mms wrote:Sam Harris wrote:mms wrote:Let's say it was not Boaz who asked the question. Let's say it was an investigator who had most of the missionary discussions and was committed for baptism and then saw the NYT column and thought, "I did not know that. If that is true, I would like to look further into this before I get baptized." Let's say that person then goes online to ask the Church through its official missionary channels whether the statement that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl is true. Let's say he got the same missionary Boaz did and the missionary gave the same answer. Let's say he trusted that answer because he has developed a relationship of trust with the church's missionaries. So he gets baptized. Ten years later, after reading all of the church-approved materials (Ensign, priesthood manuals, Gospel Principles, standard wroks all the way through, Truth Restored, Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and Wonder, etc.), he still doesn't know about Helen Kimball, but finally feels like he has time to read some "extra" stuff about church history and he learns about Helen Kimball. He remembers back to the day he asked that missionary--he thinks the church deceived him; he reads more and feels more deceived; he leaves the church because when it mattered most, the church lied to him through its official channels.
What's worse? What Boaz did or what the missionary did? Is it possible to think that Boaz did a service by educating the missionary on an issue that very well may come up again considering the NYT article and other media coverage re FLDS?
(Serious question. I am not sure. It was what came to my mind and I have not thought it through, so hoping folks here can help.)
You are taking individual missionaries and making them responsible for their leaders. You are ignoring the pressures, indoctrination, and cultural issues that they deal with, the same as many of you BIC exmos. I don't think that if it were you all on the other end of the stick years ago, you would like to be seen as maliciously intending to deceive.
The missionaries taught me wrong, too. But I don't believe they are bad people, they were obeying the establishment. The average 19-21 year-old doesn't posess that much of a capacity to use long-term thinking and I don't know that many whose logic skills are that strong that they are going to be questioning every little thing. They did what they were told and pressured to do, and they should be pitied, not attacked for that.
You seem to have skipped my point in order to find something to argue with. (And you have painted me into a corner to fit your argument) Could it possibly be a legitimate point that even if this missionary is led to some discomfort over having learned what she did from Boaz, that others who inquire legitimately to her might be better off by getting a truthful answer? That the church will not be further embarrassed by her lack of knowledge? It seems to me it could be so.
Once again, that one person is not the church. If the exmo rebels on here really truly wanted change, and were strong enough to do something about it, you'd get to writing and approach those who clearly wanted answers....instead of targeting innocent people.
Of course we keep focusing on how bad the church is, and how that person might not have been hurt, and how hurt many here were, and how justified their actions are.
This isn't about the exchange of truth or dialogue. It's about setting out to hurt another based on one's bad experiences.