I'm walking back from the radio building to the center of campus and two well dressed gentlemen are walking ahead of me.
One of them turns and starts asking me how I'm doing, where I'm headed (home), and where I live even. Then they reveal they are missionaries and begin the customary "have you heard of us before" spiel.
Now, I'm a polite kind of guy, but this kind of thing just pisses me off. These guys didn't know a thing about me, but did a great job acting all buddy-buddy, and pretending they gave a shit when all they were doing was getting ready to tell me how my life could be "better" with their "product".
Am I obligated out of politeness to not tell them to shut their traps? I'm never quite sure how to deal with salesmen of that variety.
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
You are obligated by politeness to not tell them to shut their traps.
Just say that you have your own religion, and are not at this time interested in hearing about any other.
It can be very interesting to hear what they have to say, though, as long as you know yourself well enough to know that you have plenty of sales resistance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Now, I'm a polite kind of guy, but this kind of thing just pisses me off. These guys didn't know a thing about me, but did a great job acting all buddy-buddy, and pretending they gave a shit when all they were doing was getting ready to tell me how my life could be "better" with their "product".
Frankly, I wonder just how polite you are. How do you know they weren't just *gasp* nice people, as opposed to slimy, deceptive *shudder* religious salesman!
And don't pretend for a moment that it was this horrible 'deception' (i.e. polite small talk, a common occurence basically everywhere) that gets you so upset. If it'd been someone attractive to you who was making polite small talk, you wouldn't have minded in the least, most likely. No, the truth I would guess from this very rude post (ironic, for someone supposedly concerned about courtesy) is that you simply don't like missionaries.
Which is, fine actually. It's even fine to be annoyed by the small-talk towards an end, as it frequently is-and as people everywhere use. What's not fine is this silly outrage over their use of small talk to break the ice, and your completely disproportional (at least, within the post) reaction to it.
You decided that they were sneaky jerks who were manipulating you with friendliness in order to 'sell' you something, when for all you know they're just friendly people with a message that's important to them which they'd like to offer to you.
That says much more about you than them, frankly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: I'm walking back from the radio building to the center of campus and two well dressed gentlemen are walking ahead of me.
One of them turns and starts asking me how I'm doing, where I'm headed (home), and where I live even. Then they reveal they are missionaries and begin the customary "have you heard of us before" spiel.
Now, I'm a polite kind of guy, but this kind of thing just pisses me off. These guys didn't know a thing about me, but did a great job acting all buddy-buddy, and pretending they gave a shit when all they were doing was getting ready to tell me how my life could be "better" with their "product".
Am I obligated out of politeness to not tell them to shut their traps? I'm never quite sure how to deal with salesmen of that variety.
Just say "not interested" and keep walking. If they don't accept that answer, that's when you can feel free to tell them to shut their traps. It's not entirely okay to use that kind of rudeness until you've told them "no" and they keep trying. But you don't have to be overly polite in the initial "no", either. It's not like you owe them anything.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Now, I'm a polite kind of guy, but this kind of thing just pisses me off. These guys didn't know a thing about me, but did a great job acting all buddy-buddy, and pretending they gave a shit when all they were doing was getting ready to tell me how my life could be "better" with their "product".
Frankly, I wonder just how polite you are. How do you know they weren't just *gasp* nice people, as opposed to slimy, deceptive *shudder* religious salesmen!
Because they said they were
quote: And don't pretend for a moment that it was this horrible 'deception' (i.e. polite small talk, a common occurence basically everywhere) that gets you so upset.
No, it's buttering up for a sale that gets me so upset.
quote: If it'd been someone attractive to you who was making polite small talk, you wouldn't have minded in the least, most likely. No, the truth I would guess from this very rude post(ironic, for someone supposedly concerned about courtesy) is that you simply don't like missionaries.
I don't, but because of this fact of which I'm aware, I posted to get a sense of how to deal with this dislike, without biting heads off the next time I should run into them. Yes, ironic post.
quote: Which is, fine actually. It's even fine to be annoyed by the small-talk towards an end, as it frequently is-and as people everywhere use.
Like salesmen
quote: What's not fine is this silly outrage over their use of small talk to break the ice, and your completely disproportional (at least, within the post) reaction to it.
Perhaps it is disproportional but it's in reaction to the whole process more than anything. What I'm asking is for input on the proper way of basically telling people you dislike for very personal and pattern-recognized-past-dealings reason, to go away, without coming off as rude. I'm not a very good actor and since "no" usually doesn't stop a salesperson the first time...
quote: You decided that they were sneaky jerks who were manipulating you with friendliness in order to 'sell' you something, when for all you know they're just friendly people with a message that's important to them which they'd like to offer to you.
I decided that, due to the fact that they hadn't introduced themselves to me and that they were complete strangers asking me questions like what was I doing today, where I live etc, that they were not particularly concerned about me per se. After they told me their business as missionaries, I had no doubts that, in their mind, they had an important message.
quote: That says much more about you than them, frankly.
Very frank. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I've realized for myself that when it becomes apparent that what seemed to be casual discussion without an ulterior purpose does indeed have a specific purpose, it can be helpful to acknowledge that recognition and verify specifically whether this is correct.
So, for example, I've received the standard Amway pitch several times in my life ("do you have dreams you cannot see a way to obtaining? let's list them ...). Now when I recognize it, I stop abruptly with a smile and say, "Oh, do you work with Amway?" (This is better than "Are you selling Amway?" for my purposes, I've found, for although the statements mean the same to me, I've found some people who would say "yes" to the former but "no" to the latter. That is, in their minds, they may have defined this as not a "sales pitch" but as "offering an opportunity.")
If the answer is "yes," then I usually say "I've heard all about it several times, and I am not interested." Friendly, but direct, and I feel fine turning my attention somewhere else at that point.
Similarly for other persons with a specific (although initially undisclosed) mission mind, the direct approach can be helpful. I try to remember that the mission can't be initially disclosed without being rude -- i.e., one cannot walk up to someone and start discussing serious matters with the first sentence and remain socially pleasant, after all. There are conversational forms to follow. However, if the question is raised in my mind by dress, habit, stance, language, or any nuance, I do feel okay about asking point-blank, " Oh, are you a missionary?" or "Oh, are you prosletyzing?" If the answer is yes, I generally respond as noted above, although I often add a comment of good wishes.
It is hard for some of us to wind our way through conversations which we don't want to be in without being offensive. It helped me to realize that stopping suddenly and asking a direct question could be viewed as a kindness, not a rudeness: it allows the other person an opportunity to be crystal clear about his or her intent without having to wind his or her own way through the conversational net as well, and it saves that person time. (I am not a candidate for Amway, and I am not interested in religious investigation.)
Earendil18, rest assured that at least some sensible people hold that it is perfectly within the realm of politeness to stop in a conversation and just ask about whatever suddenly occurred to you that made you uncomfortable. This may not be easy the first time you do it, but it does get easier. And as you get more experienced in the world (I am assuming you are in your teens or early twenties, yes?), one's sense of what one wants out of life gets more solid. This allows you to be polite and smile, but still have a note of firmness and unequivocity in both voice and the set of one's body. It does get easier.
Along with that comes the flip side of the coin, which is that it becomes easier to ask for want you want, as well as to deny what you do not. Politely throughout, of course.
----------
Edited to add: After much thought in my younger years, I realized that it was the disconnect of expectations that was making me feel uncomfortable about such conversations. I take it for granted when I am in a casual conversation that there isn't a direction this conversation is intended to take. But other people -- for whatever reason, mind you, kind and decent and well-meaning people -- may not have that same expectation.
Clarifying whatever it is that we are engaged in together makes me feel better about both of us being fully autonomous and informed individuals participating as equals together. Or not, should either of us choose. *smile And my willingness to bring up something causing me discomfort via this direct approach honors and respects both of us that way.
[ January 21, 2007, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I've realized for myself that when it becomes apparent that what seemed to be casual discussion without an ulterior purpose does indeed have a specific purpose, it can be helpful to acknowledge that recognition and verify specifically whether this is correct.
It is hard for some of us to wind our way through conversations which we don't want to be in without being offensive. It helped me to realize that stopping suddenly and asking a direct question could be viewed as a kindness, not a rudeness: it allows the other person an opportunity to be crystal clear about his or her intent wihtout having to wind his or her way through the conversational net as well, and it saves that person time. (I am not a candidate for Amway, and I am not interested in religious investigation.) ... And as you get more experienced in the world (I am assuming you are in your teens or early twenties, yes?), one's sense of what one wants out of life gets more solid. This allows you to be polite and smile, but still have a note of firmness and unequivocity in both voice and the set of one's body. It does get easier.
So maybe instead of going "uh oh, I think they're buttering me up" I should just ask "Are you missionaries?". That would keep things short and to the point!
"It is hard for some of us to wind our way through conversations which we don't want to be in without being offensive."
It's like you read my mind!
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
I understand the desire for people to be missionaries, I really do. I do not however like this unsolicited approach to my spirituality. Each faith has its own followers and most people tend to fall into a path that is inline with their cultural beliefs. If one person feels they have the answer, or the truth, and their message is much more solid then any they have heard, it is in our nature to share it with people. The perception of truth is what drives us to write, speak or interact on a primal level. I however do not feel the need to peddle your beliefs, to me it demeans them. You can be evangelical and tell people about your beliefs if the need arises, or if you set up a place to where you will be speaking publicly concerning them. To randomly select people and subjecting them to what boils down to a sales pitch demeans your message, and usually only "converts" those of less then concrete resolve. If you are looking for a validation of your beliefs this can be effective psychologically. I do apriciate friends of my that are followers of the later day saints, or Mormons as we outsiders commonly refer to them, they respect my ideas on this. They my not agree with my religious thoughts, and I may not agree with theirs we do not force them on each other. We have actually had very useful religious discussions and learned form each other, with out trying to force some one to our view point. I think tis gives more validity to ideas when they are discussed and shared, and not sued like some recruiting tool. I would have been just as upset if they approached me in this manner ,if it was their ideas, a class or a hairbrush they where trying to sell. I feel the same way about people forcing product on me in a mall. If I am going to shop I look around and see what interest me, I do not need to have the latest cell phone shoved in my face, or to be sprayed with the newest concoction to make me smell more like a garden. I respect peoples boundaries and pushy sales people, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE SELLING, immediately put up my walls. This in its very nature make me less likely to listen to a word they are saying. Hand out flyer's, sit up a booth, and then if I walk up it is my choice, but do not attempt to take that choice away form me, by violating my personal space.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: So maybe instead of going "uh oh, I think they're buttering me up" I should just ask "Are you missionaries?". That would keep things short and to the point!
Sure! Not "Are you a missionary?" with a scowl or a raised fist, of course, but "Are you a missionary?" with a sincere desire to understand the situation you are engaged in together.
One has to assume that these are not people who are setting out to mislead you or trip you up. The most charitable assumption (which we have every reason to believe is the most appropriate one) is that these people are well-intentioned and doing the best they can to do what they think is important. They don't want to hurt you, or make you uncomfortable -- and by asking, you give them a chance to clarify what it is they are doing, so you can decide on that together.
After all, they may well be missionaries who just want to talk. If so, once you say that you are not interested, they can explain that prosletyzing wasn't what they had in mind, but they really did just want to know what the best pancake house in town was. And then, once you are both as clear as possible on the shared expectations for this conversation, you will probably feel much better about continuing it together.
quote:"It is hard for some of us to wind our way through conversations which we don't want to be in without being offensive."
It's like you read my mind!
I remember agonizing over this for a long time myself. It helped to realize that much of the difficulty I had was in what I brought to the situation, and that I could politely ask for help in understanding it at the time instead. Much more friendly than trucking out my baggage about what I wanted and I expected, and then getting upset when others didn't do what I assumed they would.
Good luck. Check back in in awhile and let us know if any of this helped. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because they said they were
Well, it's a good thing you're sticking to a fair-minded set of observation of these missionaries *rolleyes*
quote:No, it's buttering up for a sale that gets me so upset.
No, it's the buttering up for a sale that got you so upset. You wouldn't mind being 'buttered up' for something else. And in fact, let's say it was a good or service you did want. You wouldn't mind that, either. Again, the thing that bothers you isn't the 'deceit', it's the purpose.
And besides, what would you like missionaries to say? They should, what, front-load their pitch with the things most likely to turn people off, I suppose. I mean, that's the right thing to do, since opening with polite small talk is dreadful.
quote:I don't, but because of this fact of which I'm aware, I posted to get a sense of how to deal with this dislike, without biting heads off the next time I should run into them. Yes, ironic post.
Well, at least here you're mentioning the real problem you have...or, shall we say, the real difficulty here, since I'm not one to say that it's your problem you don't like missionaries. The problem here is that you don't like missionaries, and yet would like (although to be honest, I have to wonder about that too, since you appear to have a good bit of bitterness about them) to avoid the appearance of rudeness.
quote:Like salesmen
Sure, and like lots of people besides salesman. Like I said.
quote:What I'm asking is for input on the proper way of basically telling people you dislike for very personal and pattern-recognized-past-dealings reason, to go away, without coming off as rude. I'm not a very good actor and since "no" usually doesn't stop a salesperson the first time...
Oh, well that's simple. For example, you could say, "Guys, I am going to be frank with you, since this is important to me and to you. I'm not the least bit interested in your religious message, nor in enduring an attempt to persuade me otherwise. Please do not communicate with me again with that in mind, and yes, I have thought about that carefully and I am quite sincere. Thank you, and good afternoon."
That's not rude. That may offend them, but that's their problem. And frankly, it would be very difficult indeed to both get them to stop bothering you immediately, and avoid offending them, at the same time, because chances are, the thing is quite important to both of you.
-----------
Despite my getting quite annoyed on this topic, I really do empathize with you. You might even be surprised to know that, on a strictly personal level, I share your irritation and slight sense of violation when it comes to being randomly proseltized. Sure, I converted, but I did so entirely on my own initiative: visited a local church, and then accepted visits from missionaries later on. I'd never even spoken to a missionary before that in my life, to my knowledge, and certainly not in their missionary capacity.
CT is quite right, as usual, although my approach to such conversations is (as usual) more...blunt, a bit coarser than hers. I take that approach in my personal life, because I am less concerned with giving offense than she is, I suspect, and yet equally concerned with saving time for each party while still remaining honest about the whole thing.
It's difficult to say "no" to someone who's smiling and behaving politely, as well as behaving in good will. It can sometimes make the decliner feel like the bad guy. But that's just social instinct, not some kind of concrete reality.
------------------------
Hookt, I'd like to respond to your post, but I'll be bluntly honest in the manner discussed above: it is difficult and troublesome to understand your post without any paragraph blocks, and makes it more difficult to respond to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You decided that they were sneaky jerks who were manipulating you with friendliness in order to 'sell' you something, when for all you know they're just friendly people with a message that's important to them which they'd like to offer to you.
Would you have this reaction had they been vacuum cleaner salesmen instead? What if they were genuinely friendly vacuum cleaner salesmen?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*grin
Rakeesh, I perceive my way to be more blunt, as it immediately puts the conversational ball in the other person's court. It requires an answer. But it is the way I am most comfortable with, and knowing that you judge it to be more delicate than you own, I will now ask away with impunity!
----
Edited to add: Asking the direct question feels to me like taking the reins of the conversation back into my own hands, which I then distribute back between us. This feels better to me than continuing to engage in a conversation which I perceive to be one guided by invisible reins.
Again, it's the baggage I bring to it. And when I address it directly, it feels like I've had a chance to step back and push the reset button, making sure that everyone involved is on the same level of awareness.
(This is a tortured metaphor, but I hope it helps.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Would you have this reaction had they been vacuum cleaner salesmen instead? What if they were genuinely friendly vacuum cleaner salesmen?
I deem the possibility that someone believes a vacuum cleaner is very, very helpful and beneficial to its user is equal to the possibility someone believes their religion is those things as very, very low indeed, Tom. So no, because intent plays a big part to me in this particular question.
----------
CT,
Hehe, actually, my way was to be performed after the missionary status was 'outed', so to speak. I would follow your way, and have in the past, once my missionary-senses tingle Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
Life is so hard! Dealing with other people is so hard!
But it is better than the alternative. And goodness knows, those other people are having the same hard time with us as we do with them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So no, because intent plays a big part to me in this particular question.
So, to clarify: if the vacuum cleaner salesman was being friendly in order to get close enough to someone to sell her a vacuum cleaner that he sincerely believed would make her life better, there's nothing to be offended about. But if the vacuum cleaner salesman primarily wanted to sell vacuums, no matter how naturally friendly he was, it would be rude of him to initiate a conversation with the ultimate intent of selling a vacuum?
I think you're making a distinction here that pretty much only excuses missionaries.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
'Distinction' is perhaps too precise a word for what I'm trying to describe. It implies a +/-, pass/fail exactness that I don't think necessarily is there. When I say "intent matters", I mean that I think part of what matters is how important the salesperson thinks their product is, and how beneficial it will be.
To just barely pass above average and into 'mildly helpful', for instance a slightly better than average vaccuum cleaner, is not sufficient to me. Imagine, though, that fifty years ago there was someone selling, say, the equivalent of a Roomba. I would personally excuse a bit more than the ordinary polite, yet pointed, small talk than I otherwise would for a 1957 standard Hoover vaccuum.
As for only excusing missionaries...well, of course I am. I mean, while I think missionaries are "selling" something, I don't think they're salesman. Thus, they're distinct, they're not salesman to me. For one thing, there is no currency exchanged.
Yes, yes, I know. They get something from it, too, they get to feel good and stuff. But I don't think that's the same thing as getting some cold hard cash, even if an ordinary salesman feels good about that, too.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:No, it's buttering up for a sale that gets me so upset.
No, it's the buttering up for a sale that got you so upset.
I'm not sure the distinction here.
quote:You wouldn't mind being 'buttered up' for something else. And in fact, let's say it was a good or service you did want. You wouldn't mind that, either. Again, the thing that bothers you isn't the 'deceit', it's the purpose.
I'm sorry, but the manipulation and purpose both bother me pretty equally. I think I understand what you're saying, but you say it with such certainty I wonder if you're hiding in my house somewhere.
quote: And besides, what would you like missionaries to say? They should, what, front-load their pitch with the things most likely to turn people off, I suppose. I mean, that's the right thing to do, since opening with polite small talk is dreadful.
Ideally, they would introduce themselves to me first before they started asking questions.
quote:Well, at least here you're mentioning the real problem you have...or, shall we say, the real difficulty here, since I'm not one to say that it's your problem you don't like missionaries.
I KNEW of this problem, which is why I posted asking the proper way to respond in the first place (albeit in an angrier tone >.>). We're here because you took offense and started a very interesting psychoanalysis without answering the original question.
quote: The problem here is that you don't like missionaries, and yet would like (although to be honest, I have to wonder about that too, since you appear to have a good bit of bitterness about them) to avoid the appearance of rudeness.
I have had some very hurtful experiences with missionaries in the past, so YES there's bitterness, but I realize they're not all like that. So...Yes I would like to avoid the appearance of rudeness!
quote:What I'm asking is for input on the proper way of basically telling people you dislike for very personal and pattern-recognized-past-dealings reason, to go away, without coming off as rude. I'm not a very good actor and since "no" usually doesn't stop a salesperson the first time...
quote:Oh, well that's simple. For example, you could say, "Guys, I am going to be frank with you, since this is important to me and to you. I'm not the least bit interested in your religious message, nor in enduring an attempt to persuade me otherwise. Please do not communicate with me again with that in mind, and yes, I have thought about that carefully and I am quite sincere. Thank you, and good afternoon."
That's not rude. That may offend them, but that's their problem. And frankly, it would be very difficult indeed to both get them to stop bothering you immediately, and avoid offending them, at the same time, because chances are, the thing is quite important to both of you.
Thank you! I appreciate your input, really!
-----------
quote:Despite my getting quite annoyed ... I really do empathize with you. You might even be surprised to know that, on a strictly personal level, I share your irritation and slight sense of violation when it comes to being randomly proseltized.
Wonderful! Glad to hear it! Why did you get annoyed?
quote: CT is quite right, as usual, although my approach to such conversations is (as usual) more...blunt, a bit coarser than hers. I take that approach in my personal life, because I am less concerned with giving offense than she is, I suspect, and yet equally concerned with saving time for each party while still remaining honest about the whole thing.
It's difficult to say "no" to someone who's smiling and behaving politely, as well as behaving in good will. It can sometimes make the decliner feel like the bad guy. But that's just social instinct, not some kind of concrete reality.
It's nice to know that.
Holy crap, no more quoteboxes!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not sure the distinction here.
The distinction is that you wouldn't mind being buttered up for something besides a sale.
quote:I'm sorry, but the manipulation and purpose both bother me pretty equally. I think I understand what you're saying, but you say it with such certainty I wonder if you're hiding in my house somewhere.
Really? I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman, so you'll have to correct me. I'm assuming dude for non-sexist reasons . So you would be equally annoyed if a very attractive, smart, and funny woman approached you and buttered you up, with the (initially unstated) intent of asking you out, as you would be if an ugly, stupid, and annoying vaccuum-cleaner salesman attempted to butter you up for a sale?
If you tell me that yes, you would be equally annoyed then I'll take you at your word. However, it's not 'psychoanalyzing' that led me to those conclusions I stated, it's simple observation of every person I can ever remember meeting. I don't think I've ever met someone who could sincerely say they wouldn't be equally annoyed in both hypotheticals I outlined above.
Quite the contrary. One generally leads to flattery at the least, and the other leads to irritation.
quote:Ideally, they would introduce themselves to me first before they started asking questions.
*shrug* I guess I have a much higher tolerance for small talk than you do, then. Ideally yes, they would...but it would not bother me if they didn't to the extent you've stated it bothers you.
quote:I have had some very hurtful experiences with missionaries in the past, so YES there's bitterness, but I realize they're not all like that. So...Yes I would like to avoid the appearance of rudeness!
I'm only comfortable mentioning this because you brought it up, but perhaps once you find a satisfactory answer to this particular problem, you might follow up by attempting to resolve this bitterness. I think (again, general observation, not psychoanalysis) that if you were confronted with someone who held bitterness against a group of people in general on the basis of bad, painful experiences with a few members in the past, you might even advise the same thing.
quote:Wonderful! Glad to hear it! Why did you get annoyed?
I was annoyed because of the contempt and motive-assigning I observed you putting to the missionaries. I believe it is possible to believe bad things about a group of people, or an ideology, without assigning motives to them, particularly such bad motives.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I understand your argument, but I'm not going to pretend to know what I'd do in such a far fetched (owch) situation.
Again, what annoyed you to respond with such, er...vigor?
EDIT: I didn't realize you were still editing.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: These guys didn't know a thing about me, but did a great job acting all buddy-buddy, and pretending they gave a shit when all they were doing was getting ready to tell me how my life could be "better" with their "product".
It is called BRTBuilding Relationship of Trust. It is a tactic that is actively taught in the Missionary Guide (assuming these guys were LDS). You walk in a house and notice trophies, pictures, et cetera and comment on them. It helps people open up and be more receptive to the "Spirit."
The training also includes how to shake hands, make eye contact, and present yourself positively.
Every morning missionaries practice BRT and have role plays with each other. You can view it as either really slick and deceptive salesmanship or an appropriate way to soften someones heart to be receptive to the Spirit.
It is effective, that is why so many people recognize that missionaries are a lot a like, well groomed, positive and very nice.
It is also why Mormons make such great business professionals or gullible multi-level-marketing employees/customers.
quote:And don't pretend for a moment that it was this horrible 'deception' (i.e. polite small talk, a common occurence basically everywhere) that gets you so upset.
Wow that is quite a personal judgment. If missionaries practice BRT (which you are well aware they are doing if you are LDS), then how come someone isn't entitled to feel horribly deceived on such a personal level?
Missionaries have an agenda. It may be righteous and "called of God," but it is an agenda. And don't pretend for a moment that this "small talk" is anything but trying to get an "in" so that they can present a message...which ultimately will be more expensive then a vacuum if the contact is sold on the product.
10% of your income is a sizable chunk of money. To converts and Mormons it certainly is worth it. It may even be a blessing. But don't you pretend for a moment that there is not an ultimate currency price tag to conversion.
Salesmanship seems like an appropriate analogy, even if the missionary (and they usually do) feels very strongly about the religion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to add an edit to include that. I accidentally hit TAB and then enter to start a new paragraph, and accidentally posted instead, my bad. ----
quote:I understand your argument, but I'm not going to pretend to know what I'd do in such a far fetched (owch) situation.
Really? It's difficult for you to decide whether you'd be annoyed or flattered if an attractive, funny, smart woman started making small talk with you not just to make small talk or be polite, but to ask you out for a drink, or something?
Again, if you insist, I'll take you at your word...but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that claiming you wouldn't be flattered is a bit of stretching credulity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
lem,
quote:Wow that is quite a personal judgment. If missionaries practice BRT (which you are well aware they are doing if you are LDS), then how come someone isn't entitled to feel horribly deceived on such a personal level?
As a matter of fact, I was not aware of that-I'm a convert, I wasn't born and raised to it. I've never been a full-time missionary. However, I was aware of the approach in a...what's the word, unformed?...sort of way. I was aware that many aspects of a missionary's appearance and demeanor are groomed to achieve a positive impact.
As for entitlement...look, he's entitled to feel whatever he wants. So am I, and so are you. That's not the issue I was raising. Again, I reiterate: if someone practiced 'BRT' on you for something you liked, or even more for something you really liked...the feeling of being 'horribly deceived' would, I expect, be substantially mitigated.
quote:10% of your income is a sizable chunk of money. To converts and Mormons it certainly is worth it. It may even be a blessing. But don't you pretend for a moment that there is not an ultimate currency price tag to conversion.
Oh, I see...so a part of the Mormon doctrine to proseltize is to make more money through increased tithing? Hmmm. I'm not going to say what I really think of that particular idea, it'll have to suffice that I strenously object to it. Especially since if money were the goal, there would certainly be more fruitful means of getting it.
quote:Salesmanship seems like an appropriate analogy, even if the missionary (and they usually do) feels very strongly about the religion.
To you, I'm sure it does. But analogies are subjective, since I've never heard of a word that has only one meaning.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
The thing is, I wouldn't know what her motives were until after she asked. Nor do I know enough about myself to really continue going on at this. I'd probably be flattered, but questioning at the same time but that's just a guess.
I recognize that my view and knee-jerk response to missionaries is probably not the healthiest, but so far, no missionary has yet to just make small talk without "not so subtly" segueing into something else which leads a person to believe that was the whole reason for the interaction. Motive assigning? What do missionaries want then?
There's no "horribly deceived" in my original post.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The thing is, I wouldn't know what her motives were until after she asked. Nor do I know enough about myself to really continue going on at this. I'd probably be flattered, but questioning at the same time but that's just a guess.
Well, I won't go on at it, then. I will say that I was asking what your feelings would be after the whole conversation was over, of course, not during it. Trying to get at what irritates and what doesn't.
As for what missionaries want, well it depends on when you catch them, to be honest. They are 'on the job' a lot, after all. I'm not sure what a conversation with a missionary would go like, once one had made themselves explicitly clear on the issue of proseltizing. I've never had a conversation like that
And yes, I was quoting myself...I should've been more clear about that.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Well perhaps I could try and figure out why missionaries "grind my gears". Once that's resolved the issue of polite rejection would no longer even be a concern!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It's easy to feel foolish because you thought someone was interested in you for yourself (because of something wonderful or cool about you in particular), when actually they are interested in anybody who happens to be standing there.
When you thought it was about you, you probably felt flattered. And then finding out it was a generic approach technique can leave one feeling silly for thinking that someone would be interested in you for yourself.
To me, that's one of the biggest differences between being hit on and being pitched to.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
You're late. Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Looking at things from another point of view - how would a Missionary feel if someone actively stopped them, and asked to talk about their message.
This is a personal thing. I'm not open for conversion, and quite convinced of my own beliefs thank-you-very-much, but I would like to find out more about the Mormons. Growing up they were few and far between and we never got a visit. I've had several really interesting chats with the Jehovas Witnesses (I once spent a fortnight sharing a caravan with one, and we had some great discussions once he realised I was serious and not taking the mick...) but never with a real live LDS'er. Now living in a new town I I've seen the serious faced young fellahs with the black and white name-tags a couple of times, but still not had a chance to talk.
So back to the nub - would a missionary be at all put out if I stopped one in the street and asked to have a chat?
*edit to remove drivel*
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Really? It's difficult for you to decide whether you'd be annoyed or flattered if an attractive, funny, smart woman started making small talk with you not just to make small talk or be polite, but to ask you out for a drink, or something?
Again, if you insist, I'll take you at your word...but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that claiming you wouldn't be flattered is a bit of stretching credulity.
Come on now, you're not making a fair comparison at all.
When a person of the opposite sex (or same sex, for some people) starts being extra friendly, there is a natural assumption that this could be flirting. There isn't any deception involved, it is one of the possible expected outcomes of the situation.
It is a completely different situation from when someone starts out a polite conversation, asks about how you are, what you're up to, and then starts in on a rehearsed speech, trying to persuade you to do something. The person on the receiving end could quite naturally feel that they have been duped, that their initial friendliness and willingness to engage in conversation was abused, as the person had motivations beyond simple friendliness.
It may be well intentioned, but it is a planned manipulation, with the desired result of making the listener more receptive to the message.
In my experience with all sorts of missionaries, they usually don't like to take "no" for an answer. I am exceedingly polite to them, because I understand that they have good intentions, but as someone who doesn't have any desire to buy what they're selling, it can be frustrating when, to borrow from your flirting analogy, no doesn't mean no to them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Looking at things from another point of view - how would a Missionary feel if someone actively stopped them, and asked to talk about their message.
Happens all the time. If it's a slow day, we usually listened and talked for a while. I love hearing about things that are important to people.
If it isn't a slow day or we didn't have time, we would listen for a moment and then say, "Thank you very much for sharing with us. We need to go. I hope you have a good day."
Being polite isn't actually that onerous. The only people that really irritated me were the arrogant jerks who were not only rude but self-righteous about being so.
As for the missionaries not diclosing up front, that's what the shiny badge is for. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
*psst*, kat, I think a_m was asking what would missionaries do if someone stopped them and asked to hear about the LDS church.
quote:So back to the nub - would a missionary be at all put out if I stopped one in the street and asked to have a chat?
I can't imagine any situation in which the missionaries would not love to talk to someone who wanted to hear their message, regardless of their interest in conversion (versus simple information). The more questions, the better. I always saw my role as an information provider, and the more focused the information I could give, the better I felt I was doing my job.
That said, I imagine whether you're interested in conversion or not, if you have an extended discussion (i.e. an hour or more in your home) with the missionaries, they will do their best to get you to make some commitment toward reading the Book of Mormon or coming to some church function. If you do hold a discussion with the missionaries, and they ask you to do something you don't want to do, just be upfront and honest about why you don't want to do it. As a missionary, I appreciated a frank, "No. I'm not interested in coming to church because I'm not interested in anything I'll learn there" more than a "yes" followed by a no show and an invented excuse.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: That's not the issue I was raising. Again, I reiterate: if someone practiced 'BRT' on you for something you liked, or even more for something you really liked...the feeling of being 'horribly deceived' would, I expect, be substantially mitigated.
Not at all. I was at church once and a girl, inappropriately so, invited all of us to a party at her house on Monday. She was very nice and we went. The party consisted of a bunch of chairs in a circle with order forms on top of each chair.
It was a party to order gourmet food. I like food. I love food. I really love gourmet food. The problem I had, and I think most people would have, is that I was deceived. The girl was nice to us to get us to her party so we would order her product. She wasn't nice to get us to her party so we could develop our relationship further.
quote:Again, I reiterate: if someone practiced 'BRT' on you for something you liked, or even more for something you really liked...the feeling of being 'horribly deceived' would, I expect, be substantially mitigated.
Not true at all. I will follow up with my above example. The reason deception, or even well meaning BRT, is offensive is because the location and/or initial direction of the BRT does not match intent.
If I go to a car dealership and the salesman uses BRT to get me to relax to buy a vehicle, there is nothing wrong with that. The location justifies it. If I go to a visitors center and a missionary uses BRT to help me be more open to be receptive to the message, there is no deception in that. Location matters.
If a girl starts using BRT to get me to go on a date, there is nothing wrong with that because the date and possible subsequent relationship would be an extension of the BRT. We would move from superficial to intimate because we would build a foundation incorporating our initial interaction. The direction of the relationship matters.
If you are stopped randomly on the street or are proselyted at your home and someone uses BRT to sell a product or religion, then there is deception.
It is annoying, deceptive, and ineffective.
At least the LDS church recognizes the ineffectualness of random BRT. Missionaries are encouraged to use members, open houses, and investigators to gain referrals.
quote: Oh, I see...so a part of the Mormon doctrine to proseltize is to make more money through increased tithing?
Not at all. I don't think money is the motivation for the missionaries. I can't speak for the church leadership, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
My point was only that money DOES exchange hands. The amount of money is no small fee. Eternal Salvation can only come through temple ordinances. You can only go to the temple if you pay tithing.
Sure you can say and remind people that it is about obedience and building up the kingdom. Sacrifice and all that; however there is very real money involved. Money does ultimately exchange hands--your salvation depends on it.
quote: As for the missionaries not diclosing up front, that's what the shiny badge is for.
True. LDS missionaries usually start by saying something along the lines of, "Hi, I am Elder/Sister ... of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. We have a message...." I don't think there is any problem with missionaries not disclosing who they are up front.
*missionary guide example* When you notice the tennis trophy on the mantel and either comment on how much you love tennis or notice the achievement, your reaction is really intended to bring their guard down and soften their heart. The intent has very little to do with tennis.
quote:I always saw my role as an information provider, and the more focused the information I could give, the better I felt I was doing my job.
I thought your role was to find, teach, and baptize--with the emphasis being on baptism. Or has the role of missionaries changed? If you were an information provider then I can only assume you found that role as a more effective way to get baptisms. The intent is not information, it is baptism.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In order to be offended by missionaries being nice to you, you must assume nefarious motives.
In that case, you are painting something that is good as something that is evil. That's so sad, and it's a grave mistake.
ADDED: The missionary guide is no longer used, adn hasn't been for at least five years.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
SenojRetep - Thanks for the advice. Next time I spot a missionary I'll say hello. Mind you they always look so serious and purposeful one always assumes they are off on tasks of vital importantce, with no time to dally
As for the BRT, I often find myself in situations where I have to talk to clients with whom I have had no previous contact. In my mind BRT is just a converstaion thing to get things rolling. Ok, so the bottom line is that I want to sell what my company does, but really it's more important to have a chat and break the ice before getting down to business. If I'm in your office it's usually becasue you want something from me, so it's a two way street. Bear in mind that it is only a formulised technique for doing what we do naturally. When you meet someone for the first time you look for things in common of things which that person is displaying in order get the ball rolling.
That said, I love being approached in the street by salespeople, market researchers and the like. If I'm in a hurry, I find a smile and a polite brush off is more effective than being brusque.
These folks are only trying to earn a crust or do the grestest favour imaginable in bring you to see the light. A smile can go a long to ease a tedious and often soul destroying day.
Mind you I am seldom stopped. I must look too sinister (think mini-me rather than Dr. No ).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When a person of the opposite sex (or same sex, for some people) starts being extra friendly, there is a natural assumption that this could be flirting. There isn't any deception involved, it is one of the possible expected outcomes of the situation.
It's not a fair comparison because someone's initial expectations are different? That doesn't make any sense at all. Regardless of what someone's initial expectations might be, the other party would still be using courtesy to (initially) mask an ulterior motive. It's the same thing, and thus a fair comparison.
quote:The person on the receiving end could quite naturally feel that they have been duped, that their initial friendliness and willingness to engage in conversation was abused, as the person had motivations beyond simple friendliness.
*sigh* Since there seems to be a lot of bobbing and weaving around this particular hypothetical situation of mine, I'll revise it further. Let's say that, instead of an honest interest in a potential meaningful relationship, this other party were making polite small talk with the intention of leading into flirting, just to have a one-night stand with you. There. There's a motive beyond 'simple friendliness'.
quote:It was a party to order gourmet food. I like food. I love food. I really love gourmet food. The problem I had, and I think most people would have, is that I was deceived. The girl was nice to us to get us to her party so we would order her product. She wasn't nice to get us to her party so we could develop our relationship further.
That's a bit different from an ulterior motive revealed within a conversation, since it adds duration an an extra layer of work on your part. But OK, you'd still be irritated/upset by that.
quote:It was a party to order gourmet food. I like food. I love food. I really love gourmet food. The problem I had, and I think most people would have, is that I was deceived. The girl was nice to us to get us to her party so we would order her product. She wasn't nice to get us to her party so we could develop our relationship further.
You're not taking the other party's motives into account. What if the other party is using 'BRT' only to attempt to get you into a relationship with them? In such a situation, it's not just a natural flow of evolving feelings, it would be a literal deception on their part. And, as your response indicates, you probably would not be offended by it.
quote:Not at all. I don't think money is the motivation for the missionaries. I can't speak for the church leadership, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
If you give them the benefit of the doubt, why point it out at all? The giving of the benefit and the bringing it up-especially in this context-don't match up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In that case, you are painting something that is good as something that is evil.
Like I said, what if the seller really genuinely believes that it's the best vacuum in the world?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:In my mind BRT is just a converstaion thing to get things rolling.
That's what I thought too, while I was being trained as a missionary.
The truth is that you shouldn't acronymize the phrase, because that demeans it. Building a relationship of trust means more than just convesationalizing someone. It means taking notice of them and the things that are important to them. It means acknowledging those things. It means loving the people you meet, and earning their trust, not to better sell the gospel, but because trust is precious in and of itself, without needing to be attached to a goal.
quote:When you notice the tennis trophy on the mantel and either comment on how much you love tennis or notice the achievement, your reaction is really intended to bring their guard down and soften their heart.
:snort:
Most people don't realize how casually anti-social human beings (or Americans, anyway) are. Part of a missionary's training is removing that attitude of self-centeredness.
Sure, missionaries are out there trying to save souls. Peddling a message of Jesus. That doesn't mean that they're not genuinely interested in your trophy. Or in you, no matter how you receive their message.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Scott that reducing building a relationship of trust to an acronym is trivializing it.
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But you don't have to be overly polite in the initial "no", either. It's not like you owe them anything. [/QB]
I believe that we all owe every other human creature (reasonable) politeness, assuming that they were polite themselves, which I got from the story that they were, as well as friendly in manner. It's called "respect", and it doesn't hurt anyone to render human respect.
Now, if they'd said "you _are_ a miserable sinner and going to Hell, and we want to save you from it", that wouldn't be respect.
It's even in the Baptismal Vows of my part of the Church, to "respect every other human creature".
Sibyl
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote: What if the other party is using 'BRT' only to attempt to get you into a relationship with them? In such a situation, it's not just a natural flow of evolving feelings, it would be a literal deception on their part.
Uh...how is building a relationship of trust in order to build a relationship with someone a deception? In that case, they're not pretending a personal interest for an ulterior motive. They're expressing a genuine personal interest.
Missionaries are not being deceptive when they're being nice to people. However, if you think they're being nice because they're interested in YOU and then discover that they're interested in CONVERTING (you), you might feel deceived.
The difference between that and the changed example of someone "buttering you up" in order to get you to have a one night stand is that the "ulterior motive" still implies a very personal interest. So if the person hitting on you is unsuccessful, it's still flattering in a personal way. Unlike the missionary, who may be perceived as having no personal interest in you.
And yet if they are successful, and end up using you in such a personal way...I'm willing to bet that someone who's left behind in the morning and never hears from the person again is actually going to feel much more hurt, used, and deceived than someone who felt deceived by a missionary's initial personal interest. So either way, the example doesn't really work.
I'd like to clarify that I understand that the best missionaries DO have a personal interest in potential converts--that even if they don't *know* the person, they can still feel a genuine, personal love that recognizes the person as unique and worthy of love. BUT many (most?) of those approached by missionaries probably don't know this.
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
quote:[/QUOTE]It is called BRTBuilding Relationship of Trust. It is a tactic that is actively taught in the Missionary Guide (assuming these guys were LDS). You walk in a house and notice trophies, pictures, et cetera and comment on them. It helps people open up and be more receptive to the "Spirit."
We are taught to do something similar (as well as taught other things not so related to evangelism) in Episcopal Cursillo (and I would guess Roman Catholic Cursillo, Methodist "Walk to Emmaus", etc, too, though I have no experience of those), though we aren't sent out as Missionaries, but are supposed to exercise the techniques more "naturally" in our everyday life of meeting people. Basically, really, it's just learning conversational techniques of being pleasant and friendly and likeable to everyone, though with the end view of increasing their receptivity to your Message--but if you never do get to the point of getting your message in, it's still a Good Thing to have in life, getting along with people and being likeable.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I have little to no experience with LDS missionaries. However, I am troubled by some of the "building a relationship" activities used or advocated by some Protestant Christians--and this is a group that I'm actually a member of. I've always been a little paranoid that deep down, my friends only pretend to tolerate me, that they don't actually like me for who I am. I know this is probably not true. However, I do wonder about the people I know who first approached me as part of a ministry (they are not close friends with me). As much as evangelizers may "love" me or care about me in the abstract, they aren't necessarily interested in who I am. I'm just another warm body to bring into the Kingdom of Heaven.
I've been in Sunday school classes that advocated having parties where the guest list is about half Christians and half non-Christians. I guess I feel uncomfortable with the idea of throwing a party and having half the guests being unaware of a strategy on the part of the other half to convert them. It's about on the level of throwing a tupperware party, except worse because generally the host tells you it's going to be a tupperware party.
I think it's fine to make friends with people of other faiths. It's fine to talk about your faith with them! Just don't have a friendship where the main goal is conversion. That's a real person, not an abstract object of conversion.
So please understand why people might feel a bit upset about the whole proselytizing thing. No matter how good your intentions, people are going to feel a bit used if they think you're interested in them as a person and find you're only interested in them in the abstract. Actually, I have no problem with brief, polite small-talk from evangelizers -- LDS or otherwise. I don't think the situation Earendil described would bother me. I'm used to people being on campus and selling/promoting things and causes. I think such behavior is actually a lot better than the people who ask you to fill out a survey for the sole purpose of trying to get you to come to their group.
I do wish, though, that Christianity in general would stop using marketing tactics and strategies to convert people. I think it tends to taint relationships with those outside the faith, it probably turns off more people than it convinces, and in my opinion it degrades the message of Christianity. I think that if the adherents of a message need to be taught how to manipulate their friends, neighbors, and co-workers into believing it too, then maybe there's something wrong with the message itself.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:You can view it as either really slick and deceptive salesmanship or an appropriate way to soften someones heart to be receptive to the Spirit.
I think I'll have to go with the first rather than the second, simply because of what seems to be the sole purpose of it. If it were done because they truly wished to know me better and wanted to be friendly, I'd have no qualms whatsoever. However, it's the idea that they're doing it to try and make me more receptive to something I'm probably not interested in anyways that bothers me, and not out of a more wholesome motive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shigosei,
For the record, I would be offended at such a party and probably leave at once if I found out about it after being invited...even if I were a part of the Christian half of the equation. I wouldn't knowingly attend such a party as a Christian member, either. The difference to me is that I consider small talk innocuous and generally harmless, a tool that can be willingly used for a variety of ends or even for no end at all, some people just like chit chatting. However most people in my experience don't make small talk because they're really interested in talking about the weather, or where exactly I'm going or what I had for lunch, but just to be polite and pass the time, and perhaps find something more meaningful to talk about.
But planning a party like that in advance is quite different. It adds time, premeditation, and an intricate deception, even if the purpose of the party one way or another is never mentioned at all. It's a trick that's not part of everyday life, it's a trick that not everyone uses for a variety of ends.
quote:I do wish, though, that Christianity in general would stop using marketing tactics and strategies to convert people. I think it tends to taint relationships with those outside the faith, it probably turns off more people than it convinces, and in my opinion it degrades the message of Christianity. I think that if the adherents of a message need to be taught how to manipulate their friends, neighbors, and co-workers into believing it too, then maybe there's something wrong with the message itself.
Here's the thing, though: "marketing tactics" is just another phrase meaning "effective persuasion". Yes, persuasion is an attempt at manipulation-all persuasion is. Right now, I'm trying to manipulate you into my way of thinking, and you're doing the same to me and others.
It's an unfortunate coincidence that effective persuasion can be used for charity, money making, religion, altruism, or wickedness, but that's just the way things are. And as for turning off people more than it turns them on, well, sure it turns off the people who aren't persuaded. If you hear a sales-pitch about, I don't know, changing your cell phone service contract, aren't you going to be less likely to be persuaded by the same offer again in the future? Particularly from the same company? Naturally you will be.
But if you are persuaded, then just as naturally you won't be turned off. You're looking at it only from the (from a Christian perspective) 'failure' portion of the results at attempts to persuade.
quote:I think that if the adherents of a message need to be taught how to manipulate their friends, neighbors, and co-workers into believing it too, then maybe there's something wrong with the message itself.
Tell me, do you think the same is true when someone attempts to convince you or people you know to say donate blood? Donate to the Salvation Army? Work for Habitat for Humanity? Sell Girl Scout cookies? Design billboards?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think I'll have to go with the first rather than the second, simply because of what seems to be the sole purpose of it.
Just because (in the case of Mormons) a full-time missionary is always on the job, does not mean he or she is only ever thinking about the job. They're not Borg, they're just people. This means that, like all other people, they just might be friendly and cheerful and conversational naturally, they might like meeting new people and learning even little things about others.
Granted, I'm not saying all or even most missionaries are like that. I'm just saying that the sort of prejudgement being made here would probably be objectionable if applied to someone else.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I am cross-posting from Noemon's thread on Proselytizing, but just this once, because I'm really interested in getting input from a variety of people.)
-----
I wonder if it would be better to ask "Are you approaching me as a member of a church?"
I'm still going to ask, but I don't want to make it any more offensive than is absolutely necessary to get an answer I can understand.
-----
Edited to add: Just to be clear, I delight in talking to members of a variety of churches. I just am actively not interested in talking to people who approach me as members of a particular church: i.e., as formal or informal representatives of their church to discuss matters of religion.
What's the best way to ask this directly? (I'm assuming it is okay for me to decide whether or not I myself want to engage in such conversations. However, if someone disagrees, then I'm certainly willing to listen to reasons why it isn't okay for me to decide that for myself.)
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:We are taught to do something similar (as well as taught other things not so related to evangelism) in Episcopal Cursillo (and I would guess Roman Catholic Cursillo, Methodist "Walk to Emmaus", etc, too, though I have no experience of those),
It's interesting you mention that, Sibyl. I was pretty heavily involved with the Emmaus community for a while, and my husband even more so. One of the things that bothered him about the weekend was the deliberate use of manipulative techniques like sleep deprivation and no clocks to make people more receptive. We both still think the weekends and the movements are essentially good, but we're both uncomfortable with that aspect of it.
Perhaps that's not something endorsed by Cursillo or even the national Walk to Emmaus standards...but it's what we experienced on our weekends.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have to say, Shig, I think I've been invited to a party that was both a tupperware party AND a sandbag-the-unbeliever party.
I think the painful thing about it is that it really IS more about the missionary than about the person getting hit up.
Making me feel like a Sunday School Project is a great way to make me hate your guts. Of course I will be polite and and smile and thank you for inviting me and all. Then I will avoid you like that guy on the train who smells like pee.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Rakeesh, I'm trying to figure out what exactly is bothering me, and why girl scout cookies and donating blood are different. Like I said, I don't have problem with people sharing what they believe and trying to convince others. Laying out your beliefs and arguing in favor of them is great. I guess that you could call that "marketing tactics." Perhaps I'm not being specific enough...when I say "marketing tactics" I should really say "sneaky marketing tactics." I'd be bothered if someone made friends with me to get me to donate blood. I'd be bothered if every time I had a conversation, my friend was looking for openings to steer the conversation toward girl scout cookies.
It's not evangelism itself that I have a problem with. Persuasion and arguments are fine. I have a problem when it is done dishonestly. It's possible that I would be annoyed about missionaries knocking on my door, but I won't be offended as long as they're polite and honest about what they're doing.
It's all about seeing people as people and not merely potential converts. I swear, it sometimes seems at church that non-Christians aren't seen as actual people. As Olivet said, many are treated as a project. The problem is, I don't think that this sort of objectification comes naturally to most. We don't want to treat our friends this way, but "the system" encourages it. I suspect a fair amount of my strong feelings about this comes from attempts from my church to pressure me into using these sorts of tactics. I have been told that to be a good Christian, one must take every opportunity to try to convert others (if you don't, it's your fault if they go to hell). If you're not talking about Jesus all the time, clearly you must be ashamed. So, you know, if you do evangelistic stuff, don't think I hate you or think you're a bad person. I don't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Shigosei,
quote:Perhaps I'm not being specific enough...when I say "marketing tactics" I should really say "sneaky marketing tactics." I'd be bothered if someone made friends with me to get me to donate blood. I'd be bothered if every time I had a conversation, my friend was looking for openings to steer the conversation toward girl scout cookies.
I think I'm not being specific enough as well, because I forgot to add a detail too. I mean to ask, would you be as annoyed if someone were to use some form of 'sneaky marketing tactics' (and I agree, there is some sneakiness involved) for something such as donating blood, or the Salvation Army? Granted, I would (and possibly you, too) still be annoyed...but I don't think I'd be as annoyed.
In fact, I have been roped into good causes before with 'sneaky marketing tactics' and while I was irritated, I wasn't as irritated as I've been when confronted with such things for, say, cell phone contracts.
quote:I swear, it sometimes seems at church that non-Christians aren't seen as actual people. As Olivet said, many are treated as a project. The problem is, I don't think that this sort of objectification comes naturally to most. We don't want to treat our friends this way, but "the system" encourages it.
I think it depends on the context of the conversation at church going on. I've had that experience, too. One memorable occasion involved a sister (and others) speaking critically of someone who was inactive. He was a former supervisor of mine at a past job I held, in retail for a computer store. As a low-seniority (compared to the rest of the managers) supervisor/manager in retail for such a store, obviously weekend work was required for his employment. His wife was a stay-at-home mom, and they'd just had a baby.
Anyway, there was some direct criticism of him, confined to working on Sundays. He was only being viewed in the context of his failure to be a good Mormon in this regard, and I pointed out that in my opinion, we as mere acquaintances should probably not be make such personal criticisms because it's a hard choice to make, sometimes. We didn't know his circumstances, but we did know that their family had one source of income, as well as a new addition to it. One could say, "Well, he should get a different job which permits him to be off on Sundays," but for a man supporting a family on a paycheck to paycheck basis, that's a much less plausible thing.
Anyway, the point of my little anecdote is to say that I get where you're coming from. It frustrates me, too. But when I pointed that out (manipulated them to my way of thinking, really), they agreed (it was a small group). I didn't have to try very hard, either, which led me to conclude that they didn't think of him solely in his capacity as a good Mormon...but they were in church, so naturally (well, it makes sense to me, anyway) that was the lens they were looking through at the time. Perhaps because at that time I was such a recent convert, my lens was different than theirs.
quote:I suspect a fair amount of my strong feelings about this comes from attempts from my church to pressure me into using these sorts of tactics. I have been told that to be a good Christian, one must take every opportunity to try to convert others (if you don't, it's your fault if they go to hell).
All I can say is that I emphatically think that it is wrong to think that it's your fault if anyone goes to hell. I have a higher degree of respect for the free will in humanity to think that, or at least that's what I believe. Also, I don't think they should be pressuring you to do something you find objectionable, either...nor in particular bludgeoning you with "you're not a good Christian". Not only because I disagree with that kind of doctrine, but for the practical reason that I think it's horribly ineffective.
I admit that it's easy to fall into the trap in a religious setting of viewing other human beings solely in a religious context, as either targets or opportunities for evangelism. I think this is a mistake, though, for the same reasons mentioned above: I just think it's wrong to do so, and I don't think it's the most effective method of converting others.
The most effective example is much more difficult to live by, as well as failing to satisfy the...well, the thrill people get from successfully persuading/manipulating others into their point of view, from having felt that another person gets the Message from you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The most effective example is much more difficult to live by, as well as failing to satisfy the...well, the thrill people get from successfully persuading/manipulating others into their point of view, from having felt that another person gets the Message from you.
Of note, that seems to be the same thrill that people may seek in all sorts of walks of life. I think it's a human thing, not a religious thing.
I've always been more than a little suspicious of the "golden hour" talk that floats around discussions of why ER Medicine, ICU Medicine, or Surgery may be attractive specializations. People sometimes talk about how great it feels to be the one that makes the difference, the one that saves the day.
Frankly, it seems much better for the patients not ever to get to the point where they need an ER, or ICU, or surgery. That seems to be an even better save, in my book, but it's more of a long, dry, and tedious process to "save" people that way. Not much of a rush there, that's for sure.
I'm glad there are people who are drawn to the parts of medicine that I am not, and I'm glad that they do such a bang-up job of it under dicey circumstances. I'm even more impressed when someone trained this way takes a longer view as well, such as an ICU physician I worked with who was one of the strongest community proponents of accident harms-reduction. He actively worked to put himself out of business -- how cool. I find that exceedingly inspiring and trust-inducing.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sure, missionaries are out there trying to save souls. Peddling a message of Jesus. That doesn't mean that they're not genuinely interested in your trophy. Or in you, no matter how you receive their message.
But the initial approach is non-discriminatory, even if the interaction itself is personal, yes? I mean, the love you have for this person that impells you to speak to them should be the same love as you feel to all fellow humans, right?
When someone feels flattered, it is because they believe a discrimination has been made between themselves and others. Mind you, I don't aspire to feel flattered, and I think we could do with less of that particular emotion in the world. But I think that's a big part of why people feel misled and resentful of the deliberate "building a relationship of trust" approach.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The quotes there make me sad. I guess some missionaries do it with quotes around it, but it is for the most part sincere.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The quotes there make me sad. I guess some missionaries do it with quotes around it, but it is for the most part sincere.
I'm sorry to bring you sadness, katharina. Really, I am. (Would it help to edit, or is the damage done?)
Maybe it is the most sincere ones who are least likely to be thought of as doing it in the quotes way, as it were. I'd like to think that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's almost impossible to sincerely build a relationship of trust when you're doing it according to a manual.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I also wonder how possible it is with someone that you have literally just met.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I do find it feels much more convincing when the relationship is built over years, and under a plethora of shared experiences. I also understand that missionaries may feel called to make instant friendships out of a sincere belief that it has to be done as quickly as possible.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Plus, I don't think we're talking about the people who knock on our doors and say, "Hi, I'm so-and-so with the such-and-such church.
ut there is something dishonest in trying to develop a firendship with someone just to convert them. It's more dishonest, on some level, than chatting up a girl with whom you have nothing common just to get laid. Because in a bar, you pretty much expect it.
I'm still kind of ducking my neighbor who wants to have coffee sometime, because i know in my heart she just wants to save my soul. Of course, I suppose I'm just as bad for going along with it. Basically, I guess I let her think there might be hope of me converting for two reasons.
One, I don't know of a polite way to tell her that her deeply held beliefs are repulsive to me, and two, I suspect that the glimmer of hope she holds for our redemption is the only reason she still lets my kids play with her kids. *sigh*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: It's more dishonest, on some level, than chatting up a girl with whom you have nothing common just to get laid. Because in a bar, you pretty much expect it.
Oh, I think that's plenty squicky too. Big part of why I don't go to bars.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I've also been plenty miffed at a fella or two who presented himself as primarily interested in joint scholarship but ended up being primarily interested in more southern reasons.
"You must have beautiful ovaries," indeed. (No, really. This was not a scheduled part of the review session.)
---
Edited to add: Basically, I shouldn't be talked to. Or looked at. Or thought about, except in the most abstract form.
I think I've become a misanthrope. *wry look
---
Gerroff my lawn.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Basically, I shouldn't be talked to. Or looked at. Or thought about, except in the most abstract form.
Try and stop me. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I totally agree with CT. I think I've become a misanthrope. For real, unlike CT who only manages to be misanthropic in the most abstract sense. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(*grin
We'll hang out on our (empty) lawns together and drink mint juleps. Cuss and spit, too. And make salty jokes.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tough cookies, Olivia. I plan to talk to and think about you, too. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:When someone feels flattered, it is because they believe a discrimination has been made between themselves and others.
I'm not convinced this is so. I think the world is full of people who would feel flattered to be treated as though they were as worthy as others. I'm not sure that's much better though; it's a terribly sad thought.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You can come spit with us, rivka.
----
*quietly
It's only knowing dkw and kmboots [and rivka, though in a different way, as our religious traditions are quite different] over the years that has gotten me even willing to consider whether I want religion in a more formalized way in my life. I understand that my baggage is mine, not anyone else's, and I don't want to attribute ill intent to kind and caring people. But the deliberately studied approach is less than remotely helpful to me in this aspect, and I don't care to engage in such conversations (unless clearly entered into, with fully informed consent) at all.
So I look for ways to minimize the trauma all around. *shrug I doubt I'd willingly choose from the outset to inflict myself on the world at large, but here I am, and I must make the best of it. As do we all.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:When someone feels flattered, it is because they believe a discrimination has been made between themselves and others.
I'm not convinced this is so. I think the world is full of people who would feel flattered to be treated as though they were as worthy as others. I'm not sure that's much better though; it's a terribly sad thought.
*nods.
Likely so. Very sad, that.
I'd think of that more as "grateful" than "flattered," but that may reflect my own biases more than anything.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: You can come spit with us, rivka.
Excellent! Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I spent two years as a missionary down in Brazil. (Just south of where Uncle Orson served)
Just like ScottR, when I was being trained, I thought that building a relationship of trust was just something to help us get in doors to teach people. When I got to Brazil though, I realized I was dead wrong.
I began to love the people. I honestly cared for them. I wanted to be their friend. It didnt have to do with them inviting me into their home. It had to do with showing my love for them. I looked at them as my family.
I dont know how many times we helped people push their cars when they broke down, or helped old ladies take their groceries home. But we didnt do it so that we could come back and convert them. We did it because we believed that life is precious, that everyone is a child of God, and being so deserves to be shown love and respect.
The reason why I wanted to tell people about our church was not so that I could meet numbers, or increase the amount of "tithing" the church received. The reason why I went and did the things I did down there was nothing more than love. I wanted them to know what I knew, and have what I have. Ive never been happier in my entire life than when I spent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week serving others.
On a side note about tithing: I do not know how many of you know this but the LDS church does not have a paid clergy. My father is a bishop and has never received one penny. In fact, he has a 50 hour a week job, then spends another 20 hours a week doing his church duties. Tithing is used to build church buildings, build temples, and support various other church programs. My mission was not paid for by the church. I saved up all of my money for two years and paid for it myself.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: On a side note about tithing: I do not know how many of you know this but the LDS church does not have a paid clergy. My father is a bishop and has never received one penny. ...My mission was not paid for by the church. I saved up all of my money for two years and paid for it myself.
I think most people who've been here awhile are well aware of how the financing of the LDS Church works. It comes up relatively frequently in general discussions. However, it is good to note it explicitly again, especially in this thread.
I'm glad you had such a good time on your mission, Geraine. It sounds like a remarkable and most memorable experience.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think it's almost impossible to sincerely build a relationship of trust when you're doing it according to a manual.
I agree. I'm glad the Mormon missionary effort does not do it this way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scott is right.
CT, when you put the building a relationship of trust in quotes, it is making it...it's a value judgement. It's saying that the default there is deception, a game, something fake. It really isn't, not usually, and it is really hurtful to suspect that you think religious feeling in general defaults to something so ugly.
It makes me wonder - do you think of me that way? When you name religious people that you like, does that mean you think I'm faking it? Part of something ugly? Maybe just deluded?
Am I overreacting? But I don't think so. That's what the quotes mean. I don't think I am any of those awful things, and it really hurts to be depicted that way, even sideways. It's terribly disrespectful. You're also wrong. I think in assuming inveracity you're closing yourself to what is good that is there. Maybe that's what you want to do because of the bad that can get mixed in, and so maybe it's worth it to you, but I think it's too bad, and it makes me sad. It means I'm that much less understood and valued for something that I love that is part of me that has never hurt you.
I mean, the joking about misanthropy is funny, but you're not talking about vague and unkown persons somewhere in Cabot, Maine. You're talking about a whole lot of Hatrackers, you're talking about people who like you, and who are reading what you say about them.
[ January 22, 2007, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I talk to people on the street, in elevators, on bus, etc. It's something I like to do. I like people. I like getting to know them and I prefer talking like that to staying somewhere silently, trying to avoid other people's eyes.
Not surprisingly, I encounter a fair number of people who want something from me other than conversation. A lot of times, it's for something I have no trouble with. For some reason, many people seem to find me very approachable. Take a sidewalk full of people, I tend to be the one someone will stop to ask for directions. This happens to me even in cities that I'm just visiting and have no idea where I am.
Many other times, it is someone trying to sell me something or asking me for money. There was a time in college, it seemed I couldn't strike up a conversation in an elevator without someone inviting me to a Bible study. If someone is handing out flyers, or asking to sign a petition, or looking to convert people to their religion, I am almost invariably considered a prime target.
I've had people use the building a relationship of trust technique on me. I've had them used more subtle forms of manipulation that I'm able to recognize because of my training in social psychology. But hope springs eternal and plus I tend to be pretty polite to people. However, I've never had any of these dozens of people ever continue to be interested in the things we were talking about after I've rejected their sales pitch. Either they endeavour to explain why my carefully considered beliefs aren't worth their respect or they break off contact and move on to the next person. This is when I conclude that they weren't approaching me as a person worthy of respect who it might be nice to interact with, but rather as a target for whatever they were selling.
I really don't like this, because, to me, it poisons public square conversation between strangers, which, as I've indicated, I really enjoy. It makes me more closed off to the possibility of talking with strangers, especially ones that approach me. I generally still do talk with people, but I'm constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop and them to get around to their sales pitch.
This works in the other direction as well. I've had people say to me on the train, when one of us was about to get off, that they kept expecting me to ask them for something or start talking about how they needed to join my religion.
Going about tricking people into listening to your unwelcome message and employing social manipulations to make them uncomfortable breaking off contact doesn't strike me as a respectful practice and I think it has some negative effects on how open people are to strangers.
[ January 22, 2007, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You're talking about a whole lot of Hatrackers,
It's in part my experience with LDS on Hatrack that makes me think that this is very likely generally a manipulation technique grounded in a much higher value in proselytizing than in respecting other people. When we start talking about missionary work, it seems like respect for other people becomes very unimportant to many of the LDS here.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: CT, when you put the building a relationship of trust in quotes, it is making it...it's a value judgement. It's saying that the default there is deception, a game, something fake.
katharina, when I put it in quotation marks, I did so because it was a direct quote. I was using someone else's language, not mine, and I was trying to be respectful by not using an abbreviation. [which was earlier noted by someone as offensive]
I very seriously think you have misinterpreted me here, and -- as you and I have both noted before, many times -- that may reflect more on what you brought to the interaction than on what was brought to you. I don't mean that in a callous or judgemental way; I really do mean to say that I think you may have been reacting to something bigger or other than me.
If I had realized that sooner, I would have addressed it more directly. It honestly never occurred to me that you read it in that light. I thought you were objecting to the quotes because I was using a standardized phrase and thus implying that the approach was standardized -- not anything about intent.
I don't use scare quotes in general. I tend to use them with the classical interpretation.
[I don't generally use scare quotes because I was specifically trained in academic philosophy that it is an irregular and unclear usage. If you read other things I have written, you'll see they appear rarely, if ever. I certainly hope so.]
quote: It makes me wonder - do you think of me that way? When you name religious people that you like, does that mean you think I'm faking it? Part of something ugly? Maybe just deluded?
If you were to walk up to me as a stranger, strike up a conversation, and seem to me to be trying to interest me in your religion, then I would suspect you had an ulterior motive and dislike that part of our interaction. As it is, your religious beliefs seem to organically be expressed in our interactions, and I am not uncomfortable with that.
I am uncomfortable with being approached in a practiced, mannered way about this topic. This has to do in good part with my history, and that isn't something I'd choose to share at this point here.
I named rivka, dkw, and kmboots specifically because these are people I have approached directly to discuss religious matters in private. They shared some elements of my understanding of the world that made us sympatico and made me feel comfortable with approaching them. Most people I do not feel comfortable with discussing these issues, in large part because of the emotionally wrought misunderstandings which seem to often occur. [my own included, BTW]
quote:Am I overreacting? But I don't think so. That's what the quotes mean.
Well, that isn't what I intended.
quote:I don't think I am any of those awful things, and it really hurts to be depicted that way, even sideways. It's terribly disrespectful. You're also wrong. I think in assuming inveracity you're closing yourself to what is good that is there. Maybe that's what you want to do because of the bad that can get mixed in, and so maybe it's worth it to you, but I think it's too bad, and it makes me sad. It means I'm that much less understood and valued for something that I love that is part of me that has never hurt you.
Do you mean that I must be terribly disrespectful unless I want to talk to you about religion? I don't understand. I can't imagine that you really mean this judgement to fall on anyone who is not willing to discuss religion with strangers. Or even with you. Is this really what you mean?
quote:I mean, the joking about misanthropy is funny, but you're not talking about vague and unkown persons somewhere in Cabot, Maine. You're talking about a whole lot of Hatrackers, you're talking about people who like you, and who are reading what you say about them.
kat, seriously, how often do I talk about people this way, much less people who are present in the conversation?
---
Edited to add: I was joking about misanthropy in part because I realize that being very precise about how to say "no" to a proselytizer is kind of weird. Obviously, though, it's a concern for several people on this board. I can't see where I've done other than bend over backwards (and willingly so, gladly so***) to attribute nothing but the best motives to those who proselytize to me without the context of an established relationship.
I still don't want to have that discussion with them, though. Is that basic fact what is underlying the anger, or was it the [mis]reading as scare quotes, or what? This makes little sense to me.
---
***Edited to add: See my next post below. Ah, goodness.
---
Also edited to change paragraphs around to make the post more clear overall. I was writing as I thought, and the result was less than easy to read. I haven't deleted anything, though.
I like you, katharina! I think you are a marvelous, strong, intelligent woman with high ideals and many important insights about the world and human experience. I did not mean to insult you; I meant to be precise. But for whatever reason, it did bring up some strong negative emotions, and for that I am most sorry. I also do want to reaffirm that I think highly of you and am proud to know you, [even moreso to] be friends with you.
[ January 23, 2007, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
Threads like this are why I don't bother with Hatrack much anymore.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The fact that there is a specific technique for "building a relationship of trust", and that it is taught to people, is I think, a valid reason to put it in quotes. We're discussing it as a planned method of discussion, intending to facilitate a specific conversational goal.
If you really just want to build a relationship of trust with someone, without the quotes, do you need a handbook? I've got tons of friends who trust me, and I've never once needed a specific technique or taught method of conversation to gain that trust.
One of the things that bothers me about some missionary methods, is that there is an inherent notion within the system that the missionary is going to save me, and that there is a set plan for getting that project accomplished, including the trust building. It's an agenda, and I don't appreciate people coming at me with an agenda. I think it's a little rude.
I'm happy to let the missionaries have their way of thinking, and I have mine. I think it would be rude of me to tell a missionary that they are a fool for believing what they do, that I know better than they how they should live their lives, but that's essentially what they want to tell me.
Is there really a polite way to tell someone, "What you believe is stupid, and I'm going to tell you how not to be a fool"?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Loren: Threads like this are why I don't bother with Hatrack much anymore.
It is definitely worth a deliberate consideration to choose where you want to spend your time. I'm sure you'd be welcomed if you should choose to return, and thought well of distantly if you did not.
----------
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's saying that the default there is deception, a game, something fake. It really isn't, not usually, and it is really hurtful to suspect that you think religious feeling in general defaults to something so ugly.
I quote myself [from throughout the thread] for clarity:
quote:I take it for granted when I am in a casual conversation that there isn't a direction this conversation is intended to take. But other people -- for whatever reason, mind you, kind and decent and well-meaning people -- may not have that same expectation.
quote:One has to assume that these are not people who are setting out to mislead you or trip you up. The most charitable assumption (which we have every reason to believe is the most appropriate one) is that these people are well-intentioned and doing the best they can to do what they think is important. They don't want to hurt you, or make you uncomfortable -- and by asking, you give them a chance to clarify what it is they are doing, so you can decide on that together.
quote:It helped to realize that much of the difficulty I had was in what I brought to the situation, and that I could politely ask for help in understanding it at the time instead. Much more friendly than trucking out my baggage about what I wanted and I expected, and then getting upset when others didn't do what I assumed they would.
quote:Life is so hard! Dealing with other people is so hard!
But it is better than the alternative. And goodness knows, those other people are having the same hard time with us as we do with them.
quote:Just to be clear, I delight in talking to members of a variety of churches. I just am actively not interested in talking to people who approach me as members of a particular church: i.e., as formal or informal representatives of their church to discuss matters of religion.
quote:I also understand that missionaries may feel called to make instant friendships out of a sincere belief that it has to be done as quickly as possible.
quote:I understand that my baggage is mine, not anyone else's, and I don't want to attribute ill intent to kind and caring people. But the deliberately studied approach is less than remotely helpful to me in this aspect, and I don't care to engage in such conversations (unless clearly entered into, with fully informed consent) at all.
So I look for ways to minimize the trauma all around.
quote:I 'm glad you had such a good time on your mission, Geraine. It sounds like a remarkable and most memorable experience.
----
Edited to add: And for completeness' sake, this is part of my post from Noemon's thread on word choice, referenced earlier:
quote:I think part of what makes it offensive is the fundamental decision (that I've made) to lump a bunch of different people into one category and treat them equally. I imagine that might feel quite dismissive and/or disrespectful of the prosetylizer's uniqueness and importance of their own personal message. Nonetheless, it is what I have chosen to do, and I might as well be up front about it.
I promise to be as courteous and polite about these situations as I can be, otherwise.
---
Mind you, when I have an established relationship with someone as a friend, listening to and sharing stories of life experiences and how we make sense of ourselves and our worlds doesn't trouble me. I like it. It feels like more of a shared thing then, though, and it fits into what I expect of an interaction in a totally different way.
[ January 22, 2007, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
You know, I pulled in to a gas station when I was in another state (the sole purpose of this stop was to check my directions) and a guy came up and knocked on my widow waving a tract with a picture of Jesus on it. He wanted me to roll down my window. I didn't. I was in teh car alone with NIN playing "Heresy" on the CD player.
He seemed so disappointed that I almost felt bad about it, but then I thought... what was he thinking, tapping on some strange woman's window at a random gas station?
ETA: I started typing that three hours ago. I can see the thread has moved on in that time. *wince*
I must say that LDS missionaries are not among those I would accuse of being deceitful. I mean they have freakin' name tags and stuff. You know who they are and why they're there from the get-go, don't you?
I trusted the missionaries we met, and I listened to what they had to say. I read the books and prayed for guidance, and wound up believing they were wrong from the depths of my soul. Really, really nice, but wrong. We still exchange Christmas cards with one of them. I don't think that's quite the same thing at all as what I was talking about. Though I guess some of them might have taken the trophy soul view of the relationship, they weren't underhanded about it.
[ January 22, 2007, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Threads like this are why I don't bother with Hatrack much anymore.
Threads like this one is why I continue to return to Hatrack. Thoughtful discussion by intelligent people on interesting topics which you seldom see discussed elsewhere. What's not to like?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Gerroff my lawn.
Yes ma'am. *sulks away*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* @ Tristan
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thirded.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One of the things that bothers me about some missionary methods, is that there is an inherent notion within the system that the missionary is going to save me, and that there is a set plan for getting that project accomplished, including the trust building. It's an agenda, and I don't appreciate people coming at me with an agenda. I think it's a little rude.
Okay, that's a fair complaint, and I can see why you'd be bothered. This is one of the problems that was actually addressed several times in the missionary training center-- the adherence to an agenda, rather than adherence to the whisperings of the Spirit.
The training program serves, IMO, two purposes-- to correct fundamental misunderstandings about the gospel that are cultured into the missionary, and to assist the missionary in expanding his or her sphere of awareness. It is not so much an agenda as a wake-up call. Or, at least, that's what I think it should be.
I don't think that it's a terrible thing to teach consideration for others; on the scale that a missionary needs it, it's unnatural.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, CT, for that explanation. I did not mean that not wishing to talk to proselyters is unfortuate, but rather thinking they are all underhanded is, because while I guess some may/must be - there are losers in every context (resists the temptation to point to Squicky and fails) - most that I know and did know aren't, and it hurts to be thought of that way.
However, your quotes were not scare quotes but instead direct quotes, and that does greatly change your post for me. Thank you for the explanation - it was very sweet of you take me seriously, although I suppose it is nothing less than I could have expected from the gracious Claudia Therese.
---
About the teaching of it, two things occur to me.
1. It was not so much teaching manipulation - there was, in fact, a great deal of discussion of how NOT to approach people, and that topped the list - as it might have been just teaching basic social skills. Most of the missionaries are 19- and 20-year-old boys. I ap0ologize for the stereotype, but that those aren't usually who I'd pick to front and sell anything on their own, because of a lack of experience in general with interacting with people. What was taught was to listen, be interested, ask questions, keep trust, be on time, open your mouth and don't be afraid to speak. Except for the last one (and sometimes that one), these are just basic social skills. But they are social skills that have to be learned, and if they are missionaries, there is possibly/probably not time to learn it by experience. There is only two years. I think it's okay to teach missionaries how to interact with other human beings.
2. "BRT" is from the missionary gude, and the missionary guide hasn't been used in at least five years. This discussion is about a defunct teaching technique. It could become defunct because the church got a lot pickier about who was allowed to go on missions.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
katharina, I am relieved to ease your mind and delighted not to be in your bad books.
Your and Scott's last posts have helped me make better sense of the missionary training. Thanks.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I know this has been going on for far longer than I've been at Hatrack, but I totally don't get why you think MrSquicky deserves side-swiping personal attacks like that, kat. I thought we didn't call each other names. Just because it's "loser" instead of something involving profanity doesn't make it okay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have put that. It's better to ignore him completely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know this has been going on for far longer than I've been at Hatrack, but I totally don't get why you think MrSquicky deserves side-swiping personal attacks like that, kat.
I don't understand it either, but it's worth pointing out that it's a mutual thing, ElJay.
Edit: In reference to your next post, so as not to further derail this thread: I know you didn't say it wasn't, but you didn't mention it either. Which is why I did, is all.
[ January 23, 2007, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Coming into this late, but I think it was a little over the top to say that Earen isn't a polite person just because he expresses annoyance at missionaries. As far as I can see, (s)he(?) wasn't rude to them. Politeness doesn't extend to becoming impervious to all sources of annoyance.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*shrug* Never said it wasn't.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*mildly
I've been glad to have his posts to read for some time now, and I've been wanting to say thanks for that for some time now. This seems like a good time to do it.
I had missed the reference in katharina's post, but I agree with ElJay. Katie, might you rethink that, as well as your last post? It's quite harsh.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From Squicky:
quote:It's in part my experience with LDS on Hatrack that makes me think that this is very likely generally a manipulation technique grounded in a much higher value in proselytizing than in respecting other people.
It's not harsher. It's just less passive aggressive.
I think you should call him on that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
*spicily*
I think everyone deserves habenero guacamole and taquitos.
But not until I figure out how to put ~s above the letters that need them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
A caveat first: I'm trying to understand, not to rub it in or make it worse.
katharina, was it the sentiment itself or the way it was expressed that disturbed you, or both?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, my. These ARE spicy taquitos, aren't they?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From Squicky:
quote:It's in part my experience with LDS on Hatrack that makes me think that this is very likely generally a manipulation technique grounded in a much higher value in proselytizing than in respecting other people.
It's not harsher. It's just less passive aggressive.
I think you should call him on that.
For what it is worth, I share Squicky's impression. And I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Rather, I don't see why you would see it as a bad thing. For some people, and several LDS missionaries have expressed this opinion, that the most important thing is listening to the spirit and making salvation available to people. Making sure that they have that opportunity. Certainly people have expressed that it is worth knocking on doors and possibly disturbing people - even when there are "no soliciting" signs. Proxy baptism, etc. All these indicate to me that sharing your faith is the highest priority for many LDS. Which, I think, is all he was saying.
Posted by Sibyl (Member # 10079) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I spent two years as a missionary down in Brazil. (Just south of where Uncle Orson served)
Just like ScottR, when I was being trained, I thought that building a relationship of trust was just something to help us get in doors to teach people. When I got to Brazil though, I realized I was dead wrong.
I began to love the people. I honestly cared for them. I wanted to be their friend. It didnt have to do with them inviting me into their home. It had to do with showing my love for them. I looked at them as my family.
I dont know how many times we helped people push their cars when they broke down, or helped old ladies take their groceries home. But we didnt do it so that we could come back and convert them. We did it because we believed that life is precious, that everyone is a child of God, and being so deserves to be shown love and respect.
The reason why I wanted to tell people about our church was not so that I could meet numbers, or increase the amount of "tithing" the church received. The reason why I went and did the things I did down there was nothing more than love. I wanted them to know what I knew, and have what I have. Ive never been happier in my entire life than when I spent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week serving others.
....
In Cursillo, it's expressed as:
Make a friend
Be a friend
Bring a friend to Jesus
Even if the third part doesn't work out (and of course you'd rather that the "Jesus" you brought your friend to was the aspect of Jesus most emphasized in your own part of the Church, your own home congregation, all three parts may work, and still the friend winds up in a part of the church quite unlike your own, because Jesus introduced _himself_ to the friend in some different POV, once they'd made contact: Jesus, God the Son, is far too big for anyone to fully know from all points of view), and even if the friend never comes to Jesus, still, you've made a friend and are a friend.
Preach Christ always: if necessary, use words. St Francis
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I also agree with kmboots, and was going to say the same thing. The level of respect for others involved in missionary work is something that LDS and non-LDS people on this board seem to disagree about. I see Squicky's post as stating a fact, not as a passive-agressive attack on anyone, and certainly not anyone specific, so I don't see anything to call him on. If you disagree with it, of course I would expect you to say so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't agree that that was what he was saying. If it was, he put it very badly, and I don't think that was accidental.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. You are reading things into it that I am not. You have a different relationship with him. What did you think he was saying?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't understand it either, but it's worth pointing out that it's a mutual thing, ElJay.
No, it's not. kat's been making snide little side comments at me for years. There were a couple of periods where she pretty much followed me around and insulted me when I posted, independent of what I said.
While I consider many aspects of kat's behavior here to be worthy of negative comment and do make these comments, I have never done what you are accusing me of. I don't think I've ever taken cheap little shots at anyone here, ever and I'd ask if you are going to accuse me of this that you present some sort of evidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For what it's worth, boots and ElJay are accurately reflecting what I was trying to say.
I've never had LDS missionaries not come right out and say that they were acting as missionaries, so I can't really judge that. However, as I recounted, I have had many experiences with missionaries and others selling something who have started out with the building the relationship of trust and they've universally left me with the impression that the people doing it were not valuing me as a person anywhere near as much as a target for their message and/or product. Judging from past conversations here on LDS proselytizing and related topics where it appeared to me that many LDS here regard proselytizing and the like much more important than respecting other people or their beliefs, I get the feeling that this is a likely aspect of LDS missionaries' use of this technique as well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mmmmm...boy.
Taquitos.
I'm just saying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Perhaps Rakeesh is thinking of your behavior in multiple travesties of threads from the past year, including the horror that was your behavior in the Brokeback Mountain thread.
Okay. FOUR YEARS AGO, around the time that Lost in Translation came out, I posted a comment whenever you were particularly stuffy that you were being particularly stuffy. Noemon, who has a gift for defusing things, suggested the picture from Lost in Translation instead, which I adopted. I'm sorry for the comments - it was in hopes of achieving an effect and it never worked, so it was probably annoying.
Your behavior, of course, is from the last year.
----
In other words, you are judging missionaries based on other salesmen and non-missionaries. I think you should refrain from the condemnation until you have some evidence or experience with actual LDS missionaries. For those who support his comments, I suggest the same.
I also suggest that your agreement in the condemnation of missionaries is coloring your impression of Squicky's behavior.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For what it is worth, I share Squicky's impression. And I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
In order to share Squicky's impression, one must think that 'respecting other people' has only one meaning instead of many. There are many beliefs many people have on what respecting people means, and to think that Squicky's general impression is correct at least implies one believes one's own definition of respect is the only definition, or at least the important definition.
Which is actually quite similar to the complaints and criticisms being made towards proseltizers and missionaries in this thread.
quote:Certainly people have expressed that it is worth knocking on doors and possibly disturbing people - even when there are "no soliciting" signs. Proxy baptism, etc. All these indicate to me that sharing your faith is the highest priority for many LDS. Which, I think, is all he was saying.
You're bringing in a different issue entirely, i.e. continuing to proseltize after the other party has explicitly stated their wishes that they don't want it. That's something I'm opposed to as well, but it hasn't been discussed in this thread either. And in fact, as far as "general impressions" go, perhaps we could take a specific poll, but I think that if you asked Mormons point blank, "Do you think missionaries should knock on the doors of people who have "No solicitations/missionaries, please" clearly posted, at least a majority would answer in the negative.
I also don't think Mr. Squicky meant to imply only that for Mormons, their religion is their highest priority. It was pretty clearly a criticism too.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Again, if you are going to make an accusation, I'd ask you to back it up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're not worth the time. I know what you are.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I also suggest that your agreement in the condemnation of missionaries is coloring your impression of Squicky's behavior.
If you mean me, I was trying to make clear that I didn't think that having proselytization as a highest priority was a condemnation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think I've ever taken cheap little shots at anyone here, ever and I'd ask if you are going to accuse me of this that you present some sort of evidence.
You take cheap little shots that are more understated than hers generally are at you, Mr. Squicky. No, I'm not going to go sifting through years of posts for evidence of the thing because frankly I'm not that interested. Consider that a victory if you'd like.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you mean me, I was trying to make clear that I didn't think that having proselytization as a highest priority was a condemnation.
From someone who values respecting other human beings (at least, your own version of that idea-and really, all any of us have is our own version) as the highest thing, or at least higher than proesltizing, isn't it in fact a criticism/condemnation, kmbboots?
If I'm incorrect about the hiearchy involved, let me know.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
MMMM....THESE ARE GREAT TAQUITOS.
TRY SOME. FILL YOUR MOUTHS WITH THE WHOLESOME, TEXICAN FLAVOR OF STEWED BEEF, CRUNCHY HAND-ROLLED CORN TORTILLA, AND DELICIOUS BLEND OF SAVORY SPICES.
SERIOUSLY. GOOD. FOOD.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I'll take Scott's flash-bang subtle hint and go have some Newman's Own Marinara and some cheese ravioli for lunch Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a good idea for me, too. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Knock it off Scott, I'm hungry and I can't go home for lunch for another 47 minutes! And then I'll have to feed John first.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Just asking for one. It can't be that hard to find. Do a search with my username and "kat" for the text. It really shouldn't be too hard to find examples of what you are talking about.
I believe that you are lying about me and my behavior.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're not worth the time. I know what you are.
WOW. >^^<
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If you mean me, I was trying to make clear that I didn't think that having proselytization as a highest priority was a condemnation.
From someone who values respecting other human beings (at least, your own version of that idea-and really, all any of us have is our own version) as the highest thing, or at least higher than proesltizing, isn't it in fact a criticism/condemnation, kmbboots?
If I'm incorrect about the hiearchy involved, let me know.
Only if I thought that other people had to have the same priorities that I do.
And I can't have lunch yet either. And the lunch I brought is boring.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Knock it off Scott, I'm hungry and I can't go home for lunch for another 47 minutes! And then I'll have to feed John first.
Incidentally, dkw, all of my kids loved spicy things when they were John's age. We didn't give them much-- a dash of guacamole on the end of the a baby spoon, maybe a bit of salsa on the fingertip.
They ate it up. Well, rather, gummed it up. Tongued it to death. Whatever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In other words, you are judging missionaries based on other salesmen and non-missionaries. I think you should refrain from the condemnation until you have some evidence or experience with actual LDS missionaries. For those who support his comments, I suggest the same.
I "support his comments," but don't think they amount to condemnation. On this board alone, we've had several ex-missionaries say that it's more important to them to baptize the dead than to respect their wishes when they were alive -- and, given their worldview, I think this is perfectly understandable. By the same token, Rakeesh has in this thread said that he thinks missionary work, motivated as it is by a certain purity of intention, should not be compared to "sales," and found the comparison offensive; clearly, he thinks certain behaviors are excusable when performed by missionaries motivated by higher desires that would be inexcusable otherwise.
That's not a bad thing. Neither is it inconsistent. But it IS, then, the case that missionaries (and baptizers, since I believe that's the thread in specific that Squicky was thinking about) can as a general rule value conversion above respect for someone's wishes.
You can assert that since Squicky clearly feels that this is the "wrong" order for those priorities that he is condemning you. But if YOU don't feel that those priorities are in the wrong order, I don't see how it's really fair for you to be upset by what amounts to this statement:
"You have values that are not my own, and I think they are often wrong."
Heck, I might even get that as a bumper sticker.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Believe what you like, Mr. Squicky.
--------------
kmbboots,
So you're not critical of assigning a higher priority to proseltizing than 'respecting other human beings'? If your answer to that question is 'no', then I've been mistaken about your opinions on this issue.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
John is still a breastmilk-only baby, but he at least doesn't seem to mind spicy things secondhand. In fact, I think I shall have enchilladas for lunch.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:By the same token, Rakeesh has in this thread said that he thinks missionary work, motivated as it is by a certain purity of intention, should not be compared to "sales," and found the comparison offensive; clearly, he thinks certain behaviors are excusable when performed by missionaries motivated by higher desires that would be inexcusable otherwise.
Here we swim into subjective waters again. If something were 'inexcusable' (to me, at least) for a non-benevolent intention, I don't think it would be a good thing if done for a benevolent intention, or necessarily even excusable. But also as has been shown, I have less of a dislike for these sorts of things than many do around here-both before and after my own experience with them.
quote:But it IS, then, the case that missionaries (and baptizers, since I believe that's the thread in specific that Squicky was thinking about) can as a general rule value conversion above respect for someone's wishes.
Sure, they can but that does not necessarily mean they do. Some of them do, certainly, that's unarguable-and in the case of specific wishes, such as clear signs and clear statements of will about baptism post-death, I believe inexcusable.
Why it's acceptable to paint missionaries with so broad a brush, when such coloring would be inexcusable when applied to other large groups of disparate people, I still don't understand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See what Tom said. Because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that I am condemning them by identifying what they believe. When I say that Rivka (okay if I use you for an example, Rivka?) doesn't believe that Jesus is God that is not a condemnation - even though I don't agree with her. She should correct my if I am mistaken, but I don't think she would be insulted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Why it's acceptable to paint missionaries with so broad a brush, when such coloring would be inexcusable when applied to other large groups of disparate people, I still don't understand.
I'm going to venture a guess: missionary work, by its very nature, paints everyone with the same broad brush. Individual missionaries, like individual unbelievers, don't need saving -- but while you're always running into individual missionaries and/or individual unbelievers, how often do you find yourself responding to them AS missionaries or AS unbelievers? (In fact, I think the odds that this can happen are inversely proportional to the number of times you run into them in that specific capacity, and directly proportional to the number of times you run into them in another capacity. In this case, Mormon missionaries in particular have difficulty because they officially don't HAVE any other capacity while they're missionaries, and are actually discouraged from it.) While I think it's never a bad thing to deal with individuals rather than groups, I think that's as often a symptom of individuals interacting AS groups as it is simple prejudice.
Another hypothetical bumper sticker: Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I vote for them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But it IS, then, the case that missionaries (and baptizers..) as a general rule value conversion above respect for someone's wishes.
:teeth grind:
Except actual conversion by proxy baptism DOES NOT EXIST within Mormon theology. The ordinance does not convert dead people. Within the Mormon POV, you're not a Baptist spirit one day, and POOF! when someone is baptised for you, you convert to Mormonism.
Conversion happens within one's heart.
I know that Tom knows that Mormons value agency in the next life as well as this one. I think, however, in the writing of his post, he may have inadvertently used some terms that mean different things to me than they do to him. In the interest of making muddy waters clear, I'm writing this post as means to make sure everyone understands this Mormon's perspective:
True conversion cannot be forced, either here or in the next life, according to Mormon theology. Let me set that as my ground rule for this ongoing conversation. Mormon missionaries and Mormon geneology workers should respect the expressed wishes of the people (dead and living) they work with.
From this standpoint, Mormon theology values personal wishes ABOVE potential conversion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In other words, you are judging missionaries based on other salesmen and non-missionaries. I think you should refrain from the condemnation until you have some evidence or experience with actual LDS missionaries. For those who support his comments, I suggest the same.
I also suggest that your agreement in the condemnation of missionaries is coloring your impression of Squicky's behavior.
I am basing my judgments on the statements of former LDS missionaries on this site, not on any experiences with salesmen or any other kinds of missionaries. I don't condem missionaries. . . I understand that they feel what they're doing is ordered by God, and I can't condem them for that anymore than I'd condem rivka for not going to a BBQ joint with me.
And I think your history with Squicky is coloring your impression of his behavior, so we're even. Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Oh, I forgot. The second reason why I continue to return to Hatrack -- besides thoughtful discussion from intelligent people -- is all this drama! My life is pretty dull generally and these little feuds and occasional temper tantrums are really adding some spice to my boring existence.
Keep up the good work, folks!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think your history with Squicky is coloring your impression of his behavior, so we're even.
I've got coloring books for everyone, but no crayons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooohhh. Do you have any of those paint-with-water books?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:John is still a breastmilk-only baby, but he at least doesn't seem to mind spicy things secondhand. In fact, I think I shall have enchilladas for lunch.
...
I don't have anything to say to that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you have any of those paint-with-water books?
No. They're too messy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I am uncomfortable with being approached in a practiced, mannered way about this topic. This has to do in good part with my history, and that isn't something I'd choose to share at this point here.
CT, it had never occurred to me before reading the quote above, and I'd be willing to bet that it only popped into my head now due to by brain being addled from lack of sleep, but was MOTO an early sign-on of yours?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No, I was never MOTO. For my first 5 or so years I was only "ClaudiaTherese," then I switched to my RL name for awhile, then back again. Other than that, just throwaways -- pretty clearly me and clearly unmemorable in context. I built no relationships under any names but this and my RL own.
But now you've got me curious. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I dunno, at least one of your alts was pretty memorable.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah ... I'd forgotten Glaphyra the Righteous (named after my saint of my saint day, IIRC). Okay, sure, but I made it very clear that it was me throughout, right?
Wow. Memories. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I think it all comes down to this:
If I became friendly with someone and wanted to share what I believed with them and they did not convert, would I treat them differently?
If so, I am being deceitful and am not a true friend.
However if I treat them with the same love and respect I did before I even shared my beliefs with them, then I believe it is ok.
I still receive letters from people in Brazil that I got to know and never joined the church. They let me know how their families are doing, and ask me to write them back letting them know how I am. I respected them and their beliefs, and love them with all my heart. They are great people and friends. I was not going to shun anyone for not converting or wanting to hear what I had to say.
Kindness is never a bad thing. Just because I put a white shirt, tie, and name tag on that has the name of the church I belong to does not mean my only purpose of being there is to convert someone. I went there to serve people. And we all know there are a TON of ways to serve people.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Just because I put a white shirt, tie, and name tag on that has the name of the church I belong to does not mean my only purpose of being there is to convert someone. I went there to serve people. And we all know there are a TON of ways to serve people.
This, I think, is an awesome sentiment. In fact, it's one of the things about organized religion that I can really get behind - the desire to help others.
Unfortunately, it also leads to one of the things that makes me sad about organized religion - the people who are claiming to want to do good unto others, who are actually primarily concerned with themselves.
In the case of Mormon missionaries, I think that the fact that they are young men is very telling. I am not making a judgment about all missionaries, only relating the fact that when I was in my teens and early twenties, my worldview was rather limited and my experience and wisdom were similarly lacking.
I'm older and wiser (hopefully) now, and I look back on the way I thought and the things I did and shake my head at my own lack of insight. This is one of the reasons why, when a couple of fresh-faced young men come to my door and want to share with me all the secrets of the universe and the ultimate meaning of life, I smile and shake my head and politely send them on their way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:when a couple of fresh-faced young men come to my door and want to share with me all the secrets of the universe and the ultimate meaning of life, I smile and shake my head and politely send them on their way.
Believe me, I know what you mean. God sends us out young, inexperienced, and green precisely to show the power of His message. It's not that the missionaries know much-- though you might be surprised at how much a lot of them do know. It's not the messenger, it's the message.
Most missionaries don't deserve your patronistic attitude.
Weren't some folks just arguing in the recent fanfiction thread that we treat people according to their exhibited maturity, not their expressed age?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm older and wiser (hopefully) now, and I look back on the way I thought and the things I did and shake my head at my own lack of insight. This is one of the reasons why, when a couple of fresh-faced young men come to my door and want to share with me all the secrets of the universe and the ultimate meaning of life, I smile and shake my head and politely send them on their way.
It's been my experience that, when faced with an individual (or pair), it's generally unwise without any other sort of information aside from age to judge their wisdom, insight, intelligence or knowledge.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When I say that Rivka (okay if I use you for an example, Rivka?) doesn't believe that Jesus is God that is not a condemnation - even though I don't agree with her. She should correct my if I am mistaken, but I don't think she would be insulted.
Um, sure, go ahead.
Why on earth would I be insulted? Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Wisdom comes with age. I consider that a truism. Sure, some old people are not very wise, and some young people are wise beyond their years.
I'm not really an old fart yet, but I've been 20, and I know what it's like. I know how sure of yourself you are at that age. I know how 20 year old guys think they're invincible, how they think they know what's what. I also know, now that I'm older, how much a lot of that is BS.
I also know that at 20, I was full of religious fervor. It's great for those guys that they're in the same place I was. It was a good ride, while it lasted. I consider myself to have learned from that experience, and realized the error of my ways.
From my perspective, they haven't had the time and experience yet to fully appreciate and think through all that they're professing to Know (with an uppercase K). Call that patronizing if you like, but in my view, it's good natured experience.
To me, it's like when a teenager falls in love, and thinks that nobody understands them, and that nobody else could possibly feel as strongly and as purely as they do about their true love. It isn't until you get older that you see that other people have indeed loved as deeply as you, other people have felt the same way, and sometimes what you thought was love might have been infatuation.
That teenager can tell me all about love, and how deeply they feel, and how true it is, and tell me about all the warm feelings and strange new thoughts and new outlook on the world. They are being honest and trying to share with me a wonderful experience that they're currently having. That's great, but I've had it. I understand already, even if they think I don't.
I also have more than a decade more perspective, and hopefully wisdom on the subject, which no amount of intelligence, insight, or knowledge on their part can possibly impart. They simply haven't had the same experiences that I have, which offer a whole new level of insight, appreciation, and outlook.
They might be the smartest, wisest, most spiritual and dedicated young adults that ever walked the earth, but unless one of them is personally the risen Christ, I can honestly say that nothing they have to tell me about their faith is going to make me into a believer.
-Edited for spelling
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
"Wisdom comes with age"
Jesus was only 33 when the Romans got him.
Siddhārtha Gautama was 29 when he renounced worldly possesions and only 35 when he attained enlightenment.
"Experienced" is another matter. As a wise person said, experience is the thing that you only get shortly after you needed it most...
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Was that wise man by any chance named Edward Murphy? Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
As I said, the son of God would get a free pass.
There's also a big difference between what you know at 18, and what you know at 33. Even for Jesus.
[ January 24, 2007, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Nice post, Geraine. I can honestly say that almost all of the LDS missionaries we knew exhibited such sincere enthusiasm and genuine caring. One of the first pair who visited us made my teeth itch with his self-righteous, condescending manner (he was the senior missionary, too, which is odd) but luckily the other one was just the sweetest most sincere guy, as were the majority of te others.
So, in my limited experience, LDS missionaries definitely beat the curve of 19 year old jerkiness as it exists in the general population. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They might be the smartest, wisest, most spiritual and dedicated young adults that ever walked the earth, but unless one of them is personally the risen Christ, I can honestly say that nothing they have to tell me about their faith is going to make me into a believer.
Well, if you're close-minded enough to have certainties about what people you've never met might say about their faith and its impact on you, then I can understand your reasoning.
When I say 'close-minded' it's of course a bit of a criticism, but it's not meant to be snarky. I just thought I'd point that out. I do believe it's a bit close-minded to make up your mind about the words of someone you've never met, before you meet them. It's one thing to not want spend time listening to missionaries, I don't consider that close-minded, I just consider that someone who'd rather do something else with their time, but to be certain like you profess to be?
quote:To me, it's like when a teenager falls in love, and thinks that nobody understands them, and that nobody else could possibly feel as strongly and as purely as they do about their true love. It isn't until you get older that you see that other people have indeed loved as deeply as you, other people have felt the same way, and sometimes what you thought was love might have been infatuation.
Actually, your example here works to prove the point I was making earlier. Sure, when viewed as a group I believe most teenage loves aren't going to be the deep, lifelong, passionate and sincere committment and love that many teens might think it is. But I'm not going to think of a specific couple, "Not gonna last," or, "Not the real thing, you're just kids," just because they're kids. Because sometimes it is the real enchilada.
quote:I'm not really an old fart yet, but I've been 20, and I know what it's like. I know how sure of yourself you are at that age. I know how 20 year old guys think they're invincible, how they think they know what's what. I also know, now that I'm older, how much a lot of that is BS.
I also know that at 20, I was full of religious fervor. It's great for those guys that they're in the same place I was. It was a good ride, while it lasted. I consider myself to have learned from that experience, and realized the error of my ways.
I wasn't sure of myself when I was 20. I mean, not in general. Some things, some particular things (religion wasn't one of them) I was sure of, but not many. And while I was more self-centered then than I am now, I didn't feel invincible, either. Maybe it was just insight, or maybe it was because I'd been run over by a car while bike-riding back in my teens, but I didn't feel invincible. And I've never been "full of religious fervor", at least not in the way I think you mean it, but I'd have to say that I was probably the least full of it ever shortly after high school.
This is what I'm talking about.
---------
quote:There's also a big difference between what you know at 18, and what you know at 33. Even for Jesus.
From a Christian perspective, wouldn't you naturally believe that Jesus Christ had a heckuva line on wisdom, perspective, and insight even at 18? I mean, come on, MightyCow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Half of all teenagers have relationships in high school. Between ten and twenty percent will marry their high school sweetheart.
That means that between 5 and 10 percent of the population marry the person they date in high school. I think it's very arrogant to tell them it isn't real.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When I say that Rivka (okay if I use you for an example, Rivka?) doesn't believe that Jesus is God that is not a condemnation - even though I don't agree with her. She should correct my if I am mistaken, but I don't think she would be insulted.
Um, sure, go ahead.
Why on earth would I be insulted?
I don't think you would be. You are wise enough to know that people can disagree about even something important without it being a condemnation. That's why I picked you for my example.
[ January 24, 2007, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, the italics in that sentence are really soemthing. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree that rivka is fabulous.
Edit: oh, Olivet's post is gone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I really wasn't thinking about or responding to you at all when I posted, katharina. No reason at all for you to take it personally.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wasn't taking it personally. I thought the sideswipe was at Rakeesh.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I just took it as a way of working a speaking style into the post rather than as a specific swipe against someone.
People seem to be very eager to take offense in a lot of threads these days. I think we either need a group hug, or as Scott suggested, taquitos!
Group taquitos!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I deleted my earlier comment because I feared speaking for someone else's intent, but I also agree that rivka is the bomb.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It was in response to this:
quote: From someone who values respecting other human beings (at least, your own version of that idea-and really, all any of us have is our own version) as the highest thing, or at least higher than proesltizing, isn't it in fact a criticism/condemnation, kmbboots?
but not a "side swipe", just an inflection.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hm... pointing that one person is wise in contrast to someone else is definitely not flattering to the someone else. That's a sideswipe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Saying that one person is wise doesn't necessarily insult anyone else. I was just pointing out why I used Rivka as an example of wisdom. Since it bothers you, though, I will remove the italics.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, thanks. That's very sweet of you. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You're welcome.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You are wise enough to know that people can disagree about even something important without it being a condemnation.
Alright, fair enough. Replace 'condemnation' with 'criticism', then. I had a lengthy post composed after this, but I realized I should ask: would your objections be the same or similar, kmbboots, if the words were switched as I asked?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wouldn't even go so far as "criticism" in this case. I think we all have to find our own relationship to the Divine. What is right for me is not necessarily right for someone else. I don't think that LDS would be better or happier or have a better relationship with God, if they became Catholic - even though I strongly disagree with a lot of their doctrine.
I don't think a lot of the Jewish Laws regarding food, clothing, when you can flip a lightswitch etc. make any sense at all. But I can understand that for some people, they do. I would not be critical of them following those laws.
That someone places a higher priority on proselytizing than on respect for someone (not that these are necessarily in conflict) makes perfect sense from their point of view. If they think that a person's salvation depends on it, of course it makes sense.
I suppose that as their intrusion becomes more onerous, I would become more critical.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:...even though I strongly disagree with a lot of their doctrine.
And that's different from 'criticism' in what sense, exactly? I think perhaps you're placing some negative connotations on 'criticism' that for me aren't there. You disagree strongly with a lot of LDS doctrine, thus you find fault with it...thus you're critical of it.
quote:You are wise enough to know that people can disagree about even something important without it being a condemnation.
Another way of saying this is: I (that is, you, kmbboots) believe position X is unwise. Rivka is wise enough to disagree with position X. Now, bearing in mind that I'm replacing 'condemnation' with 'critical/criticism', this statement is obviously a criticism of me-in that I am deficient in wisdom when compared to rivka.
However, because I view criticism differently (I think) than you, I don't think it was a sideswipe. You think something I believe is unwise. I believe you are being honest, well-meaning, and fair in that criticism, so I'm not insulted, angry, or even mildly irritated. I don't mind criticism, giving or receiving, so long as it fills those conditions-although to be honest, sometimes I have to remind myself not to mind . Please keep that in mind when I point out that what I quoted just now clearly was a criticism of me, kmbboots.
quote:Saying that one person is wise doesn't necessarily insult anyone else.
I agree.
quote:I don't think a lot of the Jewish Laws regarding food, clothing, when you can flip a lightswitch etc. make any sense at all. But I can understand that for some people, they do. I would not be critical of them following those laws.
There's a world of difference between being critical of a law, and being critical of the people who believe it's the law, living by it. This was never at issue, at least not with me.
quote:That someone places a higher priority on proselytizing than on respect for someone (not that these are necessarily in conflict) makes perfect sense from their point of view. If they think that a person's salvation depends on it, of course it makes sense.
No one is disputing that in such a situation (not that I grant the situation), it makes sense for the missionaries to proseltize. For them, naturally it does.
quote:I suppose that as their intrusion becomes more onerous, I would become more critical.
Meaning you were critical in the first place, which is what I was trying to get at.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, because of the juxtaposition of criticism and condemnation in your earlier post, I wasn't reading "criticism" as "critical analysis", but as censure. I try not to censure people in matters of faith unless their behavior is egregious. Annoying people by evangelizing is not egregious for me to censure, even if my personal theology disagrees with it.
In other words. Judging by what I know of LDS doctrine, they are perfectly right to place a higher priority on proselytizing. Saying so should not be considered an insult even though I don't have the same priorities.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, if you're close-minded enough to have certainties about what people you've never met might say about their faith and its impact on you, then I can understand your reasoning.
When I say 'close-minded' it's of course a bit of a criticism, but it's not meant to be snarky. I just thought I'd point that out. I do believe it's a bit close-minded to make up your mind about the words of someone you've never met, before you meet them.
Would you say that the missionaries are close-minded because they are certain that their belief is right? Do you think that when I tell the missionaries that I don't think their beliefs represent reality, they actually give careful consideration to what I'm saying?
I'm only as strong in my faith as they are, if you want to put it that way.
---
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That means that between 5 and 10 percent of the population marry the person they date in high school. I think it's very arrogant to tell them it isn't real.
I don't believe I ever said that no teenagers have real love, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth, and then insult me based on what I didn't say.
I did say that they don't have the perspective on love and life that comes with age. I do believe that teenagers are experiencing a lot of things, like love, for the first time, and they don't have the same perspective and experience as someone older.
---
As a general question to those discussing this particular side topic with me, how often do you feel like someone 10-15 years younger than you has a lot of life experiences to teach you?
I'm not talking about specific knowledge. I freely accept that everyone knows things you don't know, and that you can learn from anyone. Honestly though, how many teenagers can give you good advice about how to live your life, when they've only just started living their own lives? They haven't made many of the mistakes, learned many of the lessons, or seen or done so many things that older people have.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not insulting young adults. I'm not saying that they're stupid or incapable of teaching, or that they aren't sincere in their efforts. I am saying that they do not have much life experience, and that they have a limited worldview, necessarily so because of their age and at least in America, their relatively sheltered lives.
I can also say that I've been religious, and I've asked questions about the nature of God and faith and engaged in religious debates for longer than a lot of missionaries have been alive. There's a good chance they don't have anything particularly new to add to the discussion.
To turn things around, Jesus was wise at 18, but by 33 he knew all there was to know about God. Even the son of God figured out a whole lot in 15 years. I bet the 33 year old Jesus would realize that the 18 year old Jesus didn't know as much as he thought he did. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kmbboots,
quote:I think that, because of the juxtaposition of criticism and condemnation in your earlier post, I wasn't reading "criticism" as "critical analysis", but as censure.
Granted. So, are you or aren't you critical of door-to-door random proseltizing? This excludes cases of posthumous baptism where the parties express wishes not to be, cases where there is a sign warning away missionaries, or repeated badgering of people once they've said 'no'.
If you are, in what way exactly does this indicate Mormons in general place a higher value on proseltizing than on respecting human beings?
quote:Saying so should not be considered an insult even though I don't have the same priorities.
I've never said you were either meaning to insult, or actually insulting, by saying so.
---------
MightyCow,
quote:Would you say that the missionaries are close-minded because they are certain that their belief is right? Do you think that when I tell the missionaries that I don't think their beliefs represent reality, they actually give careful consideration to what I'm saying?
Well yes, of course I'm saying they're close-minded(I can never remember if it's 'closed-minded' or 'close-minded)...that is, if they refuse to even listen carefully to a contradictory point of view they haven't actually heard before.
Which is different from what you said. You said you would refuse to listen carefully, just because they were young missionaries. Emphasis on the young. You stated you would be firmly unreceptive to potentially new arguments coming from them, because they were young and claimed to have an understanding of 'the universe'.
quote:As a general question to those discussing this particular side topic with me, how often do you feel like someone 10-15 years younger than you has a lot of life experiences to teach you?
Well, that's a nearly impossible question for me to answer, because since I'm 26, I would be talking about 'life experiences' with an 11-16 year old. I can't recall the last time I did that in an in-depth way with someone of that age...probably because I have no children myself, no younger cousins I see very often, nor any nieces or nephews.
But you're speaking generalities-which I at least wasn't arguing. I was talking about what happens when faced with two specific people.
quote:I am saying that they do not have much life experience, and that they have a limited worldview, necessarily so because of their age and at least in America, their relatively sheltered lives.
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, I fail to understand why a thirty-year-old moron must be wiser than a fifteen-year-old genius. (To avoid potential confusion: I'm not calling you a genius/moron, or suggesting I'm a genius/moron)He was actually speaking in Starship Troopers I believe about minimum voting ages, but it's still relevant to what you're discussing. In general, teenagers have less life experience with me. Still not talking about generalities. In particular, though, there are many teenagers-even pre-teens-who have 'life-experience' that would freeze my blood or make me look like a bumbling idiot.
J4
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe I am not expressing my main points clearly. I'll try another approach.
I've already had all sorts of religious and non-religious experiences, and I've made up my mind about what is real and what I believe. No amount of Flat-Earth believers, no matter how intelligent or sincere, will ever make me believe that the earth is not round, just as no amount of missionaries will make me believe that their message is true. No matter how well intentioned they are, they would simply be wasting both my time and theirs.
Further, I've discussed religion with literally hundreds, possibly thousands of different people, ranging from Phd Theologians to 80 year old priests and all manner of religious leader and lay person.
I think the chances that a pair of teenagers will have more spiritual insight than the combined knowledge and experiences of all the other people I've already had these discussions with very remote. In fact, I've had people witness to me, where I've known their own stories and facts better than they do.
I don't think I know everything, or even most things, but I do know that I've made up my mind about religion, and I will bet dollars to donuts that any pair of 18 year olds will not have an argument that will persuade me otherwise.
If the Dalai Lama or the Pope wants to talk with me, I would be happy and honored to hear what they have to say. They have years of experience and wisdom, and even if they can't convince me, I bet they have a lot to say that I haven't though about.
I've had plenty of religious discussions with teenagers, and I've yet to be surprised by what they've had to say, no matter how impassioned or spiritually enlightened they've felt that it was.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm bumping this old thread because I found it really useful tonight. I was approached by two Christian missionaries in the student center while enjoying a nice Vorkosigan book. Anyway, I have poor social skills and let them talk for over an hour because I knew of know polite way to ask them to go away. I am really poor at getting out of stale conversations, and the pair were disappointed when I refused my email, and to take a book at the end of a long conversation.
I remembered some missionary discussion on Hatrack and found this thread.
Anyway, thanks to CT and many of the people from page 1 (the conversation went off a bit after there), for giving me several points of view, making me feel a bit better about myself.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I was approached by two Christian missionaries in the student center while enjoying a nice Vorkosigan book.
Which Vorkosigan book?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Memory. I've been whizzing through the series over the past two weeks.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Porter is such a Vorkosigan evangelist Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Just a tiny bit. :blush:
I think that Memory is my favorite.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Is that the one after mirror dance, or before?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It's right after. I haven't actually read Mirror Dance yet, because I was able to get my hands on Memory first. One of the things that I love about the Vorkosigan books is that you can know more or less what happens (thanks to the timelines in the hardcover books), and still feel like you are riding the story roller coaster.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Four Mormon missionaries -- nametags, red hair, lanky, the usual look -- were in attendance at my uncle's funeral on Monday. We couldn't figure out why, but it turns out that he'd been baptized Mormon the week before.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Four Mormon missionaries -- nametags, red hair, lanky, the usual look -- were in attendance at my uncle's funeral on Monday. We couldn't figure out why, but it turns out that he'd been baptized Mormon the week before.
All four had red hair? Did your uncle die suddenly Tom, if you don't mind my asking?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What? I don't get the significance of all four having red hair.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What? I don't get the significance of all four having red hair.
Besides it being alittle unusual? Red hair isn't all that common.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Yes, he died suddenly. And for some reason, a ridiculous number of the Mormons I know have red hair. In fact, I know considerably more Mormons with red/auburn hair and freckles than I do Mormons who're blond. It's part of my mental image of Mormonism.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Utah is the most English state in the nation. I think like 40% of Utahns claim Anglo descent, more than any other state.
That could partially explain the red hair. Partially. The red hair in *my* seven generation LDS family comes from the Japanese side, so, you never know.
Also, mild inbreeding in early Mormon colonies.
Maybe red is just the handiest color for hiding horns.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I don't think I've met more than two or three red-headed Mormons. Just about all I've met have been blond.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
On my own mission, the companions who hailed from Utah had red hair.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Two Jehova's Witnesses came by my house, I closed the door on them and left out the back.
Was that way too mean.
(I wasn't just running, I needed to go see a movie)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have actually found the Jehova's Witnesses to be very good about leaving quickly. But I do have a toddler and a dachshund that get extremely excited over doorbells. So, when I answer the door, it is pretty clear that I am not listening to a word they are saying. And over the dog barking, they couldn't hear me if I said anything.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I think it's important to be as honest as possible.
For the record, I'm not as frothing at the mouth anymore. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
See I just haven't seen the above average instances of red hair in Utah. Blond is definitely more available in the valley, and I do mean natural blond. There were only two red headed missionaries in my mission that I can recall, both were from Utah. But seeing four red headed guys all together and in suits is a mildly humorous image.
I imagine the strong influx of English, Scottish, and Irish converts in the 1800s probably accounts for most if not all of the red hair.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all honesty, seeing a pair of Mormon missionaries at any time, anywhere, is a mildly humorous image. They always look so young, so awkwardly overdressed, and so adorably vulnerable, like they're dressed up for their first job interview.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hobbes has red hair.
Hobbes is also a convert, so so much for the English Utahns = red-haired Mormons theory.
I'd say about 15% of the women in my institute class have red hair, but it is almost universally fake, including mine.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In all honesty, seeing a pair of Mormon missionaries at any time, anywhere, is a mildly humorous image. They always look so young, so awkwardly overdressed, and so adorably vulnerable, like they're dressed up for their first job interview.
I remember four of us charging up a hill on our bikes in the middle of Arras, France. A young girl grabbed her friend by the shoulders and turned her around to see us. We must have been quite a spectacle, four American boys in white shirts and ties, helmets and pants clips, riding as flat out hard as we could and shouting smack at each other.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
The missionaries that approached me were Evangelicals. They didn't specifically say, but I webstalked 'em later based on the meeting place they told me to go. Some subset of Inter-varsity Christian Fellowship. What disturbed me the most was that there are separate groups for Asians and Blacks.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We had some Jehova's Witnesses come by our place, but they only wanted to talk to Spanish-speaking folk. Once they discovered that we don't speak Spanish and that we don't know anybody in the neighborhood that does, they didn't want to talk to us.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Ha - porter. Because I've had exactly the same encounter with two Mormon missionaries (sent only to talk to the Spanish-speaking folks of a neighborhood I was in one day) Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Ha - porter. Because I've had exactly the same encounter with two Mormon missionaries (sent only to talk to the Spanish-speaking folks of a neighborhood I was in one day)
When I was teaching in Italy, I'd teach anyone who could stand to listen to me.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Ha - porter. Because I've had exactly the same encounter with two Mormon missionaries (sent only to talk to the Spanish-speaking folks of a neighborhood I was in one day)
When I was teaching in Italy, I'd teach anyone who could stand to listen to me.
What do you have against people in wheelchairs? Amputees?
Man, you really are as heartless as I keep hearing.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The quotes there make me sad. I guess some missionaries do it with quotes around it, but it is for the most part sincere. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If so, once you say that you are not interested, they can explain that prosletyzing wasn't what they had in mind, but they really did just want to know what the best pancake house in town was. And then, once you are both as clear as possible on the shared expectations for this conversation, you will probably feel much better about continuing it together.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)