Missionaries And Chaperones-Why?

[Duncan]

I was talking with a friend earlier and we were wondering why with raising the bar for missionaries have the missionary dept. still have the "don't have missionaries eat dinner with singles of the opposite gender" and "don't go to visit people of the opposite gender without someone else". Do the missionary dept. not trust the missionaries who made it over the bar, shouldn't the bar have raised expectations that maybe the missionaries out now aren't there to goof around and do bad things? it seems somewhat inconsistent. Why do the now good missionaries need chaperones? If it has to do with the members or non-members then that is their issue and not the "quality" of missionaries

[Pahoran]

I was talking with a friend earlier and we were wondering why with raising the bar for missionaries have the missionary dept. still have the "don't have missionaries eat dinner with singles of the opposite gender" and "don't go to visit people of the opposite gender without someone else". Do the missionary dept. not trust the missionaries who made it over the bar, shouldn't the bar have raised expectations that maybe the missionaries out now aren't there to goof around and do bad things? it seems somewhat inconsistent. Why do the now good missionaries need chaperones? If it has to do with the members or non-members then that is their issue and not the "quality" of missionaries

Two thoughts on this question:

1. Jesus taught us to pray, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Rules that keep missionaries out of potentially tempting situations are a good thing.
   
2. There are such things as false accusations. These are much less likely to happen when there are additional witnesses on hand.
   

Regards,

Pahoran

[Buzzard]

I was talking with a friend earlier and we were wondering why with raising the bar for missionaries have the missionary dept. still have the "don't have missionaries eat dinner with singles of the opposite gender" and "don't go to visit people of the opposite gender without someone else". Do the missionary dept. not trust the missionaries who made it over the bar, shouldn't the bar have raised expectations that maybe the missionaries out now aren't there to goof around and do bad things? it seems somewhat inconsistent. Why do the now good missionaries need chaperones? If it has to do with the members or non-members then that is their issue and not the "quality" of missionaries

This one is obvious. Even if nothing bad happened, an accusation by one hostile or unbalanced person can stain both the missionaries and the churches reputation. But if multiple witnesses can refute scurrilous allegations, they will go away quicker and easier. And when the corroborating witness is an uninterested third party, easiest and quickest.

[cinepro]

I'm sure there are stories of such visits ending badly. I served in several wards where the elderly widows would serve us lunches during the week, and we always ignored the rule after making a pact that we would do whatever it took to prevent either of us from engaging in hanky-panky.

Edited April 23, 2012 by cinepro

[selek1]

I was talking with a friend earlier and we were wondering why with raising the bar for missionaries have the missionary dept. still have the "don't have missionaries eat dinner with singles of the opposite gender" and "don't go to visit people of the opposite gender without someone else". Do the missionary dept. not trust the missionaries who made it over the bar, shouldn't the bar have raised expectations that maybe the missionaries out now aren't there to goof around and do bad things? it seems somewhat inconsistent. Why do the now good missionaries need chaperones? If it has to do with the members or non-members then that is their issue and not the "quality" of missionaries

Duncan you are offering us a false dichotomy. There is a vast difference between "prudence" and "not trusting our missionaries".

It is not a question of trust- but of prudence.

There are two excellent reasons for the restriction: Avoiding the appearance of sin, and not placing our young men and women in harm's way.

As Saints (and as thinking beings in today's media culture) we are wise to avoid even the appearance of sin. We do not want to place our young men and women in a position where their good word and conduct are questioned because of the foolish or salacious suspicions of others.

As a wiseman once said, "A lie can be halfway round the world before truth gets its boots on."

Second, we know that man is fallible, mortal, and weak. What is the difference between the sinner and the saint? One moment of weakness.

We place restrictions on the conduct of our missionaries, our ecclesiastical leaders, and our membership in certain Church functions not because we do not trust them- but because we do not wish to put them in a place where they might be tempted.

Acknowledgomg

[Duncan]

so, it doesn't have anything to do with the missionaries then just rumours and such

[Duncan]

Duncan you are offering us a false dichotomy. There is a vast difference between "prudence" and "not trusting our missionaries".

It is not a question of trust- but of prudence.

There are two excellent reasons for the restriction: Avoiding the appearance of sin, and not placing our young men and women in harm's way.

As Saints (and as thinking beings in today's media culture) we are wise to avoid even the appearance of sin. We do not want to place our young men and women in a position where their good word and conduct are questioned because of the foolish or salacious suspicions of others.

As a wiseman once said, "A lie can be halfway round the world before truth gets its boots on."

Second, we know that man is fallible, mortal, and weak. What is the difference between the sinner and the saint? One moment of weakness.

We place restrictions on the conduct of our missionaries, our ecclesiastical leaders, and our membership in certain Church functions not because we do not trust them- but because we do not wish to put them in a place where they might be tempted.

Acknowledgomg

but raising the bar accomplishes nothing because it sounds that anyone regardless can be tempted ( I know that) but what is the point of this raise the bar thing if no situation can be trusted?

[Calm]

I was talking with a friend earlier and we were wondering why with raising the bar for missionaries have the missionary dept. still have the "don't have missionaries eat dinner with singles of the opposite gender" and "don't go to visit people of the opposite gender without someone else". Do the missionary dept. not trust the missionaries who made it over the bar, shouldn't the bar have raised expectations that maybe the missionaries out now aren't there to goof around and do bad things? it seems somewhat inconsistent. Why do the now good missionaries need chaperones? If it has to do with the members or non-members then that is their issue and not the "quality" of missionaries

Good people can make mistakes, simply because someone hasn't made a mistake yet, doesn't mean they will never make a mistake.

It would be nice for all those who got through the teenage years still chaste, never drinking or smoking, etc. to be able to relax and not have to worry about controlling themselves because they were beyond such things finally, but if that was true then we would never have problems with temple marriages being destroyed through adultery, etc. or returned missionaries losing their faith, etc.

[Storm Rider]

I was talking with a friend earlier and we were wondering why with raising the bar for missionaries have the missionary dept. still have the "don't have missionaries eat dinner with singles of the opposite gender" and "don't go to visit people of the opposite gender without someone else". Do the missionary dept. not trust the missionaries who made it over the bar, shouldn't the bar have raised expectations that maybe the missionaries out now aren't there to goof around and do bad things? it seems somewhat inconsistent. Why do the now good missionaries need chaperones? If it has to do with the members or non-members then that is their issue and not the "quality" of missionaries

So now that you have taught your son to drive, should there be an speed limits and should we just trust that he will know the best speed to travel at all times? Or now that you have learned to live a chaste life it is okay to get as close to the line as possible without violating your own covenants. Duncan, you seem to have a rather narrow, distrustful perspective of the Church. I have been there, heck I may be there, but we have to realize that our perspective needs to be reviewed and not relied upon as the "truth".

[Calm]

but raising the bar accomplishes nothing because it sounds that anyone regardless can be tempted ( I know that) but what is the point of this raise the bar thing if no situation can be trusted?

At what point do you think a man or woman is beyond temptation?

Even Christ was tempted or so the scriptures say.

[selek1]

but raising the bar accomplishes nothing because it sounds that anyone regardless can be tempted ( I know that) but what is the point of this raise the bar thing if no situation can be trusted?

On the contrary- the "raising of the bar" has produced a better educated, more motivated, and more dedicated missionary force.

Our young men and women are serving in the field not because of custom, tradition, or family expectation- but because they believe that is where the Lord wishes them to be.

And yes- anyone can be tempted.

To be perfectly blunt: the idea that "raising of the bar" has anything to do with creating a super-human, temptation-free missionary is a flight of fancy.

The restrictions are in place to safeguard the reputation and integrity of both the Church and her missionaries, nothing more.

If Peter, Paul, and John were serving as missionaries today, they would be serving under the same restrictions.

Edited April 23, 2012 by selek1

[Duncan]

So now that you have taught your son to drive, should there be an speed limits and should we just trust that he will know the best speed to travel at all times? Or now that you have learned to live a chaste life it is okay to get as close to the line as possible without violating your own covenants. Duncan, you seem to have a rather narrow, distrustful perspective of the Church. I have been there, heck I may be there, but we have to realize that our perspective needs to be reviewed and not relied upon as the "truth".

I don't! I just wonder about some stuff and I haven't taught my son to drive as I don't know how myself, the dept. of transport had different options for me...

[Duncan]

At what point do you think a man or woman is beyond temptation?

Even Christ was tempted or so the scriptures say.

I get that I just wonder what this raise the bar thing is about if we haven't lived it in our interactions with the missionaries

[blackstrap]

On my mission we had to worry about certain mothers wanting their daughters married off to 'merican boys. I agree with the previous statements that urge caution when dealing with potential they said/she said situations. Also from the perspective of the raising of the bar , the least temptaion that one has succumed(sic) to in the pre-mission life,the easier it is to deflect on a mission. In my opinion of course.I have no personal evidence to back that up.

[Duncan]

On the contrary- the "raising of the bar" has produced a better educated, more motivated, and more dedicated missionary force.

Our young men and women are serving in the field not because of custom, tradition, or family expectation- but because they believe that is where the Lord wishes them to be.

And yes- anyone can be tempted.

To be perfectly blunt: the idea that the restrictions have anything to do with the "raising of the bar" exists solely in your own mind.

If Peter, Paul, and John were serving as missionaries today, they would be serving under the same restrictions.

I know that but if we get a better prepared missionary force out there why are we having them still labour under the rules of the previous generations of missionaries?

[selek1]

So now that you have taught your son to drive, should there be an speed limits and should we just trust that he will know the best speed to travel at all times? Or now that you have learned to live a chaste life it is okay to get as close to the line as possible without violating your own covenants?

Outta rep points, so +1.

Bravo Zulu, StormRider.

[Calm]

The highest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, but it is not a 100% guarantee.

Thus missionaries who have demonstrated self control in the past are more likely to be the ones who demonstrate self control in the future, however again sometimes people fail when tempted even after being successful resisting temptation in the past. Sometimes it is because there is something different this time around, they are more depressed, bored, frustrated, less prepared, more arrogant, etc. and thus it is easier for the temptation to gain a foothold.

[Calm]

I get that I just wonder what this raise the bar thing is about if we haven't lived it in our interactions with the missionaries

I see better preparation, mental, spiritual, and emotional (raising the bar) leading to different fruits than being able to resist all temptations.

Why are we still living under the rules of the New Testament or even the Ten Commandments?

Because they work perhaps?

Edited April 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I see better preparation, mental, spiritual, and emotional (raising the bar) leading to different fruits than being able to resist all temptations.

Why are we still living under the rules of the New Testament or even the Ten Commandments?

Because they work perhaps?

I guess but in my mission! we never had the you had to have someone else over for dinner rule and I didn't hear of any problems, there were problems in our mission but dinners weren't it! FWIW in this mission since Christmas 4 elders were sent home but from what I hear it had to do with them and not with these policies

[Duncan]

you know I love you all!, I am just wondering the why of stuff

[selek1]

I know that but if we get a better prepared missionary force out there why are we having them still labour under the rules of the previous generations of missionaries?

This is yet another misconception and mischaracterization.

Those rules do not belong to "the previous generation of missionaries". They are in place because they are prudent, wise, and applicable.

That our missionaries are better prepared does not lessen the dangers they face.

To put it another way: we train police officers rigorously before we put them on the streets, and police officers today are better and more extensively trained that those of just a generation ago.

Does that training mean a modern officer is less likely to be shot in the line of duty? If so, why do we issue police officers with bullet proof vests? Why not just rely on their training?

The vests are there in the event that the unthinkable happens.

If, despite his training and best judgement, a shooting occurs, the vest is there as an additional safeguard of the officer's health and life.

The restrictions on our missionaries serve the same purpose.

If, despite their training, and good intentions, a missionary (or other Church leader) might succumb to temptation, or if someone else is trying to ambush them, the restrictions are in place to protect them in that moment of crisis.

Edited April 23, 2012 by selek1

[Garden Girl]

Duncan... I think you're neglecting that one of the main reasons is not that of not trusting missionaries, but one of not putting the missionaries/church in a position that, as someone else mentioned, a disgruntled anti or other person might make false accusations.

You all know me... 71 years old, widowed... I signed up to feed dinner to the mish's and they still had to have a third party with them. It's just prudent... While I think that in my case the policy is unnecessary, the Church doesn't second guess... just applies the policy to everyone. There's other accusations that could be made that have nothing to do with "temptation."

GG

[Stargazer]

When I finished my mission in Germany, I asked my mission president for permission to meet with my former British girlfriend at Heathrow while changing planes (this was back in 1974), and he said that while he trusted me, he did not trust the devil, and would prefer I didn't do this. I said, well, her parents will be with her. He then reconsidered and said, it's against my best judgement, but if her parents will be with her then OK.

The point is not that the missionaries are untrustworthy, but that temptation exists and it is best to avoid it when possible.

I can tell you that I have no desire to drink alcohol, yet, I still do not frequent bars, even if they have excellent food. My choice, and you'r welcome to hang out at Joe's Bar and Grill if you want -- I wouldn't think any worse of you.

[why me]

I was talking with a friend earlier and we were wondering why with raising the bar for missionaries have the missionary dept. still have the "don't have missionaries eat dinner with singles of the opposite gender" and "don't go to visit people of the opposite gender without someone else". Do the missionary dept. not trust the missionaries who made it over the bar, shouldn't the bar have raised expectations that maybe the missionaries out now aren't there to goof around and do bad things? it seems somewhat inconsistent. Why do the now good missionaries need chaperones? If it has to do with the members or non-members then that is their issue and not the "quality" of missionaries

With all the play that mormonism is getting in the news, it would not take much to be famous for 15 minutes by making a false claim against mormon missionaries. Let me put it this way: a single woman is home alone. She hears a knock on the door and two handsome missionaries are there. Feeling a little lonely, she invites them in to hear their message. After 20 minutes she begins to come on to them but the missionaries tell her that they are not interested and leave. She becomes insulted and in her loneliness, she calls the police and makes a report of how two young mormon missionaries attempted to have sex with her and fondled her.

What would happen?

False accusations are made all the time for various situations that have nothing to do with missionaries. And it is not very easy to get out of them. The police believe the accuser before proving otherwise.

Edited April 23, 2012 by why me

[Buzzard]

I think that this-and other rules-has nothing to do with raising the bar. Where I have seen "raising the bar" in action has been with young men and women who would have had emotional/mental problems in the field, as well as some who did not have much of a testimony.

In the past, it was not unheard of to have missionaries sent into the field without having even read the BOM, and I have heard apocryphal stories about the time and resources the church expended on counseling and ultimately transporting home early elders and sisters that now are screened before departure and either do not go, or deal with their psychological issues before they leave.

In fact a young man who my daughter had dated was told that before a call could be issued, he had to move out of his parents home and live in an apartment for six months with roommates. It turned out he could not handle the stress of doing so. In reality, that inspired request did both the church and this young man a favor. Better to discover and deal with it here than halfway around the world.