217 replies to this topic

[maupayman]

ELF1024, on 28 December 2010 - 08:19 AM, said:

If you are religious, there are only two choices... Catholic or LDS. Either the true Church never left, or it's been restored. The Evangelicals have no leg to stand on, as you can't get good fruit from a bad tree.

I think you need to replace "religious" with "christian". Over half the world would disagree with you on this one.

[maupayman]

Bsix, on 28 December 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

I think it says a lot that we are NOT training our missionaries in how to discredit other religions. We share our beliefs and invite others to consider our beliefs. We do attempt to convert...but generally do it by affirmation not by attacking.

Six

Right, you guys wait til the fifth discussion to discredit other religions, when you teach the apostacy.

[maupayman]

Hey Consig, I served in the Philippines where the only "antimormon" claims I encountered was Adam-God theory. But I think this brings up an important point for young LDS, that prophets have been wrong, even when speaking as prophets. I think this could be a very valuable lesson for young LDS, which is not often covered in Sunday school. Best of luck with your presentation.

[mnn727]

Missionaries go out to preach the Gospel, not to refute every argument. There is nothing in Preach My Gospel or even the old lesson set about countering arguments. I know members would like the missionaries to do everything but thats not how it works. I would be willing to bet that every ward had someone good at refuting anti arguements if they run up against that type, what I am sensing is that your Stake President is not looking to get deep into it, but to make them aware of arguments.

Having said that, I do like giving them some general idea's of what they will hear and the answers to it.
1st "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer - "I don't know, but let me find someone who does to meet with you" is a better answer.
2nd They need to find out what the Mission Presidents feelings about this is as that is who they will report to (and to a lessor extent the Bishops of the wards they are assigned to.)
Those are the 2 things I would pound into them at both the beginning and end of your talk.

I would then touch on such things as DNA, no new scripture after Revelations, How the Bible was put together and also give them Bruce R McConkies talk after the Preisthood ban was lifted, about receiving further light and knowledge and following the living Prophet. I also would suggest that they concentrate some heavy duty study time on the New Testament as that is the common ground with other Christians that they will need to build upon.

Edited by mnn727, 29 December 2010 - 09:09 AM.

[Vance]

maupayman, on 29 December 2010 - 08:21 AM, said:

Hey Consig, I served in the Philippines where the only "antimormon" claims I encountered was Adam-God theory. But I think this brings up an important point for young LDS, that prophets have been wrong, even when speaking as prophets. I think this could be a very valuable lesson for young LDS, which is not often covered in Sunday school. Best of luck with your presentation.

I served in the Philippines as well and I never heard that one.  You apparently never read any of the Iglesia ni Christo publications.

[maupayman]

Vance, on 29 December 2010 - 09:46 AM, said:

I served in the Philippines as well and I never heard that one.  You apparently never read any of the Iglesia ni Christo publications.

Not much, to be honest. They were not very big, where I served, I saw their church's though. Wasn't the founder somehow influenced by mormonism?

[LDS Truthseeker]

This is my first post here.  I hope I am welcome.  I’ve been visiting the board for years but never posted until now.  I was so intrigued by Consiglieri’s post that I just had to join MADB just to give my two cents.

I am stunned that any stake president is progressive enough to host such a fireside that can be potentially risky.  My hat’s off to him for the effort.  Perhaps he's doing this as a test to see if the innoculation will be fruitful.  We did an extremely scaled-down version of something that touched on that in my ward which I would like to relate.

We had a combined Priesthood/R.S. lesson where the speaker brought up some common objections that people had to the church and some stereotypes that non-members had of Mormons.  He started out with positive impressions that people had of Mormons like family-oriented, hardworking, etc. but then added the negative ones like close-minded, brainwashed and naïve.
  
They only brought up a few ‘anti-Mormon’ arguments like polygamy.  It seemed to be fairly open and honest until they gave the response that we should provide to the investigators that bring up polygamy.  It was to suggest that there were a surplus of women in the 1800s without husbands and this was a way for them to survive the harsh conditions.

I was stunned that in this ‘enlightened age’ that such nonsense was still being taught in church.  I assume everyone here knows that is not true.  

So Consiglieri, if you have such a meeting, please present sound critic’s arguments and real answers – not the trite, quicky, inaccurate responses we were told in church 40 years ago. I wonder though, how you will present the ‘answers’ since the church gives very few official answers.  If you give apologetic responses, I think you have to state that it is only the opinions of some scholarly members and not official church responses.

I do think it would good to mix up the issues such as history issues like polygamy, stone in hat translation process, Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon archeology/anachronisms with more subjective issues like why do I need your church, why is the LDS testimony valid but my testimony of Catholicism is not, etc.  And as Cinepro suggested, actually polling missionaries is a great idea.

Good Luck

[Heartleap]

ELF1024, on 28 December 2010 - 08:19 AM, said:

I think the strongest arguements against Mormonism are also the strongest arguements against God.

If you are religious, there are only two choices... Catholic or LDS. Either the true Church never left, or it's been restored. The Evangelicals have no leg to stand on, as you can't get good fruit from a bad tree.

However, if you discount belief in God... it really doesn't matter.

Gods Church are those who belong to him. They know him and hear his voice. It is not those who come by laws of any religion. It is those who have given their hearts to him. He is all about love, because that is who he is. If it were for religion sake Christ would have been nicer to the leaders of the religious Church 2000 years ago. Those who know him, know they are his. Because in love, he has revealed himself to them.

Heartleap...

[Ahab]

LDS Truthseeker, on 29 December 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

This is my first post here.  I hope I am welcome.

Ooh!  A new newbie to initiate.  And don't worry about whether or not you are welcome.  When you're not, the Moderators will let you know that.

Quote

... I do think it would good to mix up the issues such as history issues like... why is the LDS testimony valid but my testimony of Catholicism is not...

To put it simply, what we are really interested in is the "testimony of Jesus", and any testimony which contradicts what he tells us doesn't carry as much weight with us as does his testimony.

[ELF1024]

My favorite Anti-Mormon bit that I have recieved from my Mother In Law; was as follows:

Quote

A Mormon man can get married to anyone he lays eyes on. All he needs is a picture, and he can go to one of those Temples and get married to her. Then any children that the woman bears are his.

This of course is utter nonsense, and really deserves no more rebutal than the one my friend gave me when I told him about it.

Quote

Heck, if I can get married to just a picture, I'm getting a subscription to (insert men's magazine here) and I'll get me a harem of good looking women!!!

Edited by ELF1024, 29 December 2010 - 11:31 AM.

[ELF1024]

Heartleap, on 29 December 2010 - 11:22 AM, said:

Gods Church are those who belong to him. They know him and hear his voice. It is not those who come by laws of any religion. It is those who have given their hearts to him. He is all about love, because that is who he is. If it were for religion sake Christ would have been nicer to the leaders of the religious Church 2000 years ago. Those who know him, know they are his. Because in love, he has revealed himself to them.

Heartleap...

That's a nice statement, Bibically inaccurate, but a nice statement of feel good spirituality.

[mfbukowski]

Mortal Man, on 28 December 2010 - 02:27 PM, said:

The church had another leader like that once.

"The fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of  Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism,  as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all  things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we  may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism,  and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a  revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure  every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater  shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it  is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it.  It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it  to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of  scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a  declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The  Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the  Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given."  B.H. Roberts, "Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era, 1906, Vol. Ix. March, 1906. No. 5.

“Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine  things.  Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are  factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and  stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these  elements act somewhat as Elijah’s ravens and feed us without effort on  our part.  To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things  that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar-“Thus far shalt thou  come, but no farther.”  Man cannot hope to understand the things of  God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in  mystery. “Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without  question.  To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the  moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man  strive and trouble himself to understand?  Much study is still a  weariness of the flesh.”  So men reason;  and just now it is much in fashion to laud “the simple faith;” which is  content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort  to understand.  And doubtless many good people regard this course as  indicative of reverence-this plea in bar of effort- “thus far and no  farther.”…This sort of “reverence” is easily simulated, and is of such  flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow- “soul take thine ease”-  that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the  same category as the simulated humility couched in “I don’t know,” which  so often really means “I don’t care, and do not intend to trouble  myself to find out.” Elder B.H. Roberts, The Seventy’s Course of Theology, vol. V (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1912), pg. v         

If I were consig, I would begin the class by reading these quotes.

You know, I agree.

The problem though is that most average members have not been trained in all the areas of higher literary criticism, scriptural methodologies, epistemological theories etc which are necessary to really get into these questions.

After all, that is why we are here in the first place for most of us.  We want to learn the arguments on both sides, but not everyone is interested in this stuff.

In the meantime, a good critic can throw out some zingers which they may not be capable of answering.  It's like throwing a lay person into some esoteric point of finance or law, without training.

Would you argue your own case in a court of law? (maybe you are a lawyer- but you get the point I hope)  Would you remove your own gall bladder?

Not everyone is able or interested in becoming an expert in every field necessary to answer some of these questions.

So do you intentionally expose members to questions they are not in a position to answer?  Should we ask you which particular gall bladder operation is best for you, or do you leave it up to the doctors?

For me the one and only question is whether or not one should trust religious experiences- and that is a highly complex question that touches on psychology, philosophy, and who knows what.  THAT is what the church is based on- personal revelation or "testimony".

And THAT is not an easy one.   I mean if God tells you something should you doubt it?  The whole question of course is- "Was it really God, and what did he really say"?

[Bsix]

Quote

Right, you guys wait til the fifth discussion to discredit other religions, when you teach the apostacy.

With all due respect, that statement VASTLY oversimplifies and overstates what the missionaries really teach. The LDS lesson barely touches on the concept of the apostacy. Our lesson plans do NOT attack specific religions. Our missionary lessons do not expose, debunk, discredit, or criticize the doctrines of other religions. Missionary lessons do not offer texual, historic, or scientific arguments against other religions. You won't find attacks on the character of the leaders of other religions.

Here is close to the full extent to which the LDS missionary lesson that touches on the Apostacy:

Quote

The Great Apostasy
After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church
members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and
the presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the
doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for
Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and
unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances,
such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Without revelation and priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to
interpret the scriptures and the principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
False ideas were taught as truth. Much of the knowledge of the true character and nature
of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. The doctrines of faith
in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost became distorted or
forgotten. The priesthood authority given to Christ’s Apostles was no longer present on
the earth. This apostasy eventually led to the emergence of many churches.
After centuries of spiritual darkness, truth-seeking men and women protested against
current religious practices. They recognized that many of the doctrines and ordinances of
the gospel had been changed or lost. They sought for greater spiritual light, and many
spoke of the need for a restoration of truth. They did not claim, however, that God had
called them to be a prophet. Instead, they tried to reform teachings and practices that
they believed had been changed or corrupted. Their efforts led to the organization of many
Protestant churches. This Reformation resulted in an increased emphasis on religious
freedom, which opened the way for the final Restoration.

The Savior’s Apostles foretold this universal apostasy. They also foretold that the
gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church would be restored once more upon the earth.

Frankly, this is teaching a pretty generalized concept. The mission lessons teach what we believe...not what is wrong with other religions.

I will repeat my eariler observation. It is significant that Consig is providing wisdom on how to respond to attacks on our religion...not teaching the missionaries how to attack others. It is a sign of the affirmative approach the Church takes to the teaching of our religion.

Regards,

Six

Edited by Bsix, 29 December 2010 - 11:53 AM.

[Vance]

maupayman, on 29 December 2010 - 10:10 AM, said:

Not much, to be honest. They were not very big, where I served, I saw their church's though.

You missed out then.

Quote

Wasn't the founder somehow influenced by mormonism?

So the story goes.

[Mortal Man]

LDS Truthseeker, on 29 December 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

This is my first post here.  I hope I am welcome.  I’ve been visiting the board for years but never posted until now.  I was so intrigued by Consiglieri’s post that I just had to join MADB just to give my two cents.

Welcome to the board Truthseeker!

Quote

I am stunned that any stake president is progressive enough to host such a fireside that can be potentially risky.  My hat’s off to him for the effort.  Perhaps he's doing this as a test to see if the innoculation will be fruitful.

I am somewhat stunned as well when I hear of things like this. I can't imagine anything like this happening in my stake.

Quote

They only brought up a few ‘anti-Mormon’ arguments like polygamy.  It seemed to be fairly open and honest until they gave the response that we should provide to the investigators that bring up polygamy.  It was to suggest that there were a surplus of women in the 1800s without husbands and this was a way for them to survive the harsh conditions.

I had an excellent investigator on my mission who almost aborted when he found out that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. The members, whose home we were using to teach him, called us up in a panic and said we had to come right over and straighten him out. As he related his concerns to us, my companion jumped in and told him that it was all a pack of lies by anti-Mormons and that Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist. I said, "Actually, he was a polygamist," to which my companion replied, "WHAT?!?!, HE WAS?!?!" I then explained how there were many suffering widows at that time and how polygamy was the only way to take care of them (since that's what I'd been taught). I was pleased when my companion, investigator and member-family (recent converts) all bought into it.

Quote

So Consiglieri, if you have such a meeting, please present sound critic’s arguments and real answers – not the trite, quicky, inaccurate responses we were told in church 40 years ago.

That's what consig is best at! I have visions of him stuffing the officially correlated lesson manuals into a giant shredder in front of the whole class.

Quote

I wonder though, how you will present the ‘answers’ since the church gives very few official answers.  If you give apologetic responses, I think you have to state that it is only the opinions of some scholarly members and not official church responses.

For the "official church responses", consig could assign the class to complete Cinepro's lesson activity.

[Heartleap]

ELF1024, on 29 December 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

That's a nice statement, Bibically inaccurate, but a nice statement of feel good spirituality.

Hmmm your opinion. God reveals himself to me, speaks to me and I know I am his.

Heartleap...

[ELF1024]

Heartleap, on 29 December 2010 - 12:50 PM, said:

Hmmm your opinion. God reveals himself to me, speaks to me and I know I am his.

Heartleap...

Might not want to be saying that out loud very much... in many states that kind of stuff will get you locked up in a nice round room for 72 hours for observation.

[maupayman]

Bsix, on 29 December 2010 - 11:48 AM, said:

With all due respect, that statement VASTLY oversimplifies and overstates what the missionaries really teach. The LDS lesson barely touches on the concept of the apostacy. Our lesson plans do NOT attack specific religions. Our missionary lessons do not expose, debunk, discredit, or criticize the doctrines of other religions. Missionary lessons do not offer texual, historic, or scientific arguments against other religions. You won't find attacks on the character of the leaders of other religions.

It is certainly implicitly taught. Especially, when you include the recommended verse from JSH:  

19I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”
Here is close to the full extent to which the LDS missionary lesson that touches on the Apostacy:

Let's say, i'm teaching a presbyterian, is it not implied, in this verse, that their beliefs are incorrect?

Edited by maupayman, 29 December 2010 - 01:04 PM.

[Jeanne]

LDSToronto, on 27 December 2010 - 08:16 PM, said:

Wait a second, your stake presidency wants to teach a bunch of 16-19 year old boys about common anti-mormon claims? Is there not any worry that these boys are impressionable and may actually be hearing some of this stuff for the first time, perhaps even becoming curious about something that they were not curious about before?

Sounds like a rather dangerous fireside to me.

H.

[Heartleap]

ELF1024, on 29 December 2010 - 01:02 PM, said:

Might not want to be saying that out loud very much... in many states that kind of stuff will get you locked up in a nice round room for 72 hours for observation.

I am not afraid, He is my strength,

Heartleap...