The Problem With Missionaries

[Sola'lor]

Why would God want to use telepathy?

 

[ChristineES]

I don't have any problem with missionaries. I am not planning on switching from Baptist to LDS at all but I see no problem with them going out. I am more uncomfortable with Jehovah's Witnesses, although I can't really say why. I don't see them as being dangerous, as most of them are very kind people. The ones that vandalized a Church are certainly not of the norm. Missionaries of any sort are not supposed to harm anyone according to the what the Bible says.
The thing is that Jesus ordered his disciples to preach the gospel. I don't see it as dangerous, if you don't want to hear it all you have to do is say so and they will go- That has been my experience.

 

[Storm]

Why would God want to use telepathy?

Effectiveness, maybe?

 

[Sola'lor]

Effectiveness, maybe?

What would you define as effectivness, in the context of our discussion?

 

[Storm]

What would you define as effectivness, in the context of our discussion?

Ease and success rate of conversion.

 

[ChristineES]

Someone can talk to me until they are blue and I still wouldn't not convert. It takes more than just a couple of people to convince me of anything. If I was easily converted (that wouldn't be the word, but...) I would be agnostic right now instead of a theist, or some other faith other than Christianity (I am not accusing anyone of trying to convert me to another religion)

 

[Smoke]

The behavior of these Mormon missionaries is not typical, nor is it excusable.

No, it's an extreme example of behavior I described as "remarkably common," not as "typical."

I believe this deeply concerns church leaders and they try, usually wih success, to teach respect for all faiths.

What they try to teach -- with obviously limited success -- is feigned respect; that is, they try to teach the missionaries not to break the law or do anything that will, as in this instance, bring bad publicity on the church. Genuine respect for all faiths is incompatible with the idea that it's God's will for you to lead people away from those faiths to the one, true faith.

 

[Sola'lor]

Ease and success rate of conversion.

So you're saying God would want lots of people to be easily coverted?

 

[M O N S T E R]

Why would God want to use telepathy?

Why would an omnimax, perfect God want to use fallible humans?

Obviously, false religions by necessity have to start in one place. A true religion could easily start with miracles being simultaneously performed all over the world since that would be easy for a God to accomplish, and much more convincing than a religion that started in one place. If the God of the Bible exists, it is quite odd that he mimicked the way that Christianity would had to have started and spread if he did not exist.

No one who died in China one year after the supposed resurrection of Jesus had heard the Gospel message. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explain why, and why no one has ever heard the Gospel message unless another human told them about it, at least as far as we know.

If some conservative Christians bring up the issue of faith, I will tell them the following:

Deists and liberal Christians have faith too.

If God prefers faith to providing tangible, firsthand evidence, then we need some explanations for the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

And here is another Scripture that shows that many people were very impressed with the miracles that Jesus performed:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples went about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. That is quite odd if Jesus had already performed many miracles, and had been seen by hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and if the Holy Spirit had come to the church. Why were even more confirmations needed? We need tangible, firsthand confirmations much more today than people did back then because there aren't any still living eyewitnesses around like there supposedly were back then. Why would Jesus say "O ye of little faith" and then give in to some stubborn skeptics who demanded tangible, firsthand evidence? Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

If a God exists, and he wants people to have faith, he could easily directly communicate with everyone in the world without the use of written texts, whether tangibly, spiritually, or both. That would be much more effective than using written texts.

If God wanted to spread news about Jesus all over the world, why didn't he want to spread news about himself all over the world during Old Testament times? The correct answer is that the God of the Bible does not exist, and the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people.

 

[Smoke]

I kmnow I've said some things that may have lead you to this conclusion.

Not really; as I said, I've been reading comments elsewhere, too. The most telling thing you said was recalling your annoyance at lifelong Catholics who weren't interested in having a nineteen-year-old stranger tell them why his religion is better than theirs.

 

[Storm]

So you're saying God would want lots of people to be easily coverted?

Personally, I don't think God cares what anyone believes. You do.

If He doesn't want people to be converted, why have missionaries in the first place? If He does want people to be converted, He can do it Himself.

 

[Smoke]

Evangelical religions are inherently dangerous. MOre cultures have been destroyed by mission work than any war. People should not proselytyze their religion.

How are we supposed to spead the gospel then?

Well, that's one of the points I'm trying to make. You can't fix this. The arrogance of proselytizing missions is built in to the religions who send them out, all of them. My comments are not intended to refer to the LDS Church alone.

 

[Kungfuzed]

How are we supposed to spead the gospel then?

I think the LDS church has some of the best ads on TV. The church has yet to scratch the surface of what it could accomplish on the web.

 

[Yeshua_Lives]

The recent scandal of three Mormon missionaries being revealed as having vandalized and desecrated a Catholic shrine has brought a lot of issues to the fore.

Is it true that the Mormon church was founded by "Prophet" Joseph Smith who proclaimed to be the second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' ??

 

[Smoke]

Midnight, your analysis leaves out a crucial fact: The LDS Church did apologize.

They have apologized for a single incident that has garnered unfavorable news coverage. They haven't apologized, nor can they apologize, for the attitudes that inevitably lead to such excesses.

As you said, there are bad apples in every religion. Judging the whole from these few is a form of stereotyping. I think you'll agree I was one of the Mormons who was most outspoken against the fools in Colorado.

Your response was one of those I referred to as commendable. However, I can't stress strongly enough that this is not just about the LDS Church. To read the OP as an attack on Mormonism is to miss the point; my comments were intended to apply to all proselytizing missions operated by any church or religion.

Our late prophet, President Hinckley, said we offer something we think will make bad people good and good people better. If it's not for them, so be it. He emphasized that we should be respectful of others beliefs. How is this destructive? I believe he was bringing forth a new era of tolerance within the church.

As a gay man who is well aware of President Hinckley's efforts regarding the LGBT community, I have a lot of trouble seeing him as someone who was trying to bring forth a new era of tolerance.

 

[Sola'lor]

Not really; as I said, I've been reading comments elsewhere, too. The most telling thing you said was recalling your annoyance at lifelong Catholics who weren't interested in having a nineteen-year-old stranger tell them why his religion is better than theirs.

Yeah that's one of the things I probably should have worded better.

Personally, I don't think God cares what anyone believes. You do.

If He doesn't want people to be converted, why have missionaries in the first place? If He does want people to be converted, He can do it Himself.

I believe God wants people to believe in Him. But I also believe that God wants us to believe in Him through faith. I believe this life is a trial that the goal is to obey God in all things even if there isn't any supporting evidence in front of our faces. To me the idea that God would coerce people to believe in Him, by using some form of irrefutable evidence, goes against what I believe God's plan for us is.

Yes there are miracles, but the purpose of miracles isn't to prove to those who don't believe but to support the beliefs of those who already believe.

I think the LDS church has some of the best ads on TV. The church has yet to scratch the surface of what it could accomplish on the web.

Hahahah! E-missionaries. Your are called to serve in the Internet Mission. Missionaries going around to various chat rooms and teaching lessons.

Is it true that the Mormon church was founded by "Prophet" Joseph Smith who proclaimed to be the second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' ??

I've never heard that before.

 

[Smoke]

On the one hand, I think it comes out of a genuine desire to help. I know that if I found a house on fire, I'd do everything I could to get the family inside out, even if they objected to being pulled out into the cold in the middle of the night. I realize that many missionaries consider me to be in just as much peril as the members of that family, and I have a measure of sympathy for the position that they feel they're in.

I think a better comparison would be trying to pull people out of their house against their will because you believe their house to be haunted. Any family whose house was on fire would be glad of the help once they saw the flames and smoke, but not just anybody is prepared to believe your claims of ghostly peril.

 

[Smoke]

Is it true that the Mormon church was founded by "Prophet" Joseph Smith who proclaimed to be the second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' ??

I wouldn't like for this thread to turn into an attack thread on Joseph Smith. I was hoping to draw some attention to the problem of proselytism in general, whether by Mormons or anyone else.

 

[nutshell]

No, it's an extreme example of behavior I described as "remarkably common," not as "typical."

And therein lies your error as it is not "remarkably common."

 

[Sola'lor]

I think a better comparison would be trying to pull people out of their house against their will because you believe their house to be haunted. Any family whose house was on fire would be glad of the help once they saw the flames and smoke, but not just anybody is prepared to believe your claims of ghostly peril.

Actually a better comparison, for LDs anyway, would be going to a house and telling people that they could be living in a much bigger, fully furnished, already paid off, beautiful, house that doesn't need cleaning; instead of living in a house with parts missing. Theres no pulling or forcing but telling them about the other house. If they want to move to the new house they can. If not then they are left in their incomplete house.