In a recent article in The National Catholic Weekly magazine, a writer brought up the great marketing the LDS church is doing in New York City. His article highlights the Mormon.org billboards that are all over as well as on the taxis, etc. and how great of a missionary tool it is. Something he wrote about in his article stood out to me about his perspective on the traditional Mormon missionary strategy. He writes:
The “I’m a Mormon” campaign, showcases video and print portraits of young, diverse and energetic Mormons — and steers clear of images of missionaries in white shirts and black pants or talk of theology —
“Steering clear of images of missionaries in white shirts and black pants…” is the line that stood out to me.
What is the image that most people who aren’t LDS think of when they see the Mormon missionaries knocking on doors like they have done the same way for probably close to 100 years now? Is that still an effective marketing tool, or should the church shake it up and allow missionaries to wear clothes that match the culture where they are?
I know from personal experience that I felt much more at ease being a missionary without my white shirt and nametag than when I was wearing it. I was a Mormon missionary in Germany for two years and I also lived in Switzerland and worked for awhile after my mission as well. When I was a mormon missionary, people would bar the windows and lock the doors and bring the kids out of the streets the moment we walked into the neighborhood. The white shirt and black nametag turned them off.
However, when I was dressed in my normal clothes as a “regular” person after my mission, I had many more missionary discussions with people who opened up to me because they perceived that I was a “normal” person.
On the other hand, the Mormon missionaries have been branded by the white shirt and nametag and for people who are searching for them, they are easy to identify.
What are your thoughts on changing the Mormon missionary strategy and having Mormon missionaries wear “normal” clothes while proselyting?
Grace for Grace 
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 11, 2011 at 2:10 pm
SilverRain
I think they should keep it up the way it is. Missionaries are the official face of the Church’s missionary work. The church has plenty of plainclothes in the members. Trying to make missionaries look like “normal” people is just deceptive.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 8:33 pm
ama49
SilverRain,
Good to see you again!
How do you think it is deceptive by not having missionaries wear suits?
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 4:35 pm
LuluBelle
One of the missionaries in our ward told us that the church had conducted a sweeping survey on missionaries and their appeal. A large part of it was on their dress and the results were that missionaries in more casual attire (i.e. khakis and shirts) were far more approachable and less intimidating than the guys in white shirts and suit pants. I have to agree. I don’t think “hiding” the fact that they’re missionaries is very honest, however, the suit-thing can be a real turn-off. It may be a strong brand (e.g. “image”) but I can’t say that that’s necessarily a positive one.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm
ama49
LuluBelle,
I like your idea of a more casual attire. Suits scream sales person, in my opinion and when people see them, they think IRS, FBI, or Mormon Missionary….if the church wants people to think missionaries are the FBI than keep the white shirts and suits.
Do you have a link to the survey you referenced?
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 10:02 am
LuluBelle
No- I wish! And I can’t verify it’s true but it seemed plausible and he was very detailed…
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 6:36 am
Cal
I think it’s significant that you have two differing opinions already.
My thinking, as usual, falls in line with ama49’s post.
On one hand, the suits flash legalism to me.
On the other hand, they speak of neatness and professionalism.
Ama’s post and the two differing opinions may be indicators that the most effective strategy depends on the situation. It made me think of Paul’s strategy:
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. . . . To those not having the law I became like one not having the law . . . so as to win those not having the law. . . . I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some (1 Cor. 9:20-22).
(related: should police cars always be marked as such? :-))
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm
ama49
Cal,
I love the comment along with the quote from Paul. I think your (well, Paul’s) suggestion is perfect. We should relate to the people so they will open up to us. The problem is that many people (especially 19 year old boys) have a hard time distiguishing when the appropriate time is to dress in a suit or not. For me, I would never wear one if given the chance to choose! Therefore, that may be one of the reasons the LDS church decides to go with the “professional” look.
P.S. love your thought about Police cars! My answer is I don’t care if they’re marked or not…unless I’m speeding!
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Cal
ama said, “The problem is that many people (especially 19 year old boys) have a hard time distiguishing when the appropriate time is to dress in a suit or not.”
That would be hard.
ama: “For me, I would never wear one if given the chance to choose!”
I suspected that!
ama: “Therefore, that may be one of the reasons the LDS church decides to go with the ‘professional’ look.”
Ah, ha. 🙂
Take care. . . .
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:44 pm
ama49
You got me, Cal!
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Rafn514
There is also the fact that we act as we are dressed to act. Our clothes affect our attitude, the church knows that. Boys don’t. Your comment about what a 19 yr old boy would wear if given the choice is right on track for why the church probably won’t change the appearance of full time missionaries. You are still a “plain clothes missionary” after those two years are up, all members are and should keep the “full time” zeal in sharing the gospel.
LikeLike
August 17, 2011 at 8:55 am
Cal
That’s a good point, Rafn. You do have lots of effective plain-clothed missionaries.
Were you raised in the Church?
LikeLike
August 17, 2011 at 11:40 am
Rafn514
Yes, Cal. And I should be a better “unmarked” missionary, like my husband, whose love of having a “discussion” is no less reduced by the years away from his black name tag. The formal mission is as much for these boys to grow as for the people they teach to find the gospel. This, the Lord has found, is best accomplished without worldly distraction or attitudes. Just like the military requires a uniform to focus the men on both unity with each other and on their task at hand. Just like certain (some very effective) private schools require a uniform so the students are less distracted in their learning. It works for the boys growth, so it will probably remain.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Cal
Interesting outlook.
I’m glad your husband still wants to reach out.
It makes sense. He didn’t lose the Holy Spirit when he took the name tag off, and it’s the Spirit that makes us want to touch the lost with Jesus’ love and salvation, isn’t it?
Blessings to you.
LikeLike