rongo Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 This seems to bear out a lot of what I have been saying for years about sending out way too many youth --- even youth who aren't ready or shouldn't go on a mission: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695173/President-Oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-MTC-presidents.html I was struck with his statement that, if kids are going to go home early, then do it ASAP and spare companions, presidents, missions, and units the dead weight of dud missionaries (my words, not his, obviously). He also said that we need to to a better job of screening missionaries beforehand, which indicates to me that we are going to continue to see missionary numbers drop (a good thing, in my view. I think "Gideon's Army" is a better approach than "send all youth, whether they want to go or should go or not, to try to keep them from going inactive or missing"). Thoughts? 4 Link to comment
clarkgoble Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 I still suspect that they'll make some big revisions. I don't think it's worked out well for various reasons. I'd also like to see more leveraging of older singles who volunteer. The age 26 limit and limit to a single mission limit people who might be financially well off and looking to serve. So say six month missions - particularly service missions. Since many may well have been on a mission already they'll also come better trained. 4 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 hour ago, rongo said: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695173/President-Oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-MTC-presidents.html I was struck with his statement that, if kids are going to go home early, then do it ASAP and spare companions, presidents, missions, and units the dead weight of dud missionaries (my words, not his, obviously). He also said that we need to to a better job of screening missionaries beforehand, which indicates to me that we are going to continue to see missionary numbers drop (a good thing, in my view. I think "Gideon's Army" is a better approach than "send all youth, whether they want to go or should go or not, to try to keep them from going inactive or missing"). Thoughts? I don't know if I quite understand Scott's statement here. Maybe he could fill me in if I'm misunderstanding: "He[Oaks] exhorted the new directors and their partners to promote member-missionary work. 'Don’t let members use you or your missionaries as conduits or authorities to answer doctrinal questions,' he said. 'This is not your assignment.'” It almost sounds like they don't want missionaries to answer doctrinal questions, period. I kind of thought that was one of their main functions - to teach Church doctrine. Has the Church narrowed their role to one more focused on teaching the gospel only? How do you separate that and other doctrine? I can understand not wanting the directors to use all their time doing that, but I don't understand the rest of the comment I guess. 1 Link to comment
rongo Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share Posted January 19, 2018 I have a hard time seeing people becoming or being very productive with six month missions. It's too short of a time, with learning curve, getting your sea legs, etc. I also wonder how popular strictly service missions would be for normal youth (i.e., letting youth choose strictly humanitarian/service over proselyting). I think there would still be an informal 1st class/2nd class stigma within the Church between various mission "smorgasbord flavors" if people can choose mission specifics, a al carte. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post The Nehor Posted January 19, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I don't know if I quite understand Scott's statement here. Maybe he could fill me in if I'm misunderstanding: "He[Oaks] exhorted the new directors and their partners to promote member-missionary work. 'Don’t let members use you or your missionaries as conduits or authorities to answer doctrinal questions,' he said. 'This is not your assignment.'” It almost sounds like they don't want missionaries to answer doctrinal questions, period. I kind of thought that was one of their main functions - to teach Church doctrine. Has the Church narrowed their role to one more focused on teaching the gospel only? How do you separate that and other doctrine? I can understand not wanting the directors to use all their time doing that, but I don't understand the rest of the comment I guess. In some areas of the world missionaries are sometimes mistakenly seen as doctrinal final authorities. These kinds of questions should go to local Priesthood leaders. This does not mean missionaries should not answer doctrine questions but members and local leaders should not refer people to the missionaries to answer doctrinal questions. 1 hour ago, rongo said: This seems to bear out a lot of what I have been saying for years about sending out way too many youth --- even youth who aren't ready or shouldn't go on a mission: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695173/President-Oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-MTC-presidents.html I was struck with his statement that, if kids are going to go home early, then do it ASAP and spare companions, presidents, missions, and units the dead weight of dud missionaries (my words, not his, obviously). He also said that we need to to a better job of screening missionaries beforehand, which indicates to me that we are going to continue to see missionary numbers drop (a good thing, in my view. I think "Gideon's Army" is a better approach than "send all youth, whether they want to go or should go or not, to try to keep them from going inactive or missing"). Thoughts? Good. About a third of my companions should not have been there and were horrible to work with. In the other two thirds I was the dud that should have been sent home. 5 Link to comment
Duncan Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 I had 20 companions, I didn't think people shouldn't have gone but I do think people should have been better prepared for the experience. I trained 5 times and also "babysat" for 3 or 4 comps. It's funny though one elder I had for 3 months, I could see looking back on my mission being prepared to deal with him. This was before "raising the bar" so literally anyone could go! Link to comment
Amulek Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 25 minutes ago, RevTestament said: "He[Oaks] exhorted the new directors and their partners to promote member-missionary work. 'Don’t let members use you or your missionaries as conduits or authorities to answer doctrinal questions,' he said. 'This is not your assignment.'” It almost sounds like they don't want missionaries to answer doctrinal questions, period. I think this is more of an issue in other, less developed countries, where access to education and information aren't as prevalent. You don't want missionaries / mission presidents to be spending all of their time teaching existing members. Their main focus should be teaching the gospel to those who have yet to hear it. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post ALarson Posted January 19, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 19, 2018 Quote “Help your missionaries know that they are called as teaching missionaries, not historians. Focus primarily on teaching people according to their needs, not on the facilities.” I agree with this, but I do feel that missionaries going out today need to be better prepared for some of the topics and questions that naturally may come up (regarding Joseph Smith, polygamy, etc.). Hopefully they are at least required to read and study the essays. 5 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 hour ago, rongo said: This seems to bear out a lot of what I have been saying for years about sending out way too many youth --- even youth who aren't ready or shouldn't go on a mission: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695173/President-Oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-MTC-presidents.html I was struck with his statement that, if kids are going to go home early, then do it ASAP and spare companions, presidents, missions, and units the dead weight of dud missionaries (my words, not his, obviously). He also said that we need to to a better job of screening missionaries beforehand, which indicates to me that we are going to continue to see missionary numbers drop (a good thing, in my view. I think "Gideon's Army" is a better approach than "send all youth, whether they want to go or should go or not, to try to keep them from going inactive or missing"). Thoughts? If this is a sign of things to come in the new order, then its a bad sign. I had been encouraged in recent years that it seems more missionary flexibility has developed with less emphasis on "repentance and baptism" as being the primary importance of missionary service, this sounds like retrenchment. Secondly, what do people think of his comments to missionaries at the church visitor centers and historical sites? It sounds like he doesn't want them focused on explaining history at all. But isn't that what the people visiting these historical sites want to hear? It sounds like he wants the missionaries intentionally deflecting when they get these kinds of questions. One quote that talked to this sentiment: Quote Help your missionaries know that they are called as teaching missionaries, not historians. Focus primarily on teaching people according to their needs, not on the facilities.” I hope I'm not overreacting, but I really disliked what I read here. 1 Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 19, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, rongo said: This seems to bear out a lot of what I have been saying for years about sending out way too many youth --- even youth who aren't ready or shouldn't go on a mission: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695173/President-Oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-MTC-presidents.html I was struck with his statement that, if kids are going to go home early, then do it ASAP and spare companions, presidents, missions, and units the dead weight of dud missionaries (my words, not his, obviously). He also said that we need to to a better job of screening missionaries beforehand, which indicates to me that we are going to continue to see missionary numbers drop (a good thing, in my view. I think "Gideon's Army" is a better approach than "send all youth, whether they want to go or should go or not, to try to keep them from going inactive or missing"). Thoughts? I think perhaps the Church and the membership thereof needs to modify our cultural expectations of serving a mission. That is to say, young men (and, increasingly, young women) should be specifically and generally valued and respected if they do not serve a mission. In World War I, British Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the "Order of the White Feather" to hand out white feathers, at the time a traditional symbol of cowardice, to men who were not in uniform. "The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform. This was joined by some prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel." The campaign ran into some problems: Quote While the true effectiveness of the campaign is impossible to judge, it did spread throughout several other nations in the Empire. In Britain it started to cause problems for the government when public servants and men in essential occupations came under pressure to enlist. This prompted the Home Secretary, Reginald McKenna, to issue employees in state industries with lapel badges reading "King and Country" to indicate that they too were serving the war effort. Likewise, the Silver War Badge, given to service personnel who had been honourably discharged due to wounds or sickness, was first issued in September 1916 to prevent veterans from being challenged for not wearing uniform. Anecdotes from the period indicates that the campaign was not popular amongst soldiers - not least because soldiers who were home on leave could find themselves presented with the feathers. One such was Private Ernest Atkins who was on leave from the Western Front. He was riding a tram when he was presented with a white feather by a girl sitting behind him. He smacked her across the face with his pay book saying: "Certainly I'll take your feather back to the boys at Passchendaele. I'm in civvies because people think my uniform might be lousy, but if I had it on I wouldn't be half as lousy as you." Private Norman Demuth, who had been discharged from the British Army after being wounded in 1916, received numerous white feathers after returning from the Western Front, and decided that if the women that handed them out were going to be rude to him, he was going to be rude back. One of the last feathers he received was presented to him whilst he was travelling on a bus, by a lady who was sat opposite him. She handed over the feather and said, "Here's a gift for a brave soldier." Demuth replied, "Thank you very much - I wanted one of those." He then used the feather to clean out his pipe, handed it back to her and remarked, "You know we didn't get these in the trenches." The other passengers subsequently became angry with the woman and started shouting at her, much to Demuth's amusement. The supporters of the campaign were not easily put off. A woman who confronted a young man in a London park demanded to know why he was not in the army. "Because I am a German", he replied. He received a white feather anyway. Perhaps the most misplaced use of a white feather was when one was presented to Seaman George Samson who was on his way in civilian clothes to a public reception in his honour. Samson had been awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry in the Gallipoli campaign. Have young men and young women have been shamed out of the Church because they have received latent (or even patent) "White Feather" treatment by their peers because they did not serve a mission? I think so. I don't know how many, but many of these folks probably could and would have gone on to continued activity but for instances of cultural shaming because they did serve. Consider the situation of a faithful young man who, for medical or mental health reasons, does not serve a mission, but who then encounters a young woman who refuses to date anyone but a returned missionary. That's a "White Feather" moment that can drive the young man right out of the Church. I do not mean to diminish the profound importance of serving a mission. I just think we need to be more nuanced in our perception of these things. Per the above cite, there were plenty of problems with the "White Feather" campaign. Public servants and men in essential occupations were shamed for not enlisting. Men who had enlisted but were not in uniform were shamed. Similarly, there are young men who do not serve for any number of reasons. Medical and mental health issues are perhaps the most significant, as many of the young men with these conditions have probably waited all their lives to serve as missionaries, but are precluded from doing. This is hard for them, and becomes considerably more so when they are shamed by their peers for not serving. There are also young men who cannot serve because of misconduct in their youth (criminal behavior and Law of Chastity problems being the most common). These young men are precluded from service by their own actions, and this probably amplifies the feelings of pain and discomfort (and, for some, probably anger and rebellion) brought on by "White Feather" treatment they may receive, actively or passively, from their fellow members. Such young men can and should be afforded the opportunity to proceed in their lives, to serve God in other ways, and to be in full fellowship and standing in the Church. There are also young men who simply choose not to serve. This is perhaps the most delicate and difficult group to work with, as their decision not to serve may be borne of worldly priorities coming first, or laziness, or indifference, or rebellion. All of these things would seem to stem from a common root: an insufficient testimony. I think we need to resist the temptation to "White Feather" these young men, as they are likely on the outer edge of activity in the Church already. We need to love them and welcome them in full fellowship. Some of them may end up changing their minds. Some won't, and we still need to love and value these men. They have innate worth, and deserve our respect even if they choose not to follow the Lord's commandments in this respect. As a young man I had a bishop who told us that as a youth he chose not to serve a mission because he wanted to pursue a career in basketball. That didn't work out, so he went to college, settled down and started a family. Fortunately, he remained active in the Church, raised his children in the Church, and served in the Church in many ways. He strongly encouraged his children to not replicate his mistake, and to my knowledge all of his sons - my peers and friends - served missions. I wonder what would have happened to this good man and his family had he been alienated from the Church by "White Feather" treatment arising from his failure to serve a mission. To its credit, the Church has worked hard to eliminate financial impediments to serving a mission. I am very glad of that. In sum, I think we should consider the following: 1. Eliminate Litmus Test: I think we, as individual members and families, should reduce and eliminate the notion that, for young men, serving a mission is the de facto litmus test for faith and activity in the Restored Gospel. There are many legitimate reasons why a person may not serve a mission. There are also some less-than-legitimate ones. Our role, however, is better fulfilled by not presuming to judge another's failure to serve, and to instead embrace him (or her) in full fellowship and love. 2. Church Service Missionaries: I also think we should significantly emphasize the Church's emerging "Church Service Missionary" program. I have a son who was precluded by medical issues from serving a full-time mission, but who is presently serving a Church Service mission. He works in the Referral Center at the MTC in Provo. He mans the "chat" feature of Mormon.org, and hence has regular opportunities to preach the Gospel, albeit online. He is also our ward's Assistant Ward Mission Leader, so he regularly goes on visits in the evenings. He has also taught quite a few missionary lessons in person. He also regularly seeks out and performs service projects for people in our neighborhood. Notwithstanding these things, my son has occasionally struggled with the notion that what he is doing is not a "real" mission because he is not out knocking doors, or learning a language, or what have you. In a sense, he runs the risk of "White Feathering" himself a bit. I have advised him that many (most?) of the "war stories" missionaries tell relate to the inefficiencies of missionary service (knocking on doors), or to life lessons that the individual missionary learns (hard work, persistence, patience, knowledge of the Gospel, loving and serving our brothers and sisters, learning to get along with companions, etc.). His missionary work is extremely efficient (he literally speaks to people all day, people who are contacting the Church), so I have suggested that he not yearn for the inefficiencies other missionaries encounter, particularly since the overall objective of missionary work is to preach the Gospel and serve others, and he is doing that extremely well. I have also noted that his service allows for plenty of personal growth in term of hard work, persistence, patience, knowledge of the Gospel, loving and serving our brothers and sisters, etc. My son's cousin is also serving as a Church Service Missionary. Presently he works with the FM ("Facilities Maintenance") group in maintaining and repairing church buildings. He feels, correctly, that his is a sacred work since he is preserving the houses of the Lord. I understand that he also has opportunities to teach the Gospel locally as well. This wonderful program fills the gap left between A) the Church's ongoing mandate for its members to perform missionary work and B) the inability of many young men and women to serve a full-time proselytizing mission. 3. Counsel from General Authorities: Lastly, I would like to see General Authorities clearly admonish members to not engage in patent, or even latent, "White Feather" behavior, and to instead exercise greater compassion and love and abstention from judgment. __________ The cultural expectation/requirement for young women to serve has become stronger, but my sense is that it's not nearly as acute as what is brought to bear on the young men. So some of the foregoing concepts will probably begin to apply to them as well. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 19, 2018 by smac97 7 Link to comment
rongo Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share Posted January 19, 2018 23 minutes ago, smac97 said: Lastly, I would like to see General Authorities clearly admonish members to not engage in patent, or even latent, "White Feather" behavior, and to instead exercise greater compassion and love and abstention from judgment. I think, like a lot of complaints about "judgmentalness," much of this is self-imposed by the people themselves rather than the members, the culture, etc. In other words, I think a lot of the feelings of shaming, etc. are not due to actual behavior or even attitudes by the members at large, but are instead feelings and doubts by the people who didn't serve instead. Think about it. We generously have, what, only a third who serve missions, if that? And it's been this way for a long time. The reality is that *most* youth don't serve missions; missions are numerically the minority. My stake was at 12% (this has improved over the last year and a half). Most of us don't see overt or latent shaming or stigmatizing of those who don't go (who, again, make up most of the youth). Yet, the people who should have gone, but didn't, feel judged, shamed, stigmatized, etc. I think a lot of this in in their heads, and not because members are doing the judging, shaming, and stigmatizing. 2 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I don't know if I quite understand Scott's statement here. Maybe he could fill me in if I'm misunderstanding: "He[Oaks] exhorted the new directors and their partners to promote member-missionary work. 'Don’t let members use you or your missionaries as conduits or authorities to answer doctrinal questions,' he said. 'This is not your assignment.'” It almost sounds like they don't want missionaries to answer doctrinal questions, period. I kind of thought that was one of their main functions - to teach Church doctrine. Has the Church narrowed their role to one more focused on teaching the gospel only? How do you separate that and other doctrine? I can understand not wanting the directors to use all their time doing that, but I don't understand the rest of the comment I guess. It’s not so much my statement, but my quotation of then-Elder Oaks’s statement. He didn’t elaborate beyond what is quoted here, and I didn’t seek opportunity to follow up with him one on one after the address. Also, that portion of the talk was expressed as a series of bullet points. In reporting it, I tried to save space by reporting the points in narrative format, so don’t let that mislead you into thinking the statements you quote here are necessarily connected thoughts. In considering your question, it occurs to me that the context is not proselyting missionaries per se, but rather, sister missionaries who serve as guides at Church visitors’ centers and historic sites and the Church members who encounter them. What then-Elder Oaks seems to be saying is that such missionaries are not to allow Church members to try to use them as authorities on deep or advanced doctrinal topics and questions, because such is not their assignment. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, rongo said: I think, like a lot of complaints about "judgmentalness," much of this is self-imposed by the people themselves rather than the members, the culture, etc. In other words, I think a lot of the feelings of shaming, etc. are not due to actual behavior or even attitudes by the members at large, but are instead feelings and doubts by the people who didn't serve instead. Think about it. We generously have, what, only a third who serve missions, if that? And it's been this way for a long time. The reality is that *most* youth don't serve missions; missions are numerically the minority. My stake was at 12% (this has improved over the last year and a half). Most of us don't see overt or latent shaming or stigmatizing of those who don't go (who, again, make up most of the youth). Yet, the people who should have gone, but didn't, feel judged, shamed, stigmatized, etc. I think a lot of this in in their heads, and not because members are doing the judging, shaming, and stigmatizing. There are areas where the percentage goes way up though, mostly in Utah, but also elsewhere. In Canada, out of 13 in my son's peer group, I am thinking only 1 didn't go and he was mainly inactive and atheist and only attending when he did because he liked the group or his mom made him. Even the two I thought would be refused due to ADHD were able to go and one at least did quite well (we had moved before the other got back). Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 hour ago, rongo said: I have a hard time seeing people becoming or being very productive with six month missions. It's too short of a time, with learning curve, getting your sea legs, etc. I also wonder how popular strictly service missions would be for normal youth (i.e., letting youth choose strictly humanitarian/service over proselyting). I think there would still be an informal 1st class/2nd class stigma within the Church between various mission "smorgasbord flavors" if people can choose mission specifics, a al carte. While Church-service and humanitarian missionaries fill valuable and needed roles, I think we must bear in mind what then-Elder Oaks emphasized in this address: that the scripturally mandated purpose of missionary work, one that the Church collectively ought not shirk, is to teach investigators and baptize converts. I expect that will always be the case. Link to comment
stemelbow Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, rongo said: I think, like a lot of complaints about "judgmentalness," much of this is self-imposed by the people themselves rather than the members, the culture, etc. In other words, I think a lot of the feelings of shaming, etc. are not due to actual behavior or even attitudes by the members at large, but are instead feelings and doubts by the people who didn't serve instead. Think about it. We generously have, what, only a third who serve missions, if that? And it's been this way for a long time. The reality is that *most* youth don't serve missions; missions are numerically the minority. My stake was at 12% (this has improved over the last year and a half). Most of us don't see overt or latent shaming or stigmatizing of those who don't go (who, again, make up most of the youth). Yet, the people who should have gone, but didn't, feel judged, shamed, stigmatized, etc. I think a lot of this in in their heads, and not because members are doing the judging, shaming, and stigmatizing. over the years I've known many mormon boys in particular who didn't go on missions. Each one, as far as I recall, have claimed to have to learn to deal with the "judgmentalness" you claim doesn't exist. I suppose in each case they could have made up the judgmentalness and created this inferiority. But if it happens to them all, then one must wonder if that which they are making up is coming from somewhere. I find Pres Oaks words here to be opposed to scripture in a sense. If you have desires you are called. He seems to be saying it's not just a desire, but one must reach a certain level of desire, a level humans simply can't determine lest they get too judgmental. This to me is a mess. It's a Church I don't really resonate with. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: While Church-service and humanitarian missionaries fill valuable and needed roles, I think we must bear in mind what then-Elder Oaks emphasized in this address: that the scripturally mandated purpose of missionary work, one that the Church collectively ought not shirk, is to teach investigators and baptize converts. I expect that will always be the case. One wishes the crackpot reporter behind this piece would elucidate that that was his take from the address. 1 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: While Church-service and humanitarian missionaries fill valuable and needed roles, I think we must bear in mind what then-Elder Oaks emphasized in this address: that the scripturally mandated purpose of missionary work, one that the Church collectively ought not shirk, is to teach investigators and baptize converts. I expect that will always be the case. Unfortunately, it's quite possible that humanitarian missions might be more productive in getting solid converts than the usual missionary work, but apparently we'd never know that. The scriptural mandate isn't about making missionaries follow the Church's current rules, policies and regulations for missionaries. It is about converting people. If the Church sent them out to work for others, we might see far more benefit, and a much more productive means to follow the scriptural mandate. Link to comment
Popular Post Anijen Posted January 19, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, rongo said: This seems to bear out a lot of what I have been saying for years about sending out way too many youth --- even youth who aren't ready or shouldn't go on a mission: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865695173/President-Oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-MTC-presidents.html I was struck with his statement that, if kids are going to go home early, then do it ASAP and spare companions, presidents, missions, and units the dead weight of dud missionaries (my words, not his, obviously). He also said that we need to to a better job of screening missionaries beforehand, which indicates to me that we are going to continue to see missionary numbers drop (a good thing, in my view. I think "Gideon's Army" is a better approach than "send all youth, whether they want to go or should go or not, to try to keep them from going inactive or missing"). Thoughts? Emphasis mine. Those who return early are in some cases "honorably returned missionaries." I think it might be a little bit of labeling to say "dud" (I know it was you who said it and not President Oaks). Better Screening: My daughter has had 5 surgeries on her calf and also suffers from depression. She was called to the Fresno Mission and then later before she reported to the MTC had to decline the mission because of pain in her leg (and I also think some depression issues as well). A year later she had another interview with her Bishop,Stake President, and an LDS Social Worker (doing a better job at screening missionaries). She had her papers turned in once again and this time was called to the Independence Missouri Mission. She reports directly to her mission in a little over a month. Trial Missions: This is a trial mission, but they are considered real and are full time missions. We (my wife and I) will drive our daughter to the mission headquarters directly where she will meet her Mission President and her companion. She will work for three months (2 transfers) and after 2 transfers she will be interviewed by her Mission President and then he will interview my daughters companion/s and he will determine if she can fulfill another 15 months. If he thinks she can he will (via internet) submit her name again to the Mission Department and the very next day an Apostle will assign her to a mission and relay it back to her Mission President. She could remain in Independence Missouri, or it could be a completely new area. She will then get a week off and then go through the temple and get her endowments done and then report to the MTC and then after she will serve for 15 months (this will make the total 18 months) and then she will come home. If the Mission President feels my daughter cannot continue her mission (due to her leg or depression), then she will be honorably released and will in fact be considered a "RM" and will on her heart and mind and the records of the Church be considered one who has served a full time mission and had honorably served and released. Conclusion: This in my opinion is how we as members should consider those who return early. It relieves the "stigma" of not fulfilling an entire mission. The missionary program and improvements like these strengthen my testimony that the Lord is definitely in charge. So IMO, early returning missionaries should not be considered "dead weight" or "duds." Edited January 19, 2018 by Anijen 5 Link to comment
ALarson Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It is about converting people. If this is truly their goal (and I believe it is), I believe there needs to be less emphasis put on number of baptisms and more time spent with investigators....being more thorough....and confirming they really have a testimony and a true conversion prior to baptism. This is one of the main reasons that retention rates are so very low. I gave an example here of the most recent baptism in our stake. This man was literally rushed into being baptized after just one lesson and attending church once. He had not read the Book of Mormon. And yes, he is already not attending much now. I do think that Pres. Oaks addressed this (baptism not too soon...but don't wait too late either....paraphrasing here). I'd like to know what he considers too late? Our church could learn from what a person has to go through to become a member of the Catholic church, IMO. ETA: Here's from the article: Quote He posed the question of when in the teaching process the invitation to be baptized should be given to an investigator. “Not too soon, but not too late!” was his response. Further instruction on that subject will be forthcoming, he said. I'll be watching to see what these "further instructions" are. Edited January 19, 2018 by ALarson Link to comment
stemelbow Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Just now, ALarson said: If this is truly their goal (and I believe it is), I believe there needs to be less emphasis put on number of baptisms and more time spent with investigators....being more thorough....and confirming a testimony and a true conversion prior to baptism. This is one of the main reasons that retention rates are so very low. I gave an example here of the most recent baptism in our stake. This man was literally rushed into being baptized after just one lesson and attending church once. He had not read the Book of Mormon. And yes, he is already not attending much now. I do think the Pres. Oaks addressed this (baptism not too soon...but don't wait too long either....paraphrasing here). Our church could learn from what a person has to go through to become a member of the Catholic church, IMO. Good points. One thing I hated about being on a mission was, we weren't about the people but about converts. We were moved from area to area in shorts amount of time trying our best to get people baptized. the frustration of the members was always our biggest obstacle. They didn't want people just coming, and getting baptized right away. I hated when my companions and others wanted to dismiss everyone who wasn't ready. My take is everyone should be baptized with any amount of desire. But the whole system and culture was broken. It was set up to get as many as possible, initially, but as soon as one was got, the whole program wasn't working and if it didnt' work it means they weren't ready. I think it's less about getting people ready, then having the system and culture of Church to be more amenable for others. A place that really works. It's not. Therefore the best thing now is to wait until people are ready. But then the Church just gets more exclusive, in my view, and less helpful. I hate to blame converts. I think the problem lies in the leadership, which directs and plays within the culture, it seems to me. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: One wishes the crackpot reporter behind this piece would elucidate that that was his take from the address. One would expect the intended meaning would be clear from then-Elder Oaks’s quoted comments without the crackpot reporter having to gild the lily, so to speak. Edited January 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, ALarson said: If this is truly their goal (and I believe it is), I believe there needs to be less emphasis put on number of baptisms and more time spent with investigators....being more thorough....and confirming they really have a testimony and a true conversion prior to baptism. This is one of the main reasons that retention rates are so very low. I gave an example here of the most recent baptism in our stake. This man was literally rushed into being baptized after just one lesson and attending church once. He had not read the Book of Mormon. And yes, he is already not attending much now. I do think the Pres. Oaks addressed this (baptism not too soon...but don't wait too late either....paraphrasing here). I'd like to know what he considers too late? Our church could learn from what a person has to go through to become a member of the Catholic church, IMO. ETA: Here's from the article: I'll be watching to see what these "further instructions" are. I’ll be interested to see them as well. I understand there is to be a revision of “Preach My Gospel.” Perhaps the further instructions will come by way of that revision. By the way, when I was on my mission, there came a short-lived period where missionaries were encouraged to strive for “three-week baptisms” — baptize the investigator within three weeks after meeting him. I tried this on one occasion only, extending the baptismal challenge during the first lesson. I was told in no uncertain that the man would not be pressured or pushed and that if I wanted our meetings to continue that I was to back off. Gotta love those Swedes. I think I inherited my stubborn streak from my Swedish ancestry. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: One would expect the intended meaning would be clear from then-Elder Oaks’s quoted comments without the crackpot reporter having to gild the lily, so to speak. Perhaps, but his strange divergence in the article linking the address to transubstantiation and Adam God seemed a little extreme to me. 2 Link to comment
bluebell Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’ll be interested to see them as well. I understand there is to be a revision of “Preach My Gospel.” Perhaps the further instructions will come by way of that revision. By the way, when I was on my mission, there came a short-lived period where missionaries were encouraged to strive for “three-week baptisms” — baptize the investigator within three weeks after meeting him. I tried this on one occasion only, extending the baptismal challenge during the first lesson. I was told in no uncertain that the man would not be pressured or pushed and that if I wanted our meetings to continue that I was to back off. Gotta love those Swedes. I think I inherited my stubborn streak from my Swedish ancestry. I remember being taught that we were to extend the baptism challenge and get a baptism date at the end of the 2nd lesson no matter what. I thought it was kind of crazy. At the end of the 2nd lesson all you covered was the first vision, the BOM, and Jesus Christ. It was so uncomfortable to try to get people to commit to baptism who were living with boyfriends or girlfriends, smoking and drinking and who had no idea yet what changes they would have to make and covenant to live. Most had not even been to church yet. Ive heard that the church is now allowing missionaries to try to follow the Spirit and to personalize their teaching and commitment timeline to the person they are teaching. That sounds like a much better approach. 3 Link to comment
rongo Posted January 19, 2018 Author Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Anijen said: Emphasis mine. Those who return early are in some cases "honorably returned missionaries." I think it might be a little bit of labeling to say "dud" (I know it was you who said it and not President Oaks) . . . This in my opinion is how we as members should consider those who return early. It relieves the "stigma" of not fulfilling an entire mission. The missionary program and improvements like these strengthen my testimony that the Lord is definitely in charge. So IMO, early returning missionaries should not be considered "dead weight" or "duds." Absolutely. In some cases, those who return early are honorably returned missionaries in every sense of the word. The converse is also true, though, and it's kind of an 800 lb. gorilla in the room that we're not allowed to talk about (I like that President Oaks started to here). Some of those who return early were duds, or couldn't hack it, or shouldn't have gone. There are also missionaries who are duds, or dead weight, in every sense of the word. I think the latter group is of much greater concern. Our culture promotes an ideal where people like the idea of having been a missionary, but there are youth who would like the status but don't want to do the things "in the now" --- and the opportunity cost in their minds makes them seek a release. This is a tremendous drag and drain on missions and the local units. And there are personal, psychological, emotional, and spiritual consequences for this when there really wasn't a good reason other than not wanting to stay. It seems like some people want to absolve all missionaries, regardless of circumstances or choices, of these consequences, where applicable. As I see it, acting like there are no consequences doesn't get rid of the very real effects of choices. There are always consequences ---- that's eternal law. Edited January 19, 2018 by rongo 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts