I was at a public event yesterday. The event was focused on charity work. There were several sets of Missionaries there, working the crowd. I saw them coming. When they got to me, no one else was within hearing range. There were four of them. They seemed nice enough. I saw the pitch coming a mile away and decided to reframe how I deal with these situations.

After their initial pitch, I said "yeah, since no one else is within hearing range I'll be completely honest here. Otherwise, I wouldn't disparage your religion in front of you where you might be emberrassed. You seem like nice guys here and I am sure you're here for good reasons, as I was when I went on my mission. So no offense to you guys personally here. I had my name removed from the church records several years ago, and I don't plan on ever coming back".

I did my best to be positive, to connect socially, and to treat them with respect as I continued. "I bet there are things things that you don't know about the temple ceremony (smiled and tried to connect here). Mind if I share them with you?" (all blank stares). "When I went through the temple, three of the four tokens had a penalty atteched to them. So instead of accepting a token with the secret handshakes, and the accompanying name and sign, everyone in the ceremony accepted the handshake with an accompanying name, sign, and penalty, as they acted out slashing their own throats for one token, and having their body sliced open at the chest and waist level for the other two tokens. These ways to end your life were called penalties. It was really creepy. But that's not the only reason I left. For several reasons, I just realized eventually that I belonged to a cult and needed to get out".

Then rather than watching them try to mask their shock and answer my claims, I let them off the hook by telling them where I went on my mission and telling them that I still have some friends and family members who are active church members. I smiled and reassured them that I don't hold them personally to blame for anything, while also being clear about how terrible the church is. I also told them that "... This isn't the time and place for me to be disparaging the church. So I won't say anything negative about the church here (pointing to the crowd). I just didn't want to lie to you here by acting ignorant, or acting toward you like I'me an angry asshole (a message that the angry asshole persona doesn't work and that I am not there anyway). It was nice of you to stop by here. I know you're just trying to do good things".

They seemed a little nervous and thanked me for being honest with them as they left. After they were gone, I realized that I had set a good example of how well adjusted and happy a person can be after they leave the church. Maybe, some day that will be of help to some of them. For me, this was significant because I was able to maintain my composure without appearing to be anti-social, or without having to faign ignorance. I stayed in control and had fun with it and letting them know it wasn't anything personal against them. Somehow, I framed things so that I didn't have to listen to any testimonies. I am pretty good at reading people and am pretty sure that none of them had heard about the old temple ceremony and that what I described was too close to the ceremony they had been through, to just be made up. Somehow, a testimony just didn't fit in to that discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2017 01:36AM by azsteve.

Except for the idea of "setting an example." No one need assume their behavior is on show and reflects one way or the other on a whole group of people.

My original thought is that some day when one or more of these missionaries gets home and eventually considers leaving the church, they'll remember this guy from their mission who seemed to have it work out well for himself.

I've learned that it's wise to pick your battles with the church and those who represent the church carefully, and to prevent or diffuse their ability to give a false witness (ie: testimony), ahead of time. If others would have been around, I would have emberrassed the missionaries just enough to get them to back off, while still being nice to them. Public Opinion can turn on you quickly if you're perceived as anti-clergy about any religion, or a bully.

The key is to stay honest with the world around you and to not let others intimidate or take advantage of you and your beliefs, or to steifel you, without you needing to be a bully yourself. Let the aggressor be the one to lose composure, and to "kick against the pricks" (whatever that means). Unless the missionary steps out of line, the only one to lose in these encounters should be the church, its reputation, and responsibilities for the past wrong doings of its leaders, and not the individuals who are deceived about their religion. The next step for me to learn is how to accomplish the same thing in front of bystanders without emberrasing the missionaries any more than is necessary or appearing to be perceived as an aggressor or a bully or an angry person. If there is awkwardness. It should be on them every time they take the risk of approaching someone new about the church. At the same time, I think the church takes a bigger hit when you help the missionary save face as an individual. It makes them look like the biggest victem of all, and you're nice enough to not hold their false beliefs against them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2017 11:40AM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Let the aggressor be the one to lose composure,
> and to "kick against the pricks" (whatever that
> means).

If you're unsure or unwilling to find out what a phrase means, why use it? Your post has lots of, do this, don't do that. Why would someone be persuaded by your opinion when you not only reference scripture (of all things) and can't be bothered to find out how to use that quote properly?

What if the missionaries did that?

While I applaud your approach, Steve, I side with Cheryl.

Some mormon not leaving the church over the "personality" of ex-mormons is as bad as someone leaving the church over the "personality" of somebody in their ward.

Either the church's truth claims are "true" or they aren't. That's the case no matter how nice either ex-mos or members are. Evidence clearly shows they're not. If somebody's interested in that, the personalities involved aren't going to make all that much difference. And if they're not, it's the same thing.

It is entirely possible that you will have made at least one of those missionaries stop and really think.

Your approach seems to line up with a doctor's creed, "First, do no harm." Important when you are trying to mend something.

I liked what you did. Someone took similar approach with me while I was on the mission. I never forgot his few brief words and they mattered later. They stuck in the back of my head.

And on the other topic, I cannot believe that the throat slitting disembowlment never bothered me at all. I was so primed to accept anything. I really wish they had left that in the ceremony to help the Mormons do themselves in.

How is 'completely honest' consistent with 'saw their pitch from a mile away', protecting them (why??) from embarrassment, deciding they 'seemed nice enough', etc?

There's so much here that's projecting, assuming, and as you said, framing.

Sorry, that's not honest. I get that your views are changing and I appreciate your advice ('the key is to stay honest with the world around you...'), but the approach is def agendized and NOT honest.

If anything you're more alike than different to these missionaries.

I understand those who don't like my approach in this case. It seems a little too much for some like fraternizing with the enemy, for some. Some say it's dishonest, even causing one person to disparage a reference to 'kicking against the pricks' if I don't understand it (of course I do and was marginalizing the term to make a point).

Joseph Smith tried to create a narrative which often becomes a prison for those who leave the church. You're supposed to be unhappy after you leave, so that you keep your mouth shut about it, or return to the fold in search of the happiness you've lost after leaving. Rather than fit that paradigm, everyone here should create their own paradigms, their own life. Why choose to make it unhappy?

I realized that those missionaries were in some ways, younger versions of myself. I was 100% honest and genuine with them. But I also had to recon with the fact that like my younger self, they're serving an unworthy institution, mostly out of ignorance. So why mis-treat them? Why choose to be anti-social? At the same time, why would anyone willingly allow them to win their points when they're wrong? The best way to put an end to the church is to not fall in to their paradigms, nor to miss out on your own happiness.

I like your approach, azsteve. Mormons are often taught that those who leave the church are angry, bitter, offended, unhappy people who are controlled by Satan. I think it's nice when exmos have an opportunity to show TBMs that isn't the case.

In my opinion, even with all the information available today about the Mormon church, most TBMs are not aware of it. I like that you used the opportunity to gently educate. Had you used the opportunity to embarrass the missionaries or attack the church, they probably would have shut right down and quit listening to you. Instead, who knows, maybe you got them thinking. And maybe one day we'll read the story on this board of a man who met a kind guy at a charity event while on his mission who go him to question the church. So, I think you did good.

want2bx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like your approach, azsteve. Mormons are often
> taught that those who leave the church are angry,
> bitter, offended, unhappy people who are
> controlled by Satan. I think it's nice when exmos
> have an opportunity to show TBMs that isn't the
> case.


How did azsteve 'show TBMs that isn't the case?

This is how I see it:

Whether it's fair or not, most people judge others or make assumptions about them based on what they observe or how they're treated by them. Most Mormons see an exmo who rants about how they've been wronged by the church or who tries to embarrass them in front of others as bitter and unhappy, whether or not that is truly the case.

From azsteve's account, he tried to treat the missionaries respectfully while still educating them a little about their religion. It may not be treatment that they have been taught to expect from an exmo and may have taken them by surprise that someone who has left the church can be friendly and cordial.

From reading your previous posts, carmeldreams, I understand that you don't agree with the way azsteve interacted with the missionaries. It's your right to disagree, but I just see it differently.

I see it just the way you see it want2bx. Well said.

The way azsteve chose to handle the situation may not be the way someone else would handle it. But, the point is, he thought carefully and made a statement with class and dignity. That alone can speak volumes.

Azsteve did not give the missionaries cause to assume he was just angry or offended. He gave the missionaries a glimpse into the mind of a thoughtful Exmo. They now have a third choice to consider when they meet an Exmo. (a)Angry. (b)Bitter. Or, (c)Rational and Forthright.

Maybe it worked. Maybe it didn't. But restraint can be a powerful tool and class always packs a punch.

want2bx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is how I see it:
>

> Most Mormons see an exmo who rants about how they've
> been wronged by the church or who tries to
> embarrass them in front of others as bitter and
> unhappy, whether or not that is truly the case.
>
azsteve has plans to embarrass missionaries in front of others. Mormons have every right to not want to be treated this way.

Every ex mo who embarrasses Mormons does him/herself no favors and a great disservice to ex Mos.

Shame and emberrasment are two worthy topics that anyone who leaves the church should explore. Too often, mormons have no healthy sense of shame when they should, and often experience toxic shame when they shouldn't.

Somewhere in-between, there should be a balance that fits common sense. How do you communicate honestly with someone who has no moral qualms about lieing to you? Several people here have admitted to lieing to people in the mission field. I did it too, and without feeling bad about it at the time. A person should feel a healthy sense of shame when they do that, and so they would change that behavior. How do you correct someone who refuses to do that, without making an enemy? When the situation becomes unavoidable, how do you do it publicly? This is something worth exploring. To acquiess to this behavior is choosing to submit to the will of a bully.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2017 12:49AM by azsteve.

azsteve has his own agenda as evidenced by his strategy with the missionaries. Thoughtful? Rational? Please.

"Then rather than watching them try to mask their shock and answer my claims, I let them off the hook..."

Who says they would be shocked, or have to mask this?
Who has them on the hook? Absurd. Egoistic.

"I bet there are things things that you don't know about the temple ceremony (smiled and tried to connect here)."

Gross. Same approach used by countless missionaries. Dare the investigator about something YOU know but they don't.
And using a smile and an attempt to connect is no different.
Manipulation by any other name...

"I just didn't want to lie to you here by acting ignorant"

Yet again, another false extension: instead, azsteve acts 'nice' and 'not like an angry asshole'. Acting. A show. Not honest.

"I stayed in control and had fun with it"

Well, that's all that matters, isn't it? That azsteve is having fun?

"...to prevent or diffuse their ability to give a false witness (ie: testimony), ahead of time."

Ah, good strategy. Never let even the 'nice' enemy get a leg up.

"If others would have been around, I would have emberrassed the missionaries just enough to get them to back off, while still being nice to them."

Ooh! A threat! Now we are getting 'honest'. Not to the missionaries, of course, never with them. But at least azsteve knows where he could have gone: 'just enough' emberrassed (sic). azsteve reads people pretty well so we know when he says 'just enough', it will be perfect. Don't worry, you can embarrass others 'while still being nice to them.' People love being humiliated, right? It's so 'nice'.

And never stop being 'nice'. Example:

"The next step for me to learn is how to accomplish the same thing in front of bystanders without emberrasing the missionaries any more than is necessary or appearing to be perceived as an aggressor or a bully or an angry person."

Because being 'nice' is how you are able to 'emberrass' (sic) the missionaries 'just enough', no 'more than is necessary'. Tactical. Precise. And you get to keep the ego-bound self image of 'nice' azsteve. The legend you are. When that missionary looks back on his life, it's you he will remember. Isn't that how it plays out in your mind?

Because the classy man embarrasses others. The classy, rational, thoughtful man makes sure the 'awkwardness' is on the shoulders of his enemy. He will never look like an aggressor as he is the PASSIVE form of aggression.

Humiliation (just enough), embarrassment in front of others, pushing one's beliefs onto unsuspecting recipients. These are the hallmarks of a man of class.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2017 06:44PM by carameldreams.

Those here who have read my other posts have seen my vulnerable side too. There's not a lot of class involved when it takes more than a decade of struggle to get most of your life back. And when you get it back, you don't make the same mistakes again. If you want to be truely happy, you learn to forgive. Believe me, that's the last thing I want to say or believe. But it sure beats being angry and unhappy for the rest of your life. And I've still got a way to go with that. It's not a Jesus thing for me at all. It's just about learning to be happy again. Through it all, you get to stand up for yourself when anyone exposes you to those same unhealthy things once again, that took you down the first time. I didn't ask the missionaries to approach me again. There's a lot of defense going on here for me. Despite how prepared I should be with respect to my past experience, it's a challenge if you want to be a better person (better than your previous self, not better than the next guy).

Question of carameldreams: Everything I said to these guys was as honest as I could make it, and certainly more-so then their typical response from others that same day (seen it all myself from the other side). What makes you feel the need to question that? Why do you assign negative attributes to my description of events, tactics, modivations? It's okay to be honest and to still be tactical. Maybe some of us here don't like what the church is doing in our world. So you push back, and you talk about it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2017 01:45AM by azsteve.

Lest we forget, azsteve did not approach the missionaries. They approached him and gave him their missionary pitch.

When you approach people in public with the intent to sell them your religion, you can't expect everyone, or even anyone is going to accept that. In fact, if you don't think there will ever be any push back you're being naive.

Azsteve didn't ask them about their religion. They pitched it to him and he more or less took a swing. That's usually how it goes in these situations. Most people don't want anything to do with mormonism. An exmormon has a bit of an advantage when approached by missionaries. Especially if they've been on a mission themselves. They know the language, thoughts, and feelings of the people approaching them before those people ever say a word. azsteve has been on the other side of the fence. An advantage the missionaries don't have. Not only that, he also has the advantage of more life experience and most likely more information about mormonism than most mormons.

I think he was pretty civil given the circumstances. I'm not too sure I would have been that kind, because for now, mormons and their chosen ignorance annoy the hell out of me.

janis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lest we forget, azsteve did not approach the
> missionaries. They approached him and gave him
> their missionary pitch.

Of course they did! Duh. And azsteve knew this would happen and said as much. Further, if he didn't want to engage, he could have avoided them. This is not a forced encounter.

We all know how it goes whether we were an investigator, BIC, or a missionary ourselves (and every member a missionary). He said he saw their pitch a mile away. He's been around the block with this one and as a result of his expertise, decided to manipulate the missionaries.

He had fun with it, was able to be fake and act in a way that pleased him ('didn't have to faign (sic) ignorance', '(he) didn't have to listen to any testimonies').

azsteve is no victim in this so there's no sympathy for the fact he 'did not approach the missionaries'.

As far as 'most people don't want anything to do with mormonism', most people do not want to be manipulated, dared about what they don't know, embarrassed in front of others, lied to, and projected upon.

Most people don't like it when a proselytizer assumes they know what's going on in the minds of the audience, assumes the emotions of the hearer(s), assumes their next move, etc. It's disgusting and azsteve used the same tactics the missionaries use all the time.

Passive aggression is no friend of dignity. It's simply another way to stick it to people one does not like/agree with.

I imagine the missionaries saw through the bs and let azsteve have his soapbox moment. To assure missionaries, 'I won't say anything negative about the church here (pointing to the crowd)' and to tell the same missionaries about blood oath penalties that will 'shock' them, and further, that their beloved church is a 'cult' is ridiculous.

If azsteve is so invested in honesty, then cut the crap and stop playing games with people. He had an agenda, used manipulation toward his objective and this is no different from missionary training (and missionary efforts).

Have a Snickers Marcia.

There is NO one best way to treat them.

Everyone they meet has a 100% to rebuff them, plant seeds, or tell them the truth without worry about their feelings or circumstances.

It isn't the job of exmos or non-mos to baby missionaries or protect their feelings. Nor is it the job of unconnected strangers to provide food, water, bathrooms or sanctuary for them.

If someone wants to take on these tasks, they are certainly free to do so. If not, that's fine too.

Everyone needs to decide their goal in talking to or turning away any kind of religious salesperson and act accordingly.

The primary goal of recovering former mormons needs to be healing and personal growth. If meeting with missionaries helps them, that's good. If it doesn't help them, they need not give missionaries a passing glance.

I agree with how you handled that azsteve, and with the responses from want2bx and Done & Done. I had posted in earlier threads about our experience with the missionaries right after we left TSCC. My husband,our son, and myself were sitting around the kitchen table discussing what we had found out, and my DH said that he wished he could have just 5 minutes with the missionaries some time to let them know what we did. Literally, 4 or 5 seconds later, our son looking out the window, said:"who are these guys?" We turned and looked and it was some missionaries walking directly over to our house from where they had parked their car across the street. We let them in, shared lunch with them, and when they started their spiel about the church, we responded with our own statements. I told them that they are fine young men and that they don't need a business/cult telling them that they are worthless unless they are out working for them. We explained the need to change your thoughts, and brought up the facts about JS's shadiness,and some of the things that are in the CES letter. They listened, and from the looks on their faces, we're hoping it got them thinking. When I was 18, I was all starry-eyed to be working in the COB. It took 42 years later to wake up, and I wish that there had been someone with both understanding and class to wake me up back in the day.

First of all, this was a forced encounter. Yes, I saw them coming from a mile away... and some people's advice is to run the other way, and to hide? I don't think so. If they had simply walked by, I would have smiled and said "good morning" like I would have said if anyone else had walked by. Would that have been a manipulation too? The idea is to bring the church down if possible, not hide from those who are trying to make it grow. Everyone needs to learn how to engage with their world, not how to hide from it, and that world includes the mormon church and those who represent it.

Earlier that morning, I passed a pair of missionaries, after they had just handed some guy a Book of Mormon. As I passed, I heard the old familiar "... if you'll pray about this, I know that...". Of course I didn't stop and object. That guy might some day regret the fact that he was lied to, and taken advantage of. These missionaries are harming people. We don't want to necessarily harm them. We do want to stop them or slow them down if we can.

When carameldreams says 'azsteve is no victem' that statement is mostly wrong. Of course I was a victem, just like that poor guy that I saw those missionaries pitch that morning. Why would I waste my time on this board if I had not taken-on damages from the church earlier in my life? The fact that I am capable of fighting back now doesn't invalidate that. At least it's not personal, against the missionaries. But yes, I do want them to see the negative side of the lies that they're telling. I want them to stop what they're doing, at least when it involves me and my world. There's no soapbox or dishonesty or manipulation. And by the way, the blood oaths really do creep everyone out, including missionaries who have never experienced them. People don't know what to say, nor how to act when you tell them about the blood oaths. It's very affective. I've done it. Like I said, I let these guys off the hook. I treated them with the same dignity I would have treated my own nephew with. Is that manipulative too? If more people handled the missionaries this way, fewer of them would go on a mission. Fewer of them would complete their missions. The church would not grow. Fewer people would be harmed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2017 11:41AM by azsteve.

Your critics arguements lack merit and aren't worth responding to.