• 
• The unrepentant sinners & the unconverted.  The rebellious.  There are stories of missionaries who went out because they were essentially bribed with a promised car or job because parents hoped that a mission would “clean them up” or get them back on track from their wayward existence.  Anyone who served a mission before the change (like I did) probably knew a few of these guys.  If this group used to make up about 3% of the mission population, it has now been eliminated.  These guys were probably pretty independent and resilient; cars and jobs are powerful motivators.  Of course, the ones I knew were mostly self-serving jerks and not very good missionaries unless their acts did in fact get cleaned up on the course of their missions.
• The repentant sinners.  In E. Ballard’s original address on Raising the Bar, he said, “The day of the ‘repent and go’ missionary is over.”  Eliminating these from the pool probably has some preventive value (shame avoidance is a powerful motivator).  My guess is that this used to be a pretty high percentage of missionaries – maybe as high as 25%.  Or else I was just in a unique mission.

 Although we’ve all heard great stories of hardened sinners who found their souls while serving a mission, I think we can all agree that might not be the best method of conversion.  But losing the repentant sinners feels like a loss on a few fronts:  1) everyone is a sinner, and demarking between degrees of sin doesn’t feel quite right to me, 2) I disagree with the implication that they are more likely to slip into those same sins again on their mission (at least that’s not what I saw), 3) who better than the repentant sinner to relate to potential converts, and 4) they are far more likely to have the life experience needed to live independently without going off the deep end.

 In practice, if not based on the actual instructions to “raise the bar,” who was left in?

• The worthy.  Candidates who had no serious (confession-worthy) sins in their past to repent.  This group is the long-standing majority of missionaries both before and after the change.  I’m going to estimate this constituted 60% before the change, which would put it at 83% after the change.  If the goal was a higher percentage “worthy” missionaries, mission accomplished.
• The sheltered.  Children of helicopter parents.  These are the missionaries who have never lived away from home, don’t know how to cook, clean or care for themselves if they get sick, and haven’t had much experience dealing with people (e.g. a companion) outside their own family.  I’d ballpark this at 3% of the mission force before the change, but with the change, that boosts it to more like 4.2%.  These guys seem slightly higher risk for not making it through a mission.
• The mentally unstable.  It’s not a sin to have a mental illness, and depending on the mental illness and its treatment or lack thereof, it can prevent one from making missteps that would lead to a repentance issue.  However, this same issue could create problems for the missionary, out on his or her own, trying to cope with the stresses of a mission while also coping a mental issue.  Before the change, I would have ballparked this at 1% of missionaries, but with the change, this moves to 1.4%.  This group should be shrinking, but according to a SLTrib article, it may go unreported due to the stigma of not serving.
• Those with health issues.  Again, not a worthiness issue at all, but this can impact someone’s ability to complete their mission, especially if they are in an area with unfamiliar climates, foods, exposure to other ailments, and different doctor care.  I would have ballparked this one for my pre-bar-raised mission at about 3%, and based on these estimates, probably 4.2% now.
• The socially isolated.  Those that couldn’t get a date, much less commit sexual sin.  Poor social skills.  Possibly poor hygiene.  Could include extreme introverts.  OK, there’s a reason missionaries are occasionally mocked for their dorkiness.  I would have pegged this at about 5% of missionaries before the change.  With the change (if my original estimates are anywhere near right), that moves this to 6.9%.

In a talk by L. Tom Perry in the 2007 November Ensign, he said:  “Full-time missionary service is a privilege for those who are called through inspiration by the President of the Church. Bishops and stake presidents have the serious responsibility to identify worthy, qualified members who are spiritually, physically, and emotionally prepared for this sacred service and who can be recommended without reservation. Those individuals not able to meet the physical, mental, and emotional demands of full-time missionary work are honorably excused and should not be recommended. They may be called to serve in other rewarding capacities.“

• Stigma of not serving.  It seems that this idea of honorably excusing those who are not fully prepared is not well understood.  Someone who is unprepared emotionally, physically or spiritually is considered damaged goods by the lay membership.  Average members often still consider those who don’t serve a mission as unworthy, regardless the reason, not as “honorably excused.”
• Reluctance of local leaders to offend.  In some of these cases, a local leader determining that a young man or woman is not ready to serve a mission is an indictment of members’ parenting skills or social skills of the candidate.  This can result in hurt feelings and drive people away who are asking to serve.
• Lack of self-awareness.  Self-reported social, physical and emotional readiness may be unreliable, especially for young people with little exposure outside their family circle.
• No external assessment.  We determine worthiness based on the interview questions, mostly related to confessable sins.  But we don’t consistently apply as much scrutiny to issues that are in fact less reliant on self-reporting errors:  physical health and mental wellness. Both of these could be assessed in a clear manner through professional instruments and interviews with health care professionals.

What could we do differently?  Here are some suggestions (some of which are doubtless being done to varying extents):

1. Quit babying the youth.  YW and YM leaders should treat the youth who lead the quorums and YW groups to lead those groups, giving them clear opportunities to organize, lead, and instruct others.  Parents should push their kids to take on more reponsibility, not less.
2. Mainstream viable mission alternatives that are viewed as equal, non-token assignment with no associated stigma.  These can’t be populated with just those who are physically or mentally unable to serve a proselyting mission, or the stigma remains.
3. Require some minimum time living independently prior to serving (not just in dorms which often act as substitute parents).  This one might be a problem for those who don’t have the financial means to make it a reality, but there is something to be said for having to cook your own Ramen noodles and wash your own clothes regularly while living with people who aren’t related to you.  Perhaps serving “temporary” field missions would be a good approach; this was done with young members who were not yet old enough to serve missions when I was on my mission.
4. Provide better instruction on mission preparation that includes social skills (a bit tough to assess), emotional resilience, independence, and so forth.  Use external assessments to assist local leadership in good decision making.
5. Ensure better balance in considering all requirements:  social skills, emotional resilience, physical health, and worthiness / repentance.  Allow the repentant to serve, provided they are clearly ready in all areas, including the spiritual.  Technically, the guidelines do allow for this, but the wording of the original talk and instruction was so direct that there seems to be a reluctance to allow for it among local leaders.

Others have blogged on this topic here (friendly) and here (hater).

Have we lost something by preventing the repentant from going?  Or should we cut further to eliminate those who are socially unprepared or coping with mental or other health issues?  What are your experiences?  Do you disagree with my guesses at percentages above?  Do you have any great stories (who doesn’t) about the unconverted, the socially awkward, or the rest?

Discuss.

Where you see yourself probably has a lot to do with whether you prefer being an insider or an outsider, and what the tolerance for deviation from the norms is from those with whom you most closely associate.

Personal Preference - which type are you?

• Affiliation.  Some people want to belong.  They are called affiliators.  They like to be a part of a group, they want to fit in, and they do not like to be seen as “different.”
• Differentiation.  Some people want to be seen as different or unique.  They can’t stand being like everyone else.  They will point out the ways they are not like the group’s norms.

The real solution here is that you have to own up to your preferences.  If you like being different or unique, don’t complain about being different and unique.  And if you want to fit in, own up to that and don’t blame others if your need to feel accepted outweighs the total amount of commonality you have with the group

Group Tolerance - which approach do you take?

• Inclusive. Some people want to broaden the tent of Mormonism, allowing for everyone who has any interest to be “in” and to feel welcome.  They tend to find the universalist bent to the plan of salvation comforting and appealing.  They want to assure themselves that no one will ultimately be left out. They like to reach out to anyone at church who may be an investigator, or just have different or unpopular views.  They want everyone to be accepted.
• Exclusive.  Some people want to police the standards and to “protect” the exclusivity of the community.  They quickly point out unacceptable deviations (sometimes directly or sometimes alerting lay leadership of the dangers posed by that person).  These individuals need to belong to an organization that is exclusive, free from infiltrators.  They might sniff with disdain when they smell cigarette smoke on someone’s clothes or whisper about that outrageous comment Sister Smith made in RS.  They might mention to the bishop the concern they felt when they saw Bro. Jones walking out of a store on a Sunday or that the YW president’s daughter was wearing a bikini to wash the family car in the driveway.

In reality, we are all insiders and outsiders throughout every conversation.  Things are said that we identify with (insider) and that we dislike (outsider), that we agree with (insider), and that we have no interest in (outsider).  These are probably the same categories whether you are at church or at work or hanging out at a family or high school reunion.  I have grouped these into a few categories:

• Things you don’t believe (outsider) vs. shared beliefs (insider)
• Things you haven’t experienced (outsider) vs. shared experiences (insider)
• Things you don’t value (outsider) vs. shared values (insider)
• Cultural differences (outsider) vs. shared culture (insider)

Christ would say we should strive to be more inclusive of others, while helping them to become the best they can be.  But first we must accept others on their own terms if they are at all interested in being part of the group.  To do that, we need to downplay the focus on shared experiences and shared cultural markers that are especially difficult for newcomers to share.  Focusing on shared values and beliefs seems the best way to be inclusive.

So, what do you think?  Are you more of an ousider or an insider?  Is that the way you like it?  How inclusive are you of others?  Are you sometimes surprised at how inside or outside you feel?  Time for a short poll based on the categories above.

[poll id="50"]

[poll id="48"] [poll id="49"]

Discuss.

John Hamer did a post in April of 2008 called Laymen = Clergy:  The Genius of Mormonism.  Although the title from my series is derived from his excellent and well-researched post, I will take my series in the direction described above to do a series of OPs.

First of all, what do other churches do that might be considered on par with a “mission” experience?  Here are a few, and why they don’t quite stack up to LDS missions effectiveness-wise:

• Bible camp. Religious retreats are just that, retreats from the world to rally kids to have their own born-again experience and to put Jesus first.  The nature of a retreat is temporary, and these are mostly for kids, not independent adults making their own way.  These are more like EFY than a mission, and can even be a great place to hook up.  Impacts are nowhere near as long-lasting as a 2 year mission.  Like EFY, you may pull out your faded baggy tee shirt later and chuckle to yourself about how naive and cute you were back then, as you reach across your live-in girlfriend to take another hit off your bong (OK, I made that last part up–anyone paying attention out there?)  Grade:  C-
• Peace corps service. These are great for those who want to make a huge difference in developing countries and find purpose in their life.  These can often be non-religious, though, and the plight of developing nations can become a life-consuming quest for those who render this kind of service, one that supercedes one’s religious devotion or personal life and family.  Highly effective at making first rate human beings.  Less effective at promoting religious aims or transferability into daily life.  Grade B
• Lay member proselyting. Jehovah’s Witnesses tithe their time through regular proselyting by lay members.  This certainly rates high on the effectiveness scale for increasing commitment, but over time, it’s got to be a bit of a grind.  One good thing about Mormon missions is that they end after 2 years and you can return to normal life.  Given the enormous sense of relief most missionaries feel once they are released, I have to think a lifetime ongoing missionary experience would be tough to face.  Grade:  B-
• Vocation or entering the priesthood. Those who wish to devote their lives to Christ in Catholicism can become a nun or priest.  This is usually considered someone’s calling in life that they feel compelled to do.  On the upside, this requires a lifetime of devotion and service.  On the downside, a lifetime of celibacy and its accompanying, uhm, feelings.  Very effective for those who enter it and who are cut out for it, but it does nothing for the average member personally, making it kind of an all or nothing choice.  Grade C

So, what makes “Missions” an ingenious practice?  Here’s my list of reasons:

• A Personal Hero Myth.  Missionaries experience their own personal hero myth, with them in the role of hero.  They heed the “call to adventure.”  They see things others overlook.  They set aside the “normal,” and in so doing, they become leaders and heroes to those they serve.  They learn many positive things about themselves.  To their families, their GF/BF, and themselves, they are very much the hero in the story of their mission, and these experiences can provide the spiritual foundation for a lifetime.  And like all good Hero Myths, there’s a beginning, a middle, and an end.
• Transferable Skills.  Many missionary skills are transferable to life:  how to get along with someone who drives you completely nuts day in and day out, how to meet new people, speaking in front of a group, language skills, being persuasive, listening, and new cultural exposure.
• Persecution.  Let’s face it, obstacles and persecution bolster devotion.  At this stage of the game, it’s tough to get one’s undies in a wad over the suffering of Pioneers and early saints (particularly for those with no Pioneer heritage).  A mission is an excellent opportunity to be persecuted for your religious beliefs.  At most, you could get kicked out of a country, and at bare minimum, you might suffer the personal trials of a Dear John (or Jane) letter.  Personally, I didn’t get a lot of persecution, but some kids did bowl oranges down the street at us one day which was kind of surreal.
• Testimony / Conversion.  As the saying goes, even if you don’t convert anyone but yourself, a mission is worthwhile.  Missionaries are confronted with the need to find their own religious conviction as they work to help others find theirs.
• A Timely Distraction.  There are far less productive ways for young adults to spend their time, from a religious standpoint.  The need to remain worthy to serve a mission, the temporary celibacy of a mission, and the need to save money to go on a mission all provide helpful distractions from things that get teens in trouble.  This is also the time when many young people first establish their independence.  Doing so in a religious environment can build spiritual resilience.
• Personal Ties to Others in the Community.  Missionaries love the people they serve.  Those ties are strong and can help missionaries develop a foundation of loving and serving others in the LDS community and throughout their lives.

On the downside, missions are not perfect.  Here are some of the potential issues that lessen the effectiveness of missions:

• Boys are compelled to go.  Because a mission is so strongly encouraged for young men, there may be instances where those who go are neither physically nor emotionally fit for a mission, but they go due to social expectation.
• Women are not encouraged to go.  While many women do go on missions, women are not encouraged to go.  The alternative path for women in the church can be passive by default.  A passive path may result in women missing out on some of the above benefits of a mission or even create inequities between men and women in marriages or in church.
• Missions can be intense.  The pressure in a mission can sometimes result in practices that are at best stressful, at worst faith-shaking.  You may deal with a lot of rejection.  Oddly, not everyone enjoys that.

Overall, I would give LDS Missions an A- for their religious effectiveness. Despite the flaws of the program, the benefits greatly outweigh the negatives for the majority.  While the program could certainly be improved, it is a best-in-class program that is unsurpassed by other religions’ programs.  Do you agree or disagree?

Discuss.

[poll id="4"]

A few quick observations about Kiersey Temperaments and how they might manifest at church:

SJ – 50-55% of the population.  This is the most frequent of the types.  SJs like themes of loyalty, obedience, authority, organized efforts (such as checklists and handbooks), and tradition.  They are the organizers of groups.  SJs often rise to positions of authority because they are reliable and dependable and they abide by the rules.  Without SJs, organizations lack the rules and traditions to keep them going.

• What connects them to the church:  The organization, the authority, the loyalty, the ordinances, traditions, patriarchy

• Why they might leave:  SJs love to feel like they belong to an organization with strong traditions and are valued for their loyalty.  They would leave an organization if they feel they don’t belong, if they feel their loyalty is unrewarded or if they feel the organization has abandoned traditions they value.

SP – 30-35% of the population.  These are the entertainers and artists.  SPs like freedom of self-expression, flouting the rules, and they dislike the constraints of authority and rules.  They are the free spirits of society, and may prefer freedom from the constraints of religion (e.g. eastern philosophy or artistic pursuits).  They tend to be athletic and enjoy nature.  Within organizations, they are often a breath of fresh air.  Yet, they can be viewed as flaky, especially by the SJs.  They also enjoy undermining the SJs.

• What connects them to the church:  The music, the opportunity to “perform” (talks, lessons), the variety of changing callings, the Word of Wisdom and church athletics, scouting
• Why they might leave:  Maybe a better question is why they might stay.  SPs often like variety and change and freedom, and belonging to any organization for too long may be asking too much.  SPs leave when they feel stifled or that the organization is too staid and boring to stimulate them or to allow their self-expression.

NF – 7-10% of the population.  These are the idealists and humanists.  NFs are driven by empathy and the need to have a meaningful life.  They are often deeply devoted to causes that align with their deeply held personal values.  If they feel their values align with an organization, they will be invaluable at energizing those values into actions.  They have amazing empathy, and are usually the best people in an organization to make lasting people connections.

• What connects them to the church:  The people, the values (if aligned), humanitarian efforts, and service opportunities

• Why they might leave:  If they feel their values are misaligned with an organization, they will leave to pursue their dreams and causes.  They also dislike environments with a strong corporate feel that leaves them cold.

NT – 3-5% of the population.  These are the intellectuals.  NTs are driven by a need to comprehend the complex systems of the world, to design, to learn, and to master.  They care deeply about competence (their own and others’).  They tend to be very self-confident and skeptical of authority.

• What connects them to the church:  Understanding and exploring deep doctrines, intellectual concepts like theosis, and the notion of personal revelation
• Why they might leave:  Many NTs tend to be agnostic or atheist.  NTs tend to leave religion for intellectual reasons or if they find the church experience intellectually stifling or lacking in stimulation.

(The 70 question link above is not the full instrument, so your results may be inaccurate.  If you feel one of the other descriptions fits you better, feel free to comment on that.)

Does this information provide any new insights about why people stay and why they leave?  Is it useful to try to understand what motivates a variety of people rather than just catering to the slim majority (the SJs)?  Does the bloggernacle personality differ dramatically from the norm of the church (as I would hypothesize)?

Discuss.

I was reading a comment in another article here, and what Doug had said intrigued me:

This board started out as a place for middle-way thinking people to discuss problematic issues with doctrine and history. It would now appear that anyone with an opinion different then the “current LDS view” is attacked as I and many others have been. On several other discussion boards, mormon matters is considered a pro LDS blog. Gentlemen, just say the word and I’ll find another place to try and help those who don’t see the church the way you do understand that they’re not alone. I guess it’s true; there is in reality no room for a NOM in the church.

I don’t know if I have ever thought of MM as anything other than a pro-LDS blog. But I *have* always recognized that this site is of a different caliber, of course, than M* or T&S and others. So I guess, I’ll try to shake things up and offer a different perspective and hope that I don’t get chased out on a rail.The other day, out of all people, *I* had a missionary experience. I’ve written about it on my blog, but here’s the executive summary: over the course of conversation, I revealed to someone that I was raised Mormon. Over more conversation, I revealed further that I’m not a believing Mormon (and with that, I’ve probably lost half my MM readership right there, if Doug’s comment is to be believed) and so they shouldn’t expect me to have the most faith-promoting answers.

However, despite that, I still was the go-to guy for tough Mormon questions. Questions such as, “Isn’t this the church where blacks can’t go to heaven?” (these guys have learned well from the Huckabee school of interrogation) or “Are women banned from celestial glory because they do not have the priesthood?”

It was at this time, of course, that I realized that I was, in ways, a representative of the church (despite my pointing out that I’m not the faithful go-to guy). And so I realized that I had to take a delicate path.

I guess that for faithful members, there are standard, correlated answers for these questions. So it’s easy enough to answer that the policy was that blacks could not get the priesthood, but now with new revelation, blacks do have the priesthood and things are resolved. It’s then easy enough to segue that into an explanation of different levels of heaven (exaltation? how’s that different from salvation? Celestial Kingdom? Priesthood ordinances?) And then jete to the restoration of the gospel and isn’t that nice and won’t you come? I bet within a week you can get the missionaries a referral if you’re good enough.

But…if you haven’t realized it…for ex-Mormons, former Mormons (who I guess form the “dark side” in many members’ minds), liberal Mormons, New Order Mormons, and anyone similar, the standard correlated answers don’t work. They make us feel uneasy or deceptive. And that’s in part how we get to our position — by distancing ourselves from the church, we detach from stinging correlated answers. So, we can relate the Joseph Smith story, but we don’t necessarily feel obligated to believe the correlated telling. Or do the same for whatever issue.

Now, I will say that there are some who will go far with this — there are those who will leave the church bitter, angry, and anti. But I would suppose that most ex- and former Mormons don’t want to appear like antis. Anti-Mormons sometimes embarrass me. I’d like to think that people can look at reasonably truthful, accurate information, and then decide based on that (there’s enough gray to allow people to go either way without bringing up inaccuracies, falsehoods, sickly sweet faith-promoting stories and sickly venomous faith-destroying ones.)

But I am still put in this strange position…where I become the liaison for the church and for the LDS doctrine. And then I realize that because I am viewed as a somewhat reputable source despite my warnings otherwise, even as an exmember, I still am a missionary of sorts.

This post sounds kinda spastic because this is the third time I’ve written about it (the second time was to get perspectives from the other Dark Side of the Mooners) …but I wanted to ask people from a faithful perspective…what would you expect from ex- and former Mormons? What would you hope that they would say in response to questions about the gospel? Would it impress you to see an ex-Mormon dispelling blatant untruths from anti-Mormons? Would that all be dashed to bits if they followed up their trouncing of inaccuracies with unflattering church history or doctrine?

Before John Dehlin, there was Jeff Burton.

Jeff, a mechanical engineer by profession who was once an LDS Social Services counselor, has helped countless Mormons stay in the Church and stay active after experiencing crises of faith. His book and website, For Those Who Wonder, (where you can download his book for free!) continue to minister to the needs of those who are looking for ways to reconcile their changed religious understandings with their love for, and desire to remain involved with, the LDS Church. He helped me see that I could “remodel” my Mormon “house” to suit my needs in a way that was compatible with the expectations of others who live in it.

After purchasing his book at the BYU bookstore, I began to correspond with him about serving a mission, a decision which weighed heavily on my mind. In these pre-”raised bar” days, he helped me see that my doubts about parts of the Joseph Smith narrative need not prevent me from serving. I could witness to the things which I did strongly believe, like the mission of Jesus Christ and His teachings, in improving people’s lives. I cannot overestimate the impact that his honest and refreshing advice had on an 18 year old who thought he was alone in the Church. Others had gone through the same struggles!

Unfortunately, in the MTC I sometimes pretended to “know” things I doubted. I resented the social pressure to constantly testify. Jeff sent me another letter in the MTC which gave me some good advice about honesty. I determined to be more honest in my convictions and to let the force of what I DID believe in overshadow the doubts I harbored about aspects of the Restoration, especially in my conversations with missionaries and investigators.

Interestingly, Jeff’s advice to be honest helped me with many members of the Church in Germany, who had similar doubts as mine. I became friends with a few souls who entrusted parts of their faith journey to me. We encouraged each other to hold on to the gospel of Jesus Christ, while letting go of the parts of the Restoration narrative that didn’t work for us. (As an aside, Germany is a great place to go to test your religious convictions! Between the ravages of World War II, the Holocaust, and the dominance of Euro-secularism, you are hard pressed to find fellow theists).

I followed Jeff’s trail to the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake when I returned to BYU post-mission. He was presenting on inactivity rates in different areas of the Church which was quite interesting.

Most recently, I shared my appreciation for his help in staying in a Church which has continued to bring me joy and fulfillment. If not for Jeff, who knows, I might have ended up Episcopalian!

Have any of you benefitted from counselors like Jeff?

“Please bless the party leaders tonight [of the Republican Party] that they may be guided to make the right decisions.”

“Please be with our armed forces as they fight for freedom [in Iraq].”

“The Book of Mormon gives us a much clearer picture of Christ than the Bible.”

“The Second Coming must be drawing near. I don’t feel we have a true presidential candidate in the race now. The world is getting worse and worse. Gays want to get married.”

“I can’t believe that Bill Clinton made so much money off of his new book. He is an adulterer.”

“The Lord helped us buy our new house [in a swanky neighborhood].”

If you attend an LDS worship service, you may hear statements like the above. I have heard variations of these statements many times. Next time you attend, try this experiment. Pretend you are a “Gentile” (if you need help imagining a non-Mormon, you can pick one of my top ten non-Mormon lives) and experience what happens during the three hours through their eyes and ears. Imagine their reaction to what you see, hear, and feel. I’ve done this many times, attending church with friends not of the LDS persuasion, and latterly with some extended family, both Protestant and Catholic. The result has been that I have been more careful and considerate about the things I say at church!

Questions:

Would hearing the statements above make you more or less likely to have goodwill towards Mormons?

What are the positive and negative impressions you receive about the LDS Church from them?

Do you think statements like the above are likely to be taken as normative by non-LDS in attendance?

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.

There was a big disagreement about this on my mission.  An investigator who had been given a chapel card showed up for church just as the sacrament service was beginning.  When the bread tray came to him, he was unsure what to do, so he took a piece of the bread.  Just then, an older missionary who was serving in a branch leadership role jumped up from his seat on the stand and commanded the man (in Spanish) to “Drop it!” which he did.  Needless to say, the investigator never returned.  To explain his actions, the missionary referred to the following scriptures:

3 Ne. 18: 28-29 28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to ^apartake of my flesh and blood ^bunworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and ^ablood ^bunworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

While this missionary was perhaps alone in his strict interpretation of these scriptures in this specific situation, there is clearly a scriptural prohibition to prevent someone taking the sacrament unworthily.

Should non-members be asked not to partake?  The current mormon.org provides a description of our services for visitors:

A typical meeting would consist of the following:
Hymns: Religious songs sung by the congregation (hymn books are provided).
Prayers: Offered by local Church members.
Partaking of the sacrament (communion):The sacrament consists of prepared bread and water, which is blessed and passed to members of the congregation by priesthood holders .
Speakers: Typically a meeting will have two or three assigned speakers.
We do not pass a plate to request donations as part of our worship services.

There is no specific prohibition made here instructing visitors to not partake.  Does that omission imply non-members are welcome to partake in the spirit of worship although it is not a renewal of their baptismal covenants?

Children and the mentally disabled frequently partake because they are considered innocent and in no way unworthy.  What about ex-Mormons who are not returning to the church but attending due to familial obligation?  What about crazy people (there are lots of brands of crazy)?  What about ex-Mormons who are crazy?

If intervention is desired, who should intervene?  How and when should this take place?  Isn’t a lay member intervening kind of like a citizen’s arrest?  This is one area where I agree with Elizabeth I:  I have “no desire to make windows into men’s souls.”  Nor have I seen anyone burst into flames for touching the sacrament or keel over dead like Uzzah the ark-steadier.  My tendency would be to leave it up to the individual, but perhaps I am being remiss.

And when do you feel you should recuse yourself from taking the sacrament?  For major infractions only?  If you are yelling at the kids to hurry in the morning?

I am keenly aware of the before-and-after contrast, because I was on my mission (around hump day) when “Preach My Gospel” was introduced. I had spent the first half of my mission on the old-school discussions, and I completed the last half with “Preach My Gospel.” The new system was a welcome change. The old one was comprised of 6 rigid “discussions,” which you recited to investigators, with specific scripture references planted throughout the sequence. The terrible irony was that these were last thing you would every call a discussion…in fact even the church vernacular adopted the verbs “teach” a discussion (for missionaries), or “hear”/”take” the discussions for investigators, since there really was no “discussing” going on at all. “Preach My Gospel” got back down to earth, and simply called them “lessons.”

The original discussions were written in first person, much like a movie script. There were notes by the text with “stage directions” of sorts, prompting the Missionary to share a scripture or ask a question. The new lessons are not scripts, but rather a summaries of the doctrines, principles and teachings that are to be covered and taught to the investigator. The missionaries are specificially instructed to:

“Teach the message of the restored gospel in such a way as to allow the Spirit to direct both the missionaries and those being taught. It is essential to learn the concepts of the lessons, but these should not be taught by rote presentation. The missionary should feel free to use his own words as prompted by the Spirit. He should not give a memorized recitation, but speak from the heart in his own terms. He may depart from the order of the lessons, giving that which he is inspired to do, according to the interest and needs of the investigator.” (pp. 29-30)

This was huge for us missionaries. Having in many ways come on our missions expecting to simply receive instructions and obediently carry them out, we were now being given responsibilities to 1) learn and become well-versed in the subject matter we were teachings and 2) convey that information in a custom, genuine, and human way, not by simply reciting what we had read, but by mixing and matching ideas, concepts, and principles, to create an engaging and meaningful learning and spiritual experience for those we were teaching.

Each lesson, and each chapter for that matter, in “Preach My Gospel” is full of additional scripture references and other starting points for study. I could tell that collectively, as a mission, our study was become more meaningful and driven, and was more focused on the scriptures, but constantly with the human element in mind.

That right there is what I feel the single most important change was in the whole process: the human element. I feel that that will also have the most significant impact in the future wave of Church leaders.

Whereas before, the authorized agents of the church (missionaries) would present the message as almost a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum, now “Preach My Gospel” emphasizes the need for these same authorized agents to customize and tailor their message in an effort to reach out in love and understanding, carefully considering the needs and circumstances of others. I wonder how this ideology will play out when these missionaries raised on “Preach My Gospel” become Bishops and Stake Presidents. My feeling is that it will prove to be very positive and uplifting for all involved.

There are many other elements of “Preach My Gospel” (besides the lesson plans) that bring similar positive changes. Some of these include:

• An interestingly philosophical approach to the Book of Mormon
• An entire section dedicated to helping missionaries develop Christlike attributes
• Encouragement to engage in unplanned, unstructured, spontaneous acts of kindness and service
• An action plan specifically to help those seeking to overcome addictions
• Several suggestions for effective and engaging spiritual activities
• And more…

I think the change in focus and tone found in “Preach My Gospel” is doing many positive things in the mission field now. I predict that the principles, elements, and emphases embodied in “Preach My Gospel” with have a sweeping influence on the future church. The only question then, how will this influence be manifest? If “Preach My Gospel” is in fact an accurate barometer, then what’s the forecast? Any thoughts?