DiscussMormonism.com

Let me tell a little story first.

Several years ago there was a Stake President who relocated (and was therefore released) and went 'rogue'. I asked some family members about this person to try and understand what happened to him.
A couple of the responses surprised me but the one that stuck out was "he wanted to know too much".

As an aside, they also said in hushed tones that he had gotten into Buddhism *heads were shaking whilst it was said*. I asked what was so bad about Buddhism? *crickets*.

Anyway, I recalled this conversation and I wondered both why Mormon's were afraid of knowledge and how much knowledge is too much? Are we hearing from the leaders that famous Jack Nicholson line "The truth? You can't handle the truth!".

The Church makes an effort to take certain aspects and incidents of its history out of the demain where members commonly gain their knowledge about the Church.

GA's have spoken on the subject of knowledge:
"some things that are true are not useful"
They have identified academics and intellectuals as a threat.
Members have been disciplined and shunned for giving out too much knowledge.

Only recently the members in my area were exhorted "don't listen to the academics".

So what's the problem? I thought life, as explained within Mormonism, was meant to be a learning journey where we grow by increasing knowledge. How can we become God's if we don't acquire knowledge of everything?

I agree. It is very frustrating.

I don't understand why Church leaders can't simply acknowledge that fact that the Church does have some ugly pieces of history. Man is not perfect. The Church was entrusted to man, an imperfect species. It is well-known that only one perfect being walked the earth. That was Jesus. Everyone else made mistakes. Everyone.

I think that the blemishes of the past should be shown. Only then will they truly heal.

Let the chips fall where they may.

A case can still be made for the beauty of the gospel of Christ.

What are we afraid of? Finding out that Church leaders screwed up? You're damned right some of them screwed up!

That doesn't make the gospel any less beneficial for our lives.

Drifting wrote:
So what's the problem? I thought life, as explained within Mormonism, was meant to be a learning journey where we grow by increasing knowledge. How can we become God's if we don't acquire knowledge of everything?

The church today has a love/hate relationship with knowledge. In the early church, information easily showing Joseph Smith made it up was not as available and leaders enjoyed encouraging members to seek knowledge. Now they encourage it only in certain areas and discourage it in areas that can have negative affects on peoples TBM status. Many members today feel they would be committing a sin to read what they think may be anti-Mormon material, and are told to avoid it because Satan may get a hold on them.

Why spend time learning bad stuff when there is more good stuff then you can possible learn in this life time?

Of course it begs the question of how the bad is separated from the good, but we are told to follow the prophet and we can't go wrong (even if he can).

Who says Mormons fear knowledge? I don't. But I do agree that some knowledge is neither useful nor pertinent.

Top level of Mormonism is to become A God.

Top level of Buddhism is one step above Mormonism; To loose the desire to become a God. (Essentially).

In that scenario with the Stake Pres.;, it would be something better left unsaid.

Many Mormons fear knowledge because it causes discomfort and doubt when it is in conflict with their own imaginings and fantasies about the "truths" of their religion.

One need only have a quick look at MDD to see members of the LDS Church making up stuff as they go along and then labeling it as knowledge revealed to them by the spirit of God. Current examples of this "knowledge" include the belief that intelligent design is "real" science and other such notions.

Then there is the issue of "special knowledge". This is a seductive draw for many. When one fails to actually learn as much as they might, they substitute broad and useful general knowledge with limited and semi secret "special knowledge". They believe that special knowledge makes them special and can compensate in some way for a lack of general knowledge.

That is why many Mormons are really upset when they find out that the special knowledge gained in the temple was pretty much taken lock, stock and barrel from the Masons, which rituals can be seen on national TV if one knows where to look.

bcspace wrote:Who says Mormons fear knowledge? I don't. But I do agree that some knowledge is neither useful nor pertinent.

Another words you fear any knowledge that undermines what you believe and call it neither useful nor pertinent. Unlike yourself, some members are less biased and more open minded and want the truth more then wanting to maintain a particular belief that is incorrect.

Themis wrote:

bcspace wrote:Who says Mormons fear knowledge? I don't. But I do agree that some knowledge is neither useful nor pertinent.

Another words you fear any knowledge that undermines what you believe and call it neither useful nor pertinent. Unlike yourself, some members are less biased and more open minded and want the truth more then wanting to maintain a particular belief that is incorrect.

Hmmm...BC has been a good foil of mine for a number of years. We have disagreed on many issues, but we are also good friends. I wouldn't say that BC fears knowledge that undermines the Church. I think that he simply labels it as unimportant, or, as he, himself stated, not pertinent to the gospel, itself.

This is quite different from fear.

Who says Mormons fear knowledge? I don't. But I do agree that some knowledge is neither useful nor pertinent.

Another words you fear any knowledge that undermines what you believe and call it neither useful nor pertinent.

Incorrect. I think I have proven well that I meet such head on; usually proving along the way that such remains of no value.

Unlike yourself, some members are less biased and more open minded and want the truth more then wanting to maintain a particular belief that is incorrect.

Only if you define "open-mindedness" as agreement. According to the actual definition, I am probably more open-minded than most here. The difference is that I have enough experience to correctly judge "new" ideas, most of which are not actually new, but old chestnuts and proven failed philosophies.