How often "plates" are discussed here.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Fibber will be back. Just like he returned those seven other times he bid this board a "final" farewell. Fibber is enjoying his trolling and reading the responses his "final" farewell have generated.

Imagine being Fibber and spending seven decades in the same church only to treat your own doctrine like a stranger you’ve never met. Fibber doesn't even understand the basics. If being unable to explain the basics after seventy years is where Fibber finds himself, he might need a new church.

[I Have Questions]

Years ago…

<snipped lies and meaningless attention-seeking whiny drivel>

Martyr syndrome. Pathetic.

You’re leaving (again) because Tom has shown you numbers that refute what you want to believe and promote about membership numbers. You’re leaving because you’ve been called out for supporting the principle taught at conference - sell assets and go into debt to pay your tithing, because malkie has done a cracking job of holding up a mirror that reflects how you treat others, and because Gadianton has totally got you pegged. Maybe now you’ve got more time, you’ll put your papers in for a senior mission fat chance.

[Rivendale]

Years ago…

<snipped lies and meaningless attention-seeking whiny drivel>

Martyr syndrome. Pathetic.

"See you on the other side, but if I am standing by one of the leaders pretend you don't know me"......

[I Have Questions]

Martyr syndrome. Pathetic.

"See you on the other side, but if I am standing by one of the leaders pretend you don't know me"......

sadly MG won’t be in the upper kingdom with the rest of us. Too lazy. Maybe we could all go down and visit with him occasionally during eternity (Unfortunately I’ll be busy that day).

[Marcus]

On my mission, we had a "missionary guide" and that guide was all about teaching manipulative sales tactics. How effective it really was I'd question, however, it specifically understood the problem with Mormonese. The guide was filled with examples of missionaries asking investigators questions or responding to questions from investigators, and it frequently had humorous "Mormonese" examples -- missionaries saying directionless, halfway comprehensible things that other Mormons will recognize as familiar but leave investigators stumped. In other words, the Church recognized that to be an effective missionary, a person must learn to communicate with non-Mormons. They must word things in a way that non-Mormons can comprehend.

This is interesting. Would you be comfortable sharing some examples? Also did you then, or now, consider the tactics as deceptive?

Ref MG: he can stay or go as he likes. No one is forcing him either way. For my part I am entertained by his presence.

I'd love to hear some examples too. I've always thought there had to be a reason why I used to see so many RMs take up summer door to door pyramid scheme sales jobs back in the day--were they pre-trained?!!

Also, re MG, if he comes back I am extremely curious in hearing where this statement came from:

...I've said before, a number of times, that "God's plan" is much bigger than Mormonism. How could it not be? The LDS Church is a drop in the bucket of humanity...

Mentalgymnast has never posted anything like that. Then, half a day later, this:

... As I’ve said many times on this board…I have not seen ANYONE offer an attractive substitute/alternative to the Plan of Salvation and Redemptive Power of Jesus Christ to save and exalt us into place of eternal happiness and an earthly life unblemished by sin as we repent and forgive others. At the end of the day all that is offered/accomplished is a furtherment of one or more false philosophies...

That's more like mentalgymnast's usual. But the contrast is bizarre. Where did that first statement come from? Was he dabbling in AI again without reading? Not that he'd answer so the point is probably moot, but I'm really curious how two such disparate statements can come from one tbs poster, on the same day.

[Gadianton]

This is interesting. Would you be comfortable sharing some examples? Also did you then, or now, consider the tactics as deceptive?

You mean sales tactics or Mormonese that the sales department was trying to avoid (at least to a degree)? For Mormonese, a great example was one of the first first discussions I took part in. I was on "splits" so I was with two other missionaries, and they were teaching a first discussion. One of the Elders went way off the reservation, showed a "Christ pamphlet" to the investigators, and explained how the artist who painted the picture showed it to then prophet (or recent, Benson?) who said it wasn't quite right and made suggestions to fix it, the artist went back and changed it, showed it to Benson, and these iterations went on until Benson said it was now correct. I was dying of embarrassment inside. The lady I was observing had this dumbfounded look on her face -- no idea whatsoever what he's saying. I'd never even heard that urban legend myself -- it was as much news to me as it was her. But the difference is that she had no way to process what he was saying.

That kind of story is told between Mormons in urban legend fashion. The living prophet is a "special witness" of Christ, but what that means is always a matter of speculation. Bruce R. McConkie bore a final testimony where he used ambiguous language just right to suggest that maybe he had "really seen" Jesus Christ in the flesh (to gullible members) but with plenty of deniability (deny to the first presidency who had not "seen him") . So it's a hot topic among members as to whether the prophet has really "seen him" or not. (perhaps not unlike good Americans looking for cues suggesting the sitting president knows about UFOs). So the story teller, in the case of the painting, is apparently supposed to tell this story very subtly, and at a certain point, it will snap into place for the Mormon receiver of the story that the prophet is able to advise the artist on how to precisely draw Christ because he's actually seen Jesus in the flesh. And so this answers that question for the Mormon receiver that indeed, the prophet really has "seen him". And after that hits you, it dawns that if it so be that the prophet had brokered this rendition, that you are now beholding Jesus as he really looks. But these poor investigators had within the same five minutes heard the Joseph Smith story for the first time and that is out there enough as it is.

As for manipulation, it's based on run-of-the-mill sales training materials. One clear example I remember was a scenario where a customer tells a car salesman they'd just been next door to the other dealership and go on to talk about a car they liked there. In the ineffective example, the salesman criticizes the car the customer liked, and the effective example, the salesmen agrees it's a great car, but "let me show you what we've got, I think you'll like what you see".

I think what missionaries often find off-putting about it, is it basically teaches you to "bear testimony" on command. You're supposed to role play with your companion various teaching situations, and practice bearing testimony, and you're supposed to bear testimony according to their instructions. For instance, when MG goes on about the times he questioned but then came back, but he's open if something better comes along. There are "less effective" examples in the guide showing missionaries saying the exact same kind of thing. The effective examples are straight-forward and keep to the script, "Limnor, I know that God lives and that Joseph Smith was his prophet, and you can know this also." End of discussion. Any objection you bring up or question will get you turned back to, "how do you think you can know what we are saying is true?" "That's right, prayer. Limnor, will you pray and ask your Heavenly Father to confirm to you that Joseph Smith was his prophet?" Your only other option is to "read" -- and then pray. I think the logic is, either you're susceptible to suggestion or you aren't, if you are, waste no time getting to a baptismal commitment, and if you aren't, no sense dragging it out with grueling discussions that 8/10 missionaries aren't prepared for.

[Limnor]

Thank you. I looked up the Del Parson picture—it sounds more like allowing someone to come to a conclusion rather than outright deception.

Did you have any sort of urgency or understanding that you could convince someone in the sense of “soul-saving?” I don’t really get the impression from MG that the ultimate state of a person is a concern. I’d say his approach seems more like self convincing.

[malkie]

This is interesting. Would you be comfortable sharing some examples? Also did you then, or now, consider the tactics as deceptive?

...
I think what missionaries often find off-putting about it, is it basically teaches you to "bear testimony" on command. You're supposed to role play with your companion various teaching situations, and practice bearing testimony, and you're supposed to bear testimony according to their instructions. For instance, when MG goes on about the times he questioned but then came back, but he's open if something better comes along. There are "less effective" examples in the guide showing missionaries saying the exact same kind of thing. The effective examples are straight-forward and keep to the script, "Limnor, I know that God lives and that Joseph Smith was his prophet, and you can know this also." End of discussion. Any objection you bring up or question will get you turned back to, "how do you think you can know what we are saying is true?" "That's right, prayer. Limnor, will you pray and ask your Heavenly Father to confirm to you that Joseph Smith was his prophet?" Your only other option is to "read" -- and then pray. I think the logic is, either you're susceptible to suggestion or you aren't, if you are, waste no time getting to a baptismal commitment, and if you aren't, no sense dragging it out with grueling discussions that 8/10 missionaries aren't prepared for.

I was taught by a pair of sister missionaries - two really sweet young ladies - one of whom, Sister S, was well educated and completely on top of the "script", while the other, Sister A, was really struggling to keep it straight in her mind.

During one of the early "discussions", Sister S had completed her part:

Sister S - "I testify to you, Brother malkie, that what I've told you is true. Sister A, would you like to say anything to Brother malkie?"
Sister A - "We believe that -- I mean, I know that -- I mean, if you will -- ", followed by a red-faced total silence, and eyes pleading with Sister S for rescue.
Sister S - "What Sister A means is that ---".

My wife - Sister E - & I had been married for only a few months at that time, and had been a committed member for about 6 years. She was mortified as she watched this play out.

But this kind of thing is almost inevitable, given the circumstances that these poor young folks are thrust into.

[Gadianton]

Thank you. I looked up the Del Parson picture—it sounds more like allowing someone to come to a conclusion rather than outright deception.

Did you have any sort of urgency or understanding that you could convince someone in the sense of “soul-saving?” I don’t really get the impression from MG that the ultimate state of a person is a concern. I’d say his approach seems more like self convincing.

It's a perceptive question you ask. Mormonism is the most insular community on the planet. The fact it has the largest missionary force ever is an extreme paradox. Mormons are unwelcoming to newcomers in the extreme, including lifelong members just moving into the ward, and the typical Mormon kid going on a mission has never been exposed to missionary work nor has ever lifted a finger for anybody. Going on a mission is a duty and a chore, and the most common attitude is, "can I survive this for two years?" If a missionary can get past that, I'd say the next rung is, "Can I convert myself to the work?" They feel guilty they aren't excited about being there, they know they should want to be there, and so a few get to the point where they want to want to be there, but I'd say the majority don't get to that point and consign themselves to suffering for two years and getting back to their lives at home. I was at the point that I "wanted to want to be there" for the first few months, but then regressed to suffering it out, having pretty much lost my belief in the church about halfway through. At least half of my companions never made it to that point and just wanted to suffer through and get home. One of them ended up being moved to a stateside mission he was so miserable -- he bore testimony to some folks we tracted out, I kid you not, of how great America is with Pizza Hut and McDonalds everywhere, and how much he hated the food where he was at.

I think a couple of my comps, maybe the first three dudes, were on the same level I was of "wanting to want to be there", but certainly not having any vision for the work such as it was. The highest level might be those who actually wanted to be there and had a vision for the work. At least one dude who was a convert fit that category, but I'm struggling to think of anyone else. But even that category usually isn't going to be about soul saving, but about leadership. These are the guys who want to get in with the mission president and general authorities, they're into keeping all the rules and being the boss. I can't honestly say any missionary I knew was really concerned about anyone's soul. That doesn't mean they don't care about people, many of the missionaries honestly cared about their investigators and people in general, but did they feel stress over what would become of anybody if they didn't accept the gospel and join the church? No. I never saw that with the MPs or GAs who came through either. They were about "doing the work", obeying the rules, getting numbers, and it's really no wonder the whole program is a utter waste of time. There is a story, some talk by a GA or something, about a mission being a success even if you convert only one person and that person is yourself. You hear this viral soundbite constantly from new missionaries, suggesting that they've already accepted failure from day 1.

While there, I became acquainted with the leader of a youth group for the local mega-church, and he'd been a missionary for his church. Totally different mentality. The level of maturity was incomparable, though he was a couple years older. He'd survived death multiple times -- had been literally tied up and was about to be executed by some tribe. Sort of like a peace corps guy -- adventurer, mentally tough, goes the road less travelled, and deeply cares about people or his cause as it relates to actually helping people. Totally different than any Mormon missionary I ever knew. I think mega-churches are scary in their own right, but real voluntary missionaries like this are a different breed. And those youth groups were far better than Mormon programs -- a lot of the Mormon kids where I was who went inactive ended up in these other churches because of the culture of inclusion rather than status and image within a clique.

[Gadianton]

My wife - Sister E - & I had been married for only a few months at that time, and had been a committed member for about 6 years

So by that point, did you already know the Joseph Smith story? Curious how the tale of gold plates and angels came across to someone on the other side of the table.