Local group LDS missionary

[Dr Exiled]

Jersey Girl:

Looks like your dealing with an aggressive door to door salesman who isn't beyond putting his foot in the door to prevent people from slamming it on him. Missionaries are taught to be aggressive, polite, but aggressive. So, joining local Facebook groups, etc., is part of the program.

When I was on my mission, I remember being taught that the message was so eternally important that we as missionaries should do anything humanly possible to get the message out. Boundaries, in that mind set, are merely something to jump over, so to speak, or to be politely disrespected. Only after no is said hundreds of times will the true blue missionary get the message. And then, he/she will wait a bit, trying to figure out a way around the "no."

Anyway, so this sister missionary who jumped over the wall to get into my community was one of those who was going to take the message to my community by force if necessary. I spoke to her a few times. I think she meant well, just a little brainwashed from all the sales meeting hype that the mission presidents and area leaders gave her periodically.

If the Texas kid gets too aggressive, you can contact his mission president (LDS.org lists mission president contacts and the areas they serve). Then let the mission president know what this kid is doing and that it is unwelcome. I'm sure the mission president would silence the attack dog if it came to it.

I would agree MPs should know better, but clearly not all do. Posted yesterday:

I posted yesterday about a missionary soliciting my high school son on Instagram. I called the mission office this morning, and received a call back from a very unapologetic mission president. He saw nothing wrong with the missionary’s approach because the missionary is a representative of Christ. The missionary’s motives were pure, so problem solved in his mind. He thought any parent would be happy to have someone inviting their child to Bible study.

I told the president that the missionary had friended many high schoolers, as well as middle schoolers. I tried to explain that 99.9% of parents would be understandably furious with a missionary contacting their 12/13 year olds inviting them places.

I was in shock at his responses to me. “How did the missionary even know they were contacting minors? What else are our missionaries supposed to do? It is the parent’s responsibility to be checking their children’s social media. So if they have a problem with it they can stop it.” Etc, etc.I tried to talk reason into this man for 15 minutes. The area authority beeped in when we were talking, and he had to go. I hung up shaking and beyond frustrated. My husband had me ready to call the news. I received another phone call about 15 minutes later with a much more contrite man. The area authority must have seen the problem, and miraculously the mission president agreed with my position and was going to email all his missionaries about contact with minors. I’m still upset, but hopeful that he corrects the problem. There really should be some directive from the all knowing prophet, or at least Kirton Mckonkie.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... d_me_back/

And

The crazy thing is he wasn’t even deterred when I threatened to tell all the parents of the minors. I said, “if you are not willing to stop your missionaries from contacting minors, then I will contact all the parents I know on this missionary’s friend list and warn them. He told me to do what I needed to do.

It's sad this mission president had this reaction. Luckily the area authority seems to have some sense. Anyway, this is where the misguided "anti-Mormon" bs comes from. Missionaries bother people until the people get angry, mission presidents support it, reasoning that only "anti-Mormons" act this way to "humble" invitations from Christ's representatives.

[Brack]

I find it funny that walls are immoral Democrats have gates and armed guards patrolling their own property. I might just drive my truck to the border and haul a couple hundred of them northward and dump them off at her place to see just how amenable to sharing she really is.

Well, Reagan didn't really like walls. And he was a Republican President.

[Lem]

From the same reddit thread I quoted before:

It's not just the missionaries who work on the kids. The church also uses children to try to get you and your family to come to church. After we left the church, my daughter, who was in grade three at the time, came home from school one day upset and asking why we did not let her go to that "fun church" anymore. During recess, the girls her age who still attended the LDS church in our area had been directed to give our daughter a photo album full of pictures of them attending church activities. There were comments inside about all of the fun activities that they were having, how she was missing out and how much they wanted to have her there with them. We were furious. My husband called the primary president and tore a strip off of her. They left us alone after that.

Wow. At least my kid never got this. I still do on occasion, however. A couple years back, I got a letter from a woman who apparently knew me from decades ago when I left the LDS church. She said my name had come up in a ward council meeting as being an 'inactive' who had requested 'no contact', and when the bishop asked who would like to 'contact' me, she volunteered. this was apparently written with literally no awareness of the irony.

[Gunnar]

Though I no longer believe the foundational truth claims of the Church, it remains true that most of my dearest friends and family members (including my wife) are still members, and I think they still love me in turn. I will not shun them, any more than I want them to shun me. We should understand that their aggressive efforts to re-activate former believers are perceived by them (for the most part) as acts of unconditional love and genuine concern. I will not condemn them merely because they want me to rejoin the flock in full fellowship. Nor can it be denied that many members and even non-members have benefited from the compassionate service provided through various organized church activities, both as givers and recipients of such service. For example: my wife's compassionate service to and befriending of elderly and indigent ladies of our ward in her capacity as Relief Society President was actually life saving, and meant the world to them, and enriched the lives of both her and them. One of these old ladies was extremely gullible and vulnerable to nearly every lottery scam that she was exposed to, and was on the verge of bankruptcy and being evicted from the retirement home she lived it. My wife took over her finances and restored her to solvency and saved her bacon. We also took her out on outings and shopping and medical appointments. Thanks to my wife's management of her affairs, she had a healthy bank account when she died. In fact, she died peacefully in my wife's car while being transported to one of her many medical appointments.

[Lem]

... We should understand that their aggressive efforts to re-activate former believers are perceived by them (for the most part) as acts of unconditional love and genuine concern. I will not condemn them merely because they want me to rejoin the flock in full fellowship....

That’s a lovely thought. And I am very glad that for some it works out well, but it is not a reason to excuse their behavior if the recipient feels it is inappropriate, or to ask people to tolerate what they feel are inappropriate intrusions into their lives.

People have boundaries and even if they are crossed with the best of intentions, it is the right of the person being intruded upon to SAY NO. Implying that the person being intruded upon should just let it happen when they feel it is wrong, simply because the intruders perceive their intentions to be acts of love, ignores the most basic rules of respect for an individual. It is an egregious assault upon a person’s self and integrity to tell them that they MUST allow another person to do what they want to them, when they don’t want it to happen.

Also, maybe most importantly, saying no is NOT a condemnation of the other person! Where did that idea even begin? Even to entertain the idea that saying NO "condemns" the other person is utterly wrong. It implies that one's right to set boundaries is somehow contingent on the OTHER person's feelings, which absolutely violates the principle. Every person has the right to say no, and nothing about saying no should depend upon whether some other person is okay with it. That concept completely violates personal boundaries.

[Moksha]

I called the mission office this morning, and received a call back from a very unapologetic mission president. He saw nothing wrong with the missionary’s approach...

Most sales managers would see nothing wrong with their salesman's creative approach. Without such innovations, it is hard to sell more male enhancement products, asbestos (Trump reauthorized its usage), accelerator systems for Toyota, or Monster energy drinks. The young elder who can up with Joe Camel would immediately be promoted to zone leader by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Think of it as the celestial hand of the free market system.

[Dr Exiled]

I called the mission office this morning, and received a call back from a very unapologetic mission president. He saw nothing wrong with the missionary’s approach...

Most sales managers would see nothing wrong with their salesman's creative approach. Without such innovations, it is hard to sell more male enhancement products, asbestos (Trump reauthorized its usage), accelerator systems for Toyota, or Monster energy drinks. The young elder who can up with Joe Camel would immediately be promoted to zone leader by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Think of it as the celestial hand of the free market system.

You know, maybe I am wrong? Perhaps everyone deep down wants to be Mormon as our leaders told us? There really is no way to prove one way or the other but it sounds good, and is great for missionary hype sessions. So, get your ladders ready missionary, there are walls to climb over, there are Facebook groups to invade. Poor Dr Exiled is lost and needs service now! His garage is messy and he is thinking of getting a big dumpster so trash can be thrown into it with the help of perhaps a district of hungry missionaries. Discussions unlike what occur in the terrestrial forum will ensue, no doubt. Perhaps these young stippling warriors can give a proper answer to Dr. Jenkins' questions he asked Dr. Hamblin? Sounds like I will call back the missionary that called me last night looking for service opportunities .....

[Gunnar]

... We should understand that their aggressive efforts to re-activate former believers are perceived by them (for the most part) as acts of unconditional love and genuine concern. I will not condemn them merely because they want me to rejoin the flock in full fellowship....

Also, maybe most importantly, saying no is NOT a condemnation of the other person! Where did that idea even begin? Even to entertain the idea that saying NO "condemns" the other person is utterly wrong. It implies that one's right to set boundaries is somehow contingent on the OTHER person's feelings, which absolutely violates the principle. Every person has the right to say no, and nothing about saying no should depend upon whether some other person is okay with it. That concept completely violates personal boundaries.

You are certainly right. Merely saying no is NOT a condemnation of the other person. Everyone has the right to say no, and it may actually be at least slightly more common that the ones to say no are regarded as condemned by Mormons than the other way around. But there is also such a thing as bigotry against and condemnation of Mormons. Bigotry and condemnation can go in either direction.

[Lem]

Also, maybe most importantly, saying no is NOT a condemnation of the other person! Where did that idea even begin? Even to entertain the idea that saying NO "condemns" the other person is utterly wrong. It implies that one's right to set boundaries is somehow contingent on the OTHER person's feelings, which absolutely violates the principle. Every person has the right to say no, and nothing about saying no should depend upon whether some other person is okay with it. That concept completely violates personal boundaries.

You are certainly right. Merely saying no is NOT a condemnation of the other person. Everyone has the right to say no, and it may actually be at least slightly more common that the ones to say no are regarded as condemned by Mormons than the other way around.

I put a break here because that's a response to the topic, although I find it sad that anyone might feel that condemnation of either party is an appropriate response when a person exercises such an utterly normal boundary as saying no to religious overtures.

But what is the reason for this final sentence ?

But there is also such a thing as bigotry against and condemnation of Mormons. Bigotry and condemnation can go in either direction.

How does this relate to the topic of what to do when you feel an LDS missionary has overstepped boundaries?

[Moksha]

I just find it funny that walls are immoral Democrats have gates and armed guards patrolling their own property. I might just drive my truck to the border and haul a couple hundred of them northward and dump them off at her place to see just how amenable to sharing she really is.

Just curious as to whether this imaginarily large truck has tail fins, a gun rack, and a rebel flag?