How to do you handle anti statements or actions?

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by lestertheemt

First.........I hope this is in the right place

Earlier in chat some one asked how they could best dispute with an anti LDS group.


It is in my opinion to simply not engage, ignore, walk away, etc. I know that nothing I say will change their minds (as all are entitled to believe what and how they may). I also believe that by giving them the time of day that in some small way I am encouraging the behavior.

Is this the best method? Is there another way and if so what?

Jesus is a good example. We can read how he answered (things like you are not a Christian and so you think you will become a g-d) in several chapters of the gospel of John. But keep in mind that two things - Jesus was not able to convert the anti and the truth he taught got him killed. I think it is rather foolish to think we will have better results than the master.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I mostly agree with you. Paul was one major exception, though. Perhaps the reason that evangelicals and LDS make the attempt to convert each other is that quite often even one convert will do the work of many who are born into the faith. They are so thankful for the Truth that they become zealous to promote it, and tireless in their work for it.

[Justice]

As sidenote about Paul. Many see his conversion as a great change in Paul. Actually, all that happened to Paul was he changed sides. He was active in his beliefs, just as much so before his change to Christianity. Before his conversion to Christ he thought he was on the side of truth. When he learned he wasn't, he continued his journey, only really knowing the truth this time.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by SeattleTruthSeeker

I also would like to add that it all comes down to the eternal perspective. These people who come against the doctrines of the LDS Faith, do so at their own peril and demise. They do not realize exactly what it is that they are actually condemning and saying is false. It is only when they stand to give an account of how they lived their life in mortality that they will realize that they were denouncing their Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation and are responsible for the spiritual ruination of souls that they have turned away from the True Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the End, as the cliche goes, they will get their commupence.

This is a bit much.

"Anti-Mormons" are usually people who truly believe the Church not only is not true, but is an evil cult. They were raised to believe this, and they feel it is as much their calling to proselytize to you as you believe it is yours to witness to them.

I'm not saying they're not obnoxious, rude, rigid and __________ (fill in the blank). Those who want to confront you and your beliefs are. Nor am I saying the Church's missionaries stoop to the same means. They don't.

But if they truly believe what they say to you, why would there be a "commupence"? In fact, it is my understanding that once they have passed on they will be given the opportunity to learn and accept the gospel. I can't imagine that opportunity would include a smug "I told you so."

Elphaba

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Traveler, I mostly agree with you. Paul was one major exception, though. Perhaps the reason that evangelicals and LDS make the attempt to convert each other is that quite often even one convert will do the work of many who are born into the faith. They are so thankful for the Truth that they become zealous to promote it, and tireless in their work for it.

Thank you PrisonChaplain: Your example is excellent. Paul was not the only example, there were a few that Jesus touched but for the most part that was not his mission.

I have used the same words that Jesus used to answer some anti’s and have great success in ticking people off. I have been banned from several “Christian” forums. What I have learned is that there is little wisdom in seeking out those that are contentious about pearls sacred to me. The main lesson I have learned is that when anti’s come to our places of worship (such as temple square in SLC during conference) rather than confront them just sit quietly in the background and video. Not necessarily for the internet but should there be a lawsuit or coverage by a new organization that there is an accurate record of what really happened.

The Traveler

[Mason]

There is a fundamental perspective/paradigm problem between the average Anti-Mormon and the typical Mormon Apologist.

On the one hand we have the Apologist who feels that every Anti question out there has been answered to suit any "reasonable" person's satisfaction. What more could joe blow ask for than that? Whereas on the other hand, the Anti feels that the answers are generally trite and a require a looong stretch of the imagination before they could be considered reasonable.

Hence the same old questions being asked by the Anti, and the Apologists continuing to be frustrated having to repeat the same answers.

Who's right, who's wrong? Depends on which side you stand.

Ultimately new questions will not be asked until satisfactory answers are given.

It's a stalemate.

[prisonchaplain]

This discussion depends on who the "Anti" is. Those guys at conferences are not intellectuals, looking for technical archeaological evidence for the BoM. On the other hand, the firebrand evangelical apologist in a university setting, who is passionate, and yet who listens, evaluates sources, and keeps the engagements focussed on doctrine, scripture, evidence, and seeking truth...Paul could be on either side of that.

[Danite]

Ya know what Alma 30 is the one scripture that deals with with almost all anti attacks. Because most anti mormom groups are not looking for the truth but to breed fear and doubt, So not engaging them is a good idea most of the time. Remeber what is right is always more important who is right.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

This discussion depends on who the "Anti" is. Those guys at conferences are not intellectuals, looking for technical archeaological evidence for the BoM. On the other hand, the firebrand evangelical apologist in a university setting, who is passionate, and yet who listens, evaluates sources, and keeps the engagements focussed on doctrine, scripture, evidence, and seeking truth...Paul could be on either side of that.

PC: I try to keep everything in perspective. It does appear to me that the Pharisees and Scribes that opposed Jesus were an excellent example of “apologist in a university (type of) setting, who is passionate, and yet who listens, evaluates sources, and keeps the engagements focused on doctrine, scripture, evidence, and seeking truth…” (See John 7:47-49 then note the answer of Nicodemus in verse 51 – in regards to doctrine and deeds)

Jesus said if we keep a teaching we will know if it is of G-d – It is interesting to me that Jesus did not suggest that we study the scriptures for answers in the same manner as did the Pharisees and Scribes. I have never met any anti (of LDS, Catholics, Baptist or the antis that opposed Jesus when he taught) that did not use the scriptures as their excuse.

The Traveler

[LDSVALLEY]

Depends on the situation. In person I tend to politily correct if appropriate or laugh it off. Via internet I often engage them in discussion. I am always careful to let them know I am not expecting to change their opinion. Nor will they change mine. It makes me sad when I see LDS argue with anti posts and get angry or upset because they can't change the persons opinion. I have read many where the LDS ends up being harsher then the anti ever was. I always remain polite and also let them know they can say what they want to me and it will not bother me. If they get personal I can always stop responding.

I've had some of the best discussions about religion from anti's speaking up and gotten a fair amount of Gospel knowledge out to others from it. Most people simply spread stuff without any personal axes against the church to grind. They are the easy ones to talk to.