Do missionaries really seek out people who are inactive or who have left TSCC on a whim or is it prompted by the Bishop or someone else in TSCC?

They've left me alone...so far

I do wonder why some are left alone for years and others are sought after. Maybe they can’t locate some.

I thought they didn’t seek out people who had resigned? Has anyone here been contacted by missionaries after resigning? They’ve never contacted me and I don’t expect them to. However, maybe that’s because I told them not to and that I’d take legal action if they did. Now I’m thinking that the best thing I ever said. I probably would too. Bring it on.

From reports, it depends on what is being pushed by their MP, but yes, inactives are frequent targets.

Back in the stone age, missionaries were given ward lists and told to find them within their assigned boundaries. The ward mission leader would then coordinate with the bishop.

As one can surmise that it takes a lot of time and effort to get people to return to the church. Very few members are willing to work that hard. The church wants an easy fix so they foolishly think inviting inactives to a nonsensical ward cleaning party to scrub toilets will win them over.

They left because they were offended. All they need is the love of Jesus and a plate of cookies.

A lot of time it is a family member that gives out info. Plus, there are senior missions to track others through all kinds of records.

I will say I was actively sought out by the missionaries and it was at the prompting of the bishop. The reason I say this is because after I answered the door and he confirmed who I was, he said that I had been quite a bit of church lately. Thanks to this board I had the perfect comeback: "I haven't been missing church, I have missed a damn minute of it! I enjoy my Sundays off!"

He then tried to come in only to be met with a locked storm door.

If I'm reading this correctly, a question pops into my mind... Are you a female? Also, you used the singular for the visitor. Was it the bishop or a companionship of elders?

Because when a male leadership-type knocks on a door, and the wooden door opens, and a female stands in front of him, with the screen door/storm door still shut, I can easily see that male leader, with his priesthood snug and secure in his pants, assuming that he has every right (and power) to invite himself in, and reaching for the doorknob of the screen door, intending to open it and step into the house.

Would peter priesthood do the same with his equal at the front door? Maybe. But certainly not with the assurance you give to your visitor(s).


Excuse me while I go splash cold water on my face, because I've just role-played, in my mind, how that would go down at my front door...

I may remember this wrong, but years ago when I was a missionary, the bishop or branch president had authority over all members in a geographical area (ward or branch) and the mission president had authority had authority over all non-members in his area. The lines of authority did not cross, i.e. the mission president could not tell the bishop what to do and vice versa.
Any inactive member was the responsibility of the bishop/branch president, and he could assign ward members to work with inactives. He could not, however, assign a full-time missionary to do anything. He could request but not require.

This separation of powers existed in my mission. Once we baptized them, we were gone, unless they could afford to feed us and there was a good cook in the home...

The notion of reactivating Less Actives was totally unknown.

It was very strange reading mishie weekly emails in which this topic was raised.

Same for service projects. No way were we to stop the harvest of that field, white, all ready ...

On my mission in 1990-92, we were told to seek out less actives as a means to find baptisms (i.e. their unbaptized offspring or spouse). If we reactivated the member, that was considered a cherry on top; but reactivating members fell to the local leadership.

Here's an anecdote on the "separation of powers":

We had an investigator ready to take the plunge, font was filling up, he was changed into his whites, and he had passed his interview with the ZL. Then, the local BP asked to interview him, "to get to know him better..." and in about 15 minutes, the investigator emerged and said: "I will not be baptized." The BP had talked him out of it! When questioned, the BP told us he didn't think this investigator was committed enough and needed more discussions. I suspect the BP didn't want ANOTHER inactive on his hands.

When we told the MP what had happened, he bellowed:
"YOU TELL THAT BP TO SUCK SAND! I, AND ONLY I, DECIDE WHO GETS BAPTIZED AROUND HERE!"

I was soon transferred, so I don't know what happened to the investigator. (or the BP who defied protocol!) Hopefully he (and that BP) escaped and are happier now!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2019 12:43PM by oxymormon.

I resigned but am still one of their hopefuls mainly because I believe “love thy neighbor” applies to even those you disagree with. However, I had gone a year without any contact. I think they believe if I just gain that solid testimony of the BOM I will return, be rebaptized, and be “golden”. Long story short, two kindhearted Elders came to my home and we had a heartfelt discussion in my living room. They were never belittled or degraded as we talked. They helped me move my new dining room table into my dining room. I just wondered what kind of notes were kept about me for them to be prompted to contact me. Lol. I know being rude will probably chase them away for good but I stand by being kind even if I have to say I’m not returning and explain why 100 times. Sometimes you plant a seed that never would have been there otherwise.