Informing non-members about Mormonism- suggestions

[_Jason Bourne]

Me: Your condition for a fair and balanced view. In your remarks, you criticize someone for their lack of a fair and balanced view. Those conditions are the conditions that I refer to.

I understand that often when someone leaves the Mormon Church that there view points are going to be skewed in ways that are often not balanced. Perhaps they need that to justify their actions on their mind. Perhaps they reached reasonable conclusions for them and their world view.

My point is that when one informs non members about the Church to present it in an unbalanced way, which Antishock does, is not appropriate nor is it honest.

Look, I have debated religion with many for a long time both LDS and other view points. I personally am not a big fan of conservative fundamentalist Christian groups. But when in LDS settings I see them incorrectly presented I correct the points that are not right. I could let it stand. But I don't. Whether in doctrine or passing out anti LDS literature and LDS events. I have explained to many LDS why some Christian groups do this, how they feel the LDS Church has thrown a major volley from the language of the FV forward. I tell them how they honestly believe as much as we do by sending missionaries out that they are witnessing to us, and others about what they believe should be known as people look into the LDS Church as well as declare their view of salvation.

I believe in being fair even when I do not like something or disagree with it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Personally, I think one can approach the issue with much less disdain for the LDS Church and help them to the same conclusion (not joining it). In fact, I think you can discuss the LDS Church in neutral terms with no intention of warning them off of it, and they will probably come to the same conclusion.

You can make a list of the obligations a really committed Mormon has:

1. three hours of church every Sunday
2. a "calling" that is like a part-time job someone else chooses for you
3. which leads to more time spent in church
4. the obligation to visit others and be visited by them on a monthly basis (more time)
5. 10% of your income goes to the church
6. additional offerings are highly encouraged
7. lifestyle restrictions (tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea)
8. regular trips to the temple for the truly committed (more time)
9. the temple is a Masonic-like ritual
10. those who have been initiated are obligated to wear unusual underwear that imposes its own fashion restrictions
11. very many other Christians will say you are not a Christian
12. etc., etc., etc.

These are facts. They are not subjective impressions. It doesn't require that you call Mormonism a "cult." You don't have to appear bitter or bigoted to do it. Most people, based on these simple facts alone, will lose interest in joining the LDS Church, after you share them.

These are fair. This is more cultural and outlines what the obligations are. Depending on how much one wants to know, I would add that I think the missionary lessons should be presented, then enhanced by other resources. I would start with Bushman's RSR. I would also spend time discussing the more detailed things about the godhead, becoming like god, god being a man and so on. I would give a good overview, in general about the temple and temple covenants and what it means. I would recommend that they read the entire D&C and PoGP along with the Book of Mormon. Of course this is really for someone who is pursuing becoming a Mormon. If they want general information this would be too much.

[_harmony]

These a fair. This is more cultural and outlines what the obligations are. Depending on how much one wants to know, I would add that I think the missionary lessons should be presented, then enhanced by other resources. I would start with Bushman's RSR. I would also spend time discussing the more detailed things about the godhead, becoming like god, god being a man and so on. I would give a good overview, in general about the temple and temple covenants and what it means. I would recommend that they read the entire D&C and PoGP along with the Book of Mormon. Of course this is really for someone who is pursuing becoming a Mormon. If they want general information this would be too much.

I vote we put you in charge of the missionary program. I think you'd do a much better job than whoever is currently doing it.

[_Jersey Girl]

I understand that often when someone leaves the Mormon Church that there view points are going to be skewed in ways that are often not balanced. Perhaps they need that to justify their actions on their mind. Perhaps they reached reasonable conclusions for them and their world view.

Perhaps that is their intellectually honest view based on their experiences.

My point is that when one informs non members about the Church to present it in an unbalanced way, which Antishock does, is not appropriate nor is it honest.

Again, for someone who has chosen to reject the church and it's culture, who bases their comments on their own subjective experience, I don't see how you can expect such a person to present the positive aspects of Mormonism or the LDS Church when they feel that the house of cards that once was their faith and church family, collapsed around or on them.

Look, I have debated religion with many for a long time both LDS and other view points. I personally am not a big fan of conservative fundamentalist Christian groups. But when in LDS settings I see them incorrectly presented I correct the points that are not right. I could let it stand. But I don't. Whether in doctrine or passing out anti LDS literature and LDS events. I have explained to many LDS why some Christian groups do this, how they feel the LDS Church has thrown a major volley from the language of the FV forward. I tell them how they honestly believe as much as we do by sending missionaries out that they are witnessing to us, and others about what they believe should be known as people look into the LDS Church as well as declare their view of salvation.

I have done the same in my own (former) church, standing up in the middle of a presentation given by a pastor regarding Mormonism, correcting him and criticizing his approaches.

I believe in being fair even when I do not like something or disagree with it

I don't think it reasonable to expect a person who has formed a strong opinion for or against a particular church to present a fair or balanced view. In my mind, that would compromise the individual's right to present circumstances as they see it or experienced it.

I don't know why, but when reading your posts and replying to you, a picture forms in my mind of an abused child. If one truly believes they have been abused and can supply evidence of that, should the abused child present the abuser in positive terms in order to provide a fair and balanced view?

I know I'll regret having posted that and that somebody will likely run it up a flag pole, but Jason, some ex-Mo's are angry because they do feel they've been betrayed and abused by a church and earthly family that claimed to love them eternally.

I could no more discount their right to say it publicly in response to inquiry than I could ask an abused child to withhold the circumstances of their abuse while telling the story of their childhood.

Hit submit, Jersey Girl. Just hit submit.

[_Jersey Girl]

These are fair. This is more cultural and outlines what the obligations are. Depending on how much one wants to know,

What if someone doesn't know what to ask? What if the person they're asking doesn't know the accurate answers? This theme of not knowing and/or not being provided with full disclosure is a recurring theme amongst ex-Mo's and especially those who were converts.

I would add that I think the missionary lessons should be presented, then enhanced by other resources. I would start with Bushman's RSR.

This comment is really the reason I'm replying to this post. I've read RSR twice and appreciated the informative nature of the book. Just today in exchanges with Dale Broadhurst on the pinned thread in Terrestrial that I started, I became aware of one instance where Bushman supplied incomplete information regarding the S/R theory. Information he should have known and chose not to include in his comments. I'm not sure what to think of Bushman's historical accuracy now. Still, I think I would recommend RSR to any investigator.

I would also spend time discussing the more detailed things about the godhead, becoming like god, god being a man and so on.
I would give a good overview, in general about the temple and temple covenants and what it means. I would recommend that they read the entire D&C and PoGP along with the Book of Mormon. Of course this is really for someone who is pursuing becoming a Mormon. If they want general information this would be too much.

I agree with the above from an investigator's standpoint however, I don't feel you are presenting the whole picture, Jason. What if I, based on your information, made a decision to go forth with joining the church and later found out about things like polygamy, Book of Abraham and the S/R theory?

What do you think my reaction to that would be?

Hint: Likely the same reaction of many angry ex-Mo's.

[_moksha]

Send them to MADB.

You want them to have an unfavorable impression of the Church???

[_Trevor]

Hi Trev, a nice approach. I don't know if you were/are addressing me in your above post?

More or less, but I think it came off a little more strongly than I had intended.

IF you were, I didn't expressed distain for the LDS Church. Nor did I intend they, "...lose interest in joining..." As you, in your way considered your list objective, so do I consider the elements of a cult that I listed objective. They are found in most definitions of a "cult" that can be researched.

I trust you didn't intend to. The word "cult" is controversial. So, whether one intends to show disdain or not, it is likely that people in the group being called a cult will not agree that they are in one, because it is considered a negative thing. A number of academics in the field of Religious Studies will not use it.

As for the objectivity of your list, I would recommend you run it by members of the LDS Church to see whether they agree or not. I can't imagine anyone who isn't disillusioned with Mormonism to some extent describing the LDS Church with phrases like "closed-minded leaders," "Bible literalists," "unduly honoring deceased founder," "demanding obedience," "non-democratic," "sexist," etc. I would wager that a great number of LDS folk would take exception to quite a number of these things. But maybe that is just me.

As I suggested, "if you think it (LSDism) is for you, try it out." Do you not agree, that folks, "...try it out."?

Fair enough.

Trev, check out your tag-line (below) for distain et al:

Placed in my signature as examples of over-the-top rhetoric that makes me laugh. It is not an endorsement.

[_Jason Bourne]

What if someone doesn't know what to ask?

Huh?

What if the person they're asking doesn't know the accurate answers?

I am assuming the person being asked is acquainted with Mormonism.

This theme of not knowing and/or not being provided with full disclosure is a recurring theme amongst ex-Mo's and especially those who were converts.

I am fully aware of this. It is one of my own complaints.

I would add that I think the missionary lessons should be presented, then enhanced by other resources. I would start with Bushman's RSR.

This comment is really the reason I'm replying to this post. I've read RSR twice and appreciated the informative nature of the book. Just today in exchanges with Dale Broadhurst on the pinned thread in Terrestrial that I started, I became aware of one instance where Bushman supplied incomplete information regarding the S/R theory. Information he should have known and chose not to include in his comments. I'm not sure what to think of Bushman's historical accuracy now. Still, I think I would recommend RSR to any investigator.

Just because Bushman does not give an expose of your favorite theory of the origins of the Book of Mormon does not mean that he is historically inaccurate. He may think the S/R theory deserved little attention and have valid reasons for so concluding. He may also have had so much space to deal with so many issues and some got less attention than others. You think he should have spent more time with S/R because you think it the best answer the Book of Mormon. You also may be very wrong. You may be right as well.

I would also spend time discussing the more detailed things about the godhead, becoming like god, god being a man and so on.
I would give a good overview, in general about the temple and temple covenants and what it means. I would recommend that they read the entire D&C and PoGP along with the Book of Mormon. Of course this is really for someone who is pursuing becoming a Mormon. If they want general information this would be too much.

I agree with the above from an investigator's standpoint however, I don't feel you are presenting the whole picture, Jason. What if I, based on your information, made a decision to go forth with joining the church and later found out about things like polygamy, Book of Abraham and the S/R theory?

What do you think my reaction to that would be?

Hint: Likely the same reaction of many angry ex-Mo's.

Let me see, RSR covers polygamy quite well and many other sticky issue. Besides, my list was not meant to be totally exhaustive at all. I would include other things as well. But everyone has to pick and choose. A complete study of every issue would take forever and ever. I would give comprehensive resources and let the person pursue other questions they had as they brought them up.

I believe in as full a disclosure as possible.

I wonder though, would you give the same types of disclosure for a potential convert to Christianity in general? Personally I find there to be shortfall of information for converts at alter calls.

[_antishock8]

I'm having a hard time understanding how I presented an "unbalanced" point of view.

[_Jersey Girl]

This comment is really the reason I'm replying to this post. I've read RSR twice and appreciated the informative nature of the book. Just today in exchanges with Dale Broadhurst on the pinned thread in Terrestrial that I started, I became aware of one instance where Bushman supplied incomplete information regarding the S/R theory. Information he should have known and chose not to include in his comments. I'm not sure what to think of Bushman's historical accuracy now. Still, I think I would recommend RSR to any investigator.

Just because Bushman does not give an expose of your favorite theory of the origins of the Book of Mormon does not mean that he is historically inaccurate. He may think the S/R theory deserved little attention and have valid reasons for so concluding. He may also have had so much space to deal with so many issues and some got less attention than others. You think he should have spent more time with S/R because you think it the best answer the Book of Mormon. You also may be very wrong. You may be right as well.

I'm referring to the pinned thread and my exchanges with Dale Broadhurst.

Did you read them?

It has nothing to do with spending more/less time on the S/R theory. It has to do with a noted historian's failure to provide a historically accurate representation.

To put it more bluntly, it has to do with Bushman providing half-truth.