Around us we see members of the Church who have become offended. Some take offense at incidents in the history of the Church or its leaders and suffer their whole lives, unable to get past the mistakes of others. They do not leave it alone. They fall into inactivity.
* * * * *
If you are carrying some burden, forget it, let it alone.
People convert all the time on paper, but do so in ignorance. The evidence is overwhelming. The more non-members know, the less likely they are to join. And the more members know, the more likely they are to leave. This is why the Church likes to keep people ignorant of all the evidence against it. If you even associate with known critics, you could lose your temple recommend. It is all about control.
Kevin merely outlined the premise of Boyd K. Packer's comments that "[s]ome take offense at incidents in the history of the Church". What would there be to take offense at if those incidents in the history of the Church were faith promoting, or even merely neutral? Boyd K. Packer's statement acknowledges that those historical incidences are problematic for maintaining faith, 'some take offense' at them. He counsels to 'let it alone'. Kevin merely pointed out that the more people know, the less inclined they are to join or continue in the Mormon Church.
And of course, in his zeal to disagree with Kevin (and therefore Boyd K. Packer too),
It just straight up fascinates me to see people draw such mean-spirited conclusions when there are far more realistic and sensible conclusions to draw.
So, stem must think Boyd K. Packer was just spewing advice based on mean-spirited premises at General Conference.
So stem, are you ready to label Boyd K. Packer as mean-spirited too?