Lack of inoculation takes another

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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The bottom line is that any notion of suppressing information is outdated and naive.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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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The bottom line is that any notion of suppressing information is outdated and naive.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.

Two options:

They don't care, or they really aren't aware, given their ages, how much information is derived from the Internet.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

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

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

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.

[Tex]

Just for fun, I whipped up the first 10 chapters of the Cougarguard Priesthood Innoculation Manual. See what others you can add.

Chapters of Cougarguard Innoculation Manual

1. Discrepancies in the First Vision accounts
2. Fanny Alger
3. Church Finances: Exactly How is My Tithing Spent?
4. Evolution of the Word of Wisdom: Really That Important?
5. Racist Tendencies of Early and Modern Prophets
6. The Second Anointing
7. Mullahs: Who They Are And How To Spot Them
8. Miracles Have Ceased: Is the Church Still True?
9. The New Missionary: Looking Beyond Two-By-Two
10. When and How to Disagree with the Prophet

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Reductio ad absurdum.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Reductio ad absurdum.

If they cared at all, innoculation would take place instead of hiding truth under a bushel.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

So it's your opinion that had your friend just known about (fill-in-the-blank) ahead of time, rather than the church "obfuscating it", everything would be ok?

What you're suggesting is that it's the alleged dishonesty that bothers these people more than the doctrines/stories the church is allegedly being dishonest about. Somehow I seriously doubt that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

I see you still have the same style. Nobody is proposing something so simplistic.

When non-members think of our church, there is one thing that typically dominates their perception: polygamy. On a second level but still significant is the priesthood ban. As we send young missionaries out into the field they typically have had almost zero exposure to either issues from an official church source. Both are non-existent in LDS manuals and official material and are largely verboten as discussion topics at church. I find that a bit crazy.