J. Randal Matheny
Richard Mansel
Barbara Ann Oliver
mtmcvb
Weylan Deaver
Mike Riley
philsanders
jajenkins5
Don Ruhl
jimnewy
Richard Hill
Laura
Ron Thomas
TFRStaff
cayawn1
Glenda Williams
John Henson
Stephen R. Bradd
Larry Miles
Ed Boggess
joyjensen
drkenney
paulaharington
Chad Dollahite
John T. Polk II
Richard S. Reinhardt, Jr.
The Old Cowboy - Roy Coffman
Eugene Adkins
BrotherhoodNews.com Religion News News
I’ve been working on Mormonism this afternoon. Surely, the success of that group is attributable to (1) man’s inherent religious nature, and (2) man’s supreme gullibility in relation to his religious nature (once he rejects the gospel).
guy, and 
J. Randal Matheny 10:19 pm on June 8, 2011 Permalink |
Here’s another, a guess of mine: (3) man’s attraction to the mysterious, the cryptic, the esoteric.
guy 12:18 am on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
If the CoC had the same “mission” expectations as the LDS do (i think it’s two years doing door-to-door stuff, isn’t it?), don’t you think we may have at least fairly comparable success?
The other thing the LDS have going for them is the encouragement to procreate, right? The more kids the better. It’s a high value. So i wonder what the current ratio is then of first generation Mormons to 2nd/3rd/etc. generation Mormons. Either way, they have set up doctrinal standards that cover both forms of recruitment.
–guy
J. Randal Matheny 8:23 am on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
Guy, I think that’s stlil in force, yes. Those are two values we’d do well to emulate, because they’re biblical.
Weylan Deaver 12:24 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
I think Randal hits on the right approach, i.e. “emulate, because they’re biblical.” Personally, I try to avoid statements affirming that we have something to learn from Mormons or other religious groups. Couched in those terms (e.g. “we could learn some things from the Mormons”), it creates a mental image of Mormonism in the position of rightful teacher, and the Lord’s people in position of learners. Rather, I’d say whatever we need to learn we need learn from the Bible. If there’s anything worthy of imitation among Mormons, it is only insofar as they are imitating Scripture, in which case I’d prefer to leave them out of the equation altogether.
I don’t know what their success is with door-to-door, two-year mission efforts, but there would be no means to implement that in the Lord’s church. Nor do I think we would meet “comparable success.” The devil will always have more numbers, whereas a firm stand on the gospel will always put you in the extreme minority. For various reasons, I’m not a proponent of door knocking, and it is not a strategy conducive to success in current American culture.
guy 5:14 pm on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
Is it impossible to learn something from anyone who’s otherwise in the wrong? There’s definitely non-religious people i’ve met in my life who were more compassionate or more patient than me. i don’t see what the harm is in humbly admitting i have something to learn from them. Why is that threatening? Surely God can use anyone at all for His own purposes even if they’re not saved.
More important though, you don’t think there’s a shaming effect when false teachers end up obeying better than we? Should we be letting those we perceive to be false teachers out perform us in obedience or holiness?
In my gut, i agree about the door-knocking (maybe effective in the past, but probably no longer), however, if we’re right, why have the Mormons continued this as a major component of their mission? If we’re right, then it seems the only explanation is that they must be failing at their door-to-door efforts. But we’d have to look at the numbers to find that out i guess.
–guy
Weylan Deaver 11:11 am on June 11, 2011 Permalink |
Guy, as to your question, “Is it impossible to learn something from anyone who’s otherwise in the wrong?”, no, I don’t think it’s impossible, and I do see your point. I suppose it’s a perspective I choose to adopt, in not viewing errorists as my teachers.
As for a “shaming effect when false teachers end up obeying better than we,” if they were obeying, they would not be false teachers; spreading LDS doctrine is not obedience to the Lord. Now, if their zeal for error outstrips our zeal for truth, then, yes, shame on us for that (though I would not grant that is the case, as a sweeping generalization).
No doubt, door knocking has results in some cases, and, perhaps, more success in certain cultures than others. Right now, I don’t see it as effective in America. I know I don’t welcome total strangers coming unexpectedly to the door of my home to attempt to interest me in buying something I don’t want, or in adopting religious views with which I do not agree. Most probably feel the same. The Mormons may continue the practice, but they continue any number of practices, such as the owning of several large corporations, and we would not look at them as a model for that. My opinion is, the gospel is a tough sell in a culture saturated with entertainment, wealth, and fleshly lusts. Modern America thrives on sin; we glorify it, practice it, try to legislatively safeguard it, indoctrinate the next generation in it. Yet, every lost soul has an obligation to be a truth-seeker and a truth-finder and a truth-obeyer.
guy 12:43 pm on June 11, 2011 Permalink |
Weylan,
i totally agree about the way LDS is run. Beyond the question whether its biblically appropriate for the church to use the contribution that way, it just seems downright shady to me for any religious institution to have control of corporations, especially on the scale of LDS. It sounds to me like mixing earthly and spiritual interests in a way that surely can’t be justified or good.
i’m thinking lately about how the conversion of prospects should go–large scale methodologies. It seems to me some sort of living-apologetic has to be the answer. The difference in lifestyle and interrelations between Christians ought to be distinctive and apparent to outsiders in a way that exposes sin for what it is. And so, when other people like false teachers manifest characteristics that i lack but which ought to be distinctive of my life and the church, that seems to have a sort of shaming effect insomuch as it spotlights my inadequacy. i agree that LDS are fatally mistaken on a number of things. But i do feel “shown up” sometimes when i think of the lengths to which they may be willing to go to propagate their beliefs and question whether i would always have the courage to do the same.
And in that sense alone do i mean to make the points about shaming effects and learning from someone else. Of course i don’t think of them as living in total or satisfactory obedience to Christ. But again, i take it that a number of people have insight into this or that particular matter that i lack and which ought to be characteristic of my life. For that kind of reason, i’ll likely continue to read the works of Francis Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til on the subject of Christian apologetics, despite the fact that i believe Calvinism is utterly false. Or i’ll continue to thumb through commentaries of Adam Clarke or even NT Wright while studying the text. i think those guys are wrong at crucial points. But i must admit they likely have insights about this or that which i lack. And even though i think they’re wrong on those crucial points and i shouldn’t imitate those particular errors, i think i’d only be proud if i refused to admit they may have ‘out-insighted’ me in other areas which i would do well to both strive to imitate and excel them.
i agree on the tough sell–America not only thrives on sin, but our society even finds ways to codify it into a system of morals. (We had an excellent class at my congregation a year or so ago about the 7 deadly sins and talked about how each one occupies a position of value and ideal in our culture–a chilling study really when you give much thought to how deep the deception might go.) But i think such is the inevitable nature of any political empire, not just America in particular. And because the cultural inculcation of valuing sin runs so deep, even the church harbors much of it: materialism, prejudice, waste, pride, and violence. It seems as though the gospel is a tough sell even in the church, let alone the world. Perhaps we’ll have to the address the former before the latter will ever really take off.
–guy
Weylan Deaver 1:51 pm on June 11, 2011 Permalink |
Guy, I appreciate your thoughts, including your statement that “It seems to me some sort of living-apologetic has to be the answer.” I think that coincides with my own belief that the best evangelistic strategy is simply to be a happy, devoted Christian. The further the world gets from God, the more starkly will a Christian stand out in relief against the backdrop of sin (hopefully, prompting them to ask a reason for the hope that is in us–that’s the way it’s supposed to work).
I certainly do my share of reading in commentaries and books written by non-members of the church, so I’ve no disagreement with you over the possibility of benefiting from such (with caution, of course).
And, your conclusion may be spot on, as well, i.e. that the key to converting the lost is to first make sure the church are truly converted. With that being the case, is there any doubt God will give the increase, according to his own will?