DH Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Now, I am ok with the idea that I shouldn't seek out active LDS members and try to force my opinions on them. However, I am not ok with being asked to open my home to someone who hopes to give me a gospel message while simultaneously being asked to keep my viewpoint quiet. Based on those conditions I declined the invitation. Am I being unreasonable?You are not being unreasonable. Offering the missionaries a free meal would be a charitable act on your part. You don't have to sit there and let them express their views without being able to respond with your views. That's just not right. So you were perfectly reasonable in refusing the dinner appointment.Part of the commitment pattern missionaries are taught to use with non-members and inactive members involves resolving concerns. If you are not allowed to express your concerns in the first place, it is simply impossible for the missionaries to resolve them. It's an exercise in futility and a waste of time for all concerned. (Except the missionaries would get a free meal, of course! )
DH Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) I really do not want to be the cause of disturbing anyone's testimony.Why not? The missionaries put a great deal of effort into disturbing the testimonies people have in other faiths! Turnabout is fair play. Edited May 29, 2012 by DH
Libs Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Why not? The missionaries put a great deal of effort into disturbing the testimonies people have in other faiths! Turnabout is fair play.There is a difference between offering your own spiritual truth and trying to undermine someone else's faith. I wouldn't, necessarily, mind having a conversation about some of the things I have come to believe, but (at this point) I am not going to spend my time telling someone else what I find "wrong" with their beliefs...especially young men who are just coming into their faith. I always like to treat the missionaries as I would want my children to be treated, if they were out on a mission. Edited May 29, 2012 by Libs 3
Stargazer Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Why not? The missionaries put a great deal of effort into disturbing the testimonies people have in other faiths! Turnabout is fair play.Somehow I doubt sjdawg would be springing "The Godmakers" or other such drivel on them.
DH Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 There is a difference between offering your own spiritual truth and trying to undermine someone else's faith. I wouldn't, necessarily, mind having a conversation about some of the things I have come to believe, but (at this point) I am not going to spend my time telling someone else what I find "wrong" with their beliefs...especially young men who are just coming into their faith. I always like to treat the missionaries as I would want my children to be treated, if they were out on a mission.I agree with you, there is a difference between sharing your beliefs and going out of your way to undermine others' beliefs. However, the fact is our beliefs differ from other people's beliefs to varying extents, and if the missionaries are to convert anyone, the investigators will have to make a choice and abandon their former faith. But yes, you don't want to be mean about it, and like you, I try to treat purveyors of other faiths with respect, even if I don't agree with their views.Somehow I doubt sjdawg would be springing "The Godmakers" or other such drivel on them.Agreed, he doesn't seem like the type of person to do that. He might watch "The Godfather" with them, though! Do not create debate in Social Hall.
emeliza Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I think it is pretty odd that the Bishop made that request. I do not think you were unreasonable in declining. If the Bishop had said that the missionaries were having issues with following their rules and he preferred you turn off the TV while they were there, that would be reasonable since we know they aren't supposed to watch TV (and it would still be reasonable of you to decline since it is your house). However saying that the missionaries are going to share a message with you, but you have to keep your opinions to yourself is rather unreasonable. He could easily have indicated his hopes for the dinner without trying to put in a requirement.I would also guess that the Bishop is just new and like you said, was protecting the missionaries. Really odd though since the missionaries will run into people who disagree with the faith and some that even know the history and have arguments on it.
Kenngo1969 Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Why not? The missionaries put a great deal of effort into disturbing the testimonies people have in other faiths! Turnabout is fair play."Bring the truth you have with you, and let us see if we can add to it." —Pres. Gordon B. HinckleyYep, sure sounds like the missionaries "put a great deal of effort into disturbing the testimonies people have in other faiths" to me. That's why they're taught to build relationships of trust and to build on common beliefs. 1
emeliza Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 "Bring the truth you have with you, and let us see if we can add to it." —Pres. Gordon B. HinckleyYep, sure sounds like the missionaries "put a great deal of effort into disturbing the testimonies people have in other faiths" to me. That's why they're taught to build relationships of trust and to build on common beliefs. I think you forget that missionaries also teach what we believe are untruthes that other religions believe in. We teach that it is untrue that you can be baptized correctly without authority. We teach that the trinity is untrue. We teach often times that other religions have it wrong. Not necessarily the way we should teach it, but we do. So in that case, we do disturb the testimonies people have in other faiths. I don't think that is wrong though. I think challenging your faith so you know why you believe in it is a good thing. The challenge to my faith led me to join the Church. I know others have the same experience. The challenge by the missionaries to Blueadept led him to believe in his Catholic faith even more. In my opinion that means the missionaries won in both cases because in both cases, the missionaries led us closer to God.
emeliza Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Oops, just say the do not debate from a moderator. My bad.
Libs Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Perhaps they could move this back to the General section? Seems like there could be some interesting discussion/debate on this subject? 1
rameumptom Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 Well, what if the gospel message was to have charity for others? Would such a message require you to insist on sharing your personal albatrosses with them?Missionaries are 19 year old kids, trying to do their best in sharing God's grace. Whether you agree with the gospel or not, you can be the better person by showing kindness, couldn't you? I've known many non-LDS who always invite the missionaries over to their home for dinner, or for a cold drink on a hot day. They don't mind a generic gospel message from the missionaries, and they are not interested in making life difficult for them by insisting on focusing on differences, rather than the things that they have in common.Perhaps you could learn a little more charity in this regard. I suggest you reconsider the bishop's request. You can ask him to have the missionaries share a non-political message. Regardless of what they teach, you can always be charitable to them, both in feeding them and in listening to them.
emeliza Posted May 30, 2012 Posted May 30, 2012 I thought the OP said he wouldn't have necessarily shared his opinion with the missionaries in the first place, but if challenged, he wouldn't want to feel he wasn't allowed to. I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing to keep things light and to find common ground to talk about and share and I believe that is typically what we try to do. My personal thought is that the Bishop just wasn't very clear with his request or maybe for some reason he thought the OP would was disgruntled. He probably could have said to try to keep things light or talk about common concepts (charity, love, service, etc) and this wouldn't have been an issue.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 I don't know if I would be filled with resentment or not but I do believe a discussion should allow the conversation to go in both directions.True, but you might reflect that even Kevin Graham (Xander) is cordial and nice to the missionaries when they come to visit his house. He could easily unload both barrels of buckshot on them there, but prefers to do that on this board, perhaps because he thinks it more sporting.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Yes, Why Me, but these are the ones chosen by the Church to go out into the world and preach our theology to any and all. They should be able to do so with whomever, otherwise the Chnurch should choose those who aren't "just out of high school" if they aren't up to the task. And what with the Internet and all the anti sites available to the general public, IMO it would behoove the MTC to make sure the missionaries have at least a working knowledge of Church history and some of the issues that can be seen as questionable to some people. These "boys" are sent all over the world to represent US...GGBut the missionaries do not teach LDS theology. They don't know anything about it. They are sent out to teach very basic Gospel principles (as in the Articles of Faith) and to testify by the power to the Holy Spirit. If a 19-year old has learned something about LDS Church history in Sunday School or seminary, all well and good, but it is not required. This is very different from the effort in normative evangelical and Roman Catholic christianity to teach actual theology and the confessional history of their churches. However, without the authentic calling and authority of God to preach his Gospel, those other churches are at a spiritual disadvantage, as well trained as their priesthood might be.
sjdawg Posted June 17, 2012 Author Posted June 17, 2012 Somehow I doubt sjdawg would be springing "The Godmakers" or other such drivel on them.Lol. I've never even seen it
Kenngo1969 Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) I think you forget that missionaries also teach what we believe are untruthes that other religions believe in. We teach that it is untrue that you can be baptized correctly without authority. We teach that the trinity is untrue. We teach often times that other religions have it wrong. Not necessarily the way we should teach it, but we do.So in that case, we do disturb the testimonies people have in other faiths. I don't think that is wrong though. I think challenging your faith so you know why you believe in it is a good thing. The challenge to my faith led me to join the Church. I know others have the same experience. The challenge by the missionaries to Blueadept led him to believe in his Catholic faith even more. In my opinion that means the missionaries won in both cases because in both cases, the missionaries led us closer to God.No disrespect, but on the contrary: I haven't forgotten anything. As a missionary, I was taught to build relationships of trust, to build on common beliefs, and to respect the beliefs of others, differences notwithstanding. While I admit varying degrees of success in those endeavors, and while I perhaps encountered missionaries whose commitment to and use of those principles might have varied from time to time, I, and most of the missionaries I knew/know, try to use this approach:http://www.greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/ Edited June 17, 2012 by Kenngo1969
Recommended Posts