- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m just throwing this out there for discussion. I read quite a few missionary blogs since my son started writing one. I like to read them, actually, and they’re pretty easy to find. So I came across this in one a while back and I’ve thought about it a bit and want to know what others here think. (I have changed the wording somewhat to make it harder to Google in the interest of protecting the innocent – does that sound like Dragnet? 
Quote:…there are times where we tire of trying to help people understand how the gospel can change lives when they’re not interested…and if I hear ”all paths lead to god” once more I’m going to explode (not kidding, it’s like someone drilled this into everybody’s heads in grade school here)….
First, most people missionaries encounter and teach already have at least some knowledge of the gospel and some are active in other churches. Is the missionary effort really about the gospel changing people’s lives or is it about converting them to the church?
Second, I don’t really totally agree that all paths lead to God, but I do believe most religions or belief systems do because of their commonalities (love God and love your neighbor). Within the church, I am beginning to see that we can be on different paths to the same place.
So, who is not getting the message? Is it the people or is it this missionary?
I think the problem is that missionaries think of themselves as bringing people to the Church. They should think of themselves as bringing God to people. At the most basic level, the missionary messages is that God loves you and wants you to seek Him out; to make Him a part of your life, and that the atonement of Jesus Christ can raise you up into a better life. That’s a message that missionaries ought to take to whoever will listen and whoever might benefit, whether they ultimately “get baptized” into the LDS Church is secondary. If a missionary helps someone to “find God” in their lives, then he/she has done a good thing. Jesus said he was sent to help the sick, not the whole. The most powerful stories I’ve heard and experienced in my life, including on my mission, were from the people who truly were “saved” (in a real and deep way) by the message of the Gospel – like the young man who spoke in church on Sunday in the ward I attended in Utah. Hearing of the change in his life and the new purpose the Gospel and Church have given him was inspiring. I think we focus so much on people whom we believe are “ready” to be baptized that we often end up trying to cure the whole while ignoring the sick – and I think the membership, generally, does that even more than the missionaries do.
Quite a few paths DON’T lead to God. Jonestown and Waco never did (although I think the Federal Authorities shoulder some of the blame for Waco). I think this kind of relativism isn’t good. It is true, as you say that many religions have good in them. (I include this idea in a quote in my signature) But then again there are some that don’t, especially abusive sects. There are tendencies in most religions, including our own, which are not conducive to spiritual growth.
I like that Curtis used the analogy of healing the sick rather than the whole but I disagree that the problem is that our missionaries are trying to heal the whole. I think the problem is that our missionaries sometimes think they arethe whole. IMO, just as there are none good but God, there are none whole but God. Black and white thinking missionaries who approach the work with the exuberance of youth and the superiority complex of Elder Kessler (a la Saturday’s Warrior) are bound to be frustrated by people whose life experiences allow them to see the world in shades of grey. It would be very interesting to see convert demographics. Are most convert baptisms in the first half of life, for example, when most people are likely still grappling with binary thinking? Do we get a lot of 50 years olds in the font? Folks who have lived a little longer and are more likely to live content in the uncertainty and with less drive to be “right”.
I’d guess it’s also hard for non-members to gin up a desire for salvation if they don’t feel a need any real lack in their lives. What are they being saved from? What are they being offered? If you’re serving a mission to first world suburbia, your biggest obstacle may very well be apathy.
I like that distinction, m&g – and everything else about your comment. What m&g said. When someone is content and happy.. They will really want to know what we are offering them that isn’t being fulfilled already. Convincing them that they really aren’t, or could be more happy if… Is not going to go well. Especially if the only thing you are offering is an idea. They may have or are comfortable with their own ideas. Like m&g said. What are they being saved from? What is being offered? There just ideas really. For some that idea holds weight in their lives, for many others they may have found the idea of another or their own more comforting.
I can speak with mormon converts but I can say statistically that those nearing death or feeling like they are close to death or dying tend to look for comforting ideas. But it is shifting away from that slowly, statistically speaking more and more people are comfortable with not knowing the answers and facing death that way. More and more are learning to be comfortable in their own skin.
I had recently bore a testimony to a recent convert. But was slightly ashamed at the angle being used was the death of his wife. The MP knew it and asked the missionaries to exploit that angel. So for that very reason as a very elderly man he converted. He found comfort I. Being reunited for eternity with his wife as he waits for her.
Thanks for your replies, I enjoy discussions like these that help me to reflect and see things from the perspective of others. OnOwnNow:
Quote:I think the problem is that missionaries think of themselves as bringing people to the Church. They should think of themselves as bringing God to people. At the most basic level, the missionary messages is that God loves you and wants you to seek Him out; to make Him a part of your life, and that the atonement of Jesus Christ can raise you up into a better life. That’s a message that missionaries ought to take to whoever will listen and whoever might benefit, whether they ultimately “get baptized” into the LDS Church is secondary. If a missionary helps someone to “find God” in their lives, then he/she has done a good thing.
I agree, and I think you’re right that missionaries think of themselves as bringing people to the church, and I guess when it comes down to it that is really what being a missionary is supposed to be about. But, I think if we asked missionaries what they do, they would say the teach the gospel and/or bring people to the gospel. I think in reality missionaries bring very few people to the gospel because where the church is most active most people are already Christian (and likewise where it is least active and unestablished most people are not Christian). I agree that if a missionary helps someone be closer to God or “find God” it’s a good thing – I’m not sure they’re really doing what they think they’re doing.
Curtis:
Quote:Jesus said he was sent to help the sick, not the whole. The most powerful stories I’ve heard and experienced in my life, including on my mission, were from the people who truly were “saved” (in a real and deep way) by the message of the Gospel – like the young man who spoke in church on Sunday in the ward I attended in Utah. Hearing of the change in his life and the new purpose the Gospel and Church have given him was inspiring.
I think we focus so much on people whom we believe are “ready” to be baptized that we often end up trying to cure the whole while ignoring the sick – and I think the membership, generally, does that even more than the missionaries do.
Again, I agree, and the church and the gospel are intertwined but separate. The gospel exists without the church, and the church can be a vehicle for bringing salvation and change lives through the gospel. Members definitely do (and should do) this better than missionaries. But going back to the quote, is that what this elder thinks he’s doing? He’s frustrated by people who don’t want to hear the gospel, but is he not seeing they already have it and it’s the church he’s offering that they might not want?
SamBee:
Quote:Quite a few paths DON’T lead to God. Jonestown and Waco never did (although I think the Federal Authorities shoulder some of the blame for Waco).
I think this kind of relativism isn’t good. It is true, as you say that many religions have good in them. (I include this idea in a quote in my signature) But then again there are some that don’t, especially abusive sects. There are tendencies in most religions, including our own, which are not conducive to spiritual growth.
Point taken, but the core teachings of even those religions/belief systems are intended to bring people closer to God. Perhaps in their view they have done so. Whether or not that’s true, Jonestown and the Branch Davidians are a small, small minority and not indicative of the whole of the gospel or universal truths.
Mercyngrace:
Quote:I like that Curtis used the analogy of healing the sick rather than the whole but I disagree that the problem is that our missionaries are trying to heal the whole. I think the problem is that our missionaries sometimes think they are the whole. IMO, just as there are none good but God, there are none whole but God. Black and white thinking missionaries who approach the work with the exuberance of youth and the superiority complex of Elder Kessler (a la Saturday’s Warrior) are bound to be frustrated by people whose life experiences allow them to see the world in shades of grey.
It would be very interesting to see convert demographics. Are most convert baptisms in the first half of life, for example, when most people are likely still grappling with binary thinking? Do we get a lot of 50 years olds in the font? Folks who have lived a little longer and are more likely to live content in the uncertainty and with less drive to be “right”.
I’d guess it’s also hard for non-members to gin up a desire for salvation if they don’t feel a need any real lack in their lives. What are they being saved from? What are they being offered? If you’re serving a mission to first world suburbia, your biggest obstacle may very well be apathy.
Good point, I agree that the missionaries might think of themselves as the whole. I think that’s ingrained in teachings of the church, with all the stuff about it being the only true church, having the completeness of the gospel, and having the restored gospel. I do think it’s hard for people who have essentially been taught this for all of their 18 or 19 years of life to understand that the gospel and the church are different. In that sense they really do see themselves as “the whole.” Really, what does the church have to offer an active Catholic or Methodist? They already see themselves as close to God and as having the gospel and not in need of healing. It actually could be seen as quite offensive.
It would be interesting to see more full conversion demographics. I can only see the microcosm here, where the very few we have tend to be under 30. We did have a great older lady who joined a few years ago and became very active. She had lived a hard life, and a non-religious life before, so I suppose she could definitely be counted as a missionary success in not only bringing her to the church but bringing her to the gospel.
Forgotten_Charity:
Quote:What m&g said. When someone is content and happy.. They will really want to know what we are offering them that isn’t being fulfilled already. Convincing them that they really aren’t, or could be more happy if… Is not going to go well. Especially if the only thing you are offering is an idea. They may have or are comfortable with their own ideas.
Like m&g said. What are they being saved from? What is being offered? There just ideas really. For some that idea holds weight in their lives, for many others they may have found the idea of another or their own more comforting.
I can speak with mormon converts but I can say statistically that those nearing death or feeling like they are close to death or dying tend to look for comforting ideas. But it is shifting away from that slowly, statistically speaking more and more people are comfortable with not knowing the answers and facing death that way. More and more are learning to be comfortable in their own skin.
I had recently bore a testimony to a recent convert. But was slightly ashamed at the angle being used was the death of his wife. The MP knew it and asked the missionaries to exploit that angel. So for that very reason as a very elderly man he converted. He found comfort I. Being reunited for eternity with his wife as he waits for her.
A former SP of ours used to share a story he had when working with a less active member. This member happened to be quite wealthy. One day he said to the SP (he wasn’t SP when this story happened) “Look around you. Look at my house and my property. What could the church possibly have that I need?” I’m sure missionaries run into this, but I also think the wealth may sometimes be spiritual wealth as opposed to earthly wealth.
I wanted to post this reply separate so it didn’t get lost in the jumble of the above. Do you think missionaries might find more success if missions were more like the Peace Corps than guys in suits knocking on doors? If missionaries went out and truly lived among the people and worked with the people and truly physically/temporally helped people, do you think that would go much farther than knocking on a door and saying “We’re in your neighborhood today sharing a message about Jesus Christ?” Which one really brings the gospel to people? Is it better to demonstrate the gospel as opposed to talking about it? Back to the OP, I’m reminded of the old flood joke where God says “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what else was I supposed to do?” Is God sending a message to missionaries (and the church) and are missionaries and the church not hearing it?
(I think my opinion on the subject is probably obvious.
🙂 )I think doing nothing but service would miss the people who won’t be reached by service – who actually are found through knocking on doors and street contacting and other traditional forms of approach – and there are more of those people than many members realize. It’s not an effective way to find people, but quite a few people are found that way. I would like to see daytime hours spent serving and evening hours spent teaching / finding – but even that would miss people who work evening shifts, for example, and actually are home and awake during the day. There really isn’t a silver bullet approach that will work for everyone who might respond – but I think reducing our time commitment to extra meetings and allowing members to spend more time in their communities would help a lot. Of course, members would have to use the extra time in that way – or else the extra time would simply be spent doing more of what is being done already.
In other words, there really isn’t one true answer – except, perhaps, truly establishing Zion and making church meetings an experience people crave. Of course, that also is WAY easier said than done.
DarkJedi wrote:I wanted to post this reply separate so it didn’t get lost in the jumble of the above. Do you think missionaries might find more success if missions were more like the Peace Corps than guys in suits knocking on doors? If missionaries went out and truly lived among the people and worked with the people and truly physically/temporally helped people, do you think that would go much farther than knocking on a door and saying “We’re in your neighborhood today sharing a message about Jesus Christ?” Which one really brings the gospel to people? Is it better to demonstrate the gospel as opposed to talking about it?
Back to the OP, I’m reminded of the old flood joke where God says “I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what else was I supposed to do?” Is God sending a message to missionaries (and the church) and are missionaries and the church not hearing it?
(I think my opinion on the subject is probably obvious.
🙂 )Yes.
Probably 95% of the folks I taught who were baptized were a direct result of some sort of service. It wasn’t always organized service but it was because my companion and I helped someone who was struggling in some way. We had some successes with tracting but were far more effective when we served people, whether it was helping someone off the bus who had arms loaded with bags or tossing a soccer ball back to kids after it had rolled into the street.
Pretty well the gospel and the church are the same thing, in the opinion of most faithful members. If one is not part of the church, or leaves the church…they reject the gospel of Jesus Christ.
From my experience, this is the common opinion that most active members have.
So in the grand scheme of things is missionary work helping or hurting the people. If the person already has accepted the gospel and Christ but does not join the church will he be given the opportunity in the next life to accept the Mormon Christ and all the rules. If he was taught in this life that it was okay to drink coffee and tea and have a beer on occasion and to take care of physical needs in the natural way, then those things will not count against him in the next life but if he does join the church and he takes care of his needs in a natural way and drinks coffee now and then or drinks a beer then will these things count as a black mark against that person? So is it better that he joined the church in this life or not heard about it? The same thing could be said about tithing, if a person is not remember the church and they don’t pay tithing I don’t think it is held against them but if they are members of the church, according to our teachings and they don’t pay tithing that will count against them. It doesn’t seem like being a member brings a lot more to the table if the persons is already living a Christ like life. I can see how joining the church and giving up a lot of harmful habits would be good if the changes were lasting but if they were not lasting changes then joining the church would be more harmful in the long run. Does this make since? mercyngrace wrote:
It would be very interesting to see convert demographics. Are mostconvert baptisms in the first half of life, for example, when most
people are likely still grappling with binary thinking? Do we get a lot
of 50 years olds in the font? Folks who have lived a little longer and
are more likely to live content in the uncertainty and with less drive
to be “right”.
Oh there’s plenty of black and white thinking amongst older people! Some get very set in the mindset of bigotry and worse.
I think at least a third of our local baptisms are in the middle age + range.
However, I also suspect young missionaries attract young people. Older wiser people don’t always appreciate twenty somethings pontificating about what they have probably never experienced. How can they talk about marriage or children for example?
The Peace Corps analogy is an interesting one, but with one key caveat. I think PC is a great idea, but at its worst it can be quasi-colonial i.e. “look at me helping these poor dark skinned folks, I’m so great”… Mishies needn’t become like that, they’re better going native. Actions do speak louder than words.
Many non-members put up the defense screen when they see missionaries. One friend said to me “they’re like aliens” – I’ve also heard them likened to Men in Black, FBI etc. Touches of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction too.
Sister missionaries have a better look IMHO, less besuited, more natural.
I like seeing them do service, because although some do it begrudgingly, it shows them as themselves… there’s less a feeling of the script and the plan (small p)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.