Quantcast

Comments about ‘New Harmony: Conversations help clear misinformation’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 11 2011 5:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Idaho Coug
Meridian, Idaho

This article raises a very interesting dilemma the church is facing:

There are some unflattering things about LDS history and doctrine that are simply untrue or exaggerated.

AND

There are some unflattering things about LDS history and doctrine that are absolutely true.

The author states that the best way to get the ball rolling is to answer the questions people have about the church. But the church must first figure out how to best do that.

Brushing anything troubling off as silly, already answered, anti, or unimportant is not always effective. And even if it does help someone for the moment it may make things worse later in today's internet world.

I have a personal example. A close friend was willing to accept the church's typical response to polygamy that it was years ago and silly to now even be concerned about it. She joined and was faithful for years. She later divorced and learned the church allows men to be sealed to multiple women in the case of death or divorce but she could only have one earthly sealing regardless of circumstances. She felt lied to as this seemed to her an obvious extension of plural marriage.

Dennis
Harwich, MA

Every time I read an article like this the assumption is if it isn't in the Ensign it can't be true.
Not so.
Idaho Coug hits in on the head. There are many truths that simply won't be acknowledged or talked about. It's time to face up, clear the closet and own up to a history that sometimes is difficult to acknowledge.
If the Church were to come clean about the incidents and doctrines of the past many of today's members would let is slide. When it seems like a cover up, some members take a stance that that can't be turned around.
You never have to remember a thing when you tell the truth.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"And answering questions will always be the best way to get the ball rolling for a proselytizing church."

--

As has already been pointed out, the answers to the questions aren't always pretty. However, as ugly as some honest answers may be, it is better to be honest than later be found caught in a lie (or half-truth).

IMO, the internet is a good thing and google is your friend.

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

When I was a Ward Mission Leader, I was involved in the teaching of a very intelligent Biology professor (who was dating an LDS woman). He could accept almost anything the Church taught, except Joseph F. Smith's, and most of the rest of the Church's, naive views on the "Origins of Man".

So I helped him overcome these obstacles by explaining MY perspective (sharing MY "testimony") on evolution and the gospel.

He agreed to get baptized, and he married the LDS woman he loved.

Later, he contacted me and, as we were good friends, told me that MY version of the Church's stand on evolution was not entirely correct or accurate. He felt misled by my "sales pitch" and "putting lipstick on a pig" to make the Church look better.

He was right. I am not in a position to set Church doctrine. Neither are you. Neither are the missionaries.

But we all twist and distort and make the Church look as good as possible in our zeal to gain a convert.

It is misleading. It is a problem.

As for my friend? He and his wife left the Church. He is still my friend.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments