I agree with Yellow. You see what looks like harm to someone because of silence, what you don't see is the harm that might come from publically speaking what they know.Marduk wrote:Yellow, it is an interesting thought, and one I've had myself. However, if that narrative has truth to it, I think there is an obligation for church leaders to reveal that the dialogue has taken place, and that that is the instruction that has been received. Genuine harm is happening because of their silence, and they ought to speak on the subject, instead of just relegating it to the church PR team.
That is, assuming they have asked. It seems more likely to me (as president Hinckley once said) that there is an assumption that this is some hostile minority, and that the leaders don't ask because "there isn't agitation for it."
If you think about it Jesus was often asked questions which he didn't answer, or side-stepped. Sometimes people were offended because he wasn't giving them direct answers. What you don't know is what would have happened if he had opened up and given them complete answers.
I'm not saying the prophet and apostles necessarily known all the answers. Sometimes they are not given answers to their questions, for a good reason of the Lord. And sometimes they are given answers but are instructed not to give them to the church.
What concerns me most is the attitude that we see things more clearly than others and therefore have a right to lecture the General Authorities on what they have an obligation to speak about and to reveal.