Informing non-members about Mormonism- suggestions

[_Gadianton]

One of the problems is that each individual has a different background and it's hard to know whether a "balanced" explanation would find any relavence to the person or what to that person's expectations constitutes a "full disclosure". People will overlook the darndest things and blow a fuse over stuff I'd have thought is irrelevant.

The last time I told a person about the church was around 10 months ago. Someone I was working with that talked religion with me (it's very rare I talk about reliigon in real life). We were drinking beer and he was curious about the church because one of his friends is LDS and would once in a while try to promote the church to him.

So my introduction to the church was to tell him God came down and totally "gave it" to Mary, and that's how Jesus was born. LOL! I worked this into the natural framework created by the early leaders' obsession with sex and the doctrine of eternal progression. He was pretty amused and sent a text to his friend, telling him he was getting the other side of the story from a former Mormon.

His friend was flipping out, apparently, and this guy was having quite a laugh over it all. I told him that he could go to any source he wants, his friend, the missionaries, his friend's bishop, doesn't matter, and when he's ready to hear how it really is, to come to me.

[_The Dude]

The last time I told a person about the church was around 10 months ago. Someone I was working with that talked religion with me (it's very rare I talk about reliigon in real life). We were drinking beer and he was curious about the church because one of his friends is LDS and would once in a while try to promote the church to him.

So my introduction to the church was to tell him God came down and totally "gave it" to Mary, and that's how Jesus was born. LOL!

Awesome! I love talking about my ex religion when I drink at parties and bars. It really makes me feel the missionary spirit, so to speak. And Mormonism is so fascinating to people.

(At my work Christmas party last week, somebody asked about Mormon underwear as a masturbation deterrent, and then it turned out that one of my coworkers grew up in Palmyra NY, and another guy's mother is a convert to some obscure Mormon branch in Kirkland OH.)

[_antishock8]

One of the problems is that each individual has a different background and it's hard to know whether a "balanced" explanation would find any relavence to the person or what to that person's expectations constitutes a "full disclosure". People will overlook the darndest things and blow a fuse over stuff I'd have thought is irrelevant.

The last time I told a person about the church was around 10 months ago. Someone I was working with that talked religion with me (it's very rare I talk about reliigon in real life). We were drinking beer and he was curious about the church because one of his friends is LDS and would once in a while try to promote the church to him.

So my introduction to the church was to tell him God came down and totally "gave it" to Mary, and that's how Jesus was born. LOL! I worked this into the natural framework created by the early leaders' obsession with sex and the doctrine of eternal progression. He was pretty amused and sent a text to his friend, telling him he was getting the other side of the story from a former Mormon.

His friend was flipping out, apparently, and this guy was having quite a laugh over it all. I told him that he could go to any source he wants, his friend, the missionaries, his friend's bishop, doesn't matter, and when he's ready to hear how it really is, to come to me.

And this is what drives me crazy about people like Mr. Bourne who assert you're the one that isn't bringing a balanced point of view.

Nothing you said was untrue. Your version IS the balance. It's not propaganda. It's true Mormon dogma. That other friend is deliberately spinning his faith to make it seem like it's a mainstream idea.

It's not, never was, and unless there's a complete repudiation of Mormon canon, will never be "balanced".

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger

Some valid points! And by the way, were I prophet for the day the first thing I would change is the policy about temple weddings.

Thanks Jas. I would expect nothing less from You, Bro. :-) Having my saintly Mother wait in the Visitor's Centre while three of her grandaughters were wed surely identified Mormonism to not be what it professed to be. After thirty years of total LDS faith,
the last such occasion caused the scales to fall from my eyes.

The next decade revealed things that were not previously recognized as the suppressive, repressive elements that they are. Consequently my present position, that led me to attend Oct. Conf. locally, and vote as not sustaining LDS leaders as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. They are simply President and Officers of another Christian denomination. Nothing more, nothing less...

The above flows with agreement into the succinct quote below...

Informing non-members about Mormonism- suggestions?

Are you suggesting there's a chance for an educated person falling for this pure fantasy
religion in today's information age?

Psyches are not always rational, being influenced by nurturing that too often dysfunctions good-judgement, even of "educated person(s)". BUT, "education" will effect, and is, the size and type of the bait cast by LDS fishers-of-men, (others as well).

As long as there is human dependence on a "next-heavenly-life" to compensate for ignorance and disappointment in this one, there will be some traditional Christian Religions.

However, when truth does prevail this life will get the attention intended by the guy who talked about caring&sharing for, and with each other.

A lot of repentence in high places to do first. Ya know what I'm saying?

"HAPPY HOLIDAYS or MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

[color=#0000FF]Roger :-)

[/color]

[_antishock8]

Your mother didn't get to attend 3 of her daughter's wedding ceremonies?

*shakes head*

That just breaks my heart.

I have two daughers, and to think... After all the love and effort one puts into your own kids, to not attend a ceremony like that. It's heartbreaking. Heartbreaking.

[_christopher]

I have two daughers, and to think... After all the love and effort one puts into your own kids, to not attend a ceremony like that. It's heartbreaking. Heartbreaking.

Oh, but remember that that is your shortcoming, or lack of worthiness (sort of like Colbert's truthiness) that prevents this, not the church or Jesus.....It's never the church. Families....isn't it about time?

Interesting in a group screaming to be called Christian, that they fail to understand or fully grasp grace, and how here we have yet another case of supposed sin that Jesus wasn't able to overcome to allow someone to witness their child's wedding.

[_Jason Bourne]

Informing non-members about Mormonism- suggestions?

Are you suggesting there's a chance for an educated person falling for this pure fantasy
religion in today's information age?

Over 270,000 joined last year. Are you suggesting they are all blighted idiots?

[_Jason Bourne]

And this is what drives me crazy about people like Mr. Bourne who assert you're the one that isn't bringing a balanced point of view.

Why? Did I suggest that only the faith promoting history be presented? Nope. Did I suggest that some of the oddities of the cultural aspects not be discussed? Nope. Not one bit. Obviously nobody give a totally unbalanced view but some tilt way towards one extreme or another. Your three point presentation tilts totally to the negative aspects with embellishment. Your point may balanced for you but it is not a fair presentation of Mormonism. Nor by the way are the missionary lessons or seminary class studies.

Nothing you said was untrue. Your version IS the balance.

If he presented the idea that Jesus was procreated in the normal way by God the father and tied it to, as he noted, the idea of celestial marriage and polygamy that was prevalent in the early church then fine. If he followed it up by discussing the fact that currently this is a view that is not promoted nor taught and the that Church has moved away from some of these ideas all the better. I have no problem with that.

It's not propaganda.

Nor is is it propaganda to state that the Church has helped millions of people have better lives and millions of families better families. To say in a blanket sort of way that the Church destroys people is propaganda.

It's true Mormon dogma.

At one point. Less so today.

That other friend is deliberately spinning his faith to make it seem like it's a mainstream idea.

Most likely yes.

It's not, never was, and unless there's a complete repudiation of Mormon canon, will never be "balanced".

Mary being procreated by the Father was never in Mormon Canon. Celestial plural marriage is.

[_Jason Bourne]

Your mother didn't get to attend 3 of her daughter's wedding ceremonies?

*shakes head*

That just breaks my heart.

I have two daughers, and to think... After all the love and effort one puts into your own kids, to not attend a ceremony like that. It's heartbreaking. Heartbreaking.

And I agree. When my oldest daughter was sealed it broke my heart that her Grandparents on my wife's side could not attend because they are not LDS. On my side, my parents are inactive LDS. This bothered me. A lot. I would let people have the civil wedding first and go to the temple the next day so all could be included. This I think is very wrong.

By the way, when I married my wife we did a civil wedding. Two months later we went to the temple when she hit her year mark as a member. We had this loophole and did not have to wait the punitive year because she had not been a member a year yet.

[_Sethbag]

Are you suggesting there's a chance for an educated person falling for this pure fantasy religion in today's information age?

Over 270,000 joined last year. Are you suggesting they are all blighted idiots?

If you could draw up a distribution curve of Mormon Missionary contacts with people, and the percentage of those contacts that lead to convert baptisms, I think you'd find that only a very small fringe of people contacted by the missionaries are ever baptised. Then when you consider the large fraction (I've heard it mentioned as a large majority) of these "convert" baptisms are people who are inactive in the church before their first year is out, and sometimes within days or weeks. We're talking about a very, very small percentage of people contacted by the missionaries who ever become baptised.

In my mission, be far most of the baptisms were of single, poor, relatively uneducated immigrants, and the educated, Swiss or German native, families were like a once or twice a year occurrence mission-wide.

While I wouldn't say that the converts to Mormonism are all blighted idiots, because it only takes one educated, rational convert to contradict that claim, I would easily believe that a large percentage of LDS converts are relatively uneducated. And I would especially believe that an extremely small percentage indeed of these converts are very well educated about the LDS church. Hell, look how many lifelong LDS members never know that Joseph Smith was "marrying" young girls behind Emma's back for years before his death, and then consider how many new converts off the street know this kind of thing?

Are you going to disagree with me here? Do you really believe those 270,000 converts represent long-time MADB lurkers who took it all in and decided, on balance, that Joseph Smith really was commanded of God in all these things he did, and that they'd better join up?