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.ANDThere 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.
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.
"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.
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.