Missionaries & the Internet

[_Dr. Shades]

It isn't a burden to share what you have with someone else. And why isn't it the responsibility to aid in the missionary work.

See Gadianton's excellent reply. ("Aid[ing] in the missionary work" is not the same thing as "feeding the missionaries.")

When a family has the missionaries in for dinner, more happens than just eating. The members get acquainted with the misisonaries, the members get a little pep talk on doing missionary work, the missionaries give a challenge which some members actually take on, children in the family get the example of young men and women working for the Lord. And yes, they get a little food out of the deal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally fine and dandy with members volunteering to feed missionaries if they want to. I have a real problem with the church dictating to members to feed missionaries in order to keep more money for itself. The church has billions of dollars in spare change lying around the offices--enough to buy up a few square blocks of Salt Lake City and remodel them for no good reason--so it darn well has enough to adequately feed its missionaries, which it called out there to the field in the first place.

Remember that scripture in I Nephi about "the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of men saveth he prepare a way for them to fulfill that which he commandeth them" (or something like that)? Well, the church isn't doing this. It wants to squeeze every little bit of blood out of the members without having to pony up any $ on its own. Gotta buy that mall, I guess.

My husband served in South America 50 years ago. They actually had it pretty good. A decent apartment and a maid.

That's great. That's the way it should've been.

And isn't it really rough on our affluent American boys to have to live without air conditioning and running water, which by the way 99% of the world puts up with. I think it is good for them to learn that maybe life isn't all aobut comfort and ease.

You don't have to practice to be miserable. It might be fine and dandy for missionaries to learn that maybe life isn't all about comfort and ease, provided the missionary himself chooses to teach himself that. But I don't think a mission is a place for such lessons to be taught. Let the guy join the Marines beforehand (like I did) if he so desires, for example. Again, the poor guy or girl was called to be there. The least the church could do is uphold its own half of the deal.

Have you ever served a mission? Even if a missionary lives in the lap of luxury, with butlers, cooks, and masseuses waiting on him hand and foot, the missionary experience is more than enough of a mindf*** to teach him or her that life isn't all about comfort and ease anyway. If the (unnecessary) physical privations of missionary work don't do you in, the mental jerkings-around most certainly will. Right, beastie? Right, Mercury? Right, anyone else on this board who's served a mission?

I know a missionary who lost a lot of weight on a mission in Korea. That was mainly because he hated the food. Not because it wasn't around.

Then that's his own fault and doesn't really figure into this conversation, methinks.

I know of missionaries who have had serious medical problems and they have had good care. My son was run over by a car in Germany. (Fortunately it was a foreign car. He was on his bike, the car backed over him and then pulled forward running over his foot a second time.) His branch president was a captain in the Amry. An MD. He got good care.

So your son was extremely lucky because, against all odds, he just so happened to have a branch president who was a captain in the Army. NEWSFLASH: Not every missionary's branch president is a captain in the U.S. Army who can finagle up A+ medical care when necessary, believe it or not. In other words, your son's experience is the lone exception, not the rule, so the church still isn't "off the hook."

Exception =/= rule.

Your characterization of the Church is both bitter and inaccurate. Do you really want us to believe that your posts have anything to do with sympathy for missionaries?

Yes, I do. I WAS A MISSIONARY, remember? And as big of a pain as Japan was, it was easy street compared to Central or South America.

How about trying to find a way to stick it to the Church?

Only when the church desperately needs to have it "stuck" to them. Which, in this case, it most certainly does.

[_charity]

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally fine and dandy with members volunteering to feed missionaries if they want to. I have a real problem with the church dictating to members to feed missionaries in order to keep more money for itself. The church has billions of dollars in spare change lying around the offices--enough to buy up a few square blocks of Salt Lake City and remodel them for no good reason--so it darn well has enough to adequately feed its missionaries, which it called out there to the field in the first place.

And you think we don't volunteer? They pass the dinner calendar around in Relief Society. Yes, there was a complaint a while back. From the sisters working Primary, Young Women, and the Nursery, because they didn't have a chance to get to feed the misisonaries because the calendar was already filled up. Now, the person in charge of the calendar goes to those organizations and give the sisters a chance to get to host them.

You act as if a mission call is like a bird of prey swooping down and snatching a young man up and dropping him in some third world country. The young man or woman fills out an application ASKING to be called on a mission. When the call is extended, the young man or woman ACCEPTS the call.

You don't have to practice to be miserable. It might be fine and dandy for missionaries to learn that maybe life isn't all about comfort and ease, provided the missionary himself chooses to teach himself that. But I don't think a mission is a place for such lessons to be taught. Let the guy join the Marines beforehand (like I did) if he so desires, for example. Again, the poor guy or girl was called to be there. The least the church could do is uphold its own half of the deal.

Learn to be miserable? This is your first mistake. The idea is to learn that happiness doesn't depend on a decadent lifestyle. You can be happy without air conditioning, without Perrier, even without three square meals a day. And the missionary chooses to accept a call to a specific mission. If a diet which is not based on rice is that important to him, the young man can turn down the mission to Korea. But the young elders accept those calls, because the service is more important than the physical circumstances.

Oh, yes, my grandson did go into the Marines first. He finished up his courses to graduate from high school by December, went into basic training in January, finished up basic and his MOS, had his applicaiton in for a mission when he turned 19 and got his call 3 weeks later.

Have you ever served a mission? Even if a missionary lives in the lap of luxury, with butlers, cooks, and masseuses waiting on him hand and foot, the missionary experience is more than enough of a mindf*** to teach him or her that life isn't all about comfort and ease anyway. If the (unnecessary) physical privations of missionary work don't do you in, the mental jerkings-around most certainly will. Right, beastie? Right, Mercury? Right, anyone else on this board who's served a mission?

I did not serve a two year proselyting mission. I have served a senior mission, but I had a great companion, (my husband) and due to medical issues, served while living in my own home. Never missed any meals.

I am sure you can find some people who had terrible times on their missions. Life is a test. Some pass. Some fail. (Some who fail the quizzes, will still be able to pull it out on the final. Don't give up hope for them.) And you can hear all kinds of stories about privations and problems and challenges told at family get togethers and everybody laughs, including the person who went through it all. And the group here who will bellyache are a pretty self-selected group. Not too many TBM's want to hang out with this crowd.

I know of missionaries who have had serious medical problems and they have had good care. My son was run over by a car in Germany. (Fortunately it was a foreign car. He was on his bike, the car backed over him and then pulled forward running over his foot a second time.) His branch president was a captain in the Amry. An MD. He got good care.

I know of others who were brought home for medical treatment. Of course, some missionaries are in areas where medical facilities aren't up to our American standard. One of my daughter's friends had to be brought home from Brazel. My daughter who served a mission in Switzerland lost a mission companion due to Swiss medical treatment. The companion survived but had to be sent home for treatment after her injury was not treated adequately by the Swiss medical establishment. Who would have thought that of the Swiss? Suppose you were hiking around Bangladesh on vacation and got injured and couldn't get good medical treatment right away? Same thing. And remember, all calls are ACCEPTED when the person knows where they will be going.

Your characterization of the Church is both bitter and inaccurate. Do you really want us to believe that your posts have anything to do with sympathy for missionaries?

Yes, I do. I WAS A MISSIONARY, remember? And as big of a pain as Japan was, it was easy street compared to Central or South America.

So bring on a bunch of returned missionaries who hated their missions to Central or South America, who wished they had never gone on a mission at all. Who envyed their friends who went to Canada and Japan and England. I know lots of returned missionaries from these areas and they laugh about their "hardships" now.

How about trying to find a way to stick it to the Church?

Only when the church desperately needs to have it "stuck" to them. Which, in this case, it most certainly does.

You have no dog in this fight.

[_the road to hana]

You raised a grandchild? What happened to the parents?

His parents are fine. They have a good relationship with him. It was a complicated situation. They were not active in Church at the time. He was 14 and, like another 14 year old we all know, was a serious kid, who had some serious questions about what God wanted for him in his life. He felt he needed a change of friends and a home where the Gospel was a stronger influence. He asked his parents and us if he could live with us. We all agreed. All the adults survived, and it was a great choice for him.

I suspect that's an oversimplification. I imagine there was a lot more involved that that.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

There's no time for playing on the internet. The rule in sales is ABC - Always Be Closing. How can a missionary always be closing if they're screwing around on the internet?

[_MishMagnet]

But I thought coffee was for closers??

[_Jason Bourne]

He must be serving in the U.S.A. Missionaries in other countries aren't nearly as lucky. There isn't always a member base that's willing (or able) to feed missionaries.

I imagine where there are fewer members it may be more challanging.

I served in Japan and would commonly go weeks without a dinner appointment. I lost about 10~15 pounds on my mission.

When I served members were not expected to help feed the missionaries like we are now. We took care of most of our meals on our own. I served in the US and lost weight more because I walked a lot then anything else.

Besides, it's not the members' responsibility to feed missionaries anyway.

Perhaps. The Church asks members to help out with this now. They are also asking for members to help house missionaries at least in the US. A cynical view of this is the Church is doing this so they can save the bucks. Some may say this is a way to keep mission costs down and make it more affordable for missionaries to serve. I served from 79-81 in the US. My mission cost was before the standardized on price for all no matter where they serve. My US mission was about $250 per month. Standard costs are now $400. So the cost of a mission seems to have been kept down when adjusted for inflation.

It's the church's responsibility to ensure that its volunteers are able to adequately feed themselves sans outside help--a responsibility it's apparently willing to shirk even more than before.

This is debatable. When one looks at the New Testament command to preach without purse or scrip and what being a missionary is all about it seems that some of the responsibility is on the missionary. Proper budgeting should allow a missionary to do quite fine as far as eating and housing. Are they going to live in luxury? Of course not.

Also, the church typically houses its missionaries in the cheapest places available. Japan was bad enough--no insulation, air conditioning, or central heating--but I can't begin to imagine what it must be like for missionaries in South America whose apartments have dirt floors and no running water.

Once again I think this varies from mission to misson and to blanketly assert this is typical in not correct.

Combined with the way that missionaries are all but denied access to adequate medical and dental care, the way the multi-billion dollar tax exempt corporate church empire treats its missionaries--especially when it has billions of dollars lying around to build a mall--is nothing short of deplorable.

This is simply inaccurate. THe Church actually monitors the health on the missionaries quite well and makes sure when they need appropriate attention they get it. I have witnessed this time and time again and have talked with many men who have served as MPs about how they dealt with medical issues.

[_Roger Morrison]

We have just enjoyed the biggest Pharisaic Demo-party, of this corruption in the last 12 months. FUN-FUN!! With another planned for Dec 25, '08! YIKES:-)

You don't have to celebrate Christmas if you don't want to, Roger.

Thanks Doc, for stating the obvious. Maybe you missed this part of my post on page two??

te]Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the family stuff, and happy times. But to be deluded into thinking THAT pays tribute to Jesus is one of the biggest scams ever created by marketing genius, and Ecclesiastic's story tellers. It is THE "Ponzie" of the century, ROTFL!!! (bolded words added in this post)
[/quote]

At your age i probably would have said what you said. Time has changed my mind on several issues, Christmas is only one of them. I'm all for holidays! As i said above.

Not much for holy-days. Made more unpalatable when tied into materialistic profiteering. Ya know, like them downtown SLC malls. The idea that Christmas is an original Christian celebration, from minute-one in a stable--as suggested by the ubiquitous Nativity Scenes that proliferate the "Holiday" landscape--is really less believable that the story of St Nicholas, the generous Russian Priest. Who distrbuted gifts to little children.

Seems we might both have Missions, yours to dissuade Mormonism, mine to dissuade Christmas. Lost causes?? At least we're trying, Right? And, i am on your side there ;-) Take all the holidays you can get. Just take Christ out'a christmas... Warm regards, Roger

[_Jason Bourne]

Infymus's gets his information directly from the church. Read his blog before you say I don't know what I am talking about.

I have. I find much of it dubious.

[_Jason Bourne]

Shades pretty much sums it up.

Shades summed it up somewhat innacuratly and narrowly with a cynical spin.

Charity yes we will always find a way to stick to the church on this board.
Have you forgotten where you are at?

Misery. Last I checked the purpose of this board was a free and unmoderated discussion of things LDS. Pro or con. Not to stick it to the Church though there are those who do that...some with rampant stupidity.

[_Jason Bourne]

Have you ever served a mission? Even if a missionary lives in the lap of luxury, with butlers, cooks, and masseuses waiting on him hand and foot, the missionary experience is more than enough of a mindf*** to teach him or her that life isn't all about comfort and ease anyway. If the (unnecessary) physical privations of missionary work don't do you in, the mental jerkings-around most certainly will. Right, beastie? Right, Mercury? Right, anyone else on this board who's served a mission?

While I look back on some of the "pressures" to produce converts as perhaps less then appropriate I overall have very little complaints about the time I served a mission, still look at it with much fondness and believe I got more out of it then I put in. My guess is the majority of returned missionaries have as much if not more positive views of their experience then negative. I think your negative and cynical view is exacerbated by the fact that you are now totally disaffected. Mine could be tainted by the fact that I am not. But I am sort of in between so maybe my view is more objective. So no, not right shades. Not at all.