What is the best way to learn about other beliefs?

[PaulDupre1]

So true, asking is one part, listening is the other. Some people ask, but then don’t listen.

I am sure many of us here have had the experience where someone asks us about our faith, and just as we begin to speak they proceed to tell us what “we believe”…actually what they think or have heard we believe.

I’ve heard all sorts of interesting things about what believe and practice from people who don’t even know me! Wow, I never imagined I was believing all those things, How nice of them to inform me! Apparently I had no understanding at all of what my faith teaches until they came along, an outsider, and interpreted it for me.

I’ve also been accused of misrepresenting my faith…why would I want to do that?

If you are LDS, which I would guess you are, you would misrepresent your beliefs in order to make them seem less bizarre to potential converts. You wouldn’t want to scare them away before you’ve had the opportunity to sufficiently friendship them and get them socially involved in your religion.

Milk first, and then meat - isn’t that the LDS approach? “Milk” in Mormonism too often manifests as deceit by watering down- or withholding your true beliefs and teachings. Lies of omission are just as dishonest as lies of commission.

I have had missionaries, who don’t know I am an ex-Mormon (missionary, married in the temple, gospel doctrine teacher, bishop’s councilor and more), tell me that Mormonism teaches the trinity (and any other lies they imagine I might like to hear). When I reveal who I really am, they look like they’ve been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Then they make a hasty and embarrassed exit.

Some of my own missionary companions did this too. I had many a strong disagreement with companions about deceiving investigators. They saw nothing wrong with it so long as they “got baptisms”. It is part of Mormon culture that lying and withholding is part of the “milk”.

So I am quite familiar with the way LDS misrepresent their beliefs and their reasons for doing so.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[iepuras]

None of the above.

Comes from believers and critics, favoring the facts. Learning how believers approach the facts is important to me, as it helps to understand the approach to faith and reason.

I also vote none of the above.

I look to believers and critics and make a decision based on the facts and reason.

 

[twopekinguys]

I go with doing your own research and forming your own opinion…

What if the source of a religion, i.e. faiths own website, provides inaccurate or contradictory information?

 

[dianaiad]

Several people have chosen “none of the above,” that is, looking at critics and believers, favoring neither, or favoring facts.

good answers on the surface, but there is a reason I didn’t include that as one of the choices.

How do you decide what the facts are?
Research is done by going to sources…hopefully trustworthy sources. You glean the facts from those sources. This poll wasn’t about ‘the facts,’ but about who you think is more likely to have the facts. Not about whether the belief system under consideration is ‘true’ or not, but which of the sources you go to to get the facts is going to present them the most accurately…or even have the facts.

Which source is more likely to have accurate information regarding what the beliefs are, and which source is more likely to present that information in a …not unbiased, because there is no such thing…but perhaps 'least likely to be deliberately twisted" manner.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think it prudent to get as much information as possible in order to make an assessment. I did when looking at Catholicism. I looked at what former Catholics had to say, how Catholics respond. I looked at anti Catholic material and how Catholics respond. I made my own assessment and decision.

If a Catholic ever said to me, you should only listen to Catholics, I’d have been gone in a flash. I find an insistence to listen to only one view, to be highly suspicious.

 

[twopekinguys]

Several people have chosen “none of the above,” that is, looking at critics and believers, favoring neither, or favoring facts.

good answers on the surface, but there is a reason I didn’t include that as one of the choices.

How do you decide what the facts are?
Research is done by going to sources…hopefully trustworthy sources. You glean the facts from those sources. This poll wasn’t about ‘the facts,’ but about who you think is more likely to have the facts. Not about whether the belief system under consideration is ‘true’ or not, but which of the sources you go to to get the facts is going to present them the most accurately…or even have the facts.

Which source is more likely to have accurate information regarding what the beliefs are, and which source is more likely to present that information in a …not unbiased, because there is no such thing…but perhaps 'least likely to be deliberately twisted" manner.

I posted this on another thread, and have yet to get an answer from a mormon, or anyone else for that matter.

Notice that both links are from the official lds website.

Ok, here are two links from the official lds.org site.

Which one is correct? One says they don’t know why, and the other gives an explanation.

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

“Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”

lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

“In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood”

If the “official” lds site cannot provide accurate answers on this one issue, it could very easily make someone question other information on the “official” site.

Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[wildfood]

I voted, “Comes from the believers…critics are biased and may lie”, but instead of lie I would have said, “are often misinformed”.

As a Protestant who has looked lovingly at both Catholicism and Orthodoxy (Protestants can do that because we follow our hearts ), I have heard members of both faiths quote beliefs about the other that I know the believers of the respective faiths do not hold.

For instance, I have heard Orthodox members state something to the effect that Catholics have a cause and effect religion, meaning that if X then Y will happen, or, if I do this or that then I am forgiven or I will go to heaven, almost as if God were left out of the equation, almost a form of Pelagianism. I know for a fact that Catholics do not believe this.

Oddly enough, I have also heard Catholics speak of the Orthodox Jesus prayer in almost the same terms, of it being a cause and effect method for attaining a divine state, without the help of God. And again this is something that I have heard no Orthodox member state nor have I read any Orthodox author insinuate anything of the kind.

And I won’t go into all the erroneous beliefs that many Protestants have regarding Catholics and Orthodox…

For these reasons I believe that it is best to learn about a faith from the members of that faith.

 

[zaffiroborant]

There is always a problem with turning to a church or it’s members for information when the church itself will not fully divulge it’s beliefs and practices even further it instructs it’s members not to even discuss beliefs and practices with each other, let alone non-members. How can someone trust a such a church and it’s members who’s intent it is to hold back information?

 

[Holly3278]

I didn’t vote in the poll but I often prefer to go to factual and unbiased websites to learn about different religions. There are a number of such websites available on the internet.

 

[tonyfish58]

God has given us all Free will, thus the only way to search for truth is as follows;

**"The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit. This is evidenced by those who, today, though without a single letter of the accepted standards of learning, are occupying the loftiest seats of knowledge; and the garden of their hearts is adorned, through the showers of divine grace, with the roses of wisdom and the tulips of understanding. Well is it with the sincere in heart for their share of the light of a mighty Day! **(Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 210)

Thus Truth must be searched only From the Source and one should approach the subject by turning completely to God, and with a “purity of motive, a freedom of spirit and a sanctity of heart” ask from God the answer.

The Prophet and His Life is the First Proof.

The Revealed Word the 2nd Proof.

It is not Just to search for truth from any other source, least the other source leads one away from the path.

It is written on this subject as follows;

O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh # 2 Link - reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/HW/

God Bless all with Love for all Mankind, as we all Live under and are blessed by the One and Only God - Regards Tony

 

[iepuras]

There is always a problem with turning to a church or it’s members for information when the church itself will not fully divulge it’s beliefs and practices even further it instructs it’s members not to even discuss beliefs and practices with each other, let alone non-members. How can someone trust a such a church and it’s members who’s intent it is to hold back information?

This ^^^

I learned that the church I was raised in was not honest or transparent about its history and teachings (both current and previous). I found that the “anti” literature was far more truthful and transparent than the actual leadership and membership of that church.

So, dianaiad, why should I consider the leadership or membership of a church as a trustworthy source when their track record indicates that they are not? Your assumption is that a church or religion is going to be 100% honest and transparent. My personal experience indicates otherwise. Hence, my desire to hear from both sides and to look at the facts and use reason.

 

[dianaiad]

I didn’t vote in the poll but I often prefer to go to factual and unbiased websites to learn about different religions. There are a number of such websites available on the internet.

Holly, bless you (and I( mean that)

But no.

There aren’t. I’ve been on the internet for twenty years now. I’ve been a member of my own faith for considerably longer than that, and in all that time, and after looking at a LOT of websites dedicated to Religion, especially mine (critical of…), I have found only one site that I could say even attempted to be unbiased, and tried to 'get it right," and that was religioustolerance.org/ I was actually very pleased with the way they handled my faith.

Until about two years ago, when they up and joined the 'let’s see what we can claim that the Mormons believe that just ain’t so" brigade, with a couple of essays that were straight out of Dr. Martin’s classroom. I have just found that those specific essays are gone, so perhaps they have come back to the straight and narrow way; I’d have to look at everything they have. However, they seemed pretty fair to me (except for those essays).

Other than them?

Nuttin’.

EVERY website that is critical of the church, that I have come across, has misinformation and outright lies…I say ‘lies,’ because they don’t change their claims even when it is proven to them that their information is erroneous. Oddly enough, the Tanners are the least guilty of this sort of thing.

Now I, not being particularly stupid or prone to think of Mormons as uniquely targeted, figure that if this is true of us, it’s probably true of everybody else, too.

The “pro-” sites, on the other hand, aren’t out to deliberately decieve. They may be incorrect, but not deliberately so in order to deceive.

I have found that to be true about the Mormons…so I figure it’s probably true about everybody else, too.

There is no such thing as an ‘unbiased’ source when one is talking about religion.

Or politics.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you, everybody, for participating in this very informal poll. We got some interesting numbers…and answers.

As you can see, considerably more than half of you chose #3.

I disagree, of course, but I didn’t vote in my own poll. I’d have skewed the numbers.

 

[Peter_J]

Holly, bless you (and I( mean that)

But no.

There aren’t. I’ve been on the internet for twenty years now. I’ve been a member of my own faith for considerably longer than that, and in all that time, and after looking at a LOT of websites dedicated to Religion, especially mine (critical of…), I have found only one site that I could say even attempted to be unbiased, and tried to 'get it right," and that was religioustolerance.org/ I was actually very pleased with the way they handled my faith.

Until about two years ago, when they up and joined the 'let’s see what we can claim that the Mormons believe that just ain’t so" brigade, with a couple of essays that were straight out of Dr. Martin’s classroom. I have just found that those specific essays are gone, so perhaps they have come back to the straight and narrow way; I’d have to look at everything they have. However, they seemed pretty fair to me (except for those essays).

Other than them?

Nuttin’.

EVERY website that is critical of the church, that I have come across, has misinformation and outright lies…I say ‘lies,’ because they don’t change their claims even when it is proven to them that their information is erroneous. Oddly enough, the Tanners are the least guilty of this sort of thing.

Now I, not being particularly stupid or prone to think of Mormons as uniquely targeted, figure that if this is true of us, it’s probably true of everybody else, too.

The “pro-” sites, on the other hand, aren’t out to deliberately decieve. They may be incorrect, but not deliberately so in order to deceive.

I have found that to be true about the Mormons…so I figure it’s probably true about everybody else, too.

There is no such thing as an ‘unbiased’ source when one is talking about religion.

Or politics.

Sorry, but I have to ask: are you including Mormon websites when you say that there aren’t unbiased websites?

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry, but I have to ask: are you including Mormon websites when you say that there aren’t unbiased websites?

Yep.

The difference is, with pro-whatever belief system we are talking about websites, we know EXACTLY where the bias lies, and can allow for it. We know what the purpose is.

Of course pro-whatever sites are going to present their beliefs in the most positive light…but they will present their beliefs as they actually are. They aren’t going to out and out lie and say they believe THIS when they actually believe the opposite…

And you cannot trust non-member, or anti-websites to be as accurate. At least, I don’t, because frankly, I’ve never run into one that did. Don’t believe me? Try Jack Chick or CARM…about pretty much everybody but whatever specific belief system they represent themselves.

 

[Peter_J]

Honesty appreciated.

I wonder about the same thing, except from a different perspective. Namely, when speaking of the Internet being unreliable or dangerous, or the need to be on guard against misinformation or biases or whatever, the big question becomes whether that includes Catholic websites, or does being Catholic safeguard us from biases or unreliability.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yep.

The difference is, with pro-whatever belief system we are talking about websites, we know EXACTLY where the bias lies, and can allow for it. We know what the purpose is.

Of course pro-whatever sites are going to present their beliefs in the most positive light…but they will present their beliefs as they actually are. They aren’t going to out and out lie and say they believe THIS when they actually believe the opposite…

And you cannot trust non-member, or anti-websites to be as accurate. At least, I don’t, because frankly, I’ve never run into one that did. Don’t believe me? Try Jack Chick or CARM…about pretty much everybody but whatever specific belief system they represent themselves.

Please see post # 27. Can you explain why lds.org (obviously pro mormon) posts conflicting information on blacks and the priesthood?

I have asked the question numerous times, but, have yet to receive an answer.

Wouldn’t finding this kind of conflicting information on THE mormon website be confusing and off putting to someone researching what is really believed?

 

[dianaiad]

Honesty appreciated.

I wonder about the same thing, except from a different perspective. Namely, when speaking of the Internet being unreliable or dangerous, or the need to be on guard against misinformation or biases or whatever, the big question becomes whether that includes Catholic websites, or does being Catholic safeguard us from biases or unreliability.

Now that’s a thing…

Personally?

I’ve been an internet researcher for awhile, and I have figured out a hierarchy of ‘trust’ for sources. For religion, I figure it would go like this:

First trust the websites that are published by the belief system itself.

For Mormonism, that would be “lds.org.”

For Catholicism, I imagine you know what those would be better than me, but the official catechism published by the church would be trustworthy, I think, as well as other websites specifically published by the church, OFFICIALLY.

Next…and further enough down so that I would confirm whatever is on them with the official sites…are websites that are “pro-” whatever religion it is; sites published by true believers, but which are not officially sanctioned by the church.

Next…and a lot further down…would be sites that attempt to examine many different religions and faith systems, like, oh…ReligiousTolerance.org, or national publications that at least attempt to get both believers and non-believers involved.

Then, waaaaay far down the line, are the “oh, you poor dears, how deluded you are; come see what’s REALLY true” sites. You know who they are. The 'treacle anti’s"

Finally, there are the Walter Martin/Jack Chick sites; the out and out “these people are evil incarnate and it’s our job to defeat them by any means necessary.” sites.

Are you protected ‘just because’ you are Catholic? No more than I am because I’m a Mormon. I’ve seen a LOT of anti-Catholic sites that, at first glance, seem objective and even polite…until you get to the insidious and deceptive nature of them. When even I can tell that they are lying through their teeth about what your beliefs are…and doing so for the purpose of discrediting Catholicism and Catholics, well…

Yeah. It ain’t pretty.

 

[PaulDupre1]

For Catholicism, I imagine you know what those would be better than me, but the official catechism published by the church would be trustworthy, I think,

Correct. That is your best resource to discover what Catholicism teaches and believes. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is truly “official”.

as well as other websites specifically published by the church, OFFICIALLY.

AFAIK, Vatican.org is the only “official” Catholic website, but it is not as official as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There are many other websites, with varying degrees of quality and orthodoxy, run by Catholics. Catholic Answers is one of the better ones. Some may be helpful, but none of them are official organs of the Catholic Church, so proceed with caution and a big bag of salt.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[PaulDupre1]

I didn’t vote in the poll but I often prefer to go to factual and unbiased websites to learn about different religions. There are a number of such websites available on the internet.

Hi Holly. You must be luckier than I have been, for, though some are better than others, I have never found a truly unbiased website. I think that is because we, as human beings, are naturally biased towards what we believe and biased against what we don’t believe.

It may be done in all sincerity and innocence, but everything we do and say is biased. We as imperfect humans cannot avoid that. I expect that we usually don’t even realize that we are injecting our biases into what we say.

But admitting in humility that we are biased may help us in understanding one another better.

Nice to hear from you, BTW.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)