posted
>>You send our missionaries to tell everyone that they are wrong and should convert to your church but you have a problem with us doing the exact same thing.<<
When I was a missionary, the goal wasn't to go out there and tell people that they were involved in a cult with an Anti-Christ message. The goal was to bring people to Christ through the Spirit that our message brings.
I've been overblowing the Mormon persecution complex on purpose to dissuade my fellow Mormons from trying to use it in this discussion-- it really is a ridiculously ineffective tool when talking about religion.
It really isn't as bad as I've made out.
Belle, Mormon missionaries don't discuss other churches' doctrine, USUALLY. They're not experts in it-- heck, most of them aren't experts in their OWN religion. The Apostasy, as I've said, is presented as something like a history lesson-- "After the death of Christ and the apostles came a period of apostasy-- a general falling away from the truth that Christ had given the world." We don't point fingers.
So, we're NOT doing the exact same thing that your speaker is. That is to say, Mormon missionaries have no structured lesson on why doctrine X of the Catholic church is wrong, or how the Baptists have misintrepreted St. Matthew 5, or the horrors of being a Mennonite elder. I won't say Mormon missionaries perfectly hold to the standards I set above, but I know I did, and all of my companions as well, and every single missionary I've served with, in the mission field and as a normal Mormon member have never done what you described.
In fact, the idea of standing up and presenting, even to regular members, a dissertation on the whys and hows of other faiths' doctrinal incorrectness is COMPLETELY foreign to modern Mormonism. We rely, in fact, much more on charismatic and social conversions rather than on doctrinal conversions.
Mormon missionaries, and I think this has been pointed out, are much more likely to go into detail as to why our doctrine is correct rather than explain why your doctrine is wrong. A slight difference, but one that makes for a world of difference in proselyting methods.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but you are coming to our houses to do it. At least the (from what I can tell from this) rare informational meetings are held for people who are already part of the congregation.
Isn't it possible that the these are at least partly in response to the presence of missionaries?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea of having a class where the topic is specifically another church and our ideas of what they teach is completely foreign to me. I must admit that I hate it. It feels wrong to me.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yes, but you are coming to our houses to do it. At least the (from what I can tell from this) rare informational meetings are held for people who are already part of the congregation.
Isn't it possible that the these are at least partly in response to the presence of missionaries?
Rather than just the presence of I missionaries, I suspect it is more in response to perceived success of the missionaries.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>I suspect it is more in response to perceived success of the missionaries.<<
I wouldn't say that at all. I think the people who make such presentations are doing so largely out of the same desire that fuels Mormons to proselytize to members of other churches.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pat, That's an unworthy question for Hatrack. Nothing that Belle said suggests that at all and you implying that she is prejudiced is uncalled for.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>I suspect it is more in response to perceived success of the missionaries.<<
I wouldn't say that at all. I think the people who make such presentations are doing so largely out of the same desire that fuels Mormons to proselytize to members of other churches.
Oh really? I was under the impression that LDS missionaries pay around $10000 to support themselves while they do missionary work. My understanding is also that the bishop (leader of the local congregation) is 100% a volunteer and receives no compensation of any form for his service.
On the other hand many local leaders of other congregations get make their living off the collection plate. If the Mormon's are stealing away their congregations, then they suffer economically. That has been one of my wife's uncle's complaints.
So Scott, in summary I would have to disagree: I think the motivations are completely different.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the other hand many local leaders of other congregations get make their living off the collection plate. If the Mormon's are stealing away their congregations, then they suffer economically. That has been one of my wife's uncle's complaints.
So Scott, in summary I would have to disagree: I think the motivations are completely different.
That suggestion is contemptuous.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you personally may feel contempt for a paid clergy, but that doesn't make the suggestion contemptuous. Three different pastors I've interacted with aren't ashamed of it, why are you?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you personally may feel contempt for a paid clergy, but that doesn't make the suggestion contemptuous. Three different pastors I've interacted with aren't ashamed of it, why are you?
I'm not contemptuous of them, but the idea that you put forward. Namely, that clergy of other faiths serve for the money.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only people who start their own church (or television ministry) are paid directly from "the collection plate." Clergy in organized denominations are paid a salary that is set by the church administrative board/council/committee. In the more centrally organized denominations that salary is based on guidelines set by the denomination.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm not contemptuous of them, but the idea that you put forward. Namely, that clergy of other faiths serve for the money.
I apologize, in retrospect I see how what I said could be taken this way. I meant no lack of respect for paid clergy. Please allow me to explain.
In some places, the LDS church pays its full time Church Educational System teachers a salary. These teachers are normal working men supporting a family. If the economic incentive were removed (i.e. they weren't paid) then I doubt many of them would be teaching 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Not because they are serving money, but because the money they receive is allowing them to teach their faith. I think it is similar with pastors of other faiths. I'm sure the vast majority of them do it for the cause, not the money. However, if the money were removed they would probably not be able to financially afford to continue.
Thus part of the motivation to hold onto his congregation for a pastor is to make is living, a Mormon missionary has no such motivations. That is why I stand by what I said about them having different motivations.
(Just in case it's not abundantly clear, I'm not saying at all that having economic motivations as well as others are something to be held in contempt)
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take out the "tell everyone they are wrong" and it would be much more accurate. We say why we are RIGHT and leave the "wrong" out of it. Its the difference between implication and direct information. We don't talk about any other religion in any way; period.
OSC has, on this very board. It was a fairly long post about the Hellenistic twisting of original Christian doctrine.
I found nothing inappropriate about what OSC said in that post, I'm merely noting it as a counter example to the quotation at the start of my post.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the people pointing out that Mormons don't mention other religions in meetings or talk about why they're wrong, just about why y'all are right. . .
I really do believe you are overlooking the effect of your missionaries in all this. The missionaries spend months in the training center learning how to witness to other people. Then they show up at the doors of people from other denominations, and you think it's somehow different that some of those other denominations hold meetings to help their congregations know how to respond. Of course you don't need to teach specifically about other churches in your meetings. . . other churches aren't as a rule showing up on your doorstep wanting to come in and convert you. I don't see how teaching people to respond to missionaries is different from teaching missionaries how to teach.
Again, I am talking about churches who do things like Belle has described. Not people who come and protest your conventions and the like.
I find the feeling that it's different somehow to focus on what's right in your church as opposed to respectfully explaining the differences between two churches and why "we believe the way we believe" baffling, honestly. I think it's like the Northern V. Southern manners discussion we had a few weeks ago. . . Where some people think it's more polite to continually be "busy" and never decline an invitation, and trust that the message will get through eventually, I consider that passive-aggressive and irritating. I would much rather receive a "Sorry, I'm not interested." Then I know where I stand. What you're saying about how it's hurtful to address and discuss differences openly instead of just talking up the good points of your own religion seems just as foreign to me.
Obviously, it's the way y'all do things and it feels right to you. I submit that it's another cultural difference. I don't expect you to change the way you do things, certainly, but I hope you can be aware that it's not being done to be intentionally hurtful or agressive, but that in a lot of other cultures that is how you have a productive discussion, and doing it your way would leave many of us confused and unsatisfied with the discussion.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Clergy in organized denominations are paid a salary that is set by the church administrative board/council/committee. In the more centrally organized denominations that salary is based on guidelines set by the denomination.
That's interesting... I never knew that. So does congregation size/socioeconomic status etc figure into it at all? Or is it strictly based on the relative cost of living in your area?
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a news article that deals specifically with Romney's potential candidacy and religion. One interesting quote that bears on some earlier discussion:
quote:Mr Miranda said that in 2000 he worked for Orrin Hatch, the Utah senator and a Mormon, during his unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination. “Hatch had a poll done. He found that over 60 per cent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon.”
posted
The two main things that I remember I heard discussing the LDS while growing up in a fundamentalist Christian community.
1) The definition of "cult" to these people = aberrant Christian Group = disagreement on the nature of Christe and the godhead = not embracing the concept of the Trinity = cult. Catholics are on the fringe, because of the whole "Mary" thing, even though they hold to the Trinity.
The occult=casting spells, witchcraft etc. Many fundamentalists *aren't* educated enough to understand the difference between the two.
2) The second main objection (which I can now see in some respects as a positive) was (and I quote, because it's still with me vividly) "Out Goes the Old Truth and In Comes the New Truth." was what the presenter said. Even though if you look at history everyone's "truth" changes, the fundamentalist christians believe that this is an inherent flaw. I guess dogmatism is often easier to swallow.
Anyway, those were the non-hysterical pretty rational presentations. The guy talking on #2 was a little more emphatic, and used a few more catch phrases, but those divisions of doctrine are where the disagreement spreads from. IMO. It can be twisted into a much more hysterical form. But really I didn't experience a lot of hysteria in my experience. In fact it was held up as a shame to some of the churches I attended how much more ethical and caring of their own the LDS were, and that if we had the Truth we should be doing a better job of the same.
AJ (I heard a lot more hysteria in general about Satanism and the evils of Dungeons and Dragons, than I did about the LDS)
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Most missionaries of other Christian denominations are volunteers, as I understand it, so your comparison [EDIT: doesn't] hold.
-Bok
I was refering to the dynamics of Mormon missionaries gaining converts from other pastor's congregation. I was not attempting to compare the reverse situation.
Edit: Removed not. We're doing well with our negation this afternoon aren't we Bok.
posted
The only way a change in the number of members would affect my salary is if the congregation lost so many members that it had to close. And then I’d be reappointed to another church at approximately the same salary. (Unless, of course, the reason the congregation lost members was my ineffectiveness. If that was the case, I’d probably be moved sooner, and if it became a pattern I could lose my credentials and be ineligible for appointment.)
The idea that clergy would discourage apostasy for financial reasons rather than spiritual reasons is just plain silly. If I was in this for the money I’d have stayed in engineering. The hours would have been better too.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, it's not entirely true; the Church talks often about how we are different from "others", just not specifically which others. We do talk about the doctrines that are different - not saying, "This doctrine is different from the Catholics, who believe such-and-such", but just saying, "One doctrine we believe that is unique to us is {insert doctrine}."
It's done out of respect for other religions and out of an understanding of how frustrating it is to have our religion misrepresented by others; we don't want to misrepresent theirs. We feel it's better to just state our belief than to possibly set up a straw man of others' beliefs and then argue against it.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The missionaries spend months in the training center learning how to witness to other people. Then they show up at the doors of people from other denominations, and you think it's somehow different that some of those other denominations hold meetings to help their congregations know how to respond. Of course you don't need to teach specifically about other churches in your meetings. . . other churches aren't as a rule showing up on your doorstep wanting to come in and convert you. I don't see how teaching people to respond to missionaries is different from teaching missionaries how to teach.
This is a good point, ElJay. But I don't understand why the churches don't simply teach their own doctrine and the justifications for it, rather than seeking to weaken the Mormon position.
Both dkw and Belle know a heckuva lot about their brands of Christianity and the justifications for their views on doctrine-- and they associate on a virtual level with Mormons all the time without any sort of . . . er, adverse reactions. Do they really need a class on Mormonism to help them defend their beleifs?
I doubt it.
:shrug:
Maybe six of one, half-dozen of the other? That said, I'd be really, REALLY uncomfortable in church if the teacher started talking about how to respond to Jehovah's Witnesses. The attitude in Mormonism is, "Hey, we've got the capital-T Truth-- let's talk about that." Or, at least, that's what I hope we're doing.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said earlier, I’ll probably be organizing a program on several of the non-mainline Christian groups this spring. I don’t look at it as pointing out where others are wrong, though, or defending our beliefs. I don’t think I need to defend anything when the audience is "in-house" – I start from the assumption that professing members of our church believe our doctrine. If it turns out that that assumption is wrong – if someone hears the beliefs of, say, Christian Science, and realizes that that's actually closer to what they believe, then me pointing out where I think those beliefs are wrong isn’t going to do a whole lot of good anyway.
As for why have the class at all, people are interested in learning about their neighbors. It certainly shouldn’t take the place of studying the Bible and learning our own doctrine, but as a supplemental bit of study, I think it’s a positive thing.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both dkw and Belle know a whole lot more about their brands of Christianity than the "average" congregant. dkw better, anyway, she went to school for four years to get an MDiv. When confronted with a missionary talking about X Doctrine, I'm sure they would know exactly what their church's position is and how to respond. Would the average congregant? When approached with a doctrine they'd never heard of before?
I consider myself relatively knowledgeable. I pay attention during sermons, I went through confirmation class and Sunday School, and I have an excellent memory. I knew next to nothing about the LDS church before I started hanging out here. Some of your doctrines are very different from mine, and I would have no problem saying "Well, that's interesting, but here's what I believe." Some of them, however, are on points that I'm not entirely clear on, or have never come up, so I don't know if we believe them or not, or are close enough to mine that I'm not sure if there's a difference or not. If my church is simply teaching it's own doctrine, how does that prepare me to discuss something I've never heard of before?
Do I think this sort of class is necessary? It depends on what your goal is. I'm not much of an evanglist. If a missionary came to my door I would speak with them politely, perhaps offer them a drink, and tell them that I'm happy in my faith and not interested. I would not try to convert them. I would have no need for such a class.
Other people and other churches believe strongly in converting people to their faith, because they believe it is the capital-T Truth. Now, while they may not all go out looking for you to try to convert you, if you come knocking on their door I figure you're fair game. So for people interested in saving your immortal soul, I can see why they'd be interested in having a specific response to your doctoral points. (Not that I'm not concerned about your immortal soul. Just that I don't happen to think it's in danger. )
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Hey, we've got the capital-T Truth-- let's talk about that."
To a lot of people -- myself included -- this is in every substantive way identical to saying "Your position is capital-W Wrong."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If my church is simply teaching it's own doctrine, how does that prepare me to discuss something I've never heard of before?
I think the key thing is this, from my POV:
Mormon missionaries aren't really out to discuss theology. They're out to promote their own specific religion. And Mormons, when they promote their religion, do not do so based on doctrine, and are somewhat baffled and insulted when religions which place more of an emphasis on doctrine attempt to relate -- and challenge -- them on that level.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom is onto something something. As Scott said earlier:
quote: We rely, in fact, much more on charismatic and social conversions rather than on doctrinal conversions.
I think that in general Mormons would tend to say, “I believe this church is the true church, therefore its doctrine must be true” and people of many other denominations would tend to say, “this is what I believe about God, and therefore this church (whose doctrine matches what I believe) is the church I will join.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:(Originally posted by Tom): Mormons, when they promote their religion, do not do so based on doctrine, and are somewhat baffled and insulted when religions which place more of an emphasis on doctrine attempt to relate -- and challenge -- them on that level.
quote:(Originally posted by dkw): I think that in general Mormons would tend to say, “I believe this church is the true church, therefore its doctrine must be true” and people of many other denominations would tend to say, “this is what I believe about God, and therefore this church (whose doctrine matches what I believe) is the church I will join."
Hmm. Interesting. At first I really disagreed with Tom's idea because I was raised LDS and have really studied the doctrine a LOT. I'm baffled at the idea that somehow the doctrine isn't important in a conversion.
But it is true that we don't just present the doctrine and see if this is what someone already believes. We're aware that we present new doctrine and we encourage people to find out for themselves whether the doctrine is true or not. And it is true that once they've decided that certain core doctrines are true, they're more likely to believe the rest of the doctrines taught by the Church. But I really think that part of it is true for most churches - you find a pastor you trust and then you're likely to accept his interpretation of scripture or doctrine because you've already decided you trust him.
I feel like I'm not saying this well. Hope it makes sense - the doctrine IS very important, but we don't decide whether or not to believe it based on debates, that's for sure.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're aware that we present new doctrine and we encourage people to find out for themselves whether the doctrine is true or not.
Actually, in my experiences with Mormon missionaries and former missionaries, the more unique elements of Mormon doctrine are almost never presented until the conversion is pretty much a done deal. There's a great emphasis put on "feeling the spirit," and not so much on "do you think God has a physical body?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: - the doctrine IS very important, but we don't decide whether or not to believe it based on debates, that's for sure.
Which could explain why you don't like it when other churches frame things in a what we believe/what they believe way. Because that's not what's important to you, so you don't get why people want to talk about it. Now naturally there's also an element of "but they're getting what we believe wrong, and I can understand why you wouldn't like that. But many of you do seem to feel that just discussing it is rude regardless of accuracy. And that sort of discussion is the way a lot of other people approach religion.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a great emphasis put on "feeling the spirit," and not so much on "do you think God has a physical body?"
Tom, but that's how we find out if the doctrine is true or not: by asking God, and receiving an answer. And they do introduce unique doctrine almost from the get-go: the doctrine of God having a body comes from Joseph Smith's first vision, for example. The very fact that God can reveal new things to man today as in times past is definitely new doctrine, to most people.
Maybe I just have a different understanding of "doctrine" than you. I thought it meant, you know, everything we believe. But I will grant you that we introduce new doctrine and ask the person to pray about whether it's true, rather than discussing doctrine and just seeing if the person already agrees with it. Perhaps that's the difference you mean.
Oh, and I agree that most people don't know ALL the doctrines of the Church before they join it. I don't think I know all of them myself.
quote:The very fact that God can reveal new things to man today as in times past is definitely new doctrine, to most people.
I doubt that you can find a single Christian denomination that teaches that God can not reveal new things. There are some that believe God chooses not to, but they are no where near a majority. Most Christians believe in continuing revelation. We just don’t believe that God has designated one man as the primary recipient of it.
This particular misperception comes up with depressing regularity. Perhaps LDS folk should have a class or two on what other denominations believe. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know dkw, I have heard too many refrains of "do not add to or take away from the Bible," and "The work is done and there is nothing more to be said," and "If any (interpreting it as every) angel delivers a gospel . . . "
Usually, the "disgust" is more about direct communiction of God through either a vision or angels. To be honest, the LDS Church really hasn't had much of that kind of officially recognized revelation since Brigham Young. I must admit to an interest of what you consider new revelation.
I think that TomD is actually on to something, although I usually think he isn't. However, experience has shown " but, they are getting what we believe wrong," is 90 percent of the time in the discussions. Therefore, Mormons have come to think of such things as bigotted at worst and irrelavant at best. We don't want others talking about us and so we don't talk about them. And when we do learn about other religions its not in the spirit of "us vs them," but more about general information.
posted
This is not to excuse any persecution or such, (which couldn't be) but this is how I think Christians see their relationship to mormonism in general--
The core of Christian doctrine is salvation through grace, based on confession of Jesus and repentance of sins. Christians see some mormon beliefs as aberrant enough as to perhaps (or to some people, definately) imperil their salvation, since their understanding of who God is is at odds with reality (... as we understand it.) Not only that, most or all mormons are missionaries, and usually effective ones, due to generally being good people and having great dedication. So they are leading people into falsehoods that could have eternal consequences. It's like how pepsi might view coca-cola sellers, if they belived coca-cola might be deadly, I suppose. Any (reasonable) christian should see that the differences in most denominations' theology are slight, and certainly even Catholicism and protestism as well. Mormonism falls in a fuzzy area between eccectric and heretical.
We should give God more credit than that, though, and let the LDS example inspire us to present our beliefs with dedication and humility, and leave heaven in God's hands.
and back to values/beliefs, in terms of a national leader, the values are way more important; I'd rather a president or legislater share my definitions of justice and freedom than of God. Of course, I used to think that all Christians *did* share my values, and differed only on seemingly unimportant rituals. Since becoming a bit more politiacally aware, I realize that there's often as much difference among major religions than between them, even if each holds the same sincere beliefs. (Reform vs orthodox judaism, national council of churches vs focus on the family, Bush vs Kerry).
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good article, Storm Saxon, although it took me forever to read it. Very thorough on his background and style of leadership.
I agree about your last paragraph, Nikisknight; I've been amazed, as I've learned more, at how many differences there are among Americans, among Christians and even among Mormons. I liked to think deep down we all want the same things. I guess if that's true it's really deep down.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:OSC has, on this very board. It was a fairly long post about the Hellenistic twisting of original Christian doctrine.
When I read his statements I was actually shocked. Although I do agree with much of what he said, I wasn't even sure of what his point was. It made me nervous, if for no other reason than I knew it would be used against Mormons to show how insensitive we were toward other Christians' beliefs.
However, it did show the general rather than specific approach that Mormons take toward religious differences. It is a general swath rather than a razerblade. Of course, that is the approach that dkw doesn't like. We always talk in generalities and almost never in specifics as we find that rude and biggoted. OSC's post was an example of an exception more than a rule. It is evidence that OSC can be pretty fearless.
I just think that Dante is sighing because the post represented the very thing everyone is trying to prove isn't happening. I mean, its always nice to hear;
"imperil their salvation"
"odds with reality"
"leading people into falsehoods"
"if they belived coca-cola might be deadly"
"eccectric and heretical."
In the same breath as "good people." Kind of makes the whole "by their fruits ye shall know them" pretty meaningless.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get it. We know that other Christians don't think we are Christians. They aren't going to change their definition of Christian and we aren't going to give up the name. We know they think we teach some false doctrine. We also think they teach some false doctrine. I thought Nikisknight was respectful in stating why they think we're wrong. I didn't see it as an attack, just an explanation.
Do we really think they're going to start saying everything we believe is just fine? And if not, can NO ONE state the differences without us feeling attacked?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the only thing that made Dante sigh was the absence of the word "other" in the quoted sentence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
