An Exemplary Mission?

[Stargazer]

I think one thing that is oddly misinterpreted by many and then trumpeted about is what Christ meant when he called the various Jewish sects hypocrites. Never once is obedience dismissed as not important. It was the pride and arrogance of those who THOUGHT they were so much better than others because of their SUPPOSED obedience (yes, this does describe a missionary or two...or three) that the Savior despised. It was the thought that somehow their righteousness saved them and His Atonement was not necessary, an attitude that does not and never has fit into the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Tell me where the Lord in his mortal ministry ever said, "It is okay to be disobedient just this once." The closest thing I can think of is the time His apostles were eating in the field on the Sabbath. However, that example does not fit, because the Lord explained that they were living a higher law at the time and thus obedient.

 

The other false and wicked notion I often hear brandied about is the false doctrine that exact obedience distracts from a persons ability to follow the Spirit, as if somehow they are incompatible. They are not and in fact go hand in hand. 

 

No, they were not living a higher law when they were eating the grain in the field on the Sabbath.  What the disciples were doing was gleaning some of the ripe grain growing next to the road and rubbing it between their hands in order to winnow the chaff off the grains so they could eat them.  The taking of small amounts of grain by travelers for their immediate use in this manner was acceptable under the Law.  What was not acceptable was the act of rubbing the heads of grain together in the hands that the Pharisees objected to, because this had been determined by some learned Rabbi to be threshing of grain, hence work, and thus unacceptable on the Sabbath.  Much like the counting of steps on the Sabbath, or whether pots were to be washed in a clockwise versus counter-clockwise motion.  Or today's injunction against the turning on (or off) of an electric light on the Sabbath (because it is like igniting a fire, which is specifically mentioned in the Law).

 

Jesus was telling the Pharisees that their rule against rubbing the heads of wheat to free the grain for eating was NOT work and not breaking Sabbath.

[BlueDreams]

Beautifully written! The problem as I see it is not discussing exact obedience but telling the missionaries (he does it several times over the one year period) that the failure to meet mission baptism goals is a result of lack of obedience.

 

I had a little more time before I head to bed to search out quotes that he had about baptism and their goals. I think, in isolation, the quotes would be a terrible focus. But they were most often enmeshed with other messages, goals, expectations, etc. And so though baptism was a main focus it wasn't the end focus and he specifically mentioned (and in other places inferred) that doing so would be missing the point in one way or another. I also found myself trying to remember what it was like on my mission. I know we had a mission baptism goal and there was a emphasis on all of us stretching or reaching for more. So I'm not surprised by at times the pep talk language. We had similar. What I did notice was that he'd mention we could have 1,300+ baptisms...but he didn't divide up that goal to individual companionships to how many they needed to reach the goal. To me, that would be more worrisome and would note excess accountability to each companionship insomuch to be shaming and definitely improper.

 

I also didn't see him make the inference you mentioned, with the context of his several other points that he'd make. This was the part that I was reaching into my past. I remember the mentality feeling different. I feel that similar expectations, language, etc were given (though I feel we had a heavier emphasis on retention as well)....but it didn't fully translate to "we're not being obedient enough because we haven't reached the mission/personal goal." It felt more like there was a persistent, positive, upward movement...that was grueling, challenging, exhausting, sometimes discouraging, but persistently striving and often successful. If/when my MP would mention something similar to this MP, it didn't feel like he was critiquing my personal righteousness....And I'm not explaining myself well, but I think it was just that the failures were less emphasized...what was emphasized and felt more was a persistent reaching for improvement as a missionary. So you could be "the best" missionary with all the numbers in all the right places and you still ended up reaching for more and finding areas to do better and learn more in. 

 

So when I read it, I feel like I'm reading these with a split mind. There's the one that's me now, who's more lax about goal reaching, acknowledging more gray in my own life... and there's this old militant Sis BD in the back of my head. I can get your point from where I'm at now, but I know that that's not what I would have read or felt if I read it as a missionary.  

 

With luv,

BD     

Edited May 28, 2015 by BlueDreams

[cinepro]

I had a little more time before I head to bed to search out quotes that he had about baptism and their goals. I think, in isolation, the quotes would be a terrible focus. But they were most often enmeshed with other messages, goals, expectations, etc. And so though baptism was a main focus it wasn't the end focus and he specifically mentioned (and in other places inferred) that doing so would be missing the point in one way or another.

  

 

With all due respect, I think it's too easy to think that the MP is saying what we wish he said, or that he really meant something else.  But his words are pretty dang clear:

 

 

 

It has been revealed to me that there are two reasons we are struggling with poor results right now:

1. Lack of Exact Obedience which leads to a lack of worthiness, commitment, and focus! I fear many are currently serving in a manner they will regret.

2. Lack of Desire which leads to complacency, laziness, and indifference! This, at the end of the day, is a result of a lack of conversion to our Missionary Purpose.

I think our current situation relative to our goal and desire to reach the "Strength of 1,000" has us exactly where the Lord wants us. He wants us to step up, give more, be more diligent, more obedient. In fact, He wants us to be Exactly Obedient so we can learn what it takes to baptize 100 a month. We will then know how as well as know that we can do it if we give what it takes and rely on Him in faith. We must do this so we will be prepared to assist the Wards and Stakes next year in their baptism goals - which will undoubtedly be more than 1,000.

 

If you were to ask any of the missionaries in the mission why their baptism numbers were low that month, how would you expect them to answer based on their President's revelation?  It's pretty clear what is causing their "current situation."

Edited May 28, 2015 by cinepro

[BlueDreams]

You behaved better then I did. When my Zone Leader wandered into that territory and I got annoyed I threw a punch at him.

 

Haha, no. I just found it irritating and the ZL's made up for it. I just ended up laughing at him and saying that was the stupidest idea I'd heard (or something like it). I think he felt it was inspired or something. I think he wanted to prove that we needed to be better and could learn how to be better missionaries from him or something. My favorite moment was when he did interviews with us and went through the list of random things they always ask. He had literally nothing that we were actually doing wrong....so he told me my shoes weren't attractive as proscribed by the white handbook (like I had time/money to shop for shoes). That week our favorite investigator who happened to be my size cleaned out her extensive closet and gave me dibs on clothes/shoes. She gave me a pair of practical attractive short heels that I wore proudly to the next district meeting. Anywhere else, I still wore the ones that actually made sense to track in. Frankly him having nothing to really hark on us about, doing what we wanted for our work, and often having the unspoken support of the rest of the district was rewarding in its own right.   

 

You have a weird split that comes because some missionaries have to have the idea of obedience being important drilled into their heads regularly or they do not understand. Then you have others who see the slightest missteps as opening the doors of damnation.

 

One of my Mission Presidents commented on this and pointed out the hypocrisy of being that cruel to ourselves. To paraphrase: "You go out there every day and tell people guilty of horrific sins that God will forgive them and the Atonement can heal them. Then when you commit a relatively minor sin or sometimes even a mistake that is not a sin many of you go to pieces and sink into self-pity and imagine that your sins, on the other hand, are unforgivable." He then enjoined us to believe the atonement applies to all and that minor sins can be repented of quickly in minutes or even seconds and then we can move on. "Let the Lord save you the way you testify with confidence that He can save your investigators."

 

Smart man. It makes me wonder what I was like...I remember the beginning of my mission was rough, emotionally. I probably leaned toward the doors of damnation thing....but I don't know if I ever fully did that either. I had a few companions who were more likely to beat themselves up for small errors. I did feel that over time, they would get better and more lax in their own self-evaluations. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

With all due respect, I think it's too easy to think that the MP is saying what we wish he said, or that he really meant something else.  But his words are pretty dang clear:

 

I hope I'm not....I'm trying to read blurbs that you mentioned along with his overarching larger commentary throughout. Those words are sharp, but in the context of other thing he mentioned I don't know whether they're excessive. I am juxtaposing my mission experience with this....but that's because I don't know the guy, don't know the mission, don't know the area, and have no sense of the needs of all three. In such cases I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt....and I've heard of more good (or even mediocre) MP's than I have bad ones (the bad ones just really stick out). 

 

If you were to ask any of the missionaries in the mission why their baptism numbers were low that month, how would you expect them to answer based on their President's revelation?  It's pretty clear what is causing their "current situation."

 

 

Again, I have no idea. I mean this would go a whole new level of mind reading that I just am unable to do...moreso than what you'd mentioned above that we're all doing a little of for just the MP. Who I was as a missionary was a very different person to who I am now. Now I probably would have chafed at his words. Then, I would have taken what he said to heart. I would have probably looked inward and with my companion and we'd probably discuss what we could do better. We'd make goals to do better and change accordingly. Later in my mission I probably would have jumped onto his words as an invitation to self-evaluate and grow. In certain things I wouldn't have found it applied, in others I would. In those areas I'd set personal goals to work and do better.    

I think it has to do with focus. Then my sole focus was serving the Lord and his people. I was converted to missionary work and it was my bread and butter. Now, my priorities are all over and I think about other broader concerns and worry about social ramifications to varying things. With equal respect, when I read some of the concerns that have been brought up, I feel that they read like the me now and I also don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. 

 

 With luv,

BD

[Paddy]

The principle of obedience is a fundamental and important principle, but prefacing it with a qualifier like "exact" turns it into a false doctrine and a bad doctrine. I can't believe it is a published phrase in the back of PMG.

To be exactly obedient suggests to me that a person must obey all the rules. However if repentance is a commandment, which last time I looked it was, then does that not presuppose that you have not been exactly obedient? It's a contradiction of terms. The quicker it leaves our vocabulary the better.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Paddy

[rodheadlee]

I served in Germany in the 70's.  In my mission, that period of time was the nadir of baptisms.  On a year-by-year basis, the years before 72-74 had more baptisms, and the years after had more baptisms.  I don't know if it was because of the failure of missionaries to exactly obey the mission rules, but thinking back, I don't believe that any of my companions nor I were markedly disobedient.  In fact, I believe that we were quite obedient.  Perhaps our mission president (Rudolf Poecker) wasn't a huge fan of rule-itis.  What he was, was dedicated servant of the Lord who never took himself too seriously, and I believe he truly loved all the missionaries for whom he was responsible.

 

I baptized one person on my mission.  I know of one elder who baptized none, and he was not a rule-breaker.  It was quite simply a bad time for finding investigators.  That's the only thing I can suppose.

 

I have a personal story in connection with mission rules, and the breaking and following of them.  In the Language Training Mission (this was before the MTC was built) in Provo, UT, the German-speaking missionaries occupied the Amanda Knight Hall, an old BYU student dorm.  About midway through the 8 week training cycle, there was something that I was trying to understand about my patriarchal blessing.  For a period of about a week, after lights-out and once everyone else in my dorm-room was asleep, I would repair to an empty classroom at the end of the floor to pray.  It was warm, so the window was open, and I each night I knelt there and prayed for knowledge about the particular I was looking to understand.  The Spirit I felt while praying was great, and I felt very strongly that the Lord was listening, and that He wanted to give me what I was asking for, but I also felt that He was holding back, waiting for something.

 

The German-speaking District had a director and an assistant director, both very spiritual and dedicated men, and I decided to go to the assistant for advice.  I explained the problem to him, and then he said something that surprised me.  It was this: how could the Lord bless me in the way I was asking when I was breaking the mission rules while I was asking Him for the blessing.  I was very puzzled, and asked him what he was talking about, whereupon he told me that the mission rule was: once lights were out, we were to stay in our beds and sleep, except for necessary calls of nature, until morning wakeup.  He said that if the Lord were to bless me while I was breaking the rules which I had agreed to obey, then the Lord would be teaching me the benefits of disobedience.  I told him that I hadn't thought of it that way, but that I thought I needed some solitude for prayer, and I could hardly ever get it unless it was at night when everyone was sleeping.  So what was I to do?

 

He reminded me that during the day when we were in the dormitory, outside of classroom time there were plenty of opportunities to locate an empty room, and be able to pray undisturbed, and this was especially true on Sundays.  While inside the dormitory (which also doubled as classroom space on the first floor), we were not required to always be with our companions, so I should be able to have no problem finding quiet time to pray.  I told him that I would comply and do as he suggested.

 

The next Sunday was Fast Sunday, and after Sacrament meeting I went and found an empty room, and again brought my question to the Lord.  The result was confirming of the principle that the Lord expects His servants to serve according to His order.  I received what was one of the most amazing revelatory experiences of my life, and it was the answer to my question. 

 

I have a testimony of the fact that the Lord will bless His servants who obediently serve him.  Now, I do not wish to comment upon the question of whether some mission presidents go too far in their rule-making.  Perhaps some of them go too far, but I am not in their various positions, nor do I have their responsibilities.  I would be careful in my judging of such matters.

Thanks for that post, now I understand why the Lord cannot answer some of my prayers.

[ERayR]

The principle of obedience is a fundamental and important principle, but prefacing it with a qualifier like "exact" turns it into a false doctrine and a bad doctrine. I can't believe it is a published phrase in the back of PMG.

To be exactly obedient suggests to me that a person must obey all the rules. However if repentance is a commandment, which last time I looked it was, then does that not presuppose that you have not been exactly obedient? It's a contradiction of terms. The quicker it leaves our vocabulary the better.

 

As it comes from Alma 57 I don't think it is going to be purged anytime soon.

 

Alma 57:21 they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness

[Buckeye]

 

As it comes from Alma 57 I don't think it is going to be purged anytime soon.

 

Alma 57:21 they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness

 

 

Which, of course, shows the important context of the statement. Many would agree that the exactness required in times of warfare is counter-productive in peaceful times, such as missionary service. And even then many would say that soldiers should have the ability to dissent from immoral commands - such as a command to rape and pillage.

[Mystery Meat]

Which, of course, shows the important context of the statement. Many would agree that the exactness required in times of warfare is counter-productive in peaceful times, such as missionary service. And even then many would say that soldiers should have the ability to dissent from immoral commands - such as a command to rape and pillage.

 

Strongly disagree. I think the parallel here is spot on (Sons of Helaman and Missionaries). They (the warriors) were not perfect and had sin. But they were exacting in their obedience to their commanding officer in the instructions he gave them. Missionaries, while imperfect, can also be exacting in their obedience to the White Handbook, PMG, Mission President.

 

Also, using an extreme to show the righteousness of dissent does not disprove the rule. Show me where a mission president has asked any missionary to rape and/or pillage? 

[BlueDreams]

Which, of course, shows the important context of the statement. Many would agree that the exactness required in times of warfare is counter-productive in peaceful times, such as missionary service. And even then many would say that soldiers should have the ability to dissent from immoral commands - such as a command to rape and pillage.

 

Using the example of rape/pillage is outside of the context of even the verse you used. Its extreme to the point of irrelevance. Beside the BoM is supposedly for our time...most of us aren't in the middle of mortal combat, so I'm sure it was meant to be applicable for other situations.

 

I do agree that the time is exceptional, but being a missionary is also an exceptional (short) period of time in a person's life...with very particular rules and obligations because you are not your own person. You are representing Christ, your church, and peoples in a very direct and obvious manner. Ergo there is a heightened importance of doing so "with exactness." So yeah, there's plenty of easy parallel between the Sons of Helaman and mission service. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Buckeye]

Strongly disagree. I think the parallel here is spot on (Sons of Helaman and Missionaries). They (the warriors) were not perfect and had sin. But they were exacting in their obedience to their commanding officer in the instructions he gave them. Missionaries, while imperfect, can also be exacting in their obedience to the White Handbook, PMG, Mission President.

 

Also, using an extreme to show the righteousness of dissent does not disprove the rule. Show me where a mission president has asked any missionary to rape and/or pillage? 

 

We'll have to disagree. To be clear, I'm not advocating missionaries be disobedient. And I'm not saying that strict obedience is not required for some commandments (chastity, etc.). What I'm saying is that for minor procedural issues - such as what time to be home, how long scripture study should last, whether Elders can teach a single elderly lady, how many miles missionaries can put on their cars, whether you can play pickup soccer with kids on the street you are tracting on a non p-day, etc. - that those issues are not of such vital importance that obedience becomes the first law of the mission, much less heaven.

 

A soldier who fails to make his post at the appropriate time can cost lives. A missionary who chooses to read scriptures an extra 20 minutes will not.

 

I'll concede that MPs are not instructing rape and pillage (no one thinks that) but at least this one is suggesting that baptismal commitments are tied to whether missionaries obey with exactness the minutae of rules and policies.

[cinepro]

The principle of obedience is a fundamental and important principle, but prefacing it with a qualifier like "exact" turns it into a false doctrine and a bad doctrine. I can't believe it is a published phrase in the back of PMG.

To be exactly obedient suggests to me that a person must obey all the rules. However if repentance is a commandment, which last time I looked it was, then does that not presuppose that you have not been exactly obedient? It's a contradiction of terms. The quicker it leaves our vocabulary the better.

 

FWIW, it just skimmed through "Preach My Gospel" to see what it says about obedience, and I would say the manual takes a much softer approach towards "obedience" than what we have seen on the CFM blog.  Most of the references discuss "obedience" to God in general terms (mostely referring to the need for investigators to be obedient), with an emphasis on the commandments having been given to us with love, and that we show love for God by being obedient.

 

Applying "obedience" to the missionaries specifically, it says:

 

Obedience

As a missionary, you are expected to keep the commandments willingly, to obey mission rules, and to follow the counsel of your leaders. Obedience is the first law of heaven. It is an act of faith. You may sometimes be required to do things you do not completely understand. As you obey, you increase in faith, knowledge, wisdom, testimony, protection, and freedom. Strive to be obedient to the Lord, the living prophet, and your mission president.

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36617_eng.pdf?lang=eng

 

 

There is a self-evaulation for them missionaries to take, which includes the following:

 

Obedience

54. When I pray, I ask for strength to resist temptation and to do what is right. (3 Nephi 18:15)

 

55. I keep the required commandments to be worthy of a temple recommend. (D&C 97:

 

56. I willingly obey the mission rules and follow the counsel of my leaders. (Hebrews 13:17)

 

57. I strive to live in accordance with the laws and principles of the gospel. (D&C 41:5)

 

I would have to say that while obedience is obviously a big part of the program for investigators and missionaries as taught in the PMG, it doesn't come close to the way it is being taught on the CFM blog.  Which I think is a good thing.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves."

(Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595. (Apostle Samuel Richards on Nov. 13, 1852, recorded in the Millennial Star, 14:393-395.)

Edited May 28, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[ERayR]

 

We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong;

 

Can't let this pass.  CFR

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Can't let this pass.  CFR

 

Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595. (Apostle Samuel Richards on Nov. 13, 1852, recorded in the Millennial Star, 14:393-395

[Gray]

Can't let this pass.  CFR

 

Is that CFR directed at Samuel Richards?

 

I'm not sure you'll have much luck getting him to respond.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_W._Richards

[ERayR]

Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595. (Apostle Samuel Richards on Nov. 13, 1852, recorded in the Millennial Star, 14:393-395

 

I thought you were referring to something besides ancient history.

[HappyJackWagon]

I thought you were referring to something besides ancient history.

So you don't like his reference? It's not good enough?

Or are you just embarrassed that he responded to a silly CFR?

[ERayR]

So you don't like his reference? It's not good enough?

Or are you just embarrassed that he responded to a silly CFR?

 

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not.  It is his reference.  It did give me some insight into his thought processes. 

 

I am not embarrassed in the least. 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not.  It is his reference.  It did give me some insight into his thought processes. 

 

I am not embarrassed in the least. 

Who's thought process? Mine?

I just thought it pertained to the discussion.

But I do agree. Overzealous obedience to humans not matter what station or position they hold is a dangerous position.

[will227457]

The overzealousness gets in the way of the work. I was fortunate enough that I did not have to suffer this rigidity in my mission, I would have rebelled. I do see it in our current missionaries and their inflexibility hinders the work IMHO

[HappyJackWagon]

It doesn't matter whether I like it or not.  It is his reference.  It did give me some insight into his thought processes. 

 

I am not embarrassed in the least. 

Why mock it?

 

You ask for the CFR - He provides it - You mock it.

 

Seems petty.

[ERayR]

Why mock it?

 

You ask for the CFR - He provides it - You mock it.

 

Seems petty.

[ERayR]

 

Why mock it?

 

You ask for the CFR - He provides it - You mock it.

 

Seems petty.

 

 

That it bothers you so much is interesting also.  My response is as inconsequential as his CFR yet it seems to have struck a nerve with you.  Why?