Is Seeking Converts Bad?

[rameumptom]

PC, There is a difference. Christians believe salvation comes only through the name of Jesus Christ.

For Evangelicals, it is an issue of heaven/hell. Convert fully to Christ or burn in hell.

For LDS, we invite them to come to Christ, and by accepting basic Christian principles (most of which they already probably abide by) they are saved from hell. For entrance into the Celestial Kingdom they need baptism, and for exaltation they need the temple ordinances. These require more of them in dedication and leaving behind the errors of the former religion.

However, President George Albert Smith encouraged others to bring the truths and correct doctrines they currently have and allow the LDS to build upon those truths and doctrines with them.

[rameumptom]

All is well. Also, LDS may have a particularly difficult time seeing the altruism in evangelical witnessing, in particular, because you tend to see the most aggressive, confrontational elements from our churches. So, while your view may seem cynical to me, it may well be reality as well. I've seen some of the FAIRLDS video of our "evangelists" at your conferences and pageants, and they are not our best or brightest.

Let us hope they aren't your best or brightest! Otherwise evangelicalism will die out within a few years from stupidity!

[prisonchaplain]

PC, There is a difference. Christians believe salvation comes only through the name of Jesus Christ.

For Evangelicals, it is an issue of heaven/hell. Convert fully to Christ or burn in hell.

For LDS, we invite them to come to Christ, and by accepting basic Christian principles (most of which they already probably abide by) they are saved from hell. For entrance into the Celestial Kingdom they need baptism, and for exaltation they need the temple ordinances. These require more of them in dedication and leaving behind the errors of the former religion.

The temptation of some would be to say, "Well the LDS approach seems nicer, so it must be right." It either is or it is not, because truth is truth, not because one answer is more pleasant.

What your breakdown does explain is why some Evangelicals seem much more strident, or even aggressive.

[prisonchaplain]

Let us hope they aren't your best or brightest! Otherwise evangelicalism will die out within a few years from stupidity!

Sadly, their actions are based on a slight misinterpretation of Paul's admonition to "contend for the faith." They thought this meant to be contentious, or obnoxious. In real life, these folks are the most mild-mannered, sweetest people you could know. It's amazing what a slightly off-based nuance can do.

[rameumptom]

PC, agreed.

[Seminarysnoozer]

In another string a few posters mentioned that the Dalai Lama discourages Christians from converting to Buddhism. His counsel is to take any good teachings he and Buddhism may offer, and use them to be the best Christian (or whatever) person you can be. There seemed to be a lot of admiration for this posture. Indeed, I understand that Judaism has the same injunction.

BUT don't LDS (and Evangelicals, btw) seek converts? We want people to leave their religions (we may even dare to use the adjective 'false'), and join our truth. In a book I often recommend, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, both the LDS writer and Evangelical one admitted that both sides would continue to seek converts from the other. We see much in common, but in the end, find each other deficient enough that we would help each other by seeking conversion.

Frankly, I think we're right. I do not condemn religions that do not seek converts, but neither do I find them compelling as universal true faiths. If we have what's right, we would want others to "taste and see that it is good."

Am I missing something?

For some reason Revelations 3 15-16 comes to mind; " 15 I know thy aworks, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

There is a kingdom reserved for good people who find good in many areas and not wanting to offend man.

[Traveler]

In another string a few posters mentioned that the Dalai Lama discourages Christians from converting to Buddhism. His counsel is to take any good teachings he and Buddhism may offer, and use them to be the best Christian (or whatever) person you can be. There seemed to be a lot of admiration for this posture. Indeed, I understand that Judaism has the same injunction.

BUT don't LDS (and Evangelicals, btw) seek converts? We want people to leave their religions (we may even dare to use the adjective 'false'), and join our truth. In a book I often recommend, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, both the LDS writer and Evangelical one admitted that both sides would continue to seek converts from the other. We see much in common, but in the end, find each other deficient enough that we would help each other by seeking conversion.

Frankly, I think we're right. I do not condemn religions that do not seek converts, but neither do I find them compelling as universal true faiths. If we have what's right, we would want others to "taste and see that it is good."

Am I missing something?

I believe it is possible you are missing something. It is my understanding that there are two reasons to become involved with someone else’s quest, journey or their travels through life.

Purpose #1: To warn the wicked concerning the consequences (karma) of selfish behavior and desires.

Purpose #2: To assist the righteous (righteous being those willing to sacrifice) in their quest for truth.

I believe that if one becomes a student of Christ and the scriptures they will discover these two very different and distinct attitudes by Jesus and those who have received a “call” to testify. Thus I am not sure I would classify the seeking of “converts” in categories of “good” or “bad”. I believe the goal is simple and stated in the two purposes above. What I believe to be both foolish and counterproductive would be any effort to assist the wicked in their selfish behaviors and desires or to do anything to distract the righteous from their journey or quest of truth. I believe the term used in scripture is to place a “stumbling block” in the path of those making selfless sacrifices - which I believe many false religions do, especially when they have lost the focus of love and charity for their fellow men.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, if I read you right, you might actually harbor admiration for those "street preachers," with signs saying, "Repent Sinner! The Day of Judgment is at hand!"

[Dove]

I believe it is possible you are missing something. It is my understanding that there are two reasons to become involved with someone else’s quest, journey or their travels through life.

Purpose #1: To warn the wicked concerning the consequences (karma) of selfish behavior and desires.

Purpose #2: To assist the righteous (righteous being those willing to sacrifice) in their quest for truth.

I believe that if one becomes a student of Christ and the scriptures they will discover these two very different and distinct attitudes by Jesus and those who have received a “call” to testify. Thus I am not sure I would classify the seeking of “converts” in categories of “good” or “bad”. I believe the goal is simple and stated in the two purposes above. What I believe to be both foolish and counterproductive would be any effort to assist the wicked in their selfish behaviors and desires or to do anything to distract the righteous from their journey or quest of truth. I believe the term used in scripture is to place a “stumbling block” in the path of those making selfless sacrifices - which I believe many false religions do, especially when they have lost the focus of love and charity for their fellow men.

The Traveler

So, like; am I the one missing something here?!

Where is it that anyone has the right to butt into anyone elses' life to tell them they are wicked and going to hell? Or to even presume to say that their actions are right (or wrong)?

I just don't get it~ To me, purely loving means never presuming I know more about someone to have the right to correct them in their chosen path. If they are seeking/lost/wondering and more importantly, asking for direction, that's one thing......And even when they ask I feel it's highly presumptive on my part to think I have or know the right answer for them.

I feel that if a person truly wants to get to know me, and what works for me, that my spirituality will inevitably come up. Not to pressure them to conform to what I believe in; but, simply to share what works for me in bringing happiness to my life.

Can't we trust others (and their maker) to find their pursuit of happiness? That if they truly want to trust us and know us they will ask what makes us happy for their own benefit and learning? Must we always be the initiator in declaring our beliefs?

I don't know. This makes no sense to me. True love doesn't require others to change who they are to make me more comfortable. True love is unconditional~While I may disagree strongly with anothers' choice of lifestyle, the only thing I could see as appropriate in telling them is that I feel that way. Not that I'm right and they're wrong; but, as one person to another, I disagree......

I believe there is a difference between sharing what one knows or strongly believes to be true, then letting the person decide for herself to follow or not and forcing someone to conform to my belief system. It is always cool to share knowledge, not so cool for it to come with strings attached.......

[FunkyTown]

Traveler, if I read you right, you might actually harbor admiration for those "street preachers," with signs saying, "Repent Sinner! The Day of Judgment is at hand!"

I do. The world thinks they're crazy and show no respect, but if even one person comes to God because it makes them think, then it was worth it.

[Blackmarch]

In another string a few posters mentioned that the Dalai Lama discourages Christians from converting to Buddhism. His counsel is to take any good teachings he and Buddhism may offer, and use them to be the best Christian (or whatever) person you can be. There seemed to be a lot of admiration for this posture. Indeed, I understand that Judaism has the same injunction.

BUT don't LDS (and Evangelicals, btw) seek converts? We want people to leave their religions (we may even dare to use the adjective 'false'), and join our truth. In a book I often recommend, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, both the LDS writer and Evangelical one admitted that both sides would continue to seek converts from the other. We see much in common, but in the end, find each other deficient enough that we would help each other by seeking conversion.

Frankly, I think we're right. I do not condemn religions that do not seek converts, but neither do I find them compelling as universal true faiths. If we have what's right, we would want others to "taste and see that it is good."

Am I missing something?

It all depends on the system you hold on to... something like buddhism may not need converts whereas something like the LDS, if a person wants to get all they can from it then converting is the only way.

[bytebear]

Traveler, if I read you right, you might actually harbor admiration for those "street preachers," with signs saying, "Repent Sinner! The Day of Judgment is at hand!"

I do. The world thinks they're crazy and show no respect, but if even one person comes to God because it makes them think, then it was worth it.

I think the approach is wrong. You are just going to alienate people.

[Dove]

PS. Isn't it Joseph Smith who said that "I teach the people true principals and then let them govern themselves."?

[prisonchaplain]

Probably one of the greatest conversion scenes in the New Testament is Jesus interacting with the woman caught in adultery. We know the story. The crowd wants to stone her to death, in accordance with Mosaic law. They are not wrong. Yet, Jesus, in saying, "He who is without sin cast the first stone," manages to drive the throng away. Then Jesus says what everyone loves, "Neither do I condemn you..."

We like to end right there, and proclaim, no more judgments, no more condemnations! Yay, Jesus is the hero of fallen me!

Ironically, to me, the last part is hope-filled to the extreme. Jesus continues, "Go and sin no more."

See the adultery was sin. It was grievous. Death was the rightful punishment. Yet, Jesus sees hope for the woman. He believes she can live right, and fulfill the Father's purpose for her. So he chooses not to condemn her. BUT NEITHER DOES HE EXONERATE HER!

Instead, he redeems her. Then, saying what can only be possible, he commissions her to go and sin no more. Now, free, she can live for God, and no longer commit adultery.

In saving her, Jesus does say she is a sinner, and has sinned. He does agree that adultery is sin. He tells her to cease and desist. This is no vacuous post-modern, do what feels right message. This is indeed a "Repent sinner" message. However, it is given in love, and with encouragement and power.

Jesus is the balance between those who seem to delight in yelling out the sins of others, and those who might say that only the individual can determine what his/her sin is.

[Traveler]

So, like; am I the one missing something here?!

Where is it that anyone has the right to butt into anyone elses' life to tell them they are wicked and going to hell? Or to even presume to say that their actions are right (or wrong)?

I just don't get it~ To me, purely loving means never presuming I know more about someone to have the right to correct them in their chosen path. If they are seeking/lost/wondering and more importantly, asking for direction, that's one thing......And even when they ask I feel it's highly presumptive on my part to think I have or know the right answer for them.

I feel that if a person truly wants to get to know me, and what works for me, that my spirituality will inevitably come up. Not to pressure them to conform to what I believe in; but, simply to share what works for me in bringing happiness to my life.

Can't we trust others (and their maker) to find their pursuit of happiness? That if they truly want to trust us and know us they will ask what makes us happy for their own benefit and learning? Must we always be the initiator in declaring our beliefs?

I don't know. This makes no sense to me. True love doesn't require others to change who they are to make me more comfortable. True love is unconditional~While I may disagree strongly with anothers' choice of lifestyle, the only thing I could see as appropriate in telling them is that I feel that way. Not that I'm right and they're wrong; but, as one person to another, I disagree......

I believe there is a difference between sharing what one knows or strongly believes to be true, then letting the person decide for herself to follow or not and forcing someone to conform to my belief system. It is always cool to share knowledge, not so cool for it to come with strings attached.......

Let me suppose that you were in a very primitive place but your cell phone was working. A friend of yours realizes that you are on a remote beach and calls you on your cell phone and says that a massive earth quake has taken place and that a 100 foot tsunami is headed to your vacation spot and you have a little more than 2 hours to get to high ground.

I guess in your world you say - “if anyone wants to follow my example and do what I do that is fine but it is their right to live their lives as they want - I am not going to warn them - I will just quietly get up and leave; it is not up to me to judge anyone else and tell them what to do.”

Perhaps when you are on vacation you do not want anyone to interfere with your plans. Perhaps as the ocean recedes you may think it a great opportunity to take your small children out to see all the sea creatures trapped in temporary tide pools - perhaps you do not want any such warning yourself? Perhaps you are the kind that have made plans and do not want anything to interfere with your plans. You are probably not going to appreciate someone like me - at least not for a couple of hours.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Traveler, if I read you right, you might actually harbor admiration for those "street preachers," with signs saying, "Repent Sinner! The Day of Judgment is at hand!"

It is one thing to run everyday through the streets of a small village near a forest crying wolf because you are quite sure there is a wolf somewhere in the forest and you think the village should be more diligent - It is quite another thing to see a hungry wolf headed to the village and sound the alarm.

Do you understand my point? How bad would it be to warn travelers of a wolf and send them in panic straight into the clutches of a bear?

The Traveler

[Dove]

Let me suppose that you were in a very primitive place but your cell phone was working. A friend of yours realizes that you are on a remote beach and calls you on your cell phone and says that a massive earth quake has taken place and that a 100 foot tsunami is headed to your vacation spot and you have a little more than 2 hours to get to high ground.

I guess in your world you say - “if anyone wants to follow my example and do what I do that is fine but it is their right to live their lives as they want - I am not going to warn them - I will just quietly get up and leave; it is not up to me to judge anyone else and tell them what to do.”

Perhaps when you are on vacation you do not want anyone to interfere with your plans. Perhaps as the ocean recedes you may think it a great opportunity to take your small children out to see all the sea creatures trapped in temporary tide pools - perhaps you do not want any such warning yourself? Perhaps you are the kind that have made plans and do not want anything to interfere with your plans. You are probably not going to appreciate someone like me - at least not for a couple of hours.

The Traveler

Traveler~

You are misconstruing what I'm trying to say...Your example of "my world" is not what I believe and was hurtful. I wasn't trying to slight you or demean your answer. I just don't know that I fully agree with your stance.

I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on anyone who doesn't want to hear. Your example reminds me of Noah warning the people of their impending doom if they didn't repent. They were still mocking him when the rains came.....(I think I saw a painting of this at Temple Square....) Noah was called to warn these people. They refused to listen and were destroyed..... My hope in my life is to be what it is I'm preaching in such a way that people will want it, rather than hate me for forcing it on them. I believe in the adage; You draw more flies to honey than to vinegar.....

My experience has been that when people are angry or feel that their position/stance is being threatened they will not hear what I'm trying to communicate to them. In the MTC they taught us to "build relationships of trust." Have you heard the saying, "I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care?"The message is meaningless to the person who feels the messenger is an enemy.

Maybe I'm off base scriptually speaking.... I'm thinking of the passages in the New Testament where the Savior says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father; and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother in law...." For me, when I"m at variance with other people I am learning to let go by not jumping into the fray, so to speak, by trying to win them over to my side in any form....either through arguing or pleasing or whatever. I have found this does not work.

I don't want to change others so that I can feel better about myself or fulfill a hidden agenda of pride or to validate my beliefs. Maybe you are pure enough to not be preaching/warning for these motives.

You know, I have a lot of issues surrounding this. I have long felt ostracized and rejected by various members of our church. It's not a good feeling. Over and over again I have seen hypocrisy by members of all different christian churches....The core principal of the gospel is to love our neighbor as ourselves.....Maybe my definition of what love is differs from other people. To me, love is respecting what I feel is a core principal of the gospel; agency. I can't force another to listen to me. How tiring to keep trying if the other is unwilling.....

I'm not unaware of the sacrifice required of each person who is truly seeking to follow the Savior. It's not easy. I hesitate to plunge headlong into introducing concepts that could very well break them or condemn their soul to hell if not followed.

I could work on my faith. I struggle with believing that their is "joy" at the end of this long, hot day of life filled with opposition. It's difficult to have hope in the gospel.....I disagree with the "have to, ought to, should" attitude.....I would rather live it in faith that it is worth doing just for the sake of doing it. Not out of fear or guilt or shame; but, out of the belief that by doing so I will receive a fullness of joy and exemplify that joy to others. I don't see this very often.

However, I loved what PC wrote about the Savior and the woman taken in adultery. That example soothed my soul.

Dove

[prisonchaplain]

It is one thing to run everyday through the streets of a small village near a forest crying wolf because you are quite sure there is a wolf somewhere in the forest and you think the village should be more diligent - It is quite another thing to see a hungry wolf headed to the village and sound the alarm.

Do you understand my point? How bad would it be to warn travelers of a wolf and send them in panic straight into the clutches of a bear?

The Traveler

Date-setters would be the wolf-criers. Likewise, those that wave the newspaper in one hand, scriptures in the other, and cry, "Armegeddon...Judgment...the 2nd coming!"

On the other hand, the typical street preacher I cited is absolutely right. Repent sinner, the Day of the Lord is at hand! We do not know the day or hour, but the Day of Judgment is coming. Muslims actually agree with us on this one.

So, again...is the street preacher doing a noble work, according to the principles you offer?

[Traveler]

Traveler~

You are misconstruing what I'm trying to say...Your example of "my world" is not what I believe and was hurtful. I wasn't trying to slight you or demean your answer. I just don't know that I fully agree with your stance.

I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on anyone who doesn't want to hear. Your example reminds me of Noah warning the people of their impending doom if they didn't repent. They were still mocking him when the rains came.....(I think I saw a painting of this at Temple Square....) Noah was called to warn these people. They refused to listen and were destroyed..... My hope in my life is to be what it is I'm preaching in such a way that people will want it, rather than hate me for forcing it on them. I believe in the adage; You draw more flies to honey than to vinegar.....

My experience has been that when people are angry or feel that their position/stance is being threatened they will not hear what I'm trying to communicate to them. In the MTC they taught us to "build relationships of trust." Have you heard the saying, "I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care?"The message is meaningless to the person who feels the messenger is an enemy.

Maybe I'm off base scriptually speaking.... I'm thinking of the passages in the New Testament where the Savior says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father; and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother in law...." For me, when I"m at variance with other people I am learning to let go by not jumping into the fray, so to speak, by trying to win them over to my side in any form....either through arguing or pleasing or whatever. I have found this does not work.

I don't want to change others so that I can feel better about myself or fulfill a hidden agenda of pride or to validate my beliefs. Maybe you are pure enough to not be preaching/warning for these motives.

You know, I have a lot of issues surrounding this. I have long felt ostracized and rejected by various members of our church. It's not a good feeling. Over and over again I have seen hypocrisy by members of all different christian churches....The core principal of the gospel is to love our neighbor as ourselves.....Maybe my definition of what love is differs from other people. To me, love is respecting what I feel is a core principal of the gospel; agency. I can't force another to listen to me. How tiring to keep trying if the other is unwilling.....

I'm not unaware of the sacrifice required of each person who is truly seeking to follow the Savior. It's not easy. I hesitate to plunge headlong into introducing concepts that could very well break them or condemn their soul to hell if not followed.

I could work on my faith. I struggle with believing that their is "joy" at the end of this long, hot day of life filled with opposition. It's difficult to have hope in the gospel.....I disagree with the "have to, ought to, should" attitude.....I would rather live it in faith that it is worth doing just for the sake of doing it. Not out of fear or guilt or shame; but, out of the belief that by doing so I will receive a fullness of joy and exemplify that joy to others. I don't see this very often.

However, I loved what PC wrote about the Savior and the woman taken in adultery. That example soothed my soul.

Dove

I am not so sure that we really disagree - but maybe. In essence it seems to me that the L-rd would have us comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But we must do so honestly. If we are not convinced there is no reason to warn others or to express misguided joy.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Date-setters would be the wolf-criers. Likewise, those that wave the newspaper in one hand, scriptures in the other, and cry, "Armegeddon...Judgment...the 2nd coming!"

On the other hand, the typical street preacher I cited is absolutely right. Repent sinner, the Day of the Lord is at hand! We do not know the day or hour, but the Day of Judgment is coming. Muslims actually agree with us on this one.

So, again...is the street preacher doing a noble work, according to the principles you offer?

As near as I have found in my studies - there have been those that for 2000 years thought the day of the L-rd is at hand. However, it seems to me that repentance has little to do with if the day of the L-rd is at hand or not.

If we do not know it is at hand we should not provoke a false pretence. Or as the scriptures say, “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

It is not noble if we provoke an idea we do not know is true - even if we are sincere.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm very comfortable with the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ. When, I do not know. Where, we can discuss. However, the teaching that we must be ready always for the unannounced and soon-coming appearance is rock solid. The pretense only becomes false when the "day and hour" is hinted at.

[Dove]

I am not so sure that we really disagree - but maybe. In essence it seems to me that the L-rd would have us comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But we must do so honestly. If we are not convinced there is no reason to warn others or to express misguided joy.

The Traveler

I like your saying about affliction~

I am convinced that the road back home is rife with difficulty, as I've already expressed. I haven't resolved yet that all the pain is worth the promised joy. It feels like a carrot to me at times. So, there is the quest for faith and learning for me....I remember the primary song we sung when I was little.....Something about "try, try, try."

[rayhale]

Here is a quote from an atheist that would fit here:

“I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize, [who] believe that there is a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell (or not getting eternal life or whatever) and you think that, well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. And atheist who think that people should not proselytize--“Just leave me alone, keep your religion to yourself’… How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

[slamjet]

Here is a quote from an atheist that would fit here:

“I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize, [who] believe that there is a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell (or not getting eternal life or whatever) and you think that, well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. And atheist who think that people should not proselytize--“Just leave me alone, keep your religion to yourself’… How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

I would LOVE to know who that quote is from. Sound like a person I can have a constructive conversation with and not a rabid ideologue devoid of decency and respect.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Here is a quote from an atheist that would fit here:

“I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize, [who] believe that there is a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell (or not getting eternal life or whatever) and you think that, well it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. And atheist who think that people should not proselytize--“Just leave me alone, keep your religion to yourself’… How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

If a person doesn't believe in an afterlife that is a belief that formed within themselves between their own spirit and carnal thoughts. (I am not saying it started with them but that the carnal thoughts, directed by Satan overtook the spiritual influence we are all born with.) Their spirit already kept the first estate and in so doing stated their belief in the plan of salvation. The veil blocks some of that but also choices in this life obscure spiritual influence and the light of Christ further to the point of not recalling and believing something they already stated they believed in the pre-mortal life.

The reason to say it that way is to realize that the belief in God and an afterlife is not a new one to that person. It's not like they would have never had the opportunity to believe in God in a very general way. The atheist view is a denial of that previous belief, not an absence of knowledge of God. The atheist view is one of already denying spiritual influence. ... that view does not contribute to the 'whiteness' of field that is ready for harvest. They wouldn't be ready for "religion" until they first believe in their own spiritual self.