When I was 18 years old, one of my favorite things to do was contend with the opponents of the Church. I was serving as a youth guide at the Mesa Arizona Temple Visitor’s Center and had frequent opportunities to speak with those who opposed the LDS Church.
I prided myself on having a reasonable command of the scriptures, sufficient to put down the enemies of the Church and show them the error of their ways.
Much of my scripture study prior to my mission focused on proving how we were right and how they were wrong.
My scriptures became a weapon and my tongue became sharp and unwieldy in the face of opposition.
To combat the opposition, I also turned to a series of books written by a local Arizona author, Robert L. Brown, “They Lie in Wait to Deceive.” The books exposed the lies and fabrications of many notable adversaries of the Church and provided me with a double-barreled weapon that blew away many a novice critic.
While I endeavored to show these opponents the error of their ways, I found myself steeped in contention and often spoke by memory, and not with the aid and comfort of the Spirit. Accordingly, neither party felt uplifted and edified by the conversation, rather, both left with an increased rancor and rage toward one another.
Thankfully, my mission provided an environment where understanding and building on common beliefs nurtured an increased spirit of love for all men in my heart. Conversion, I learned, came through the fruits of the spirit and not the sharp attacks of contention.
On one occasion early in my mission, my companion and I found ourselves engaged in a heated discussion with a minister of another faith. My command of the Portuguese language was not sufficient to understand and respond to the man’s various contentions, but words of testimony flowed from my tongue.
I bore a simple testimony to the man, stating that I was an ordained minister of Jesus Christ and came to Brazil teach the restored gospel truths. The yelling ceased and my companion and I soon left. The Spirit burned in my bosom that night and I felt a calm assurance that the minister understood my simple words of testimony.
My success as a missionary grew from having the Spirit with me as I taught. I remembered the words from the missionary guide about the Spirit being the most important tool in missionary work, and I understood clearly that the Spirit converts, not missionaries.
While serving as a ward mission leader, I accompanied the missionaries on a visit with someone who feigned interest in the Church. The Elders explained that this individual posed many difficult questions on prior visits and expressed concerns with several points of doctrine.
During my meeting with this individual, the Elders and I answered many of her difficult doctrinal questions, which she read off a prepared list. We probed further to gauge her actual interest in investigating the Church with the possibility of baptism at some future date. She evaded the probing questions and asked instead to set a date for a future appointment.
We bore simple testimony to her and extended the invitation to take Moroni’s challenge to search, ponder and pray about the truthfulness of the gospel message we preached. Instead of setting a date for a future appointment, we thanked her for listening to our answers to her questions, but said we would only set an appointment to teach a lesson. Not surprisingly, she declined.
Today, my scriptures are no longer a weapon of attack and I temper my tongue with the influence of the Spirit, even when I have occasion to speak with those opposed to the Church. The fruits of the Spirit are much sweeter than bashing someone with the scriptures.
A prominent enemy and critic of the Church once quoted D&C 71:7 to me-
“Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.”
He then asked-
“So, are you willing to meet with me so you can confound me like Joseph Smith said you should?”
My reply to him is in verse 10 of the same section-
“And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.”
“We have met today in public, and I look forward to the day when the Lord will confound you as He has promised to do.”
I then quoted 3 Nephi 11:29-
For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
“So long, you devil,” I said with a smile and walked away.
Close to the beginning of my mission, my companion and I met up with some pretty well versed JWs who creamed me in a debate. This dude brought up all sorts of stuff I hadn’t really known at that point, things about Elohim, and so on. I vowed that day that I would know my scriptures. A few months later, after a few contentious debates with other JWs, my companion and I met up with an older JW lady missionary. I showed her scripture after scripture undermining her JW belief, and in the end made her cry. I felt really horrible and at that point learned the vanity of Bible bashing. I’ve not stopped debates with non-Mormons, but I’ve learned when to not pursue further.
Great comment, Dan. Bashing is pointless, especially when destroying the faith of someone else.
I’ve had some interesting experiences with JW’s as well. A pair of JW missionaries were tracting the homes in my first area and caught the notice of our DL. We were getting ready for bed at the time, but he insisted that we re-dress and prepare for the arrival of our impending visitors. We hurriedly dressed, grabbed a Book of Mormon and waited by the front door. When the knock came, our DL was grinning from ear-to-ear as he opened the door. He looked at two very surprised JW’s and said, “Won’t you please come in. We’ve been waiting for your arrival. We have a message we would like to share with you.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen some run so fast in all of my life as these two JW’s. It was fun. 🙂
Good thoughts, Brian. John Dehlin had a link to a podcast by Robert Millett talking about how to talk to investigaters that goes along with what you say. I should get a link to it, I quote it all the time.
He told of a big cheese who, when asked difficult questions, had a “you’re not asking the right question” attitude, but with cheer and wit. He would say something like “what a good question, but we need to go back a bit.” and then he’d tell the First vision. It’s cooler the way Brother Millett says it.
It’s hard not to argue, I do think it’s a Satan thing.
My neighbor across is a patriarch and he has a good marriage and family, but when he was asked if anything was a problem in seeking and finding the spirit when he needs to give a blessing, her replied, “contention.” He said any little argument defeats the spirit. I’ve pondered that. And I’m ever slightly better. Well at home. not here.
I think the main reason the missionaries are counseled to stay away from debating is that they are almost always bad about it. Nineteen year olds, in general, don’t have a lot of social skills, developed talents of persuasions, or knowledge needed to handle those who “lie in wait.”
In the early days of the church, the missionaries were generally older and could successfully carry off public debates. Sometimes things would go very well and people would line up to get baptized afterwards and other times the missionary would feel a loss of the Spirit.
As a potential member missionary I strive to be prepared to answer questions as directly and effectively as possible. At the same time I try to help my conversation partner feel loved and like a winner. I think it would be great if we could practice by disagreeing with one another in Sunday School or on blogs while still demonstrating respect for our fellow saints.
Brian D, I think this is a great post. I really think the worst thing you can do with a potential investigator is trying to “argue” them out of their belief system. I had a potential investigator once who was raised a JW, and argument got him nowhere. But a simply testimony of the truth of the Gospel helped.
In my own conversion process, I was not able to see the reasonableness of the Gospel until the Spirit helped me open my eyes. In a way, it was as if the scales were taken from my eyes and I could see something that I had not been able to see before. Then I was open to reasonable discussion.
Annegb- I’ll have to visit John’s site and find that link. I like the approach that Millet takes with difficult questions. The Elders and I tried a similar approach the our argumentative investigator, but without much success.
Keller- Demonstrating respect while disagreeing is key, otherwise it is merely contention. I think you would almost need a separate Sunday School class to try your theory. I’ve seen some discussions get ugly and feelings get hurt. When Sunday School starts to resemble church ball, you know you’re in trouble. 🙂
Geoff B- Simple testimony…such a beautiful thing!
It’s my understanding that all the hard questions have been answered at places like http://www.fairlds.org and farms.byu.edu. And in books like “They Lie in Wait to Deceive”, but that series of four books is more directed at individual critics and specific events than at doctrinal questions. I did buy a set of TLWD from the http://www.fairlds.org bookstore, and consider it a good investment.
FAIR, FARMS, and JeffLindsay.com are excellent online sources. Jeff Lindsay uses a very plain-speaking and sometimes humorous approach that I like. FAIR can get tendentious, and FARMS can get high-falutin’.
I wholeheartedly agree that contention does not resolve anything. But if someone asks questions, even in a contentious manner, I say that they still deserve to be pointed to where they can get the answers to their questions.
And people who are sincerely investigating, but get sidetracked with those types of questions that get planted by the critics, do deserve some sincere, calm and direct answers to those questions, in addition to needing to be reminded that the true confirmations come from the Holy Ghost.
A response of _only_ “bearing testimony” can be seen as a cop-out by the investigator/questioner. I agree that offering Spirit-born testimony is required. But I’m also suggesting throwing a bone to the investigator for them to chew on.
So Brian did good in directly answering the investigator’s first round of prepared questions, and then bear testimony, and then invite to pray/ponder/etc.
The web is a now a nice shortcut.
Bookslinger, you are of course correct. I do try to answer questions directly. But here is a very typical conversational path for me:
Aggressive “investigator”: Hey, one of the things I don’t like about the missionaries is they come here and just tell me to “pray about things.” That’s not good enough. I believe in reason. I want you to explain things to me. What about blacks not getting the priesthood until 1978. How can you belong to a Church that does that?
Me: Long explanation. Quotations from FAIR, FARMs, Jeff Lindsay. Basically a PhD dissertation. These discussions can go on for hours and hours.
Aggressive “investigator”: Well, you’ve explained things, but I still think your church is a bunch of racist white guys.
Me: Well, I don’t agree with that. I know that this Church is true and that Joseph Smith saw God the father and his son Jesus Christ in the sacred grove. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Gordon B Hinckley is a prophet today. The more I study about it, the more sure I am.
Aggressive “investigator”: Well, that’s another thing I don’t like. You guys are always saying you’re sure about stuff. I don’t know how you can be so sure of things.
Me: Well, one way is that you read the scriptures, open your heart and you pray for an answer and listen to what God really wants you to do.
Aggressive “investigator”: Yeah, you guys are always the same – no real answers, you just tell us to go pray.
Bookslinger, given that the meeting with the investigator was the second round of tough questioning, I think the Elders and I were extremely patient in answering her questions. 🙂 We could have just stopped answering questions, but it was actually an engaging exchange and I do enjoy a lively discussion on religious beliefs.
I think Geoff B brings up a good point about aggressive investigators. There comes a point when you need to cut them off and end the discussion.
I once encountered a couple who admitted openly (I was attending a meeting sponsered by opponents of the church for a college religion class requirement) that they were taking the lessons from Sister missionaries simply to waste their time and witness to them. I happened to know the Sister missionaries and let them know what was happening. I’m sure the next visit went a little differently for this couple than expected. 🙂
We are so blessed to have so much information available on the internet. I wish that these resources had been available to me a lot earlier.
But Brian D., wouldn’t you agree that there is Scriptural support for good and proper contending?
Todd, yes, I do believe in contending when prompted to do so. In my experience, though, such contending is rare.
Brian/Geoff B: I agree on the “cut ’em loose” concept. I find that’s often useful between and among church members too! Something that begins with “blog” and ends in “nacle” comes to mind. 🙂
I think an additional concept that comes into play is determining or discerning what kind of player (for lack of a better word) the questioner is. If they are a _sincere_ investigator who has a stumbling block, then they get more hand-holding (and even then, it’s up to a point.) But if they are the agressive investigator or the time-waster or the basher, then the quicker you can stop wasting time, the better.
I’ve read some cool conversion stories by former anti’s at http://www.mormonconverts.com, and http://www.blacklds.org, and other places I’ve forgotten about. So I think a key is to always be diplomatic and leave the door open.
Perhaps the first “convincing” of any type of investigator/questioner that needs to be done is that human “convincing” shouldn’t happen. Otherwise, we would always be tossed about when a smarter, slicker, or more powerful “convincer person” comes along.
There are super-salesmen who belong to every religion and denomination. There are smooth operators and powerful preachers of every religion. There are sincere and dedicated people of every religion. So there is always “someone better” who could come along and convince us that the previous person who convinced us was wrong.
But if we let _God_ do the convincing, then no human should or would be able to out-convince a witness from the Holy Ghost.
That’s my comeback to the “why do you want me to just pray” line.
Another “parry” to the basher/contender is to segue into various differences and disagreements between Christian denominations. Jeff Lindsay seems adept at that on his blog and/or web site. There’s a certain illogic in how various Christian denominations look down at us for being different, yet they also look down at each other, and often disagree amongst themselves on the same topic for which they bash us.
Oh, and one thing I like to point out about Evangelicals and Pentecostals, is that Mormons share a VERY important thing with them, and over which those two groups disagree with just about all other mainline/mainstream protestants. Personal revelation via the Holy Ghost, ie, walking in and by the Spirit.
A good Evangelical or Pentecostal has no logical basis for dissing us for emphasizing praying for answers via personal revelation from the Holy Ghost/Spirit. The concept of Spirit-borne testimony is something we have in common with them. And if, while sincerely discussing with them, if you can walk them through reducing their personal beliefs down to no more than what the Holy Ghost has revealed to them (ie, peeling away whatever they have deduced after those revelations, or whatever has been taught them by a human), then they likely believe pretty much what we do, and would be well on their way to accepting the restored gospel, just based on knowing how the Holy Ghost operates.
You know…
I’m not sure its the idea of competing ideas per se that is antithetical to preaching the Gospel, so much as it is how you go about it.
If you treat it like a debate tournament, you’re going nowhere. But I’ve rarely had real problems presenting opposing viewpoints to those I speak with. I think there’s a way to do it right. Isn’t there?
And some people actually and honestly do want a few explanations.
I have to agree with Seth and others that how you compare ideas is key to sharing; there is an intellectual aspect and a spiritual aspect. The most important factor is having the spirit and the scriptures are plain: “remember faith, hope, charity, and love; with an eye single to the glory of God.” We become contentious when we forget that we love the one we’re talking to, that we have faith they can receive the spirit, and that we have hope even for those who do not seem ready.
We also need to remember to do our part and then not judge based on how it is received. We should recognize that people are in different places on their journey and if we can help them take a step thats great.
I remember tracting with a greenie who would condem people who didn’t want to listen to us (sometimes to their face). I explained that we evaluate where someone was at spiritually, and then make as much truth available as they are ready for and avoid any negativity. This missionary completely changed his approach and suddenly was experiencing more success.
Its often how we say things and not what we say. I found that reminding myself that I love the person I’m talking to really helps avoid contention with all but the really hardened anti types. Yet when moved upon by the spirit it is important to share the words we are given.
I try using the method of asking questions that lead them to the final answer that they give. There is a technique used for to help people solve problems. You just keep asking them questions until they can not answer and ask for help or they answer their own problem. Just try to get them to answer all the questions and it will make them leave thinking or the light will come on when they answer it right. Like: Will only those that hear the gospel get into heaven? Does this seem fair? What does this tell us about God? Then why did He creat all the rest of the people? ect. ect. They arrive to the answer on their own or they go away questing and looking for answers. I normally try not to tell them about my belives unless they keep asking over and over again and I get a feeling they really want to learn.
Bob, I just cut this out of Oprah’s magazine:
“Questions are far more effective than defensive statements. They do not imply agreement, but they do convey interest and a desire to understand and facilitate. . .The next time someone accuses you of virtually anything, ask some questions. Resolving the situation may take more time, but the outcome will likely be more productive for both of you.” Steve Young
I’m going to try it the first chance I get. I guess I should go back and ask Miguel a question. Or maybe he should ask me a question.