Opinion of Missionary Dating

[Joe Republic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_dating

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

Third option.

[DC Al Fine]

First off, the article you posted isn't missionary dating, at least not in the sense the term is normally used. I've never heard of anything like that before in my 20 years of ultra-conservative Christianity. That case is truly bizarre.*

A typical case of missionary dating involves one partner (usually the girl) nagging the other to go to church, hoping to change them etc. There's usually a church wedding if they get married, and then much strife when the irreligious partner and the children don't take up the faith, although I have heard of the odd successful case.

Missionary dating is a terrible practice (do not be unequally yoked etc.) but I'm afraid it's quite common given the demographics of the church, especially Evangelical churches. I was missionary dated once (the girl I dated before my fiancee is Mormon), and it adds nothing but strife to a relationship.

*And a lot of these advice columns make up their letters so there's a good chance its faked.

[RI]

The quoted situation is grounds for annulment in the Catholic Church.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Yeah, I don't know if I buy this.  What strikes me is, why would someone go through a radical change in their religious views as well as their political views in only a short six months because they go to church more often?  Unless it's a cult or something.

But on the question of missionary dating, my opinion as I understand it is, of course, highly negative.  If your relationship is completely based on one partner trying to change the other person's religious views, I don't see how it would add anything but strife to that relationship.  (Though speaking as someone who's never been in a relationship before, I suppose I'm no authority on this...)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The jmcfst kinda sorta did that with his wife, IIRC  It's just weird.  I don't think he started dating her for that reason but it became mission #1 with him to convert her.

[Mordecai]

Voted negative, but the third option also applies.

He needs to divorce her straight away and then get the hell out there. There is something seriously wrong with that woman, if they can outright lie to their partner's face for three years about their personal beliefs and whether or not to have kids, suppressing all of that, then turning on a dime the moment they're married and expect him to be fine with it. That's borderline psychotic.

[Joe Republic]

Yeah, I don't know if I buy this.  What strikes me is, why would someone go through a radical change in their religious views as well as their political views in only a short six months because they go to church more often?  Unless it's a cult or something.

She didn't change; she lied the whole time.

[opebo]

The jmcfst kinda sorta did that with his wife, IIRC  It's just weird.  I don't think he started dating her for that reason but it became mission #1 with him to convert her.

The guy claimed he made hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, didn't he?  I'm sure lots of ladies wouldn't mind pretending to believe that Christian hooey for a slice of that pie.

[Zioneer]

First off, the article you posted isn't missionary dating, at least not in the sense the term is normally used. I've never heard of anything like that before in my 20 years of ultra-conservative Christianity. That case is truly bizarre.*

A typical case of missionary dating involves one partner (usually the girl) nagging the other to go to church, hoping to change them etc. There's usually a church wedding if they get married, and then much strife when the irreligious partner and the children don't take up the faith, although I have heard of the odd successful case.

Missionary dating is a terrible practice (do not be unequally yoked etc.) but I'm afraid it's quite common given the demographics of the church, especially Evangelical churches. I was missionary dated once (the girl I dated before my fiancee is Mormon), and it adds nothing but strife to a relationship.

*And a lot of these advice columns make up their letters so there's a good chance its faked.

To be fair to Mormons, we place a really big emphasis on only dating or marrying Mormons, and trying to bring nonmembers around to our view. It's part of our doctrine that eternal marriages (or sealing the wife and husband together after the marriage) can only happen in an LDS temple (so both partners have to be LDS), so it's consistent, at least.

[DC Al Fine]

First off, the article you posted isn't missionary dating, at least not in the sense the term is normally used. I've never heard of anything like that before in my 20 years of ultra-conservative Christianity. That case is truly bizarre.*

A typical case of missionary dating involves one partner (usually the girl) nagging the other to go to church, hoping to change them etc. There's usually a church wedding if they get married, and then much strife when the irreligious partner and the children don't take up the faith, although I have heard of the odd successful case.

Missionary dating is a terrible practice (do not be unequally yoked etc.) but I'm afraid it's quite common given the demographics of the church, especially Evangelical churches. I was missionary dated once (the girl I dated before my fiancee is Mormon), and it adds nothing but strife to a relationship.

*And a lot of these advice columns make up their letters so there's a good chance its faked.

To be fair to Mormons, we place a really big emphasis on only dating or marrying Mormons, and trying to bring nonmembers around to our view. It's part of our doctrine that eternal marriages (or sealing the wife and husband together after the marriage) can only happen in an LDS temple (so both partners have to be LDS), so it's consistent, at least.

Oh yeah definitely.

I didn't mean to pick on Mormons. It's just that we both had very strong conflicting views, and that added conflict to the relationship where there otherwise wouldn't have been any.

[Zioneer]

First off, the article you posted isn't missionary dating, at least not in the sense the term is normally used. I've never heard of anything like that before in my 20 years of ultra-conservative Christianity. That case is truly bizarre.*

A typical case of missionary dating involves one partner (usually the girl) nagging the other to go to church, hoping to change them etc. There's usually a church wedding if they get married, and then much strife when the irreligious partner and the children don't take up the faith, although I have heard of the odd successful case.

Missionary dating is a terrible practice (do not be unequally yoked etc.) but I'm afraid it's quite common given the demographics of the church, especially Evangelical churches. I was missionary dated once (the girl I dated before my fiancee is Mormon), and it adds nothing but strife to a relationship.

*And a lot of these advice columns make up their letters so there's a good chance its faked.

To be fair to Mormons, we place a really big emphasis on only dating or marrying Mormons, and trying to bring nonmembers around to our view. It's part of our doctrine that eternal marriages (or sealing the wife and husband together after the marriage) can only happen in an LDS temple (so both partners have to be LDS), so it's consistent, at least.

Oh yeah definitely.

I didn't mean to pick on Mormons. It's just that we both had very strong conflicting views, and that added conflict to the relationship where there otherwise wouldn't have been any.

Yeah; we also put an emphasis on "yes, you and people you date will have conflicts if you aren't both LDS". So we realize what we're doing with "missionary dating" (ironically LDS missionaries are among the quickest to get married after their missions).

[7,052,770]

The jmcfst kinda sorta did that with his wife, IIRC  It's just weird.  I don't think he started dating her for that reason but it became mission #1 with him to convert her.

I'm about 80% sure that jmcfst's wife converted him.  Didn't he have an "I used to be such a sinner until God introduced me to my wife!" backstory?

[Joe Republic]

The jmcfst kinda sorta did that with his wife, IIRC  It's just weird.  I don't think he started dating her for that reason but it became mission #1 with him to convert her.

I'm about 80% sure that jmcfst's wife converted him.  Didn't he have an "I used to be such a sinner until God introduced me to my wife!" backstory?

He had a schizophrenic episode in (I think) 1992, in which he claimed that Jesus Christ actually "spoke" to him.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The jmcfst kinda sorta did that with his wife, IIRC  It's just weird.  I don't think he started dating her for that reason but it became mission #1 with him to convert her.

I'm about 80% sure that jmcfst's wife converted him.  Didn't he have an "I used to be such a sinner until God introduced me to my wife!" backstory?

He had a schizophrenic episode in (I think) 1992, in which he claimed that Jesus Christ actually "spoke" to him.

Didn't know that you were a psychiatrist, or that you diagnosed over the internet.  If Christ could appear on the road to Damascus, there is no reason he could not do so on the road to Houston.  Now if jm had continued to have those visions I'd be inclined to agree with your diagnosis, but for a single episode, I'd be in the skeptical yet not entirely dismissive camp about such things.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The jmcfst kinda sorta did that with his wife, IIRC  It's just weird.  I don't think he started dating her for that reason but it became mission #1 with him to convert her.

I'm about 80% sure that jmcfst's wife converted him.  Didn't he have an "I used to be such a sinner until God introduced me to my wife!" backstory?

He had a schizophrenic episode in (I think) 1992, in which he claimed that Jesus Christ actually "spoke" to him.

Didn't know that you were a psychiatrist, or that you diagnosed over the internet.  If Christ could appear on the road to Damascus, there is no reason he could not do so on the road to Houston.  Now if jm had continued to have those visions I'd be inclined to agree with your diagnosis, but for a single episode, I'd be in the skeptical yet not entirely dismissive camp about such things.

Right, I'm only dismissive of those who still claim he speaks to them almost daily. 

[Joe Republic]

Didn't know that you were a psychiatrist, or that you diagnosed over the internet.  If Christ could appear on the road to Damascus, there is no reason he could not do so on the road to Houston.  Now if jm had continued to have those visions I'd be inclined to agree with your diagnosis, but for a single episode, I'd be in the skeptical yet not entirely dismissive camp about such things.

What?  I don't know what event you're referring to, but if it involves Jesus magically appearing to somebody out of thin air, as he supposedly did to jamfist, then there's definitely some kind of psychiatric episode occurring.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Somebody pontificating about this subject who doesn't know what the 'road to Damascus' refers to is rich. The idea that there's no possible middle ground between completely accepting religious visions on their own terms and accusing people willy-nilly of having 'psychiatric episodes' is itself more than a little questionable and disturbing so I sincerely hope that's not what you're advancing.

I don't really clearly remember the specifics of what jmfcst claimed but as I recall it did sound a little suspect.

Getting back to the thread subject, it's certainly a better reason for religious conversion than some sort of messed-up, dishonest, shambling scam of a romantic relationship.

[afleitch]

Somebody pontificating about this subject who doesn't know what the 'road to Damascus' refers to is rich. The idea that there's no possible middle ground between completely accepting religious visions on their own terms and accusing people willy-nilly of having 'psychiatric episodes' is itself more than a little questionable and disturbing so I sincerely hope that's not what you're advancing.

I don't really clearly remember the specifics of what jmfcst claimed but as I recall it did sound a little suspect.

Getting back to the thread subject, it's certainly a better reason for religious conversion than some sort of messed-up, dishonest, shambling scam of a romantic relationship.

I think there is a middle ground; one should be instinctively suspicious of any 'vision' that he or she sees, religious or otherwise. Given that claimed visions tend to either be for the benefit of the person who has them (as in jim jams case) and can explicitly contradict the visions of others or defy another persons interpretation (after all one persons devil is another persons pan) it is proper to be dismissive to neutral until you can construct an objective justification for what you have seen, rational or otherwise.

I was curious to read of this man's case if it's true. Obviously the woman is manipulative and he would probably be better off simply walking away. If someones faith or belief system is more important to them than maintaining healthy and supportive interpersonal relationships with others, including their own partner then any relationship is going to be destructive in the end.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Somebody pontificating about this subject who doesn't know what the 'road to Damascus' refers to is rich. The idea that there's no possible middle ground between completely accepting religious visions on their own terms and accusing people willy-nilly of having 'psychiatric episodes' is itself more than a little questionable and disturbing so I sincerely hope that's not what you're advancing.

I don't really clearly remember the specifics of what jmfcst claimed but as I recall it did sound a little suspect.

Getting back to the thread subject, it's certainly a better reason for religious conversion than some sort of messed-up, dishonest, shambling scam of a romantic relationship.

I think there is a middle ground; one should be instinctively suspicious of any 'vision' that he or she sees, religious or otherwise. Given that claimed visions tend to either be for the benefit of the person who has them (as in jim jams case) and can explicitly contradict the visions of others or defy another persons interpretation (after all one persons devil is another persons pan) it is proper to be dismissive to neutral until you can construct an objective justification for what you have seen, rational or otherwise.

I more or less agree with that. Very little is more damaging to genuine religion or mysticism than the works getting gummed up with bad or misinterpreted or made-up visions, and of course even outside the realm of religion this sort of thing can be pretty dangerous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. Like DC Al Fine pointed out, even by the standards of manipulative religiosity in romantic relationships this is extreme.

[Joe Republic]

Somebody pontificating about this subject who doesn't know what the 'road to Damascus' refers to is rich.

One doesn't need to have seen (or even heard about) every episode of Star Trek, for instance, to be able to ridicule the whole thing (and it's ardent fans, for that matter).

The idea that there's no possible middle ground between completely accepting religious visions on their own terms and accusing people willy-nilly of having 'psychiatric episodes' is itself more than a little questionable and disturbing so I sincerely hope that's not what you're advancing.

Well go on then, what possible 'middle ground' could there be?  I can accept that hallucinations can happen to drunk, high, sleep-deprived, even extremely stressed, but otherwise normal people.  Is that the kind of thing you mean?  Doesn't mean they aren't hallucinations, however.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Somebody pontificating about this subject who doesn't know what the 'road to Damascus' refers to is rich.

One doesn't need to have seen (or even heard about) every episode of Star Trek, for instance, to be able to ridicule the whole thing (and it's ardent fans, for that matter).

Granted. However, one ought, in fact, to have at least a passing familiarity with overarching concepts and particularly well-known or highly-regarded episodes if one is to expect people who actually know what they are talking about to take your criticism at all seriously. (While we're on the subject of ridicule, I might say that I need see only one instance of you using 'it's' with an apostrophe as a possessive to be able to ridicule your grammar. I may believe in beings that you either ignorantly or maliciously misrepresent as celestial Dumbledores of some description, but at least I can identify and avoid common mistakes in the orthography of my first language, ねぇ～) As it stands, I have to say that part of me is happy for you that you're comfortable being the theological equivalent of a slack-jawed gawker outside a convention ranting about the nerds and their silly dress-up games. It's nice to be aware of our limitations, isn't it? I, meanwhile, will be happily ensconced inside the convention actually having fun doing things and buying things and having conversations related to a subject about which I'm enthusiastic. Scandalous, I know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well go on then, what possible 'middle ground' could there be?  I can accept that hallucinations can happen to drunk, high, sleep-deprived, even extremely stressed, but otherwise normal people.  Is that the kind of thing you mean?  Doesn't mean they aren't hallucinations, however.
[/quote]

Well, you could always take the sort of position that afleitch advocates: Be politely suspicious unless you're given some sort of reason to either accept (even if only tacitly) the person's claims (which could be rationally grounded or otherwise; somebody who is acting in a much kinder and more responsible manner after what they claim was an encounter with Jesus or Amida or whoever may, technically, have been hallucinating in an abstract sense, but certainly isn't mentally ill in the sense that it's causing them noticeable problems functioning; quite the opposite! Another person who claims to have had the exact same experience may well, of course, be in a considerably more worrying state) or believe that they're speaking in bad faith. If you are the person having the visions, be politely suspicious of yourself, unless you're really sure about it, in which case seek responsible spiritual direction! Question folks' mental health in the name of doing due diligence if the situation seems to call for it, sure--the responsible spiritual directors will do the same, since it's not as if a claimed vision can't derive from some sort of mental problem--but don't presume to pass down judgment about whether or not they're having 'psychiatric episodes' from high on your self-satisfied little perch as if you in the end knew a damn thing about where other people are coming from and where they are going.

In short, learn some humility, and accept that psychology is complicated and that one person's terrifying psychotic fantasy may be another person's functional coping mechanism may be another person's quotidian thought process, and it'll be hard for you to go wrong, でしょう？ Happy Thanksgiving.

[afleitch]

Nathan, posts like that are why we can’t have nice things.

I was going to respond to your response to me as follows;

We probably would part company on extending that to all tenets of religious ‘revelation’; visual or otherwise. As I mentioned in a thread a few months back I am a strong believer in the religious/superstitious v rational/empirical view of the world (if we have to give a neat split) as essentially hardwired based on the noticeable differences between men/women (probably the easiest to measure as many censuses record belief) autistic/schizotypal, evidential/intuitive etc that comes out of studies on religion, belief and spirituality. To me it’s probably very similar to other expressed human traits therefore making both views neutral. Of course that poses more problems for those who argue for exclusivity and ‘truth’ in their own religious or spiritual belief than those who have no belief, because many beliefs that espouse exclusivity often cannot entertain the idea that opposition to it is morally neutral.

I made that digression to help expand my position. Any religious revelation that has been communicated to you can be more suspect than any revelation that you perceive yourself, as that revelation is second hand and therefore should also be treated as either suspect or neutral until an argument can be built in favour of it. Certainly if you are not religious such as myself, then no argument can ever be constructed that meets that criteria but if you are inclined to interpret the world through a religious spectrum it makes sense if you are in search of ‘truth’ or at least the correct path towards something that is real but forever indefinable, is to place on hold your own interpretation of a religious experience or revealed word until you make recourse to other religious/spiritualistic interpretations. What I mean by that in shorthand is Person A raised in a Christian culture and used to Christian spiritual concepts should not assume that whatever religious experience he or she has equates to or confirms the Christian belief. Unfortunately (and I make no accusations towards anyone that posts in this forum) is that if you are culturally saturated by one religion then it’s simply easier to simply accept the tenets of that religion rather than to spend the effort looking at every other conceivable interpretation.

Which still stands, though it makes sense to respond a little to what Joe raised.

Obviously, middle ground aside (which was, I guess ‘advice’ of sorts to those spiritually minded) I would consider that there is a rational explanation for every ‘vision’ that person has (including people who downright lie). I defer to David Hume on that one. There is no evidence that any external sentient actor or agent can either enter ones mind to invoke a vision or suspend the natural order in order to create a literal vision in front of a person. There is no evidence that our mind and our thought processes can be internally altered by external agents other than passive agents such as drugs, certain properties of plants, gases and the side effects of the body’s response to a bacterial or viral illness. So if one perceives a vision that is not consistent with the natural state of affairs he must either be under the influence of passive agents or he is mistaken in what he perceives. That does not mean of course that a person is ‘mad.’

We also know the extraordinary properties of the brain. Our own vision (if we simply focus on one of the senses for a moment) is remarkable; people with partial sight, usually forms of glaucoma that reduce vision in specific spots have reported that the brain tried to ‘fill in’ the spots that remain dark often with what the brain expects to be there but often with the absurd. There was fear of reporting this less they be considered ‘mad.’ Of course this happens to us each and every moment because the optical nerve also produces a black ‘spot’ that the brain has to fill in for us. We can all hear a voice in our heads; we can sing songs in our minds and orchestrate Beethoven even if we can’t sing a note. But it is important to note that evidentially any ‘voice’ heard in your head is a product of one’s own mind, and from the absorption of experiences even if that voice seems disconnected from yourself. I personally find it wonderful that simple electrochemical patterns make up our consciousness and regularly surprise myself at my brains ability to make me experience fantastical things (not to be vulgar but a heightened clash of senses and a tendency to escape from oneself during sex is both a prime and a primal example) But those experiences are internally grounded.

It is wrong to generally categorise these experiences as psychotic or schizotypal, though in many cases they can be but it is equally suspect to grasp at these experiences as some form of external or divine inspiration, even just some of them, when there isn’t evidence that the brain works that way or is receptive to such influences. It’s essentially plagiarising what is a very human experience for metaphysical ends.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay yeah I understand I get way too touchy about this.

I'll try to respond to this in some detail later--and I won't use a haughty or passive-aggressive (or, uh, aggressive-aggressive) tone with you, I promise--but I have a Thanksgiving dinner to go to and I'm going to disengage in the interests of that and I will perhaps be less stressed and bellicose when I get back this evening, if that's all right with you.

What I'll say for now is that the italicized part of your post--what was originally going to be your response to me--is, I think, definitely a fair way of looking at these things, although you're right that we wouldn't agree on its ambit. What you're saying further down I can't say quite as much about because it's standing on theoretical (i.e. neuroscientific) ground with which I'm less familiar. (I understand that saying this is something of a cop-out with respect to your reason for presenting the ideas in this context, which is why I'd like to at least try to address it in more detail later on rather than disengaging entirely, which would be easier for me but therefore less rewarding.)

[Joe Republic]

Ugh, really?  You devoted sixty-nine words to pointing out an iPhone autocorrect error?

As always, you clearly care about this a lot more than I do.  Thank you, afleitch, for having infinitely more patience than I ever could with this guy.