To preach or not to preach
By Stephen Carter on Dec 9, 2007
I was in charge of the priesthood lesson today. It took me a long time to get it together. In fact, I had to write it down to get it out. So I thought I’d share.
Getting ready for this lesson was very difficult. I couldn’t quite get a grasp on how to present it. After three or four hours of thought, I remembered something I read recently by Carl Rogers, a psychologist who was very famous back in the 1950’s. He said,
I find that one way of learning for me is to state my own uncertainties, to try to clarify my puzzlements, and thus get closer to the meaning that my experience actually seems to have.
So, to state my own uncertainty, I often find myself cut off from people when my goal is to help them join the church. I first started to see this while I was on my mission in Toronto. One of the main ways we had of contacting people was to hang around at the busy bus stops.
I had a dark brown coat that didn’t accommodate a nametag anywhere but on a pocket located at the bottom of the coat. What this meant was that people usually didn’t know I was a missionary until I told them I was.
Canadians are very easy going people and a pleasure to talk with. While I had this coat on, in stealth missionary mode, I found myself really enjoying just getting to know the people I came in contact with. And even when I finally told them I was a missionary, often I had been able to talk with them long enough that they didn’t immediately back off.
However, the weather started to warm up and thus, the coat would probably come off soon. But as I contemplated going around in my white shirt and tie, with my nametag obvious upon my chest, I kinda freaked. Because I realized that people would know what I was up to immediately and be much less open to conversation than they had been before.
I thought about what I should do for a few days, and then took the lining out of my coat and went around in the shell until the warm weather finally forced me to shed it.
The thing was, I found out that I wanted to get to know these people, not change them. If they wanted to change, that was great and I had a font I’d be happy to lend them. But I found that the people I liked most, were the people I wanted to change least.
There was one man in particular who exemplified this. His name was Bob Cottrell. He lived in the town of Belleville in a beautiful little house that he had renovated himself. He was a teacher of French at a private school, an art appreciator, a music lover, and a poetry and cheese connoisseur. He was also the eternal investigator of the area, and we tried all the tricks in the book to get him baptized.
He never did get baptized. But on the night before I was transferred he invited us over to his house for a fantastic homemade dinner (he was also a chef). Then he gave us presents with little bits of poetry taped to them. The poetry on my present said, “If there were no god we would have this beautiful world and no one to thank for it.” Inside the wrapping was an audiotape of the Goldberg Variations by Bach. The performer was Glenn Gould, a Canadian pianist.
“Listen carefully,” Bob told me, “and you can sometimes hear him humming along. Off key.”
I did listen. It was strange but somehow the humming made the experience more exhilarating. The slight dissonance of Gould’s humming adding a whole new dimension to the music.
Gould’s performance has become a kind of metaphor for the way I view life. I’m always listening for the alternative interpretations that show me a new way of looking at things.
On page 261 of the manual it asks us what we would want if we were non-members. Would we want our member neighbors to share the gospel with us? Of course we would, it says.
It seems to me that we are in that position quite frequently. We certainly all have neighbors and co-workers who are not of our religion. What happens when they try to share their gospel with us?
I’ve had friends who have been open with me about their religious experiences. One was a woman who was making a move into Orthodox Judaism, having been raised as a secular Jew. Her move into that tradition gave her life a lot of meaning, and I was always interested to hear about how it affected her.
While I was in Shishmaref, Alaska, I got to know the Lutheran pastors there. Of course, they were very open about their religion, that being their job. But they were also very genuine people. The best I’ve ever known. We spent hours talking about religion, and I had a great time. They were interested in me, and I was interested in them.
The thing that made these three friends so valuable to me was who they were, and their unique worldview that was so different from mine. My world would have been smaller had I not encountered their worldviews, which were in many ways, fundamentally different from mine. It was those fundamental differences that made their worldview so valuable to me. If they joined the church and took on our theology and mythology, I’m not sure their worldview would nourish me as much as it does now. So I don’t want to change them. I value my pastor friends’ Lutheranness and my Jewish friend’s Jewishness.
To me, the intermingling of these different worldviews with mine is very sustaining. They make my life better. They give me something that, frankly, I have not been able to find in church. They give me the other experience that Carl Rogers says is the best way for him to learn. He said,
“I find that one of the best, but most difficult ways for me to learn is to drop my own defensiveness, at least temporarily, and to try to understand the way in which his experience seems and feels to the other person.
It’s kind of like the Hegelian dialectic. Two things come together, but instead of one winning out over the other, they form something new. I think this may be what Joseph Smith was talking about when he identified a mission of the church as being “To circumscribe truth into one great whole.” In other words, we’re not so much generators of truth as we are seekers of truth.
So here’s my uncertainty. Talking about religion is easy for me. But I have no desire to convert people (unless they want to). But these quotes in the lesson:
“…the Lord did not say, ‘If it is convenient for you, would you consider preaching the gospel.’ He has said, ‘Let every man learn his duty’ and ‘Behold … it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.’”
seem to not grant me the luxury of my attitude.
What do I do?
That was my part of the lesson. Then I directed discussion. And it was an interesting discussion. Everyone, of course, stuck up for the manual. They said that the friends I don’t want changed would become even better with the church functioning in their lives. They averred that the church was simply the only true one and therefore the only place anyone should end up.
I’m grateful that they were so honest with me. But I guess I didn’t realize how far removed I am from mainstream Mormon thought.
I’m definitely still uncertain.
Great post, Stephen. Sounds like the way my priesthood lessons go… I raise questions or concerns that feel important and (at least to me) have no easy answers; the class patiently defends the manual.
But thank you for taking the time to write out all this. You’ve given me lesson fodder for a future date.
Comment # 1 by Matt Thurston | Dec 9, 2007 | Reply
Sounds nice, but it’s not. Salvation is of Christ. We take on Christ by the principles and ordinances of the gospel. When we are called as missionaries we are to baptize converts, not make friends and support then in their fallen state.
With all respect, I think Stephen grossly under estimates the power of his religion. The power is to change lives, the very thing he does not want to do.
-David
Comment # 2 by David Littlefield | Dec 9, 2007 | Reply
Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough that I’m certain that Mormonism can indeed change people’s lives for the better. I’ve seen it happen. I also know that some people do need help. And I’m glad when they find it.
The people I’m talking about, the ones I like the way they are, already have institutions or private ideologies that have changed them and will continue to work in their lives. I don’t consider them fallen at all. No more so than I am.
I’m not against people changing either. The thing I balk at is thinking that they need to change to be more like me.
Comment # 3 by Stephen Carter | Dec 9, 2007 | Reply
I appreciate Stephen’s experience and perspective. It is not one I would have fully understood right after my own mission over a decade ago, even though I did encounter and teach individuals which were undoubtedly spiritually mature, compassionate but nevertheless did not feel the “call” to become LDS. My view on the necessity and urgency to convert all has changed over the last few years and I concur with Stephen’s feeling about what “circumscribing all truth into one great whole” is pointing at.
My perspective change has come from a personal study of eastern religions, like Hinduism and Buddhism. I wanted to understand why these traditions have been so influential and sustaining to billions of people for countless generations, especially since they did not include Jesus or the sacred writing I was accustomed to. I approached my study with the kind of intensity I expected from my investigators - with an attitude of truth seeking, hungry, not mere curiosity. This experience has been transformative and has elevated my love of God, humankind, and all of that exists. I feel more true to the core values of my LDS faith, but it is now much more difficult to listen to members discuss other religions (as well as the non religious) with a tone of suspicion and pity. I suspect that this outcome is independent of the religions I selected to study.
My goal in sharing the gospel is to arrive at a point of shared experience and understanding, which point may or may not be church membership (usually not). The dialog should not be a competition. I believe that such openness is healthy for member spirituality and does not reflect an underestimation of the power of one’s religion.
Comment # 4 by Brad | Dec 9, 2007 | Reply
If I weren’t a member, I wouldn’t want a mormon neighbor to share the gospel with me.
That statement is true because it correctly assumes that I don’t have all the information that would make me want to hear what my neighbors have to say.
If I weren’t a member, I WOULD want a mormon neighbor to share the gospel with me.
Not because I actively wanted that exact thing, but because I want the benefits that come from it. Its like if there were a dam about to break - I would want my neighbor to warn me. I might not have the presence of mind to sit around and think, “man, I wish my neighbor would warn me right now if there were a dam breaking.” That is why the first statement is also true. However, if I knew that I were living downstream of a dam and that it might break, I would want my neigbors warning. This makes the second statement true.
Comment # 5 by anon | Dec 10, 2007 | Reply
It’s interesting that you would use the example of a dam breaking. I hear this kind of example given quite often in the preaching the gospel context. “Let every man who has been warned warn his neighbor.” Etc.
Why do we use this example so much? Is “damnation”
really sweeping down upon us? Are we really in an emergency situation? It doesn’t seem so to me.
I don’t see the world as falling apart, or my neighbors in danger of being swept away. I see it rather as a place to make more pleasant and welcoming to communication.
Comment # 6 by Stephen Carter | Dec 10, 2007 | Reply
I think there’s a difference between the way missionaries should do missionary work and the way members should do missionary work. Because missionaries have such little time, they should focus more on baptizing those who are ready than becoming friends with and helping to progress those who are further from baptism. But to continue in this mentality after a mission will make you a bad friend, neighbor, coworker, sister, father, etc. Creating or using a relationship with someone just to get some intended result out of her or him will make you less like God, not more.
Additionally, (I gave a talk on missionary work yesterday, so I’ve been thinking about it a lot) we often think of missionary work as “bringing people into the Church.” Stephen, you hinted at this mindset when you said you don’t like to think of people needing to change to be more like you. The problem I see with this mentality is that, for one, it’s not our church. I like to think that the Lord restored the Church to bless the entire world, and especially the house of Israel. If we have the “missionary” missionary mindset, we will share what we think will “bring people into the Church.” We can also think of missionary work as giving the Church away, sharing with whoever will listen whatever it is that we’re passionate about with regard to the Church, blessing others with whatever it is that we’ve been blessed with, regardless of what they choose to do with it. We think we know what the Church is all about, but I say let’s give it to the Lord’s chosen and see what they can do with it.
As far as warning people, I don’t feel that the earth is in such a dire state as a lot of Mormons feel that it is. But maybe the idea of warning people is in reference to the judgment that we all face at death, since anyone can die at any time. We know that the Lord judges according to our knowledge, but does that He excuses the knowledge we could have or should have had, if we had been more honest with ourselves, less willing to rationalize, etc? Just a thought.
Comment # 7 by Nate Housley | Dec 10, 2007 | Reply
Stephen said “I don’t consider them fallen at all. No more so than I am.”
And that is the real problem.
It is CLEARLY Mormon doctrine that all people are fallen (you and your friend), and the only way to be redeemed is through the atonement of Christ, which is received through the principals and ORDINACES of the gospel, as administered by the LDS church, only.
If you do not believe that, so be it. The problem is you don’t believe LDS doctrine, you deny the fall and the need for an atonement. You are free to believe what you want, but with these views you really should no be calling yourself a Mormon.
-David
Comment # 8 by David Littlefield | Dec 10, 2007 | Reply
I liked this post a lot, and I think Nate’s #7 is a pretty good representation of how I feel. I really appreciate diversity and different viewpoints, and I just hope that when people do decide to join our church they can bring those with them rather than leave them behind. I try to find a middle ground, because I do believe that the LDS church is the only organization with the authority to administer the ordinances necessary for salvation, but I understand where you’re (Stephen) coming from too. I think it’s a healthy tension and I hope you continue to voice your opinion in church. We definitely need to remember both sides, and we rarely get to hear this version. Thanks!
Comment # 9 by austin smith | Dec 10, 2007 | Reply
To David Littlefield
A mormon is anyone born into the Mormon Church or baptized into it. I am a Mormon and I don’t believe the Joseph Smith Story, I don’t believe Jesus died for my sins, but I do believe in God. My only association to the church is through Sunstone.
When people ask me what religion I am I say Mormon, or more correctly a reformed Mormon. I’m still very intested in the church and I believe there is some good in the church but one thing I am not is LDS. I’m not interested in the LDS church but I’m interested in the Mormon church, now figure that one out!
My point is, it’s not up to you to determine who is and who isn’t a Mormon, we are quite capable of deciding that for ourselves.
Gordon
Comment # 10 by Gordon Hill | Dec 10, 2007 | Reply
David L wrote:
“but with these views you really should not be calling yourself a Mormon.”
I’ve considered that from time to time. But what it usually comes down to is that when the wind stops blowing in Chicago the buildings fall down.
Your view of the fall is, ironically, very similar to my pastor friends’. The one difference is that, in their view everything is always hopeful. God is always feeling after you. He’s always looking for a way to contact you. So instead of you having to go to the right place and stand in the right line, you just need to be yourself and be open. God does all kinds of things.
You’re right that I have a really hard time believing that there’s only one true church and only one way to be redeemed. To me, these ideas are metaphors that point to much larger truths. I think this is why God asked not to have images attached to him, because once we attach images, our imagination shrinks. God is far too big to fit into a category or description or single church.
However, I also understand why it is so powerful to believe so concretely, as you do. I remember how that belief set made my life so meaningful.
Comment # 11 by Stephen Carter | Dec 11, 2007 | Reply
Stephen:
Lest you think I am just being strident, I am not. You are free to believe anything you want. If you were my brother, friend, or neighbor, I am sure we would get along fine. But, we are of two religions.
Gordon said: “My point is, it’s not up to you to determine who is and who isn’t a Mormon, we are quite capable of deciding that for ourselves.”
Well it may not be up to me personally to determine if someone is LDS (Mormon), but it is within the prerogative of the LDS church to say who is a member in good standing and who is not.
And if you reject the fall and redemption they will not baptize you, you can not go to the temple etc.. If you are honestly don’t believe these things and are just working through figuring out what you believe, the church is patient and willing to help in any way it can.
But, if a member is beating the loud drum of there was no fall and there is no atonement, they will soon find the church does decide who is LDS and who is not.
-David
Comment # 12 by David Littlefield | Dec 11, 2007 | Reply
Stephen, of the many thought provoking things in your post I have focused on two: your Alaskan experience and the idea of different views coming together to create something new.
This coming Thursday I will be participating in a special Vespers litergy at St. Dimitri’s here in Los Alamos to remember St. Herman of Alaska, “Wonder worker of all America”, the first Russian Orthodox missionary to North America in the mid 1700s. I only just learned about this remarkable, love-filled monk whose ministry to the natives of Alaska transformed their lives from being victims of exploitive Russian traders to lives of literacy and service.
I learned about St. Herman from Father John Hennies, who converted to Orthodoxy a year ago after having served the Lakota Indians in South Dakota for 47 years as an Episcopal priest. Father John has taken a strong interest in the Mormon tradition and we have established a weekly dialogue. I call it “Orthodox-Mormon Odyssey”. Whenever we meet our conversations never cease to excite us both as we learn new things about each other’s tradition and especially about our selves. The vision I see coming out of these discussions is for our two extreme traditions — the most ancient Christian and “the new American religion” — to embrace and treasure every other tradition in between.
Comment # 13 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 11, 2007 | Reply
David,
You write:
While it is true to say that the church has a say in determining membership, I’d say you are playing fast and loose with your language, as there are three different classifications you reference: Mormon, LDS, and LDS in good standing. You add another when you talk about temple attendance, as one can be LDS in good standing (free of moral turpitude, etc.,) and still not have a recommend.
As frustrating as it may be for some to accept, the Mormon tent is a big one, and it encompasses many more people than strictly Salt Lake LDS. Further, the statistics cited to show our growth certainly encompass many more than those you seem to narrowly define as part of this religion.
I know that there are those who wish to narrowly define Mormonism. That’s an incredibly difficult thing to do, even only 177 years from its founding. It will only become more so, as the tent will continue to expand and diversify.
Comment # 14 by Rory | Dec 11, 2007 | Reply
Eugene,
You’re absolutely right. I read about how the Russian Orthodox church did its work in Alaska while studying for my dissertation. They were pretty much the only religion to go into a village and actually learn the language, then translate the liturgical materials into that language. Their mission was to empower the natives to deal with the spiritual and economic implications of Russian merchants.
There’s a real difference between religious workers who are there to be with the people, and the ones who are there to change the people (the same can be said of teachers). One Catholic priest was able to help two villages overcome a longstanding feud when he found out that previous missionaries had put a stop to the potlatch tradition (it was pagan, you see). One village had thrown a potlatch for the other, but the other never gave one back because of the influence of the missionaries. This priest helped them reinstitute the potlatch and bring peace back between them.
I think that’s a great example of someone very religious being able to see past religious boundaries to what Christ really taught. Love one another.
Comment # 15 by Stephen Carter | Dec 12, 2007 | Reply
David said:
But, if a member is beating the loud drum of there was no fall and there is no atonement, they will soon find the church does decide who is LDS and who is not.
I reply:
I’m interested David, do you see me as beating that loud drum?
I don’t personally. I think the idea of the fall and atonement as literal events with one interpretation works great for a lot of people, but I personally don’t get much help from interpreting it literally, that feels claustrophobic to me. Metaphorically it holds many possibilities, though.
Maybe it’s kind of like reading a book. There are the literal words, but the interpretation of them (and the many interpretations than can arise) is what feeds my particular soul.
Comment # 16 by Stephen Carter | Dec 12, 2007 | Reply
Stephen:
No, I do not see you “beating a loud drum,” not in the least. And that was not meant as a subtle threat or suggestion. I was only making the point that the Mormon church decides what is Mormon doctrine and what is not. And the Moron church decides who is a member and who is not (responding to Gordon Hill).
Again, we are all working out what we think, believe, and know. Nobody is trying to push anyone out of the church. And I hope you attend church whether you accept Christ now, in the future, or never.
But, if you reject the fall and the redemption, you are rejecting Mormonism. This is my original point. Orthodoxed LDS doctrine is not defined by individuals, or groups, it is defined by those who hold the keys (apostles).
Stephen, you believe what you believe. I hold some beliefs, and beat the drum, on doctrine that many may not think of as orthodoxed (MormonMysticism dot com), but I suspect an apostle would have no problem with the things I have written.
-David
Comment # 17 by David Littlefield | Dec 12, 2007 | Reply
Stephen:
I enjoyed your post very much. I have a similar attitude that you do when it comes to preaching the gospel. I had a wonderful second mission president, to whom I talked with about my concerns (some of these concerns were that I did not agree with the seemingly heavy handed approach and attitude to missionary work that many leaders of the church seemed to advocate. Many of the paragraphs in the manual you quote were of a concern to me. What my mission president said in response to my concerns changed my life and mission (from my journal):
“Our mission is to seek out the elect of God. It is not to try and baptize every stranger we come across. Unfortunately the elect of God do not have the word ‘Elect’ stamped on their forehead. I suggest you continue to have the attitude you do. Talk with the people, get to know them, love them, serve them; and in your travels you will find some of these people to be the Elect of God then by all means baptize them.
For those who you meet that are not baptized or even interested in our message it is fine. There are good people of all philosophies, and God is mindful of all His children. Just trying to be Christlike around everyone in all walks of life will do more for the work than anything else you can do.”
Comment # 18 by Ryan Jentzsch | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
Steven: In my conversation with Fr. John today I took a printout of this blog thread down to your comment #16 and read your and my comments to him before leaving it with him. He was delighted and much interested to know more about Sunstone Mormonism.
Ryan: I found your missionary journal entry remarkable! This seeking out the elect of God was new information to me. This was so despite my having been born and raised in the Mormon Church and having been on two stake missions, including a mission presidency. Would you equate “elect” with “elete”? If not, how would to differentiate these two words?
Comment # 19 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
That’s fascinating, Ryan. My particular mission president came straight from the corporate world and transferred that culture straight to the mission field. As far as I could ever tell, it was all about statistics and growth charts. I’m certain, though, it was quite a sacrifice for him to be a mission president.
I want to know what your definition of elect is in this particular context. If by elect you mean “people who are in a position to benefit greatly in many ways from being a member of the church,” then I would agree with you. However, if you mean, “the best and brightest of God’s children,” then I wouldn’t.
I think the best and brightest need to be spread all over the earth and reside in every faith.
Comment # 20 by Stephen Carter | Dec 14, 2007 | Reply
Eugene: I would agree that the terms ‘elite’ and ‘elect’ are very similar. When my mission president said what he did to me I was very surprised. In the scriptures (particularly in the D&C) it talks about becoming elect; usually after baptism, or more particularly by receiving the priesthood.
I view this similar to how I view the Jews. Are the Israelites the elect of God? Did God not separate them from from other groups and nations and try to raise them up as His peculiar people? Did this not also make them the elite of God as well? I think it does. To me the elect of God are those people who are sincerely seeking God’s will, and are willing to do what God wants of them. The Jews get this as a birthright and by promises God made to His early prophets. Being elect in this way does not mean that the elect of God always followed the prophet, choose the right paths, and have their calling and election made sure. They never the less are still born as the elect of God by lineage or in other words they are still God’s chosen people even when they are disobedient, stone the prophets, etc..
Not everyone is seeking the will of God. Often people in our church think that because people are not Mormon’s they are miserable and unhappy. The fact is that many people are perfectly happy in their own traditions and belief systems; live good lives and may never hear the message of the gospel in their lifetime.
I think my mission president was emphasizing the part of church history where In March of 1839, from the bleak dungeon that was Liberty Jail, the Prophet Joseph Smith counseled the Church, “There are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men … and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it” This is an attitude of both mind and heart that includes a desire to know the truth and a willingness to act on that desire. It is these people of which Joseph Smith spoke that I believe to be the “Elect of God”.
Comment # 21 by Ryan Jentzsch | Dec 15, 2007 | Reply
Stephen: Ironically my mission pres. was a corporate stockbroker big wig. There were plenty of statistics believe you me, but he had such a sincere love and way with people, that even if you didn’t agree with him, you had no choice but to respect him.
It was my objection to the stat-mongering emphasis in the mission that actually led to my discussion that I recorded in my journal. I asked him if he thought my anti-stat views meant that he thought I had a bad attitude toward missionary work and toward how he was running the mission. His response I think was pure inspiration. As to how I look at the meaning of ‘Elect’ I responded to Eugene previously as to my opinion on this.
Thanks again for your thought provoking post.
Comment # 22 by Ryan Jentzsch | Dec 15, 2007 | Reply
Ryan: I want to send you someting to chew on and challenge. Will you tell me your email address?
Comment # 23 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 16, 2007 | Reply
Eugene: I don’t typically post my email address on open forums such as this one. (Too many spam scraper robots out there). However I have set up a temporary email that will auto forward email to my actual email address. This email address will only be active for a few days: Z9eah5BbnRbO2wgL@spambox.us
Comment # 24 by Ryan Jentzsch | Dec 17, 2007 | Reply
Hope it gets to you, Ryan.
Comment # 25 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 17, 2007 | Reply
Thanks Stephen. I see the world largely as you do.
I taught the lesson in high priests last Sunday (unfortunately without having read this blog first). I began by reading a few things from various places that indicate that many people think Mormons are pushy about our religion. Personally, on more than one occasion, when people have learned of my religion, they have hastened to state that they have no interest in converting. I asked the high priests why they thought that among some people, Mormons have a reputation about being pushy on religion.
I also asked whether, in their day to day lives, they thought that hard sells or soft sells were more effective with them. Some, of course, took umbrage at analogizing sharing the gospel to sales. But others understood that hard sell tactics of our religion are often counterproductive–and noted that President Kimball even said that we should back off if people say they are not interested.
I asked what the message was of the “gospel”–faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism, HG, enduring to end. I asked whether JRR Tolkien, a devout Roman Catholic, was “sharing the gospel” when he help in the conversion process of CS Lewis to christianity–even though Lewis became an Anglican. I asked whether Bill W. and Bob S. (and others) were “sharing the gospel” when they helped found Alcoholics Anonymous.
We ran out of time, and did not get to my questions whether in “setting an example” or “letting our light shine”, it is more important to “radiate goodness” or to “radiate Mormon-ness.”
My teaching style is to ask questions, not to answer them. We had quite a lively and interesting discussion, and most of the comments were quite “orthodox.” Fortunately, no one told me I was not Mormon (or Mormon enough) by asking the questions.
Comment # 26 by DavidH | Dec 18, 2007 | Reply
Preach the gospel at all times. And when necessary, use words.
–St. Francis of Assisi
(paraphrased from memory)
If we’d recruit 50K young Mormons to dig wells, build schools, teach English, and plant crops, we’d see more true converts than we’ll ever get from banging on peoples doors at 9 AM on a saturday to tell them about how wrong they are in their convictions.
just $0.02
Comment # 27 by Rick Jepson | Dec 19, 2007 | Reply
AMEN! Rick
Comment # 28 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 19, 2007 | Reply
“If they joined the church and took on our theology and mythology, I’m not sure their worldview would nourish me as much as it does now. So I don’t want to change them. I value my pastor friends’ Lutheranness and my Jewish friend’s Jewishness.”
First, I disagree with your assumption that they would lose some essential Lutheranness or Jewishness upon embracing the restored Gospel. They can bring with them all their culture and all their religious truths that are not in contradiction to known and promulgated gospel laws. They don’t have to give up anything true, benevolent or good, just because it is not part-and-parcel of daily white-bread Mormonism.
Secondly, I would not apologize for your unimposing method of sharing with non-members, because I do the same thing, which my blog documents.
I don’t try to convert people. I just offer them LDS church material (usually a BoM but also Gospel Fundamentals or the JS Testimony pamphlet) in their native language and in English. I offer it as ESL material. I offer it as “something to read in your language” even though it is religious. I offer them the English editions along with their native-language editions so they can either improve English, cross-reference any vocabulary that they don’t already have, or even learn some new religious vocabulary from their native-language that they didn’t know before. The BoM also makes for great bed-time stories for kids in order to keep the native language alive with the next generation, kind of like the Brass Plates.
And usually, more often than not, the Muslims chastise me for being apologetic of the religious aspect!
You’ve discovered one of the coolest ways to share our beliefs, that is by engaging in a non-threatening dialogue.
Now of course, I include pass-along cards and other contact information (web site, mission office number, chapel addresses, sometimes the missionaries’ phone numbers) along with the BoM or Gospel Fundamentals books.
So basically, I’m doing it backwards from conventional Mormon missionary thinking. Conventional missionary thinking is to get someone to investigate the church and then give them the material if they agree to investigate. I do the opposite, I give (offer) the material first, no strings attached, in hopes that the ESL aspect intrigues them to read it, and then hope that after reading it, they will then become an investigator.
The only proselyting words I use are usually “If you’d like to know more, call one of the phone numbers in there, or call me, or go on the web”.
The fact that I offer the material with no strings attached, no committment to hear the missionaries, and not even expecting a committment to read it, is one of the keys for the high rate of acceptance. About 90% of my contacts accept material. And over 1/2 of those accept it eagerly and enthusiastically.
Out of 933 contacts, only one I know of has joined the church, and only a handful have taken any missionary lessons. But hundreds of seeds have been planted, and over 900 households now have a Book of Mormon, a Gospel Fundamentals manual, or a JS Testimony pamphlet, IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE, PLUS in English.
Just the native/foreign language aspect alone is gives a “stickiness” to that material such that most probably won’t throw it out, thereby increasing the chances those seeds will some day sprout.
Comment # 29 by Bookslinger | Dec 22, 2007 | Reply
anon #5:
We will meet up with our neighbors again in the Spirit World, or in the Millennium, sooner or later.
And, sometime at some point, in the Spirit World, or during the Millennium, before the final judgement day, everyone will realize the truth about God and Jesus and the plan of salvation. Everyone has to hear the gospel, and at least acknowledge it as true before that point where “every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess.”
So when we meet our neighbors after their individual “realization points”, they will grab us by our shoulders (either with spirit bodies or with resurrected bodies), and say “Man, why didn’t you TELL me!? You knew! You knew, and you didn’t tell me!?!? How could you keep that information to yourself?!?”
It’s like when your favorite band comes to town, and you bought tickets to the concert, but you don’t tell your best friend about it until after the tickets are sold out, and they say “Dude! Why didn’t you tell me? I thought I was your friend. I would have bought tickets if I had known.”
Comment # 30 by Bookslinger | Dec 22, 2007 | Reply
I think about my mission often. I often realize how much of it was a waste of time. I spent two moths in well to do suburb of Sacramento. I would guess that houses started around 200k at the time and then went up from there. This area had never been very productive. One major obstacle we faced was that few people were home during the weekdays. Many people in that area drove to Saramento and even close to the bay area for work. So we could tract a neighborhood for a couple of hours and talk to maybe three or four people. On the weekends it was not much better. I am convinced that our time would have been better spent doing the kind of service that Rick mentioned.
Since my mission I have learned that before people want to know about your theology, they want to know you care. I was having dinner with someone who said that more people would join the Church if their Mormon neighbors would warm up to them and not force the Church upon them.
my 0.02 on the issue
Comment # 31 by Chris Rusch | Dec 27, 2007 | Reply
I greatly have enjoyed this thread. I am a convert to the church of more than 30 years. Many are those of my extended family who are of different faiths. I served a 2 year mission in my youth. I now live on the southern border of the United States in Texas in the middle of what many would call Catholic country where the Catholic faith is the predominent faith. Having said all of this I offer the following observation. I am reminded of 2 General Conference talks of recent note, both by Elder Ballard. Here is the first Elder Ballard talk:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=596776e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Elder Ballard’s 2nd talk, creating a gospel sharing family is here:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=dfe9e2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
I was deeply touched by these 2 talks and how to be a member missionary, as I believe that is the core of what we are discussing.
dennis
Comment # 32 by dmccrea | Jan 15, 2008 | Reply
Stephen - thank you for this post. I wish that someone with your sensitivity was leading the missionary efforts of the church. I have had the unique opportunity to be on both sides of this issue, having been raised devoutly LDS but now being happily inactive from the church. As a grade schooler I regularly gave BoM’s out to teachers and wore LDS insignia hoping that it would elicit a discussion about my religion. As I got older however, I felt less and less comfortable with the seeming lack of respect that the proscribed conversion tactics held. Now that I do not affiliate with the church, I have the objectivity to see that there are really two camps when it comes to the church’s missionary effort.
The first camp is the one that focuses on conversion at all costs, the other person’s traditions and beliefs be damned. The second camp is the one that focuses on service and fellowship, conversion being a secondary and more natural progression from the primary effort. I have personally seen many examples of both and I feel that the second camp does the church (and the missionary) much more justice than the first with the same number of converts if not more.
To me it boils down to the adage “nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care”. If you show a genuine interest in someone’s life, without ulterior motives attached and they see your Christlike example, they will want to know more about you. However, if you try to cram your view down their throat they are most likely going to distance themselves from you and you will miss the opportunity to nurture a valuable relationship.
Slightly off topic but very related, I really wish the church would instigate an all out, no strings attached neighborhood fellowship effort especially here in Utah. The general feeling among non-members or inactive members is that the only time a Mormon shows any neighborly interest is when they want you to come to church and once you tell them you’re not interested that’s the last you see of them. I feel that it’s time for the church to make service and Christlike love for all mankind a higher priority than roster numbers.
Comment # 33 by Heather Pope | Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
…it’s time for the church to make service and Christlike love for all mankind a higher priority than roster numbers.
Heather, your last name reminds me of the man who set the example you call for. His birth name was Karol, before he chose John Paul as his name for history.
Comment # 34 by Eugene Kovalenko | Feb 1, 2008 | Reply