When I was a ward mission leader in Utah, we worked really hard as a missionary committee and ward council to address the association of “missionary efforts” with “guilt,” and the fact that the two are incompatible. We flat out told ward members that if they were sharing the gospel with friends because they would feel guilty if they didn’t, they should hold their tongue and wait for a better motive, because the Spirit doesn’t work with you via guilt.

We also taught ward members that missionary experiences are not a result of finding ways to bring up the gospel with people, it’s a matter of having sincere, no-strings-attached friendships with a broad circle, and then turning off the filter in your head that says “I’m now speaking to a non-member.”

In other words, if you’re talking about something in your life that includes Church-related and/or gospel related events or terminology, be the same person and tell the same story regardless of that person’s church affiliation. If you’re comfortable bringing up the gospel aspects of your life in casual conversation, your friends will be comfortable when you do. If they don’t understand and want to, they’ll tell you. If they aren’t comfortable, they’ll tell you or show you.

And most important, if they see your church membership as something important to you and as a positive in your life — and they arrive at that conclusion through their own observation — they’ll be comfortable bringing up the subject in their time and on their terms.

Just be the same person with your non-church friends as you are with your church friends and missionary opportunities seem to happen on their own. You don’t have to “approach” people about the gospel. You just have to not NOT talk about the gospel in your life.

Strategic issues: Instead of tracting, allow missionaries to spend real time with members in social settings, like sports or whatever. Linked with this, since social events are a non-invasive way of bringing people into contact with Church and developing those types of honest friendships discussed in the OP, then get Missionaries involved in preparing ad organising social events.

Not sure what your view of the “standard” approach is. Even Elder Ballard’s “set a date” program was built around lasting friendships rather than abusing friendships.

As a ward mission leader now my observation is that most people are just plain too afraid of offending someone to do too much “direct” missionary work (and that’s ok). In our community there are many, many faithful Catholics and Protestants who go to church every Sunday and are not looking for a change (nor are they looking for a fight), and our ward members don’t seem to be, either.

Clayton Christensen (formerly an Area Seventy) wrote about gentle ways to share the gospel in the Ensign in 2005. Here’s the link:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=2ddf7fae6f3eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

For full-time elders it’s different of course. If members could provide them enough opportunities to teach, then there would be no need for door knocking. Our missionaries also are very serious about looking for meaningful service opportunities in the community.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer. This has been going through my mind lately too. As a missionary, I believed and taught that the foundational story was air-tight, giving us a seamless transition from Bible times till today in regards to God’s manifesting Himself to his children. I have noticed more and more, though, that my conversations don’t emphasize JS’s theophany or TSM’s unique relationship with Deity. I rather prefer to talk about the pragmatic aspect of the faith as well as how it has provided a vehicle to help foster love and aid service to others. I’ve been trying to decide whether this reflects a decline/maturation of belief or perhaps is just a reflection of those with whom I discuss religion (healthcare). Maybe that’s just how friends talk to each other. Not sure.

Ironically, I feel that my PG-13 sense of humor has lowered more guards and allowed for more friendships and more religious conversation than any personal righteousness ever has.

Also, thanks for the occasional recommended reading on this site–it’s been a great help knowing where to go next.

Ironically, while you won’t find someone more opposed to the door-to-door method than myself, I actually had quite a bit of success with it on my mission in the DC area: through tracting we came in contact with two large, well-established families that ended up being baptized, sealed in the temple, etc. I know that is utterly rare to the point of it being two miniscule specs on the larger spectrum, but they were some eternally significant specs. So I have to admit that while I am always speaking out against tracking, in the back of my mind there is always a voice reminding me of those two miracles.

Kevin,
I didn’t know that about the studies on door-to-door. It doesn’t surprise me at all though. It seems to me that this practice has its roots in the door-to-door salesmen movement in the earlier part of the century. This practice has mostly fallen out of favor. Apparently we didn’t get the memo. In my own musings on the overall missionary program, I’m afraid that I too run into the same lack of creativity for how else to harness the power of the program that we have, while also eliminating the wasteful and annoying aspects of it.

Paul,
I think you’re right that there are some recognitions that the “standard” approach isn’t always the best. I think we have a lot of work to do to change the culture in reality, however.

Jon H.,
That is a great story. I have a similar experience of the expectation that I would proselytize. One friend early on tried to get to know me just so that he could have me proselytize him. I refused his advances, and as a result we became very good friends. Of course, religion has been an important part of our friendship, but I can help think that it was in NOT living up to the LDS stereotype that allowed for us to have those conversations later. Had I given him a Book of Mormon when he initially feigned interest, I’m not sure we’d have ever gotten to the later stage.

Matt W,
Thanks for your experience, and it serves as a reminder that there are no rules about this. That is the point I’m trying to make. I don’t doubt that the traditional methods have worked. They haven’t for me, but I’m glad they did for you! I don’t know what we’d do without you, frankly!

Chris,
That is an excellent comparison. I think that the relationship between our missionary approach and tacky sales is way too close sometimes…

Kade,
That is a great question. I’m not sure I have a simply answer to it. I’d say that in general when asked a question I try to give answers that emphasize diversity within the tradition, while still acknowledging the authority of certain views. When talking to people in other traditions, I try to find out sincerely how their tradition has dealt with the problem. We compare notes. I also try to paint a human picture of Mormonism, to help them to see Mormons as human beings, not as radically different from themselves and their families. I’m not super interested in doctrines, but tend to see Mormonism as a spiritual practice that helps me to be more divine. I acknowledge, however, that the bulk of these conversations are with a relatively informed group of people in the VCR repair business who have a lot of free time on their hands to think about religion seriously and critically, so I think that skews my experience.

I think this part is key.