Evangelizing At Lds Sites

[Sleeper Cell]

Perhaps I should make mine clear:

No Solicitation of goods, services, or Gods.

If you're here for these puposes you have been advised to leave the property.

If you do not leave, you are trespassing and will be reported to the police and charges filed.

Would that work?

I'm going to need a bigger door!

Why not a simple “No Trespassing” sign?

[Anijen]

What do you think about the evangelizing, done by critics of Mormonism, at various LDS sites, like Manti or the SLC Temple gates?

They have their free will. Seems like a waste of time though.

-Do they have a constitutional right to be there, in your opinion?

Yes.

-Should they be there? Are they fulfilling the "Great Commission" or, possibly, missing the mark, by turning people off to their message?

I think they weaken their message with such tactics.

-Do you see the evangelizing as a threat to the church?

Not in the least. "No unhallowed hand..." When visiting SLC for conference, I told my kids to notice the spirit they felt outside to that of the message and delivery mode inside. That in fact I thought taught a very good lesson.

-Have you ever had an encounter with an evangelist, at one of these locations? If so, how did it go?

I don't interact with them because that is what they want, and I try to avoid contention.

[Deborah]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I find that these folks have the same rights as those Baptists who loudly demonstrate at the funerals of our soldiers; they have the same right to be offensive. And in so doing they turn off anyone, who might be passing by.

I did stop and talk to someone who was quietly handing out pamphlets one time and just asked him why he would waste so much time working against another faith rather than building up and bearing testimony of his own. He just remained silent. I don't have a problem with someone who is polite and just doing what they think is right in a Christ-like way; but I do wonder how people like the funeral protestors can even begin to justify their behavior to Christ who would never act in such away to non-believers. I think they are confusing his response to hypocrites who were supposed believers with that of his response to others who might not believe but were not hypocrites.

[Calm]

I was the thinking of plastering over it and just going in through the garage. Not seriously, but I'm wondering what is so magical about a front door that it automatically assumes you want people knocking on it.

I know you have a right to speak, I just don't want to hear it on my private property. If we're on the sidewalk, sure.

I believe this was the case: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/920357/Church-applauds-ruling-on-door-to-door-visits.html?pg=2

[Yirgacheffe]

I believe this was the case: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/920357/Church-applauds-ruling-on-door-to-door-visits.html?pg=2

The DN article refers to this decision by the court.

Jehovah's Witnesses Win Free Speech Dispute (June 17, 2002): In 8–1 ruling, Court decides that a Stratton, Ohio, ordinance requiring permits for door-to-door solicitation is too broad and violates First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

Nothing about a front door being an invitation to knock only about cities imposing permit requirements.

[Calm]

I've never had the opinion that this is a common belief amongst the LDS membership. Perhaps that would be a good poll question for the LDS board members. If nothing else, I believe it would show a misconception that non-members definitely have about Mormonism IMHO.

Since the majority of people who have lived have not been LDS when alive (even those who were Saints in the past are Early-day or Meridian-day Saints so to speak), including all those children who have died before their accountability and yet are said to be eligible for the Celestial Kingdom, I see no inherent need to be LDS during one's mortality save in the case where the Spirit has witnessed to you that the Faith is true, etc. and what that involves may be as little as the Spirit telling you to let the missionaries in the door and you resisting or something as major as a vision confirming the truth...I have no clue what the Lord thinks is an appropriate chance to accept or reject the gospel, I tend to be believe it is closer to the vision state than a whisper of the Spirit.

After death, if one fully accepts the Atonement and the Gospel which teaches it, then one would belong to the same faith community that faithful and Celestial Kingdom eligible LDS belong to, but I don't personally think calling them LDS at that point is appropriate as that seems more of a label for our mortal probation, instead I would say that those who accept the Atonement fully into their lives and choose to become one with the Father and Son are members of the Church of the Firstborn or the Body of Christ as those terms seem to me to be more appropriate when speaking of the entire Plan of Salvation, from pre-existence to mortality to paradise/spirit prison and then to eternal life or one of the lesser kingdoms and if I were to use the term "Saints" than I would simply use it on its own, bare of any era-adjective.

I know many LDS who use the term LDS to apply to all those who belong to the Church of the Firstborn with the idea that eventually they will accept the gospel that we teach today, but do so not because they think it's some official, eternal title, but as a matter of shorthand. The principle is for people to partake of eternal life (the fullest form of the Atonement) they must have the ordinances done for them that can only currently be done through the authority of the LDS faith, but the authority comes from the Father, not the organization so it makes no sense to me to claim them as LDS even if we are the ones who are doing the ordinances by commandment of the Father.

[Calm]

The DN article refers to this decision by the court.

Jehovah's Witnesses Win Free Speech Dispute (June 17, 2002): In 8–1 ruling, Court decides that a Stratton, Ohio, ordinance requiring permits for door-to-door solicitation is too broad and violates First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

Nothing about a front door being an invitation to knock only about cities imposing permit requirements.

It is my memory that says this is the one, the references to such a law preventing neighbours from knocking on one's door to discuss politics or trick or treaters makes me believe my memory is correct, but to confirm it will take more research which as I am leaving shortly I cannot do at this time. If no one else has looked up this case by the time I get back, I will do so.

****Perhaps Hamba can give us a rough time that he was on his mission so I know the upper limit of the search.

Edited July 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[Libs]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I find that these folks have the same rights as those Baptists who loudly demonstrate at the funerals of our soldiers; they have the same right to be offensive. And in so doing they turn off anyone, who might be passing by.

I did stop and talk to someone who was quietly handing out pamphlets one time and just asked him why he would waste so much time working against another faith rather than building up and bearing testimony of his own. He just remained silent. I don't have a problem with someone who is polite and just doing what they think is right in a Christ-like way; but I do wonder how people like the funeral protestors can even begin to justify their behavior to Christ who would never act in such away to non-believers. I think they are confusing his response to hypocrites who were supposed believers with that of his response to others who might not believe but were not hypocrites.

I do see the more volatile protestors (the screechers, the garment holders, those holding signs with Joseph Smith burning in h***, etc) as very similar to the Westboro gang, and I think the less aggressive, more respectful protestors tend to get lumped in with those groups. I just don't see that taking to the streets, brings about much gain (as far as bringing people out of Mormonism). I would guess, comparatively, there is much more damage done and promotion of ill-will, than anything else.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Libs

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

Actually if you are over the age of accountability. You do need to be LDS to go the Celestial Kingdom.

[Yirgacheffe]

I served my mission in America. When we arrived, my mission president, who'd worked as a lawyer, issued us all with a shrunk-down copy of the US Supreme Court ruling which established that there exists a constitutional right for religious persons to take their message to people's homes. I don't remember the full text of what was on the paper, naturally, but I remember that two points it made was that front doors were an open invitation for people, including strangers, to visit and that sharing a religious message did not fit any definition of soliciting as long as reading materials or other goods were not being sold.

Thankfully, I served in possibly the most polite corner of the entire country, and I can literally count only on the fingers of one hand the number of times in two years that anyone was unkind to me in any way. One of those was a cranky old man who opened the door and informed us that we had no legal right to be bothering him at his home. We politely apologised for 'bothering' him and just as politely pointed out to him that we did indeed have a protected right to attempt to share our message house-to-house. This infuriated him, and he said he had half a mind to ring the local police chief and report us.

I can't find anything from the supreme court that says anything remotely like what you've stated here.

[LeSellers]

Why not a simple “No Trespassing” sign?

It is not criminal trespass (although it may be "technical trespass") to walk (unimpeded) from the public sidewalk to your front door for any legitimate purpose. That is well established and has been since English Common Law.

Lehi

Edited July 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Jehovah's Witnesses Win Free Speech Dispute (June 17, 2002): In 8–1 ruling, Court decides that a Stratton, Ohio, ordinance requiring permits for door-to-door solicitation is too broad and violates First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

Nothing about a front door being an invitation to knock only about cities imposing permit requirements.

I can't find anything from the supreme court that says anything remotely like what you've stated here.

I have long since forgotten where I found this, but it applies to the case and the thread within this topic.

In a 1940 case, Cantwell vs. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found that statutes requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech and gave the government too much power in determining which groups were permitted to solicit. The officer who issued licenses for solicitation was authorized to inquire whether the applicant did have a religious cause and to decline a license if in his view the cause was not religious:

Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth.

To condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.

According to the Court, the Cantwells posed no threat to public order merely by spreading their message:

In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probabilities of excesses and abuses, these liberties are in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.

This judgement prohibited governments from creating special requirements for people spreading religious ideas and sharing a message in an unfriendly environment because such speech acts do not automatically represent a “threat to public order.”

06.18.02

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. v. Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al., 00-1737

By an 8-1 vote on June 17, 2002, the Supreme Court honored its decades-old tradition of protecting the rights of religious missionaries by ruling once again in their favor, this time deciding that door-to-door advocates need not obtain permits from local officials. The court struck down a permit ordinance enacted by Stratton, Ohio, as an overly broad prior restraint on speech.It is offensive — not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society — that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her [sic] desire to speak to her [sic] neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

“The rhetoric used in the World War II-era opinions that repeatedly saved petitioners' coreligionists from petty prosecutions reflected the Court's evaluation of the First Amendment freedoms that are implicated in this case,” Stevens wrote. “The value judgment that then motivated a united democratic people fighting to defend those very freedoms from totalitarian attack is unchanged. It motivates our decision today.”

The ruling, a strong affirmation of the value of anonymous, unregulated and unpopular speech, was applauded by leaders ranging from Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

“People who want to talk about their views with others shouldn't have to ask the government for permission first,” said Lynn.

“The Supreme Court's balanced and well-reasoned analysis is a victory for religious freedom and will continue this country's proud legacy of religious tolerance,” said Hatch.

In the opinion, Stevens said the ordinance regulates far more speech than is required to achieve the town's goal of reducing the threat of crime and fraud for homeowners.

Political canvassers who advocate unpopular causes or prefer anonymity are affected, he said, as well as “a significant amount of spontaneous speech,” such as a “spontaneous decision to go across the street and urge a neighbor to vote against the mayor.”

In another argument that drew a sarcastic retort from Justice Antonin Scalia, Stevens also asserted, “There are no doubt other patriotic citizens, who have such firm convictions about their constitutional right to engage in uninhibited debate in the context of door-to-door advocacy, that they would prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official.”

Scalia, in a concurring opinion joined by Clarence Thomas, ridiculed Stevens' “fairy-tale category of patriotic citizens who would rather be silenced than licensed.” Scalia added, “If our free-speech jurisprudence is to be determined by the predicted behavior of such crackpots, we are in a sorry state indeed.” But Scalia and Thomas agreed with Stevens' bottom-line judgment that the Stratton ordinance violated the First Amendment.

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also wrote a concurrence to emphasize their view that “crime prevention” is a weak justification for the ordinance.

In the majority opinion, Stevens also implied that if the permit ordinance was rewritten to apply only to salespeople and those soliciting funds, it might be acceptable because it could be shown to serve the town's goal of preventing fraud.

Stevens wrote that protecting the privacy of residents — another stated goal of Stratton's ordinance — could be accomplished in other ways. He noted that another provision of the town ordinance, not at issue in the case, allows residents to post “no solicitation” signs on their property. That feature of the law, Stevens said, provides “ample protection for the unwilling listener.”

Paul Polidoro, the in-house lawyer for the Witnesses who argued the case, said the ruling “breathed new life, modern vitality” into the court's line of precedents in Witness cases. “We're very pleased.”

Polidoro did say that Stevens' reference to “no solicitation” signs posed potential problems “down the road.” While Witnesses respect the right of homeowners to express their views about solicitation, Polidoro said constitutional problems could arise if municipalities enforce those wishes in a discriminatory way.

In dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist also said the provision allowing for “no solicitation” signs to be posted could end up backfiring. “Ironically… today's decision may result in less of the door-to-door communication that the Court extols ... . In light of today's decision depriving Stratton residents of the degree of accountability and safety that the permit requirement provides, more and more residents may decide to place these signs in their yards and cut off door-to-door communication altogether.”

Rehnquist also said the ruling “renders local governments largely impotent to address the very real safety threat that canvassers pose.” As he did at oral argument, Rehnquist cited the 2001 murders of two Dartmouth College professors by teenagers who posed as door-to-door canvassers.

Far from adhering to precedent, Rehnquist said, the court majority “abruptly changes course” by striking down, for the first time, an ordinance that requires permits for door-to-door canvassers but gives no discretion to the issuing authority.

Enjoy,

Lehi

Edited July 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[Yirgacheffe]

I have long since forgotten where I found this, but it applies to the case and the thread within this topic.

Enjoy,

Lehi

I read it and you're right it is remotely like it, but it also shows that no soliciting signs apply to those exercising their religion, and that they don't have a right to be on a property with such a sign.

[LeSellers]

I read it and you're right it is remotely like it, but it also shows that no soliciting signs apply to those exercising their religion, and that they don't have a right to be on a property with such a sign.

No, they have the right to be on the property (but not to knock on the door, nor ring the bell) as long as the sign is not readily visible from the street. One posted on the door itself probably could not meet that requirement. If there is a gate with the sign, or a locked gate (meaning the door is no longer an invitation), it would be trespassing to go further. Even then, it would depend on the local jurisdiction and its regulations. In some places, it might be illegal to post a No Soliciting sign, or it might no apply to missionaries, etc. In California a place must be posted "No Hunting" even though, otherwise, it would be trespass to go onto the property.

Keep in mind that the SCotuS does not rule on Common Law issues. This is one of these. Unless some legislative body, including a city council, ventures into an area that had been, up to that point, part of Common Law, the centuries-long precedent applies.

Lehi

Edited July 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[LDSToronto]

I think that the Constitution covers freedom of speech, including religion and politics. I would be interested if a simple sign would hold up in court to stop missionary work in a general neighborhood. I seem to remember that the JW's took it to court and won.

I find a simple, "not interested" works. I used to have a sign, but it just frustrated me when people didn't read it. And the poor paperboy felt like it meant he couldn't come and collect his weekly wage.

H.

[KevinG]

I find a simple, "not interested" works. I used to have a sign, but it just frustrated me when people didn't read it. And the poor paperboy felt like it meant he couldn't come and collect his weekly wage.

H.

I think that is a wise response and it works with most missionaries. Unfortunately there are always exceptions to the rules. Usually with repeat offenders in the LDS church (missionaries and home teachers) it is usually one of the folowing (in order of occurance)

1. bad record keeping from companionship to companionship where every new companionship knocks on your door

2. failure to inform the Bishop in writing that you are no longer a member nor wish to be (in the case of home teachers and missionaries)

3. overzealous missionaries or mission presidents

It happens - sorry.

[TAO]

TAO:

Actually if you are over the age of accountability. You do need to be LDS to go the Celestial Kingdom.

That is correct, but one doesn't need to be a part of it in this life. (see Calm's post 106)

In other words, God is not going to penalize those who don't get the opportunity. He will be just in his judging and judgment, and will give to all those who have not had the chance to receive.

Best Wishes,

TAO =)

Edited July 3, 2011 by TAO

[thesometimesaint]

[Doctor Ninja]

I think that is a wise response and it works with most missionaries. Unfortunately there are always exceptions to the rules. Usually with repeat offenders in the LDS church (missionaries and home teachers) it is usually one of the folowing (in order of occurance)

1. bad record keeping from companionship to companionship where every new companionship knocks on your door

2. failure to inform the Bishop in writing that you are no longer a member nor wish to be (in the case of home teachers and missionaries)

3. overzealous missionaries or mission presidents

It happens - sorry.

A sorry isn't needed for someone who just professed they have been a member for the last 20 years. Trying to have one foot in (complaining there is no specific prophesies on another thread) and one foot out (complaining sign doesn't keep missionaries away).

Besides, heaven forbid if we have "overzealous" missionaries or mission presidents.

[LDSToronto]

A sorry isn't needed for someone who just professed they have been a member for the last 20 years. Trying to have one foot in (complaining there is no specific prophesies on another thread) and one foot out (complaining sign doesn't keep missionaries away).

Besides, heaven forbid if we have "overzealous" missionaries or mission presidents.

Huh? I wasn't talking about missionaries and I wasn't seeking an apology; I thought we were talking about JW's. In my area, the JW's occasionally knock on my door and I will either tell them I'm not interested or listen patiently and take the literature. They never stay for more than a minute or two, and are not aggressive at the door in terms of pushing their message. I'm told that this is not the usual experience that people have with JW's - maybe it's a Canadian thing.

As for missionaries, I will admit that I do get annoyed when they drop by, but not because I'm "apostate" (btw, I'm still an 'active' member). Rather, they drop by unexpected and just seem to be hanging around to kill time between appointments. They have no message to share, no service to offer. This is a common complaint in my ward.

H.

[LeSellers]

As for missionaries, I will admit that I do get annoyed when they drop by, but not because I'm "apostate" (btw, I'm still an 'active' member). Rather, they drop by unexpected and just seem to be hanging around to kill time between appointments. They have no message to share, no service to offer. This is a common complaint in my ward.

"Still an 'active' member" seems somewhat less than a vigorous supporter. I'll leave that alone.

But, as the missionaries have lived in my home for the past 18 months, I believe I have a fairly good insight to what they do. I am building a very complex greenhouse, and it requires utilities (water and power, gas if I can figure out how). Because of the configuration of my yard and the location we had to choose for the greenhouse, it's taking far longer than I'd like (over a year, and the foundation is not in place yet).

All the Elders who've been here (and that includes the ones who are on team ups—for most of that time, we've had either Zone or District Leaders) have offered to help do the backbreaking (almost literally) work of digging the "basement", driving the conduit for the services, pouring the floor, and laying the block walls. Most of the time, I have been successful in fending them off, but far from always. I never ask them for help (except once to help move the 3~400 lb greenhouse kit), but they offer three or four times a week: whenever I'm "in the pit" and they are "home". I've had them come down "silently" and start while I'm upstairs getting a drink of water. They've come down when they've had another service project cancel on them (foolish people).

They are almost never there during the day, rarely even for lunch, and almost never (except for illness, also rare) for more than a half hour. We have a separate apartment for them (and that's why we built it), so they could stay down there indefinitely without bothering us at all. (I wanted to call it "Elisha's Chamber", but my Hebrew is too poor, and it's in the walkout basement, not on the roof.)

I don't know which missionaries you have in your ward, but they don't sound like the ones we have had.

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

"Still an 'active' member" seems somewhat less than a vigorous supporter. I'll leave that alone.

The point I was making was this: I wasn't complaining about the missionaries dropping by, as Doc Ninja thought. I thought (and maybe I misread the last part of this thread) that we were talking about JW's and religious groups in general.

But, as the missionaries have lived in my home for the past 18 months, I believe I have a fairly good insight to what they do. ......

<snipped story of hardworking missionaries>

I don't know which missionaries you have in your ward, but they don't sound like the ones we have had.

Likewise, your missionaries don't sound like the ones we have.

To be clear, I wasn't making a claim that all missionaries around the world are lazy. I was simply stating that, in my ward (actually, it must be a district thing), missionaries tend to drop by unannounced to members homes when they have an hour to kill, and don't do much other than chit-chat. No spiritual message, no offer to help out with whatever task is being done, just time-killing. This has been discussed in our ward council as it is a common occurrence.

So, to sum up:

1. I thought we were talking about JW's and other religious groups, hence my comment about the sign

2. I mentioned the missionaries in response to Doc Ninja's message about my complaining about missionary visits (see #1 above)

3. Not all missionaries are lazy

4. The missionaries who are in my ward are probably a 'special case'

5. An 'active' member means I attend church and hold a calling, even if my beliefs, which are known in my ward, are not traditional. And, that doesn't mean I hate missionaries or members - both are welcome at my house.

H.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I was simply stating that, in my ward (actually, it must be a district thing), missionaries tend to drop by unannounced to members homes when they have an hour to kill, and don't do much other than chit-chat. No spiritual message, no offer to help out with whatever task is being done, just time-killing.

We had a handful of missionaries like this in my mission. We derisively called them 'campers' because they would 'camp out' at members' homes instead of working, somehow justifying the waste of time as being OK because it happened at the homes of ward members. Sad.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[AddamS]

And of course "being rude" is never inconsiderate.

I didn't say I was proud of it, I implied I grew out of it.

Maybe someday churches will grow out of disturbing people at home too.