Finally Someone Asked the Question..."Are Missionaries Safe"

[_Bazooka]

Ah, here come the claims of emotional damage. I'd love to see your documentation of this.

Mak, I saw several cases during my time on a mission. It's real and (for me to witness) very heart-breaking.

Here you go mak,

http://thisweekinmormons.com/2013/09/mo ... salt-lake/

I'd say 'suicide' counts as 'emotional damage', wouldn't you?

[_Themis]

I see many. For instance, missionaries are young and single people who rarely have any independent living situation of their own. Mission presidents are older established men with families to care for. Missionaries sign up to go and live for two years off a grand total of $10,000. Mission presidents are asked to serve, and often miss out on a good income for two years.

I do think missionary safety is important to the church, although I think they may be naïve to some of the dangers. Now some MP's do sacrifice a good income to serve, while others may be retired like mine, but missionaries sacrifice much more then 10,000. Anytime one puts off their future career they are not sacrificing there starting income, only delaying it. They are in reality losing there end income at retirement. So some missionaries actually could be losing 100,000's of dollars or more. I wonder if more realized this they might understand what it is really costing them.

[_Bazooka]

Just a reminder that a number of posters have claimed that the Church 'bends over backwards' in terms of ensuring the safety and well being of the missionaries and that things have changed significantly now. So far we have not had those claims supported with any specifics about what the Church actually does.

Kevin Sim, Maklelan, I'm looking at you. Come on, support your claims with the details behind them.

WHAT, SPECIFICALLY DOES THE CHURCH DO THAT CONSTITUTES 'BENDING OVER BACKWARDS' TO ENSURE THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF ITS MISSIONARIES?

[_maklelan]

And for every one of your anecdotes there is a counter.... What have we proven?

That's quite an oversimplification. I think it would be more accurate to state that you can come up with occasional exceptions to the general norms I point out. That doesn't salvage your claims, though. You're still left with missionary service broadly being safer than being a young adult not serving a mission. No one ever claimed there were never heightened risks or dangers.

[_Runtu]

Ain't that the truth. We lived like dogs in my mission, and my MP didn't care one whit (even though he and his family lived in a very nice home in a nice neighborhood). And once out in the "field" (my mission covered the entirety of a large nation), you were on your own in terms of surviving. Communications were very primitive, so a missionary would generally only see or speak with the MP once every 6 months or so. So if you got sick (including serious illness) or needed money or food, you pretty much had to figure it out yourself. As a 19-year old, I thought all this was pretty cool and an adventure; looking back with hindsight, however, I saw how dangerous it was and how lucky I had been not be seriously hurt (some of my fellow missionaries were not so lucky). I hope things are different today, and that MP's (and the Church institution) take the safety of missionaries more seriously, particularly since the number of sister missionaries is soaring, and, in my experience, sister missionaries in foreign countries are particularly vulnerable to harm. With the huge influx of missionaries, I expect deaths and injuries to increase as well. I don't care what the stats say -- being a missionary (especially in a foreign country) is dangerous work and should be treated as such. The missionaries themselves are too young (especially the 18-year old boys) and naïve to really understand the danger, so the "adults" (MP's and the Church's Missionary Dept.) have to be particularly vigilant in watching over the missionaries' safety.

Sounds just like my mission. You weren't one of my companions, were you?

I look back on my mission and realize that we were pretty much on our own for just about everything. We had very little communication with the mission leaders, no reliable health care, terrible living conditions, periodic money trouble because of an unstable exchange rate, and basically no supervision whatsoever.

One of my companions spent two weeks in bed, and one of the welfare missionaries put an IV in (they were both nurse), and we took turns watching over him. He should have been in the hospital, but we didn't have money for that (we barely had enough to buy medicine), and when I called the mission president, the only advice he had was to keep him posted. If those two sisters hadn't been there, I wouldn't have known how sick he really was, and he could well have died.

Also, when I arrived in the mission, we had a big "zone dinner" at the welfare sisters' house. There was a sister missionary on a mattress in the middle of living room, pretty much unconscious, with an IV in her arm. I was in that house 3 more times over the following 3 weeks, and she had not moved or spoken in all that time. Finally, the mission president allowed her to go home.

I want to believe things have changed, but after talking to my son's friend, who recently returned from Paraguay, I don't think they have changed much.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

One of my companions spent two weeks in bed, and one of the welfare missionaries put an IV in (they were both nurse), and we took turns watching over him. He should have been in the hospital, but we didn't have money for that (we barely had enough to buy medicine), and when I called the mission president, the only advice he had was to keep him posted. If those two sisters hadn't been there, I wouldn't have known how sick he really was, and he could well have died.

Also, when I arrived in the mission, we had a big "zone dinner" at the welfare sisters' house. There was a sister missionary on a mattress in the middle of living room, pretty much unconscious, with an IV in her arm. I was in that house 3 more times over the following 3 weeks, and she had not moved or spoken in all that time. Finally, the mission president allowed her to go home.

That all sounds very similar to my mission experience. We would joke that "all we want is to get home alive." Medical treatment (which was needed frequently for most gringo missionaries) was hit or miss. We were kids trying to take care of ourselves with no "adult" supervision when it came to medical issues. We would never write home about our medical problems, because the MP hated to hear from parents worried about their kids' health. We really were on our own, unless someone was close to death's door which was the only thing that spurred the MP into action (which was usually just sending them home to the States for treatment).

[_SteelHead]

Mak,
The odd exceptions have very real impact. They are too legion to be ignored. The church puts youth into high risk situations with little resources and little supervision, and does little to mitigate risk.

With the reduction of age will fatality rates climb? Only time will tell.....

[_maklelan]

maklelan, you seem to be running off with a list of claims but not supporting them with facts.

1. What does the Church do, specifically, to minimise the risk to missionaries from either traffic accidents, health and safety incidents, physical harm, health problems, mental issues etc?

Numerous things. For instance, missionaries are trained in the MTC to take care of certain common health concerns, like ingrown toenails, tapeworms, diarrhea, etc. They are also briefed on common concerns specific to their destinations. Once in country, the mission president and his wife will give their own training regarding safety. Missionaries sent to areas with known safety issues are briefed individually by the president as well their trainers/companions. Missionaries are prohibited from entering neighborhoods that have a history of safety problems. Most missions these days also require missionaries to check in with district leaders each night to confirm their safety. As far as cars go, missionaries are required to have one companion out of the car backing the other out whenever they back out of a parking space. They are limited in the miles they may drive, and are required to report them. More recently, the church has begun attaching data collecting devices to missionary cars with the expressed purpose of assessing and monitoring safety. There is a whole risk management team assigned to gather and interpret data to help missionaries be safer. One of the things they look at, for instance, is how much basketball they play on P-days, since injuries are more common for that sport than any other. Some missions even ban basketball as a result. There are also hundreds of factsheets and checklists for all kinds of situations (translated into many languages) that are sent to mission leaders and individual missionaries whenever or wherever there is heightened risk (e.g., Hantavirus, Bedbugs, Avian Flu, Rural Drinking Water Systems, High Altitude Illness, Radon, Bioterrorism, Sexual Assault Prevention, and hundreds of others). I could go on indefinitely.

2. What facts are you referring to when you claim they show 'harm' rates for missionaries are fewer than those not serving missions? Please supply the data. (Note: Mortality rates for that specific age group across general society isn't relevant.

There's that claim again. I think to say it is completely irrelevant is ridiculously disingenuous. It may not be a 1 to 1 correspondence, but it is the closest data set readily available, and the extenuating circumstances suggested on this thread are laughable.

The comparison should be between Missionaries and their Mormon peer group who don't serve Missions. Because if we are doing Apples and Oranges comparisons we could say the data shows that serving as a missionary is massively more dangerous than serving as a Mission President).

You have no such data. You're just making assumptions. You don't appear to know much about "Mormon peer groups" anyway.

3. You give the impression that Mission Presidents lose out financially by serving. Really?

Usually, yes.

Do Mission Presidents receive any kind of remuneration, benefits, expenses etc from the Church during the period of their service? If yes, how much?

They are provided with a house while they are serving, and they are reimbursed for certain expenses (food, clothing, insurance, tuition for children in-country, vehicle operating costs, etc. I had to tell my president that he couldn't be reimbursed for certain things on multiple occasions when I was the financial secretary). Mission funds are prohibited from entering any personal accounts belonging to mission presidents, and they are even required to pay for any equipment (computers, etc.) they want to bring home at the conclusion of their missions. They can bring personal funds with them, but they're on their own when it comes to taxes or tax counseling.

4. What, specifically, are the things that have changed recently when you claim "things have changed recently" with regards to missionary service that makes missions safer?

The risk management department is now exercising much more thorough oversight and is instituting policies in accordance with the information they're gathering. Mission presidents are a lot more informed about safety issues these days and are trained to be much more proactive about safety. Technology also allows for safer working environments, better facilitating of information, and faster response times to emergencies.

[_maklelan]

Mak,
The odd exceptions have very real impact.

I never said they didn't. The odd exception to safety trends is also an inevitability. It is physically impossible to prevent all injury or death, but the Church does an incredible job minimizing it for their missionaries. As one who sees the inner-workings of those processes, I can promise you your assumptions and accusations are absolutely unfounded.

They are too legion to be ignored.

I disagree entirely. The "odd exception" is exactly that: an odd exception.

The church puts youth into high risk situations with little resources and little supervision, and does little to mitigate risk.

A completely and utter mischaracterization of the situation based on nothing more than a few outdated anecdotes and a bevy of ideologically driven assumptions.

With the reduction of age will fatality rates climb? Only time will tell.....

But you'll be there to make assumptions while we wait, no doubt.

[_SteelHead]

Mak,
Provide something to make your assertions more supported than mine.