Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
I think they are topics or facts which may not be important but which should not be hidden.
|
I don't think this is remarkably different from my view. The question I have said I think is relevant is what form "not be hidden" (as you put it) should take. Should we begin to integrate these things, at least subtly, into our manuals? Or should we allow the enemies of the church to be at the forefront of characterizing them?
By the way, I don't agree with you that they are not important. I don't think that any person who is confused by something they encounter outside of Sunday School would be satisfied by being told not to worry about it because it isn't important (not that you are suggesting that they would be).
I think the difference that Tex and I have is a pretty fundamental one. He doesn't think these things are important and that a strong testimony is all the defense one needs against them. I think he also believes that it is dangerous to expose more people to these things than already know about them. I think the ship has sailed on whether people are going to know and want them to have at least be exposed to it in a faithful setting before they get challenged by it in a setting that is not.
I also believe that while the church must put all things into a broader context, if it is silent on big issues (like Joseph's polygamy for example) it appears to be hiding something. And I don't think there is anything we need to hide. The true church doesn't need to do that.
While this has been discussed a lot in the past, I think the article SEIQ linked is a great example of efforts to do just what I am talking about. I wonder if anyone who read it thinks it, or the approaches it talks about, are objectionable? That is the real point to me. The discussion of whether it should happen is over. It is happening. The question now is what other forms will it take, in my view.