Power of Everyday Missionaries - thoughts?

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm not talking about the likelihood that someone wants to listen to you talk about football versus religion, I'm talking about the how in many business/professional environments and situations talking about your religion, which is not the same as being religious, is considered unprofessional whereas talking about football is not. My point is not, "Never bring up your religion, people may judge you." my point was, "One cannot simply do a "find replace" of talking about football with talking about Mormonism because the propriety of these things for all situations is not the same, for example professional interactions." 

 

*nod* I understand.

[Lakumi]

If someone asked me what I did over the weekend and I said I had gone to the temple, and they translated that as me trying to convert them, that's their problem, not mine. If someone wants to know what I did over the weekend I'm telling them and I'm telling them the truth, not hiding it.

 

Moreover, my objective is to do as the Savior has commanded that I do, not worry about what people want me to do. So if someone is upset at my "trying to convert them" they can take it up with Jesus in the afterlife. I will follow His words.

 

No I'd never assume someone telling me "Oh I went to the temple" was trying to convert me (I went to a doll show, doesn't mean I want you to like dolls)

And yeah I understand what you mean about Jesus and his commands, but just saying, I'd get really mad if someone tried to convert me at work (or a doll show) -actually convert, like bring me to church and such.

[The Folk Prophet]

No I'd never assume someone telling me "Oh I went to the temple" was trying to convert me (I went to a doll show, doesn't mean I want you to like dolls)

And yeah I understand what you mean about Jesus and his commands, but just saying, I'd get really mad if someone tried to convert me at work (or a doll show) -actually convert, like bring me to church and such.

 

Noted. Never bring dolls to show to Lakumi at work.

[Lakumi]

Noted. Never bring dolls to show to Lakumi at work.

I have explained doll racism before lol

Your dolls are probably lesser

[The Folk Prophet]

I have explained doll racism before lol

Your dolls are probably lesser

 

Action figures!! They're action figures!

[Lakumi]

Action figures!! They're action figures!

no they're dolls, Lakumi there is a doll-action figures are trash compared to her! lol

[Guest]

I\\\'m not talking about the likelihood that someone wants to listen to you talk about football versus religion, I\\\'m talking about the how in many business/professional environments and situations talking about your religion, which is not the same as being religious, is considered unprofessional whereas talking about football is not. My point is not, \\\"Never bring up your religion, people may judge you.\\\" my point was, \\\"One cannot simply do a \\\"find replace\\\" of talking about football with talking about Mormonism because the propriety of these things for all situations is not the same, for example professional interactions.\\\"

There\\\'s a difference between talking about your religion and living your religion which bleeds into your speech. It is a find/replace because the example I gave about my husband is not him talking football. He IS football. There\\\'s no such thing as I can\\\'t be Mormon because it\\\'s not appropriate. If that\\\'s the case, then the environment is toxic. Now, a good example of this is Mozilla. Being known as a Mormon in Mozilla can get you fired (just going by the CEO incident). But that shouldn\\\'t mean you should change the way you live so your religion doesn\\\'t bleed into your speech and actions. That should mean, you\\\'re going to lay low for a while until you find another job.

See, that\\\'s really the lesson in the book. Everyday Missionaries are those who ARE Mormons. They live their faith in such a way that everybody sees the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they see them. When a Mormon is afraid to be a Mormon but not football, something is wrong, because Mormons are supposed to be Everyday Missionaries and be a peculiar people.

[EarlJibbs]

True Lakumi, but the comparison wasn't about the way we act around a sport or in church. It was to point out that we already do other things openly (like your dolls that you have talked about) that brings up good conversation and people then understand you more, but we shy away from religion. I think we are even more open about politics (possibly a much more heated debate) than we do about religion.

 

Talking about something more often with whoever, can help us not be so shy. In a sense, it desensitizes us from being afraid the more we do open up.

[The Folk Prophet]

no they're dolls, Lakumi there is a doll-action figures are trash compared to her! lol

 

I know humor ceases to be funny when one explains it...but the point here was that I was claiming to own action figures, and pretending to be offended at having them called dolls. Of course, none of the above are true. I do own a few Star Wars replica props, but no action figures.

[Dravin]

There\\\'s a difference between talking about your religion and living your religion which bleeds into your speech. It is a find/replace because the example I gave about my husband is not him talking football. He IS football. 

 

First, your husband is not a sport. That hyperbole out of the way, your example of your husband include him talking about football. If, as you suggested, we replaced NFL with Mormon we end up with a hypothetical in which one is talking about Mormonism. Which is why I pointed out the propriety of the two topics is not identical in certain situations, football is considered an acceptable topic under broader circumstances. 

[Wingnut]

See, that\\\'s really the lesson in the book. Everyday Missionaries are those who ARE Mormons. They live their faith in such a way that everybody sees the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they see them. When a Mormon is afraid to be a Mormon but not football, something is wrong, because Mormons are supposed to be Everyday Missionaries and be a peculiar people.

 

I very much disagree with this.  I am Mormon.  I am very much Mormon.  But I choose not to deliberately pepper my conversations with references to LDS-specific language, particularly in casual or professional conversation.  If I'm talking with non-member neighbors or friends with whom I have an established relationship and have talked about church things before, I'm less likely to censor myself because the relationship is already safe, and it's already established as a non-taboo topic.  I'm not afraid to be a Mormon, and it's offensive that you would suggest that I am.  I choose to use language that is comfortable and relatable to the people I'm speaking with.  I try to meet them where they are.  Instead of "ward" (mental ward?), I use "congregation."  Instead of "young women" or "young men," I use "youth group."  It allows conversations to happen naturally without having to detour for explanations in the moment.  But it still lets people know that I'm involved with my church, and obviously it's something important to me.  It may not open doors immediately, but it lets people know they can knock whenever they want to.  In the meantime, I continue to build relationships of trust and understanding.

 

Note: I'm not saying that "everyday missionaries" don't build relationships, or that they are doing it wrong.  I'm agreeing with Dravin as to the propriety and context of such language and conversation.  For me, constant "foreign" language (and subsequent over-eager explanation) would be a huge turn-off in a casual relationship conversation, or a professional setting.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hmm. I don't know about that Wingnut. I mean...not that I'm saying your wrong necesarilly...just that in my view...  Well, if I were having a conversation with a Catholic (whether I knew they were Catholic or not) and they were speaking of the bread and wine ceremony, I would expect them to say "communion" or "Eucharist", rather than "sacrament". If a person in a Christian denomination calls their leader reverend or pastor or what-have-you I would expect them to call them what they call them. And if I'm speaking about my bishop, I think I ought to call him my bishop.  A ward is a ward. Calling it a ward should never be a problem for anyone, imo.

 

Anyone who got offended because of the huge turn-off of a Catholic talking about "communion" and their "priest" would be a pretty big jerk. I see it the same way. If I'm talking about my ward and they get offended because it's not a comfortable term for them, basically is means they're a jerk.

 

Edit: after reading a bit on it I don't really know how a Catholic would refer to The Lord's Supper...but however they do, I would expect them to use the term they use.

[Dravin]

To everyone involved, are we disagreeing over the application of context and audience to our social interactions? Or are we disagreeing over how to apply context and audience to our social interactions? If the former, I think there is a bridge I just can't cross as even as a full time missionary I applied context and audience to my social interactions while actively proselyting. If the latter, that's understandable.

[Wingnut]

Hmm. I don't know about that Wingnut. I mean...not that I'm saying your wrong necesarilly...just that in my view...  Well, if I were having a conversation with a Catholic (whether I knew they were Catholic or not) and they were speaking of the bread and wine ceremony, I would expect them to say "communion" or "Eucharist", rather than "sacrament". If a person in a Christian denomination calls their leader reverend or pastor or what-have-you I would expect them to call them what they call them. And if I'm speaking about my bishop, I think I ought to call him my bishop.  A ward is a ward. Calling it a ward should never be a problem for anyone, imo.

 

Anyone who got offended because of the huge turn-off of a Catholic talking about "communion" and their "priest" would be a pretty big jerk. I see it the same way. If I'm talking about my ward and they get offended because it's not a comfortable term for them, basically is means they're a jerk.

 

Edit: after reading a bit on it I don't really know how a Catholic would refer to The Lord's Supper...but however they do, I would expect them to use the term they use.

 

Catholicism is much more ubiquitous than Mormonism is.  And Catholicism isn't known for proselyting and attempts at conversion.

 

 

 

BTW, a Catholic likely wouldn't use the term "sacrament" in this sense, because the word has a different meaning for Catholics.  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Catholicism is much more ubiquitous than Mormonism is.  And Catholicism isn't known for proselyting and attempts at conversion.

 

Which means, you believe that people respond differently to Mormons by reading proselytizing into every "mormonism" used. But that's their problem, not the Mormon's who uses the word "ward" instead of "congregation".

 

I think also, to the greater point, (and to be clear this is my opinion) that fear of offending others is not a valid reason to alter proselytizing methods. Conversely, to be fair, is said altering of that method provided a greater chance to convert, then it is valid. So I suppose it really comes down to intent. My sense is that you feel it is more effective to speak in the terms that you do. And that is valid.

 

BTW, a Catholic likely wouldn't use the term "sacrament" in this sense, because the word has a different meaning for Catholics.  :)

 

Um...that was exactly my point. Hmm. Mayhaps I wasn't as clear as I meant to be. 

[Wingnut]

Which means, you believe that people respond differently to Mormons by reading proselytizing into every "mormonism" used. But that's their problem, not the Mormon's who uses the word "ward" instead of "congregation".

 

I think also, to the greater point, (and to be clear this is my opinion) that fear of offending others is not a valid reason to alter proselytizing methods. Conversely, to be fair, is said altering of that method provided a greater chance to convert, then it is valid. So I suppose it really comes down to intent. My sense is that you feel it is more effective to speak in the terms that you do. And that is valid.

 

I'm not worried about offending others, but rather alienating them.  There are two parts to communication: the onus is on the hearer/receiver to understand adequately, and you're correct that if they misinterpret, that's their problem.  But to that end, the speaker/sender must do the best they can to send a clearly-intentioned message.  To me, using the more ambiguous/generic language leaves room for greater growth, particularly in new relationships or professional ones.

 

And thanks for the validation.  :)  Each of us knows our own selves and our own relationships better than anyone else does.

[MarginOfError]

And that there is why our Ward Mission Leader gives the training with the book. Because that\'s most people\'s natural reaction. But when you\'re an Everyday Missionary, it doesn\'t matter the audience.

So let\'s give this another perspective...

My husband is a big time NFL fan. Big time. Everybody knows it. Why? Because he talks football, he wears football. He\'s excited about football. Everybody that knows my husband sees football when they see his name. He\'s an Everyday Missionary for the NFL. There\'s no such thing as \"Mr. Anatess is only football for certain audience\". Oh no. Everybody he works with knows he\'s football, everybody in his school knows he\'s football, all his friends knows he\'s football, the dry cleaning dude knows he\'s football... So, people talk to him about football! It\'s not awkward or anything for those who doesn\'t like football. I don\'t like football and I married the guy! Because, yes, he\'s football, but he\'s such a great guy that when you see him NFL becomes a cool thing that is just a part of who he is and not something you have to run away from.

Now, replace NFL with Mormon.

For some reason, we all think it\'s ok to be NFL fan but not Mormon fan. We\'re afraid of that rejection. It\'s not the audience, it\'s us.

So, best example of an Everyday Missionary. Tim Tebow. And he\'s football too. And yes, he gets rejections by popular media daily. It doesn\'t matter to him. Because he loves God first and foremost. That is what Chapter 2 is all about...

To be honest, people that obsess over football (or any sport) annoy me. Mormons that obsess over mormonisike that annoy me even more.

[beefche]

  Each of us knows our own selves and our own relationships better than anyone else does.

 

 

No, Wing, you are wrong.  Those of us on forums know way more about your relationship and your characteristics than you could ever hope to know.  

[Guest]

First, your husband is not a sport. That hyperbole out of the way, your example of your husband include him talking about football. If, as you suggested, we replaced NFL with Mormon we end up with a hypothetical in which one is talking about Mormonism. Which is why I pointed out the propriety of the two topics is not identical in certain situations, football is considered an acceptable topic under broader circumstances.

You don\'t know my husband.

But even then, when you hear the name Tom Brady, the thing that pops into your head is Football. THAT\'s what I mean when I say Tom Brady IS Football. Tim Tebow - he is first and foremost Christian in people\'s heads before he is Football.

And that\'s what Everyday Missionaries are.., except the Church, not Football. It has nothing to do with appropriate or not appropriate circumstances... It\'s not just using \"Mormon Words\"... that is actually only a small portion of Chapter 2 in the book. It is who you are when others see you.

[Dravin]

You don't know my husband.

But even then, when you hear the name Tom Brady, the thing that pops into your head is Football. THAT's what I mean when I say Tom Brady IS Football.

 

 

That's also hyperbole. Are you unaware of what hyperbole is?

[Guest]

That\'s also hyperbole. Are you unaware of what hyperbole is?

Now, if this was a civil question, you would say \"do you know what hyperbole means?\" But, that could just be me assigning tone where it doesn\'t exist...

Yes, I know what hyperbole is. Now, do you understand that my use of the sentence, whether hyperbole or not, means something that I have tried to explain a quadjillion times? Yes, that\'s also a hyperbole. So?

[Guest]

And just so this is clear... I\'m not telling you what I think of Everyday Missionaries, I\'m merely telling you what Chapter 2 of that book that has Mormon Words in it is trying to say.

It seems like I\'m the only one that read the thing.

[Dravin]

Now, if this was a civil question, you would say \"do you know what hyperbole means?\" But, that could just be me assigning tone where it doesn\'t exist...

Yes, I know what hyperbole is. Now, do you understand that my use of the sentence, whether hyperbole or not, means something that I have tried to explain a quadjillion times? Yes, that\'s also a hyperbole. So?

 

I understand your words, but not your overall point in response to my initial comment as they don't address it. That fact that your husband is gung ho about football has zero bearing on the propriety, in American society, of discussing religion in various contexts versus the propriety of discussing football in various contexts. Nor does it mean your hypothetical did not include a reference about talking about football, to wit:

 

 

My husband is a big time NFL fan. Big time. Everybody knows it. Why? Because he talks football, he wears football. 

 

Does this mean your analogy was solely about him talking about football? Nope. Of course I never claimed it did. I responded very specifically to a specific portion of your analogy by saying it's worth noting that there isn't equivalency between talking about football and talking about religion in certain contexts in American society because the propriety of the two topics is not the same. 

 

And just so this is clear... I\'m not telling you what I think of Everyday Missionaries, I\'m merely telling you what Chapter 2 of that book that has Mormon Words in it is trying to say.

 

 

Unless the chapter includes a discussion on the propriety, in American society, of discussing football versus religion in various contexts, it also has zero bearing on my comments concerning the issue. You seem to be trying to make a point that The Power of Everyday Missionaries is not just about talking about Mormonism, that it's about a more inclusive package of behaviors about having the Church infuse your life and come through in your interactions with other people, this doesn't particularly bear on my earlier comments.

 

I feel like it's the equivalent of:

 

You: "Being healthy is part of an comprehensive lifestyle. Like eating healthy, such as eating more fish and less beef, and more non-starchy vegetables. Also exercising regularly..."

Me: "It's worth noting that apex predator fish can have higher mercury levels than some other fish."

You: "I'm not saying that being healthy is all about eating fish."

Me: "You did mention eating fish which is why I pointed out that some fish have higher mercury levels than others."

You: "Health isn't just about eating fish, it's part of a comprehensive lifestyle."

 

Maybe we're just talking past each other?

 

So to be perfectly clear:

 

1. I am not saying, and did not say, that The Power of Everyday Missionaries focuses solely on talking about religion.
2. I am not saying, and did not say, that your analogy focused solely on talking about football/religion.
3. I am saying, and did say, that the propriety, in American society, of talking about football versus religion in certain contexts is not the same.
4. I am saying, and did say, that your analogy did mention talking about football, which if we do a find/replace, makes an equivalent hypothetical that includes talking about religion.
5. I am saying, and did say, that #3 creates an issue with equating talking about religion with talking about football in American society.
6. I am not saying, and did not say, that #5 makes it a worthless analogy or explanation of the concepts in The Power of Everyday Missionaries.

[Guest]

Dravin, on 09 Apr 2014 - 8:29 PM, said:

 

I understand your words, but not your overall point in response to my initial comment as they don't address it. That fact that your husband is gung ho about football has zero bearing on the propriety, in American society, of discussing religion in various contexts versus the propriety of discussing football in various contexts. Nor does it mean your hypothetical did not include a reference about talking about football, to wit:

 

 

 

Does this mean your analogy was solely about him talking about football? Nope. Of course I never claimed it did. I responded very specifically to a specific portion of your analogy by saying it's worth noting that there isn't equivalency between talking about football and talking about religion in certain contexts in American society because the propriety of the two topics is not the same. 

 

 

Unless the chapter includes a discussion on the propriety, in American society, of discussing football versus religion in various contexts, it also has zero bearing on my comments concerning the issue. You seem to be trying to make a point that The Power of Everyday Missionaries is not just about talking about Mormonism, that it's about a more inclusive package of behaviors about having the Church infuse your life and come through in your interactions with other people, this doesn't particularly bear on my earlier comments.

 

I feel like it's the equivalent of:

 

You: "Being healthy is part of an comprehensive lifestyle. Like eating healthy, such as eating more fish and less beef, and more non-starchy vegetables. Also exercising regularly..."

Me: "It's worth noting that apex predator fish can have higher mercury levels than some other fish."

You: "I'm not saying that being healthy is all about eating fish."

Me: "You did mention eating fish which is why I pointed out that some fish have higher mercury levels than others."

You: "Health isn't just about eating fish, it's part of a comprehensive lifestyle."

 

Maybe we're just talking past each other?

 

So to be perfectly clear:

 

1. I am not saying, and did not say, that The Power of Everyday Missionaries focuses solely on talking about religion.
2. I am not saying, and did not say, that your analogy focused solely on talking about football/religion.
3. I am saying, and did say, that the propriety, in American society, of talking about football versus religion in certain contexts is not the same.
4. I am saying, and did say, that your analogy did mention talking about football, which if we do a find/replace, makes an equivalent hypothetical that includes talking about religion.
5. I am saying, and did say, that #3 creates an issue with equating talking about religion with talking about football in American society.
6. I am not saying, and did not say, that #5 makes it a worthless analogy or explanation of the concepts in The Power of Everyday Missionaries.

 

 

Sorry, I'm lost.  Truly.  I thought we were talking about the book The Power of Everyday Missionaries and what it meant when it said Use Mormon Words.  I did not know that we were talking only about the talking part.  All my posts were about the talking in context with the entire chapter which makes Football interchangeable with Mormon.

[Dravin]

 

 

Sorry, I'm lost.  Truly.  I thought we were talking about the book The Power of Everyday Missionaries and what it meant when it said Use Mormon Words.  I did not know that we were talking only about the talking part.  All my posts were about the talking in context with the entire chapter which makes Football interchangeable with Mormon.

 

You may have been, I wasn't. I think you mistook my aside as a comment on the general topic at hand. There is a reason my initial post, in this particular exchange, talked about "in American society" rather than 'in The Power of Everyday Missionaries.'