posted
I don't agree that that was what he was saying. If it was, he put it very badly, and I don't think that was accidental.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. You are reading things into it that I am not. You have a different relationship with him. What did you think he was saying?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand it either, but it's worth pointing out that it's a mutual thing, ElJay.
No, it's not. kat's been making snide little side comments at me for years. There were a couple of periods where she pretty much followed me around and insulted me when I posted, independent of what I said.
While I consider many aspects of kat's behavior here to be worthy of negative comment and do make these comments, I have never done what you are accusing me of. I don't think I've ever taken cheap little shots at anyone here, ever and I'd ask if you are going to accuse me of this that you present some sort of evidence.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, boots and ElJay are accurately reflecting what I was trying to say.
I've never had LDS missionaries not come right out and say that they were acting as missionaries, so I can't really judge that. However, as I recounted, I have had many experiences with missionaries and others selling something who have started out with the building the relationship of trust and they've universally left me with the impression that the people doing it were not valuing me as a person anywhere near as much as a target for their message and/or product. Judging from past conversations here on LDS proselytizing and related topics where it appeared to me that many LDS here regard proselytizing and the like much more important than respecting other people or their beliefs, I get the feeling that this is a likely aspect of LDS missionaries' use of this technique as well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps Rakeesh is thinking of your behavior in multiple travesties of threads from the past year, including the horror that was your behavior in the Brokeback Mountain thread.
Okay. FOUR YEARS AGO, around the time that Lost in Translation came out, I posted a comment whenever you were particularly stuffy that you were being particularly stuffy. Noemon, who has a gift for defusing things, suggested the picture from Lost in Translation instead, which I adopted. I'm sorry for the comments - it was in hopes of achieving an effect and it never worked, so it was probably annoying.
Your behavior, of course, is from the last year.
----
In other words, you are judging missionaries based on other salesmen and non-missionaries. I think you should refrain from the condemnation until you have some evidence or experience with actual LDS missionaries. For those who support his comments, I suggest the same.
I also suggest that your agreement in the condemnation of missionaries is coloring your impression of Squicky's behavior.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For what it is worth, I share Squicky's impression. And I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
In order to share Squicky's impression, one must think that 'respecting other people' has only one meaning instead of many. There are many beliefs many people have on what respecting people means, and to think that Squicky's general impression is correct at least implies one believes one's own definition of respect is the only definition, or at least the important definition.
Which is actually quite similar to the complaints and criticisms being made towards proseltizers and missionaries in this thread.
quote:Certainly people have expressed that it is worth knocking on doors and possibly disturbing people - even when there are "no soliciting" signs. Proxy baptism, etc. All these indicate to me that sharing your faith is the highest priority for many LDS. Which, I think, is all he was saying.
You're bringing in a different issue entirely, i.e. continuing to proseltize after the other party has explicitly stated their wishes that they don't want it. That's something I'm opposed to as well, but it hasn't been discussed in this thread either. And in fact, as far as "general impressions" go, perhaps we could take a specific poll, but I think that if you asked Mormons point blank, "Do you think missionaries should knock on the doors of people who have "No solicitations/missionaries, please" clearly posted, at least a majority would answer in the negative.
I also don't think Mr. Squicky meant to imply only that for Mormons, their religion is their highest priority. It was pretty clearly a criticism too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I also suggest that your agreement in the condemnation of missionaries is coloring your impression of Squicky's behavior.
If you mean me, I was trying to make clear that I didn't think that having proselytization as a highest priority was a condemnation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think I've ever taken cheap little shots at anyone here, ever and I'd ask if you are going to accuse me of this that you present some sort of evidence.
You take cheap little shots that are more understated than hers generally are at you, Mr. Squicky. No, I'm not going to go sifting through years of posts for evidence of the thing because frankly I'm not that interested. Consider that a victory if you'd like.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you mean me, I was trying to make clear that I didn't think that having proselytization as a highest priority was a condemnation.
From someone who values respecting other human beings (at least, your own version of that idea-and really, all any of us have is our own version) as the highest thing, or at least higher than proesltizing, isn't it in fact a criticism/condemnation, kmbboots?
If I'm incorrect about the hiearchy involved, let me know.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'll take Scott's flash-bang subtle hint and go have some Newman's Own Marinara and some cheese ravioli for lunch Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knock it off Scott, I'm hungry and I can't go home for lunch for another 47 minutes! And then I'll have to feed John first.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, Just asking for one. It can't be that hard to find. Do a search with my username and "kat" for the text. It really shouldn't be too hard to find examples of what you are talking about.
I believe that you are lying about me and my behavior.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you mean me, I was trying to make clear that I didn't think that having proselytization as a highest priority was a condemnation.
From someone who values respecting other human beings (at least, your own version of that idea-and really, all any of us have is our own version) as the highest thing, or at least higher than proesltizing, isn't it in fact a criticism/condemnation, kmbboots?
If I'm incorrect about the hiearchy involved, let me know.
Only if I thought that other people had to have the same priorities that I do.
And I can't have lunch yet either. And the lunch I brought is boring.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Knock it off Scott, I'm hungry and I can't go home for lunch for another 47 minutes! And then I'll have to feed John first.
Incidentally, dkw, all of my kids loved spicy things when they were John's age. We didn't give them much-- a dash of guacamole on the end of the a baby spoon, maybe a bit of salsa on the fingertip.
They ate it up. Well, rather, gummed it up. Tongued it to death. Whatever.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: In other words, you are judging missionaries based on other salesmen and non-missionaries. I think you should refrain from the condemnation until you have some evidence or experience with actual LDS missionaries. For those who support his comments, I suggest the same.
I "support his comments," but don't think they amount to condemnation. On this board alone, we've had several ex-missionaries say that it's more important to them to baptize the dead than to respect their wishes when they were alive -- and, given their worldview, I think this is perfectly understandable. By the same token, Rakeesh has in this thread said that he thinks missionary work, motivated as it is by a certain purity of intention, should not be compared to "sales," and found the comparison offensive; clearly, he thinks certain behaviors are excusable when performed by missionaries motivated by higher desires that would be inexcusable otherwise.
That's not a bad thing. Neither is it inconsistent. But it IS, then, the case that missionaries (and baptizers, since I believe that's the thread in specific that Squicky was thinking about) can as a general rule value conversion above respect for someone's wishes.
You can assert that since Squicky clearly feels that this is the "wrong" order for those priorities that he is condemning you. But if YOU don't feel that those priorities are in the wrong order, I don't see how it's really fair for you to be upset by what amounts to this statement:
"You have values that are not my own, and I think they are often wrong."
Heck, I might even get that as a bumper sticker.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
So you're not critical of assigning a higher priority to proseltizing than 'respecting other human beings'? If your answer to that question is 'no', then I've been mistaken about your opinions on this issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
John is still a breastmilk-only baby, but he at least doesn't seem to mind spicy things secondhand. In fact, I think I shall have enchilladas for lunch.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the same token, Rakeesh has in this thread said that he thinks missionary work, motivated as it is by a certain purity of intention, should not be compared to "sales," and found the comparison offensive; clearly, he thinks certain behaviors are excusable when performed by missionaries motivated by higher desires that would be inexcusable otherwise.
Here we swim into subjective waters again. If something were 'inexcusable' (to me, at least) for a non-benevolent intention, I don't think it would be a good thing if done for a benevolent intention, or necessarily even excusable. But also as has been shown, I have less of a dislike for these sorts of things than many do around here-both before and after my own experience with them.
quote:But it IS, then, the case that missionaries (and baptizers, since I believe that's the thread in specific that Squicky was thinking about) can as a general rule value conversion above respect for someone's wishes.
Sure, they can but that does not necessarily mean they do. Some of them do, certainly, that's unarguable-and in the case of specific wishes, such as clear signs and clear statements of will about baptism post-death, I believe inexcusable.
Why it's acceptable to paint missionaries with so broad a brush, when such coloring would be inexcusable when applied to other large groups of disparate people, I still don't understand.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See what Tom said. Because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that I am condemning them by identifying what they believe. When I say that Rivka (okay if I use you for an example, Rivka?) doesn't believe that Jesus is God that is not a condemnation - even though I don't agree with her. She should correct my if I am mistaken, but I don't think she would be insulted.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why it's acceptable to paint missionaries with so broad a brush, when such coloring would be inexcusable when applied to other large groups of disparate people, I still don't understand.
I'm going to venture a guess: missionary work, by its very nature, paints everyone with the same broad brush. Individual missionaries, like individual unbelievers, don't need saving -- but while you're always running into individual missionaries and/or individual unbelievers, how often do you find yourself responding to them AS missionaries or AS unbelievers? (In fact, I think the odds that this can happen are inversely proportional to the number of times you run into them in that specific capacity, and directly proportional to the number of times you run into them in another capacity. In this case, Mormon missionaries in particular have difficulty because they officially don't HAVE any other capacity while they're missionaries, and are actually discouraged from it.) While I think it's never a bad thing to deal with individuals rather than groups, I think that's as often a symptom of individuals interacting AS groups as it is simple prejudice.
Another hypothetical bumper sticker: Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I vote for them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it IS, then, the case that missionaries (and baptizers..) as a general rule value conversion above respect for someone's wishes.
:teeth grind:
Except actual conversion by proxy baptism DOES NOT EXIST within Mormon theology. The ordinance does not convert dead people. Within the Mormon POV, you're not a Baptist spirit one day, and POOF! when someone is baptised for you, you convert to Mormonism.
Conversion happens within one's heart.
I know that Tom knows that Mormons value agency in the next life as well as this one. I think, however, in the writing of his post, he may have inadvertently used some terms that mean different things to me than they do to him. In the interest of making muddy waters clear, I'm writing this post as means to make sure everyone understands this Mormon's perspective:
True conversion cannot be forced, either here or in the next life, according to Mormon theology. Let me set that as my ground rule for this ongoing conversation. Mormon missionaries and Mormon geneology workers should respect the expressed wishes of the people (dead and living) they work with.
From this standpoint, Mormon theology values personal wishes ABOVE potential conversion.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In other words, you are judging missionaries based on other salesmen and non-missionaries. I think you should refrain from the condemnation until you have some evidence or experience with actual LDS missionaries. For those who support his comments, I suggest the same.
I also suggest that your agreement in the condemnation of missionaries is coloring your impression of Squicky's behavior.
I am basing my judgments on the statements of former LDS missionaries on this site, not on any experiences with salesmen or any other kinds of missionaries. I don't condem missionaries. . . I understand that they feel what they're doing is ordered by God, and I can't condem them for that anymore than I'd condem rivka for not going to a BBQ joint with me.
And I think your history with Squicky is coloring your impression of his behavior, so we're even. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I forgot. The second reason why I continue to return to Hatrack -- besides thoughtful discussion from intelligent people -- is all this drama! My life is pretty dull generally and these little feuds and occasional temper tantrums are really adding some spice to my boring existence.
Keep up the good work, folks!
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:John is still a breastmilk-only baby, but he at least doesn't seem to mind spicy things secondhand. In fact, I think I shall have enchilladas for lunch.
...
I don't have anything to say to that.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am uncomfortable with being approached in a practiced, mannered way about this topic. This has to do in good part with my history, and that isn't something I'd choose to share at this point here.
CT, it had never occurred to me before reading the quote above, and I'd be willing to bet that it only popped into my head now due to by brain being addled from lack of sleep, but was MOTO an early sign-on of yours?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was never MOTO. For my first 5 or so years I was only "ClaudiaTherese," then I switched to my RL name for awhile, then back again. Other than that, just throwaways -- pretty clearly me and clearly unmemorable in context. I built no relationships under any names but this and my RL own.
But now you've got me curious. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah ... I'd forgotten Glaphyra the Righteous (named after my saint of my saint day, IIRC). Okay, sure, but I made it very clear that it was me throughout, right?
If I became friendly with someone and wanted to share what I believed with them and they did not convert, would I treat them differently?
If so, I am being deceitful and am not a true friend.
However if I treat them with the same love and respect I did before I even shared my beliefs with them, then I believe it is ok.
I still receive letters from people in Brazil that I got to know and never joined the church. They let me know how their families are doing, and ask me to write them back letting them know how I am. I respected them and their beliefs, and love them with all my heart. They are great people and friends. I was not going to shun anyone for not converting or wanting to hear what I had to say.
Kindness is never a bad thing. Just because I put a white shirt, tie, and name tag on that has the name of the church I belong to does not mean my only purpose of being there is to convert someone. I went there to serve people. And we all know there are a TON of ways to serve people.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Just because I put a white shirt, tie, and name tag on that has the name of the church I belong to does not mean my only purpose of being there is to convert someone. I went there to serve people. And we all know there are a TON of ways to serve people.
This, I think, is an awesome sentiment. In fact, it's one of the things about organized religion that I can really get behind - the desire to help others.
Unfortunately, it also leads to one of the things that makes me sad about organized religion - the people who are claiming to want to do good unto others, who are actually primarily concerned with themselves.
In the case of Mormon missionaries, I think that the fact that they are young men is very telling. I am not making a judgment about all missionaries, only relating the fact that when I was in my teens and early twenties, my worldview was rather limited and my experience and wisdom were similarly lacking.
I'm older and wiser (hopefully) now, and I look back on the way I thought and the things I did and shake my head at my own lack of insight. This is one of the reasons why, when a couple of fresh-faced young men come to my door and want to share with me all the secrets of the universe and the ultimate meaning of life, I smile and shake my head and politely send them on their way.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:when a couple of fresh-faced young men come to my door and want to share with me all the secrets of the universe and the ultimate meaning of life, I smile and shake my head and politely send them on their way.
Believe me, I know what you mean. God sends us out young, inexperienced, and green precisely to show the power of His message. It's not that the missionaries know much-- though you might be surprised at how much a lot of them do know. It's not the messenger, it's the message.
Most missionaries don't deserve your patronistic attitude.
Weren't some folks just arguing in the recent fanfiction thread that we treat people according to their exhibited maturity, not their expressed age?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm older and wiser (hopefully) now, and I look back on the way I thought and the things I did and shake my head at my own lack of insight. This is one of the reasons why, when a couple of fresh-faced young men come to my door and want to share with me all the secrets of the universe and the ultimate meaning of life, I smile and shake my head and politely send them on their way.
It's been my experience that, when faced with an individual (or pair), it's generally unwise without any other sort of information aside from age to judge their wisdom, insight, intelligence or knowledge.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When I say that Rivka (okay if I use you for an example, Rivka?) doesn't believe that Jesus is God that is not a condemnation - even though I don't agree with her. She should correct my if I am mistaken, but I don't think she would be insulted.
Um, sure, go ahead.
Why on earth would I be insulted? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wisdom comes with age. I consider that a truism. Sure, some old people are not very wise, and some young people are wise beyond their years.
I'm not really an old fart yet, but I've been 20, and I know what it's like. I know how sure of yourself you are at that age. I know how 20 year old guys think they're invincible, how they think they know what's what. I also know, now that I'm older, how much a lot of that is BS.
I also know that at 20, I was full of religious fervor. It's great for those guys that they're in the same place I was. It was a good ride, while it lasted. I consider myself to have learned from that experience, and realized the error of my ways.
From my perspective, they haven't had the time and experience yet to fully appreciate and think through all that they're professing to Know (with an uppercase K). Call that patronizing if you like, but in my view, it's good natured experience.
To me, it's like when a teenager falls in love, and thinks that nobody understands them, and that nobody else could possibly feel as strongly and as purely as they do about their true love. It isn't until you get older that you see that other people have indeed loved as deeply as you, other people have felt the same way, and sometimes what you thought was love might have been infatuation.
That teenager can tell me all about love, and how deeply they feel, and how true it is, and tell me about all the warm feelings and strange new thoughts and new outlook on the world. They are being honest and trying to share with me a wonderful experience that they're currently having. That's great, but I've had it. I understand already, even if they think I don't.
I also have more than a decade more perspective, and hopefully wisdom on the subject, which no amount of intelligence, insight, or knowledge on their part can possibly impart. They simply haven't had the same experiences that I have, which offer a whole new level of insight, appreciation, and outlook.
They might be the smartest, wisest, most spiritual and dedicated young adults that ever walked the earth, but unless one of them is personally the risen Christ, I can honestly say that nothing they have to tell me about their faith is going to make me into a believer.
-Edited for spelling
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Siddhārtha Gautama was 29 when he renounced worldly possesions and only 35 when he attained enlightenment.
"Experienced" is another matter. As a wise person said, experience is the thing that you only get shortly after you needed it most...
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice post, Geraine. I can honestly say that almost all of the LDS missionaries we knew exhibited such sincere enthusiasm and genuine caring. One of the first pair who visited us made my teeth itch with his self-righteous, condescending manner (he was the senior missionary, too, which is odd) but luckily the other one was just the sweetest most sincere guy, as were the majority of te others.
So, in my limited experience, LDS missionaries definitely beat the curve of 19 year old jerkiness as it exists in the general population. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They might be the smartest, wisest, most spiritual and dedicated young adults that ever walked the earth, but unless one of them is personally the risen Christ, I can honestly say that nothing they have to tell me about their faith is going to make me into a believer.
Well, if you're close-minded enough to have certainties about what people you've never met might say about their faith and its impact on you, then I can understand your reasoning.
When I say 'close-minded' it's of course a bit of a criticism, but it's not meant to be snarky. I just thought I'd point that out. I do believe it's a bit close-minded to make up your mind about the words of someone you've never met, before you meet them. It's one thing to not want spend time listening to missionaries, I don't consider that close-minded, I just consider that someone who'd rather do something else with their time, but to be certain like you profess to be?
quote:To me, it's like when a teenager falls in love, and thinks that nobody understands them, and that nobody else could possibly feel as strongly and as purely as they do about their true love. It isn't until you get older that you see that other people have indeed loved as deeply as you, other people have felt the same way, and sometimes what you thought was love might have been infatuation.
Actually, your example here works to prove the point I was making earlier. Sure, when viewed as a group I believe most teenage loves aren't going to be the deep, lifelong, passionate and sincere committment and love that many teens might think it is. But I'm not going to think of a specific couple, "Not gonna last," or, "Not the real thing, you're just kids," just because they're kids. Because sometimes it is the real enchilada.
quote:I'm not really an old fart yet, but I've been 20, and I know what it's like. I know how sure of yourself you are at that age. I know how 20 year old guys think they're invincible, how they think they know what's what. I also know, now that I'm older, how much a lot of that is BS.
I also know that at 20, I was full of religious fervor. It's great for those guys that they're in the same place I was. It was a good ride, while it lasted. I consider myself to have learned from that experience, and realized the error of my ways.
I wasn't sure of myself when I was 20. I mean, not in general. Some things, some particular things (religion wasn't one of them) I was sure of, but not many. And while I was more self-centered then than I am now, I didn't feel invincible, either. Maybe it was just insight, or maybe it was because I'd been run over by a car while bike-riding back in my teens, but I didn't feel invincible. And I've never been "full of religious fervor", at least not in the way I think you mean it, but I'd have to say that I was probably the least full of it ever shortly after high school.
This is what I'm talking about.
---------
quote:There's also a big difference between what you know at 18, and what you know at 33. Even for Jesus.
From a Christian perspective, wouldn't you naturally believe that Jesus Christ had a heckuva line on wisdom, perspective, and insight even at 18? I mean, come on, MightyCow.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Half of all teenagers have relationships in high school. Between ten and twenty percent will marry their high school sweetheart.
That means that between 5 and 10 percent of the population marry the person they date in high school. I think it's very arrogant to tell them it isn't real.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When I say that Rivka (okay if I use you for an example, Rivka?) doesn't believe that Jesus is God that is not a condemnation - even though I don't agree with her. She should correct my if I am mistaken, but I don't think she would be insulted.
Um, sure, go ahead.
Why on earth would I be insulted?
I don't think you would be. You are wise enough to know that people can disagree about even something important without it being a condemnation. That's why I picked you for my example.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
