Mormons prefer to prey on which? - Catholics or Protestants?

[dianaiad]

I guess I don’t see where you get that. I also think it is impossible to “destroy” other’s beliefs. Not only that, Catholicism is taught continuously everywhere, so I am not sure I understand your thinking that there is a pre-requisite to learn it. It is not a secret!

There should be a pre-requisite to learn it–if you are Catholic!

and it is very possible to destroy someone else’s beliefs, has to be, or so many people wouldn’t be out to do just that to others. Haven’t you seen all the anti-Catholic publications and sites out there, that claim beliefs for you that bear almost no resemblance to the Catholicism you know?

I think this is a very accurate observation. A lot of Catholics, I would say most, do not know how to have a discussion about their faith.

I guess I don’t see why this is a “problem”. What is wrong with being educated about what others believe? That is why a lot of us are here!

I would like to think so, but from what I can see, most everybody is here to tell everybody else what they believe, not learn from them.

As to being 'educated about what others believe?" That would be very nice—but if you are going to share the gospel with others, it is much better to have a true grasp of what YOUR beliefs are. No matter who you talk to, or how educated you think you are about what other people believe, they will always know more about their beliefs than you do.

Even if they don’t quite believe the same thing you think their religion teaches, it is their beliefs that count, in the long run. It is to them that they must compare what you tell them.

I think it is fine not to know everything, as long as a person is willing to be corrected.
It is very poor form to tell others what they believe.

I think so too.

I get the impression that you very much prefer Mormonism.

Well…yeah—and that might well remain true after they tell me what I should believe instead. (grin) However, I have found that very few people actually do that. Instead, they tell me why I should NOT believe this or that thing they think Mormonism teaches.

Almost inevitably they start describing something that I actually do not believe and tell me why I shouldn’t believe it; a strawman Mormonism. However, instead of being relieved when I tell them I don’t believe whatever it is they are accusing me of believing, the response is 'you do TOO!!!"

At that point, the wise thing to do is get out of the way and let them argue with themselves. One of these days I’ll actually be wise. (sigh)

That is what I would call a humble response - willing to be corrected.

I think so…and a far more productive one. Fun, too. . When someone is on the ‘explaining end’ of things, and expecting the standard ‘you do TOO believe’ this or that, the expression on their face when I say 'Oh, thanks…I didn’t know that!" is priceless.

Landed fish time, usually. I’m certain that my expression upon being given the ‘thanks for setting me straight on that’ response would be just as stunned.

Absolutely

Yep.

 

[guanophore]

As for the apostacy…of course we talk about that. If there were no apostasy, there would be no need for us. However, we simply say that there was one…

This is one of the most perceptive statements I have seen on here about LDS. I think it is entirely accurate,and explains the whole foundation of Mormonism.

I fail to see where fellowshipping is a bad thing.

Me neither. Or me too? This is one area that Catholics could use some work.

The whole purpose of religion is to help one another.

You know, sometimes I am amazed at how much Apostolic Teaching has been retained in this way.

James 1:27
27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

 

[guanophore]

There should be a pre-requisite to learn it–if you are Catholic!

I agree that it is the responsibility of a person to study their faith. The problem with Catholics is that they are baptized as infants, and sometimes are not brought up in the faith. If Israel circumcised infants and then did not raise them properly, then the same problem would result.

and it is very possible to destroy someone else’s beliefs, has to be, or so many people wouldn’t be out to do just that to others. Haven’t you seen all the anti-Catholic publications and sites out there, that claim beliefs for you that bear almost no resemblance to the Catholicism you know?

Oh, yes! But none of that destroys my faith. Even when I was lapsed, and not walking according to my baptism, it still did not destroy my faith. I guess I see your point, a person who is weak in their faith may be swayed or damaged by such calumny. Another good reason to study to show thyself approved.

I would like to think so, but from what I can see, most everybody is here to tell everybody else what they believe, not learn from them.

Sadly,there is quite a bit of that going on here. I have become much more sensitive after it was done to me repeatedly.

As to being 'educated about what others believe?" That would be very nice—but if you are going to share the gospel with others, it is much better to have a true grasp of what YOUR beliefs are. No matter who you talk to, or how educated you think you are about what other people believe, they will always know more about their beliefs than you do.

I would hope so. However, I have met some Protestants here who know more about Catholicism than the so-called Catholics.

Well…yeah—and that might well remain true after they tell me what I should believe instead. (grin) However, I have found that very few people actually do that. Instead, they tell me why I should NOT believe this or that thing they think Mormonism teaches.

Yeah, I have observed that too. By and large, I avoid talking to Mormons as much as possible. I don’t receive them at the door, and don’t engage them on the forum. I got on this thread because I follow Zundrah around the threads because she gets out of hand. I saw the title, and found it offensive.

Almost inevitably they start describing something that I actually do not believe and tell me why I shouldn’t believe it; a strawman Mormonism. However, instead of being relieved when I tell them I don’t believe whatever it is they are accusing me of believing, the response is 'you do TOO!!!"

Yes, I have had this done to me as well. I find it offensive.

At that point, the wise thing to do is get out of the way and let them argue with themselves. One of these days I’ll actually be wise. (sigh)

Yes!

It just does not seem worth the effort.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes, sir, I watched them extremely closely for 18 months, back when I actually was one.
We do not say that you will lose your family, YOU do. your weddings all say “until death do you part.” We don’t have to tell you that. We say 'would you like to keep your family forever?" We do not have to mention the wedding vows you took, you know what they are.

And here you go spouting off about our beliefs, telling us what we believe, inaccurately I might add.

You may have to teach the “great apostasy” to validate your religion but is basically no different than what you complain about, tearing up one religion to build up your own. But it’s always acceptable when you all do this since there’s no other way to show that “traditional/creedal Christianity” is not the way to go. You will say that it’s not the same because you don’t tear up Catholic beliefs or Baptist beliefs but that’s the beauty of it. With this one thing you tear them all down. I can see why most former LDS turn to atheism and understand the poll results on MADB better.

This is is in the same vein as your “apostles” (the top people in your church) describing the Trinity in their general conference talks, for some reason it’s ok for them (and you)to inaccurately describe others beliefs.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Zundrah, you seem to be obsessed with Mormons? You state that you’re converting to Catholicism. When I made my reversion to Catholicism, I wasn’t taking a side tour obsessing with Mormons? What does the Latter Day Saints community have to do with your becoming Catholic?

As a very young lady interested in conversion to Catholicism, were I in your shoes I’d be:

1.) reading the early church fathers like mad
2.) attending Mass to see what it’s like regularly
3.) asking folks questions about CATHOLICISM on CAF
4.) reading Catholic literature
5.) analyizing the differences between Catholicism and my current denomination
6.) praying about my Catholic conversion

Mormons and their predatory attack strategies has nothing to do with your new Catholic life to come or where you fit into this new faith. You mentioned one time you have a Mormon friend. Perhaps that’s where this interest comes from. In any case, discussing Mormons seems a bit off-track in your journey, don’t you think? I don’t mean this rudely, just curious because my protestant to catholic trek was much different.

I have known, worked with, and had students who are Mormon. I haven’t had them treat me as prey. I RADICALLY disagree with their beliefs but as human beings they’re, as my dad would say, “good eggs.”

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

You cannot afford to be incorrect about the slightest thing, because once you are, you have so completely erroded your own credibility that your listener will stop hearing you.

Here is an example of what actually happens to me, far more often than it should: I am told that I am going to hell, or worship a ‘different Christ,’ or am not Christian, or (you name it…) because I don’t believe that Mary was a virgin at Christ’s birth, that I believe that God had sex with Mary.

Well, here’s the thing; since I do happen to believe that Mary was virgin at Christ’s birth, I can then throw out every thing else that person is claiming about my faith. I mean, if they can be wrong about something like that, can they be right about anything important?

And since most people who try this approach don’t ever, actually, tell me what I should believe INSTEAD of Mormonism, I am left with absolutely no choice here. They have nothing for me.

The odd thing is that when I correct them, and tell them that Mormons do TO believe in the virginity of Mary, I will, 99.99% of the time, get a "you do NOT’ and start quoting stuff from some anti-book or site or whatever. I have never, not even once, gotten a “Oh? I’m wrong about that? That’s wonderful! Let’s go on and talk about this, then…”

I think you can understand that such an approach ticks off more people than it converts.

Good comments dianaiad. I don’t understand persisting in imposing beliefs upon someone after they clearly deny holding to that particular belief. Catholics here probably do it to you. Protestants somewhere else do it to Catholics. “You worship statues, they say”, and they don’t care how or what we answer. They know. It is a most ineffectual tool for evangelism. I am Catholic, and have admired your patient answers.

The apostasy doctrine is the only question which needs resolved for me and it is resolved. I am Catholic. Protestants implicitly grant an apostasy that removed God’s legitimate visible authority from the earth. Protestants are proto-Mormons. The Mormons in my opinion, take the Reformation to its logical conclusion, re-establishing a visible kingdom with God’s authority. If I ever got to that point, I wouldn’t care what LDS doctrine was. If I believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I would expect for there to be some radical differences with the churches that lacked this authority.

But my second paragraph explains my position as to the original question. Even if he doesn’t darken a church door, the Catholic must in effect, be “protestantized” by the missionaries. That is why that between the knowledgable Protestant of good will, and the knowledgable Catholic of good will, the Protestant is much readier to become LDS.

Finally, it doesn’t seem charitable to characterize those who are met by the missionaries as prey. It sounds like someone thinks Mormons are like predatory beasts who care for nothing but consuming their victims. There is a lot of sacrifice that must be involved with missionary work and I imagine that the practice couldn’t be maintained without an interior knowledge of one’s own compassion for those that are perceived to be lacking in the good news of God’s kingdom.

Rory

 

[zerinus]

The apostasy doctrine is the only question which needs resolved for me and it is resolved. I am Catholic. Protestants implicitly grant an apostasy that removed God’s legitimate visible authority from the earth. Protestants are proto-Mormons. The Mormons in my opinion, take the Reformation to its logical conclusion, re-establishing a visible kingdom with God’s authority. If I ever got to that point, I wouldn’t care what LDS doctrine was. If I believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I would expect for there to be some radical differences with the churches that lacked this authority.

But my second paragraph explains my position as to the original question. Even if he doesn’t darken a church door, the Catholic must in effect, be “protestantized” by the missionaries. That is why that between the knowledgable Protestant of good will, and the knowledgable Catholic of good will, the Protestant is much readier to become LDS.

Thank you Roy for your intelligent observation. Traditionally it is true that most of the conversions to Mormonism have originated from Protestantism, and I think the point you are making is a valid one. But the pattern of conversion seems to be more complex than that, especially as it is taking shape today. The Restoration took place in the US, which was mostly a Protestant country, and most of the early converts to the Church were naturally from the US, which means that they were Protestants. Interestingly, the largest influx of LDS members that came from abroad very early on in its history came from Britain, which was also Protestant. Today, however, as the focus of missionary activity of the Church has shifted abroad, the Church is making more conversions in Latin American countries than anywhere else, which means that they are mostly Catholics! Somebody has made the statistical projection that within a few decades Spanish will become the main language spoken by Latter-Day Saints. So the pattern of conversion seems more geographically based than “religion” based for some reason. The Church has always had more conversion successes in the American continent (North or South) than in Europe, irrespective of their religious background.

 

[ParkerD]

This is is in the same vein as your “apostles” (the top people in your church) describing the Trinity in their general conference talks, for some reason it’s ok for them (and you) to inaccurately describe others beliefs.

Hi, Zaffiroborant,
I think it is a fair assumption that I may be asked, at some point in my life, what is meant by the word “Trinity”. Please define the word exactly as you would want someone not of your faith (but respectful of your faith and beliefs) to define it, in such a way that it would make sense to a twelve-year-old. Then I can quote you on it, rather than try to explain what I have read on this website in a way that attempts to make sense to them and to me. I hope you will understand that I really do just want a good definition, and will not second guess what you have to say. If it brings in the words “essence” or “substance”, I would want those words defined since they can have several distinct connotations.

Thanks in advance, and have a good day.

 

[majick275]

Yes, sir, I watched them extremely closely for 18 months, back when I actually was one.
We do not say that you will lose your family, YOU do. your weddings all say “until death do you part.” We don’t have to tell you that. We say 'would you like to keep your family forever?" We do not have to mention the wedding vows you took, you know what they are.

i think you misunderstand exactly what we teach then. we don’t believe we lose our families. we believe that the institution of marriage is not required in heave. we believe that we get to be there with everyone else who is there and enjoy love and friendship.
the message from the mormons that only through eternal marriage can one continue to be together certainly DOES show a belief that others will lose their family. especially when that teaching is explored through the words of mormon prophets on the subject. (3 kingdoms with limited visitation between, women being “given” to worthy men as plural wives so that they can have “eternal increase”

We are very clear about what we do in the Temple. We do baptisms for the dead, we do marriages (“sealings”) we spend some time doing some intensely symbolic teaching–and none of the concepts we teach in there are secret from what is taught outside, y’know. What we do NOT discuss is the actual script and the symbolism, and that’s because we promised. We promised because we want to keep that special spirit of Christ we feel when we are there when we go. I wouldn’t discuss it with you even if I hadn’t promised, because when I go in the Temple, I do not want the memory of acrimonious discussions coming with me. You go look at the Temple scripts all you want to; you know I’m telling you the truth about this.

i don’t think you teach much about the endowment at all…even IN the temple…the symbolism is NOT discussed…there are no interactive classes or instructor led sessions to teach those…just the vague principle of “let the spirit teach”…and while the post 1990 ceremony is more mainstream in it’s teachings it still has things that ARE unique. and the pre-1990 was VERY unique. by unique i mean different than what is taught outside the temple. i will try to use examples from LDS publications out of respect for your beliefs but i completely disagree with sacred vs. secret stance. i’ve been through the temple enough times to disagree with you on this.

As for the apostacy…of course we talk about that. If there were no apostasy, there would be no need for us. However, we simply say that there was one, and then present what we believe to be true. The listener, who knows his own beliefs, can decide for himself whether the beliefs we present are better than the ones he has. We don’t have to tear him down with some “Maze of Catholicism” or “Inside the Baptists” stupidity.

and the difference is?..presenting complete global apostasy as a “fact” before moving into the discussion kinda skews the discussion. and i don’t think mormons realize how offensive that whole concept is. doctrinal drift…error in practices…those are things we could discuss openly but to say that the church that christ established actually apostatized is horrid… and let’s face it the wording in LDS scriptures is very blunt on this “abomination”…“corrupt”…read what the BoM says about those who baptize infants. the fact that you paint all other with a broad brush rather than publish denomination specific criticisms doe snot change the the fact that it IS an attack…and i would submit that not so long there WERE specific attacks from LDS leaders in their writings against the catholic church.

I fail to see where fellowshipping is a bad thing. Do your priests and pastors ignore everybody every day but Sunday, and every place but from the pulpit? The whole purpose of religion is to help one another.

in most christian churches fellowshipping is a much more informal and voluntary process. i have yet to see catholic clergy “target” families or “assign” people to a specific family person. the level of micromanagement within LDS wards is something i have only seen with Mormons and JWs. i don’t think it is always that “helpful” either. i won’t skew this with anecdotal “horror stories” but i think it a huge risk to use untrained lay people to “counsel” others and “help” with serious issues. doing the widows yard as a YM project is obviously a good thing…but that’s not what i’m talking about.

 

[majick275]

(continued)

At least I give you statistics. All you are giving me is claims, backed by nothing. One study, by the Barna Research Group (which is not religious nor affiliated with any religious group,)

According to them, 71% of Mormons attend church weekly, 67% read the bible daily, 95% pray , 62% attend Sunday School (in addition to regular church services) 40% volunteer, 24% donate money, and 26% share their faith with others.

According also to them (same study) 48% of Catholics attend church weekly, 23% read the bible daily, 88% pray , 6% attend Sunday School (in addition to regular church services) 12% volunteer, 13% donate money, and 10% share their faith with others.

Also according to them (again, same study) 50% of Baptists attend church weekly,55% read the bible daily, 92% pray , 30% attend Sunday School (in addition to regular church services) 19% volunteer, 20% donate money, and 10% share their faith with others.

Of all the faiths examined (Adventists, Assembly of God, Baptists (any type) Catholics, Church of Christ (which is the RLDS, isn’t that a hoot?) Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, LDS, “Christian non-denominational,” Pentacostal Foursquare and Presbyterians, the following was found to be true:

Nobody attends church more than the Mormons do. Only the Pentacostals pray more (97% to our 95%), Nobody attends Sunday School more often, nobody volunteers more (the next highest is 30% to our 40%…that’s he Assembly of God folks), Non-demoniational Christians donate more money, as does the Church of Christ (again, this is the RLDS…they are Mormons too…) though oddly enough, five other religions ‘share their faith’ more than we do. Who’da thunk? Lessee…the Assembly of God people do (62% vs. our 26%), the Baptists do (43%), the Church of Christ (there they are again… ), Christian non-denominational, (57%) and those Pentacostals (61%)

I’m actually rather ashamed of us, that we are that far down on the ‘share the faith’ list.

Still, there you go. Please feel free to share any real numbers with us as to your claim that the LDS church is ‘shrinking’ and all that.

i will have to look into these stats (which you just now gave) because when i was LDS we internally tended to use 35% as the activity rate…i have yet to see any LDS study that puts activity at over 70% so i am really struggling how this group gives that attendance number. outside the US i really think it’s even lower than the 35% that i saw. perhaps this study only covers those mormons who consider themselves “active members”?..i know the LDS membership numbers are much higher than the self reported numbers on the census in any nation that records that info.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi, Zaffiroborant,
I think it is a fair assumption that I may be asked, at some point in my life, what is meant by the word “Trinity”. Please define the word exactly as you would want someone not of your faith (but respectful of your faith and beliefs) to define it, in such a way that it would make sense to a twelve-year-old. Then I can quote you on it, rather than try to explain what I have read on this website in a way that attempts to make sense to them and to me. I hope you will understand that I really do just want a good definition, and will not second guess what you have to say. If it brings in the words “essence” or “substance”, I would want those words defined since they can have several distinct connotations.

Thanks in advance, and have a good day.

Why should someone ask you to explain a belief that is not yours? This subject comes up all the time and when it does LDS insist we should not explain your beliefs we should instead refer the questioner to LDS sources such as lds.org. So when you are asked about the Trinity you should also refer the questioner to sources that actually believe it.

Why do you always turn these discussions of behavior into an interrogation of my beliefs?

 

[ParkerD]

Why should someone ask you to explain a belief that is not yours? This subject comes up all the time and when it does LDS insist we should not explain your beliefs we should instead refer the questioner to LDS sources such as lds.org. So when you are asked about the Trinity you should also refer the questioner to sources that actually believe it.

Why do you always turn these discussions of behavior into an interrogation of my beliefs?

Zaffiroborant,
I agree with your first paragraph here. So that being the case, why are there attempts on this website (not just in this forum) to “explain” Mormon beliefs, and to do it in such disparaging ways?

I was not trying to interrogate you about your belief. Since you criticized a statement by an LDS leader, I was interested in getting a definition because the question can be asked by youth during classes or discussions, and I thought it made sense to try and get a better definition. But sorry I asked…I’ll just answer, “They explain it by referring to the creeds, so we shouldn’t try to understand because the creeds describe it as a mystery.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
I agree with your first paragraph here. So that being the case, why are there attempts on this website (not just in this forum) to “explain” Mormon beliefs, and to do it in such disparaging ways?

I don’t know they do this any more than I know why your apostles do it.

I was not trying to interrogate you about your belief. Since you criticized a statement by an LDS leader, I was interested in getting a definition because the question can be asked by youth during classes or discussions, and I thought it made sense to try and get a better definition. But sorry I asked…I’ll just answer, “They explain it by referring to the creeds, so we shouldn’t try to understand because the creeds describe it as a mystery.”

Not quite the same as directing them to correct info as we are exhorted to do and it seems a bit flippant.

 

[dianaiad]

And here you go spouting off about our beliefs, telling us what we believe, inaccurately I might add.

You mean your wedding vows do NOT say 'till death do you part" or “until death parts you” or “until parted by death?” According to every site I have seen, Catholic and wedding, the vows Catholics take actually do say 'until death do you part."

What, you don’t believe the priest on this? I mean, really…there is a thread on this forum right now about divorce and Catholics; the intricacies of when a marriage is ‘invalid’ and when someone may remarry after a divorce. The consensus is that ‘never’ is the proper word. A Catholic may not marry after a divorce, period; he or she is still married in the eyes of the church. Only if the first marriage is found to be ‘invalid’ can one marry–not ‘again,’ but 'for the first time."

However, a Catholic widow or widower can certainly remarry.

What is there in the above to indicate that marriage continues on after death, in Catholic theology?

You may have to teach the “great apostasy” to validate your religion but is basically no different than what you complain about, tearing up one religion to build up your own. But it’s always acceptable when you all do this since there’s no other way to show that “traditional/creedal Christianity” is not the way to go. You will say that it’s not the same because you don’t tear up Catholic beliefs or Baptist beliefs but that’s the beauty of it. With this one thing you tear them all down. I can see why most former LDS turn to atheism and understand the poll results on MADB better.

This is is in the same vein as your “apostles” (the top people in your church) describing the Trinity in their general conference talks, for some reason it’s ok for them (and you)to inaccurately describe others beliefs.

the ‘fine line’ here is that we do not say 'there was an apostasy and as a result you believe this stupid thing or that hellish thing or this other thing that is going to send you to hell. As soon as you accept that you are incredibly evil, hellish and stupid, and we have broken your faith, then we’ll tell you what you really SHOULD believe." This is the approach taken by those who ‘minister’ (and please deliver me from further such 'ministries") to Mormons in “Lighthouse Ministries,” “Mormon research Ministries” “Maze of Mormonism,” “Godmakers,” et all.

You will not find anything remotely similar FROM us aimed AT you anywhere, no matter how much you want to inflate our belief in the apostasy to be a personal insulting attack against you to such a level.

We say 'there was an apostasy. As a result, we believe that the following things have been restored to earth. Please compare what we believe with what you believe, pray about it and make your decision."

 

[dianaiad]

Why should someone ask you to explain a belief that is not yours? This subject comes up all the time and when it does LDS insist we should not explain your beliefs we should instead refer the questioner to LDS sources such as lds.org. So when you are asked about the Trinity you should also refer the questioner to sources that actually believe it.

Why do you always turn these discussions of behavior into an interrogation of my beliefs?

He just asked you to explain your beliefs to him. In other words, he IS going to the source here; asking a trinitarian to explain the trinity.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You mean your wedding vows do NOT say 'till death do you part" or “until death parts you” or “until parted by death?” According to every site I have seen, Catholic and wedding, the vows Catholics take actually do say 'until death do you part."

What, you don’t believe the priest on this? I mean, really…there is a thread on this forum right now about divorce and Catholics; the intricacies of when a marriage is ‘invalid’ and when someone may remarry after a divorce. The consensus is that ‘never’ is the proper word. A Catholic may not marry after a divorce, period; he or she is still married in the eyes of the church. Only if the first marriage is found to be ‘invalid’ can one marry–not ‘again,’ but 'for the first time."

However, a Catholic widow or widower can certainly remarry.

What is there in the above to indicate that marriage continues on after death, in Catholic theology?

Family is only who you’re married to?

 

[zaffiroborant]

He just asked you to explain your beliefs to him. In other words, he IS going to the source here; asking a trinitarian to explain the trinity.

So he can explain it to someone else. Why shouldn’t he just direct that other person to sources?

 

[ParkerD]

So he can explain it to someone else. Why shouldn’t he just direct that other person to sources?

Zaffiroborant,
If one is standing in front of a class of 12-year-olds, then if the question were to come up it seems to me to be unfair to answer with, “look it up yourself”.

The Catholic leader here in Salt Lake City has become known as a bridge-builder with respect to religious dialogue. I think that can be done. I think if people of different religions really do try to understand each others’ beliefs, then each can be respectful as well as have understanding including finding commonalities. I think a teacher of youth ought to try and take that approach, which is basically the reason for the question I had asked. To read descriptions of the Trinity from official sources is a head-scratcher for me and I think it would be for twelve-year-olds. Sometimes I get the feeling that my belief in three Persons is not so far off of a Trinitarian’s belief in three persons but One God if that is understood with respect to their unity, purpose, eternal nature, power, and complete omniscience and omnibenevolence.

 

[rinnie]

Interesting post, and one that describes the differences in approaches better than I ever have. Mormons go out and teach what they believe to be true to everyone, regardless of what their beliefs are. You describe an approach that depends upon, first, destroying the other faith before you will teach yours. The problem with the first approach, of course, is that those who are fully informed about their own faiths, and who are faithful IN them, will be able to compare/contrast what we tell them with what they believe to be true, and come to their own decisions. If they are NOT well versed in their own faiths, then all they have to go on is what we believe—and what their own personal opinions are.

The problem with the second approach (well, probLEMS, actually) is that in order to go after the beliefs of a different faith in order to disprove or destroy it, one must be well versed in THAT faith–all those other faiths. Not ‘well versed’ as in “I read what my pastor’s brother’s website said,” but well versed in what the believers actually do believe. Individually. You cannot afford to be incorrect about the slightest thing, because once you are, you have so completely erroded your own credibility that your listener will stop hearing you.

Here is an example of what actually happens to me, far more often than it should: I am told that I am going to hell, or worship a ‘different Christ,’ or am not Christian, or (you name it…) because I don’t believe that Mary was a virgin at Christ’s birth, that I believe that God had sex with Mary.

Well, here’s the thing; since I do happen to believe that Mary was virgin at Christ’s birth, I can then throw out every thing else that person is claiming about my faith. I mean, if they can be wrong about something like that, can they be right about anything important?

And since most people who try this approach don’t ever, actually, tell me what I should believe INSTEAD of Mormonism, I am left with absolutely no choice here. They have nothing for me.

The odd thing is that when I correct them, and tell them that Mormons do TO believe in the virginity of Mary, I will, 99.99% of the time, get a "you do NOT’ and start quoting stuff from some anti-book or site or whatever. I have never, not even once, gotten a “Oh? I’m wrong about that? That’s wonderful! Let’s go on and talk about this, then…”

I think you can understand that such an approach ticks off more people than it converts.

 

[rinnie]

Interesting post, and one that describes the differences in approaches better than I ever have. Mormons go out and teach what they believe to be true to everyone, regardless of what their beliefs are. You describe an approach that depends upon, first, destroying the other faith before you will teach yours. The problem with the first approach, of course, is that those who are fully informed about their own faiths, and who are faithful IN them, will be able to compare/contrast what we tell them with what they believe to be true, and come to their own decisions. If they are NOT well versed in their own faiths, then all they have to go on is what we believe—and what their own personal opinions are.

The problem with the second approach (well, probLEMS, actually) is that in order to go after the beliefs of a different faith in order to disprove or destroy it, one must be well versed in THAT faith–all those other faiths. Not ‘well versed’ as in “I read what my pastor’s brother’s website said,” but well versed in what the believers actually do believe. Individually. You cannot afford to be incorrect about the slightest thing, because once you are, you have so completely erroded your own credibility that your listener will stop hearing you.

Here is an example of what actually happens to me, far more often than it should: I am told that I am going to hell, or worship a ‘different Christ,’ or am not Christian, or (you name it…) because I don’t believe that Mary was a virgin at Christ’s birth, that I believe that God had sex with Mary.

Well, here’s the thing; since I do happen to believe that Mary was virgin at Christ’s birth, I can then throw out every thing else that person is claiming about my faith. I mean, if they can be wrong about something like that, can they be right about anything important?

And since most people who try this approach don’t ever, actually, tell me what I should believe INSTEAD of Mormonism, I am left with absolutely no choice here. They have nothing for me.

The odd thing is that when I correct them, and tell them that Mormons do TO believe in the virginity of Mary, I will, 99.99% of the time, get a "you do NOT’ and start quoting stuff from some anti-book or site or whatever. I have never, not even once, gotten a “Oh? I’m wrong about that? That’s wonderful! Let’s go on and talk about this, then…”

I think you can understand that such an approach ticks off more people than it converts.

Believe it or not that is what keeps me Catholic. I have learned that every other religion that I question I never get a Answer. But in the Catholic faith I Always do. What kills me is when I answer, and give them scripture or Tradition then I am told thats just your interpretation:shrug: But I look at it this way I gave the scripture, and got the answer from the Church. Here is something else that is awesome in the Catholic faith. We never try to convert. It makes you wonder why? Then you figure it out, We don’t have to. If anyone is really really serious and study’s the faith. IT starts and ends in the one Church. The Catholic Church. That is one thing that cannot be denied. The Church that Peter started is the Catholic Church and the Pope is still in the seat. That to me is the best and most obvious reason its the Catholic Church. But we all have to find God in our own way. And ANYONE who searches for Jesus Christ and wants to learn about him get an A in my book:thumbsup: