Conference tecrus::mormonism

    I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.  Is it that you feel
    that Mormons do not believe in the Bible, that they rebuke those who do
    not understand how Mormons use and believe that both the Bible and the 
    Book of Mormon are Scripture, that Mormons protect themselves by being
    silent, and that Mormons are not Christian?
    
    Steve

    Mormons have historically used silence to protect and reinforce their
    position on controversial subjects.  Mormons are just a much christian
    as any other Bible thumper.  The thing, I don't understand is why
    Mormons are still abashing.  The GAs continually discouage this
    practice.  No friends are made in the bashing and no points are ever
    won.  I just turns in to a rock throwing event.  It is no way to
    promote harmony amoung humanity.
    
    harold

    So, I think what you are saying is that Mormons are Bible bashing.  Is 
    this that they are bashing with fellow Christians about the Bible?  Is it 
    that they should not be be proselyting, or is it that they are proselyting
    in a manner that is offensive or hypocritical?  (Sort of the mote in
    the eye thing?)  BTW, what I'm basically trying to do here is to narrow 
    down the discussion to something that I can understand because I'm not
    sure what experiences you are having or what it is that is prompting
    this discussion.  You do mention "bashing" in these notes.  It might be
    helpful if you provided specific references and commentary as a basis
    for discussion.  Thanks!
    
    Steve

Hi Harold,

re .2

>    The thing, I don't understand is why
>    Mormons are still abashing.  The GAs continually discouage this
>    practice.  No friends are made in the bashing and no points are ever
>    won.  I just turns in to a rock throwing event.  It is no way to
>    promote harmony amoung humanity.
    
I'm not sure what you mean by "bashing", but I'm guessing you are referring
to the many discussions in this conference in which we have discussed (and in
some cases argued) religious topics.  Are we "winning points" with anyone?  I
don't know, and I doubt any individual noter knows.  In the 3 1/2 years that
this conference has existed, there have only been a dozen or so non-LDS who
have posted  their comments.  I doubt that "points" have been "won" with
them, because their comments indicate that they already had their minds made
up.  However, during that same time period, several hundred persons have
visited the conference and browsed through the notes.  I believe the importance
of this conference is not with the few vocal LDS/non-LDS but with the many
who say nothing but read much.  As we post our remarks, we need to remember
that we are not really speaking to the person to whom we are replying but are
speaking to the many who read but do not speak.

Who is to say whether "points" are being "won" with the hundreds of quiet
members of the conference?  Perhaps some of them are having their faith
shaken by anti-Mormon literature given to them by friends and family.  Perhaps
some of them are sincerely taking a look at the Mormons, desiring a true
picture of what we are like rather than the usual sanitized and ideal 
picture we like to portray.  Perhaps some of them are having temptations that
are difficult to resist and are looking to the conference for help.  Perhaps
some of them have been away from the Church for many years and wish to take
a new look at the Church in a way that allows them to remain anonymous.
We don't know who the readers of this conference are.  We don't know their
strengths and weaknesses.  We don't know their needs.

One of the conference guidelines in note 1 is that we should not be
contentious in our remarks.  As a general statement, I think we have been
successful in that goal.  As moderator, I have allowed criticism of the
Church and its policies and doctrine, because open speech is part of the
DEC culture and part of VAXconferences; I have not allowed criticism of
individual DEC employees, because such criticism is not part of DEC nor
part of general Church membership.  

I think that criticism of Church doctrine and practices can be made in
non-contentious ways, and to many LDS the freedom to voice such criticism is
an important need.  To others, such criticism is abominable and they want
no part of it.  The beauty of VAXconferences is that they allow one to pick
and choose via the NEXT UNSEEN key.

I think that the greatest value of this conference is that it has allowed open
and objective discussions of the Mormon church.  Both sides have been brought
out.  Both the strengths and weaknesses of the Mormon church have been
discussed.  Many of us would like to limit our public statements about the
Church to the "ideal" and "perfect" image that we keep in our minds, but
non-LDS who hear us preach that ideal vision quickly see through our facade
and realize that we are not being honest with them.  I think it is far better
for us to present an honest picture of Mormonism to the world, because as
soon as non-LDS become involved with the Church they will pickup the truth
about us from our lives.

Concerning remaining quiet in the face of criticism.  It is true that many
LDS refuse to discuss contentious topics, believing that their refusal to
discuss will protect them and protect the Church.  We need to remember,
however, that Mormons can be quiet for two reasons: (a) they want to avoid
contention, and (b) they don't have answers to the criticism.  If we choose
to remain quiet in the face of criticism, I think we need to honestly
understand why we are doing so.  If it is because we don't have answers, then
we are on dangerous ground, and we had better do some study and talking with
persons who have answers.  Ignorance is a fertile ground for one to lose his
or her testimony.  I believe that a far better way to respond to criticism is to
discuss the criticism in a non-contentious and object way so both sides are
presented and then withdraw from the discussion before contention sets in.
If we remain quiet, we send a hidden message that we don't have answers, and
we allow only one side to be given to the public sector.

Allen

    Thanks for your comments Harold, I too did not really understand
    what you were attempting to tell us.  I sure hope however that none
    of us have intentionally offended you in anyway, as that isn't our
    "normal" behavior.
    
    In response to one of your questions in regards to whether or not
    we answer critism, I do agree with Allen, but would also like to add,
    that our purpose is not to convince anyone whether we are right or
    wrong, and we purposefully "CHOOSE" not to answer to things that
    are sometimes "thrown" at us in the hopes of making us "trip"
    over our own words.  We are not perfect and do not claim to be,
    but we are trying to be honest and faithfull to the teachings that
    are dear to us.  Of course we have a lot of room for improvement
    in various areas.  Our Church does advise against confrontations,
    as the outcome is generally negative for all involved.  We would rather
    build love and understanding than walls of contentions ...but some of
    us do like a good and animated discussion at times, as long as we all
    respect our differences  (as Digital stresses ..."Valuing differences
    ")
    
    Have a nice day !
    Your sister in the Gospel
    Mathilde
    

    I don't have my scriptures handy, but does it say something in Section
    77 of the Doctrine and Covenants about confronting enemies of the
    church?  I'll look it up tonight.
    
    If it does, then how does that fit in with what we are counseled to do?
    
    IMHO, people who attack the church do not attack us with anything new. 
    Most arguments that are presented against the church have already been
    brought up by someone else earlier.  Some people write books and
    articles addressing the things that people bring up when arguing about
    the church doctrine as taught in the church vs. as taught in the
    scriptures.
    
    scott

    I think you might be referring to D&C 66:7 or maybe D&C 68:1.  In each
    of these scriptures, there is commandment for a missionary to reason
    with people.  There is also command to expound upon the scriptures.
    I note that "reasoning" is encouraged, while "contention" is not.
    
    What's the difference?
    
    I suppose that the difference between "reasoning" and "contention" has
    to do with whether or not love is felt and exercised by at least one of the
    participants.  This reminds me of Luke 24:15-32.  It was obvious that in 
    this situation there were several "shaking up" type of questions, responses
    and maybe even little insults exchanged (verses 18 and 25).  But, the 
    spirit of the discussion was one of peace and "burning of the bosom" 
    (verse 32).  This was in spite of remarks on both sides where offense 
    could have been taken.  I suspect that Christ felt constant love for
    the two brethren and threw out an insult in verse 25 for "shock value".  
    The insult thrown out in verse 18 was probably done as an expression of 
    pain, ironically out of pain in the loss of Christ.
    
    The spirit of contention is probably evident when there is no love felt
    on either side of a discussion.  Offenses are easily taken.  Attacks are 
    easily provoked.  Learning is a pretty much a lost cause.  As a
    missionary, I was keen on making sure that I felt love for the person
    that answered the door I was knocking on.  I was yelled at and
    physically thrown out.  Dusted myself off and laughed it off,
    reassuring myself that they didn't really have anything against me
    personally (they didn't know me personally, obviously) and just weren't 
    ready to hear yet.  (Similarly, I realized that those who accepted the
    Gospel and expressed love toward me, a stranger, were really
    expressing the love that they have for the Lord whom I represented and
    which love I shared.)
    
    Hey, I've been offended by things written against the Church and
    against the Lord.  That's a natural response.  It's also a response
    that I have duty to replace with love.  We're talking real love.  Not
    lip service or some sugar coating for hate or hypocrisy.  None of this
    mote in the eye stuff.  
    
    For what it's worth, I define "love" as an attitude of looking for and 
    appreciating good.  It is a decision and not something that magically 
    happens.  "Hate" is the decision to look for and reject the bad.  No magic 
    to that either.  Contention can happen when both parties decide to hate 
    during a debate.  Reasoning can happen when at least one party decides to 
    love during a debate.
    
    Steve

    Wrong section and verses.
    
    I was referring to section 71 verse 7 where Joseph Smith and Sidney
    Rigdon were told to go confront the enemies of the church in public and
    private.  It further goes on to say that there is no weapon that will
    prevail against the Lord and that the Lord will confound them in due
    time.  
    
    So with this in mind, do we ignore it and say it only applies to the
    specifically named individuals or can we continue on in this tradition?
    
    I don't know how much good it would do to continue on in this
    tradition.  There are other, better methods to learn and discuss the
    doctrines of the church.  It probably depends on the reason and needs
    of the discussion.  It also depends on who is involved and why it is
    taking place.
    
    scott
    
    

    Let's see.  D&C 71:7+          
    
    	"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you
    	both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful
    	their shame shall be made manifest.
    
    	Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against
    	the Lord.
    
    	Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you - there is no weapon that
    	is formed against you shall prosper;
    
    	And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded
    	in mine own due time."
    
    I note that in these verses the basic message is that they should
    proclaim the Gospel and invite reasoning and discussion.  It is pointed
    out that those who are "enemies" will be confounded if the mission is
    done in faith.  But, it is also indicated that this confounding will
    take place in the Lord's "own due time".  
    
    As for me, when I see phrases like "mine own due time" I often expect to 
    wait on the order of generations.  I don't expect that a faithful
    presentation of the Gospel will usually lead to "on the spot" confounding.
    There are rare occasions when this can happen.  (Zeezrom comes to
    mind.)  
    
    I expect also that this reference to "enemies" is a bit unique because
    the Gospel was actually rather well-received.  Enough so that "enemies"
    arose and sometimes attacked the Church in private, often by spreading
    disinformation.  One way to address this is to confront "enemies"
    directly and try to "reason", even when fearful of "strong reasons".
    That is, these guys were going to be confronted by "enemies" who were
    probably wiser and more eloquent.  
    
    Now, for our day, I think that there are still "enemies" with "strong 
    reasons" that should be invited to meet in public and private.
    According to the Scriptures, if the proper conditions are met they will 
    be confounded, but in the Lord's own time.  Our experience is
    that it can be a long time for this to happen.  But, it needs to
    happen if everyone is to hear the Gospel and not just shut it out
    because of "strong reasons" promulgated by "enemies".  
    
    Reasoning in faith and with a "portion of Spirit and power" (verse 1) are 
    some of the proper conditions for success.  The Lord says that the spirit 
    of contention is not of the Lord (3 Nephi 11:28).  So, it appears to me 
    that in order to be successful, the presenters of the Gospel cannot have 
    the spirit of contention with them as they reason.
    
    
    Steve                                      

I had the opportunity Sunday evening to visit in an informal way with a member
of my Stake Presidency.  He related his conversion to the Church.  His wife
was a member, and he had no interest in religion.  When his kids became teens,
one of them began to stray from family standards; he was busy pursuing his
career and spent little time with his children.  He realized his family was
being destroyed, and he decided to attend church with his family as an
attempt to keep the family together.  He eventually agreed to meet with the
Missionaries, but his goal was to prove the Church wrong.  He really gave
the Elders a rough time.  Fortunately, he became sensitive to the Spirit, and
he gained a testimony and joined the Church.

Years later, he was remorseful about taking so long (15 years of marriage) to
become a member, and he prayed about it.  The Lord revealed to him that he
came into the Church right on the Lord's schedule for him, that he needed the
15 years to prepare.  The point that he made in the conversation last Sunday
was that all of the times when he criticized the Church and "fought" with the
missionaries, he was being prepared to accept the truth.

I think that if we discuss our religious beliefs with others in a sincere way
and without contention, we will be helping those persons prepare to receive
the Gospel.  From this viewpoint, it appears that we can say we are gaining
"points" in our conversations even though it might appear that the others
have closed minds.  The key is to avoid contention and have the Spirit of
the Lord with us.

Each of us needs to develop his or her own style of discussion without
contention.  My way is to express my beliefs in a clear, logical, consistent
way, and to answer questions the best I can.  When I feel my beliefs have
been sufficiently given, I withdraw from the conversation.  Thus, my purpose
is not to convince the other but to express my beliefs and allow the other
to listen or not as he or she might decide.

Allen