Prior threads can be found from here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1567385

Dear Team,

From our last episode, I was expecting a phone call from the sister missionaries on Monday but heard nothing. Thought maybe they had decided I was not worth spending time on. Then they called just a few minutes ago and we're set for another meeting on Thursday. Yeah!

I'm more than half way through my BoM reading assignment. Progress is slow as my mind drifts away to something else, ANYTHING else, please, pretty much on every page. But I am seeing where certain commonly used Mormon phrases come from like "endure to the end" for example.

One of the things I asked them last time, but failed to mention here, and it came right at the end as they were already on their bicycles and about to pull away -- I asked them how to look up their blogs because I was eager to find out what they might say about me behind my back. It was mostly a joke. They told me they don't keep a blog.

- - - - -

Anyway, so as you will recall from last time, I challenged them with the rock-in-a-hat story and they assured me that it was not true. And with a little probing I found out that they were sure of themselves on this because their MP had told them.

Thanks to 'randyj' and others I now have the 1993 Ensign article by Elder Russell M. Nelson, Apostle, where he confirms the rock-in-a-hat story DURING A MISSION PRESIDENT TRAINING! Plus the recently published translation essay and other materials. Thanks again everybody.

AND NOW FOR THE TRULY DELICIOUS PART

- - - - -

So the next day after our last meeting I went to my trusty look-it-up machine, the one I'm typing on right now, and searched for <name of mission><name of missionary> and after three clicks I was reading the blog of the Jr Mish. Her last entry was a couple months back, so maybe one could rationalize the truthfulness of the statement 'we don't keep a blog.' On the Sr Mish I couldn't find anything.

On sister crier's blog (the name I've given to her because she shed a few tears at our first meeting; the other I call sister dunkemsoon) one of the last entries was an account of meeting Elder Nelson and being chosen as the first missionary in the receiving line to shake his hand. And then in the blog she goes on and on about what a good man and what good feelings to be in his presence etc etc.

So now I'm all set to confront the sisters, but gently as I try very hard to straddle the line between too much so that I scare them off and lose the opportunity to continue meeting with them, and too little so I don't really rattle their world enough to matter.

I plan to ASK them first if they are familiar with the Ensign, and if they know who Nelson is. If they give me any dissembling at all, then I will have to confront sister crier on her blog and her blog entry.

If we get that far I will not be flaming them, but expressing disappointment in them. After all, one of the key reasons for me spending time with Mormons is to prove to myself that they are not all evil liars like prior Mormons I have known. (They have already heard that story in brief.) And now they're doing THIS to me? After I showed them extraordinary candor during our prior visit? Is this the REAL gospel: "Don't Get Caught"?

And then -- again, presuming we get this far -- immediately show gentleness and let them off the hook. Remind them that I am no fool; I already know that they themselves are not to blame for all this misinformation; it's simply what they've been taught; how they've been trained.

And then deliver the punch line: "But is that really the kind of person you want to become?"

This one resonates with me because it was that question that broke my trust in the leaders of the One True Church that I grew up in, and led to my exit soon after. Although, to be fair, there had been lots of other prep work in place in my life, not just this one question.

Waiting eagerly for Thursday. Thanks for listening.

JAR

I don't think they'll deny knowing who Nelson is, that would make no sense. So your plan from there seems moot.

I knew nothing would get past you, scotslander, so I nearly put additional stuff in the original post to cover the gap you just exposed. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

By having several ways to show them beyond doubt that there are solid ways to contradict what they've been told by their trusted leaders, then no matter what direction the conversation takes there is likely to be some opportunity somewhere in there to gently confront, and have the same effect, whether is it the scenario given above or some other.

There is so much more we should be able to talk about. The central topic will likely be the reliability (or lack thereof) of feelings as a confirmation of truth. This because the next session is likely to be them asking me if I read the BoM, prayed sincerely, and felt.

So I can take them to the time (many decades ago) I FELT great having lunch away from the office with that cute new girl at work. The one who was also feeling great about me. The one who was already married. If I had prayed sincerely about that situation God wouldn't have told me to go for it anyway, would he? Of course not.

And then, boom, the polygamy/polyandry essays. And the apologists saying it's OK because God told JS to. Fish in a barrel.

JAR

justarelative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is likely to be some opportunity somewhere
> in there to gently confront, and have the same
'Confront' and 'gentle' belong in the same sentence as much as 'open to new ideas' and 'defensive as hell' belong in the same sentence

> The central topic will likely be the
> reliability (or lack thereof) of feelings as a
> confirmation of truth.
If this is the central topic that you hope to get some traction on, then you have lost. This is the worst topic to take on with a missionary. Or anyone in the Mormon church for that matter.

I'd focus on facts, facts weigh down a shelf. As soon as you start a feelings debate, or a topic that has a lot of grey area for their minds to wriggle into a safe place then there is nothing to be gained by either side.

The rock in the hat is perfect - they have given you this one on a plate. I can't believe how well it has been set up for you. They believe one thing, it was even reinforce by a trusted leader. Then you pull the rug out from under them. You don't even need to say anything else. You don't need to close the topic with a cunning phrase that traps them further.

Try and lead them onto another killer topic. DNA, Joseph Smith and polygamy. Politely ask them questions about what they know. Remind them these topics are discussed in detail on LDS.org, so they should really take the time to check them out. After all as an investigator you went to LDS.org and found them yourself. Now you have questions. Don;t they want to resolve your questions? How can they if they haven't done their homework?

Let them pick a topic they feel comfortable researching, then prepare for it.

I've actually been very successful with this tactic. I start by teaching them what the word epistemology means. I’ve never had any member, missionary, bishop or SP understand the word before our conversation.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,431720,431720#msg-431720

It was a great conversation with your SP. Nice and smooth and controlled.

However, if success means you both left the meeting as convinced that your were both right, and the other was wrong, then that was probably success.

I saw no evidence that the SP really grasped your position. He did give you ammunition to point out his logical mistakes, but I don't think he heard you when you pointed them out. He just seemed to move on to another approach.

Edit: I also meant to add that you were not calling him a liar, or calling him other words that would question his integrity, and make him super defensive. I see that being suggested here for the Sister Missionaries.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2015 08:03AM by scotslander.

good point. It totally depends or your definition of success.

I guess for me it was enough to explain that I wasn't going to be convinced by anything other than evidence. I think he eventually saw that when his emotion based arguements and scare tactics didn't have the effect he desired.

Don't see a reason to torture yourself by reading the BOM. It's not like you are going to learn something from it. Of course maybe you are trying to stay honest on your part, and I understand that.

The 1993 Ensign with Nelson's talk is golden. Most mormons will insist the rock in a hat is anti-Mormon stuff, and yet there it is. Of course, many Mormons will not read the church published essays because they are convinced that it's anti Mormon even though it's written in an official church source. Yes, Mormons are that weird.

Lying is part of the game. Mormons made up the phrase 'lying for the Lord'. It was important to hide the actions and the doctrines of the church and they justified it by their hatred and distrust of federal officers. But they never have quit lying. Your missionaries have been lying to you consistently or they would be unable to function as LDS missionaries. You just can't tell people the truth about Mormonism and expect them to join it. if you want any success at all as a missionary you have to lie. There is no other way. your missionaries don't mean to be liars and probably don't want to be bad, but it's part of the work and how they were trained.

somnambulist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your
> missionaries don't mean to be liars and probably
> don't want to be bad, but it's part of the work
> and how they were trained.

I lied about one thing I knew was a lie on my mission. the rest were lies that I didn't know I was telling. I just didn't know enough about my own religion to counter the MTC brainwashing.

The lie I told repeatedly? I told people I had a spiritual witness that told me the church was true. I hadn't, and I knew it.

Everything else for me was ignorance, not lies.

If a well intentioned investigator called me a liar, but I was merely ignorant, my auto-defense mechanisms would have kicked in and you would have made no progress with me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 01:47PM by scotslander.

"I now have the 1993 Ensign article by Elder Russell M. Nelson, Apostle, where he confirms the rock-in-a-hat story DURING A MISSION PRESIDENT TRAINING!"

That Nelson is a LIVING apostle means that they can't yet claim he was "speaking as a man" or otherwise throw him under the bus. Only dead ones spoke as men.

"After all, one of the key reasons for me spending time with Mormons is to prove to myself that they are not all evil liars like prior Mormons I have known."

If you're inclined to drop a hammer, you can turn to either of these BOM scriptures from your studying. The devil is the father of ALL lies; because she obviously lied to you, is she taking her cues from Satan?

2 Nephi 2:18
"And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil."

Ether 8:25
"For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning."

Also in the PoGP, if they're actually carrying one:

Moses 4:4
"And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice."

Book of Mordor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're inclined to drop a hammer, you can turn
> to either of these BOM scriptures from your
> studying. The devil is the father of ALL lies;
> because she obviously lied to you, is she taking
> her cues from Satan?
>
I just don't think the missionaries are lying. They are clueless, mis-informed by people they trust, and generally ignorant about their church and it's history.

Calling a someone a liar and tool of Satan is not going to help put stuff on a person's shelf. It is going to prop it up and strengthen it.

I didn't mean that they were lying about the rock in hat story. I agree they're just clueless and ill-informed.

But the junior sister did lie to JAR about not keeping a blog. Whether the most recent entry is last week or two months old is IMO irrelevant.

ETA: And the "liar" tag could well be applied by JAR to their MP, who deceitfully told them the rock story was false. It's the MP who used the "tool of Satan" to hide the truth from them. For him, cluelessness is no excuse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 02:51PM by Book of Mordor.

Book of Mordor wrote:

>If you're inclined to drop a hammer, you can turn to either of these BOM scriptures from your studying. The devil is the father of ALL lies; because she obviously lied to you, is she taking her cues from Satan?

See also these Mormon scriptures:

D&C 50:17-18
17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

D&C 129:7
7 ...it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive;...

More examples at http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm "Mormon Lying"

Remind them that lying is a technique that ONLY the representatives of Satan use; representatives of God do not.

In fact, that is the way to tell the difference: http://packham.n4m.org/satan.htm "How to Identify Satan"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2015 02:11PM by RPackham.

Monday is the one day of the week that you probably won't be bothered by a mormon. It's their so called "family home evening" day. No meetings. It's the real day of rest.

I've seen mishie blogs where they organize Monday FHEs at the chapel or a member's house and try to drag their investigators there to join in the religious ecstasy!

Mormons have religious ecstasy? Is that the part where they begin to drool out of boredom after their smart phone battery is dead?

On the Blog issue they'll try to make the lame excuse that their parents are doing the blog so they weren't really lying.
The missionaries send home letters and photos, and the parents update the blog from time to time.

Mormons never lie. They just say anything to get a baptism. Answering the questions you should have asked. ;-)

Some missionaries have family members that actually keep the blogs.

My family kept one for me. They posted my letters on there. I had no idea this was being done.

Therefore she may have a "blog" being kept by family intended as a way to share weekly letters to other family/friends easily.