Why did they do this? Called missionaries in 1900s

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Mule muffins.  You have not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate that that family was sacrificed under any relevant definition of the term.  The family did "make sacrifices" like I did in helping make sandwiches for the entire week when my mother went back to school when I was 7-8.  Frozen egg salad is a real sacrifice to a kid that age.  Yet mom got her BS and became a teacher, which ended up benefiting the family, as otherwise affording missions for us 4 boys would have been difficult if not impossible.

And that kind of "sacrifice," were that the meaning you are attributing, I would agree occurred.  It was a sacrifice to bundle up the family and leave Nauvoo for Winter Quarters.  It was a sacrifice to follow Joseph along the canal to Kirtland.  It was a sacrifice for Emma and the kids to be left while Joseph led Zion's Camp.

Those temporary displacements, journeys, and missions, however, are not sacrifices as you are tendentiously using the term.  You are inferring, quite without warrant, that the participants somehow didn't care about those left at home, were callous to their sacrifices, and that the family was damaged by the actions of Church and father  ...  and G-d ... in affecting, making and accepting a call.

So  ...  I think I'll ask for some evidence here that your use of the term "sacrifice" to describe the phenomenon is warranted.  Demonstrate the harm.  Demonstrate the carelessness.  Demonstrate the callousness.  Demonstrate the damage.

mule muffins? are you by chance a fan of MASH? Col. Harry Potter used to say things like that! "Pony Pucks"!!!!

Edited February 17, 2016 by Duncan

[Calm]

This gives even more detail:

http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-death-stephen-pratt.html

Very interesting and sad story, reads like a romance...husband wants to commit wife to an insane asylum because she is LDS, beats her and threatens others with guns, she is kept a prisoner in her father's house and escapes with the children only to be found again, is successful a second time, but gets captured and taken before a judge where she tells her life history and he rules for her, when Pratt goes to testify, the husband draws his pistol to fire at him but is prevented by friends, judge puts off trial to deceive husband and then acquitts Pratt and lets him go, he is pursued and killed, mob thinks to lynch the ex-wife but is prevented by a brave speech from their host, McLean again intends to put his exwife (in her view) into an insane asylym, parents cut her off, police search for her, but she escapes eventually to Utah and becomes a schoolteacher to the Pratt family and has ups and downs there. 

[Sanpitch]

The rest of the story of the OP.  My granddad, the missionary, was kicked in the face by a horse, got infection in the face and brain and died in his forties when my mom was 14 years old.  He left five young kids for grandma to care for with nothing to live on.  Grandma had a tough life.   She emphasized education as she had been a teacher.  The two boys attained their PhD and were very successful.  Hardships are not always useless.

[Maidservant]

I'm not sure who else would have been sent.
 

If missionaries were needed, then I'm sure men of any mature age would have been the natural choice.  It wouldn't have occurred to them at that point that being a family man would have been a disqualification, rather an even greater sign of their maturity and to get done what was asked of them.

What year(s) did it start changing and younger, unmarried men (and women) sent out?  I know that my husband's grandmother was a sister missionary in San Francisco in her mid-20s, and I'm not sure when that would have been, perhaps the 1930s.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Maidservant

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

The rest of the story of the OP.  My granddad, the missionary, was kicked in the face by a horse, got infection in the face and brain and died in his forties when my mom was 14 years old.  He left five young kids for grandma to care for with nothing to live on.  Grandma had a tough life.   She emphasized education as she had been a teacher.  The two boys attained their PhD and were very successful.  Hardships are not always useless.

I'm very proud of my great grandmother Sarah!!  She chose to join the church and brought over her 5 yr. old daughter Bonnie, my grandmother, from Kentucky by herself.  Bonnie's father didn't want to join the church, he was a colonel or something.  I named my son after him, so hoping he's a good dude.  I have her history and she tells of hearing for the first time the LDS preachers and their singing and gained a testimony right there on the spot, or she had a witness of it's truthfulness.  She left her whole family and went by train to Fayette, Utah.  She was staying with a family, and there was a house fire and the photos of her family were burned, she was devastated.  I just can't believe how brave a lady she was.  To come all on her own with her little girl, for the church!  If the church is true, I'm sure she's looking down with great disappointment in her great granddaughter.     

Edited February 17, 2016 by Tacenda

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm very proud of my great grandmother Sarah!!  She chose to join the church and brought over her 5 yr. old daughter Bonnie, my grandmother, from Kentucky by herself.  Bonnie's father didn't want to join the church, he was a colonel or something.  I named my son after him, so hoping he's a good dude.  I have her history and she tells of hearing for the first time the LDS preachers and their singing and gained a testimony right there on the spot, or she had a witness of it's truthfulness.  She left her whole family and went by train to Fayette, Utah.  She was staying with a family, and there was a house fire and the photos of her family were burned, she was devastated.  I just can't believe how brave a lady she was.  To come all on her own with her little girl, for the church!  If the church is true, I'm sure she's looking down with great disappointment in her great granddaughter.     

I highly doubt that

Edited February 18, 2016 by Avatar4321
my text wasnt posted

[Sanpitch]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 If the church is true, I'm sure she's looking down with great disappointment in her great granddaughter.     

No she's not Tacenda, she made mistakes also and two of her five children did not have much interest in her religion, including your grandmother.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

No she's not Tacenda, she made mistakes also and two of her five children did not have much interest in her religion, including your grandmother.

Well, she kept it hidden well then.  Hope one day to speak with her, why didn't I ask her about her life more?  What an idiot I was, don't you wish we could just sit at their feet and listen to them talk about their lives? 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

Mule muffins.  You have not demonstrated and cannot demonstrate that that family was sacrificed under any relevant definition of the term.  The family did "make sacrifices" like I did in helping make sandwiches for the entire week when my mother went back to school when I was 7-8.  Frozen egg salad is a real sacrifice to a kid that age.  Yet mom got her BS and became a teacher, which ended up benefiting the family, as otherwise affording missions for us 4 boys would have been difficult if not impossible.

And that kind of "sacrifice," were that the meaning you are attributing, I would agree occurred.  It was a sacrifice to bundle up the family and leave Nauvoo for Winter Quarters.  It was a sacrifice to follow Joseph along the canal to Kirtland.  It was a sacrifice for Emma and the kids to be left while Joseph led Zion's Camp.

Those temporary displacements, journeys, and missions, however, are not sacrifices as you are tendentiously using the term.  You are inferring, quite without warrant, that the participants somehow didn't care about those left at home, were callous to their sacrifices, and that the family was damaged by the actions of Church and father  ...  and G-d ... in affecting, making and accepting a call.

So  ...  I think I'll ask for some evidence here that your use of the term "sacrifice" to describe the phenomenon is warranted.  Demonstrate the harm.  Demonstrate the carelessness.  Demonstrate the callousness.  Demonstrate the damage.

I guess I'll have to appeal to leaders of the church to make my point for me.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/04/father-come-home?lang=eng

 

Quote

In the past twenty years, as homes and families have struggled to stay intact, sociological studies reveal this alarming fact: much of the crime and many of the behavioral disorders in the United States come from homes where the father has abandoned the children. In many societies the world over, child poverty, crime, drug abuse, and family decay can be traced to conditions where the father gives no male nurturing. Sociologically, it is now painfully apparent that fathers are not optional family baggage.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/being-a-righteous-husband-and-father?lang=eng

 

Quote

We further emphasize that men who abandon their family and fail to meet their responsibility to care for those they have fathered may find their eligibility for a temple recommend and their standing in the Church in jeopardy.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gray

[Storm Rider]

21 hours ago, Gray said:

Maybe we don't do this anymore because it's not a worthy sacrifice to make. No missionary work is worth the neglect of one's family. I'm sure everyone involved thought they were doing the right thing and had the best of intentions, but I'm happy we've evolved from the bad old days. 

We still struggle with this of course. Some of the heavier callings members get still involve neglect of family duties. 

Agreed.  This same logic can be carried over the all leaders and prophets who have neglected their families in order to serve God and the members.  They were just selfish oafs.  It was even worse for those people who sacrificed their life at the expense of their families.  What were they thinking - just pure selfishness to not consider their families.  It is like they just did not care for their wives and children!  All they wanted to do was serve God - the temerity of these stupid people in the bad old days.  Thank God we have wised up today and are ready to die for God or serve him at the inconvenience of our own wants and desires and those of our families.  

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Agreed.  This same logic can be carried over the all leaders and prophets who have neglected their families in order to serve God and the members.  They were just selfish oafs.  It was even worse for those people who sacrificed their life at the expense of their families.  What were they thinking - just pure selfishness to not consider their families.  It is like they just did not care for their wives and children!  All they wanted to do was serve God - the temerity of these stupid people in the bad old days.  Thank God we have wised up today and are ready to die for God or serve him at the inconvenience of our own wants and desires and those of our families.  

I disagree that they were selfish oafs. Misguided, yes. Parenting duties must come before any other consideration. 

The anti-family sentiment used to defend outdated practices is a little startling, though. It's very un-Mormon. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gray

[Sanpitch]

Don't tell anyone I said this but I think if God had wanted the true Gospel spread to all the people of the Earth he could have arranged a start in all countries or groups of people.  Not a story of Native Americans that has no relevance to most peoples of the Earth but a book of knowledge of the true story of what's needed to know for a true faith.  Makes more sense to me than separating families or sending young people all over the Earth trying to tell a story of American Natives and a story of the restoration of the Gospel.  

Edited February 18, 2016 by Sanpitch

[Storm Rider]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

I disagree that they were selfish oafs. Misguided, yes. Parenting duties must come before any other consideration. 

The anti-family sentiment used to defend outdated practices is a little startling, though. It's very un-Mormon. 

Sarcasm is hard to carry off in writing.

I disagree with your entire premise because it is without understanding of God, his servants, and his teachings about what a disciple's commit is to him.

The scriptures do not teach that we love God unless we need to do something else.  The Church has echoed that teaching by outlining that God is our first commitment, then spouse, then family, then church. 

You spin this nicely trying to make it seem that you are all concerned about families and how terrible it is that servants of God abuse and/or neglect their families by serving God.  I feel strongly that this is the type of spin that Satan develops to mislead individuals.

God will bless those who serve him and they will bless their families that sacrifice so much in support of his servants.  That does not mean that bad things will not happen; they will, but they will also be blessed in very real ways.

 

 

[Tacenda]

Early Mormonism was a learning process.  They probably didn't ordain young men at that time.  It probably wasn't even a thought yet, possibly.  And maybe the young sons were needed to work on the farms.  I'm glad it evolved to what it is now.  I don't feel the men that left really abandoned their families.  Their families were probably strengthened through letter writing etc.  Just as the men that had to go to war and still do at this time, along with women.  

It would be interesting to see how everything did evolve to what it is today.  How soon women were able to serve missions etc. too.

But do agree there were terrible hardships.  

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Sarcasm is hard to carry off in writing.

I disagree with your entire premise because it is without understanding of God, his servants, and his teachings about what a disciple's commit is to him.

The scriptures do not teach that we love God unless we need to do something else.  The Church has echoed that teaching by outlining that God is our first commitment, then spouse, then family, then church. 

You spin this nicely trying to make it seem that you are all concerned about families and how terrible it is that servants of God abuse and/or neglect their families by serving God.  I feel strongly that this is the type of spin that Satan develops to mislead individuals.

God will bless those who serve him and they will bless their families that sacrifice so much in support of his servants.  That does not mean that bad things will not happen; they will, but they will also be blessed in very real ways.

 

 

No spin, Storm Rider. I'm expressing my strong beliefs as a father who is very active in his child's life. Every moment that I'm home I'm spending with my child. I believe current church leaders when they teach that men should be active in their children's lives and have a responsibility to nurture them. Apparently you are rejecting what current church leaders say on the topic, which is strange for someone who seems to want to support orthodoxy. 

It's a superstitious falsehood that God will make up somehow for men who abandon their children. There is no shortcut to being a good parent. It requires time, time and more time. 

If we really love God, we will not abandon our children. The idea that one can serve god while abandoning one's family is blasphemous. It is using God's name to justify evil.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gray

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I guess I'll have to appeal to leaders of the church to make my point for me.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1993/04/father-come-home?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/being-a-righteous-husband-and-father?lang=eng
 

Yep.  Every merchant who ever went on an ocean voyage, every soldier who went out to face the terror of the invading foe, every unemployed man in times of economic disaster who put on his walking shoes to look for work no matter how long or far that search took him, every missionary who ever went out to the harvest was a wife-abandoning, child-abusing, neglectful, uncaring, cold, distant and monstrous approximation of a man.  Never mind that they all came home.  Or at least intended to come home.  Their lives mean nothing.  Their desires mean nothing.  Their gallantry means nothing.

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

No spin, Storm Rider. I'm expressing my strong beliefs as a father who is very active in his child's life. Every moment that I'm home I'm spending with my child. I believe current church leaders when they teach that men should be active in their children's lives and have a responsibility to nurture them. Apparently you are rejecting what current church leaders say on the topic, which is strange for someone who seems to want to support orthodoxy. 

It's a superstitious falsehood that God will make up somehow for men who abandon their children. There is no shortcut to being a good parent. It requires time, time and more time. 

If we really love God, we will not abandon our children. The idea that one can serve god while abandoning one's family is blasphemous. It is using God's name to justify evil.

You know what you are doing and you know that you are taking it out of context completely.  You purposely focus on one statement and ignore every other teaching of the Gospel and of God's teachings.  I remain firm that your teachings are not of the Spirit in any way shape or form.  They spring from the evil one and are meant to lead others astray. 

Poster removed from thread.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Yep.  Every merchant who ever went on an ocean voyage, every soldier who went out to face the terror of the invading foe, every unemployed man in times of economic disaster who put on his walking shoes to look for work no matter how long or far that search took him, every missionary who ever went out to the harvest was a wife-abandoning, child-abusing, neglectful, uncaring, cold, distant and monstrous approximation of a man.  Never mind that they all came home.  Or at least intended to come home.  Their lives mean nothing.  Their desires mean nothing.  Their gallantry means nothing.

There is a big difference between leaving for absolute physical necessity and leaving by choice. 

I certainly don't share your (sarcastic, I'm sure) view of missionaries though. As I said, the intention was good. Thankfully that is mostly behind us now and the church teaches that family comes first. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You know what you are doing and you know that you are taking it out of context completely.  You purposely focus on one statement and ignore every other teaching of the Gospel and of God's teachings.  I remain firm that your teachings are not of the Spirit in any way shape or form.  They spring from the evil one and are meant to lead others astray. 

You're the one teaching anti-family rhetoric. I'm echoing the church's current position on family responsibilities. If you wish to characterize that as "satanic" that's on you. 

I am by no means an orthodox member, but I am on the same page as the modern church on this issue. 

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gray

[rodheadlee]

On 2/17/2016 at 8:13 AM, Sanpitch said:

From my grandmothers history, Tacenda take note:

"I have heard Grandma Sarah tell about how she and Rhoda were both living at James Allen and Clara  A. Hill’s home while their husbands were serving mission.  Grandma’s first baby, Barbara, was born there Dec 7, 1903, and Rhoda’s first baby was born there ten days later Dec 17, 1903.  Great-Grandma Clara was not only trying to take care of the new mothers and babies upstairs, but also caring for her dying father, James Mellor, downstairs, who actually died two days after the birth of Rhoda’s baby, and besides that, Grandma Clara had eight of her own children under the age of nineteen still living at home, the youngest, Pearl, was barley four years old. "

This is not hearsay, it's a well known fact from the family journals and histories.  My grandmother later moved into her own home and lived on almost nothing while her missionary husband served a two year mission.  She sold a herd of sheep and anything of value to live on which wasn't much.  I don't know of any reason to hide the names, they've all been dead for many decades.  My wife's history is very similar to this history, grandmother's husband left wife and kids at home and left on a two year mission.

They thought the goal was worthy of the sacrifice.Do you really need me to quote scripture to back this up? Here is a quicky I just came across in Matthew 13

45 ¶ Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:

  46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

Edited February 18, 2016 by rodheadlee

[RevTestament]

On 2/17/2016 at 9:04 AM, JLHPROF said:

I agree that this is an incredible amount of sacrifice to ask of any person.
And they have my absolute admiration and sympathy.  But it fits the pattern God has established.

Does it?

I've wondered about this very subject, because it seems to me that the Church acts like D&C 75 got repealed.

 24 Behold, I say unto you, that it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world.

 25 Wherefore, I, the Lord, give unto you this commandment, that ye obtain places for your families, inasmuch as your brethren are willing to open their hearts.

 26 And let all such as can obtain places for their families, and support of the church for them, not fail to go into the world, whether to the east or to the west, or to the north, or to the south.

I invite input on this. Why doesn't the church offer any support to families of called missionaries anymore? I was unofficially asked when I moved my family to Payson, and bought a trailer with some of the last money I had for my family. I said I would go on a mission if the church would help support my family....

So was I wrong to make this request? 

Does anyone have an explanation? Or is it just something BY changed or what?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You're the one teaching anti-family rhetoric. I'm echoing the church's current position on family responsibilities. If you wish to characterize that as "satanic" that's on you. 

I am by no means an orthodox member, but I am on the same page as the modern church on this issue. 

Please don't anybody go deeper on the source of the covenant, but in response to this ^ I say this >

The Law of Consecration requires that each member of the Kingdom consecrate everything, including their lives if necessary, to the Kingdom.  This means that every, and I mean even the non-endowed, member must consecrate every and I mean everything he has to building up the Kingdom.  Tithing merely approximates this, and all we covenant to do is not presently asked of us.  If asked, however, we must, if we have integrity, comply with the request.

You have an odd way of looking at Mormonism, apparently, which misses so fundamental a thing as covenant and consecration.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration

 

[Sanpitch]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

They thought the goal was worthy of the sacrifice.Do you really need me to quote scripture to back this up? Here is a quicky I just came across in Matthew 13

45 ¶ Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:

  46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

No thank you, I don't need anymore scriptures.  If I tried to follow them all I'd be running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

No thank you, I don't need anymore scriptures.  If I tried to follow them all I'd be running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. 

I think we may have inherited the same genes.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Tacenda

[rodheadlee]

19 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

No thank you, I don't need anymore scriptures.  If I tried to follow them all I'd be running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. 

Hey if the shoe fits, wear it.