Here is my translation of the 10 tips:
- “Be a friend” = Pretend to like people so they will think you’re nice and they will want to know “why” you are nice. Then spring your religion on them, ’cause what else are friends for if not to deceptively pretend to like people so you can shove religion down their throat?
- “Ditch the lingo” = Pretend you are more like other Christians than you really are by learning to speak the way they do.
- “Stay on message” = Stay on the “milk” message – Mormons are nice and you’ll have a happier family if you join. Don’t discuss what Mormonism is really like or what Mormons actually believe: god lives on a planet near the star Kolob; Joseph Smith instituted polygamy so he could sex it up; the church owns dozens, if not hundreds, of for-profit subsidiaries, including malls and ranches; Mormons mistreat women, gays, and blacks; Native Americans are Jews, they just don’t know it and their DNA is hiding the evidence, etc.
- “Trust” = This is a repeat of #1. Basically, pretend to be trustworthy so you can use “friendship” as a tool to convert people. Sure, there is that idealistic notion that friends are people who just genuinely care about you because of who you are. Mormons don’t buy that. Friends are targets for conversion (or are automatically gained through holding membership in common). Friends are instruments and tools, not people.
- “Pray” = Fall prey to confirmation bias. When some completely random event occurs that allows you to try to force your religion on someone else, claim that is a prayer answered. Ignore the 10 trillion other random events that do not lend themselves to this opportunity. Ergo, prayer works.
- “Invite” = Ditto #1 and #4. Though, with this one, he is also throwing in the old, “Feel free to strain your “friend” relationships with awkward invitations to church.” Sure, you have to work with those people every day, but what’s wrong with a little workplace awkwardness in the pursuit of converting the world to Mormonism.
- “Plant seeds” = Ditto #1, #4, and #6. However, this one includes the notion of randomly throwing “seed” around your social network… All the better to annoy people in your social network.
- “Community Involvement” = I’m handing this one off to Jesus, one of my favorite mythical characters, “Watch out! Dont do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, dont do as the hypocrites doblowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, dont let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.” (Matthew 6.1-4). Ever heard of “Mormon Helping Hands“? (FYI, the link is a Google News search showing all the trumpeting of their good deeds in the media.)
- “Use humor” = What better way to get yourself into your friends’ good graces than to humorously mock THEIR religious views? Come on! This is brilliant stuff here.
- If you find yourself talking to a fellow Christian, you can try this line: “What are services like in… THE CHURCH OF SATAN?!?!” (1 Nephi 14:10)
- Or this zinger for a Jew: “How is that temple reconstruction going? We Mormons can’t wait until it’s rebuilt, so you can all weep and lament the fact that you killed Jesus!” (D&C 45:51-53)
- “Access the keys of heaven” = This one is just weird. It sounds like he’s recommending you pawn off the responsibility on your ward council. Perhaps the smartest suggestion of the bunch!
Is it just me, or do these suggestions seem both anachronistic and dishonest? Anachronistic because people just don’t do this crap anymore – religious ecumenism requires that people be tolerant of others’ religious views and not try to convert them. And dishonest because it is using deception to convert people.
Anyone else want to take a shot at translating the 10 tips of passe member missionary work?
Number one is a little tricky. I actually do think that many Mormons genuinely want to be friends with potential converts (generally). Many members that I worked with on the mission often would maintain some kind of relationship even after their non-mormon neighbors rejected their invites. I think when a Mormon stops being friends after the rejection, then it’s more due to social awkwardness than not caring to be that person’s friend.
However, I do agree that the genuineness is diluted when there’s a missionary motive.
I also think it has to do with *why* they became friends, and what the church wants the member to do with that.
As a TBM, I was friends with some non-mormons due to mutual interests, common goals, what-have-you. The church would like me to hit them up as potential converts, which makes things awkward later when they refuse.
I think the church also wants members to become friends (or “better” friends) with non-members in an effort to trick them into becoming members. When they refuse, the “friendship” falls apart as fast as a vendor/company relationship that ends. The mormon wasn’t really their friend, they were trying to sell them something.
I’m sure that, sometimes, the second situation can lead to actual friendships, but that’s not the main goal. And it doesn’t change the fact that the church doesn’t treat people like Children of God so much as employees (or worsecontractors).
Awesome.
I cringed when we heard my BIL speak after my nephew’s first ever sacrament talk (aww, i know. pure PR move on our part) He gave this whole schpeal on how you can work your friendships to bring them into teh gospel.
Even as an investigator I refused invitations from friends to “come over for dinner.” They thought I was stupid–I knew the mishies would be there. It was insulting, and that thought never went away. It’s not always about friending people so you can ambush them, sometimes it’s a bit of manipulation with current friends too.
I don’t know why the red flags weren’t going crazy on me then.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and point out that most Mormons do genuinely believe that their friends’ lives will be better if the join the Church. Who wouldn’t want people they care about to be on the one and only Ultimately Awesome Path to the Celestial Kingdom? If you believe that you are Right and everyone else is Not Quite As Right, of course you want to share what you sincerely believe is better than what they have.
I don’t think most Mormons are looking at their friends as potential points for the Mormon Church. I think most of them really do want to share something that is important to them. I agree that it’s creepy and inappropriate, but most Mormons aren’t able to think in terms of “to each his/her own” when they’ve been told all their lives that they are the One Path to Happiness.
Leah… You are, of course, correct. Many Mormons are likely sincere about this. Inappropriate and sincere.
But the points in my post still hold in that “friend” means something different to Mormons than it does to, say, atheists. The friends I, an atheist, have are my friends because we care about each other, not because I want them to think like I do and am using my “friendship” to push them in that direction. I embrace them for not thinking like I do.
I suppose I’m a bit more cynical than you are, Leah. Throughout my experience it was all a matter of bringing people to the church. My PB said that I would bring many to the church. You hear it so often that it becomes a matter of pressure and perhaps obligation.
My LDS friends were fairly pushy when it came to certain things. They knew I was investigating, but they wanted me to meet the mishies justincase.
There’s something about having a few chips on the headstand for each person you’ve brought into the gospel. It’s was frustrating for me because I felt I needed to, that I couldn’t, and that I just didn’t really want to.
When I heard my BIL speak about getting his new friends to come to dinner while the missionaries were there because “hey, food” I wanted to pull my hair out.
I’ve never understood the concept, both in and out of the church. If it comes up, awesome. And it does sometimes. That’s how I initially became involved. But there’s a bit of unfeeling manipulation going on just so you can say you’ve been obedient and did that thing the scripture says so you can have tons of joy about it later. Felt it, heard it, saw it.
It just feels too self-centered, in my experience at least.
haha, forgive the “chips in the headstand” bit. I was going to go back and fix that, but then I thought I already had. But for clarity’s sake: you know, one mark for every lay.
Bad analogy, but I’m fried.
Leah, I have to disagree. Not that Mormons can’t make friends; I did, and others certainly have. I didn’t have many actual Mormon friends, that was more like a coworker relationship. But I digress.
“Who wouldnt want people they care about to be on the one and only Ultimately Awesome Path to the Celestial Kingdom?”
Mormons say this is what they want, but you’ll notice that most of them, even the most TBM, have to be reminded to do this. I think about it this way: if I go see an awesome movie, I want to tell people about it, especially friends of mine who I think would enjoy it.
Mormons, if their testimonies are to be believed, are routinely experiencing this kind of excitement and joy about the Church. Why do so few of them want to share it? Why do the few who DO share it do it so poorly?
Look at Hinckley’s TV interviews. He looks friendly, but does he look excited? Does he radiate the joy that comes from the chance to share something truly wonderful with the world?
Mormons get excited when they get out of church early on Sunday. They don’t get excited about going to church. I think that kind of says it all.
@ Goldarn – Nobody expects other people to be insulted or defensive if you tell them about a great movie you just saw, but everybody knows that for religious people, their faith is the most intimate part of who they are. To question that is to challenge their very identity. It’s common knowledge that religion and politics are controversial topics of conversation. I can certainly understand why people would be hesitant to share their faith as a Mormon, even if it truly is joyful and fulfilling for them.
# 3 – translation of the translation:
Make sure that when you describe your faith – that you don’t actually focus on the things that are most central to actually living in the faith. But instead, be sure to give the entirety of your description over to trivial side tangents that have nothing to do with how you actually live as a Mormon.
Only by doing this can you appease those ex-members who frankly are so far removed from the faith life that they once had, that they currently labor under the delusion that these sensational, odd, controversial, and often irrelevant tidbits are all there is to Mormonism.
Sorry, but we’ll define ourselves however we damn well please.
A woman who has gotten a divorce is under no obligation to ask her ex-spouse for a checklist of all the things he thinks she out to disclose about herself to every new guy she goes out with.
And I’m rather disappointed to see the old DNA chestnut surfacing here. I’d think you’d be utterly embarrassed to even be using this argument – it’s been so thoroughly discredited.
@Macha obviously I disagree. The movie analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s clear that even in situations where speaking of TSCC would be welcome are largely avoided, in general, by TBM Mormons.
Goldarn: That ‘coworker’ idea was incredibly apt. I really liked some of the people at church, just as I liked some people at jobs I’ve had. But I never see them anymore. Same relationship.
Seth: Wow — has Lamanite DNA been found? Please tell us more.
They talked about this article on Mormon Coffee and highlighted a couple of interesting additional points on suggestions #2 and #3. Specifically, Gary Lawrence suggests dropping Mormon jargon, and replacing it with words more familiar/palatable to Christians (not for anyone else). And in #3 the article states that “our central message” is
This suggests a very focused marketing strategy. My translation of the new slogan: “You already believe in Christianity, and we’re the real Christianity.” It looks like the plan is to sell the CoJCoL-dS as “Christianity+”.
I know that that has always been a big part of their marketing strategy, but perhaps with the direction Mormon culture has gone lately, they’re redoubling their efforts to attract [politically] conservative Christians (since the CoJCoL-dS has burned their bridges with everyone else).
But if they want to sell Mormonism as Christianity plus, the need to be clearer on what the plus is — since, otherwise, why leave your current Christian denomination for Mormonism? The one thing that Mormons will agree that they have (and everyone needs) is the priesthood authority to perform saving ordinances, including temple ordinances. [Mormons will also agree that they have additional scripture and revelation, but none of it appears to be critical for salvation/exaltation except the ordinances (and corresponding covenants).] But how to sell that to Christians without talking about “the Great Apostasy” to explain the inferiority of all other Christian denominations?
The word “Mormon” fails miserably at bringing to mind an image of the original Christian church.
The unique Mormon “plus” that everybody sees now is a GM management style, IBM fashion sense, and “Father Knows Best” theology.
Gary’s reformulated phrases might work better if the folks spouting them didn’t look exactly like Gary, but they do. “Original Christian” + “corporate attire” = belly laughs and 14 Tony nominations. Wake up, dude. It’s not just the words, it’s the wardrobe.
#3 – translation of the translation of the translation
Focus on the things that are “central” to how you actually live as a Mormon, like:
-Men are patriarchs and rule the home (per Proclamation on the Family)
-same-sex marriage should be opposed at all costs (to the tune of $20 million in donations by Mormons in California)
-Women have no real authority in the religion.
-Family is important, so long as everyone remains a member of the religion. If someone does decide to leave, then religion is more important and it’s okay to cut the apostate off.
-Marry young and have kids, not because it increases the odds of successful marriages but because it keeps people in the religion.
-Mormons spend hours and hours every week engaged in meetings, most of which are stultifyingly boring.
-Mormons don’t share the same notion of the Trinity as most of the rest of Christianity.
-Mormons don’t allow non-Mormon family to attend temple weddings, unlike most other religions.
Are those more central to the way Mormons live their lives, Seth?
#10 was overly grumpy.
But I don’t like being told what I believe.
In all fairness though, I don’t like being told how I’m supposed to portray my faith from the Correlation Committee any more than I like being told by profxm.
Daniel – of course “Lamanite” DNA has been found.
It’s largely Asiatic – just like what we’ve found.
Chanson, I don’t think anyone has been talking less about the “Great Apostasy” – at least, not if they are actually following the manuals.
profxm, funny thing about your #15 is – aside from the inaccurately negative tone – we ARE up front and open about all those things from day one.
You’d have to be an idiot to join this church without knowing that we oppose gay sex. Ditto on not noticing that the Priesthood is male-only. Likewise on the Trinity. Unless – like a lot of Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox, you don’t even know what the Nicene Trinity is in the first place (this is actually quite common, considering that the Nicene Trinity is an utterly incoherent concept). Likewise on non-members not getting into the temple.
In fact, just about all these bullet points come up in the first investigator discussions. So I don’t know what you are on, thinking that we’re hiding the ball about any of this.
As for the young marriages thing – I’m not seeing this as an emphasis in the LDS Church. Unless by “young” you mean age 25 (the normal age for educated LDS to get married these days, it seems).
First investigator discussion? Seth, are you forgetting that I was a missionary?
First investigator discussion: Mormons believe in god, in Jesus, and believe there was a great apostasy, leading to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
No where do: all male priesthood, temple exclusivity, opposition to same sex marriage, concept of god, etc. come up in the investigator discussions. I taught them for two years, just like you did. I remember the content. I specifically chose everyday things that ARE NOT taught to investigators.
Can an investigator find these if they search hard enough? Sure. But missionaries won’t bring them up.
Oh, and apparently you missed Monson’s address in Conference in which he told young men to get married. That, according to news reports, was the emphasis in the latest conference.
You’re being a little sneaky now profxm by limiting this to the first discussion.
Why would you cover that in the first discussion? That’s where you cover central and crucial stuff – the most crucial aspects of our faith. And I guarantee you that notions of who God is and our worship of Jesus Christ are far more central and important in defining our religion than Prop 8.
But I didn’t limit this to the first discussion. I was talking about all the discussions that you have ALWAYS been required to complete before baptism (as long as you and I have known the Church anyway). You can’t get in to this church without knowing we oppose gay sex – unless you are either mentally incompetent or weren’t listening to anything anyone was telling you.
Monson told men to get married. He didn’t tell them to do it at age 19.
And that’s because our nation is facing a crisis of failure-to-launch do-nothing males who aren’t even getting married by age 40 – let alone age 25. My sister is in her early 30s now, and she can’t get any of the single guys she hangs out with to act like a responsible adult. And her story is pretty typical these days.
I was just referring to one of Lawrence’s lingo-ditching recommendations:
I assume he is suggesting that people avoid mentioning the “Great Apostasy” to their Christian friends (perhaps because it offends them…?). But I’m not saying that Mormons do or should follow Lawrence’s suggestions.
To say “men changed” (instead of “apostasy”) to explain why “Christianity” needed to be “re-established” has the advantage that at least nobody will have any clue what you’re talking about. But it’s also a disadvantage. I think Gary Lawrence’s recommendations are foolish because you don’t convince people of a message by obscuring it.
I’m not big on blaming large-scale social trends on individual character flaws. I don’t think human nature changes much from generation to generation, so it’s more fruitful to try to analyze the underlying social, economic, and structural factors that cause these trends. It may well be that young people have a harder time (less opportunity, etc.) getting a foothold in a career than corresponding young people a generation ago. Just telling them to grow up won’t necessarily solve the problem.
Not everybody is interested in marriage. Some people are more interested in self-fulfillment than romantic relationships. And they’re happy. Demeaning people who are different from you, who make different choices than you, and assuming that those choices have to be bad by virtue of their difference, is juvenile and ignorant.
I’m 23 and my first wedding anniversary is next month. I’m happy. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think people can’t be happy being middle-aged and single, or middle-aged and in a non-marital committed relationship, or middle-aged and newly married. Marriage has been demonstrated to be beneficial to health and happiness, but to exhort people to do it as soon as possible, and imply that any faithful member will do, is a recipe for a very bad marriage. Because love is what makes married people happy, not marriage.
What this boils down to is that the general authorities’ talks in conference about marriage said you can’t be happy unless you’re in a procreative hetero marriage, preferably before age 30.
that doesnt mean I dont think people *can* be happy
Oh man. In the early ’00s I was at a joint priesthood/rs meeting in which the bishop relayed the parable about the 1 and 99 sheep and basically told us to ditch our friends who were not receptive to hearing the gospel to make more time to find those who were. Our ward mission leader then got up and said since there were over 300K people in our city, there were at least 3K “lost” and ready to be found and baptized at that moment.
I can’t recall if this directive was “revealed” to the bishop or if it came from the stake president (who was a prone to inane ideas). In either case, the message of the parable was twisted and it was not received well. Some TBMs actually voiced discomfort in the meeting. It didn’t go anywhere.
That’s the usual Mormon way of killing a dumb idea.
Just passive-aggressive resistance it to death.
For as lockstep and conformist as Mormons superficially appear, it can be REALLY hard to get them to do anything they don’t really want to do.
Rarely, if ever, does the church have one “lead by their own example.” It’s all about presenting a facade to draw others in, and not so much about living a good life for yourself. If you were truly happy and living well (according to the church’s ideals), then people would flock to you for the answers. Instead, you’re tasked with trying to convince others you have it so well when you yourself fall short of the mark.
@epalmatier: That also allows TSCC to preach about people not living up to the standards and setting a good example, which hurts people “who might join the church except for your bad example.” Never forget the potential of a teaching/preaching to instill guilt in a member, which can only be relieved by rededicating yourself to wearing white shirts, paying tithing, and all the lesser commandments.
Right Goldarn, and of course enlightened ex-Mormons NEVER use guilt to try and manipulate the sort of responses they want, right?
Right.
Golly, Seth, and here I thought that Mormons were supposed to be better than ex-mormons, not use ex-mormons’ behavior as an excuse. The real question is, should the True Church of Jesus Christ on the Earth use cheap manipulative tactics to get what it wants?
Oh, BTW, watch that anger! Being angry is the exclusive province of ex-mormons. 🙂
The only time I’ll get arrogant with you is when I think your argument is stupid. Otherwise I don’t make claims about who is morally superior on Internet debates. Such arguments always amount to ad hominem if you can’t back them up – which people on both sides usually can’t.
And there is a difference between “anger” and eyerolling sarcasm.
Seth, you’re a hoot! Don’t ever change.
Seth…so you have admitted that Asiatic DNA was found in the American Indian. No DNA for “Hewbrews”…what part of the lie of Joseph’smyth do you like so much that you’ll ignore this one?
kacky, even if everything in the text of the Book of Mormon happened exactly the way it says it happened, we would not expect to find any “Hebrew DNA” among modern American Indians.
So yes, we have found “Lamanite DNA.” And it has a common Asiatic ancestor. But that doesn’t rule out a small influx of Hebrew DNA at some point in the population history that was swallowed up and quickly disappeared.
@ SethR…do you have a degree in the science of DNA, Seth? I’m thinking not…just regurgitating FAIR/FARMS hocus pocus?
That’s great news. We’ve been looking for a respectable Lamanite Placement Program for our kids. They speak Mandarin, not Navajo, but if it’s all the same to y’all, pls note that we prefer a nice family in Tempe. Thanks!
Oh, kacky,
And I’m just certain that whatever cheap two bit hack you got your information from is just brimming with academic competence.
Funny thing about anti-Mormon sources – they always demand to see the academic credentials of the Mormon sources, but never ask to see the credentials of the idiots on RfM or exMormon.org.
Even though such places tend to be intellectual dunghills of barely literate angry people.
I can produce academic credentials of where I got my sources, as it so happens. But I doubt you’d accept it anyway – because it’s a (gasp) MORMON source.
As if that constituted a valid argument against an academic position – but… such is the brain power of a lot of the ex-Mormon venues out there.
Mormon positions always have to have academic backing behind them. Whereas ex-Mormon positions?
Well….
For those, all you have to do is shout – REALLY LOUD.
Is it just me or is Seth R. venting in a venue that would be more than happy to see him contribute a post laying it all out in plain detail for the rest of us dummies?
In any case, what’s the difference between RfM and exMormon.org? Aren’t they one and the same?
Chino @ 36:
Yes, this really is the point. Whether it’s Mormons insisting that natives are anciently “Hebrew,” or whether it’s geneticists insisting they’re anciently “Asiatic,” the damage has been done and is still being done.
Sure, damage has been done Alan.
Just not to the Book of Mormon, which is frankly all I care about.
I’m a Mormon apologist – not an apologist for the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I never have been.
Chino, I always thought they were different, but I haven’t looked to closely.
You are cute, Seth. I’d love your source, but I’m pretty sure it’s either from FAIR or FARMS, right? Stuff even the church won’t back up? They just let them do the talking FOR them, and then they don’t really have to get caught taking a stand.
Have you heard of a Mormon geneticist named Simon Southerton, Seth? He’s got a fantastic book explaining how genetics work and why the “Lamanites” have no Jewish DNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Southerton What about all the non-Mormon scientists who’ve got no skin in the game, Seth, and STILL come up with NADA. But because it doesn’t prove your myth, you say they are all liars and heretics of the church?
You are free to believe in your myth/cult, Seth, but you don’t get to lie about it at the same time. Well you can lie, of course, but you become a laughing stock with zero intellectual credit .
p.s. what *exactly* is Lamanite DNA, Seth?
Just because one can conjure a migration route from Israel through Asia to the Americas doesn’t alleviate the damage in terms of overwriting other people’s history. That’s what I meant by damage, and why I think the BoM’s credibility is shot.
Gotta love these anti-corporate Mormon apologists. 😉 Anyway, I’ve been through this spiel with BCC before I was banned for it, but here it is again: I have a foster sister named Lena and a foster brother named Ravis. Both Navajo. They didn’t just magically arrive in our home one day. And they count for a helluva lot more than your precious BOM apologetics.
As far as I know, “RfM” is simply the name of the principal forum of exmormon.org.
Seth — It looks like there’s further demand for a post from you. I don’t expect you to be prepared off-the-cuff for the topic requested @38, but if you’re ready with the guest post we discussed, I think now is as good as ever. 😉
At the end of the day, this is what sucks about the Mormon character … you refuse to own anything that matters. Keep pushing me and I’m gonna post that Helen Whitney clip for the umpteenth time, just for kicks. Own it!!
Too late, here it goes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101123-native-american-indian-vikings-iceland-genetic-dna-science-europe/
A tiny drop of Native American DNA has been found in Icelanders.
Syrian (and other roman-times) DNA has been found among the inhabitants of the Liddesdale border region near Hadrian’s Wall in England. Syrian archers were stationed there just under 2000 years ago. http://www.oocities.org/teamliddelldna/dnaresults.htm
Seth’s DNA studies are out-of-date. New tests are being run on regular dna–it persists.
Actually Kacky, I’m glad you brought Southerton up – because he actually personally admitted that a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon kills his entire argument. In recent years, he’s been reduced to lame declarations about how past Mormons believed in a continent-wide model. But suffice it to say, the wind has been taken out of his sails recently – by his own admission.
So how’s that for a source for you Kacky – Simon Southerton himself.
agnes, I fail to see how anything you’ve referenced really impacts my argument whatsoever.
Document that, Seth. Give me a link to where Simon says all his work is lie….
I never claimed he said all his work was a lie Kacky.
Take a reading comprehension class and try that comment again.