Please Rethink The Bubble Mentality

[Akboy]

I'm not a Mormon and no one in my family is either, except for my older brother. He got involved with the church when he met a Mormon girl in high school. My parents didn't like it and they discouraged the relationship, including taking him to a seminar on "World Religions," which included Mormonism. I also went because I was curious. I remember hearing things like LDS teachings about Kolob, Joseph Smith's shady past, working your way to heaven and a strange quote about Quakers living on the sun.

 

I've talked with enough Mormons since then to realize the seminar probably did more harm than good. It promoted stereotypes of Mormons a lot more than healthy, productive discussion topics, especially if that's the only source someone learned about Mormons. Unfortunately, the problem of stereotypes is a two-way street.

 

I recently had a question about the LDS view on some verses, so I started a chat with a missionary on mormon.org. The missionary was friendly and posted a link to some helpful articles from LDS sources. But when I fount a link from a non-LDS source that helped explain my point of view, the missionary said something about not being allowed to read non-LDS sources while on her mission. How is that a good policy?

 

Pro-Mormon bubbles create or promote stereotypes just like Anti-Mormon bubbles. I've heard multiple missionaries and articles imply Evangelicals/Protestants/Baptists preach 'salvation by grace alone' and ignore most of the other teachings in the Bible. Here's one of the articles the missionary posted: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1966

 

 

 

They ask me, “Have you been saved by grace?”

 

I answer, “Yes. Absolutely, totally, completely, thankfully—yes!”

 

Then I ask them a question that perhaps they have not fully considered: “Have you been changed by grace?” They are so excited about being saved that maybe they are not thinking enough about what comes next.

That is an ugly, insulting stereotype that's just as damaging to discussion as anti-Mormon stereotypes. Does LDS missionary training do anything to avoid this kind of stereotype? Do they read any non-LDS sources to get a decent understanding of the beliefs of the people they're trying to reach? Or are they kept in a pro-Mormon bubble that doesn't allow any other view points in?

 

Imagine a conservative science/biology department at a college that teaches 6-day, young earth creationism and discourages or forbids students from reading sources they disagree with. Will they produce effective scientists who can effectively work with other scientists?

 

Imagine a progressive/liberal political department at a college that forbids students from reading conservative sources. Will they produce effective politicians or communicators?

 

Is there any chance there could be a change in how missionaries are trained or what they're allowed to read?

 

EDIT:

To be clear, I'm not even talking about anti Mormon claims. I'm not asking that missionaries read exmormon.org, The God Makers or some weird theory about Joseph Smith being an alien (probably not a real theory). I'm just asking they be open to reading at least part of something like this: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/galatians-lbw.htm

 

That doesn't mention the LDS church or any of it's doctrines. It's not anti-Mormon. It simply goes in depth about a very important part of our faith. I'd just like to know why missionaries can't read something like that.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Akboy

[strappinglad]

Who is the " he " in your second sentence?

[Akboy]

Who is the " he " in your second sentence?

Oh, sorry. I meant to mention my older brother in the first sentence, but I got a head of myself. Fixed.

[Coreyb]

Yeah, I didn't like how limited our reading was during my mission. We were allowed to read four books (Jesus the Christ, our heritage, our search for happiness, and true to the faith) in addition to the standard works, preach my gospel (the missionary work manual), the handbook, and any official church produced magazine. That may seem like a lot of reading, but notice that they all have the same publisher. I really disliked that rule, but I can't complain because I didnt keep it

[thatjimguy]

I'm not a Mormon and no one in my family is either except for my older brother. He got involved with the church when he met a Mormon girl in high school. My parents didn't like it and they discouraged the relationship, including taking him to a seminar on "World Religions," which included Mormonism. I also went because I was curious. I remember hearing things like LDS teachings about Kolob, Joseph Smith's shady past, working your way to heaven and a strange quote about Quakers living on the sun.

 

I've talked with enough Mormons since then to realize the seminar probably did more harm than good. It promoted stereotypes of Mormons a lot more than healthy, productive discussion topics, especially if that's the only source someone learned about Mormons. Unfortunately, the problem of stereotypes is a two-way street.

 

I recently had a question about the LDS view on some verses, so I started a chat with a missionary on mormon.org. The missionary was friendly and posted a link to some helpful articles from LDS sources. But when I fount a link from a non-LDS source that helped explain my point of view, the missionary said something about not being allowed to read non-LDS sources while on her mission. How is that a good policy?

 

Pro-Mormon bubbles create or promote stereotypes just like Anti-Mormon bubbles. I've heard multiple missionaries and articles imply Evangelicals/Protestants/Baptists preach 'salvation by grace alone' and ignore most of the other teachings in the Bible. Here's one of the articles the missionary posted: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1966

 

 

 

That is an ugly, insulting stereotype that's just as damaging to discussion as anti-Mormon stereotypes. Does LDS missionary training do anything to avoid this kind of stereotype? Do they read any non-LDS sources to get a decent understanding of the beliefs of the people they're trying to reach? Or are they kept in a pro-Mormon bubble that doesn't allow any other view points in?

 

Imagine a conservative science/biology department at a college that teaches 6-day, young earth creationism and discourages or forbids students from reading sources they disagree with. Will they produce effective scientists who can effectively work with other scientists?

 

Imagine a progressive/liberal political department at a college that forbids students from reading conservative sources. Will they produce effective politicians or communicators?

 

Is there any chance there could be a change in how missionaries are trained or what they're allowed to read?

 

 

Well, as a convert who looked up the Mormon church for a year before being converted, I can tell yuo most of the anti stuff are lies. Blatant ones at that. To the point where I think the ones tha tell them know full well they are lies, but do not care.

 

Plus, there is anti and there is an opposing viewpoint. It shouldn't be a surpise for any missionary to think that other hold different viewpoints about God.

 

Although it could be said that missionaries would benefit from learning how to fight against it, I would disagree that that is how they should spend their time. For all the looking at every controversy the church has (no lie or exagerattion, 1 hour a night on average) and getting through it all, I never really used that information to convert anyone. Sticking to the basics is what is needed most.

 

Did you ever play a boardgame with someone and they insist on teaching you every sinlge rule there is before you start, or dicusses rules that may come up only 5% of the time? It is a waste of energy and just turns people off.

 

Wait for those instances to come up, then look into it.

[Akboy]

Plus, there is anti and there is an opposing viewpoint. It shouldn't be a surpise for any missionary to think that other hold different viewpoints about God.

 

Although it could be said that missionaries would benefit from learning how to fight against it, I would disagree that that is how they should spend their time. For all the looking at every controversy the church has (no lie or exagerattion, 1 hour a night on average) and getting through it all, I never really used that information to convert anyone. Sticking to the basics is what is needed most.

 

Did you ever play a boardgame with someone and they insist on teaching you every sinlge rule there is before you start, or dicusses rules that may come up only 5% of the time? It is a waste of energy and just turns people off.

 

Wait for those instances to come up, then look into it.

I'm not saying missionaries are specifically taught anti-evangelical things. I'm saying it seems like they're taught in such an extreme bubble that they often end up with anti-evangelical attitudes or assumptions, such as the shallow, insulting portrayal of Evangelicals I quoted.

 

Secondly, I'm not suggesting missionaries study every anti-Mormon claim or obscure Evangelical doctrine. The example I gave of "saved by grace" is a foundational, fundamental belief for Evangelicals. That issue will come up in a lot more than 5% of discussions with Evangelicals, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to make a decent effort to understand the belief.

 

Finally, I did wait for the instance to come up. I posted a link and asked them to read it and they said it was against the rules. What am I supposed to do then?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Akboy

[The Nehor]

That is an ugly, insulting stereotype that's just as damaging to discussion as anti-Mormon stereotypes. Does LDS missionary training do anything to avoid this kind of stereotype? Do they read any non-LDS sources to get a decent understanding of the beliefs of the people they're trying to reach? Or are they kept in a pro-Mormon bubble that doesn't allow any other view points in?

 

They generally get a basic grasp of the beliefs of others when confronting them all the time out on the street and in their homes.

 

Imagine a conservative science/biology department at a college that teaches 6-day, young earth creationism and discourages or forbids students from reading sources they disagree with. Will they produce effective scientists who can effectively work with other scientists?

 

Imagine a progressive/liberal political department at a college that forbids students from reading conservative sources. Will they produce effective politicians or communicators?

 

Neither of these is comparable. You talk about bubbles when missionary work is pretty much as un-bubbly as you can get. You are out there chatting with people with opposing and different viewpoints literally all day and many are not shy about sharing their views too. I really don't think you've thought this analogy through. I learned more practical information about other faiths on my mission then I have at any other time in my life and I am not shy about reading about other faiths now.

 

 

Is there any chance there could be a change in how missionaries are trained or what they're allowed to read?

 

Doubt it. I don't see a need.

[Coreyb]

Well, as a convert who looked up the Mormon church for a year before being converted, I can tell yuo most of the anti stuff are lies. Blatant ones at that. To the point where I think the ones tha tell them know full well they are lies, but do not care.

 

Plus, there is anti and there is an opposing viewpoint. It shouldn't be a surpise for any missionary to think that other hold different viewpoints about God.

 

Although it could be said that missionaries would benefit from learning how to fight against it, I would disagree that that is how they should spend their time. For all the looking at every controversy the church has (no lie or exagerattion, 1 hour a night on average) and getting through it all, I never really used that information to convert anyone. Sticking to the basics is what is needed most.

 

Did you ever play a boardgame with someone and they insist on teaching you every sinlge rule there is before you start, or dicusses rules that may come up only 5% of the time? It is a waste of energy and just turns people off.

 

Wait for those instances to come up, then look into it.

I agree that missionaries don't need to focusing on reading random things, but there are things they could really use. I served in the Midwest where we met with a lot of antagonism against Mormons. When we taught people, it was not a matter of if they came across anti mormon material, it was when. Unfortunately, they would have a bunch of questions for the missionaries, and often they weren't equipped to answer. This led missionaries denying things that were true simply because they were uninformed and figured it was just an anti Mormon lie. How do you think the investigator feels when they found out that the thing the missionary denied turns out to be true. They feel lied to. Many missionaries I knew visited fairmormon "illegally" In order to answer their investigators questions, and I have no problem with that.

[cdowis]

 

 

I recently had a question about the LDS view on some verses, so I started a chat with a missionary on mormon.org. The missionary was friendly and posted a link to some helpful articles from LDS sources. But when I fount a link from a non-LDS source that helped explain my point of view, the missionary said something about not being allowed to read non-LDS sources while on her mission. How is that a good policy?

 

 

 

 

Missionaries are not apologists, but teachers of the Gospel.  They are called to bring people to Christ, not to refute all the nonsense the enemies of the church  spout forth.

 

If you have questions on quakers living on the sun, etc, you can look in FAIR WIKI or come here and ask.

 

Just be aware that the antimormons'  goal is to poison your mind,.

Edited April 2, 2014 by cdowis

[Akboy]

Neither of these is comparable. You talk about bubbles when missionary work is pretty much as un-bubbly as you can get. You are out there chatting with people with opposing and different viewpoints literally all day and many are not shy about sharing their views too. I really don't think you've thought this analogy through. I learned more practical information about other faiths on my mission then I have at any other time in my life and I am not shy about reading about other faiths now.

But missionaries aren't sent out on the street without any training are they? How long is the typical training process? Just like those other professions, having a diversity of view points during the training time is healthy.

 

What about when they're in the field and someone asks them to read over a short commentary on a Bible passage, yet they say it's against their rules. If that's not a type of philosophical bubble, than what do you call it? What good does it do say they can't read another interpretation of the Bible?

 

I agree that missionaries don't need to focusing on reading random things, but there are things they could really use. I served in the Midwest where we met with a lot of antagonism against Mormons. When we taught people, it was not a matter of if they came across anti mormon material, it was when. Unfortunately, they would have a bunch of questions for the missionaries, and often they weren't equipped to answer. This led missionaries denying things that were true simply because they were uninformed and figured it was just an anti Mormon lie. How do you think the investigator feels when they found out that the thing the missionary denied turns out to be true. They feel lied to. Many missionaries I knew visited fairmormon "illegally" In order to answer their investigators questions, and I have no problem with that.

To be clear, I'm not even talking about anti Mormon claims. I'm not asking that missionaries read exmormon.org, The God Makers or some weird theory about Joseph Smith being an alien (probably not a real theory). I'm just asking they be open to reading at least part of something like this: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/galatians-lbw.htm

 

That doesn't mention the LDS church or any of it's doctrines. It's not anti-Mormon. It simply goes in depth about a very important part of our faith. I'd just like to know why missionaries can't read something like that.

[3DOP]

I do not want to divert the discussion away from missionary preparation, but I think it might be helpful to note that as a Catholic I absolutely believe in salvation by grace alone. Sola Grazia. Evangelicals accuse Catholics of salvation by works because Protestants usually hold that works and grace are incompatible based on what we would view as a misunderstanding of one or two passages in St. Paul's epistles.

 

It seems to me like Mormons and Evangelicals often agree against the Catholic understanding, that works imply self-effort to be attributed to the individual instead of God. Catholics don't believe in salvation by faith alone as the Evangelicals usually do. But neither do we believe in salvation by faith and works, when it is divorced from grace, primarily attributable to the individual instead of God. Such a view of works based salvation was condemned by the Church very early on and is called Pelagianism, after the name of the priest who advocated the teaching.

 

Grace is not the opposite of works in Catholic theology. Grace and works are not opposed. Faith is by grace and salvific works are by grace. We are saved by faith and works, and we cannot believe or work except by grace. That is our position.

Edited April 2, 2014 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

But missionaries aren't sent out on the street without any training are they? How long is the typical training process? Just like those other professions, having a diversity of view points during the training time is healthy.

 

They have about 3 weeks of formal training normally. Most of that is spent learning what they need to teach. Sometimes it is longer but that is usually when they need to learn a new language in which case the time is taken up learning the language.

 

What about when they're in the field and someone asks them to read over a short commentary on a Bible passage, yet they say it's against their rules. If that's not a type of philosophical bubble, than what do you call it? What good does it do say they can't read another interpretation of the Bible?

 

I read a lot of things my investigators and people in the mission gave me. I especially liked the Watchtower and Awake magazine.

 

To be clear, I'm not even talking about anti Mormon claims. I'm not asking that missionaries read exmormon.org, The God Makers or some weird theory about Joseph Smith being an alien (probably not a real theory). I'm just asking they be open to reading at least part of something like this: http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/galatians-lbw.htm

 

That doesn't mention the LDS church or any of it's doctrines. It's not anti-Mormon. It simply goes in depth about a very important part of our faith. I'd just like to know why missionaries can't read something like that.

 

I would read it if I was on my Mission and you asked me to. I would probably ask you to read 3 Nephi 11 as a kind of deal to learn about each other.

 

Really though, learning about other faiths is not that useful in the mission field. Learning to care about people and how to get to know them is.

[Coreyb]

I read lots of books from other faiths on my mission. I read several books and pamphlets on Christian doctrine (mostly evangelical) and eschatology, I read tons of Jehovah's witness material, the Great Controversy, the Holy Qur'an, and a book called Betrayed about a rabbinical jew that found Jesus. I regret not reading more Catholic literature

Edited April 2, 2014 by Coreyb

[cdowis]

I read lots of books from other faiths on my mission. I read several books and pamphlets on Christian doctrine (mostly evangelical) and eschatology, I read tons of Jehovah's witness material, the Great Controversy, the Holy Qur'an, and a book called Betrayed about a rabbinical jew that found Jesus. I regret not reading more Catholic literature

 

Just curious.  

 

How much time were you spending to read and studying the Book of Mormon, the Bible to prepare yourself to teach the investigators?  For example, if you had to teach a lesson on justice and mercy, would you know where to find it in the BOM?  How much was this other stuff helping you to assist your investigators in gaining  a testimony, or was it just helpful for you  to have an in depth understanding of these false doctrines and philosophies so that you could refute them with logic and scriptural references.

 

Were the mission president and other mission leaders aware and approve of your study program?

Edited April 2, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Just curious.

How much time were you spending to read and studying the Book of Mormon, the Bible to prepare yourself to teach the investigators? For example, if you had to teach a lesson on justice and mercy, would you know where to find it in the BOM? How much was this other stuff helping you to assist your investigators in gaining a testimony, or was it just helpful for you to have an in depth understanding of these false doctrines and philosophies so that you could refute them with logic and scriptural references.

Were the mission president and other mission leaders aware and approve of your study program?

Give me a break...

[Storm Rider]

Hello Akboy, I think you have a good point that directly applies to most members. The reality is that missionaries are not like most members. The challenge for the Church is that it calls young men and women to live a life of sacrifice for up to two years.  During this period they are called to be ministers of Jesus Christ. They have to accomplish a lot in a short period of time. It is not a period of exploration; rather a period of teaching the gospel. 

 

When you take such large groups of young people away from home, learning to live on their own, and live a disciplines life style there are difficulties. The way the Church has chosen to respond to those difficulties is to create rules to guide each individual.  They are encouraged to study the scriptures, the local language when in foreign lands, pray, and to improve their teaching style. 

 

Before and after their missions is a time when they can devote to personally enriching pursuits such as studying other religious views, doctrines, etc. 

Edited April 2, 2014 by Storm Rider

[Akboy]

Just curious.  

 

How much time were you spending to read and studying the Book of Mormon, the Bible to prepare yourself to teach the investigators?  For example, if you had to teach a lesson on justice and mercy, would you know where to find it in the BOM?  How much was this other stuff helping you to assist your investigators in gaining  a testimony, or was it just helpful for you  to have an in depth understanding of these false doctrines and philosophies so that you could refute them with logic and scriptural references.

 

Were the mission president and other mission leaders aware and approve of your study program?

Are you saying it's not a problem if a missionary has a stereotypical view of what the investigator believes? If the missionary makes a comment about something that oversimplifies or even insults the investigator's beliefs, it will probably push the investigator away. The goal shouldn't be to refute the investigator with logic. It should be to know what you're talking about when you're discussing differences in faith.

 

Do mission presidents and other mission leaders approve of stereotypical attitudes toward investigators?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Akboy

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying it's not a problem if a missionary has a stereotypical view of what the investigator believes? If the missionary makes a comment about something that oversimplifies or even insults the investigator's beliefs, it will probably push the investigator away. The goal shouldn't be to refute the investigator with logic. It should be to know what you're talking about when you're discussing differences in faith.

 

Do mission presidents and other mission leaders approve of stereotypical attitudes toward investigators?

 

There is a saying within the Church that if it weren't true the missionaries would have destroyed it long ago. We expect a lot from our young missionaries. You have to keep in mind that they are very young 19-20 years old is the norm. And with the recent change to 18 for men they are barely out of High School. We expect them to leave their schools, jobs, families, future plans, and focus exclusively on teaching others the Gospel for 2 years on their own money. We encourage our youth to learn everything they can prior to their mission, and just 3 short weeks to learn how to teach it(a little more if going to a foreign language speaking area) once they leave for their mission. Whatever they have learned of different religions is up to them. Speaking personally as a convert I learned everything about the Mormons in about a month, and now 43 years later I'm still learning. As a practical matter there are some 40,000 different Christian sects in the US alone. If you expect the missionaries to be up on all the differences. It ain't gonna happen.

 

If I had to hazard a guess at what most Mission Presidents think about investigators. It is another opportunity to advance the Kingdom of God here on earth.

[why me]

I'm not saying missionaries are specifically taught anti-evangelical things. I'm saying it seems like they're taught in such an extreme bubble that they often end up with anti-evangelical attitudes or assumptions, such as the shallow, insulting portrayal of Evangelicals I quoted.

 

Secondly, I'm not suggesting missionaries study every anti-Mormon claim or obscure Evangelical doctrine. The example I gave of "saved by grace" is a foundational, fundamental belief for Evangelicals. That issue will come up in a lot more than 5% of discussions with Evangelicals, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to make a decent effort to understand the belief.

 

Finally, I did wait for the instance to come up. I posted a link and asked them to read it and they said it was against the rules. What am I supposed to do then?

There are also differing interpretations of grace among protestants. Likewise for other doctrinal claims. But I also think that evangelicals themselves when discussing the difference between mormonism and evangelicals with mormons tend to become stereotypical in their conversations about it because they know that the mormons have a differing understanding about it. Usually, the conversation focuses on what needs to done to be saved. And then the argument begins.

Edited April 2, 2014 by why me

[Akboy]

There is a saying within the Church that if it weren't true the missionaries would have destroyed it long ago. We expect a lot from our young missionaries. You have to keep in mind that they are very young 19-20 years old is the norm. And with the recent change to 18 for men they are barely out of High School. We expect them to leave their schools, jobs, families, future plans, and focus exclusively on teaching others the Gospel for 2 years on their own money. We encourage our youth to learn everything they can prior to their mission, and just 3 short weeks to learn how to teach it(a little more if going to a foreign language speaking area) once they leave for their mission. Whatever they have learned of different religions is up to them. Speaking personally as a convert I learned everything about the Mormons in about a month, and now 43 years later I'm still learning. As a practical matter there are some 40,000 different Christian sects in the US alone. If you expect the missionaries to be up on all the differences. It ain't gonna happen.

 

If I had to hazard a guess at what most Mission Presidents think about investigators. It is another opportunity to advance the Kingdom of God here on earth.

I'm not asking for some drastic change during the 3 short weeks of training. Just a loosening of the rules a bit and maybe some encouragement about being open to taking a little time to read about the people you're trying to reach. Then they can adjust their extra reading based on what's needed.

 

What about when you send missionaries to different countries, like those with Buddhist, Hindu or Islamic communities? I doubt LDS missionaries are very effective over there if they go in without learning even the basics of the religion in their new community. Why should evangelical communities be any different? Our beliefs use many of the same terms, but we often define those terms very differently when compared to Mormons, which is a major cause of confusion on both sides.

 

Out of those 40,000 Christian sects, many share the same foundational beliefs. In some cases, sects differ only in their style of music, teaching or the way the church is structured. I bet most mission presidents have a fairly good idea of what kind of religion is common in their community. If he knows there's a lot of Catholic and Lutheran in the area, how hard would it be to encourage new missionaries to read a little about the people they'll be talking to for the next 2 years?

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not asking for some drastic change during the 3 short weeks of training. Just a loosening of the rules a bit and maybe some encouragement about being open to taking a little time to read about the people you're trying to reach. Then they can adjust their extra reading based on what's needed.

 

What about when you send missionaries to different countries, like those with Buddhist, Hindu or Islamic communities? I doubt LDS missionaries are very effective over there if they go in without learning even the basics of the religion in their new community. Why should evangelical communities be any different? Our beliefs use many of the same terms, but we often define those terms very differently when compared to Mormons, which is a major cause of confusion on both sides.

 

Out of those 40,000 Christian sects, many share the same foundational beliefs. In some cases, sects differ only in their style of music, teaching or the way the church is structured. I bet most mission presidents have a fairly good idea of what kind of religion is common in their community. If he knows there's a lot of Catholic and Lutheran in the area, how hard would it be to encourage new missionaries to read a little about the people they'll be talking to for the next 2 years?

 

I don't see much need for including other churches doctrines in some undefined goal of "being effective".  We're one of the fastest growing religions in the world.

[Akboy]

I don't see much need for including other churches doctrines in some undefined goal of "being effective".  We're one of the fastest growing religions in the world.

So missionaries sent to other countries and cultures don't make any attempt to learn some basics about the culture so they don't offend people and push them away?  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/23/50-foreign-faux-pas-infographics_n_3975861.html

 

To start, it looks like simple hand gestures in the US are considered offensive or lewd in Iran, Greece, Brazil and Cambodia. Do you just ignore those tips because you're growing fast?

[Storm Rider]

I do not want to divert the discussion away from missionary preparation, but I think it might be helpful to note that as a Catholic I absolutely believe in salvation by grace alone. Sola Grazia. Evangelicals accuse Catholics of salvation by works because Protestants usually hold that works and grace are incompatible based on what we would view as a misunderstanding of one or two passages in St. Paul's epistles.

 

It seems to me like Mormons and Evangelicals often agree against the Catholic understanding, that works imply self-effort to be attributed to the individual instead of God. Catholics don't believe in salvation by faith alone as the Evangelicals usually do. But neither do we believe in salvation by faith and works, when it is divorced from grace, primarily attributable to the individual instead of God. Such a view of works based salvation was condemned by the Church very early on and is called Pelagianism, after the name of the priest who advocated the teaching.

 

Grace is not the opposite of works in Catholic theology. Grace and works are not opposed. Faith is by grace and salvific works are by grace. We are saved by faith and works, and we cannot believe or work except by grace. That is our position.

 

When I read Catholic theologians discuss this topic I find myself in complete agreement most often. The only time I find disagreement is when they attempt to differentiate between the LDS position and their own.  They regularly jump on the same band wagon as our Evangelical family members and accuse of of believing that we are saved by works rather than grace. It is only in and through the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved.  Being his disciple demands that we act; his grace compels us to follow him and emulate the works of the Spirit.  That interaction of the Spirit with the believer produces a change of heart and a desire for holiness and righteousness.

[Storm Rider]

So missionaries sent to other countries and cultures don't make any attempt to learn some basics about the culture so they don't offend people and push them away?  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/23/50-foreign-faux-pas-infographics_n_3975861.html

 

To start, it looks like simple hand gestures in the US are considered offensive or lewd in Iran, Greece, Brazil and Cambodia. Do you just ignore those tips because you're growing fast?

No, we actually teach missionaries the cultural differences and what is and is not acceptable.  This part of learning a new language.

[Akboy]

No, we actually teach missionaries the cultural differences and what is and is not acceptable.  This part of learning a new language.

Is there a similar attempt to teach missionaries the cultural differences between the basics of Mormon and Evangelical beliefs? If not, why not? Since they try to avoid offending people in other countries, can they also try to avoid offending people in other religions?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Akboy