Missionaries should be banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
When I was a Peace Corps volunteer, I saw how a group made people pray and read literature before feeding them. It was just wrong. They needed the food and were forced into doing something against their traditional practices in order to get it.

This is why I don't contribute to any charity that has some kind of religion behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that missionary tourism is the worst. My church growing up (southern baptist) was really into this, and even my devout parents rolled their eyes and never encourage me to participate. My favorite was when they went to Mexico (to...convert the already Christian population to a different kind of Christianity?)

There might be a handful of cases though where I'm thinking that converting a local population was a good thing. I'm thinking of those limited times and places where local religions included practices like child sacrifices, etc.

I'm no historian but I would think any incidences of child sacrifices would have been hundreds of years ago when good old Christians were burning people at the stake, torturing etc. And yes, many religions have committed atrocities, wasn't only the christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a former Mormon, I served an 18-month mission, I 100% agree.

Can you tell us your experience? What turned you off to this practice?

Sure, and I'll try to be brief. Also I'm not editing so apologizes in advance if this isn't clear.

Mormonism strongly believes that they are the only true church in the world, and the religion entwined in a very distinct culture. That culture is almost cookie cutter 1950s-60s white conservative America (there are interesting reasons for why this happened that I won't get into). As a missionary I was taught that not only did people need to change their beliefs, but their culture as well.

So I knocked on peoples' doors, told them about my little religion and how it was truer than what they believed, and that if they wanted to go to heaven, they needed to basically become like white Americans in the 1960s (with modified beliefs). This meant everything from changing the beverages they offered guests to how they interacted with their friends and families to changing their facial hair to what they should do in their spare time. And of course give the Mormon church 10% of their already meager incomes.

The people who typically changed were people who were missing something in their lives, usually because of a lack of money or other difficult life circumstances. We were taking advantage of the vunerable and in doing so robbing them of their beloved ancestral culture. The change was distressing for many but they were convinced it was the only way.

And then if they changed their minds or wavered, they got an earful about how still God loved them, but they were making a choice that was robbing them of eternal salvation. Even if it was just about not being able to afford tithing, or feeling like they shouldn't have to give up coffee, or deciding they didn't want to believe that Joseph Smith's polygamy was divinely inspired. If they stopped going, Mormon friends tended to fall away, but their connections in their Orthodox and family communities had been disturbed so sometimes it was difficult to re-build a community.

Coming around to the idea that it's wrong to go on missions was a slow process, but I think what really solidified it was learning about White colonization. A few years after my mission, I realized that that's exactly what I was doing on my mission. Destroying a culture to replace it with mine.

I suppose banning missionaries outright might be a problem (even though I'd like it to happen), but our activities could have been fairly restricted. Maybe we should have been forbidden to knock on the doors of peoples' homes, maybe our street efforts could be restricted to certain areas, maybe they could cap numbers and require permits. I don't know. Freedom of speech in the US and other solidly democratic countries isn't unrestricted, so it's unreasonable to think that missionaries who are doing so much harm should get lots of free speech.

And another note: I think that missions are bad for missionaries either. It was basically brainwashing. Very little individuality is allowed. We were literally compared to soldiers in an army. You got sent home if you disobeyed, which can have pretty severe social consequences in Mormon communities (like if you get sent home early, that's a strike against you when you're looking for a spouse, and for a mormon getting married is literally your most important goal in life. So it's fall in line or suffer severe penalties).

Another former Mormon here, and I agree 100%. We went to Japan and told them to stop drinking tea. I don't have anything else to add. You nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Another former Mormon. I left when l was 18 so didn’t do a mission, but both of my siblings did.

It’s not just the foreign missions that are problematic, it’s the conditional charity here too. So messed up.

Everyone still has to give 10% in tithing to be “worthy” of entering the temple even though the church is worth billions.

[Anonymous]

Same is true for jihad—conversion by the sword.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you guys don’t believe in freedom of speech?
I’m an atheist but I don’t understand why you would favor banning speech.

Going to other countries, using your money and power to exploit people is not Free Speech.

Trying to convert people to your religion is the very definition of free speech. And, like all free speech that needs protection, many people don’t like it. And, like all free speech that needs protection because people don’t like it, the problem with banning it is that it is a slippery slope to banning more speech.

we don't allow religious "free speech" even in America, in the schools or by our government. And since religion is declining in American and Western countries, the missionaries have to prey on the poor countries of the world for converts because people just aren't buying it here.

This is irrelevant, because it is not the government who are the missionaries. Everything the missionaries do elsewhere, they can (and do) do it here as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you guys don’t believe in freedom of speech?
I’m an atheist but I don’t understand why you would favor banning speech.

Going to other countries, using your money and power to exploit people is not Free Speech.

Trying to convert people to your religion is the very definition of free speech. And, like all free speech that needs protection, many people don’t like it. And, like all free speech that needs protection because people don’t like it, the problem with banning it is that it is a slippery slope to banning more speech.

we don't allow religious "free speech" even in America, in the schools or by our government. And since religion is declining in American and Western countries, the missionaries have to prey on the poor countries of the world for converts because people just aren't buying it here.

This is irrelevant, because it is not the government who are the missionaries. Everything the missionaries do elsewhere, they can (and do) do it here as well.

That's completely false. You cannot proselytize in the public schools, or in the halls of government. It's prohibited by the first amendment. We have restrictions, thank goodness, on the extent of activities the religious people can practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you guys don’t believe in freedom of speech?
I’m an atheist but I don’t understand why you would favor banning speech.

Going to other countries, using your money and power to exploit people is not Free Speech.

Trying to convert people to your religion is the very definition of free speech. And, like all free speech that needs protection, many people don’t like it. And, like all free speech that needs protection because people don’t like it, the problem with banning it is that it is a slippery slope to banning more speech.

we don't allow religious "free speech" even in America, in the schools or by our government. And since religion is declining in American and Western countries, the missionaries have to prey on the poor countries of the world for converts because people just aren't buying it here.

This is irrelevant, because it is not the government who are the missionaries. Everything the missionaries do elsewhere, they can (and do) do it here as well.

That's completely false. You cannot proselytize in the public schools, or in the halls of government. It's prohibited by the first amendment. We have restrictions, thank goodness, on the extent of activities the religious people can practice.

^ I assume that is why the missionaries go to other countries to convert the weak and vulnerable - because we place such rigid (and well warranted) restrictions on what they can do here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you don't understand why they do it.

The Bible basically directs Christians to spread the Christian message to **every country** in the world. Many believe Jesus will not return until this has been completed. Thus, these missionaries believe they must come to your country.

The self-serving arrogance of this is staggering. Because a particular group of people with a particular set of beliefs fervently want to do X thing — they should be allowed to do X thing no matter who it hurts? I’m curious: how many people have you allowed or even welcomed into your home and community to share their messages and values and potentially destructive ways of life? Your argument is apparently that one person’s beliefs are ample justification for whatever they do in support of those beliefs, however repugnant or damaging these efforts might be to others, so, in light of this, anything goes, right? Or are you only supporting this for one particular set of “truths”?

[Anonymous]

Kiribati would never have had any Covid if it wasn’t for missionaries.
https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/faith/2022/1/25/22891952/latter-day-saint-missionaries-follow-island-protocols-kiribati-covid-19-lockdown-mormon

[Anonymous]

My church hosted missionaries when I was a kid. My understanding was that the goal was to go and serve communities by helping pregnant mothers and babies, educating kids, and building sanitation. The missionaries were there to share their Christianity only through their example, not through proselytizing. They'd host a church session on Sunday and all were welcome, but it's was not required. No knocking on doors. No taking money from the community. Just service and helping those less fortunate. We considered helping others who are less fortunate to be a key part of our faith.

I was shocked when I learned about Morman missionaries and that they are taking money from underprivileged communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a former Mormon, I served an 18-month mission, I 100% agree.

Can you tell us your experience? What turned you off to this practice?

Sure, and I'll try to be brief. Also I'm not editing so apologizes in advance if this isn't clear.

Mormonism strongly believes that they are the only true church in the world, and the religion entwined in a very distinct culture. That culture is almost cookie cutter 1950s-60s white conservative America (there are interesting reasons for why this happened that I won't get into). As a missionary I was taught that not only did people need to change their beliefs, but their culture as well.

So I knocked on peoples' doors, told them about my little religion and how it was truer than what they believed, and that if they wanted to go to heaven, they needed to basically become like white Americans in the 1960s (with modified beliefs). This meant everything from changing the beverages they offered guests to how they interacted with their friends and families to changing their facial hair to what they should do in their spare time. And of course give the Mormon church 10% of their already meager incomes.

The people who typically changed were people who were missing something in their lives, usually because of a lack of money or other difficult life circumstances. We were taking advantage of the vunerable and in doing so robbing them of their beloved ancestral culture. The change was distressing for many but they were convinced it was the only way.

And then if they changed their minds or wavered, they got an earful about how still God loved them, but they were making a choice that was robbing them of eternal salvation. Even if it was just about not being able to afford tithing, or feeling like they shouldn't have to give up coffee, or deciding they didn't want to believe that Joseph Smith's polygamy was divinely inspired. If they stopped going, Mormon friends tended to fall away, but their connections in their Orthodox and family communities had been disturbed so sometimes it was difficult to re-build a community.

Coming around to the idea that it's wrong to go on missions was a slow process, but I think what really solidified it was learning about White colonization. A few years after my mission, I realized that that's exactly what I was doing on my mission. Destroying a culture to replace it with mine.

I suppose banning missionaries outright might be a problem (even though I'd like it to happen), but our activities could have been fairly restricted. Maybe we should have been forbidden to knock on the doors of peoples' homes, maybe our street efforts could be restricted to certain areas, maybe they could cap numbers and require permits. I don't know. Freedom of speech in the US and other solidly democratic countries isn't unrestricted, so it's unreasonable to think that missionaries who are doing so much harm should get lots of free speech.

And another note: I think that missions are bad for missionaries either. It was basically brainwashing. Very little individuality is allowed. We were literally compared to soldiers in an army. You got sent home if you disobeyed, which can have pretty severe social consequences in Mormon communities (like if you get sent home early, that's a strike against you when you're looking for a spouse, and for a mormon getting married is literally your most important goal in life. So it's fall in line or suffer severe penalties).

Another former Mormon here, and I agree 100%. We went to Japan and told them to stop drinking tea. I don't have anything else to add. You nailed it.

I'm not Mormon, but I remember the missionaries wandering around my Catholic/Jesuit university (Boston College) -- I'll never forget the 19 year old missionaries fresh out of Utah trying to convert the 60 year old doctor of theology professor with their "I know the Book of Mormon is true" testimony...would've been funny if it weren't so sad...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My church hosted missionaries when I was a kid. My understanding was that the goal was to go and serve communities by helping pregnant mothers and babies, educating kids, and building sanitation. The missionaries were there to share their Christianity only through their example, not through proselytizing. They'd host a church session on Sunday and all were welcome, but it's was not required. No knocking on doors. No taking money from the community. Just service and helping those less fortunate. We considered helping others who are less fortunate to be a key part of our faith.

I was shocked when I learned about Morman missionaries and that they are taking money from underprivileged communities.

I’m a former Mormon missionary PP and the tithing issue wasn’t a huge deal for me. Don’t get me wrong, it was a problem, and the church does hand out charity unfairly, but in my area people benefited financially from the church as much as they contributed. The church helped people find jobs, gave people money for medical and dental care, and assisted with with rent, and set up the congregation in a way to be sure everybody had enough food. It certainly wasn’t enough charity and again I don’t agree with the tithing requirements (I could write a lot about how problematic that whole thing is), but the demand for financial contribution isn’t the reason I think missionary work should be restricted. It’s the demand for cultural conformity.

That’s great for all those people who benefited from the charity you’re talking about, and it’s not as bad as what Mormons do sometimes (some Mormon missions are service-only). But let’s get real: those churches have a motive. They want people to be like them, to believe like them, to follow the same rules, to spend time together, to read the same things, etc. People forget that White America, and especially white American Christianity, has its own culture. We are sometimes so steeped in it that it’s hard to see, but it involves values about work, food, socialization, spending money, even punctuality. It impacts everything about somebody’s life. And white religious culture and many other cultures can’t completely coexist in the same person. So you do see a deterioration of cultures even if it’s just from service oriented missions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The world is a better place because of Christianity.

And also a worse place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see, it’s evil, hateful, wrong, exploitative and every other badness for people to travel to share what they believe is good news, but it’s perfectly OK for you to denounce and defame generations of people from countless denominations because you disagree with them.

IME, people are most often threatened by a message that makes them suspect that what they insist they believe is not true, so they get aggressively defensive. When people think what they’re being told is silly, they more often ignore and/or laugh it off.

When the missionaries leave, should they take their schools, colleges, hospitals, water programs and everything else they brought with them?

Do the missionaries understand how un-Christlike their conditional so-called charity actually is? What would Jesus think of: Love thy neighbor as thy self — as long as you can first force thy neighbors to celebrate every twisted conditions that have been attached to this mockery of “Love”?