How do you, a RM, feel about your Mission?

[_Mister Scratch]

Notice the self-centered anger and arrogance here: "I simply wish more of the Swiss had recognized what I see in Mormonism."

Wow. It takes a weird sort of cleverness (as well as the obvious obsessive hostility) to discover "self-centered anger and arrogance" just about everywhere.

Ironically, you seem to see "obvious obsessive hostility" in everything I do and/or say. Hmmmm.... In truth, Dan, much of what you write on these messageboards *is* transparently hostile and aggressive. Are you really blind to that? Or, do you just not care?

[_Daniel Peterson]

nonsense, nonsense, and more nonsense

Whatever.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think that people who find enormous satisfaction in serving a cause that they believe in, a cause that they regard as larger than themselves, are to be pitied. Not even close.

And, for what it's worth, I think Ayn Rand's worldview is repulsive. (And that she was a suitable illustration of its repulsiveness.)

[_Roger Morrison]

Special "Thanks!" to Eye Patch and Dan Peterson for honestly expressing their thoughts and feelings. An excellent example of "one size doesn't comfortably fit all."

In the hundreds(?) of Missionaries we have fed, I think we have experienced all of the attitudues and dispositions in the book. Never one we didn't like or invite back. Some we admired more, some we pitied more. Now, reading the posts here I appreciate both the pains and the pleasures, as they may have been...

I have for a long time believed the church should be more responsible for those they call... Dare I say those who are in great part indoctrinated from Primary to "Wanna serve a Mission..."
There should be careful psychological testing of every candidate. in my opinion more important than their virginity...

As for Mission Presidents, we have experienced the loveable-humble and the arrogant CEO type, obviously attempting a carreer path. Why not? It would be interesting to know how many in the church hierarchy who have, or have not served as a Mission President. More please...
Roger
*
*

[_Dr. Shades]

And, for what it's worth, I think Ayn Rand's worldview is repulsive.

Serious? I'm finding immense satisfaction in finally reading someone who is able to put into words everything that's been mulling in my head but hasn't found proper expression.

I'm over halfway through Atlas Shrugged, and I think I've finally, finally found an intellectual kindred spirit.

(And that she was a suitable illustration of its repulsiveness.)

In what way? Did she ever go back on her core principles?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And, for what it's worth, I think Ayn Rand's worldview is repulsive.

Serious? I'm finding immense satisfaction in finally reading someone who is able to put into words everything that's been mulling in my head but hasn't found proper expression.

I'm over halfway through Atlas Shrugged, and I think I've finally, finally found an intellectual kindred spirit.

I was really big into Ayn Rand during my junior and senior years of high school. The entering wedge was The Fountainhead, but I read everything I could get my hands on by her.

I remain an economic libertarian, as in fact I was before I ever read her, but I see her worldview as bleak and emotionally exploitative.

(And that she was a suitable illustration of its repulsiveness.)

In what way? Did she ever go back on her core principles?

I haven't really been interested enough in Ayn Rand in recent decades to spend a lot of time on memoirs about her, but there have been some published since her death that portray her as a perfectly horrible human being, destructive of those around her.

[_Trevor]

Ayn Rand became the focus of a personality cult. I agree with Daniel about her and her friends being repulsive.

As for my mission: I do not regret it. It was one of the best, most interesting experiences of my life. I really did love a lot of the people I served. I started to learn how to deal with people whose views and personalities differed from my own, and I did feel at the time that I was serving a higher cause. In some ways, I still feel that I was, inasmuch as I sometimes lent a helping hand and friendly spirit to people who were truly down and out and in need of assistance. I don't think it particularly matters that I no longer believe in Mormonism.

[_ajax18]

I find it tragic that even after a lifetime of service, this poor man never got to do what he wanted to do in his golden years.

I understand your point, but either way, he's dead now. So what difference does it make whether he enjoyed or suffered through his golden years now?

But I'll concede your point. If the Church is not true, and there is no God or afterlife, than I'll agree that Mormonism does little more than take away the little we have. But why are people willing to give that up? So many of us have the desire to live forever hardwired into us. A nice life that ends just isn't good enough, nor is attaining it completely under our control. Maybe I'm just too greedy.

Maybe he did enjoy serving, but I find it hard to believe he couldn't have found more enjoyable things to do than open the African mission. I simply cannot buy the argument that living the gospel is its own reward in this life alone. Without an afterlife, it all breaks down. I guess that's where I disagree with contemporary Mormonism. I don't care how "spiritual" you get. Boats, beaches, margaritas, and senoritas sure beat worn out suits, Doc Martens, ties, and sweat if that is all there is to it.

[_Eyepatch]

I have come to realize that the leadership are simply flogging their missionaries as hard as they can so that THEY can advance in the giant Mormon multi-level marketing machine. They are all bucking for GA positions.

I don't see how this is possible, since there are hundreds of missions, thus hundreds of mission presidents, and a very limited number of general authorities.

And how does one prepare for advancement?

Hi again,
Well, it's the same operative dynamic as in the mission itself. There might be 100 missionaries in a given mission, and almost all of them desire advancement...but only a select few are chosen. And how are they chosen? By aligning themselves to the polestar rule of the mission: slavish obedience. In other words, boot-licking. They can become DL's, then ZL's, then maybe, just maybe, if they've kissed enough ass, AP!!

The same type of competitive pool exists in the level above the missionaries. There might be 150 -200 mission presidents...almost all of them desiring advancement and further recognition. How do they advance? By "turning" a mission around. Or in other words by boosting the numbers and making a name for themselves. That's why some of these guys will authorize ANY type of baptism (I'm talking baseball baptisms!!) That's why these guys lick the boots of the leadership rank above them. The principle is crystal clear.

Again, imagine the principle on the lower level. Here's the MP thinking to himself: "Well, gosh, Elder Pressure really baptized a hell of a lot of people in Bielefeld...I guess we ought to make him Zone Leader." Same thing, higher level. Here's an apostle talking to himself: "Well, well,...Mission President Smartypants has really turned the Hamburg mission around...he might be just the man for that GA slot."

I have a FIRM testimony that these type of machinations occur within the MLM system we call Mormonism.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm guessing that Eyepatch must have been passed over for DL, ZL, and/or AP.

Maybe he did enjoy serving, but I find it hard to believe he couldn't have found more enjoyable things to do than open the African mission. I simply cannot buy the argument that living the gospel is its own reward in this life alone. Without an afterlife, it all breaks down. I guess that's where I disagree with contemporary Mormonism. I don't care how "spiritual" you get. Boats, beaches, margaritas, and senoritas sure beat worn out suits, Doc Martens, ties, and sweat if that is all there is to it.

Actually, if Viktor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning, etc.) is right (and I think he is), a meaningless life, however richly endowed with boats, beaches, margaritas, and señoritas, probably doesn't beat worn out suits, Doc Martens, ties, and sweat if the latter are part of a life felt to be saturated with deep significance. Anyway, the notion that my mission president may actually have suffered through those years of callings strikes me as preposterous. I knew him. I knew his wife. I know his daughter. He wasn't suffering.

"Richard Cory," by Edwin Arlington Robinson

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich—yes, richer than a king,
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

In prosperous Finland, 38.7 men and 10.7 women commit suicide every year per 100,000 population. In prosperous France, it's 30.4 and 10.8, respectively. In poor Catholic Mexico, the suicide rate is only 5.4 men and 1.0 women per 100,000 people, while in poor Muslim Jordan, the suicide rate appears to be so low that my source gives it as 0.0 and 0.0 per 100,000.

http://fathersforlife.org/health/who_suicide_rates.htm

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it certainly doesn't seem to suggest a clear correlation between material prosperity and happiness.