The Mormons' Challenge

[Shalamar]

Not gonna lie this made me LOL. So you believe that all muslims, jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc are going to be burning in hell for all of eternity for not following Jesus correct? In other words, about 70% of the worlds population?

Technically, Mormons don't believe in a hell. There's several levels of heavens. Unbelievers get the slums.

 

[John Jones]

I am one to be included in the success you refer to Wowbagger... [...]

Fine. You have low standards of proof/conviction. We get that.

 

[John Jones]

Seriously? From context, I would have thought even an average mind would have realised it was intended to be Joseph Smith, [...]

I see. You meant some Smith person other than John Smith. I'm not sure you have an average mind, so I try to ask simple, pertinent questions. "Who?" is an example.

You have now established that you meant Joseph Smith and not John Smith.

Do you have some other, less obvious point?

 

[Chernobyl X1]

What I get from my wife, an ex Mormon, is there technically isn't a hell but 3 degrees of glory. The three degrees of glory is their versions of heaven.

 

[angrysoba]

I see. You meant some Smith person other than John Smith. I'm not sure you have an average mind, so I try to ask simple, pertinent questions. "Who?" is an example.

You have now established that you meant Joseph Smith and not John Smith.

Do you have some other, less obvious point?

You tryin' to be funny, Joseph Jones?

 

[Garrette]

What I get from my wife, an ex Mormon, is there technically isn't a hell but 3 degrees of glory. The three degrees of glory is their versions of heaven.

After the final triumph of Jesus, yes, there are three degrees of glory, and the lowest degree (the Telestial Kingdom) is for those who do not accept Jesus Christ as savior; those people are likened to "they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie," so I stand by my analysis.

Further, there actually is a hell, though it is called the Outer Darkness, which is reserved for the truly wicked, though with my superficial knowledge of Mormonism I cannot tell you how that is defined.

In addition, there is a hell in which the unsaved (including good people who are not LDS baptized) remain until Christ's final victory. It is only at that point when they can move into one of the three kingdoms.

So while the details are different from mainstream Christianity, the broad stroke of condemning those who are not chosen remains accurate.

 

[Pup]

So while the details are different from mainstream Christianity, the broad stroke of condemning those who are not chosen remains accurate.

What does "chosen" mean in this context, though? I thought the Armenian/Mormon view was that a person could make the choice himself through his own free will, and Mormons extend it even further to allow the person to make the choice after death.

 

[Garrette]

What does "chosen" mean in this context, though? I thought the Armenian/Mormon view was that a person could make the choice himself through his own free will, and Mormons extend it even further to allow the person to make the choice after death.

The manner in which I am using it is as an extension of the original "God's Chosen People," i.e., the Jewish people and the tribes of Israel, and how the non-chosen are reliant upon the chosen not only to present the gospels to them but to do so in a manner which is convincing. As I said, my knowledge of Mormonism is superficial (a bit more than the average non-Mormon but nothing near what others here have demonstrated) so I could be wrong.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I am fairly certain that the success rate of converting people with these visits is very low. But, they do it anyway, usually with young members, and usually in pairs. Why is that?

I suspect these visits have more to do with re-affirming the young members' commitment to the church, and it is less about any actual desire to convert people.

Issuing a challenge like this is part of that process. Because, any answer you give: They will most likely reject or wave off. Then that allows them to re-affirm their faith, because you could not beat their challenge.

Any "whoppers" you think you might have, such as the examples in this thread, are NOT likely to work, either. They can wave them off, or get an official answer from the Church that they can accept.

Assuming my hypothesis is true: If you genuinely wish to help them learn something, the best bet is to undermine the re-affirmation process, before it has a chance to happen.

To do that, do NOT answer their challenge directly. Instead, start with the diplomatic approach that I outlined in my previous post, here.

Tell them the challenge is unnecessarily combative. Inform them that both sides could live in peace and harmony, and mutual tolerance for each other. You can respect their faith, as long as they respect your lack of it.

Do NOT try to convince them that Mormonism is "wrong". Focus on positive traits on what you think is a better state of mind. Let the values of your own ideas stand on their own merits, instead of trying to take theirs down.

For example: I would tell them that I found a devotion to empirical results to be more reliable, for my own needs. Appeals to scripture and authority are certainly not going to change that for me. Because, I find value in having authorities challenged on occasion.

But, as long as they remain nice people, they can follow their books as much as they please. The only "wrong" people are the jerks: those who are mean, nasty, and violent towards other people, regardless of whether they are religiously faithful or not.

You could even, gently, inform them that their challenge perhaps inadvertently made them seem like jerks to lots of people. It was NOT their intention to be jerks, for sure, but if they really wish to be pleasant people, they would be better off not trying to spread their ideas to others, in this door-to-door manner.

And, perhaps if they stick around long enough, perhaps you can even go into my hypothesis with them: You could, eventually, tell them that you suspect this challenge isn't really about conversion, but about confirming the faith of the challenger. They probably won't agree, at first. But, if you point out the evidence that makes you suspicious of this, perhaps it will give them a little something to think about. If you do it carefully, enough, anyway.

You might not have beaten their challenge, directly, but you would undermine the whole reason they issued it, in the first place. Which, in my opinion, is an even better victory!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this issue. This seems like the only reasonable response. Anything else is really just playing into their hand.

My only issue is that I have never been approached by either Mormons or JWs. Maybe I'm not home enough, I'm not sure. I did have a client that was JW and he asked if it would be a problem. My response was that I wasn't going to advise him on his religious affairs so I don't see how it should even enter the conversation.

That was in the formation stages of one of my cardinal rules of business: never do business with anyone who mentions their religion in the first meeting. The corollary being: watch your wallet if religion comes up before you know the names of their close relatives.

 

[bruto]

The manner in which I am using it is as an extension of the original "God's Chosen People," i.e., the Jewish people and the tribes of Israel, and how the non-chosen are reliant upon the chosen not only to present the gospels to them but to do so in a manner which is convincing. As I said, my knowledge of Mormonism is superficial (a bit more than the average non-Mormon but nothing near what others here have demonstrated) so I could be wrong.

Like so many words, "choice" is a bit ambiguous. The existence and attributes of any gods are, of course, subject to endless debate, and in one sense everything that involves gods ends up being a moot choice between things inedible for those who reject gods. But on another level, I think there's a definite difference between those who believe God chooses you, and those who believe you choose God. Much blood has been shed over that one.

 

[Garrette]

Like so many words, "choice" is a bit ambiguous. The existence and attributes of any gods are, of course, subject to endless debate, and in one sense everything that involves gods ends up being a moot choice between things inedible for those who reject gods. But on another level, I think there's a definite difference between those who believe God chooses you, and those who believe you choose God. Much blood has been shed over that one.

Undoubtedly, and often within the same religion. One of the many things that boggles me about religion is with those who maintain that God chooses you and yet feel a need to evangelize and to coerce even the non-elect into both their moral framework and their social hierarchy.

 

[Flo]

One of the many things that boggles me about religion is with those who maintain that God chooses you and yet feel a need to evangelize and to coerce even the non-elect into both their moral framework and their social hierarchy.

Nothing surprising at all. Religiion has and will always be used as a justification for imposing one's will on others ("god has chosen me to spread his word").

 

[Cainkane1]

Some young mormons just knocked on my son's door, trying to spread the word.

My son and his housemates are atheists. They scoffed at the mormons' beliefs and told them they are atheists.

The mormons proposed a challenge - they gave my son the Book of Mormon and told him to read it, and the mormons will come back next Sunday and each side will give their best reasons as to why they are right and the others are wrong.

My son asked me for help in finding the best counter-arguments to Mormonism, and the best reasons to be atheist.

Can you help with the counter-arguments? I'm not well-versed in Mormonism.

The book of Mormon has many inaccuracys. Many portions of the book are patently absurd especially when describing the how the native amercans got to america. There are so many things in the BOM that are wrong is laughable. Its a riot actually.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... the non-chosen are reliant upon the chosen not only to present the gospels to them but to do so in a manner which is convincing.

I wonder if the Chosen have their eternity in Superheaven spoiled by feelings of regret, brooding on how many people they just weren't good enough to convince.

 

[Crossbow]

In such instance it is yourself who shows ignorance, bad manners, and who exposes yourself for what you are.

Do not think mere mortals who follow Lucifer can "destroy the beliefs" nor "humiliate" those who are true followers of Jesus Christ. It is not their concern where you spend eternity. It is the elect of God, whose immortal Spirit recognises His message, who the dedicated LDS Missionaries are seeking.

Ummm, ...

I do not know if you have considered this fact or not, but if not:

Are you aware that Jesus and all of the original his followers of Jesus were Jewish?

Therefore, I expect that one would have to be Jewish (among other things) in order to be a true follower of Jesus.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ask the missionaries to sit down and enjoy the Mormon episode of South Park.

 

[Olowkow]

Or, The Book of Mormon Missionary Positions.

Scroll down, or use arrow keys.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I see. You meant some Smith person other than John Smith. I'm not sure you have an average mind, so I try to ask simple, pertinent questions. "Who?" is an example.

You have now established that you meant Joseph Smith and not John Smith.

Do you have some other, less obvious point?

I did indeed mean the obvious Smith person, the Jo.. that wasn't the Jo...hn I mistyped. I had no other point than an answer to your simple question. If you wanted some point, you needed a better question. I'd help you out with suitable examples, but I'm too busy with that life I mentioned.

 

[bruto]

Undoubtedly, and often within the same religion. One of the many things that boggles me about religion is with those who maintain that God chooses you and yet feel a need to evangelize and to coerce even the non-elect into both their moral framework and their social hierarchy.

True enough, if you actually think about it. Hey, wait a minute. Think? Back of the class and stop interrupting.

 

[Pup]

Ummm, ...

I do not know if you have considered this fact or not, but if not:

Are you aware that Jesus and all of the original his followers of Jesus were Jewish?

Therefore, I expect that one would have to be Jewish (among other things) in order to be a true follower of Jesus.

Actually, Janadele would consider us to be gentiles, though she would not consider herself to be a gentile.