- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Maybe I’m parsing words inappropriately, but President Monson’s choice of words strikes a sour cord for me. I believe his earlier experience was as an editor, so am particularly surprised at his word choice. I fear for the individual who get’s lost in the crowd, whether it’s a missionary in the LTM, or a member setting thru another correlated lesson being read to them. IMO it feels like we are told what to do, what to think and even what feelings are acceptable. Or am I just nit picking?
Quote:President Monson Says Missionaries Are “Precious Commodities”
Definition of COMMODITY
1: an economic good: as
a : a product of agriculture or mining
b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment
c :
a mass-produced unspecialized product, undistinguishable, items are virtually identical and can be interchanged without consequence2:
a : something useful or valued
; also : thing, entity b : convenience, advantage
3 obsolete : quantity, lot
: one that i
s subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a markett
industryI think the key word here is “precious.” That changes the definition to 2a, something useful or valued. Quote:He referred to the young men and young women entrusted to their care as a “precious commodity,” and shared with the leaders some ways to motivate the missionaries so they might be effective in their responsibilities and have the kinds of experiences that will affect them in a positive way throughout their lives.
It sounds like another way of saying that missionaries are a “precious asset so don’t take them for granted.” In that light I see it as him telling leaders to make sure that a missionary doesn’t get lost in the crowd. There are a lot more missionaries than there were just a few short years ago, I see it as a call to make sure the leader doesn’t take missionaries for granted simply because there are a lot more of them now.
Bad use of language. I would have rather he called missionaries “precious souls”. We once had a mission president who spoke in priesthood meeting and referred to how the mission was doing in certain “markets”. He also spoke about advertising in certain markets, leads generation and other terms from sales. He used the term “market” over and over again, implying that the cities were markets, missionaries salespeople, and converts people to whom we were selling a product. His whole use of language was one of a sales manager, not a mission president
I think the church needs to be careful when its crosses those boundaries.
I don’t know if this will take the discussion to far from the original topic, but what are folks on this sites views of missionary work after a FC? I have never been very comfortable with missionary work, I worked hard as a missionary, but wasn’t “successful” from a # of baptisms perspective probably due to personality and having no interest in berating someone into becoming a member. I don’t really feel comfortable inviting people to church to have them hear from the majority of members that it is the only true church when I don’t really believe that to be the case. Our Stake is making a huge push for missionary work (probably similar everywhere else), and I can’t be on board with it. I would feel much more comfortable inviting people if I didn’t feel like they would be pressured into missionary lessons, wouldn’t feel like their faith is lesser, and could grow at their own pace instead of feeling like they have to accept the truth tomorrow.
Apologies if their is another thread that has discussed this. Feel free to point me to it.
-SunbeltRed
Here’s one I remember: http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4987&p=68079 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4987&p=68079 There are probably others. Feel free to bump that thread.
I think it’s a topic that’s very important now, especially considering the emphasis placed on missionary work these days. If missionary work isn’t someone’s thing then they’ve probably been starving in church over the last year or so.
I can’t do it anymore. I had a co-worker approach me and tell me that he wanted to look into the LDS church but he called a number and no one came. I felt uncomfortable because of my own commitment crisis. Did I want to expose him to all that? Am I “accountable” if I don’t? I offered to get more direct contact with the missionaries for him, and he indicated he was going to keep trying the number he had. I can’t go out and teach with the missionaries anymore. And I can’t teach a lot of gospel topics. Its a casualty of faith or commitment crises.
Thanks Nibbler and SD. Going to post on the other thread, as its more related to missionary work. I have some thoughts I want to hash out. I would like a different word choice, but I agree with nibbler that the message he was trying to convey is a good one. I don’t think you parsed it inappropriately, dash, since it was a bad word choice – but it’s what you do with it after that initial analysis that matters, imo. Honestly, as much as I personally focus on the words people use to try to understand what they actually mean, I think this is a good example of what can happen if we get hyper-focused on one word and let it allow us to miss the overall message. It’s the concept of making someone an offender for a word.
Old-Timer wrote:I would like a different word choice, but I agree with nibbler that the message he was trying to convey is a good one. I don’t think you parsed it inappropriately, dash, since it was a bad word choice – but it’s what you do with it after that initial analysis that matters, imo.
Honestly, as much as I personally focus on the words people use to try to understand what they actually mean, I think this is a good example of what can happen if we get hyper-focused on one word and let it allow us to miss the overall message. It’s the concept of making someone an offender for a word.
This, yes it is a bad word choice as both “commodity” and “resource” have very negative connotations for most people when referring to a person or people. The reason being is the mental image pictured is that of an object and a object being used to manipulate, control, shape to bring about a desirable result to serve a single sided interest.
That’s why the big reaction, it’s that way for most people if they hear the word resource or especially commodity as if people were objects. Seriously, just do a google search and you will find that out.
However, I think it was just a bad word choice, which most of us make sometimes. Unless a person has a pattern
Of using that same word repeatedly I wouldn’t over analyze it.
Maybe he really meant “precious charge” Quote:by Old-Timer » 2014 Jun 27, 11:33
I would like a different word choice, but I agree with nibbler that the message he was trying to convey is a good one. I don’t think you parsed it inappropriately, dash, since it was a bad word choice – but it’s what you do with it after that initial analysis that matters, imo.
I believe that one of the most common causes of conflict in both religion and politics is taking something out of context. It drives me crazy when other people do it, but that is what I just did! Yet I still have a knee jerk re-reading the article. While IMO he “should” have been more careful about his choice of words, likewise I “should” be more open to the entire message, not just to what pressed my hot button.
Probably nit picking, IMO. There are plenty of things to criticize the church about. This is not one of them, IMO.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I disagree with cWald on this one. The use of the term “commodity” is very much symbolic of my own concerns and commitment crisis. The church DOES have a tendency to take its members for granted, and the use of the term commodity refers to a product that lacks differentiation — gas, wheat, solvent. It’s usually an inanimate object as well.
The number of times I’ve see the church offload its costs to the members is disturbing to me. I used to live in a remote town, and it took about 2 hours each way to get to work (I drove it for 2 years, due to my work location moving after I bought a house). This was the case with many of the members, who lived in that area because it was cheap, and were long commuters to the main metropolic 1.5 to 2 hours away.
We were in PEC, and the missionaries indicated that they were on a car fast — that the mission was over on its miles, and that it costs the church “thousands of dollars in leasing fees” if the missionaries continued using their cars for the next month. The answer from the missionaries? “Get the members to do it”. Offload the costs of driving to the members so the church could save mileage fees on its fleet lease.
The number of times i heard mission presidents, leaders and missionaries say “get a member to do it”, showed just how much members were taken for granted. And I think calling anyone — missionaries, members, etcetera a “commodity” epitomizes this bottomless pit syndrome that has typified my own experience as a volunteer in the church.
SD may be on to something. I struggled on my mission in large part because of the business-like approach. Because of my mindset, I thought I was the problem. It took me ten years to realize that buying and selling and money just wasn’t my thing, and that was OK. My spirit longs for a different way of distributing resources. Unfortunately “we are living in a material world.” I resent the monetization and commodification of the important things in life. Spirituality simply should not be commodified, and members and investigators should not be seen as commodities, or cogs in a machine, or whatever means-based paradigm is attempted. People should not be means to an end. This reminds me of Kant’s second categorical imperative:
Quote:“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
We need to get away from this idea that we were made to serve the church–the church was made for us, not the other way around.
I realize that it is natural to apply principles from our careers to other thing in life, and many church leaders are businessmen. But come on…
Excellent comments, SD and tt. Ironically, it was Pres. Packer who said explicitly that members are not meant to staff the Church but the Church was meant to serve the members. Unfortunately, in the heat of trying to run an organization, that isn’t easy to remember.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.