Bernard Gui Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: God does not usually promise physical safety. King Mosiah was a rare exception as a missionary’s parent. While God often delivers the faithful in tragic circumstances I think more of poor Amulek likely watching his family thrown into the flames and asking (possibly begging) Alma to use the power of God and do something and God said no. Still, I don’t discount it. We get warnings and promptings that protect us from danger.
Bernard Gui Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 7 hours ago, bsjkki said: What does this look like in the world today? Bad things happen to really righteous people. I believe your statement is true, but I also believe he lets bad things happen too. I don't believe if someone gets injured or assaulted it is because they did something wrong. I don't believe every righteous servant will get a miracle of protection or healing. I do not believe we should judge a persons righteousness based on their wealth or health. I also believe an overall righteous people will be blessed and prosper. We agree on much.
Tacenda Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 Sad! https://fox13now.com/2018/08/30/in-depth-salt-lake-tribune-series-looks-at-dangers-lds-church-missionaries-face-while-serving-abroad/
nuclearfuels Posted September 7, 2018 Posted September 7, 2018 On 8/29/2018 at 12:14 PM, jkwilliams said: I don't remember there being any specific areas that sisters weren't supposed to serve. The welfare missionaries, in particular, worked in some pretty bad places in terms of poverty, crime, and living conditions. There were predominantly German cities (small) in my wife's mission in Argentina. Sisters (and Elders) were never sent there.
Stargazer Posted September 9, 2018 Posted September 9, 2018 I'm not saying that the Church shouldn't bother with an approach to making missionaries more aware of how to be safer, especially in areas where missionaries are assigned who are not aware of the dangers (e.g. non-native missionaries). I do believe that the Church should make sure that missionaries get fully briefed about the dangers of their missions, especially if they are from "more civilized" environs, and briefed about particular dangers if assigned to areas of exceptional dangers within their assigned missions. But to expect that missionaries are guaranteed that their lives will be preserved supernaturally is expecting too much. Paul the Apostle was beaten nearly to death while on one of his mission journeys. If even an Apostle isn't guaranteed safety, what makes us think that young elders and sisters are? Yes, following the mission rules will help, since these are usually matters of common-sense in any case, and would be useful everywhere for everyone. But as Jim Morrison once said about life, "No one gets out of here alive". It never entered my head that I would be preserved from danger while I was on my mission -- in fact, the question of safety itself never entered my head. The only dangers I faced on a daily basis was getting run over by cars or buses, but this was because I was in Germany in the mid-1970s, and that society was as orderly as only Germans can make it. My closest call was nearly getting beat up by my next-to-last companion, who had anger issues -- except I defused the situation by not reacting to his taunts (which he later admitted were attempts to get me to attack him so he could legitimately thump me). Despite one's best efforts to avoid danger, no-one is guaranteed safety. The other day I was driving to the grocery store, and I saw that the distance and speed of an approaching car gave me a brief opportunity to pull out to turn into the road, but I decided I wasn't in that big a hurry. Which was a good thing, because if I had taken the opportunity I would have gotten t-boned by a car coming from the other way that I hadn't seen (there are hedges which make that turn a bit hazardous). And what if the Lord has determined that He needs you in the Spirit World now, and not later? You'll get the call, despite all your best efforts to stay safe. 1
Tacenda Posted September 13, 2018 Posted September 13, 2018 https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/missionary-sexual-assault/ Haven't read through the entire thread, but this was a good podcast of two sister missionaries experience. It doesn't shed good on the churches actions afterward. The steps should have been in place long before. But until someone listens to them, I'll not have a conversation that the church does everything as they should.
Tacenda Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) I'm putting this here, hopefully it can apply to the topic as well. But this just doesn't sit well with me. Full quote: Full paragraph: Permanent change of assignment away from the visitors’ center. Do not transfer visitors’ center missionaries permanently away from the center, except to resolve problems that cannot be resolved in any other way. Although you may feel that a sister’s strengths would make her useful in another assignment, you should realize that these sisters have been called for very specific purposes—to advance the image of the Church—and they should spend only part of their time in regular proselyting assignments. Edited October 4, 2018 by Tacenda
Calm Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) If they haven't been trained for the usual proselyting missions, but specifically for the visitor center, it makes good sense not to send them to proselyting missions. Edited October 4, 2018 by Calm 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 24 minutes ago, Tacenda said: This just doesn't sit well with me. With no explanation whatsoever of what your concern is. Are we supposed to read your mind?
Bernard Gui Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: With no explanation whatsoever of what your concern is. Are we supposed to read your mind? It just mmmmiiiight have to do with the “image of the Church” thingy.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 4, 2018 Posted October 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: It just mmmmiiiight have to do with the “image of the Church” thingy. It might, but I prefer not jumping to conclusions.
Tacenda Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: It just mmmmiiiight have to do with the “image of the Church” thingy. Yes, and maybe I take the word differently than the church in this case. Very possible, that I shouldn't have a problem, I'm open to that.
ksfisher Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 25 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Yes, and maybe I take the word differently than the church in this case. Very possible, that I shouldn't have a problem, I'm open to that. I think what they're saying is that they want people to go away from the visitors centers with a positive impression, or image, of the church in their minds. That way when they meet other missionaries they will be more accepting of the gospel.
Tacenda Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think what they're saying is that they want people to go away from the visitors centers with a positive impression, or image, of the church in their minds. That way when they meet other missionaries they will be more accepting of the gospel. I agree, I jumped on the bandwagon of this post on another board. I remember a sister missionary at the visitor's center in Kansas or Liberty Jail where JS spent several months. She was very good at pulling my heart strings, even with my having just had my FC and on a venture to figure it all out.
Amulek Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 58 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I think what they're saying is that they want people to go away from the visitors centers with a positive impression, or image, of the church in their minds. That way when they meet other missionaries they will be more accepting of the gospel. I think that's certainly a part of it. Both of my sisters who served full time missions were called to Temple Square, and (now, bear with me, because this is probably going to come off a bit prideful) but if a non-member were to visit Temple Square and interact with only one or two people who they knew were LDS, I guaranty I would want that person to meet someone like my sisters: smart, loving, caring, compassionate examples of what comes from living the gospel of Jesus Christ. Would they have been wonderful full-time proselyting missionaries as well? Absolutely. And they both enjoyed the three months where they were able to do just that. But they were called by the Lord to spend most of their time serving in another way, and in my opinion the Lord knows exactly what he's doing. 3
Bernard Gui Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: It might, but I prefer not jumping to conclusions. My point precisely.
halconero Posted October 5, 2018 Posted October 5, 2018 "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." - 1 Timothy 4:12. It's not that the Church needs its image prettied up. It's that missionaries at visitors centres have real opportunities to be examples of the believers, perhaps softening the hearts of others unto conversion. That's my take anyways. Jesus was careful in admonishing a good image. That might sound odd, but a good example is his counsel on fasting. He advised those who were fasting to have a healthy, clean appearance. Now, this might seem contradictory to Paul, as Jesus' reasoning was that the purpose of a fast was to gain the praise of God vs. the praise of man, but a central message is that the image we portray should neither distract nor retract from advancing the Kingdom of God on the earth. 1
Recommended Posts