What's Wrong With Missionaries?

[DeepShadow]

I wonder whether, with modern advertising, if door to door "sales" of religion are still the most effective way to promote a message?

Far from it! We use television commercials, visitors centers at historical sites, and referrals from members for most of our missionary work. Door-to-door and street contacting are a last resort, just to be thorough.

See my post earlier about the effectiveness of these methods. Door-to-door is about dead last for effectiveness.

 

[Solon]

The problem is that the numbers say otherwise. As many others have attested on this and other threads, hard-sell missionary work doesn't win converts. The few 'bad apples' I cited were notorious for their low retention rates. The growth of our church suggests that they aren't spoiling the barrel. Quite the opposite, they stick out like sore thumbs!

(BTW, thank you very much for engaging in debate instead of mudslinging. My respect for you has increased as you have tried to put more effort into this. We may never agree, but frubals to you anyway!)

Thanks man, I also appreciate your position, which you have argued for in a manner of great tolerance and understanding.

Solon

 

[Aqualung]

If they are interested, they will come to you, they will get the books, they will read out it, they will ask,

As an average, non-LDS person, I had no idea how to "go to them" or "get their books" as you insist I would have done. I had to wait for the missionaries to come to my door if I wanted anything answered (which I did).

 

[s2a]

Evidently, I've managed to rate almost everyone's "ignore" list of prospectively offensive members.

Apparently, even personally directed commentary and inquiry are no longer worthy of pointed reply or rebuttal.

Maybe the existentialists are correct after all...;-)

Time for a cocktail...

(Ignore my last comment...oh wait...nevermind).

 

[nutshell]

While reading my scriptures today I came across this verse and it reminded me of this thread.
It's 1 Corinthians 1:18
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
This is just one verse in a larger discourse about preaching the gospel, but I thought it was appropriate.

 

[No*s]

I'm not LDS, but I'll stick my neck out here. Religious folk with an exclusive religion believe what they believe is true (myself included). They, next, believe that it completes people and that people are better off with it (either now, in the hereafter, or both). Lastly, out of good will, they go tell others. There's nothing inherently coercive or dishonest about missionary efforts.

Further, we all act as missionaries at some points. When we explain our ideas and hope that the other fellow adopts them, we use the same basic principles. When we do this on a semi-regular basis, either by seeding or by blatantly starting it up, then we are being missionaries without the formal title. After all, everyone has a pet subject (with varying levels of assertiveness) that they seek to put out, whether politics, religion, or something else. We all find value in our beliefs and want to have others share them.

Which is worse, then, someone who cares about others and seeks to explain what they believe is true, or someone who simply doesn't care and would rather let everyone go their merry little way, even if telling (not forcing) them a better way (in their opinion) is an option? Which is more human? I would dare say that it's the missionary efforts.

 

[darkwaldo]

I'm not LDS, but I'll stick my neck out here. Religious folk with an exclusive religion believe what they believe is true (myself included). They, next, believe that it completes people and that people are better off with it (either now, in the hereafter, or both). Lastly, out of good will, they go tell others. There's nothing inherently coercive or dishonest about missionary efforts.

Further, we all act as missionaries at some points. When we explain our ideas and hope that the other fellow adopts them, we use the same basic principles. When we do this on a semi-regular basis, either by seeding or by blatantly starting it up, then we are being missionaries without the formal title. After all, everyone has a pet subject (with varying levels of assertiveness) that they seek to put out, whether politics, religion, or something else. We all find value in our beliefs and want to have others share them.

Which is worse, then, someone who cares about others and seeks to explain what they believe is true, or someone who simply doesn't care and would rather let everyone go their merry little way, even if telling (not forcing) them a better way (in their opinion) is an option? Which is more human? I would dare say that it's the missionary efforts.

Frubals too you! This was a very convincing post for missionary work. As of now though, I really find missionaries to be a nuscance. The missionaries I've met were very pushy and don't seem to be interested in anything I would have to say when I give them the benefit of the doubt and listen to them.

 

[James the Persian]

I'm not LDS, but I'll stick my neck out here. Religious folk with an exclusive religion believe what they believe is true (myself included). They, next, believe that it completes people and that people are better off with it (either now, in the hereafter, or both). Lastly, out of good will, they go tell others. There's nothing inherently coercive or dishonest about missionary efforts.

Further, we all act as missionaries at some points. When we explain our ideas and hope that the other fellow adopts them, we use the same basic principles. When we do this on a semi-regular basis, either by seeding or by blatantly starting it up, then we are being missionaries without the formal title. After all, everyone has a pet subject (with varying levels of assertiveness) that they seek to put out, whether politics, religion, or something else. We all find value in our beliefs and want to have others share them.

Which is worse, then, someone who cares about others and seeks to explain what they believe is true, or someone who simply doesn't care and would rather let everyone go their merry little way, even if telling (not forcing) them a better way (in their opinion) is an option? Which is more human? I would dare say that it's the missionary efforts.

I agree completely. I often find myself in an informal position of being a missionary and I don't believe I've managed to annoy anyone yet, probably because I'm not over-zealously persistent about it. I certainly like to share my beliefs with others when it is appropriate. I don't think I'd ever go door to door and I don't think it's a particularly good way to go about things, but someone approaching me once, having a polite conversation and then going on their way does not offend or annoy me. I am rather perplexed that whenever I say 'I'm not interested' to a Mormon they assume I'm not religious, but then that's probably because I live in the overwhelmingly secular UK. The only missionaries who do annoy me are those who simply won't take no for an answer and keep returning when they aren't welcome. In my experience this has been mainly true of the more aggressive (though by no means all) JW missionaries, some of whom have even used rather underhand tactics on my wife after realising she was a foreigner.

James

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I wouldn't say that there is anything inherently "wrong" with missionaries, per se. What is "wrong" is the fear that one will be socially ostracized because of differing beliefs.



That fear is unfounded when one answers missionaries - and truly, anyone - with compassion and openness. I'd had a lovely conversation with one of those pairs of the "door-to-door" LDS missionaries. They invited me to come to their church, just to be a part. Not once did I ever feel pressured to abandon my meditations, chanting, or the Dharma. I never did go, and I received a phone call once to see if I was still interested in attending a service (I was, BTW, at that time).



That was just one follow-up phone call. I was never harassed, nor put down in any way.



I may be a minority in my part of the world when it comes to religious beliefs, but LDS members are a minority around here, too. This demographic is full of Roman Catholic churches and non-denominational Christian churches. In that, we share a likeness where we can fully relate to each other.



And, on that note of being in the minority in an overwhelmingly Christian part of the world............I am feared at times when I am a "Buddhist", but I am accepted, loved, and welcomed with open arms when I am a "Buddha."





Peace,
Mystic

 

[YmirGF]

What's wrong with missionaries?

Hmmm. Espousing incomplete knowledge as revealed truth for starters? Missionaries are nothing more than well meaning cheerleaders and should be given the same heed.
Pretty to oggle at, but would you really waste 15 minutes of you life talking to one?

What's wrong with missionaries?
Methinks, the problem is in the position itself. Perhaps a bit more eager experimentation would lead them to sexual enlightenment. :bounce

 

[jeffrey]

What's wrong with missionaries?

Hmmm. Espousing incomplete knowledge as revealed truth for starters? Missionaries are nothing more than well meaning cheerleaders and should be given the same heed.
Pretty to oggle at, but would you really waste 15 minutes of you life talking to one?

What's wrong with missionaries?
Methinks, the problem is in the position itself. Perhaps a bit more eager experimentation would lead them to sexual enlightenment. :bounce

They GOT to get this karma working again!!

 

[Quiddity]

What's wrong with missionaries?

Hmmm. Espousing incomplete knowledge as revealed truth for starters? Missionaries are nothing more than well meaning cheerleaders and should be given the same heed.
Pretty to oggle at, but would you really waste 15 minutes of you life talking to one?

What's wrong with missionaries?
Methinks, the problem is in the position itself. Perhaps a bit more eager experimentation would lead them to sexual enlightenment. :bounce

You found all this out because you invited them into your home?
What evil-doers for caring about your soul. Shame on them. :areyoucra

 

[dan]

What's wrong with missionaries?
Methinks, the problem is in the position itself. Perhaps a bit more eager experimentation would lead them to sexual enlightenment. :bounce

Ah, so the essence of the Gospel of Christ is sexual experimentation. I prefer to define myself as something more than a purely sexual being, but perhaps that's jsut what the LDS church teaches.

 

[YmirGF]

You found all this out because you invited them into your home?
What evil-doers for caring about your soul. Shame on them. :areyoucra

I am mildly offended by "what evil-doers for caring about your soul."

Victor, I am throroughly cognisant of the general status of my soul, likely far more so, than you are of your own, otherwise you would not say some of the things that you do. It is as elegant as it is simple.

It is a relatively easy thing to touch and experience what you think of as the soul. Sadly, most of my fellow mortals simply do not understand. What you call "caring" is, to me, incoherent babbling from people who know nothing about such matters. You can quote and trust me, on that score.

When all is said and done, Victor, we will see who has the last laugh. Frankly, I am already grinning from ear to ear.

Ah, so the essence of the Gospel of Christ is sexual experimentation. I prefer to define myself as something more than a purely sexual being, but perhaps that's jsut what the LDS church teaches.

Evidently you are not very good at reading between the lines. The Gospel of the Church's is not necessarily the word of Christ. Prove it otherwise. You simply have faith that the words you understand are accurate. That is no real measure of how accurate they may turn out to be. If you had the faith of a mustard seed, you would not need silly books to unlock your soul. Trust me on that score.

 

[Quiddity]

I am mildly offended by "what evil-doers for caring about your soul."

Victor, I am throroughly cognisant of the general status of my soul, likely far more so, than you are of your own, otherwise you would not say some of the things that you do. It is as elegant as it is simple.

To make such a statement you would have to know me. Apparently you do.
At least you care about your soul.

It is a relatively easy thing to touch and experience what you think of as the soul. Sadly, most of my fellow mortals simply do not understand. What you call "caring" is, to me, incoherent babbling from people who know nothing about such matters. You can quote and trust me, on that score.

I can't help but think that you are talking about a specific group here. It doesn't matter though, the intention is clear to everyone and a simple gesture of "no thanks, I'm not interested", would do. You went further then that and applied it to either a specific group of missionaries or all of them, no matter who they are. What a shame.

When all is said and done, Victor, we will see who has the last laugh. Frankly, I am already grinning from ear to ear.

That's just peachy.

 

[dan]

Evidently you are not very good at reading between the lines. The Gospel of the Church's is not necessarily the word of Christ. Prove it otherwise. You simply have faith that the words you understand are accurate. That is no real measure of how accurate they may turn out to be. If you had the faith of a mustard seed, you would not need silly books to unlock your soul. Trust me on that score.

Trust me on this score, poor user of English, my soul is not unlocked by books, it's unlocked by my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. You're the one condoning the handing over of your spiritual well being to the hormonal whims of your body. Is one really free who has to obey, without question, the fickle urges of his libido?

 

[DTrent]

Missionaries - Very involved people.
Seems most people who condemn them are those who are NOT very involved (if at all) with their own faith/religion. Active people in worshipping their God? You don't see much of that anymore (as prophecied).
I, for one, invite any & all types of missionaries to visit my door. I've had the privilege (& so have they). When they find me, it's an eye-opening discussion, for sure. There's no 'pushing' but a sharing, a questioning, a learning experience...

 

[nutshell]

Ouch. That is certainly a stinging comeback. Whew.
Poor user of English? Son, I have yet to be impressed by the eloquence of your posts.

And yet you seem unable to respond to his question.:sarcastic

 

[barnabus]

Christ commands that we love all people. Now then, if one truly loves someone, he wants what best for them, and at times what is best for a person could involve telling them what you think is best for them. Having said that, why should Christians let people slide into Hell, without saying a word, just because they might offend someone?

 

[dan]

Ouch. That is certainly a stinging comeback. Whew.
Poor user of English? Son, I have yet to be impressed by the eloquence of your posts.

That's because I don't go out on a limb to try to impress everyone with clumsy prose and the self-indulgent trappings of an idiot savant. I do use correct grammar, though.