Mormon Missions = Anti-Mormon Ministries?

[Jeff K.]

The people who developed blue bell ice cream are of questionable character. The method by which they say they achieved their flavor is outlandish and without foundation. Everyone knows you must go the chunky monkey route. Otherwise you have done something unnatural. People who eat Blue Bell never question where the flavors come from. Blue Bell itself doesn't disclose all that they do, and they ask for alot of money in order to partake in Blue Bell ice cream. The way Blue Bell defines flavor is so different, you can't even call it ice cream. People who eat Blue Bell ice cream aren't really eathing ice cream, even when they tell you they are. They use some of the same flavors other ice creams have, but they aren't really ice cream.

If you eat Blue Bell ice cream you will be condemned with infernal indigestian.

Blue Bell is a false ice cream with false flavors.

[blueadept]

This thread has raised a couple more misconceptions that may explain the justifications of anti-mormon ministries.

1) The primary job of the missionaries is not to convert. It is to teach.

IMHO, if I ask most individuals what they think of Mormons, I think the the #1 item would be your door-to-door evangelizing efforts and I think it's a reasonable conclusion. As a Catholic, the normal response I get when I knock on doors is 'you folks do this?....That's great.' So while I respect your statement that the primary job of the LDS missionaries is not to convert, that's not the impression most have.

Conversion is done by the Spirit not the missionaries.

I totally agree.

The LDS missionary is not out to "steal sheep" from other flocks.

With your heavy presence in dominant Catholic countries, I would say it's in the eyes of the beholder. But, I respect your right to be there.

added.....I may have read too many articles of mission presidents who seem to stress the need for more baptisms. Reading these type of stories may have skewed my opinion a bit.

Edited July 7, 2011 by blueadept

[frankenstein]

The people who developed blue bell ice cream are of questionable character. The method by which they say they achieved their flavor is outlandish and without foundation. Everyone knows you must go the chunky monkey route. Otherwise you have done something unnatural. People who eat Blue Bell never question where the flavors come from. Blue Bell itself doesn't disclose all that they do, and they ask for alot of money in order to partake in Blue Bell ice cream. The way Blue Bell defines flavor is so different, you can't even call it ice cream. People who eat Blue Bell ice cream aren't really eathing ice cream, even when they tell you they are. They use some of the same flavors other ice creams have, but they aren't really ice cream.

If you eat Blue Bell ice cream you will be condemned with infernal indigestian.

Blue Bell is a false ice cream with false flavors.

Thanks for the good laughs, this is excellent.

[Nathair/|\]

While other ice creams are good enough for the masses, the enlightened know that only Big Dipper ice cream in Missoula, Montana holds the true creamy gnosis. Upon tasting Big Dipper ice cream one realizes that they have always known that all other ice creams are but illusion created by the Demiurge.

[Pahoran]

The claim in the other thread was,

"DaddyG, on 04 July 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

You have it backwards. LDS did not try to define other peoples view of truth, revelation or knowledge in the OP. It was the other way around. "

Yet this is exactly what the LDS missionaries do.

No Hughes, it bears no relationship to what the LDS missionaries do.

If you are apart of another church, "We missionaries are here to tell you the truth, that your church is apostate and false." Period.

That's a HUGE falsehood, Hughes.

Why did you put that statement in quotes? Who were you quoting? Yourself? Because you know you were quoting no Latter-day Saint when you wrote it, don't you?

What the missionaries really say comes much closer to this: "You belong to the XYZ Church? Great! We are here to testify to you that Jesus Christ lives; that He loves you; and that because of His love for us, He has caused the Gospel to be restored in its fulness in these latter days. May we tell you more about that?"

How is that not anti-(insert other religion here)?

Let's see.

How many books have you seen published by the Church of Jesus Christ, on the theme of "Why the XYZ Church is Out to Lunch?"

How many LDS-sponsored "ministries" (heh heh) have you seen producing anti-XYZ movies with titles like "The Angel Makers?"

How many LDS-run websites can you find calling themselves manipulative descriptions such as "Recovery from XYZ-ism?"

How many informed, believing Latter-day Saints hang around web discussion forums set up to discuss the XYZ religion in order to attack that religion?

Answer: none.

And do you know why?

I'll tell you. Actually, there are two reasons:

1. We are better than that. In fact, we can't hold our breath long enough to lower ourselves to such a putrid level, and have severe difficulty trying to understand those who do.
   
2. We do not have the well-earned sense of religious inferiority that clearly motivates anti-Mormon nonsense.

Does that help?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

While other ice creams are good enough for the masses, the enlightened know that only Big Dipper ice cream in Missoula, Montana holds the true creamy gnosis. Upon tasting Big Dipper ice cream one realizes that they have always known that all other ice creams are but illusion created by the Demiurge.

We have no desire to belittle your ice cream preferences. We say: bring all the good that you've found in the ice creams you usually eat. Let us see if we can add to that goodness. We are convinced that once you have tasted the sweetness of Rush Munro's ice cream you'll want to make it part of your life.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

This thread has raised a couple more misconceptions that may explain the justifications of anti-mormon ministries.

1) The primary job of the missionaries is not to convert. It is to teach. Conversion is done by the Spirit not the missionaries. The LDS missionary is not out to "steal sheep" from other flocks.

I dunno, DaddyG - the primary measure that missionaries use is # of baptisms. Maybe it's different where you guys live, but where I live, baptism are everything. Wards in my stake are measured by baptisms and baptismal goals. The A70 in our area asks about baptisms by stake. The mission president sets a goal of 10 baptisms per week and sends out an email every week to show how many baptisms there were the week prior. Local ward councils focus on baptisms.

Yes, the missionaries want to be teaching constantly, and one can say that the spirit converts, not the missionaries. I think it's OK to measure baptisms, I just think it's not correct to state that their primary job is to teach when their primary goal is to attain baptisms.

H.

[Pahoran]

I dunno, DaddyG - the primary measure that missionaries use is # of baptisms. Maybe it's different where you guys live, but where I live, baptism are everything. Wards in my stake are measured by baptisms and baptismal goals. The A70 in our area asks about baptisms by stake. The mission president sets a goal of 10 baptisms per week and sends out an email every week to show how many baptisms there were the week prior. Local ward councils focus on baptisms.

Yes, the missionaries want to be teaching constantly, and one can say that the spirit converts, not the missionaries. I think it's OK to measure baptisms, I just think it's not correct to state that their primary job is to teach when their primary goal is to attain baptisms.

H.

Not necessarily. It could simply be that baptisms are a more significant measure of the impact of the teaching than the simple number of lessons taught.

I truly hope that I don't hold the Church responsible for producing someone who would make such a dreadful argument as that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

Using another measure I had many Baptist and Evangelical ministries tell me I was going to h*** for not following their particular flavor of religion. I never had a Mormon tell me I was going to h*** for my beliefs.

My conversion was based on the foundation of the missionaries teaching me about Christ's atonement and the Holy Spirit verifying their teachings were true.

Perhaps the stolen sheep and disdain for other religions accusations are projection on the part of those who hold such attitudes (mormon or not)?

[Brad]

I like Rocky Road ice cream and tell everyone how good it is. Therefore I'm anti-the other 31 flavors?

That just doesn't make sense.

But IMHO, if you believe what you have is the truth (even though you accept that other faiths have some truths as well), then shouldn't you want to teach it as that? I respectfully disagree with your ice cream analogy; I think there is one "flavor" that contains the truth, and in turn is better than all of the other ones. This isn't to say that one should berate, belittle, mock, or misrepresent the other flavors, but if you believe you have the truth, by all means, share it to your heart's content.

[Jeff K.]

I dunno, DaddyG - the primary measure that missionaries use is # of baptisms. Maybe it's different where you guys live, but where I live, baptism are everything. Wards in my stake are measured by baptisms and baptismal goals. The A70 in our area asks about baptisms by stake. The mission president sets a goal of 10 baptisms per week and sends out an email every week to show how many baptisms there were the week prior. Local ward councils focus on baptisms.

Yes, the missionaries want to be teaching constantly, and one can say that the spirit converts, not the missionaries. I think it's OK to measure baptisms, I just think it's not correct to state that their primary job is to teach when their primary goal is to attain baptisms.

H.

Getting baptisms is important. It is not the measure of missionaries, never has been. I would say that "baptisms are everything" is more a reflection of your thought process on the matter than the reality. We have baptismal goals, and the area authorities also ask about them. But area authorities ask about many many other things as well, perhaps you aren't aware of all the questions, just the selective ones you seem to think you know about. Having lived in many stakes, I have yet to see one that is as all consuming as you seem to think yours is. To me such a thing would be an anomaly.

[Doctor Ninja]

We have no desire to belittle your ice cream preferences. We say: bring all the good that you've found in the ice creams you usually eat. Let us see if we can add to that goodness. We are convinced that once you have tasted the sweetness of Rush Munro's ice cream you'll want to make it part of your life.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well of course, organic is the best! Not polluted with those artificial doctrines.

[LDSToronto]

Getting baptisms is important. It is not the measure of missionaries, never has been. I would say that "baptisms are everything" is more a reflection of your thought process on the matter than the reality. We have baptismal goals, and the area authorities also ask about them. But area authorities ask about many many other things as well, perhaps you aren't aware of all the questions, just the selective ones you seem to think you know about. Having lived in many stakes, I have yet to see one that is as all consuming as you seem to think yours is. To me such a thing would be an anomaly.

I've served in a stake presidency for 7 years, so this is more than an reflection of my thought process on the matter. Here is what we are asked about when it comes to missionary work:

# of baptisms by ward

That's it. Not # of lessons taught. Not # of splits. Not # of new contacts. Just # of baptisms by ward.

Yes, A70's ask about other things, too. In my region, he asks about sacrament attendance and retention rate for new members.

Those are the three metrics. I know this because my stake president meets monthly with the A70 in our region. Our stake presidency spends a lot of time talking about these things.

So, you can see, this is more than my selective thought process. It's my reality.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Getting baptisms is important. It is not the measure of missionaries, never has been.

BTW, I agree. I don't think a missionary should be measured based on number of baptisms.

H.

[Hughes]

To be anti-(insert other religion here) is to belittle, mock, and insult another religion. Latter-day Saints do not do that, nor do we believe that all other churches are "apostate and false." We believe that God is in all religions, that every religion and philosophy on the face of the earth has at least a portion of the truth, and that all the great religious leaders were raised up by God for a specific purpose. I would hope that no LDS missionary would ever said, "Your church is apostate and false." I better never hear a Latter-day Saint say that.

Either way, though, calling somebody's religion "apostate and false" is not the same as defining their beliefs for them. To do that would be saying, "You believe such-and-such," which Latter-day Saints do not and, I hope, will not do either.

Seems I've been told more than once what I supposedly believe, on this very forum. Not that Mormons ever do that... no...

This thread has raised a couple more misconceptions that may explain the justifications of anti-mormon ministries.

1) The primary job of the missionaries is not to convert. It is to teach. Conversion is done by the Spirit not the missionaries. The LDS missionary is not out to "steal sheep" from other flocks.

2) The LDS have no ministry geared at another religion. Our missionaries don't learn how to "witness" to Catholics, Evangelicals or Hindus for that matter. A dear friend who served a mission in Korea was quite surprised when he got into the mission and started dealing with the non-Chrisitan culture and their assumptions. He said he had to start as a much more basic level about Christ.

Our teaching that the LDS Church is true being "anti-everything else" is sort of like this.

I like Rocky Road ice cream and tell everyone how good it is. Therefore I'm anti-the other 31 flavors?

That just doesn't make sense.

It is your perception that the LDS missionary isn't out to "steal sheep" from other flocks, it is my experience and observation that it does happen. And you don't see the LDS church discouraging those individuals, or saying to them that they should go back to their previous church, now do you?

No Hughes, it bears no relationship to what the LDS missionaries do.

That's a HUGE falsehood, Hughes.

Why did you put that statement in quotes? Who were you quoting? Yourself? Because you know you were quoting no Latter-day Saint when you wrote it, don't you?

What the missionaries really say comes much closer to this: "You belong to the XYZ Church? Great! We are here to testify to you that Jesus Christ lives; that He loves you; and that because of His love for us, He has caused the Gospel to be restored in its fulness in these latter days. May we tell you more about that?"

Let's see.

How many books have you seen published by the Church of Jesus Christ, on the theme of "Why the XYZ Church is Out to Lunch?"

How many LDS-sponsored "ministries" (heh heh) have you seen producing anti-XYZ movies with titles like "The Angel Makers?"

How many LDS-run websites can you find calling themselves manipulative descriptions such as "Recovery from XYZ-ism?"

How many informed, believing Latter-day Saints hang around web discussion forums set up to discuss the XYZ religion in order to attack that religion?

Answer: none.

And do you know why?

I'll tell you. Actually, there are two reasons:

1. We are better than that. In fact, we can't hold our breath long enough to lower ourselves to such a putrid level, and have severe difficulty trying to understand those who do.
   
2. We do not have the well-earned sense of religious inferiority that clearly motivates anti-Mormon nonsense.

Does that help?

Regards,

Pahoran

I can only describe things from my perspective, and certainly you are free to disagree.

I dunno, DaddyG - the primary measure that missionaries use is # of baptisms. Maybe it's different where you guys live, but where I live, baptism are everything. Wards in my stake are measured by baptisms and baptismal goals. The A70 in our area asks about baptisms by stake. The mission president sets a goal of 10 baptisms per week and sends out an email every week to show how many baptisms there were the week prior. Local ward councils focus on baptisms.

Yes, the missionaries want to be teaching constantly, and one can say that the spirit converts, not the missionaries. I think it's OK to measure baptisms, I just think it's not correct to state that their primary job is to teach when their primary goal is to attain baptisms.

H.

Sounds more like a business than a church to me.

Using another measure I had many Baptist and Evangelical ministries tell me I was going to h*** for not following their particular flavor of religion. I never had a Mormon tell me I was going to h*** for my beliefs.

My conversion was based on the foundation of the missionaries teaching me about Christ's atonement and the Holy Spirit verifying their teachings were true.

Perhaps the stolen sheep and disdain for other religions accusations are projection on the part of those who hold such attitudes (mormon or not)?

I wonder why no mormons said you were going to h***? Could it be that hardly anyone goes there according to their theology? Not surprising then.

But IMHO, if you believe what you have is the truth (even though you accept that other faiths have some truths as well), then shouldn't you want to teach it as that? I respectfully disagree with your ice cream analogy; I think there is one "flavor" that contains the truth, and in turn is better than all of the other ones. This isn't to say that one should berate, belittle, mock, or misrepresent the other flavors, but if you believe you have the truth, by all means, share it to your heart's content.

I also disagree with the ice cream analogy for a different reason. Truth and salvation is more analogous to medicine, than anything else. If your truth is actually not true, no amount of "liking that flavor" will make it true.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 07 July 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

Getting baptisms is important. It is not the measure of missionaries, never has been. I would say that "baptisms are everything" is more a reflection of your thought process on the matter than the reality. We have baptismal goals, and the area authorities also ask about them. But area authorities ask about many many other things as well, perhaps you aren't aware of all the questions, just the selective ones you seem to think you know about. Having lived in many stakes, I have yet to see one that is as all consuming as you seem to think yours is. To me such a thing would be an anomaly.

I've served in a stake presidency for 7 years, so this is more than an reflection of my thought process on the matter. Here is what we are asked about when it comes to missionary work:

# of baptisms by ward

That's it. Not # of lessons taught. Not # of splits. Not # of new contacts. Just # of baptisms by ward.

Yes, A70's ask about other things, too. In my region, he asks about sacrament attendance and retention rate for new members.

Those are the three metrics. I know this because my stake president meets monthly with the A70 in our region. Our stake presidency spends a lot of time talking about these things.

So, you can see, this is more than my selective thought process. It's my reality.

H.

Well, rather than one, I have served in four different stakes, and worked with three mission presidents outside my mission. My experience over a wide range of different areas and stakes is not reflective of your perception in one stake. While baptisms are counted, and retention is important, it is certainly not a mere numbers game you seem to make it out to be. Our baptisms are not very high, and yet, you would find it difficult to count the number of times our present stake president brings it up. The others I have worked with were not that different.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 07 July 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

Getting baptisms is important. It is not the measure of missionaries, never has been.

Nor were missionaries measured otherwise, even in our present stake. In fact presently the missionaries are teaching the discussions to members in order to help them be more clear in their communication. We haven't even been asked if we have investigators for them.

[LDSToronto]

Well, rather than one, I have served in four different stakes, and worked with three mission presidents outside my mission. My experience over a wide range of different areas and stakes is not reflective of your perception in one stake. While baptisms are counted, and retention is important, it is certainly not a mere numbers game you seem to make it out to be. Our baptisms are not very high, and yet, you would find it difficult to count the number of times our present stake president brings it up. The others I have worked with were not that different.

"

Which is why I said this in my original post: "Maybe it's different where you guys live, but where I live, baptism are everything"

And come on, Jeff. I'm not making it out to be a numbers game. I simply told you what I've experienced. Stop reading into it. However, I've got two years worth of emails from the mission president that talk about hitting the goal of 10 baptisms per week across the mission. Close to 100 emails stating that 10 per week is our goal, we have hit it only X many times, here is last week's count, we can do better, etc.

Like I said, maybe it's different here, I don't know. Maybe in places where there are very few members, like Southern Ontario, there is a focus on baptisms. I can't say why there is such a focus on baptisms. All I can say is that there is a focus on baptisms.

H.

[Jeff K.]

I think you can study a situation with numbers though, and they tend to be objective. So if numbers are asked for, does it mean the stake is judged? If the stake is not being judged, or valued, what does that say about the importance of the numbers if no impact is forthcoming? You can analyze and seek explanation for sudden drops, and sudden jumps.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 07 July 2011 - 08:42 PM, said:

Well, rather than one, I have served in four different stakes, and worked with three mission presidents outside my mission. My experience over a wide range of different areas and stakes is not reflective of your perception in one stake. While baptisms are counted, and retention is important, it is certainly not a mere numbers game you seem to make it out to be. Our baptisms are not very high, and yet, you would find it difficult to count the number of times our present stake president brings it up. The others I have worked with were not that different.

"

Which is why I said this in my original post: "Maybe it's different where you guys live, but where I live, baptism are everything"

And come on, Jeff. I'm not making it out to be a numbers game. I simply told you what I've experienced. Stop reading into it. However, I've got two years worth of emails from the mission president that talk about hitting the goal of 10 baptisms per week across the mission. Close to 100 emails stating that 10 per week is our goal, we have hit it only X many times, here is last week's count, we can do better, etc.

Like I said, maybe it's different here, I don't know. Maybe in places where there are very few members, like Southern Ontario, there is a focus on baptisms. I can't say why there is such a focus on baptisms. All I can say is that there is a focus on baptisms.

H.

I think you offer a colored perspective that isn't quite contextually accurate compared to the large breadth of experience I have seen.

[LDSToronto]

I think you offer a colored perspective that isn't quite contextually accurate compared to the large breadth of experience I have seen.

I qualified my statements by saying this was *my* experience in *my* geography and asked if other had a different experience. I acknowledge that my experience in my stake may be different. I didn't embellish my story. Perhaps you are biased in your reading of my post because of who I am?

I would presume that in some areas, baptisms aren't the focus; in others, baptisms are the focus.

[Pahoran]

I qualified my statements by saying this was *my* experience in *my* geography and asked if other had a different experience. I acknowledge that my experience in my stake may be different. I didn't embellish my story. Perhaps you are biased in your reading of my post because of who I am?

I would presume that in some areas, baptisms aren't the focus; in others, baptisms are the focus.

Or alternatively, as I suggested, maybe baptisms are simply a useful gauge of the effectiveness of the teaching.

It seems to me that missionaries who are effective in their teaching are likely to show that effectiveness in baptisms.

But what think you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

Hughes - your perspective says more about you than it does the goals and behavior of the LDS Church. Like I said - perhaps its projection.

Once again I have a direct experience of critics having to re-define what the LDS actually believe in order to take issue with what we don't believe.

When you dig up that long lost Joseph Smith letter that says we are out to steal sheep let me know. Until then I'd appreciate you and other critics sticking to the facts and not attempting to tar us with your perceptions that have little to do with the reality of our doctrines and practices.

[KevinG]

Or alternatively, as I suggested, maybe baptisms are simply a useful gauge of the effectiveness of the teaching.

It seems to me that missionaries who are effective in their teaching are likely to show that effectiveness in baptisms.

But what think you?

Regards,

Pahoran

That really depends on the area and the local culture and people. There are some very dedicated missionaries who teach what we believe in Brussels (I've known two) and have almost no hope of baptizing because of the strong Catholic culture. The teach to inform others of our beliefs.

If it were about stealing sheep or proving others wrong we wouldn't be wasting so much time in areas where baptism was such a rare thing.

For example my son was recently in a poor area the Philippines. He spent a lot of time helping local priesthood leaders strengthen their wards and stakes, He also spent lots ot time helping the poor reinforce their shacks. Converstions were rare but most of the natives were willing to listen to the lessons. He MUCH preferred referrals to door to door visits. So do the rest of the missionaries I've met.

People who want to hear the message are much more fun to visit. Our young men don't like "cold call" missionary work.

[Pahoran]

Seems I've been told more than once what I supposedly believe, on this very forum. Not that Mormons ever do that... no...

For example?

It is your perception that the LDS missionary isn't out to "steal sheep" from other flocks, it is my experience and observation that it does happen. And you don't see the LDS church discouraging those individuals, or saying to them that they should go back to their previous church, now do you?

Of course not. The point you are missing (or evading) is that we don't go out looking for those who go to the XYZ Church to tell them what's wrong with XYZ-ism; we go out looking for anyone who will listen to the message of the restored Gospel, and we invite all to come unto Christ.

I can only describe things from my perspective, and certainly you are free to disagree.

Yes, and my perspective is an informed one, while yours -- not to put too fine a point on it -- is not.

Sounds more like a business than a church to me.

See what I mean?

I wonder why no mormons said you were going to h***? Could it be that hardly anyone goes there according to their theology? Not surprising then.

I admit it; our theology is superior to those that have nothing to offer but threats of hayall.

I also disagree with the ice cream analogy for a different reason..

All analogies are imperfect.

Truth and salvation is more analogous to medicine, than anything else. If your truth is actually not true, no amount of "liking that flavor" will make it true.

You're right.

Just as no amount of jealousy over someone else's flavour will make it false.

However much you might wish it did.

Regards,

Pahoran