- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thank you for your candor. MormonThink Founder wrote:The primary audience is members of the church that simply are not aware of these issues. I think they have a right to know about them. And I really don’t care if they stay in the church or if they leave it. To me it is really the same thing as the church missionary program – when you know something is true, you want to share it – but instead of sharing the LDS gospel, we’re sharing details of the church that they don’t know about – and could very well be disturbed by it.
From my perspective, I think your target audience is too broad. Essentially anyone who is a member, isn’t aware of various uncomfortable details, but wouldn’t be driven to suicide or depression or throwing their life down the toilet in pent up carousing if they were to know.
My rather clumsy analogy would be to post graphic pictures of fatal car crashes on billboards along the highway to inform passersby of the risks they are taking with their lives by traveling at high speeds. You mentioned “Buyer Beware,” what about buyer’s remorse. After an individual makes a purchase, it is not necessarily helpful to show them where they might have gotten the product elsewhere at a cheaper price or how Consumer Reports gave it a poor rating. They already made the purchase and are committed. I think there is something in our human nature that wants to be reassured that our choices and purchases were correct and wise (even if they weren’t).
But I am reassured by the idea that visitors to your sight would essentially be self selected – or those that are already seeking answers on troubling issues. As long as you don’t have surprise pop-ups that come up after Google searches for women’s conference or church B-ball stats, it wouldn’t be accurate to suggest that you are shoving your POV down the throats of an unwitting populace.
Old-Timer wrote:“If the church wasn’t true, would you want to know?”
The very asking of that question in that way, with the site you founded, presupposes that it isn’t true.
Agreed. Maybe a more nuanced way to ask this would be, “If there was conflicting evidence and/or compelling arguments that cast doubt on the traditional Church history narrative and the resulting Church truth claims, but nothing could ever be conclusively proven one way or the other – Would you want to be exposed to this conflicting evidence and/or dissenting viewpoints?”
MormonThink Founder wrote:It really isn’t much different than a missionary trying to get a non-member to abandon their belief system, that they may be totally happy with, and join the LDS church.
Touché! I agree that it is remarkably similar and essentially trading one black and white viewpoint for another.
I do sympathize with church leaders who fear the slippery slope and death from a thousand cuts of message and brand degradation if we start down the path of “the BOM is not necessarily historically accurate” and the “Book of Abraham was not necessarily a direct translation.” I see some progress being made by the Church supporting the research and publishing of Richard Bushman and others, yet on the other hand it is still proclaimed that it is either all true or all false (very annoying). It is quite a pickle we are in. It is my belief that as time passes the Church will evolve as an organization (as it always has) – weather these evolutions represent improvements or not will depend upon your POV.
At any rate, it has been an interesting discussion. I will bow out now in deference to any others that may wish to pick your brain (and to those that think the thread is too long
Thanks for giving us some additional insight. Although we don’t agree on everything, it is nice to have a respectful dialogue as fellow wanderers on the same small planet, each trying to figure things out the best we know how.
Quote:Maybe this is just not a black and white issue… Anti-mormonism isn’t either?
Absolutely – and I really do understand how some people can see our site as anti-Mormon – even though our express intention is to help people stay LDS.
Quote:It really isn’t much different than a missionary trying to get a non-member to abandon their belief system, that they may be totally happy with, and join the LDS church.
You’re right, it isn’t – but that comparison does say pretty clearly that you are working “in opposition to” the LDS Church by trying to get LDS members to abandon belief systems that are working for them. That’s the heart of what I was saying.
Finally, MTF, I appreciate your last comment. If there is no effort to go out and find people who are not questioning and are happy – and to expose them to things that very well could be toxic to them and shatter their happiness – and if you are actively steering people to multiple sites geared toward finding reconciliation in the Church – that changes my initial reaction significantly. We still disagree about some central questions, and those differing opinions influence how we go about doing things, but I hope I haven’t sounded like I think your site should be shut down, is evil or anything like that.
Since there are no likes buttons I just wanted to say to everyone I really appreciated reading this discussion this morning. Its refreshing to read a balanced debate that offers one the opportunity to reflect on their own motives and opinions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.