Robert F. Smith Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 2 hours ago, rongo said: I don't think anyone is arguing for a high "level of sophistication." Just simply knowing or having heard of issues would be enough. It would be so much better than the default setting right now, where most members and missionaries have never heard of any of these. I think knowing at a very basic level about these things (not highly sophisticated) would have a huge positive influence. That doesn't require sectarian seminary training at all. I don't think that limited fix would do any good, and may give them just enough knowledge to be dangerous (to themselves and others). It shifts dependence on the Holy Spirit to the assumption that one now knows enough to answers criticisms, often leading to apostasy when it becomes apparent that limited knowledge did not provide enough nuance or depth. I can recall being nearly tabula raza when I was young, and I made some very embarrassing assumptions about the nature of reality and truth. Only many years later did I realize how silly and immature I had been.
CA Steve Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I don't think that limited fix would do any good, and may give them just enough knowledge to be dangerous (to themselves and others). It shifts dependence on the Holy Spirit to the assumption that one now knows enough to answers criticisms, often leading to apostasy when it becomes apparent that limited knowledge did not provide enough nuance or depth. I can recall being nearly tabula raza when I was young, and I made some very embarrassing assumptions about the nature of reality and truth. Only many years later did I realize how silly and immature I had been. Robert, How would you react to overhearing a conversation between two other scholars in which they were discussing a newly discovered Spaulding manuscript and in which they used the same reasoning to not bring it to your attention? That they felt it might be damaging to your testimony and would lead to your apostasy. Never mind you would strongly believe it would not, the point is they are making that decision for you. Isn't part of the maturing process being exposed to situations and ideas that challenge our own beliefs? Aren't you in essence taking away someone's ability to make a choice when you withhold information? Aren't we here to be proven in all things? On Edit. I think the other thing to consider also is that in effect by remaining silent on difficult issues the church is only limiting the exposure to dangerous information from the most trusted source. Edited March 14, 2018 by CA Steve 1
rongo Posted March 14, 2018 Author Posted March 14, 2018 2 hours ago, CA Steve said: Robert, How would you react to overhearing a conversation between two other scholars in which they were discussing a newly discovered Spaulding manuscript and in which they used the same reasoning to not bring it to your attention? That they felt it might be damaging to your testimony and would lead to your apostasy. Never mind you would strongly believe it would not, the point is they are making that decision for you. Isn't part of the maturing process being exposed to situations and ideas that challenge our own beliefs? Aren't you in essence taking away someone's ability to make a choice when you withhold information? Aren't we here to be proven in all things? On Edit. I think the other thing to consider also is that in effect by remaining silent on difficult issues the church is only limiting the exposure to dangerous information from the most trusted source. Completely agree. This approach and mindset over the decades is why we're in the situation we're in right now with people, information, concerns, and feelings of betrayal and deception. The first step in getting out of the hole is to stop digging. Then, there are good-better-best ways to climb out of the hole, but they don't matter if you keep digging.
Recommended Posts