Article Re Dan Reynolds

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

I agree with you. I served in Dallas TX and baptisms were rare. I don't think conversion is an intelligence issue, or a knowledge issue. I think it's a pride issue. Pride levels are often associated with economic status, and economic status is often associated with education level (or information, intelligence, or expertise level). The western world is incredibly vain, materialistic, and proud. It's just the way our culture is. This doesn't just have an impact on conversion rates, it's having an impact on religiosity, traditions, and retention in general, regardless of the religion or its source. Regardless of whether one is Hindu, Bhuddist, Christian, or LDS the amount of people seeking to be one with the One is vanishingly low. There is less of a need or a desire for companionship with heaven when one feels capable of solving all of their own problems or using their own "worldly" clergy to help them (therapy, support groups, forums, YT videos from experts, etc.).

On my mission (in which I served in many religiously diverse neighborhoods) I would ask this question any chance I could, "Do you read your [insert dominant religious text here] every day?" I'd say 1-5% of people I asked that question to responded in the affirmative. Now this is anecdotal, but every person who answered "yes" were nice to the missionaries, the rest were awful to us. I have found that in my own church (LDS) that most members I speak with are not thoughtful or intentional about their worship and are no different from the 95% of other faiths that I met on my mission. Fundamentally, that is why people are falling away or resisting conversion, they just don't care about spiritual development, it has nothing to do with how smart or educated they are. But if we lived in a society where we don't know where our next meal is coming from, all of a sudden thinking about death becomes top of mind, and it's heartbreaking and humbling to think about and naturally draws one into exploring the unknown via religious text.

I think pride can play into it. I recall as a missionary that there were areas at times we knew we would have less success tracting out due to the more wealthy status of the neighborhood. That is still the case. But I till think the accessibility of information has an impact. As for other religions, I think Americans are in general more and more seeing religion as unnecessary. Much like Europe has realized.

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I have let myself get to contentious. I'll back off.

I'm actually quite pleasant in person. Guess we all have a little of the internet warrior in us.

🪖

Fair enough. It is easy to do. I am sure you are a wonderful person and if we could chat over lunch we might appreciate each other much better.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Fair enough. It is easy to do. I am sure you are a wonderful person and if we could chat over lunch we might appreciate each other much better.

If you ever make your way out to the playground of heathenism here in the desert let me know- but you're paying! 😜

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If you ever make your way out to the playground of heathenism here in the desert let me know- but you're paying! 😜

Do you live in Utah? I need to make trip pout sometime in the next six months to see my two brothers.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you live in Utah? I need to make trip pout sometime in the next six months to see my two brothers.

I'm in the land of the one-armed bandits.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I was an all in member I am sure as much as you or anyone on this board.

Teancum is accurate in his description if he was honest in his posts back then, and I see no reason not to believe that he was.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

said that when people are more educated, AND HAVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION that previously was hard to get, the rate of the church slows, and the rate of disaffected members increase.  This is a fact born out by the statistics. 

I don’t know how old the study was, seems like last ten years, but maybe it’s 15, but it showed the more educated a Saint was, typically the more committed, unusual for religious behavior.

I will try and find a reference.  Hopefully someone else remembers this study as well and will track it down if I don’t have luck.

It would be interesting to see if this has changed in recent years. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And you make personal remarks about them. 

Which is against the board rules he agreed to abide by. 

[Calm]

This is the AI response when I googled, so be wary. I have a granddaughter here and need to get ready for family visiting, so don’t want to search any deeper right now…hopefully this will make it possible for someone to find the info if they are interested in it. 
 

Quote

Yes, studies have shown that Latter-day Saints (LDS) who have more education tend to be more committed to their religion than those with less education:

Religious observance 

According to a 2017 Pew Research Center study, 92% of college-educated Mormons are highly religious, compared to 91% of Mormons who have some college and 78% of Mormons with only a high school education. 

Church attendance 

A 2015 study found that LDS members who are more educated are more likely to attend church, affiliate with the church, and observe religious practices. 

Commitment 

A 2017 study found that LDS college graduates are more likely to be committed to their religion than those who only attended some college, praying more frequently, believing in God, and valuing religion's role in their lives. 

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

When a people increases in worldly knowledge there is a greater chance of pride and arrogance, which is why the scripture says that to be learned is good, if there is a hearkening unto the commandments of God.

Isn't worldly knowledge anything outside Church teachings and doctrine?  Or do you have your own definition of worldly knowedge.

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

But as we know by the very successful, faithful Latter-day Saints throughout the world- just because one has acquired much learning, and wealth, that doesn't mean they will walk away- which was the argument being made- that only ignorant people accept the claims of the Restoration.

This is a little confusing for me.  Doesn't the fact that there are faithful Latter-day Saints that are wealthy, but not arrogant and prideful kinda disprove what the first scripture you quoted was saying?  It seems more about choices made than wealth.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, california boy said:

Isn't worldly knowledge anything outside Church teachings and doctrine?  Or do you have your own definition of worldly knowedge.

This is a little confusing for me.  Doesn't the fact that there are faithful Latter-day Saints that are wealthy, but not arrogant and prideful kinda disprove what the first scripture you quoted was saying?  It seems more about choices made than wealth.

☮️✌️🤟

[let’s roll]

On 7/17/2024 at 8:46 AM, Analytics said:

I’d be glad to tell you about a few bursts of inspiration and success that I had as a missionary, but is the point of this to provide an honest description and evaluation of what the entire experience was like, or is it to capture a highlight real that we can then pretend is representative? 

I am not here trying to win, or start, a debate.  I read the board to learn of other’s experiences and to share some of mine.  In that context, I’d be interested in hearing about experiences you characterize as bursts of inspiration, including what you believe brought them on, how you understood and acted on them at the time, and how you look at them today, in retrospect.

Thanks.

Edited July 20, 2024 by let’s roll

[Analytics]

On 7/19/2024 at 11:55 PM, let’s roll said:

I am not here trying to win, or start, a debate.  I read the board to learn of other’s experiences and to share some of mine.  In that context, I’d be interested in hearing about experiences you characterize as bursts of inspiration, including what you believe brought them on, how you understood and acted on them at the time, and how you look at them today, in retrospect.

Thanks.

This episode comes to mind. My companion and I were in Argentina tracking a poor/working class neighborhood around 3:30 P.M. Middle of summer. Hot. No A.C. anywhere. A lot of locals thought the day’s siesta hadn’t ended and that it was very rude for us to be tracking, but it’s better to obey than to be polite.

We clapped at a gate, and a woman in her mid 30’s answered. It looked like we had just woke her up. We said we had a message about families, and although she was groggy, she let us in. My companion told some story about a family sharing grapes, and the lady started to cry. She invited us back the next day for the first discussion.

It turns out her husband had died only three weeks earlier. She later told us that as she was taking her siesta, she dreamed her husband was walking up to the house and that he was the one who clapped at the door at the instant I did. That is why she let us in.

Three weeks later was the night before her baptismal interview. She was dreaming she was at the Mormon chapel, standing in the back, thinking, alone. And then her husband walked in. She asked what he was doing there. He said he was taking the Mormon discussions. She told him that she was doing the same thing on this side of the veil. They talked about it and decided to get baptized.

The widow and all 3 kids got baptized--including the teenager who wasn’t at all interested the first couple of weeks.

What do I make of it now? It seems to me that religion can offer you two things. It can give you beliefs that you find inspiring or comforting, and it can give you community. This particular woman and her family already had a very strong community in the Catholic church, but the Catholics didn’t have answers for what she was now going through. She came to believe that the reason her husband died was to soften her heart so that she’d listen to our message, so that she could be with her family after she died. That belief was compelling to her, but to me it seems twisted. God is really going to kill a husband in order to get his wife to join the right church?? 

Since then, that particular companion and I have both left the Church. I talked to him about this particular family, and whether we should reach out to them (he is from Argentina and now lives an hour away from them, and I go back to Argentina relatively frequently). On the one hand, we provided this family with a message that they found comforting at the time. But we were also being manipulative in leveraging a personal tragedy to get her to join our Church. We both felt bad about having wrestled her away from the faith community family that she had had all her life. We were worried that maybe she felt trapped in the Mormon Church and that it wasn’t working out for them anymore.

We talked about going back to see how they were doing and depending upon what she said, to provide some more information or to apologize. But we both decided that it would be better to leave her alone to live her own life. If she was still in the Church, it must be working out for her. That’s great. Conversely if she went back to her Catholic family, she would have no reason to want to see us and it would only stir up bad memories. Either way, we had done enough.

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

On the one hand, we provided this family with a message that they found comforting at the time. But we were also being manipulative in leveraging a personal tragedy to get her to join our Church.

I've thought a lot about the 'M' word and such situations.

Are our medical professionals being inherently manipulative, when they offer medical advice to their patients?  "If you lose 50 lbs you'll live longer and probably feel better."  "If you have this surgery you'll most likely [receive the benefit that comes with the surgery]." "Here are all your chemotherapy options, along with risks and costs."  etc.  I mean, if the diagnosis is severe enough, aren't they "leveraging a personal tragedy" to get someone to accept medicine, and thus have a flow of dollars into the practice?

Are morticians and funeral home directors inherently manipulative, when they offer their services to families of the soon-to-be deceased?  It's not like they go out of their way to acquaint potential customers with any of the less expensive ways of disposing of a body.  Isn't that kind of like the dictionary definition of leveraging a personal tragedy for financial gain?

Are car salesmen or realtors or rental agents manipulative?  "Need a car to drive to work so you can earn money for food?  Need housing?  I will leverage your human condition into something that earns me a commission."  

Are missionaries (for any religion) who believe they have the secret to peace and joy and comfort and happiness, being manipulative for sharing their message in hopes that the people will believe and become at peace/full of joy/comforted/happy?

 

Final question: If the answer to the first three questions are not the same as the answer to the last question, you sure you're not applying a double standard?

 

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

This episode comes to mind. My companion and I were in Argentina tracking a poor/working class neighborhood around 3:30 P.M. Middle of summer. Hot. No A.C. anywhere. A lot of locals thought the day’s siesta hadn’t ended and that it was very rude for us to be tracking, but it’s better to obey than to be polite.

We clapped at a gate, and a woman in her mid 30’s answered. It looked like we had just woke her up. We said we had a message about families, and although she was groggy, she let us in. My companion told some story about a family sharing grapes, and the lady started to cry. She invited us back the next day for the first discussion.

It turns out her husband had died only three weeks earlier. She later told us that as she was taking her siesta, she dreamed her husband was walking up to the house and that he was the one who clapped at the door at the instant I did. That is why she let us in.

Three weeks later was the night before her baptismal interview. She was dreaming she was at the Mormon chapel, standing in the back, thinking, alone. And then her husband walked in. She asked what he was doing there. He said he was taking the Mormon discussions. She told him that she was doing the same thing on this side of the veil. They talked about it and decided to get baptized.

The widow and all 3 kids got baptized--including the teenager who wasn’t at all interested the first couple of weeks.

What do I make of it now? It seems to me that religion can offer you two things. It can give you beliefs that you find inspiring or comforting, and it can give you community. This particular woman and her family already had a very strong community in the Catholic church, but the Catholics didn’t have answers for what she was now going through. She came to believe that the reason her husband died was to soften her heart so that she’d listen to our message, so that she could be with her family after she died. That belief was compelling to her, but to me it seems twisted. God is really going to kill a husband in order to get his wife to join the right church?? 

Since then, that particular companion and I have both left the Church. I talked to him about this particular family, and whether we should reach out to them (he is from Argentina and now lives an hour away from them, and I go back to Argentina relatively frequently). On the one hand, we provided this family with a message that they found comforting at the time. But we were also being manipulative in leveraging a personal tragedy to get her to join our Church.

I am curious as to your terminology here.  To "manipulate" means to "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."  What about your behavior was "clever," "unfair" and/or "unscrupulous"?  You apparently believed your religious/faith-based message, as did she.  

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

We both felt bad about having wrestled her away from the faith community family that she had had all her life.

Do you similarly feel that your behavior on this board is calculated to "wrestle away" Latter-day Saints from their faith community?  Or are you just calling 'em as you see 'em?

If you are acting in good conscience now in opposing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and you were acting in good conscience back in the day in Argentina in endorsing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it would seem that characterizing your actions in either instance as "manipulative" is not apt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I've thought a lot about the 'M' word and such situations.

Are our medical professionals being inherently manipulative, when they offer medical advice to their patients?  "If you lose 50 lbs you'll live longer and probably feel better."  "If you have this surgery you'll most likely [receive the benefit that comes with the surgery]." "Here are all your chemotherapy options, along with risks and costs."  etc.  I mean, if the diagnosis is severe enough, aren't they "leveraging a personal tragedy" to get someone to accept medicine, and thus have a flow of dollars into the practice?

It depends. This is a really complicated question that involves making generalizations about millions of people who earn their livings in an healthcare industry that composes about 18% of the GDP. If somebody independently chooses to go to a doctor because the doctor has bona fide expert qualifications to practice medicine, then I wouldn’t call it manipulation to provide the services that were sought.

That said, a huge part of the medical industry is in fact big business with the objective of maximizing profits and that is problematic; it’s a lot more profitable to manage a chronic condition with expensive medications and procedures than it is to actually cure the condition through healthier lifestyles. 

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Are morticians and funeral home directors inherently manipulative, when they offer their services to families of the soon-to-be deceased?  It's not like they go out of their way to acquaint potential customers with any of the less expensive ways of disposing of a body.  Isn't that kind of like the dictionary definition of leveraging a personal tragedy for financial gain?

It depends but in general, funeral home directors are using death as a way to make money, and the packages they offer are designed to maximize their own profits rather than deal with death in a dignified and economical way.

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Are car salesmen or realtors or rental agents manipulative?  "Need a car to drive to work so you can earn money for food?  Need housing?  I will leverage your human condition into something that earns me a commission."  

It depends on the dealership, the sales guy, and the situation. When they are trying to upsell bad financing deals, extended warranties, underbody protection, and use misleading pricing with hidden fees, then yes, they are doing their best to manipulate you.

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Are missionaries (for any religion) who believe they have the secret to peace and joy and comfort and happiness, being manipulative for sharing their message in hopes that the people will believe and become at peace/full of joy/comforted/happy?

It depends. 

A friend of mine converted from being a Protestant to a Catholic. He said that he had to meet with a priest several times a week over a 9 month period before they would allow him to be baptized. He told me that several of their discussions went like this:

Priest: In the past, the Catholic Church murdered many of its dissidents. Can you handle belonging to a church with that in its history?

Friend: Yes.

Priest: The Catholic Church at one time prostituted its nuns for money. Can you handle belonging to a church with that in its history?

Friend: Yes.

My friend told me the priest went on and on, candidly bringing up every spec of dirt on that church with which he was aware.

That guy wasn’t being manipulated. 

[Analytics]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your terminology here.  To "manipulate" means to "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."  What about your behavior was "clever," "unfair" and/or "unscrupulous"?  You apparently believed your religious/faith-based message, as did she. 

I'll refer you to the definition of Cathleen Mann, the cult expert you endorse based on her clinical definitions. She says:

Quote

 

Manipulation refers to the act of influencing or controlling the thoughts, feelings, or behaviors of other people in order to achieve a desired outcome. It can take many forms, from subtle persuasion to more overt forms of coercion.

Manipulation can be used for both positive and negative purposes. For example, a skilled negotiator may use manipulation tactics to reach a win-win agreement that benefits both parties, while a con artist may use manipulation to deceive and defraud their victims.

Some common tactics used in manipulation include:

1. Emotional appeals: appealing to a person’s emotions, such as fear, guilt, or sympathy, in order to get them to do something.

2. Gaslighting: manipulating someone into doubting their own perceptions or memory of events, in order to gain control over them.

3. Isolation: cutting a person off from their support network, in order to make them more vulnerable to manipulation.

4. Flattery: using compliments or praise to make a person more receptive to the manipulator’s requests.

5. Threats: using fear of harm or punishment to control a person’s behavior.

It is important to be aware of the signs of manipulation and to set healthy boundaries in order to protect yourself from being manipulated. If you suspect that you or someone you know is being manipulated, it may be helpful to seek the assistance of a trusted friend, family member, or professional counselor.

 

I would say that “the commitment pattern” is manipulative by design. As missionaries, the system manipulated us to project confidence and knowledge about what we were teaching, even if we had serious doubts. Bearing these manipulative testimonies, manipulating people’s emotions, and then asking them to make commitments in their emotional states is manipulative. 

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you similarly feel that your behavior on this board is calculated to "wrestle away" Latter-day Saints from their faith community?  Or are you just calling 'em as you see 'em?

My participation on this board is totally different:

1- I’ve been invited to discuss issues here, and on occasion I accept that offer.

2- I have no goal to “wrestle away” somebody from their faith community. I don’t really care what you believe or who you hang out with.

3- I don’t have anything like the commitment pattern at all.

4- I’m not claiming to represent anybody, much less claiming to be God’s official representative. I encourage people to think more clearly, read excellent books, use their rational facilities without relying on cognitive biases, and understand why people believe weird things. I make no explicit or implicit threats that you’ll disappoint God and be punished if you don’t agree with me about stuff. I don’t ask for money, much less 10% of your income. I don’t ask for anything.

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you are acting in good conscience now in opposing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and you were acting in good conscience back in the day in Argentina in endorsing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it would seem that characterizing your actions in either instance as "manipulative" is not apt.

First of all, I am not opposing your Church. I am at a discussion board discussing.

That detail aside, manipulation isn’t about whether or not you are “acting in good conscience.” Rather, it depends on the tactics you use to win converts. It wouldn’t be manipulative if missionaries knocked on people’s doors and honestly said the following: “We are here to convince you to join the Mormon church. But before we’re willing to let you officially join, we are going to ensure that you thoroughly understand what we are asking you to get into, and will ensure that you are making a decision with your eyes wide open. The real reason we are on missions in the first place is because our culture put intense pressure on us to go on missions and promised us that by doing this, the attractive girls will be willing to date us and marry us when we get home. The truth is we both have serious doubts about these truth claims ourselves, and are just counting down the days until we can go home and get on with our lives. Would you like to hear more?"

Edited July 22, 2024 by Analytics

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your terminology here.  To "manipulate" means to "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."  What about your behavior was "clever," "unfair" and/or "unscrupulous"?  You apparently believed your religious/faith-based message, as did she.  

Manipulation is not inherently wrong. When I give a massage I am manipulating the person’s body but I don’t have ill intent (usually).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

the commitment pattern” is manipulative

The following was pushed on my mission. Textbook manipulation IMO:

Quote

 

 Elder Boyd K. Packer observed,

to have a missionary say, ‘How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony would that not be dishonest?’

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle! A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that ‘leap of faith,’ as the philosophers call it. 

rsc.byu.edu

Text book manipulation of Elders and Sisters. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

The real reason we are on missions in the first place is because our culture put intense pressure on us to go on missions and promised us that by doing this, the attractive girls will be willing to date us and marry us when we get home

And this whole time I was convinced I went on a mission because I had a testimony of the Restored Gospel and wanted to share that good news with others. My Ward leaders really messed up because I wasn't promised any hot Mormon babes to pick from when I got back.

(BTW, I went to Argentina also.) 

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The following was pushed on my mission. Textbook manipulation IMO:

rsc.byu.edu

Text book manipulation of Elders and Sisters. 

Also a really weird reading of Kierkegaard. The leaps he talks about are outside the surrounding ethics. Telling you to take a leap towards a preestablished belief which your audience (mostly) took in with their mother’s milk? No, doesn’t fit.

[let’s roll]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

On the one hand, we provided this family with a message that they found comforting at the time. But we were also being manipulative in leveraging a personal tragedy to get her to join our Church. We both felt bad about having wrestled her away from the faith community family that she had had all her life. We were worried that maybe she felt trapped in the Mormon Church and that it wasn’t working out for them anymore.

Thanks for sharing this experience.  
 

A couple of thoughts.  What role do you believe you played in this family’s decisions?  Was there something unique about you or your companion that was determinative in that decision?  Did you, and do you now, take the woman at her word regarding the dreams she had involving her husband?  Weren’t those experiences the determining factor in her decision.  Not trying to demean your role, but I’m not seeing how you “wrestled her away” from the Catholic community or manipulated her in any way.
 

My Latina wife and her immediate and extended family were among those I met, taught and baptized as a missionary.  For the last 40+ years family gatherings I’ve attended more often than not included some member of the family tearfully thanking me for the role I played in bringing them the Gospel.  I’m somewhat uncomfortable on that pedestal, because I know it was the Spirit that opened their minds and touched their hearts.  Was any part of your decision not to reach out to the family not wanting them to be disappointed in the decisions you’ve made?

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

She came to believe that the reason her husband died was to soften her heart so that she’d listen to our message, so that she could be with her family after she died. That belief was compelling to her, but to me it seems twisted. God is really going to kill a husband in order to get his wife to join the right church?? 

In grieving the loss of her husband it would have been understandable had she been angry at God.  Instead she found joy in coming to understand that his death was a bridge to their family becoming eternal.  Her eyes were “able to see afar off.”  You characterize her belief as “twisted” and attribute her husband’s death to God.  Is it not conceivable that God’s role was not killing the husband but instead parting the veil so that a husband separated by his wife in death could be reunited with her as each was introduced to the Gospel on opposite sides of the veil?

Thanks again for sharing.

Warm regards.

 

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks for sharing this experience.  
 

A couple of thoughts.  What role do you believe you played in this family’s decisions?  Was there something unique about you or your companion that was determinative in that decision?  Did you, and do you now, take the woman at her word regarding the dreams she had involving her husband?  Weren’t those experiences the determining factor in her decision.  Not trying to demean your role, but I’m not seeing how you “wrestled her away” from the Catholic community or manipulated her in any way.

My companion and I were the missionaries who were uniquely assigned to that area. Other than that, I wouldn’t say there was anything special about us as individuals. 

I believe she honestly described the dreams she had, but the dreams would have been different if we hadn’t been there and hadn’t been planting ideas in her head.

We told her that the only way she could be with her family after she died was to leave her Catholic faith, become a Mormon, pay 10% of her meager income to the Church, go to the temple, and endure to the end. Giving her that message in the way we did, which was all carefully curated to win converts, feels manipulative to me. She was active in the Catholic faith. She had known her priest for her entire life. She met with the priest and her extended family to talk about why she was leaving the faith so abruptly. They told her to take her time and to find comfort with them and what they considered to be the truth. She said no, she wanted to become a Mormon. She cried talking to us about it. It was heart wrenching.

Try putting yourself into their shoes. Say your daughter had a personal tragedy and before she received the bill from the mortuary, the Moonies had pounced on her and she had committed her life to the Unification Church. Would you be concerned? Would you have any ethical questions about the Moonies pressuring to make such a life-altering decision based on minimal information while she was in such an emotional and broken state?

Going back to my original point, religions can offer two things: 1- inspiring and comforting beliefs, and 2- community. The Mormon message definitely resonated with this woman (although I don’t know how she’d feel about what we were deliberately not disclosing (e.g. Joseph Smith secretly “marrying" women behind his wife’s back, how the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are clearly of 19th Century American origin, temple recommend interviews, tithing settlements where the Church wants a lot of detail about your finances but isn’t willing to share its finances with you, how weird the temple ceremony is, garments, etc.) 

7 hours ago, let’s roll said:

My Latina wife and her immediate and extended family were among those I met, taught and baptized as a missionary.  For the last 40+ years family gatherings I’ve attended more often than not included some member of the family tearfully thanking me for the role I played in bringing them the Gospel.  I’m somewhat uncomfortable on that pedestal, because I know it was the Spirit that opened their minds and touched their hearts.  Was any part of your decision not to reach out to the family not wanting them to be disappointed in the decisions you’ve made?

It isn’t about me. I’d put the odds at 10-to-1 that soon after my companion and I left, she got disillusioned with the Church, went back to her Catholic family, and now considers her brief stint with the Mormons an embarrassing memory. Regardless, there would be little upsides to me going back. If she is still in the Church and is happy, I wouldn’t want to take that away from her. If she left the Church long ago, she might like an apology from me, but it’s better to leave the past in the past. 

7 hours ago, let’s roll said:

In grieving the loss of her husband it would have been understandable had she been angry at God.  Instead she found joy in coming to understand that his death was a bridge to their family becoming eternal.  Her eyes were “able to see afar off.”  You characterize her belief as “twisted” and attribute her husband’s death to God.  Is it not conceivable that God’s role was not killing the husband but instead parting the veil so that a husband separated by his wife in death could be reunited with her as each was introduced to the Gospel on opposite sides of the veil?

She wanted to know why her husband died, and she independently came to the conclusion that he died so that her heart would be softened and she’d accept the "true gospel.” Of course if the metaphysical claims of the Church really were true, this is a beautiful story about God “parting the veil” so a family could be reunited. I get that. Believe me. But if the metaphysical truth claims really aren’t true, was joining the Church worth it? That’s hard to say. Would have she chosen to join if we had disclosed everything to her? I would guess not.

[LoudmouthMormon]

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

That detail aside, manipulation isn’t about whether or not you are “acting in good conscience.” Rather, it depends on the tactics you use to win converts.

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Manipulation is not inherently wrong.

I should hope not, since similar tactics are used to: 

- Attract a mate.
- Get to know new people.
- Apologize to a loved one.
- Interview for a job.
- Perform literally any sales job ever invented by the human race, regardless of the economics or point in history.

How much wordsmithing nonsense can one forum endure?

[let’s roll]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Going back to my original point, religions can offer two things: 1- inspiring and comforting beliefs, and 2- community. The Mormon message definitely resonated with this woman (although I don’t know how she’d feel about what we were deliberately not disclosing (e.g. Joseph Smith secretly “marrying" women behind his wife’s back, how the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are clearly of 19th Century American origin, temple recommend interviews, tithing settlements where the Church wants a lot of detail about your finances but isn’t willing to share its finances with you, how weird the temple ceremony is, garments, etc.) 

Thanks for following up with, as I’ve come to expect from you, a thoughtful response.  A couple of thoughts.

If all religion was able to offer are the two things you believe are offered, I suspect I’d be, at most, a participant only when it was convenient.  I have plenty of community in my life apart from Church relationships.  But if one has experienced divine communion, religion takes on new meaning.  Divine peace and grace help one view religion not as an end, but as a vehicle to invite and assist others to come to know Deity.  Instead of understanding what your investigator experienced as the Mormon message resonating with her, what if it was her having an experience with the Divine.  By your own description, you state she independently came to her own conclusion about the meaning of her dreams and experiences.  Perhaps religion provided the concept of eternal families and her experience with her husband and the Divine confirmed to her the truth of that concept.  My experience has been that if you seek and receive Divine wisdom/guidance and act on it, the Divine wisdom/guidance continues.  I trust if she continued to seek guidance and acted on it she will have had the same experience.

13 hours ago, Analytics said:

We told her that the only way she could be with her family after she died was to leave her Catholic faith, become a Mormon, pay 10% of her meager income to the Church, go to the temple, and endure to the end. Giving her that message in the way we did, which was all carefully curated to win converts, feels manipulative to me. She was active in the Catholic faith. She had known her priest for her entire life. She met with the priest and her extended family to talk about why she was leaving the faith so abruptly. They told her to take her time and to find comfort with them and what they considered to be the truth. She said no, she wanted to become a Mormon. She cried talking to us about it. It was heart wrenching.

One would hope that both missionaries and priests (as well as the Moonies in your hypothetical) would all be inviting her to do the same thing…seek Divine comfort and peace as well as the Divine wisdom and guidance promised to ALL who seek it with the requisite intent and then follow that guidance.  To me that invitation is the sin qua non of any religion.

Best regards.