Are missionaries Arrogrant?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Not individual missionaries, but is the idea of sending missionaries out to convert people arrogrant?

I think it is, namely because most people and cultures have some type of spiritual belief systems, whether they be complex monotheistic religions or more obscure basic spiritual belief systems. To send missionaries out with a message that their belief system is better is arrogrant. As much as they believe, as much faith as they have, they still can't proof that their system of worshipping a Higher Power is any better than the potential converts system, no matter how primitive or archaic or whatever.

Why exactly do missionaries have to continous cover the same ground anyway? Odds are that if I turned the Jehovah Witnesses down six months ago I'll turn them down again tomorrow. When a person turns down a conversation attempt, they should get an X through their name, not a "Call Again Later" note. It's arrogrant in my opinion to keep covering the same ground over and over. The odds are long that a missionaries "irresistable force" is going to wear down a rejected convert's "immovable object". It's arrogrance that keeps sending missionaries out to cover the same groups of people again and again. The missionaries may think they're doing the Lord's Work, but really they're just annoying people who've already turned them down.

Bond

[_Inconceivable]

Our mission motto was "commit their face off". This basically meant not to take "no" for an answer. We knew what was good for them and they didn't. We had the truth and they didn't. They were blinded by the craftiness of men (or just past feeling) and we weren't (even though I though a companion or two fit that PF discription). I was actually taught to be meek by those I respected. Some missionaries were exceptionally arrogant, condescending and considered themselves even above such things as the laws of the land.

While I was out serving, I actually believed there was a time appointed when a person would eventually accept us. It just took that unique missionary to connect with that kindred spirit. Half we baptised had told the Mormons to "nick off" numerous times.

I recall one night we were answered by the well known accusation, "you were here last week!!". "on the contrary", I replied, "I remember you and your wife very well, but it was actually 7 months and about 4 days ago. Any second thoughts?"

"no. bugger off".

With the size of some of the areas and a mandate of a minimum of 40 hours of tracting per week, some areas were knocked through in less than two months. It's no wonder we were verbally abused daily and even physically on occasions.

[_Mercury]

I second that inconceivable. We were to get the mark to baptism no matter what. They are smoking? OK, steal the cigarettes. They are screwing their girl/boyfriend? have them break up with the bad influence. We had the truth, they needed it and we could do anything...we worked for God! Of course we could do anything!

When we got the usual negative responses it was the world fighting against us. The missions actual purpose is not to con others. Conning others was just a value added benefit of the missionary program. The missions goal is to carry the con being run on the missionary since childhood (for most) into adulthood.

[_The Nehor]

Of course the Missionaries can be annoying. The World finds the Gospel and our Church annoying, why should they think any different of our representatives? It may annoy people but we have a long and glorious tradition of doing it. Jesus and most of the original Apostles and many of their followers were killed because they were annoying. Joseph Smith was killed because he was annoying. I had rocks thrown at me on my Mission because I was annoying. It's when the world starts to like us that I'll get worried.

[_Mercury]

Of course the Missionaries can be annoying. The World finds the Gospel and our Church annoying, why should they think any different of our representatives? It may annoy people but we have a long and glorious tradition of doing it. Jesus and most of the original Apostles and many of their followers were killed because they were annoying. Joseph Smith was killed because he was annoying. I had rocks thrown at me on my Mission because I was annoying. It's when the world starts to like us that I'll get worried.

And the persecution complex is once again reinforced

[_The Nehor]

Of course the Missionaries can be annoying. The World finds the Gospel and our Church annoying, why should they think any different of our representatives? It may annoy people but we have a long and glorious tradition of doing it. Jesus and most of the original Apostles and many of their followers were killed because they were annoying. Joseph Smith was killed because he was annoying. I had rocks thrown at me on my Mission because I was annoying. It's when the world starts to like us that I'll get worried.

And the persecution complex is once again reinforced

I don't think I have a complex. We are told we are going to be persecuted. We deal with it. What decides whether it's a complex or not? Did every Jew in Hitler's Germany or every Christian in first and second Century Rome have a persecution complex just because they suffered some persecution?

[_Livingstone22]

I think that arrogance applies to most religious people who hold their views as correct (and all other conflicting systems of thought as incorrect). After all, if you believe your religion are right and other religions are wrong, you will no doubt see others as adherents of false philosophies--or simply as people who are wrong. When one advances their beliefs (inwardly considering them correct) upon someone else, there will inevitably result an air of arrogance. Of course politeness and graciousness go a long way in not showing arrogant feelings.

As the monk Chang asked the Christian missionary Miss Brinklow in the novel Lost Horizon: "Must we hold that because one religion is true, all others are bound to be false?" To which Miss Brinklow responds, "Well, of course, that's rather obvious isn't it?" (James Hilton, Lost Horizon, 73).

[_The Nehor]

I think that arrogance applies to most religious people who hold their views as correct (and all other conflicting systems of thought as incorrect). After all, if you believe your religion are right and other religions are wrong, you will no doubt see others as adherents of false philosophies--or simply as people who are wrong. When one advances their beliefs (inwardly considering them correct) upon someone else, there will inevitably result an air of arrogance. Of course politeness and graciousness go a long way in not showing arrogant feelings.

As the monk Chang asked the Christian missionary Miss Brinklow in the novel Lost Horizon: "Must we hold that because one religion is true, all others are bound to be false?" To which Miss Brinklow responds, "Well, of course, that's rather obvious isn't it?" (James Hilton, Lost Horizon, 73).

Is it not then also arrogant for all the critics on this board to routinely tell me that I am wrong and that my Church is a money-grubbing institution that is exploiting me and that my spiritual experiences are at best entirely misunderstood by me and at worst I am a fraud?

[_Livingstone22]

I think that arrogance applies to most religious people who hold their views as correct (and all other conflicting systems of thought as incorrect). After all, if you believe your religion are right and other religions are wrong, you will no doubt see others as adherents of false philosophies--or simply as people who are wrong. When one advances their beliefs (inwardly considering them correct) upon someone else, there will inevitably result an air of arrogance. Of course politeness and graciousness go a long way in not showing arrogant feelings.

As the monk Chang asked the Christian missionary Miss Brinklow in the novel Lost Horizon: "Must we hold that because one religion is true, all others are bound to be false?" To which Miss Brinklow responds, "Well, of course, that's rather obvious isn't it?" (James Hilton, Lost Horizon, 73).

Is it not then also arrogant for all the critics on this board to routinely tell me that I am wrong and that my Church is a money-grubbing institution that is exploiting me and that my spiritual experiences are at best entirely misunderstood by me and at worst I am a fraud?

Yes, that sounds quite arrogant as well. In fact, that example may be a bit more arrogant since they take no effort to be polite or civil (in many instances....I rarely venture from the celestial forum because of rude discourse). It's a clearer example as well of someone who treats you as wrong.

[_Mercury]

Of course the Missionaries can be annoying. The World finds the Gospel and our Church annoying, why should they think any different of our representatives? It may annoy people but we have a long and glorious tradition of doing it. Jesus and most of the original Apostles and many of their followers were killed because they were annoying. Joseph Smith was killed because he was annoying. I had rocks thrown at me on my Mission because I was annoying. It's when the world starts to like us that I'll get worried.

And the persecution complex is once again reinforced

I don't think I have a complex. We are told we are going to be persecuted. We deal with it. What decides whether it's a complex or not? Did every Jew in Hitler's Germany or every Christian in first and second Century Rome have a persecution complex just because they suffered some persecution?

No. They were actually persecuted against. The Jews didn't cause the animosity in the communities they lived in. The mrmons did through antagonistic behavior.

As for the christians, screw em. Friggin cult.