Non-Christians more receptive?

[Uriel]

I asked the missionaries who was generally more receptive to their message, Christians or Non-Christians? They said Non-Christians tend to be more receptive. I was wondering if this is other peoples experience too.

Is it because of anti-LDS sentiment among certain Christians?

[NeuroTypical]

Well, I'd guess it's partly because if you have a fulfilling relationship with your Lord and Savior, why change it? But if you've always been hungering for - something - and you find it when the missionaries come knocking, then what's to keep you from obtaining it?

[MrShorty]

It was about when I served a mission (~1990), I recall reading a study of those who joined the church in non-christian, far-east nations (like Japan and Korea). If memory serves, a large majority of those who joined the LDS church were already Christian (I don't recall that they distinguished between Catholic and Protestant in this survey). The hypothesis put forward was that, in these nations/cultures, it was easier for someone to accept Mormonism if they already had a belief in/understanding of Christ and the Bible than if they were completely unfamiliar with Christianity.

So it might depend on nation/culture. In my experience, I, too, would probably say "non-Christian" because in the places I've been (US and Canada), those who identify strongly as Catholic or Protestant don't want to listen to or discuss another Christian viewpoint. Those who didn't identify strongly as Catholic or Protestant (aka "non-Christian"), were somewhat more willing to listen. However, I'm not sure that, statistically, it was large bias, because those "non-Christians" were more likely to want nothing to do with any religion.

[Backroads]

I doubt it's anything particularly anti. Frankly, if I were satisfied spiritually (and I am) I wouldn't bother looking seriously into anything else.

[skippy740]

I've found that the "unenlisted" believers of Christ were the most receiptive.

Unenlisted meaning that they believed in Christ, but wasn't attending or participating in any particular denomination or congregation.

It's a fairly easy lesson to go from teaching about Jesus Christ to talking about living prophets. I'm not so sure that it's too easy talking about God to those who didn't already believe, to then talking about Jesus Christ to atone for our sins.

But I served my mission in Tennessee. 99.9% of everyone I spoke to believed in Jesus Christ.

I remember one door where they said they were Muslim... and I didn't know what to say next. So we went to the next door.

[KrazyKay]

I've talked with a muslim, an antagonistic, and a strong protestant Christian about the church before. Of the three, the muslim seemed most receptive with the antagonistic somewhat receptive. The strong protestant christian friend seemed receptive when we talked, but anytime I invited her to church she had some excuse - 90% of the time she said her husband didn't want her to go - which I respect if true. I do wonder though if she was just being polite when we talked but had no interest in going beyond just general talking with me.

[prisonchaplain]

The doctrine of a Great Apostasy would seem like an aggressive criticism to most Christians.

[LittleWyvern]

The people that I found easiest to teach were those with absolutely no religious background (not atheist, just those that never really thought religion before). People like this started with a clean slate, and were completely free to come to their own conclusions, without having to battle against preconceived notions. So instead of teaching being focused on proving things, it was more like a mutual discovery process. :)

[LDSJewess]

I find that if a person is a non LDS Christian and committted to their faith there is more resistance to the idea of seeking beyond what they already believe. Just my opinion, but I believe some of this is borne out of fear. Many Christian chruches teach about a very defined heaven and hell concept with not a lot of gray area. You either believe what their church teaches in it's entirety to be saved (from hell), or you are not considered a true Christian and therefore not saved. Indeed there are a number of Christians who don't even have a clear concept of heaven, but it the fear of the "alternative" causes fear, and thus makes them resistant to "straying."

Other religions Islam, Judaism and Eastern religions tend to be more open and free to think outside the box of even their own religions. True each religion makes an effort to keep their members in the fold but it is not done by invoking the fear of hell for investigating and considering other ideas.

Athiests, agnostics and non committed Christians (i.e. people who may have been brought up in a church or religion but never fully bought into it), may be the most likely of all to be open minded about entertaining new ideas. Many of them may be searching or hoping to find something that makes more sense to them than what they were taught as children, or possibly are fine with what they were taught but feel it was incomplete and are searching for more.

[Traveler]

Consider carefully the prophesies from scripture. This is the day of the Gentiles. Also Jesus prophesied that prior to his return that his servants would be sent out - not to the elite who rejected the earlier call but to the poor and rejected. I believe the symbolism is both interesting and informative.

The Traveler

[bytebear]

The doctrine of a Great Apostasy would seem like an aggressive criticism to most Christians.

I would say it is akin to the Protestant Reformation as an aggressive criticism to Catholicism.

I did find that the strongest convert I know came from a being an active participant in a protestant church who, when learning of LDS church discovered additional knowledge, and didn't abandon their Christian faith, but just added to it.

[prisonchaplain]

I would say it is akin to the Protestant Reformation as an aggressive criticism to Catholicism.

I did find that the strongest convert I know came from a being an active participant in a protestant church who, when learning of LDS church discovered additional knowledge, and didn't abandon their Christian faith, but just added to it.

Ironically, you are right, though somewhat in reverse. During the Catholic era, there was one organizational church. Orthodoxy was found in the church. Hierarchy was strong. The tradition of the church carried equal weight as scripture--and only the church authority could spell out what scripture meant. With the Reformation, the institutional church's authority was severely undermined. Yes, it was aggressive indeed.

With the teaching of apostasy and restoration, you've sought to bring all that back, only under a new authority. To Catholics, you have declared their errors to be real and permanent. To everyone else you would seem to remove most of the reforms.

[Blackmarch]

I asked the missionaries who was generally more receptive to their message, Christians or Non-Christians? They said Non-Christians tend to be more receptive. I was wondering if this is other peoples experience too.

Is it because of anti-LDS sentiment among certain Christians?

Overall i'd wager as a whole picture that the % difference is negligible- if you have what you want, don't want to change, etc... you're very likely going to tell the missionaries to move on in some way or another.

But when you start getting into specific areas then that can certainly become more likely.

[Uriel]

The doctrine of a Great Apostasy would seem like an aggressive criticism to most Christians.

I agree. This is one of the things that I'm having trouble with.

[bytebear]

This reminds me of a great comment made by Michael Otterson in a recent article about the media using the word "cult" in their coverage.

In the article, he states that it is reasonable for non-Mormon Christians to be uncomfortable with some doctrines in Mormonism, stating that "some Christians are indeed uncomfortable with aspects of Latter-day Saint theology. Of course they are. I am equally uncomfortable with some aspects of traditional, orthodox Christianity, which was the very issue that gave rise to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the first place." - The Mormon church and the media’s ‘cult’ box - On Faith - The Washington Post

I could add to this statement that it also gave rise to the Protestant Reformation.

I think that is exactly what distinguishes different denominations. Why does one change churches? Sometimes it's doctrinal, sometimes it's just not feeling comfortable with the pastor or maybe the members aren't friendly. Maybe they are too conservative or liberal. Certainly there is a schism in Christianity as a whole over the ordination of women or the acceptance of gays. Are these issues enough to create a second "reformation?" It seems to me that there is both a unity of traditional Christianity in aspects of the trinity and the creeds leading to an acceptance of a common baptism, but not on social issues, or even doctrinal practices like baptism (ironically), communion, ordination of leadership, etc. And how far apart can two Christian churches be before one or the other is in Apostasy or heretical?

Maybe I need some insight into the Christian community, but when one converts to or from Mormonism it is like "changing religions" but what about when one converts from Catholicism to Lutheranism, or Baptist to Methodist? What about from one evangelical church to another? I know that generally baptism is not required, but to what extent is it a "conversion?" And are there sub-circles of denominations? For example, converting from Anglican to Catholicism, there is little difference in worship or liturgy, but what about evangelical to Lutheran, or Baptist to Catholic? I know some evangelicals see Catholics as false too, but what about Anglicans or Methodists? PC implies a negativity to an authoritarian church where there is perhaps less emphasis on personal salvation rather than church membership leading to salvation. How much authority is too much authority? Oh, and I didn't even get to Eastern Orthodox churches.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bytebear

[bytebear]

I agree. This is one of the things that I'm having trouble with.

I think one of the issues is that many outside of the LDS Faith misunderstand what the Great Apostasy means. It does not mean that the church turned from God. It really refers to the concept that Christ's church at some point changed the hierarchy from one being led by a prophet and 12 apostles to one where the bishops became independent authoritative leaders. the church became decentralized with the Bishop in Rome with the help of Constantine became the Pope of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy being led by various bishops, Greek, Russian, etc. But it was the loss of central authority that is the key to understanding why a restoration of the office of apostle is important to LDS belief. Doctrinal clarification (or heresy to the rest of Christianity) is simply a manifestation of that authority.

[prisonchaplain]

... but what about when one converts from Catholicism to Lutheranism, or Baptist to Methodist? What about from one evangelical church to another? I know that generally baptism is not required, but to what extent is it a "conversion?" And are there sub-circles of denominations? For example, converting from Anglican to Catholicism, there is little difference in worship or liturgy, but what about evangelical to Lutheran, or Baptist to Catholic? I know some evangelicals see Catholics as false too, but what about Anglicans or Methodists? PC implies a negativity to an authoritarian church where there is perhaps less emphasis on personal salvation rather than church membership leading to salvation. How much authority is too much authority? Oh, and I didn't even get to Eastern Orthodox churches.

For the most part, changing churches is not viewed as a conversion. On the other hand, depending on how one leaves the old church, it may feel like a spiritual divorce. Even if the reason was a personal offense, to leave a congregation that has been spiritual home for years is painful. In contrast, with some Bible belt communities 'church hopping' is, frankly, too easy. There is a new youth pastor over there, and the kids love the music he's using--let's go there, instead! Tsk tsk!

On the other hand, if I had to draw a line to say when there was too much power in hierarchy, it would be that if a person left our church to join another we would assume that s/he had left God.