Missionaries' "Nope" Response to Lesbian Doormat

[Jerry Atric]

19 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Nope. None.

 

21 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Wrong again.  The person BEHIND the door defined themselve

So what you're saying is, a doormat defines the person or persons living  in the house, and if the message on the doormat doesn't mesh with church standards the missionaries should move to the next house?

 

How about this doormat? Should the missionaries move on because the people inside drink beer?

 

 

[MustardSeed]

I don’t judge the missionary at all.  I feel bad for the scrutiny he is under.  

[Vanguard]

5 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. 

You actually sway me with this. At first, I thought it totally understandable for the missionaries to leave. I think it nicer, however, to view missionary work not only as an opportunity to share the Gospel in an effort to convert but to also share goodwill for all who would hear the good news. It's probably a better policy to let the person who answers the door decide whether to engage. : )

I do understand the thinking behind immediately leaving though. ; )

[Durangout]

1 hour ago, Jerry Atric said:

 

So what you're saying is, a doormat defines the person or persons living  in the house, and if the message on the doormat doesn't mesh with church standards the missionaries should move to the next house?

 

How about this doormat? Should the missionaries move on because the people inside drink beer?

 

 

No. Go back and re-read my post. 
No.

[CV75]

18 hours 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

1. It depends on so many variables; I would need mower facts.

2. It depends; I would need more facts.

[Teancum]

18 hours 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 thought the gospel was to be preached to all people?  I thought the LDS Church is gay friendly right? 🙄   What do you think?   

 

To others here I thought missionaries were called to cry repentance.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Teancum

[blackstrap]

Judging from the home owners later behavior, I doubt the interaction with the missionaries would have been productive. Perhaps the Spirit whispered to move on. 

I do recall inadvertently knocking on the door of a house of " ladies " . We asked if there was a man there and were told that the men didn't start coming until 2 pm. That was our signal to politely excuse ourselves. As we were leaving a lady rushed in and asked " which one is mine " .  I suppose we could have left a gospel centered message but we were young and intimidated .

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I thought the gospel was to be preached to all people? 

It is.  But there are some practical constraints as to the when and the how.  Students at BYU's Jerusalem Center cannot proselytize.  There are, apparently, some constraints on teaching Muslims in some areas and circumstances (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I thought the LDS Church is gay friendly right? 🙄   What do you think?   

I agree with Hamba's comment: "If we truly believe in agency, we should never preempt another person's choice based on our own biases or presumptions."

I think the missionaries (whom we should remember are pretty young and inexperienced) probably had something of what my family calls a "Rex Moment" or "Rex Reaction":

I think the Latter-day Saints are generally . . . nice.  We want to like others and be liked in return. 

In my time, missionaries were regularly exhorted to be respectful, to not argue, etc.  I wonder if the missionaries, seeing the doormat, anticipated some resistance to their message owing to the Church's teachings about sex, sexuality, same-sex marriage, and so on.  Perhaps they, like Rex, "don't like confrontations."  But as Hamba put it, "we should never preempt another person's choice based on our own biases or presumptions."

This video is admirable:

 

Good stuff.  Even if an LGBT person does not accept the Gospel, we need to give them the opportunity.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

To others here I thought missionaries were called to cry repentance.

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Saint Bonaventure]

There are so many reasons to not give this "event" any oxygen.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is.  But there are some practical constraints as to the when and the how.  Students at BYU's Jerusalem Center cannot proselytize. 

NOt the same.  There is a law in Israel that prevents proselytizing.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

There are, apparently, some constraints on teaching Muslims in some areas and circumstances (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

I agree with Hamba's comment: "If we truly believe in agency, we should never preempt another person's choice based on our own biases or presumptions."

I think the missionaries (whom we should remember are pretty young and inexperienced) probably had something of what my family calls a "Rex Moment" or "Rex Reaction":

I think the Latter-day Saints are generally . . . nice.  We want to like others and be liked in return. 

In my time, missionaries were regularly exhorted to be respectful, to not argue, etc.  I wonder if the missionaries, seeing the doormat, anticipated some resistance to their message owing to the Church's teachings about sex, sexuality, same-sex marriage, and so on.  Perhaps they, like Rex, "don't like confrontations."  But as Hamba put it, "we should never preempt another person's choice based on our own biases or presumptions."

Well that was my point really.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This video is admirable:

 

Good stuff.  Even if an LGBT person does not accept the Gospel, we need to give them the opportunity.

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

So we agree,

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

I thought the gospel was to be preached to all people? 

It is.  But there are some practical constraints as to the when and the how.  Students at BYU's Jerusalem Center cannot proselytize.  There are, apparently, some constraints on teaching Muslims in some areas and circumstances (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

 

NOt the same.  There is a law in Israel that prevents proselytizing.

I acknowledge that.  My point is that "there are some practical constraints as to the when and the how" the Gospel is "to be preached to all people."

There are apparently situations where missionaries do not teach Muslims even though there is no law against it.  From one of the links I provided:

Quote

I served in an area in the world with a very large Muslim population and taught several Muslims. I actually saw the church's policy on this with my own eyes which is in the form of a letter distributed to mission presidents with "confidential" and "do not copy" stamped all over it.

There is no general policy against teaching Muslims. Rather it is treated on a country by country basis. The concern is that in some areas of the world, Muslims who convert (and possibly the missionaries who teach them) are in danger of losing their lives. This concern is not overblown. I am aware of several Muslims who were murdered in the country I served in when they converted to other Christian denominations.

Some countries (where this threat is seen as minimal), there are no or few restrictions on teaching Muslims. Some countries (where the threat is seen as greater), there are varied qualifications, i.e. the person must no longer have any contact with Muslim family members or the Muslim community at the time they meet the missionaries.

---

Exactly. I served as a full-time missionary in a country with a large population of refugees who were Muslim, and we were free to teach them if they had acquired permanent residence status (or if they were non-refugee immigrants), but not if they were still on refugee status and so could have been sent back to their home country.

---

I was in New Zealand; and while the Muslim population was smaller, still we were instructed to not teach Muslims due to the dangers involved.

---

I know a person from Dubai (parents are from Saudi Arabia) who was baptized in England while studying abroad. He had to get first presidency permission. His father is a "high priest" is the Islamic faith (not sure if high priest is the term, just what he called him). When he converted he lost his citizenship, had his houses/cars taken and all bank accounts frozen. Went from super rich guy to taking political asylum in America working minimum wage. If he were to return theres a 99% chance he would be killed.

The Plan of Salvation allows for such unfortunate circumstances.  It also allows for (apparent) errors where an individual is not given an opportunity to hear and accept the Gospel.

36 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In my time, missionaries were regularly exhorted to be respectful, to not argue, etc.  I wonder if the missionaries, seeing the doormat, anticipated some resistance to their message owing to the Church's teachings about sex, sexuality, same-sex marriage, and so on.  Perhaps they, like Rex, "don't like confrontations."  But as Hamba put it, "we should never preempt another person's choice based on our own biases or presumptions."

Well that was my point really.

So we agree,

Yes, it seems we do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's the video:

I thought it was funny.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Two questions:

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

Personally, I would have knocked.

As for whether the missionaries ought to have knocked, I honestly think it's their call. And I wouldn't try to read too much into it, either way.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Not really. I think they were just making a snap judgement about how to best use their time.

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I thought it was funny.

Personally, I would have knocked.

As for whether the missionaries ought to have knocked, I honestly think it's their call. And I wouldn't try to read too much into it, either way.

Not really. I think they were just making a snap judgement about how to best use their time.

Good points.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

On 9/6/2022 at 4:56 PM, smac97 said:

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

In general, knocking on a stranger's door with the purpose of inviting them to leave their religion and join yours is a bit rude, even if done with the best of intentions.

On 9/6/2022 at 4:56 PM, smac97 said:

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

What's worse is knocking on a stranger's door with a message that to please God, they need to abandon their family and change their sexual orientation (or live a life of celibacy and aloneness).

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

Opinions vary on this issue as well as on all other issues.  Leaving a bad religion for a better one should be encouraged by everyone for everyone.

Religion isn't good or bad.  It's true or false.

The best religion in the world isn't worth anything if it's teaching false doctrine.  And the most unpleasant doctrines that are true remain true no matter how they make you feel.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In general, knocking on a stranger's door with the purpose of inviting them to leave their religion and join yours is a bit rude, even if done with the best of intentions.

With respect, I disagree.  I don't think that is anything close to being self-evident.

"Rude" is very much an "eye of the beholder" sort of thing.  You regularly come to this board and disparage our faith to our faces.  I suppose that could be construed as "rude," but that's too much of a subjective judgment call to take seriously.

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What's worse is knocking on a stranger's door with a message that to please God, they need to abandon their family and change their sexual orientation (or live a life of celibacy and aloneness).

So you think the missionaries' "nope" response was appropriate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you think the missionaries' "nope" response was appropriate?

I trust their call on that. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

I've had fun with various symbolic signallings over the years.  I inherited this Masonic plate from my grandma, which I had hanging on my walls for years.  I always pointed it out to our home/visiting teachers, missionaries, and generally any of my fellow saints who stopped by.  Just to see what they'd say.  For the record, 95% were just normal reactions, and 5% maybe a bit awkward reactions.  Nothing negative.  The missionaries always seemed to be the ones with the awkward reactions.

 

I also have a small plaster sunstone, which I had sitting at my desk at work for a long time.  I guess it's just that people know I do stuff like this, but nobody ever said anything.

 

 

 

As far as missionaries go, we've been on the Jehovah's Witness' rotation for almost two decades now.  When they stopped by for the first time in the 2000's, I was friendly, and complimented them heartily on the cool artwork I always found in the Watchtower. (Nobody, and I mean nobody, draws a "whore of babylon riding the multiheaded dragon beast" as well as they do.)  I was also totally transparent about being LDS.  They invited me to read the Bible, and I mentioned we were half a year into our yearlong study of the Old Testament.  They basically argued with me about how I couldn't be, because Mormons don't study the Bible.  But we parted on friendly terms.

For whatever reason, they keep coming back every other year or so.  They always look pained, like they're expecting an argument, or like they're visiting a cancer patient, or something.  Not sure what is behind their expressions.  But the visits are always friendly.

 

[blackstrap]

I don't know who designed the sunstone, but the only way to make it " cheekier '" would have been to have one eye wink. 

[edvantageous]

13 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I also have a small plaster sunstone, which I had sitting at my desk at work for a long time.  I guess it's just that people know I do stuff like this, but nobody ever said anything.

 

11 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I don't know who designed the sunstone, but the only way to make it " cheekier '" would have been to have one eye wink. 

I like the modified sunstone with the sunglasses that mormonR uses as its logo and what Josh Coates is doing in general.

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, Vanguard said:

You actually sway me with this. At first, I thought it totally understandable for the missionaries to leave. I think it nicer, however, to view missionary work not only as an opportunity to share the Gospel in an effort to convert but to also share goodwill for all who would hear the good news. It's probably a better policy to let the person who answers the door decide whether to engage. : )

I do understand the thinking behind immediately leaving though. ; )

As I’ve considered this, I’ve concluded that the right course of action could be dependent on variable circumstances in individual cases. In general, it’s best to proffer the invitation and let the recipient decide to accept or reject, but circumstances — including guidance “in the very moment” from the Holy Ghost — might direct otherwise. Ergo, the missionaries should not be faulted by those of us who are not privy to the circumstances that might have prompted their behavior. 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

Opinions vary on this issue as well as on all other issues.  Leaving a bad religion for a better one should be encouraged by everyone for everyone.

I'd simply point out that whether or not a religion is "bad" or "better" depends upon the circumstances specific to the individual. For some people, Mormonism provides an inspirational promise that they can be together with their family forever. For other people, Mormonism teaches that God strenuously disapproves of their family because of the plumbing between the legs and that in order to please God, they need to leave their family and live alone.  

My impression is that the missionary in question realized that his particular message and the happiness of the people in that particular home were incompatible.  

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  I don't think that is anything close to being self-evident.

"Rude" is very much an "eye of the beholder" sort of thing.  You regularly come to this board and disparage our faith to our faces.  I suppose that could be construed as "rude," but that's too much of a subjective judgment call to take seriously.

Perhaps. I post my thoughts here because I was invited to do so, and endeavor to comply with the board's rules.

But I would never knock on a stranger's door to spread the good news that they could have intellectual integrity, increase their income by 10%, and have Sunday's off by accepting the good news.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

So you think the missionaries' "nope" response was appropriate?

Yes. I have some tolerance for telling Catholics they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity because they believe in infant baptism. If they are convinced, they could realign their religious beliefs without too much difficulty. But arguing that a happy family should be broken up to "repent" of homosexual behavior? No way.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

They invited me to read the Bible, and I mentioned we were half a year into our yearlong study of the Old Testament.  They basically argued with me about how I couldn't be, because Mormons don't study the Bible.  But we parted on friendly terms.

I always ask them how they know the bible is true, since there is no more revelation and it was put together by men.  They usually answer that it is true because it says it is.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Perhaps. I post my thoughts here because I was invited to do so, and endeavor to comply with the board's rules.

And nobody is telling you to not post here, despite your apparent "rudeness."

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But I would never knock on a stranger's door to spread the good news that they could have intellectual integrity, increase their income by 10%, and have Sunday's off by accepting the good news.

This doesn't do much to bolster your street cred to tut-tut others about "rudeness."

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes. I have some tolerance for telling Catholics they are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity because they believe in infant baptism. If they are convinced, they could realign their religious beliefs without too much difficulty. But arguing that a happy family should be broken up to "repent" of homosexual behavior? No way.

Missionaries aren't supposed to "argue."  And the choice is totally up to them.

And your example of eschewing "rudeness" continues to not impress.  Emily Post you ain't.  

Thanks,

-Smac