My investigator friend

[Pheidippides]

One of my friends at work is taking the discussions. I may have mentioned this before. I did not introduce him to the missionaries - he came in contact with them quite separate from me. After every meeting with the Elders we have a meeting at work and discuss. This has been one of the most fascinating experiences of my life because he is quite open about what he likes and doesn't, what he thinks and feels about their teaching, what sorts of issues he's facing, etc. I am getting a perspective that is very educational - here are some of the things I've learned (and apologies if I've shared some before).

- Missionaries still teach crazy wacky nonsense, like drinking coffee turns your stomach to leather because of all the tannic acid (10 minutes of wikipedia/snopes later, I encouraged him to explain the differences between tannin and tannic acid and to call the missionaries on their urban myth mistake, which he did).

- It's really annoying to bring an endless parade of unknown members over, but not so bad if you just bring the same one.

- It's a bad idea to show up regularly just as NFL football is starting here in Texas, especially if you have no intention of actually watching the game (who'da thunk?).

- It surprises non-members when we are pretty clueless about what the Isaiah chapters say too.

- Southern Baptists (which he is) really think that whole "Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil/Whore of All the Earth" thing is pretty awesome, so the disappointment when I told him that's not actually what I believe (whatever the missionaries say) was quite visible.

- Being honest with people about your beliefs on tricky issues can lead to some interesting discussions when you aren't around.

This last one is directly related to a conversation we had just before he met with the Elders. He thought he'd found a mistake in the BOM (we later both agreed he was reading it wrong) and wanted to point it out to me. This lead to a frank discussion about the fact that the BOM has had many, many changes (most having to do with grammar and punctuation) throughout the years. This is very low on the list of things that concern me, and I don't think it even made his list.

Separately (but at the same time), we had a conversation about the whole Blacks and the Priesthood thing (note that he is an ethnic minority). It pretty much followed that one sunstone article that was linked in another thread. JS ordained black people, BY was probably racist like a lot of people, took a long time to change because of institutional procedure, glad it's done with, sorry it happened at all. Again, nothing groundbreaking here, and I'm feeling good for productively wading through two thornier bits of doctrine.

Yeah, so I thought.

Elders apparently show up with yet another person from the local ward. They start talking and he brings up what he thinks is the mistake, and is a bit shocked at the defensiveness of all, especially the member, when he doesn't really care about it because "my Mormon friend told me there's been a lot of stuff like that that was corrected over the years." One of them apparently gave him the evil eye. And then they got onto the Blacks and the Priesthood bit because of that verse in 2nd Nephi (bond and free, etc. - you know the one) and wondering why we don't point to that more when we're trying to say were not racist (something that apparently happens a lot).

Well, it started okay when he said that his Mormon buddy at work said that it looked like JS ordained a black man, but then when he said that his Mormon buddy said there was probably something to the whole racist thing with BY (not exactly what I said, but not too far off either) they went ballistic. Acted like he was an anti trying to tear it down. The member was particularly mean and wanted my name, address, phone number, etc. I told him I didn't care if he gave it out - they know who I am anyway because I made a call after the leather stomach issue.

These guys are in trouble as soon as my friend starts using Google, which I'm surprised he hasn't already.

[dabrockster]

I really do not understand how a missionary can get all defensive when someone investigating the church is having an open discussion about its doctrine. I LOVED those discussions as a missionary..

[pellegrino]

I really do not understand how a missionary can get all defensive when someone investigating the church is having an open discussion about its doctrine. I LOVED those discussions as a missionary..

I'll bet you money the missionaries followed the member's cue.

[Pheidippides]

I really do not understand how a missionary can get all defensive when someone investigating the church is having an open discussion about its doctrine. I LOVED those discussions as a missionary..

That's where I'm so confused too. He's genuinely asking questions, and they're getting defensive. It's causing me to have to do a lot of damage control.

[Mormon Red Death]

That's where I'm so confused too. He's genuinely asking questions, and they're getting defensive. It's causing me to have to do a lot of damage control.

why dont you offer to go over for the discussions?

[Uncle Ted]

Elders apparently show up with yet another person from the local ward. They start talking and he brings up what he thinks is the mistake, and is a bit shocked at the defensiveness of all, especially the member, when he doesn't really care about it because "my Mormon friend told me there's been a lot of stuff like that that was corrected over the years." One of them apparently gave him the evil eye. And then they got onto the Blacks and the Priesthood bit because of that verse in 2nd Nephi (bond and free, etc. - you know the one) and wondering why we don't point to that more when we're trying to say were not racist (something that apparently happens a lot).

Well, it started okay when he said that his Mormon buddy at work said that it looked like JS ordained a black man, but then when he said that his Mormon buddy said there was probably something to the whole racist thing with BY (not exactly what I said, but not too far off either) they went ballistic. Acted like he was an anti trying to tear it down. The member was particularly mean and wanted my name, address, phone number, etc. I told him I didn't care if he gave it out - they know who I am anyway because I made a call after the leather stomach issue.

These guys are in trouble as soon as my friend starts using Google, which I'm surprised he hasn't already.

Yes, I would agree that it is hard to defend the actions of BY when someone is armed with google and Mike Huckabee. The fact is there were actually many black men ordained before 1978. Therefore, the only logical explanation is the church may have had a few racist people even in leadership positions. It always gets me that someone gets bent out of shape when they hear the facts. It is like they "can't handle the truth"...

[YOUTUBE]5j2F4VcBmeo[/YOUTUBE]

[Uncle Ted]

why dont you offer to go over for the discussions?

Yes, you should Nuki. Especially given the missionaries are teaching about leather stomach and such. Remember, you have to work with this guy.

BTW, if they bring that member from the local ward too be sure to secretly record everything so you can share with your CUF friends and family.

[dabrockster]

Yes, I would agree that it is hard to defend the actions of BY when someone is armed with google and Mike Huckabee. The fact is there were actually many black men ordained before 1978. Therefore, the only logical explanation is the church may have had a few racist people even in leadership positions. It always gets me that someone gets bent out of shape when they hear the facts. It is like they "can't handle the truth"...

[YOUTUBE]5j2F4VcBmeo[/YOUTUBE]

My thinking on why they "Can't handle the truth": It because many members hold these individuals at such a high level (Almost Godlike). Since they are the prophet this means they speak in behalf of God. And if he was racist then that may in fact jeopardize the whole worthiness of a prophet. Therefore they can't be a racist. If he is racist then by some reason it may affect their testimony of the Gospel or the church as a whole. I don't see it that way.. All of us are human and only one was without sin. All of us can be guided by God at any moment and also by our own imperfections.. Just because a person is a GA or a prophet does not mean he has never lost his temper, or drank a Mwt. Dew, or got a speeding ticket, etc..

JS was a perfect example of a prophet who was scolded and punished at times by God (i.e. Lost manuscripts), and we use his example as how a person can be forgiven and still be called of God.. Why must everyone else that followed him have to be perfect?? They are not. They can't be...

Ok. I am done with my incoherent rant.. TIA

[dabrockster]

That's where I'm so confused too. He's genuinely asking questions, and they're getting defensive. It's causing me to have to do a lot of damage control.

I think you should do what MRD suggest. You attend the discussions.. It save you less time of damage control etc.. And you may actually open the eyes of these two missionaries as well..

[Pheidippides]

why dont you offer to go over for the discussions?

Work dynamics. The only reason he shares with me is because I'm not part of the process. I have no objections but it would make things awkward for him.

[thesaint258]

I loved the members who acted like jerks. On the other hand, I find myself remembering the members who really tried to help our investigators. Hopefully the same is true for your friend and he focuses on the helpful people he meets in the church rather than the morons.

[hello]

My sons are getting to be missionary age. I hope I have taught them how to be good people first. To listen and love and leave the judging to God. I have never understood how people can get defensive when someone is trying to learn about the gospel.

[Pheidippides]

This got even more fun last week.

My friend is diligently reading the BOM. He actually studies the thing. This week was the book of Jacob, which includes that little bit in Jacob 2-3 about polygamy being bad unless otherwise commanded.

We talked about the passages in my office before he met with the elders. He asked the obvious question: how do you square this with early practice? So I gave him an honest answer: personally I'm not sure and it's something I struggle with. I've had spiritual experiences and that's why I'm a member still and a card carrying one at that, but I struggle here. And we had a long talk about polygamy and how it worked and how many wives BY and JS had and even about the council of 50 for a bit. I didn't tell him everything I know/read, but was honest about it and my feelings. And it was a good discussion and I think it gave my own faith more complexity and depth in his view.

In retrospect, it's increasingly odd to me that I'm more than comfortable sharing my innermost thoughts about my religion with a non-member friend than I am with my many member friends. I think that says something about our religious culture, and not a good something either.

So he asks the same polygamy question last night to the elders and the member that came over and the answer could have been worse. They talked about how it was a different world for women and that there would have been benefits for women to be married in name because of social structure (okay) and how most of the marriages of JS probably didn't include sex (uh, no - and my friend and I talked about this later). They glossed over - well, ignored, really - the actual doctrine, but oh well. I didn't talk about it either. But when my friend mentioned the council of 50 (I'd only shared the barest details - JS had privately initiated certain men into the polyg practice while outwardly denying, and then the connection between that, the Nauvoo expositor and the martyrdom) they were all shocked and knew nothing about it and got defensive. They don't know my name (although they could find it if they tried) but they knew where the info came from and they apparently think I'm a heretic. And maybe I am.

All of this led to an even better discussion the next day as we did the recap. Polygamy is a no big deal issue to my friend and doesn't concern him in the slightest. But he was concerned with the fact that our own people don't know these things about our own religion. I explained to him that because of my struggles I've done a lot of reading that is uncommon, and we briefly talked about other things related to that like church scholarship and such. And then I told him why I share all these things with him: I don't tell him everything I know, and I definitely edit, but should the time come when he decides to get baptized I'll be happy - but at the same time it would be a lot for me to live with to be dishonest about my own faith in an effort to get him to join up.

So I'll continue to answer his questions as honestly as I can. I'm not actively sharing with him the warts, but if he asks about Mountain Meadows because he googled it, well, by dang, I'll tell him what I think. And if that makes me a heretic, so be it.

[Sullyute]

This got even more fun last week.

My friend is diligently reading the BOM. He actually studies the thing. This week was the book of Jacob, which includes that little bit in Jacob 2-3 about polygamy being bad unless otherwise commanded.

We talked about the passages in my office before he met with the elders. He asked the obvious question: how do you square this with early practice? So I gave him an honest answer: personally I'm not sure and it's something I struggle with. I've had spiritual experiences and that's why I'm a member still and a card carrying one at that, but I struggle here. And we had a long talk about polygamy and how it worked and how many wives BY and JS had and even about the council of 50 for a bit. I didn't tell him everything I know/read, but was honest about it and my feelings. And it was a good discussion and I think it gave my own faith more complexity and depth in his view.

In retrospect, it's increasingly odd to me that I'm more than comfortable sharing my innermost thoughts about my religion with a non-member friend than I am with my many member friends. I think that says something about our religious culture, and not a good something either.

So he asks the same polygamy question last night to the elders and the member that came over and the answer could have been worse. They talked about how it was a different world for women and that there would have been benefits for women to be married in name because of social structure (okay) and how most of the marriages of JS probably didn't include sex (uh, no - and my friend and I talked about this later). They glossed over - well, ignored, really - the actual doctrine, but oh well. I didn't talk about it either. But when my friend mentioned the council of 50 (I'd only shared the barest details - JS had privately initiated certain men into the polyg practice while outwardly denying, and then the connection between that, the Nauvoo expositor and the martyrdom) they were all shocked and knew nothing about it and got defensive. They don't know my name (although they could find it if they tried) but they knew where the info came from and they apparently think I'm a heretic. And maybe I am.

All of this led to an even better discussion the next day as we did the recap. Polygamy is a no big deal issue to my friend and doesn't concern him in the slightest. But he was concerned with the fact that our own people don't know these things about our own religion. I explained to him that because of my struggles I've done a lot of reading that is uncommon, and we briefly talked about other things related to that like church scholarship and such. And then I told him why I share all these things with him: I don't tell him everything I know, and I definitely edit, but should the time come when he decides to get baptized I'll be happy - but at the same time it would be a lot for me to live with to be dishonest about my own faith in an effort to get him to join up.

So I'll continue to answer his questions as honestly as I can. I'm not actively sharing with him the warts, but if he asks about Mountain Meadows because he googled it, well, by dang, I'll tell him what I think. And if that makes me a heretic, so be it.

I love your updates on this. It is very intriguing to see your friend truly interested in our church despite the "warts" that he is discovering. I would be surprised if anyone here thought you a heretic for sharing your personal opinions and knowledge on Church history and doctrine as most of us would do the same thing. We just had our EQ lesson last week on honesty and how it is a principal of salvation. I had to roll my eyes on this as I wanted to bring up so many different issues but I bit my tongue...most of the time.

I am sure that your friend will thank you for being up front and honest whether or not he decides to take the proverbial plunge. I look forward to your next update.

[Pheidippides]

I love your updates on this. It is very intriguing to see your friend truly interested in our church despite the "warts" that he is discovering. I would be surprised if anyone here thought you a heretic for sharing your personal opinions and knowledge on Church history and doctrine as most of us would do the same thing. We just had our EQ lesson last week on honesty and how it is a principal of salvation. I had to roll my eyes on this as I wanted to bring up so many different issues but I bit my tongue...most of the time.

I am sure that your friend will thank you for being up front and honest whether or not he decides to take the proverbial plunge. I look forward to your next update.

He actually already has - it means a lot to him that I'm honest about my feelings.

I am learning a ton in this situation. I have never been a semi-detached third party in a situation with a view like this, and the experience is invaluable. It's rare to get the unfettered and honest opinions (I think) of an investigator with respect to the doctrine, the missionaries, the approach, etc.

As to being heretical...I really do think it's sad that I feel comfortable being open with an investigator where I wouldn't have that conversation in church. And I agree that it's sad that my investigator friend knows more than most of the membership around here.

Privately, I wouldn't be surprised if I get asked to talk to the SP about this at some level. I may have mentioned that said friend lives next door to - and is close friends with - a member of the SP of my former stake. And he's involved in the process closely. Our stake was split off and my current SP and said SP member of the former stake served together and know each other. And I already think my own bishop and SP are worried about me.