Missionaries & the Internet

[_harmony]

Some thoughts about the missionary program:

1. None of my sons suffered unduly nor were they in any way deprived while on their missions. Their living quarters were the same standard as anyone else in the area they served (which varied greatly depending on the area). Only the son who went to the Japan mission wasn't regularly fed by the members. Even the Costa Rica missionary son was fed by the members (he still hates plantains to this day).

2. In my ward, the families take turns feeding the missionaries 3 nights a week. When my youngest son still lived at home we fed them too. They were hilarious to have over for dinner, and we enjoyed them all so much. I'm just sad that I can no longer feed them (another of those stupid rules about them not being able to come to a home where only women can be certain they will be home. My Sweet Pickle is often called out on ambulance runs, and the missionaries would go hungry if we signed up for a night when he got a call).

3. None of the missionaries here is housed with a family. They all have their own apartments.

4. I appreciated the standardization of the missionary cost per month. No way would we have been able to afford to send my oldest to Japan, which was at $600 a month, prior to standardization. We paid $350 a month. None of my sons was used to living in the lap of luxury, so comments about air conditioning go unheard.

5. My 2nd son came home early for back surgery due to a slipped disk. He was in New Jersey, but the mission sent him home for his surgery. None of the others had any medical problems, so I don't know how the medical conditions in Japan an Costa Rica stacked up, but a neighbor's son needed an appendectomy while he served in Japan at the same time as my oldest son. He was treated at the US military base hospital, not at a Japanese hospital.

All things being equal, my sons were not harmed at all by their missionary service. All of them consider it to have been a good experience in their lives. Our family was not economically harmed either, but that's likely because our missionaries were a family project. Many people contributed monthly to support them, so our nuclear family didn't end up on welfare.

[_Roger Morrison]

Jason Bourne said:

".... 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...."

This could be a boon to low-income members who might have an extra room and bathroom to rent out. I certainly can't imagine any member would be expected to "Room" then as a "freebie"?? In my home area a going rent for such a place would run $500.00 to $675.00. Just called an agent here in Florida about a small detached bungy, $525.00 + services?? Would be a very nice income supplement to many widows and/or retirees.

That said, i do think there would be some pros and cons. A lot to consider. But, isn't there always, eh? Roger

[_solomarineris]

Sucks being a missionary.

Really?

How do you know. Were you ever one? I was. I actually enjoyed it and look back at the two years with grand fondness. During that time an awkward 19 year old grew up, learned a lot about life, became confident, learned to work hard and have taken all that I learned into other endeavors that I have been quite successful at.

Good for you JB,
The feeling is among many RM's are as genuine as your name. I heard of many more miserable RM stories than happy ones.
I bet the retention failure to keep them as brainwashed is less than 40%.

[_Jersey Girl]

No I was never a missionary so I would not know, but reading these posts tells me enough that it would suck.
Of course you liked your mission but there have been many others that have not.

Now I have read that the church has cut their monthly money for food down to 110.00 a month. How can anyone live on 110.00 dollars a month for food? They must be hungry all the time. Doesn't the parents pay close to 400.00 a month to the church for the missionary? So where does the rest of the money go?

The church is so rich I would think they could support the missionaries themselves and have them living in lap of luxury because the missionaries are the salesmen for the church and should be paid accordingly. Instead they are living in run down places and forced to live on 110.00 for food. Something does not add up here.

Did the disciples of Christ live in the "lap of luxury"? For that matter, did Christ?

Did my grandparents have a computer?

Did my great grandparents get a ride to school in the morning?

The disciples also wiped their backsides with moss or something the like.

And how precisely is this relevant?

They lived in a different time and place when the vast majority of the population had limited means, had access to few luxuries, worked far in excess of 40 hours a week mostly doing manual labor, had limited leisure time, etc.

So to be authentic "servants" of God today, the Mormon Missionaries must live like Christ's disciples did 2000 years ago?

Give me a friggn' break.

Excuse me. I was referring to self sacrifice. Geez.

[_harmony]

Sucks being a missionary.

Really?

How do you know. Were you ever one? I was. I actually enjoyed it and look back at the two years with grand fondness. During that time an awkward 19 year old grew up, learned a lot about life, became confident, learned to work hard and have taken all that I learned into other endeavors that I have been quite successful at.

Good for you JB,
The feeling is among many RM's are as genuine as your name. I heard of many more miserable RM stories than happy ones.
I bet the retention failure to keep them as brainwashed is less than 40%.

Not in my ward. RM's are at over 90% active. Very very few who were missionaries go inactive over their lifespan, or at least the last 35+ years that I've been in this ward. Those that didn't go are at about 70% active, but that's a much smaller sample.

[_Dr. Shades]

And you think we don't volunteer? They pass the dinner calendar around in Relief Society.

With all due respect, Charity, you're entirely missing my point. I am not criticizing the members for failing to volunteer. I am criticizing the corporate church empire for requiring members to volunteer just so it can hold on to a few extra dollars.

The members have enough to deal with. If they volunteer to feed missionaries due to the kindness of their own hearts, then God bless them. But it's not fair to force members to support the missionaries when the church has all the resources it could ever possibly need in order to do the job itself.

If the church were a poor church, still in "startup mode," then it would be well within its rights to ask for additional member sacrifices, such as back in Christ's day of "take no purse or scrip." But the church has innumerable billions in loose change littering its office floors, enough to remodel downtown Salt Lake City for no real reason, (maybe Gordon B. Hinckley is just tired of the cityscape from his office window and wants a new view) so it is immoral to financially gouge the members even more to further the missionary program.

(Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that the church is true) back in Christ's day, the missionaries took no thought for purse or scrip because God would provide on-the-spot (He didn't have a coroporate empire yet). Nowadays, God provides for the missionaries out of His multi-billion dollar surplus, but the unrighteous stewards want to divert God's money away from the missionaries so that they can remodel downtown Salt Lake City and buy up a few malls during intermission. It is immoral to withhold the missionaries' bread from their mouths and force the members to replace it out of their pockets.

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.

Right, but it is immoral for the church to perpetuate the illusion that the status quo is "just the way it is." It has the money to take care of its missionaries, but instead it wants the members to pony up even more time, money, and resources so it doesn't have to.

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.

Right. You can be happy anywhere. But as long as the church is wallowing in innumerable billions of excess dollars, it is morally obligated to provide its missionaries--which are entirely dependent on it--a lifestyle of American-level baseline acceptability. What this means is that each missionary dwelling should have a man-made floor, insulation, heating & air conditioning, and hot & cold indoor plumbing. Plus each missionary should have enough money for three (square) meals a day.

Is that the lap of luxury? No, it is considered to be the baseline acceptable standard of living in the United States. That's not wealth; it's baseline.

Now, can missionaries survive on less? Yes, of course they can. Tens of thousands are doing it right as you read this sentence. My point is that missionaries shouldn't have to be required to survive on less as long as its "mother church" is sitting on a multi-billion dollar mega-surplus. Neither should the members be forced to sacrifice for the missionary program due to no other reason than the church is too stingy with its innumerable billions to do so itself.

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.

So he learned all about hardship and privation beforehand. The church didn't need to beat him down further.

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.

So you never had to endure what many of the missionaries are unnecessarily forced to endure.

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.

Fine. Many women who are emotionally and physically abused manage to extricate themselves from their situations and go on to enjoy happy and fulfilling lives. Even so, That doesn't absolve the original abuser of his guilt.

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.

Right, but that doesn't change the truthfulness of my premise one whit.

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.

Medical services are far more tricky, but the church is morally obligated to do the minimum--give the missionaries a baseline American standard of living.

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.

Again you miss the point entirely. THE MISSIONARIES THEMSELVES ARE NOT AT FAULT. The church is at fault for allowing missionaries to needlessly suffer due to its deplorable stinginess.

You have no dog in this fight.

On the contrary. I HAVE A DOG IN EVERY FIGHT ON THE FACE OF PLANET EARTH IN WHICH INJUSTICE CURRENTLY HAS THE UPPER-HAND.

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.

YES YES YES!! All the less reason for the church to lay extra burdens on the members. They often fail to think these things through, methinks.

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.

Right, but THAT'S NOT HOW IT IS ANYMORE. Thanks for the walk down memory lane, but with all due respect, we're all on chapter 2 now.

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

Perhaps. The Church asks members to help out with this now.

YES. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FOR MANY PAGES NOW. THANKS FOR JOINING US.

They are also asking for members to help house missionaries at least in the US.

That too. They're of course asking for members to do this on their own dime (yet again), right?

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.

Only if the church ends up cutting the costs, which I rather doubt it'll do.

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.

No, the New Testament command is referring to the fact that God will provide. As I stated above, nowadays God provides out of the coffers of His multi-billion dollar global corporate empire, but the unrighteous stewards who run it would rather redirect God's money into their own pet projects.

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.

Missionaries will always have to budget, but (again, yet again) the least the church can do is have dwellings fit for human habitation waiting for them when they arrive.

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.

AS LONG AS THERE IS EVEN ONE SUB-STANDARD, UNLIVABLE DWELLING-PLACE INTO WHICH MISSIONARIES HAVE BEEN HERDED, IT IS ONE DWELLING-PLACE TOO MANY.

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.

Then I guess it'll just have to be an anecdote vs. anecdote war. For every kind, conscientious mission president out there, I'm sure there has been at least one other who has made it a point to black-brush missionaries in need of medical help as "lazy," "unprofitable servants," etc. You don't have to look too far on the 'net to encounter RMs such as this.

Misery. Last I checked the purpose of this board was a free and unmoderated discussion of things LDS. Pro or con.

And you're 100% correct.

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.

You also served in the U.S.A. So unnecessary physical privations aren't a factor in your fond recollections.

but a neighbor's son needed an appendectomy while he served in Japan at the same time as my oldest son. He was treated at the US military base hospital, not at a Japanese hospital.

Interesting. The junior companion in the other companionship in my four-man apartment needed an appendectomy, too. But he was treated in a Japanese hospital. I was appalled at how deplorable the conditions were. Food and stains on the walls, discarded food in buckets in the halls, people smoking in the patients' rooms, etc.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

Excuse me for butting in here again, but yet another ignorant thought came to me. Given the information that ex-mo's have access to, would it have been a good idea to remain in the church on some level to bring this type of information (church wealth vs expenditures on Missionaries) to the Ward members at grassroots level?

Dumb @ssedly yours,
Jersey Girl

[_guy sajer]

No I was never a missionary so I would not know, but reading these posts tells me enough that it would suck.
Of course you liked your mission but there have been many others that have not.

Now I have read that the church has cut their monthly money for food down to 110.00 a month. How can anyone live on 110.00 dollars a month for food? They must be hungry all the time. Doesn't the parents pay close to 400.00 a month to the church for the missionary? So where does the rest of the money go?

The church is so rich I would think they could support the missionaries themselves and have them living in lap of luxury because the missionaries are the salesmen for the church and should be paid accordingly. Instead they are living in run down places and forced to live on 110.00 for food. Something does not add up here.

Did the disciples of Christ live in the "lap of luxury"? For that matter, did Christ?

Did my grandparents have a computer?

Did my great grandparents get a ride to school in the morning?

The disciples also wiped their backsides with moss or something the like.

And how precisely is this relevant?

They lived in a different time and place when the vast majority of the population had limited means, had access to few luxuries, worked far in excess of 40 hours a week mostly doing manual labor, had limited leisure time, etc.

So to be authentic "servants" of God today, the Mormon Missionaries must live like Christ's disciples did 2000 years ago?

Give me a friggn' break.

Excuse me. I was referring to self sacrifice. Geez.

Ok, fair enough. With due respect, though, your post appeared to me to imply something a bit more than this.

[_Jersey Girl]

No I was never a missionary so I would not know, but reading these posts tells me enough that it would suck.
Of course you liked your mission but there have been many others that have not.

Now I have read that the church has cut their monthly money for food down to 110.00 a month. How can anyone live on 110.00 dollars a month for food? They must be hungry all the time. Doesn't the parents pay close to 400.00 a month to the church for the missionary? So where does the rest of the money go?

The church is so rich I would think they could support the missionaries themselves and have them living in lap of luxury because the missionaries are the salesmen for the church and should be paid accordingly. Instead they are living in run down places and forced to live on 110.00 for food. Something does not add up here.

Did the disciples of Christ live in the "lap of luxury"? For that matter, did Christ?

Did my grandparents have a computer?

Did my great grandparents get a ride to school in the morning?

The disciples also wiped their backsides with moss or something the like.

And how precisely is this relevant?

They lived in a different time and place when the vast majority of the population had limited means, had access to few luxuries, worked far in excess of 40 hours a week mostly doing manual labor, had limited leisure time, etc.

So to be authentic "servants" of God today, the Mormon Missionaries must live like Christ's disciples did 2000 years ago?

Give me a friggn' break.

Excuse me. I was referring to self sacrifice. Geez.

Ok, fair enough. With due respect, though, your post appeared to me to imply something a bit more than this.

My post was simply a lead in question. I ignorantly thought Misery could engage in discussion by replying sanely to it. My mistake.

[_MishMagnet]

A little off-subject but I do take issue with saying missions for men are voluntary. I feel they are voluntary like taking over the family business is voluntary. Certainly you have the option to go but the price you'd pay to say no is very high indeed. It was voluntary for me. As a woman. It was always posed as "if" you go on a mission. "If" you choose a mission. I didn't feel any pressure to go. I did feel it was a free choice and did start the process that same year I ended up leaving the church. With boys, though it's "when". "When" you are on your mission. "When" he's on his mission. He'll be on his mission then. Now that I'm out of the church I notice this much more. I hear my sisters saying it even though their boys are under 10 years of age. It's what you do. Not doing it is a shame to the family and taking down your stock in the church by a lot. Usually it means you've had sex or have done some other dastardly deed that has exluded you from serving. It's shaming. One of my college roommates married a man who didn't go on a mission. He wasn't allowed to. His high school girlfriend had gotten pregnant and had an abortion. She was a non-member. He's still an active member and this was 18 years ago. People still ask her and him both - where did he serve his mission? It's just assumed. And, ashamed, they say he didn't then leave people to draw their own conclusions. It's not good at all for your social currency in the church to not serve a mission if you are a man. Even if you are an athlete there are stories about so-and-so who turned down a full scholarship to serve a mission. There really isn't a good excuse for not going.

Thus, I don't feel it's voluntary. I feel it has the pretense of being voluntary but it's not at all. Kind of like how I'm setting my kids up to go to college. It's 'voluntary' but I'm going to be really upset if they don't go. I'm planning for them to go, I'm saving money for them to go, I'm plugging it every chance I get as something they should do. Thus I'm hoping yeah, I hope they'll thank me later while really it's just important to me personally that they go.