Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
With the DoM and Kimball biographies, we see an interesting phenomenon--historians giving guidance and information to church members over the most controversial aspect of Mormonism in our generation.
Why are the actual people who lived through this and made the decisions, like Gordon B. Hinckley, not willing to provide us with a similar account?
I recognize that perhaps they privately approve of these biographies, and may have even facilitated these biographies (doubtful on the latter but who knows). But why not put their own personal stamp on it?
Would the church crumple? Would testimonies be lost?
The more transparent the workings of the church and the better we know the general authorities, the more convinced we are the church is true.
Is there anyone who disagrees?
What is implied, if you don't agree?
|
Correct me if I am wrong Mike, but it seems you want folks to be as open and normal as you and I appear to be when it comes to the church. Mike, unless you live in a very weird area, they are. I know plenty of Bishops and EQ Presidents who gamble. I know plenty of people in leadership who think the personna BYU throws out is a farce. Your fear seems to be and mine at times that the zealots actually do represent membership in the church, they don't.
Even some of the straightest, follow all the rules, members I know don't subscribe to the zealots positions on things.
Just like the evangelists. I don't think those that speak out the loudest really represent how most evangelicals feel.
AS an example, even on CB. Remember there was a poll that asked if the board agreed with the "only a mormon head coach" at BYU. I think it was 75% disagree with BYU. There is your normal member of the church.