Missionaries' "Nope" Response to Lesbian Doormat

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

A pair of Mormons were scared off by a doormat proclaiming the door led to the "Gayest Place in Town".

The house where the hilarious events unfolded took place is home to Jamie Foust, 28, and her wife Melissa, 32, who purchased the rainbow-trimmed doormat back in June because they thought it was funny.

Two months later, two Mormon missionaries were caught on their doorbell camera approaching their home, presumably in a bid to convert the pair to their ways.

The young men can be seen arriving at the door, ready to preach their ways, until one of them looks down and reads the word "gayest" out loud.

In the clip, the pair are heard saying "nope" and swiftly walking away from the property.

Here's the video:

 

Quote

Foust said the video left her "crying with laughter", and she quickly showed her wife before posting the clip to TikTok, where it amassed almost 7 million views and over 800,000 likes.

Factory worker Foust said she reckoned the missionaries left because the couple were "beyond help."

"Hopefully they’ll leave us alone now," she said, calling the $10 doormat the couple's "greatest investment".

Users were quick to chime in, asking for a link to the mat so they could buy one for themselves in a bid to spare them another lecture by the ulta-religious missionaries.
...

But not everyone agreed with the jokes and said the Mormons were actually being respectful, claiming "elders" in the religion are "usually 18-22 years old" and that the pair "likely walked away out of respect for you and how you want to live life."

But Foust was still pleased with the results of the doormat, and told Kennedy News that she has no plans to get rid of it.

"I’m going to have to buy a new one so when this one gets old I’ll have another one," she said.

Two questions:

1. Do you think the missionaries should have knocked on the door?

2. Do you think the missionaries "walked away out of respect?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Here's the video:

 

Two questions:

1. Do you think the missionaries should have knocked on the door?

2. Do you think the missionaries "walked away out of respect?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m thinking they probably assumed it would be a waste of time, but I don’t know. 

[MustardSeed]

Why would they?  Why would a lesbian couple want to join the church? What would be the point?  
 

I see no problem here. 

[InCognitus]

At least they didn't wipe their feet on the doormat first.  

[Jerry Atric]

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Why would they?  Why would a lesbian couple want to join the church? What would be the point?

Back in the day missionaries would avoid teaching black people in some areas and concentrated on teaching white people. I'm sure some of the missionaries probably thought, "why would a black couple want to join the church? What would be the point?" 

 

52 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I see no problem here.

Really? You see no problem with a missionary turning away because he knows the people inside are gay? 

[Jerry Atric]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

. Do you think the missionaries should have knocked on the door

Of course they should have knocked on the door. 

[jkwilliams]

I used to have a lesbian colleague who was one of the kindest people I’ve ever known. The missionaries knocked on her door on a hot Virginia summer day. She invited them in for a cold drink. They said they wanted to talk to her about the church, and she said, “You should probably know I’m a lesbian.” The missionary replied, “So, when did that start?” She laughed so hard while she was telling me about it. 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Really? You see no problem with a missionary turning away because he knows the people inside are gay? 

Nope.

There's no problem at all.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Really? You see no problem with a missionary turning away because he knows the people inside are gay? 

That’s right.  I see no problem.  We don’t allow full participation from lesbians.  Why in the world would missionaries tell a couple they need to split in order to participate fully?  Seems really arrogant and stupid IMO. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you think the missionaries should have knocked on the door?

Yes.

When I was a zone leader, I had the opportunity to interview a c. 30-year-old professional for baptism. He had 'come out' at university and had lived a pretty stereotypical gay life for the next ten years or so.

One day the missionaries knocked on his door and left him with a copy of the Book of Mormon. They also promised him that they would return and discuss it with him, but they never returned. He believed they had been put off by his obvious 'gayness' (whether from fear, out of respect, out of a sense of futility, etc.), and I suspect he was right.

This was pre-Google, so despite having read the book, this man didn't know what else to do but wait. Eventually, future missionaries found his name and address in the area book and dropped in on him. He was thrilled. As he described it to me in his interview, as he'd read the Book of Mormon, it was as though scales had fallen from his eyes, and for the first time in his life, he was able to step outside of the dominant discourses that he had always and only known and critically 'read' certain constructs, seeing through their claims to temporal and spatial universality. This included not just his own sexual identity but also the concept of sexual identity in general. From that point forward, he had chosen to live chastely whilst waiting to reconnect with the missionaries.

After the interview, I discussed the matter with the mission president, who took the opportunity to do a follow-up interview with this man mostly just to warn him of the target he was about to place on himself. The one thing the queer community cannot tolerate, my mission president had said, is a 'defector'. In my naivety, I thought the MP was being ridiculous/hysterical, but it turned out to be an apt warning. This man went ahead with the decision to be baptised and, when I left my mission, was still standing strong despite the almost daily harassment he was receiving from his former friends, including things like threatening phone calls in the middle of the night.

If we truly believe in agency, we should never preempt another person's choice based on our own biases or presumptions.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Why in the world would missionaries tell a couple they need to split in order to participate fully?

I did that when teaching a woman with a de facto male partner who refused to marry her. It was dreadful, but she still thanks me for it.

[MustardSeed]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I did that when teaching a woman with a de facto male partner who refused to marry her. It was dreadful, but she still thanks me for it.

Good for you.  I would never.  It’s ok that we think differently

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes.

When I was a zone leader, I had the opportunity to interview a c. 30-year-old professional for baptism. He had 'come out' at university and had lived a pretty stereotypical gay life for the next ten years or so.

One day the missionaries knocked on his door and left him with a copy of the Book of Mormon. They also promised him that they would return and discuss it with him, but they never returned. He believed they had been put off by his obvious 'gayness' (whether from fear, out of respect, out of a sense of futility, etc.), and I suspect he was right.

This was pre-Google, so despite having read the book, this man didn't know what else to do but wait. Eventually, future missionaries found his name and address in the area book and dropped in on him. He was thrilled. As he described it to me in his interview, as he'd read the Book of Mormon, it was as though scales had fallen from his eyes, and for the first time in his life, he was able to step outside of the dominant discourses that he had always and only known and critically 'read' certain constructs, seeing through their claims to temporal and spatial universality. This included not just his own sexual identity but also the concept of sexual identity in general. From that point forward, he had chosen to live chastely whilst waiting to reconnect with the missionaries.

After the interview, I discussed the matter with the mission president, who took the opportunity to do a follow-up interview with this man mostly just to warn him of the target he was about to place on himself. The one thing the queer community cannot tolerate, my mission president had said, is a 'defector'. In my naivety, I thought the MP was being ridiculous/hysterical, but it turned out to be an apt warning. This man went ahead with the decision to be baptised and, when I left my mission, was still standing strong despite the almost daily harassment he was receiving from his former friends, including things like threatening phone calls in the middle of the night.

If we truly believe in agency, we should never preempt another person's choice based on our own biases or presumptions.

Not surprised.  Given the way the Church has treated gays, I rarely come across a LGBT person who has a good opinion of the Church n 

[BlueDreams]

49 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That’s right.  I see no problem.  We don’t allow full participation from lesbians.  Why in the world would missionaries tell a couple they need to split in order to participate fully?  Seems really arrogant and stupid IMO. 

If that were all my mission was, I would agree. But often I knew I was meeting people because they needed a message or a lift that day. There were others that also expanded me. Including a trans woman who under current policies would not have full participation if baptized. But I think the experience helped her and it certainly was formative for me. Though I know it’s unlikely anything would have happened at that door, it gave me a little twinge of sadness that there now would absolutely be nothing gained from the possible experience. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Good for you.  I would never.

I had no desire to do so. It required a significant and prolonged wrestle with the Lord first! In the end, He told me to trust the promise given in Mark 10:29-30.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Thinking]

The missionaries didn't look "scared" to me - more like "realistic."

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

That’s right.  I see no problem.  We don’t allow full participation from lesbians.  Why in the world would missionaries tell a couple they need to split in order to participate fully?  Seems really arrogant and stupid IMO. 

Hamba has already alluded to this, but it’s the same prospect with heterosexual couples who are cohabiting out of wedlock. Everyone needs and deserves to have the gospel presented to him or her and the invitation extended, regardless of past behavior, current status or the likelihood he or she will rebuff the offer. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Everyone needs and deserves to have the gospel presented to them ...

Mate, did you just use them as a singular pronoun??? 

[JustAnAustralian]

49 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, did you just use them as a singular pronoun???

Maybe it will be a collective presentation, a feeding of the 7.5billion or something.

[Jerry Atric]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nope.

There's no problem at all.

Yes this a problem, a huge problem! First of all, the missionary is letting a doormat tell him what's behind the door, that's a problem. Why? Because gay people have feelings just like the rest of us, they also have the ability to choose and say no thank you.

The missionary allowed a doormat to define the person behind the door. Let's say the person behind the door is gay. How does the missionary that turned away know that the person behind the door isn't lonely? How does the missionary know the person behind the door wouldn't benefit from making friends at church? I think you're forgetting that not everyone at church is a member. There are plenty of people that attend church for the community experience. Some people go to church because it's the only time during the week they're around other people. The person behind the door could of been at a very low point in their life and just needed someone to talk to. By letting a doormat define the person behind the door is just as bad as not teaching black people because the color of their skin. 

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Jerry Atric

[Jerry Atric]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

That’s right.  I see no problem.  We don’t allow full participation from lesbians.  Why in the world would missionaries tell a couple they need to split in order to participate fully?  Seems really arrogant and stupid IMO. 

Do you think everyone at church is a member? Do you think everyone at church participates fully? Because the majority of Mormons don't participate fully. What's arrogant and stupid is the missionary letting a doormat define the person behind the door!  

How did the missionary know the people behind the door were all gay? Can't gay people have non gay friends and family inside their house?

Do you think it was OK for missionaries to not seek out black people in some areas before 1978 because they couldn't participate fully?

And here's an important one! The 2015 policy was changed so children of gay parents could join the church. How did the missionary that turned away know there wasn't a teenager of a gay parent inside that could benefit from going to church? Allowing a doormat to define the people behind the door is just as bad as allowing skin color to define who a person is. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Jerry Atric

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Do you think everyone at church is a member? Do you think everyone at church participates fully? Because the majority of Mormons don't participate fully. What's arrogant and stupid is the missionary letting a doormat define the person behind the door!  

How did the missionary know the people behind the door were all gay? Can't gay people have non gay friends and family inside their house?

Do you think it was OK for missionaries to not seek out black people in some areas before 1978 because they couldn't participate fully?

And here's an important one! The 2015 policy was changed so children of gay parents could join the church. How did the missionary that turned away know there wasn't a teenager of a gay parent inside that could benefit from going to church? Allowing a doormat to define the people behind the door is just as bad as allowing skin color to define who a person is. 

It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, did you just use them as a singular pronoun??? 

Good catch. I have corrected my error. 

[Durangout]

14 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

Back in the day missionaries would avoid teaching black people in some areas and concentrated on teaching white people. I'm sure some of the missionaries probably thought, "why would a black couple want to join the church? What would be the point?" 

 

Really? You see no problem with a missionary turning away because he knows the people inside are gay? 

Nope. None.

[Durangout]

4 hours ago, Jerry Atric said:

What's arrogant and stupid is the missionary letting a doormat define the person behind the door!  

Wrong again.  The person BEHIND the door defined themselves.