Wide-spread fear

[_Who Knows]

Are you suggesting that a reasonable persons go even further than Shades, and would want "all the facts up front" rather than just the "pertinent facts"?

Is your notion of "reasonable person" unfettered from matters of practicality and pertinences?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, all the facts. Of course, that might be overwhelming, so a summary of the pros & cons, the goods & bads, would be helpful too. Then each individual person can decide what's pertinent. A reasonable person would probably also like to know why some people believe, while others don't believe, while others once believed but have since left.

[_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-

we have laws in the US that prevents a auto salesperson from withholding pertinent information. We all know the church withholds facts, whitewashes and out and out lies about its history and doctrine. This is wrong and dishonest. Yes, we should fear an organization who has to resort to this type of behavior to make their message palatable.

The laws governing auto sales outline what informaiton is pertinent. Right?

And, those laws are drafted and codified by representatives of all the people (including auto dealers), and in a way that is as fair and impartial as possible. Right?

What governing body do you propose to decide what is pertinent and what is not? How do you propose that body should go about making that determination? And, what gives that body the right to make that determination?

Absent such a body, then who is to make the determination as to what is pertinent or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Are you suggesting that a reasonable persons go even further than Shades, and would want "all the facts up front" rather than just the "pertinent facts"?

Is your notion of "reasonable person" unfettered from matters of practicality and pertinences?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, all the facts. Of course, that might be overwhelming, so a summary of the pros & cons, the goods & bads, would be helpful too. Then each individual person can decide what's pertinent. A reasonable person would probably also like to know why some people believe, while others don't believe, while others once believed but have since left.

Could you clarify what you conceptualize what a reasonable person would included in the set of "all facts"? Would it include every known fact about anything and everything conceivable, regardless of pertinence? And, if not, what criteria (if not pertinence) do you propose the reasonable person would used to determine what facts fit within the now qualified set of "all facts"?

Could you also explain how one can be told "all the facts" in a summary? I ask because I was under the impression that summaries were given in lieu of all the facts, and depending upon the degree to which one summarizes, there is, of necessity, an omission of individual facts--i.e. the more general the summary, the greater the omission of individual facts.

Could you explain to what degree you believe a reasonable person would summarize the facts, and how the reasonable person would make that determination, if not practicality? And, could you explain what criteria you believe a reasonable person would use to decide which individual facts to omit and whish to include and how exactly to summarize the omitted facts?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Could you clarify...

Could you also explain...

Could you explain... And, could you explain..

I could, but i'm not going to. It would be a colossal waste of my time - getting into that sort of detail, with you.

Something like bushman's book (but written in a slightly less biased manner) as required reading, would probably work.

You know what I think. If you find it unreasonable, so be it.

Sincerely, -WK-

[_Inconceivable]

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.

Oh the pain...the terrible pain...

It's an institution to you, cogg. It's your daddy's and grandpappy's church.

You ought to read the Book of Mormon clear through sometime. It's not all that bad.

[_wenglund]

Could you clarify...

Could you also explain...

Could you explain... And, could you explain..

I could, but I'm not going to. It would be a colossal waste of my time - getting into that sort of detail, with you.

Something like bushman's book (but written in a slightly less biased manner) as required reading, would probably work.

You know what I think. If you find it unreasonable, so be it.

Sincerely, -WK-

I understand. I appreciate you sharing as much as you were will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_sunstoned]

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-

we have laws in the US that prevents a auto salesperson from withholding pertinent information. We all know the church withholds facts, whitewashes and out and out lies about its history and doctrine. This is wrong and dishonest. Yes, we should fear an organization who has to resort to this type of behavior to make their message palatable.

The laws governing auto sales outline what informaiton is pertinent. Right?

And, those laws are drafted and codified by representatives of all the people (including auto dealers), and in a way that is as fair and impartial as possible. Right?

What governing body do you propose to decide what is pertinent and what is not? How do you propose that body should go about making that determination? And, what gives that body the right to make that determination?

Absent such a body, then who is to make the determination as to what is pertinent or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are an intelligent person, you tell me. Shouldn't an religious organization that requires such a heavy commitment from its members be held to the same honesty standard it requires of its members?

[_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-

we have laws in the US that prevents a auto salesperson from withholding pertinent information. We all know the church withholds facts, whitewashes and out and out lies about its history and doctrine. This is wrong and dishonest. Yes, we should fear an organization who has to resort to this type of behavior to make their message palatable.

The laws governing auto sales outline what informaiton is pertinent. Right?

And, those laws are drafted and codified by representatives of all the people (including auto dealers), and in a way that is as fair and impartial as possible. Right?

What governing body do you propose to decide what is pertinent and what is not? How do you propose that body should go about making that determination? And, what gives that body the right to make that determination?

Absent such a body, then who is to make the determination as to what is pertinent or not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are an intelligent person, you tell me. Shouldn't an religious organization that requires such a heavy commitment from its members be held to the same honesty standard it requires of its members?

Yes, I believe they should be held to the same standard of honesty. I also believe the Church has, and are currently holding themselves to that standard? Why do you ask?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Coca Cola]

I don't think people are afraid the church is withholding information, but I do know TBMs fear reading anything that is negative, or not-faith promoting, about the church. Is that fear irrational? I think it is. I encourage TBMs everywhere to seek out information about the church and its history from lots of different sources, especially since the church is not trying to hide it.

From my experience, this is so true. Once I finally decided to seek information elsewhere, I couldn't believe what I learned. And I felt guilty about it too.

[_Bond...James Bond]

From my experience, this is so true. Once I finally decided to seek information elsewhere, I couldn't believe what I learned. And I felt guilty about it too.

A poster named Coca Cola? That's kick ass. Welcome. :)