Lazy Countermos

[_beastie]

Most of us are familiar with the refrain that LDS who were not aware of controversial aspects of Mormon history or problems associated with its truth claims were "lazy", and have no right to complain about the church not informing them of this information. After all, it has no pertinence to salvation.

Accepting, for the moment, that these issues really have no pertinence to salvation, then why are uninformed LDS "lazy"? Perhaps they were working out their salvation, and had no ideas that a seamier underside of church history even exists.

Aren't these two claims contradictory?

A - controversial aspects of Mormonism ought not to be formally addressed by church leaders because none of it is pertinent to salvation

B - Mormons who don't know about these same controversial issues are lazy

Can both A and B be true?

[_barrelomonkeys]

There's a thread right now on MADD, that consig started, that discusses youth fireside chats. I'd post a link but I'm too lazy to look it up. There was supposed to be frank discussion concerning a few of the more controversial topics. This apparently was nixed? Too bad!

Seems that there is acknowledgement, by at least a few LDS, that there are subjects that need to be discussed and awareness that some LDS are not fully apprised of all of the details.

[_The Nehor]

Most of us are familiar with the refrain that LDS who were not aware of controversial aspects of Mormon history or problems associated with its truth claims were "lazy", and have no right to complain about the church not informing them of this information. After all, it has no pertinence to salvation.

Accepting, for the moment, that these issues really have no pertinence to salvation, then why are uninformed LDS "lazy"? Perhaps they were working out their salvation, and had no ideas that a seamier underside of church history even exists.

Aren't these two claims contradictory?

A - controversial aspects of Mormonism ought not to be formally addressed by church leaders because none of it is pertinent to salvation

B - Mormons who don't know about these same controversial issues are lazy

Can both A and B be true?

I think it's a little more complex than that.

I do find it baffling that someone can put their trust in God for salvation and then spend little to no time learning the doctrine of the Gospel they espouse and does not actively dig through it's history for examples, weaknesses they may share, and warnings to them. I sometimes question whether such faith (if it is not growing) is even worth saving. From everything I've read it certainly won't get you exaltation.

At the same time I think the greatest problem with A above is knowing what to teach. I have never been to a meeting that was part of a 3 hour block that discussed the Priesthood Ban. How do you address it? We don't know what caused it. You'd get some Leaders teaching McConkie doctrine, others teaching it was an uninspired policy choice, some teaching that the Curse was diluted, others that we just don't know. Hard to teach a doctrine when you have so very few answers. It takes a good Teacher to teach, "We don't know" well without loading it with personal bias.

[_beastie]

The problem, Nehor, is that many people - including me, who converted at the age of 19 without access to any materials outside what the church provided (this was long, long before the internet and amazon) - didn't even realize there was something we should be "looking" for in the first place. How was I to know that the church wasn't filling in details that I would view as crucial? I'm not psychic.

I did what the church leaders told us to do - I attended all my meetings, read my scriptures, prayed, and, in addition, read lots of books written by General Authorities. Just like my parents still do to this day, and many other members I know.

None of that is going to give you a clue that there's "other stuff" out there.

So how can you hold people accountable for not knowing what they don't even know is out there to know?

And if it's not pertinent to salvation, why in the world hold them accountable for not seeking it out in the first place?

[_karl61]

Most of us are familiar with the refrain that LDS who were not aware of controversial aspects of Mormon history or problems associated with its truth claims were "lazy", and have no right to complain about the church not informing them of this information. After all, it has no pertinence to salvation.

Accepting, for the moment, that these issues really have no pertinence to salvation, then why are uninformed LDS "lazy"? Perhaps they were working out their salvation, and had no ideas that a seamier underside of church history even exists.

Aren't these two claims contradictory?

A - controversial aspects of Mormonism ought not to be formally addressed by church leaders because none of it is pertinent to salvation

B - Mormons who don't know about these same controversial issues are lazy

Can both A and B be true?

I think it's a little more complex than that.

I do find it baffling that someone can put their trust in God for salvation and then spend little to no time learning the doctrine of the Gospel they espouse and does not actively dig through it's history for examples, weaknesses they may share, and warnings to them. I sometimes question whether such faith (if it is not growing) is even worth saving. From everything I've read it certainly won't get you exaltation.

.

Nehor: do you think the controverisal issues are the Gospel of Christ?

[_The Nehor]

Most of us are familiar with the refrain that LDS who were not aware of controversial aspects of Mormon history or problems associated with its truth claims were "lazy", and have no right to complain about the church not informing them of this information. After all, it has no pertinence to salvation.

Accepting, for the moment, that these issues really have no pertinence to salvation, then why are uninformed LDS "lazy"? Perhaps they were working out their salvation, and had no ideas that a seamier underside of church history even exists.

Aren't these two claims contradictory?

A - controversial aspects of Mormonism ought not to be formally addressed by church leaders because none of it is pertinent to salvation

B - Mormons who don't know about these same controversial issues are lazy

Can both A and B be true?

I think it's a little more complex than that.

I do find it baffling that someone can put their trust in God for salvation and then spend little to no time learning the doctrine of the Gospel they espouse and does not actively dig through it's history for examples, weaknesses they may share, and warnings to them. I sometimes question whether such faith (if it is not growing) is even worth saving. From everything I've read it certainly won't get you exaltation.

.

Nehor: do you think the controverisal issues are the Gospel of Christ?

I don't know. Some probably are, some probably aren't. I think we have more controversy in our history than in our doctrine though.