Wide-spread fear

[_wenglund]

One need not spend much time on Mormon-related discussion boards such as this to realize the wide-spread fear among former members and even some waivering and unbelieving members, that:

The Church is withholding (or not disclosing) information needed to make an informed decision, thus victimizing investigators and members through soliciting life-long committments they otherwise wouldn't have made had they been fully informed.

We at least know this is perceived to be the case since not a few former members here have claimed as much about themselves.

The question is, is this fear irrational when it comes to your average believing member?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

The question is, is this fear irrational when it comes to your average believing member?

No. It's not irrational at all, since they're the ones being deceived by omission.

[_wenglund]

The question is, is this fear irrational when it comes to your average believing member?

No. It's not irrational at all, since they're the ones being deceived by omission.

Isn't deception in the eye of the behold?

Are you suggesting that rational people can't view the "omitted" information as non-deceptive?

In other words, aren't you begging the original question by presupposing deception?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

Isn't deception in the eye of the behold?

Mark Hofmann certainly thought so.

Are you suggesting that rational people can't view the "omitted" information as non-deceptive?

No, since lots of rational people viewed Hofmann's documents as non-deceptive.

In other words, aren't you begging the original question by presupposing deception?

No, since lots of people never presupposed deception from Hofmann.

[_Henry Jacobs]

It's also not fear, Wenglund. You are 0 for 2 here. Fear is a stage early in the discovery of that information you are speaking of. As in, I'm afraid to pursue this information to it's possible conclusions, because the church has always told me that could land me in Satans grasp.

But after one realizes that if the church isn't all it claim-none of those fear tactics even matter, the fear stage passes. Of course there could be some who get stuck in that stage and are afraid to move forward or backward, but not many, in my opinion.

Does that make sense? I know more than a few LDS friends that live with a secret fear that the thing is a fraud but are too afraid to entertain the idea.

[Gadianton]

Isn't deception in the eye of the behold?

Mark Hofmann certainly thought so.

Are you suggesting that rational people can't view the "omitted" information as non-deceptive?

No, since lots of rational people viewed Hofmann's documents as non-deceptive.

In other words, aren't you begging the original question by presupposing deception?

No, since lots of people never presupposed deception from Hofmann.

So, are you suggesting that since deception does occur (as in the hoffman case) then it is not only reasonable to presuppose deception in all cases where information is being omitted (even though the Hoffman case wasn't so much a matter of omitting information as it was a matter of supplying false information), but it is also irrational not to presuppose deception in all cases?

I ask because there is much information on your web site that is omitted. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

It's also not fear, Wenglund. You are 0 for 2 here. Fear is a stage early in the discovery of that information you are speaking of. As in, I'm afraid to pursue this information to it's possible conclusions, because the church has always told me that could land me in Satans grasp.

But after one realizes that if the church isn't all it claim-none of those fear tactics even matter, the fear stage passes. Of course there could be some who get stuck in that stage and are afraid to move forward or backward, but not many, in my opinion.

Does that make sense? I know more than a few LDS friends that live with a secret fear that the thing is a fraud but are too afraid to entertain the idea.

It does make sense to consider, as "fear" ,what you described about your few LDS friends. However, I am not sure I agree that what I described in my OP isn't fear. But, I don't want the thread to get bogged down in semantics. So, how about this: if you or anyone else doesn't like the word "fear", then feel free to call it something else.

Call it: abhorrence, agitation, angst, anxiety, apprehensiveness, aversion, awe, concern, consternation, creeps, despair, discomposure, dismay, disquietude, distress, doubt, dread, foreboding, fright, jitters, misgiving, nightmare, panic, phobia, presentiment, qualm, scared, suspicion, terror, timidity, trepidation, unease, uneasiness, worry, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

So, are you suggesting that since deception does occur (as in the hoffman case) then it is not only reasonable to presuppose deception in all cases where information is being omitted . . .

Yes, but only when it is pertinent information.

. . . but it is also irrational not to presuppose deception?

No.

I ask because there is much information on your web site that is omitted. ;-)

Once again, the issue is pertinent information. Joseph Smith calling married men away on missions and then marrying their wives in their absence is pertinent information when evaluating whether or not God would call such a man as a prophet. Omitting such information is deceptive.

[_Analytics]

May we do a little thought experiment? Person A and B both want to figure out whether or not the church is true.

Person A goes to the church’s official representatives, and informs them that he wants to find out if it is true, and asks what to do. They tell him to take the discussions, attend meetings, read the Book of Mormon, read a few pamphlets, pray. They “identify the spirit”. They become his friend, and get him plugged into the local ward.

Person B on the other hand has studied social psychology, and is aware that if he only goes to one source he could be manipulated. So he goes to several different sources, lists the truth claims, puts together a study plan, and makes an honest endeavor to study it deeply enough to make an informed decision.

Do you think person A and B are equally likely to decide that it is true?

I think that person A is much more likely to determine it is true than B. While there would be a few exceptions, I’m convinced that very few people would join if they made a detailed, independent study of it before they formed personal bonds with Mormons and got themselves committed.

That is the way I see it. Would you classify my viewpoint a a "fear"? As in irrational one?

[_Inconceivable]

Wade,

The church does not formally recognize what you consider your contribution (apologetics).

In my opinion, apologists have a chip missing that disables their basic functions of integrity. Some might call it situational ethics or "grey area".

This philosophy is not yet taught openly in mainstream, but is strongly discredited through the teaching of honesty, integrity, strict morallity, perfect obedience and essential repentance.

You may think you're just ahead of your time but I think you've already seperated yourself from the Mormon church.

To me, you are the wolf in sheep's clothing amidst the mainstream Mormons that don't know you or the church's history - calling evil good and good evil.