Interesting video clip

[_Gazelam]

Were you able to do things that are now disallowed?

You get a little white handbook when you go on a mission that spells out conduct and expectations. To my knowledge this is unchanged.

Plus, if your doing what your supposed to, doing the right thing comes naturally.


P.S. Oh, one thing we did that was a little different is we changed any Bible scriptures in the discussions to Book of Mormon scriptures. The reason being that we were teaching people that had been waring over the Bible for centuries, Protestants and Catholics. The Bible was not common ground, it was battleground.

[_Gazelam]

STATEMENT #1:

On my mission we answered every question asked us, and if we didn't know the answer, we were invited to pick up the phone and call the mission President. He happened to be Joseph Fielding McConkie, co-author of numerous books with Millet. And he always had an answer.

STATEMENT #2:

The trick then is, as Millet stated, you turn the discusion to the root of the problem. You steer the discussion into the questions that should be asked. Question about polygamy? You give the brief answer regarding Gods views on marriage, then turn to the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. If Joseph was a true prophet, then the doctrine of polygamy is a true one.

Gazelam, it appears to me that your first statement contracts your second statement. Care to explain?

I don't understand what your geting at. In both cases I stated we answered the questions. All I'm saying is that you answer the question, don't ignore it, but you don't have to give a one hour lecture complete with a slide show and handouts. You answer what needs to be addressed and get back to laying a foundation of basic doctrine.

What approach would you take to answering a question about polygamy when the person your talking to has no understanding of the plan of salvation or eternal marriage? You give a short answer, then return to the basic principles.

When you want to teach someone about Christ, do you hand them Isaiah or John?

[_Gazelam]

We broke records in regards to baptisms and such

What records?

I served in 91-92 as well but in Madrid and California. During that time it was the Provo mission that was leading all missions, and the Anaheim Mission, where some Mexicans were baptized the same day they were introduced to the Church, was up there too.

Records for that mission (not counting the Brigham Young years) for monthly baptisms. We went from the teens to over a hundred in a month, over the cource of his serving as the mission president and implementing his programs.

When the new mission president came in he reverted everything to by-the-book (like putting all the Bible scriptures back in the discussions) and the monthly baptism numbers went back to where they were.

No sour grapes, but using the Book of Mormon like president McCay suggested when he served in Scotland worked. Things should be adapted to best serve the people in the area.

[_Runtu]

P.S. Oh, one thing we did that was a little different is we changed any Bible scriptures in the discussions to Book of Mormon scriptures. The reason being that we were teaching people that had been waring over the Bible for centuries, Protestants and Catholics. The Bible was not common ground, it was battleground.

Back in early 94 Joseph McConkie gave our staff a little presentation about the "not common ground, it was battleground" thing (and those were his words, so you were a good student, apparently).

He had his missionaries use only "latter-day" scripture instead of the Bible, and convert baptisms did increase.

As for the "we always answered every question" thing, that violates everything we were taught in the MTC. We were told never to argue (Benson said that repeatedly in a talk at the MTC while I was there). If people had difficult questions, we were to bear our testimonies and stick to the memorized discussions.

Kevin is right. The church has for many years avoided answering the stickier questions, and Millet's talk is a good example of this. The fear appears to be that if investigators find out about the sticky stuff, they won't join. And a corollary to that is that they seem to believe that there are no good answers to these sticky questions; otherwise, they wouldn't have to change the subject, would they?

[_Gazelam]

As for the "we always answered every question" thing, that violates everything we were taught in the MTC. We were told never to argue (Benson said that repeatedly in a talk at the MTC while I was there). If people had difficult questions, we were to bear our testimonies and stick to the memorized discussions.

You don't argue. Argueing chases away the Holy Ghost. You declare doctrine. Its up to them to accept or reject it. Bear testimony of what? Of the subject at hand. Are they asking the question because they want to know, or because they want to pick a fight? that's what you have to decide. Theres a difference between Porter asking a question and Jersey asking a question.

Kevin is right. The church has for many years avoided answering the stickier questions, and Millet's talk is a good example of this. The fear appears to be that if investigators find out about the sticky stuff, they won't join. And a corollary to that is that they seem to believe that there are no good answers to these sticky questions; otherwise, they wouldn't have to change the subject, would they?

What questions are being avoided?

What fear? What sticky questions? I might could count on one hand the questions that i have that are difficult to find answers to. But even in those cases, I have a pretty good idea in regards to an answer.

I have no problem with any guy at work I run into who has questions about the church, any question whatsoever. I welcome them and I teach and instruct as to what the doctrine is. I seek it out and look forward to it.

And as I have repeatedly stated, you answer the question in a simple way, then build up a doctrinal foundation to rest the dificult questions answer on. Often times we woudl write down the question and answer it at the end of the lesson, instead of dealing with it at an inappropriate moment. Sometimes they would answer their own questions before we even got back to it.