For laughs

[Anonymous]

http://m.imgur.com/wcZ8rXs

I’ve been a little negative lately, so I thought we could do a thread on the positives of this document, which outlines missionary requirements for prospective missionaries in this stake in Utah. I’ll start:

Women allowed to get Eagle Scouts

Emphasis on mental health

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind, the thread title says “for laughs”

[img]https://bigpinekey.com/wp-content/uploads/go_be_fat_somewhere_else2.jpg[/img]

Go serve a mission for some other church.

:angel:

And apparently their stake will be stocking the field with attractive missionaries, so that’s a plus.

In all seriousness. Do. Not. Like. “If thou lovest me” is being used in the wrong context (imo). People can serve the lord in other ways that aren’t serving a mission. That line felt like a guilt trip.

In their zeal to raise the bar they may be setting people up for the aforementioned mental/emotional problems… for the people that end up serving a mission and the people that do not.

Besides, I’ve got to think that if I were a young man that was on the fence about serving then this list might have pushed me firmly into the “no thanks” category. Some of those hoops can be tough for people to jump through, people that would be excellent missionaries.

[Anonymous]

I loved the warrior missionary comment at the top. Although I have to say that I hope they give our missionaries AR-15 style automatic weapons because AK-47 weapons just look mean, and let’s face it a certain religion starting with an “I” uses AK-47s. Maybe the Sisters can have a softer side and simply carry an elegant dagger. Maybe the name tags can have military titles too instead of the boring Elder or Sister.

I also like the effort to weed out missionaries by subjecting them to 2 years of Preach My Gospel training before they even submit their application. That will definitely increase the quality of missionaries.

If i were stake president, my requirements would be:

* Must be able to carry a normal conversation about anything non-church, scouting, or video game related for a minimum of 10 minutes without me wanting to punch you in the face.

* Must have kissed at least 2 people of the opposite sex.

* Must be able to answer the question “would you rather grow a fu manchu or have a tatoo of a mermaid on your bicep” and give a logical reason why.

* Some college level education strongly encouraged.

[Anonymous]

As the father of three sons (one on a mission, one preparing, and one in high school) I can’t even begin to imagine the battles I would have were I to try to get them to go to two years of weekly mission prep classes.

[Anonymous]

The document states that you must not be infected with pornography

I liked this comment offered below.

Quote:

I came down with pornography once, it laid me up for weeks but fortunately I beat it off.

[Anonymous]

Awesome sauce. Srsly, I totally want to do a snarky post on this, which I will do because it’s so easy to write. I would replace the first guideline with “No fatties.” Which is honestly what a lot of 70 have traditionally preached to spinsters. This set of guidelines certainly applies there also.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Awesome sauce. Srsly, I totally want to do a snarky post on this, which I will do because it’s so easy to write. I would replace the first guideline with “No fatties.” Which is honestly what a lot of 70 have traditionally preached to spinsters. This set of guidelines certainly applies there also.

Dang, that means all those “sweet spirits” who used to have to wait until 21 won’t be going at all.

[Anonymous]

To be fair I think they may be setting these new standards for “warrior missionaries” and not for all prospective missionaries. It may be a motivational ploy – to create a level of missionary that is super exclusive. Give the over-achievers something to shoot for.

In my mission the AP’s gave a lesson on how the top 10% of missionaries behave. Then they taught about the power of making goal oriented covenants with God. Then they asked all of us to sign a paper saying that we were covenanting to be the top 10%. I left without signing. Then I realized that I had left my gloves and had to go back. The AP’s cornered me and asked me why I hadn’t signed the covenant/pledge sheet. I explained to them that if all the mission pledges to become like the top 10% then I foresee a lot of broken covenants around the corner. I did not want to toy with my covenants in this manner.

They told me that they needed/wanted to present this paper back to the MP with the entire mission’s signatures and that I could sign but not make a covenant with God. This I did to get them off of my back.

So at least in my case the leadership (AP’s) were attempting to motivate and inspire the troops while looking good to their superiors at the same time.

I can only speculate that something similar might be happening in Bloomington.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I explained to them that if all the mission pledges to become like the top 10% then I foresee a lot of broken covenants around the corner.

Like say around 90%?

You could have gotten out of it by claiming you already were in the top 10% and you didn’t want to set a goal that was beneath you. :angel:

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

To be fair I think they may be setting these new standards for “warrior missionaries” and not for all prospective missionaries. It may be a motivational ploy – to create a level of missionary that is super exclusive. Give the over-achievers something to shoot for…

It’s very possible you’re right about this. My thought was that some zealous high councilman presented this during stake PEC meeting and nobody wanted to slow it down so it gained some momentum and is now the mission prep program for that stake.

My stake implemented something similar to your APs several years ago and it completely backfired. They encouraged all priests sign a document and promise that they would earn their eagle scout, Duty to God, and serve a mission. Once you earned the eagle and DtG the stake gave you a really cool sword. The joke became that if you signed the document then you wouldn’t serve a mission. Only about 30% of those who signed served a mission and the program ended.

I feel this stake’s program is completely misguided. Generally speaking, the most successful missionaries on my misson were the ones who fooled around and had long hair, knew how to party it up, etc. My mission president even acknowledged that in zone conferences, that the APs were not the most obedient pre-mission young men. His point was that successful missionaries related to a broad range of people.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

the most successful missionaries on my misson were the ones who fooled around and had long hair, knew how to party it up, etc.

That was the case in my mission experience too! I wonder why we haven’t picked up on this. When I served, I had friends serving elsewhere in Europe where obedience = baptism was drummed into their heads. They all felt so guilty and depressed all the time. They weren’t having success because Europe can be very tough, many aren’t that religious, and a lot of people aren’t open to strangers coming in to talk about Jesus.

We were the highest baptising mission in Europe, and my friends would say “Wow, your mission must be really righteous and obedient.” I kept having to assure them that was not the case at all. We had missionaries swimming in the ocean, drinking, missionaries with girlfriends, and so on. We had a lot of autonomy. One time one of my ZLs got on an elevator with my comp & me and said “Ya know, I always wanted to do it with a black girl.” I asked if he realized he said that out loud. He was just absentmindedly thinking out loud he said. In short, obedience to the commandments pre-mission and in some cases during the mission was not the secret formula at all. Personally, I think it’s because if you have a dodgy past, you’re going to relate more to a variety of people, you still chose to do the mission, so you’ve got good reasons to be there, and you probably have gained a little humility here and there, not to mention life experience.

Personally I think raising the bar was a big mistake. I think instead they should raise the age again (for the men) and give the MPs blinders so they won’t be hyper-vigilant about obedience.

[Anonymous]

I have often thought about the early missionaries (I’m not exactly sure when the idea of young single missionaries came around). Those guys were sent out without the MTC, without set lessons, without language training, etc. They likely drank coffee, tea, and alcohol and possibly smoked or chewed because those things were not emphasized in the same way they are now. They didn’t have mission presidents and zone leaders or district leaders and many had little to no contact with SLC or anyone of higher authority for the entire time. They did things the way they thought best, and likely worked when they wanted to and were lazy some days. Yet, they met with success. Have you seen the current “little white bible?” (Here’s a link: https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook?lang=eng)

I’m certainly not advocating a return to the old ways – but I think we could be a lot more chill :ugeek: and perhaps reach a lot more people who think of the missionaries as stuffed shirted geeks and/or think 18-year-olds aren’t really qualified to teach the gospel (I think that). I think there is some truth to the idea that if the church wasn’t true the missionaries would have destroyed it a long time ago.

I agree with Hawkgrrrl – so many missionaries come home with the idea that strict obedience is the ticket. For some it is – the ticket to a faith crisis when doing a does not result in desired outcome b. Let the guy or girl who has repented (or is repenting) of breaking the law of chastity multiple times teach it, they truly understand it and they probably understand the atonement and grace (in a way no seminary graduate ever will).

[Author]

Posts