A Book of Mormon tour

[Jerusha]

Mormon 4:18

 

[Nan_S]

When I was on a Mission we kept small files by street name and address on a 3x5 card. When we got to a house of a decisive person that was solid in their own beliefs we marked “DNC” by their name. That means Do Not Contact.

Don in Vegas

Too bad the JW’s don’t do the same; I see them every few months. Mormon missionaries are friendly and polite, JWs are rude. I try to keep the JWs on my porch as long as possible, anyway, because there is usually an “apprentice” in the pair who is still reachable. I always wondered how they were treated by my Pentecostal pastor neighbor.

I kept the Mormon missionaries on my porch for 30+ minutes with a friendly theological debate on the true nature of God. One of them even agreed with me about the necessity of God being greater than everything and therefore the source of everything. They left me their phone number (which I have been tempted to call but haven’t yet), but I they never stopped by again when they were in the neighborhood. When they walked back down the drive, as soon as I was out of earshot, they certainly started an animated discussion.

If I am a “DNC” but I call that phone number, I wonder if they will come back anyway?

 

[PaulDupre]

If I am a “DNC” but I call that phone number, I wonder if they will come back anyway?

Yes. They will see your call as evidence that the Holy Ghost is prodding you to investigate the Mormon church.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Even if you are a “DNC”, when the next group rotates in (I think that the “tour” in a particular place out here is six months) expect them to call on you agaiin when they get bored or something. “Nothing ventured, nothing gained”. I guess they figure that even if the previous group wasn’t able to “sign you up”, they might be able. (Besides, it’s not over until it’s over, and even then they’ll baptize you for the dead.)

But I’ll agree, most Mormon Missionaries are polite (I had this one–but even his partner was aghast, so I guess he was an exception) and they are helpful (offering to be of help right off) while my JWs do not. (To be fair, most, not all, of my JWs are women in their Sunday best with children in tow.)

 

[rmcmullan]

Is it the policy of the RC church to only send missionaries to what the Bible refers to as the “heathen nations?”

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, generally so. That is why I expect to see a lot of Catholic missionaries in Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, and Nevada over the next fifteen years.

 

[PaulDupre]

Is it the policy of the RC church to only send missionaries to what the Bible refers to as the “heathen nations?”

We have several different kinds of missionaries. The ones who primarily evangelize are sent to primarily non-Christian areas. But there are teachers, doctors, nurses, economists, etc. who are sent to poor areas whether Christian or not.

 

[rmcmullan]

I’m uncertain about the history then–most of North America, Central America and South America is Christian and Roman Catholic. I sort of assumed that wasn’t due to any missionary effort but the conquest of Western Culture. They mostly speak European languages in those continients.

SO how did all of the Americas get to be Christian/Catholic? Through conquest or missionary work? It is my impression that it was about 90% conquest, 10% missionary work.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’m uncertain about the history then–most of North America, Central America and South America is Christian and Roman Catholic. I sort of assumed that wasn’t due to any missionary effort but the conquest of Western Culture. They mostly speak European languages in those continients.

SO how did all of the Americas get to be Christian/Catholic? Through conquest or missionary work? It is my impression that it was about 90% conquest, 10% missionary work.

You get that impression from listening to the Mormons.

It is well documented that Mexico is now Catholic because of the apparitions of The Blessed Virgin as Our Lady of Guadalupe, plus the work of the Franciscan missionaries.

This was the most monumental conversion in all of Christian History, with 9 million Aztecs becoming Catholic within one generation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You get that impression from listening to the Mormons.

It is well documented that Mexico is now Catholic because of the apparitions of The Blessed Virgin as Our Lady of Guadalupe, plus the work of the Franciscan missionaries.

This was the most monumental conversion in all of Christian History, with 9 million Aztecs becoming Catholic within one generation.

I also recommend reading Evangelii Nuntiandi.

 

[rmcmullan]

PaulDupree, isn’t there something about signs not leading to faith? Conversion maybe but not faith. At any rate, that would only apply to a small percentage of people over a small period of time. Mexico speaks Spanish and is Catholic. Half of Canada is Catholic and speaks French. And so on.

I served a mission in California and am a little familiar with the missions that are there, many of which are now modern cities. So there’s been some missionary work. But at the time, I believe there was no Christianity and the pattern of Catholic missionaries working with mostly non-Christian groups seems consistent.

RebeccaJ, that link that you provided is much more sensible than the poster who claimed it would be better not to do any missionary work among predominantly Christian nations. In the light of the scripture in Matthew 28, I don’t know how you could say otherwise, but people have their own opinions.

 

[AMDGtoo]

About the missions founded by the Spaniards, you seem to forget that the LDS are told an entirely different story? As a matter of fact they regularly publish “faith promoting stories”. Was unfortunately the recipient of one of those faith promoting newspapers. It told the story of how the missions in California were supposedly really founded.

According to the story, there were these people in the “Mormon Militia” (supposedly about 111 and they supposedly included men, women, and children). They went down to help in the war between Mexico and (I believe Texas–it’s been a long time since I’ve read that LDS “newspaper”). Anyway, on their way back, they went through California, founded the missions there and participated in the Gold Rush at Sutter’s Mill. Then they traveled north to bury some of the victims of the Danner Party before traveling back to Utah, bringing back seeds for next year’s crop.

Honestly, story telling seems to run in the LDS.

 

[Christine_Blake]

Amazing how someone can make claims without a shred of evidence, I mean NONE, and have thousands upon thousands of people believe it. At least the Bible is supported by Archaeological evidence and is attested to by contemporary authors. It’s amazing to me how we’re supposed to believe that these people were advanced enough to make a ship to cross the Atlantic, but didn’t leave behind any verifiable trace of their supposed civilization.

I agree with you that the BOM is not based on fact; however, I can’t help but think, and mention, that “evidence” you say backs the Bible is only a few hundred, in most cases, less than 100 years old…so were the Jews and Christians who believed before the archaeological evidence fools?

 

[ibkc]

I agree with you that the BOM is not based on fact; however, I can’t help but think, and mention, that “evidence” you say backs the Bible is only a few hundred, in most cases, less than 100 years old…so were the Jews and Christians who believed before the archaeological evidence fools?

So are you saying that people didn’t know that cities like Rome and Jerusalem and Antioch, and places like the Sea of Galilee, and the Temple, and Egypt, and on and on and on - people didn’t know those were real?

 

[BartBurk]

I agree with you that the BOM is not based on fact; however, I can’t help but think, and mention, that “evidence” you say backs the Bible is only a few hundred, in most cases, less than 100 years old…so were the Jews and Christians who believed before the archaeological evidence fools?

The Bible has more than just archaeological evidence. It was transmitted generation to generation for hundreds of years. It dates back to the time it was composed. There has never been any evidence the Book of Mormon existed prior to 1829.

 

[rmcmullan]

About the missions founded by the Spaniards…

According to the story, there were these people in the “Mormon Militia” (supposedly about 111 and they supposedly included men, women, and children). They went down to help in the war between Mexico and (I believe Texas–it’s been a long time since I’ve read that LDS “newspaper”). Anyway, on their way back, they went through California, founded the missions there and participated in the Gold Rush at Sutter’s Mill. Then they traveled north to bury some of the victims of the Danner Party before traveling back to Utah, bringing back seeds for next year’s crop.

Honestly, story telling seems to run in the LDS.

Oh, was it you that said we shouldn’t be doing missinary work AMDGtoo? Well, thanks for that little story. I don’t know how to say this poiltely, but you shouldn’t go off your meds before you post here.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Oh, was it you that said we shouldn’t be doing missinary work AMDGtoo? Well, thanks for that little story. I don’t know how to say this poiltely, but you shouldn’t go off your meds before you post here.

Thank you for your concern. (I guess I should inform you that I’m not taking medication although sometimes wish that I did have meds to help me deal with some of the LDS cognitive dissonance.)

It is unfortunate that it doesn’t appear though there is a correct memory about who said what. I was the one who said that there is a difference between evangelization and proselytizing. One (evangelization) is telling about Jesus, while the other (proselytizing) is simply trying to convert someone (even if the persons are already one of Jesus’ flock) to another religion.

BTW, the purpose of my relating an LDS “Faith Promoting” “news” report is to indicate that “story telling” (and it seems gullibility as well) appears to be an LDS trait. And we were talking about conversions in Mexico and the Southwest (and by extension, the missions that Catholics had founded long before the LDS claimed to have done so. :nope: )

 

[why_me]

I disagree. I believe Smith invented Mormonism for 3 reasons:

1. to get money
2. to get power
3. to get women

It worked, too.

It seems to me that you are sadly mistaken. If JS wrote the book of mormon, he must have been sorely disappointed in its reception by the public. He experienced problems right from the beginning. He would have been better off not writing the book of mormon, if he wrote it. What did he get?
1)beaten
2)heartache
3)death

 

[ibkc]

It seems to me that you are sadly mistaken. If JS wrote the book of mormon, he must have been sorely disappointed in its reception by the public. He experienced problems right from the beginning. He would have been better off not writing the book of mormon, if he wrote it. What did he get?
1)beaten
2)heartache
3)death

He received none of these things for simply writing the Book of Mormon. He received these things as a result of his behavior and actions subsequent to the writing of the Book of Mormon.

 

[why_me]

Nan S;3969606:

The best defense is a good offense. Pack a catechism and bible in a shoulderbag or backpack, and put the dog’s leash by the front door. The next time you see the missionaries, grab the backpack and dog, head out, and “accidentally” catch up with them.

When I was on a Mission we kept small files by street name and address on a 3x5 card. When we got to a house of a decisive person that was solid in their own beliefs we marked “DNC” by their name. That means Do Not Contact.

Don in Vegas

I believe that you challenged me about the death of JS’s children due to mob violence. I cannot find the thread but if I am mistaken, please forgive me. He lost one child to the mobbing in Kirkland, when he was tarred and feathered. The child’s name was: Joseph Murdock Smith. He had the measles and was weak. When the mob stormed through JS’ home, the child caught a cold and died a short time later.