a valuable group of people. And I also believe that many could be contributing members if the church would simply stop the obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 299819)

I certainly don't think the solution is to shove every controversial doctrine or story in every new convert's face to ensure some mythical "innoculation." Ridiculous.