quote:Wow, I really thought it was clearer than that. Scott made a nasty unwarranted attack. I called him on it. He responds by implying that I was saying that Mormons are a cult. Am I alone in thinking that this makes him look bad?
So why preserve it if you aren't going to respond?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think anyone here was saying it was anything rotten.
Oh, come now. Way back near the beginning of the thread, Paul labeled this kind of thing as 'disgustingly sickening'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm used to people saying things like that to me then going back and deleting it after they realize that it makes them look bad. I figured, given the lack of integrity that Scott showed in this exchange, it's likely that he'd consider this a better alternative to the apology he owes me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it makes him look bad. I think it shows why he was irritated. You made many comparisons between Mormons and cults. No you did not say that Mormons are a cult, but I can understand why your frequent use of the word in this conversation would rub him the wrong way.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, you likened the missionary to a cultist repeatedly. Oh, wait, you tagged on at the end, "Oh, I'm not saying he was a cultist...he was just using a bunch of cultist techniques."
Then you actually stated something plainly wrong about his approach, that it had 'no intellectual content'.
So, boo-hoo if Scott R did say something nasty to you-and I don't even see where he did, by the way. You had it coming. Now, you can return to your self-pitying martyr complex.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm used to people saying things like that to me then going back and deleting it after they realize that it makes them look bad.
Ah, so your intent is to keep him from not looking bad. OK.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, and then there was the part where you attempted to dismiss out of hand any LDS rebuttal to those accusations with the, "I'm sure it's different to you, but to us in the world, it's a cult technique."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh yes, and then there was the part where you attempted to dismiss out of hand any LDS rebuttal to those accusations with the, "I'm sure it's different to you, but to us in the world, it's a cult technique."
I'd say that a few LDS in this thread have dismissed the idea of door-to-door mission work as intrusive just as quickly. That whole hotel with a bomb in it scenario....that's just not an equivalent situation.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh yes, and then there was the part where you attempted to dismiss out of hand any LDS rebuttal to those accusations with the, "I'm sure it's different to you, but to us in the world, it's a cult technique."
I'd say that a few LDS in this thread have dismissed the idea of door-to-door mission work as intrusive just as quickly. That whole hotel with a bomb in it scenario....that's just not an equivalent situation.
-pH
See it more along the lines of The Matrix. From YOUR perspective they are all trapped in The Matrix and should be freed. You want to offer them the truth. They think they know better and so they ignore you or actively fight against you.
ASSUMING it REALLY is that way. Would you talk to a perfectly good person who might accept your message because they had a sign that said "I'm happy with my reality?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh yes, and then there was the part where you attempted to dismiss out of hand any LDS rebuttal to those accusations with the, "I'm sure it's different to you, but to us in the world, it's a cult technique."
I'd say that a few LDS in this thread have dismissed the idea of door-to-door mission work as intrusive just as quickly. That whole hotel with a bomb in it scenario....that's just not an equivalent situation.
-pH
See it more along the lines of The Matrix. From YOUR perspective they are all trapped in The Matrix and should be freed. You want to offer them the truth. They think they know better and so they ignore you or actively fight against you.
ASSUMING it REALLY is that way. Would you talk to a perfectly good person who might accept your message because they had a sign that said "I'm happy with my reality?"
If someone has already decided that they don't want to be bothered and posted a sign saying as much, how is bothering them going to make them step into your reality? I'd think it would cause them to ignore you or actively fight you even more.
quote:Originally posted by pH: Erm, did I say that, Dag? 'cause I'm pretty sure I didn't.
-pH
Did I say you said that? 'cause I'm pretty sure I didn't.
It might be possible to read my post that way, in the same way that it's possible to read your response to Rakeesh about other people dismissing other topics out of hand as suggesting some sort of link between the two.
But no, you didn't say that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:TL, I gotta tell you, my first impression was that that sounds like something right out of a book on cult recruitment techniques. It's probably different for you, being in the culture, but if a missionary did something like that to me, I'd kick him out of my house and call around to the neighbors to warn people about him and the group he belonged to.
I've read books on cult recruitment techniques, and that comment is from outer space. Can you comment on why it seems like a cult recruitment technique, other than: "it appealed to emotion"?
quote:If someone has already decided that they don't want to be bothered and posted a sign saying as much, how is bothering them going to make them step into your reality? I'd think it would cause them to ignore you or actively fight you even more.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh yes, and then there was the part where you attempted to dismiss out of hand any LDS rebuttal to those accusations with the, "I'm sure it's different to you, but to us in the world, it's a cult technique."
I'd say that a few LDS in this thread have dismissed the idea of door-to-door mission work as intrusive just as quickly. That whole hotel with a bomb in it scenario....that's just not an equivalent situation.
-pH
See it more along the lines of The Matrix. From YOUR perspective they are all trapped in The Matrix and should be freed. You want to offer them the truth. They think they know better and so they ignore you or actively fight against you.
ASSUMING it REALLY is that way. Would you talk to a perfectly good person who might accept your message because they had a sign that said "I'm happy with my reality?"
If someone has already decided that they don't want to be bothered and posted a sign saying as much, how is bothering them going to make them step into your reality? I'd think it would cause them to ignore you or actively fight you even more.
-pH
Right, which is what alot of MORMONS have said about ignoring soliciting signs. Did you complain when Morpheus beat up Neo in the Dojo as a means to demonstrate that his perception of reality was incorrect? Or when they gave him the red pill fully knowing that it might kill him?
Just trying to demonstrate that though there is definately an ethical arguement for abiding by the signs people put on doors, can't you understand why missionaries often are adament about trying to get through to people.
How many parents try to simply override their children's bad decisions and in that way help them see the light?
Is it right for missionaries to see other people that way? Depends on who you talk to it would seem.
Do you risk missing out on something interesting and good by closing your door to everybody? I think so. There is so much out there worth experiencing, even though there is so much redundancy and even evil. But if I didnt have my religion, I might just as likely be one of those people who do put up signs.
Did you know when the vacuume cleaner was invented , sold, then mass produced by Hoover he realized people would not see the benefit of having one unless it was sold door to door so salesman could demonstrate the usefulness.
If you were a salesman back then and you saw a sign that said, "You have nothing I could use." You might not bother them, but would you WISH you could show them a better way?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just trying to demonstrate that though there is definately an ethical arguement for abiding by the signs people put on doors, can't you understand why missionaries often are adament about trying to get through to people.
No. It's unethical and sneaky and wrong, and it is an exceedingly poor way to represent the LDS church.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just trying to demonstrate that though there is definately an ethical arguement for abiding by the signs people put on doors, can't you understand why missionaries often are adament about trying to get through to people.
No. It's unethical and sneaky and wrong, and it is an exceedingly poor way to represent the LDS church.
Granted,
But can you see how many missionaries with less experience with the bad results of ignoring such signs might knock anyway?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure I can see how. But now, after that "Granted", I'm not sure what your point is. I'm sure we all agree that it happens... And I'm sure we all agree that it's unethical and it's bad ambassadorship.
So? What exactly are we trying to get to, if we're already in agreement?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Sure I can see how. But now, after that "Granted", I'm not sure what your point is. I'm sure we all agree that it happens... And I'm sure we all agree that it's unethical and it's bad ambassadorship.
So? What exactly are we trying to get to, if we're already in agreement?
I guess nothing.
If you put up a sign, and missionaries knock anyway, try explaining to them calmy and inteligently why it was a mistake on their part. If they argue with you or say "We're just trying to share something important, you shouldnt be close minded." Bid them good day close the door and realize you have done your part.
Thats much better then simply yelling at them (not saying you would do that) but I imagine that would be the most likely reaction.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just trying to demonstrate that though there is definately an ethical arguement for abiding by the signs people put on doors, can't you understand why missionaries often are adament about trying to get through to people.
No. It's unethical and sneaky and wrong, and it is an exceedingly poor way to represent the LDS church.
I don't agree that the terms unethical, sneaky, or wrong apply. It may not be agreeable in your opinion, but not all people have the same opinion of signs that you do.
If I were to post a sign to reject solicitors on my door - I'd probably be firm about it on the day that I put up the sign. Because there was something that drove me to putting a sign in place. However, I'd probably forget the sign was there, and 10 years down the road have no problem with a solicitor knocking on the door.
Though it may not be the experience of some people posting in this thread - a Do Not Solicit sign is something people put up as a deterrent - not to stop people from coming. And in MY experience, more often than not - it's just something people put up as a novelty.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you risk missing out on something interesting and good by closing your door to everybody? I think so. There is so much out there worth experiencing, even though there is so much redundancy and even evil.
Even if this is true, it isn't a missionary's decision to make. It's the person who owns the door and puts up the sign that makes that decision.
quote:How many parents try to simply override their children's bad decisions and in that way help them see the light?
Is it right for missionaries to see other people that way? Depends on who you talk to it would seem.
Do you understand that to treat other adults as if they were children who didn't know any better is fairly condescending? I know for me, at least, that that attitude would irritate me out of wanting to talk to a missionary at all.
Edit:
quote:And in MY experience, more often than not - it's just something people put up as a novelty.
I completely disagree with this. Some people, as has been stated many, many times in this thread, absolutely do not want to be bothered. They want NO ONE they don't know knocking on the door, and some of us want NO ONE full stop knocking on the door. And I would say that it's very likely anyone who's gone to the trouble to put up a sign means it, and means it emphatically.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you risk missing out on something interesting and good by closing your door to everybody? I think so. There is so much out there worth experiencing, even though there is so much redundancy and even evil.
Even if this is true, it isn't a missionary's decision to make. It's the person who owns the door and puts up the sign that makes that decision.
quote:How many parents try to simply override their children's bad decisions and in that way help them see the light?
Is it right for missionaries to see other people that way? Depends on who you talk to it would seem.
Do you understand that to treat other adults as if they were children who didn't know any better is fairly condescending? I know for me, at least, that that attitude would irritate me out of wanting to talk to a missionary at all.
Megan: I agree with you on both accounts.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't agree that the terms unethical, sneaky, or wrong apply. It may not be agreeable in your opinion, but not all people have the same opinion of signs that you do.
If I were to post a sign to reject solicitors on my door - I'd probably be firm about it on the day that I put up the sign. Because there was something that drove me to putting a sign in place. However, I'd probably forget the sign was there, and 10 years down the road have no problem with a solicitor knocking on the door.
Though it may not be the experience of some people posting in this thread - a Do Not Solicit sign is something people put up as a deterrent - not to stop people from coming. And in MY experience, more often than not - it's just something people put up as a novelty.
That is outrageously wrong.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously... Hatrack is not a good sample of the majority of people who have such signs in their door.
And when I make the disclaimer "And in MY experience," disagreeing with my experience does not negate the fact that it is indeed a valid and personal experience. Really, get off your high and almighty horse.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really, honestly strange that you don't see an ethical line where any reasonable person would. If you think I'm on a high horse, I don't know what to tell you. I really don't.
You seem to hear what you want to hear and see what you want to hear. In your world, nothing means what it says it means, and everything is open to interpretation.
Me? When I see a sign that says 'No Trespassing' I don't trespass. When I see a sign that says 'No Soliciting' I don't solicit. When I see a fence and a security guard, I don't sneak past the security guard and climb the fence.
The obviously correct course of action is to take these things at face value.
How do you not know that? You can't just magically say "this isn't wrong!" and have something not be wrong.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I explained how I would feel if I were to put up a sign warding off solicitors. I provided insight that I have actual EXPERIENCE that tells me that many people use signs as novelty. Also, that people change - and forget that they even put the sign there in the first place - and are by no means offended by a proselyter. There are people who have posted in this thread have said that they don't feel that this nature of sign refers to proselyting missionaries.
Thus, I can claim that I do not believe that there is an ethical line being crossed.
The rest of your post - to me - is nonsense.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I disagree. What you're saying is: "Here are a variety of justifications for my unethical behavior. (Not taking the signs at face value.)"
What I'm saying is: "In spite of the justifications, the unethical behavior is still unethical."
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure, but I don't think that anyone besides former LDS missionaries has said on this thread that they don't think those signs apply to missionaries.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't hear anything about the signs when I was in Southern Baptist youth group.
But they were strong advocates of taking youth to the beach and setting them loose upon sunbathers to scare-convert to their little hearts' content. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd ignored a sign or two, but I don't really know.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm not sure, but I don't think that anyone besides former LDS missionaries has said on this thread that they don't think those signs apply to missionaries.
Probably not, but I don't see how that is really relevant to my position on ethics.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure, but I don't think that anyone besides former LDS missionaries has said on this thread that they don't think those signs apply to missionaries.
I think they do apply, but not thinking they apply to people not seeking money is a very common mistake, even amongst non-missionaries.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure, but I don't think that anyone besides former LDS missionaries has said on this thread that they don't think those signs apply to missionaries.
I am a non-Mormon return missionary and I don't think those signs apply to missionaries. I guess I fall under your criteria, but having left the church makes me think I am exempt.
I think it doesn't apply (in North America) because society has pre-established boundaries that say political, religious, and charitable organizations are treated differently and grouped together differently then commercial organizations.
True, many people group them all together with do-not solicit signs, however, there is enough ambiguity on whether "solicit" signs apply to non-commercial groups that I do not think it is rude or thoughtless for any missionary to go ahead and door knock. “Do not proselyte” signs are different.
I find it ironic because there is a service (baptism) which costs money (10% of your income), but society sees a distinction. My example is the do-not-call list.
I don't understand people who get offended. If missionaries are that much of a annoyance (for any reason, they are all justifiable in my mind), then get a more precise sign.
Then again, I was a missionary. I do not speak with any devotion to the church.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I haven't been at Hatrack for a few days. I've only read the first page or two of this topic so if you've moved on to other subjects I apologize. I just thought I’d put in my two cents.
There are two reasons why I ignored the “No Soliciting” sign while I was on my mission.
1. I can afford to be seen as a little rude. It’s worth it. Missionaries believe it is their duty to share their message with everyone they come across. As a missionary you are personally responsible to share the gospel with everyone in your area. When I die, I don’t want to be told I didn’t do my duty because of a sign.
2. I’m willing to be rude to help those I love. Example: I love my brother very much. If he started getting into drugs and was putting himself in physical danger, I would intervene. Should I care if I’m a little “rude, arrogant, and disrespectful” to him to make him see the danger he is in? No, I would do all I can to save him from that. Even be a little rude to him. I don’t want to be at his funeral after he’s overdosed and say, “I didn’t help him, but at least I was always polite to him.”
Now you may say that there is a big difference between saving someone from drugs and sharing something, that I believe, will help their eternal salvation, but I wouldn’t. Maybe that’s arrogance, maybe it’s ignorance. Let me know if it is.
Now given these two points I don’t want to appear that I was a very pushy, rude missionary. I don’t think I was. I saw some missionaries that would push so hard that they caused people to shun the church for many years. That’s not only less-effective, but it isn’t Christ-like and they hurt the church more then they help. If someone told me flat out “I’m not interested” I would say okay and move on. But if I let a general sign determine whether or not I share the most important thing in the world, then I might as well not share anything that is important to me with anyone.
quote:Originally posted by lem: True, many people group them all together with do-not solicit signs, however, there is enough ambiguity on whether "solicit" signs apply to non-commercial groups that I do not think it is rude or thoughtless for any missionary to go ahead and door knock. “Do not proselyte” signs are different.
Thank you. One thing about Hatrack - you are all much more eloquent than I am.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for the Mormons arguing against me - was Samuel the Lamanite wrong because the city "put up a sign?"
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but was he effective? I remember a few arrows flying his way and not that many converts. Infact, I think the BoM is rife with examples of how not to do missionary work!
quote:I remember a few arrows flying his way and not that many converts
Actually, I remember a lot of converts:
quote:1 And now, it came to pass that there were many who heard the words of Samuel, the Lamanite, which he spake upon the awalls of the city. And as many as believed on his word went forth and sought for Nephi; and when they had come forth and found him they confessed unto him their sins and denied not, desiring that they might be bbaptized unto the Lord. .... 3 Now when they saw that they could not hit him, there were many more who did believe on his words, insomuch that they went away unto Nephi to be baptized.
quote:And for the Mormons arguing against me - was Samuel the Lamanite wrong because the city "put up a sign?"
If God tells you to do something, you do it. I won't argue that point with you.
But if you want to pull analogies, let's take a look at the story. Samuel arrives, begins preaching. The people reject him and his message. He leaves. An angel is sent to tell him to go back to the city. He does so. He climbs the wall outside the city and begins to preach-- not to individual homes, but to the people in general. Street preaching, in other words. He makes some prophicies, people throw rocks and arrows at him, he's protected by the power of God; and then he leaves, and goes back to the Lamanites. And we never hear from him again.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If God tells you to do something, you do it. I won't argue that point with you.
Why do I feel like that is what has been happening? Perhaps this is a bit of a grey area and we should let it stand as such.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I stand corrected. I wasn't trying to denounce the BoM. That was a running joke in our Mission about why the Missionary Guide was so important.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abinadi would have been a better example. 1 convert and he got burned to death for ignoring the signs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
gnixing, I thought it was relevant because of this line of yours: "There are people who have posted in this thread have said that they don't feel that this nature of sign refers to proselyting missionaries." If everyone who felt that way had been, at one point, a proselyting LDS missionary, and your culture/training says that the signs did not apply to you, then I don't think that you can point to the disagreement about the issue in this thread as an indication that there's disagreement on the issue in the broader, non-LDS culture -- the people who's doors missionaries would be knocking on. No, it's obviously not proof that there isn't disagreement in that culture, either. But it would be like me saying "There's both Mormons and non-Mormons on this thread, and there are plenty of people who have posted on this thread that the Book of Mormon is true." If all the people who have posted that are Mormons, it doesn't indicate that there's a cross-section of larger society that believes the Book of Mormon is true.
---
lem, I've never seen a do not proselyte sign, have you? I mean at a store, not necessarily at someone's house. Although I've never seen one at a house, either.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
