Missionaries And Chaperones-Why?

[volgadon]

I wouldn't necessarily trust missionaries alone in an attractive 20 year old girl's apartment, raised bar or no. You can't raise the bar entirely above the natural man. If the sister in question is old enough where sexual attraction really isn't an issue, then it should be fine to meet without chaperones.

Rain, Somerset Maugham's most famous story, is also frequently misunderstood to be about hypocritical missionaries, when really it is about exposing yourself to temptation and giving in.

[Duncan]

I wouldn't necessarily trust missionaries alone in an attractive 20 year old girl's apartment, raised bar or no. You can't raise the bar entirely above the natural man. If the sister in question is old enough where sexual attraction really isn't an issue, then it should be fine to meet without chaperones.

Rain, Somerset Maugham's most famous story, is also frequently misunderstood to be about hypocritical missionaries, when really it is about exposing yourself to temptation and giving in.

I get what that but is this sister not able to receive the gospel now because two missionaries possibly can't handle themselves? suppose they could get sisters over there! in this mission there are only six and one city doesn't have any so I wonder what they would do in that situation

Edited April 23, 2012 by Duncan

[shalamabobbi]

I get what that but is this sister not able to receive the gospel now because two missionaries possibly can't handle themselves? suppose they could get sisters over there! in this mission there are only six and one city doesn't have any so I wonder what they would do in that situation

No one is available to chaperone? If that is really true have the missionaries ask permission from their president to teach her in some public place like in a park..

[Duncan]

No one is available to chaperone? If that is really true have the missionaries ask permission from their president to teach her in some public place like in a park..

that's true, hadn't thought of that but three men going over to a sister's place looks odd but I hope we are above caring what the world thinks

[shalamabobbi]

that's true, hadn't thought of that but three men going over to a sister's place looks odd but I hope we are above caring what the world thinks

Well we do care actually. What we did in a similar situation was meet in the local stake center building. Same situation - two male missionaries, one male chaperone, and the female investigator..

[LDSToronto]

Duncan,

My perspective is this - the vast majority of missionaries are 19-21 year-old males. 19-21 year-old males, no matter how pure, are going to have a difficult time subduing the urge to flirt and resisting the flirtatious back-and-forth that comes with talking to females in the same age range. Heck, it's hard enough to go from being a boy who had limited interaction and authority before one's mission, to a man, dressed like Don Draper, having females hang off of your every word.

Now, I think some leeway is needed in dealing with women who are aged. But where is the line drawn? I know many women, 40-60, who are attractive and virile, and more attractive and virile than many women half their age.

I really couldn't care less about what rules the Church imposes on those that decide to enter into missionary service - that's the choice those kids made, they can live with that choice and obey or disregard the rules. But I will give the church credit for understanding the way a 19-21 males brain works, in this instance. Bar raised or not, young men are wired for sexual conquest, and that is near impossible to subdue.

H.

Edited April 23, 2012 by LDSToronto

[ERMD]

This overall issue does not only involve missionaries, and it has no bearing whatsoever on "raising the bar." Bishops should not meet with a female unless there is someone else in the building, 2 men per cub/scout group, no men alone with primary children, etc.

[seriously honestly]

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

No, I would say it's both. It doesn't take a whole lot to malign someones character, and rumors and accusations of what allegedly happened happened behind closed doors are a very serious and easy way to do that. But lets face it--the devil doesn't care who you are. If he feels there is an opportunity to tempt you, he's gonna take it.

[rpn]

Easy. There are forces seeking to destroy the church and the missionaries. And humans are quite capable of simple misunderstanding, too. Why set up missionaries for a false accusation or for them to be assaulted by such forces, or set up a sister for whispers against her reputation, or the anger of a boyfriend, father, brother, spouse, or fiance. Better to have them above the appearance of evil.

Edited April 23, 2012 by rpn

[LDSToronto]

Easy. There are forces seeking to destroy the church and the missionaries. And humans are quite capable of simple misunderstanding, too. Why set up missionaries for a false accusation or for them to be assaulted by such forces, or set up a sister for whispers against her reputation, or the anger of a boyfriend, father, brother, spouse, or fiance. Better to have them above the appearance of evil.

Without mission rules, nefarious acts are unlikely to rise substantially.

H.

[selek1]

Without mission rules, nefarious acts are unlikely to rise substantially.

Sayeth the man who kvetched endlessly about the Family History susbmission rules he was in the process of flouting.

Your degree of concern for or dismissal of the rules seems to be entirely predicated upon whether or not it's your ox being gored.

Ironically- I am inclined to agree that a relaxing of the rules is unlikely to produce a sharp spike in incidents of impropriety.

That is a credit to our young missionaries and their personal integrity and dedication.

By the same token, however- were we to cease issuing bullet proof vests to police officers, we are unlikely to see a sharp increase in the number of officers being shot.

What we would see is a sharp increase in officers who feel less safe in the performance of their duties and a greater instance of serious injury when such shootings do occur.

Toronto is right in one regard: Were the mission rules to be relaxed, our young men and women are unlikely to go "hog-wild". That does not mean, however, that those "gunning for" our missionaries would such a change as anything other than an opportunity.

There are people out there- for whatever reason- are eager and willing to seize any opportunity to lead another into temptation and into sin. There are those out there who will twist any circumstance- no matter how innocent- into grist for their agenda mill.

The mission rules exist to protect both the missionaries and the Church from such people.

As has been contended all along, it is not a question of "not trusting" our missionaries- but one of simpe prudence and an acknowledgement of the fallen, sinful nature of the world into which they are cast.

Edited April 24, 2012 by selek1

[LDSToronto]

Sayeth the man who kvetched endlessly about the Family History susbmission rules he was in the process of flouting.

Your degree of concern for or dismissal of the rules seems to be entirely predicated upon whether or not it's your ox being gored.

The only people who ought to be concerned about following the Rules of the LDS Church are those who are determined to follow them. Me, I'm not a follower.

Ironically- I am inclined to agree that a relaxing of the rules is unlikely to produce a sharp spike in incidents of impropriety.

That is a credit to our young missionaries and their personal integrity and dedication.

I think most missionaries will refrain from doing dumb stuff because they believe in the gospel or because they believe stupid behaviour will have social consequences.

By the same token, however- were we to cease issuing bullet proof vests to police officers, we are unlikely to see a sharp increase in the number of officers being shot.

What we would see is a sharp increase in officers who feel less safe in the performance of their duties and a greater instance of serious injury when such shootings do occur.

Toronto is right in one regard: Were the mission rules to be relaxed, our young men and women are unlikely to go "hog-wild". That does not mean, however, that those "gunning for" our missionaries would such a change as anything other than an opportunity.

There are people out there- for whatever reason- are eager and willing to seize any opportunity to lead another into temptation and into sin. There are those out there who will twist any circumstance- no matter how innocent- into grist for their agenda mill.

Oh, I doubt that you'd see people trying to seduce the missionaries. Seriously, life would just go on.

H.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

But if a single women is going to come on to two men who show up randomly at her door, then (since we are dealing with fantasy anyway), why wouldn't she come on to three such random men?

[why me]

I wouldn't necessarily trust missionaries alone in an attractive 20 year old girl's apartment, raised bar or no. .

I would. But they may have 'randy' thoughts aferwards and trouble keeping these thoughts out of their mind as they do their work. Serving in Russia in the summetime is a real 'treat' for the male missionaries. The women are good looking, not very covered and a treat to look at. The same problem would apply.

However, being alone in the apartment the problem comes if the woman complains of harassment. In foreign countries where mormonism is not that well respected it would create undue problems for the missionaries regardless if the claim were false.

Edited April 24, 2012 by why me

[The Nehor]

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?

Raising the bar wasn't about trust. It was about keeping faithless losers, spineless wimps who go out just because they don't having better to do, and people with severe mental, physical, and emotional problems out of the Mission Field. They were a drain when they went out and it had become almost traditional to send (and even bribe) young men to go on a mission in the hopes it would sort them out. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't. In both cases sincere missionaries out to serve the Lord were often burdened with weak-faithed idiots who went out just because they had nothing better to do or because dad promised them a truck or something.

The rules are actually stricter then before the bar was raised. This is mostly because each new generation of missionaries producing new kinds of stupid ways to get in trouble. There are rules in there now designed to curb stuff I saw on my mission.

[volgadon]

.

Serving in Russia in the summetime is a real 'treat' for the male missionaries

Judging by my moniker, where do you think I served? Then again, was nothing new. Try Israel in the summertime.

[The Nehor]

The only people who ought to be concerned about following the Rules of the LDS Church are those who are determined to follow them. Me, I'm not a follower.

The Church is a body made up of the followers of Christ. I'm not sure why you are a member if what you say is true.

Oh, I doubt that you'd see people trying to seduce the missionaries. Seriously, life would just go on.

I don't. I saw it. I had girls trying to seduce me and saw them trying to seduce other missionaries.