I'm the president of the secular student group at my university. We have a weekly coffee hour, and I've invited some Mormon missionaries to join us next week.
I like my kids to be well-informed going into anything, so I usually send out information about whatever religious topic we're planning on discussing. I pull up a few short articles and videos they can check out so they have more than their preconceptions.
There are a lot of misconceptions about Mormonism, and a lot of spurious claims. I don't quite have the knowledge myself to search and determine what is false and what is not. But I also know there must be real, strong criticisms of the LDS Church out there. Since I've invited these guys on friendly auspices, I'd rather not have them get something like, "So, so, why do y'all wear chastity boxers?"
I know Hatrack's got a lot of Mormons and a lot of critics of Mormonism. I'd like to know if y'all know of any strong videos or essays attacking real problems of Mormonism--the doctrine and the church--and strong ones in support.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Yes, I realize the problem inviting Mormons to coffee hour.
But the coffee shop serves beer too.
Um . . . and tea?
Oh, hot chocolate and Italian soda! Score.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not sure that this thread can end well. Much what you are asking for is likely to be interpreted as attacks on the church and I'm pretty sure that is not permitted on Hatrack.
Additionally, some of the more challenging issues that you might present to the missionaries are, IMO, somewhat academic in nature. These are not issue they are likely to be equipped to answer on the spot.
I think your best opportunity for an interesting discussion would be to talk about epistemological issues.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The missionaries will probably not give you a defense of Mormonism from a standpoint of business or politics. You may be disappointed at their reticence to answer questions on those lines, and most likely at their innocence of opinion on many “secular” issues. They may have personal opinions, but they won’t come prepared with numbers and scientific studies, etc. The missionaries are charged with teaching the central doctrines of the church, and that is primarily what they do all day. It would be most appropriate to center discussion on church doctrine. Of course, I will recommend http://www.lds.org as a source with plenty of materials that explain church doctrine and stances on issues. As well as the Book of Mormon, which the missionaries will likely use directly. Don’t worry about inviting the missionaries to coffee hour. Just don’t be boorish and offer them coffee. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's the purpose of this "secular group?" Is the goal of this invitation to better understand Mormonism, or to find its flaws and shoot it down?
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
It sounds to me like your wasting the missionaries time.
You have absolutely no interest in joining the church. Sure they are there to inform others about the gospel, but your looking for a "fun" fight.
I don't approve at all.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I personally think it's fine to invite the missionaries to such a discussion. Don't worry about wasting their time (unless you keep them there for 5 hours trying to talk about football or something). I am sure they will be happy for the opportunity to talk to your group.
However, you will probably be wasting your own time if all you want to do is shoot them down. Give them the time of day, make sure the questions and discussions are respectful, and it will be a good experience.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am sorry, but if you want a serious discusson of Mormonism (especially in an academic setting) Mormon missionaries are the LAST people you should invite. Their mission is to preach the Gospel, not talk about isoteric or in-depth subjects. They are preachers of the most amature of skills.
This isn't goint to go good for them. It isn't going to go good for you. Yes, I do think the LDS Church should rethink its missionary program. Because of the vast changes in communication and information exchange, the world is far more sophisticated than it used to be and that doesn't mean more knowledgable.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
We are the Athens Freethinkers. Our purpose is religious discussion and dialogue. I'd like to bring in speakers that have points of view we don't hear a lot of--it's an educational thing--but this is NOT to be a simple teaching session. I've discussed this with the missionaries beforehand. They understand our members are very critical and analytical, and many come from faith-based backgrounds: it won't be an easy talk at all.
We have a lot of different religious opinions--from devout Christian fundamentalists to militant atheists, from Pagans to our very own Muslim--in our group, and the point of this is discussion. No matter what, my kids will be critical about any claims presented. I'd just rather they be informed rather than go after silly things or the more slanderous misrepresentations of Mormonism we've all seen.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Again, I disagree, Occasional. The missionaries have a very definite purpose. Their training isn't flawed. Their preparation has nothing to do with debating and bible-bashing, and it shouldn't.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Adding my voice to the chorus:
I'm not sure I know of any resources that match your request. At any rate, it'd probably violate forum rules to post or link to anti-LDS arguments here.
As a formerly active member who has parted ways with the church, though, let me suggest that asking missionaries to comment on strong critiques of the church is probably a waste of time. They aren't supposed to be apologists. I think they will be happy to give you basic answers and supplement that by testifying about their faith, but I don't think they will want to or be able to give you much of a response to strong critiques of the church. Not their job, and if that's the focus of the conversation it will probably end early.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would suggest for your purposes Joldo to find members of the LDS Church that are themselves University educated. Depending on where you live it might be possible to look up a University LDS Seminary for a teacher. Mormon seminaries, by the way, are for religious education and yet not for preperation for more than a generic form of ministry. You might even ask the missionaries for help in finding someone better for your purposes.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Interesting.
What, exactly, is the point of sending out "missionaries" that are incapable of actually representing the faith and the church in a modern society that will demand more complex answers and reasons than can be gained by five minutes' googling? What is the point of missionaries who, as I understand, have had years of theological training if they can't defend and argue their faith?
I'm surprised. The Mormons I knew in high school all had a lot of knowledge and reasoning; I got some of the most intriguing meditations on faith that I have ever heard from them. If these missionaries do the same Sunday school and morning Bible classes my friends did, why can't they bring the same level of ability to the table?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Many missionaries are able to defend and argue their faith.
Effective missionaries generally don't do it, though. They're not there to defend, and they're not there to argue. They're there to teach those that are interested. For the most part.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
To a missionary, there's a big difference between arguing on complex peripheral issues and teaching about Christ and his gospel. Regardless of their knowledge and background in the church, missionaries are trained and encouraged to center on teaching about and bearing witness of Christ and the central doctrines of the church. They are certainly capable of fielding questions across a wide range, but they will probably try to bring their answers back to what they teach as often as possible.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Joldo, within the LDS church very little time is spent on answering the critics of the church. Members are encouraged (well, at least this is the way it happened when I was paying attention) to avoid spending time looking into those critiques. Instead, they are encouraged to read and study the scriptures and words of the church leaders and pray a lot. A lot of positive affirmation.
If you ask them what they believe, why they believe it, etc. you might get some interesting answers. It's even possible that some missionaries will be prepared for harder questions, or to answer critics, but it's still not what they are trained to do on their mission. They try to get potential converts to understand some basic doctrine, and then to pray about it - the conversion is supposed to be spiritual, not intellectual, and it's up to the convert to get an answer from God.
Perhaps some of us are expecting your group to be more challenging and hostile than it really will be - if your experiences with LDS teenagers in the past suggest that the discussion will go well, then that's a good sign that the missionaries won't be out of their depth. My own experience is that most 19 and 20 year old LDS kids I know aren't very sophisticated, but can be impressively earnest and enthusiastic about what they believe.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Aren't there any Mormon critics of the Church? I mean, when I was still devoutly Christian, there were doctrinal, biblical, and political points on which I really disagreed with my church and my church's actions. There must be some dissent.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Aren't there any Mormon critics of the Church?
Sorta kinda. People that become too vocal, or who are critical of the wrong things, get excommunicated so it's not really possible to become a prominant critic of the church while still being a member of the church.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
. . .
You know, maybe this is just my outside perspective that's skewing things, but this is starting to sound kinda creepy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
To us within the church, either the church is true or it is not. So if something is doctrinal/official, there's not much room for disagreement (or if you disagree on a point or two, you have to figure out how to reconcile that with your belief.) On the other hand, there are many things that the church says, "We don't know" to, and members are free to form their opinion of those things. I think if you're really interested in that kind of discussion, you might do better with an Institute teacher (most colleges have at least a small Institute of Religion formed near them, even community colleges, to serve the LDS students who attend schools other than church schools.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:You know, maybe this is just my outside perspective that's skewing things, but this is starting to sound kinda creepy.
Creepy how? A central tenet of the faith is that the church has continual divine guidance, so significant dissent on key doctrinal/historical issues is a rejection of the entire faith, in a way.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: To us within the church, either the church is true or it is not.
"The church is true" has always struck me as a particularly odd bit of Mormon jargon. I assume it's shorthand for something like "the doctrines of the church are true and the leaders are inspired," otherwise it really makes no sense at all.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That's pretty much what it means, dkw.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It could also be a bit more literal, considering the following definitions of "true" (found on dictionary.com, emphasis mine):
4. firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful; steadfast: a true friend. ... 6. conforming to or consistent with a standard, pattern, or the like: a true copy.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: Aren't there any Mormon critics of the Church? I mean, when I was still devoutly Christian, there were doctrinal, biblical, and political points on which I really disagreed with my church and my church's actions. There must be some dissent.
Why does there need to be open dissent within the Church? What would that accomplish? Would it make the Church healthier? Why would the dissenters choose to remain in the fellowship of the Church? Many don't, and leave. Did you leave your church after you really started to disagree with them? Some really go out of their way to voice their dissent and influence other members to their dissenting point of view, and the Church has to take disciplinary action. In general, however, differences of opinions are handled on a personal level. Members are encouraged to study it out in their minds and their hearts. Nobody is asked to march in lockstep. But it is a church with clear doctrine and beliefs and a clear purpose.
EDIT: To a member of the Church, "The Church is true" is shorthand for a fairly definitive acknowledgement about whose church it is and what authority it contains. I don't know if that was the right way to put it, but a more direct statement might be seen as proselyting.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear:
It sounds to me like your wasting the missionaries time. You have absolutely no interest in joining the church.
Missionaries only spend time wisely with people who are interested in joining the church?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why does there need to be open dissent within the Church?
In many churches the leadership is not assumed to have preferencial or broader access to spiritual knowledge than individual membership. The LDS concept of a hierarchy of stewardship which constrains revelation based on one's authorative position relative to others may be an unfamiliar one.
[ November 11, 2008, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Mormonism has always seemed to me more a practical religion, without all the arguing and semantics that seem to amuse the larger sects of the Big Three.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: It sounds to me like your wasting the missionaries time.
You have absolutely no interest in joining the church. Sure they are there to inform others about the gospel, but your looking for a "fun" fight.
I don't approve at all.
Hmm. We made it clear from the beginning with our missionary friends that we were not interested in converting, just curious about doctrine and so forth. They were still willing to come see us quite often.
Perhaps it was because our hospitality often included food? (And caffeine free soda.)
Wow. You know what would really suck? Disagreeing with a church doctrine to the point of being excommunicated, over, say, polygamy, then having the church's official position change. I mean, "Oh, snap!" doesn't begin to cover it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Why does there need to be open dissent within the Church?
In many churches the leadership is not assumed to have preferencial or broader access to spiritual knowledge than individual membership. The LDS concepts of a hierarchy of stewardship which contrains revelation based on one's authorative position relative to others may be an unfamiliar one.
I understand that there are other churches that handle things differently. Others I am sure handle things quite similarly to the LDS Church. It is, IMO, a very fair and considerate way for an organization with a clear mission and strong mutual support to handle dissent when it threatens to unduly affect the faith and progress of other members.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Why does there need to be open dissent within the Church? What would that accomplish? Would it make the Church healthier?
Because dissent and criticism is the only way for us mortal humans to identitfy mistakes in our thinking.
Now, if the LDS church wants to claim that it is infallible and therefore, they don't have any mistakes to work out, they can of course claim that.
But perhaps some wise members of the church will realize that members felt much the same way on June 5th, 1978, and some will figure that maybe there's a lesson to be learned there.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Interesting. I feel like I'm missing a lot here.
Anyone at least know good sources on Mormon epistemology or philosophy of knowledge? I mean, both officially and actually.
I know officially in Hasidic Jewish communities, the Torah is the ultimate source, but unofficially the only universal tenet of faith is disagreement and debate--at least, so my Hasidic friends claim. I'm also wondering now about the reconciliation process: if you believe the Church is absolutely true, but some of the Church's positions conflict with your own, how do most people reconcile those?
I've now lost two hours of homework time searching anthropological databases for Mormon epistemology without any luck . . . there just seems to be a lack of neutral or ethnological information on Mormonism in actuality rather than Mormonism in theory.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Joldo, this current conversation sounds a good one to have with the missionaries.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:if you believe the Church is absolutely true, but some of the Church's positions conflict with your own, how do most people reconcile those?
The same ways we rationalize any number of conflicting ideas - it's different for everyone. The response ranges from assuming that one's personal position is based on limited, mortal knowledge and praying for faith to accept the Church's position to concluding that the leadership is uninspired and leaving the church.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Consider things from the missionaries point of view. Why do you become a missionary? Because you feel a calling, because you've got a fire in your belly to spread your faith, because you're young and want to get out in the world and tell people stuff that you find important. I'm sure there are other reasons.
These are kids though, not Biblical scholars or philosophy professors. I'm sure they have lots of faith and know some scripture, but I doubt they're going to give you the kind of debate you're interested in.
At least, the Mormon Missionaries I've spoken with, who have arrived at my door, have never had very deep responses to my atheist doubts and questions. They're great at repeating to you what they've memorized, and letting you know how awesome faith is, but if you're looking for more than that, you may be disappointed.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
As stated LDS missionaries are sent out with the purpose to teach the basic parts of the gospel and encourage people to prey and get from god directly weather or not the thing taught are true. They are trained to teach people to develop a personal relationship with God, not to teach the deep doctrine.
Truth is some missionaries may not know the deep doctrine very well seeing that some missionaries are converts with only a year or two as members themselves (the vast majority do have far more then this). There is a joke common in the LDS church that goes somthing like, "The church must be true or the missionaries would've ruined it a long time ago."
Personally I wouldn't pass them up as they can teach why Mormons often have strong faith in spite of sometimes strong opposition, if you also want a discussion on the deeper doctrines then I'd advise a Institute Teacher as has been recommended. They spend all day teaching collage level classes on doctrine of the church, most of which are transferable to any of the BYU universities for credit. As Said LDS institutes of Religion can be found near most universities and community collages.
Most members are members because at some point they asked god and at some point and in some form they think god answered. Most members who don't belive in the core teachings of the church tend to leave the church of their own free will. The few that remain in the church mostly stay for the cultral benifits (these people are mostly found in Utah where cultral benifits do exist). When members Critique the core doctrines (core being the key word here) they are breaking promises they made when they joined the church, by excommunicating them they are freed from this promise. Excommunicated people are still fully encouraged to attend church (unless they are being openly hostile) and often the fact that they are excommunicated may not be known to the common members.
Most of the good critiques of the church have been mentioned many times on this forum and the ones that are based in complete misunderstanding are cleared up pretty quick.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Why do you become a missionary? Because you feel a calling, because you've got a fire in your belly to spread your faith, because you're young and want to get out in the world and tell people stuff that you find important. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Actually, in the LDS faith, the primary reason is social pressure.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Why do you become a missionary? Because you feel a calling, because you've got a fire in your belly to spread your faith, because you're young and want to get out in the world and tell people stuff that you find important. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Actually, in the LDS faith, the primary reason is social pressure.
I did serve a mission partly because it was expected of me. It was certainly not pressed upon me, especially not in northern MN where Mormons are few and far between. None of my friends were Mormons, and most were skeptical of my desire to serve a mission. And any social pressure that got me there sure wouldn't have kept me there long if that was all I had behind me. It took a much stronger witness of the truth and goodness of what I was sent to teach, plus faith built up along the way in many hard-won experiences.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I believe you, advice for robots, and think your experience is probably comparable to most young LDS men who serve. However, I think most of them would stay home if the social pressure was at the same level as for LDS young women to go on missions (as most of the young women do). Another group we can look at is the retired couples who have the means: how many sign up?
My point is that if the church relied on those with a fire in their belly, they'd have a much smaller workforce.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I did serve a mission partly because it was expected of me. It was certainly not pressed upon me, especially not in northern MN where Mormons are few and far between. None of my friends were Mormons, and most were skeptical of my desire to serve a mission. And any social pressure that got me there sure wouldn't have kept me there long if that was all I had behind me. It took a much stronger witness of the truth and goodness of what I was sent to teach, plus faith built up along the way in many hard-won experiences.
Your experience is fairly unique, from my experience. But I live in Utah, where going on a mission is treated a rite of passage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Why does there need to be open dissent within the Church? What would that accomplish? Would it make the Church healthier?
Because dissent and criticism is the only way for us mortal humans to identitfy mistakes in our thinking.
QFT
I am constantly grateful for Catholic dissent.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
A lot of people disagree on what America "is", let alone what it should be, and still consider their view the "true" America. I think this internal conceptual dissension is pretty usual. Religions are not exempt from this
According to the Criticism of the Latter Day Saints movement article, there are plenty of critics, but all of them are outside the church.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:I believe you, advice for robots, and think your experience is probably comparable to most young LDS men who serve. However, I think most of them would stay home if the social pressure was at the same level as for LDS young women to go on missions (as most of the young women do). Another group we can look at is the retired couples who have the means: how many sign up?
My point is that if the church relied on those with a fire in their belly, they'd have a much smaller workforce.
The Church leadership was pretty much calling for that when they "raised the bar" on missionary eligibility. And indeed, the numbers of missionaries went down.
quote:Your experience is fairly unique, from my experience. But I live in Utah, where going on a mission is almost a right of passage.
I did not grow up in Utah but did move there directly after my mission and lived there for 11 years. There is indeed social pressure to serve a mission. But like I said, if there wasn't that "fire in the belly" as well, or if the missionary were not prepared in some way, they would not stay on the mission very long.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Why do you become a missionary? Because you feel a calling, because you've got a fire in your belly to spread your faith, because you're young and want to get out in the world and tell people stuff that you find important. I'm sure there are other reasons.
Actually, in the LDS faith, the primary reason is social pressure.
I have known many young men and women for whom that was by no means a primary reason. I'm sure there are a few, and it is a contributing factor for many if not most (but not all), but I have not known personally anyone whose PRIMARY reason to go on a mission was social pressure. Admittedly I have never hung around one of the Church schools, so I'm lacking experience in what social pressure is like there, but I HAVE known many LDS young people who went on missions who were at the time working or attending non-Church schools.
As for debate within the church, we have it-- go sit in on a Sunday School class in many wards or an Institute class, as I mentioned. We just don't debate doctrine or official policies in those venues (though you may find them informally discussed elsewhere.) But like I said, whatever is NOT doctrine is up for individual interpretation, and Mormon folk doctrine notwithstanding that is actually a lot. As for doctrinal points, some of them I personally do have trouble with now and again. But as someone said above, my response to that is to try to remember that I believe God is both merciful and just and that He knows better than I how things should work, that my understanding is limited.
As for excommunication, very few things warrant it. In Olivet's hypothetical I would say that the person would have been rightly excommunicated. In practicing polygamy when they know that the Church teaches that we must not practice polygamy, they are publicly and willfully committing an offense against the Church, and one that is likely to harm it IMO. So they need to be excommunicated for the sake of the other members. If the Prophet then has further revelation that polygamy is what is now required again, then they were still rightly excommunicated, because at the time they were doing things against the teachings of the church and, as I said, egregiously so. The basic doctrine of our church, the one that everything else is based on, is that we are led by leaders with access to continuing modern revelation. That means that our practices may change from time to time, but we must follow as they change, not cling to older practices.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Okay, one:
If I could find an institute teacher, do you think s/he would be likely to come to one of our meetings?
And two:
Would it be acceptable to ask them if they know of any sources on Mormon epistemology or philosophy?--that's suddenly sounding very interesting, and being the budding anthropologist I am I'd like to do some reading.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think if it was scheduled at a time when they could attend, an Institute teacher might be very interested and willing to come talk to your group (or willing to refer you to someone else who would, if he couldn't.) I know our local Institute teachers would, and have, talked to similar groups.
I think that's an acceptable question, though they might not know of such sources.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints* is a vibrant religious tradition with a diverse membership that has widely differing needs. For many Latter-day Saints, one of these needs is free and frank exploration of gospel truths as they relate to the complexities of today’s society. Some crave stimulating discussions of contemporary scholarship, literature, and social issues. Others find great comfort being able to read, hear, and share personal faith journeys, including all their twists and turns and occasional uncertainties. Through its many forums, Sunstone serves these Latter-day Saints and many others for whom life and faith is a wonderful but unique adventure. Sunstone brings together traditional and non-traditional Latter-day Saints, promoting an atmosphere that values both faith and intellectual and experiential integrity. * Sunstone is an independent organization, and does not have any official ties to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Might a place to look for some scholarly writing with an LDS focus.
Bear in mind it's not an orthodox representation of Mormon thought. It's more liberal.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: A lot of people disagree on what America "is", let alone what it should be, and still consider their view the "true" America. I think this internal conceptual dissension is pretty usual. Religions are not exempt from this
According to the Criticism of the Latter Day Saints movement article, there are plenty of critics, but all of them are outside the church.
Having differences and discussion is one thing. Decisions in the Church are frequently made through discussion until all viewpoints have been considered and a unanimous decision can be made. Open dissent, not just dissent brought privately to church leaders, but brought out in the open with the intent of leading others away from Church doctrines and guidance—and continued despite requests to cease—only brings contention with it, and does nothing positive for either the Church or its members. That is when disciplinary action is taken, so harmony and peace can be preserved.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I have known many young men and women for whom that was by no means a primary reason. I'm sure there are a few, and it is a contributing factor for many if not most (but not all), but I have not known personally anyone whose PRIMARY reason to go on a mission was social pressure.
I admit I'm not going by what people SAY about why they go on a mission. Remember, starting in Primary, they are teaching the kids to sing "I HOPE they call me on a mission." It's clearly expected not only to GO, but to WANT to go.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, but then there are the folks (several of whom I have known) who are converted as adults and whose families are not supportive of them going on a mission, and whose church leaders tell them they are not obligated to go because it would cause dissent in their family, but if they wish to, they have the support of their ward. (Or, who are women, and therefore don't have as much social pressure to go anyway.) I've known several people in that situation choose to serve a mission despite family pressure in the opposite direction.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
kq: Fair enough. I don't have any experience outside Mormon families and Mormon-dominated population, so I can't argue with that. I'll amend my claim to be that social pressure (I'm including family pressure in social pressure, btw) is significant enough in predominantly LDS communities to seem to be the primary reason people in those communities choose to go on missions. In other words, I think it precludes making a decision based on desire to teach or other factors because it is such a strong expectation. (I'm only talking about people who are active in the church, btw. There's no social pressure for the atheist neighbors of LDS wards to report to the MTC. )
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:I have known many young men and women for whom that was by no means a primary reason. I'm sure there are a few, and it is a contributing factor for many if not most (but not all), but I have not known personally anyone whose PRIMARY reason to go on a mission was social pressure.
I admit I'm not going by what people SAY about why they go on a mission. Remember, starting in Primary, they are teaching the kids to sing "I HOPE they call me on a mission." It's clearly expected not only to GO, but to WANT to go.
For the young men, it is expected. It is expected that they will begin preparing themselves when they are young, and live lives worthy of being called on a mission. Personally, I think it's a great thing for a boy to know he's expected to be good and make wise decisions, especially during the craziness of his teenage years. I know it was a big help to me, having a goal. It kept me out of a heap of trouble.
In that song, there is also the conditional of being called on a mission. Missionaries do not call themselves. They can't go just because they're expected to. They must essentially present themselves and the lives they've led so far and hope to be called.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
This Mormon Apologetics Board may be something you would be interested in taking a look at. It is a forum with serious theological and epistomological (sp) discussions. This site is not sponsored by the church.
The Maxwell Institute may also have things that would be interesting to you. It is research done on a variety of topics (Ancient Church, Ancient Near East, Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C [Doctrine and Covenants], Mesoamerica, Modern Church, and Pearl of Great Price). Part of its mission statement is to "describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship." This site is sponsored by the church in that it is housed at Brigham Young University. In its original incarnation as FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) it was not sponsored by BYU.
quote: In the 1990s, FARMS enjoyed rapid growth, fueled by donations that considerably increased its yearly operating budget. During the mid-1990s, the BYU administration became interested in the prospect of incorporating FARMS into the university. As FARMS took on important projects that depended more and more on BYU resources, the relationship between the two became increasingly complex. Something needed to be done to clarify their mutual relationship. On 10 September 1997, President Hinckley proposed that FARMS be invited into the university.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The Early 1800s were a time of national self-reflection in the United States, particularly in the east. One of the most dramatic movements was toward religious regeneration, sparking what has become known as “The Burned Over District” because of the heated revivals. Preachers had decided that the nation as a whole had become corrupt and forgotten God, as indicated by the small church attendance. To counter this perceived problem, preachers hit the roads and argued for religious revival. At first it seemed to be the perfect solution to a less than spiritual nation. People were hearing the words of God and joining congregations. This new sense of spiritual urgency created problems. All the major Christian denominations were fighting for dominance and members. Soon it was as much heated debate as spiritual refocus. People had a lot to choose from and those choices often split communities, and even families, into factions. Not everyone agreed with the main thrust of the spiritual messages. There were Deists who believed in the divine without organized religion and those who didn’t know what to believe. A few were known as “Seekers” who believed there should be a Christian organization, but didn’t recognize any sect as having the answers. It was, in the words of Joseph Smith “a war of words and tumult of opinions,” not easy to ignore. Joseph Smith was among the Seekers in his religious explorations. He wanted to find the right denomination to join, but found all of them lacking. Worse still, the fighting going on between contending parties was happening in his family. His mother Lucy wanted to join the Presbyterians and his father Joseph Sr. wanted to remain unaffiliated Christian. Joseph Smith briefly considered becoming a Methodist. It was under these conditions that what became known as “Mormonism” was about to develop.
Mormons often praise the Catholic Church’s recognition of the need for priesthood authorized servants. They equally respect the Protestant reformers’ audacity to bring the Word to the people at great risk against the dominant Church. Mormonism often treads on the line between personal faith and authoritative administration. They don’t reject the reformers work as unimportant. At times Martin Luther, John Wesley, John Calvin, and even Thomas Jefferson have been praised for changes they sought. It just wasn’t considered enough to make a theological improvement necessary for a full return to the glory of the New Testament days. What was missing? Certainly not the idea of returning to the basic teachings of the New Testament. Many others were trying to do that around the same time that Joseph Smith was preaching and teaching. One of Joseph Smith’s harshest critics was Alexander Campbell, who tried understanding the basics of the Bible and create a church around what he thought was discovered in its pages. He wasn’t the only one. Finding the fundamentals in Biblical, and mostly New Testament, readings was common practice. That search for purity of practice and Biblical interpretation continues today. For Joseph Smith, and Mormonism in general, it was angels, miracles, and the Kindgom of God that needed to be restored. It was not enough to form a church around Bible study alone. The very powers of Heaven were to be called down and utilized as given by God to another people. As Joseph Smith explained in a later teaching:
“. . .God of heaven has begun to restore the ancient order of His kingdom unto His servants and His people, a day in which all things are concurring to bring about the completion of the fullness of the Gospel, a fullness of the dispensation of dispensations, even the fullness of times; a day in which God has begun to make manifest and set in order in His Church those things which have been, and those things which the ancient prophets and wise men desired to see but died without beholding them; a day in which those things begin to be made manifest, which have been hid from before the foundation of the world, and which Jehovah has promised should be made known in His own due time unto His servants, to prepare the earth for the return of His glory, even a celestial glory, and a kingdom of Priests and kings to God and the Lamb, forever, on Mount Zion.” (History of the Church, 4:492–93).
Teaching others the gospel is only part of the work that must be done to prepare for the Kingdom of God. Latter-day Saint President Spencer W. Kimball said there were three mission objectives for the church. These three consist of “proclaiming the gospel,” “perfect the Saints,” and “redeem the dead.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “A Report of My Stewardship,” Ensign, May 1981, 5). All of these generalized mission statements are supposed to help unify the membership as a spiritual community.
It isn’t through close scrutiny of the Scriptural text that Restoration is claimed to have happened. Visions and Revelations became the keystones of coming to the ultimate truths. The Bible narrative was to be a template for the vast knowledge of Heaven and Earth contemplated in Mormon theology. Prophets, particularly Joseph Smith Jr., had returned to speak the voice of God to His people again. A new and last Christian dispensation came into existence. What has been taught remains unique, controversial, and mysterious to outsiders. Insiders have sometimes found the theology equally as challenging to contemplate. Nevertheless, the only way to truely understand Mormonism is to recognize revelation, and not intellectualism or crtiticism, is at the heart of its history and doctrine as seen by its members.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was worried that perhaps this thread might be a train wreck. Glad to see my faith in hatrack was not misplaced. Posted by Emily Milner (Member # 672) on :
Joldo, you might check out the LDS blogosphere, known as the "bloggernacle." Here is the most popular aggregators: Mormon Archipelago
Times and Seasons is one of the oldest Mormon group blogs, and I would bet that someplace in its vast archives there's a nice discussion of Mormon epistomology. Or, if you'd like, you can email their administrators and ask for one, and they might post it for you. Times and Seasons is a more conservative blog, although they do evaluate the Church and its policies.
By Common Consent is its liberal counterpart, although they do generally come from a place of faith as well.
There are plenty of Mormon blogs out there, and many people who consider themselves faithful members, yet don't always agree with a given issue.
Other ones you might check out:
FAIR (Mormon Apologetics; there are very few issues they haven't confronted and discussed, and usually in a scholarly way)
FMH Feminist Mormon Housewives (left-leaning women, who believe in core doctrine and discuss their struggles --and sometimes agreement--with some policies)
Segullah (I am on the board. The blog is associated with our journal, which has writings by LDS women; we do not critique the Church or its leaders, but we do explore life issues and application of doctrine. We are not too philosophical, though, if that's what you're after.)
As for the missionaries: when I was a missionary (and I went because I wanted to) I always tried to bring the discussion back to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I was capable of waxing philosophical, but I tried not to, for the reasons others have stated.
I think your group sounds like a great idea, though. And kudos to you for inviting the missionaries. Even if the discussion doesn't go the direction you'd hoped for, you will still be able to get a better feel for Mormonism through them.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Nevertheless, the only way to truely understand Mormonism is to recognize revelation, and not intellectualism or crtiticism, is at the heart of its history and doctrine as seen by its members.
I think that hits the nail on the head. I am LDS and in most of my discussions with non-LDS individuals, the difficulty others have in understanding the LDS views on theology stems from a fundamental difference of belief on that point.
However, when I say fundamental, I would personally say that, fundamentally, there is not a difference. I do not believe that intellectualism, when based on truth, is a bad thing to place one's beliefs upon. I believe that all truth, whatever its source, is a good thing.
The problem comes in the source of that knowledge. There is a lot of talk about the doctrine of the LDS church holding up to intellectual discussions, but IMO, man's ideas are much less reliable than God's ideas. Note that I did not say "man's ideas about God's ideas', but knowledge that actually comes from God Himself. I fundamentally believe the purest source of knowledge and truth to be directly from God, whether through personal revelation or revelation through God's servants. I consider revelation to be the ultimate form of intellectualism, given that God is the ultimate Intellect.
Wherever there is a digression between the knowledge of mankind and revealed doctrine, I consider it to be a problem in the source of mankind's knowledge, not a problem with the idea of actually using your mind to gain knowledge. Mankind has proven itself wrong time and time again, as we seek to improve our knowledge. Now, you may say that religion has proven to be wrong time and time again, but sometimes this is only because mankind simply does not agree with God's revealed knowledge, and other times it is because religion is not acting according to revelation from God. Mormons consider a religion operating without revelation from God to have no more access to divine knowledge than non-religious individuals.
I do not post this to sound like I consider my knowledge to be better than yours (especially since I have been on the receiving end many times, wherein my belief that knowledge can come from revelation is considered archaic and "blind obedience".). I am just trying to help clarify the LDS trust in revelation as a pure form of knowledge that transcends knowledge sought-out without any reliance upon God.
I also do not consider myself to be blindly obedient. There are some church doctrines that I obey in faith, but that I have not received personal revelation that they are true. However, these doctrines are built upon a foundation of core doctrines that I have felt confirmation from God concerning, i.e. I have experienced God confirming that the LDS church is led by Jesus Christ, that the prophets called to serve in the church receive revelation from Christ, that the Book of Mormon is a portion of God's revealed word, as well as several other doctrines. These doctrines create a foundation so that I can put faith in other doctrines taught to be revelation, but which I have not put forth the time and effort to receive personal revelation regarding.
As a final note, I wish to say that there are several Mormon beliefs that are not considered doctrine. Some of them stem from Mormon culture, deep doctrine that has not been clarified, and the imperfections of LDS members who simply misrepresent their faith at times. In addition, us Mormons also believe that God will work with His children according to what they need most at the time. As an example, the Law of Moses was needed as a teaching method to the children of Israel at the time, but was no longer needed after Christ fulfilled that Law and now expected His people to live the higher law. In essence, God will change some of His laws according to the developmental needs of His people, just as a parent adjusts parenting according to a child's devlopment. Yet, there are certain fundamental truths that God is forever unchanging, just as a parent should always provide love, warmth, attention, etc. for a child, no matter the child's age.
I hope I haven't rambled too much, I just wanted to clarify the LDS view on ongoing revelation, both ancient and modern, both written and spoken.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I don't wish to delve too deeply in this topic, as I do have some rather strong opinions on the Church, and I'd rather keep them out of the thread being as it's stayed fairly civil so far.
I think it will be hard to find someone who can bring you the kind of substantive knowledge you wish for. I think it's been well outlined here, but there is a difference in the LDS interpretation of 'faith' and many other churches. The LDS church indoctrinates youth by giving them the mantra 'Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the church is true.' Without question. I don't criticize the church for keeping it relatively simple for children to understand it. (Though I did cringe in Sacrament during fast-sunday when children would give their testimonies. While it was really cute, I just had trouble stomaching a child saying they 'knew' the church was true. While I will grant adults and some young adults have had life experiences that lead them to believe the church is true, I don't think a child has had enough experience to say it.) But it shows how the church wishes to instill an unquestioning belief in the doctrines and leaders of the church.
There are many vocal people within the church that once you begin to question some of the teachings, you are accused of being weak and tempted by the devil. I'm not saying all members, or even most members of the church do this. But there is a vocal enough crowd that it pushed my mother, myself, two of my brothers, and eventually my father away. (Long story, maybe I'll write a landmark and explain it some time.) For the most part, mormons are kind-hearted, welcoming individuals whose motives are to live their lives as best they can in accordance with their beliefs. But there are enough people that will attack you for questioning the church that it's just something that you don't do. I remember when I started to have disagreements and asked about them, I was told by a vocal individual that Satan was using me as a means to shake people's faith and that I had to repent and pray for forgiveness and guidance. Most just tried to comfort me with the eleventh article of faith. Well meaning, but not what I was looking for.
I suppose I've rambled a bit, but what I'm getting at is that mormons have a different culture when it comes to questioning their doctrines or explaining themselves to the skeptical. Because of their interpretation that faith means you believe in the entirety of the doctrines as objective truth, you're not really allowed to pick and choose. This contrasts with some other religions such as the Catholic church. In the process of declaring someone a saint, a person must serve as the Devil's Advocate and make a case against them.
Please don't take my post as being overly judgmental about the difference. Mormon's tend to go for 'this is our message, if you believe it, good, if not, that's cool too. But don't come to us in a willy-nilly state of belief.' And that's fine. The grand majority of the church members I know are not judgmental of non-believers. I may no longer be a member of the church, but I still hold a profound respect for many aspects of it.
Edit: For clarity, I tend to ramble.
[ November 12, 2008, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
If you want some more philosophy-oriented material, I'd Google for "David Paulsen", a professor of Philosophy at BYU. Here's one brief example: Are Mormons Trinitarians?
I'm sure there is a lot more, and better material by this professor, but I don't have time to do any more googling myself now.
[ November 12, 2008, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I spoke last night with my dear friend who's just started at BYU. She talked to her professor, who advised FARM and FAIR.
When I brought up some of the differences of Mormon epistemology that I had begun to notice because of this thread, she said those specific things had started troubling her lately. She says she's had trouble with the Church over questions like homosexuality for some time, and was vehemently opposed to Prop 8--which made things difficult for her philosophically lately. She says she's more of an "early Mormon": she likes the idea of building a Utopian socially-equal society, and disagrees with the conservative stances she feels the Church is supporting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think this thread has been okay so far, but I'm kind of uncomfortable with a thread dedicated to criticizing the LDS church. I hope it can stay as positive as it has been.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Augh, continued of above:
She also told me her biggest disappointment since coming to BYU is that the environment doesn't seem friendly or conducive to the sort of discussion and analysis she was looking forward to. Her roommates don't like to look too far into things; she's absolutely enamored with her boyfriend 'cause they bike out to the mountains and then talk theology and church politics.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Heh, I've known lots of students, religious or not, who don't like to go too far questioning things (religious things or not). I doubt that it's a Mormon-only attitude. She's better off talking about those things with people who are actively interested in doing so, like her boyfriend.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Joldo, I am really going out on a limb here because where you are going with the discussion is getting uncomfortably hostile. However, I have to ask what kind of questions about Mormon epistemology do you have? It is a very big and therefore very vague topic.
So far you have expressed that the more you talk about it, the more "creepy" what has been said about Mormonism sound. Although you have said that your talking with Mormons in high school was enlightning, the most resent personal encounter you talk about was a college student uncomfortable with the idea that others don't want to talk about things like she does.
I just want to know what kind of questions do you have to base a discussion on? More on topic from what you have already indicated, what kind of questions would your students typically like to ask?
The conversation in this post has been civil, but I am afraid that you are proposing a discussion when you really want to throw Mormons in the lions den.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Now, don't kill the thread by talking it into an argument.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Well, it will be a lion's den environment, though I hope it won't be. I usually speak to my kids beforehand about courtesy, but they will be pretty tough. That's what I told the missionaries when I spoke to them about it: while it is a friendly environment, it is not one that will just let anything go.
I'm just suddenly discovering that I know far less about Mormonism than I thought, because now the Mormons I know are telling me that actually, no, they usually don't feel like they fit into the mainstream of the Church. It's a bit like culture shock: I'm trying to adjust what I thought I knew and process new information. My most recent comments in this thread were more by way of saying that I'm just learning that the Mormons I know themselves don't feel like they're accurate representatives of the faith they've encountered.
This is me, realizing I know a lot less than I thought I did.
The coffee hour environment isn't a "Get up and give us a presentation" type of thing, though. It's a casual, sit down and chat about many things--including religion!--sort of environment. I don't see many direct attacks, because we haven't had that in the past; most of the believers who come to one coffee hour bring their friends with them the next week, so I don't think it is a negative environment. By way of ground rules, I say that when in doubt stick with questions and "I" statements, never "you" statements, "everyone" statements, or broad generalizations on areas you don't feel complete understanding.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
In the beginning of religion in America class, I said "People with deep faith in what they believe should not be offended when others question it."
It took me 6 years, but I finally learned, it is best NOT to question anything about the Church, it is only seen as an insult an attack or persecution, or "throwing them to the Lions den."
Personally, I believe it is best to question all the Christian Religions (and all Religions, but since I am an American Christian, I focus on our religion) because all of us who Believe in God and Jesus Christ are in the same Church.
I have stopped my attempts to question or be critical here at Hatrack because all it does is make more people not like me (Tom may be my only pal here ), and give Papa Janitor a headache for all the "Ban Him" emails he gets.
I don't want to be kicked from here.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Though I find it ironic OSC is SO critical of everyone and everything, even going to far as to claim HE knows what other people's REAL RELIGION is. It's like going around punching everyone in the face when no one is allowed to touch you.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: I think it will be hard to find someone who can bring you the kind of substantive knowledge you wish for. I think it's been well outlined here, but there is a difference in the LDS interpretation of 'faith' and many other churches. The LDS church indoctrinates youth by giving them the mantra 'Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the church is true.' Without question. I don't criticize the church for keeping it relatively simple for children to understand it. (Though I did cringe in Sacrament during fast-sunday when children would give their testimonies. While it was really cute, I just had trouble stomaching a child saying they 'knew' the church was true. While I will grant adults and some young adults have had life experiences that lead them to believe the church is true, I don't think a child has had enough experience to say it.) But it shows how the church wishes to instill an unquestioning belief in the doctrines and leaders of the church.
I also think kids sometimes recite testimonies according to the universal genre of the child testimony, probably inspired by parents whispering to them what to say because they wanted to get up and speak in the microphone. However, I don’t think it’s hard for a kid to have the simple faith to truthfully declare that they know it’s true. I think it’s easier for them to say it truthfully than it is for me. I do not think the purpose is to instill an unquestioning belief. I haven’t seen it that way at all. Kids in the Church do get taught the doctrines and practices of the Church in a positive manner; the Church would be remiss if it didn’t do that. But the doctrine has all those built-in caveats about free agency and making one’s own choices. I do not think kids’ natural believing character is taken advantage of in Church, any more than it is at school or at home.
quote: I suppose I've rambled a bit, but what I'm getting at is that mormons have a different culture when it comes to questioning their doctrines or explaining themselves to the skeptical. Because of their interpretation that faith means you believe in the entirety of the doctrines as objective truth, you're not really allowed to pick and choose. This contrasts with some other religions such as the Catholic church. In the process of declaring someone a saint, a person must serve as the Devil's Advocate and make a case against them.
Please don't take my post as being overly judgmental about the difference. Mormon's tend to go for 'this is our message, if you believe it, good, if not, that's cool too. But don't come to us in a willy-nilly state of belief.' And that's fine. The grand majority of the church members I know are not judgmental of non-believers. I may no longer be a member of the church, but I still hold a profound respect for many aspects of it.
I think that it is quite a shock to hear someone question a basic belief. True, one thing our regular meetings do not provide is a forum for airing dissenting opinions. That is not a regular part of Church proceedings. If such opinions are brought up by the person or heard about, it’s almost the break from the norm that people are reacting to rather than the actual concern. One reason I can think of for why concerns are not always handled well is that Church congregations behave like mutual support organizations. You don’t realize how much you rely on the testimonies of your fellow ward members until one of them reveals that they are seriously questioning their beliefs. It’s a serious loss of support, and until you get your feet under you again you might not say or do things very smoothly. The other reaction is concern for the person’s welfare and an almost panicky need to help them get better. Those are immediate reactions. That’s certainly no excuse for making thoughtless and harmful accusations, but I think that is partly why it happens. The Church does leave less room for a wide range of beliefs on such things as the divinity of Christ, the truthfulness of His gospel, and the restoration of the Church through Joseph Smith. It would be hard to feel comfortable in the Church with serious doubts or conflicting ideas about those things. However, it is sad and wrong when members are made to feel like they are bad people when they have those doubts. I am truly sorry that happened to your family.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, come on, UF, why even come onto this thread?
Posted by Roger Parkinson (Member # 7394) on :
I think people often find what they are looking for. The church like any other group of people has a wide variety of different personality types, political beliefs (granted some political beliefs are less compatible),leadership styles and ways of viewing the world. I think it is incredibly problematic to try to define what it means to be Mormon with finality.
I like to focus on what the core doctrine is, form a very solid belief system around that core doctrine and then interpret church practice and culture within the perspective provided by the core doctrine. Practice and culture change all the time. Core doctrine does not.
I think people do themselves a disservice when they take a tangent and invest too heavily in a position that, right or wrong, won't make much of a difference in your life.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: Augh, continued of above:
She also told me her biggest disappointment since coming to BYU is that the environment doesn't seem friendly or conducive to the sort of discussion and analysis she was looking forward to.
She's not taking the right classes. As a recent BYU graduate, I found plenty of courses that both encouraged and discouraged deep discussion and analysis. It depends entirely on the instructor, and on the content of the course, just like everywhere else. Look into Honors courses, attend symposiums and lectures, and try to get more than the minimum required. I work right next to Honors, so I could refer your friend to exactly what she's looking for.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Oh, come on, UF, why even come onto this thread?
Ugh. Even me posting in here is a problem? I am withdrawing from this high quality thread.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
I think there is a misconception on the purpose of LDS missionaries and what they are out there for.
I went because I wanted to. My parents were very adamant that it was completely my choice and that they would respect my decision no matter what choice I made. I went because I felt I had something wonderful and I wanted to share it. It was that simple.
Because I wanted to share this I wanted to talk to as many people as I could. I cared about the people I spoke to. I wanted them to have what I have. The Gospel has made me happy, and I wanted them to be happy as well.
There was certain situations that I entered into that caught me off guard. We had been visiting a woman and her mother for a month or so and they had asked us to come over to speak to them. When we arrived there we found out that the family had invited their pastor from their current church over to their house. Rather than engage in a discussion, he immediately became critical of the church, and started attacking the church and what I was doing. All I did was bear my testimony of what I believed, thanked the family and the pastor for their time, and left. While leaving I asked the family to pray about what I had taught them, and if they received an answer to please contact me again.
I could have argued with the Pastor. I could have easily won the argument, as the Pastor's information was common Anti-Mormon talking points that I knew about and had studied before coming out on my mission. The reason I did not? It would not have benefited the family I had been teaching. I would have placed doubt in their mind about their own church and the LDS church.
Interestingly enough, the daughter did contact me again after I had come back to the US. (I served in the southern part of Brazil) She wrote me a letter saying that she had prayed about it and believed it was true. She actually said that the situation between me and her old pastor was actually an answer to what she had been praying for. She let me know she had been baptized and was looking forward to going to the temple.
Please do not think that the missionaries cannot effectively defend the church. It is simply not what they are out there for. They are there to teach people and ASK those people to find out for themselves through prayer.
If possible, it may be beneficial to read the book "Day of Defense" or "The Book of Mormon on Trial." These two books are wonderful resources if you want to find out what common attacks are against the church. The two books provide logical and rational answers to these attacks.
EDIT: Fixed spacing. It looked like a wall of text
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:But the doctrine has all those built-in caveats about free agency and making one’s own choices. I do not think kids’ natural believing character is taken advantage of in Church, any more than it is at school or at home.
It's definitely taken advantage of in a big way. But I grant that it is not done more so than in other contexts, including other religions, secular schooling, and at home. Small children believe what you tell them, when there's nothing in their direct experience to contradict what you're telling them. They won't believe the sky and a banana are the same color, but tell them that God hears them pray, and he loves them, and that the kind and smart-sounding people they interact with at church are telling them the truth about things they can't even begin to disprove? They're just going to believe it, with rare exceptions.
"Taking advantage" is a loaded phrase, and I think that mostly religious adults are doing what they sincerely believe is to the child's benefit. Perhaps "making use of" would seem less negative?
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with pointing out that children only "know" the truth of much of what they're told to the extent that they are taking adults' word for it.
My personal view is that it's problematic for children to question their religious "knowledge" later in life. I can't think of a way a child can go through the early indoctrination and really have an open mind about it at the same time. I think the universality of early religious teaching is because the alternative is high attrition in membership. To the extent that religious adults would sincerely see unbelief in their children as a harm, I don't blame them for indoctrinating their children. The rest of us do it too, just on other topics.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Joldo - Looking within the official organization of the Church for somebody to discuss these things with you is probably a mistake. As has been stated, neither missionaries nor local leaders receive any sort of training in the sort of rational discourse you're talking about here; rather, they're trained in pastoral techniques. Similarly, CES folk - institute teachers - are really a youth ministry; they're not scholars of their own faith. Unlike, say, Catholicism, there are no in-house Mormon intellectuals.
The sort of people you want are out there, but they're not to be found in official offices. Google the names Blake Ostler, Kevin Barney, Nate Oman, Jim Faulconer, Dennis Potter, and you'll get closer to what you're looking for. Where are you located?
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Oh, by the way, I hate to say it, but don't read Day of Defense. There's a particular mindset that unfortunately reads any sort of rigorous examination of Mormonism as 'anti-Mormonism;' I'm afraid Day of Defense falls into such a category, and generally represents its interrogators in the form of straw men.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I'm in Georgia. University of Georgia in Athens.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
'Day of Defense' is awful.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I think people do themselves a disservice when they take a tangent and invest too heavily in a position that, right or wrong, won't make much of a difference in your life.
My Dad used to call it "putting it on a shelf". As a live science student, he had trouble with believing in a literal resurection. He just put it on a shelf. It didn't make a big difference in his life. Many years later, when genetic theories were discovered and refined, he was comfortable with his personal beliefs. I never understood his concerns. (or his reconciliation for that matter) His personal concerns did not prevent him from being a religous scholar and mentor for others. He shared with me the belief that the church position on Priesthood for blacks would change. Although he thought that the change would come after intense political pressure and would be subject to a lot of resistance from members. It stayed on the shelf for a long time. He was very pleasantly suprised to have been wrong. I have several things "on the shelf" now. I am a member in good standing, as orthodox a Mormon as any. But, as has been stated above, outside of the core beliefs I just might not agree with very many others.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Huh; that's too bad - nobody I know near you. Although there is a professor at Georgia Southern named Michael Nielsen who's done some stuff on Mormon sociology. I have no idea how far that might be, though.
That is the collected works of Blake Ostler, who's an analytic philosopher and probably the most important living Mormon theologian. He's got books - the Exploring Mormon Thought trilogy - but they might be tough to get where you are. There's a lot of stuff on the website, though.
Also, Nate Oman's paper on the nature of Mormon doctrine might be useful to you - it is here:
Warning: he's a law professor, so it's heavy on legal analogies and such.
FARMS and FAIR are frankly a mixed bag; both organizations are directed more toward members of the Church than to serious engagement with outside voices; they're apologetic. That doesn't mean all they produce is useless; it does mean they start from a particular perspective which might color their arguments more or less.
Finally, I echo Emily's endorsement of the bloggernacle. Two in particular:
The blog has been particularly strong on the nature of free will, I think.
One more thing: I'm going to be in Atlanta for a week or so sometime early next year. I understand it's an hour or so out, but if you'd like I'd be happy to see if we could work something out.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I also think kids sometimes recite testimonies according to the universal genre of the child testimony, probably inspired by parents whispering to them what to say because they wanted to get up and speak in the microphone. However, I don’t think it’s hard for a kid to have the simple faith to truthfully declare that they know it’s true. I think it’s easier for them to say it truthfully than it is for me. I do not think the purpose is to instill an unquestioning belief. I haven’t seen it that way at all. Kids in the Church do get taught the doctrines and practices of the Church in a positive manner; the Church would be remiss if it didn’t do that. But the doctrine has all those built-in caveats about free agency and making one’s own choices. I do not think kids’ natural believing character is taken advantage of in Church, any more than it is at school or at home.
Oh, I definitely grant that it's best to keep things in universal terms with children. It helps with understandability, and if you create a foundation of strong belief, it's easier to add more to information to it. I suppose my only issue is semantic. I just have trouble hearing 'I know the church is true' compared to 'I believe the church is true' coming from a child. I grant that their knowledge comes from what limited information and experience they have, but it's just a personal quirk I had.
quote: I think that it is quite a shock to hear someone question a basic belief. True, one thing our regular meetings do not provide is a forum for airing dissenting opinions. That is not a regular part of Church proceedings. If such opinions are brought up by the person or heard about, it’s almost the break from the norm that people are reacting to rather than the actual concern. One reason I can think of for why concerns are not always handled well is that Church congregations behave like mutual support organizations. You don’t realize how much you rely on the testimonies of your fellow ward members until one of them reveals that they are seriously questioning their beliefs. It’s a serious loss of support, and until you get your feet under you again you might not say or do things very smoothly. The other reaction is concern for the person’s welfare and an almost panicky need to help them get better. Those are immediate reactions. That’s certainly no excuse for making thoughtless and harmful accusations, but I think that is partly why it happens. The Church does leave less room for a wide range of beliefs on such things as the divinity of Christ, the truthfulness of His gospel, and the restoration of the Church through Joseph Smith. It would be hard to feel comfortable in the Church with serious doubts or conflicting ideas about those things. However, it is sad and wrong when members are made to feel like they are bad people when they have those doubts. I am truly sorry that happened to your family.
I do think that deep down the man's intentions were good. He was trying to get me to hold to the rod again, as it were. But I was just taken so aback by his approach that I was very uncomfortable with it. I agree that there are reasons that some reacted in the way they did to our questioning doctrines, but I do wish there WAS a forum for people who are having serious concerns with the church that they could go to and perhaps get some answers from someone who is well educated in the church and is understanding of people's concerns.
For example, one of my brothers who left the church has since become a pastor at a church in Seattle, Washington. (I recently moved up as well.) I've attended a couple of the meetings and some of his concerts, and one of the things that shocked me was that there was a table in the back of the room with a couple of guys. I asked my brother why they were there, and he told me that their purpose was to talk to people who had concerns with the Bible, and they would explain the meanings. It was fairly private, and most people used it so that you didn't feel singled out if you go back there. I think it would have been nice to have a more publicized place like that for when I had my concerns.
I thank you for your concern of my family, but we've mostly come to peace with it. Our family is kind of funky as far as what we believe or not. My parents believe in the grand majority of the doctrines of the Church and are currently searching for a church that will accept them with their hybrid beliefs. Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB: Oh, by the way, I hate to say it, but don't read Day of Defense. There's a particular mindset that unfortunately reads any sort of rigorous examination of Mormonism as 'anti-Mormonism;' I'm afraid Day of Defense falls into such a category, and generally represents its interrogators in the form of straw men.
Well Matt, I will have to agree with you on that. Any thoughts on the Book of Mormon on Trial? (There are multiple versions, the one that was published in a sort of comic version was my favorite. I thought it had "Schoolhouse Rock" feel to it. )
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
quote: I'm in Georgia. University of Georgia in Athens.
What day are you doing this? I'm in Georgia, a few hours away, but depending on the day and time . . . . .
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
We do this every Wednesday night at 8:00. I'm actually waiting for coffee hour to start right now. When the Mormon missionaries come depends on them, but last I heard they were interested in joining us next week.
Sala, if you do want to check out some of our more interesting activities, we do panels with religious leaders from the Athens area, and we're trying to bring in a prominent non-theist speaker next spring.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Shake, shake, shake, shake a shake it!
ooops. sorry. meant this for the happy dancing and singing thread. my bad.
Posted by Slim (Member # 2334) on :
I think it is very healthy to question one's own beliefs. Anyone who believes the origin of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should agree. James 1:5 -- If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God...
The key thing here is who we ask. Yes, it's often good to talk it out with others. In fact, it is frequently through others that Heavenly Father answers our prayers. But ultimately, it is God that we need to ask, because He is the source of all truth, and it is in Him we should put our trust.
There have been times in my life that I run into something that I don't know the answer to. But as I turn to my Heavenly Father for help I am able to grow from the experience.
Even better is when others give me questions on my faith, because they may have questions I never would have thought of, or just took for granted. My faith is strengthened by each of these situations as I receive guidance from my Heavenly Father.
I went on my mission because I had something that gave me joy in life. I believe everyone is my brother or sister, and I wanted to offer them that joy also.
It is true that many go for the wrong reasons (social, girlfriend, etc.), but during my mission experience, most went for right reasons. Or at the very least, decided to stay for good reasons.
I always thought about Ender when someone accused me of being too young and inexperienced to teach them anything. It is true that I was young and inexperienced, but my few experiences were different, and I think we have a great deal to learn from each other. "Out of the mouth of babes..."
I'm from Utah. The culture aspect makes having a testimony a different type of struggle here than elsewhere, in my opinion. Elsewhere, it takes stronger faith to live the Gospel-- to be different from the society around you. Utah is no Zion, but it doesn't take much effort to live how most everyone thinks you should. It has to be a conscious effort to have faith when nothing is pressuring you to. I don't know if I am making sense, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. Just as faith without works is dead, works without faith are just as dead.
When I was on my mission, I varied as to whither visiting with people who I knew wouldn't change was a waste of time or not. Sometimes I thought of all the other people we could be teaching. Other times I thought of all the other people we would run into who wouldn't even give us the time of day. Overall, I felt that even if someone was not going to change, if I could just teach them one small thing, or clear up one small misunderstanding about my faith, it was all worth it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Many missionaries are able to defend and argue their faith.
Effective missionaries generally don't do it, though. They're not there to defend, and they're not there to argue. They're there to teach those that are interested. For the most part.
This seems fairly understandable to me. To put the concept in perspective: in my English teaching training, it was emphasized over and over that your job is to teach English. Your job is not to explain English. If you start to explain and get into the reasoning behind English, even if you are capable of it intellectually, you will not effectively help your students to use the language at all. In fact, you will make your job much more difficult, because the intricate historical anachronisms of our language are infinitely complex- and they're not things people need to worry about to use English in a functional way. Understanding *how* English works is what students need, the questions of *why* it works are not material to that, and are a different subject entirely- not one a teacher of the language should go into.
Edit: this was driven into me when I met a linguistics graduate who had limited knowledge of how to teach or even identify points of English grammar. Linguistics is not about grammar, it is about language- which is not the same thing.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Slim:
I'm from Utah. The culture aspect makes having a testimony a different type of struggle here than elsewhere, in my opinion. Elsewhere, it takes stronger faith to live the Gospel-- to be different from the society around you.
I've only been to Utah a few times, and that was when I was a young kid. I consider my diverse living (wisconsin, illinois, california, all major cities in Texas, arizona, colorado) and my turbulent childhood to be the landscape of my faith.
The strongest 'Christian Love' I think I have encountered was from the Hispanic moms and from mature black women. I've seen them take on such burdens, endure the worst of trials and still be filled with welcoming love to all of God's creatures. I testify, in my time, the spirit of Christ very strong with the people who live in the lower classes and the middle classes.
Often, in the upper middle and upper class, I find a sense of importance that believes because they can figure out how to make money in this world, that same sense affords them a better knowledge of God. It doesn't radiate the same way I've seen from the lower and middle classes.
It's odd. As the Norse Christian Wanderer, I've found myself in a lot of really odd situations, I've been in two crack houses one in New York and another in Austin. (I was looking for marijuana, not crack. ) In both cases, as with most everywhere I go, I was treated with respect and grace. Sitting for hours talking to crack addicts in a crack house about God is an amazing thing.
I have saved (literally) and inspired many people through my faith.
The only place I seem to have intrinsic trouble is in dense, white Republican areas. Like where I live atm, Mansfield, Texas. I've had people talk about making it legal to shoot people who vote for Obama, two weeks ago, I was at a local bar with a friend, some girls invited us to their big table, I was chatting it up with everyone, and later in the evening 4 of the guys started to do the Sig Heil hand gesture thing. I literally said "WTF" They said "We're starting a new Neo Nazi party. $%^& Obama". I said "That's a great way to let people know you're almost as smart as an amoeba." The night went downhill from their. One more than one occasion, a drunk group of guys has tried to mock me to my face for wearing a Batman T-shirt to a bar. Odd.
It's a different world out there. Each town, city and state having its own flavor. I find it's best to recognize people for their works, share a mutual faith in God (You're Catholic? I am Thor. Isn't Jesus great?), and try not to be judgemental of others. That is for God and God alone.
It's a big world and we're all God's Children.
Dang. Just last night, I had a heated discussion with a 70 year old Christian who said all Athiests were idiots. He hated them all. I attempted to explain that his anger was misplaced, he should be thankful that he can see God, not angry at those who cannot. Besides, no one dies an atheist.
We're all in this global room together.
If the Christians, Jews and Muslims (about 500 high rankin' dudes) are trying to find common ground while still standing on separate ground, the American Christians should be able to strive for the same.
No Church has any PROOF their religion is superior, or chosen by God over the others, so it's best for all of us to act in the spirit that we all belong to the same Church, worship the same God, and we all give thanks for the Glory of Jesus.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Besides, no one dies an atheist.
I call bull...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, so do I.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, is that considered an ad hominem?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Often, in the upper middle and upper class, I find a sense of importance...that same sense affords them a better knowledge of God. It doesn't radiate the same way I've seen from the lower and middle classes. ... I have saved (literally) and inspired many people through my faith.
But, of course, you don't know God any better than the rich do, right?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Often, in the upper middle and upper class, I find a sense of importance...that same sense affords them a better knowledge of God. It doesn't radiate the same way I've seen from the lower and middle classes. ... I have saved (literally) and inspired many people through my faith.
But, of course, you don't know God any better than the rich do, right?
Sure. In the same way they don't have more money better than I do. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, at least you know you're being hypocritical.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
I don't remember any religion suggesting collection of human currency and material possessions as a pathway to wisdom.
*Note: I am crazy and wrong 100% of the time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wouldn't go looking to religions for advice on wisdom, anyway.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Many religions suggest collection of your human currency and material possessions as a pathway to wisdom Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Often, in the upper middle and upper class, I find a sense of importance...that same sense affords them a better knowledge of God. It doesn't radiate the same way I've seen from the lower and middle classes. ... I have saved (literally) and inspired many people through my faith.
But, of course, you don't know God any better than the rich do, right?
Ther is some theological precedent for thinking that the poor have an advantage when it comes to knowing God.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"I'm going to take your money, and you're going to *like* it"
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: "I'm going to take your money, and you're going to *like* it"
"I'm going to take your rights, and you're going to *like* it."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is some theological precedent for thinking that the poor have an advantage when it comes to knowing God.
Sure. But whether you know God well or not, saying you know God better than somebody else makes your criticism of their hypothetical claims to know God better than you do more than a little toothless. Especially if they're just imaginary people in the first place.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
), and give Papa Janitor a headache for all the "Ban Him" emails he gets. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
) In both cases, as with most everywhere I go, I was treated with respect and grace. Sitting for hours talking to crack addicts in a crack house about God is an amazing thing.