Missionaires allowed to call home weekly

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why?

It is a hardship on the families, and since it is an emergency not a social call. Just like when a missionary needs medical care but has no health insurance then the church will come through. And they should, these are volunteers for the church, how about they need to be taken care of, is that a good enough answer to your "why"?

Edited April 3, 2019 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

Just now, Tacenda said:

It is a hardship on the families, and since it is an emergency not a social call. Just like when a missionary needs medical care but has no health insurance then the church will come through. And they should, these are volunteers for the church, how about they need to be taken care of, is that a good enough answer to your "why"?

The call I was talking about was one of the twice a year calls that used to be the norm. So pretty much a social call.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The call I was talking about was one of the twice a year calls that used to be the norm. So pretty much a social call.

I will have to go back and read again, sorry about that. I was thinking it had to do with an emergency call. 

[Islander]

On 3/29/2019 at 1:15 AM, Joshua Valentine said:

Yeah... if the extreme restriction on calls was sufficiently justified by simply cost - then that´s not good.  There are many ways to deal with costs, last of which is denying everyone calling their family when they need simply because some cannot afford it.

BTW, Hello Tacenda - looong time no post. You probably don´t even remember me - glad to see you are alive and kickin´ still.  Either way, I´m back (at least until school starts in June).

 

If it was not simply a very lazy/uncreative solution to costs, then I wonder what the actual justification was and how that justification no longer holds now.  What has changed about LDS youth that they were once justifiably kept from the love and support of their families´ voices but are not justifiably so any longer?

The Church has been sending missionaries abroad for nearly 200 years now. Just like in any very large and global organization, rules and policies are put into place at diverse times and for a number of reasons. In most cases, those are "high level" decisions made by the top leadership with little, if any input from the membership. With the passage of time, the people and the rationale for those rules and policies fade from the organizational memory. But the rules remain in place, even when the very reason for their existence is no longer valid. But again, they are seldom challenged from the bottom up. Significant, meaningful and durable change always comes from the top of the organization. 

We have to admit that Pres. Nelson has a significantly different background from Ptes. Monson or Hinckley. There is a new presidency with new operating priorities, style and vision of how to move the work forward. I must admit that I am not at all surprised by the changes.  

[The Nehor]

On 3/24/2020 at 11:56 PM, Islander said:

The Church has been sending missionaries abroad for nearly 200 years now. Just like in any very large and global organization, rules and policies are put into place at diverse times and for a number of reasons. In most cases, those are "high level" decisions made by the top leadership with little, if any input from the membership. With the passage of time, the people and the rationale for those rules and policies fade from the organizational memory. But the rules remain in place, even when the very reason for their existence is no longer valid. But again, they are seldom challenged from the bottom up. Significant, meaningful and durable change always comes from the top of the organization. 

We have to admit that Pres. Nelson has a significantly different background from Ptes. Monson or Hinckley. There is a new presidency with new operating priorities, style and vision of how to move the work forward. I must admit that I am not at all surprised by the changes.