Hi all,

It's been a while, so the background to this is found in the following threads:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,599508,599508#msg-599508

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,603557,603557#msg-603557

As before, I've waited a bit before posting this, in the interests of personal security.

So, 3rd visit with Sisters A & B was slighty different.

I'd taken the time to look up various damaging quotes from the BoM, D&C and the PoGP.

I then asked the sisters to explain where the D&C & PoGP stand in the Morg. They explained that these were scripture, and when I pressed, acknowledged them as equal to the Bible and BoM. I then asked how come they were willing to leave me a copy of the BoM, but never mentioned the other two, if they were indeed part of their religious canon? They trotted out the "milk before meat" argument.

My wife, who's had far less exposure to Mo'ism than I have, told them that this was like asking someone to buy something without full information, at which Sister A (who seems to be the senior missionary - I've never asked) backtracked a little, saying we would have been told about them. She also tried to turn around my explanation that I'd found D&C and PoGP on lds.org, saying - "well, it's on the website, and you found it, so it's all okay." No, it isn't, sister.

After going around for sometime, we found ourselves talking about how the LDS are the authentic, restored, primitive church. So I made them explain the different priesthoods, and challenged them with how the lds church uses the titles differently to what the bible says - for instance, I asked how boys could be deacons when 1 Timothy 3 clearly refers to married men (and women) in the position.

We went on in this fashion through the rest, and I'm afraid I did laugh loudly when they told me that if I joined up, part of the process would have me ordained into the Aaronic priesthood. I pointed out that the Aaronic priesthood is reserved for Levites of Aaron's line, and I'm not Jewish, let alone a member of that distinguished house, so it's impossible for me to authentically possess this office (I wonder what would happen if a Mo told a Jew that he held the Aaronic priesthood?)

I believe my most common statement during this part of the conversation was something along the lines of "Once again, you're saying this proves you're the restored church, and yet this [inconsistency we've just discussed] shows that you don't actually follow the practices of the primitive church Jesus established."

Then came the moment where I think I'm beginning to see how they intepret the world through a very different lens than what I do.

At one point, Sister A changed the subject after we'd pointed out another hole in their argument by asking me "If the [lds] church could be proved true, wouldn't you want to be a part of it?" I said that I would (because I'd previously told them that I would look at any issue in pursuit of truth). I also reinforced my point by reminding them that if it could be proved that my position on any issue was wrong, I would have no hesitation switching over.

I think they interpreted this as meaning I was actually open to the possibility that Mo'ism is true, ignoring all the times that night I'd told them of yet another hole I'd found in the church theology or practices.

The next thing I know, they're asking me if I wanted to come down to their chapel and watch the upcoming General Conference (the one just gone)!

Fortunately, I was able to simply pass over my tablet and show them how crammed our family calendar already was for September and October.

Afterward, my wife's comment on this invitation was along the lines of "Did they not hear anything we said for the past two hours?"

Our discussions were cut off around 2130 because apparently the good sisters had a curfew. There's a lot I didn't have a chance to get to, including everything I'd dug up on the PoGP.

My wife, who's far more perceptive than me, also said that she thinks that we're making Sister B think. It's true that she's said less and less each time we've met, and my wife thinks it's because we're asking them questions she's probably never asked herself.

Anyways, we'll see what happens next time.

Condorstrikes.

My discussions with the sister missionaries went very much the same way as yours (I'm a nevermo). :o) My misshies actually were surprised and almost looked alarmed when I asked them about PoGP and D&C during our 4th discussion. Dunno why, I had gone to church with them the week before and the testimony givers were only quoting from those books rather than the bible or the BoM during their time on the pulpit. The sisters clearly never meant to tell me about those books!

And, of course, they also acted as if 'I would be baptized if I found the BoM to be true' is the same as me saying that 'I will be baptized'. Period. Never mind the 'if I found the BoM to be true' part... Then when I wouldn't agree to baptize when the set dates came around they were flummoxed and disappointed, generally acting like I had negated on an unconditional positive promise. All the 'milk before meat' and the 'you gain testimony by giving it' fall back modus operandi thingy drove me absolutely nuts. I couldn't understand why so pious a bunch of girls couldn't see just how morally and ethically corrupted both notions are.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2012 07:29PM by smorg.

Hi Smorg,

your second paragraph highlights one of the things I didn't get to with "my" mishies. It's especially interesting in the light of the small-talk we've made with them during our dinners, where they've proven to be smart and logical thinkers on other subjects.

Also, I'm both heartened and horrified to see that both our pairs of missionaries seem to hear what they want to hear re: baptism.

All this reeks of CULT, as if I needed further proof.

Condorstrikes

Hi Condorstrikes,

I had discussions with 3 different pairs of sister missionaries last year and most of them were like that (totally bought into the superficial "it's all rosy and if it doesn't feel like it then I'm doing something wrong (because the church can never be wrong)" cult mentality. There was one gal that was prone to wavering when presented with sound logical points that don't support church thinking, but she was spending 24/7 with a TBM companion, so the pre-programmed rationalizing won out by the next discussion. I was rather vexed by one sister who supposedly was studying for a college chemistry degree but displayed zero ability to think objectively or critically about all the bs she was trying to sell me (I have a college science degree, and so was expecting better!). I guess it didn't help that she was the only convert among the 6 sisters I had discussions with... It seems converts try extra hard to justify the unjustifiable sides of their religion.

Anyhow... I think what you are doing is a sort of community service, though a rather delicate one. I would have liked to help the sisters I talked to to escape from this moral corrupting cult they're caught in, but their mission would be so much more difficult for it. I hope they remember some of our talks and the questions they couldn't honestly answer... and perhaps that'll help them think their way out of this bad fix after their mission... But it's a hard road for them since all but the lone convert sister were born in covenant (so all their social connection and support are mired in tscc). I almost wished I had discussions with elders instead of sisters. Boys aren't as attached to their comfort zone as girls are, I think. :oP

Good luck with your future discussions! And remember... don't get attached to those nice sisters! :o)

Hey Smorg,

Thank you for your kind words.

I don't expect to see these two ladies send off resignation letters to cult HQ as a result of our talks, but like you, I hope what I say helps them think their way out eventually. If that happens, it'll be enough for me.

As for getting attached - not a chance! My wife would have something to say about that! :-)


Condorstrikes

smorg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And, of course, they also acted as if 'I would be
> baptized if I found the BoM to be true' is the
> same as me saying that 'I will be baptized'.
> Period. Never mind the 'if I found the BoM to be
> true' part... Then when I wouldn't agree to
> baptize when the set dates came around they were
> flummoxed and disappointed, generally acting like
> I had negated on an unconditional positive
> promise. All the 'milk before meat' and the 'you
> gain testimony by giving it' fall back modus
> operandi thingy drove me absolutely nuts. I
> couldn't understand why so pious a bunch of girls
> couldn't see just how morally and ethically
> corrupted both notions are.

In salesmanship, this is called "assuming the sale." You couch your sales pitch as if they have already agreed to buy what you are selling. You make a lot of carefully-phrased conditional points and have the mark agree with them, then you act like they've agreed to buy.

Then in order NOT to buy they have to disappoint you, hurt your feelings and when, as far as they know, it was THEM who, by their answers lead YOU along. You're right it's unethical but common.

It's no minor point that the Missionary discussions were heavily influenced by salesmanship ideas from the 40s and 50s.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2012 12:53AM by baura.

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In salesmanship, this is called "assuming the
> sale." You couch your sales pitch as if they have
> already agreed to buy what you are selling. You
> make a lot of carefully-phrased conditional points
> and have the mark agree with them, then you act
> like they've agreed to buy.
>
> Then in order NOT to buy they have to disappoint
> you, hurt your feelings and when, as far as they
> know, it was THEM who, by their answers lead YOU
> along. You're right it's unethical but common.
>
> It's no minor point that the Missionary
> discussions were heavily influenced by
> salesmanship ideas from the 40s and 50s.

Hey Baura,

Thanks for the reminder. Years ago when I held a sales job, this approach (it was described to us by a different name) was one we were warned not to use as it had been proven to lead to an unacceptably high amount of returns, and damage customer relationships - specifically, our chances of securing repeat orders.

Everything about the missionaries approach is highly manipulative.

Condorstrikes

If you know the approach then you can sit back and watch it unfold. All you have to do is say "no" at the end.

I did this once with a pushy insurance salesman who cold-called me at work. I answered every one of his carefully worded questions making a note of EXACTLY what he said. He sat there and wrote up my order then handed it to me to sign. I simply smiled and said, "no thank you."

I still remember his pained expression to this day.

I found it!

I remember my Dad had a copy of this book on the book shelf at home when I was a kid.

From 1948. I think this book was very influential in the creation of the famous "discussions" that ruled the Missionary world for decades.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Some_suggestions_for_Latter_day_Saint_mi.html?id=6SNOAAAAYAAJ

Thanks Baura,

I'll take a look at it when I have a chance.

Condorstrikes

Hey Baura,

Indeed! The icky thing is that it's easy for me to dismiss or play the salesmen since we both know that they're just doing their job in trying to sell their product. With the missionaries I have to feel a bit sorry for them. They actually believe they're doing me the favor in trying to sell me their church... and they refuse to even entertain the idea that what their church is offering me is actually slavery rather than freedom. :oP I'm not as lenient with the old couple missionaries, but the young ones... most of them actually don't know better.

Bravo!

I love your approach. You are basically doing reverse missionary work by allowing them to make their case and then refuting it.

Hey Archytas,

Thank you, but I can't take credit for inventing the methodology. Many veterans of this group have consistently stated that the most damning anti-mormon material is to be found in official lds sources, and they're right.

All I'm really doing is pointing out where their stance is either inconsistently represented in their scriptures (such as differing prophecies on where Jesus is to be born - bad for the notion that the BoM is "the most correct book"), or where their practices contradict mainstream Christianity (since they claim to be Christian).

Essentially, I'm finding that their arguments refute themselves if you cut through the appeals to emotional response.

Condorstrikes

I also love bringing up the existence of female deacons in the ancient world!

Btw, what did they say to that?

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also love bringing up the existence of female
> deacons in the ancient world!
>
> Btw, what did they say to that?


Hey Archytas,

I honestly don't remember what their reply was. As I mentioned at the top of the thread, I wait quite a while before posting these accounts as a security measure, and many details have fallen out of my head between then and now.

Condorstrikes

I admire that you're able to do this, wherever the credit may lie for the approach you're taking. I definitely couldn't pull it off. I'll be eager to see your next post.

Thanks for this series, condor! I've really appreciated it.

As for "milk before meat"...Grocers don't require you to buy them both at the same time. Also, buying a bottle of milk doesn't obligate you (under penalty of death) to get all your food from them for the rest of your life.

Hey Exdrymo,

You're welcome.

What I've appreciated in all this is the insights and help I've received from the veterans of this board. Could not have done this without all you guys.

Condorstrikes.

I'm surprised at least one of them hasn't been transferred by now.

bc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm surprised at least one of them hasn't been
> transferred by now.


Hey Bc,

can you elaborate on your statement? Why would one of them potentially have been transferred?

Condorstrikes

I think the missionaries don't usually get to stay in the same area (and in the same companionship) for more than 2 transfers (and a transfer is usually 6 weeks long). So... you probably should expect the pair you're talking to to be broken up pretty soon (one old sister will turn up with a new companion... then after a while she's gone, too, with another new one turning up in her place).

There are exceptions, tho. I know of a sister missionary here in town who's been in the same area for 6 months, 4 of them with the same companion, but that's unusual, I think.

It's one of the things that ticked me off with the Mormon missionary program (but probably is effective for them in terms of keeping their sales teams fresh and motivated). Just as I'm starting to get somewhere with a misshie (we start to talk more openly and not just confined to church stuff), she'd go poof and I have to start over with a new one. :oP I imagine it's hard for the misshies, too. I guess the frequent transferring was designed just for the purpose of keeping missionaries from getting too comfy and losing effectiveness as salespersons.

On my mission the average missionary stayed in one area for an average of 3-4 months. The longest I ever stayed anywhere was 5 months

The longest time I was with any companion was 2 months. I had over 20 companions on my mission. It's a VERY transient world.

They transfer missionaries around a lot for a number of reasons - to prevent burnout that you have done everything there is to do in a given area, to avoid to intense of entanglements - e.g. spending too much time with "eternal investigators" like you or spending too much time with recent converts when they want the focus to be on producing baptisms.

That's weird. I was in one area for 9 months, and another one for 6 months. 4 Areas total. Guess every mission is different.

I talked to a couple sisters at temple square. I was asking about the upside down pentagrams on the temple, and about JS and BY being involved in freemasonry.

One of the sisters said (in broken English) something like, "If you put an apple in the water will it not float?" HUH? WTF?

I asked what she meant and she said, "A baby must learn to crawl before it can walk." WTF?

She continued with these simple life-truths, that in no way ever answered any of my questions.

I've seen this before, you agree to something that is true enough times and then you find yourself agreeing with them, and then they ask you to find out if the BoM is true for yourself.

I guess mind tricks is the best way to begin tricking your mind.

When I was a mish '90-'92 I was PROUD that the church claimed to trump the bible with modern revelation.

The cliche was-

"the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."

When christians tried to thump the bible it just rolled off like water off a duck. I was immune to biblical arguments because the church says that the bible can be interpreted so many ways...which is apparent because there are so many churches...that it practically points in every direction. So, the church trumps it with a prophet who not only says what it means, he can rewrite it! So mormons make only feable effort if any effort to really use the bible, because no matter what it says, after all, if mormonism doesn't fit the bible then make the bible fit mormonism.
I even taught the Old Testament sunday school course TWICE, and only reading the study-guide-recommended verses I was UNAWARE of a major event like Moses executing 3000 apostates! It wasn't in the study guide!
Much of the OT study guide used the books of Moses and Abraham!
So when you start saying what Mormonism should be like if it followed the bible...a mormon just thinks...whatever.

Now where I was stumped, and where the jackpot is, is when you can argue that the BIBLE is bull sh1t. Because even though mormonism takes generous liberties with it, their modern scriptures are still tethered to it. That's like tying the Minnow to the Titanic.

Hey Amos2,

Thanks for the insight.

A question for clarification:
You said: "So, the church trumps it with a prophet who not only says what it means, he can rewrite it!"

Doesn't this leave the lds open to someone saying, "well, if it can be re-written, what do you actually stand for, at all?" What was the answer you were given for that one, if any?

Condorstrikes

Have you considered asking why they don't deem you worthy to be visited by Priesthood holding missionaries?

sister missionaries said even if, it cant be prooven the warm fuzzies is enough to endure to the end. But history has it all wrong and the book of abraham prooven to be false, they say history has it wrong, prophets are never wrong.

The bible says dont trust in another angel preaching another message than the bible, nor rely on feelings for truth but come and reason with thinking brains and test the spirits..

They just accept all spirits even in the temple cannot be possibily demons in descuise because of the sacredness and warm fuzzies, yet such secrecy and masonary pagen symbolism and restored ordinances of levitical snobbery that walked past the wounded man in the ditch while a good samariton stopped to help, only promotes a self-rightous cult that breeds self-rightous people NOT CHRISTIAN regardless of daring to take the name of jesus christ church..

Jesus came for sinners not for saints.

all who believe is accepted.

Faith, trust, Love or equal true love for jesus, obedience follows out of love not fear and guilt. We still are sinners but when sanctified out of love, good works come naturally to let our light shine and not desire to return to old ways. When we know our journey is not depended apon authority of man and jumping through hoops, we answer to no one for not being perfect but in christ rightousness we are made perfect not of our selfs but through or in christ. When we step out of grace to accept after all we can do then saved by grace, the devil steps in big time. so much for opposition against the true church, the hell of it all is the devil pushing those he knows are good people to point of brink and madness to live up to a vain covenant that jesus died on the cross to end levitical nonsense...

amen larry...