- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My son’s mission recently had a visit from a member of the 70. He had mentioned it in his weekly email but gave further detail in a letter we recently got. The GA told them they should focus all of their conversion and reactivation efforts first on young men and then on families and focus less on others. The reason, he said, was because young men (and it sounds like he was referring to adult young men, not necessarily youth in this case) would learn and grow, perhaps serve missions and convert others, would marry and have children that could be raised in the church, and would become priesthood leaders in the church. The second choice families was for nearly the same reason, children could be raised in the church, they’d serve missions and families could develop into leaders. Never is the conversion of one man the conversion of just one, he said. He did specifically note that single women, especially single mothers, were a drain on the church and were not very valuable in building the church. WHAT???!!! My son did say he was going to teach whoever they got because he believes the gospel is for everybody, not just men and families. I have expressed my feelings about the missionary program on the forums, and I didn’t want to hijack the other current missionary thread with this. But this really got me when I read it. I went back and reread it to be sure I was understanding it right, then I asked my son in email if I got it right. I did. Really? The gospel is for men and families and we can ignore the women because they might be more needy and detract from our ability to bring more men into the church? I really am flabbergasted. That said, I am not a fan of this particular 70, and I’m not surprised at the message – other talks he has given are certainly focused on building the church as opposed to sharing the gospel. Thoughts?
(I don’t want to name the 70, but I think some of you may figure it out if you pay attention to what they are saying. I don’t think any of them should be saying this.)
This has been around since I served a mission in the late 70’s. We were told to focus on complete families with fathers, and single men. And we were giving the same reasons that are being used today. I think you’ll get some gun ho 70 that may express it more obnoxiously from time to time, but it’s nothing new and has been around at least 40 years. There was a big push to teach men and families with fathers in my mission as well. Partly because they didn’t want the young elders having consistent meetings with single and unmarried women, but the rationale was that the church in that area did not have a strong body of priesthood holders, and they were needed I order for the church to function properly. I agree that what the 70 said was wildly inappropriate and completely misses the mark: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Looking out for those in need and nourishing them spiritually and temporally is the whole Gospel of Christ. That being said, the church has a reputation of caring for its own, especially in impoverished countries, and there have been plenty of people that joined the church expecting to be taken care of, and when they weren’t, they quit attending. We do have a responsibility to care for the poor, member or not, but it should not be the motivation for baptism.
***While we were instructed to seek out potential priesthood holders, we were not actually told to not teach women and children.
I can’t imagine a more frustrating message to give a young (new) missionary. I imagine missionaries out tracking, knocking on a door, finding a single mother with a family &
saying to them,
Quote:Never mind.
Next will they cut off the poor sections of a city because they are a drain on the church?Only teach in the rich suburbs?
I can’t imagine the questions that Mission Presidents would be getting too.
I’m going to ask the Missionaries in my ward if they received the same message.
Very interesting.
I served in the early 80s, no such thing was ever said in our mission. If we as elders found single sisters to teach we had to give them to the sisters and they had to give us their single men, just the way it was. Our mission had multiple missionaries per ward and usually had both elders and sisters. We were warned about people trying to join the church just for the welfare but never turned anyone away. This is a classic example of church egocentrism. You see, all the reasons given for focusing on those groups serves the interests of the organizational church — more leaders, more population growth, while preserving resources that might be expended on certain groups that might have higher than average needs. Classic. I was not taught this on my mission.. but I am a woman and I can’t imagine my mission presidents telling Sisters not to teach Single women. I don’t even know if I would have disagreed if it even was suggested, as I thought everything was inspired by God and I questioned nothing. That being said, I am not surprised at all that this is being by some of the 70’s; I see the church as a corporation. From a business standpoint it is a smart move, from a Christlike perspective it is extremely disappointing. I am sad to hear this.
Wow. If I found out that this attitude comes from the 12, I would leave the church so fast. I already have one foot out the door as it is. There is no way that a true church of Christ would only care about its self interests. It makes me sick that someone this high in authority believes this and is allowed to teach it to our young impressionable missionaries. I have two nephews out on missions, and I am horrified to think they may have gotten a message like this. Disgusting. I didn’t see anything too alarming up until the single mothers thing. No excuse. It’s already been mentioned but I’ll add to the testimonies, the focus on my mission was entire families first. When you said the thing about focusing on men I figured: sure, they’re probably telling the sisters to focus on the women. I guess that’s not the case?
I’m still holding out the hope that this is some sort of misunderstanding.
There will always be people who take a general idea (families are the ideal / we need more convert men) and turn it into an extreme rule. Always. nibbler wrote:I didn’t see anything too alarming up until the single mothers thing. No excuse.
It’s already been mentioned but I’ll add to the testimonies, the focus on my mission was entire families first. When you said the thing about focusing on men I figured: sure, they’re probably telling the sisters to focus on the women. I guess that’s not the case?
I’m still holding out the hope that this is some sort of misunderstanding.
Nope, not the case. It was a meeting of the entire mission, elders and sistersI actually thought about my mission last night, I don’t always do that. I served in a low baptism place – the work was hard. I had four baptisms (1984-85 18 month mission). The first was a young single woman who had moved into the home of relatives (her uncle/aunt) who were very active. The second two, a professional single mother and preteen daughter we tracted out. The last one was a young man in his late teens who came from an inactive member family but had been fellowshipped by some young men in the ward. I do know the young man eventually served a mission but the rest of his family didn’t return to activity to my knowledge. I don’t know what became of the others. I do see the point that the young man probably had a bigger impact on the church than the other three – but they certainly benefited from membership in the church as well and I don’t see that they were a drain on church resources. A lot of men and children come into our ward due to single women. I know people who served missions who came from that background. I know men who’ve come in due to girlfriends and wives. In my mission experience, many of the people that we taught who decided to join the Church were single mothers, who had been abandoned by the father of their children. In one case, we baptized a woman who had young daughters… she was still married to a sometimes abusive alcoholic (he didn’t take the lessons). I can’t think of a single one of these women or children that Jesus would have ignored. The only thing I would do different if I could go back is… wait… I wouldn’t change a thing! My life has been made better because of them. I am so grateful for what I learned from them. I’m getting a little emotional typing this out, so better call that good and pretend I have something in my eye. What would Christ say about this?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.