building relationships of trust

[_Sethbag]

I should have put "trust" in scare quotes. Because it's anything but about real trust.

I still recall being instructed in the techniques of this in the MTC. Upon entering a home, we'd look for photos or other conversation starters to remark upon, in order to get the person to open up a bit and talk with us. We'd ask questions and give the other person the opportunity to give something of themselves. The gist of it was we were taught to pretend like we gave a crap about people so that we could more easily manipulate them into agreeing to be baptised.

The problem, for me, was that I couldn't pretend like this. I would actually give a crap about people, and then because I actually cared about the person I was unable to leverage that to get the person to agree to something they didn't really want.

Think about this for a moment. Let's say you "build a relationship of trust" with a person, as the MTC taught you, and then manipulated that trust so you could get the person to agree to something they didn't really want. Isn't that a pretty despicable abuse of that trust? What does that say about a person who is willing to do that?

I liked to discuss, persuade, argue, all kinds of things on my mission. But I look back on some of the techniques I sucked at, or even rejected (like bogus surveys) and realize how fundamentally dishonest they are.

What other techniques were you guys taught on your missions, or just in church, to try to manipulate people into entering obligations they didn't really want? What techniques do you now regard as fundamentally dishonest?

I'll tell you one more. I was never really good at enforcing "milk before meat". I might not volunteer the meet, but if a person asked me straight up about something, I wouldn't try to answer "the question they should have asked" or any of that BS. I'd answer what they actually asked, and try to make my answer mean as much as I could. If they "weren't ready" for it, oh well, I wasn't going to lie.

[_Sethbag]

By the way, there's a reason Scientologists don't learn about Emperor Xenu and the volcanos and H-bombs and flying space 707s and whatnot until Operating Thetan level 3, which is very deep into their "technology" ladder, and about $300,000 into the person's membership. The reason is that the person "isn't ready" to accept those teachings prior to that.

Think about that for just a minute. Actually, it doesn't take that long.

[_cafe crema]

I should have put "trust" in scare quotes. Because it's anything but about real trust.

I still recall being instructed in the techniques of this in the MTC. Upon entering a home, we'd look for photos or other conversation starters to remark upon, in order to get the person to open up a bit and talk with us. We'd ask questions and give the other person the opportunity to give something of themselves. The gist of it was we were taught to pretend like we gave a s*** about people so that we could more easily manipulate them into agreeing to be baptised.

I've seen this "build relationships of trust" referred to before and was always curious about any detailed instructions people were given in this method and in general how it would play out. I remember encounters with "door knockers" where I felt they were "operating" on me in this fashion, I didn't like it. The same with the "commitment pattern" (is that the right phrase?) this really really didn't sit well with me, it was obviously a flat out sales technique, and a pushy one at that. It always left me angry with the person pushing his or her agenda.

I just wonder, do these techniques work well, do they get people to join the LDS church? And if they do join do the people who succumb to these techniques make good members or do they just say okay to the marketing and abandon it as soon as the pressure is off?

[_zeezrom]

The OP title reminds me of role playing as a missionary. This is by far the worst part of being a Mormon. While teaching at the MTC, I saw it even more. Yuck!

BRT! That is what we used to say. Elder, we need to BRT! We can't just waltz in there and expect a baptism. We need to warm them up first. Dammit! Missions are so screwed.

[_zeezrom]

café,

Yes, the commitment pattern was the overall methodology. BRT is part of it.

[_Stormy Waters]

What other techniques were you guys taught on your missions, or just in church, to try to manipulate people into entering obligations they didn't really want? What techniques do you now regard as fundamentally dishonest?

While serving on my mission at times we would sometimes jokingly refer to the 'commitment pattern' as the 'manipulation pattern'. So to some degree I was aware that I was trying to manipulate people. Though obviously I believed at the time I was doing it for the greater good.
We certainly taught milk before meat by following the outlined missionary discussions. As far as questions I can only remember one investigator who gave us a lot of grief because he was aware of things like the priesthood ban.

Really the missionary tactics are indistinguishable from sales tactics. You're there to sell them a product. You'll omit the flaws in the product if needed. Make small talk to make them comfortable. The missionaries that are good at sales will be good at missionary work. It's not about obedience or the spirit.

[_bcspace]

I quickly cast away the sales techniques taught on my mission. I believe they're there in case you can't think of anything else to do. I was just myself and ended up baptizing over 40 people in an English speaking mission.

[_Sethbag]

I've seen this "build relationships of trust" referred to before and was always curious about any detailed instructions people were given in this method and in general how it would play out. I remember encounters with "door knockers" where I felt they were "operating" on me in this fashion, I didn't like it. The same with the "commitment pattern" (is that the right phrase?) this really really didn't sit well with me, it was obviously a flat out sales technique, and a pushy one at that. It always left me angry with the person pushing his or her agenda.

I couldn't agree more. I really hate it when I'm being played by a door knocker. I'm not very good at all at saying NO to them either. I've finally mastered hanging up on people soliciting over the phone, but I still suck at it at the door.

I don't recall the detailed instructions in full now, but yes at the MTC whole lessons were devoted to teaching the techniques of "building relationships of trust" with people we'd just met in order to get them to be more open to what we had to say, or get them more willing to enter into commitments we wanted to get them to agree to, etc. One lesson I do remember pretty clearly was to look for things in the house that we could comment on, in order to spur on the other person into opening up about themselves and talking.

I just wonder, do these techniques work well, do they get people to join the LDS church? And if they do join do the people who succumb to these techniques make good members or do they just say okay to the marketing and abandon it as soon as the pressure is off?

They work well when done by someone good at them, to someone who is susceptible to them. Apparently I wasn't very good at it on my mission. Plenty of missionaries are out there baptizing plenty of people, so yes, apparently it can work well enough. As far as retention goes, from what I read the retention of new converts is abysmal. I guess there is a difference between being "committed" in the transitive verb sense, ie: by a missionary, and being "committed" in the intransitive verb sense, ie: being inwardly committed.

[_ludwigm]

By the way, there's a reason Scientologists don't learn about Emperor Xenu and the volcanos and H-bombs and flying space 707s and whatnot until Operating Thetan level 3, which is very deep into their "technology" ladder, and about $300,000 into the person's membership. The reason is that the person "isn't ready" to accept those teachings prior to that.

That stupid scientologists...
The "milk before meat" is more sound. "Gradient" is too scientific...

[_Jason Bourne]

We used what was called The Commit now program. We were to challenge to baptism on the first discussion. We simply taught Joseph Smith FV story, told them God had called a prophet in these days and if they knew God called a prophet wouldn't they want to follow that prophet. Of course they said yes.

So we would take 10 minutes and teach them how they would know our message was true. We taught about the Holy Ghost, told them that they would have good feelings, feeling of peace and we quoted the verse in John where Jesus says "Peace I leave you, My peace I give unto you. Not as the world giveth give I unto you. Let not your heart he troubled..."

So then we would teach the FV story as movingly as we could, bear testimony and then would ask them how they felt when we taught them. Almost always they would say good, warm, happy, etc. We would then ask them what did we tell you that was? They would say the Holy Ghost. And we would ask what does that mean the Holy Ghost is saying about our message. They would say that it was true. We would then say since you know it our message is true do you want to follow it.....

They would not always say yes but many would . We would then challenge them to baptism and tell them we wanted to spend the next two weeks teaching them what they needed to know to be baptized.

Does seem pretty manipulative doesn’t it?