Historical issues: Who's really got the problem?

[Indy Coug]

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2663659

[MikeWaters]

The vast majority of those that leave the church don't know a lick about church history, much less are afficionados.

Rudimentary knowledge of church history can push some people over the edge, most specifically, those that want to be pushed over.

[Archaea]

History may justify the final jump, but I am doubtful it is the first push.

OTOH, it is a copout to blame all questions about origins on worthiness, or near apostasy.

It's more about personal psychology and one's intellectual make up and curiosity. Some need that satisfied, others don't.

[SteelBlue]

I found this paragraph to be a bit odd:

"For many of us, including myself, human weakness--even in prophets, seers, and revelators (check out the story of Noah apart from the ark, for example) is not troublesome. Is it really the Church, the brethren, or even the "iron rodders" among the membership who insist on perfection in the leadership? I have my doubts."

I don't know who "us" is in this paragraph but this guy is way off if he believes that it is those who study history that are most troubled by human weakness in a prophetic figure. A quick glance at cougarboard or cougarguard over the past few days should be easy confirmation of that fact.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I found this paragraph to be a bit odd:

"For many of us, including myself, human weakness--even in prophets, seers, and revelators (check out the story of Noah apart from the ark, for example) is not troublesome. Is it really the Church, the brethren, or even the "iron rodders" among the membership who insist on perfection in the leadership? I have my doubts."

I don't know who "us" is in this paragraph but this guy is way off if he believes that it is those who study history that are most troubled by human weakness in a prophetic figure. A quick glance at cougarboard or cougarguard over the past few days should be easy confirmation of that fact.

Yeah I think he misses the mark too. Particularly when he says that people don't know or care about MMM becuase it doesn't affect them (and he seems to be insinuating that they shouldn't care.)

As I just said in another thread, it is easy to be dismissive of the priesthood ban if you are a white man, for example. If you are a black person it is an issue of critical importance. It is an arrogant, very arrogant, perspective to asset what should and should not matter to another, particularly as we try to resolve their doubts.

Finally, the whole post is an elaborate set up for this sentence which is his thesis: "I think this is a particularly attractive stance for those who leave the Church (but in Elder Packer's famous words "can't leave it alone"), because it provides a rational foundation to break from what may have provided a spiritual foundation for their lives at some point, and in an effort to validate their own decisions, to try to convince others, especially those who may not be struggling--about how problematic Mormonism is."

While no one can doubt that this is true for some, all this is is changing the subject. It is a dodge.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Yeah I think he misses the mark too. Particularly when he says that people don't know or care about MMM becuase it doesn't affect them (and he seems to be insinuating that they shouldn't care.)

As I just said in another thread, it is easy to be dismissive of the priesthood ban if you are a white man, for example. If you are a black person it is an issue of critical importance. It is an arrogant, very arrogant, perspective to asset what should and should not matter to another, particularly as we try to resolve their doubts.

Finally, the whole post is an elaborate set up for this sentence which is his thesis: "I think this is a particularly attractive stance for those who leave the Church (but in Elder Packer's famous words "can't leave it alone"), because it provides a rational foundation to break from what may have provided a spiritual foundation for their lives at some point, and in an effort to validate their own decisions, to try to convince others, especially those who may not be struggling--about how problematic Mormonism is."

While no one can doubt that this is true for some, all this is is changing the subject. It is a dodge.

I am finding myself agreeing with you a lot lately! Am I going soft, or are you?