quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Its sad to see so many people painting the old woman as a paragone of virtue going out of her way to save the community from the rude, obnoxious Mormon missionaries. I happened to think that what I was doing, was a service that was of great value, so valuable it was more important then my personal comfort. I suppose I should glean my satisfaction from the Taiwanese people who love me for coming, not from the rude spiteful old women who seems to be the one YOU would all prefer to live next to.
I don't think she was a paragon of anything.
You felt that what you were doing was an important service. What you seem incapable or unwilling to understand is that not everyone agrees, and some consider it an unwanted intrusion. Clearly she considered it so, and thought her neighbors would as well.
Why does your opinion trump hers, in her own neighborhood? Because you are convinced you know better than she does?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Squicky, how would you react if she started calling people up and said, "I think you should know, there's a group of *whisper* black people */whisper* in the neighborhood. I just wanted you to know."
Errr...I don't see how that's relevant. I and BB have absolutely no evidence that she did anything of the sort.
quote:I don't see the harm, but I do see her actions as likely indicative of a pretty nasty motive.
I don't agree with the word likely. It's possible. If we're using that as a determiner, why couldn't she have imputed a nasty motive to BB. He's already admitted to using some pretty questionable strategies when he was a missionary.
I know if a couple of stange people came around my neighborhood, knocking on doors, I wouldn't have any problem with my neighbors letting me know about it. If they were doing things like breaking into apartment complexes, I would very much expect to hear about it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is thinking that LDS missionaries aren't people you want to talk to necessarily bigotry? That sounds like it could also be a legitimate religious opinion. If, from you opinion, they're going around spreading a false message to the unwary, I don't see how letting people know about this is any different from the LDS missionarying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me put it this way: We've received those warnings in two neighborhoods I've lived in. Both times they were from people who proved their bigotry about Mormons in more concrete ways.
I've never received such warnings from anyone else. Is that conclusive? No. But it's applicable experience.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's called an analogy, Squick: a situation similar to another used to draw comparisons.
Yes, but the analogy isn't relevant. We've no evidence she made remarks at all analogous like what you suggested.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is thinking that LDS missionaries aren't people you want to talk to necessarily bigotry? That sounds like it could also be a legitimate religious opinion. If, from you opinion, they're going around spreading a false message to the unwary, I don't see how letting people know about this is any different from the LDS missionarying.
Oh well, it's not surprise to me that you see the world differently than I do about this, too.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's possible. If we're using that as a determiner, why couldn't she have imputed a nasty motive to BB. He's already admitted to using some pretty questionable strategies when he was a missionary.
I find that comment quite slanderous, please explain what you mean, as well as why it would be "Questionable."
Also you claimed I had no evidence. Well the only evidence I had was the following:
1: When we knocked on her door, not only did she not want to hear what we had to say, she openly insulted us and treated us very rudely, which is why we left. As far as I can remember we didn't say anything negative to her.
2: She was definately saying more then simply "The Mormons are coming" in a calm composed voice, though she was slightly at a distance, she spoke long enough to convey a message clearly longer then that small statement. Her tone of voice was obviously upset.
3: When she ran into us again at the other end of the street she looked very suprised, gave us a mean look and tramped back home.
Perhaps she had had a bad experience with missionaries in the past, but I seriously doubt she was a very kind concerned person, she did not want to speak to us in any sort of civilized manner,
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I seriously doubt she was a very kind concerned person, she did not want to speak to us in any sort of civilized manner...
I think it's perfectly possible that she was a kind, concerned person who didn't want to speak to you in any sort of civilized manner.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:She told them Mormons were coming, according to the facts given.
All I added was the whisper.
It's totally analogous.
Yes, all you added was the whisper. Oh and an entirely different cultural background.
Let's say I was talking to a british friend the other day and he told me how he hates fags. He must be a homophobe.
BB, You recounted jumping over walls and using other tricks to get past security to get into apartment buildings. That's highly questionable behavior.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever, Squick. It's clearly not common behavior in Taiwan to go warning neighbors about the Mormons.
It's freaking relevant and you know it. Is it a perfect fit? No.
Beyond that, we're only disagreeing about the word "likely" at this point, so this is a waste of time.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A guy at a church I attended a long time ago once told a story about Mormon missionaries who came to his door. After they left, he followed them around the apartment complex, pointing out things he disagreed with.
From his point of view, he was saving people from a dangerous cult. I'm sure the missionaries thought he was being extremely rude, though. Which he was--but from his point of view, it didn't really matter. My point being, I guess, that rudeness and higher causes that justify rudeness are all in the eye of the beholder.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that's not what I was saying at all. You added a cultural context where at least the image of white people talking about "the blacks" and not wanting to be around "the blacks" is extremely common. If you used the same example without this association, say "The circus is in town." or even say "The Shriners are around." there would have been none of the undertones you tried to shoehorn in with your "analogy".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: BB, You recounted jumping over walls and using other tricks to get past security to get into apartment buildings. That's highly questionable behavior.
I recounted that missionaries did those things. I never once said "I" did those things. I even went so far as to post later that "I didnt sneak into complexes" as well as my reasoning for not doing so.
Reading the entire thread CAREFULLY might do you good.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, that's not what I was saying at all. You added a cultural context where at least the image of white people talking about "the blacks" and not wanting to be around "the blacks" is extremely common. If you used the same example without this association, say "The circus is in town." or even say "The Shriners are around." there would have been none of the undertones you tried to shoehorn in with your "analogy".
I've SEEN that same reaction about Mormon's. It's fairly common, although the warning isn't.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see any moral distinction, if anyone is suggesting one, between 'wishing ill' and 'wishing violence' on someone else.
Both seem rooted in the same places, with the same results. Malice, spite, and angry, with the result of causing harm.
I have to agree with JT here. Is 'throws Internet rock' really a threat around here, especially when it's a joke.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT, I think there is a difference between something being a direct (and realistic) threat and being "threatening" language. The parts of the TOS I quoted were "not to post any material that is threatening, harrassing, or abusive," and I also said that I thought the post was "close to the line." Close enought that if it made rivka uncomfortable I think she could make a good argument for it crossing it. Since I never said it was a threat, you can keep your mind unicorn to yourself.
Have your never experienced someone making completely unrealistic threats that you nevertheless considered threatening? I'm not saying BB was in this context, like I said it was pretty obviously a joke, if an ill-considered one.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep telling myself I'm not going to post in this thread, but here I am again. @ myself
A couple things:
No one whistled anyone's post (to my knowledge). The possibility was mentioned. Until it was mentioned it hadn't occurred to me. And I already agreed that "threat" was not an accurate word. So if we could stop beating that particular dead unicorn, I'd appreciate it.
Dags is familiar with incidents where "the Mormons are coming" was laced with bigotry. My experiences are very different, where the warnings (and most of the folks in my old neighborhood (which sure seemed to get targeted by missionaries from a number of different groups, Mormons and JWs among them, although I've been assured by members of both groups that neighborhoods are never targeted by virtue of religious makeup) didn't much know the difference between JW missionaries, Mormon missionaries, Baptists, or what have you) were solely because we had no interest in arguing with them. Which way did the Korean lady BB dealt with mean it? I'm sure I have no idea. And short of tracking her down, I have no idea how we might found out.
posted
When I was a missionary, there was an old lady that insisted on hanging out of her first floor window as we walked to the open market, and screaming, "Cultists, cultists, cultists!" at us.
It burned me at first. Like everyone else in the world, I don't like being called names. I felt defensive and embarassed...then I realized that other people on the street were embarassed, too. And it didn't have anything to do with our behavior...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been staying out of this thread because I've been rather disappointed with the turn its taken, but for some unclear reason I changed my mind and am going to make a few observations.
1. I think knocking on strangers doors for any reason is always at least a bit rude. It is an intrusion of my privacy and a theft of my time. I lead a very hectic life. When I am at home, I am nearly always either busily engaged in some activity or trying to squeeze in a precious few moments of relaxation. In either case, I do not welcome an interuption from strangers at the door no matter what they want. My time is valuable, even the small amount of time it takes me to walk to the door and answer it is valuable.
So in those respects, when missionaries come uninvited to someones door it is always at least a little bit rude. They can be friendly, respectful and courteous, but even then it doesn't alter the fact that knocking on strangers doors is basically rude behavior.
With that said, there are things which are important enough to be rude about. It isn't polite to correct peoples grammar or to tell them their behavior as a missionary was "questionable". It isn't exactly polite to report your neighbor to child protective services if you believe they are abusing their child. It isn't exactly polite to tell a friend they are too drunk to drive. But somethings are more important than being polite. At sometime, nearly all of us have done things which were rude because we thought it was important.
Bottom line, if you are going to come and knock on my door and interupt what I'm doing, you better have a darn good reason.
Most missionaries truly believe that the message they are trying to share is important enough to justify the basic rudeness that is inherent in telling people "my beliefs are better than yours". They would be well served in recognizing that, it would help them better understand the negative reactions they get from so many people.
2. As much as I dislike having strangers interupt me by coming to my door, I can't say its a major problem in my life. I can probably count the number of times its happened on my fingers and toes. It certainly isn't worth me getting a "no soliciting sign". This maybe because I'm not home during polite hours much so I can believe that its a bigger problem for some people. Even so, I can't see that its worth getting angry about. I have no problem with closing the door on strangers if I don't have the time or inclination to talk. I also have no problem hanging up on telephone solicitors. I don't swear at them or get angry. I simply say very quickly, "I'm not interested" and close the door or hang up.
In fact, most of the time if there are strangers at the door I just don't even open it. (A little something I learned from my missionary days). How many homes don't have a peep hole or a window where you can see whose at the door? If you don't want to talk with who ever is knocking, there is no law that says you have to open the door. There is no reason to hide, its your home and they are invading your privacy. What they are doing is rude and while there is no reason to get angry about it, you also don't have any obligation to give them any of your time. If they have something important to tell you (like they just hit your car or ran over your dog), they will most often leave a note.
3. I would strongly discourage anyone from ignoring a no soliciting sign. It may be different in some communities, but in areas where I have lived people who get "no soliciting" signs often have important reasons that they don't like to be interupted such as serious illness or disability. To assume that they are just grumps who don't like to be interupted, is too disrespectful
4. The old woman who marched down the street to warn her neighbors that the "Mormons were coming" seems fundamentally ruder than the missionaries to me. If she was doing it because she simply felt people didn't want to be interupted by the missionaries, she was pretty misguided because her warnings meant two interuptions rather than one. Additionally, her act presumes that the neighbors will have a more difficult time dispatching the missionaries than she did and that they will be less offended by an upset neighbor knocking at the door than a missionary. I simply can't see that warning people that someone else is going to come knock on their door, is important enough to justify the rudeness inherent in coming uninvited and upset to the door.
If on the other hand, the woman was acting under the belief that the missionaries were dangerous and she needed to warn the neighbors so they could protect themselves, what she did would have been even ruder and BBs offense is understandable/ Her belief that the missionaries were dangerous would most likely have been founded in bigotry.(I'm assuming that BB didn't doing anything specific at the door to indicate he was a danger.) It would have been a case of unjust prejudice. Accusing someone of being a danger to the neighborhood without concrete evidence is simply mean. Furthermore, it would have been fundamentally condescending to the neighbors. It would have been an act based on the premise that the neighbors weren't as capable as she at recognizing the dangers these missionaries present. Unless the neighbors normally viewed her as a source of wisdom and instruction, taking that duty on her self was rude.
I suspect that the woman's motives were even simpler than either of those two options. She was mostly angry and acting out of spite. The missionaries had made her angry and so she wanted to ensure that the rest of their evening was ruined. I doubt she even thought about what she was doing at any rational level. She was angry so she did the only thing she could think of to get back at the missionaries. It may be ingracious of me to assume that, but in my mind it is the hypothesis that best fits BBs description of her behavior.
[ October 03, 2006, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I posted this video in the first place was two fold. First, I simply thought it was really funny. But second, I was trying to get a better understanding of why it was so funny and whether people who had only been on one side of the door would find it as funny as those of us who at one time or another been on both sides of the door.
One of the things I found funny about the video is that people were reacting just the same to the question "Do you want to die as a martyr?" as they did to superficial much more benign questions I asked as a missionary. rivka mentioned that it doesn't matter to her whether its Mormon's, of JW's, or Baptists (or maybe even vacuum cleaner saleman) who come to the door. Is this sketch funny because it takes that idea to such an obsurd extreme or because deep down most people don't see much difference between someone knocking on the door to ask if you'd like to become a terrorist and someone knocking on the door to ask you to join their church.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would have been an act based on the premise that the neighbors weren't as capable as she at recognizing the dangers these missionaries present.
Isn't that the basic premise behind missionary work, though?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was funny just because of the sheer difference between message and presentation. You always hear in the news about terrorist propagandha and its litered with strongly emotional presentation, and hyperbolic rhetoric.
To use the calm Mormon approach to the entire message was so paradoxical it seemed like something Monty Python would do.
posted
I've never quite understood the decision to continue on past a "no solictation" (or other "please do not bother me") indication on the grounds that in the past, anecdotes have shown that some people are eventually grateful for this point having been forced. Because wouldn't the same reasoning apply when the person says "no, thank you" anyway? Shouldn't you keep pushing then, for exactly the same reasons: i.e., the person might eventually be glad you did and the message is important enough to do it?
What is the difference in rationale?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I thought it was funny just because of the sheer difference between message and presentation. You always hear in the news about terrorist propagandha and its litered with strongly emotional presentation, and hyperbolic rhetoric.
To use the calm Mormon approach to the entire message was so paradoxical it seemed like something Monty Python would do.
I laughed for exactly the same reasons. And I have a particular fondness for LDS missionaries (despite not wanting my private life disturbed, odd as it may be ). When I'm out & about in public and I see the familiar white shirt/darktie/black pants/namebadge, I will wave and say "hi," stopping to talk if I can.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I've never quite understood the decision to continue on past a "no solictation" (or other "please do not bother me") indication on the grounds that in the past, anecdotes have shown that some people are eventually grateful for this point having been forced. Because wouldn't the same reasoning apply when the person says "no, thank you" anyway? Shouldn't you keep pushing then, for exactly the same reasons: i.e., the person might eventually be glad you did and the message is important enough to do it?
What is the difference in rationale?
If you convinced 2 people that the Mormons were rude and were not worth listening to for every 1 that embraced the truth you brought to them, you could argue that ratio is not worth it.
Realistically though you would probably end up turning off 1000 people for every 1 you found.
Church statistics show that missionaries have to contact about 1000 people for every baptism.
Member referrals are a different story, statistics peg it at about 1 in 3 referrals will be baptized. Guess it shows avoiding "No Soliciting" signs would ultimately be more beneficial for all involved. The missionaries don't waste time, people are not bothered, and its not as if people with those signs don't make friends occasionally with members who can present the gospel more delecately and catered to their specific needs when appropriate.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would have been an act based on the premise that the neighbors weren't as capable as she at recognizing the dangers these missionaries present.
Isn't that the basic premise behind missionary work, though?
Perhaps it is. You will note that I started by agreeing that missionary work was at its base rude. I would add that presuming that you know something other people don't know and that you are more capable of recognizing truth than other people are not the same thing. At the basis of missionary work lies the presumption that if people are presented with the truths you believe to have, they are capable of recognizing these truths.
I suppose its possible that this woman felt she had information about the Mormons that she needed to share with her neighbors, but quite honestly I don't think that explanation matches BBs description of her behavior very well. BBs description suggests that her goal was to prevent the missionaries from sharing their message with these people. Wishing to disuade people from hearing a message and wishing to disuade people from embracing that message are fundamentally different. If she had simply desired to disuade her neighbors from converting, she would have been more effective waiting to see if any of them invited the missionaries for a 2nd visit and then sharing her concerns with them rather than the whole neighborhood. The only reasons I can come up with for why she might wish to disuade people from even listening to the missionaries are either an arrogant belief these people are less able than she to recognize falsehood or a desire to spite the missionaries. Please let me know if you have another explanation that I haven't considered.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not what I'm asking, though. (But I appreciate the response, BlackBlade! It's interesting stuff. )
I'm asking about those missionaries who find the "but so-and-so was grateful in the end, and he became one of the best investigators we've ever seen" stories (in the Ensign, maybe? Was there a particular story that sparked this anecdote I hear about pretty frequently?) to be reason to ignore posted signs. If that is a good reason to ignore a sign, isn't it just as good a reason to ignore or press past a spoken "no, thank you"?
[edited for spelling]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: If that is a good reason to ignore a sign, isn't it just as good a reason to ignore or press past a spoken "no, thank you"?
I'm probably going to get jumped on again - but no good missionary ever gives up.
But since this thread is full of attacks, I'd like to mention that a good missionary needs a great deal of tact to do any sort of proselyting. And, a sign is not really the same thing as a spoken "no, thank you."
Also, I do agree in large part with the recent posts by Rabbit. I'm not an over-zealous proselyting missionary, and that has never been a good description of me. I personally believe that the best approach to missionary work is through friendship and referrals.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, that's not what I was saying at all. You added a cultural context where at least the image of white people talking about "the blacks" and not wanting to be around "the blacks" is extremely common. If you used the same example without this association, say "The circus is in town." or even say "The Shriners are around." there would have been none of the undertones you tried to shoehorn in with your "analogy".
I've SEEN that same reaction about Mormon's. It's fairly common, although the warning isn't.
Isn't it possible that that sort of reaction (maybe not this particular one, though) has more to do with...I don't know, I guess the first thing that comes to my mind is a couple of kids who accosted me as I was crossing the street on my way home from school, who proceeded to invite themselves to my apartment to sell me magazines. Or those people who always yell at you in the mall so that you can come see their amazing nail care products. I just don't automatically think "bigotry."
quote:Originally posted by gnixing: I'm probably going to get jumped on again - but no good missionary ever gives up.
I will do my level best not to do so. *smile
quote:And, a sign is not really the same thing as a spoken "no, thank you."
Why not? (Honest question. ) What is the difference, and why is that the tipping point for you -- if it is?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edited until I think about it some more. Let's just say that I don't think you are being fair about the internet rock to Blackblade, Rivka.
Megan,
In all my time dealing with BlackBlade, I have found him to be kind, fair, and honest, someone who never says anything malicious. This is one of the reasons why it's hard for me to understand why you or anyone else could possibly think that he seriously wanted to harm the old lady versus just being aggravated and feeling like throwing a rock.
Beyond Blackblade specifically, generally speaking, to me, feeling like doing something, and wanting to do something are two completely different things. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding exists.
posted
Let me say, too, that I think that anger is one of the fundamental 'sins', so to speak, and that it rarely helps a situation. Inasmuch as I get angry frequently, it is my little cross to bear.
That said, it is one of those things like gluttony or avarice, pride or greed, that, while they shouldn't be encouraged, are part of being human and that everyone engages in in one form or another.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Well-- I disagree. No missionary ever gives up HOPING. But good missionaries learn to use their time more wisely in order to find and teach those who are willing to hear the gospel.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why isn't an explicit sign saying, "I do not want any solicitors or proseltizers calling on my home, please," any different at all from a spoken, "No, thank you," gnixing?
They're exactly the same message.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My sympathy isn't with her. It was a nasty thing to do, and she did it out of spite. If she's worried about the neighbors being disturbed, she disturbed them just as much.
I hate the bash-on-missionaries threads. *scowl* I can't believe you're defending someone who most likely acted out of spite. That's awful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't feel like I'm bashing on missionaries. If I'm coming off that way, I apologize; I certainly don't intend to.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm not upset now. I can definitely see being upset at the time. I'm actually impressed with the way the missionaries handled it. I got so mad tracting and so frustrated from holding it all in a couple of times that the spirit was gone completely and we had to go and do something else.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My read was not analogous to "there are black people in the neighberhood" so much as it was "there are stranger who are going to come to your door" in the neighborhood.
Possibly the difference between being on the outside of the missionary thing. When I was going door to door during elections (very uncomfortable for me - I hate phoning friends as I am sure I will interrupt them in the middle of something important), I would not have assumed bigotry as a motive in this kind of action.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
