"True and Living Church"

[WANDERER]

I think it's essential that PC is a moderator on this forum:

assisting and interpreting between those who have non-LDS and LDS backgrounds to help them understand each other is the best way to do more good. I hadn't really noticed the mod tag until a week ago. I was surprised too. Hello, it's the investigator welcoming committee...if we can welcome investigators as mods then that says this forums have the capacity to welcome even the most floundering investigator.

I don't think I would have quite the understanding that I do now without PC's input: investigators need a whole lot of help. The line between investigator and anti can be rapidly crossed when one sticks one's toe across the wrong line. (sidenote: PC I have done my homework on those things in the last month and have a better understanding now).

Modelling respectful disagreement is great.

The amount of bickering on the feedback comments on the Salt Lake news articles is a bit much... and that goes for any of the sites on the net that are similar battlegrounds...for newcomers to things it's a bit offputting.

Some steering for those who arrive to the forums wanting to explain why they don't believe in the LDS faith is needed from a mod. Some steering for those who feel utterly violated by a investigator's comments is needed from a mod.

In fact, avoiding flame-wars is a productive thing: no one's questions get answered when that happens.

[prisonchaplain]

PC You have pointed out that from a non-LDS point of view what we believe is seen as heresy and that it is your duty therefore to 'bring us back' - do you actually believe that our souls are in jeapordy and that it is your duty to lead us away from our errors?

I was explaining the general evangelical mindset. My role here, from the beginning, has been to learn and to share. So, no I don't go looking for converts here. On the other hand, I'm happy to ask questions to better understand your faith, and occasionally offer my perspectives, and respond to questions.

Are you actually saying here then that you believe it is your duty to correct the false LDS doctrines and to get us all back onto what you believe to be the true Christian path, just as you believe that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and non-beleivers of any kind need to be 'saved'?

I don't know. After two and a half years, that's my conclusion. We all want to be as right as we can about God's Word, Gods' will, God's way, and his nature. The differences between our faiths are numerous and substantial. How wrong we can be about some of these teachings and still be under God's blessing is an open question. So, I leave the final assessment to God, and gladly offer my own testimonies, knowledge and experiences. Additionally, I will listen, and ask questions. LDSTalk, and now LDSnet remains a gracious host, and I am thankful.

I do find that very worrying from a moderator on an LDS forum. This could surely give visiting investigators the impression that this forum supports non-LDS views and doctrines or confuse them as to what the LDS standpoint actually is. In that they may assume all moderators on here would be LDS.

First, I never pretend to be LDS, nor do I seek out investigators. The few questions I have gotten from such folk have been of the "You're not LDS...what are you doing here?" kind--not answers to theology or doctrine questions. Also, I was cautious to accept the offer, and I am sure that the Administrators were thoughtful in extending it. My guess is that having one or two like me keeps the board honest, and assures that non-members feel welcomed and that we are treated equitably.

On the one hand Heather is asking us to go all out to get a video banned from You Tube because it belittles our faith and yet her forum supports a moderator who tells us that our beliefs have 'slipped into heresy' from the point of view of his evangelical church.

Tone is crucial. I don't go around telling you/the church that. But, when asked questions--particularly about why evangelicals do what they do--the explanations I offer should be honest and thorough.

I do acknowledge that there is a great deal of difference in the way the You Tube clip puts over its point and the way that you do, but at the end of they day do you not share the same view? I'm just a little puzzled by this.

LDSTalk, one of the predecessors to LDSNet, allowed for a good deal of interaction between LDS and nonmembers. At it's peak, I'd say there was a 70/30 proportion of members/non-members. Occasionally, the dialogues were less than respectful, but for the most part, much good sharing took place. I believe the administrators hope to see some non-member traffic here, so that the church's message can be shared. Part of making that possible means allowing non-members to respectfully share differences of opinion.

[Misshalfway]

D&C 1: 30 "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundations of this church and bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking of the church collectively and not individually -- For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance....."

Maybe if those who look into our faith understand that we believe that it is God himself making the statement, it would be less offensive.

Just wondering.........

I was thinking about this statement from the perspective of LDS members and I wanted to express that believing this really isn't a position of arrogance, even though it may sting like that to an outside observer. It is actually a very heavy responsibility if you believe. Where much is given, much is expected! It is a daily commitment to take up the cross and live according to that truth!

You see, for us, there is no guarantee that simply having the restored truth brings salvation. If anyone for a moment gets comfortable and... even arrogant, they perhaps need to read our very BofM again and review the ends of two civilizations who did have the truth, and who sadly, through their own wickedness, destroyed themselves. And for one of those groups, it was only 400 years from the time they sat at the feet of the Savior and prayed with him and were blessed by him ! 400 years, and there was only one left to document the sad tale and bury the record.

For the Latter-day Saint, there is no room for arrogance.

[rameumptom]

I was explaining the general evangelical mindset. My role here, from the beginning, has been to learn and to share. So, no I don't go looking for converts here. On the other hand, I'm happy to ask questions to better understand your faith, and occasionally offer my perspectives, and respond to questions.

I don't know. After two and a half years, that's my conclusion. We all want to be as right as we can about God's Word, Gods' will, God's way, and his nature. The differences between our faiths are numerous and substantial. How wrong we can be about some of these teachings and still be under God's blessing is an open question. So, I leave the final assessment to God, and gladly offer my own testimonies, knowledge and experiences. Additionally, I will listen, and ask questions. LDSTalk, and now LDSnet remains a gracious host, and I am thankful.

First, I never pretend to be LDS, nor do I seek out investigators. The few questions I have gotten from such folk have been of the "You're not LDS...what are you doing here?" kind--not answers to theology or doctrine questions. Also, I was cautious to accept the offer, and I am sure that the Administrators were thoughtful in extending it. My guess is that having one or two like me keeps the board honest, and assures that non-members feel welcomed and that we are treated equitably.

Tone is crucial. I don't go around telling you/the church that. But, when asked questions--particularly about why evangelicals do what they do--the explanations I offer should be honest and thorough.

LDSTalk, one of the predecessors to LDSNet, allowed for a good deal of interaction between LDS and nonmembers. At it's peak, I'd say there was a 70/30 proportion of members/non-members. Occasionally, the dialogues were less than respectful, but for the most part, much good sharing took place. I believe the administrators hope to see some non-member traffic here, so that the church's message can be shared. Part of making that possible means allowing non-members to respectfully share differences of opinion.

And I am glad for PC and those non-LDS Christians that wish to have a decent dialogue with us. Sometimes I think we forget that we are all mortal, humans; all in search for the truth the best we can find it.

I've learned many wonderful truths from people of other faiths before, and I hope to continue learning from them. And I hope they can learn from the LDS point of view, as well. Hopefully, the day will soon come when we will all come to a unity of the faith in Christ. Until that day, perhaps we can attempt to extend a little charity to those that do not agree with us.

The Church teaches that in the last days, the physical government of God will be run by a variety of people from a variety of religions - not just LDS. Joseph Smith created a Council of 50 as the beginnings of the kingdom of God on earth, and not all its members were LDS, but all were eager to establish a righteous democracy that would allow a righteous people to dwell peacefully with each other.

Perhaps sharing the moderator's power at such sites as this is a good beginning to creating that Christian government of the future.

[Kevin_Christensen]

Regarding the key verse:

D&C 1: 30 "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundations of this church and bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking of the church collectively and not individually -- For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance....."

Much of the conversation seems to me to proceed from the assumption that this statement is a florid and emphatic way of expressing something that could be said in three words: "only true church." Yet the key phrase has 30 words. Do the extra words actually have meaningful content? I think so.

Take the phrase "only true church." Break it down.

Only - exclusive

true - correct, perfect, ideal

church - body of doctrines.

Such a view is particularly good at generating anomalies for believers and offense among skeptics because the expectations are so brittle, and static. Anything not exclusive, anything that seems not correct at the moment, that falls short of perfection, that fails to meet the ideal of choice. Any change, or perceived change to what should be static, perfect, ideal. When it works it is good for generating zeal, like Hoffer's True Believer. And Hoffer explained that no mass movement ever succeeded without such believers, because only such people en mass, can make the necessary sacrifices. When "only true" mode breaks down, it is good for generating anomaly and indignation.

The problem is that D&C 1 not only fails to provide this handy three word phrase, but expressly rules out this reading. It says that while God has spoken to Joseph Smith, he has also spoken with unspecified "others" and that he is no "respecter of persons" and willing to make these things known to "all flesh." We should not expect exclusiveness, but a relative "well pleasingness."

D&C 1 bluntly states of LDS leadership that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest; inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed." It bluntly says that what is "well pleasing" about the collective does not bestow any special virtues on members except opportunity and accountability. How much plainer does it have to be? How much more conspicuous than in the First Section of the D&C, the revelation that formally explains to us what we should expect?

And the Greek word behind "church" means "assembly or gathering. It not a static body of doctrines, or a perfect hierarchy we invited to join with, but a bunch of people of all sorts. I'm not baptised into a static body of doctrines, a big unchanging book of What to Think, but a living community of people.

The way I parse the sentence the "only" is modified by "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased." That distinction of relative pleasure has to do with what "true and living" means in reference to the church. That, is what the "true and living" designation ought to lead us to look for in the LDS church. Around 1992, I was led to contextualize "true and living" in comparison to Biblical usage in passages about "true vine," "living waters," "living bread", 'the truth and the life," "tree of life," "the true God, the living God" (from a voice of warning passage in Jeremiah 10:10). What I noticed back then was that such Biblical passages mirror the themes of D&C 1 point for point, and verse for verse.

For instance, the single Biblical use of "true" and "living" in Jer. 10:10 occurs in a voice of warning passage akin to the opening verses of D&C 1.

And verse D&C 1:15:

"For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;"

The Biblical passages about living bread, living waters, and the tree of life are all tied to the ordinances of the sacrament, baptism, the temple, and these in turn, to the everlasting covenant.

Verse 17:

Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;

This shares themes with the passages about the calling of the apostles in John 15-17 that start by discussing the true vine:

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman"

Visualizing a menorah, a tree of life, shows the relation of the branches to the center vine, the dependence of the apostles on the Lord as the source of their authority, information, and strength, and also evokes the temple and ongoing revelation. D&C 1 demonstrates the same ideas as the Lord explains why he has called Joseph Smith, and what he expects him to do.

More recently, I noticed this "living" in Hebrews 10:20

Having therefore, brethren, aboldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

The living way has associations with the atonement, temple rites, and priesthood.

In my reading "true and living" serve as a merism, expressing as succinctly as possible the associated themes from these kinds of Bible passages, which also mirror point for point, verse for verse the themes of D&C 1. I think that convergence of themes around "true and living" imagery is deliberate, inspired, and to me, inspiring.

To me, at least, D&C 1:30 expresses a different concept than the popular "only true church" idea. It does not waste its 30 words in expressing that meaning, a meaning that is far more tolerant and robust. That is, it makes no claim to exclusive truth, virtue or revelation. (Indeed, D&C 1 expressly refutes such notions.) It expressly says that LDS leaders can error, and that such errors will be made manifest.

It does, however express clearly that the world has strayed from the ordinances and covenants. And these, Joseph Smith claims to have restored. I do take the restoration seriously (see D&C 1:17-30). I evaluate the church according to the actual claims made in D&C 1, not against the claims made in popular LDS discourse.

My perspective, FWIW.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[rameumptom]

Kevin makes some great points. May I add one other thought:

the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased

What does it mean? It can easily be read that there are several true and living churches upon the earth, but the Lord is well pleased with only one of them right now. Can that mean there are others that the Lord is "fairly pleased" with? How about "somewhat pleased" with?

Our readings can often read things into a statement that may mean something very different.

[Ray A]

Late News Flash:

The Vatican issued a document Tuesday restating its belief that the Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ....

It says although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope....

The Jewish Anti-Defamation League in New York called it a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says

[rameumptom]

You'll note they didn't mention the LDS. We aren't orthodox, nor are we Protestant. So according to them we must be in an "Other" group. Which, btw, we are.

[Misshalfway]

It wouldn't be logical for God to speak to Joseph, command him to restore the church, only to make it "sort of true" or "mostly true" or "popular" so other people will like us.

[Misshalfway]

Late News Flash:

Catholic Church only true church, Vatican says

Body blow, eh? Strange how we can't both feel right, and extend brotherhood at the same time. Is sharing brotherhood only possible when we agree? Sad.

[skalenfehl]

According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a doctrinal watchdog that Pope Benedict used to head, that although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

"It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation."

Fortunately in the restored gospel there is no mystery of salvation. We know the plan of salvation from the foundation of the world to the fall of Adam to the Atonement of Christ unto man's salvation and exaltation.

[Misshalfway]

According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a doctrinal watchdog that Pope Benedict used to head, that although Orthodox churches are true churches, they are defective because they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

"It follows that these separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation."

Fortunately in the restored gospel there is no mystery of salvation. We know the plan of salvation from the foundation of the world to the fall of Adam to the Atonement of Christ unto man's salvation and exaltation.

I was reading last night in the end of 3rd Nephi where the Lord gives the people the scripture they are missing and then proceeds to tell them everything from the beginning of things to the end of the world.

And then Mormon goes to add it to his compilations and is foridden because the Lord said he would "try the faith of his people." It hit me that they had 'more' than we do. Never realized that before.

[prisonchaplain]

The word "mystery" is often used in Catholic spiritual writing to denote a teaching that is marvelous, that is grand, that is beyond comprehension--not because it's confusing--but because it is more than we can fathom. These days, we often hear about the "extravagant love" of God. It's the same idea. So...I would not pity Catholics for their 'mysteries.'

[skalenfehl]

The word "mystery" is often used in Catholic spiritual writing to denote a teaching that is marvelous, that is grand, that is beyond comprehension--not because it's confusing--but because it is more than we can fathom. These days, we often hear about the "extravagant love" of God. It's the same idea. So...I would not pity Catholics for their 'mysteries.'

Oops, I didn't know my post sounded like I was pitying. My apologies; that was not my intention.

[lilered]

Prior to joining the church, I used to cringe evertime I heard a Mormon use the phrase "We are the only true church, here on the earth today. I found it offensive. Partially because I cared about the church I had been raised in. Partially because I did not understand the LDS Teachings. Partially because it seemed that it was being lauded over non-LDS almost in a condesending way. I have long thought that this term should be used sparingly by church members to non-lds. A better way would be to build on the similarities of Christian Religions and when there are differences explain the difference and why the LDS faith member believes the way they do. Usually because we have be given additional witnesses to the Bible as well as additional information in these Latter Days brought to us by Latter Day Prophets etc. It seem to me that once this is accepted and understood, then it will be realized that this statement is true. Thus, using a positive message to non-members instead of presenting a negative statement to infer"we are better than you". Once a negative perception is obtained, it seems to be more difficult to overcome.

[prisonchaplain]

Skalenfehl, I intentionally did not respond to a particular post, because not one person was interpreting "mystery" in a directly negative way. However, the tone of two or three gave the impression that mystery = uncertainity or confusion. I've seen other groups (Jehovah's Witnesses when discussion the Trinity, for example), interpret Catholic theological writing about "the mystery of the Trinity," as if "mystery" were a purely negative. In contrast, theologically, "mystery" is usually very positive--a truth so wonderful we cannot fully comprehend it--but we can taste of it's goodness.

So...no criticism...just a different perspective. :-)

[Dear434]

Words have meanings. Only means only (unless your Bill Clinton). So, if the LDS Church is the "only" true church, then that means other churches are not "true". If the LDS church is the "only" living church upon the face of the earth, then that insinuates that other churches are not "living". How can Mormons expect non-LDS to NOT be offended when we read such things? How is that NOT condescending?

[darrel]

Most christian churches have some truth in them but cannot have the Full True Gospel of Jesus Christ. That Gospel was taken after the death of the Apostles when the authority to govern Christs True Church was taken away.

Limited understanding brings error by omission. While I believe Christian Churches teach what they know. The restored Full Gospel Truths reveal what they don't know.

[prisonchaplain]

I might be in the best position to answer Dear's questions--since I'm not LDS.

Words have meanings. Only means only (unless your Bill Clinton). So, if the LDS Church is the "only" true church, then that means other churches are not "true".

Or, perhaps they believe they are the only church with certain truths--teachings other churches do not accept? I don't believe in premortal existence, a God that progresses, eternal marriage, etc. But, if those teachings are true, the LDS are the only ones believing it. They are either right or wrong, and whichever it is, they are exclusive in it.

If the LDS church is the "only" living church upon the face of the earth, then that insinuates that other churches are not "living".

Yes and no. While they claim to be the only church with authority to do certain very important spiritual works, they also teach that those from other churches can be blessed, do have truth, and will likely enjoy entry into one of the heavenly kingdoms.

How can Mormons expect non-LDS to NOT be offended when we read such things? How is that NOT condescending?

Obviously tone and explanation are key. I'm no longer offended but these claims. I just disagree. And, arrogant me, I believe that the doctrines of my church are superior! However, nobody here, in the last two and a half years has called me prideful or offensive.

The reality is that Christians must answer these questions too. We claim that our Jesus is the only way. Jews are mightily offended by that (do a google on the Passion of the Christ, and you will find many heatedly negative reviews from the Jewish community). We answer with patience, with understanding and respect--but without compromise. I'd expect no less of my LDS friends and their truth claims.

[Elgama]

Words have is meanings. Only means only (unless your Bill Clinton). So, if the LDS Church is the "only" true church, then that means other churches are not "true". If the LDS church is the "only" living church upon the face of the earth, then that insinuates that other churches are not "living". How can Mormelons expect non-LDS to NOT be offended when we read such things? How is that NOT condescending?

It is understandable that some people are offended if they are so insecure in what they believe that they think we may be right rather than thinking we are poor misguided fools. In my experience people who are secure, happy and have a strong testimony of their own religion as being the right path in life for them are not remotely offended by someone else saying our Church is True, because they believe their way of worshipping God is the best and most true way of doing it.... Only people that have trouble explaining their beliefs or doubts need to concern themselves with us saying Our Church is True because they do not know for sure that what they believe is the best way for them to know God.

Tolerance of other religions comes from knowing you are on the best path you can be on and knowing that you are right with God, that you have a bond with Him - I am not remotely offended by my Orthodox Jewish friends, my Jehovah's Witness friends, Evangelical friends or my staunch Muslim friends when they say their faith is true and mine is wrong - because I know I am right with God and that is all that counts, they also know they are right with God

-Charley

[Elgama]

Obviously tone and explanation are key. I'm no longer offended but these claims. I just disagree. And, arrogant me, I believe that the doctrines of my church are superior! However, nobody here, in the last two and a half years has called me prideful or offensive.

The reality is that Christians must answer these questions too. We claim that our Jesus is the only way. Jews are mightily offended by that (do a google on the Passion of the Christ, and you will find many heatedly negative reviews from the Jewish community). We answer with patience, with understanding and respect--but without compromise. I'd expect no less of my LDS friends and their truth claims.

And there speaks a man who knows he is right with God

-Charley

[Flyonthewall]

You are correct, it does sound condescending, but it is not meant that way. Perhaps if we put "completely" in front of "true" part of that sting can be removed.

Nobody likes to hear someone say or infer that their beliefs are not true.

The way I see it, it's like the game of "Telephone". One person tells the person next to them a sentence or a message, and then that person in turn, repeats that message to the next person beside them. Somewhere down the line, the message starts to get altered. Each person is not delibrately trying to alter the message, but because they cannot ask the originator of the message to repeat it, they kind of fill in the gaps, or leave things out.

We believe that after the Apostles died, the message started down the line. Believers did what they could to keep the message correct, but because the Apostles were dead, they could not be turned to for clarification.

Sure things were written down like the epistles, but many times the audience being spoken or written to, had some level of understanding that clarifications were not needed at that specific time, however, years later, to a different audience, that same epistle is going to need clarification.

The further away from the source, the more the message gets altered. We believe the Nicene creed was the religious leaders' of the day attempt to establish the message, but because it was 250 - 300 years after the fact, and the message had already been altered so they filled in gaps and removed things all together, to have it make sense to them.

So bottom line, we do not believe other churches are evil or false, we just see them as incomplete.

Like I said I know people don't like to hear negative things about their beliefs, but I hope this helps.(it was not meant to offend, but to explain)

[rameumptom]

I do not pity the Catholics for the truths they have. I pity all of us for the lack of understanding we have of God's full truth.

Still, I do pity more those who believe in an absolutely closed canon, with no modern inspiration at all. The Catholics do believe in modern inspiration through their Pope and bishops. Many evangelicals seek the Spirit in their life. There are some Christian faiths that reject the gifts of the Spirit, such as the Church of Christ, which does not believe in the Holy Spirit today, either.

Alma 29:8 teaches that God gives to all people the level of truth and light they are ready and willing to receive. PC, I'm sure you would agree that some Christian churches veer closer to the fullness of truth than do others. I think this is the where the LDS claim of being the "only true and living Church with which the Lord is well pleased". There are other churches that also are true and living, perhaps, but that have farther to go to achieve a fullness of truth.

In his second volume on Exploring Mormon Thought, Blake Ostler notes that while many focus on the metaphysical aspects of God (Trinity vs Godhead), the real aspect we need to focus upon isn't whether God is a spirit, but "God is love." It is the relational aspect of God, and how we approach God's love through Christ, a true and living relationship with the Godhead, that is of utmost importance for all Christians and mortals.

Who is closer to God? The Mormon that fights with his family each and every Family Home Evening, or Mother Theresa - who spent her life emulating Christ? In which individuals does God indwell, sharing his Agape love for others? I don't think this type of relationship with Christ is limited to Mormons, though I do believe that incorrect creeds and beliefs can hamper our developing that relationship.

For example, for the individual that believes God is the Unmoved Mover - how does one develop a loving relationship with a Being that is unmoved by us; whether we repent or sin is immaterial to Him. IMO, such a belief can make it more difficult to develop that loving Father-child relationship with God. And in this way, the incorrect belief systems, whether they are in the traditional Christian Church, or amongst the Mormons or others, keep us from developing a fullness of relationship and receiving of the divine nature.

[Misshalfway]

Prior to joining the church, I used to cringe evertime I heard a Mormon use the phrase "We are the only true church, here on the earth today. I found it offensive. Partially because I cared about the church I had been raised in. Partially because I did not understand the LDS Teachings. Partially because it seemed that it was being lauded over non-LDS almost in a condesending way. I have long thought that this term should be used sparingly by church members to non-lds. A better way would be to build on the similarities of Christian Religions and when there are differences explain the difference and why the LDS faith member believes the way they do. Usually because we have be given additional witnesses to the Bible as well as additional information in these Latter Days brought to us by Latter Day Prophets etc. It seem to me that once this is accepted and understood, then it will be realized that this statement is true. Thus, using a positive message to non-members instead of presenting a negative statement to infer"we are better than you". Once a negative perception is obtained, it seems to be more difficult to overcome.

Thanks for your comments. If I may ask a question, what exactly do LDS people do or say that makes others feel we are using this statement to put them down?

[lilered]

Thanks for your comments. If I may ask a question, what exactly do LDS people do or say that makes others feel we are using this statement to put them down?

Example:

" We are the only true church on the face of the earth!", while this is a true statement, by the very nature of the comment, infers to the "hearer" their church is wrong. What is lost is that many investigators are searching or are interested but they still hold their religion dear and at this point are not ready to hear it. It sounds judgemental on our part.

I have long thought that it shows a lack of understanding, love, kindness, and disrespect for the others persons religious belief. It would serve the missionary effort better, if they reached this conclusion on their own after first learn and build their understanding of what the restored gospel means. We need to make them feel comfortable being in our presence and let the "Spirit" work.