Washington Post: Five myths about Mormonsim

[TripletDaddy]

I don't know if he does but I do. I don't see any way around that.

I agree. The challenge in these "frontier" statements is that there are a slew of them and they cannot be undone. Since we dont know if they were ever official pronouncements, it is not unreasoanble to dismiss them, as MBN is doing. However, it is equally reasonable to question and even doubt them, which also provides a legitimate basis for skepticism in the entire process, including the modern day process.

I think this is the simplified struggle with the modern day borderlander....wants to buy in, can't mentally reconcile or ignore the "frontier" fringe stuff ofmour history, and is frustrated when others basically tell him or her to move on because it isn't that important (albeit in a nice manner).

[Sleeping in EQ]

It was in jest, but I still don't understand how an online institute class will help in that regard. It's been awhile since I have taken an online course in anything, but none of them gave me opportunities to meet or even correspond with classmates aside from maybe posting on Blackboard. Are you proposing some sort of curriculum mashed up with LDSsingles.com?

As to the second comment, I don't understand how the material you want spiritually nourishes any of us. I can buy that just having the discussion might satiate some needs, but I am not sure that it will provide any answers and spiritual fulfillment.

Take the topic of polygamy for example which sparked this thread. How would you teach that in an uncorrelated lesson? What conclusions do you arrive at the end of that lesson? That polygamy was and is ordained of God? That polygamy was nothing more than a way for horny men to satisfy carnal appetites under the guise of revelation? As Niku pointed out earlier he can't say either way because we don't know. I don't know. Nobody knows. So my question is where is the spiritual meat in that kind of lesson? Faith? We don't know so just have faith? I just don't think anyone dissatisfied with currently correlated material will be spiritually full by being told I don't know over and over again.

Of course you don't understand. Some day, when you want to understand, you will.

There is not some gordian knot about how to teach facts and have a spiritually nourishing class. I appreciate you playing LA Ute's card with your "it can't be done" dismissive questions, but I also recognize when someone is exemplifying the problems I'm trying to address.

"Physician, heal thyself."

[LA Ute]

Of course you don't understand. Some day, when you want to understand, you will.

There is not some gordian knot about how to teach facts and have a spiritually nourishing class. I appreciate you playing LA Ute's card with your "it can't be done" dismissive questions, but I also recognize when someone is exemplifying the problems I'm trying to address.

"Physician, heal thyself."

You of all people know better than to mischaracterize someone's position. And to put it in quotes! Brother SIEQ, we must do better!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course you don't understand. Some day, when you want to understand, you will.

You have had some great input in this thread, but I don't think patronizing comments like this help your case.

[jay santos]

My theory: active members who campaign loudly for the church to be more honest about its history and teach all these difficult subjects in lesson materials are secretly apostates hoping for the church's collapse.

[TripletDaddy]

One other somewhat related point...for those that feel that the Church's inability or unwillingness (I honestly don't know how to categorize it) to deal transparently with these thorny issues will not cause members to leave, how do you feel it will affect new members that are looking to join the Church? With overall membership numbers increasing yet at smaller percentages, how much does the internet/information age play a part in this?

[pellegrino]

My theory: active members who campaign loudly for the church to be more honest about its history and teach all these difficult subjects in lesson materials are secretly apostates hoping for the church's collapse.

what causes you to think this?

[TripletDaddy]

what causes you to think this?

abuse of OTC sleep meds

[Sullyute]

My theory: active members who campaign loudly for the church to be more honest about its history and teach all these difficult subjects in lesson materials are secretly apostates hoping for the church's collapse.

Edit: Your theory is probably shared by most of those in a position to make the changes.

[Sleeping in EQ]

You have had some great input in this thread, but I don't think patronizing comments like this help your case.

Yea, I know. I felt like an ass writing it. I also felt like Surfah was being patronizing, and that he was literally doing the conversation ending stuff that I abhor.

I apologize.

[CardiacCoug]

One other somewhat related point...for those that feel that the Church's inability or unwillingness (I honestly don't know how to categorize it) to deal transparently with these thorny issues will not cause members to leave, how do you feel it will affect new members that are looking to join the Church? With overall membership numbers increasing yet at smaller percentages, how much does the internet/information age play a part in this?

I think the end result of all this is that the Church is selecting for converts with one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Borderline/poor literacy
2. Total lack of intellectual/scientific curiosity
3. No access to the internet (third world residents or poor)
4. Magical/schizotypal thinking

Probably there are a few other converts who are literate and scientifically-minded and who are shepherded through these thorny issues in Church history and doctrine.

[jay santos]

One other somewhat related point...for those that feel that the Church's inability or unwillingness (I honestly don't know how to categorize it) to deal transparently with these thorny issues will not cause members to leave, how do you feel it will affect new members that are looking to join the Church? With overall membership numbers increasing yet at smaller percentages, how much does the internet/information age play a part in this?

I look at this inoculation thing as a model that can be expressed this way...

X = active members who become aware (really aware, like the people on this board) of difficult historical issues
Y = portion of X who leave the church because of it

I'm going to throw out really ridiculous numbers just for illustration...

current state
X = 20% of church membership
Y = 30%

after inoculation
X = all
Y = 20%

On the question on how this would relate to new members, I think it would be a similar trend. A lot more would become aware and the church would only have marginal improvement on salvaging those who become aware.

[CardiacCoug]

On the question on how this would relate to new members, I think it would be a similar trend. A lot more would become aware and the church would only have marginal improvement on salvaging those who become aware.

I think when Elder Packer reportedly said "Some things that are true are not very useful" that he is expressing the same idea.

Seems awfully utilitarian, though. This isn't a business.

Shouldn't a religious organization care about truth for truth's sake regardless of the consequences?

The Church's approach reminds me of the way cardiac drug/device companies talk to me. When a study comes out that reflects poorly on their drug/device, they call or come by and say, "Do you have any concerns about our product?" If you answer "no" then they just shut up. Why draw attention to the adverse data? It's bad for business.

The Church follows the same strategy.

[jay santos]

I think the end result of all this is that the Church is selecting for converts with one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Borderline/poor literacy
2. Total lack of intellectual/scientific curiosity
3. No access to the internet (third world residents or poor)
4. Magical/schizotypal thinking

Probably there are a few other converts who are literate and scientifically-minded and who are shepherded through these thorny issues in Church history and doctrine.

I'm guessing the convert list for most churches looks like this. No?

Further, should Baptist church be reamed for not teaching Bart Ehrman in Sunday School?

Should all Catholic converts be required to write a paper demonstrating the parallels between Jesus Christ and the Osiris myth?

Should Jewish converts take the online class from Yale on the Old Testament?

Should all religions teach the specifics of evolution on Sunday as an alternative to Genesis? Just so no one's accused of "hiding the truth"?

Sorry I just don't get all this whining about what the church should teach. The church shouldn't lie when asked about things. The church shouldn't supress information. But that's about as far as the church has responsibility for any of this stuff.

[Jackrabbit]

I look at this inoculation thing as a model that can be expressed this way...

X = active members who become aware (really aware, like the people on this board) of difficult historical issues
Y = portion of X who leave the church because of it

I'm going to throw out really ridiculous numbers just for illustration...

current state
X = 20% of church membership
Y = 30%

after inoculation
X = all
Y = 20%

On the question on how this would relate to new members, I think it would be a similar trend. A lot more would become aware and the church would only have marginal improvement on salvaging those who become aware.

With the explosion of information though, X is ever-increasing. It would probably never get to the point where innoculation is beneficial on the margin.

What would be optimal is if the Church could discriminate whom to innoculate. I think an apostate named Bob McCue has determined that people with INT (introverted, intuiting, thinking) personality types on Myers-Briggs are more likely to leave the Church. Give your children the MBTI and determine how much innocuation they need.