posted
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.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
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!
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
'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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1236 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ).
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Scott that reducing building a relationship of trust to an acronym is trivializing it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
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.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(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.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[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)
