A thread that got deleted a little while ago had the makings for a good discussion. I'm quite irritated that it got deleted and I feel that it was cowardly to do so.
A story that started a thread told of a missionary who went with his companion to an investigator for a discussion. The location turned out to be a whorehouse as the protagonist missionary figured out. In the prayer to start the discussion, he did not invite the spirit, as the spirit, he felt, would be unwelcome there. He attempted the discussion but didn't go well or finish because the spirit wasn't present. This missionary lied to his companion about an appointment with the bishop in order to leave the whorehouse. He thought this story to be amusing because of the naivete of the other companion.
Two posts replying to the thread found this story sad, not amusing. (Bob and Tom)
My own post commented that of all places, the spirit would go to a whorehouse, because that's where it's needed.
Then the thread was deleted.
But now the discussion can continue.
[ July 10, 2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
That was like five seconds ago...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can you define some terms for us non-Mormons, please? What's an investigator in this context?
OK, just one term...
Thanks,
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
An investigator is a person who is investigating the LDS church.
Basically, they're taking the discussions (as the six lessons the missionaries give are called).
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What Dag said....... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No post mortems. Let it die.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Maybe the spirit knew the way himself, adn was evesdropping....
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Perhaps people would like to continue a discussion. And they DO have that right.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Why should it die, kat?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not sure on Mormon doctrine on the spirit, but I have to agree that the geography is not a limiting factor. "Wherever 3 or more are gathered..." and all that. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Was there some big controversy that led to the deletion?
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He thought it was funny. No one else agreed. A continued discussion on other things is fine.
Because post mortems are tacky.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
This is an LDS sensitive forum.
-Trevor
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And your mooma dresses me funny.....
wait, that's not how it goes.... Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
One possible explanation for the deletion of the thread might be the prospect of discussing the Spirit in context of a cat house.
Posting a thread about Catholic child molestors on a Vatican-centered Forum might be equally sensitive.
Just speculation.
-Trevor
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I'm pretty sure the person who started the thread is LDS.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And I pretty sure discussing the spirit is allowed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Posting a thread about Catholic child molestors on a Vatican-centered Forum might be equally sensitive.
If it's about the Church's response, and isn't filled with altar boy jokes, and the topic of the forum was the Church, not pure theology, I don't think it'd be a problem.
Mack said it best - a cathouse is where the Spirit is needed.
Do mormons believe in the Trinity? If not, they're concept of the Holy Spirit is probably pretty different than I'm used to.
Dagonee
[ July 09, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Expect this thread to disappear, too. The moderation around here gets pretty thick when either the mods don't like you (and are looking for a reason) or it covers anything touchy about LDS members.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No one is being disrespectful of anyone's religion.
We're asking why the spirit wouldn't be welcome in a place that NEEDS the spirit.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Dagonee, why did you say this,
quote: "Wherever 3 or more are gathered..."
Does the holy spirit only come when there are groups?
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
No, not only, but it's specifically promised that when three or more are gathered in Christ's name, the Spirit will be there.
Don't know the reference, but it's a pretty common "memory verse," at least in my experience.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
[Trevor, if you want to get banned, this is the way to do it.]
[ August 02, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Well, there's the actual Mormon doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and then there's the folk traditions surrounding it.
Actual Mormon doctrine: The Holy Spirit is an individual, distinct from God, who serves God by acting as a messenger, communicating with us on His behalf, and making His will known. The Spirit usually manifests itself as feeling of elation, or an uncanny calmness, but can also issue warnings. Sometimes, it relays specific instructions ("Go knock on that door." "So-and-so needs your help; give them a call." "You don't really want to buy that porno magazine.") Other times, it reassures you that a decision is correct, or strengthens you through difficult moral trials ("Yes, the church is true." "Yes, you should be teaching this class, even though the kids are obnoxious." "Yes, God loves you, even during hard times.")
Mormons who have been confirmed members of the Church receive an ordinance (or rite) that confers upon them the "Gift of the Holy Ghost". This gift is basically an assurance of the Spirit's presence in your life to guide you in God's work and reassure you when you are doing what is right. If you turn away from God's service and willfully begin to sin, the gift is withdrawn, and for those who rely on it, it is replaced by a feeling of emptiness.
That last bit is what has grown into ...
Mormon folk traditions: Mormons who share the Gift of the Holy Ghost will often talk to one another in terms of the Spirit entering or fleeing as a person's choices and circumstances change. They will describe a spiritual warning about the immorality of a potential act as "the Spirit leaving" and describe a positive, mutual spiritual experience as "the Spirit coming into the room and filling us all" ... neither of which is actually the case if you take it literally.
However, Mormons in the mission field live day-to-day by trying to heed the influence of the Spirit, and these metaphors can become very real to them. On top of that, many very subtle folk doctrines have arisen around this phenomenon. Most prominently, it is said that the Spirit cannot be present when sin is occuring, where pernicious music is playing, where people are angry at one another, etc, etc. It gets to the point at which people think the Spirit is in and out the door five times every minute as your thoughts wander in and out of unholy subjects.
These folk doctrines are exaggerations of the core belief (which is much more reasonable), but missionaries can take them very, very seriously, right down to the letter, when they feel that the Spirit is the only thing sustaining them through a difficult time in their life. They assign rules about where the Spirit can or cannot be, and have near-obsessive ideas about what it takes to get the Spirit into a place. You have to pray, you have to turn off all worldly music, everyone must be dressed modestly, no one can be angry at one another, etc. Once those conditions are satisfied, and once you feel its presence, you know that it has "entered the room" and therefore, everyone around you must feel it, too, and everything will turn out all right.
In truth, it doesn't work that way. The Spirit serves the will of God, and often acts in surprising ways we cannot predict or nail to a schedule. The Spirit is not a physical substance that can fill a room or flee it, and it deals with each of us as individuals, as we need it. A missionary can do a miserable job of everything, totally turn from the positive influence of the Spirit in his own life, and yet his investigator can have a marvelous spiritual experience with him, and vice-versa.
So ... that's my view of it in a nutshell. Did I miss anything, other Mormons?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
By the way, mack, I think you're being too harsh. This guy put up a very personal story, and was probably surprised when people saw it differently than he did. The reactions were pretty negative, and I think we should give him a chance to back down and save face, rather than crucifying him for telling a story that he first saw through his own naive, youthful eyes.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Matt. 18:20 - "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
So, I guess in a whorehouse there's apt to be at least 4 people, so they're out of luck.
All joking aside, it is my opinion that one can feel the influence of the Holy Spirit regardless of their physical location. I think that one's state-of-mind has a lot more to do with it. So, while it would be possible for a spiritually uplifting conversation to take place in a whorehouse, I can understand the Elder's reticence to do so (you know, it'd be pretty distracting and all). I don't think that lying about having an appointment with the bishop would be the way to go, but perhaps they should have stayed for a little while and then made arrangements to continue the discussion at a later time (and in a different location if it was important to them).
[ July 09, 2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Expect this thread to disappear, too. The moderation around here gets pretty thick when either the mods don't like you (and are looking for a reason) or it covers anything touchy about LDS members.
Actually, the mods here put up with a hell of a lot.
Dagonee
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
But when Jamie shares something and people jump down her throat it's not harsh?
Ni!
Posted by Anti-Christ (Member # 5714) on :
*throws glue in thread*
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Wow, thats all very interesting. I guess I had read that in the bible but just never picked up on it.
Posted by Anti-Christ (Member # 5714) on :
That glue was to stop all the harsh-talk against Jamie. I don't think she was being harsh at all. If someone's story comes across as negative, and they don't exactly believe it should be, they should explain themselves, not try to drop the discussion altogether. Granted, I didn't read the original thread, I really haven't much real footing in THIS discussion, either... Anyhow, just my quick thought.
D
[ July 10, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Anti-Christ ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That was a core belief in the days when Christians were persecuted; one of the reasons why the members would still meet to pray, even though they were afraid of being caught.
When times got rough, the preist would go and meet with small groups of people rather than having them all converge on the same location. It was harder to catch them that way, and that verse was always spoken.
Don't remember where i heard all that, but I remember it from my religious education as a Catholic....
Kwea
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Posting a thread about Catholic child molestors on a Vatican-centered Forum might be equally sensitive.
I was unaware that this Forum is officially Mormon centered. Am I missing something?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay, maybe my use of the word cowardly was harsh. However, saying that I'm being harsh when I got beat up for three pages is hardly a fair standard.
But..your post before was good clarification of the difference between LDS doctrine and folklore. There seems to be a lot of mixing of the two, and it's hard to sort out.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yeah, stormy, I wondered the same thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was unaware that this Forum is officially Mormon centered. Am I missing something?
That's a good point. It's heavily Mormon-populated, but I've never felt marginalized by that. I can't think of anything that couldn't be said about Mormon's here that would be polite or appropriate if said about them where they are a minority.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Not Mormon centered, per se, but as I understand it, Scott Card is a Mormon and a rather famous one.
That being the case, there tends to be a fairly heavy Mormon presence and as such, those sensibilities should be respected.
However, it is not a Mormon specific thread.
-Trevor
Edit: Specific Forum, rather.
[ July 10, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'd think that the sensibilities of ANY belief should be respected on this forum.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And they generally are, I think. I've never been in an environment where so many religious topics can be productively discussed. Either people aren't interested, or are immediately dismissive of others' views, or the education level is so low as to make it not worthwhile.
Here is different.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I missed the first thread, and I dont' know the story behind its deletion, but I certainly think this thread has been productive for me because of Geoff's little bit about the Holy Spirit in the Mormon church. Very interesting!
So, thank you, Mack, for making this thread.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Not having seen the thread mack referred to, yet curious about the conversation, would like to add 2 cents . . .
Jesus preached to the downtrodden, the sinners, the depressed, the ill, the doubters, the suffering, the tax collectors and yes, even the whores.
I hope that the Christian community, no matter the sect or denomination, remembers that we are ALL God's children, and as Rat said - (parpahrase)the Spirit moves in very mysterious ways. Keep that line of communication open . . .
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yeah. That's what bugged me, Shan. That following in Christ's example would have some to do with proclaiming his gospel.
But that's just me. Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
i am a little curious as to why the other thread was deleted.
Was it because the author was worried about what others here would say?
Was it because the author suddenly realized that the missionary/whore juxtaposition might be inapropriate?
I don't understand the story...is it a fable? meant to be humorous?
Rain
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Shoot. I didn't mean my comments to be harsh or to start any sort of dogpile on the original thread. I kind of would like to believe that what Geoff posted about it is the correct thing:
quote:This guy put up a very personal story, and was probably surprised when people saw it differently than he did. The reactions were pretty negative, and I think we should give him a chance to back down and save face, rather than crucifying him for telling a story that he first saw through his own naive, youthful eyes.
And I just want to say that I was NOT judging anyone in what I said. I think that the situation is completely understandable and I think that young people full of the zeal of religion, or patriotism, or revolution, or what have you, often make the best missionaries/soldiers/revolutionaries. But they also often lack perspective.
I think back on the serious undertakings I was involved in at that age and even at much later ages and...well, I could tell you stories if I weren't so embarrassed by them.
So, really...no judgement.
There is a function for these stories in our lives though. And if the post was deleted for what Geoff said, then, yes, there's an opportunity there. To recognize in oneself the possibility of missing an opportunity like that, or mis-judging it, or mis-judging another person... that's a good lesson to learn, I think. And one that we all need to learn and relearn.
The point of the story was that the spirit wouldn't go into a whorehouse. But in reality, the spirit was there. It wasn't the spirit that was chased out...but two young missionaries.
I know one thing about how God works. If that man in the whorehouse was on the path to being saved, God found a way to make it happen. That day was not his one and only chance.
Maybe that day was more about teaching the two missionaries, neh?
Is that such a bad thing?
Some lessons are painful. But those are the ones we usually end up being most grateful for in the long run.
. . . PS: I realize that there's an element of "implied judgement" in what I've posted here. But I promise you, I am NOT judging anyone. How can I say that? Because I've already forgotten who wrote that post. I don't even think I looked to see who wrote it. I opened it because the title was intriguing, and often I don't look to see who started a post because I find that if I look first, I tend to ignore posts by members I don't already know well.
So...even if I was judging you, I don't know who you are.
But I'm not judging you. Because if I judged you harshly for your story, I'd have to judge myself even more harshly for the things I've done without recourse to youth, inexperience, or being seriously concerned about what God wanted at a particular moment.
And I haven't condemned myself to that extent because I know also that I can and have been forgiven all of that junk.
And, as I said, as much as it pains me to think about those things, I cling to those memories because they help me avoid the same mistakes in the future.
Of course,...that assumes that leaving the whorehouse was a mistake... That's perhaps too strong a word too.
I'd prefer to call it a missed opportunity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Change the thread title completely. There are too many good things in this thread for the insult beginning them to be descriptive of content.
[ July 10, 2004, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Basically, they're taking the discussions (as the six lessons the missionaries give are called).
Whahuh? I took the discussions with 2 missionaries in FOUR sessions, not SIX. Has it changed? I know the LDS Church is very specific when it comes to rules about evangelizing, so has the official discussion plan changed?
[ July 10, 2004, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nick, did you have a baptism date? If someone isn't really interested, not all the discussions are taught. You probably stopped before getting through them all.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Shan is right. Jesus proved that everyone, including the seemingly lowliest people on earth, are children of God and should be treated as such. It is most definetely not our place to judge where the Spirit should or should not dwell. As a gift from God, it seems very pretentious of us to say that someone doesn't deserve to be invited to recieve it.
[ July 10, 2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's fascinating of when moral judgement on each other is considered okay and when it isn't. I guess it's okay when its a newbie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
On the other hand, if the decision not to invite the Spirit was motivated out of respect for the Spirit, then it sounds like they were inexperienced people in a situation they didn't know how to handle who chose as best they could. Even if the decision was wrong, some consideration is due for at least considering difficult issues and attempting to do the right thing.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes. It's hard to know what to do, and when you're a twenty-year-old trying to do the right thing, sometimes the attempt and the result don't match.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hell, it's still hard when you're 33...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Harder still when you're not sure what the right thing is.
-Trevor
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's hard to do the right thing even when you DO know what the right thing is.
Dag is right about respect for the Spirit being an honorable motive.
I'm more curious about what the supervisors of the missionaries would've had to say in this circumstance. I don't imagine that it is the policy of any evangelical denomination to deliberately send 19/20 year olds into houses of prostitution. But do they even have rules about such things? Is there an orientation given to new arrivals that tells them what places or neighborhoods to avoid, if only for their own safety? Does someone show them around and say "okay, here's the local cat house?"
Who let this situation get to the 3rd meeting without some sort of counseling? Do the people in charge not know the addresses of where the discussions are taking place? What if some missionaries were snatched by a murderer? Would their steps even be retraceable from records at the local HQ? And if the addresses are known, wouldn't it be someone's job to go through the list to see if any places "pop out" as particularly problematic? Is there someone who knows the town well looking over things?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
For that matter, does anyone sit new missionaries down and say "by the way, every once in awhile, you're going to go into places where illegal activities are occurring. In that case, we want you to get out fast." Or what?
I mean really, how is it that a missionary is left to their own communing with the spirit in a situation like that?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It's understandable for a young person to have the intent to do right and still have things go awry. But he had older folks to guide him and later the ability to look back as an older man himself.
The idea that teaching the gospel would lead people to not invite the spirit into a place that Christ had gone into in his time is kind of...awkward to read.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In my understanding of the gospel, the Spirit is never offended by those who still have opportunity to repent.
The Spirit IS offended by those who know the truth and abandon it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mack,
Well, I guess I agree, except that I wouldn't expect a young person to be able to necessarily connect all the dots. And it's far easier to sit here in front of a computer at my age and think "gee, I'd've gone another route." Whereas, had I been there, maybe even today, I might've not seen it all as clearly.
I'll give you one embarrassing example. I was working at a furniture & food bank. My "mentor" had decided I was ready to handle the deliveries one Sunday. He told me that the best way to do it was to visit each of the potential recipients during the week and then decide whether there was anything either in the warehouse or in that day's donations (the furniture stuff we're talking here) that they might be able to use.
Well, I decided that that was too much work. I really didn't have the time for all that. So, instead, we took in a bunch of furniture all morning (as usual) and then kept getting "nobody home" and "I don't want that" when we drove around trying to drop stuff off. Turns out people who need furniture still have their standards or their special needs (like trundle beds wouldn't do ANYBODY, right?
Well, it was very frustrating. I had this really cool guy along who had a flatbed truck that he would use on our behalf every weekend he was available. It was HIS first time out and my first time "in charge."
I'm afraid I didn't make a very good impression when, at the last house, the people turned down the best bedding set we'd ever seen at our little operation. They didn't want it! I was very snarky about it. Well, in retrospect I was. I explained how they were unlikely to ever get anything better from our supply and that it really wasn't like we were an opportunity to "trade up."
<cringe>
I'm sure that the guy with the truck thought I was a collosal jerk who wasted his time and was rude to the people we were hoping to give a helping hand to. I was. It was awful.
In retrospect, of course, I could've handled it all a lot better. For one thing, not delivering a single thing that day -- just sticking it all in the warehouse -- would've been preferable.
I might've been accused of slacking off, but at least I wouldn't have made a mess of whatever community relations we'd built up over the years.
And it wasn't my place to decide what furniture people let into their houses. Shoot, maybe they had room for one thing and that one thing, period. Who am I to say.
Just because the stuff I had on the truck was really nice (brand new, actually), doesn't mean I had to shove it down someone's throat.
But I couldn't see clearly past my own frustration and growing sense that I was wasting the truck-guy's time. I was getting all flustered and just lashed out.
The point of all this is that I wasn't just a young person who hadn't been trained. I was just being a jerk and now I have to carry that knowledge around with me, and hopefully turn it into something positive -- at the very least not committing the same error in the future.
I don't like to pick at that sore, now nicely scabbed over. But I have vowed not to forget it because if I do forget that lesson, I know that I have the capability of BEING that jerk...
So, what would I say to someone who had a bad experience on a mission trip? That you can turn such things into a positive if you learn from it.
It isn't the end. And guilt is useless.
But learning is always good. Always positive.
I can't go back and make it right with the people I mistreated that time. But I can make sure I don't do it again.
And that has to be enough. At least enough for me. I believe in forgiveness and for everyone else to overlook or get beyond the jerk we see in each other. The individual should strive to remember and learn from their mistakes. But everyone else has their own stuff they'd rather that no-one else remember. I think we owe each other that just based on the golden rule.
[ July 10, 2004, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
My reaction to the story was similar to mackillian's. Maybe it's because, as a fairly recent convert, I identify with the investigator. I'm not sure what makes him any less a child of Heavenly Father than I am.
And thank you, Dog, for explaining the difference between LDS official doctrine and folk doctrine in regard to this issue. I really like your explanations. In fact, you should write a book. (You could call it "Real Mormon Doctrine." )
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Yeah Dog! Write a book! I'm sure you could do it!
I sometimes have less-than-christlike tolerance for folk mormon thinking. It's one of my more petty sins that I need to work on. Especially when it involves people that are investigating the church. My brother encountered people on his mission within the church that held the idea that investigators shouldn't be called "brother" or "sister" until they were baptized.
Respect of the Holy Ghost is a good point, but taking conscious action to try and withhold it from those who need it the most is not my idea of respect. Yes, this person should have known better, but is there any indication that they know better now? I mean, this was brought up on Hatrack in a tone of humor, expecting laughs. That doesn't sound very respectful of the holy ghost.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Does no-one want to take a stab at answering my questions about preparing and supervising young missionaries?
Seriously, so far I've gotten the impression that LDS missionaries are trained in a language, sent somewhere and paired with a kid about their age to go wandering.
I'm sure that can't be correct, but I have a hard time understanding how it is that there was so little backup for the person in the original story that prompted this thread.
Or that they didn't know where to turn for advice.
I know there's a training center and some sort of permanent organization in "the field," but am I the only one that perceives a breakdown in the process based in the story described?
I'm looking at this as if I were a parent of a missionary. I personally would be very concerned to learn of my son going into a whorehouse at 19 without someone even knowing he was going there. I wouldn't be that concerned about, say, the possibility of him being seduced (I mean, heck, the kid would've been raised right or not by that point, right?). But I have this vision of a police raid. Violence. Drugs. Him happening on something he didn't really need to witness and that putting his life in danger.
And I would not be happy with the people running the program. Not a bit. I can tell you there'd be some people getting a royal earful before I was satisfied that this sort of thing wasn't going to happen again.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's an interesting mix, Bob. Missionaries are trained as thoroughly as possible in talking to people about the Church and our beliefs, in being friendly, in listening to people's concerns, in formally teaching the "discussions," and in many other things that missionaries do regularly in the course of a day. However, of course they cannot be prepared for every situation, nor is that kind of training thought very wise.
The most important training, if you can call it training, that goes on in a missionary's life is simply learning how to listen to and follow the direction of the Spirit. Missionaries are taught and often reminded that the Spirit does the real work of teaching and changing hearts. The Spirit gives power to the missionaries' words. The missionaries are taught to learn how to rely on the Spirit in every situation they find themselves in. As long as they are there, with their hearts in the right place, doing what they're supposed to be doing as missionaries, and as long as they are mentally and spiritually prepared, they will be open to the guidance of the Spirit as they speak to people.
The idea is that the missionaries are receiving strength and guidance directly from Heavenly Father, which is much more than any human could provide.
It means that a missionary doesn't have to be a great orator to deliver a message that speaks powerfully to a listener's heart, and he doesn't have to be someone of great learning or fame for his message to carry an impact. Which is why missionaries do often see such great success even though they're 19- or 20-year-old boys with absolutely no credentials and barely any experience in the world.
The missionaries have a mission president who leads all the missionaries in the mission, and there is a structure of leadership within the ranks of the missionaries to ensure that every missionary can report and be accounted for. But missionaries work in companionships, and are pretty much on their own in most decisions they face throughout each day.
Therefore:
quote: I'm more curious about what the supervisors of the missionaries would've had to say in this circumstance. I don't imagine that it is the policy of any evangelical denomination to deliberately send 19/20 year olds into houses of prostitution. But do they even have rules about such things? Is there an orientation given to new arrivals that tells them what places or neighborhoods to avoid, if only for their own safety? Does someone show them around and say "okay, here's the local cat house?"
No, missionaries are told to stay out of places like that if at all possible. That's more because of the danger to them and the relative ease of which they could be tempted to take off the missionary hat for a while. They usually find out about these places from missionaries who have been there before or simply by stumbling across them. And there are people out there who know who the missionaries are and who are out to get them, one way or another. Not everyone is immediately teachable.
I met and taught people in hole-in-the-wall bars and some of the scariest neighborhoods in Europe because that's where we could meet with them. However, we stayed out of bars, dark alleys, and "red-light districts" if at all possible. We were certainly willing to talk to people who frequented those places, but we tried to do it in places that were a bit safer and more conducive to the kind of discussions we wanted to have.
quote: Who let this situation get to the 3rd meeting without some sort of counseling? Do the people in charge not know the addresses of where the discussions are taking place? What if some missionaries were snatched by a murderer? Would their steps even be retraceable from records at the local HQ? And if the addresses are known, wouldn't it be someone's job to go through the list to see if any places "pop out" as particularly problematic? Is there someone who knows the town well looking over things?
No one is keeping moment-by-moment track of each missionary companionship. They are pretty much on their own--with the protection and guidance of the Spirit, the benefits of which I can personally attest to. Missionaries check in with their immediate rank leaders perhaps every one or two days. Bad things do happen to them occasionally. When a missionary gets killed or disappears, the Church takes it very seriously. Missionaries are frequently pulled out of areas or even countries that are considered too dangerous. Danger spots are known by reputation and missionaries are warned by their mission president or missionary leaders not to visit them. Quite a bit of effort is put into ensuring the relative safety of the missionaries. However, I guess a certain level of risk is recognized and accepted. Missionaries are expected to take reasonable care for their own safety and to handle a fair amount of negative treatment using their own best judgment. Parents and family members are asked to pray for the safety of their missionaries. Again, I can personally attest to the benefit of those prayers.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
They are well trained and well supervised, from what I've seen. People who have actually been through the program can tell you more, though.
I had the same negative reaction to the original anecdote. I wondered if the guy ever was interested in the gospel after that, and what happened to him.
Christ said "they go before ye." I think people in prison, people on drugs, people in marginal life situations, they realize the need that all of us have for the gospel much more easily, sometimes, than those for whom life is easy. Sometimes desperate circumstances are just what is necessary for people to be open to things beyond themselves. I can see why young missionaries do not belong in a house of ill repute, for their own safety and wellbeing. However, the spirit is there, for sure, and God is there too. I hope that investigator had another opportunity to find out about the gospel and took it.
Edit: ah, good. I was delayed posting and afr gave info in the meantime from his better knowledge.
[ July 11, 2004, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
By the way, mack, I was unaware of any dogpiling that may have gone on in the other thread. All I ever saw was the first two posts before it got deleted. My description of your reaction as "harsh" was based on that. If I lacked key information, then I'm sorry.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My two cents. I am in the middle as far as this discussion is concerned. It is true that the spirit can be present where and whenever it wants to be. Among missionaries of my calling there was a running commentary on such things when there was an especially by the book missionary, "The spirit doesn't go to bed at ten, and get up at six." That includes places such as a whore house, I suppose.
However, I do believe that a whore house would be a place that restricts the spirit (or the spirit would choose to restrict) to a degree that might make teaching the gospel difficult. I am not sure of the particulars of the story, as it has come second hand from the original poster. If this was the first time that the missionaries came to teach at this place than the spirit most likely would not leave as long as there seemed to be a receptive audience. As was stated, Jesus taught sinners of all kinds.
On the other hand, it might be just as true that the spirit was warning them that things were not right. It might even be one of the missionaries faults, rather than the investigators, as the temptations might be too great for proper spiritual attention. At that point, as the spirit directs, I might have asked if it was possible to relocate to a more "nuetral" ground to continue the conversation. Lying about it, however, would seem just as debilitating to the spirit as the place they were teaching.
To sum up: I believe the spirit can be wherever it wants. However, I also believe that the spirit can leave just as equally. I think the real question is -- did the missionary act out of faith, or out of fear? Because of the lying in order to leave I would say the latter, but that doesn't exlude the possibility that he was warned by the former. Just because we recieve a spiritual prompting doesn't always mean we understand what to do with that prompting.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Geoff, s'okay. I fixed the title again, anyway. Was a bit rash on my part to post with the first irritation and then not change it after.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Does the new title remind anyone else of an old joke? "Where does an 800-pound spirit sleep?" "Anywhere it wants."
I'm sorry. That was wrong and bad.
Dagonee *Not that I'm suggesting you change it again. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
aw Dag, I totally voted for you in the Best Newbie category.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I hope that the orginal poster has not been chased away by the subsequent uproar.
[ July 11, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*hangs head in shame*
Have you seen the Far Side based on that joke?
It's a guy in a hotel saying, "I'm sorry, sir, it's a well known fact that a 799 pound gorilla does not sleep anywhere it wants."
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
afr, ak, & Occassional, Thanks for the insights on LDS mission preparation.
[ July 11, 2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Dante told me when he was in Italy, that they had to go out once in the middle of the night to respond to some sort of an emergency. There was almost nobody on the streets that late except the prostitutes, and it seems like he smiled at them in recognition of the kinship between their two professions (callings?). I can't remember exactly. Perhaps it's in one of his poems. Dante! Please, can you tell us that story again? Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it was in the last general conference that they said around 6 missionaries die in the field each year, but that is much lower than would be expected for an equivalen population of 40,000 late adolescents. Or however many of them there are.
As for telling them where the cat houses are... well, it might help them to avoid those and also help them to find them. Not everyone who goes on a mission is as spiritually prepared as we would hope.
As mentioned, there is an organizational hierarchy within the mission, which has a president (grown up adult type man and his wife) and then there are zones... and then within the zones districts. These are led by missionaries who have been serving a little longer. (I may have thos reversed and I've no idea of the relative size, but since no one else has gotten more specific, there you are). The missionaries are supposed to keep a detailed log of where they go, but I think they carry it with them.
A couple of years ago church leadership instituted a new standard of preparation but I haven't seen first or even second hand how that works. I know that for starters on has to be in good physical and mental health. I heard an anecdote of a Physician who was sent on a mission to some far away place and had to spend a lot of time managing meds for the missionary force rather than helping the people.
Also, with the graying of the population in many countries, they just don't need as many missionaries. So I think the paradigm shift underway is that serving a fulltime mission is to be more of an honor rather than an obligation.
On the subject of the original anecdote, I think that rather than attempting a discussion without the spirit and trying to get away, the missionaries could have been honest that they aren't allowed to be in a whorehouse and arranged a different meeting place. But I do think the spirit is always near all of us, hoping to be heard.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I haven't seen the original poster since. I think that was curtains. His e-mail is private, too.
[ July 19, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Well, that bites. Maybe Kristine or KHK can send him an email?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
:bumped for Bob:
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pooka, thanks.
I think I would have a problem with the whole thing if I was a parent of a prospective missionary.
But I'm actually kind of glad to hear that it might be turned into an honor rather than an obligation. Frankly, I wouldn't want anyone there who didn't want to be there.
Just a question: what percentage of women go on mission trips? Do they go for 2 years also? Is it NOT an obligation for women, but it is for men?
How does the women's mission differ? I mean, are women considered "priests" when they go or when the come back, or never (i.e., all priests are men)? Just curious.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Women go for a year and a half, and it is not considered an obligation at all. For women, it's definitely a choice, and leaders are instructed not to even hint at it being an obligation.
Women don't receive the priesthood, but they are required (as men are) to be endowed in the temple before going on a mission, which is actually a much higher and more responsible calling than priesthood service alone.
[ July 19, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The way things were before, the ratio of sisters to elders was pretty small. Maybe 10:1 or something. It was considered an obligation of all worthy young men. For women, it was a choice, they couldn't go until 2 years later (men go at the earliest 19, women at 21).
Women were encouraged to get married. If they were unmarried and wanted to go at age 21, then that was fine. Romantic interactions of any kind during a mission are forbidden (except writing to a sweetheart back home) and that isn't particularly encouraged either.
So, the later age for women serves 2 purposes: more opportunity to get married first, and an age difference between the missionaries themselves. Women are less likely to fall for a younger man than a man is to fall for a younger woman and visa versa.
Also, women only go for 18 months. And if a woman received and wished to accept a proposal of marriage on her mission from someone she knew before her mission, she might even be honorably discharged to accept it. (I am not positive how this works, but I think it has at least happened to girls during the training period.)
This would *never* happen for a guy. A guy only receives honorable discharge if they have health problems that make it impossible to finish. It is a pretty serious commitment. No one is sent home for a birth, a funeral, or a wedding.
Also, women tend to be given slightly better living conditions on their missions then men. Women tend to be more protected, pampered. In my mission, the young women were to return home a full hour before the young men. That meant we had an entire extra hour in our evenings before we were supposed to be in bed.
Men are given positions of authority during their missions as priesthood callings. Women are not, except as senior companion in their two-some.
Some would say that a woman's mission and a man's mission are two completely different experiences. And not without reason.
Also, Bob, as for guidelines for missionaries, all missionaries are given a little white book of missionary rules. Some of those include proper conduct around the opposite sex with the intent of not inviting temptation. I did not hear the original story, but I respect that the missionaries may have been looking out for their own spiritual safety rather than passing any judgement on the people involved.
[ July 19, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There are always exceptions- one time a missionary was shot and for his funeral the church flew home his sister. I knew a fellow who was released from the MTC when it turned out his girlfriend was pregnant. And of course any sexual acting out will result in a release (hetero or homo). I knew someone who got released for medical reasons, and it was kind of tough because when he came home early a lot of people assumed it was because he had been immoral.
For most medical stuff, treatment is arranged by the mission or at least a reassignment in the U.S. (if they are overseas).
It is kind of scary for a lot of parents, Bob, but the missionaries are nominally adults, being 19 or 21.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
So the brother who was shot and the sister were both missionaries at the time? Interesting. I have never heard of any missionaries being allowed to go home for a funeral.
As for that guy being discharged, I was talking about *honorable* discharge, not discharge for sexual sin. After having sex, you cannot be reinstated to full fellowship in the church for a full year at the absolute minimum. Being worthy to serve a mission is another matter on top of that. And it takes 9 months to make a baby. So this young man was not honest with his priesthood leaders. Of course he was sent home!
Unless someone else got his girlfriend pregnant....
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe they were going to let the other sibling go home, but they made it sound like they had stoically chosen to stay on their mission. Of course, anyone can pull a Corporal Klinger and be sent home.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I thought Klinger never GOT sent home, despite his antics.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not only did Klinger never get sent home, he almost reenlisted.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Right, but in the mission field it is different. That's my point. It's not like the army.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
To get sent home from a mission, all you have to do is something that most soldiers do anyway. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...it's not the army, yet the phrase "honorably discharged" sounds familiar...
Hmmm...
Also,... I hope you won't take this as an insult, but the more I hear about the LDS church, the more like the Catholic church you seem.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Some of the similarities are striking, Bob.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I've heard people draw many parallels there. I don't know enough to make a list myself though.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Wait, so if a missionary's parent is dying, that's just too bad? He can't come home? I suppose they can send him a letter to break the news when it's all over? How horrible. That sounds WORSE than the army.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Parents are supposed to be in contact with their children continually by letter. Of all my odd missionary anecdotes, I don't know of any that involved the imminent death of a parent.
P.S. The missionaries are not just volunteers, they actually pay their own expenses while they are out. They can leave if they want to. I'm not saying a lot of guilt and pressure might not be invoked by any authority figure who may be apprised of such a plan, but it is an "at will" service. Bev is saying that if a death is learned of, the mission president doesn't call and offer to send you home- since the church does foot the bill for travel.
[ July 19, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm pretty sure it is not allowed. I could be wrong though. Yeah, that is pretty rough. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Theca, Yeah, that is a bit harsh, no?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yeah...that sort of stuff tweaks me out. Principle always before the person, even if Christ acted differently.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Are you sure that policy doesn't merely refer to non-immediate family members?
That would make a LOT more sense. They don't want them using the excuse of a second-cousin-twice-removed's funeral to quit the mission.
Not allowing them an 'honorable discharge' for the death of their mother, father or sibling just...doesn't sound right.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I may be the wrong person to ask, because I just don't know.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Actually, that part shouldn't be too hard. Just hand the missionary his letter about the tragic death of his mom, watch him continue working every single day, never alone, never allowed to unwind or have a day to himself or talk to the survivors on the telephone, and when he has his nervous breakdown in a month, you can send him home on medical release. Piece of cake.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I really don't know what happens, Theca. Would you like to share on why this is so hard for you?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
From my experience they can be sent home if they want at the death of a close family member, but they are not encouraged. Doctrinally speaking, they were called directly by God to serve a mission and therefore their obligation is to Him over anyone else.
As for parents worried about missionaries, it is natural that they would be as much as if the child had gone to college. There is usually a lot of praying for safety and faith that they are doing the right thing involved. It is that second part, faith they are doing the right thing, that comforts the parents the most. Even if they might not openly acknowledge it, a mission is considered a right of passage into adulthood. Parents usually understand, and those who have served missions themselves more than others, that sending a child off to an LDS mission is a recognition of that person's individuality and reaching of maturity. One might say that Mormons are expected to grow up sooner than others of the same age.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Historically, however, LDS mission work was far different up to at least the 20th Century. Before then a man of just about any age could be called during a Church Conference to a mission. Brigham Young, for example, could get up and say "Jacob Johnston is called to Wisconsin, Fred Warner is called to Alberta, Canada, Hank Pierson is called to . . . . " They could be single, or more than likely at that time, married with a family. The duration of the mission was pretty wide open as well. It could be a matter of months or a matter of years -- depending on the calling. And, to top it all off, they could be called on a mission more than once.
Ah, those were the days I don't know exactly when it changed and became more organized and in some ways voluntary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My mother almost died while my brother was on his mission. This isn't an abstract concept for me.
You have to understand that the standards are there as the standards - it does not mean that exceptions are impossible. Missionaries are also supposed to only call home twice a year, but I called home almost five times in the last two months of my mission with my mission president's blessing. I also went home a month early with my mission president's blessing for various reasons, and I could have gone home earlier, all honorably. When my mom and her doctor discovered the extensive damage to her heart that the virus had caused, my mom seriously contemplated not even telling my brother. I remember the conversation where I freaked out about that and said there was no way she could keep this information from my missionary brother. She didn't want to tell him because she didn't want him to get distracted. If she had died while he was out there (and this was a real possibility), then he could have come home for the funeral. But she didn't want him to.
From her perspective, there wasn't a damn thing he could do about it. She might have died then (instead of a year later), and she figured that dying is part of life, and a mission is part of life, and she hadn't wasted the first 20 years of his life and had done all she could, and she wanted him to have this chance, these small two years, to dedicate to the Lord completely and totally.
It isn't a lifetime vow of celibacy. It's temporary situation where for two years you dedicate yourself to doing the Lord's work, and you put things like family and schooling and career aside for it. You'll never have that chance again - that chance to live totally and completely for one great work. It is terribly out of balance, and a life lived like that permanently would be wrong. It isn't permanent - it's a privilege.
Being there is voluntary. It's easy to make it sound sinister, just like it's easy to make loyalty to God above family and state sound sinister and a willingness to abandon your fishing business to follow an itinerant preacher around Judea sound crazy.
Bob, I'm not offended that you find parallels to the Catholic church, although Catholics might be a little offended that you consider it a possible insult. The church is a patriarchal hierarchy that is institutionalized and self-perpetuating. If you consider all such organizations inherently sinister (and many do) without considering the nature of the organization itself, then it'll creep you out. That's too bad. It comes from ignorance.
If someone absolutely wants to go home - frankly, for any reason - then they can. If they sit down in their apartment and declares themselves done, they can go home. But no, you don't come back. It's not like volunteering at the hospital where you wander in and out depending on if it fits into your schedule. Missions are much too hard and much too dreary to do for any other reason than you want to, and if you're not there with all your heart, you'll be miserable.
------
I don't think that missions in general means someone grows up sooner. I think part of them does - they definitely come back more spiritually mature and often/usually with better interpersonal skills. On the other hand, you'll never be so coddled in your life as when you're a missionary. You have someone with you 24 hours a day. There is a schedule to follow for everyday. You have an important work to do and you move within the parameters of that work, but you don't decide when to move to a new city, when move on from an area that isn't working. There is no chance of being late on bills, no chance of being forgotten, very little chance of falling through the cracks. You get a one on one interview once a month with someone who loves you and who is devoting his life to making sure you and your peers are happy. I was floored at how many long-existing medical conditions are discovered in the MTC and in the field, where for the first time in a long time there are phalanxes of people paying close attention to you. That will probably never happen again as an adult, and that's not the life of a fully autonomous adult.
It isn't supposed to be a rite of initiation. When the stricter rules for prospective missionaries were explained, this was specifically repudiated. It's not strapping someone to an ant hill to see if they can handle the pain; it's an opportunity to do the Lord's work. Disobedient or lazy missionaries are worse than none at all, because that means the mission president spends all his time babysitting. The brethren have said they want missionaries who hit the ground running.
-------
As a side note, I think the standards here are similar to the concepts of justice and mercy. Justice puts the law down - there is no one to whom justice and the law does not apply. Without the law, without justice, then mercy is impossible. What would be mercy is simply license. When the rule is that you don't go home for funerals and weddings and all the things that invariably happen in life, because you have promised to dedicate your life to other things, then that's the rule that makes exceptions possible. It isn't like anyone is being kept against their will, and I AM a little offended at the suggestion that individual missionaries are not treated with care. If you had any idea at the amount of prayer and love and attention and worry and mollycoddling given to these missionaries, you wouldn't worry.
The rules are general, and the exceptions are individual. That makes sense, doesn't it?
[ July 20, 2004, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occassional,
quote:One might say that Mormons are expected to grow up sooner than others of the same age.
I don't really believe that you folks age any faster than everyone else. As you say, you might be "expected" to. But actually achieving maturity faster than everyone else? I doubt.
I'm reminded of a girlfriend in Junior High who asserted that "girls mature faster than boys." How does one answer that? "Nuh Uh.!" ??? I mean, when you assert something like this for members of your religion, I suppose you are leaving aside those who go into military service, the Peace Corps, Seminary, start families, etc. etc.
All of those are taking on the trappings of adulthood at the ages indicate. Whether they are mature or not is an entirely different question.
And one that is only meaningful at the individual level, not in the aggregate. For if one can find a single counter-example -- an LDS male who is both immature and on a mission -- the whole set of assertions about entering adulthood, and, perhaps even the part about a "calling from God" is pretty much blown out of the water.
And before you say it, the essential data that are lacking is how much maturity the individual would have gained in the same 2 year period had they NOT gone on mission. We won't know. The ages 19-21 are times of enormous personal growth and life changes no matter who the person is. I doubt you'll find a person on the planet who doesn't marvel at how much they've grown in those two years of life.
and...
I don't think I would've liked Brigham Young very much.
kat, I'm not ignoring you, I just don't can't really respond to a personal (and very meaningful) anecdote like that. Your mom was acting in the way she thought best, but I would've had a very hard time agreeing with her decision.
I have a sense, however, that much of the decision-making on this issue is made at the local level -- at least that is where the encouragement or lack of encouragement would come from first and perhaps foremost.
I feel like I'm just nitpicking here, though. It's not my intention to make you all feel like I don't admire your church and especially the missionary aspect of it. I'm more curious as to how such a thing operates. In my experience, 19 year olds are rather easily taken advantage of by people in authority positions. That is probably what makes them wonderful soldiers (that and a sense of their own invulnerability).
Anyway, you can't judge by me. I'm the kind of person who, if my son or daughter was in the military, would write to the president making it clear that I didn't raise this person for 18 or so years just so they could end up dead on a field somewhere for a cause I didn't necessarily agree with. Sure, it's the individual's choice but still there's a measure of concern that they are being placed in unneccesary danger. God's work, the country's work, etc. Let's be honest. You can be sent to a mission in Columbia or Beirut, or you can end up in Bryan, TX. You could be killed anywhere, but I don't think the decisions are entirely God's. I think the sons and daughters of the elite in America get to go to desk jobs or fly around over the US instead of in combat zones.
There are safe and less safe mission trip locations. I imagine I would protest if my son or daughter got sent someplace on the more dangerous side of things. I wouldn't readily believe that God had made that decision. And I'd probably not just pray about my displeasure.
Much to the embarrassment of all, I'm sure.
All of this presupposes that parents of LDS missionaries are themselves members of the church. I can imagine many of your converts having a hard time explaining things to their parents, should they decide to go on a mission trip post-conversion.
Oh well...Hey, it works for you.
I'm sure I'd rather have my kid off on a mission in Hoboken, NJ than hanging out in Iraq with a US uniform on.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Early on in my mission, I looked around my area and thought, "If my Mom could see this, she would demand that I come home right now." I had the unusual privilege of being able to show my parents the areas of my mission. That was really cool. The funny thing was, by the time they came out (at the end of my mission) I surprised that they were so shocked!
Kat, thank you so much for sharing your feelings on that. I really appreciate what you said.
Bob, I think Occasional's statement comes a lot from the observation within the church that those youth who serve missions tend to gain aspects of character and maturity that those who don't serve don't develop. I would expect the same would be true of a youth sent into millitary service as compared to one who didn't.
[ July 20, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: You can be sent to a mission in Columbia or Beirut
No, you can't. The church closes missions in highly unstable places- I remember when Columbia was closed. I don't think we ever had missions in Beirut. Unless you were talking about military missions.
I seem to remember you're a professional psychologist, Bob, and so it is with some trepidation that I challenge your implication that the experiences we have have no bearing on our maturity. Though I would agree that Peace Corps could be considered just as, if not more, "maturing" than an LDS mission. An early marriage... maybe.
I think the military is pretty well designed not to outstrip the ability of most people to mature rapidly. But the military experience varies a lot, from one branch of service to another.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Bev, it seems like it would be hard to prove cause and effect on that last part. Wouldn’t it be just as likely that the youth who are more mature already tend to go on a mission?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bob, fair enough.
The parallel with the military is not unfounded - "God's Army" after all. Add in the strict schedule and the expectation of obedience, and the analogy is pretty dang close.
I think...
I think in being a soldier, you are asked to defend your country, but you are asked to do it in perhaps unsavory ways, and many soldiers action come home a little broken from the exerience. On the other hand, missionaries who are obedient and who "action" come home filled with light. If by your fruits ye shall know them, then missions are a very, very good thing. There's a reason people call it the best two years (although it shouldn't be) - up until that point, it's certainly the most powerful and uplifting. And it's very fun.
My brother went to Ecuador, and my mom wanted to "pick him up" - go to Ecuador at the end of his mission and have him show them around. My brother refused. He didn't want my mom to see the squalor he had been living in.
There were several people I encountered in Detroit who had the attitude of "Poor baby - what are they doing to you. You don't know what you're doing." It's not flattering, and I still don't agree with it. The girls leave when they are 21, even. Maybe without the grit of the world on them yet, but that's how life works - the times of greatest decision-making are the times of least experience. You have to bite it and make the best decision you can with the information you have. And two years of service isn't a bad decision.
--
For the record, I don't agree with an across the board "more mature" stance. I think they are mature in some areas and much less mature in others. The more mature spiritually is often startling, so the rest gets extrapolated.
[ July 20, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I have a lot to say on the subject of missionaries, my sister and her husband have been serving in the Dominican Republic for 10 years. I'm not going to say anything about them right now.
I just wanted to at the comment that Bob_Scopatz is a professional psychologist.
I didn't know that.
That explains alot.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
beverly, yeah, it's kind of amazing what we can become inured to, but when we see it from another person's perspective (or get reminded of our own starting point) we are just amazed.
Same thing happens to prison guards and trauma surgeons, so it's not altogether a positive thing. It's just habituation.
As for the comparison to those who never went on mission, isn't there some component of self-selection bias, as well as actual bias, in that comparison? Some have already made it clear that "failing" to go on a mission is probably a better description of how not going is viewed. So, a guy who is generally judged to be a failure at something like this is no doubt going to be viewed in a much less favorable light.
His misdeeds amplified, perhaps? His lack of seriousness is judged a flaw rather than a refreshing youthfulness? His behavior more closely scrutinized, perhaps? And his not taking a rightful place in the community is also a judgement, is it not?
Anyway, there's also the question of what you mean by maturity. Sober 21 year olds are judged abnormally somber in most of our culture. Is rushing to take on responsibilities a good thing? Does taking them on make you ready to take them on? Is getting married and having children when you are struggling financially a sign of maturity, for example, or a sign of something else?
Succeeding at it, of course, would be a good measure of something. But there's luck involved there as well.
All I have to say is "where's the passion?" I know LDS people are plenty passionate. But this dispassionate approach to missions and the desire to "act mature beyond one's years" is strange to me.
I like my missionaries passionate.
Firey.
And with a certain zest for life.
Since I know for a fact that LDS members can and do live passionate lives, I guess I must be getting the exact wrong impression of what a mission does to someone.
And I don't care how long it takes a person to "get" passionate. I don't think we're on a timetable.
I don't think sober and responsible is necessarily something to be achieved through a 2 year induction ceremony either. It still has to be earned. 21 year olds who act 40 are still 21. They have one amazing life experience under their belt, but they still are what they are.
Just like soldiers coming home. They hung out for two years mostly with other 19 year olds. In a way, it's kind of a "lord of the flies" thing.
It might make some more mature, but I think it also makes some more twisted than they would've been otherwise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I hope you won't take this as an insult, but the more I hear about the LDS church, the more like the Catholic church you seem.
A fine compliment, indeed. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:All I have to say is "where's the passion?"
Hmm...I could send you "Called to Serve". It's a chruch movie about the MTC and serving a mission. I promise, you see the sight of thousands of missionaries belting out the hymn Called to Serve in twenty different languages, and you run to the "terrifyingly-passionate religious zealots" side.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Some have already made it clear that "failing" to go on a mission is probably a better description of how not going is viewed. So, a guy who is generally judged to be a failure at something like this is no doubt going to be viewed in a much less favorable light.
You're exactly right, Bob.
My LDS friend (the one I was interested in romantically at one point in my life) "failed" to go on a mission when he was 19. He had been raised a good Mormon, and always it was assumed he would go, but when the time came, his father was in bad health and the family farm was in jeopardy of failing without him. He finally chose (after counseling with the bishop, etc.) to not go on the mission and instead stay and work the farm to support his family and to keep it going for future generations because he was severely NEEDED at home.
Because of this choice, he was greatly shunned by his local LDS community (yeah, it was in Utah, where they take this kind of thing very seriously) and although he still considers himself very LDS, he now hasn't attended an LDS service in years because of this dark cloud.
It breaks my heart to hear him speak of it (which he usually won't) -- because now here is this 50 year old guy that is STILL carrying around this burden of how he was treated by other LDS for electing to NOT go on a mission over 30 years ago. It reminds me, personally, of the way some people treated our Vietnam soldiers when they returned home from doing what they had been drafted to do -- with disdain and disapproval.
It was one of the (many) things that turned me away from the LDS church when I was investigating it -- that others could make a person feel like such a failure for all his life for choosing to not go on a mission.
Farmgirl
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Re: Psychology...I worked with rats & pigeons. Now I study behavior in traffic.
Experience does mature people. I never said it didn't.
I just disagree that a 21 year old coming back from a mission is really that different from a 21 year old who stayed home.
What matters, really, is not how successfully one adjusts to college, or work, or missions, or war, or peace corp, or what have you, but what of that is relevant to your daily life.
A person's experiences are, of course, relevant to how they deal with life.
It is also a lens through which we view new experiences.
So, if you come back from war thinking in terms of life and death and believe that fate is in charge, that will color your life. You'll seem more mature. But will you be well adjusted to your new circumstances.
I dare say that an LDS boy returning as a man from a mission trip is going to be better adjusted to life within the LDS church than a boy who stayed home and became a man another way (see FG's post for a better example than I have).
Look, it's not a slam on the LDS church. It's an observation on the attitude that some are sharing about maturity.
Our friend who inspired this thread, for example. I feel for him. He came home feeling mature and having lived through the "big experience" and yet he'd obviously never recoded his experience in the whorehouse from a perspective of mature thought based on Christ's example.
I'm stretching here -- I admit it -- but now he's had to face it. How old is he now? Is he NOW mature? Was he two weeks ago? Not on this subject anyway. IMHO.
But if I go around cataloguing other people's immaturity I'm going to be in REAL trouble.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Bev, it seems like it would be hard to prove cause and effect on that last part. Wouldn’t it be just as likely that the youth who are more mature already tend to go on a mission?
I understand the difficulty in proving causality, but that possibility doesn't make as much sense. I find it easier to believe that the nature of the experiences one goes through on a mission are going to naturally have more of a character-building effect on a person than the things that just happen in average life. The only reason that wouldn't make sense to me is if certain things happen in the life of a 19-21 year old that don't happen to them before or afterwards.
quote: For the record, I don't agree with an across the board "more mature" stance. I think they are mature in some areas and much less mature in others. The more mature spiritually is often startling, so the rest gets extrapolated.
This makes sense to me.
[ July 20, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
beverly, that's very interesting. I'm not sure what those experiences would be...or rather how they'd be different from missionary work for any other church. I mean, what is it about knocking on doors, offering an overview of your church's teachings, and every once in awhile being given the joyous opportunity to assist a new convert in joining the church. That's a rush, to be sure!
But...there's obviously more to the experience too. Time away from home. Self reliance. Responsibility to a partner. Leadership in the partnership (after the first year?) All kinds of great things would come from it.
And some of that experience would be expected to transfer over to "regular" life upon coming home.
The experience of saving up for such a trip, too, must be pretty amazing. Although, it must be subsidized in some way, mustn't it? Do the missionaries pay rent during their time on mission? Do they have to save up in advance for 2 years worth of room and board? If so, then I'm really impressed. I don't know many adults who could work long enough and hard enough to be able to afford two years away.
But I figured it was more like you pay for your plane fare and a bit towards expenses, but there must be some sort of thing like free room, meals, something...
Otherwise, wouldn't we be talking about saving up something on the order of $15,000 to $30,000 as a bare minimum, just to survive?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: As for the comparison to those who never went on mission, isn't there some component of self-selection bias, as well as actual bias, in that comparison? Some have already made it clear that "failing" to go on a mission is probably a better description of how not going is viewed. So, a guy who is generally judged to be a failure at something like this is no doubt going to be viewed in a much less favorable light.
His misdeeds amplified, perhaps? His lack of seriousness is judged a flaw rather than a refreshing youthfulness? His behavior more closely scrutinized, perhaps? And his not taking a rightful place in the community is also a judgement, is it not?
You know, I can believe there is probably at least some of that going on. Difficult to say how much. An anecdotal example: In my husbands family of 5 brothers, (the youngest of whom is not yet old enough to go on a mission) one of those brothers chose not to go. He is agnostic now and was then also.
The funny thing is, he looks at himself in comparison with his brothers who did choose to go, and he sees something missing in himself. Now, we are talking someone with no faith in God, this particular church, or any other. He actually said to me once that he kinda wishes he had gone! I didn't say it, but I thought to myself, "Why on earth would you want to serve a proselytizing mission for a church you have no belief in?" He knew something of the experiences his brothers had and he wanted that for himself.
Another anecdotal example: In my family of 6, my sister is the only one who didn't serve a mission. It was by no means because of a lack of maturity. I can not stress this enough. *I* was the terribly immature one. She got married at an age to young to serve. I think she has always felt since that I have something in me from my experience that she wishes she had for herself.
The extent to which these perceptions are true cannot be proven. We all have to decide what we think for ourselves.
quote: It might make some more mature, but I think it also makes some more twisted than they would've been otherwise.
Oh, ho ho ho, I definitely have to agree with that. Most LDS will admit that a newly returned missionary is pretty weird. They have to be "rehabilitated". Ever seen the movie "The RM"? It takes a humorous view on the subject.
quote: Our friend who inspired this thread, for example. I feel for him. He came home feeling mature and having lived through the "big experience" and yet he'd obviously never recoded his experience in the whorehouse from a perspective of mature thought based on Christ's example.
That is a good point, Bob. Can someone be mature and naive at the same time? The use of the word mature probably means vastly different things to different people. Missions don't necessarily do much to alieviate naivette. (sp?)
[ July 20, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Because of this choice, he was greatly shunned by his local LDS community (yeah, it was in Utah, where they take this kind of thing very seriously) and although he still considers himself very LDS, he now hasn't attended an LDS service in years because of this dark cloud.
I can't help but wonder, though, how much of it was actual shunning and how much of it was him not forgiving himself for not going?
Oh, and if he was shunned, I think that was terribly wrong for him to be judged like that.
[ July 20, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, we already know the boy ain't quite right. He hasn't taken FG up on her offer!!!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: The experience of saving up for such a trip, too, must be pretty amazing. Although, it must be subsidized in some way, mustn't it? Do the missionaries pay rent during their time on mission? Do they have to save up in advance for 2 years worth of room and board? If so, then I'm really impressed. I don't know many adults who could work long enough and hard enough to be able to afford two years away.
Paying for missions has evolved over the years. It used to be that you paid directly for your own mission to the extent that you were able, receiving help for what you couldn't manage. But the standard of living is so different in different parts of the world. Compare, say, a mission in Brazil to a mission in France. Big cost difference.
So to help make things more financially equal, all missionaries (or their families) pay a set monthly amount. This covers everything except you getting to the MTC. They cover the cost of getting you to your home. Again, if the missionary or family can't cover the cost, the members pitch in and donate. Members make donations on a regular basis that goes to general or local missionary funds and is used as needed.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Thanks, Bob. You're quite right about that!
And Bev, some of what you say is true -- some of it is him beating up on himself emotionally. He seems to dwell on his past mistakes quite a bit (which was a red flag to me during our relationships, but I was willing to overlook it <wink>)
But when you live in an area (like he does) that is 95% LDS, and everyone has known you from your childhood, it is hard to walk away from old "mistakes" (which I don't think this was a mistake, it was just a decision that others didn't agree with)
FG
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You know, that has got to be hard about growing up in a small community where everyone has known you from birth. We moved around so much, I often looked upon such a lifestyle with envy. But it does seem that a lot of unfair gossip and judging goes on in such a climate also.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I just disagree that a 21 year old coming back from a mission is really that different from a 21 year old who stayed home.
It's interesting to hear you talk about this, Bob. Some of the people you are talking to have seen and experienced this themselves. You have not, and yet you seem perfectly comfortable declaring how things must be.
It's as though an astronaut came back to earth and said "Really! The earth *is* round -- I saw it myself!" to have people respond "Oh, that can't be, you just saw it that way because you really wanted to."
I'm not trying to shut you down, Bob, but I just wanted to share how you sometimes come across. I have to consciously keep myself from getting defensive when people say, in essence "You Mormons are like this...", "You mormons should...", or etc..
I'm not that what you say is without value, but it is extremely hard to take "You should do ____" in the same spirit that you take "We should do _____".
I guess there are two reasons why it's hard to be an effective critic of a group that you aren't a part of. The first one is that people will be doubtful you really know what you are talking about. The second one is that people are naturally more defensive against criticism from without than from within.
I wish there were a graemlin that says "please take this in the best possible light, because I have no wish to offend".
On second thought, maybe there is.
edit: as I read this and look at it from another view-point, I think "That sounds like a personal problem to me, Porter." Perhaps it is.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
mph -- I think the problem is that the point is really hard to prove.
Let's say LDS #1 goes on a mission trip and has lots of life-changing experiences that really help him grow. LDS #2 stays home, but experiences other life-changing experiences here. How do you possibly compare?
I mean -- maybe nothing exciting will happen to #1 on the mission trip, whereas #2 staying homes has several character-building events happen in their life. Or vice versa.
Since you can never get the SAME person to both 1) stay home AND 2) go on a mission trip; you can't really do a fair comparison of how events that happen to them during those two years of their life affected their character building.
Farmgirl
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
mph, if the argument is that the mission shaped and changed the person than I don't think anyone would disagree. It's a huge change from any life you knew before at a time when you're ripe for change. Of course it's going to impact you, how could it not? But is it somehow intrinsically better than joining the army? Getting married? Going to college? Volunteering at a hospital? How could we ever judge? All of those things are also different from any life you've known. The question is always how well you respond to the changes and how you can apply them to other situations.
It's very hard to compare different people and you can't compare the effects different choices would have on the same person for obvious reasons.
Quite frankly, If Joe Mormon fresh from his mission came up to me and declared he was more mature than I was as he had served a mission and I had not I would be forced to arch an eyebrow at him (or at least try. I can't raise one eyebrow. Still practicing).
Edit: More or less what Farmgirl said.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
mph -- if you don’t want to hear non-Mormon perspectives on particular topics, don’t discuss them on Hatrack. If the topic is here, it’s open for anyone.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Sometimes, an outside perspective can bring new facets of things to light.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: The funny thing is, he looks at himself in comparison with his brothers who did choose to go, and he sees something missing in himself. Now, we are talking someone with no faith in God, this particular church, or any other. He actually said to me once that he kinda wishes he had gone! I didn't say it, but I thought to myself, "Why on earth would you want to serve a proselytizing mission for a church you have no belief in?" He knew something of the experiences his brothers had and he wanted that for himself.
Bev, maybe what he doesn't realize is perhaps that "something missing" that he feels, is the difference between his brothers faith in God, and his lack of such a feeling. Maybe it has nothing at all to do with the mission trip or the experience of that which he missed. Maybe he thinks the mission trip would have filled that hole.
Farmgirl
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Quite frankly, If Joe Mormon fresh from his mission came up to me and declared he was more mature than I was as he had served a mission and I had not I would be forced to arch an eyebrow at him (or at least try. I can't raise one eyebrow. Still practicing).
That wouldn't be a terribly mature thing to say, eh? Kinda like a person saying, "I'm more humble than you are." The words uttered forth immediately prove themselves untrue.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
WARNING: major tangential post!!
bev, about the agnostic brother.
My username is from a character in a book about (among many things) a religion that is self-admittedly false. In fact, a warning at the start of the book is that anyone who cannot understand the usefulness of a religion built on lies will not understand the book.
It goes on to posit that most religions are useful institutions in their own right, regardless of their veracity, so long as they are by and large ethical. Religions can create an extended family, a system that one can be a part of that is larger than one's self. There is a longing in nearly every person for some sort of structure as this.
Despite libertarians' protestations, the human animal is not a solitary one; I don't think it is even primarily one. We do act as individuals, but I think our nature is a mix between pure pack animal and pure solitary. There isn't a neat demarcation. To try to enshrine one or the other as the ideal human condition is in grave error.
Anyway, I would say that the agnostic brother desires for this sense of belonging, this shared experience within a greater good. In this case, the brother is intimately familiar with a particular system (the LDS). So he maps his emptiness to that structure that he knows.
I don't see the strangeness in wanting to experience something that is based on false premises. I think it's an inherent longing in a human animal that is not in their ideal environment.
But then again, I could be on crack.
-Bok
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Moses was the most humble man in the world. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Perhaps, Farmgirl. But he honestly believes it has nothing to do with faith. He *believes* that there is no God. But it may be that that is at least part of what he feels the lack of. But knowing the people involved, I think he is also referring to a certain sense of wisdom and purpose in life. For me, that is an effect of having true faith. For him, it is not.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bob- young persons are encouraged to save up for a mission or for marriage as the church discourages going into debt.
I don't know what it is now, but when my siblings were going it was close to 1,000 dollars a month for a Eurpean mission, more like 100 for South America. When they standardized it it was about 250, because there are more missionaries in the less costly places.
I don't know how finances for food are handled. Though I heard that the president of the L.A. mission had to make ramen noodles against the rules because some missionaries were eating only that to conserve their money. I don't know if they then spent the money on other stuff.
A missionary I have referred to a number of times acquired a lot of souvenirs and questionable literature on his mission. Now this wasn't a guy who just got swept along by peer pressure and had no testimony. I think he tended toward bipolar, because he could be very sincerely spiritual sometimes but also make really bad decisions. And no, the mission didn't fix him.
Of course, my husband didn't go on a mission. My second landmark went more into the details. But in the process of seeking the Lord's will and feeling that he shouldn't go, he insulated himself from any criticism anyone might have of that decision then or later in life.
I hope that the culture can keep up with the doctrine on the new standards (of a mission being an honor and not a duty).
P.S. I don't think the new standards would have prevented the debacle that occured with my other friend, who was sent back early and assumed to be gay by some congregation members. Unless the standards weeded out the intolerant jerk companion who told the mission president that my friend was a ticking time bomb of fury.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Beverly: Is it possible that both his view and yours are both valid? Or are they mutually exclusive?
pooka: it seems that the culture still believes that serving a mission is a duty and not an honor.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bok, having recently read "Dune", I find what you have said here very interesting. "Dune" deals extensively with religions, while not *necessarily* based on lies, they are not based on a Supreme Creator. (Supreme Being perhaps, but not Supreme Creator.) Frank Herbert seems to have a similar view, that religion can be very useful even in a universe with no Deity.
Edit: Not all that far off from my POV in that some churches are more true than others, but most of them tend to bring people closer to God.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Beverly: Is it possible that both his view and yours are both valid? Or are they mutually exclusive?
Sure.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
...to which?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh, mack, I suppose it is possible for a truly humble person to say "I am humble," and have it be completely true.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Cool.
Yes, while a humble person CAN say they are humble, saying it to another like that proves otherwise.
"I'm more humble than you! I'm the most humble person in the world!"
"Um..."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The Dune books devolve into a "moral" that transcendent religion does nothing for people and passing on genes is the ultimate reality. Of course, it's based in a sci fi universe. I don't know if Herbert held those views when he wrote the early books. I highly recommend Dune Messiah, however.
I think the story probably started with the question "what if nature and nurture could produce transcendent experience?" It was an interesting basis for a world. But I think Herbert bought into his own creation. At least that is what I hear.
Mack... sadly, I realize the honor/duty thing is going to take some time.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
bev, in this case, the religion (Bokononism) had conflicting cosmology. It could be seen as polytheistic, but tended to the monotheistic of generic Western assumptions side of things.
But the Books of Bokonon (the "scripture") started with the exclamation [paraphrased]: "Close this book at once! It is nothing but a pack of foma!" Foma is the term for harmless, even helpful, untruths. One of the many ironies of the plot of the book was that for a religion militantly adamant about it's incorrectness, all the predictions it had came true
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Of course it's going to impact you, how could it not? But is it somehow intrinsically better than joining the army? Getting married? Going to college? Volunteering at a hospital? How could we ever judge? All of those things are also different from any life you've known.
This makes sense. But in my case, if I had not gone on my mission, I would not have joined the army, gotten married, nor volunteered at a hospital. I would have stayed in college, worked part time, and played.
I can tell you that I was more mature for going on my mission than I would have been otherwise. Are there people that didn't go on a mission that were more mature than me at 21? With a doubt. But it does not change the fact that I was more mature because of my mission. Not more mature than others, but more mature than I would have been.
Can I prove it? No.
quote: if you don’t want to hear non-Mormon perspectives on particular topics, don’t discuss them on Hatrack. If the topic is here, it’s open for anyone.
Dana -- like I said, I wasn't trying to shut Bob down. I was trying to share my personal frustrations. Perhaps that was a mistake.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I went on a mission, and my best friend didn't. She got married. There is NO QUESTION of who was more mature - I KNEW she was more mature than I was. She didn't need to go. I think that I did.
There is something that comes from missions though that's hard to get otherwise. I just saw that the other day. I have a friend who is 20 and getting married, and she's practically more mature than me NOW, much less when I was 20. She's excited, she loves her fiance, she knows it's the right thing to do, but this desire to go prompted seriously one of the dumbest things I ever heard her say. She said she wanted to put in her papers and go through the MTC, and then come home and marry her fiance. I was actually irritated, because that's such a casual stance towards a serious committment. A mission call isn't like getting your fortune told! But she still wanted that experience.
--
Of course anyone can answer. Bob can put his opinions forth all he wants, and the LDS are free to discount them completely because he doesn't have the same experiences to draw from. Having been through it, so many of these concerns aren't a problem at all, and I know because I've seen it in practice. Bob is free to discount my opinion because...I don't know - if I loved it that much, of course I'd defend it? I think that's what's happening.
[ July 20, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Actually, I have read "Dune Messiah" and am now in the middle of "Children of Dune". (Need to finish that....)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bev- finding it hard? what say we make it a mutual challenge? I read the other books last summer, loved them, then got stuck in the middle of Children .
quote: This makes sense. But in my case, if I had not gone on my mission, I would not have joined the army, gotten married, nor volunteered at a hospital. I would have stayed in college, worked part time, and played.
I think the total dedication that comes with any pursuit one has long looked forward to is going to build the person.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I think the total dedication that comes with any pursuit one has long looked forward to is going to build the person.
True. For me, though, it wasn't sometihng long looked forward to. A lot of growing had to take place for me to get myself to the point where I woulc go on a mission at all. Why didn't I want to go? Because it sounded hard. Just being willing to go was a hard step for me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sure, hon, I will accept the challange. While the book has been somewhat nebulous, I think I mostly lost steam getting distracted by other things--like the arrival of "Rachel and Leah"! Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
MPH...the problem with the assertion (of greater maturity) is that it is wrong if one person can be found who came back no more mature than when he or she left.
The assertion about a particular individual, of course, cannot be gainsayed by anyone except those who know the person. Or the person themself.
Just bear in mind, however, that these so called transformational experiences can often be a self-fulfilling prophecy. There's a halo effect of the people back home expecting to see a change, and finding it. There's the person themselves wanting to change, and doing so.
But the claim is "MORE" mature -- universally.
And that's not the same as saying the experience was or was not valuable. Or was or was not life changing.
So, I guess the problem is that if you suck that one sentence out of the posts I've made in this thread, you can choose to be offended by it. Or not.
But don't misconstrue it as anything more than what I've really said. Repeatedly. That a claim like that can't be substantiated and it is much more like wish fulfillment than a reflection on the benefits (in general) of going off to do God's work for a two year stint.
I've never said that LDS people are immature. A 21 year old Mormon is probably at least as mature as the average 21 year old from any other walk of life.
You just shouldn't claim stuff about your people's maturity being higher than everyone elses because of having gone through YOUR nominal transformational experience. Frankly, the judgement is being made on two faulty pieces of data:
1) That YOU yourself (yourselves) feel like you matured when YOU went away for two years. and 2) That the kids who went away are judged to be more mature than LDS kids who stayed behind.
Oddly enough, I just wonder why this is important to your group's ethos. What is it about pride in your advanced maturity that would bring out such a defensive reaction in the first place?
I mean, really, do you care about that?
I wonder if this might be touching on a central tenet or something else that's very near and dear to the LDS church. I unwittingly seem to stumble onto those with alarming frequency.
And I'm probably pretty insulting about it in my approach because I care a lot less about it than you do. And I'm fairly unapologetic in my non-caring attitude.
But every time I say anything that is even close to an observation of LDS being pretty much the same as everyone else, people seem to come forward with defenses of LDS superiority in all things societal.
Okay, now I'm overgeneralizing. And I expect any moment that Rat Named Dog will once again have to correct my mistaken opinion.
It's okay. I really don't care. Really. It's just odd to me. I mean, if someone came up to me and started trying to explain how going through the ordeal of graduate school in my late teens and twenties was a maturing event that had transformational aspects, I'd say they were right.
But if they tried to say that this was something that made all graduate students more mature than people who left college and went on to do things like work, start families, go on missions, pump gas, or hang out in their parent's basements, I'd have to say they were nuts.
Maturity is only measurable in individuals, if it is measurable at all.
And you folks have a cultural-specific definition of maturity that includes a check box next to "went on mission." So, ipso facto, the person is mature.
It's a stamp of approval, it seems.
One that the leadership supposedly repudiated (i.e., it is NOT a right of passage). But they HAD to say that, didn't they? Why, because everyone was/is treating it AS a right of passage.
Aw heck, I'm doing it again, aren't I? I always sound so critical when I make LDS-specific observations.
It's my holier than thou attitude really. Insufferable.
Even if I am, on average, holier. (I have extra holes due to surgery, although most HAVE healed up).
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Humans are meant for service. To dedicate two years to serving, through great difficulties, something higher and better than yourself... why that is one of the very happiest things a human could do. Of course one would be better off for it!
The choice to go is a big part of it. The fact that it's freely given. I would love to serve a mission. I hope to do so, when I can. What could be better?
And Bob, I feel like you've judged the original poster rather harshly, calling him immature even now, because of his telling of that story. Have you given up 2 years of your life to service, as the poster did? Why do you feel it's okay for you to judge him and say he fell short then and still falls short of your standards of maturity? Maybe you don't really understand the situation at all! Do you do humanitarian work among prostitutes?
Edit to say this was written before Bob's last post, which I'm still digesting.
[ July 20, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks for the financial breakdown, by the way. That's really pretty incredible. $1000 a month!!!
$24,000 saved up to go on a mission?
Holy Carp!
Or are you saying that now everyone just saves the equivalent of $250/month. Still a major sum for a young person to attain unassisted.
Of course, with assistance from the church and family, it would seem more do-able and not be a burden on dthe less monied class of folks.
Wow!
I'm impressed. I don't think that up to the age of 18 I could've saved that much. I suppose if I'd had a goal of something along the lines of a two year trip, I might've done it. But that's a hefty sum for most kids.
Good stuff.
Hey, if I saved up $24,000 could I send someone in my place? Like GWB?
He needs to go on a mission and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't think Bob was being harsh. I think it was a point to the others who are insisting that RM are more mature than others their age who have not served a mission. Were this true, then the original poster would've had a bit more perspective on what naivete and maturity and humanitarian service really are.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bob, slapping yourself around at the end of your post doesn't take back the words you choose to say. (No OOC :raised eyebrow glare:)
I have repeatedly tried to back you up that maturity is not inherent to the LDS mission experience.
[ July 20, 2004, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Okay, you say that we may well be deluding ourselves that people who serve missions are more mature. And that even if they ARE, what's so great about maturity anyway.
There's no answer to that except to say that if you saw them for yourself you would see it too. It's very marked. Anyone can dismiss any observation at all by saying it's only bias.
Maturity is good because it makes makers out of unmakers. It focuses people's energy on the positive. Maturity means less destruction, less debt, less drugs and vandalism, happier more stable families, more education, more accomplishment, more love and peace and understanding, less acting out. Of course maturity is good!
Don't think this is regimented coercive oppression, either. It's not. It comes from the heart, from within. Strict regimentation by authoritarianism doesn't lead to maturity, it leads to rebellion and stubborn opposition.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
ak, you're right, I don't.
I also don't laugh about the fact that I don't.
But I also know that I have my sack of rocks to carry around and shouldn't go judging other people.
I've said that repeatedly too.
I merely pointed out that it didn't seem particularly funny to me, nor did I find it particularly emblematic of maturity. ON that ONE THING!!!
Bear with me here! I'm a big supporter of the person who made that post. I see myself all over that story. I understand leaving. I've said it before. Oh, maybe that was in the thread that got deleted.
I don't really see it as one of those needing to walk in another's shoes kind of thing.
The person in question was situationally immature. Not at the time, mind you. I'd've done the same thing. But in later thinking it was a funny story. It wasn't a funny story. It was sad.
And that's not a failing. It's a realization he hadn't come to yet.
Making that realization was a maturational event.
I hope it doesn't devalue the whole missionary experience for him. I would argue that it shouldn't. No WAY! Things don't have to be perfect in retrospect to be valuable, do they?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:One that the leadership supposedly repudiated (i.e., it is NOT a right of passage). But they HAD to say that, didn't they? Why, because everyone was/is treating it AS a right of passage.
No, they didn't have to say it. Why would they have to? Because people outside the church thought it was wrong that it was a rite of passage? The leadership do their very best to make the church a contributory body to society and to encourage its members to be good citizens, but they don't give a flying fig as to non-members' opinions of doctrine or ordinances.
----
I'd bet my life that it doesn't devalue his mission for him. But the original poster hasn't psoted on Hatrack since then, and I can only imagine what he thinks of the people here after the way he was treated. Dogpiled and excoriated even after retreating from the field of battle. Whether or not you liked the story, he was excited to share it, and as an insecure newbie, he got blasted by long-time posters. What was that about maturity?
[ July 20, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't know if I missed something in the original post, but I didn't see any "insisting that RMs are more mature than others their age". I certainly saw some people saying that that tends to be the case, and it isn't suprising that something like a 2 year commitment of service, any service, would have such an effect. I think the touching on a point of sensitivity goes the other way around. It seems people are terribly offended that anyone would suggest such a thing.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't think anyone claimed to be mature about reactions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But the claim is "MORE" mature -- universally.
I haven't seen anybody make this claim. I've seen you campaigning against it, but I haven't seen anybody actually say that's what they believe.
Of course it's not true universally. If a person goes on a mission, doesn't work and doesn't serve, wasting his time and his companion's, he might be worse off for going on a mission. Two years of doing good will make you a better person. Two years of selfishness will make you a more selfish person.
quote: And I'm probably pretty insulting about it in my approach because I care a lot less about it than you do. And I'm fairly unapologetic in my non-caring attitude.
So I've noticed.
quote: There's no answer to that except to say that if you saw them for yourself you would see it too. It's very marked. Anyone can dismiss any observation at all by saying it's only bias.
This is what I was trying to say before. I don't know how you (Bob) feel so confident saying that it's false without having seen it yourself. Of course, if you'd seen the affects, and then declared that it was false, that's another matter entirely.
[ July 20, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Question, am I making it up, or did several people assert that LDS kids are more mature than other people's kids of the same age?
That's the only question I've been trying to address here.
When I was 21, I was running a lab in graduate school and teaching courses. You're telling me I was less mature than a kid who was knocking on doors and talking about God.
My buddy who went into the army and taught jungle survival -- less mature.
My friend who started a taxi company -- less mature.
My friend who became a session musician -- okay, bad example.
My friend who went into seminary -- also less mature.
My buddies who went to medical school -- less...
That's what has been said. Isn't it?
I beg to differ.
I've tried to explain what a great time the 19 - 21 year age is. How it is full of growth for everyone.
Oh, and I'll have to ask you to pay closer attention to the self-effacing endings to my posts when they are there. They aren't there to ERASE what I've said. Far from it. They are there to put everything in context.
I truly believe that I have no place to judge others when it comes to these things. I'm not judging ANY individuals.
And I felt the need to explain that situational maturity is a better concept than "MATURITY."
A mature person can do shockingly immature things. Does that make them immature? Or just make them immature in that situation?
I think it's the latter. We've had this discussion before.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay, I get what bob is saying. And, it makes sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Question, am I making it up, or did several people assert that LDS kids are more mature than other people's kids of the same age?
I haven't seen anybody say that. Maybe I missed it, though. If they did say that, then I disagree.
If that's what your big concern is, then I agree with you Bob, like I said before.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: it isn't suprising that something like a 2 year commitment of service, any service, would have such an effect. I think the touching on a point of sensitivity goes the other way around. It seems people are terribly offended that anyone would suggest such a thing.
I'm not following your line of thought here Bev. I haven't seen anyone argue that two years of some experience (whatever it may be) is NOT a growing experience. I think we were just trying to say it doesn't have to be a missionary experience.
I spent a year as a homeless person -- that was a learning experience. I've spent 18 years as a parent -- that has been a HUGE learning experience.
Farmgirl (who got interrupted with a phone call in the middle of this post, lost her train of thought, and is probably well past Bev's post by now)
[ July 20, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think we were just trying to save it doesn't have to be a missionary experience.
Did anyone here ever say that?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The quote from an LDS poster that Bob responded to, beginning this particular phase of the discussion, was
quote:One might say that Mormons are expected to grow up sooner than others of the same age.
Edit: the quote, in context, was talking about going on a mission.
[ July 20, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sorry I brought the thread back to answer your question, Bob. I didn't mean for it to get so weird.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* I don't agree with the request to grow up faster. I made a whole post on why that isn't necessarily true.
I do think they mature spiritually at a much greater rate - that's to be expected! They are focusing on nothing else for two years. I think they sometimes seem more mature because of spiritual maturation - it's unusual enough in the general population of 21 year olds that the rest gets extrapolated. But you definitely don't need to go on a mission or be in a seminary to get that spiritual maturation by early twenties, as is evidenced by Hatrackers - one in particular.
[ July 20, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: One might say that Mormons are expected to grow up sooner than others of the same age.
It's a pretty big jump from that quote to saying that mormons believe that every single returned missionary will be more mature than every single person of the same age that didn't.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
He was responding to Bob's comment about parents being concerned for their children serving missions. If you look at the context, he was saying that the youth were deemed to be mature enough already to be given such a big task, nothing about them coming back and being more mature than other people.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Ah, Bob, I see what you're saying now, I think, maybe. This is in response to we LDS always saying everything about our church and stuff is so great and wonderful all the time (implying that it's so much better than all the other churches). <laughs> Okay, I totally get that. That is true, we do that. Because we really believe it to be true, of course. And probably we should keep our thoughts to ourselves about that. Certainly being smug and insufferable is no virtue! <laughs>
So I do apologize for that! And I'll try to do better. But it's true that I really do believe it's the best church, and that its teachings are true. But I understand that other people feel their own churches are the best, or their own decisions not to go to church, and I respect their beliefs.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kat, you can't give unattributed compliments like that! I want to know this Hatracker, so I can make them my guru
-Bok
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote: One might say that Mormons are expected to grow up sooner than others of the same age.
When I read this, it didn't make me think of missions at all.
LDS folks marry younger, have children earlier and take on life responsibility in general younger than other folks. I mentioned in another thread that my daughter is marrying soon. She's not quite 22, and she has an older sister on a mission.
She's lived here with me on Maui for the past 3 years, since she graduated from high school, and she recently moved back to the mainland to marry her high school sweetheart who just returned from his mission.
Her friends and co-workers and even some of the church members here can not understand why she wants to get married SO YOUNG!!! To her schoolmates and friends and family in Idaho, she is doing exactly as she has been expected to all her life. Every member of our extended family to date (except her older sister) was married younger than she.
I don't think it's necessarily a positive thing that our youth are encouraged to marry so young, but I think we definitely expect our young adults to grow up sooner than other groups (at least in the US)do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:a mission is considered . . . a recognition of that person's individuality and reaching of maturity.
In other words, they are ALREADY considered an adult member of society who can take on the risks and responsibilities represented by missionary life. Now, a mission may or may not increase the maturation level -- and what that means itself depends on cultural qualifiers -- from when they left. From an LDS perspective (what mature means in the Mormon culture), there is a huge change that is both hard to pin down and distinct from those who haven't gone of comparitive age. I will say that those who don't go do have the ability to achieve that same hard to define quality of Mormon expected maturity, but it usually takes longer. Converts are the quickest to pick up on those same attributes, and the more serious of them usually with more abundance than the younger counterpart returned missionaries. Sadly, most long time members don't recognize this quality for a reason that I haven't pinned down. Perhaps it has something to do with group dynamics that has been popping up in the discussion. (quick personal aside: I love you converts. You are the lifeblood of the LDS Church and it saddens me that more is not done at a local level to recognize your contributions.)
I have certainly known missionaries who came back unchanged and equally as immature as when they went. Almost always, however, it was those who didn't take the purpose of missionary life very seriously that were the least impacted. Some of them do "grow up" once in the mission field and realize what devotion means. Usually, such change is a very hard and painful transformation like a butterfly trying to emerge from a hardened cocoon.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Wow, I definately know a lot more about missionaries than I did before reading this thread. I found it very interesting. I don't want to derail too much, but I do have a Morman question. In my limited experience, it seems that Mormans tends to marry young and after very short engagements. Is this true, or just a weird trend that I've seen in the people I know? If it's true, why is is true?
space opera
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think that tends to be true. I think it probably has something to do with the importance Mormons put on marriage, ie: finding an "eternal companion", and starting a family. Many single LDS feel out of place because of just how family oriented the doctrine and society of the LDS church is. For better or for worse, that is how it seems. From my observation at least. Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Thanks Bev. Here's another question. If young people who are Mormans tend to marry early, how does the Church deal with divorce? Statistically, marrying young puts you more at risk for a divorce. However I would think that if the Morman church puts a lot of emphasis on marriage than divorce is really frowned upon. Are there things in place to help these young marriages succeed, like counseling, etc.? Again, I'm just curious.
space opera
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Good question, Space Opera. You are certainly correct that divorce is not encouraged, though the church is very supportive of women and children getting away from abusive, evil men. Commitment is so very important, especially since LDS believe in eternal marriage. Eternity is a pretty long time.
I think the church offers free counseling, but I am not sure how that works. And whether or not people think that counseling is actually effective is up for grabs.
I wonder how much the marrying young effects divorce specifically among LDS. I am not aware of any study done on that specifically. But I have *heard* (not sure on this) that while non-temple (non-eternal) LDS marriage has as high if not a higher divorce rate than the national average, LDS temple marriages have significantly lower divorces. Someone else might be able to give better info on that tho.
I certainly have seen my share of LDS who marry young an naive, not particularly well prepared for marriage, and get divorced. It makes me very sad to see. Any divorce breaks my heart to see, even divorce that is truly necessary because then it means that one or both really suffered in the marriage.
I almost entered into a horrible marriage relationship when I was younger and more naive. I thank my lucky stars (actually I sincerely thank God) that I was saved from that. I will tell my story sometime, maybe my next landmark.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"LDS folks marry younger, have children earlier and take on life responsibility in general younger than other folks."
While it's true that non-LDS folks now tend to artificially extend adolescence, I should point out that assuming adult responsibilities does not automatically make someone mature enough to properly handle those adult responsibilities. In other words, 22 may or may not be young to be marrying regardless of whether someone is Mormon or not; the only difference is that Mormons may be expected and culturally encouraged to do so, and might therefore have a better support network set up to assist people who make that expected choice.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I never said that LDS people were more mature or more ready to accept adult responsiblities than anyone else, just that we are expected to do so at a younger age than many other groups are. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.
In addition to my own family's anecdotes - I was watching a DVD version "When Harry Met Sally" the other night on cable (with commentary at the bottom of the screen instead of voice-overs), and it mentioned that Meg Ryan was only 27 when she was playing a 33 year old woman who was starting to feel her biological clock ticking. She said it was difficult for her to play the part because "at 27, I'd never even thought about having a baby." or something like that. I can not relate to that at all. It seems almost silly to me to suggest that a 27 year old is too young to have a child, or even to be thinking about it.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Tom
quote: While it's true that non-LDS folks now tend to artificially extend adolescence
what on Earth does this statement mean?
For the sake of my prodigiously intellectual future (quiet hope) children, I can't unravel that statement?
FALLOW
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can't think of anything that will make a young person mature faster than giving them real responsibility.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
...but it could also make them crash and burn.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
School of hard knocks? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes, it can, on occasion.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
CAW!
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*preens and settle's into caucous roost*
CAW!!!
fallow
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I just realized I don't know that lds are expected to take on mature responsibilities at a younger age that other people. *thinks* From what I've observed from hatrack and Lost Boys etc you LDS love kids and take good care of them. That means kids have good home lives, people they can rely on. Kids have rules and family time and regular meals and scheduled bedtimes. More supervision and rules than many non-LDS kids obviously. Sure, they may have more chores at home (especially in larger families) and more requirements at church as far as required activities. OTOH, those activities are all supervised and carefully planned, just as missionaries have very specific planned lives. I just looked at all the rules for BYU housing. They try to leave as little possibility for misconduct as possible. Which is great, I suppose, but...I'm not seeing any expectation for early maturity or adult responsibility and choices in all this. Less expectation, if anything.
The expectation of early marriage and having kids right away is really the only early maturity expectation I'm seeing and we're still talking age 21 for boys which isn't that young. And the girls have all grown up in a culture where being a wife and mother is what they've been waiting for their whole life. Of course they want to get started asap. Plus these young adults have very supportive parents and church to help them out. Out of curiousity, how many young LDS get monetary support after marriage to get started? How many get monetary support for going on the mission?
Am I making any sense? If LDS kids have all these mature expectations, then why all the rules? And how can they grow up so much more or at least faster than other people when they have this invisible framework of rules and family support? I'm not seeing early maturity or early maturity expections, I guess. I'm not saying you don't have them. Just tell me what I've missed seeing. Right now I just see big safety nets, which is not really all that different from my own family.
[ July 21, 2004, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Theca ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Theca, thank you! That's exactly what I think about the BYU rules. They aren't dumb rules - I certainly lived most of them (not the curfew ones) through of college - I just didn't need to be babysat in order to do it.
My family did NOT encourage us to marry extremely young, and I was trying to think of how. I think part of it was the financial deal - you can mooch off the parents for room and board as long as you are (1) single, and (2) getting your bachelors. Once you graduate from college and/or get married, you are cut loose from the parental monetary support. The point being is that if you are mature enough to get married, you are mature enough to live as an adult. You're not going to get the outside trappings of an adult life while still being dependent on your parents for existance.
I don't know how well that worked - officially, there were/are no safety nets. That has had an interesting effects in some ways.
And being on a mission is NOT being on your own as an adult. You set your own schedule, but you're with someone 24 hours a day! Someone else takes care of all the bills and gives you an allowance for food. That's not being on your own - that's being mollycoddled. It's great! I loved it. It just wasn't being a functioning adult.
[ July 21, 2004, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
While I do not doubt that going away on a mission, joining the army or doing volunteer work in Mexico are all maturing experiences, I believe that the fact that all these adventures involve a prolonged separation from ones community can inflate the perception of the maturity gained to the disadvantage of those choosing to spend the corresponding time closer to home. The mechanism is the same that makes you marvel at how much your nephew has grown since you last saw him a year ago, whereas you fail to remark on the change that has happened in your own child who you have watched continually during that time. The young man going off to college may change and mature to the same extent as his brother away on his mission, but since he comes home every weekend to have dinner with his parents, who thus have the opportunity to watch the process unfold gradually, it is less noticable and notable.
[ July 21, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
good post, Tristan.
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Out of curiousity, how many young LDS get monetary support after marriage to get started? How many get monetary support for going on the mission?
I don't have any numbers, but I'll share our situation. I paid for essentially none of my mission. My maternal grandparents tried to pay for half of the mission for each one of their grandkids that went on one, and they were able to do so for me. My parents paid for the other half.
I have to say that this wasn't the best way to do things. While I felt like it was a big sacrifice just to go on a mission, it wasn't nearly as much as some of the other missionaries had to do. Some missionaries leave school and work for a year or two just saving up money for a mission. I was a weenie compared to these guys.
A lot of the Americans that go on missions are in the same boat as I -- mommy and daddy pay for the mission.
Then, when I got back from my mission, that was pretty much it from my parents. I put myself through school from that point on.
When I got married, my parents didn't help out at all. They would have given me a car if Mary didn't already have one, but since we didn't need it, they didn't.
Mary's parents, on the other hand, did help us out quite a bit. They gave us quite a bit for the wedding, etc., which we didn't even spend all of (that was kosher -- if we could save money, we got to keep the money). Each year when bonuses came out, Mary's father would send us a big fat check that really was a substantial percentage of our yearly income. Without those checks, I don't think we could have made it through school and the children without getting student loans. (We had one child when we both got our bachelors, and two, almost three when I got my masters.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: My family did NOT encourage us to marry extremely young, and I was trying to think of how. I think part of it was the financial deal - you can mooch off the parents for room and board as long as you are (1) single, and (2) getting your bachelors. Once you graduate from college and/or get married, you are cut loose from the parental monetary support. The point being is that if you are mature enough to get married, you are mature enough to live as an adult. You're not going to get the outside trappings of an adult life while still being dependent on your parents for existance.
Very much the same in my family. But Theca, many of your observations do hit home. It is an interesting discussion to ponder if this promotes maturity or not. I think it depends on the "execution" of the situation.
Edit to respond to Porter's post: In my family, once you are married you are "on your own" technically, but since my parents are quite wealthy, they were generous with gifts. I suppose that could be deemed help. They figured it was just the best way to use their money. I know their gifts did help us out quite a bit. But they did not pay for our college tuition, housing, or other things. It was more like, "Hey, its Christmas. Have some money!"
[ July 21, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, regular gifts of money that make up half the year's income counts as help. If you're getting money from your parents, then you're not on your own.
On your own = no living at home, no money from parents.
[ July 21, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Touche.
Oh, and Porter might be exaggerating just a wee bit on how much we received from Dad's bonuses. We did get a nice wedding gift though.
Porter and I both came into our marriage with thousands saved up and no debt. At all. That really helped us get through when we were spending more than we were making.
And just when it seemed we were going to run out, my parents would just happen to give us a Christmas or bonus gift that would just barely get us through.
Then before he graduated, he got a great job and we paid off our small student loan without even accruing interest.
To this day, the only debt we have ever had is our house. (Well, excepting the small student loan that never had a chance to have interest.)
[ July 21, 2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I'm not sure that's fair. I don't get money from my parents, except that I have the ability to earn a good income, due largely to the fact that they strongly encouraged us to go to college, paid for that college, were extremely patient about giving us second, third, and fourth chances while we figured out what we wanted to do in college, changed majors several times, tried and failed in several things, supported us after college until we found jobs, kicked our behinds until we actually hit the pavement long enough to find jobs, were emotionally supportive as we changed jobs, finding the right career paths, helped by keeping kids, gave presents of a substantial nature that improved our quality of life, in one case gave a loan that helped one of us buy a house, etc. etc.
We were self-sufficient in the sense that we could have managed and eaten and paid bills without them, but that doesn't mean that their ongoing support, both emotional and material, wasn't of huge benefit to us.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's what I mean - you weren't on your own then. If you couldn't live your life without them, then you're not on your own. Not being on your own is okay, if it's okay with those who are helping you. It just doesn't count as being self-sufficient. If you couldn't do it without them, then you are still partly dependant.
Not that I'm advocating what my dad did. I am completely and utterly self-sufficient and have been for years, but I have than a few problems with trust stemming from feeling forcefully abandoned.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We were on our own in the sense that we couldn't expect help from anybody. Each year when the help came, it was a surprise. One year it didn't come. I don't know what year that was, because I didn't notice it. We always planned everyting as though we would get no help, and for a while we were pleasantly surprised.
edit: We could have lived our lives without the help, but we probably would have had to get student loans like most people.
[ July 21, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
mph, yes, that's what I mean. Well, I mean two things. That help, when it came, was a gift and not expected or planned for.
The other thing I mean is that without their earlier help in the form of college tuition and more importantly, the expectation that I WOULD go to college and be able to support myself, I would be in a much worse position financially.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm with Katie, though. You aren't on your own until that help stops coming.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My parents will probably always be wealthy, and they intend to use their inheritance money to divide amongst their grandchildren.
Porter's parents are actually fairly wealthy now too, and they will probably have a decent sized inheritance to pass on to their descendants.
Does that mean we will never really be on our own?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Does that mean we will never really be on our own?"
Bluntly, yes. It means you will always be pampered. Whether you consider this an insult or not -- and I don't mean it that way -- depends entirely on whether or not you think of independence as its own virtue.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Our parents have to die *some* day. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
And the legacy of teaching me to love books, and encouraging me to educate myself as much as possible, and also teaching me by example what sort of life I wanted to lead, those things stay with you forever. How can I ever be on my own considering that? I would venture to say that few people can succeed without having had at least a little of such in their lives.
[ July 21, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that these resources, AK, are values which you have internalized and are no longer receiving from external sources. Ergo, they are your own, not someone else's.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No, I'm not offended, just trying to understand better your definition of being "on your own".
Everyone has their very own lexicon, and I find it helpful when I understand what the words and phrases other people use mean to them.
[ July 21, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
But they are still gifts, the same as if I were left a large legacy of money. They have an even greater value to me than money.
I really wonder who can claim they are truly on their own.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I really wonder who can claim they are truly on their own."
If you're going to believe that the concept has any value of any sort, you have to arbitrarily draw the line somewhere. Personally, I think nebulous gifts of personality can't count towards this idea, if only because then we face the philosophical concept that we are all beholden to each other -- which is fine, but then makes the nuances of this conversation impossible.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ak makes an excellent point. Most of us humans receive an *extreme* amount of nurturing compared to, say, sea turtles. All these things are gifts. And once they are given to you, they become yours.
It does seem that Tom's point is that at some point these gifts are no longer required. I certainly don't require the same amount of emotional nurture from my parents now as when I was a child. It could be argued that I don't need it at all now, or even that I really didn't need it then, but I still benefit from it and am very grateful for it.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I guess I'm hearing something that's unspoken. "You're not really on your own, not like ME."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Personally, I think nebulous gifts of personality can't count towards this idea, if only because then we face the philosophical concept that we are all beholden to each other -- which is fine, but then makes the nuances of this conversation impossible.
According to your own personal lexicon, yes. But other people have a different take on it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I guess I'm hearing something that's unspoken. "You're not really on your own, not like ME."
*snicker*
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Methinks this discussion of what defines being 'on your own' is worthy of its own thread...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But other people have a different take on it."
A different take how? Do you think it would be possible to have a meaningful conversation about when people can be considered to finally be on their own if you include the idea that anything you have ever learned from your parents counts as a dependency -- forever?
----
AK, the reason I'm not saying it is that I'm not thinking it.
[ July 21, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Any definition so vague its useless isn't a worthwhile definition (by definition ). AK, if you define on your own so that nobody is ever on their own, its time to reconsider that definition.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Obviously, ak has a different take on it, for one. As for what I think, well, I think we weren't really on our own then. But since we are no longer "starving students" (we lived on a very tight budget) and are full fledged functioning members of society, they know that we don't need such gifts anymore. So they don't give them.
My parents are wealthy, though, and anxious to share that blessing with their children. There are numerous little ways that we benefit from that. For instance, my parents have built an incredibly large and gorgeous home in Oregon. Now when we visit them each year, we don't have to worry about getting a hotel room or going out to eat. That makes our vacations less expensive.
And we are aware that someday we will receive some sort of inheritance from both sides (I assume) but any wise person knows you don't count your chickens before they hatch, so we don't live as though we count on that. We never have.
In my opinion, we are on our own. In your opinion, we are not and few people are.
What about people on welfare or other financial aide? What about tax breaks for the poor? No, I don't hold your personal definition of "on your own" as my own definition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The fact that he have living parents who *might* help us out some day makes us dependent on them?"
The fact that you have living parents who still regularly send you gifts and from whom you reliably expect to inherit a large sum DOES make you slightly dependent. That said, only if you consider perfect independence to be its own virtue should you consider this an inherently bad thing. In my experience, truely perfect independence generally carries costs that outweigh any perceived benefits.
(Edit: in other words, what beverly said. *grin*)
[ July 21, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom -- I'm sorry for deleting my post after you read it. I thought I got to it in time.
But to respond to your response -- I stated earelier that we do not receive gifts from parents anymore. One year the gifts just stopped coming. I didn't even notice it because we never planned on receiving it anyway. I don't know how many years ago that was.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'd think as a people we're all interdependent in some way, being social beings.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Interconneted we are, but that is not the same thing as interdependent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In that case, Porter, I'd say that my PERSONAL criteria for on-your-ownness has been satisfied, as long as you do not consciously edit your own behavior to ensure your inheritance (which I'm confident that you do not). *laugh*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No man is an island? I think humans are pretty interdependant. Even the hermitiest of hermits finds it difficult to completely withdraw from that.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Hmmm. But is it natural to never depend on another person once you reach adulthood? I mean this in any way of dependence.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Heck, I don't even allow us to plan on getting a bonus, of which I always get a very generous one each year. I refuse to even speculate in the fasion "If we get a bonus, what do we want to do with it?" It annoys Mary some time, but it's something I feel pretty stronly about. Once we get the bonus, or tax rebate, or whatever, *then* we think about what we might do with it. It probably comes from the "avoid debt!" lessons that I have gotten so often from my parents and church leaders.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
"I am a rock. I am an i-i-island."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That raises, of course, a very interesting question. Independence (or self-sufficiency) is seen as a traditional American value; it's a concept we hold rather highly, and is often used in negative ways to criticize people who are dependent upon charity or federal assistance for their own welfare. It is, in fact, considered one of the highest virtues by conservatives, who regard it as an end unto itself.
And yet, throughout this discussion, we've heard time and time again that dependence is not in fact some clear-cut thing, and that reliance on others is something that we can fairly expect from people well into their mature adulthood.
So what makes "dependence" into a sin? Why do we regard Anne Kate's gratitude to her parents for the virtues they passed down as a charitable impulse, but bristle at the thought of financial gifts to adults?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: as long as you do not consciously edit your own behavior to ensure your inheritance
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean sucking up to the parents so that they don't write me out of their will?
:shudder: What an ugly thing that could become.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think the issue here is that we try to give back to society what we get out of it. A sort of societal "karma" as it were.
In other words, don't be a bum.
On that note, there is a sort of system like that in our family. My younger sister got married before us. On numerous occasions, she gave us "hand me downs" that they didn't need anymore. Even our landlords gave us some "hand me downs" that would otherwise have been donated to a church-owned thrift store. (I think they felt sorry for us because we never have new stuff. We are tightwads.)
Now we are doing well enough and we try to pass on the same sorts of things to other family members. Porter's younger brother follows in the footsteps of extreme thrift to avoid debt. We gave them our old bed, couch, and recently, piano. We knew they weren't the best items, but they would be greatly appreciated.
Funny, though, my newly married younger brother, who desires to be every bit as thrifty, married a gal who likes to spend money and have nice things. *They* gave *us* their old entertainment center when they bought a gorgeous brand-new one! We were pretty amused that the system was working backwards here.
Poor guys. They will probably always have nice stuff, but never be wealthy. And he will always be working his tail off to keep her happy.
[ July 21, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Speaking of inheritance.
I found out that my mother inherited $25,000 from her great grandfather (he was well off and didn't spend it, he invested in IBM before it became...IBM, really). My father never knew. I mean, he knew she inherited money, but had no idea it was that much. Mom handled the finances, dad just worked and never bothered looking at the bank account.
My mother blew the entire inheritance. I'm still not sure on WHAT...but what sucks is that my father HAD been making pretty good money, mom was working too, and they should've been comfortable and not in debt anymore.
Instead, they're divorced, dad is fighting to make money and pay stuff off from mom, and mom has 17 credit cards maxed out to 20,000...at least.
Just a waste. I mean, it seemed shocking to me, that I always felt my family struggled to make ends meet, but it didn't have to be that way.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Or to put it another way, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread", Genesis 3:19.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That sucks, mack. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as long as you do not consciously edit your own behavior to ensure your inheritance --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean sucking up to the parents so that they don't write me out of their will?
Hmmm. Maybe I've been hanging around criminal court too much, but I was thinking something entirely different. Although I guess that wouldn't be "editing your behavior" so much as adding something violent to it.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know someone whose father died and left almost a million dollars between his two kids. The 30-year-old daughter blew about $400,000 in nine months. She's now in danger of losing her house, one payment away from the car being repossesed, and living hand to mouth while her four children are clothed by and recieve all luxuries from their grandparents.
Not that that helps this thread in any way - I agree with Tom on everything - but it's such a mind-blowing story to me I almost can't believe it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
S'okay, my parents just suck all around.
But it's scary to see what can happen. I don't want to turn out to be them. But I look at where I am now and think "Crap, I'm going nowhere."
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Why does it seem that the more money people have the larger percentage of it they spend?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oh, come on mac, Utah can't be that bad. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You know what I mean, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because it sounds like a lot of money. That isn't true, though. People in the lower income brackets spend more of their income on everyday items, and across the board, Americans live beyond their means. Last year, we actually had a NEGATIVE savings rate.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmmm, I guess so. I just seems like I hear a lot about people who did alright when things were tight, but got out of control (debt) when they had more money.
Mack, as long as you try your best not to become like your parents, you won't. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yeah mack, I do. But you're moving towards a goal, so you're not really going nowhere, even if it seems like it sometimes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think the reason for that perception is that most of the people that we know of that have gotten fabulous amouns of money are actors, singers, atheletes, etc.. They didn't get their money because they are good with money -- they got their money because of popularity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, she didn't do all right before the inheritance either. It's just that the inheritance didn't change anything at all.
I still can't quite believe that. Half a million dollars in nine months. At that point, you're just burning it.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think I am reminded of all the conservatives who say about the disadvantaged, "We were poor, and nobody ever helped us, by gum! We worked hard and succeeded ON OUR OWN!"
I guess a sense of independence and determination to be self sufficient is a virtue, though I always think to myself of all the things they WERE given, that maybe they just don't acknowledge.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
*sometimes wishes she had parents who could help her out*
<--- supports her mom.>
However, while that sounds like whining, I have to admit I DID inherit a farm (albatross though it may be at times) from my grandmother (mom's mom), so my life is considerably better than if that had not happened...
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The invisible backpack.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
From the beginning, America was much more a place where "anybody can make it" than Europe was at the time. It became a source of pride here, and became part of our moral compas, so much so that people that don't make it on their own are viewed as failures. This is not good, because success stories in people bringing themselves out of poverty without help are very rare. It's so difficult, that it's practically impossible for most people.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As for the conservative ideas of the disadvantage, it isn't about leaving them alone as much as those who disagree believe it happens to consist of that. Rather, it is about giving something to those who are not going to do anything with it other than smooch off society. In every situation explained here, the money and help was there as an *assist* to independance. Now, I fully admit there are Conservatives who do see any "assist" for the disadvantaged as wrong. However, my conversations with most consist of the need to place any assistance with a way to create independance.
Of course, this has gotten WAY off topic. I think we have gotten to the point where "growth" and "maturity" depends on cultural definitions. The conversation has become subtle name-calling.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't know if I am conservative or liberal or what. But I do like the idea of doing all we can to help people become more self-reliant while at the same time being compassionate to them in their needs. I guess I'm an idealist.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, you are a heretic!
Burn her! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am all for helping people that need it, and doing it generously.
What I am not for is the government forcing me to do it, or doing it for me.
But that's a rant for another time, and one that nobody probably needs to hear.
edit: Does that make me a conservative, or is it other things that do?
[ July 21, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: No, you are a heretic!
Burn her!
*lazily* You're closer.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
"You're all heretics, you know that?"--Father Benedict to my Christian Moral Life class in college.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I AM
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
ego eimi.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Lego my Ego.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
mmmmmmm...waffles.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No reason to make this thread about the election, even though the Democratic convention is imminent. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
When IS the democratic convention?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
btw I love this thread!
It is what is good about hatrack.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
[ July 22, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it was Suze Orman who wrote that money is more taboo than sex in the average American conversation. So it is with some trepidation that I admit that I'm a trainwreck, financially. I come from a scrimp/save/build security family, and my husband is from a "expand your income to fit your spending" family. We both think the other, in this respect, is what is wrong with America. Which of us is correct? Are miserliness and spendthrifting equivalent vices?
I think attitudes about money are not consistent across religious or other social stata. I think it is a hidden variable. And the data on money woes and divorce would seem to suggest that I am not unique in thinking that we would grow out of our differences in time.
I don't think I would get divorced over money woes, because I decided a few years ago that it is better for my kids to go to school in thrift shop clothes than to not have a father. After all, my parents did have money and security, and they apparently did this by not spending a lot of money on extras. And if I were a single mom we'd also be relatively low income.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Isn't money funny? There's so many other messages tied up into it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The Calvinistic doctrine of election for starters.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was thinking more along the lines of love and worth. How many people judge others and themselves based on money, and how giving money can substitute for giving love.
It's sometimes legitimate. If my house burned down, I'd frankly rather have help rebuilding and restocking it from the general masses than a chorus of sympathy. In terms of responsibility, money doesn't mean everything or most things by a long shot, but someone like that woman I know that blew her half a million dollar inheritance in nine months and is now dependent on her mother and step-father to clothe her kids did NOT show responsibility, and the way she handles money is just the clearest evidence of a general pattern.
There's even the case of, say, fathers who love their families and honestly do their best to give them all the material things they need but never really learn how to express love in other ways. That causes its own problems.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Pooka, would you elaborate on how you see money having something to do with Calvin’s doctrine of election?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My dad tended to express his love by explaining to us how we could be better people than we were. He loved us a lot.
I know when I was a kid I wished we could eat out-- at least for special occasions. I think that is one of the things that is from my miserly upbringing that bothers me now. Also the new clothes thing. I think people are so immoral when they talk about spending money on clothes, but it's probably actually envy on my part.
Also, I fantasize about blowing up fancy houses. Not of people I know. This is what Ezra Taft Benson called "Pride from below". Dividing into classes is still pride, even if it is the lower class saying "we hate rich people."
So what do you think of prenuptial agreements? Do you think they would help partners be more responsible and avoid divorce, or do you think it would chill the love?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Didn't Calvin teach that the elect are blessed with prosperity? Now I realize this doesn't mean all prosperous people are therefore elect. It's a rather rampant heresy still alive in "Mormonism" (emphasizing that this is a cultural mormonism and not the religion).
P.S. The way I think God really works is that those who come unto him are somewhat protected from the various woes of living. Not all, but somewhat. Many of these woes have financial impact. But our exercise of free will can certainly bring financial woes into our lives. P.P.S. I don't know which is the cause of my problems. I guess I'm alwasy looking to find out.
[ July 22, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No.
You could call that a cultural Calvinism, in the same way that it's a cultural Mormonism.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, bad on my AP American History teacher, then. What is the doctrine of the elect? Is predestination really involved or is that also cultural?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote: Where does the holy spirit belong?
In a box... under my bed...
Don't look in the box!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, man. We had such a box. If you have such boxes, don't have family members help you move. That is all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Definitely predestination is involved. Double predestination, even. Although Calvin's position on predestination really wasn't that different from Luther's, he just elaborated on it a bit more.
In its most basic (and most blunt) form, it’s that God has elected certain people for salvation (and by implication, everyone else for damnation).
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I think that was curtains. His e-mail is private, too.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I don't know exactly when it changed and became more organized and in some ways voluntary.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Thanks, Bob. You're quite right about that!