When I served a mission, very much in pre-Preach My Gospel days, we had 6 “discussions” that we presented to those that we taught. Of course we could attempt to answer any question that someone might raise, but the fundamentals of gospel were contained in those basic lessons.

Even though I was raised in the LDS Church, I’m sure there are many aspects of church history that I am not well versed in. Although different historical accounts, etc. are interesting and some insights can be gained from them, these are not the essence of my belief in the restoration of Christ’s church.

The goal then of the missionary program is to help those interested to gain their own “testimony.” In a way, being converted really is just the beginning of learning.

I think #68 is on the right track. We in the west (globally-not the western U.S.) tend to nominalize and objectify WAY too much. It’s almost as if by labeling, nominalizing and objectifying we could somehow ‘possess’ the experience/situation/person/whatever. (For an interesting discussion see Erich Fromm’s book, “To Have or To Be.”)

I vote that people be treated as people, not things. “…my friend Aileen, who is visiting/who is studying or looking in to or learning about (or even ‘considering joining‘) the Church.” Aside from not objectifying the person, these explanations are not ‘verbal shorthand’ and are therefore more accurate and meaningful. English is full of perfectly good verbs; let’s use ‘em!

Do you have to have lessons from the missionaries? Is that always the way you must convert?

I agree mostly with what has been said. However, since we are talking semantics – there was a critical assumption made in the above statement. Convert was interrupted to mean “join the church”, be baptized, etc.

This is not necessarily the same as conversion.

That can happen in so many different ways and is really a life long process. And not all members are truly converted.

“Conversion includes a change in behavior, but it goes beyond behavior; it is a change in our very nature.”

There are a bunch of really good talks on the lds.org website if you are interested. The following from Elder Cristofferson made a profound impact on me a few years ago.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=cd8cd9cbdb01c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

My advice to all those who really want to know more:

Find a member who knows about these things and ask him or her. It might take more than one member, and it might take getting the e-mail address of someone on a blog like this, but don’t expect the missionaries to know much about the deeper stuff. They generally are only 19-23 year old young men and women, and they are looking largely for those who get a primarily spiritual witness – not those who require a more intellectual connection up front. Answering those questions is the responsibility of the membership.

I suppose the end result of my inquiry regarding “investigator” is thus: yes, there appears to be need for a term of this class of people; and no, there doesn’t seem to be any agreement on what is better. I agree that my background probably does lend more negative connotations to the term than let’s say a member of the general public; however, I still believe that the negative connotations, taken together with the need to actually place the label itself can, at times, do harm to your efforts to spread the Gospel. I think it’s fair to say that most people do not appreciate labels, and I suppose that I’m not only objecting to the term itself but also to the application of the label. It feels like it’s an attempt to either make me something I’m not OR alternatively, rush me to be something I haven’t yet reached.

Ultimately, am I an “investigator”? I’m not sure. I ask a lot of questions. I do a lot of reading. I try to learn more before passing judgement (and if I’ve already passed judgement, b/c let’s face it, that happens too, I like to research to make sure I made the right one or to correct myself). So, really, rather than try to put me into a category, I do simply prefer “Aileen.” And then maybe you can get to know me and my motivations. My husband still finds it hard to believe that 2 years later I’m still buying books about the LDS religion. I still have lots of questions, but I have a real problem talking to or relating to the Missionaries that come to our door. Why are they so young, green, and really, kind of, hmmm, clueless? That’s probably not the right word. They can tell me all about their “testimonies,” almost like a script, but the substance seems to be lacking. It’s almost as if they’re designed for the unknowing or those who know nothing about the LDS faith, b/c when I try to question them about well, questions (b/c I do know a little bit of something and I have read some of the BOM), the response is circular reasoning — no answers and all about the “testimony.” But, that my friends, is a whole other topic for a whole other time.

Thank you again for taking the time to read my post and to comment.

Aileen

I must be tired. I actually read that comment three times and still missed that mistake.

The second paragraph was supposed to read:

“Ideally, the initial “conversion” would include a connection to both the teachings (the “Gospel”) and the organization (the “Church”), so you generally need to attend church at least a couple of times before being baptized **and confirmed**. Those decisions used to be in the hands of the missionaries and the Mission President, but in areas where there are regular-sized congregations that responsibility now is supposed to reside with the Bishop or Branch President, **since they are in charge of confirmations after baptism**.

Missionaries still determine worthiness to be baptized, but Bishops and Branch Presidents control the confirmation. Therefore, missionaries are counseled to work closely with the Bishop (or Ward Mission Leader) when planning the baptism. Nobody wants a baptism to occur and then have the confirmation delayed due to concerns of the local leadership.

Again, thanks, Thomas.