Question for non LDS Christians.

[AnthonyB]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Don't know Anthony...but there were many changes when LDSTalk became LDS.net. My guess is they just wanted a cleaner look. You could PM Heather, the site administrator, with that question. Barring any changes though, you could always put something in your signature that identifies your faith...."Saved through the waters of baptism Evangelical"--)

PC,

There has been a number of cases where people have been confused and a number of cases where people have put the wrong tag on their profile and confused people.

I could resort to my favourite Alexander Campbell quotes but I don't know that would be a big enough hint for most people to get. If I used the most common overall term "Restoration Movement" that would probably still leave some LDS thinking I might be LDS.

BTW It wouldn't be "saved through the waters of baptism Evangelical" but "saved by grace through faith, normally at the time of baptism, evanglelical Christian". I wouldn't want it to appear that the baptised are all saved and the unbaptised are all damned, but that baptism is a normal and expected part of God's plan of saving people.

Why not swap "country" with "faith"? I'll PM Heather but does she really have control over the new boards layout? On second thoughts maybe I'll run a poll and see what people think before I get the mods to change anything.

[Carl62]

As an LDS, it's not usually so much the question that's being asked as it is the attitude or tone behind the question. I honestly don't mind if somebody asks a sincere question or two about my faith and I'm more than glad to answer them, but when asked in a way that sounds disrespectful, negative or condescending, like "is it true you wear some kind of magic underwear?" or "if Brigham Young was a true prophet, then why did he say (insert negative comment)?" then I do get in a 'roll my eyes' kind of mindset which may end up coming out in a curt or slightly sarcastic response. I honestly believe that this is true not just with Mormons, but people of any religious faith. It usually takes about the first two questions to figure out where the person's coming from and whether or not you need to let your guard. Once you figure out which page the both of you are on, then you can decide where you want to take it from there.

[Lstinthwrld]

Isn't one of the precepts of the christian faith in general to be humble and sincere in your dealings with the world. Wouldn't someone asking in ignorance and challenge be seen as a chance to talk to and enlighten that lost soul. If the belief is an honest belief then any defensive posture or even a guard to lower is in my opinion inappropriate. Yes mormons are demonized quite frequently but this does not mean you all need to put up a guard or act defensively. It just means that you have to show more patience and understanding in the face of ignorance and persecution. Being under a microscope as the mormon religion is means you have to be a good example of your beliefs as much as possible.

[RiversideGuy]

Originally Posted by Lstinthwrld

Why do you think LDS people in general are so quick to get defensive when questions on their faith/doctrine are presented.

(be nice with your replies please)

I have never gotten defensive with regard to my own faith. The only real reason I can imagine is that one may feel insecure in what one believes.

[Lilac]

I think some questions are not sincere questions and are trying to "trap" the person. People can sense that a mile away.

[RiversideGuy]

Originally Posted by Lilac

I think some questions are not sincere questions and are trying to "trap" the person. People can sense that a mile away.

Maybe, but isn't it just easier to say --- "I don't know, let me look into that --- and I will get back to you."

It could also be that the one posing the question wants to know if that person really knows what he says he believes and why.

[thews]

Originally Posted by Lstinthwrld

Why do you think LDS people in general are so quick to get defensive when questions on their faith/doctrine are presented.

(be nice with your replies please)

Seems like most of the answers in this thread are from LDS, but I am a non-LDS Christian that was born and raised a Mormon with heritage that goes back to polygamy. There are a lot of aspects regarding the Mormon church's history that are hard to rationalize for Mormons and it kicks in a defense mechanism. Two cents:

Polygamy/Polyandary - Just because this subject is not practiced by mainstream LDS, it was by the founding members (including their prophet of God in Joseph Smith) and is still part of the LDS doctrine, and it is how it's going to be in the LDS version of heaven. When confronted with the histoprical data (like the letter Joseph Smith wrote to Sara Ann Whitney), it shifts the focus of what is today, to what was then. The differences of the LDS religion today and back then are vast, and I think LDS members need to defend the fact that it's not practiced today, which is where the defensive attitude comes into play.

Racism - Until 1978 black people could not hold the Mormon priesthood based on the color of their skin, and the doctrine defines "Dark and loathsome" as "cursed" skin. When attitudes regarding race changed in America, so did the doctrine. The words "White and delightsome" were changed to "Pure and delightsome" in the doctrine. Again this is part of the LDS history, and I think LDS members need to defend the fact that it's no longer a part of the doctrine.

The Book of Abraham - Many aspects of the BOA are hard for Mormons to defend IMO, and there's a lot of angst when facts are referenced. There has been no critical examination of the papyrus and Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (written by Joseph Smith), though the LDS church has had these documents since 1967 (they were not burned in a fire). Since there is no critical examination to reference, it creates a lot of confusion IMO.

There are many more sensitive topics, and when people (non-LDS) want to point them out in the form of questions, an attack mode is what's given back, because it encompasses defense of their religion based on the question asked. If they feel attacked by outsiders asking questions, they will attack back in return. Having been in many debates with LDS people, people critical of the church are deemed "Anti" though the information is simply factually based history in most cases. I question what I believe and why often, but it's not easy. /2cents

"A Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Note that I expect to be attacked for stating this opinion.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by thews

Note that I expect to be attacked for stating this opinion.

Indeed. Two Danites carrying violin cases will be appearing on your doorstep posthaste.

[FunkyTown]

I would say that you are most likely incorrect in all of your assumptions. You can consider that an attack if you wish, but it's nothing more than a complete disagreement.

Ta dah!

As for the original question: I would suggest they don't get defensive so much as sick and tired of answering the exact same 'Questions' over and over and over again. Especially when it's not asked in the spirit of learning, but of offending. You can usually tell very quickly.

Some are hilarious, though, like the guy who claimed they were asking questions about whether they would go to hell for self-pleasure and that they were a fourteen year old Mormon boy, then put a picture of a Catholic altarboy up as their own pic. I outed him in... What? 10 seconds? Highfive!

Originally Posted by thews

Seems like most of the answers in this thread are from LDS, but I am a non-LDS Christian that was born and raised a Mormon with heritage that goes back to polygamy. There are a lot of aspects regarding the Mormon church's history that are hard to rationalize for Mormons and it kicks in a defense mechanism. Two cents:

Polygamy/Polyandary - Just because this subject is not practiced by mainstream LDS, it was by the founding members (including their prophet of God in Joseph Smith) and is still part of the LDS doctrine, and it is how it's going to be in the LDS version of heaven. When confronted with the histoprical data (like the letter Joseph Smith wrote to Sara Ann Whitney), it shifts the focus of what is today, to what was then. The differences of the LDS religion today and back then are vast, and I think LDS members need to defend the fact that it's not practiced today, which is where the defensive attitude comes into play.

Racism - Until 1978 black people could not hold the Mormon priesthood based on the color of their skin, and the doctrine defines "Dark and loathsome" as "cursed" skin. When attitudes regarding race changed in America, so did the doctrine. The words "White and delightsome" were changed to "Pure and delightsome" in the doctrine. Again this is part of the LDS history, and I think LDS members need to defend the fact that it's no longer a part of the doctrine.

The Book of Abraham - Many aspects of the BOA are hard for Mormons to defend IMO, and there's a lot of angst when facts are referenced. There has been no critical examination of the papyrus and Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (written by Joseph Smith), though the LDS church has had these documents since 1967 (they were not burned in a fire). Since there is no critical examination to reference, it creates a lot of confusion IMO.

There are many more sensitive topics, and when people (non-LDS) want to point them out in the form of questions, an attack mode is what's given back, because it encompasses defense of their religion based on the question asked. If they feel attacked by outsiders asking questions, they will attack back in return. Having been in many debates with LDS people, people critical of the church are deemed "Anti" though the information is simply factually based history in most cases. I question what I believe and why often, but it's not easy. /2cents

"A Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson

Note that I expect to be attacked for stating this opinion.

[thews]

Originally Posted by FunkyTown

I would say that you are most likely incorrect in all of your assumptions. You can consider that an attack if you wish, but it's nothing more than a complete disagreement.

I'd love to her what you disagree with regarding the facts in my post.

Ta dah!

As for the original question: I would suggest they don't get defensive so much as sick and tired of answering the exact same 'Questions' over and over and over again. Especially when it's not asked in the spirit of learning, but of offending. You can usually tell very quickly.

I find this response interesting. When you say you answer the same questions over again, you can tell when you are not responding for the reason of learning. I disagree, as I would sincerely like to learn from you. Can you tell me exactly what I said you that you disagree with?

(I removed the joke you inserted, because I found it offensive)