Please Rethink The Bubble Mentality

[Lost in Ohio]

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?

I think your reaction to the missionary quoting Bro Wilcox concerning grace is a bit over the top.  While traveling to and from work I listen to CSN (Christian Satellite Network) to gain precisely the kind of insight you describe.  Having done so for some time now I don't think Bro Wilcox's remarks concerning his dialogue with EVs about grace to be offensive at all when taken in context and frankly they seem to take up the grace discussion where I hear most of the pastors on CSN leave it.  I can tell you that as an LDS person listening to an EV radio station I'm much more likely to be tempted to be offended by the frequent misrepresentations of the LDS faith, including our teaching on the role of grace and works, that I hear than the rather tame comments of Bro Wilcox.  Not to mention the advertisements for the latest books/videos/ etc. that attempt to tear down my faith.  I've decided not to allow the distortions of my faith that I hear offend me and to instead look at them as teachable moments and opportunities to clear up misunderstandings to anyone sincerely interested in doing so - which is why I keep listening.  I would also tell you that much of what I hear taught I agree with and that we have much more in common than is generally understood.

 

Offense is after all a two way street. 

 

The calling of a missionary is to teach the Gospel and bring people to Jesus Christ.  They do so as imperfect human beings called to a divine work and it would be impossible to know the nuances of every faith they might encounter.  If we choose to engage someone in a discussion about religion (or politics) I think the first thing we have to do is put aside our pride and subsequent temptation to be offended by what we might hear in a box and to instead focus on increasing understanding.   

 

I guess I'm saying that the purpose of a missionary if first and foremost to teach the Gospel as we understand it and to invite the Spirit to touch the hearts of those being taught.  If we choose to engage in doctrinal point by point discussions then we ought to be prepared to potentially hear something about our faith we feel misrepresents.  It's probably not done deliberately and we ought to avoid being offended.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Lost in Ohio

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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?

Simmer down a bit. Most people that talk with the missionaries quickly realize that they are kids fresh out of HS or one year of college, and not trained theologians. Their job is NOT to learn the fine art of Bible bashing, and engage EVC's in endless debates, but to teach people what the LDS church is and its teachings.

And for EVC's to be offended at their beliefs being oversimplified or misrepresented is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Edited April 2, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[why me]

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.

 

When the missionaries get the calling they usually have some time before they go to the MTC. They certainly can read up on the country that they are visiting. For example, when my daughter was sent to europe, I bought her a book that explained the culture of the country that she was going to serve in. She read much of it before her arrival at the MTC. One can also skim though history books about the country soon to serving in.

 

I would think that quite a few missionaries do this, hopefully.

[why me]

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?

I believe that at the MTC they usually have someone come in to explain the culture. It is usually a member from that country. And they can also have a former missionary in that country come to talk to the new missionaries. I think that you need to be aware more of what is exactly happening at the MTC.

Edited April 2, 2014 by why me

[CV75]

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?

 

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.

RE: the article, he is illustrating a point by sharing his own experience. He says, 'I have born-again Christian friends who say to me, “You Mormons are trying to earn your way to heaven.' He is not saying all born-again Christians, just some of the born-again friends he has, and you cannot tell me some born-again Christians do not assert this, and that his response is unreasonable.

 

RE: reading material, it's a function of time and priorities for a busy missionary.

[3DOP]

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.

 

Hi Storm Rider.

 

I suspect that when there is agreement about terms between LDS and Catholics, there will be agreement about concepts.

 

But I have occasionally seen LDS here opposing "grace alone" when they should be saying they oppose "faith alone". There seems to be an identification with grace and faith as synonyms sometimes. In my opinion, it is essential to clarify that grace and faith are distinct from each other, "lest any man should boast".

 

It is only my personal experience. I believe you. I also would be expect that many Catholics are unclear about the terms. I just happen to hang around here instead of Catholic internet sites.

 

Rory

Edited April 2, 2014 by 3DOP

[why me]

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?

I wonder if the EV bother to learn the cultural differences between evangelicals and mormons? If not, why not? Most EVs consider the mormons to be nonchristians. This can be very offensive to mormons. I would hope that EV pastors would teach their flock not to offend mormons by claiming that they are not christian. Is this being done? I would hope so.

[changed]

I believe that at the MTC they usually have someone come in to explain the culture. It is usually a member from that country. And they can also have a former missionary in that country come to talk to the new missionaries. I think that you need to be aware more of what is exactly happening at the MTC.

Yes, I think the MTC does a great job training them.  Because of their missionary work, Mormons have a better understanding of different cultures and people than other faiths do - how many other faiths immerse themselves within another culture for 2 years?  Learn the language, eat the food, live there etc. etc.?  

Other churches like to have "bash other religions" sessions, where they go through each other faith, and say why they are wrong/bad etc.... Mormons do not do this, and I am glad of it.

[why me]

Yes, I think the MTC does a great job training them.  Because of their missionary work, Mormons have a better understanding of different cultures and people than other faiths do - how many other faiths immerse themselves within another culture for 2 years?  Learn the language, eat the food, live there etc. etc.?  

 

Also, many people in other countries are very impressed with the language skills of the missionaries. And I think that many feel honored that these young people took the necessary time to learn the language and they are quite impressed with the language skills acquired in such a short time. I do think that most give the young people slack about knowledge matters. One reason for this is because that most adults have children the age of the missionaries. So, they know the knowledge level of 18 or 19 year olds.

[Buzzard]

There is a  practical issue with regards to missionary reading material as well. You cite a perfectly harmless representation of Evangelical doctrine, which I doubt any missionary would be harmed by reading. But who decides what is acceptable and what is distorted anti-Mormon trash?

The missionary? The mission president? A church bureaucrat  in Salt Lake City? It would take up the time of a whole squadron of vetters just to sort through what is in print, not to mention the zillions of web pages. And then there are foreign languages.  Restricting missionary reading to an approved list means that at least most missionaries will be familiar with our own doctrines.

As an aside, we were allowed on our Monday P-Days to purchase a copy of the International Herald Tribune if we wanted, per our mission president. He said this would allow us to: Have something to do while the laundry dried, keep up with at least the basics of what was going on in the world, and plus Monday was when the football scores from over the weekend were posted. 

Oh, and while caring for an ill companion one week, I read "Le Compte de Monte Cristo". All 1500 pages. In literary French. It's probably my greatest non-religious accomplishment of those two years. Well, other than developing a taste for really good cheese. What I would do for a nice slice of St. Paulin right now...

Edited April 2, 2014 by Buzzard

[changed]

 at least most missionaries will be familiar with our own doctrines.

This might be a bad analogy, but if you are trying to learn how to cook - do you study all of the things people have done wrong? or do you concentrate on what is right?  There are an infinite number of ways to get something wrong, it seems a more efficient use of our limited time is to study what is right.  Most people understand the basic principles of what is right - love/humility/service/family etc... 

jack of all trades and master of none? or master of what is good and true, of the common beautiful principles that everyone will recognize and relate to.  

[Coreyb]

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?

Yes, I read the book of Mormon six times, the old testament once, the new testament twice, the doctrine and Covenants once, and the pearl of great price twice. And yes, I didn't read any unauthorized books during the scheduled study times, I read for the investigators. The unauthorized stuff I read during meals, at night, on Mondays and stuff like that. I had never read like that before, and I don't really like that now unfortunately. At home I have the Internet, television and a girl friend to distract my during my free time.

[cdowis]

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,

 

Why would a missionary tell an investigator what they believe?  I cannot wrap that concept around my mind unless he is getting into an argument or apologetic discussion.

 

 In any case it is easily handled by the phrase, "there are many today who believe....,"    (the FV story) "The churches at that time taught that God..... but JS discovered that...."

 

 

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.

 

That is not what missionaries are supposed to do.

 

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

"Discuss the differences in faith" with investigators???????

 

 May I suggest that you actually read the missionary handbook,  Teach My Gospel, etc   I would expect an entire chapter on those "other beliefs" and how to "discuss those differences with your investigators."

Edited April 3, 2014 by cdowis

[cdowis]

del

Edited April 3, 2014 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

I don't see this as an unreasonable rule for missionaries while on their mission. They have a special calling and people are drawn to their spirit, not their intellectual abilities or secular knowledge which is sometimes limited. However, members who sometimes impose upon themselves and others a very restricted view of what constitutes "good books" sometimes develop a bizarre bubble world outlook, kind of similar to people addicted to certain media outlets.

[ERayR]

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?

 

What is your preferred list of study material?  LDS missionaries are not called to battle anti-Mormon rhetoric.  They are called to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

[ERayR]

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

 

 

 

Straw man. Nobody said that. 

[JAHS]

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?

When I was trained in the LTM (yes I'm that old) for a German speaking mission we were taught about the culture of the country and what we should do or not do while interacting with the people there. Common courtesies and etiquette.  However we were also taught to never debate the doctrines in the scriptures with people. Our purpose there was to seek out those who were ready to hear and be taught the gospel. If all they wanted to do was debate points of doctrine we were to move on to someone else. During the mission we learned from our seniors and through experience how to answer some questions people might have had coming from different religions, but we always did it through teaching from the scriptures. 

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

We don't set out to offend anyone, and nearly all mistakes in customs are innocent. My son went to Zimbabwe. Though English speaking certain idioms and hand gestures don't translate well. We are taught to be culturally aware practically from birth. But no I don't know of any formal attempt to acculturate the Missionaries outside of actually living there, and brief lessons on basic manners.   We're big enough now that we have Missionary Training Centers in several countries. So they draw from those citizens.

Edited April 3, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Danzo]

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?

 

In my mission, we did learn about what was rude in Italy before going there.

[Danzo]

Hi Storm Rider.

 

I suspect that when there is agreement about terms between LDS and Catholics, there will be agreement about concepts.

 

But I have occasionally seen LDS here opposing "grace alone" when they should be saying they oppose "faith alone". There seems to be an identification with grace and faith as synonyms sometimes. In my opinion, it is essential to clarify that grace and faith are distinct from each other, "lest any man should boast".

 

It is only my personal experience. I believe you. I also would be expect that many Catholics are unclear about the terms. I just happen to hang around here instead of Catholic internet sites.

 

Rory

 

There isn't any such thing as "Faith Alone".  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you saying it's not a problem if a missionary has a stereotypical view of what the investigator believes?

I don't know that is possible on a mission as you talk with so many people. I just don't think you have the necessary experience to offer your opinion on this matter. I talked with all sorts of people who believed all sorts of things. About the closest I came to stereotyping was the Baptists (As they were the most prominent) I came to 2 conclusions they deeply believe what they are taught and that a lot seem to believe in an "easy believism" or "All you have to do is confess with your mouth and you are saved" (AS that felt like the conversation at so many door steps). Out side of that there really was no way to stereo type people because of the diversity of beliefs.  So no it is not a problem because real world experience dictates that you cannot stereotype people.  And Ill tell you right now no amount of reading something some where would give greater experience than that.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram