Mormon Missions = Anti-Mormon Ministries?

[alter idem]

Seriously, alter idem? And you know that my perception is....what exactly? I reported that my stake reports baptismal numbers to the A70. That is the truth. And that's really all I said on the matter. I didn't attempt to state why those numbers are reported. I simply gave facts, with no interpretation.

I don't believe I said what your perception was. I said that perception influences how we perceive things. I do believe that you perceive their focus is on baptisms--and in your next sentence below, you state this.

Of course I know why the Canada Toronto mission focuses on baptisms - the mission president has told us in stake presidency meetings and in talks in stake conference and in individual wards: He has been asked to grow the Canada Toronto Mission, by the brethren, and he feels that this area has many people ready to hear the gospel, and he feels prompted to set a goal of 10 baptisms per week across the mission because, according to his promptings, if we work hard, we will attain those baptisms.

The past two mission presidents told us that the brethren felt our area could be baptizing more. I can't tell you why the brethren feel that way, because I wasn't there when they told the past two mission presidents. Those past two mission presidents also set goals for baptisms and focused on increasing baptisms.

From what you said above, I believe the mission presidents you mention felt that the members in your area were not helping the missionary work as they could have. It sounds to me that setting 'goals' was a way to try to engage the members in the work.

You don't need to read my posts too closely to see that I'm not denigrating the church or it's missionaries. I don't care if the church sets baptismal goals. The church is free to measure whatever they want to measure. I was simply responding to a post that sounded as though the church never used baptisms as a measure of success, and I answered by sharing my experience.

H.

I don't want you to think that I felt you were 'denigrating the church or it's missions'.

My feeling was that you may misunderstand the purpose of setting baptismal goals. My daughter, who recently returned from serving a mission said that in their mission, the Mission Pres. explained that missionaries can be 'activity driven' and 'purpose driven'--Activity driven means they focus on actions--knocking doors, baptizing, numbers etc.--Purpose driven means they look past those things to the reasons for them--bringing souls to Christ, having charity for those they serve. While the newsletters may seem to 'focus' on baptisms, I do not believe that is the true focus, and as 'outsiders'--we do not know really what the Mission Pres. is teaching his missionaries--but they all use the 'Preach My Gospel' manual and that's one reason I don't believe the focus is numbers.

That said, I agree with your dismay at some LDS on this thread who have said things that I believe are not accurate--it may be we are misunderstanding what they are trying to say--but fact is, it's not really a true portrayal of LDS missionary work to say we don't tell people that other churches are in apostasy and ours is the only true church with priesthood authority on earth today. If we didn't, then what's the purpose? If their church is just fine, why waste our time and money in Missionary work?

There is a tactful way to say things--and I suspect most missionaries, because they love the people they teach, try to be tactful--but I'm certain they are still bold in teaching and trying to help investigators feel the holy ghost--so that they can be converted.

[Jeff K.]

Perhaps its a perception or rather a reputation you have built singling out the negative that confuses you, after all your motivations are definately not neutral on the matter of the church, they tend to be more on the negative side. So with that reputation you have stepped forward with something that to you appears to be an observation when your reputation gives it a negative conotation.

Ah, so it's not so much *what* is being said, it's *who* is saying it. Got it. At least now I understand that it is you who has the perception problem. Could I ask you to set that aside and focus on *what* is being said?

I didn't build your reputation or your disdain for the church. Given the context of those issues and that no one posts in a vacuum, I would say that when you make what you might consider a neutral observation, your reputation given we don't see more than you post (ie facial expression) we usually steel ourselves for another "the church is bad post". You will forgive us for acknowledging your reputation and not posting in a vacuum.

Quote

You have deftly attempted to move the focus away from effort to obstacles. I didn't ask what the obstacles are, we are all well aware of them, living in California I can account for the difficulty involved.

I didn't really understand what you were asking so I did my best to answer.

You have attempted to move the focus from measurement of missionary work to obstacles. Note that I said...

You have deftly attempted to move the focus away from effort to obstacles. I didn't ask what the obstacles are, we are all well aware of them, living in California I can account for the difficulty involved.

In effect you are explaining why missionary work is harder in your area than other presumed areas. But I wasn't questioning the difficulty. I was questioning whether or not you think members could have tried harder. And I was asking how you would measure that effort.

You complain about counting baptisms but you haven't provided an alternative.

As I mentioned, if you want to measure "members doing better", you need to know the following:

Your list of questions have no real bearing.

1. What does a member who does better look like? That is, what do they do, how do they act, etc - what are their characteristics?

People and regions approach missionary work in different ways. Some are more effective than others in different regions and less so than others with different people.

2. What does a member who does not do better look like?

Irrelevant

3. What is the difference between the two? That is, does one of them do more of/less of something? Can you detect some difference between the two?

One puts forth more effort than the other.

4. How do you measure that difference?

The question I asked.

Now from my standpoint your questions are an obfuscation and nothing more. Are you telling me that you don't know if the members could have done better? Or are you telling me that the members could not have done better?

In business you would be eaten alive in the management meeting if you tried to pawn the questions off. You are being asked to make an opinion based on your knowledge of the situation. If you do not have an opinion as to whether or not your Canadienne brothers and sisters who believe in the church could do better or not, well then, why are you even posting?

[LDSToronto]

I didn't build your reputation or your disdain for the church. Given the context of those issues and that no one posts in a vacuum, I would say that when you make what you might consider a neutral observation, your reputation given we don't see more than you post (ie facial expression) we usually steel ourselves for another "the church is bad post". You will forgive us for acknowledging your reputation and not posting in a vacuum.

Alright, Jeff. It seems you are trying too hard to misunderstand what I am saying. Which, by the way, happens to be your reputation.

H.

[Hughes]

While there are 'truths' found in other religions, they lack the authority to save souls. Though I expect a missionary would probably be more tactful than to say 'your religion is apostate and false'--they do believe it and they do teach it when they teach about the Apostasy and Restoration. And I don't think they should have to apologize for it, nor should a Latter-day Saint apologize for it. The whole reason for our church coming into being was because all other churches on the earth were in Apostasy.

I suspect that rather than tell investigators what they believe, they ask the investigator to define their own beliefs. If an investigator says 'my church believes that too' and clearly, it is not true, I don't see anything wrong with educating them. Actually many investigators don't really know what their churches teach and need to study and yes, for the critics, I know some LDS are guilty of this also.

Thanks for being honest. I do have one question, Does the LDS church claim to have authority to save souls?

Some Latter-day Saints may tell other Christians (and non-Christians) that they're wrong, but the Church itself does not. The Church actually advises against it. It's important to make that distinction.

I find this a rather naive statement. As stated above, "Though I expect a missionary would probably be more tactful than to say 'your religion is apostate and false'--they do believe it and they do teach it when they teach about the Apostasy and Restoration. And I don't think they should have to apologize for it, nor should a Latter-day Saint apologize for it. The whole reason for our church coming into being was because all other churches on the earth were in Apostasy. "

I never said the LDS church doesn't tell people they are wrong. Simply teaching differences in doctrines and having differences in opinions in the continuity of authority is no different than the non-denominational community. The difference is we are respectful of others right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. We also put our actions where our words are by helping others find places to worship, build their temples and sanctuaries and restore them after disasters or fires.

We don't target specific religions for debunking like the non-denominational community does. How do you feel about the evangelical community producing materials that target specific religions as cults?

That is something we never do.

Sorry but the teaching of the Apostacy just doesn't justify the angry, hate-filled, fear mongering that the EVs dish out towards the Mormons. At least we're not alone, they hate the Catholics, JWs and others with equal fervor.

We don't respect others right to worship? Don't we live in a society where a free exchange of ideas is held in high esteem? Please tell me where Evangelicals are stopping or violating anyone's right to free speech.

How do I feel about the evangelical community targeting specific religions as cults?

First, the "Evangelical Community" isn't an organization that anyone controls. It's a large diverse group of people who have similar beliefs. And no one controls anyone else, we all answer to God directly. Now as to your question. Some of these individuals feel called by God to "produce materials that target specific religions as cults." And as you might already be aware of, most or many of them are former believers in which ever "religion" they are targeting.

How do I feel about it? I rejoice when truth wins out.

As far as your characterization. I've found very few who are actually angry or "hate-filled" so I wouldn't agree with that characterization.

[Honorentheos]

Interesting turn this has taken.

I'm curious. Let's say that it is purely hypothetical. Would it bother you, the believers who have answered, if it turned out the church did focus on baptism as an easy metric and for no other reason than that? Meaning, there is no enlightened thought behind it suggesting it is a better reflection of teaching or any other argument made so far.

Seriously, does it matter to you what the motive is?

Edited July 9, 2011 by Honorentheos

[KevinG]

Hughes your answers are evasive but that speaks for itself.

I didn't say prevent others from worshipping I said didn't respect others. Your posts are full of disrespect and dishonesty about the LDS religion.

I would consider calling my unborn child the spawn of satan, chasing me around a train saying I was of the devil and trying to ban Mormons from an apartment complex all examples of hate. All of which I experienced within a short time of joining the LDS Church.

For a loosley affiliated group of Christians you guys sure do cooperate well in the distribution of anti-mormon literature and witnessing.

Claiming non-denominational is diverse in that respect is obfuscation of the highest order.

...by the way our Church established and led by Jesus Christ is the only church on the face of the earth with the authority to "save souls" if by that you mean return them to our Father in Heaven. It is done with Christ's power and authority. In short the church doesn't save but Christ does. The Church brings us unto Christ and helps us keep our covenants with Him.

Let's try some specifics. Has your non-denominational group ever used any of these resources or resources similar to them to teach about Mormonism? http://en.wikipedia...._Saint_movement

Edited July 9, 2011 by DaddyG

[LeSellers]

Does the LDS church claim to have authority to save souls?

No.

Why did you ask?

We provide salvific ordinances. It is up to the person to effect the faith, the obedience, and the dedication to His covenants that will turn him into the kind of person the Lord will save.

We don't respect others right to worship? Don't we live in a society where a free exchange of ideas is held in high esteem? Please tell me where Evangelicals are stopping or violating anyone's right to free speech.

Fred Phelps comes to mind. He's not representative of Evangelicals, I know, but you asked.

I wonder if those who picket our Temple sites, who try to stop our building new ones, who run down our missionaries on their bicycles qualify. All of these things happen routinely.

I rejoice when truth wins out.

Too easy. The truth is winning out.

Mainline Evangelism is losing congregants. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is growing.

I've found very few who are actually angry or "hate-filled" so I wouldn't agree with that characterization.

Not all of the hatred is overt and highly public.

When I was working as a door-to-door salesman with the Southwestern Company, it was more than frequent for me to have essentially made a sale (Bible reference materials, written and published by Evangelicals) and then have the buyer refuse to sing, telling me that since I was not a Christian, he couldn't, "in good conscience", make the purchase. On one occasion, the husband, who was not there when the wife bought the set, attacked me (with my bride of two weeks in the car) when I came to deliver them. I was carrying ten or twelve pounds of books (which I had paid for), and could not even raise my hands in defense. I did duck, however, and my assailant swung, missed, and fell on his face. I lost that sale, too, and had to return the books.

I have personal experience that shows many Evangelicals are grossly intolerant of my worshiping as the Lord has revealed to me I should do.

Lehi

[Robert F. Smith]

Toronto said:

Again, I don't care if baptisms are measured. I'll say it a thousand more times if I have to. So far, I've only parroted what I've heard directly from the mission president(s) in this area. Not sure what to say beyond that, except this - PLEASE STOP saying that I am being negative towards baptismal counts! I couldn't care less if baptisms were counted from here to the end of time!

Interesting turn this has taken.

I'm curious. Let's say that it is purely hypothetical. Would it bother you, the believers who have answered, if it turned out the church did focus on baptism as an easy metric and for no other reason than that? Meaning, there is no enlightened thought behind it suggesting it is a better reflection of teaching or any other argument made so far.

Seriously, does it matter to you what the motive is?

It may matter if that is the primary focus of the missionary program. In some missions in the past that was the primary focus, the mission being run like a business in which prospective converts were seen as similar to potential new-car or insurance policy buyers, and the metric of baptism being seen as the best way to measure success. A close friend of mine encountered the push to make rapid baptisms over 40 years ago on his mission. He resisted that tendency and so had a low baptism rate. His purpose was to be sure that converts were truly ready for baptism. Hence years later, when he returned to evaluate those he had baptized, they were still faithful members whereas those baptized so swiftly by others had often fallen away. Converts need deeper and richer soil in which to grow in faith.

Missionaries need to be fully aware that they are official ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and of the Kingdom of God on Earth, with all the power which that entails. They might well exercise independent judgment in their tasks -- as moved upon by the Holy Ghost -- just as some missionaries in the French Mission in the late 1950s resisted heretical orders from the first counselor in that mission (who effectively ran it, with the mission president unaware of the debacle taking place).

Edited July 9, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Mainline Evangelism is losing congregants. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is growing.

Lehi

CFR, Lehi. My information is that evangelicals are growing and are growing much faster than the LDS in foreign missions. Perhaps you have in mind mainline Protestant churches, which are indeed diminishing in size.

[Robert F. Smith]

There must needs be opposition in all things. However, I have read the same claims from LDS who claim to be defenders, that is claims that the manner in which a LDS person is treated by anti-mormons justfies and like response.

I don't think either are justified, though I am sure both sides like the claim Jesus rebuking as justification for their own distasteful, rude, crass, or otherwise vulgar manner.

You are certainly correct. However, there is the application to this of the Law of Unintended Consequences: Professor Larry Foster of Georgia Tech (a non-Mormon history professor) made a close study of the vigorous anti-Mormon work of Sandra Tanner and her late husband Jerald, concluding that their work had actually strengthened the LDS Church -- see his paper in Dialogue 17/2 (Summer 1984), 35-60, online here.

[Hughes]

Hughes your answers are evasive but that speaks for itself.

I didn't say prevent others from worshipping I said didn't respect others. Your posts are full of disrespect and dishonesty about the LDS religion.

I would consider calling my unborn child the spawn of satan, chasing me around a train saying I was of the devil and trying to ban Mormons from an apartment complex all examples of hate. All of which I experienced within a short time of joining the LDS Church.

For a loosley affiliated group of Christians you guys sure do cooperate well in the distribution of anti-mormon literature and witnessing.

Claiming non-denominational is diverse in that respect is obfuscation of the highest order.

...by the way our Church established and led by Jesus Christ is the only church on the face of the earth with the authority to "save souls" if by that you mean return them to our Father in Heaven. It is done with Christ's power and authority. In short the church doesn't save but Christ does. The Church brings us unto Christ and helps us keep our covenants with Him.

Let's try some specifics. Has your non-denominational group ever used any of these resources or resources similar to them to teach about Mormonism? http://en.wikipedia...._Saint_movement

I can't take any credit for how well we "cooperate" with each other... Only God can make things happen like that.

Please tell me how I've been disrespectful and dishonest about the LDS religion.

As to your list. The church I attend hasn't used any on that list, not that we're opposed to those, I just don't think we used those.

And of course I disagree with any claim that the LDS is the only church.

No.

Why did you ask?

We provide salvific ordinances. It is up to the person to effect the faith, the obedience, and the dedication to His covenants that will turn him into the kind of person the Lord will save.

Fred Phelps comes to mind. He's not representative of Evangelicals, I know, but you asked.

I wonder if those who picket our Temple sites, who try to stop our building new ones, who run down our missionaries on their bicycles qualify. All of these things happen routinely.

Too easy. The truth is winning out.

Mainline Evangelism is losing congregants. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is growing.

Not all of the hatred is overt and highly public.

When I was working as a door-to-door salesman with the Southwestern Company, it was more than frequent for me to have essentially made a sale (Bible reference materials, written and published by Evangelicals) and then have the buyer refuse to sing, telling me that since I was not a Christian, he couldn't, "in good conscience", make the purchase. On one occasion, the husband, who was not there when the wife bought the set, attacked me (with my bride of two weeks in the car) when I came to deliver them. I was carrying ten or twelve pounds of books (which I had paid for), and could not even raise my hands in defense. I did duck, however, and my assailant swung, missed, and fell on his face. I lost that sale, too, and had to return the books.

I have personal experience that shows many Evangelicals are grossly intolerant of my worshiping as the Lord has revealed to me I should do.

Lehi

Why did I ask? Maybe because:

alter idem, on 08 July 2011 - 10:16 AM, said:

"While there are 'truths' found in other religions, they lack the authority to save souls."

And I agree that the truth is winning out, and it always does, as God is in control.

[altersteve]

And I agree that the truth is winning out, and it always does, as God is in control.

You seem to me to be saying this as if Latter-day Saints will disagree with you.

[alter idem]

Thanks for being honest. I do have one question, Does the LDS church claim to have authority to save souls?

Yes, we do--and I offer quotes from Pres. Joseph F. Smith who explained very eloquently what I was referring to in my earlier post.

Chapter 27 is titled: 'Our Work Is to Save Souls'

From the manual, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith, page 241

'The life of Joseph F. Smith was a mission for the welfare and salvation of all people, a mission which he commended to the Saints: “There isn’t anything so great and so glorious in this world as to labor for the salvation of the living and for the redemption of the dead.” 3

'The gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation, and it is absolutely necessary for every man and woman in the Church of Christ to work righteousness, to observe the laws of God, and keep the commandments that he has given, in order that they may avail themselves of the power of God unto salvation in this life. 9'

'Let us sustain Christ, his people, and his cause of righteousness and redemption; let us sustain one another in the right, and kindly admonish one another in regard to wrongdoing, that we may be friends and saviors on Mount Zion, one for another, and that we may help the weak and strengthen them, encourage the doubtful and bring light to their right understanding as far as it is possible, that we may be instrumental in the hands of God of being saviors among men. Not that we have power to save men. We have not; but we have power to show them how they can obtain salvation through obedience to the laws of God. We can show them how to walk in order to be saved, for we have the right to do that, we have knowledge and understanding as to how to do it, and it is our privilege to teach it … by example as well as by precept among our associates wherever we are in the world.'

'Our mission has been to save men. We have been laboring … to bring men to a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, to bring them to repentance, to obedience to the requirements of God’s law. We have been striving to save men from error, to persuade them to turn away from evil and to learn to do good. 16'

'Our mission is to save, to preserve from evil, to exalt mankind, to bring light and truth into the world, to prevail upon the people of the earth to walk righteously before God, and to honor him in their lives. 17'

If you'll read the references, I think you will understand what I meant; we not only save souls through bringing people to a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but also by providing the saving ordinances which are given by priesthood authority from God.

This is why Missionary Work is so important to us.

Edited July 9, 2011 by alter idem

[Hughes]

You seem to me to be saying this as if Latter-day Saints will disagree with you.

Indeed. The LDS believe that God didn't protect his word from the apostasy. I believe in a God who is powerful enough to protect his word.

Yes, we do--and I offer quotes from Pres. Joseph F. Smith who explained very eloquently what I was referring to in my earlier post.

If you'll read the references, I think you will understand what I meant; we not only save souls through bringing people to a knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but also by providing the saving ordinances which are given by priesthood authority from God.

This is why Missionary Work is so important to us.

I read them, thanks. Indeed, JS seems to disagree with your statement, "Not that we have power to save men. We have not;"

[Deborah]

Indeed. The LDS believe that God didn't protect his word from the apostasy. I believe in a God who is powerful enough to protect his word.

What does that mean? The LDS believe the Bible is the word of God. Of course he preserved it so that it would come forth. That has nothing to do with the tampering that men might have done in translating or preserving the scriptures.

[KevinG]

Indeed. The LDS believe that God didn't protect his word from the apostasy. I believe in a God who is powerful enough to protect his word.

Your statement is not reflective of LDS belief. I suggest studying the great apostasy in more detail.

[Hughes]

What does that mean? The LDS believe the Bible is the word of God. Of course he preserved it so that it would come forth. That has nothing to do with the tampering that men might have done in translating or preserving the scriptures.

Your statement is not reflective of LDS belief. I suggest studying the great apostasy in more detail.

Since you only believe the Bible, "as far as it's correctly translated." My statement stands, unless it wasn't the apostasy that brings the translation into doubt, maybe you could enlighten me as to exactly when the errors in the Biblical translations occurred.

[Storm Rider]

Since you only believe the Bible, "as far as it's correctly translated." My statement stands, unless it wasn't the apostasy that brings the translation into doubt, maybe you could enlighten me as to exactly when the errors in the Biblical translations occurred.

Hughes, exactly which part of the Bible does the LDS Church say was not translated correctly? For your position to stand, you much have something exact to back it up or it is a red herring. Or is it your proposiition that the words "as far as it's correctly translated" somehow invalidates the entire Bible? Are you then proposing there are no translation errors in the Bible? There is not a Bible scholar alive that does not know there more more than just a few errors glaringly evident in the Bible's translation.

[Xander]

At a universal scale, one could argue the missionary program takes on the traits of being pro-everyone else.

After-all, isn't that what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about? To save ALL of God's children?

The problem with this is that the LDS Church, via the missionary program, produces more ex-Mormons than Mormons.

It seems folks would be better off learning about the Gospel in the spirit world.

[Xander]

Mainline Evangelism is losing congregants. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is growing.

You're kidding, right?

[Robert F. Smith]

You're kidding, right?

You might try reading the thread. I already took him to task for his misstatement above.

However, in determining just who or what is the true Way, you might want to consider the cautious words of the great Rabbi Gamaliel (St. Paul's teacher when he was Saul) as quoted by Luke in Acts 5:34-39, especially his concluding words:

if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought;

But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Fair warning?

[Xander]

You might try reading the thread. I already took him to task for his misstatement above.

However, in determining just who or what is the true Way, you might want to consider the cautious words of the great Rabbi Gamaliel (St. Paul's teacher when he was Saul) as quoted by Luke in Acts 5:34-39, especially his concluding words:

if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought;

But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Fair warning?

I don't think using my capacity to reason is synonymous, or ever could be synonymous, with fighting against God.

[Storm Rider]

The problem with this is that the LDS Church, via the missionary program, produces more ex-Mormons than Mormons.

It seems folks would be better off learning about the Gospel in the spirit world.

Please keep your opinions to your blog; do you have facts for your statement? If not, then at least stay on topic. Things don't change much with your "comments"

[Hughes]

Hughes, exactly which part of the Bible does the LDS Church say was not translated correctly? For your position to stand, you much have something exact to back it up or it is a red herring. Or is it your proposiition that the words "as far as it's correctly translated" somehow invalidates the entire Bible? Are you then proposing there are no translation errors in the Bible? There is not a Bible scholar alive that does not know there more more than just a few errors glaringly evident in the Bible's translation.

I'd love to know which part the LDS church says wasn't translated correctly, that's part of the problem, they are evasive on this question. It's used, in my observation, as a blanket excuse...

As far as errors in the Biblical text, it's my understanding that 99% of the Bible is without error, and completely faithful to the original. God didn't allow any apostasy to change or effect the theology of biblical text, meaning even the small errors are so minor they don't effect theology. We have so many transcripts for such an ancient text.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Hughes

[Calm]

As far as errors in the Biblical text, it's my understanding that 99% of the Bible is without error, and completely faithful to the original. God didn't allow any apostasy to change or effect the theology of biblical text, meaning even the small errors are so minor they don't effect theology.

So God was powerful enough to protect the theology of the text, but not powerful enough to keep the text itself completely pure from corruption?

That appears to be your position since you insist that the LDS position implies that God was not powerful enough to protect it since we accept possible errors in the text or its translations and then you state that there is at least 1% of the Bible in error, so God did not keep the Bible error free and with your logic that means he was not powerful enough to keep it errorfree (as opposed to the actual LDS position that if there are errors in the text, God allowed it even though he had the power to protect it).

Edited July 10, 2011 by calmoriah