- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Bruce in Montana had a recent post in a thread about the Church’s attractiveness to working-class people: Bruce in Montana wrote:Perhaps forcing missionaries to portray white-collar types is not conducive to attracting those that subscribe to [anti-corporate sentiment].
That was an interesting comment, and kind of got me thinking about missionary attire.The current dark pants, white shirt, tie and name-tag “uniform” is pretty awkward:
– Missionaries look downright silly riding bikes in their missionary attire and helmet, and I unsuccessfully hoped my sons wouldn’t go on bike-oriented missions.
– This “uniform” has been lampooned in main-stream pop culture, especially now with ‘The Book Of Mormon’.
– It automatically puts people on the defensive. As a missionary, I knocked doors that went unanswered when there were obviously people home. I had people cross to the other side of the street as I approached. People avoid eye contact with missionaries. I had people obviously nervous about being seen talking to me.
– It polarizes people against the church. I talked to a missionary recently who said that they regularly get “the finger” from passers by. In Latin America, hecklers used to call us by a particularly derogatory, though sort of funny, epithet.
– It is very sterile and impersonal. Missionaries are individuals. Each has experiences and background that can help to connect to people. Yet the attire makes for an image of interchangeable robots that say the same thing, no matter which “elder” is speaking. Trust is based on personal connection, and that is a hurdle missionaries have to overcome.
– I also think missionary attire lends credence to the “cult” perception.
In the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, the church makes a strong push to show members as regular people, yet our most visible people are highly distinctive, and I would argue not in a good way, as seen though the eyes of non-members.
I wonder if the church would benefit by changing the image of the missionaries. I think it would make perfect sense to have these college-aged kids dress like college kids, but still don a name-tag so that up-close and personal, you see that they are representatives of the church. I wouldn’t want to see saggy pants or flip-flops… more like BYU-standards attire… like a 20-year-old working in an office attire.
If you look at sister missionaries, they come across as well-dressed but not goofy, because it’s not that uncommon for a 21-year-old woman to wear nice clothes, including skirts and blouses. But it is very rare to see a 19-year-old guy wearing a white shirt and tie. In my opinion, sister missionary dress boarders on business casual, yet Elder dress is 100% business. I think going a little more casual for the sisters and a lot more casual for the elders would open more doors than it would close.
Yes, it makes them attract unwanted attention when they go around the “projects” here. Quote:Missionaries look downright silly riding bikes in their missionary attire and helmet
I always thought those helmets look somewhat phallic…
😳 Edited *the following is a statement from my experience only and in no way reflects a desire to change things but in observation* I help the missionaries around here when I can, they often ask me to “bear my testimony” to some of thier investagators. During this time I walk with them and also wear a suit without name tag. I hear the words “F U” from across the street. I hear people say things like ” look at those da# fools, don’t they realize how redicoulus they look” while waiting at a bus stop as the person next to me observes the missionaries on bikes. I tell her/him I am a Mormon and the reply is with things like ” so where is your silly uniform?” ……..
It’s a registered trade mark now. The people I talk to say it shows us “out of touch with reality or the common person”. I have gotten several positive feedbacks and it makes me happy but almost always it is from
The baby boomer generation, very few from generation x, y.
Quote:Twenge attributes confidence and tolerance to this generation, as well as a sense of entitlement, narcissism and
rejection of social conventions.This is very true of the rejection of social conventions. It is very strong. The view among x and y as social and culeral traditions and tribal fighting as nothing more then outdated constructs that our put of touch with today’s world. It is seen as a desire of ” old thinking” to perpetuate thier old style of life and live through the younger generation. This of course is a generalization but still non the less very prevalent and still majority. Suits is only the begining of that rejection, it extends to most all “old conventions and traditions they feel isn’t apart of them. So it’s the entire old way of teaching, dressing and adhering to the old convections that they feel are out of touch with reality and them.
We can continue to dress , teach in the “traditional manor” but it really won’t be no where near as effective as in the past. So we have a choice to accept the loss of converts that we would have otherwise obtained or we can choose to relate to them in thier environment but not by adhering to Socail conventions which they view as “out of touch”(generally speaking).
Quote:tell her/him I am a Mormon and the reply is with things like ” so where is your silly uniform?” ……..
It’s a registered trade mark now. The people I talk to say it shows us “out of touch with reality or the common person”. I have gotten several positive feedbacks and it makes me happy but almost always it is from
And many people think all Mormons dress like this, and the missionaries are paid too.
Also, Mormon Missionary is now a popular Halloween costume. Time Magazine featured it as #6 last year, saying it is an especially easy costume to make. So, I suspect that it will live on for awhile. The church can prepare to have drunk revelers dressed up like Mormon missionaries in between Elvis and Elvira. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with wearing a missionary costume. In fact, I can appreciate the humor in it. I would probably do it myself, if I wasn’t a Mormon.
But I don’t think “the Brethren” would see much to smile about, and I doubt the church wants its missionaries’ iconic image to be the source of ridicule. The easiest way to stop it from happening is to take away the target.
Here are some examples
[attachment=2]mm1.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=1]mm2.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=0]mm3.jpg[/attachment] and if the Church relaxed the missionary dress code, members at both extremes on the spectrum (and pretty much all ex-Mormons and lots of non-members) would claim that it was one more sign of trying to fit into mainstream Christianity and a sign that the Church was rejecting its roots and standards. Damned if do; damned if don’t.
Frankly, this particular issue is nowhere close to important enough to me personally to spend any time worrying about it.
Old-Timer wrote:Damned if do; damned if don’t.
No doubt. The priesthood ban is a perfect example, as the church was viewed as racist when the ban was in effect, acquiescing to social pressures and not led by God, when the ban was lifted, and still today regarded as racists for ever having had the ban, even though anyone under 34 wasn’t even alive when the ban was in effect, and anyone under 44 probably can’t remember the ban.
Although I don’t think the church will change the dress code anytime soon, I do think it is a determent, rather than a benefit, to the missionary effort. During my mission I had exactly two people approach me because they recognized me as a missionary. One was an inactive woman, who became active as a result. One was a non-member man who became a member as a result. Typically, the church would look at something like that and say, “See? It’s important that the missionaries are identifiable”. But that would ignore the fact that I probably had at least 2-3 dozen people every week of my mission who specifically avoided contact with me BECAUSE I was so identifiable. Besides, it’s entirely possible that they would have still recognized us and contacted us, even if we were dressed slightly more casually, because in both cases, we were wearing overcoats with no visible name tag (this was in the days when only the sisters had a name tag with a pin). Probably likely in the case of the man, and less so in the case of the woman.
But I will admit, my main reason for feeling personal concern is that I hate the thought of these really good kids who are just trying to do the right thing, going out on a two-year mission and being subjected to the humiliation of having to look so incredibly stupid in public, day-in and day-out. I imagine that its harder in some places than others. It’s probably harder in San Jose than in San Juan. It’s probably harder in American Georgia than in Georgia. It’s probably harder in Paris, Texas than in Paris, France. Missionaries are going home early in record numbers. There are many reasons why, but I am certain that self-image and being treated like lepers are major factors for many.
Missionaries have been rumored to be CIA agents for at least 30 years (as the following article shows) http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57673 I do believe that the new generational divides add an extra hurdle to this issue but it is certainly not new.
Quote:I hate the thought of these really good kids who are just trying to do the right thing, going out on a two-year mission and being subjected to the humiliation of having to look so incredibly stupid in public, day-in and day-out.
Honestly, that never crosses the minds of 99%+ of the missionaries. It just doesn’t. They don’t see it as looking incredibly stupid, and, objectively, it doesn’t look incredibly stupid. It certainly is FAR less stupid looking than most, if not all, other religiously conservative attire.
Quote:Missionaries are going home early in record numbers. There are many reasons why, but I am certain that self-image and being treated like lepers are major factors for many.
Perhaps, but I almost can guarantee that the way they dress has next to nothing to do with it.
Don’t get me wrong. Ideally, I’d love to see the dress standards relax a bit, but I think this is a case of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Of course, as with most other things, I might be spectacularly wrong about that.
I had a conversation with a missionary serving here in our ward… a really good missionary who worked hard and loved being a missionary: Me: So, Elder, now that you are getting close to the end of your mission, what’s one thing you are looking forward to when you are an RM?
Elder… thinking… : Well, I think it will be nice when I can leave my apartment, go to the store, buy something and go back to my apartment, without people staring at me the entire time.
I thought it was interesting that he didn’t mention dating, sleeping past 6:30, swimming, getting more than just a few hours of personal time a week, seeing friends and family, or not being exhausted all the time. Nope… the first and only thing that came to his mind was related to self-image.
PS… It doesn’t really matter whether WE think they look stupid or not… only whether non-members do… and I can assure you that, in fact, they do. And it’s not just that they look stupid, or goofy, or laughable… but that they also look threatening in the sense that they are aggressively going to try to convert you into their weird religion and won’t leave you alone (perception). That perception results in rude behavior toward the missionaries and I believe also significantly diminishes their proselyting opportunities.
PPS… Ray, I can appreciate that this isn’t an issue that rises to a level of importance for you. I completely understand and I, myself, would have said the exact same thing a few years ago. But then my son related to me that they had once been run off the road while riding their bikes. He also let me in on the fact that it wasn’t uncommon for them to tract into a house where the occupants had seen the missionaries coming a mile away and were prepared to threaten them with bodily harm in the form of dogs, knives and guns. This is not some story I once heard about some anonymous missionary… this was my own son. If you ask your local missionaries, you might be surprised at how often they are mistreated by your neighbors.
While reading about the unrest in Egypt at the USA embassy I came across this. Quote:“
No other prophet of any religion ever created such subservience to the state that founded the religion.”
I dunno… try to drink a beer in public in Utah and you’ll find out which state is subservient to which religion. Â
Like
9 hours ago in reply to MartelHammer 81 Likes
It remained me of the outside view of us and our missionary efforts I had with nonmormon friends in Utah(Provo/salt lake).
The key is “in public” they feel dressed downed or looked down upon while drinking beer in public.
I have never even thought about our religion in the same league of “subservient” as Muslim but the perception my many because of our reactions or a ruins to nonmembers action tells to them otherwise. That perception hampers our missionary efforts as well. The perception that if they join they have to give up thier free thinking for subservient thinking. The outfit is just a mark they can use to identify us much like th mark of Cain was used to
Identify from afar to warn. They use it as a warning signal to “oh look someone is comming to make us subservient to thier religion…run.” it’s a warning marker that says “stay away from me” to many. But there are a small minority that actually like the dress code in the younger generation. They use it for the opposite effect of “oh look it’s the missionaries let’s stop and say hi even if they aren’t interested or dislike the religion. I’m not interested in changing the standerds. I’m just interested in people acknowledging that we are ice-skating up hill with this as is. Something my SP doesn’t seem to get because he complains every time he is at our ward (once or twice a month)that the missionaries have almost no investigators and we are responsible for getting them at least 2 from each of us every month. He doesn’t understand the uphill battle with this, we have pigeon-holed ourselves into this by shaping our behavior and image as out of touch. I actually had people interested in the church that talked to me. Once I shared what I could and said I set you up a appointment with the missionaries most shied away very quickly. Some got some lessons and came back to me feeling the
Missionaries were judt trained propaganda but continued to talk with me because I felt more real in relating to
Them or more specifically they said “the missionaries sound rehearsed and trained like a cooperate recruiter”. Sigh…. I’m
Working on trying to get more recruits for them, because they have almost no investigators to
Full up thier time they mostly go to teach and visit less active or nonactive members with thier time.
Quote:Ray, I can appreciate that this isn’t an issue that rises to a level of importance for you. I completely understand and I, myself, would have said the exact same thing a few years ago. But then my son related to me that they had once been run off the road while riding their bikes. He also let me in on the fact that it wasn’t uncommon for them to tract into a house where the occupants had seen the missionaries coming a mile away and were prepared to threaten them with bodily harm in the form of dogs, knives and guns. This is not some story I once heard about some anonymous missionary… this was my own son. If you ask your local missionaries, you might be surprised at how often they are mistreated by your neighbors.
I’ve had a gun pointed at me on my mission and been told to deny my religion or be killed.My son was threatened on his mission with bodily harm– and mistaken for a stripper when he and his companion knocked on the door of a gay couple celebrating one of their birthdays, but that’s a totally different situation. I know exactly how badly missionaries can be misteated. I don’t need anyone to misread what I write and accuse me of not understanding missionaries and missionary work. 👿 Frankly, that’s an emotional reaction that is incredibly rare from me at this site, but I don’t like the implications of naivete associated with my opinion that the vast majority of missionaries don’t think they look stupid in standard missionary attire. I’ve been involved with missionaries quite regularly for over 20 years now, and I just don’t think that’s accurate. Generally speaking, I think they see themselves differently than they are seen by those who despise the Church and, therefore, react badly to them.
We obviously disagree about this, but I didn’t reach my opinion by glibly burying my head in the sand and sucking on a happiness lollipop.
Now I’m smiling again, fwiw.
🙂 and, btw, I think the biggest failure regarding missionary work is that we have full-time missionaries serving in fully functioning, large wards in the USA, when I think it should be the members’ and the ward missions’ responsibility to tackle “missionary work” on their own in very different ways. I’d love to see the day when all full-time missionaries serve outside of the Intermountain Mormon Corridor in developing countries around the world and the members run the missionary programs in highly attended areas – again, using a radically different structure than we have with young, full-time missionaries. Ouch. Ray, I’m glad you were able to return to smiling. It wasn’t my intention to accusing you of naivete, and I’m sorry that I offended you. I was trying to explain how I came to my opinion, not to assume how you came to yours. In that last sentence, rather than directing it at you specifically, I should have broadened it by saying, “If the average church member in the US were to ask their local missionaries, I think they would be surprised at how often their neighbors mistreat the missionaries”… and I’d be surprised if that’s not something you and I would agree on. Sure, missionaries don’t necessarily see themselves as looking silly or stupid or goofy, or [pick your favorite term of derision], and even if they did, what are they going to say? They have no choice. But they know that OTHERS see them as [derisive term]. If you asked a missionary, “are you comfortable with your appearance?” My guess is that most would say “sure”, whether they are or not.
But if you asked them, “do you think people treat you better or worse because of your appearance” or “do you think that your appearance opens or closes more doors”, well, you know what they would say.
My point is simply that IMO when it comes to the church’s perception among non-members, there isn’t much gained by the “missionary look” but there is much lost; dignity for the missionaries, dignity for the Church, and opportunities to share the gospel to name three specifics.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.