Posted by:
ificouldhietokolob
(
)
Date: November 20, 2015 11:29AM
I think you're looking at this from an ex-mo point of view.
In my experience, the vast majority of church members -- of ANY church -- know almost nothing about the history of their church, doctrinal disputes, controversies, etc. They don't want to know. They want "church" to be a nice comfy place to go on Sunday with nice people, which gives them rules to live by.
With few exceptions, I don't know any Catholics (and I know a lot of 'em) who know much if anything about the church's history. I've mentioned the Great Schism with lots of them -- including priests -- and gotten blank stares, for example. They know some "broad strokes" about general history, but no details, and nothing of any controversies.
Mormons are the same way. Sunday School, seminary, gospel doctrine, "institute," etc. -- they don't teach you substantive facts about the church, its history, etc. They present some broad strokes, ignore controversy, and are designed to "enhance faith," not make you a religious scholar.
It's funny you mention Methodists...just the other day, I was having a discussion with a lifelong Methodist, who didn't even know where (geographically) his church originated (or why). And who insisted that Genesis and Proverbs were the "oldest books in existence." Clueless. Yet he claimed to be "well versed" in his church's doctrines and history.
Many ex-mos (including me) "studied" our way out of the cult. It was when we decided to go find out facts, instead of the pap being spoon-fed to us, that we got out. I find that to be similar with ex-Catholics, too -- they learn the most about the church's history on the way out or after leaving.
Buddhism *might* be the exception, but I'd still suggest that learning about Buddhism FROM Buddhists covers what Buddhists want you to know -- not a complete history.