When I began missionary service for the Church in 1962, I was given a “plan for teaching the Gospel” to use in converting others to the Church. This plan was usually referred to as “the discussions” and contained teaching instructions and a carefully crafted script designed to lead investigators inexorably to baptism, the ultimate measure of our success. To refer to that process as “discussions” however, was actually to engage a euphemism, as it was in effect a lock-step catechism. This plan was presented to us as having been “inspired”, or in other words, it had the imprimatur of the “Spirit of God” as its authoritative source. We were told to follow it conscientiously and we would be “blessed with success.” I accepted without reservation the proposition that it was inspired, and set about wholeheartedly to use it as directed. It became immediately obvious, however, that in practice the plan was not only logically faulty in a few respects, but its directions for application were in some cases inappropriate. Indeed, its general effect on investigators was transparently manipulative. Even though we were given explicit instruction to follow this plan literally, we also got informal supplemental instruction that we were to “follow the spirit” in adapting the plan to circumstances as may arise, which was, in effect, a tacit recognition of the faults of the plan and license to use common sense. These conflicting instructions were tricky to resolve, and we generally did so by simply ignoring the conflict. The dissonance of the mixed messages nevertheless lingered and undermined my confidence in the authority from which the plan came.
–Robert Bushman
Read his full story here.
For more information, see The Mormon Mirage 3rd Edition: A Former Member Looks at the Mormon Church Today (Zondervan, 2009). Also available as an audiobook and as an expanded-text E-book for Nook, Kindle and other reading devices.
