"Bad parts" of Mormon History...forget about it?

[_Jason Bourne]

Nice dodge Wade. I asked you if you would respect the home owner who sells you a house while concealing critical information about it cracked foundation and you ignored the question. Would you respect the person who did that to you? Why should others respect the Church that really is doing exactly the same thing? This really seems pretty clear.

Like wise many feel the Church is not open about-let's see-not all aspect of its history-but rather a dozen or so critical issues that may cast negative light on the character of it founders and its foundation.

Personally I am not mad at the Church. I am active and I participate. But I understand why some are. And I understand its dilemma. There are a number of things that frankly make it very difficult to believe its founder's claims and its claim as the one and only true and living church. Personally I have reconciled these issues in a way that works for me. But I can clearly see that the Church purposefully avoids issues because it casts doubts. It is that simple.

[_wenglund]

Unlike some, I do not view myself as in a position, or in need, to make recommendations to the Church (I am pleased to leave that to those who have been called by God to that capacity), but have chosen instead to reserve my recommendations to where they are most needed and best served--I.e. regarding ways to personally improve myself and other individuals I care about.

That having been said, I am entirely comfortable in the way in which those subjects are currently being handled by the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Spoken like a true slave.

One may well marvel about a mind that construes an orientation towards introspection/personal responsibility and an aversion to busybodyness, to be indicitive of "slavery". One may well wonder what planet such a mind may be from (figuritively speaking, of course)? Could his self-inflating screen name (wisely providing the cover of anonymity so as to avoid invariable personal embarrassment) provide a clue? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Gawd you are an idiot. You remind me of the individuals in high school who debate in class by staring at the floor and using words he/she overheard smarter students use to ridicule the opponent.

And again with the aspersions casted towards the anonymous. You are a fool wade and your life is a wasteland.

My apologies. When addressing you going forward, I will make a concerted effort to speak down to your level.

Ga ga goo goo. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I don't know if you're being intentionally difficult, or are just blinded by your convictions.

There is a third and actual option beyond the pejoritive binary ones you suggested--that being, that I view thing differently from you, and that difference is causing you difficulty (not me).

Your Lakers analogy is completely unrelated, since the church DOES admit to the wrongs they have done -- they have just chosen not to apologize.

Take the blacks. They were told that they were a cursed race, that they were less valiant in the pre-existence, and they would never enjoy the fullness of blessings in the celestial kingdom. Today they don't teach that, and we can only presume the teaching was wrong back then.

Actually, we can also reasonably presume other things, such as: members today now view the pre/post-mortal status of blacks somewhat differently than some members did way back when. This reasonable presumption does not speak to who was right or wrong, but simply to a differences in personal beliefs or opinion. In other words, there is no implied or overt declaration of wrong.

But, even were individual members, or the Church as a whole, to overtly declare the belief to be wrong, the wrongness would be one of errant belief, not errant action, and thus not in perceived need of apology. And, the wrongness would be one committed by former members, and need not be apologized for by current members, let alone the Church.

At least that is how I, and presumably the vast majority of members view it.

Accordingly, there is no admission of wrong in this regard, and no perceived cause for which the Church feels reason or need to apologize. So, at least on this score, my reading of your Laker/Jazz analogy applies.

How 'bout the gays -- until recently were told that the way they are is an abomination, that the attraction they have for the same sex is sinful. Today they just say they don't know why they are that way, but it is not a sin to have certain "feelings," just don't act on them.

Actually, sexual activities outside the bonds of marriage (which would include homosexual behavior) is still today considered sinful and an abomination. That has not changed.

Accordingly, there is no admission of wrong in this regard, and no perceived cause for which the Church feels reason or need to apologize. So, again, at least on this score, my reading of your Laker/Jazz analogy applies.

And you'd be a fool to believe the teachings about that over the years hasn't led to much emotional traumas and scores of suicides.

Not that this relates to my reading of your Laker/Jazz analogy, you would be a fool not to recognize that the trauma and suicide are dysfunctional responses to life challenges.

Then the "so called Mountain Meadows Massacre." As much as the church has attempted to look good to the public about this disaster, they have not apologized for it.

That is because neither the Church today, nor the Church back then, believes that they, as a Church, did anything wrong that would warrant an apology. And, it is not so much that they are attempting to look good to the public, as it is they rightly prefer not to be smeared by those who think differently than us.

Accordingly, there is no admission of wrong in this regard, and no perceived cause for which the Church feels reason or need to apologize. So, again, at least on this score, my reading of your Laker/Jazz analogy applies.

So no, I don't think you understand yet. Or perhaps you just don't want to admit, like many I know, that the church is less than perfect. How can an organization that professes to be the ambassador to the world for repentence and forgiveness ever be taken seriously if they refuse to practice what they preach?

As a non-member, you have presumed that the Church was wrong on several scores, and has supposedly admitted to being wrong (at least about the pre/post-mortal status of Blacks), and needs to apologize. And, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, for each and every one of the cases you mentioned, I have now demonstrated how we, as a Church, did not admit to being wrong, nor did we believe we were wrong, and more particularly, nor did we believe we have need to apologize. And, we are certainly entitled to our opinion.

The rub, however, is that, as you previously intimated, in order for the healing to occur, or for the therapeutic process to be helped, we members (the Church) need to see things YOUR way--i.e we need to acknowledge that we were wrong, and apologize. Yet, you don't see the same applying in reverse to you and other former members.

In other word, for the healing/therapy to take place, you are advocating a one-way process in which the Church has to admit to things they don't see as wrong nor for which the feel they owe an apology.

If you don't recognize that this is what you are essentially suggesting; and if you think that what you are essentially suggesting will somehow work; then it is not me who is seriously lacking in understand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade -

You are such a shining example to us all. If only we could aspire to even partly emulate you, imagine how much "healing" would take place between Mormon and exmormon.

(insert laughing, snorting smilie here)

[_wenglund]

Nice dodge Wade. I asked you if you would respect the home owner who sells you a house while concealing critical information about it cracked foundation and you ignored the question. Would you respect the person who did that to you? Why should others respect the Church that really is doing exactly the same thing? This really seems pretty clear.

It is not a dodge to wisely chose not to address an irrelevant analogy. The Church does not believe it has a cracked foundation, and thus they having nothing to conceal or disclose in that regard.

Now, if you changed the analogy a bit so that it was more applicable (as I view things), and were to ask if I could respect a homeowner who sold me a house while not bothering to inform me that the foreman who built the house used to do card tricks and had multiple wives, then I would say, yes, I could, since to me those disclosures are immaterial to the purpose, function, and verity of the house.

Now, you and others may have a different opinion, which you each are certainly entitled to. To each their own. But, it is not reasonable for you and others to expect the Church to disclose things according to your opinion and not its own. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade -

You are such a shining example to us all. If only we could aspire to even partly emulate you, imagine how much "healing" would take place between Mormon and exmormon.

(insert laughing, snorting smilie here)

...as if such "healing" were even possible with closed-minded and prejudiced people (member or former member) such as yourself.

But, I am pleased to have been instrumental in engedering within you a bit of mirth--a ray of happiness breaking through the dark clouds of your oft smug and hostile disposition. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

You just can't help yourself, can you, wade?

[_Jason Bourne]

It is not a dodge to wisely chose not to address an irrelevant analogy. The Church does not believe it has a cracked foundation, and thus they having nothing to conceal or disclose in that regard.

If the Church were comfortable disclosing information that clearly could persuade some to think the Church is not the way to Christ then I would agree with you.

Now, if you changed the analogy a bit so that it was more applicable (as I view things), and were to ask if I could respect a homeowner who sold me a house while not bothering to inform me that the foreman who built the house used to do card tricks and had multiple wives, then I would say, yes, I could, since to me those disclosures are immaterial to the purpose, function, and verity of the house.

But Joseph Smith's character and behavior is relevant to deciding if he can be trusted on the other sources. Is it really that hard to understand that?

Now, you and others may have a different opinion, which you each are certainly entitled to. To each their own. But, it is not reasonable for you and others to expect the Church to disclose things according to your opinion and not its own. Right?

It is reasonable to expect the Church to disclose any material information that bears on whether or not I can trust the testimony and claims of its founders. Is that asking too much?

[_wenglund]

You just can't help yourself, can you, wade?

I can, but at times CHOOSE not to. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It is not a dodge to wisely chose not to address an irrelevant analogy. The Church does not believe it has a cracked foundation, and thus they having nothing to conceal or disclose in that regard.

If the Church were comfortable disclosing information that clearly could persuade some to think the Church is not the way to Christ then I would agree with you.

If the Church thought the information warranted disbelief in the Church as the way to Christ, then I would agree with you.

Now, if you changed the analogy a bit so that it was more applicable (as I view things), and were to ask if I could respect a homeowner who sold me a house while not bothering to inform me that the foreman who built the house used to do card tricks and had multiple wives, then I would say, yes, I could, since to me those disclosures are immaterial to the purpose, function, and verity of the house.

But Joseph Smith's character and behavior is relevant to deciding if he can be trusted on the other sources. Is it really that hard to understand that?

No, it is not hard to understand at all.

But, people (the Church and and others) differ on which aspects of Joseph's character and behavior they view as relevant and the way and degree to which those aspects are relevant. Is it really that hard to understand?

Now, you and others may have a different opinion, which you each are certainly entitled to. To each their own. But, it is not reasonable for you and others to expect the Church to disclose things according to your opinion and not its own. Right?

It is reasonable to expect the Church to disclose any material information that bears on whether or not I can trust the testimony and claims of its founders. Is that asking too much?

Yes...it is unreasonable in the sense that, to some degree it shifts the burden for supplying information that YOU feel you need, entirely onto the shoulders of the Church--as if YOU don't bear any responsibility, and as if the Church should be at YOUR personal beck-and-call.

Then, extrapolate what you ask and extend it across the entire diverse membership of the Church as well as across the broad and diverse investigator base, and it becomes quite unreasonable.

Here is what I think is reasonable. The Church is responsible for disclosing, in good faith, whatever information it deems pertinent to fascilitating a growth in testimony of Christ and his restored gospel. Beyond that, investigators and members, to the extent they desire, and in good faith, are then responsible for learning the information they are taught, and researching further information as they may personally wish and need, so as to determine for themselves whether they have experienced a growth in testimony of Christ and his restored gospel. And, to the extent that they do grow in their testimony, they may choose to commit themselves (through covenants, etc.) to Christ and his restored gospel.

As such, if one's testimony is lost through further investigation (and contrary to the intents and beliefs of the Chruch), that is one's personal responsibility, not the Church's. And, if one subsequently experiences hurt, anger, and feelings of unfairness, then that is also one's personal responsibility, and not the Church's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-