posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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." )
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To get sent home from a mission, all you have to do is something that most soldiers do anyway. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard people draw many parallels there. I don't know enough to make a list myself though.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Yeah...that sort of stuff tweaks me out. Principle always before the person, even if Christ acted differently.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't know what happens, Theca. Would you like to share on why this is so hard for you?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.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.
