What's Wrong With Missionaries?

[nutshell]

Shall I quote my self?
I shal.



And I'll do it again.

Your basing these "rules" on your personal opinion and stating that what is good for you is good for the whole. As in Solon's case, this is a logical flaw.

We have the freedom to go door to door. You have the freedom to say no. Not too complicated.

 

[SoyLeche]

D&C 123: 12

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded• by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

I post this in response mostly to the assertion made before that people will naturally gravitate towards what is right for them. I firmly believe that the quoted passage was given by God to a Prophet. You may disagree, but in my mind, this trumps any argument that you can come up with. Just so you know where I am coming from.

 

[DeepShadow]

DeepShadow, and I quote you: " Our church does not teach it; I know of a few missionaries who practiced it, and they were censured for it by church authorities. Some were sent early for it! We do everything humanly possible to eliminate this kind of practice."

Case closed I believe.

Hardly. If I understand you correctly, you're assuming the damage done by 0.1% outweighs any benefit done by the 99.9%. Good luck arguing that, it's a combination of the fallacy of small sample and thin edge of the wedge, and two fallacies don't make a truth. Also, if you're accepting my statements above, you can't attribute such tactics to the church, but to rogue elements within it. Nor does this have anything to do with missionaries going to Japan--that's a church decision, not an individual one.

So...why do you think we should stop sending out missionaries because one in a thousand of them uses improper practices?

 

[DeepShadow]

Do not annoy others with your religon.
Do not annoy others with your religon.
And finely. Do not annoy others with your religon.

But who decides what's "annoying?" Usually it's the person who's being annoyed. Frankly, some people would rather not hear about religion, ever. Because you don't know a particular person's preferences, this would mean never bring it up, period.

And if no one ever started conversations on the topic of religion, no one would ever ask about anyone else's religion, or start a discussion on religion in general, so these:

Only talk about your religon when asked.
Only talk about your religon when a a discution or debate about your religon or religon in genrel.

...would never happen. That's what I mean by "taken together," the rules separately are decent guidelines--I and many other LDS follow them in that sense--but as codified rules they overlap so as to exclude all conversation on the topic of religion.

 

[s2a]

The Conspirator said:

"

When tryuing to spread your religon, please fallow these rules.
Do not go door to door.
Do not hand out pamplits.
Do not hand out books.
Do not prech to non belevers.
Do not annoy others with your religon.
Only talk about your religon when asked.
Only talk about your religon when a a discution or debate about your religon or religon in genrel.
Do not annoy others with your religon.
Do not annoy others with your religon.
And finely. Do not annoy others with your religon."

Hiya.

It is my intent that my commentary be construed as constructive qualification of your objections ( and proffered "suggestions") regarding inevitably active religious proselytization.

I don't know if you are US citizen or not (your REF profile does not specify), but know that rights to freely expressed religious opinion and observance (by rite or ritual) are in large part established within the essence of founding constitutional principles themselves. Also know that I am an atheist that considers religion as bunk. Initial caveats noted - let's move on...

It's fair to say that within the US, certain Christian sects proactively proselytize their religious beliefs. No matter where you live within our borders, it's a virtual certainty that self-professed Christian adherents represent the overwhelming majority of religious "believers" of some Biblically defined/revealed/professed...supernatural god.

You and I may regard such claims as nonsensical wishful thinking and silly superstition - but citizens of our nation are not only entitled to embrace/adhere to any mythology and folklore that pleases their sensibilities, but (the practice of) such "beliefs" are substantially protected and guaranteed within the Constitution and it's Amendments. Our Constitution does not provide either protection nor guaranteed avoidance from - the (annoying) proselytizing efforts of such untested religious adherents. Just as you may rightfully choose to publicly proclaim the inherent absurdities of belief in invisible supernatural deities/spirits/forces within a vacuum of reason and critical thinking..."believers" retain equal rights to attest to, and advertise their own rationalized convictions of "truth".

It is...the "American Way".

"Activists" are self-engaged to "annoy" others. One of my favored bumper-sticker aphorisms: "If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention". Christians believe that they have an "answer" for the outrage expressed by those that do care to pay attention (and for those that do not - the "fools and children" caveat applies here).

Of course it's "annoying" to endure the overwhelming dominance of Sunday TV programming devoted to Christian superstitious beliefs. Of course it's annoying to endure anecdotal, extraordinary, and ridiculous claims, of "miraculous" divine interventions (or supernaturally purposed/attributed, cause/effect circumstantial outcomes); or compulsions to proffer insincere pleasantries to uninvited peddlers of superstitious beliefs at the literal threshold of your home. For all I know, you may retain the same feelings towards religion than you might entertain towards trick-or-treating children knocking at your door on Halloween.

Please bear in mind that certain Christian sects are compelled by the very texts that are predicate to their deeply held superstitions ...to "save" you from yourself. Such adherents are (literally) "commanded" to proselytize their superstitious beliefs to any and all "unbelievers" (just comfort yourself in the fact that most other religions do not place such an onus upon their pious adherents to "sell" their spiritual "revelations of truth" to the great unwashed).

Part of the responsibility and duty of patriotic citizenship is to not only peaceably endure such unwelcome "missionary" intrusions into your heathenous hearth and home...but in effectively lent critical rebuttal to evince a greater and loftier goal in promoting freethought, reason, and critical evaluation to extraordinary claims utterly lacking in any extraordinary evidence(s).

To protest and plead that adherents of superstitious beliefs simply cease and desist in their heartfelt (and dogmatically imposed) proselytizing efforts - merely to spare you a moment's annoyance of inconsequential inconvenience, or proffered disingenuous pleasantry of rejection - avoids both a fundamental point of religious freedom, and misses an opportunity to enlighten others that; charity, compassion, empathy, morality, honesty, sincerity, duty, honor, commitment, and love...are not the exclusive claims/rights of any religious adherent's thoughts/beliefs...or that ultimate "trust" in an invisible, supernatural chauffeur in one's life makes more sense than driving to the destination yourself.

Principled ideas outlive religious jihads. Facts always overcome baseless/spurious claims. Patience always mitigates passion.

Light a candle. Lead by example. Don't waste time and effort in merely cursing the darkness.

 

[s2a]

DeepShadow said:

"Perhaps 'missionary' is an outdated title...but then if we used another, people would accuse us to trying to hide the fact that we are missionaries!"

Hmmmm.

"missionary" - noun:
"1) One who is sent on a mission, especially one sent to do religious or charitable work in a territory or foreign country.
2) One who attempts to persuade or convert others to a particular program, doctrine, or set of principles; a propagandist."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

1) someone who attempts to convert others to a particular doctrine or program
2) someone sent on a mission--especially a religious or charitable mission to a foreign country
Source: WordNet ® 2.0

Do these above definitions accurately reflect the ultimate mission/goals of religious "missionaries"? If not, in what way are they inaccurate or "outdated" in application?

Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me...

You also inquired...

So...why do you think we should stop sending out missionaries because one in a thousand of them uses improper practices?

If the question is more philosophical in general application/inquiry (as opposed to any qualified/specified "broken rules/practices" aspects), then I would answer that "missionaries" of any religion typically promote unenlightening myth/superstition...and unsubstantiated "beliefs" in/of "things" - unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, and unfalsifiable. In so doing, religious "missionaries" promote extraordinary claims of "ultimate" supernatural reward/retribution that are impossible to verify, substantiate, or empirically demonstrate within any applicable standards of reasonable doubt ("Just believe...or else...").

Appeals to emotion (and/or unpleasant consequence - Appeal to Force) are fallacious in nature...and arguments predicated upon such fallacies promote illogical/irrational thoughts and conclusions. Religious beliefs/adherence require specified elements of emotional acceptance of supernatural cause/effect explanations that can not be substantiated beyond anecdotal (and untestable) testimonies of personalized faith. At some point, in all religion/spiritualism/mythology/superstition/supernaturalism - "true" adherents must abandon particular reason and rational/critical thought, in order to accept a basic (albeit empirically unsubstantiated) premise to be unalterably/irrevocably "true". No rational, reasoned, thoughtful person would buy (sight-unseen) a car, boat, or house in this manner...and as any informed and skeptical consumer advocate would espouse for an informed and objective evaluation of claims offered regarding any product of intrinsic value...it defies our own capacities as an enlightened species of natural selection to accept any notion purely on a "trust me, you'll love it" basis.

What the hell is the point of an evolved intellect and capacity for reason in any species if the first order of "salvation" calls upon prospective adherents to utterly abandon and dispose of those qualities that make us unique and separate from all other earthbound species? What possible beneficial gain can be expected from any species that actively seeks to promote ignorance and fear of invisible/inexplicable "forces" that may or may not choose to control and interfere in our individual destinies? Is wishful thinking to supplant reason, critical thought, and empirical fact as a more favorable perspective of the cosmos? Is superstition/myth/folklore to be our penultimate expression of existence? Are we no better than that? Or are we still the cavemen that fear (or revere, or worship) the darkness and bright points of light in the night sky? How long must we look to mouldy manuscripts of millennia-old scrivenings from political/religious despots before we unloose the shackles of superstition and ritualistic ceremonies of appeasement to "the gods"?

Religion (primarily Christianity, but others are guilty as well) has done little to promote (and expended almost everything to suppress/discount/dismiss) scientific discovery, intellectual enlightenment, individualistic free-thought, and alternative philosophical perspectives...ever since mankind possessed the capacity to walk, talk, and eventually transcribe human thoughts and deeds into pictures and words.

What's wrong with evangelistic, religious-based, "missionary" work?

At it's core...everything.

It's not reason that makes some people fear the dark, resist progressive change, or avoid/ridicule/deny the unknown...

 

[The Conspirator]

But who decides what's "annoying?" Usually it's the person who's being annoyed.

If a came to your door and tried to give you a pamphlet or a book about my philosophy and tried to get you to abandon your religion and come to mt philosophy, you would be annoyed. That is annoying. The people here join to talk about religion, talking about religion here is very different than going out and handing out pamphlets and book and trying to start conversations about religion in order to try and spread your religion.

Frankly, some people would rather not hear about religion, ever. Because you don't know a particular person's preferences, this would mean never bring it up, period.

No it dosen't, if some one won'ts to know about your religon they will ask.

And if no one ever started conversations on the topic of religion, no one would ever ask about anyone else's religion, or start a discussion on religion in general, so these:


...would never happen. That's what I mean by "taken together," the rules separately are decent guidelines--I and many other LDS follow them in that sense--but as codified rules they overlap so as to exclude all conversation on the topic of religion.

That is ridiculous, this whose forum fall under
"Only talk about your religon when asked.
Only talk about your religon when a a discution or debate about your religon or religon in genrel."

If some one is interested in your religion, they will ask, no were have I said don't ask about the religopns of others. And there are plenty of conversations that about your religion and or religion in general.

 

[SoyLeche]

If a came to your door and tried to give you a pamphlet or a book about my philosophy and tried to get you to abandon your religion and come to mt philosophy, you would be annoyed. That is annoying. The people here join to talk about religion, talking about religion here is very different than going out and handing out pamphlets and book and trying to start conversations about religion in order to try and spread your religion.

If you came by once, no, it wouldn't be annoying. I'd appreciate that you were willing to give of your time to try and bring me something that made you happy. If you came by many times, even after I had said that I was uninterested and didn't want you to come back, that would start getting annoying.

 

[SoyLeche]

If you came by once, no, it wouldn't be annoying. I'd appreciate that you were willing to give of your time to try and bring me something that made you happy. If you came by many times, even after I had said that I was uninterested and didn't want you to come back, that would start getting annoying.

Oh, and I'd invite you in for cookies and juice, so come on by :bounce

 

[DeepShadow]

Same here. That's the rub, innit? Not everyone is annoyed by the same thing.

I've welcomed quite a few missionaries from other churches into my home, and I've had pleasant conversations with them. The few times I was annoyed, it was only with their timing--hence my statement above that as a missionary, we always kept that first contact short and--if they were interested--made an appointment for a better time.

I also think that a lot of the success of the LDS missionaries is in that they don't specifically try to "get [others] to abandon [their] religion and come to [our] philosophy." Mostly we try to share the Book of Mormon, and other things that have blessed our lives. We encourage people to add these things to their existing beliefs, and use what works for them. I can happily say that--as a missionary--the only thing I ever encouraged someone to stop was smoking.

Of course, people who believe in the Book of Mormon are going to be inclined to join our church, because nine times out of ten they get flak from their church of choice. I often wonder how many fewer converts we'd get if other churches ever let up in that regard.

 

[The Conspirator]

Your missing my point.
Worship what you will but don't bather others with it! If your in a discussion or a debate about religion, your religion or something that relates to religion or your religion, thats one thing. But going out and annoying (and yes your are annoying them) others is something completely different. If they are interested, they will come to you, they will get the books, they will read out it, they will ask, if they are not, no matter how polite they act, you are annoying them. They will not listen to you, they will not reed your book and they will not like you.

 

[Sunstone]

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

 

[SoyLeche]

Your missing my point.
Worship what you will but don't bather others with it! If your in a discussion or a debate about religion, your religion or something that relates to religion or your religion, thats one thing. But going out and annoying (and yes your are annoying them) others is something completely different. If they are interested, they will come to you, they will get the books, they will read out it, they will ask, if they are not, no matter how polite they act, you are annoying them. They will not listen to you, they will not reed your book and they will not like you.

You see, I have been on a Mission. I have knocked on doors. I have had people want to talk to me, and even have accepted my message with such an aproach, so your claim that people won't listen is flat out wrong.

 

[nutshell]

Your missing my point.
Worship what you will but don't bather others with it! If your in a discussion or a debate about religion, your religion or something that relates to religion or your religion, thats one thing. But going out and annoying (and yes your are annoying them) others is something completely different. If they are interested, they will come to you, they will get the books, they will read out it, they will ask, if they are not, no matter how polite they act, you are annoying them. They will not listen to you, they will not reed your book and they will not like you.

Once again you are attributing your person reaction to the whole. Believe it or not, there are others who are grateful a missionary knocked on their door. In fact, if it hadn't been for missionaries knocking on the door of my grandma's house forty years ago, I probably wouldn't be in this lovely forum having this conversation with you. The only thing my grandma knew about LDS was from Zane Grey books and what he thought of Mormons was pretty negative. So, you see, unless it was for a dedicated missionary who knocked on doors when there was nothing better to do, my grandmother, and me, by extension, would not have found the Truth that we believe in.

 

[nutshell]

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

What you call "sales" I call an invitation. Knocking on doors is not an effective method of doing just about anything. For LDS missionaries, it is usually a last resort. When I wasn't teaching lessons, meeting members, doing charity, or teaching English, I ususally preferred to approach people on city streets than knock on doors. It was much more successful (successful being defined as actually having a conversation with someone rather than a quickly shut door).

 

[Solon]

Hardly. If I understand you correctly, you're assuming the damage done by 0.1% outweighs any benefit done by the 99.9%. Good luck arguing that, it's a combination of the fallacy of small sample and thin edge of the wedge, and two fallacies don't make a truth. Also, if you're accepting my statements above, you can't attribute such tactics to the church, but to rogue elements within it. Nor does this have anything to do with missionaries going to Japan--that's a church decision, not an individual one.

So...why do you think we should stop sending out missionaries because one in a thousand of them uses improper practices?

Seems a right and proper thing to do, withdrawing them all. For no matter how many that are discovered using hard sell tactics, it seems logical to suppose there are many to use same and are not found out. I think your Church needs to revise its missionary policies. As we say here. ' It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel'

 

[SoyLeche]

Seems a right and proper thing to do, withdrawing them all. For no matter how many that are discovered using hard sell tactics, it seems logical to suppose there are many to use same and are not found out. I think your Church needs to revise its missionary policies. As we say here. ' It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel'

Our church's missionary program is one of the most effective in the world, and keeps getting better.

 

[DeepShadow]

Your missing my point.

It's possible. I'll try again

But going out and annoying (and yes your are annoying them) others is something completely different. If they are interested, they will come to you, they will get the books, they will read out it, they will ask, if they are not, no matter how polite they act, you are annoying them. They will not listen to you, they will not reed your book and they will not like you.

Let me see if I have this straight. I used to think that the only people who were annoyed by my knocking on their door were the people who showed annoyance--the people who acted rudely and/or slammed the door in my face.

Are you saying that the people who invited me in, made appointments to meet with me later, brought friends who had questions, and had two-hour discussions with me were annoyed, too? The people who thanked me for coming, who invited me back time and time again, who cried when I left, even the ones who took me out to dinner and went out of their way to help me overcome my fear of giving blood, all those people were annoyed by me knocking on their door?

Because there are those people in the world, too, you know. All of those were real experiences I had with people during my mission--specifically people who I found by knocking on doors. None of them ever joined my church, and when we parted, we did so as close friends. Who are you to say that they weren't sincere?

I think you're still expecting everyone to act like you. Sure, when the missionaries come to your door, go ahead and slam it. But when they knock on your neighbor's door, and he lets them in with a smile and chats with them, are you going to go to your neighbor's house and tell him he ought to be annoyed, that he ought to slam the door instead?

Perhaps you know that there are people who aren't like you, but you think they are rare enough not to count? Perhaps you think that we ought to deprive such people from hours of pleasure with new friends just to spare you twenty seconds of annoyance?

Because that's what you're suggesting: we should stop the missionary program because in annoys you and people like you for all the time it takes to slam a door, while at the same time depriving others of the opportunity to make new friends and spend time with them. Is that really fair?!

 

[DeepShadow]

Seems a right and proper thing to do, withdrawing them all. For no matter how many that are discovered using hard sell tactics, it seems logical to suppose there are many to use same and are not found out. I think your Church needs to revise its missionary policies. As we say here. ' It only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel'

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!)

 

[DeepShadow]

Come to think of it, Solon, your argument about removing them all still makes me think about cars. Should we outlaw cars because a few people are misusing them? After all, we'll never catch all the bad drivers out there, and they kill people. Isn't it better for no one to drive at all?