D&C 127:2

[I Have Questions]

I think someone said it earlier in the thread but the problem with this is that it ignores what missionaries actually do.

Missionaries ask investigators to read a book that specifically critiques others’ beliefs by saying churches are in apostasy, teach incorrect doctrines, and lack authority.

If you don’t agree with that approach, perhaps a proposal to change the missionary program is appropriate? Or maybe a retroactive change to the book.

Saying something doesn't make it true, right? In other words, those that listen (first they have to listen, choice number one) to the message of the Restoration and do not believe it to be true then go their own way (choice number two). No one (missionary or regular member) forces them into the church or to believe in the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

As has been said many times, believing in and having a hope in Christ through reading the Book of Mormon and choosing to be baptized is a personal choice. And if a person believes that it is all a lie...they walk away. Except for those on this board (tongue planted firmly in cheek...mostly).

Regards,
MG

You aren’t addressing Limnor’s point - that the missionary programme is an active condemnation of all other beliefs. Its very existence is because your Church believes it is right and that everyone else is wrong. That’s criticism.

[malkie]

Saying something doesn't make it true, right? In other words, those that listen (first they have to listen, choice number one) to the message of the Restoration and do not believe it to be true then go their own way (choice number two). No one (missionary or regular member) forces them into the church or to believe in the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

As has been said many times, believing in and having a hope in Christ through reading the Book of Mormon and choosing to be baptized is a personal choice. And if a person believes that it is all a lie...they walk away. Except for those on this board (tongue planted firmly in cheek...mostly).

Regards,
MG

You aren’t addressing Limnor’s point - that the missionary programme is an active condemnation of all other beliefs. Its very existence is because your Church believes it is right and that everyone else is wrong. That’s criticism.

Somebody had to do it - may as well be me.

criticize verb
1: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate
He asked me to criticize his drawings.
2: to find fault with : point out the faults of
His boss criticized him for his sloppy work.

“Criticize.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticize. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Even without condemnation, can Mormon missionaries effectively teach anyone about Mormonism without considering the merits and demerits of the person's existing beliefs? Actually, if they were very careful and strictly monitored themselves, at the expense of an extremely unnatural "discussion" I suppose it's possible. However, more importantly, do they do so?

[I Have Questions]

You aren’t addressing Limnor’s point - that the missionary programme is an active condemnation of all other beliefs. Its very existence is because your Church believes it is right and that everyone else is wrong. That’s criticism.

Somebody had to do it - may as well be me.

criticize verb
1: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : evaluate
He asked me to criticize his drawings.
2: to find fault with : point out the faults of
His boss criticized him for his sloppy work.

“Criticize.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticize. Accessed 24 Nov. 2025.

Even without condemnation, can Mormon missionaries effectively teach anyone about Mormonism without considering the merits and demerits of the person's existing beliefs? Actually, if they were very careful and strictly monitored themselves, at the expense of an extremely unnatural "discussion" I suppose it's possible. However, more importantly, do they do so?

A Mormon<insert trademark icon> Missionary is preconditioned to consider all other existing beliefs as inferior, regardless of any merit within it. Once you start explaining your existing beliefs to a Mormon<insert trademark icon> missionary they are trained to treat is as an objection to be overcome. The smarter salespeople will slickly suggest that Mormonism simply adds more truth to their existing beliefs - which is a tacit criticism saying that their existing belief is inferior, incomplete, less than. The basis for the Mormon<TM> missionary programme is because they are right and everyone else is wrong. That's its foundation and its purpose is to communicate that.

MG 2.0 is trying to avoid addressing that.

Now let's examine MG's assertion for members who are baptised at age 8 because their parents are already members.

Saying something doesn't make it true, right? In other words, those that listen (first they have to listen, choice number one) to the message of the Restoration and do not believe it to be true then go their own way (choice number two). No one (missionary or regular member) forces them into the church or to believe in the Book of Mormon being the word of God.

As an 8 year old, does an individual make a choice to go to Church and listen? Do they really have a choice to not believe and go their own way? Of course not. And then when they are considered old enough to make those choices for themselves, they've been subjected to a decade of conditioning and are then pressured into going away for 2 more years of intensive conditioning. Choice? I don't think so.

MG himself automatically reverts to criticism when commenting on people who leave the Church. He portrays them as weak, or lazy, or wanting to sin etc. When interacting with you about your disaffiliation, there was inherent passive aggressive snark in his phraseology. He was talking down to you.

malkie, I'm not criticizing your de-conversion. For you, it was apparently the 'right choice' - the use of the single quotation marks is to convey his disbelief that it is the right choice, without actually saying so. We all do the best we can with the information and life experience and natural inclinations that make us who we are. That's true for believers and unbelievers.

The 'right choice' (placing within those apostrophe marks is MG suggesting it’s something other than the right choice) and you've done "the best" you can, and it's down to your limited information, inferior life experience, and you natural inclination. He's pitying you.

[Limnor]

MG himself automatically reverts to criticism when commenting on people who leave the Church. He portrays them as weak, or lazy, or wanting to sin etc. When interacting with you about your disaffiliation, there was inherent passive aggressive snark in his phraseology. He was talking down to you.

There is more revealed here than simple forum squabbles. The way Mormons talk about people who question or leave the Church is the same way investigators will assume they’ll be treated if they ever have questions or decide to walk away.

If the default pastoral performance is that former members or those who have questions are weak, lazy, deceived, or morally compromised, it sends a clear message about how “lost sheep” are viewed once they’re no longer useful.

[Limnor]

Even without condemnation, can Mormon missionaries effectively teach anyone about Mormonism without considering the merits and demerits of the person's existing beliefs? Actually, if they were very careful and strictly monitored themselves, at the expense of an extremely unnatural "discussion" I suppose it's possible. However, more importantly, do they do so?

Exactly. Missionaries can’t teach Mormonism without engaging the merits and demerits of a person’s existing beliefs, because the Restoration message itself is structured around the idea that other churches lost authority and corrupted doctrine. That’s built into the First Vision story, the Book of Mormon text, and every missionary lesson.

Pretending that missionaries avoid “criticizing a friend’s beliefs” creates an impossible scenario on the ground.

It also sends a poor message to investigators, because they eventually see the strategem (h/t to the Book of Mormon for revealing this) up close: strong critique aimed outward, but wounded defensiveness aimed inward.

[I Have Questions]

MG himself automatically reverts to criticism when commenting on people who leave the Church. He portrays them as weak, or lazy, or wanting to sin etc. When interacting with you about your disaffiliation, there was inherent passive aggressive snark in his phraseology. He was talking down to you.

There is more revealed here than simple forum squabbles. The way Mormons talk about people who question or leave the Church is the same way investigators will assume they’ll be treated if they ever have questions or decide to walk away.

If the default pastoral performance is that former members or those who have questions are weak, lazy, deceived, or morally compromised, it sends a clear message about how “lost sheep” are viewed once they’re no longer useful.

Yes. MG’s inbuilt self-superiority have been ingrained him by the religion of his birth over many decades. Even when he is trying not to, it seeps out through the pores of his word choices.

[MG 2.0]

Well folks, you can think what you want to think and reinterpret what I'm saying to twist my words but I've been rather clear in what I've already said. I suppose I will have to leave it to others to determine my intent and meaning behind my words.

I was reading a news clip about the recent game BYU played in Cincinnati. Apparently the opposing team's fans were shouting "F the Mormons" over and over. The BYU fans on the other hand took it on the chin and were respectful and courteous their accusers. BYU recently played in Texas. Those in attendance from the opposing team had nothing but good to say about the decency of the BYU fans in attendance.

Why do I say this? Because this same respect for others also holds true in missionary work. My previous posts on this thread simply state this as being fact.

'Opponents' can take it or leave it. Just as in the two sporting events I've mentioned there will always be detractors of the church and all that it stands for. The church and its members will always be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the truth is, we as members are to turn the other cheek and try to treat others with respect and not criticize others for doing what they believe is right/true.

I can't change any hearts and minds here. I get that. It really doesn't matter what I say or do. Misinterpreted words and twisting of meaning are the common lot that I am subject to.

We (members of the church) are NOT out to criticize the beliefs of others but to only offer that which we believe to be true. Being faulted for that is a bit unreasonable in my opinion. As I said, agency reigns supreme. We know that. That's why we can't and never would force our beliefs on others.

But carry on...

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

We (members of the church) are NOT out to criticize the beliefs of others but to only offer that which we believe to be true.

The two things are inextricably linked. When your stated belief is that only Mormonism has the whole truth, and only Mormons get to live with God for eternity, and only Mormons will be together as families for eternity, and only Mormonism has a man who is the person that speaks for God globally…you are implicitly informing all other religious beliefs that they are inferior and wrong. You have a programme designed to actively promote that view and to encourage people to ditch their current religious beliefs in favour of yours, because theirs is wrong and yours is right.

You absolutely are out to criticise the beliefs of others by the act of promoting your religious views as “right”. It’s inescapable.

[malkie]

Well folks, you can think what you want to think and reinterpret what I'm saying to twist my words but I've been rather clear in what I've already said. I suppose I will have to leave it to others to determine my intent and meaning behind my words.

I was reading a news clip about the recent game BYU played in Cincinnati. Apparently the opposing team's fans were shouting "F the Mormons" over and over. The BYU fans on the other hand took it on the chin and were respectful and courteous their accusers. BYU recently played in Texas. Those in attendance from the opposing team had nothing but good to say about the decency of the BYU fans in attendance.

Why do I say this? Because this same respect for others also holds true in missionary work. My previous posts on this thread simply state this as being fact.

'Opponents' can take it or leave it. Just as in the two sporting events I've mentioned there will always be detractors of the church and all that it stands for. The church and its members will always be ridiculed for their beliefs. But the truth is, we as members are to turn the other cheek and try to treat others with respect and not criticize others for doing what they believe is right/true.

I can't change any hearts and minds here. I get that. It really doesn't matter what I say or do. Misinterpreted words and twisting of meaning are the common lot that I am subject to.

We (members of the church) are NOT out to criticize the beliefs of others but to only offer that which we believe to be true. Being faulted for that is a bit unreasonable in my opinion. As I said, agency reigns supreme. We know that. That's why we can't and never would force our beliefs on others.

But carry on...

Regards,
MG

Well, MG, it looks to me as if you didn't read others' comments for understanding, but solely to look for ways to portray yourself as misunderstood and ill done to. Yes, sometimes you've been clear, but at other times it's necessary to ask you to clarify what you're saying because today's clear statement contradicts yesterday's clear statement. If you see that as "[m]isinterpreted words and twisting of meaning" then perhaps you need to be more consistent.
===
"Because this same respect for others also holds true in missionary work. My previous posts on this thread simply state this as being fact."

Your "fact" has been clearly refuted by several posters, based on your own statements about criticism, and how Mormon missionaries and ordinary members talk about others' beliefs. Your insistence on restating it as a fact is one example of why some find it difficult to interact with you.
===
"We (members of the church) are NOT out to criticize the beliefs of others but to only offer that which we believe to be true."

You (members of the church) implicitly, and often explicitly, criticize the beliefs of others by the way in which you "offer" that which you believe to be true. The missionary lessons include descriptions of how all other religions went astray and became wicked - including the "whore of all the earth" rhetoric, the claim about other churches that "all their professors are corrupt", etc. Mormons claim they are the only ones in whom god (supposedly the same god as Christians believe in) is well pleased. You know this at least as well as I do.

[Limnor]

Well folks, you can think what you want to think and reinterpret what I'm saying to twist my words but I've been rather clear in what I've already said. I suppose I will have to leave it to others to determine my intent and meaning behind my words.

I was reading a news clip about the recent game BYU played in Cincinnati. Apparently the opposing team's fans were shouting "F the Mormons" over and over. The BYU fans on the other hand took it on the chin and were respectful and courteous their accusers. BYU recently played in Texas. Those in attendance from the opposing team had nothing but good to say about the decency of the BYU fans in attendance.

Why do I say this? Because this same respect for others also holds true in missionary work. My previous posts on this thread simply state this as being fact.

I’m old enough to remember when a BYU player took off his helmet to swing it at someone, so the sports analogy doesn’t really land.

And polite critique is still critique—which is fine, because it’s okay to critique ideas we don’t agree with.

But I’ll genuinely ask: where exactly were your words twisted?