Lack of inoculation takes another
 

Reconnecting with an old friend.

Says he found out through study that the church is not honest about its history, that the BoM is a 19th century fictitious work, etc.

Does anyone among the General Authorities actually care about members that feel betrayed by the white-washed history they are teaching?

How long must the archives be locked? How much longer will LDS historians be threatened by their ecclesiastical leaders?

When we will have an honest curriculum? We have the time and energy to teach young men to marry in their race, but we don't have the time and energy to actually inoculate members?

There is an explosion of information going on, all easily accessible, and the old games of hiding and dodging are not going to work. Is our only response to recruit an army of apologist bloggers to hit the same points that have been used for decades? Weak.

There is only one possible path. Complete truth. IF YOU HAVE ANY FAITH, then you must believe the truth will set us free. It's that simple. Have some faith that God will do his own work. God does not want obfuscation and subterfuge. Get out of God's way and let him prove HIMSELF.

My goodness it is very frustrating to be part of a church that doesn't have a suggestion box. But increasingly, members are not afraid to say what they think. By common consent. It was never intended that voices be silenced. It was never intended for there to be no discussions. And frankly, that path is just not going to work.

Care about things you can actually influence and change. Does this apply to church membership? Sometimes it's hard to say.

I spoke with my bishop about finding somebody to mentor those who look at things with an eye that wishes to believe but needs to comfort. The response was, "I don't know anybody."

What about the Stake President?

Response:

"He wants to speak to you because he's concerned about your spiritual welfare."

Answer Mike, nobody cares.

There are a cadre of mentors that exist. But not enough.

If I hadn't been connected with the right people at the right time, I don't know that I would be a member.

The debate re: Sterling McMurrin in the David O. McKay biography is instructive.

By "lack of innoculation" I assume you mean "weak testimony."

Yes, Tex, it is hard for some people to reconcile the concept of "true church" with "church that deals frequently in obfuscation, omissions, and untruths about its history."

This is difficult for some people to reconcile. I don't know that it is useful or correct to call them "weak".

Agreed. This is why the notion of suppressing history or information has always been so repulsive to me. And this why I found Elder Packer's talk on faithful history to be so disturbing. That's an odd kind of faith if you ask me.

Tex's response sickens me. The orthodox just don't care to even try to understand.

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.

The truth is, I understand all too well.

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.