Ambushed

[_Who Knows]

Besides, there are some rather significant issues facing the world that may well warrant discussion...

Good point. So why are we even discussing Mormonism at all?

You'll have to answer that for yourselves. For my part, rather than discussing Mormonism, I have attempted to shift the focus to our finding workable life strategies and functional self-improvements that may be generalized to enriching a broad range of human relationships and to enhance the human condition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then you're on the wrong board man.

You may be right--not because my focus isn't relevant or needed here (I think there is considerable relevance and need), but because it is becoming more and more apparent that too many here may be closed-minded to workable life strategies and functional self-improvements.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't you think, just maybe, that this is the reason some may see you as condescending?

People come here to discuss Mormonism. They don't come here to discuss life strategies. That you think we are in need of help in this area may be the source of these 'condescending' opinions of you.

Just something to think about...

[_Runtu]

You may be right--not because my focus isn't relevant or needed here (I think there is considerable relevance and need), but because it is becoming more and more apparent that too many here may be closed-minded to workable life strategies and functional self-improvements.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's where I think you're wrong, Wade. You repeatedly said the same thing about me: that I was closed-minded to workable life strategies and functional self-improvements. I assure you I am not and have never been as resistant to change as you believed.

There are a lot of issues going on here that may get in the way of personal improvement: trust is probably the big one. Speaking from personal experience, it's very difficult to accept advice from people who I don't know very well, especially over the Internet. Also, the issues you are trying to help us with are directly related to an organization that you belong to and vigorously defend. That in itself is going to be a barrier between communication because there's no perceived neutrality. And finally, the presentation, particularly in a written format, may hinder communication. Look for example at the issue of condescension. Several people here have commented on your apparently condescending approach to exmormons, yet you do not see it. I think I've figured you out enough that I'm willing to take your word for it that you aren't intentionally being condescending. But that's a significant barrier for people who haven't figured you out yet (of course, I'm not entirely sure I've figured you out).

In the end, it is up to us to change. But it's important not to reach conclusions about people's willingness to change for the better without considering what else is at work.

[_Great Cthulhu]

Hey greyskull, the same thing happened to me about two weeks ago. Just as I got home from work, there's a knock at my door: two LDS missionaries.

I told them I was on the Do-Not-Contact list. They said that list didn't exist anymore and they have to contact me unless I officially request name removal. I told them that would upset my parents, and if they insisted on contacting me, I would be rude and treat them like telemarketers because that's my attitude towards their business.

They asked what was my problem with the Church. I told them it is the same problem I have with all faith-based systems of belief: faith is an excuse for wishful thinking. "But you used to believe," said the senior comp. The junior stood behind him looking uncomfortable.

"Yeah, I used to believe. I was even a missionary like you."

The missionary commented on my kids playing in the background. "How nice that you have a family still." He seemed to be on automatic pilot, trying to keep the conversation going as long as possible despite my obvious irritation.

Finally I jolted them by saying rudely: "Look, I don't want to build a relationship of trust with you guys."

Do missionaries still learn about BRT and "the committment pattern"? When I said that, the senior comp took a step back and the junior's eyes went wide. They left without another word.

[_wenglund]

Besides, there are some rather significant issues facing the world that may well warrant discussion...

Good point. So why are we even discussing Mormonism at all?

You'll have to answer that for yourselves. For my part, rather than discussing Mormonism, I have attempted to shift the focus to our finding workable life strategies and functional self-improvements that may be generalized to enriching a broad range of human relationships and to enhance the human condition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then you're on the wrong board man.

You may be right--not because my focus isn't relevant or needed here (I think there is considerable relevance and need), but because it is becoming more and more apparent that too many here may be closed-minded to workable life strategies and functional self-improvements.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't you think, just maybe, that this is the reason some may see you as condescending?

People come here to discuss Mormonism. They don't come here to discuss life strategies. That you think we are in need of help in this area may be the source of these 'condescending' opinions of you.

Just something to think about...

Were I to have not included myself as also in need of the life strategies, then you may have a point. And, were I not to have approached discussing the life strategies generically and in terms of features and benefits, and not to have made a concerted attempt to avoid judgementalism, then you may also have a point. But, I consistently have.

That you would think my every post was "dripping with condescension" even after all that I have attempted to do to avoid that misperception, I believe suggest more about you than me, though I am open to being wrong.

Could it be that you have an unhealthy and dysfunctional aversion to being made aware of your own imperfections (particularly on a public board), and when such awarenes occurs, even when couched in a benign and generic ways, you misperceive it as "condescenging"?

Could your too frequent lack of voiced introspection and self-acknowledgement of the benign and generic points I have made, resoreting instead to deflecting the matter by making things about "me", also be reasonably interpreted as evidence of your unhealthy aversion?

(I realize that if this is the case, then my even asking this may be met with non small resistance and perhaps be viewed as "condescending". We'll see by whether you break your habit of deflecting and chance voicing some introspections.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sam Harris]

Anyway, your harsh reaction raised some reasonable questions in my mind. Would you have felt the same way were instead of LDS missionaries, it would have been several young black kids selling magazines? Would you have thought they were "ambushing" you? Would you thought to give them an "F-U answer"? Would you have felt the need to lament that experience at a discussion board know to have people who are prejudiced against blacks?

I am just trying to get some insights into your motives in posting here what you did.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey Wade---I just noticed something about your post, and I'm curious.

Taking a look at the portion I bolded....

In comparison...Do you really feel that Shade's board is "prejudiced against Mormons"? That seems to be what you're implying.

I don't really see this as the case.

Just curious as to your take.

Why is it that when the TBMs get caught in a corner, they always have to focus on us black folk? ROFL

Black kids selling magazines...why not Amway or sex toys?

I only knock on doors of people who expect me. And I expect the same in return, unless I really like you. So Liz, you can drop by anytime. :P

[_Who Knows]

Were I to have not included myself as also in need of the life strategies, then you may have a point. And, were I not to have approached discussing the life strategies generically and in terms of features and benefits, and not to have made a concerted attempt to avoid judgementalism, then you may also have a point. But, I consistently have.

That you would think my every post was "dripping with condescension" even after all that I have attempted to do to avoid that misperception, I believe suggest more about you than me, though I am open to being wrong.

Could it be that you have an unhealthy and dysfunctional aversion to being made aware of your own imperfections (particularly on a public board), and when such awarenes occurs, even when couched in a benign and generic ways, you misperceive it as "condescenging"?

Could your too frequent lack of voiced introspection and self-acknowledgement of the benign and generic points I have made, resoreting instead to deflecting the matter by making things about "me", also be reasonably interpreted as evidence of your unhealthy aversion?

(I realize that if this is the case, then my even asking this may be met with non small resistance and perhaps be viewed as "condescending". We'll see by whether you break your habit of deflecting and chance voicing some introspections.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps if I were the only one that feels this way, then you'd be right. The fact that numerous others see exactly the same thing I'm seeing, leads me to believe I'm right.

Like I said man, I'm just letting you know for your own benefit - trying to point out something to you that's pretty hard to see in one's self. (see my example earlier in the thread).

If you don't like it, i don't really give a crap. But you'll find out sooner or later, especially if you ever get married...

[_Blixa]

To respond to Wade:

Like others I think the problem here was the "no contact" request.

I usually try to respond to people in kind and let their actions guide my own. That said, I have had experiences which suggest that some missionaries, as well as bishops and general members, are not that good at respecting boundaries.

I've had missionaries ring my door in several cities and if they've politely given their pitch I usually try to save them time and trouble by politely declining to hear more. Sometimes when its hot weather and I've got the AC running I've asked if they'd like to step inside a while to cool off, or if they'd like glass of water or lemonade. I appreciate the many factors that contributed to them being on my doorstep and whether or not I share their beliefs, I am sympathetic to how unpleasant their experiences can be.

On the other hand I have encountered missionaries that have been unbelievably condescending and rude---even as far as sticking their foot in the door so I can't shut it when I've declined to hear their message. When this type of person presses on and demands why I don't want to listen, well I tell them in blunt terms. I think I've had more experiences with rude missionaries than with polite ones, but maybe that's just luck of the draw.

Once when I still lived in Utah, I was cooking my dinner on a hot summer night. I lived alone in an apartment in the avenues, and I'd left only the screen door shut so I could get some fresh air. Like a lot of screen doors it didn't have a very good lock.

I nearly jumped out of my skin when I turned around to find two people walking through the door into my kitchen! They were a man and a woman about my parents age---perhaps they were ward missionaries?. They immediately launched into talking about some ward activities and I know I swore at them because I was so frightened! (something along the lines of "who the h*** are you?). They were insulted! They couldn't understand that a young woman living alone would be uncomfortable with anyone, Mormon or not, just walking in on her.

I was all the more shocked because at that time I hadn't attended church for about a dozen years. I didn't live anywhere near my old ward, I'd moved around town several times, no one in my family was active and would have passed on my records. How did they know I was Mormon? I was at least a bit relieved to know that they didn't know me by name.

Of course, this pales in comparison to the last official contact I had with the church. Fast forward to 25 year after this and I'm living on the opposite side of the country. I haven't been near a ward in three decades and have no family ties to the church. One day my husband tells me that some missionaries came by looking for, asking for me by name and saying they were from "my" church. They came back a week later; I don't think they were out tracting because they had come to see me specifically to get me "reactivated." I asked why they were there, who had sent them, and why they seemed to think I was a mormon---wouldn't no interest for over 30 years pretty much show that I didn't consider myself Mormon? Well those two young men proceeded to lecture me on how I obviously didn't know who I was or what I was because I most certainly was a mormon---they knew the truth about me more than I did?

I told them I wasn't interested; they told me I was damning myself and breaking my convenants. They told me I was ignorant and called me to repentance. I asked them if they liked their job, if it made them feel good to try to lord it over others. I asked again how they tracked me down. They said they couldn't tell me that information. I asked if they would go away and not come back. They said they could only do that if I gave them some more information on myself so they could write it down and put me on a list.

I finally just shut the door on them since there was nothing I could say that wouldn't start them again on their cycle of shaming, wheedling and sarcasm.

Its partly because I see these experiences as not just the result of individuals with bad manners, but the result of how people are trained to approach inactives that I finally decided to resign. Why bother setting myself up for this again at some future point?

Of course any time I run into missionaries or members who treat me politely, I'll do the same in kind.

[_wenglund]

You may be right--not because my focus isn't relevant or needed here (I think there is considerable relevance and need), but because it is becoming more and more apparent that too many here may be closed-minded to workable life strategies and functional self-improvements.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's where I think you're wrong, Wade. You repeatedly said the same thing about me: that I was closed-minded to workable life strategies and functional self-improvements. I assure you I am not and have never been as resistant to change as you believed.

There are a lot of issues going on here that may get in the way of personal improvement: trust is probably the big one. Speaking from personal experience, it's very difficult to accept advice from people who I don't know very well, especially over the Internet. Also, the issues you are trying to help us with are directly related to an organization that you belong to and vigorously defend. That in itself is going to be a barrier between communication because there's no perceived neutrality. And finally, the presentation, particularly in a written format, may hinder communication. Look for example at the issue of condescension. Several people here have commented on your apparently condescending approach to exmormons, yet you do not see it. I think I've figured you out enough that I'm willing to take your word for it that you aren't intentionally being condescending. But that's a significant barrier for people who haven't figured you out yet (of course, I'm not entirely sure I've figured you out).

In the end, it is up to us to change. But it's important not to reach conclusions about people's willingness to change for the better without considering what else is at work.

I understand what you are saying. And, believe it or not, I have long attempted to be sensative to whatever else is at work here. That is why I have often couched my comments in terms of my own imperfections and what I have found to be benefitial and workable, and gone on to mention how the life stratagies have generalizable application beyond interfaith relations to most every walk of life.

As far as assessing whether people are open-minded to what I have said or not, though, one can only reasonably do so via the externalized evidence that is given. If most all that is being manifest is point-per-point resistance and opposition to what I have generically suggested, and little or no agreement or acknowlegement of the efficacy of my suggestions, then I don't see it as unreasonable to doubt whether those seemingly ardently and opposing and resisting may not be open to the suggestions--though I have been, and still am, open to being corrected (as was the case with you and Liz).

I agree that trust may be a key component, at times, in terms of personal improvement. But, trust is a two-way street. And unlike those who started off by distrusting me, while many here were relative strangers to me, I didn't innitial distrust any of their openness to discussions of life strategies, nor did I distrust that my couching the discussions in benign (features/benefits) and generic terms would be construed as "condescending" (otherwise, I would not have even thought to broach the discussions). I actually trusted you good folks to be open and ammenable to self-improvement and to increasing the quality of the human condition--thinking that most, if not all, of you would grasp the self-benefit in doing so. It was only after months and months of flack and seemingly impenatrable resistance, and no small measure of accusations and jugements leveled against me, that I have begun to loose trust in the openness of some. But, again, I am still open to being corrected.

So, as much as I wish that the ardent impediments I have seen here to self-improvement and betterment of interfaitth relations were all or even predominately attributable to me (since that would be something more within my control to positively change), I don't resonable think that it is, nor would it be to anyone's benefit to conclude that it was. Until we all are willing to acknowleged the part we each have played in the impediment (I say this not so much for your benefit, since you have done just that, but for the benefit of others reading this), little or nothing will change.

If the status quo is fine with many or most here, then I can respect that, and I will then content my self with dialoguing with the remaining few who may wish to strive for a better life, and/or seek out groups more inclined that way. Again, I'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Were I to have not included myself as also in need of the life strategies, then you may have a point. And, were I not to have approached discussing the life strategies generically and in terms of features and benefits, and not to have made a concerted attempt to avoid judgementalism, then you may also have a point. But, I consistently have.

That you would think my every post was "dripping with condescension" even after all that I have attempted to do to avoid that misperception, I believe suggest more about you than me, though I am open to being wrong.

Could it be that you have an unhealthy and dysfunctional aversion to being made aware of your own imperfections (particularly on a public board), and when such awarenes occurs, even when couched in a benign and generic ways, you misperceive it as "condescenging"?

Could your too frequent lack of voiced introspection and self-acknowledgement of the benign and generic points I have made, resoreting instead to deflecting the matter by making things about "me", also be reasonably interpreted as evidence of your unhealthy aversion?

(I realize that if this is the case, then my even asking this may be met with non small resistance and perhaps be viewed as "condescending". We'll see by whether you break your habit of deflecting and chance voicing some introspections.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps if I were the only one that feels this way, then you'd be right. The fact that numerous others see exactly the same thing I'm seeing, leads me to believe I'm right.

Like I said man, I'm just letting you know for your own benefit - trying to point out something to you that's pretty hard to see in one's self. (see my example earlier in the thread).

If you don't like it, I don't really give a crap. But you'll find out sooner or later, especially if you ever get married...

I note that you again habitually deflected. But, I do appreciate the suggestion, and I will give it some more genuine and earnest thought. I certainly don't want to come across as condescending if at all possible--though I wonder if it is possible with some people.

However, I wonder if, to your way of thinking, your making the suggestion above was, itself, condescending--particularly given that it wasn't addressed in generic or benign "I" statements, but rather in accusatory "you" statements.

Would you prefer that I address the issues with you in that way?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_moksha]

Back at an age when many of you were being missionaries, I was being an atheist. I would not have appreciated such a visit back then, but our preferences do change throughout our lives. I have since changed my mind. I can now see that religion is valuable to me on my terms and I now appreciate their visits.

Grayskull, the important thing to know is that they did not want to interrupt your limited family time, but did want to express their caring about you. To them you are one of the sheep that has wandered off and they went looking for you. It is merely a part of their shepherding duties and was not intended to be an annoyance. Perhaps you could take this knowledge that your were being thought of as a positive validation of your existence and feel good about it.