Reverse Missionary Work
I got one of those comments on my blog yesterday--you know the type--urging me to leave the Church if I didn't like certain aspects of how it is run. "Anonymous" said:
"I think you are one of those people that is looking for an excuse to be mad and to be offended. A truly humble person can not be offended. Go join the Catholic church. Because the Prophet of this church agrees with Julie B Beck, so if you don't agree with her you don't agree with the Prophet. Maybe it is time for you to find an easier religion!"
I've read these types of comments quite often, and I view them as "reverse missionary work." This week I've been trying to understand why anyone would become involved in reverse missionary work, and what their motivations might be. (And why they are always "Anonymous.") Let's try to put ourselves in the place of these "Anti-Missionaries" and see what they are trying to accomplish:
1. Reverse missionary work will cleanse the Church from those who might be a corrupting influence.
2. Those who complain against Church leaders or policies might lead others astray. For the good of these weaker members, the complainers should be driven away from the body of the Church.
3. People who don't believe the mainstream teachings of the Church are different, and do not belong. They make the faithful members feel uncomfortable. They should leave the Church and find another group which is more closely aligned to their beliefs.
4. Members of the Church have a responsibility to call their less faithful brothers and sisters to repentance. Perhaps inviting them to leave will show them the error of their ways.
5. Faithful members should not have to listen to contention. Dissenters cause a lack of unity and thus do not belong with believers who are trying to build Zion.
6. What other reasoning lies behind reverse missionary work?
And you, dear reader? Are you a missionary, an anti-missionary, or are you lukewarm on the issue? Do you feel a responsibility to keep members like me in the Church, would you rather I leave, or don't you care one way or the other? What is your opinion on reverse missionary work?
Labels: Abuse, blogging, missionary work, musings
posted by Bored in Vernal @ 10:00 AM
23 comments
23 Comments:
An do you think you are being a "missionary" with about all your complaints about the MORMONS?
James
p.s. The anonymous bloggers probably know you personally and just want to finally get back at you someway.
James weighs in on the side of reverse missionary work.
#6. Faithful members should "get back" at those who are complainers.
YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTING DON'T YOU. I am neither a "Mormon". a faithful member, or a missionary. What have you got to say to that? I was just curious about your cult. Don't know if I am anymore though.
JAMES
well, James, thanks for sharing.
BiV,
I think you are being too charitable, since there is no rational motive for that kind of ugliness. It is petty and childish, and unbecoming anybody who even aspires to be called a saint.
Do you feel a responsibility to keep members like me in the Church
I see no distinction between you and any other member, but yes, I do think the church needs you.
BiV, sometimes this is the biggest concern in my mind. If I don't agree with the teachings on an institution, if they have hurt me, am I blind to think I can help it become better by remaining a part of it? Or can I really do any good surrounded by people who will not look at me the way I really am? They don't want to see my greyness, but I am proud of it.
I am lucky because those who love me have never tried to push me out. But it's because they keep a false portrait of me in their minds.
Living in the middle is not an easy place to live.
I try to give the police a little break, though. I remember how it felt when my faith was threatened; it was terrifying.
It's at times like this when I think that my impenetrable stubbornness is more of a virtue than a vice: people can say the nastiest things about me and I'll laugh in their faces and still do what I was going to do anyways. My membership in the church is between me, God, and my ecclesiastical leaders, and I really don't care what anyone else says about it. If anyone in the church really did try to tell me to leave, I'd interpret it as a sign of personal insecurity and pity them more than anything else.
I love that you used the China Cyber-police/Cyber-censors graphic ^_^
The wording of this post confuses me a bit. Are you referring to missionaries of other religions attempting to convert you to another religion, or are you referring to people within your religion attempting to push you out?
The comment if you don't like it, leave always cracks me up. Let me tell you why. About 10 months ago I started struggling with my testimony. I talked to my priesthood leader, etc. I needed some breathing room while I sorted things out. I have had more visits and calls since that happened than in the entire 10 years before (and I had some very significant health problems in those 10 years).
Have you ever hear you can leave the church but you can't leave it alone? Well I would add you can leave the church but they won't leave you alone.
I also think it is important to note that we never hear GA's or the Prophet tell people if they don't like it leave. They may chastise of correct, but I have NEVER heard a GA tell a group of people to leave. My experience is that those who truly love and understand the gospel just want to love and help each other. The would rather patiently wait for people to work things out than to encourage others to leave the church.
As far as I go? I am not sure what I am. I am working through some issues in my testimony, but would never want to influence anyone to leave the church or to cause them doubt. I think reverse missionaries are missing the point.
I had someone online that I was debating with a little. We took it offline. She heard me out, listened to me, etc. She doesn't agree with the same things I think, has a much more conservative opinion. I can say she has done more for my testimony in the church and building my faith that anyone encouraging me to leave ever has. In fact, she keeps telling me she hopes I won't leave.
I don't know what the hell they're thinking. I have some other bad words I can assign to these people, but this is a Mormon blog so I will refrain.
It's my church, too. As much as it is theirs. My butt is in a pew every Sunday, except when I'm leading the music. I direct the choir every Sunday afternoon choir and go to cub scouts every Wednesday night. My faith is AT BEST tenuous, and usually non-existent, but I have thrown my lot in with the Saints and by golly nobody is going to make the choice to leave for me.
Why do they want us to leave? Because it disturbs their happy little image of the church as a place where everybody believes exactly the same thing and votes the same way and does things exactly the way THEY want them done. We make them uncomfortable. Tough. If they don't like it, they can leave.
Janell, Reverse missionary work is when someone tells you to leave the Church if you don't like the way things are run.
Silence, and Ann,
I think you are right, some members feel very threatened by an image of the Church which is not the tidy one which they wish to hold in their mind. They probably prefer that we would leave their image of Mormonism alone rather than mess with the edges of it. Thus they ask us to leave.
Do you think it is possible that they are putting themselves in our place? Maybe they feel that if they had as many questions as we did, and were as conflicted as we are, that they would no longer be able to stay in this Church. So they can't understand why we don't just leave rather than subject ourselves (and them) to that kind of mental anguish. ???
BiV, in my experience, the people who have the hardest time with my faith cannot put themselves in my place. That's what makes them ignore the problem. However, they're not pushing me out.
Fortunately, unlike Tanya Sue, my bishop has been amazingly patient and understanding throughout my journey. To my knowledge, he has even kept the information secret. If all people were so understanding and charitable, i would not be so torn about choosing a church to raise my daughter in.
Give the reverse missionaries something futile to do: stay.
BiV, thanks for holding your torch up high. I'm all for liberty of thought and faith, even in the church.
Count me a missionary. I love the Church. I give copies of the Book of Mormon to friends and co-workers. I seek opportunities to dispel negative myths and stereotypes about the Church, and openly share with friends all the reasons I love and believe in the Church.
I also love diversity -- of every kind. I love that you stay committed to the Church even with your struggles and doubts. Hang in there.
By the way... I've been told by non-Mormon friends that my willingness to acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses within the Mormon community makes me a much more credible witness of the strengths and the truths to which the Church bears witness.
j g-w
You are indeed the best missionary I know. Your testimony never fails to bring tears to my eyes. Thanks for commenting here.
I can't really add anything that hasn't already been said. Except that the history of Christianity is replete with examples of people who totally missed the point and definition of "Christian." I love it when people tell you to leave, rather than asking how they can help.
What a waste of time, to go around looking for people who are actually examining their beliefs, and tell them to leave the church. I always wonder how that sort of thing will be punished in heaven. Maybe it cancels out any converts you get on your mission.
I think Gordon B. Hinckley said it best: "The great Atonement was the supreme act of forgiveness. The suffering was so great, the agony so intense, that none of us can understand it when the Savior offered Himself as a ransom for the sins of all mankind. I know only that it happened and that it was for me and for you. It is through Him that we gain forgiveness. It is through Him that all mankind will be granted resurrection from the dead. It is through Him and His great sacrifice that we are offered the opportunity through obedience of eternal life.
May God help us to be a little kinder, to be more forgiving, to lay aside old grudges and nurture them no more."
Howard W. Hunter said something also: "Sooner or later, and we pray sooner than later, everyone will acknowledge that Christ’s way is not only the right way, but ultimately the only way to hope and joy. Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that gentleness is better than brutality, that kindness is greater than coercion, that the soft voice turneth away wrath. In the end, and sooner than that whenever possible, we must be more like him. “To those who fall, how kind thou art!/How good to those who seek!”"
James might want to think about being more kind if he is a member. There is a place even for bleeding heart liberals in the church so hang in there.
I think sometimes people act out of fear or ignorance. They can't imagine staying in a church that is appearing to cause so much grief and frustration. I think just as you want respect, and maybe even compassion, they might need a little Christlike love, too, for everyone has a story, and everyone deserves to be heard.
For people who have never run into this before, they may really think that you would be happier leaving, not understanding the complexities of it all -- how much you do love and identify with, and how it isn't all just on or off for those who struggle. I've also seen people say things like this because they really didn't know what else to say. It all just befuddled them too much. When we lack empathy, it's awfully hard to say the right thing, and awfully easy to take a band-aid approach to fixing a problem, which of course is not often bandaidable.
I think James has an interesting point, though, that whether we like it or not, we are missionaries, and all of our interactions can give an impression, for good or for ill, about the Church. As much as I understand how discussion of all types can help people sort through their faith, I'm always grateful when those same people, esp. those who struggle, will open up and share something positive and uplifting from their life along the way. Those kinds of things can help balance out the frustrations that may come out, so people like James won't feel it's all bad. There's a lot of good, or else people wouldn't stick around, right? :)
The reverse missionary that talked me out of church (click here, fourth paragraph down) did it, I think, because he thought if he challenged me I would turn full-face back to the church. It kind of back-fired. I was very young (I still am, but I was even younger then) and it was the wrong reason to leave.
That said, I don't know if his influence pushed me faster where I was already going, or turned me in a direction I would have never gone on my own.
Hopefully I will live a long full life and be able to discover the answer to that slowly over the next 60 or 70 years. I made a rush decision the first time around, and if nothing else, it taught me that I should consider things very, very carefully before making decisions. Especially important ones.
Perhaps your blog - complaints, praise, and everything in between - is evidence that you are considering things very carefully? It is unfortunate that some see that carefully consideration negatively. How nice that you are dealing with issues without picking the answer/destination prior to pondering. Even more nice that you are sharing it with all of us! :-)
biv, your question strikes me as a bit disingenuous. I cannot imagine any Latter-day Saint saying that what you call "reverse missionary work" is a good or praiseworthy thing, as I suppose you cannot. Instead, I am guessing that you are actually wondering why on earth anyone would actually say such a thing. While the question seems perhaps a tad naive, I will try to give you a thoughtful answer.
I dearly hope that I have never been a reverse missionary. Heaven knows I have offended any number of people, usually unintentionally, but I don't think I have ever told anyone to leave the Church. The closest incident was in high school nearly thirty years ago, where I was one of only two LDS kids in my class. A (non-LDS) girl in my class had gained an unfortunate reputation of being loose, due to an incident wherein she, shall we say, pleasured about a dozen young men at a party, one after another. One day, she was in a rather flighty mood in school and was singing some generic Christian children's song about "Jesus loves me". I rolled my eyes and said, more or less under my breath, "Yeah, right. I don't think so." I was immediately and deeply struck by the thought, "You cannot judge who the Lord loves. She is precious to God." I was instantly ashamed at myself and decided from then on to try to avoid such judgments and speech. (I also fervently hoped she hadn't heard my comment.)
Despite this experience, I am not immune to many of the feelings that, I suspect, inspire the reverse missionaries. Let me describe feelings that I imagine are operative, and see if they seem familiar to you.
I remember some ten or so years ago that a woman had left the Church and had published a book offering a detailed, if shamelessly slanted, recounting of the endowment ceremony. I was appalled -- and furious. I felt personally betrayed! How dare she expose for public viewing things which I held sacred, which she had covenanted with God to hold equally sacred, and which her audience could not possibly have sufficient reference to understand properly?! She had not only betrayed God, but me as well!
Upon further reflection, I realized two things:
1. Her betrayal of God was far more damaging to her than any other betrayal she might have made against me or anyone else.
2. She hadn't betrayed me personally at all, however much it may have felt like it.
But even while I logically realized that my feelings were inaccurate, and even while I knew intellectually that I needed to forgive her in my own heart so that I could be right with God, I found it extremely difficult to get past my feelings. She was, I felt, a traitor to the kingdom of God, and deserved no more sympathy than any other traitor. Harsh, inaccurate, misapplied feelings, but my feelings they were.
So here I am, some random, anonymous Latter-day Saint. I have a testimony, which is to say, I have been given a revelation (perhaps several, or many) from God wherein I have learned certain things through the Spirit. At the time, that seemed perfectly sufficient. But as the months and years and decades pass, my testimony seems to vary, waxing at times and waning at others. Sometimes I am riddled with doubt. I cling to the memory of my testimony, recalling the Lord's admonition to Oliver Cowdery that he "cast [his] mind back" to the event where he heard God's voice in his heart. I perform my duties in the Church, study the scriptures, pray, and hope that, one day, I will be vouchsafed another revelation that will rekindle my passionate belief and testimony. I cling to this belief like a castoff sailor to a piece of flotsam. My comfort is that I do believe I will eventually receive the knowledge from God that I seek, and also that I am surrounded by other Saints, many of whom have arrived where I want to go and many others of whom are in the same situation I am. We are all working together, striving together, growing together. We have our private doubts, our personal areas of confusion and disagreement, but we agree to agree on certain fundamentals -- for example, that the apostles really are prophets of God, and that by following with faith we will be blessed.
Then someone comes along who insists on calling into question our framework of understanding. We are used to this, of course. The world thinks we are fools, which is one of the things we're inured to. But we aren't used to the questioning coming from a fellow Saint. Wait! What is this? It sounds and feels very much like...a betrayal!
This is all the more frustrating when the particular item of discontent happens to be one that doesn't bother us, either because we feel we understand it pretty well or we just don't see it as important. "What are you carping about THAT for? What, are you blind?" In this case, we wonder about the sincerity of the person. Surely no true Saint would question his/her testimony or seek to undermine that of others over such a trivial non-issue! Which must meant that...this person is not a true Saint!
Another particularly frustrating experience is when the "wisdom of the world" is held up as a standard for the Church, and we are left wondering why we should attempt to measure up to the standards of the worldly. When some sister (and it's usually, though not always, a woman) whines about the Church's "patriarchy", as if "patriarchal" is something less than a glorious and beautiful principle, or suggests that the Church leaders are "withholding" the Priesthood from the women -- well, again, that feels much like a direct attack on the fundamental structure of the kingdom of God. That feels like betrayal.
And being far from Christlike, some of us succumb to the temptation to invite the "betrayers" to criticize from the other side of the fence.
So while it may not be admirable, it seems quite understandable, at least to me.
Elise, I read your story and was very touched by it. I wish I could have been there for that young BYU student to let her know that the Church is just as much for her as for any other. And it still is, and I'm glad you still enjoy engaging with Mormon topics. I've enjoyed your take on many issues.
Stephen, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate how you shared your feelings without being condemning.
I am glad you have had the experience of doubt and confusion, for I have found that those members who have never experienced such things have a very difficult time understanding my need to explore my feelings.
I am almost certain that you will disagree with my method of dealing with ambiguity in my spiritual life. However, I would ask you to consider that many of us with questions or things that are unsettling in our lives have no one we can talk to about these things. Not our bishops, not our families, many times even our spouses do not understand. It helps to be able to throw things out into the computer world and find people who have been through many of the same experiences. In writing about some of our confusions, we often come to terms with them.
I feel no compunction about talking of difficult issues. Perhaps it might be unsettling for some to read of my frustrations with Patriarchy, for example. If they disagree, they can always make a case for it being a "glorious principle." It is a good thing for us to realize that we don't always see things the exact same way. Because I struggle with some of the things church leaders have said does not mean I have less of a testimony than anyone else. As you noted, we all have different struggles and different areas where we are strong.
biv, I appreciate your honesty. I hope my own honesty in response isn't offensive.
I was not referring to you in anything I wrote. In fact, the blog entry I responded to was the first and, so far, only thing I've read in your blog. I got here from a link from somewhere else, found what you wrote interesting, and thought I'd weigh in. So I was responding in general, not in specific, to what you wrote about "reverse missionaries".
In my web surfing, I occasionally come across the rantings of a Latter-day Saint against some aspect of Church life or doctrine. This raises in my heart almost the same visceral distaste as hearing gossip; in fact, in some sense I think of such complaints as just another form of gossip. (And I really, really hate gossip, so for me that is a very bad thing.)
As I have tried to analyze my own response to such things, I have decided that the claims forwarded fill one of three mutually exclusive conditions:
1. The claim is true.
2. The claim is false.
3. The claim has elements of truth, but ignores or misrepresents other aspects such that the overall effect is false.
(3) is really a subset of (2), so we may simplify things by saying that the claims forwarded are either true or false.
If the claims are false, then the writer is either ignorant (and therefore ought to be ignored) or is bearing false witness (and therefore ought to be ignored). The common element in both cases is "ought to be ignored". For his/her part, the writer, a Latter-day Saint, ought to know better than to openly broadcast his/her defamatory comments. S/He is either a liar or is, at the least, acting in bad faith in broadcasting his/her ignorance. Either way, it's a shameful action.
The other possibility is that the claim made is true. This is a more difficult situation, but ultimately comes back to the same thing. If my feeble grasp of Church history serves me well, Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated under what amounts to false pretenses. How offensive is that? Yet he could have come back and sought to reunite with the Saints, swallowing his pride and repenting of the many sins he, like the rest of us, really did have. Instead, he allowed his pique to take him even further from the truth, until he was actually speaking against the kingdom of God and the Lord's anointed servants.
Whatever you think of Oliver and the circumstances surrounding his excommunication, at the point he spoke against the kingdom of God and its leaders, he was apostate. Oliver himself said as much when he finally returned to the Church and tried to reunite with the Saints. I trust that his repentence gained him a happy ending in the eternities -- but how much better if he had never strayed, despite seemingly ample justification! And not just better for him, but better for the Saints who suffered, in part, because of his words, and better for the people, LDS and otherwise, who were influenced by his words into harsh feelings against the Church!
In contrast, the story is told of Brigham Young being dressed down by Joseph Smith over a false claim. Brigham's response, instead of railing against the falsity of the accusation, was to say, "What would you have me do, Joseph?" I have long considered Brigham Young to be one of the greatest of men in this dispensation, and the above story illustrates a reason why. It reminds me of I Peter 2:20: "For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." It was for good reason, I think, that Joseph Smith called the epistles of Peter the most sublime books in scripture.
Part of being an adult is the capacity to live with ambiguity. Just as we don't need to hash over every element of our marital problems with someone else, we ought not to broadcast to the world our private (or what should be private) doubts and irritations about the Church or its leaders. If we happen to be right, how much better to follow Peter's counsel and choose the higher path! And if, as is more typical, we are yet again wrong, how much better to have avoided the humiliation of having so loudly proclaimed our foolishness to the world, and perhaps misled other naive readers with our ignorance!
Perhaps it might be unsettling for some to read of my frustrations with Patriarchy, for example.
I know nothing of your writings on this topic. Please believe that I did not have you personally in mind when I brought up my example of patriarchy.
If they disagree, they can always make a case for it being a "glorious principle."
But why should anyone have to argue that the "patriarchal order" upon which the Church is built is glorious? That's like arguing that repentence is glorious, or salvation is glorious, or God is glorious. Do we really need to have argumentation on the topic? Should it not be considered true by definition, at least to any Latter-day Saint?
It is a good thing for us to realize that we don't always see things the exact same way.
Yes, that is good -- but I think it's a given in an environment such as this. I don't recall the Lord ever commanding us to spend long hours debating our differences, but I do recall him commanding us to be united, and telling us that "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."
Because I struggle with some of the things church leaders have said does not mean I have less of a testimony than anyone else.
This is clearly false by definition. :)
As you noted, we all have different struggles and different areas where we are strong.
True. And I believe that the correct order of things is that, when we are weak in an area, we keep quiet and observe those who are strong so that we, too, may learn strength.
Post a Comment
<< Home