Is There A Way To Tell If Someone Is Converted?

[KevinG]

Yes, when they become anti-scientific they most certainly have been converted. It's sad, but terribly true. Our church is far and away too suspicious of scientific advances, all the while relying on it and technology to spread its version of the truth.

on the topic of

[BlueDreams]

Rongo, I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents about current missionaries and fellowshipping. I was a PMG missionary, so I have some perspective from the "other side" per se. It could change drastically from mission to mission, so I can only give you what I saw while serving around Philadelphia in a great mission (not that I'm biased or anything).

I can't say about the teaching...I didn't get to sit in on any other lessons but the ones I was personally in. Personally, I loved PMG for its flexibility. I couldn’t imagine being any other missionary…I hate memorizing things. We often taught straight through on the first 3, but we could also pick and choose as we saw fit. Timing was by far our biggest weakness (it seemed to be a common problem with all sisters, honestly...Elders tended to be a little better with it). Still there were very, very few lessons that I remember going 1.5-2 hrs (I can still remember most of those and could tell you exactly why they went over). Most were around an hour, including non-related chit-chat.

I agree that PMG is a higher law form of teaching than previously. And I believe the missions in general are catching on to the fact that it means the missionaries must match up to it. There was a change of focus at the end of my mission, to really help convert the missionaries and work on effective teaching. There was a LOT of focus on this, to be honest: Leadership trainings, extra trainings for new missionaries and the MTC had begun rearranging the way lessons were done catering to this. There was a major change at the end that included elongated companionship studies for companionships that were training new missionaries. Furthermore district meetings, zone conferences, etc always had some form of role play to work on/critique various teaching/communication skills. In short, there were a ton of resources to greatly develop the caliber of missionaries. That said, I’m aware that there was also a variety of how effective missionaries were. This became extremely apparent my second half of the mission. I had one amazing companionship where both of us were extremely on the ball and had an amazing spiritual power when we taught. Some of my most powerful spiritual lessons were with her. After it was never the same. Looking at Tacenda’s list we had all that was mentioned (hard workers, personable, fairly good manners, enthusiasm, etc). But honestly, I think it went far deeper than that. We were both in the right state of being/mind. We both really wanted to learn and feast on the gospel. These reasons, I feel, are not something that can be fixed per se by the way missions are run, but have to be done personally and individually within the companionship (and often were). Other reasons may just be about personality and what they’re ready for individually…That’s the hardest, but IMHO one of the most significant. It’s true, it’s not our mission, but the Lord’s. We often see far more unilaterally than God does. I’m firmly convinced that apart of the mission is really for the missionaries to become who they are needed to be for the Lord to continue to use them the rest of their lives.

Likewise the caliber of ward fellowship also differed. Though I can’t think of a ward that I was in that didn’t give some effort, I would be lying if I said all wards were equally great at it. In fact I can name right off the bat which of the 6 wards/branches I was apart of that was the best at it….they’re filled with my role models, honestly. There is room for improvement, for sure. There always is, even in my super ward. Just as much as there’s room for improvement among missionaries the same can be stated about members in general.

Lastly on the general question of being able to tell if someone’s converted. Possibly because of my mission, I’m very leery of deciding that. Even within myself I couldn't answer when I was converted. When did it start to count? Was it when I merely believed in a single God and the basic aspects of my faith? Was it as I began to recognize the need for more in my life and began to seek out God and change my life? Was it when I went on a mission, focused on this great sense of duty to the Lord and service? Was it when I began to become far more humble and the Lord was able to heal deep scars? Or when I came to desire to see God above all else? I don’t know. I keep changing. I keep becoming more. There’s still more of me to change and to become better. If I am not sure when I was truly converted then I’m not going to wonder about another. As long as they’re growing and moving forward in the Gospel I consider that good enough.

With luv,

BD

Edited August 2, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, when they become anti-scientific they most certainly have been converted. It's sad, but terribly true. Our church is far and away too suspicious of scientific advances, all the while relying on it and technology to spread its version of the truth.

The LDS Church is distinctive in that it encourages scientific knowledge and education, having a very high level of scientific attainment among its active members. This is similar to the fact that active LDS are more likely to be well educated than in other religions. The professional and intellectual attainments of the General Authorities is indicative, and there is no hint of anti-scientific thinking among them. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here, Kerry, without at all being coherent.