quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The most effective example is much more difficult to live by, as well as failing to satisfy the...well, the thrill people get from successfully persuading/manipulating others into their point of view, from having felt that another person gets the Message from you.
Of note, that seems to be the same thrill that people may seek in all sorts of walks of life. I think it's a human thing, not a religious thing.
I've always been more than a little suspicious of the "golden hour" talk that floats around discussions of why ER Medicine, ICU Medicine, or Surgery may be attractive specializations. People sometimes talk about how great it feels to be the one that makes the difference, the one that saves the day.
Frankly, it seems much better for the patients not ever to get to the point where they need an ER, or ICU, or surgery. That seems to be an even better save, in my book, but it's more of a long, dry, and tedious process to "save" people that way. Not much of a rush there, that's for sure.
I'm glad there are people who are drawn to the parts of medicine that I am not, and I'm glad that they do such a bang-up job of it under dicey circumstances. I'm even more impressed when someone trained this way takes a longer view as well, such as an ICU physician I worked with who was one of the strongest community proponents of accident harms-reduction. He actively worked to put himself out of business -- how cool. I find that exceedingly inspiring and trust-inducing.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Sure, missionaries are out there trying to save souls. Peddling a message of Jesus. That doesn't mean that they're not genuinely interested in your trophy. Or in you, no matter how you receive their message.
But the initial approach is non-discriminatory, even if the interaction itself is personal, yes? I mean, the love you have for this person that impells you to speak to them should be the same love as you feel to all fellow humans, right?
When someone feels flattered, it is because they believe a discrimination has been made between themselves and others. Mind you, I don't aspire to feel flattered, and I think we could do with less of that particular emotion in the world. But I think that's a big part of why people feel misled and resentful of the deliberate "building a relationship of trust" approach.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The quotes there make me sad. I guess some missionaries do it with quotes around it, but it is for the most part sincere.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The quotes there make me sad. I guess some missionaries do it with quotes around it, but it is for the most part sincere.
I'm sorry to bring you sadness, katharina. Really, I am. (Would it help to edit, or is the damage done?)
Maybe it is the most sincere ones who are least likely to be thought of as doing it in the quotes way, as it were. I'd like to think that.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's almost impossible to sincerely build a relationship of trust when you're doing it according to a manual.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do find it feels much more convincing when the relationship is built over years, and under a plethora of shared experiences. I also understand that missionaries may feel called to make instant friendships out of a sincere belief that it has to be done as quickly as possible.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, I don't think we're talking about the people who knock on our doors and say, "Hi, I'm so-and-so with the such-and-such church.
ut there is something dishonest in trying to develop a firendship with someone just to convert them. It's more dishonest, on some level, than chatting up a girl with whom you have nothing common just to get laid. Because in a bar, you pretty much expect it.
I'm still kind of ducking my neighbor who wants to have coffee sometime, because i know in my heart she just wants to save my soul. Of course, I suppose I'm just as bad for going along with it. Basically, I guess I let her think there might be hope of me converting for two reasons.
One, I don't know of a polite way to tell her that her deeply held beliefs are repulsive to me, and two, I suspect that the glimmer of hope she holds for our redemption is the only reason she still lets my kids play with her kids. *sigh*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: It's more dishonest, on some level, than chatting up a girl with whom you have nothing common just to get laid. Because in a bar, you pretty much expect it.
Oh, I think that's plenty squicky too. Big part of why I don't go to bars.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've also been plenty miffed at a fella or two who presented himself as primarily interested in joint scholarship but ended up being primarily interested in more southern reasons.
"You must have beautiful ovaries," indeed. (No, really. This was not a scheduled part of the review session.)
---
Edited to add: Basically, I shouldn't be talked to. Or looked at. Or thought about, except in the most abstract form.
posted
I totally agree with CT. I think I've become a misanthrope. For real, unlike CT who only manages to be misanthropic in the most abstract sense. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
We'll hang out on our (empty) lawns together and drink mint juleps. Cuss and spit, too. And make salty jokes.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When someone feels flattered, it is because they believe a discrimination has been made between themselves and others.
I'm not convinced this is so. I think the world is full of people who would feel flattered to be treated as though they were as worthy as others. I'm not sure that's much better though; it's a terribly sad thought.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's only knowing dkw and kmboots [and rivka, though in a different way, as our religious traditions are quite different] over the years that has gotten me even willing to consider whether I want religion in a more formalized way in my life. I understand that my baggage is mine, not anyone else's, and I don't want to attribute ill intent to kind and caring people. But the deliberately studied approach is less than remotely helpful to me in this aspect, and I don't care to engage in such conversations (unless clearly entered into, with fully informed consent) at all.
So I look for ways to minimize the trauma all around. *shrug I doubt I'd willingly choose from the outset to inflict myself on the world at large, but here I am, and I must make the best of it. As do we all.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When someone feels flattered, it is because they believe a discrimination has been made between themselves and others.
I'm not convinced this is so. I think the world is full of people who would feel flattered to be treated as though they were as worthy as others. I'm not sure that's much better though; it's a terribly sad thought.
*nods.
Likely so. Very sad, that.
I'd think of that more as "grateful" than "flattered," but that may reflect my own biases more than anything.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I spent two years as a missionary down in Brazil. (Just south of where Uncle Orson served)
Just like ScottR, when I was being trained, I thought that building a relationship of trust was just something to help us get in doors to teach people. When I got to Brazil though, I realized I was dead wrong.
I began to love the people. I honestly cared for them. I wanted to be their friend. It didnt have to do with them inviting me into their home. It had to do with showing my love for them. I looked at them as my family.
I dont know how many times we helped people push their cars when they broke down, or helped old ladies take their groceries home. But we didnt do it so that we could come back and convert them. We did it because we believed that life is precious, that everyone is a child of God, and being so deserves to be shown love and respect.
The reason why I wanted to tell people about our church was not so that I could meet numbers, or increase the amount of "tithing" the church received. The reason why I went and did the things I did down there was nothing more than love. I wanted them to know what I knew, and have what I have. Ive never been happier in my entire life than when I spent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week serving others.
On a side note about tithing: I do not know how many of you know this but the LDS church does not have a paid clergy. My father is a bishop and has never received one penny. In fact, he has a 50 hour a week job, then spends another 20 hours a week doing his church duties. Tithing is used to build church buildings, build temples, and support various other church programs. My mission was not paid for by the church. I saved up all of my money for two years and paid for it myself.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: On a side note about tithing: I do not know how many of you know this but the LDS church does not have a paid clergy. My father is a bishop and has never received one penny. ...My mission was not paid for by the church. I saved up all of my money for two years and paid for it myself.
I think most people who've been here awhile are well aware of how the financing of the LDS Church works. It comes up relatively frequently in general discussions. However, it is good to note it explicitly again, especially in this thread.
I'm glad you had such a good time on your mission, Geraine. It sounds like a remarkable and most memorable experience.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
CT, when you put the building a relationship of trust in quotes, it is making it...it's a value judgement. It's saying that the default there is deception, a game, something fake. It really isn't, not usually, and it is really hurtful to suspect that you think religious feeling in general defaults to something so ugly.
It makes me wonder - do you think of me that way? When you name religious people that you like, does that mean you think I'm faking it? Part of something ugly? Maybe just deluded?
Am I overreacting? But I don't think so. That's what the quotes mean. I don't think I am any of those awful things, and it really hurts to be depicted that way, even sideways. It's terribly disrespectful. You're also wrong. I think in assuming inveracity you're closing yourself to what is good that is there. Maybe that's what you want to do because of the bad that can get mixed in, and so maybe it's worth it to you, but I think it's too bad, and it makes me sad. It means I'm that much less understood and valued for something that I love that is part of me that has never hurt you.
I mean, the joking about misanthropy is funny, but you're not talking about vague and unkown persons somewhere in Cabot, Maine. You're talking about a whole lot of Hatrackers, you're talking about people who like you, and who are reading what you say about them.
posted
I talk to people on the street, in elevators, on bus, etc. It's something I like to do. I like people. I like getting to know them and I prefer talking like that to staying somewhere silently, trying to avoid other people's eyes.
Not surprisingly, I encounter a fair number of people who want something from me other than conversation. A lot of times, it's for something I have no trouble with. For some reason, many people seem to find me very approachable. Take a sidewalk full of people, I tend to be the one someone will stop to ask for directions. This happens to me even in cities that I'm just visiting and have no idea where I am.
Many other times, it is someone trying to sell me something or asking me for money. There was a time in college, it seemed I couldn't strike up a conversation in an elevator without someone inviting me to a Bible study. If someone is handing out flyers, or asking to sign a petition, or looking to convert people to their religion, I am almost invariably considered a prime target.
I've had people use the building a relationship of trust technique on me. I've had them used more subtle forms of manipulation that I'm able to recognize because of my training in social psychology. But hope springs eternal and plus I tend to be pretty polite to people. However, I've never had any of these dozens of people ever continue to be interested in the things we were talking about after I've rejected their sales pitch. Either they endeavour to explain why my carefully considered beliefs aren't worth their respect or they break off contact and move on to the next person. This is when I conclude that they weren't approaching me as a person worthy of respect who it might be nice to interact with, but rather as a target for whatever they were selling.
I really don't like this, because, to me, it poisons public square conversation between strangers, which, as I've indicated, I really enjoy. It makes me more closed off to the possibility of talking with strangers, especially ones that approach me. I generally still do talk with people, but I'm constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop and them to get around to their sales pitch.
This works in the other direction as well. I've had people say to me on the train, when one of us was about to get off, that they kept expecting me to ask them for something or start talking about how they needed to join my religion.
Going about tricking people into listening to your unwelcome message and employing social manipulations to make them uncomfortable breaking off contact doesn't strike me as a respectful practice and I think it has some negative effects on how open people are to strangers.
quote:You're talking about a whole lot of Hatrackers,
It's in part my experience with LDS on Hatrack that makes me think that this is very likely generally a manipulation technique grounded in a much higher value in proselytizing than in respecting other people. When we start talking about missionary work, it seems like respect for other people becomes very unimportant to many of the LDS here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: CT, when you put the building a relationship of trust in quotes, it is making it...it's a value judgement. It's saying that the default there is deception, a game, something fake.
katharina, when I put it in quotation marks, I did so because it was a direct quote. I was using someone else's language, not mine, and I was trying to be respectful by not using an abbreviation. [which was earlier noted by someone as offensive]
I very seriously think you have misinterpreted me here, and -- as you and I have both noted before, many times -- that may reflect more on what you brought to the interaction than on what was brought to you. I don't mean that in a callous or judgemental way; I really do mean to say that I think you may have been reacting to something bigger or other than me.
If I had realized that sooner, I would have addressed it more directly. It honestly never occurred to me that you read it in that light. I thought you were objecting to the quotes because I was using a standardized phrase and thus implying that the approach was standardized -- not anything about intent.
I don't use scare quotes in general. I tend to use them with the classical interpretation.
[I don't generally use scare quotes because I was specifically trained in academic philosophy that it is an irregular and unclear usage. If you read other things I have written, you'll see they appear rarely, if ever. I certainly hope so.]
quote: It makes me wonder - do you think of me that way? When you name religious people that you like, does that mean you think I'm faking it? Part of something ugly? Maybe just deluded?
If you were to walk up to me as a stranger, strike up a conversation, and seem to me to be trying to interest me in your religion, then I would suspect you had an ulterior motive and dislike that part of our interaction. As it is, your religious beliefs seem to organically be expressed in our interactions, and I am not uncomfortable with that.
I am uncomfortable with being approached in a practiced, mannered way about this topic. This has to do in good part with my history, and that isn't something I'd choose to share at this point here.
I named rivka, dkw, and kmboots specifically because these are people I have approached directly to discuss religious matters in private. They shared some elements of my understanding of the world that made us sympatico and made me feel comfortable with approaching them. Most people I do not feel comfortable with discussing these issues, in large part because of the emotionally wrought misunderstandings which seem to often occur. [my own included, BTW]
quote:Am I overreacting? But I don't think so. That's what the quotes mean.
Well, that isn't what I intended.
quote:I don't think I am any of those awful things, and it really hurts to be depicted that way, even sideways. It's terribly disrespectful. You're also wrong. I think in assuming inveracity you're closing yourself to what is good that is there. Maybe that's what you want to do because of the bad that can get mixed in, and so maybe it's worth it to you, but I think it's too bad, and it makes me sad. It means I'm that much less understood and valued for something that I love that is part of me that has never hurt you.
Do you mean that I must be terribly disrespectful unless I want to talk to you about religion? I don't understand. I can't imagine that you really mean this judgement to fall on anyone who is not willing to discuss religion with strangers. Or even with you. Is this really what you mean?
quote:I mean, the joking about misanthropy is funny, but you're not talking about vague and unkown persons somewhere in Cabot, Maine. You're talking about a whole lot of Hatrackers, you're talking about people who like you, and who are reading what you say about them.
kat, seriously, how often do I talk about people this way, much less people who are present in the conversation?
---
Edited to add: I was joking about misanthropy in part because I realize that being very precise about how to say "no" to a proselytizer is kind of weird. Obviously, though, it's a concern for several people on this board. I can't see where I've done other than bend over backwards (and willingly so, gladly so***) to attribute nothing but the best motives to those who proselytize to me without the context of an established relationship.
I still don't want to have that discussion with them, though. Is that basic fact what is underlying the anger, or was it the [mis]reading as scare quotes, or what? This makes little sense to me.
---
***Edited to add: See my next post below. Ah, goodness.
---
Also edited to change paragraphs around to make the post more clear overall. I was writing as I thought, and the result was less than easy to read. I haven't deleted anything, though.
I like you, katharina! I think you are a marvelous, strong, intelligent woman with high ideals and many important insights about the world and human experience. I did not mean to insult you; I meant to be precise. But for whatever reason, it did bring up some strong negative emotions, and for that I am most sorry. I also do want to reaffirm that I think highly of you and am proud to know you, [even moreso to] be friends with you.
posted
The fact that there is a specific technique for "building a relationship of trust", and that it is taught to people, is I think, a valid reason to put it in quotes. We're discussing it as a planned method of discussion, intending to facilitate a specific conversational goal.
If you really just want to build a relationship of trust with someone, without the quotes, do you need a handbook? I've got tons of friends who trust me, and I've never once needed a specific technique or taught method of conversation to gain that trust.
One of the things that bothers me about some missionary methods, is that there is an inherent notion within the system that the missionary is going to save me, and that there is a set plan for getting that project accomplished, including the trust building. It's an agenda, and I don't appreciate people coming at me with an agenda. I think it's a little rude.
I'm happy to let the missionaries have their way of thinking, and I have mine. I think it would be rude of me to tell a missionary that they are a fool for believing what they do, that I know better than they how they should live their lives, but that's essentially what they want to tell me.
Is there really a polite way to tell someone, "What you believe is stupid, and I'm going to tell you how not to be a fool"?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Loren: Threads like this are why I don't bother with Hatrack much anymore.
It is definitely worth a deliberate consideration to choose where you want to spend your time. I'm sure you'd be welcomed if you should choose to return, and thought well of distantly if you did not.
----------
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's saying that the default there is deception, a game, something fake. It really isn't, not usually, and it is really hurtful to suspect that you think religious feeling in general defaults to something so ugly.
I quote myself [from throughout the thread] for clarity:
quote:I take it for granted when I am in a casual conversation that there isn't a direction this conversation is intended to take. But other people -- for whatever reason, mind you, kind and decent and well-meaning people -- may not have that same expectation.
quote:One has to assume that these are not people who are setting out to mislead you or trip you up. The most charitable assumption (which we have every reason to believe is the most appropriate one) is that these people are well-intentioned and doing the best they can to do what they think is important. They don't want to hurt you, or make you uncomfortable -- and by asking, you give them a chance to clarify what it is they are doing, so you can decide on that together.
quote:It helped to realize that much of the difficulty I had was in what I brought to the situation, and that I could politely ask for help in understanding it at the time instead. Much more friendly than trucking out my baggage about what I wanted and I expected, and then getting upset when others didn't do what I assumed they would.
quote:Life is so hard! Dealing with other people is so hard!
But it is better than the alternative. And goodness knows, those other people are having the same hard time with us as we do with them.
quote:Just to be clear, I delight in talking to members of a variety of churches. I just am actively not interested in talking to people who approach me as members of a particular church: i.e., as formal or informal representatives of their church to discuss matters of religion.
quote:I also understand that missionaries may feel called to make instant friendships out of a sincere belief that it has to be done as quickly as possible.
quote:I understand that my baggage is mine, not anyone else's, and I don't want to attribute ill intent to kind and caring people. But the deliberately studied approach is less than remotely helpful to me in this aspect, and I don't care to engage in such conversations (unless clearly entered into, with fully informed consent) at all.
So I look for ways to minimize the trauma all around.
quote:I 'm glad you had such a good time on your mission, Geraine. It sounds like a remarkable and most memorable experience.
----
Edited to add: And for completeness' sake, this is part of my post from Noemon's thread on word choice, referenced earlier:
quote:I think part of what makes it offensive is the fundamental decision (that I've made) to lump a bunch of different people into one category and treat them equally. I imagine that might feel quite dismissive and/or disrespectful of the prosetylizer's uniqueness and importance of their own personal message. Nonetheless, it is what I have chosen to do, and I might as well be up front about it.
I promise to be as courteous and polite about these situations as I can be, otherwise.
---
Mind you, when I have an established relationship with someone as a friend, listening to and sharing stories of life experiences and how we make sense of ourselves and our worlds doesn't trouble me. I like it. It feels like more of a shared thing then, though, and it fits into what I expect of an interaction in a totally different way.
posted
You know, I pulled in to a gas station when I was in another state (the sole purpose of this stop was to check my directions) and a guy came up and knocked on my widow waving a tract with a picture of Jesus on it. He wanted me to roll down my window. I didn't. I was in teh car alone with NIN playing "Heresy" on the CD player.
He seemed so disappointed that I almost felt bad about it, but then I thought... what was he thinking, tapping on some strange woman's window at a random gas station?
ETA: I started typing that three hours ago. I can see the thread has moved on in that time. *wince*
I must say that LDS missionaries are not among those I would accuse of being deceitful. I mean they have freakin' name tags and stuff. You know who they are and why they're there from the get-go, don't you?
I trusted the missionaries we met, and I listened to what they had to say. I read the books and prayed for guidance, and wound up believing they were wrong from the depths of my soul. Really, really nice, but wrong. We still exchange Christmas cards with one of them. I don't think that's quite the same thing at all as what I was talking about. Though I guess some of them might have taken the trophy soul view of the relationship, they weren't underhanded about it.
quote:Threads like this are why I don't bother with Hatrack much anymore.
Threads like this one is why I continue to return to Hatrack. Thoughtful discussion by intelligent people on interesting topics which you seldom see discussed elsewhere. What's not to like?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the things that bothers me about some missionary methods, is that there is an inherent notion within the system that the missionary is going to save me, and that there is a set plan for getting that project accomplished, including the trust building. It's an agenda, and I don't appreciate people coming at me with an agenda. I think it's a little rude.
Okay, that's a fair complaint, and I can see why you'd be bothered. This is one of the problems that was actually addressed several times in the missionary training center-- the adherence to an agenda, rather than adherence to the whisperings of the Spirit.
The training program serves, IMO, two purposes-- to correct fundamental misunderstandings about the gospel that are cultured into the missionary, and to assist the missionary in expanding his or her sphere of awareness. It is not so much an agenda as a wake-up call. Or, at least, that's what I think it should be.
I don't think that it's a terrible thing to teach consideration for others; on the scale that a missionary needs it, it's unnatural.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, CT, for that explanation. I did not mean that not wishing to talk to proselyters is unfortuate, but rather thinking they are all underhanded is, because while I guess some may/must be - there are losers in every context (resists the temptation to point to Squicky and fails) - most that I know and did know aren't, and it hurts to be thought of that way.
However, your quotes were not scare quotes but instead direct quotes, and that does greatly change your post for me. Thank you for the explanation - it was very sweet of you take me seriously, although I suppose it is nothing less than I could have expected from the gracious Claudia Therese.
---
About the teaching of it, two things occur to me.
1. It was not so much teaching manipulation - there was, in fact, a great deal of discussion of how NOT to approach people, and that topped the list - as it might have been just teaching basic social skills. Most of the missionaries are 19- and 20-year-old boys. I ap0ologize for the stereotype, but that those aren't usually who I'd pick to front and sell anything on their own, because of a lack of experience in general with interacting with people. What was taught was to listen, be interested, ask questions, keep trust, be on time, open your mouth and don't be afraid to speak. Except for the last one (and sometimes that one), these are just basic social skills. But they are social skills that have to be learned, and if they are missionaries, there is possibly/probably not time to learn it by experience. There is only two years. I think it's okay to teach missionaries how to interact with other human beings.
2. "BRT" is from the missionary gude, and the missionary guide hasn't been used in at least five years. This discussion is about a defunct teaching technique. It could become defunct because the church got a lot pickier about who was allowed to go on missions.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this has been going on for far longer than I've been at Hatrack, but I totally don't get why you think MrSquicky deserves side-swiping personal attacks like that, kat. I thought we didn't call each other names. Just because it's "loser" instead of something involving profanity doesn't make it okay.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know this has been going on for far longer than I've been at Hatrack, but I totally don't get why you think MrSquicky deserves side-swiping personal attacks like that, kat.
I don't understand it either, but it's worth pointing out that it's a mutual thing, ElJay.
Edit: In reference to your next post, so as not to further derail this thread: I know you didn't say it wasn't, but you didn't mention it either. Which is why I did, is all.
posted
Coming into this late, but I think it was a little over the top to say that Earen isn't a polite person just because he expresses annoyance at missionaries. As far as I can see, (s)he(?) wasn't rude to them. Politeness doesn't extend to becoming impervious to all sources of annoyance.
I've been glad to have his posts to read for some time now, and I've been wanting to say thanks for that for some time now. This seems like a good time to do it.
I had missed the reference in katharina's post, but I agree with ElJay. Katie, might you rethink that, as well as your last post? It's quite harsh.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's in part my experience with LDS on Hatrack that makes me think that this is very likely generally a manipulation technique grounded in a much higher value in proselytizing than in respecting other people.
It's not harsher. It's just less passive aggressive.
I think you should call him on that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: From Squicky:
quote:It's in part my experience with LDS on Hatrack that makes me think that this is very likely generally a manipulation technique grounded in a much higher value in proselytizing than in respecting other people.
It's not harsher. It's just less passive aggressive.
I think you should call him on that.
For what it is worth, I share Squicky's impression. And I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Rather, I don't see why you would see it as a bad thing. For some people, and several LDS missionaries have expressed this opinion, that the most important thing is listening to the spirit and making salvation available to people. Making sure that they have that opportunity. Certainly people have expressed that it is worth knocking on doors and possibly disturbing people - even when there are "no soliciting" signs. Proxy baptism, etc. All these indicate to me that sharing your faith is the highest priority for many LDS. Which, I think, is all he was saying.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I spent two years as a missionary down in Brazil. (Just south of where Uncle Orson served)
Just like ScottR, when I was being trained, I thought that building a relationship of trust was just something to help us get in doors to teach people. When I got to Brazil though, I realized I was dead wrong.
I began to love the people. I honestly cared for them. I wanted to be their friend. It didnt have to do with them inviting me into their home. It had to do with showing my love for them. I looked at them as my family.
I dont know how many times we helped people push their cars when they broke down, or helped old ladies take their groceries home. But we didnt do it so that we could come back and convert them. We did it because we believed that life is precious, that everyone is a child of God, and being so deserves to be shown love and respect.
The reason why I wanted to tell people about our church was not so that I could meet numbers, or increase the amount of "tithing" the church received. The reason why I went and did the things I did down there was nothing more than love. I wanted them to know what I knew, and have what I have. Ive never been happier in my entire life than when I spent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week serving others.
....
In Cursillo, it's expressed as:
Make a friend
Be a friend
Bring a friend to Jesus
Even if the third part doesn't work out (and of course you'd rather that the "Jesus" you brought your friend to was the aspect of Jesus most emphasized in your own part of the Church, your own home congregation, all three parts may work, and still the friend winds up in a part of the church quite unlike your own, because Jesus introduced _himself_ to the friend in some different POV, once they'd made contact: Jesus, God the Son, is far too big for anyone to fully know from all points of view), and even if the friend never comes to Jesus, still, you've made a friend and are a friend.
Preach Christ always: if necessary, use words. St Francis
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also agree with kmboots, and was going to say the same thing. The level of respect for others involved in missionary work is something that LDS and non-LDS people on this board seem to disagree about. I see Squicky's post as stating a fact, not as a passive-agressive attack on anyone, and certainly not anyone specific, so I don't see anything to call him on. If you disagree with it, of course I would expect you to say so.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I find that exceedingly inspiring and trust-inducing.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
The quotes there make me sad. I guess some missionaries do it with quotes around it, but it is for the most part sincere.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
