Blogger Says Mormons Don'T Welcome Outsiders

[Scott Lloyd]

Not a bad blog about Romney here.

But the author remarked that Mormons don't welcome outsiders and that non-Mormons are not even supposed to enter the church.

I posted a comment expressing puzzlement about how she got that notion.

(Edited to fix the bad link.)

[Kenngo1969]

... [T]he author remarked that Mormons don't welcome outsiders and that non-Mormons are not even supposed to enter the church.

I posted a comment expressing puzzlement about how she got that notion. ...

Yeah, that's why there are signs saying, "Visitors welcome" outside of all of our chapels. (She might be confusing chapels with temples. It's not like that ever happens in the media.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, that's why there are signs saying, "Visitors welcome" outside of all of our chapels.

I made that point in my response post.

(She might be confusing chapels with temples. It's not like that ever happens in the media.)

I expect better accuracy from someone working for U.S. News and World Report.

[Kenngo1969]

... I expect better accuracy from someone working for U.S. News and World Report.

It's probably blasphemous to compare her to someone writing for The New York Post. I cite this example simply to prove that she's not alone in that misconception. Sadly, it's pretty common. Maureen Callahan of The New York Post made the same mistake:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/mormon_in_the_EVLJEgspa6o7Q0UD0Js8kL

[Avatar4321]

So we send out tens of thousands of missionaries out every year to invite people to come to Church only to lock them out when they get there?

[The Nehor]

So we send out tens of thousands of missionaries out every year to invite people to come to Church only to lock them out when they get there?

Makes us feel superior and is fun. I support this new policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

So we send out tens of thousands of missionaries out every year to invite people to come to Church only to lock them out when they get there?

Or we send out tens of thousands of missionaries every year to tell non-members that we don't welcome them.

[Scott Lloyd]

I had a mischievous thought: We could start a campaign to flood Susan Milligan's email inbox with thousands of photos of signs on LDS meetinghouses that bear the words "Visitors Welcome."

I'm not recommending it though; only relishing the idea for my own amusement.

[Scott Lloyd]

OK, this is hilarious. I just revisited the blog site and found this among the reader comments:

I would beware of some of the comments here. There is an organization called "Mormon Voices" that has deliberately called for aggressive trolling of blogs like this. It wouldn't surprise me if an email was sent out to SOLAR, SCOTT LLOYD and others, urging them to appear en masse in order to drown out any other discussion.

Mr. Lloyd, by the way, is a notorious amateur apologist, with a long history of tattle-tale-like behavior and aggressive attacks on LDS Church critics.

The point being that these comments should be regarded with suspicion.

Red Higgins of UT 7:44PM May 15, 2012

In case Mr. Higgins is monitoring this thread, I will explain what happened.

I've availed myself of a free Internet service called Google Alerts. It allows you to enter in a search term or topic, whereupon Google will continuously scan the Internet and alert you via email to content that involves the given topic. In this instance, I have signed up for alerts about Mormons or Mormonism. In that way I was alerted to Susan Milligan's blog post and read it.

And whether or not I am a notorious amateur tattle-tale apologist, the fact of the matter is that any Mormon and any knowledgeable non-Mormon would immediately spot the transparent inaccuracy of a statement to the effect that Mormons do not welcome outsiders. Setting aside religion, as a professional journalist, I find such glaring inaccuracy bothersome, especially in content with the imprimatur of U.S. News and World Report.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not a bad blog about Romney here.

But the author remarked that Mormons don't welcome outsiders and that non-Mormons are not even supposed to enter the church.

I posted a comment expressing puzzlement about how she got that notion.

(Edited to fix the bad link.)

That is just silly, if they will let me in anyone can come.

[Kenngo1969]

Or we send out tens of thousands of missionaries every year to tell non-members that we don't welcome them.

Yeah ... missionaries just gloat: "Oh, if only you could be one of us!"

[Kenngo1969]

Yeah ... missionaries just gloat: "Oh, if only you could be one of us!"

P.S.: Scott, you 'ol scoundrel, you!

[Avatar4321]

Makes us feel superior and is fun. I support this new policy.

My wife might not like it:)

[BCSpace]

JK was offended over that?

[Analytics]

This question reminds me of an experience on my mission.

We were teaching a golden family; they were all there--father, mother, and three kids. They were pretty excited about church. When they agreed to attend, we told several members that we had some golden investigators that were coming, and asked them to be especially nice and welcoming. Most of the members were cordial, but they had their own social circles and own church responsibilities, so they didn't do anything to make the would-be new members feel welcome, besides a quick introduction as they walked by..

By far the worst, though, was the way they treated one of the kids: a teenage boy--perhaps 15. We'd specifically talked to his would-be peer group that this guy would be there, and instructed them to be nice and inviting. When he showed up, we introduced them, and this group of aaronic priesthood holders did everything they could to ignore and exclude the new kid who was interested in joining their church.

Sure, there is an ideal that "Visitors are Welcome," but that doesn't necessarily mean that members will make a visitor feel welcome if he walks in.

[ERayR]

This question reminds me of an experience on my mission.

We were teaching a golden family; they were all there--father, mother, and three kids. They were pretty excited about church. When they agreed to attend, we told several members that we had some golden investigators that were coming, and asked them to be especially nice and welcoming. Most of the members were cordial, but they had their own social circles and own church responsibilities, so they didn't do anything to make the would-be new members feel welcome, besides a quick introduction as they walked by..

By far the worst, though, was the way they treated one of the kids: a teenage boy--perhaps 15. We'd specifically talked to his would-be peer group that this guy would be there, and instructed them to be nice and inviting. When he showed up, we introduced them, and this group of aaronic priesthood holders did everything they could to ignore and exclude the new kid who was interested in joining their church.

Sure, there is an ideal that "Visitors are Welcome," but that doesn't necessarily mean that members will make a visitor feel welcome if he walks in.

I have seen this happen also. All wardsand branches are not created equal. Some are better than others.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure, there is an ideal that "Visitors are Welcome," but that doesn't necessarily mean that members will make a visitor feel welcome if he walks in.

Be that as it may, it is quite wrong to state or imply that as an official, institutional policy or practice, the Church does not welcome outsiders or that it forbids non-members to enter the meetinghouses where Sabbath worship is held. The signs on the buildings and the immense expenditure of resources on outreach through global missionary work are obvious indications to the contrary.

[Senator]

Be that as it may, it is quite wrong to state or imply that as an official, institutional policy or practice, the Church does not welcome outsiders or that it forbids non-members to enter the meetinghouses where Sabbath worship is held.

But there is a grain of truth to the statement. The needed clarification being the difference between "meetinghouse" and Temples. I see other posters made that simple clarification, but you didn't.

Once again we have an unfortunate outsider daring to make comment on our peculiar religion and not getting it exactly right.

What are we going to do with them??

[thesometimesaint]

Senator;

But there is a grain of truth to the statement. The needed clarification being the difference between "meetinghouse" and Temples. I see other posters made that simple clarification, but you didn't.

Once again we have an unfortunate outsider daring to make comment on our peculiar religion and not getting it exactly right.

What are we going to do with them??

That is a stretch of imagination. There is no connection between not welcoming visitors, and areas that are off limits to uninvited guests. I welcome visitors to my home. I don't permit uninvited guests into my bedroom.

I expect the outsider to at least find out about something before publishing it.

Same thing we always done. teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves.

[Senator]

Senator;

That is a stretch of imagination. There is no connection between not welcoming visitors, and areas that are off limits to uninvited guests. I welcome visitors to my home. I don't permit uninvited guests into my bedroom.

I expect the outsider to at least find out about something before publishing it.

Same thing we always done. teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves.

What??

You made no sense to me at all.

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

Simple fact is that we welcome visitors to our public meetings. Any and all are welcome to come.

The woman unknowingly published obvious errors about a group of people. It is very reasonable to fact check something before you publish or you run the risk of being proved incorrect.

We should do nothing to her other than teach her the correct information.

[Scott Lloyd]

But there is a grain of truth to the statement. The needed clarification being the difference between "meetinghouse" and Temples. I see other posters made that simple clarification, but you didn't.

What I did was to correct an error that was blatantly false, easily disproved and could have been avoided with a tiny modicum of research.

Once again we have an unfortunate outsider daring to make comment on our peculiar religion and not getting it exactly right.

What are we going to do with them??

The author of this piece is a professional columnist writing under the nameplate of a very old and respected news magazine. While I might expect a reckless disregard for accuracy from antagonistic, vindictive or generally ignorant contributors to message boards or reader-comment sections of websites, there are higher standards for professional journalists. And this is just as true for opinion writers and pundits as it is for straight-news writers.

[Scott Lloyd]

What??

You made no sense to me at all.

Then read it again. It makes perfect sense and is comprehensible enough to one of even average intelligence.

[Senator]

Then read it again. It makes perfect sense and is comprehensible enough to one of even average intelligence.

Thanks for the insult Scott. Much appreciated!

[bluebell]

Then read it again. It makes perfect sense and is comprehensible enough to one of even average intelligence.

I have to admit that TSS's reply really confused me as well.

I'm wondering if TSS misundestood what Senator was saying because the more times i read TSS's reply, the more it seems like he's answering an issue that Senator wasn't actually talking about.

I read Senator as saying that while others in the thread understood that the blog author had simply confused temples and church buildings, you refused to give her the benefit of the doubt and instead wanted to make a big deal out of it.

If I understood Senator's post correctly (and maybe i didn't), then TSS answer really doesn't seem to make much sense (but maybe i'm misundestanding TSS as well).