Mormon Missionary Tactics

[Tacenda]

Since I'm sure Saved By Grace will be back any minute to answer these questions, and simply has not done so because s/he has been unavoidably detained by other pressing pursuits, I have now reposted them above. (By the way, Saved By Grace, please consider this request, respectfully, a Call For References (aka "CFR")). We have a put-up-or-shut-up rule on the Board which essentially states that if anyone is asked to make explicit the assumptions under which s/he operates when posing a question but fails to do so after being accorded a reasonable chance to comply, s/he will be escorted from the thread.

Since I'm sure you would never want that to happen, I'm also sure that you will answer the queries I pose above within a reasonable time. (And of course, it simply couldn't be that you're now content, having lobbed a bomb, simply to sit back, silently, and watch the fireworks ... right? Nahhhh! That couldn't be! )

Or SBG can admit that it was just his/her personal opinion and that there is no real evidence that the missionaries were lying, is that acceptable? Edited February 22, 2013 by Tacenda

[omni]

"Don't worry about it. I'm sure you will eventually figure it out" is the best apologetic answer that a missionary can use. He can then move on and teach repentance, prayer, reading the scriptures, etc.

My opinion and I'm sticking with it.

In what world does this line of thinking actually work? If I were an investigator and this happened to me then all sorts of alarm bells would have been going off. And just when are they going to "eventually figure it out"? Even the church leaders haven't figured it out yet. Just like many of the other difficult issues as science and cultural norms have changed, the answers have all morphed from " yes we absolutely know why X happened", to "we don't know".

I agree with you in the sense that the missionaries shouldn't dwell on the issue, but at least offer some sort explanation. Maybe something along the lines of:

"You know Mr. Investigator we're not really sure why God commanded polygamy at different times in the past such as with Abraham and other prophets in the Old Testament or with early prophets in the restored church. I guess it's one of those things I'll have to ask our Heavenly Father when I see him some day. What I do know however is the Joseph was a prophet of God who......."

I think that's an honest response that answers the question about as well as we can hope for right now.

[kenporay]

I dunno about all multiple marriages but my great great grandpa took a poor widow with a young child as his second wife. I'd say that in that instant the purported mythical reason was fact, not myth.

[Flyonthewall]

I believe a simple answer could be...We believe God commanded its practice, and then commanded its end... Then on to the message of faith, repentance and baptism

[Maidservant]

widely practiced

No.

[3DOP]

When I was investigating the church with the missionaries, the subject of polygamy came up, they explained it this way. Because so may men died in the early church, this left a lot of widows, orphans etc, that the generous mormon men took them into their homes and married them so they would be taken care of. Many older former missionaries may remember this blatant untruth, how did they feel knowing that they were deliberately misleading people, rather than openly admitting that polygamy and polyandry were doctrines of the church and had been widely practiced as part of the doctrine of celestial marriage?

Hi saved by grace,

I find your post a little troubling.

"...knowing that they were deliberately misleading people..."? That seems like an unnecessary assumption.

How can you know that they were lying? The answer given, regarding generosity of caring for widows is compatible with the doctrine of celestial marriage. Who could say for what reason, as an LDS, the practice was revealed to be permissible in the 19th Century but not in the 20th? The missionary speculation you have cited seems as good as another. Obviously, the doctrine of celestial marriage is in no way contingent upon polygamy.

I'll never be LDS, but I just don't understand why this issue seems so problematic to non-Mormons and even some Mormons. Did not they practise licit polygamy in the Old Testament times? Considering that LDS believe in continuing revelation, how can the reintroduction of a formerly acceptable practise be considered as problematic for them? From an LDS perspective, how can it be said to be "unbiblical" especially when everybody's Bible has allowed polygamy anyway at one time or another? So why did Abraham and Jacob and David get to have multiple wives? Nobody who calls himself Christian is exempt from defending polygamy.

I am certain that I can understand how even if the the missionaries were mistaken, which hasn't been established, they were not deliberately misleading.

3DOP

Edited February 22, 2013 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

Hi saved by grace,

I find your post a little troubling.

"...knowing that they were deliberately misleading people..."? That seems like an unnecessary assumption.

How can you know that they were lying? The answer given, regarding generosity of caring for widows is compatible with the doctrine of celestial marriage. Who could say for what reason, as an LDS, the practice was revealed to be permissible in the 19th Century but not in the 20th? The missionary speculation you have cited seems as good as another. Obviously, the doctrine of celestial marriage is in no way contingent upon polygamy.

I'll never be LDS, but I just don't understand why this issue seems so problematic to non-Mormons and even some Mormons. Did not they practise licit polygamy in the Old Testament times? Considering that LDS believe in continuing revelation, how can the reintroduction of a formerly acceptable practise be considered as problematic for them? From an LDS perspective, how can it be said to be "unbiblical" especially when everybody's Bible has allowed polygamy anyway at one time or another? So why did Abraham and Jacob and David get to have multiple wives? Nobody who calls himself Christian is exempt from defending polygamy.

I am certain that I can understand how even if the the missionaries were mistaken, which hasn't been established, they were not deliberately misleading.

3DOP

A fair and balanced response. Thank you!

[why me]

When I was investigating the church with the missionaries, the subject of polygamy came up, they explained it this way. Because so may men died in the early church, this left a lot of widows, orphans etc, that the generous mormon men took them into their homes and married them so they would be taken care of. Many older former missionaries may remember this blatant untruth, how did they feel knowing that they were deliberately misleading people, rather than openly admitting that polygamy and polyandry were doctrines of the church and had been widely practiced as part of the doctrine of celestial marriage?

Actually the reason that these missionaries gave is a poor answer for many reasons. But most do not analyze it very much. Why would a church start polygamy because there were more men than women? The better answer is: it was an Abrahamic covenant that needed to be restored for the restoration of all things. This is what is leaned in seminary. At least if I remember correctly.

The missionaries would be better off giving this answer:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

click on additional information.

Edited February 22, 2013 by why me

[why me]

"savebygrace" is using the practice of polygamy as a proof-point against the LDS Church. He doesn't like it, so obviously the LDS church cannot be of God. This is exactly backwards, but of course he will not acknowledge this. The proof-point, as has been mentioned, is the Book of Mormon.

I think that the poster may be coming under the influence of another board. And it may be a board related to Catholicism. And if so, she is among wolves. I hope that this is not the case because the exmormon catholic posters are not so godly in their opinions of mormons and mormonism. But lets hope that I am wrong.

[why me]

The narrative about polygamy being about taking care of widows is popular in the church and widely believed, though inaccurate.

We call it folklore. But I do believe that times are changing. No where on the church website is that the reason for polygamy. Nor has it ever been officially taught to my understanding. And nowhere in the seminary manual either...to my recollection.

Edited February 22, 2013 by why me

[why me]

There are no easy answers to this. It certainly is not true, even remotely, what the OP said about "deliberately misleading people". Missionaries are simply trying to do their sincere best.

I will try to keep this simple. The reason for polygamy is stated in the lds scriptures. Section 132 of the d and c. And when one reads that section one does not read about the reason being more men than women. Rather one reads that god commanded it. End of story. The missionaries only have to refer questions about polygamy to that section. It is really that simple. Nothing is hidden in that section nor in the introduction to that section.

Edited February 22, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Alot of this problem would be alleviated if the MTC would train the missionaries properly in church history. There are many missionaries who become disallusioned when finding out the anti mormons on their missions had correct information and they denied it to the investigators. There are many stories like this.

Missionaries can just refer investigators to d and c 132. And give some background and tie it in to the old testament. It is really that simple. How can so many members miss that section is amazing to me. It makes me wonder if they actually read the scriptures, including the Introduction to the section where it states plainly that Joseph Smith knew that doctrine since 1831.

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

And as we can see it was practiced because it was commanded by god.

[Damien the Leper]

This thread sounds familiar.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Valentinus

[semlogo]

Not inaccurate but rather incomplete.

Of course it happened occasionally later on, but has nothing to do with the origins of polygamy in the church.

[Damien the Leper]

Saved, I'm not try to be rude and dismiss you but perhaps you'll find CARM to be more fitting for you considering how you have posted here.

[Kenngo1969]

Or SBG can admit that it was just his/her personal opinion and that there is no real evidence that the missionaries were lying, is that acceptable?

Yes. While I, personally, am interested in what SBG's underlying motives and assumptions are (and I think others are, as well), whether s/he reveals them is up to him or her.

[Calm]

Of course it happened occasionally later on...

My memory says that the first plural wife of Hyrum Smith's was a widow and Joseph was sealed to the widow of his brother Don Carlos, Agnes Coolbrith (sp?) so it happened occasionally early on as well.

add-on: 4 or 14% of Joseph's wives were widows

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=290

Kathryn Daynes did a study that showed it was not uncommon for younger widows (those under the age of forty) to remarry into plural marriages, see pages 168 and 169:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8RuWiM2-YYAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

She also has a quote on page 127 where John Taylor states a widow should be taken care of if needed through plural marriage by the next of kin.

On page 27, Isaac Morley enters into plural marriage by marrying a widow, on page 28 Joseph Smith counsels HC Kimball to take as his first plural wife a young widow.

Edited February 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

I too when I first joined the church heard the argument, not from the missionaries, but from members. It made sense to me. That was of course before I really studied D&C 132, or even read it and realized that it was actually a commandment given for a different reason.

One thing to keep in mind on this argument is that it is only in the last several years that the documents of the church have been researched and studied and organized, and we are learning many things the members were unaware of for years, except for the few scholars who may have had access to these things. With the advent of The Joseph Smith Papers project these things are finally being made accessible to all. However, I doubt many people will ever take the time to read the books or listen to the lectures on the project. But even with the opening up of all these historical items, there are still many things that we don't know the details of.

I have had many friends over the years who are members of other Christian churches. The only thing they ever talk about is accepting Christ as our Savior. I've never heard one discussion on the history of their particular church, or how they years ago broke off from the Catholic church. Nor do they have any understanding of the history found in in the Old and New Testaments. It only matters that you accept Christ. But when it comes to Mormons those same people expect us to know every detail of our history and to be able to give complete answers to all the questions someone might have. A little hypocritical I think.

[sdc999]

I too when I first joined the church heard the argument, not from the missionaries, but from members. It made sense to me. That was of course before I really studied D&C 132, or even read it and realized that it was actually a commandment given for a different reason.

One thing to keep in mind on this argument is that it is only in the last several years that the documents of the church have been researched and studied and organized, and we are learning many things the members were unaware of for years, except for the few scholars who may have had access to these things. With the advent of The Joseph Smith Papers project these things are finally being made accessible to all. However, I doubt many people will ever take the time to read the books or listen to the lectures on the project. But even with the opening up of all these historical items, there are still many things that we don't know the details of.

I have had many friends over the years who are members of other Christian churches. The only thing they ever talk about is accepting Christ as our Savior. I've never heard one discussion on the history of their particular church, or how they years ago broke off from the Catholic church. Nor do they have any understanding of the history found in in the Old and New Testaments. It only matters that you accept Christ. But when it comes to Mormons those same people expect us to know every detail of our history and to be able to give complete answers to all the questions someone might have. A little hypocritical I think.

I was like you. I heard the more men than women argument. It's not that the missionaries were setting out to tell a lie; they weren't. It was folklore being passed down. What I did have a problem with and still do today is when someone hears the folklore being repeated and doesn't step in to set the record straight - and that still goes on a lot.

As for the hypocritical contention, people from other faiths don't exactly like being put down because of their beliefs. When someone testifies that the LDS church is the 'true' church, it is effectively saying, your church isn't true. Some may not see it that way but look at it like this. Take two girls out of your congregation and put them up front. Let's say you tell one of the girls that she is the prettiest girl in the world-nothing more. You didn't say anything negative about the other girl. She shouldn't feel bad or even feel slighted.

If you're going to stand on top of the hill and scream that you're the best, don't be suprised when someone throws stones at you.

[savedbygrace]

I asked:

CV75, on 21 February 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

How have you ever deliberately misled someone?

And your answer is "I hope not?" -- to a "How..." question? Was that deliberate? If not, please answer the questions as posed. Thank you!

I didn't realise I hadn't answered, and I have tried to think honestly about it, no specifics come to mind apart from when I was a wilfull teenager. So can't think of anything, but what is the point of your question? whether it's me or the missionaries deliberately misleading people it is not acceptable especialy when it is dressed up as a message from God

[Stargazer]

As for the hypocritical contention, people from other faiths don't exactly like being put down because of their beliefs. When someone testifies that the LDS church is the 'true' church, it is effectively saying, your church isn't true. Some may not see it that way but look at it like this. Take two girls out of your congregation and put them up front. Let's say you tell one of the girls that she is the prettiest girl in the world-nothing more. You didn't say anything negative about the other girl. She shouldn't feel bad or even feel slighted.

There's nothing quite like comparing apples to oranges.

As to feminine beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen women whom I thought were merely pretty being described as gorgeous by another man. I am reminded of the Robert A. Heinlein statement that there is no such thing as an ugly woman; some are just prettier than others.

But putting two women onto a stage and complimenting only one is a breach of manners. It is not an expression of absolute truth.

But when we come to the status of a church this has nothing to do with whether one is prettier than another. I don't care how much you like the Catholic Church, and I like it a lot, it is simply not true in the way that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. I am not going to withhold my testimony because somebody might think I am being impolite. AND I expect that 3DOP, for example, will think the same way with respect to his church vis-a-vis the LDS Church. I don't expect of him that he will withhold his testimony merely to make me not feel slighted.

The truth is important. It is important that we should uphold the truth, whatever it is that we believe it true.

[MormonMason]

So they were as mislead as I. What a great church, to send people out so ill prepared, but somehow I doubt it

It is said that J. Golden Kimball used to say, "I know this Church is true. If it weren't the missionaries would have destroyed it long ago!"

[3DOP]

I was like you. I heard the more men than women argument. It's not that the missionaries were setting out to tell a lie; they weren't. It was folklore being passed down. What I did have a problem with and still do today is when someone hears the folklore being repeated and doesn't step in to set the record straight - and that still goes on a lot.

As for the hypocritical contention, people from other faiths don't exactly like being put down because of their beliefs. When someone testifies that the LDS church is the 'true' church, it is effectively saying, your church isn't true. Some may not see it that way but look at it like this. Take two girls out of your congregation and put them up front. Let's say you tell one of the girls that she is the prettiest girl in the world-nothing more. You didn't say anything negative about the other girl. She shouldn't feel bad or even feel slighted.

If you're going to stand on top of the hill and scream that you're the best, don't be suprised when someone throws stones at you.

Hi sdc999.

You seem to miss the point of Deborah's interesting observation.

Many evangelicals can't trace the origins of their church back to the 1930's and they don't care. It doesn't seem fair to have to defend 200 years of activity to people whose church didn't even exist 200 years ago. If they want to be the true church, it seems like they at least need to have existence, or an explanation for why they were missing for 95% of the history of Christianity.

Mormonism came into existence in 1830 with a plausible explanation for why they had been absent from the scene. If I understand her correctly, Deborah's point is that her Evangelical friends seem to think they should enjoy the luxury of having no church history to defend without any plausible explanation for nineteen and a half centuries of absence.

3DOP

[Gillebre]

I haven't kept up on every reply in this thread, but has anyone mentioned the valuable insight contained in the Book of Jacob, Chapter 2?

[3DOP]

There's nothing quite like comparing apples to oranges.

As to feminine beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen women whom I thought were merely pretty being described as gorgeous by another man. I am reminded of the Robert A. Heinlein statement that there is no such thing as an ugly woman; some are just prettier than others.

But putting two women onto a stage and complimenting only one is a breach of manners. It is not an expression of absolute truth.

But when we come to the status of a church this has nothing to do with whether one is prettier than another. I don't care how much you like the Catholic Church, and I like it a lot, it is simply not true in the way that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. I am not going to withhold my testimony because somebody might think I am being impolite. AND I expect that 3DOP, for example, will think the same way with respect to his church vis-a-vis the LDS Church. I don't expect of him that he will withhold his testimony merely to make me not feel slighted.

The truth is important. It is important that we should uphold the truth, whatever it is that we believe it true.

Stargazer...You have hurt my feelings so badly! Heh. I jest.

When I sought for the one true church it was easy to eliminate about 99%. None of the churches that denied being the one true church were the one true church. I only believed them. I am sorry for them that they don't have any kind of conviction about the origins and necessity of their church's existence. If they get hurt feelings because their unwillingness to make a necessary claim estranges some of us, I am likewise sorry. But not my fault.

Church shopping should different than grocery shopping. It would be pretty absurd to be looking for the one true store that stocks one true products. But when it comes to churches, one is either looking for the one and true, or it is as with the groceries...mere preferences and not much more serious than whether to use Skippy or Jif.

3DOP

Edited February 23, 2013 by 3DOP