Thomas F. Rogers

To those who in their turn selectively handle Mormon history and discourage our probing it in a number of areas, one needs to say (or at least to ask): Haven__ we been, if anything, overly cautious, overly mistrustful, overly condescending to a membership and a public who are far more perceptive and discerning than we often give them credit for? Haven__ we, in our care not to offend a soul or cause anyone the least misunderstanding, too much deprived such individuals of needful occasions for personal growth and more in-depth life-probing experience? In our neurotic cautiousness, our fear of venturing, haven__ we often settled for an all-too-shallow and confining common denominator that insults the very Intelligence we presume to glorify and is also dishonest because, deep down, we all know better (to the extent that we do)? Isn__ our intervention often too arbitrary, reflecting the hasty, uninformed reaction of only one or a couple of influential objectors? Don__ we in the process too severely and needlessly test the loyalty and respect of and lose credibility with many more than we imagine? Isn__ there a tendency among us, bred by the fear of displeasing, to avoid healthy self-disclosure__ublic or private__nd to pretend about ourselves to ourselves and others? Doesn__ this in turn breed loneliness and make us, more than it should, strangers to each other? And when we are too calculating, too self-conscious, too mistrustful, too prescriptive, and too regimental about our roots and about one another__ aesthetic, intellectual, and spiritual life, aren__ we self-defeating?