Mormon Missionary Tactics

[Stargazer]

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

All I can say to this is: AMEN BROTHER.

[Deborah]

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

Succinctly and accurately stated.

[volgadon]

I'm not a member but I will stand there with the lights on waiting for all the Mormons to get back in the damn building. As all 14 million walk back in I will shake my head, fold my arms and tap my foot and do so patiently. I'll even give Volgadon a swift kick as he walks past me going back into the church.

You'll miss.

[Lightbearer]

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?

I was a Missionary for the Church over 30 years ago, I'm not sure how they do it now, but when I was asked the question I referred them to D&C 132 for the answer, not some lame excuse (which I have heard some uninformed members give because they are ashamed of the revelations of God. I also refer them to OD-1 to explain why we do not practice Plural Marriage today. I knew these answers on my mission because I had not only studied the Book of Mormon, and the Bible but I also had a thorough study of the D&C, possibly the greatest book of scripture ever revealed in any dispensation. I did not grasp for apologetic straws or use a lame excuse for the doctrine, I explained it using the revelations (Church History was not really relevant to answering the question). If they could not accept Joseph and the revelations that God has provided then I bid them good day and continued on searching for God's elect. Because the elect hear the Lord's voice and harden not their hearts. I have never been very bothered by plural marriage, that is old news. I thank God I never had to live it, and I do not understand it. But looking back from 21st century cultural prospective I find it rather amazing that anyone would be shocked at such a practice... considering the abominations that are being foisted onto us daily by advocates of SSM and the "free love" generation! Rank hypocricy... but that is how Satan has always worked. He was a liar from the beginning and an accuser of the brethren. His followers continue his template and feign shock and give the excuse that the innocent and the pure are deceiving them. For those who are former converts I ask: DID GOD deceive you when He answered your prayer that the Book of Mormon and the Gospel of Christ is true? I do not give a pinch of snuff for all the Anti-Mormon drivel and the rewriting of so called Church History compared to the testimony of the Holy Ghost which is how I KNOW these things are true.

[cdowis]

"Polygamy?"

"Here, read this."

"Gulp...."

[savedbygrace]

Sorry but why do so many responders keep going on about polygamy. The post was not about he pros and cons of polygamy, it was about what I was told by missionaries. The reason, they said for the practice was because there were many orphans and widows that were married to already married men in order that they were taken care of. This I later found was not true as polygamy was established as part of your teacihng on celestial marriage. Can I be expected to believe that the born and bred missionaries did not know this?

[Tacenda]

Sorry but why do so many responders keep going on about polygamy. The post was not about he pros and cons of polygamy, it was about what I was told by missionaries. The reason, they said for the practice was because there were many orphans and widows that were married to already married men in order that they were taken care of. This I later found was not true as polygamy was established as part of your teacihng on celestial marriage. Can I be expected to believe that the born and bred missionaries did not know this?

Yes because this was only taught in the early church. I never knew JS practiced until about 5 or 6 yrs. ago and I have been a practicing LDS all my life. It was definitely kept under wraps and I don't care if people disagree it's true. Don't blame the missionaries. Edited February 23, 2013 by Tacenda

[savedbygrace]

Can you be sure they were deliberately misleading. Could it be possible that they believed what they were saying. Would you please give references that it was official church policy to mislead investigators.

I concede that it may not have been deliberate, but find it a little difficult to believe that the missionaries were totally ignorant that this was not entirely true

[savedbygrace]

If you are indeed 'saved by grace' perhaps you could find it in your heart to extend some of that grace to other fallible people rather than accuse them of deliberately misleading people with blatant falsehoods. You might find that the grace you have been so freely given has a greater power than even you can imagine.

A good point and a timely reminder to me not to be so confrontational, for which I beg your pardon and ask for your forgiveness. But.... when people are led to an enormous life changing event like joining the LDS church, then finding that some of the methods used to facilitate this may be less than honest, on the part of the missionaries, it really matters, I hope you all can understand that. But if I have caused harm or hurt by my question the I apologise to all

Edited February 23, 2013 by savedbygrace

[savedbygrace]

Yes because this was only taught in the early church. I never knew JS practiced until about 5 or 6 yrs. ago and I have been a practicing LDS all my life. It was definitely kept under wraps and I don't care if people disagree it's true. Don't blame the missionaries.

Why should it be kept under wraps?? Sorry I don't understand why this would not bother you, not the doctrine so much as it was kept, as you say under wraps

[savedbygrace]

I was a Missionary for the Church over 30 years ago, I'm not sure how they do it now, but when I was asked the question I referred them to D&C 132 for the answer, not some lame excuse (which I have heard some uninformed members give because they are ashamed of the revelations of God. I also refer them to OD-1 to explain why we do not practice Plural Marriage today. I knew these answers on my mission because I had not only studied the Book of Mormon, and the Bible but I also had a thorough study of the D&C, possibly the greatest book of scripture ever revealed in any dispensation. I did not grasp for apologetic straws or use a lame excuse for the doctrine, I explained it using the revelations (Church History was not really relevant to answering the question). If they could not accept Joseph and the revelations that God has provided then I bid them good day and continued on searching for God's elect. Because the elect hear the Lord's voice and harden not their hearts. I have never been very bothered by plural marriage, that is old news. I thank God I never had to live it, and I do not understand it. But looking back from 21st century cultural prospective I find it rather amazing that anyone would be shocked at such a practice... considering the abominations that are being foisted onto us daily by advocates of SSM and the "free love" generation! Rank hypocricy... but that is how Satan has always worked. He was a liar from the beginning and an accuser of the brethren. His followers continue his template and feign shock and give the excuse that the innocent and the pure are deceiving them. For those who are former converts I ask: DID GOD deceive you when He answered your prayer that the Book of Mormon and the Gospel of Christ is true? I do not give a pinch of snuff for all the Anti-Mormon drivel and the rewriting of so called Church History compared to the testimony of the Holy Ghost which is how I KNOW these things are true.

Thankyou for your reply, but as much as I prayed, I never received a spiritual testimony. My testimony was intellectual, I was convinced by what the missionaries said, at least for a time. Now I KNOW that these things are not true

[savedbygrace]

That's ridiculous on its face. They were told the same thing because it was a widespread factoid, not because it was a systematic attempt to deceive. I remember hearing it at one time or another, and those who told it believed that it was either THE explanation, or AN explanation. I think it is a perfectly good, although incomplete, explanation. In some circumstances it was true, in others not.

Later I came by the knowledge that plural marriage was part and parcel of the Restoration, and the Lord required and commanded it as part of the Restoration. It didn't bother me that there were alternate explanations out there.

Well I am pleased for you that it didn't bother you. The explanation, an explanation, sometimes true sometimes not, these seem to me to be very shifting sands, and it would certainly have bothered me, simply because the missionaries testified that what they were saying was truth

[savedbygrace]

Ah, but there were men who took many wives solely for this reason. Heber C. Kimball, if I remember correctly, had 43 wives, but only fathered children with about fifteen or so. Many of these wives were older widows that he was supporting. In 19th century Utah, marrying a woman, especially a widow, was considered the rational way to take care of her temporal needs. So the missionaries actually were telling you the truth-at least in some cases.

It is true that there was never a global excess of females in Utah or the west, but how many 20 year old men are interested in a 45 year old widow with six children?

The rational way? In the NT Christians are encouraged to take care of widows, no mention of marrying them. Why was that, I mean the need to marry them, why could they not be just taken in and helped?. Heber C Kimball had 43 wives but only had children with fifteen, man of restraint then? Maybe there is a clue there.

Edited February 24, 2013 by savedbygrace

[savedbygrace]

I believe taking care of widows and orphans, plus giving more opportunities to women in general, was in fact part of the reason. Even where men equalled or outnumbered women, the number of women in the 1800s who wanted or needed to marry usually was greater than that of men wanting to get married. In the American West, orphaned teenage girls and widowed young women all too often had to resort to prostitution to keep from starving. Or there's my husband's non-LDS great-great grandmother. When she was widowed at a young age, she and her children were facing starvation. She needed to get married and yes, there was someone availabe. Too bad he was an abuser who made life hell for her and her children.

No one should have to make choices like that. Oddly enough, polygamy gave power to women by giving them a larger pool of men to choose from. Women who could support themselves were not forced to marry. Women who wanted or needed marriage had a better chance of finding someone who would at least be kind, even if he did have other wives.

As for the papyri, IIRC only a small percentage still exist. Not really enough to say that none of the original had nothing to do with Abraham.

JS made facsimilies which have been well studied

[savedbygrace]

How do YOU feel spreading lies about people's character? How do you feel about about twisting words and incidents? It is blatantly obvious that you are not seeking understanding. That polygamy was commanded to care for widows is an incorrect answer, but that doesn't make it blatantly false, or mean that missionaries were out deliberately lying for people. It is much like people trying to explain the dietary laws of the Bible as laws of health and hygiene. That is the wrong explanation, but itis certainly not nefarious.

Your vitriolic accusation that Joseph Smith was a fake is considered blatantly false by most LDS, even by some of those who don't believe literally in the truth claims of the church. Were it not for this thread, I would have been happy to chalk this up to your ignorance.

Volgadon you can chalk it to whatever you like, the facts will not go away, as some wiser posters on this and other threads have accepted

[savedbygrace]

Well, then ... if it's "beyond doubt" that this is the case, why qualify such surety with a quibbling "I think"? Shut 'er down, Clancy! She's pumpin' mud! (Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights? )

pumping mud, ok, but mud sticks and your church is now having to deal with it simply because it is all 'out there' and people can become informed, no matter how mormon apologetics try to explain away the issues, they will still be there for all to see and form an opinion about and in these secular times your missionaries are more likely to be sent packing

[savedbygrace]

They do not have the spirit of their mission, they are salesmen. Trying to sell a product and attempting to answer every objection.

The "sales" is something between the investigator and the Lord. Missionaries are only the messenger and need to let Lord to do His work and they do theirs.

"Polyandry? Interesting question. Anyway let's move on to how to pray and get an answer to your prayer." Takes alot spiritual maturity and courage to do that, and, I admit, many missionaries are not up to it. They gotta have all the answers.

It is truly an issue of humility, and that is not a requirement to participate in this forum. :<)

Sorry taht doesn't wash in this day and age, ignore and move on is insulting to the intelligence of investigators, and very arrogant

[savedbygrace]

Missionaries are not going out to teach history. They are going out to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Time is much better spent preparing them to do that.

How can they not teach church history, the 'restoration' is supposed to be a matter of historical fact isn't it?. Aren't investigators supposed to accept the history of JS as presented by the missionaries. your classes are centered around your church history, much of which is admirable. But then you find what isn't presented, such as the mountain meadows massacre, Adam God, quakers on the moon, etc, all taught by the men that your church history is about

[MormonMason]

If people would read the scriptures like they ought, read the Church magazines like they ought, attend Institute like the Brethren have time to time asked of us, and actually read the introductory material for sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, and actually taken the time to follow the instruction "See ...", I rather think every one would have been informed about plural marriage and that Joseph Smith practiced it. If you don't follow instructions, it is your own fault for not knowing. It really is that simple. Oddly enough, I, too, was not aware that Joseph Smith had more than one wife for over a year after joining the Church. But, I was not really reading my scriptures, either. I freely acknowledge that it was my fault for not knowing. Others often choose to claim that the Church has been hiding things and keeping things under wraps rather than admit their own fault and do something about their relative ignorance.

And, savedbygrace, missionaries are to teach the basics of the Restored Gospel and not spend time on every single element of history and doctrine. It is no different than it was for those who preached in the days of Christ. If you wanted more details you had to read the scriptures--if you could read, or hear them read if you couldn't--and/or talk to those who personally knew the Lord. If you wanted anything advanced in doctrine or to hear the hidden wisdom of the Church that they spoke in such a way that outsiders would not know of it, you had to wait until your leaders felt you were spiritually ready to receive it. Why should we do any differently than did those who preached in the days of Christ?

[Tacenda]

Why should it be kept under wraps?? Sorry I don't understand why this would not bother you, not the doctrine so much as it was kept, as you say under wraps

It was because of this that I experienced a faith crisis. Maybe if I'd known about JS polygamy I never would have a problem. And it's really embarrassing that I'd never really read section 132 of the D & C thoroughly.

[Stargazer]

Well I am pleased for you that it didn't bother you. The explanation, an explanation, sometimes true sometimes not, these seem to me to be very shifting sands, and it would certainly have bothered me, simply because the missionaries testified that what they were saying was truth

In various conversations with tritarian Christians over the years, I have heard various explanations of what the Trinity is. Not even trained ministers seem to be able to explain it in the same way as other trained ministers. I also seem to recall that the Roman and Orthodox churches split into two because of a simple word, "filioque", which one side believed belonged in the Trinity and the other did not. Quite apart from arguing over whether the Trinity as found in the creeds is true, if one believer explains it one way but another explains it different way, is there an intent to deceive? I don't believe so. But what about those shifting sands? Why doesn't this odd inability to get the Trinity straight bother you, SBG?

You just can't leave it alone that the missionaries got something wrong once upon a time?

[MormonMason]

How can they not teach church history, the 'restoration' is supposed to be a matter of historical fact isn't it?.

To a point. Members of the Church are encouraged to learn on their own as well as to study the materials on the various subjects published by the Church and attend Institute, where they will learn a whole lot more than what the missionaries teach. Do you know for a certainly the history of Jesus before he began his ministry? No one really does. What if someone felt the need to know detail for detail that past history before they could come to accept Christ as Savior? Be realistic.

Aren't investigators supposed to accept the history of JS as presented by the missionaries.

The portions that are in the scriptures are the important parts that people need to know up front. These are integral to the Restoration. The rest is not so integral but it is out there for people to learn. It is their own fault if they don't.

...But then you find what isn't presented, such as the mountain meadows massacre, Adam God, quakers on the moon, etc, all taught by the men that your church history is about

People who attend Institute will learn about Mountain Meadows. It's mentioned in the Manual. See the brief discussion here:

http://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-twenty-nine-the-utah-war?lang=eng

Adam-God...never doctrine of the Church. Not important and not clearly understood so it won't be discussed in Church classes. Anyone teaching it for actual doctrine faces Church discipline. It also is not all that important, not anymore than Jeremiah accusing God of lying or of being unreliable was teaching true doctrine for the Church.

Moon-Quakers...Joseph Smith joking around like he was known to do, probably as a result of the moon-life speculation of 1835 that was in newspapers around the nation and the world. Someone young overheard him and took it seriously. In any case, it is not something that is important or pertinent to the Gospel.

People need to be very careful not to take humorous statements of leaders of the Church seriously as many do. For example, things like "I keep a bowie knife under my pillow at night to keep away devils" or "I studied the Gospel so hard that it caused my brain to swell and popped the hairs out of my head (the General Authority making that quip was going bald but the average reader would not know that)" were not meant to be taken as serious Gospel doctrines or even seriously at all. There is a lot of that kind of thing in early statements of leaders of the Church.

In fact, some people were excommunicated for what they taught, like Amasa Lyman, but his words still are taken as gospel of Mormonism by some ignoramuses who have read his words in the Journal of Discourses, thinking that the Journal of Discourses is official LDS doctrine in every word, page and from volume 1 to volume 26. The Journal of Discourses never were an official publication of the Church but people foolishly take them that way. There were times when Brigham Young would say things just to needle Orson Pratt and get him flustered. Some of this sort of stuff ended up in the Journal of Discourses and some didn't. It is extremely important to get context in many instances or one may end up thinking certain individuals really believe one thing or another that they didn't.

[Calm]

The rational way? In the NT Christians are encouraged to take care of widows, no mention of marrying them. Why was that, I mean the need to marry them, why could they not be just taken in and helped?.

It was the young widows of childbearing age (below 40) that took advantage of plural marriage according to Daynes that I quoted above. Older widows were more likely to stay single.

One thing plural husbands could give their wives that just taking someone in and helping them could not is children.

John Taylor's quote I posted shows a definite link to the commandment of levirate marriage.

[Calm]

How can they not teach church history, the 'restoration' is supposed to be a matter of historical fact isn't it?. Aren't investigators supposed to accept the history of JS as presented by the missionaries. your classes are centered around your church history, much of which is admirable. But then you find what isn't presented, such as the mountain meadows massacre, Adam God, quakers on the moon, etc, all taught by the men that your church history is about

And what spiritual principle is taught by the MMM or quakers on the moon? In SS, church history is used as a vehicle to teach spiritual principles, increasing knowledge of history itself for itself is not considered as necessary for spiritual progress.

[volgadon]

How can they not teach church history, the 'restoration' is supposed to be a matter of historical fact isn't it?. Aren't investigators supposed to accept the history of JS as presented by the missionaries. your classes are centered around your church history, much of which is admirable. But then you find what isn't presented, such as the mountain meadows massacre, Adam God, quakers on the moon, etc, all taught by the men that your church history is about

Does your church or movement send out missionaries or preachers?