Why isn't the Church more transparent about its history?
Why didn’t the church openly acknowledge historical issues, such as the use of seer stones in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon, similarities between its content and 19th-century literature, or direct borrowings from the King James Bible and other contemporary works? If secular evidence and objective facts aren't the focus, why not be transparent from the start and tell investigators and members: "What matters most is how you feel when you read it. If it feels good, that's the Holy Ghost testifying of its truth." That way, people could decide for themselves if subjective spiritual feelings outweigh objective historical concerns. This lack of transparency has led to feelings of betrayal for many former members, reinforcing stereotypes of "angry ex-Mormons." Why not simply present the full history honestly and let people make informed decisions?
Why isn't the Church more transparent about its financial practices? If tithing is truly a principle of faith rather than about money, why does it matter whether the Church's worth is $250 billion, $500 billion, or even $1 trillion? Why not openly disclose how sacred tithing funds are spent, especially given the sacrifices members make—some even paying tithing before providing for basic needs? Members trust the Church as stewards of these funds, often at great personal cost. Shouldn't the Church demonstrate the same level of trust by being transparent in return? The more I study from a thoughtful and balanced perspective, the more these nonsensical practices seem difficult to understand.
Why does the Church expect so much trust from its members but fail to demonstrate the same level of trust in return?
