Worst:

1. The MTC: For the first few weeks I didn’t want to be there, and for the last few weeks didn’t want to leave. Something about that doesn’t sit right with me. I also loved singing in groups in the dorms, but the men in charge routinely banned singing in the halls, which I never understood. People also got into arguments over vending machine use on Sundays (really). A few Elders also nearly got into fights playing basketball (really).
2. Getting into an argument with an inactive member. I still feel bad about this one.
3. Developing a near phobia of women. We generally were not supposed to proselyte to women, so I got used to avoiding them. It took me 5 months after I got home to feel comfortable enough to go on a date. I loved the elderly ladies in Japan though. Especially those that would deflect the conversation by offering us something to eat.
4. Arguing with my second companion about why my first companion and I got along better.
5. Seeing people get baptized and then disappear the following week, and then refuse to answer their door.
6. Not being able to baptize an investigator because he was “homeless.” (He had been coming to church for years.)

Best:

1. The MTC: singing in the choir, learning a new language, being around so many like-minded people, and the ice-cream sandwiches. I also really enjoyed most of my teachers. They really seemed to care, and they understood the challenge we were facing learning the language, but they pushed us anyway.
2. Living 24/7 with 15 plus other guys who for the most part were all working every day to be humble, patient, and hard-working. I really learned a lot about living with people, and came out of it a lot slower to be annoyed or upset. Many of my companions taught me valuable lessons just by their example. Even the companions I didn’t always get along with were great missionaries. Not a bad seed among them. I was blessed in that department.
3. Finding a testimony of Christ – It took wearing His name on my shirt, reading Jesus The Christ two times (I love that book, even though Craig hates it, haha!), and nearly two years of teaching, but it finally happened.
4. My mission presidents. They were very different from each other, but great men that I still admire today. I also learned valuable lessons about church leaders, such as: they often differ in opinions.
5. Learning a new language and getting to know a new culture.
6. Seeing people change their lives for the better. Seeing them still doing well two years later when I went back.
7. Making one of the best investments of my life. The personal growth and experiences of my mission were greater than any years of college and graduate school I have had (7 so far, although my marriage and having my kids has been better!).

What are the best and worst experiences of your mission?

All of its missionaries are reported to be safe, and the church is using nine meeting houses to provide shelter for members and an even larger number of non-members. There have been casualties among the membership, however.

The immediate need in Haiti is, of course, for emergency supplies and medicines, which the church is attempting to help provide. The news releases also indicate that the church will gradually move to assistance for reconstruction, expecting to stay involved with the effort for up to a year or more.

The second largest denomination of the Restoration, the Community of Christ, had embedded their ministry more deeply in the Haitian education system as a long term strategy for Christian ministry in that part of the world. CofChrist has increasingly tended over the last half-century to emphasize Zion-building, as seen through focusing on peace and justice issues in the present, over discussions of personal salvation. As a result, the work of the CofChrist in Haiti has been hard hit by the earthquake.

This approach has not been limited to the Community of Christ, and so a number of humanitarian ministries are looking beyond the immediate crisis and wondering about long term prospects for the country. As a front page Washington Post story by William Booth and Scott Wilson put it on January 23:

Schools’ Collapse Leaves Haiti’s Future in Rubble

The earthquake has crushed what many deem the only path to a better life in the impoverished country.

Of the many things taken from this city [Port-au-Prince] by the earthquake, few are as threatening to Haiti’s future as the near destruction of a school system viewed across society here as the only path to a better life.

Education is as precious as water in Haiti. The ruined capital was filled with parochial and secular schools built on the strict French model, many affordable even to the poorest parents, who struggled to pay a few dollars a week in tuition…

Now there are no schools. Education officials here estimate that the quake erased thousands of campuses, and at least 75% of those in the capital lie in ruins… Nearly every block has one, with many meeting in multiple sessions into the evening. …the debris-filled sites where they once stood are the places that smell the strongest of death. They were filled with children.

Information from the CofChrist is probably typical for other religious ministries in Haiti. The denomination primarily worked through a charity, Outreach International , created by church members several decades ago that had been able to build and maintain — even through years of political instability in the country — a network of ninety schools enrolling 9000 students. (That number is not impressive until you realize that the Community of Christ has only about 140,000 known, baptized members in the entire US and Canada.)

On January 19, Outreach International reported, almost defiantly:

Outreach International’s Haiti school children, staff and facilities are so severely impacted with loss of life and destroyed buildings that the organization cannot come close to accounting for extent of loss.

Matthew Naylor, Outreach International President, received an email today from Michel Rosier, Outreach International schools network director stating, “It is difficult and even painful to give you a detailed report on the Haitian situation. I thank you so much for your extreme concern for the Haitian people.”

With a teacher staff of 300+, Rosier and another staff member, Augustin Derat, executive director for the schools programs, are the only two staff accounted for. Both of them, along with their families, are living on the streets.

Early reports indicate that 7 of 12 schools which have been inspected are destroyed and the rest seriously damaged. There are at least 20 schools in the affected area. Rescue efforts at one school have saved 7 students from the rubble. Rosier states, nothing can be done for the others trapped.

With the Outreach International schools network so badly damaged, initial support for relief efforts has been made through Doctors Without Borders (MSF) located in Port-au-Prince, who will supply the type of immediate relief requested by our staff members on the ground.

Naylor promises, Outreach International will continue to invest in the long-term development in Haiti. We pledge to remain with the surviving children, families, and staff in order to put their lives back together. We will stay for as long as it takes. This is where the bulk of our resources will go.

I am sure that reader’s here have already made initial decisions about how much and in what ways they wish to help Haiti. However, I’d like to pose some more strategic questions that will still be relevant as the emergency evolves further:

How should our churches (and our peoples) give relative priority to our notions of the evangelistic and Zion-building enterprises?

Does the elevation of “care of the poor and needy” within the LDS “purposes” change their personal response in how they give time and money? Does the setback to the school programs in Haiti change how Community of Christ members allocate their giving?

How should the churches allocate the proportion of their support among their own people and ministries and among the general population affected by the crisis?

Is the best strategy for each church to focus massive resources on emergencies as they happen, wherever they happen (knowing that they will need to move on to some other emergency after a year or so, unfortunately)? Or is it better to build long term programs that, also unfortunately, may have to be built again and again?

How do the churches best coordinate with other religious and humanitarian agencies in ways that are faithful to the two denominations’ separate understandings of the meaning of the Restoration?

How do we integrate our sense of the Spirit calling us personally with the task of our churches and other ministries?

- Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves, Sunstone Magazine

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Perhaps unlike other Church business enterprises, however, is the fact that missionaries were sent to “serve God in a most unusual way,” according to this July, 2000 article on Deseret News about the LDS Church’s hunting preserves.

According to the information packet from Deseret Land and Livestock obtained by the Sunstone speaker on this podcast, a guided archery hunt to bag an elk can fetch $11,500 plus tax and license, as of the year 2001.  (A more detailed price list can be accessed at around the 28 minute mark of the podcast.) When asked in a letter by concerned members of the Church how the hunting preserves could be ethically justified, the Presiding Bishopric (who oversees the hunting preserves) offered no response or explanation.

Now, many Mormons own a gun and many go hunting.  Millions of Americans go hunting every year and it’s a big industry.  So what’s the problem with the Church getting in on the profits?  Well, when we consider LDS scripture and statements by General Authorities such as the following, it’s clear that we’re not “just another hunting enterprise:”

“And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.”  (Genesis 9:11, JST)

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ‘sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)

“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)

“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.”  (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

Something happened between the days that those statements were made and the present day where sport hunting for profit within the Church was suddenly considered to be a good idea — so much so that missionaries were initially sent to tend to the grounds.  How did we get from the days where the Church fostered such a high regard for animal life that Joseph Smith prevented the unnecessary killing of rattlesnakes; when the pioneers would lay their hands upon their oxen to bless them; when their animals were valued as they were the key to their survival, and hunting was done only because it was necessary to sustain their lives — to the days when they’re hunted down for recreation and profit?  What does that say about our culture and our religion? 

Did I miss a change in LDS teaching concerning reverence for the Lord’s animal creations?  Or is the only change that we’ve put a price on their heads?

George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young and editor of the Juvenile Instructor, probably wrote more concerning the humane treatment of animals than any member of the Church.  In 1868 he began writing editorials advocating kindness to animals and in 1897 he founded a Sunday School-sponsored “Humane Day,” which became an annual event.  Most members of the Church know nothing about it, but this program continued in the Church for the next twenty years.

It is perhaps a bit ironic that leaders of the Church — in the days of when members were more dependent on animals for their food and clothing — were so frequently vocal about the humane treatment of animals, emphasizing that we should never take their lives unless it is to save our own, whereas today — when we are much less dependent on animals for our survival, and are supposedly much more enlightened on the subject of animal intelligence, emotion, and sensitivity to pain – the leaders of the Church are mostly silent on the issue of animal welfare and see fit to send missionaries to tend to sport hunting grounds. 

 In the Deseret News article, referring to Elder Huff, who tended to Westlake, it says:

“Instead of knocking on doors, he spends his time bush- whacking in the thick brush along the southwest shores of Utah Lake, looking for the perfect place to nurture his birds by planting numerous stands of corn, rye and other grains….

Large holding tanks that are no longer used for farming now provide high-profile watering holes throughout the game preserve, attracting not only birds but rabbits, coyotes, deer and even antelope.”

Interestingly enough, President Joseph F. Smith made a very specific statement referring directly to hunting elk, deer and antelope, among others:

“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”

Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.4, p.48

President Smith seems to predict with amazing accuracy what is going on at places like Westlake, where ”prominent men,” (perhaps the “doctors, dentists and attorneys from Payson north to Ogden, including Park City,” that Elder Huff refers to in the Deseret News article) seem to be so “athirst for the shedding of animal blood” that they will literally spend tens of thousands of dollars to “go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for?  Just the fun of it!”

Indeed, a very elite, lucrative kind of “fun” that had (as of 2001) a six-year waiting list.

Information about these hunting preserves is very sparse, but according to Jim Catano, who contacted the Church’s public affairs department and was “told by the director that he would answer my questions, a second-tier media handler was assigned to inform me weeks later that they would not answer any of the questions I’d submitted in preparation for this article.”  (The article he was referring to can be accessed here.)  After deciding to drop into Westlake unannounced and being given a tour by manager Kevin Albrecht, he found out the following in 2001:

“Our efforts in bringing our opposition to the attention of the Church hierarchy have already had an impact. Not only do missionaries no longer staff the facility but “canned hunts” in which birds that have been raised in captivity are released just before the hunters go in are no longer sponsored. Kevin said he had had several meetings with upper management as a result of our activism, and canned hunts were one of the first things to be changed.

He told me that in a meeting he recently attended of commercial hunting facility managers, people from other parts of the country were surprised how low the daily bag limit is (2 per day as opposed to “as many as you can shoot for a price”) and that the facility no longer plants hatched birds but relies only on wild reproduction. He informed me how strict rule enforcement is and that members must report birds they think they’ve wounded but can’t find as part of their daily limit. He’s fairly confident that members do this although I have my doubts that all do.”

Since information about these preserves is limited, I decided to get in contact with Jim in order to ask him whether he had any new information since his update in 2001.  He said that he had contacted Farm Management Corporation (wholly owned by the LDS Church to run its farm properties) sometime prior to 2003, but they “refused to talk to me and give me any more information on the subject at a certain point.”

So, while there have been positive changes as the result of protest about the initial practice of canned hunting, Jim says that it “didn’t change (his) mind about the merits of the existence of this facility.”  The end result has remained unchanged: animals being hunted down for Church profit.

This isn’t about sustaining the lives of doctors and lawyers or meat going to waste.  Who eats coyote?  And $11,500 for a few elk steaks?  This is about the number of animals being purposely multiplied by creating the perfect conditions and attracting them to the preseve for the purpose of being killed “just for fun” – not because they need the flesh to live on, as President Smith stated above. 

Ironically, The Humane Society of the United States  has a webpage dedicated to praising the LDS Church for its teachings about animal life.  Do we deserve the praise?  Or have we given nothing but lip service to our supposed respect for God’s creations and their right to life?

Despite past teachings and statements by General Authorities on the subject of hunting and the taking of animal life, many of you have no personal problem with sport hunting.  Obviously, you have the legal right to hunt and I realize that I’m unlikely to change your personal views on the matter.  I ask you, however, whether you would be troubled by any of the following purely hypothetical situations:

• The Church preaches against alcohol consumption, but purchases a vineyard in California and profits from the sale of the grapes being harvested to produce wine.
• The Church teaches that pornography is wrong, but has a stake in a popular fashion magazine featuring scantily-clothed women in sexual poses.
• The Church opposes abortion but owns property in Florida that an abortion clinic rents.

Would you be prepared to defend these hypothetical scenarios in the same way that you defend the Church’s hunting preserves?

Of all the good ways to make a buck, is this the best we can do?  Are we or are we not, as a Church, sacrificing principle for profit?

Gerald E. Jones stated the following in in an Ensign article from August, 1972 called “The Gospel And Animals:”

“The prophets have been consistent in reminding men of their duty to the animal world. As the Lord told Noah, “… the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (JST, Gen. 9:11.) It is our sacred stewardship to care for the earth and all the creatures on it.”

The prophets have been consistent.  What about the Church?

I’ll leave you with a quote from Joseph F. Smith from an editorial published in the Juvenile Instructor in April, 1927:

“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”

Preface: Listed below are some secrets for “trunky” LDS missionaries (Elders and Sisters) with the help of a little Wizard of Oz imagery:

Background: Dorothy of the “Wizard of Oz” obtained the ruby slippers because her house landed on the Wicked Witch of the East. As the story goes, she spent the rest of her time in the Land of Oz trying to get back to Kansas, but Kansas was always within her grasp.  Why? Because all she had to do was click the heels of the magic slippers together and make a wish. Dorothy had made a quest of getting home when she could have accomplished it instantly.

*****Get Hold of Your Heels*****

Lesson #1: Getting home fast means clicking your heels.  In your case, clicking heels means to keep pounding the pavement andwearing out your shoes. Working hard fills your obligation to the Lord but also passes the time quickly. Before you know it … you will be home.

Lesson #2: We struggle and struggle not fully realizing that the powers of God are with us all the time. From the moment you were set apart as a missionary, you were given the figurative ruby slippers. You have been given the power to move mountains when it comes to missionary work. Use that power. Also, don’t abuse that power.

Lesson #3: We crush evil by doing good, and never giving up. Follow the yellow brick road (translation: hang onto the iron rod) and you will go where you need to go. No road maps are needed other than the scriptures.

Lesson #4: Your companions will always be a little goofy.  You know the type: the tin man (tin sister), the cowardly lion (cowardly lioness), and the straw man (straw sister). Make your companions more than they are, more than they know they can be.

Lesson #5: Confront evil by throwing water on it. (I don’t know what that means, but it sounded smart. Maybe it means that you have all the tools at your disposal – like baptism. You need never feel too small for the job).

Lesson #6: Ignore the man behind the curtain. Watch out for the pretenders. Be a little skeptical. Don’t be taken in. But, find the good in everybody. Smile and then take the high road. Let others take the low road.

– Love from the Wizard

Mormon Insights,  S.Faux

From the Manual

Heber C. Kimball, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, recalled: “About the first day of June 1837, the Prophet Joseph came to me, while I was seated in … the Temple, in Kirtland, and whispering to me, said, ‘Brother Heber, the Spirit of the Lord has whispered to me, “Let my servant Heber go to England and proclaim my gospel and open the door of salvation to that nation.” ’ ” (Deseret News 1858). Elder Kimball was overwhelmed by the thought of such an undertaking: “I felt myself one of the very weakest of God’s servants. I asked Joseph what I should say when I got there; he told me to go to the Lord and He would guide me, and speak through me by the same spirit that [directed] him.” (Deseret News 1862)

The Prophet also extended calls to Orson Hyde, Willard Richards, and Joseph Fielding in Kirtland, and to Isaac Russell, John Snyder, and John Goodson in Toronto, Canada. These brethren were to join Elder Kimball on his mission to England. Gathering in New York City, they sailed on the ship Garrick for Great Britain on July 1, 1837. This first mission outside of North America brought some 2,000 converts into the Church during the missionaries’ first year in England. Elder Kimball wrote joyfully to the Prophet: “Glory to God, Joseph, the Lord is with us among the nations!” (Conference Report 1920)

A second apostolic mission to Britain, involving most members of the Twelve under the leadership of Brigham Young, was directed by the Prophet from Nauvoo. Leaving in the fall of 1839, the Twelve arrived in England in 1840. There they began a labor that by 1841 would bring over 6,000 converts into the Church, fulfilling the Lord’s promise that He would do “something new” for the salvation of His Church.

Comments and Questions.

Ok, so that’s 8,000 converts, roughly 15 missionaries, in 2 years, with no MTC, no previous LDS church members in England, no correlated discussions, and no copies of the Book of Mormon to give out, though people could probably purchase them.  What can we learn from these early missionary efforts?

I look back at my mission.  We had approximately 180 missionaries at all times, and I believe we had about 500-600 baptisms in 2 years in my mission.  What other differences are there between our modern day missionary program and these early apostles missions?  Would it help to have older missionaries?

Foundation for foreign missions.

From Nauvoo, Joseph Smith continued to send missionaries throughout the world. Elder Orson Hyde landed in England in 1841 and later continued his assigned mission to Jerusalem. He carried a letter of recommendation from Joseph Smith recognizing “the bearer of these presents, a faithful and worthy minister of Jesus Christ, to be our agent and representative in foreign lands, to … converse with the priests, rulers and Elders of the Jews.” (Times and Seasons, Apr. 1840) On October 24, 1841, Elder Hyde knelt on Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives and petitioned Heavenly Father to dedicate and consecrate the land “for the gathering together of Judah’s scattered remnants, according to the predictions of the holy prophets.” (Orson Hyde, A Voice from Jerusalem, or a Sketch of the Travels and Ministry of Elder Orson Hyde (1842), p. 29) Elder Hyde then made his way to Germany, where he laid an initial foundation for the growth of the Church there.

On May 11, 1843, the Prophet called Elders Addison Pratt, Noah Rogers, Benjamin F. Grouard, and Knowlton F. Hanks to perform missions to the islands of the South Pacific. This was the first mission of the Church anywhere in that vast region. Elder Hanks died at sea, but Elder Pratt traveled to the Austral Islands, where he taught the gospel on the island of Tubuai. Elders Rogers and Grouard continued to Tahiti, where hundreds of people were baptized as a result of their labors.

Under the direction of Joseph Smith, the Saints were moving forward to fulfill the Lord’s command: “Go ye into all the world; and unto whatsoever place ye cannot go ye shall send, that the testimony may go from you into all the world unto every creature” (D&C 84:62).

Comments and Questions

Has anyone opened a new area where the LDS church was completely unknown?  If so, can you share insights into the benefits and/or problems associated with opening a new area?

No Bible Bashing

“Oh, ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell; preach and cry aloud, ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest ye be overthrown. … Preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about—repentance and baptism for the remission of sins.” (History of the Church, 5:344)

There are those critics who think the missionaries should talk more about the mysteries of the Gospel.  They claim the LDS are “hiding” important points of theology.  How do you reconcile this, or is it better to simply ignore this criticism?

“I spoke and explained concerning the uselessness of preaching to the world about great judgments, but rather to preach the simple Gospel.” (History of the Church, 4:11)

Some people are attracted to apocalyptic preaching.  Is it wise to avoid this type of conversation, even if someone is interested in it?

“The Elders [should] go forth … in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course. This I delivered by way of commandment; and all who observe it not, will pull down persecution upon their heads, while those who do, shall always be filled with the Holy Ghost; this I pronounced as a prophecy.” (History of the Church, 2:431)

Is this a problem on the bloggernacle?  How many of us are guilty of not following Joseph’s advice?  How should we respond when others are specifically trying to pick a religious fight?  Does avoiding contentious arguments really “allay the prejudice of the people”?

“If there are any doors open for the Elders to preach the first principles of the gospel, let them not keep silence. Rail not against the sects; neither talk against their tenets. But preach Christ and him crucified, love to God, and love to man; … thereby, if possible, we may allay the prejudice of the people. Be meek and lowly of heart, and the Lord God of our fathers shall be with you forevermore.” (“The Book of John Whitmer,” p. 80, Community of Christ Archives)

Does it bother anyone that a correlated church manual is using a CoC Archives reference?  If this quote wasn’t in the manual, would it be ok to introduce such a quote in a lesson, or would that be considered teaching uncorrelated material and be out of bounds?  (In my ward, it certainly would be considered out of bounds.)

Missions just never seemed for me. At first I was apathetic to the concept, and then I was doubtful. Then, I became opposed to the concept. Why should I derail my life? (The answer of: “Because it’s what the Lord wants you to do” or “Because righteous people should want to be obedient” fell flat against me.) What good could a mission really do for me? Why should I try to convince people who already have religions and ways of life that they are wrong?

As someone who grew up in the church, I’ve never been able to understand converts’ perspective. I’ve never been able to understand how someone can listen to two clean-cut 19-year-olds and go from there to testimony. I’ve just never had to do it (but when I’ve seen the missionaries at work, or I’ve heard the lessons, it’s been wholly unconvincing. So much for feeling the spirit.)

Eventually, I started seeing some people go on missions. People who I knew weren’t really the most worthy people (not that I’m judging). I didn’t pay too much attention to it…I assumed they had cleaned up whatever their indiscretions were. So when these people started coming back much more mature, I was amazed. They had clearly been transformed on their missions and now they were back wiser. (I guess I’ve had the luck of never seeing a missionary faith disaster case.) I began to respect the missionary ideal…even if I was not quite sure if it was for me.

I remember…it was around Easter a few years ago…it had to be before Easter, because I remember Easter was the day of my epiphany. Anyway, some time before Easter a few years ago, my father had been my young men’s adviser, and I remember asking him about how people get testimonies. I remember arguing something to the effect that I couldn’t have a testimony being raised in such comfort. I’d need to be subjected to all of the worst things in the world and then be forcibly humbled. It was pretty deep, I thought. My father didn’t agree. He said something about how Christ suffered for us so that we didn’t necessarily have to suffer all that stuff if we’d follow by faith. Why stick your finger into an electrical socket when you can just accept by faith that it’s not a good idea? Sure, the former will give you a physical experience that you won’t soon forget…but it could destroy you first.

Still, I thought I needed some thing that would shake my foundation so hard that it forced me to need Christ.

Then came Easter. I don’t think there was anything in any particular lessons about it (so I guess this is the point where I’m supposed to say the Lord has great sense of timing for personal revelation — yeah, right), but I came to realize that all a mission was is a controlled way for people to reach the humble rock bottoms of their lives.

I apologize if this is a naive and warped view of a missionary experience.

When I read about missionary experiences, they don’t sound particularly enjoyable. Or rather, the enjoyable ones are rare. But it seems that most missionaries either don’t focus on the unenjoyable aspects, or when they do, they miss the point. However, I was looking for a fiery field to walk in, and a white (hot) field was ready to harvest.

Back then, I thought that even though I’d hate the experience and I’d hate myself for it, in the end, I’d have a thicker testimony. So, it was with that that I had that kind of LDS-ism…if you can only desire to believe, after all…

So, I have a period of time in my journal where I tell myself that I must tell the Bishop, my father, etc., to make me go on a mission no matter what. That I cannot be allowed to back out of this.

…As you can see, I haven’t gone on my mission, and even though I have a few years, I don’t see it in my future. In the end, I have to accept that even though I recognize such an experience would change me, I would hate such a change. Perhaps it’s pride or whatever, but I don’t want to come to look at my life as something I despise. Yet that’s what I feel the mission experience, and a full-out commitment to the church would bring.

I look at so many people who have ended up wrecking themselves because of some church expectation or requirement…twisting themselves in emotional or financial or spiritual knots…and for what?

http://timwade.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/are-mormons-better-christians/

It is a piece from an outsider looking in at the world of Mormonism and seeing things that he admires.  I thought it interesting how he focused on some of our practices and rituals in a positive, different way than I expected — especially the idea of sanctification.  We take a lot of this for granted sometimes.  I find myself unfortunately used to criticism on some of the topics he discussed.  It took me by surprise to see them presented in a positive light.  That gave me a moment of introspection.

It is awkward to claim that we are “better” Christians.  I don’t want to say it like that.  We are different.  The LDS Church has things that it focuses on better than others.  Other Christian churches focus on some aspects of the Gospel of Christ better than us.  There is so much to learn from the beliefs and practices of others.  Sharing these views helps us all grow in faith.

What do you all think of Tim Wade’s points?  Do we do these things better?

I’ll turn it around.  Are Baptists better Mormons?  Tell us what you think they do really good that we could learn and make our faith better.

I wish to speak to those in a similar situation to me on my mission. This could be a youth seeking a first testimony, hoping to realize Moroni’s promise at their bedside. It could even be a prospective missionary hoping to do the same. It could be a life-long member seeking a renewal or reassurance of testimony.

I also want to speak to others struggling with testimony in a very different way. I believe some of us here, while believing we had a strongly rooted testimony in the restored gospel, have encountered things that may have challenged that testimony This could come in many forms: a realization of the imperfections of the prophets and apostles (past and present), or, on a related note, a run-in with some fragment of church history that just does not seem to sit well with you, or any number of other reasons that lead us to a point of confusion or frustration and a difficulty to believe as fervently as you once had.

Finally I wish to speak to the members of the church as a whole—assuming that all of us are continually seeking to define, defend, and renew our testimonies.

First, to those seeking a first testimony or renewal/confirmation of testimony: I wish to share a couple anecdotal stories that illustrate the dangerous expectation that we as individuals and as a church sometime have: the expectation to obtain our “witness” by some miraculous means. The first given by Orson Scott Card, a well-known LDS columnist.

Years ago, two young women we knew went on a temple trip. A temple official addressed the whole group, saying, “At this temple, we are keeping records of the spiritual experiences people have while doing temple work. When you’re through, we’ll give you paper so you can write down yours.”

The two girls had opposite responses. Girl A — let’s call her Agnes — felt a thrill of excitement. As she went down into the water and performed baptisms for the dead, she kept watching her own emotions — and in the process she found herself having stronger and stronger feelings, until she was convinced that she had had a great spiritual experience. So Agnes wrote it down with all the fervency of youth.

Girl B — Betsy — felt a great dread. What if she didn’t feel anything? What if she was the only one who had nothing to write about? And, indeed, while she felt good about taking part in the sacred ordinances, she had no great rush of feeling, no sign from God, no special connection with the other side.

Afterward, when everyone else (or so it seemed to her) was furiously writing, Betsy was miserably disappointed in herself for not measuring up.

Both of these girls were cheated out of the real temple experience by the false expectation — the demand, really — that they have and share a “spiritual experience.”

My second story comes from Elder Godoy as he recounts in General Conference an experience he had when visiting a ward in Brazil.

A few years ago, when I was serving as an Area Seventy in Brazil, my family and I were on vacation in the beautiful city of Florianópolis. On Sunday, as usual, we went to the closest church that we could find. My wife and I and our oldest daughter attended a Sunday School class where they were discussing our personal testimony of the gospel.

At some point in the lesson, the teacher asked the class members if they would share a powerful spiritual experience they had while developing their testimony of the Church. While some brothers and sisters were sharing their stories, I mentally reviewed my own experiences as a convert for something I could share with them, but I could not think of anything very remarkable in my process of gaining a testimony.

While I was thinking and listening to the others’ experiences, I realized that the teacher expected me to participate. She was listening to the other members, and she let me know that she was waiting for my great experience to be shared. After all, I was an Area Seventy, and I should have something impressive to share. Feeling that the time was passing and she was waiting for me, I tried harder to find something that would fit in this category of a powerful event, but I was not able to think of anything, to the disappointment of the teacher. For all I wanted to help, I could not meet her expectation.

Both of these stories focus on the point I wish to make here. Often times we as a church, and as a culture, focus on the importance of obtaining a witness to the truthfulness of the church. We often do so using such language as “a burning of the bosom” or other well-known Mormon phrases. We hear about people that experience a proverbial Pentecost at their bedside. We do this often times, to the exclusion of the stories that tend to be more common in the church: obtaining a witness through everyday experiences that nevertheless tell us in our mind and in our hearts that the gospel is true, godly, and good. To those struggling in faith because you have not had a “profound spiritual experience” rest assured that your testimony is no less valid than someone who has. You belong to a sometimes silent majority in the church to which General Authorities belong.

Elder Godoy of the Seventy concluded his story (the part that follows the foregoing excerpt) by saying that his testimony was not based on one irrefutable event either, but the sum total of many experiences that led him to believe that the seed was “GOOD.”

This word, “Good,” leads me to my next topic and audience: those who have been shaken in their testimony.

Some of you, like me, me have encountered things that have made you scratch your head and wonder a bit from time to time about the “truthfulness” of the gospel or the restored gospel.

Here I need to pause and question just what exactly we mean when we say “truth, or truthfulness.” We are often taught that the church is true or false, black or white, right or wrong, miraculous or a fraud. While I hold these statements in large part to be true, I also believe that this view of the gospel can be destructive for some. Viewing the gospel, the church, and its leaders in such a binary fashion can be disastrous. It leads many, including myself for a time, to believe that if the history of the gospel, the church, and its leaders is not blemish-free, then the logical conclusion is that it is altogether false. As a matter of fact, I know people who have left the church based on this premise.

I wish now to return to the word, “Good.” If you find yourself questioning the truth of the gospel because the church and its leaders do not have a perfect history, I encourage you to find strength and encouragement from this fact, not discouragement and a lack of faith. I believe that the reason why so many of us are so bothered by blemishes, is because we believe in the church so strongly, and we care so much about it… not that we care to little and wish to discard it. We would do well to remember a few things.

I can sum them up in an old adage: While the Catholics say the Pope is infallible, none of them believe it. And while the Mormons say the Prophet IS fallible, no one believes it. Do not be discouraged that we are lead and have been lead by imperfect men. While they are prophets and apostles, and I do not mean to minimize that fact, they are men—just as we are men. We are all walking through the lone and dreary world whether we want to believe it or not–you and me, and the prophets and apostles. We, just as the apostles and prophets, have been separated from our God and must seek daily to discern between truth and error, to hear His voice and discern between it, our own wills and desires, and those of the world. It was Paul, the great apostle himself, who said when addressing the Corinthians that he “saw through a glass darkly.” I think it presumptuous to assume anything different concerning our modern day apostles.

To conclude my thoughts on the word “GOOD,” that Alma and Elder Godoy use, I mean to say that GOOD means neither perfect nor infallible. If calling the church, an institution, by the adjective true, seems odd to you, especially because we recognize that we as individuals and as a church are a work in progress, imperfect and fallible, then you are not alone. What an odd usage of the word! To mean it’s like calling a ham sandwich true. It just doesn’t mean anything… unless of course we understand that when we say true, we mean Good, or “of God,” etc. And I do think that is what we mean when we say “the church is true.” So, to those of you struggling due to encountering history that challenges your testimony of the church or of its leaders, remember that above all else, you know that the church is GOOD, and that it as well as all of us are a work in progress.

Finally, I wish to address all of you as individuals that are just like me: seeking to define, defend, and renew my testimony. I believe all of you, whether you have experienced any of the aforementioned feelings or not, will one day experience some sort of discomfort as you explore the foundations of your former, current, and future faith. But discomfort is a good thing, it means we are thinking, feeling, evaluating, readjusting, redefining, in sum developing our understanding of God and Man. And so far as I have understood it correctly, that is the very meaning of life.

Wendy Ulrich, a PhD, focusing on religious and specifically Mormon psychology, describes our relationship with God in much the same terms as she would any long-term relationship, even a marriage.

The first of these stages is a honeymoon stage of blinding idealism, in which we delight in our new partner and are sure that the problems faced by other couples, other parents, other believers will not bother us. We are in love, full of hope, enthusiastic about our new relationship. We relish being loved and cherished, but even more we relish being someone who is easily loving and good. We are sure we have found a wonderful spouse, child, church, relationship with God, and we are also sure that this will last. We finally know how to be in a relationship, or how to get answers to prayers, or how to be part of a community. We are happy, sure that little problems that come up will be readily resolved. This stage lasts weeks and sometimes years, but it intermittently gives way to the second stage of committed relationships, the power struggle.

As the power struggle gradually takes over more and more of the relationship we begin to wrestle for control. We may try any of a number of old or new tactics to try to coerce, cajole, reason, manipulate, blackmail, convince, bribe, punish, or flatter our partner in the relationship into changing to give us what we want, whether what we want is a spouse who does the laundry or a God who explains Himself to our satisfaction. While some of these tactics may work with spouses or children or parents, they do not work with God. He invites us to change instead, and this is often very painful. We want the world back the way it was when we were innocent and full of hope and before we had discovered the snakes in the grass, but He evicts us from the garden and tells us to keep walking. Much of our behavior is about trying to get safe, and much of His is about trying to help us see that our safety lies in our submission to and trust in Him despite pain and struggle, not in our freedom from physical or emotional discomfort. We keep thinking that there are answers and solutions to all difficulties if we can just get someone else to see our point of view and give us what we know we need. And that someone else keeps holding out on us, keeping us guessing as to what to try next. We are sure that if we could just change them we could get things back to the honeymoon, not realizing that this is not only impossible, but unhelpful.

The third stage of committed relationships, which usually comes after years of vacillating between lingering idealism and the increasing futility of the power struggle, is withdrawal. At this stage we essentially give up, although we may not leave. We resign ourselves to not really getting what we want, not really changing the other party, and not really being happy. We are tired of fighting, but we can’t recoup our lost idealism. We go through the motions of relationship but we are frustrated and we feel more or less betrayed and misunderstood. This period of withdrawal allows us to regain some independence, pursue other sources of satisfaction, and develop other talents and interests. If we are lucky we begin to work on ourselves–whom we can change–instead of working on our partner whom we cannot change. With the Church or with God, this means we begin to face that there are some questions we will not get answered, some differences that will not be worked out, some losses that will not be prevented. This is a risky stage, a stage when some people decide there is nothing to hold onto because they are no longer in love (stage 1) and no longer have hope for change (stage 2). But as we continue to work on ourselves, see reality more clearly, and resolve our own issues we have a chance of moving toward stage 4.

The fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe, and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change. A deeper, more mature love begins to emerge, with fewer power struggles and less disengagement. We do not need to see all the answers, and we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarrassed or ashamed of our Church, our partner, or our God. We reinvest in the relationship, not because we have decided to risk yet one more time that we will not get hurt only to have the rug pulled out yet one more time from under us, but because we have learned that hurt can be survived, that this is a risk worth taking, and that it does not mean we cannot be happy or that we are irrational suckers or that we are doomed to failure because we take another chance on trust or because we fail or are failed again. We see ourselves and our partner more realistically, and we do not run from either vision. We recognize that we can be hurt by being betrayed or we can be hurt by not trusting, but we don’t get the no-hurt choice because there isn’t one, at least not until we simply choose not to read betrayal into every ecclesiastical failure, or abandonment into every unanswered prayer.

I encourage all of you, to continue developing your relationship with God. To not avoid those moments of disillusionment and frustration that come with a growth in knowledge, but to confront them, embrace them, and learn from them. Learn more about yourself, and learn more about God. Indeed, realize that your testimony is a process.

To those struggling with doctrines or moments in church history, again anchor yourself in what you know to be good, and I do believe that you know the church is good, or else you would not be here today. Be comforted that God does not expect perfection of anyone, not you, nor the leaders of the church, but he does expect that we all move in the right direction and follow another admonition of Paul, to “cleave to that which is good.”

To those struggling to find a first testimony or those seeking to renew it through prayer, continue to pray. While God may not visit you with angels in the night, or even a physical feeling or burning, he will hear you and reveal truth to you in the way that he knows will benefit you most. For some that may be an angel, or a feeling, but certainly not for all.

My testimony, like yours, is very much so a work in progress. I even hesitate today to say that “I know” certain things. But I am comfortable in saying that my faith is that God is there, that Jesus Christ lived and died for us, and that God has revealed much for our good through ancient and modern day prophets, and that he will reveal much to us individually if we seek him out and say as Samuel did, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth.”… “Hear” of course being used figuratively.

Last Sunday in church I spoke with four missionaries who told me of a strange ritual that used to be practiced in their mission.  One missionary assured me that he had personally been involved in this questionable practice.  When I was a missionary we really didn’t have any missionaries that would do something so wasteful.  But somewhere in the 1980s there developed a strange folk practice among missionaries throughout the world where they ignited parts of their clothing in a huge bonfire.  Some people would consider it a harmless practice as they would burn off parts of their clothing as a ritual sign of passage.  I am not certain myself if it is a good or bad thing since this week I attended a conference about green issues.  Only a wealthy society could consider the incineration of a tie, a shirt, a pair of pants, and a suit jacket as an item of inconsequence.

A couple of weeks prior was a missionary poster asking for ties to be sent to Peru for the poor Peruvian elders.  I wonder how many of them engage in this practice of burning off apparel as a sign of the passage of time.

There was a ward mission leader seated in the foyer when I talked with the missionaries.  I asked him if he had ever heard of missionaries burning their clothing before.  He said sure, ten years when he served a mission he burned a tie at six months, a shirt at a year, a pair of pants at eighteen months, and his suit the day before he came home.

I thought this practice was just unique to elders then I discovered that a few sisters also engage in this practice right before they came home. I actually found a photograph of one sister burning her dress.  It is amazing how they incinerate them.

I was told that they torch them with lighter fluid or gasoline.  It is a wonder to me that they haven’t burned down their missionary apartments.  I know that lots of boys are pyromaniacs.  Even I love a good fire on occasion.  I wonder why they didn’t toast marshmallows on the pyre when they sent up their burnt offerings.

After attending my seminar this week I wonder if it is environmentally friendly for missionaries to be burning their clothes.  I think if half of the 50,000 missionaries engaged in this practice there could be lots of emissions.  Not to mention how expensive a suit is.  I remember how  I spent over a thousand dollars to outfit my children for their missions.  I wonder how many parents know that the fifty dollar tie, thirty dollar shirt, one hundred dollar pair of pants and two hundred dollar Mr. Mac coat is going up in a ball of flames.

I told the one brother that I couldn’t afford to burn my suit pants because I only owned three pair of pants on my mission.  A matching pair for my two suits and a pair of blue jeans for P-Day.  If I burned either pair I wouldn’t have had anything to wear on Sunday.  In fact I was so poor after my mission I wore those ratty suits and ties for another year or two.

If I had been richer maybe I would have changed them from a solid to a gaseous state too.   I am perplexed how this custom ever started.  I guess most of them figure the burning of clothes is a way to symbolically shed time towards the day when they will go home.  After my mission I wish I had been able to stay longer or do it over again.

I do have to admit if their clothes were as ragged as mine, they probably had soggy ties or suits from the hours I spent in rain, snow and sleet.  The Mormon missionaries are like the postal service: nothing keeps them from knocking on doors.  They climb ravines, ford streams, fall on the ground, wrestle their companions.  I wonder how they even keep their suits clean for as long as they do.

If every parent could see what abuse the missionary clothing goes through, they would never spend thousands of dollars outfitting their son or daughter, as I did.  Instead, they would immediately head for the nearest thrift store to purchase a “burning suit.”

A few caveats…

A) No, C.S. Lewis fans…he did not make the list and for good reasons–primarily because his spot is being reserved a future, top-10 list that Arthur and I will co-arthur, I mean, author (*drum riff for comedic effect*).

B) I must give Howard Hughes a hat-tip…while he doesn’t make the official list (his contribution wasn’t wide-reaching enough to really lodge himself in the Mormon mind beyond esoterica), he fits well within the tradition of businessmen appreciating Mormons for their discipline and hard work. This also intersects some with the fourth

The list

4. The friendly gangster

This is more of a stock character than it is a particular individual. You’ve all heard the common returned missionary discourse from missionaries who have served in the ghetto (or in Russia). They all have a story or two about the gangster who promised them protection, about the guy with diamond-encrusted hubcaps who tells them to leave the area for their own good. One instance I heard even had a mobster in a tinted-window limousine ask the sister missionaries if anyone was bothering them. They supposedly then complain about a particularly lewd passerby who bothers them every morning. The limo drives off…they never see the man again.

So to the pious mafia and the clergy-fearing gangster, we tip our fedora hats to you.

3. Harold Bloom

A proverbial elephant in the room when it comes to literary studies (his bibliography of original monographs/novels/anthologies number thirty in total) –so he’s the kind of fellow that all the revisionists throw their critiques at. Harold Bloom has written extensively on American religious life, devoting a chapter to the Mormons. While he has little taste for much of the 20^th century Church, he called the King Follett the greatest sermon in American religious history. From Bloom we saw the fullest articulation of the “religious genius” thesis—that whatever Joseph’s oddities, he was brilliant at “religion-making.” Harold Bloom has given a prominent voice of sympathy within the unfriendly waters of literary studies, and in doing, so has given Mormonism a certain sense of literary credibility.

2. Jimmy “Ah Shucks” Stewart

The actor who needs no introduction made himself beloved amongst the Mormons for his role in the Church-produced film, Mr. Krueger’s Christmas, as an old man who has a dream of the nativity and of directing the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Stewart sealed his status as honorary Mormon when he donated all of his papers and materials to the Special Collections at Brigham Young University. With these contributions added to his previous image as the “aw-shucks” actor of It’s a Wonderful Life, Jimmy Stewart provided Mormons the embodiment of debonair innocence that seems to characterize the ideal of Mormon masculinity. His Gentile status legitimized this image as one Mormons could believe would thrive in modern society.

And you know that most Mormon women probably would have swallowed Kolob if Stewart promised to lasso it for them…

And the winner is…

1. Thomas Kane

While sufficiently obscure to lay members of the Church, his noted title, “Friend of the Mormons,” demands that he receive the revered spot (and besides, most of our academics either formally or informally–obscurity is what we do). Thomas Kane, an attorney in Philadelphia, abolitionist, and military officer in the Civil War, first contacted Mormons while they were visting a Philadelphia conference in 1846. Kane provided essential legal counsel and lobbying efforts to the Latter-day Saints during the following decade when the federal government was rabidly hostile to them. He delivered lectures on the Mormons behalf and defended the Mormons to the hostile Eastern press. When Utah was made into a U.S. territory with the compromise of 1850, then-president Fillmore offered Kane the position of territorial governor. He suggested that Young would be a more fitting choice. When James Buchanan sent his troops with the Utah war, Kane offered to mediate. Young noted that he wanted Kane’s name to “live for all eternity.” He had “done a great work,” and would “do a greater work still.” Kane legitimized the Latter-day Saints at a time when most politicians and the public held the Mormons in low-regard indeed.

Let’s assume this reluctance has nothing to do with how you feel about “the message” itself.  You love the gospel.  You have a testimony.  Attending church makes you happy and helps you be a better person.  And you feel some compulsion to share that with others.  It’s still possible to not want to turn your friends or family members over to the missionaries.  It’s possible to love the message but to feel insecure about the messenger.

If the gospel is the message, then the missionaries are often the envelope in which that message is delivered.  When I sort through the mail, this is the stuff that goes straight in the trash:

• anything addressed to “resident” or our house’s previous owners; anything addressed to someone who doesn’t really exist or never lived there
• stuff stamped with ”urgent” or “open immediately” but is clearly from a business with whom I have no existing relationship; stuff with loud colors or big “zowie” outlines around words like “new”–clearly junk mail
• those pretend-familiar letters that look handwritten to you but you don’t know the handwriting or it’s really a font designed to look like handwriting
• anything that looks like it has been mangled by an automated sorted system

Who has not received a letter like this and thrown it directly in the trash?  That’s why we call it junk mail:  it’s impersonal (or worse, fakes being personal), it treats you like a number and not a person, it is all about its own aims (e.g. marketing numbers) and not about your actual needs, it approaches you as a commodity to be manipulated and coerced toward its aims.  Those are the same qualities that describe ineffective missionaries. 

Don’t get me wrong.  There are many effective missionaries who are humble and love the people they serve, who treat each person as an individual, and who truly prize the message they are sharing.  So why are some missionaries not like this?

• Pride.  Just like any group of people, some missionaries have an ego.  They want to be viewed as successful, and if success means numbers, some of them will do what it takes to get those numbers, even if it’s not what they should do.
• Pressure.  That’s really just pride again, but stated as if the person(s) or system applying the pressure is the responsible party.  Missionaries need to reduce their susceptibility to pressure to do things that are wrong (or to do them the wrong way) in order to be successful.    And mission presidents are as susceptible to pride as the missionaries they serve and lead.  Often, MPs are successful businessmen who are used to measurable results.  They want a scorecard.  They want to know they are successful and to make goals for success.  When they apply these business skills to the mission, though, they run the risk of cutthroat tactics to achieve “success.”
• They had a bad day.  OK, cutting missionaries some slack here, everyone has good days and bad days.  Sometimes they are going to be less effective.  That’s just being human.  Zebedee Coltrin left his mission due to a splitting headache, and Parley P. Pratt opened his preaching to the Quakers by decrying their beloved celibacy.  Even Paul got run out of Ephesus on a rail.  We’ve all made mistakes.

So, what can we as lay members do to ensure that the envelope doesn’t get in the way of the valuable message?

• Befriend, don’t proselyte.  Don’t be talked into doing something you are uncomfortable with.  Personally, I think missionary work (for members especially) should be about recognizing that this is a cool person you would like to hang out with at church, someone you want to join your church family.
• Explain the process.  If you think a missionary is going to give the full-court press or that the missionary is someone they may not like, let your friend know up front what to expect.
• Keep “Zeniff” missionaries in check.  Talk to the missionary to know what kind of person you are dealing with.  Tell them what your friend needs and express any concerns you have.
• Deliver our own messages.  If you are worried about the missionary, be there in person to make sure the message gets through correctly, or just do your own missionary work until a missionary you trust is in place.

What do you think of these guidelines for us as members?  Would this improve the effectiveness of missionary work?  What else would you suggest?  Discuss.

1. Service Missions
   I’m talking about Peace Corps style service work, full time. I honestly believe that if 75% of our full time missionaries were doing strictly community service, the church would see higher teaching and conversion rates… and perhaps even retention rates, too. The physical aspect of “raising the bar” would not have to be so severe as the less physically capable missionaries could do the teaching and the stronger missionaries could do the service work. Think about the impact that could have on the world.
2. Women in Priesthood
   This one might be controversial, and its definitely the least likely to happen anytime soon, but I think it would be cool. The talent pool for leadership and administered spirituality is more shallow than we realize since we can only draw from the men in the church, and we constantly hear how men are spiritually weak compared to women. I’ve seen women operate within priesthood in other churches and its very impressive.
3. Consolidated Sunday School – Relief Society – Priesthood
   For about a year, my stake had too many members for the amount of chapels available so they had to fit five wards in one building. In order to make that work, the block of meetings was reduced from 3 hours to a little over 2 hours. In this scenario, Sacrament meeting was still the same but Sunday School and the Relief Society/Priesthood meetings were each reduced to 30 minutes. The short block was fantastic, although with young children the length of Sacrament meeting is still a real issue. However, keeping separate Sunday School and RS/PH meetings ended up limiting the effectiveness of teachers in either meeting. I’d like to see a shorter block, with Sacrament meeting reduced to maybe 45-50 minutes, and then a consolidated Sunday School/RS/PH, with men and women together. The idea of men and women in separate meetings is a theory that doesn’t really bear out anymore since both are giving the same correlated lesson anyway.
4. More Musical Performance
   Without question, my favorite LDS Sacrament meetings have been the ones dominated by musical performances. A few years ago I visited a relative’s ward for Christmas and the Sacrament meeting had NO talks at all. After the Sacrament was administered, the remainder of the time was given to several musical numbers and it was my favorite church experience in a long time. I’d love to see at least 50% of Sacrament meeting time given to musical performance (aside from the usual congregational hymns), although I’d like to see a wider range of musical styles allowed (as opposed to mostly MoTab-style choir numbers and Janice Kapp Perry solos).
5. Less Administrative Meetings
   There are probably not many active LDS folks who need an elaboration here. In recent years there have been General Conference talks, letters to bishops, and programs developed to try to reduce the amount of meetings taking time away from families, but it seems to make little difference. We still have tons of meetings and many of them are way too long.

Orson F. Whitney explained it like this:

Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of his Church, to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else… Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of Truth, while others remain unconverted…the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in his own due time…God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter Day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people…We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.

One might compare these perceptions to a person’s reaction to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity concerning the speed of light and time perception. Basically, if one travels at the speed of light, then the perception of time slows down until time essentially ceases to exist to those outside one’s frame of reference. 

We must understand that we are asking investigators to do something similar, to stop time as it were.  The church’s claims may be possible, but they seem utterly fantastic, even absurd to the uninitiated.  So when they reject it, is it possible, as President Whitney said, that some are kept from the truth not only because they know not where to find it but also because the Lord would rather have them elsewhere for the time being?

If the Pope joined the Church (as we dreamed of during our missions), there would not likely be massive LDS baptisms, but charges of scandal, of madness, of intrigue.   If Mother Theresa had become a member, could she have retained her credibility as an international humanitarian?  Could it not be the Pope, Mother Theresa and others are/were doing their parts in the vast work of temporal and spiritual salvation?  While they might be introducing incorrect doctrines, isn’t it possible that the Lord plans on getting that straightened out later?  Maybe in the meantime, he needed Mother Theresa’s humanitarianism, Martin Luther’s defiance, and Isaac Newton’s mind right where they were.

Is this like the statement by Brigham Young that missionaries would teach people on the moon and the sun? (still waiting for that mission call)  Or is it an example of a pre-industrial man trying to explain 21st century technology in terms he understood?

What is a Urim & Thummim?

• Literal translation yields several choices:  “truth and light,” “lights and perfections,” “revelation and truth” or “truth and doctrine.”
• An ancient form of communication with God along with dreams and prophets.  (like lds.org?)
• Sometimes they were used by prophets, but the implication is that they could also be used by others to answer yes/no questions.  (Sounds like binary code to me, the basis of all computer programming . . .)

So, what was the prophecy? Joseph Smith said (in April 1843):

“The earth when it is purified will be made like unto crystal (or a computer monitor perhaps?) and will be a Urim & Thummim whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom or all kingdoms of a lower order will be manifest to those who dwell on it.”  (it could be called “wiki-worlds”  CK could stay in touch with lower kingdoms through open forums and chat rooms, perhaps a Facebook style application.)

“Then the white stone (a mouse?  or maybe a hard token? or a flash drive?) mentioned in Rev. c 2 v 17 is the Urim & Thummim whereby all things pertaining to an higher order of kingdoms even all kingdoms will be made known and a white stone (could be a white blackberry–I hope it’s got GPS and wi-fi!) is given to each of those who come into this celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.”  (or password?  although some people will probably just stick it on a post it note in their desk drawer; do you people care nothing for security?)

Could the internet be a Urim & Thummim according to the prophecy and descriptions?  If so, did Al Gore know he was fulfilling Mormon prophecy when he invented it?  Does that, in fact, make him a Mormon (well, posthumously maybe)?  Speaking of Al Gore’s inventions (went there!), is global warming what is meant by the earth being cleansed by fire at the last day (maybe “by fire” was an exaggeration)?  What do you think?  Discuss.

P.S. Please forgive my shameless digs at our former popularly elected president.  All meant in good fun.

Please welcome first time guest blogger Denae.

I did not marry my husband with the hope that he would convert, I do not encourage missionaries to come over to our house, and I do not think I have less of a marriage, or less of an eternal future because of my marriage. What I wish people would understand is we are not the only church that believes in our own religiosity, we are not the only ones that have the right to convert other people. If I have the right to try and convert my husband, than he has the right to try and convert me! If I want him to respect my ability to chose my religion that I have to respect his ability to chose his religion.

I can’t begin to tell you how many people have said “So when are you going to start bringing your husband to church?” I have a 30 second answer, a 2 minute answer, and a 5 minute answer, depending on the person and the situation. So far most people are pretty good about it, but… it is still annoying. Mormons have such a reputation about trying to convert people that my husband is afraid to spend any time around my church friends or to go to any church activities, for fear that he will be descended upon like a storm of locusts, everyone being super nice to him in hopes of trying to convert him. I hate that because I want people to accept him exactly like he is. He is not a lesser person because he is not LDS.

I have a bit of a controversial belief. Everything that I have been taught of the nature of God and my own personal experience with God, does not lead me to believe in an exclusionary God. I can’t believe that God would really split up a family after death because they didn’t perform a specific ceremony because they weren’t all worshiping under the religious name. That doesn’t sound like a nice God; that sounds downright mean. So I don’t believe that my husband (and any potential future children) will be separated at death. Maybe in the hereafter we’ll have to do some extra work, maybe take some extra classes, something like that, but ultimately we’ll still be together.

Meanwhile in addition to the frequent conversations about trying to convert my husband, I have to deal with the constant references about having a lesser marriage. Even though I don’t believe I have a lesser marriage, it is still not fun to listen to it. I have even heard references to it being a commandment to marry another LDS person.

So I don’t know if I have a question per se but just what your thoughts are. I am completely open to disagreement on my current belief about what will happen to combined families not married in the temple in the hereafter. Also, if anyone has comments about how families are treated where one spouse is not LDS, or maybe this would even apply if the spouse is not active, or (fill in the blank). I look forward to the comments, thanks!

Plenty of criticism is heaped on post-restoration church leaders.  There seems to be a tendency to hold them up against an impossible and inaccurate standard of perfection while giving a pass to figures in the Old and New Testaments.  But is that fair?  Wouldn’t OT & NT leaders have the same shortcomings when viewed from our “enlightened” modern perspective?

Paul’s writings are some of the best literary achievements in the Bible.  His writings are poetic, ambiguous, and reveal a fascinating picture of emerging Christianity in far-flung parts of the globe.  However, there are also many cringe-worthy statements about women attributed to him, leading me to believe that either Paul did not like women or his statements were altered by misogynistic editors.

Here are some of the statements about women attributed to Paul:

• 1 Cor. 14: 34-35:  Let your ^awomen keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to ^bspeak; but ^cthey are commanded to be under ^dobedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to ^aspeak in the church.  (Maybe I could tell the exec secretary this next time I am asked to give a talk!)
• 1 Cor. 11: 5-13, 15 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is ^aeven all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a ^ashame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.  For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.  For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.  Nevertheless neither is the ^aman without the woman, neither the ^bwoman without the man, in the Lord.  For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.  Judge in yourselves: is it ^acomely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.  (Archaic fashion advice?  Temple reference?)
• 1 Tim. 2: 11-12 Let the woman learn in ^asilence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to ^ateach, nor to ^busurp authority over the man, but to be in ^csilence.  (Can we just go home during Relief Society?)
• 1 Tim. 2: 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being ^adeceived was in the ^btransgression.  (But of course, in our enlightened perspective, we believe that Eve was the brains of this outfit.)

Yet, to be fair, we also have evidence that he was very successful in terms of female converts:

• Acts 17: 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout ^aGreeks a great multitude, and of the chief ^bwomen not a few.  (The important women, probably those with the best self-esteem, found his preaching valuable).
• Acts 17: 12  Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.  (So, honourable Greek women believed his preaching).

And he has quite a few interesting things to say about marriage as well:

• 1 Cor. 7: 9-10 ^aBut if they cannot ^bcontain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to ^cburn.  (On a given day, though . . .) 
• 1 Cor. 7: 28  But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.  (“Trouble in the flesh” doesn’t sound promising.  I hope there’s a cream for that.)
• 1 Cor. 7: 33-34  But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.  (Really?)  There is difference also between a wife and a virgin.  The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.  (Really??  This leads me to believe that Paul was not married.)
• 1 Tim. 5: 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; (So, unmarried people are naturally more spiritual, and young widows are all sexed up?)
• 1 Cor 7: 1-2 (Paul answers special questions about marriage among those called on missions—Paul extols self-discipline). (I find this preface to chapter 7 unconvincing based on a lot of what follows, but maybe that’s just me.  I agree that it makes more sense if you limit the context to that, but I am not convinced that is upheld by what is written.)  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: ^aIt is good for a man not to touch a woman.  (Cooties?)  Nevertheless, ^ato avoid ^bfornication, let every man have his own ^cwife, and let every woman have her own husband.  (Ever the romantic . . .)
• 1 Cor 7: 35-39  And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.  But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.  (Say what?  Flower of her age – is this menopause?  This sentence makes more sense if it you substitute “if she be deflowered” instead of “if she pass the flower of her age.”  Is this a mistranslation?  Does this mean you should get married if you break the law of chastity?)  Nevertheless, he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. ^aSo then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. 
• 1 Cor 7: 39-40 The ^awife is bound by the ^blaw as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will (I think I saw this episode of Law & Order); only in the Lord.  But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.  (This sentence seems like the byproduct of paper being expensive and having no erasers).
• 1 Cor. 11: 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the ^ahead of the ^bwoman is the man; and the ^chead of Christ is God.  (Sounds like typical patriarchal order talk; it also sounds like Paul was single).

But, on the flip side, Paul comes out in defense of marriage, sort of, by saying that a sign of apostacy in the latter days would be ”^aForbidding to ^bmarry“  (1 Timothy 4: 3).  (So, it’s not better to abstain after all?  Or did someone else edit Timothy than edited Corinthians?  Yes, they did).

Paul also said some very progressive things about equality in marriage, including inter-faith marriages.  1 Cor. 7: 12-16  But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an ^ahusband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.  For the unbelieving ^ahusband is ^bsanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is ^csanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us ^ato peace.  For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt ^asave thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?  (This is an example of Paul’s writing at its best.  He uses symmetry to hold women and men equally accountable and to show how marriage blesses lives).

• Virtual – you can participate whether or not you actually attended church
• Co-Ed – you can hear perspectives from both men & women
• Spiritual + Intellectual – some would like more intellectual content at church; others would like more spiritual content at MM.  It’s like chocolate & peanut butter.
• Non-LDS Perspective – we may hear non-LDS commenter viewpoints (welcome to all!)
• Advance Lesson Prep – those who are teaching RS/PH may find some insights for their lessons.

The materials are taken from the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church:  Joseph Smith manual and my own head (no link provided).  Today is Lesson 12:  Proclaim Glad Tidings to All the World.  In keeping with the spirit of the site, I will select passages and questions (and add stuff) that aim to be a little more thought-provoking.

Introduction:  Much has been said on this site by commenters about the effectiveness of the missionary program.  So, if you were the boss of us all, what would you do to increase the effectiveness of our missionaries and the missionary program?

Then & Now: How does contemporary missionary work contrast with NT and early LDS missionary work?

“By this we learn that it behoved Christ to suffer, and to be crucified, and rise again on the third day, for the express purpose that repentance and remission of sins should be preached to all nations.  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call’ [Acts 2:38–39].

“By this we learn that the promise of the Holy Ghost is made unto as many as those to whom the doctrine of repentance was to be preached, which was unto all nations. … Therefore we believe in preaching the doctrine of repentance in all the world, both to old and young, rich and poor, bond and free.”  Joseph Smith, 1835.

Here are some of the features of missionary efforts described in NT & the early restored church with a contrast to our current program:

• No purse or scrip (NT & early LDS).  Today:  missionaries pay a monthly sum that is equal across all regions of the world.  Local members are asked to provide support in the form of meals vs. relying upon the kindness of strangers.
• No time limits, well until you get martyred anyway (NT, some early LDS – was very flexible in terms of length of time).  Today:  24 months for men, 18 months for women.
• All males must go (NT not specified, early LDS for a time), regardless of age, marital or economic status.  Today:  Single males strongly encouraged to go; single females optional.
• Teach by the spirit with little or no formal instruction or central leadership/no message control (NT initially – hey, they didn’t even have the NT!, and early LDS – although some missions were with the express purpose to refute anti-Mormon claims).  Today:  has recently been made much more flexible (down from 6 consecutive discussions, which was down from 52 consecutive weekly discussions).
• No language instruction (NT - some gift of tongues & early LDS - occasional gift of tongues; studied some languages in School of the Prophets).  Today:  crash course in language; localized MTCs in regions.
• Companionships (NT – mostly for training? & early LDS – often went out in companionships, but didn’t have to be together always).  Today:  you are never to be separate from your mission companion.  Or you burst into flames or one of you goes off after harlots or something.
• No dress code (NT & early LDS – dressed like everyday people).  Today:  1950s business dress for men (lava-lavas in Polynesian cultures); women in skirts.  Shoes universally worn to a nub, regardless of time period.
• Worthiness standards (NT not specified, early LDS pretty much sent everyone newly baptized male, with obviously mixed results).  Today:  recently raised the bar on worthiness/preparation standards.
• Conflicts (NT – Paul was chased out of Ephesus for preaching against the silversmiths’ livelihood, early LDS - Parley P. Pratt started his sermon to the Shakers by decrying celibacy and got kicked out).  Today – some issues due to tactlessness, lack of cultural awareness, and some due to success and competing preaching.

Can you think of other ways in which the missionary program of today contrasts and compares to the missionary efforts of previous eras in the NT, early restored church, or even BOM?

How are missionaries today tied to missionaries of the past?  Has the missionary program improved or deteriorated from these earlier efforts?

Joseph Smith quotes on missionary work:

“We don’t ask any people to throw away any good they have got; we only ask them to come and get more. What if all the world should embrace this Gospel? They would then see eye to eye, and the blessings of God would be poured out upon the people, which is the desire of my whole soul.” (1843)

Is this approach emphasized today?  How or how not?

“The servants of God will not have gone over the nations of the Gentiles, with a warning voice, until the destroying angel will commence to waste the inhabitants of the earth, and as the prophet hath said, ‘It shall be a vexation to hear the report.’ [See Isaiah 28:19.] I speak thus because I feel for my fellow men; I do it in the name of the Lord, being moved upon by the Holy Spirit. Oh, that I could snatch them from the vortex of misery, into which I behold them plunging themselves, by their sins; that I might be enabled by the warning voice, to be an instrument of bringing them to unfeigned repentance, that they might have faith to stand in the evil day!” (1835)

Early LDS missionaries focused on the imminent second coming.  If this approach has changed, how and why?  Are missionaries called to warn or to invite or both?  How should missionaries manage this seeming dichotomy?

“Prejudice, with its attendant train of evil, is giving way before the force of truth, whose benign rays are penetrating the nations afar off. … The time was, when we were looked upon as deceivers, and that ‘Mormonism’ would soon pass away, come to naught, and be forgotten. But the time has gone by when it is looked upon as a transient matter, or a bubble on the wave, and it is now taking a deep hold in the hearts and affections of all those who are noble-minded enough to lay aside the prejudice of education, and investigate the subject with candor and honesty.” (1841)

The above statement was made in 1841 when there were only a few thousand members.  Today there are millions.  Do people still feel the church will fade away into obscurity?  Why or why not?

What is meant by the “prejudice of education”?  Does reason prejudice us against God’s way of learning?  If so, how?  Does that mean reason must be abandoned in man’s search for God?  Why or why not?

“May God enable us to perform our vows and covenants with each other, in all fidelity and righteousness before Him, that our influence may be felt among the nations of the earth, in mighty power, even to rend the kingdoms of darkness asunder, and triumph over priestcraft and spiritual wickedness in high places, and break in pieces all kingdoms that are opposed to the kingdom of Christ, and spread the light and truth of the everlasting Gospel from the rivers to the ends of the earth.” (1836, from meeting of FP and 12)

How can the mission program be made more effective and have more influence for good in the world while fulfilling the goal of spreading the gospel to the world?  In what ways is it flawed today?  What reforms would improve its effectiveness?  Suggested improvements (heard on this very site):

• change the whole church (well, we have been called ”DAMU-friendly”)
• teach more history & culture to improve knowledge & respect
• put knowledgeable people in church sites (especially older couples), not just “testifying” missionaries

What are the benefits to the missionary program as it runs today?  What are the drawbacks?  What other ideas do you have to increase the effectiveness of the missionay program?

Everyone is aware that the Church “raised the bar” on missionaries. The Church wants better prepared and more committed missionaries. However, when I chatted recently with my sister-in-law whose husband is in a branch presidency at the Missionary Training Center she stated emphatically that the bar hadn’t been raised enough. The things she’s seen!

We all know stories of missionaries who struggle, sometimes desperately. Some I’ve heard: the missionary who was so eager to go home he went to the doctor every week, convinced he had yet another terminal disease. The missionary who slept with her mother’s sweater every night because she was so homesick. The missionary whose doctor doubled his dose of anxiety medication but still suffered so severely, he left the MTC after three days. The missionary who called his father after six months in the mission field and said, “Dad, it’s not for me. I’m just not a salesman.” The missionary (my son’s companion) who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and created all kinds of havoc throughout the mission.

There are still ill-prepared missionaries. There are still missionaries with significant mental health problems. There are still missionaries who get very sick. There are still missionaries who don’t want to be there, for any number of reasons. There are missionaries who lie to their bishops so they go and some who go under duress or because their parents will buy them a car when they come home. There are some who don’t follow the mission rules and some who can’t handle the pressure and some who realize they’re not sure of their own testimonies. Some of these young men and women stay and finish their missions. Some of them come home, after a few weeks or months.

This brings up many issues for families, wards, and individuals. My husband, sister, and good friend are all therapists. They’ve dealt with the fall-out when a missionary comes home ahead of schedule. They’ve dealt with good people who are suffering from anger, crises of faith, and feelings of failure. They’ve worked with parents who are embarrassed and disappointed, who don’t know what to tell ward members. They’ve worked with missionaries who are disillusioned and depressed. Often, the friends and families of these folks are helpful. Too often, though, there is judgment. Unfortunately, the stigma that follows these missionaries is alive and well.

Why is there still a stigma? Perhaps all those retellings of inspiring missionary stories make our expectations too high. Or we’ve sung “I Hope They Call Me on a Mission” one too many times. Maybe it isn’t possible to really prepare someone for what a mission is like, and it’d be better to acknowledge that it’s not for everybody, and ease up on the whole issue.

Whatever the reasons, it’s sad to see the pain these families and ex-missionaries suffer. There are no easy answers for them because every situation is complex and highly individual. I just know it’s important to love these families and missionaries and be kinder to them, regardless of the reason for the early homecoming. We need to stop judging, gossiping and making assumptions. Maybe when you get down to it, the answer is not to raise the bar on our missionaries, but on the church members as a whole.

Some common practices in early Methodism may sound familiar to Mormons:

• Vigorous missionary work that helped spread Methodism around England and beyond.  This is not unique to Methodism, but an enthusiasm for converts was a Methodist trait during Joseph Smith’s encounter with them.
• Appealing to all members of society, regardless of social or economic status, even criminals who were often outside of organized religion.  This was one of the foundational principles of Methodism, that the church was for everyone.  Early Methodism was considered a “poor man’s” religion.
• “Methodist,” like “Mormon” was a pejorative term ascribed to early adherents due to their focus on methodical Bible study and discussion.  Students would meet together regularly to “methodically” read and discuss scriptures (early morning seminary parallel?).
• Regular fasting.  This was not common in other Protestant faiths of the day.
• Weekly communion was held (our sacrament meeting equivalent) and baptism was the other holy rite of early Methodism.
• Regularly visiting the poor, the sick, and those in prison.  I’m not sure they brought casseroles, but there seems to be a similar principle here.
• Abstaining from most forms of amusement and luxury.  Refraining from alcohol was sometimes referred to as “turning Methodist.”  One wonders if abstinence from amusement would have been a good match for Joseph Smith, who was said to have a boisterous temperament, but it has been observed on many Mormon posts that we don’t know how to have a good time and don’t really celebrate like other religions.
• Methodist ministers rebelled against the apathy they perceived in the Church of England.  This seems to fit with our high expectations of church members to live the commandments.  Methodists were often accused of fanaticism, and critics warned that the constant experiences with the Holy Spirit would prove unhealthy or make people go crazy.
• Although no longer a feature of Methodism, early members had testimony sharing meetings.  So, next time it’s the first Sunday of the month, remember our Methodist friends.
• Methodists rejected the notion of predestination, instead believing in man’s free will and God’s grace.
• They believed that personal salvation required service to the world and a Christian mission.  This is not necessarily being a missionary, but doing works of Christian service in the world.

There are differences to Mormonism as well, such as reliance on the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed.  The key difference, one that was especially significance to the formation of the Mormon church and Joseph Smith’s experience, is Methodism’s reliance on tradition as the source of their authority and the means whereby doctrine is determined.

So, was Methodism the source for these practices in Mormonism, borrowed because Joseph found them compelling in his search for truth?  Is Mormonism just an off-shoot of Methodism?

IMO, there’s much more to both Mormonism and Methodism; Mormonism was not merely a recreation of Methodism substituting revelation and angelic visitation for tradition.  But the next time you’re on vacation and you can’t find a Mormon church, check out the local Methodist church.  You might feel more at home than you would expect.

Obviously, there were actual Mormon colonies early in the pioneering days, which is how most of the West was settled. However, that is not the topic I want to explore. I have only had a few experiences with what I will call modern-day colonial Mormons.

1. When I was a teenager (1985), I met my first “colonial” Mormon in my home ward. A family moved into the ward from Utah. All the membership prior to that were from the local area. Immediately, the mother of the family started (subtly) pointing out things that were “wrong” about how our ward did things. We should have early morning seminary, not weekly (despite having six different high schools and a 25 mile commuting radius). The Young Women should do crafts and present group musical numbers. The bishop should do something about the crazy Pentacostal convert who kept shouting “hallelujah” and rapping her fan on the pew when a particularly good point was made in church.  And we suddenly had to have a Pioneer Day parade, even though it wasn’t a recognized holiday and hardly anyone had pioneer ancestry.  Little things like that.
2. My second experience was at the end of my mission (1990).  An older couple was assigned to one of the wards as ”leadership” missionaries.  The wife immediately began focusing on getting the local sisters interested in ”homemaking” projects (mostly crafts).  She expressed to me her disbelief that none of the sisters knew how to crochet or knit!  (Perhaps because it was a warm-climate island).  Previously, they had spent their homemaking meetings discussing how to have stronger marriages and how to help sisters in need.  I question whether this was an upgrade.

So, what happens in the cycle of colonialism?

• A colonizing group decides to expand to new territories, exporting their culture and traditions and imposing them on those colonized areas.   This is also characterized by:
  • A desire to preserve the cultural elements of the colonizing group and to impose those traditions, values, and practices on other cultures.
  • A condescending attitude toward local populace and customs.
  • A paternalistic approach to educate others on “the right way.”
• An initial fascination by the local group for the colonizing culture (e.g. Anglophiles); an (initial) agreement that the colonizing culture is in some way preferred or “better.”  (Some converts, especially in the early days, awaited for instruction from HQ as it were).
• Eventually, one of two things happens:
  • An eventual break at the local level with the colonizing group.  This could be a violent, intentional break (e.g. the American Revolution), a passive yet intentional break (e.g. Indian rights reform) or a more evolutionary break as a new culture emerges in the local area which supersedes the colonizing culture (e.g. Roman Catholic Church vs. Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church).
  • Guilt among the colonizing group about treatment of the local populace accompanied by awkward and problematic repatriation (e.g. French believe first and foremost in equality, yet do not like admitting the Muslim culture into their tightly-controlled society).  This can happen when the local populace’s issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved to create an equal status through independence.

But perhaps a third option, in the case of the church, is to become a truly world-wide church (the stone that fills the earth) in which diversity of culture is embraced while retaining centralized doctrine.  Is that really an achievable aim or is colonization a human tendency that is so ingrained it’s inevitable?  A lot has been written about the introduction of harmful plants and animals that changed the eco-systems of North America, such as the honeybee.  Are colonizing Mormons aware enough of the potentially harmful elements they may be introducing (e.g. funeral potatoes, green jello, prolific zucchini plants) into the native cultures to avoid it?  IMO, colonialism is harmful to both the local group and to the colonizing group if it 1) implies superiority of one culture over the other, 2) shifts the focus to cultural elements away from doctrinal, or 3) creates cultural rifts and inequities between different groups of the church.

As Elder Uchdorff mentioned in conference, we should embrace the “faith of our fathers” and most importantly of our “Heavenly Father.”  Jello optional.  Crafts not required.  Bring your own flan to the Pioneer Day parade that’s being held in someone’s backyard because none of the local members hail from pioneer stock; instead, they are all pioneers with their own tales of conversion and courage–they are among the first members of the church within their own family trees.

So, have any of you encountered cultural colonialism? Or has this largely been done away with over time (as you see, my examples are not recent)?  What is cultural colonialism?  Is it cultural colonialism that conference is in English, always held in Utah, even though there are more LDS outside the US now?

Here’s what these non-LDS visitors had to say about our missionaries:

They were pushy, rude, and ignorant whereas the woman with the Community of Christ was helpful, friendly, and knowledgeable.

Their post also describes an interesting discourse between the visitor and a missionary in which the missionary continually resorted to testifying rather than answering questions.  Now, I know that testifying is used to bring in the spirit, and to invite people to come to Christ.  But, is this the best approach with visitors to a historical landmark who are requesting historical information?  Isn’t this like the caution from October 2007 General Conference that “there is a difference between interest and mere curiosity” (Elder Ballard).

So, why do non-LDS people visit LDS sites? 

1. Because they are interested in history.
2. Because someone in their party dragged them along to this boring historical site or promised them ice cream afterwards.
3. Because they are curious about or interested in the church.
   • Maybe they know someone who is LDS or have family who are LDS.
   • Maybe they are investigating the church.
   • Maybe they are associated with a splinter group of the church (esp. in Kirtland).
   • Maybe they are antagonistic toward the church, although I can think of better ways to spend your vacation if so.
4. Because they took a wrong turn when they were trying to get to the world’s biggest ball of twine.  Boy, are these guys going to be disappointed!

Of those groups, I suppose it is possible that any of them might become interested if they feel the spirit.  Maybe.  However, it’s probably equally likely that most of the non-LDS visitors will want historical information as they often do at Temple Square.

All proselyting faiths have a certain schtick and it varies from denomination to denomination and over time within a faith. But are historical sites best manned with proselyting missionaries?

When I was in Kirtland about 5 years ago, the historical sites run by the church were newly re-opened, and I found the LDS guides to be very knowledgeable about the history.  They were all older married couples.  The contrast I encountered was that in the Kirtland temple, the tour guides de-emphasized the visitation of the Savior to the temple and the other spiritual manifestations that both our faiths believe took place there, although when asked, they did point those things out.  The CoC presentation seemed very politically correct to me, extremely non-confrontational, and very mainstream Christian.  The guides were scholarly and polite.  I asked the CoC tour guide what denominations the visitors were, and she said about 90% were LDS.

The LDS sites emphasized the spiritual aspects (what revelations were received, where the Savior was seen, etc.), but when I asked questions about the archeology and the layout of the village, they were still very knowledgeable.  They also spontaneously offered to lead hymns or prayers or have moments of silence, which frankly made me feel a little uncomfortable (did I look like I wanted to burst into song?), but there were no non-LDS in our group so I am not sure how that would have been perceived by others.

So, what do you think?  Are we hectoring unsuspecting tourists with our constant testifying and creating dissonance for future dialog?  Or are we on the right track and the CoC tour guides are just being too politically correct?  Discuss.

As long as I can remember, I was always rebellious against what I felt was unjust coercion, but I feel it was not until my mission that I started to come into conflict with authority.

At points I felt that missionary managers did not care about me or the other missionaries. At one point, crying on the mission president’s shoulder, I said, “All I want is to know that someone cares.” This was my own personal gethsemane that helped me feel the atonement working in my life and to feel Jesus’s love when I felt no one else cared for me. My mission president often described a mission as “a wonderfully awful but an awfully wonderful experience”. It definitely was for me. I had firsthand experience of the pain of mission politics and the abuses of power within a vertically structured organization.

When I heard John Dehlin’s podcast about his mission in Guatemala, about baseball baptisms I realized that there were similar stories, by others, of problems where people felt that ecclesiastical power was being abused and regular missionaries were being ostracized or punished for “objecting to unjust authority.” We have all heard Lord Acton’s maxim,

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I firmly believe this and have witnessed it in myself and in others.

Coming home from my mission I set myself goals to learn more about church history as a matter of faith mixed with curiosity and enjoy my mission for what it was. However, and I humbly admit, that I had the opportunity to visit with various bishops and councillors quite frequently over the next few years to resolve issues that had cropped up. I noticed that some were very humble and kind whilst others were more dictatorial and autocratic. The autocratic leaders made me realize that I was being too naive in trusting my spiritual wellbeing with these types of men, that I was perhaps too honest, and that I was going to repent so I would be able to get out of there as soon as I could.

During this time I read MANY church books that an orthodox mormon would call “anti-” but I found them historically accurate and fairly honest. I spent all my spare time, in a 2 year period, reading through church history books by anyone I could get my hands on and realized that the faith promoting Mormon history I was used too was biased, propagandized and most importantly didn’t tell the whole story. During this crisis of faith and sense of betrayal I also lost a faithful Mormon girlfriend who was worried about the information I was reading and I made my family worry. In my books and attempts at resolving my dissonance I read Michael Quinn’s “Mormon Hierarchy” series and was flummoxed about ecclesiastical power abuses in the history of the church from Joseph Smith to Ezra Taft Benson. My heart went out to those who suffered abuse by men in power as I empathized with them.

D&C 121 reads:

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

It seems Lord Jesus Christ agrees with Lord Acton…or should it be vice versa.

For the time, I am unable to stay in Eden after eating of the bittersweet fruit of Mormon History. I choose to stay in the church and consider myself Mormon though I have unresolved doubts that plague me daily and I stay as committed as I can. My journey seems to be leading me to help those who are suffering and oppressed. I wonder whether this is the right journey but I find meaning and hope in it. I still choose to face Eden and my heart aches to return and meet others there when people, like myself, who have eaten this bittersweet fruit, learn how to illuminate the pathway back to religious certainty.

The mission in which my stake is located is currently testing a pilot program that hearkens back to a familiar Book of Mormon story about a man named Ammon who wanted to build a bridge between two long estranged peoples, one of which was completely unfamiliar with the Gospel. Setting aside the direct proselytizing approach to missionary work, Ammon embarked on a mission of simple Christian service that inspired thousands who were previously considered the most unlikely potential converts to join the Church. If every stake and ward in the Church were to adopt Ammon’s approach to missionary work by conducting a wide-spread campaign of consistent, meaningful, no-strings-attached community service, could the Church experience the same miraculous growth that occurred in Ammon’s day?

Let me begin by saying that I strongly dislike the term “missionary work” because of the limitations and connotations it implies. To me, the term “missionary work” misleadingly suggests it is an activity relegated to full-time missionaries, and calling it “work” makes it sound like a chore that one must set aside time to perform out of a sense of duty, separate and apart from one’s natural daily routine. And I think each of us has probably seen what missionary work looks like when motivated by a sense of compulsion to fulfill a duty. It feels forced, unnatural, calculated, and tainted with unspoken ulterior motives. Worst of all, duty-based missionary work lacks the power and influence of genuine love, which ought to be the motivation behind all our actions. Accordingly, I generally try to avoid the term “missionary work” and prefer using other terms like “sharing the Gospel.”

But at the end of the day, it doesn’t much matter what we call missionary work. What really matters is how we do missionary work. And unless and until we do it the right way, our message will ring hollow to others. So, what is the right way to do missionary work?

Paradoxically, the right way to do missionary work may be to forget about our doing missionary work altogether, much like we are told we need to lose our life to find it. As Elder Ballard has pointed out, the best way for Church members to do missionary work is to simply live the Gospel more completely and genuinely. If we truly live the Gospel, we won’t need to go hunting for converts because they will be drawn to us naturally:

Our homes can be gospel-sharing homes as people we know and love come into our homes and experience the gospel firsthand in both word and action. We can share the gospel without holding a formal discussion. Our families can be our lesson, and the spirit that emanates from our homes can be our message. . . .

Creating a gospel-sharing home does not mean that we are going to have to dedicate large amounts of time to meeting and cultivating friends with whom to share the gospel. These friends will come naturally into our lives . . . . (M. Russell Ballard, “Creating a Gospel-Sharing Home,” Ensign, May 2006, 84–87.)

Moreover, Elder Ballard points out that creating more open, Gospel-centered homes is something we should do simply because it is a good thing to do, and regardless of whether it draws others into the Church:

A gospel-sharing home is not defined by whether or not people join the Church as a result of our contact with them. . . . At the very least, we have a rewarding relationship with someone from another faith, and we can continue to enjoy their friendship. (Id.)

As members of the Church, there are countless ways we can improve our efforts to reach out and serve the communities in which we live, and I am excited to be participating in a new program that provides Church members an additional opportunity to do just that. The mission in which my stake is located is currently testing a pilot program of providing English as a Second Language (ESL) classes that are open to the public, free of charge, and without any religious conditions. Full-time missionaries and local members teach a practical language curriculum that focuses on helping immigrants navigate their way through common experiences: buying food and clothing, renting housing, going to the doctor, etc.

I am currently teaching one of these ESL classes at my church building every Friday night to a wonderful group of immigrants, most of whom are Iranians. They are kind and intelligent people with impressive backgrounds; one is a former doctor, another an engineer, another an accountant. They are a segment of my local community that, were it not for this ESL program, I probably would not have had an opportunity to ever meet or interact with. And were it not for this ESL program, many of these immigrants probably would never have heard of Mormons, much less had any reason to enter a Mormon church building. In a few short weeks, we have begun building bridges of understanding, both literally and figuratively, between immigrants and native members of our community, and between those of other faiths and our own.

Although we haven’t attempted to impose our beliefs on any of these ESL class members, some of them have naturally become curious about who we are and what motivates us to help them. For example, five of our ESL class members (four Iranians and one Russian), showed up at our Sunday Church meetings just a few weeks into the ESL program. One such member of the class, an Iranian who is now taking the missionary discussions, showed up at our ESL class the other night and, without prompting, expressed his newfound faith. “I love Jesus,” he said, as he proudly displayed a crucifix necklace and ring he had recently purchased.

To me, this new ESL program is a welcome outward extension of the generous donations of time, talents, and energy that Mormons are so good at giving each other. We Mormons have a wonderful volunteer spirit, and an admirable organizational system. However, all too often, our volunteerism and organizational efforts at the local level are directed inward. Although we see admirable exceptions to this general rule when natural disasters strike, after the rubble has been cleared, too often we return to focusing our regular service efforts on our fellow Mormons.

I have long been feeling the need to serve those outside my faith by doing something more than paying taxes and marking the “Humanitarian Aid” check box when making a monetary contribution to the Church. It is always good to give money to a good cause, but there is something about providing community service personally that truly nourishes the soul. So it is my hope that this new ESL program is just one of many forthcoming efforts by the Church and its membership to reach out and serve our local communities in significant and sustained ways.

In closing, I look forward to a day when the word “Mormons” readily comes to mind whenever anyone in the world is asked: “Who feeds the hungry? Who shelters the homeless? Who clothes the naked? Who helps cure the sick? Who visits the imprisoned?” Hopefully, one day people in every community where Mormons are found will answer those questions in a way similar to a gentleman I once heard giving thanks after his community had been devastated by a hurricane:

I’d like to thank two churches in particular for all their efforts in helping clean up and rebuild our community.

One of those churches is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And the other is the Mormons.

So, what are your thoughts about this topic? I’d love to get your views on any or all of the following questions:

1. If every able stake and ward in the Church were to implement a Church-led “Ammon approach” of continual, meaningful community service, do you think the number of genuine converts to the Church would naturally increase, or would it just draw limited resources away from other efforts that bring converts into the Church and reduce convert baptisms?

2. Considering that nothing is currently preventing individual Church members from volunteering to serve in their communities, is there really a need for the Church to help organize and staff such community service efforts, or is community service something that Church members can do (and are already doing) on their own in sufficient numbers?

3. Considering that there are already numerous government agencies and private charitable organizations that address humanitarian problems, is it more appropriate for the Church to focus on those activities that only the Church is qualified and capable of doing, i.e., serving its members spiritually and spreading its Gospel message?

4. Considering how much time Mormons already dedicate to Church service, do Church members even have the time or resources to add regular community service to their already busy schedules? In other words, is a Church-led community service program something that would overburden Church members, or would it give them the spiritual nourishment they are seeking?

5. Is a Church-led program of continual, meaningful community service the elusive answer to the persistent question of how to turn every Church member into a “member missionary”?

Let me begin with my disclaimer — as some of you may have realized, I am struggling (as a member of the LDS church) with the way that church leaders (as of late) appear to be publicly distancing themselves from many of the tenets of the “gospel” that I grew up with. This is complicated by the fact that while I am happy to see many of these changes — I also am simultaneously fearful that as we “assimilate” into mainstream U.S. culture by playing up our commonalities with others — and distancing ourselves from the differences — we will ultimately weaken the church I love, by weakening the core beliefs/theology that once made us strong.

Anyway, to illustrate….during the interview, Dr. Millet was asked why Mormons target Christians as well as non-Christians with their missionary work. His response was as follows:

“Now, people will frequently ask us, ‘But why do you go to Christians who already have a church, who already have a belief?’ And, ‘Why don’t you just go to the heathen, you know?’ And there’s a practical answer for that. And that is — I’ve had pastors ask me this, and I’ve said to them, ‘How large is your congregation?’ ‘Well, about 700.’ ‘When you look out at that congregation, can you literally tell at one glance who of all those people have truly been converted? Who of all those people have had a personal conversion experience? Who of all those people have been born again? Who of all those people have, in your language, accepted Jesus as their savior? Do you know in each case?’ And he said, ‘Well, no, of course not.’ I said, ‘Neither do we.’ And so we approach everyone. “

Based on Mormon scripture, doctrine, and theology — isn’t the most honest and up front answer to this question the following: “We don’t consider any other church to have the legitimate authority of God — and so our missionary work must go to all people”. If I may quote from the Pearl of Great Price:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

Again — I can understand what he is doing here. He is trying to build on common beliefs — and he doesn’t want to offend.

But I ask you — is it completely honest? Or is it misleading? Is Dr. Millet telling the whole truth here — or only a partial truth? More importantly — as more and more devout LDS folks pick up on answers like this — are they not going to start wondering what’s going on…and where the church that they grew up in (and that the pioneers sacrificed for) has gone? All watered down and stuff?

Finally, for those of you who were missionaries — how focused were you on “helping people to accept Jesus as their personal savior”, vs. helping them to join the one and only true church? And if people told you that they had already accepted Jesus as their Savior, did you politely accept their response, and move on to someone else — or did you keep trying?