Lack of inoculation takes another

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

What basis do you have to disbelieve that premise?

People like honesty from an organization, especially one claiming to have the True Religion, from God.

If the organization behaves no differently than any other organization, and it doesn't really, that disillusions people. So instead of obfuscation, transparency is in order. But such is not the nature of human beings.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would be thrilled if LDS leaders issued a statement like this:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?p=273388

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I would be thrilled if LDS leaders issued a statement like this:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?p=273388

Many of those approaches are quite sensible, but not for the orthodox.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I have spent hours of time on the telephone, Internet, and in person trying to talk people off the testimony ledge of Mormon history.

Just the other Sunday a HP in my ward asked me if I knew anything about the Adam-God Theory. You see, his son at BYU was going off the deep end on it. I hooked the guy up with 40 pages of material, some of it difficult to find.

I've spent dozens of hours this last year trying to help the son of the former Stake President (at the father's request) with issues concerning changes in the temple ceremony and masonry.

If I was looking for profit, I think I could run a small business doing this kind of thing.

But the Tex's of the world insinuate that people like me are apostates.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have spent hours of time on the telephone, Internet, and in person trying to talk people off the testimony ledge of Mormon history.

Just the other Sunday a HP in my ward asked me if I knew anything about the Adam-God Theory. You see, his son at BYU was going off the deep end on it. I hooked the guy up with 40 pages of material, some of it difficult to find.

I've spent dozens of hours this last year trying to help the son of the former Stake President (at the father's request) with issues concerning changes in the temple ceremony and masonry.

If I was looking for profit, I think I could run a small business doing this kind of thing.

But the Tex's of the world insinuate that people like me are apostates.

or people looking for you are weak-minded fools who should be shoved out the door, because they have "weak testimonies" from lack of prayer.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

On the contrary, I find that to be very wise. Those two things are completely irrelevant to understanding the doctrines of salvation and gaining a testimony of Christ: the fundamental charge of a missionary.

Hinckley gave a wonderful answer on this topic to Mike Wallace over a decade ago: "That's behind us."

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What basis do you have to disbelieve that premise?

People like honesty from an organization, especially one claiming to have the True Religion, from God.

If the organization behaves no differently than any other organization, and it doesn't really, that disillusions people. So instead of obfuscation, transparency is in order. But such is not the nature of human beings.

Mmmm, I don't doubt there's some consternation on the part of those who feel (wrongly, IMO) that they have been deceived. But it strikes me that deciding "that the BoM is a 19th century fictitious work" is an independent conclusion.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have spent hours of time on the telephone, Internet, and in person trying to talk people off the testimony ledge of Mormon history.

Just the other Sunday a HP in my ward asked me if I knew anything about the Adam-God Theory. You see, his son at BYU was going off the deep end on it. I hooked the guy up with 40 pages of material, some of it difficult to find.

I've spent dozens of hours this last year trying to help the son of the former Stake President (at the father's request) with issues concerning changes in the temple ceremony and masonry.

If I was looking for profit, I think I could run a small business doing this kind of thing.

Interestingly enough, I too have just recently spent time helping a man come to terms with his doubts about questionable things in church history. It was rewarding to have him again receive his temple recommend and be assigned as a home teacher.

However, I'm not sure any influence was so great on his path as that of the strong testimony of his patient wife. My observation was that played a larger role than any 40-page sheaf of material.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

But the Tex's of the world insinuate that people like me are apostates.

SIEQ, you have your own little board now where you can go (and I do not) and spew bitterness about me. Please reserve this kind of nonsense for there.

If you're going to come back here, either have the courtesy to put me on ignore, or have the guts to shut up and let me speak for myself.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Interestingly enough, I too have just recently spent time helping a man come to terms with his doubts about questionable things in church history. It was rewarding to have him again receive his temple recommend and be assigned as a home teacher.

However, I'm not sure any influence was so great on his path as that of the strong testimony of his patient wife. My observation was that played a larger role than any 40-page sheaf of material.



SIEQ, you have your own little board now where you can go (and I do not) and spew bitterness about me. Please reserve this kind of nonsense for there.

If you're going to come back here, either have the courtesy to put me on ignore, or have the guts to shut up and let me speak for myself.

I'm familiar with both your observations and your self-serving, vindictive, and manipulative use of them. This guy needed facts, and not the kind of self-righteous nonsense you are constantly spewing (at least, around here).

If you take back your insinuation, I won't mention it again.

And I've never left CG.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

If you take back your insinuation, I won't mention it again.

I have no clue what you're talking about, but frankly, I'm not sure I even care. You may be the most thin-skinned guy I have ever seen post on a message board.