Why do Mormon's fear knowledge...?

[_Quasimodo]

I don't think members fear all knowledge, I just think they have been encouraged by the Church to avoid looking into areas that might challenge their faith.

Producing a fear of knowledge? At least that particular knowledge.

I think truths that endanger one's life long beliefs can be scary to those who are honest and yet don't wish to deconstruct their entire world view.

One is placed in the position of rethinking everything or running away from facts that disprove all the things that one has based his life on. I think that is fear.

[_Fence Sitter]

[
Producing a fear of knowledge? At least that particular knowledge.

Absolutely. An easy way to demonstrate is to show a copy of "No Man Knows My History" to a member and ask if they would be interested in reading it. When that book is brought up, especially to the over 50ish members, there are often times visible reactions to it, as if somehow even being near the book is dangerous. I showed a copy of it to my 80 year old father in law recently and got just such a reaction. And no, he had not read it.
(Ironically my mother in law later on in private asked me if she could borrow it.)

[_Quasimodo]

[
Producing a fear of knowledge? At least that particular knowledge.

Absolutely. An easy way to demonstrate is to show a copy of "No Man Knows My History" to a member and ask if they would be interested in reading it. When that book is brought up, especially to the over 50ish members, there are often times visible reactions to it, as if somehow even being near the book is dangerous. I showed a copy of it to my 80 year old father in law recently and got just such a reaction. And no, he had not read it.
(Ironically my mother in law later on in private asked me if she could borrow it.)

A funny story about that book.

When I was in my teens (many years ago) and living in SLC I had friends that attended All Saints Episcopal church on the East bench. The church had a small reading library that had "No Man Knows My History" on the shelf. It kept disappearing. They had to reorder it from the publisher many times (it wasn't available anywhere in Salt Lake at that time).

Whether it was stolen and passed around or whether it was stolen and ritually burned, no one knows.

[_subgenius]

Producing a fear of knowledge? At least that particular knowledge.

you seem to be framing that knowledge is subjective....to a fault.

I think truths that endanger one's life long beliefs can be scary to those who are honest and yet don't wish to deconstruct their entire world view.

now changing the subject....which is it, truth or knowledge?
If things such as knowledge are the subjective framework of one's reality then what is one deconstructing to? Are you admitting that there is an objective reality....defined by what exactly?

One is placed in the position of rethinking everything or running away from facts that disprove all the things that one has based his life on. I think that is fear.

Or one is in a position to recognize the irrelevant nature of something being proposed.
Or are some things "self-evident" and therefore true.
I mean what are you talking about? knowledge or truth? subjective or objective?

So many would propose that some book off of amazon must surely be "true" because it makes sense to them, they agree with how the arguments are constructed, a certain "whisper" has confirmed it true to them. Therefore when they show the book to someone else, who disregards it, that someone else must be delusional...that someone else must be running away from the "truth".
...hmmm....sounds familiar don't it?

[_subgenius]

[
Producing a fear of knowledge? At least that particular knowledge.

Absolutely. An easy way to demonstrate is to show a copy of "No Man Knows My History" to a member and ask if they would be interested in reading it. When that book is brought up, especially to the over 50ish members, there are often times visible reactions to it, as if somehow even being near the book is dangerous. I showed a copy of it to my 80 year old father in law recently and got just such a reaction. And no, he had not read it.
(Ironically my mother in law later on in private asked me if she could borrow it.)

i posted this point before reading your post, but it bears repeating:

So many would propose that some book off of amazon must surely be "true" because it makes sense to them, they agree with how the arguments are constructed, a certain "whisper" has confirmed it true to them. Therefore when they show the book to someone else, who disregards it, that someone else must be delusional...that someone else must be running away from the "truth".
...hmmm....sounds familiar don't it?

[_Drifting]

Absolutely. An easy way to demonstrate is to show a copy of "No Man Knows My History" to a member and ask if they would be interested in reading it. When that book is brought up, especially to the over 50ish members, there are often times visible reactions to it, as if somehow even being near the book is dangerous. I showed a copy of it to my 80 year old father in law recently and got just such a reaction. And no, he had not read it.
(Ironically my mother in law later on in private asked me if she could borrow it.)

i posted this point before reading your post, but it bears repeating:

So many would propose that some book off of amazon must surely be "true" because it makes sense to them, they agree with how the arguments are constructed, a certain "whisper" has confirmed it true to them. Therefore when they show the book to someone else, who disregards it, that someone else must be delusional...that someone else must be running away from the "truth".
...hmmm....sounds familiar don't it?

why don't you read what he posted, rather than what you want him to have posted...

[_Fence Sitter]

[
i posted this point before reading your post, but it bears repeating:

So many would propose that some book off of amazon must surely be "true" because it makes sense to them, they agree with how the arguments are constructed, a certain "whisper" has confirmed it true to them. Therefore when they show the book to someone else, who disregards it, that someone else must be delusional...that someone else must be running away from the "truth".
...hmmm....sounds familiar don't it?

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

now changing the subject....which is it, truth or knowledge?

By the way Subgenius I don't think Brodie's book is "true". I don't think one should categorize historical works in that manner. Rather they should be evaluated on what, if anything, they contribute to their subject matter body of work. Brodie's work was the first serious attempt at a biography of Joseph Smith Jr and a must read for anyone interested in the historiography of Joseph Smith. My opinion is that it is a must read for any one serious about Joseph Smith Jr's history at all. Everyone after her like Hill, Vogel, Newel & Avery, & Bushman quote her extensively and to understand their works better it helps to be familiar with Brodie.

On the other hand for many LDS it serves as an icon of what they should avoid and an example of what the OP suggested.

[_subgenius]

...On the other hand for many LDS it serves as an icon of what they should avoid and an example of what the OP suggested.

assuming it is actually "knowledge" in the first place.
Avoiding contrary opinion is not always an example of "avoiding" knowledge. I am sure many would claim that nothing can be learned from my posts, your posts, or anyone else's post. That does make one "afraid" of knowledge. A gluttonous appetite for information is not the same as a quest for knowledge.
The church may discourage people from associating with "negative" criticisms of faith, but that is by no means a fear of knowledge - that would assume that people are naïve and easily convinced, which would ironically apply to any contrary position. The scientific method is not applicable to every aspect of human life as the means of "knowledge" or of "truth". So, to assume that one's faith must be countered by this writing or that opinion is a fallacy. Faith and religion are not distilled in some sort of intellectual test tube. Null hypothesis has a very narrow application, which is not this endeavor.
That would be the stumbling block for many who explore faith but not necessarily for those who seek faith.
The OP has merely suggested, in a disingenuous manner, that Mormons live in some retarded state of intellectual development or that they might be, by choice or decree, "not knowledgeable"; that faith somehow requires a denial of inquiry - by which all of it has no substance. To imply any other motivation for the OP is also disingenuous.

[_Fence Sitter]

...On the other hand for many LDS it serves as an icon of what they should avoid and an example of what the OP suggested.

assuming it is actually "knowledge" in the first place.

Thank you, I think you just made my point.

[_bcspace]

An easy way to demonstrate is to show a copy of "No Man Knows My History" to a member and ask if they would be interested in reading it.

I'd be happy to read it if I thought it would be worth my time. After having previously dealt with some quotes and notions from the book over time, it doesn't appeal to me as a scholarly work. However, I wouldn't even flinch if I saw it in the crook of some other TBM's arm. I highly recommend all TBM's read any antiMormon material that catches their fancy. Such is merely part of the process of the parable of the Sower. Either it will make one stronger, or it will destroy one. For me, I started out with the Godmakers movie as a teen when it first came out. I was made stronger thereby.