Interesting and fun afternoon yesterday

[_moinmoin]

No actually I do not think missionaries ought to be able to handle those kind of conversations. It would be nice if they were so equipped but since most adult life long members cannot handle those conversations, it is unrealistic to expect 18-20 year old kids to do so.

I'm speaking of the ideal, of course. And ideally, the Church/Church members in general can improve in this regard, even if everybody won't be perfect all the time at it.

The problem here is the conversion & maintenance methodology used by the church to get and keep members relies on feelings, not in depth knowledge. Any information provided by the church is very carefully presented to reinforce positive feelings about the church and especially about its leadership.

As a believer, I don't think it's zero sum or that the two are mutually exclusive. That is, it isn't a matter of a) either one relies 100% on feelings, or b) one relies 100% on historical and objective facts. In other words, I really believe that it is possible to encourage people to obtain a spiritual witness, while also knowing and processing "the full picture."

I agree with you that the Church has historically (and is now) trying to present a carefully-cultivated and massaged image, but where this won't do for people (members, investigators, curious or interested people, etc.), the Church must be able to intelligently discuss and make its case even with them. I, for one, have never ceded the field on this, and at least try (or try to try). Not all are interested in doing this (or trying to do this), but I believe that missionaries and members who are interested should be encouraged and enabled to do it.

Now leadership is trying to figure out how to present information that does not lend itself to positive feed back, and they are not doing a good job of that at all.

No argument there. I, for one, think that members who think they can (and know how to) do a better job of it should.

So if you are going to start training missionaries in how to respond to problematic issues, you also need to look at how that affects the whole missionary approach.

Agreed. It would be nice if the Church took a hand in this, but if not, see above.

[_Themis]

Either way, I think it would be a net positive for the missionaries, if it were well done.

I assume by well done you mean in a way that preserves faith in LDS truth claims. Knowing the issues fairly well this can only be done by twisting some facts and avoiding other facts all together. For example the Book of Abraham you would have to avoid presenting facts that Experts, even Mormon ones, agree that the Egyptology translation of the papyri do not translate into a Abraham story. Now the problem is not about what facts you present or avoid, but talking about them at all in a church setting. This communicates to missionaries that it is ok to look into these issues, and some will then do so on there own. I would add that people are not all the same and your more analytical thinkers will not see the facts in the same way as people who live more by feelings/emotions.

[_moinmoin]

I assume by well done you mean in a way that preserves faith in LDS truth claims.

Yeah. Believers and critics have different ideas on what constitutes "well done."

Now the problem is not about what facts you present or avoid, but talking about them at all in a church setting. This communicates to missionaries that it is ok to look into these issues, and some will then do so on there own.

We shouldn't be afraid of that, or act like we're afraid of it. I think the money quote is B.H. Roberts's statement to President Grant in 1922: "I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable . . . and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it." That is a whole lot healthier approach than "Don't look into these things. Just don't."

I think we should be communicating to missionaries that it's okay to look into these issues, and then the Church's role is to provide the best approaches and explanations possible when there are questions or concerns.

I would add that people are not all the same and your more analytical thinkers will not see the facts in the same way as people who live more by feelings/emotions.

Very true. It is also true that people differ in what arguments and evidence appeal to them. I'm no fan of tapirs or Early Modern English, for example.

[_Fence Sitter]

The problem here is the conversion & maintenance methodology used by the church to get and keep members relies on feelings, not in depth knowledge. Any information provided by the church is very carefully presented to reinforce positive feelings about the church and especially about its leadership.

As a believer, I don't think it's zero sum or that the two are mutually exclusive. That is, it isn't a matter of a) either one relies 100% on feelings, or b) one relies 100% on historical and objective facts. In other words, I really believe that it is possible to encourage people to obtain a spiritual witness, while also knowing and processing "the full picture."

Well I didn't say mutually exclusive, I said "in depth" and the example I gave illustrated the problem. We ask people to seek confirmation via spiritual means but only present positive aspects of the side we want them to affirm. We both know how much worse it would turn out for the church if instead of just asking people to pray about the Book of Mormon after reading it, we instead also informed them of a few of its many problems and then asked them to pray about it.

"Mr. Brown,
I want you to read the Book of Mormon every night for a week and I also want you to study about how a 2nd century AD version of the Sermon on the Mount might of found it's way into a book written on the opposite side of earth 200 years before that version was created. Then pray about which side is true"

[_moinmoin]

Well I didn't say mutually exclusive, I said "in depth" and the example I gave illustrated the problem. We ask people to seek confirmation via spiritual means but only present positive aspects of the side we want them to affirm.

I agree that I don't go out of my way to point out problems; I address them as they arise. The opposite is usually true of critics: they don't go out of their way to point out the weakest points in their arguments or the strengths of the believing position (even if what is conceded is that these exist or that some people think that, not that they personally subscribe to it).

Depending on where people are at, sometimes simply empathizing with them goes a long way ("I can see why this bothers you, and I understand where you are coming from"). Everyone's different. Some people can be helped, others can't. It doesn't mean that the effort is wasted.

[_Fence Sitter]

I agree that I don't go out of my way to point out problems; I address them as they arise. The opposite is usually true of critics: they don't go out of their way to point out the weakest points in their arguments or the strengths of the believing position (even if what is conceded is that these exist or that some people think that, not that they personally subscribe to it).

Well now I am a bit confused because we were talking about making sure people were aware of the issues beforehand, but now you seem to be saying that you wait until the issues arise. How can you prevent people from being taken by surprise by issues they don't know about without bringing them up beforehand? Obviously the method the church is using isn't working. A more in depth approach is needed, but if you wait until the problems arise aren't you just doing what the church is doing too?

[_moinmoin]

I agree that I don't go out of my way to point out problems; I address them as they arise. The opposite is usually true of critics: they don't go out of their way to point out the weakest points in their arguments or the strengths of the believing position (even if what is conceded is that these exist or that some people think that, not that they personally subscribe to it).

Well now I am a bit confused because we were talking about making sure people were aware of the issues beforehand, but now you seem to be saying that you wait until the issues arise. How can you prevent people from being taken by surprise by issues they don't know about without bringing them up beforehand? Obviously the method the church is using isn't working. A more in depth approach is needed, but if you wait until the problems arise aren't you just doing what the church is doing too?

With respect to missionaries, and specifically missionary training. We're throwing them into the fray, but we use the same minimalist and simplistic information approach with them that is the fruit of decades of correlation --- and they increasingly run into issues as missionaries (as all of you know). I think their status as missionaries (with the duties and job description) makes them different from rank-and-file members (although it would also be good if regular members weren't ignorant about hot-button issues --- the "usual suspects").

That is a different thing from teaching investigators or members you don't know well cold. Then, I don't come out with guns blazing and throwing out Joseph Smith polygamy, Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, etc. If they have concerns about them, then let's talk about it. That only makes sense, doesn't it?

[_Fence Sitter]

With respect to missionaries, and specifically missionary training. We're throwing them into the fray, but we use the same minimalist and simplistic information approach with them that is the fruit of decades of correlation --- and they increasingly run into issues as missionaries (as all of you know). I think their status as missionaries (with the duties and job description) makes them different from rank-and-file members (although it would also be good if regular members weren't ignorant about hot-button issues --- the "usual suspects").

That is a different thing from teaching investigators or members you don't know well cold. Then, I don't come out with guns blazing and throwing out Joseph Smith polygamy, Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, etc. If they have concerns about them, then let's talk about it. That only makes sense, doesn't it?

Seems to me that everyday members are already in that fray with friends and family who no longer believe.

[_moinmoin]

Seems to me that everyday members are already in that fray with friends and family who no longer believe.

Many, many are not though. Those who are in that fray are usually more open to discussion and learning, because they a) are concerned about their family and friends, and b) want to resolve those concerns for themselves (or at least curious about it). And then, some react by stuffing their fingers in their ears and trying to avoid any discussion. We all know people like that, too.

I am amazed at how many members still, to this day, in the social media and internet age, are very unaware of many of the complicated and messy issues in Mormonism. But missionaries need to be at least peripherally aware of them, in my view, because they are going to encounter them, at least to some extent. This is especially true as the Church tries to have them spend time on devices.

[_Themis]

Yeah. Believers and critics have different ideas on what constitutes "well done."

Perhaps. I would define it as presenting the facts in as neutral form as one can. Not leaving out information because it may not support what one wants to believe.

We shouldn't be afraid of that, or act like we're afraid of it. I think the money quote is B.H. Roberts's statement to President Grant in 1922: "I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable . . . and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it." That is a whole lot healthier approach than "Don't look into these things. Just don't."

I know enough about B.H. Roberts to know it is not clear what he may have believed at the end. I wouldn't worry about a church leader leaving the church. They have been in it too long, and too much to lose, even though they may secretly not believe as Ferguson did. Young people are a different story. Particular single young people.

I think we should be communicating to missionaries that it's okay to look into these issues, and then the Church's role is to provide the best approaches and explanations possible when there are questions or concerns.

It took many years after my mission before I actually started to look. If the church had communicated it was okay to look into these issues, rather then telling us to avoid them, I would have on my mission learning then that the church is certainly not true. There was not near the information available like today, but it did exist. While I think communicating it is okay to look is a great idea, I also know what the result will be for many missionaries.

Very true. It is also true that people differ in what arguments and evidence appeal to them. I'm no fan of tapirs or Early Modern English, for example.

The point is I don't think you understand how the more analytical think or how they will interpret evidence. Much of the evidence has clear interpretations and one needs to be very biased to interpret it other ways. Feelings and emotions really help one be very biased to maintain beliefs, but many missionaries rely less on what they think from their feelings and emotions.