As for problems on the LDS missionary program, which are numerous, I’ll list a few.

1) The push to baptize, and not convert. Very often missionaries are pushed to baptize and teach a certain amount of discussions, and often people are baptized and go less-active soon thereafter. The problem of converts leaving the church shortly after conversion is serious and not uncommon.

2) Missionary health on the line. While many many others had it worse than I did, missionary healthcare was/perhaps still is non-existent. How often do missionaries go to the dentist while on their mission? Often none unless they need a tooth pulled, and so forth with other issues. I still have dental problems from my mission. On my mission our allotments were so small we sometimes had to pray for food just to make it through the month. With the limited funds obtained, we could only buy bulk and unhealthy foods. We couldn’t purchase fruits, vegatbles, or anything, and health was a regular problem on my mission. Flues and colds became more commonplace, and the cycle continued. Missionaries should be regularly checked for physical, as well psychological health while on their mission.

3) Utopia about finding those interested and mission rules. I have a family member on a mission in the USA and the work is slow. In response, mission leaders have now made a rule that missionaries can’t be fed by the members on weekdays because the “best proselytizing time is between 5 and 7 pm”. Members can drop food off, but missionaries should be out tracting during this time. (I don’t live in Utah, FYI) And missionaries in some of the other US states I have lived in can only eat with members from 5 to 6. Since many people don’t get off work till five or later, many missionaries can’t be fed by members. Thus, the need more money for food, but mission leaders continue to keep mission funds low to teach missionaries to budget, which leads to the previous problem I mentioned. And overall, the whole issue of utopia could be discussed on numerous other issues, but I don’t have time to discuss them all.

Overall, I would give the church’s missionary program a C- for effectiveness, perhaps lower since so many converts go less-active after baptism. I would challenge church leaders to be more practical and not so utopian about missionary work and its administration. I study the history of LDS missionary work, and certain unaddressed problems continue to occur because missionary work is viewed religiously and not practically. Its glorified drudgery for many, though some find ways to focus on the positive and push aside and forget the negative.

Plus if the church ever bothers to research this they will may find, in mho, an unacceptable level of PTSD, plus counting the injured and even dead missionaries -who are remembered less than Vietnam vets since at least the Vietnam guys have a monument. Dead Mormon missionaries? nope, just let the parents remember them!! and yes I am bitter about this.

As for the new areas opened in your mission, I reopened two and they might have been ones you were thinking of. La Orotava, on Tenerife and Los Llanos on La Palma (technically not the first missionary there, but myself and someone you know quite well spent many a day on buses to try and find housing in that place).

How someone views missions generally is dependent heavily (and sometimes entirely) on their own mission experience – or on the experiences of those about whom they hear, if they didn’t serve a mission. Since those who had wonderful experiences generally aren’t as vocal or visible on the internet, and since someone who is a bit (or grearly) disaffected would be more likely to find others who are the same, it can appear that missions are terribly destructive for FAR more people than they actually are. I don’t mean to downplay the trauma for those for whom it really was brutal, but I believe there is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy and bias confirmation that happens for BOTH those who think missions are good and those who think they are bad.

Yes, yes, yes, YES!

I learned a lot on my mission. There were many good experiences and I forged some relationships that I would otherwise have missed out on. At the same time, some of the worst, most traumatic, horrible experiences in my life were also had on my mission. (I am still fighting PTSD over some of these things. It’s been 3 years. However, I am doing better than some missionaries I served with: we’ve already had an RM drive out into the desert and shoot himself, just months after getting home, and there was one hospitalization for psychological reasons I am aware of.) Re: 54, Given the “bar raising,” it is no longer reasonable or charitable to teach that RM status is sine qua non in husband selection. Missions just aren’t for some people. Working at the MTC, I see occasional signs that the Church may be considering other kinds of service for those who would be (and often are) damaged by the usual proselytizing experience. I hope that those opportunities open up, and soon.

Of course, a great deal of one’s mission experience will be determined by the Mission President and other leadership. My mission experiences (and I had a good president) radically altered my theology and experience within the Church. I now have much less confidence in leaders in general and local leaders in particular. I don’t think I would could ever again approach a Bishop or Stake President with a concern –– that is reserved for those whom I trust (generally family members). Worse, even though I realize cognitively that righteousness = blessings (or should), I no longer feel it or trust it; there were too many occasions on which the opposite was consistently true.

There were blessings the arose out of my mission service, but I know that I would be a happier person had I not served in that capacity. Perhaps one day I will see that my happiness is not the most important consideration, and that the blessings I received are of greater value. For now, though, I would trade it all back for the capacity to trust again and smile more often.

Yes, JD, that can be true. I have a friend that is thinking of leaving the church for this very reason. He has a more fluid sense of religion and has never viewed the LDS church as the one true church. Perhaps because of this, he never served a mission. He is feeling ostracized right now and is looking elsewhere to find a wife, because he thinks he will never find one in the church.

The priesthood angle is irrelevant at reducing the effectiveness of sisters because teaching is not linked to priesthood, just the performance of ordinances. Women teach in the church plenty. Ordinances like baptism and conferring the Holy Ghost must be performed by an Elder, but if there were fewer Elders than baptisms, a local member with the office of Elder also has the priesthood authority to perform a baptism. So I can’t imagine this would be a serious issue if more women were to serve. Women could probably not go into an area with no members to “open up” a new area. Elders would still be required to do that because of the ordinance angle. But that’s not so common an activity that there would not be enough Elders to accomplish it. I can only think of a few times in my mission where a new area was opened (and it was done by Elders).

But I was surprised you didn’t list in your reasons why the church didn’t encoruage women missions the fact that women aren’t priesthood. The office of Elder has traditionally been the prosyletizing (sp?) arm of the church and going on missions is surely a form of ministry. You don’t think this would be the primary reason that women wouldn’t be pressed into a type of ministry usually peformed by priesthood?

I didn’t experience doors closing because women missionaries were diminishing the product in the view of the buyer. Quite the opposite, in fact. Investigators were impressed with women and men who believed in something deeply enough to dedicate two years of their life to it.

I watched many conversions during my years attending singles congregations. The converts there had all types of social backgrounds and various levels of higher education. They were not looking for inequality between genders. They were looking for who they are, what their relationship is to Christ, and a community with sisters and brothers serving together toward fulfilling the mission of the church.

I believe (rightly or wrongly) that the church’s stance is for two reasons:
1 – the first is a little outdated and relates to the norm of marrying young in the church. If a woman marries young (I’m calling 19 a young average), this gives her 3 more years of child-bearing than a woman marrying directly after her homecoming talk. As the average marital age increases and the use of birth control becomes the norm within the church (it already is), the reason to not encourage women to go on missions (increased membership through breeding) largely evaporates.
2 – fraternization. If the number of men and women serving is roughly equal, there will be more instances of missionaries being distracted from their key purpose through fraternization with the opposite sex. This is already curbed greatly by the age difference.

I don’t see either of those two reasons as outweighing the potential benefits to women who serve at this point, although that has probably changed over time.

I would also disagree with the premise that the church prizes converts at the lower socio-economic level. While there is mass there, there are accompanying issues:
1 – great financial strain on the church. I know from personal experience that converts who were extremely poor immediately required assistance from local members and did not have the resilience or the resources to contribute. They were a drain on resources. It’s better to convert those who are stable so they can be contributors.
2 – while you are right that the less advantaged are tribal (loyal), the leadership of the church are not from the ranks of the less advantaged. The church is prosperous. There is a vision of a church of prosperous, successful individuals that is at odds with your NASCAR description. Now, in some wards, the reality may be more NASCAR, but John Hunstman pays more tithing than Bro. NASCAR and is probably better equipped to handle the demands of a lay clergy responsibility. IMO, the leadership of the church sets their sights high. They want stable families to be converted. They want successful people. It’s much easier to bring them in that way than to build them from the ground up (which is the Plan B).

Hawkgrrl thinks going on missions supports the church’s “staying power”; therefore she thinks encouraging women to go on missions would further encourage “staying power.”

I doubt however, anyone would think sending cross dressing homosexuals on missions for the church would improve “staying power” and not because these individuals wouldn’t experience the same things and be instilled with the same loyalties current missionaries do.

The point is – there are sellers and there are buyers. Sending more women on missions may result in the positives Hawkgrrl discusses vis a vis the sellers (ie, the missionaries) but ignores the effect on the buyers (ie. those the missionaries are trying to reach.

In my opinion, the buyers like the fact that the church treats men and women un-equally.

Agree completely!

#42, Bewarethechicken

“That probably made no sense.”

Agree completely!

As you point out, the LDS church does many things which, either intentionally or unintentionally lead to greater devotion, greater numbers, greater retention – or, in your words, provide “staying power.” You point to the missionary practice as a positive method in this regard, but comment that the unequal attitude toward women vis a vis missionary work, is problematic.

My only point is that this unequal view of women by the LDS church (and certainly not only by the LDS church) is itself a positive factor behind a denomination’s staying power. You point out “rednecks” and I perhaps I can use that as a better example of my point. NASCAR is a very popular sport among that particular demographic – and it’s growing. Advetising is huge in the sport, not because “rednecks” are extremely wealthy, but because they are extremely loyal. I may like my hometown baseball team, but the fact that “Tide” or some other detergent sponsors them does not influence my purchasing decisions. This is not so for those in lower income/education demographic – who tend to get that sense of belonging, of fitting in, of success, by associating themselves with a successful or popular third party – like a NASCAR driver. That association causes them to be loyal to the driver, the team, and the sponsor.

To exhaust a tired analogy- those same feelings of belonging, self-worth, loyalty that some get from sports teams, are also achieved through church. And just as the lower income/education crowd are more likely to be more easily swayed by what their sprots team is selling, are also more likely to be loyal to their particular chosen denomination.

Another characteristic of this demographic is an unequal viewpoint of women and minorities. It is not a coincidence that there are no women NASCAR drivers any more than it is that there are no women priesthood in the LDS (or myriad of other) church. The group who are the most loyal, the most ardent, also tend to be more “conservative” vis a vis inequality of gender. And this is not surprising, based on the demographics of those most seeking the comforting sense of belonging.

That probably made no sense.

If the church were really interested in a populist approach, they would lower the standards. I don’t see that happening. I’m not a populist, personally. If church was full of mysogynistic, gun-toting, squirrel-eating rednecks, I would have a hard time attending. The few we have now occasionally make it unpalatable.

No, I’m not being tongue in cheek, just following up on your practical theme. I don’t think you are suggesting that a theology/policy that encourages persecution is necessarily a good idea, but, as you point out, it does build internal devotion and is, to put it blunlty “good for business”.

Religion in general is something that for many people provides comfort and stability. These are valuable commodities especially for those in poorer, less stable regions and in lower income brackets, which make these prime targets for church growth – any church. I suspect if you were to ask any congregation they would tell you that they rarely see doctors, lawyers, bankers showing up Sunday morning checking things out. That demographic generally is set in their ways, whatever they might be. But the lower income groups are often seeking the comfort, stability, sense of community that is offered by a church.

It’s my belief that this desired sense of comfort and stability does not come so easily from a church that promotes a very progressive, liberal attitude/theology. People are comforted by what they know – and they know their mother stayed home and looked after them. They know that gays are abnormal. They know that there is a true-right religion. They know that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. These are comforting religious norms which, I think are most attractive to those who are most susceptible to conversion.

But, I’m probably wrong.

1. Sister missionaries are older and more mature than Elders.

The extra life experience they have gained in the two years longer they have to wait is irreplaceable.

2. It is not a commandment.

Sister missionaries, almost without fail, are serving a mission because they want to and not because they “have” to. This leads to better preparation and less coercion making them better suited for the work and definitely happier about being there. And…

3. Sister missionaries just seem to be able to love more and better than Elders.

I would say that a Sister missionary developes a love for the people she teaches far quicker than an Elder. Also, I think fewer Sisters ever finish a mission without that love developing than missionaries do.

One last thing about Sister missionaries, A good Sister is 10 times more effective then a good Elder. However, a bad Sister can often times be 5 times worse than your worst Elder.

I loved my mission, warts and all. I developed relationships that have lasted for the past 20+ years and believe that many of those will continue for a lifetime. I have often stated that a mission accomplished for me things that few other experiences could have and hope that I can teach and train my sons and daughters well enough that when the time comes for them to choose, they will serve and be prepared for the struggle.

I look forward to serving with my wife.

And “Bowling Oranges”, muahahahahaha, I remember it well.