Deceptive 'Mormonthink' Type Site Est. To Counter Missionary Surge

[Biz]

This website would be more what I have in mind:

Mormon Mission Prep

Didn't know of that page, I'll have to check out the link. Thanks!

[Singularity]

This website would be more what I have in mind:

Mormon Mission Prep

Sure, that's a good place to start. The site that is the subject of the OP here might also help someone at least prepare to encounter some of the stuff that might come their way. Perhaps the best single source to help someone know what mission life might be like (especially in the Third World) is John Williams' Heaven Up Here.

[Sky]

Sure, that's a good place to start. The site that is the subject of the OP here might also help someone at least prepare to encounter some of the stuff that might come their way. Perhaps the best single source to help someone know what mission life might be like (especially in the Third World) is John Williams' Heaven Up Here.

I think there are better ways to prepare for a mission than reading an anti-Mormon website, carefully guised as something else... For some prospective missionaries, it might just "help" them to decide not to go on a mission.

If they want to encounter some of the stuff that might come their way, there are better places to go. Places that aren't aimed primarily at undermining or destroying their faith.

[BlueDreams]

Overall, I don't know if I'd go all out and say the site is full on deceptive. But I don't think its overall a site I'd recommend to really prepare a missionary for a mission.

For one, the "hard" questions he mentioned were never brought up on my mission. EVER. Ok, wait, evolution was...but it wasn't exactly hard to answer. I can't think of one situation where I had one of those questions even vaguely referenced to me. Even by those who weren't all that, umm, open. Not that there weren't tough questions asked. But I honestly think knowing the basics about some topics was enough. And it wasn't like I was unaware of controversial topics and just wanted to avoid the unknown. I did....it just wasn't important. The one time it would have been important (it was about race, not polygamy....most people are content knowing it isn't practiced any more and has been for over a century) all the random facts that I'd picked up on it weren't really what was needed. In fact, most people that I met just don't care about random intellectual nit-picky historical points.

I'm aware that will differ from place to place and mission to mission. But I honestly think that will be more the common factor for the vast majority of missionaries going out....especially to areas that do not have a strong mormon presence or in the South.

But mainly, I think it's just silly and does show a negative bias. Like this answer to when should I go?:

Men now have the option of serving a mission as early as 18 and women can now serve at 19. The big advantage of going at 18 is you get to go straight from living with your parents, to a mission, to marriage, and adult life. This allows you to skip young single adulthood, which is where you’re most likely to stray from God’s plan. On the other hand, this does make things like getting a college education more difficult, so keep that in mind as you’re making your plans.

Really? Now they can see into the future too? Last I checked, most people nowadays don't get married right off the bat. And most american members haven't had time to see what the social implications will be for the elders who return....because they haven't returned/mostly gone yet

Or this:

Deep depression, mental breakdowns, and other stress-induced sicknesses are disturbingly common among missionaries. This comes from a perfect storm of extreme social pressure, loneliness, physical exhaustion, and not being able to take a mental break. Though the church is great at helping spiritually, they tend to lack expertise in physical and emotional help needed. If you’re feeling depressed or stressed, insist on seeing a specialist, not just the mission doctor, who rarely has experience with these types of issues.

Not so, at least from what I saw. I knew one sister who struggled from depression and another from bipolar disorder. Multiple ones from homesickness. I was having struggles at the beginning that were heavily psychological/emotional in nature (I was crying and unfathomably sad for no apparent reason), and had 1-3 companions with some heavy emotional baggage. So I got to see it/experience it plenty. The mission is definitely not something I'd suggest for those who have pre-existing histories with severe mental disorders/illness. But for those in a fairly normal range of mental/emotional problems, it's definitely manageable. And the mission usually has access to a mission psychologist who is a practicing counselor/therapist. There's more than just a mission doctor hanging around. And you don't exactly have to "insist" on seeing one. The mission can also be a very healing place. It taught me and a number of those companions some great coping tools, how to communicate problems and thoughts we never had, rely on the atonement, and recognize our own faults. I can't speak for all of my companions, but for me I can honestly say I am emotionally and psychologically more stable and happy thanks directly to my mission.

He's also silly for unnecessarily de-linking the spiritual from emotion and physical.

Other descriptions kinda go in this same boat. Where they are more telling about the missionary than it is about the mission.

With luv,

BD

[webbles]

He's actually making changes to the website. I noticed that the thing about fair being supported by the church has been removed. He reworded the shared wives thing (though it still sounds strange). And there's probably a few other things. He also has links to both the fair wiki, to wikipedia, to mormonthink, and other places. It doesn't seem like he is intentionally trying to be incorrect. He is just trying to answer them to the best of his knowledge.

[cdowis]

I do not see the "Difficult Questions" link on the webpage anymore. Did he remove it?

[webbles]

I do not see the "Difficult Questions" link on the webpage anymore. Did he remove it?

I think you mean the "Investigator FAQ". I think that's where all the difficult questions are now.

[ERayR]

It sounds like that site has some of its facts wrong. But does that mean it rises to the level of a "fraudulent site" that should be reported to Facebook? I thought the original post's implication was that the site was somehow deceptively claiming to be affiliated with the LDS Church. If we were to report every Facebook page for spouting things that are not 100% accurate, we would spend every waking moment reporting offending pages. I am pretty sure Grumpy Cat was not really at the Inauguration, for example. There is a difference between a page that expresses opinions you disagree with or makes factual statements you think are wrong, and a page that is "fraudulent."

We don't have to spend our time looking but when errors are found they should be reported.

[Tacenda]

I think this guy who I've started calling FM, is just in the beginnings of a faith crisis and this is how it's playing out. I believe he may be active in the church but possibly just for his family etc. I also agree with Don and think he would be better off admitting his belief in the church isn't where it was beforehand. Or else he would set it up in a more faith promoting fashion. But I understand his anger and how sometimes you're thinking in a tunnel vision way for lack of a better description. I remember my anger phase, thank goodness I took it slow and didn't scream out to the world and ruin someones faith outright. All religion is manmade basically, Joseph made the religion IMO, possibly all through revelation, but men still run it. Currently the men running the church seem to be doing fairly well, except for the corporatism of it all. I still love that the religion of my whole life does promote living a Christlike life. The main thing they really do want is for us to have that. Luckily I can see this now, where before I felt it was all a lie. I think people are setting themselves up if they think these men running it, wherever that capacity is, are perfect.

ETA: Corporatism was too strong, sorry Whyme. But the churches name on it's checks is the corporation, not church. Why can't it be printed as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"? Also, am I mistaken if I say most churches don't own malls, resorts, radio stations, newpapers, hunting preserves, cattle ranches, real estate....need I go on?

Wikipedia:

Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.^[1] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.^[2][3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".^[3]

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".^[4]

Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.^[5] Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.^[6] Aside from humans, certain animal species are known to exhibit strong corporate social organization, such as penguins.^[7][8] Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, socialism, and syndicalism.^[9]

Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.^[10] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Tacenda

[why me]

I think that we can see a pattern here. Now that the church has lowered the age for being a missionary and now that many more young people are signing up to serve, the antimormons are forming new sites to discourage young people and to mislead them away from serving a mission. We already have the futuremissionary site and now this site. More will come along.

I find it amazing just how much the lds church is hated. The persecution may be different from the 1830s and 1840s but the intent is the same: to destroy the church and have the members doubt their faith.

[why me]

Currently the men running the church seem to be doing fairly well, except for the corporatism of it all. I still love that the religion of my whole life does promote living a Christlike life. The main thing they really do want is for us to have that. Luckily I can see this now, where before I felt it was all a lie. I think people are setting themselves up if they think these men running it, wherever that capacity is, are perfect.

What does corporatism mean? Here is a definition:

Definition of CORPORATISM

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

I don't see this inside the lds church. Corporatism is quite a negative word with many negative connotations.

[why me]

ETA: Corporatism was too strong, sorry Whyme. But the churches name on it's checks is the corporation, not church. Why can't it be printed as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"? Also, am I mistaken if I say most churches don't own malls, resorts, radio stations, newpapers, hunting preserves, cattle ranches, real estate....need I go on?

Wikipedia:

Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.^[1] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.^[2][3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".^[3]

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".^[4]

Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.^[5] Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.^[6] Aside from humans, certain animal species are known to exhibit strong corporate social organization, such as penguins.^[7][8] Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, socialism, and syndicalism.^[9]

Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy.^[10] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism.

Churches that have money do own property and investments. The problem with the word corporatism is that it has negative connotations and for critics, they use the term in a very negative way by often referring to the church as LDSinc. So, in terms for the church, critics claim that the church is not a church but a corporation interested in money. And that is the problem with the word corporatism. The definition that I provided in a previous post is a definition that most critics would agree with when describing the lds church. Thus, the problem with the word.

[Wiki Wonka]

I"m only going to link their FB page.

https://www.facebook...ormonMissionary

We should not report anti- pages to facebook, unless they are fraudulent or malicious. This one is definitely fraudulent.

FAIR has posted an analysis and response to FutureMissionary.com on the FAIR Wiki. Since the site also includes the exit story "A Letter to a CES Director" in its entirety (which in turn uses graphics from the anti-Mormon site "mormoninfographics,") the response to that section is under construction and not yet complete. The FutureMissionary review is linked on the front page of the FAIR Wiki. The response to "A Letter to a CES Director" will soon follow.

• FutureMissionary.com—
  The website FutureMissionary.com is designed to shake the faith of prospective missionaries by blindsiding them with troubling issues related to Church history. The site's anonymous authors claim to be returned missionaries, and write as though they are "believing" members who naively accept and promote controversial statements and ideas without question. The most prominent and detailed page on the website is "A Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony." The authors claim that such blatant materials will help to prepare missionaries for questions and challenges they will face. In reality, the letter and other material on the site only introduce attacks on the church without discussing crucial context and explanations that would help readers fully understand the material. The approach and tone of the FutureMissionary site resembles that of MormonThink.com before MormonThink became openly antagonistic toward the Church in late 2012. (Link)
  

[crixus]

How exactly is this any different from FAIR's Allen Wyatt purchasing numerous domain names trying to redirect people looking for information critical of the Church, to apologetic hit pieces on certain critics? You know, websites like "SAVEGRANTPALMER.ORG" and "SAVEGRANTPALMER.COM" and "supportgrantpalmer.com" were purchased by Mr. Wyatt back in the day when Palmer had published his book and FARMS was desperately trying to dismiss him and trying to get readers to avoid reading anything he had to say. The threat of excommunication led to a huge online controversy and Wyatt thought he'd trick his supporters by redirecting them to the FARMS hit jobs. The same people who are now stunned by this "deception" certainly had no problems when one of their own was doing it years ago. In fact, we saw tons of defenses on behalf of Wyatt from a lot of you folks, claiming he was justified because what he did wasn't illegal, and the end justified the means.

Besides, I remember on my mission we were told to pass out this video that was advertised on TV by the Church. The way the Church set up the commercial made it almost seem like it had nothing at all to do with religion, but rather an amazing breakthrough in knowledge about the afterlife from first hand accounts. It was during a time when the Time Life Books "Psychic Experiences" was all the rage. My companion and I couldn't figure out why half of the people who received a copy were upset to find out it was from a Church. But that was, until we actually saw the advertisement ourselves and realized how easily they were misled. The clip at the end saying it was from the LDS Church lasted like half a second.

So give me a break with all this righteous indignation about anti-Mormon trickery. In my experience the apologetic side is just as likely to engage in "deception" so long as they think they can get away with it. And even more likely to engage in suppression of information that undermines the message they keep pushing. Just look at this forum for Pete's sake. Mr. Wyatt was getting away with it for awhile until some "critic" took the time to research who was buying up all these domain names. What it boils down to is that lying and deception are perfectly fine here so long as it is done to support the Church. Anything else is cause for public outrage. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Edited June 20, 2013 by crixus

[crixus]

And what exactly are you talking about in a "surge" of missionaries? When you drop the age requirements, naturally you're going to experience a year or two of increased missionaries. So this "surge" isn't a result of more Mormon kids wanting to serve, it is a result of the Church trying to shelter their teens from information about the Church that would naturally dissuade them from staying, let alone serve a mission. Getting an 18 year old to go on a mission (or anything else for that matter) is much easier than a 19-20 year old. This was the main reason why the age requirements were dropped, to keep the kids in the social grip of the Church. The Church has been losing way too many of their young to the age of information, and it simply cannot do enough to shelter them from it. Every kid nowadays has access to the internet on their phone or I-pad. Schools and libraries have computers everywhere. As the Bible says, the truth will always prevail, and the truth will set them free. The Church is trying to circumvent that natural process by navigating these young children through a maze of carefully selected "approved" information that keeps their testimonies secure. Some might argue that this is a form of deception far more egregious than a simple website with an ambiguous domain name.

[Buzzard]

And what exactly are you talking about in a "surge" of missionaries? When you drop the age requirements, naturally you're going to experience a year or two of increased missionaries. So this "surge" isn't a result of more Mormon kids wanting to serve, it is a result of the Church trying to shelter their teens from information about the Church that would naturally dissuade them from staying, let alone serve a mission. Getting an 18 year old to go on a mission (or anything else for that matter) is much easier than a 19-20 year old. This was the main reason why the age requirements were dropped, to keep the kids in the social grip of the Church. The Church has been losing way too many of their young to the age of information, and it simply cannot do enough to shelter them from it. Every kid nowadays has access to the internet on their phone or I-pad. Schools and libraries have computers everywhere. As the Bible says, the truth will always prevail, and the truth will set them free. The Church is trying to circumvent that natural process by navigating these young children through a maze of carefully selected "approved" information that keeps their testimonies secure. Some might argue that this is a form of deception far more egregious than a simple website with an ambiguous domain name.

And some will say that even though some flies bite the camels, the caravan moves on. The recent changes in the missionary program for both young men and women show every sign of having been inspired, and being successful, and blessing the lives of these young people. Sorry if that chaps your hide.

[Wiki Wonka]

And some will say that even though some flies bite the camels, the caravan moves on. The recent changes in the missionary program for both young men and women show every sign of having been inspired, and being successful, and blessing the lives of these young people. Sorry if that chaps your hide.

And, although there is a "surge" right now, the number of young women serving missions is likely to remain permanently higher as a result of the age change.

[crixus]

And some will say that even though some flies bite the camels, the caravan moves on. The recent changes in the missionary program for both young men and women show every sign of having been inspired, and being successful, and blessing the lives of these young people. Sorry if that chaps your hide.

CFR?

I'm sure that's a wonderful faith-promoting theory, but it doesn't explain why, if this were truly "inspired," did it take the Church so long for them to make this change. The fact is this decision came right after the Church acknowledged the problem it has retaining its young:

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - A religious studies class late last year at Utah State University in Logan, Utah, was unusual for two reasons. The small group of students, faculty and faithful there to hear Mormon Elder Marlin Jensen were openly troubled about the future of their church, asking hard questions. And Jensen was uncharacteristically frank in acknowledging their concerns.

Did the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints know that members are "leaving in droves?" a woman asked.

"We are aware," said Jensen, according to a tape recording of his unscripted remarks. "And I'm speaking of the 15 men that are above me in the hierarchy of the church. They really do know and they really care," he said.

"My own daughter," he then added, "has come to me and said, 'Dad, why didn't you ever tell me that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?'" For the younger generation, Jensen acknowledged, "Everything's out there for them to consume if they want to Google it." The manuals used to teach the young church doctrine, meanwhile, are "severely outdated."

These are tumultuous times for the faith founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, and the rumbling began even before church member Mitt Romney's presidential bid put the Latter-Day Saints in the spotlight.

Jensen, the church's official historian, would not provide any figures on the rate of defections, but he told Reuters that attrition has accelerated in the last five or 10 years, reflecting greater secularization of society. Many religions have been suffering similarly, he noted, arguing that Mormonism has never been more vibrant.

"I think we are at a time of challenge, but it isn't apocalyptic," he said.

The LDS church claims 14 million members worldwide -- optimistically including nearly every person baptized. But census data from some foreign countries targeted by clean-cut young missionaries show that the retention rate for their converts is as low as 25 percent. In the U.S., only about half of Mormons are active members of the church, said Washington State University emeritus sociologist Armand Mauss, a leading researcher on Mormons.

Sociologists estimate there are as few as 5 million active members worldwide.

In Africa and Latin America, however, Jensen said that interest in the LDS was so strong that the church has cut back baptisms in order to better care for new members.

THE RESCUE

With defections rising, the church has launched a program to staunch its losses. The head of the church, President Thomas Monson, who is considered a living prophet, has called the campaign "The Rescue" and made it his signature initiative, according to Jensen. The effort includes a new package of materials for pastors and for teaching Mormon youth that address some of the more sensitive aspects of church doctrine. "If they are not revolutionary, they are at least going to be a breath of fresh air across the church," Jensen told the Utah class.

All this comes as the public profile of America's Mormons had been raised by two pop-culture hits: the recent TV series "Big Love" and the current Broadway hit, "The Book of Mormon." The attention, says church spokesman Michael Purdy, is a "double-edged sword."

It has been an opportunity to educate the public about Mormonism and fight misconceptions. For example, the "I am a Mormon" ad campaign, which features stereotype-busting Mormons who are black or single parents, helped boost chat sessions on the church's website to more than a million in the last 12 months.

The curious find a family-focused church with socially conservative values that teaches Christian principles and believes Christ appeared to founder Joseph Smith in America, where Smith established the new religion.

Church members are satisfied with their lives, content with their communities, strongly see themselves as Christian and believe acceptance of Mormons is increasing, a recent Pew Research poll of people who describe themselves as Mormon found.

But on Broadway, the church's gospel and missionary zeal are mocked. And the Web has intensified debate over the truth of the history the church teaches.

Not since a famous troublespot in Mormon history, the 1837 failure of a church bank in Kirtland, Ohio, have so many left the church, Jensen said.

"Maybe since Kirtland, we've never had a period of - I'll call it apostasy, like we're having now," he told the group in Logan.

read it all ... http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/uk-mormonchurch-idUKTRE80T1CP20120130

This was nothing more than a no-brainer business decision by the LDS corporation, responding to a growing problem it has in keeping their young sheltered from the world of information. Sorry if that chaps your hide.

Edited June 22, 2013 by crixus

[Wiki Wonka]

CFR?

I'm sure that's a wonderful faith-promoting theory, but it doesn't explain why, if this were truly "inspired," did it take the Church so long for them to make this change. The fact is this decision came right after the Church acknowledged the problem it has retaining its young:

.....

This was nothing more than a no-brainer business decision by the LDS corporation, responding to a growing problem it has in keeping their young sheltered from the world of information. Sorry if that chaps your hide.

So, let me get this straight:

1) The Church has a problem "keeping their young sheltered from the world of information."

2) Their solution to this is to send them on missions earlier in order to continue to shelter and control them.

3) And, by the way, missionaries will now be allowed to access the internet and social media.......