What's Most Important?

[OtherCheek]

What a load of dung! "anti-Mormons" do not dwell in darkness! We seek to expose the darkness that is Mormonism. We seek to shed light on the lies of Joseph Smith.

The driving force behind anti-Mormonism is the spirit of contention and anger and enmity with God.

[OtherCheek]

OC didn't refer to "some of them", Jeff ....

Personally, I draw a distinction between the terms "anti-Mormon" and "good Christian" much like the distinction I draw between "anti-Christ" and "Ghandi"

Good Christians who simply disagree with our faith are not necessarily "anti-Mormons" who actively fight and demonstrate in front of Temple square dragging the BoM through the mud and dancing around in LDS garments, anymore than Ghandi was an "anti-Christ".

What degree of anti-Mormon do you see yourself as, CP? If at all?

CP, here is a question you will be loath to answer, but do your best. I am a devout Mormon. Would you say that I dwell in spiritual darkness or not? Please elaborate.

[Cow Poke]

No. You are simply wrong.

Nope.

First of all, you don't really want questions answered about what we believe.

Oh, I ABSOLUTELY DO! It is quite educational, and very helpful.

You love the thrill of social media and debate about what we believe, and that is what keeps you here.

Well, that, too, as are you!

So, Brother Millett would probably counsel the missionaries to leave you to yourself.

That would be better than some corny "In the Spring of 1820......." which does NOT address the question. I've had numerous visits from the "missionaries", OC, and have always been gracious to them. I have asked questions, and NONE of them ever responded with "In the Spring of 1820......"

Second, he is steering the conversation toward a more enlightened tone conducive of actual teaching, instead of argument which is what entertains anti-Mormons.

No, OC -- he's being an arrogant windbag. Who says the guy came to him for an argument, OC? His example is a guy "he doesn't know from Adam". And the way Millet phrases the question doesn't sound argumentative at all... it sounds like the guy has heard something, and he's wanting to know if it's true.

(1 Pet 3:15 KJV) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
(1 Peter 3:15 CEV) Honor Christ and let him be the Lord of your life. Always be ready to give an answer when someone asks you about your hope.

If it appears the guy is actually there to be a jerk, then the "missionary" can disengage. But to START with an answer that goes off in a whole different direction is just goofy.

Q: Are you married?
A: In the Spring of 1974, I met a very sweet young woman....

[OtherCheek]

Q: Are you married?
A: In the Spring of 1974, I met a very sweet young woman....

Having served a mission myself, I probably would have said: "That's a question that deserves more than a one word answer. I would like to answer that question, but the answer needs a holding place and a context before it can make much sense. If you have some time..." That would be my serpentine and devious and satanically deceptive answer to the question.

[Cow Poke]

Personally, I draw a distinction between the terms "anti-Mormon" and "good Christian" much like the distinction I draw between "anti-Christ" and "Ghandi"

Wow... way to avoid the subject! Why don't you just be a big boy and take Jeff's advice on this, OC?

Good Christians who simply disagree with our faith are not necessarily "anti-Mormons" who actively fight and demonstrate in front of Temple square dragging the BoM through the mud and dancing around in LDS garments, anymore than Ghandi was an "anti-Christ".

DRAMA! Wow.... I've been to "Temple Square" in SLC, OC --- I neither fought nor demonstrated, but very politely followed the tour guide and asked polite questions, none of which was answered with "In the Spring of 1820......."

What degree of anti-Mormon do you see yourself as, CP? If at all?

I believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. My ONLY engagement with Mormons that would NOT be considered totally civil and respectful is on THIS CHRISTIAN WEBSITE. If it makes you feel good to call me an "anti-Mormon", knock yourself out, though I believe "anti-Mormonism" would be less inacurate.

CP, here is a question you will be loath to answer, but do your best.

What a stupid condescending statement, OC.

I am a devout Mormon.

I have never disputed that one bit.

Would you say that I dwell in spiritual darkness or not? Please elaborate.

Well, in the Spring of 1820, a young man.... oh, sorry. I'm not going to get duped into using your phraseology, OC --- I don't talk like that here or in real life. I have made it VERY CLEAR that I think Joseph Smith is a false prophet, and the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. I believe you have been duped into believing (and very sincerely believing, I might add) a lie.

YOU are the one who said....

He endorsed re-stating trap questions and steering the conversation away from the darkness, where anti-Mormons dwell.

Just because you said something really stupid does not mean I need to feel obligated to say likewise about you.

So let's get back to the REAL question, OC --- the one YOU started..... do YOU believe I "dwell in darkness"? Or are you "loath to answer"?

[Cow Poke]

Having served a mission myself, I probably would have said: "That's a question that deserves more than a one word answer. I would like to answer that question, but the answer needs a holding place and a context before it can make much sense. If you have some time..." That would be my serpentine and devious and satanically deceptive answer to the question.

Why?
You BELIEVE it, don't you?
So why not just say, "well, yes, as a matter of fact, I do, why do you ask?"

[Cow Poke]

The driving force behind anti-Mormonism is the spirit of contention and anger and enmity with God.

What a steaming pile of horsie poo.

[master_mormon]

I don't agree with Brother Millet in his comments here. What is the most important issue in the world today depends on the subject matter and it is not really for me to determine for someone else what is most important for them. I don't think we should redirect a person's question to something else that we might feel more comfortable with. We should respect their questions BUT how we answer is dependent on how much homework they have done on the issue at hand and the purpose for the question. If a person asks me a question because they just want to learn what and why I believe X, I will answer differently than if the person just wants to start a fight. If a person already has decided the issue they are asking and just wants to argue, I may see no point in me taking the time and effort to explain the issue. If the person is willing to spend the time required to understand the issue, then I will do my best to explain it in full. We should answer all sincere questions the best we can but it is also the responsibility of the person asking the question to take the time to listen and understand what is being explained to them.

I don't think most LDS would agree with the tactics that Brother Millett is suggesting. If I was asking questions regarding some other belief system, I would not want them to redirect the conversation to issues that may not interest me.

[Cow Poke]

I don't agree with Brother Millet in his comments here.

AMEN!

What is the most important issue in the world today depends on the subject matter and it is not really for me to determine for someone else what is most important for them.

Preach it!

I don't think we should redirect a person's question to something else that we might feel more comfortable with.

YES!

We should respect their questions BUT how we answer is dependent on how much homework they have done on the issue at hand and the purpose for the question. If a person asks me a question because they just want to learn what and why I believe X, I will answer differently than if the person just wants to start a fight.

Totally reasonable!

If a person already has decided the issue they are asking and just wants to argue, I may see no point in me taking the time and effort to explain the issue.

You're making WAY too much sense, MM! If you feel you can make some inroads with them, you might engage, but you have the freedom to walk away!

If the person is willing to spend the time required to understand the issue, then I will do my best to explain it in full. We should answer all sincere questions the best we can but it is also the responsibility of the person asking the question to take the time to listen and understand what is being explained to them.

And you really can't know that without making an effort.

I don't think most LDS would agree with the tactics that Brother Millett is suggesting. If I was asking questions regarding some other belief system, I would not want them to redirect the conversation to issues that may not interest me.

My Real Life Mormon friends agree 100%. It was one of THEM who told me Millet was being an arrogant windbag.

Thanks for weighing in, MM -- this makes WAY more sense than utilizing diversionary tactics before even knowing where the questioner was going with the issue. As Millet said ... "a guy I don't know from Adam". If the guy was just being a jerk, or approached in a combative manner, I STILL wouldn't go to "the Spring of 1820....", I'd just tell him I'd be happy to discuss it if it wasn't going to be a battle.

Are you SURE you're a Mormon????? (kidding)

[Bill the Cat]

The driving force behind anti-Mormonism is the spirit of contention and anger and enmity with God.

No, OC. It is the knowledge that Mormonism is a poison and those who partake of it are dooming themselves to hell.

[humbled4444]

I don't agree with Brother Millet in his comments here either.

[Bill the Cat]

No. You are simply wrong. First of all, you don't really want questions answered about what we believe. You love the thrill of social media and debate about what we believe, and that is what keeps you here. So, Brother Millett would probably counsel the missionaries to leave you to yourself.

Second, he is steering the conversation toward a more enlightened tone conducive of actual teaching, instead of argument which is what entertains anti-Mormons.

It's about controlling the conversation and the direction it takes, OC. Millett is telling his audience to take control of the conversation and steer it towards their testimonies, which can not be objectively tested (which is right where he wants them to be)

[Bill the Cat]

I don't agree with Brother Millet in his comments here either.

But I've experienced this very tactic with every missionary team I've encountered. None wants to answer the question "How many gods do you believe in"

[eudyptes]

Having watched the video....anyone that evades a question I ask like that...gets asked the same question again (no matter Mormon or some other topic); if they evade it again, they have lost a huge portion of trust and it's going to take extra work to regain my trust. Playing word games to avoid and/or make the point "they" want to make instead of answering my inquiry, to me, says "I have something to hide". It sounds like a politician caught in not wanting to defend something that might cost them votes (the situation I see this tactic employeed most frequently).

[humbled4444]

No, OC. It is the knowledge that Mormonism is a poison and those who partake of it are dooming themselves to hell.

The doctrine of Hell is pagan, not Christian...