President Obama and missionary work
No matter how much we claim to be a world Church, around the world the Church is still perceived to be American. That is normal. I have discussed here how history, geography, doctrine, ideology, and cultural behavior tie us to the United States.
The success of our missionary work abroad is therefore partially dependent on how America is perceived. On average, converts are more likely to be those who already had a positive view of the United States and were therefore more disposed to listen to the missionaries. Then there is the (un)willingness of governments to let missionaries in, on diverse political or ideological grounds. Since the early days of Church history, the permission to preach the Restored Gospel in foreign countries has been a core issue for Church diplomacy. An analysis shows how much this has been connected to how America is viewed and to American political diplomacy. A prime example is the work by David M. Kennedy, who, with his impressive background, became a special representative of the Church to governments worldwide and who, through quiet diplomacy, made all the difference in countries such as Portugal, Poland, Congo…
The image of the United States abroad has suffered in recent years. This post is not meant to analyze or assess the reasons for it. Distrust of America, if not outright despising of America, has most probably not been helpful to encourage people to listen to missionaries. In that context the Church has been struggling to obtain visas for American missionaries, even for its non-American missionaries, inasmuch as they are perceived to represent an American Church. The restrictions are seldom specifically directed at the Mormon Church, but are often the consequence of a petty game of little sanctions and countersanctions in the relation of certain countries with the U.S. Next, thriving on anti-American sentiment, cult-hunting organizations have concentrated their attacks on the dangers of American-based “cults,” lumping together Jonestown, Waco, Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others.
Friendship and diplomacy often achieve more than loud rhetoric. In the late 1990s Mormon missionary work ran into problems in Russia. I understand that President Clinton, approached on the matter by Mormon politicians, mentioned the issue in a private meeting with Putin, who then gave instructions to quietly iron out the problems. However, a few years later, when new challenges with visas arose, the goodwill had faded and, facing too many obstacles, the Church finally decided to withdraw its missionaries from Russia.
Better relations between the U.S. and foreign nations are high on President Obama’s agenda. In most countries around the world an enormous wave of enthusiasm has welcomed his election. Will it help missionary work?
From the field we hear already interesting sounds. Elder Curtis writes from France and Belgium:
“As far as the Obama stuff, the people over here are so happy about it. Everyone tells us about it. (…) The French people and Belges are just going crazy over him. They love him. Everyone asks us what we think about him, it is the first thing everyone says. I guess it is good”.
Sister Jensen writes from Argentina:
Everybody wants to stop me and talk politics… the Argentines all seem to have a great deal of faith in Obama. They are all so relieved that he won. I am excited to see how America changes – if it does.
Elder Briggs echoes from Brazil:
Crazy that Obama won in such a landslide! (…). Brazilians love him btw. Mostly because he is african american, but yeah, thats the feelings here.
On the other hand, it must be somewhat confusing for American missionaries who get the message from home that now “our nation is going in Satan’s direction, and the government truly will hang by a thread”, as one missionary quoted from the letter her companion got from her “rabidly republican” family.
And so, some missionaries do their best to convert people, like Elder Taliercio in Peru:
“o ya obama. the people here really liked him till i explained a little bit about how hes for abortion and all that. it was funny that all they ever hear is good things about him, but everyone asked why utah was for mccain and i explained and they all changed their mind”
And then there is the missionary who doesn’t seize the opportunity to share what he is supposed to share:
“I heard all about Obama being President, that’s all I heard all day in the street, everybody in the street was like hey gringo! Obama is your President awesome right? I just said whatever and after a while it just got annoying so this guy said the same thing to me and I said I was from France and he was like, oh…really? and I said yah, he said oh ok and walked off and my comp was laughing.”
Ah, as long as they are available, missionary blogspots are now an incredible source for sociological research… But, to the topic, what to make of the Obama momentum in relation to missionary work in international perspective?
Comment warning: this post is not about political issues, but about the Church, America’s image, and worldwide missionary work. Thoughtful comments will be appreciated.
65q, 1.442s
My parents were missionaries in France from 2005-2007, and are now in Belgium, and will be there until May of 2010. Mom says that in France, sometimes the people of Arab descent were terribly frightened of her as an American. Running away, crying, hiding their children — this was so surprising to my parents, and a real eye opener as to the effects of the choices of our government. It took a long time to build trust with their neighbors and to get to the point where they could share a meal together. Currently, President Obama’s election seems to be changing things. America has suffered greatly because of unfortunate foreign policy decisions, and President Obama’s change of dialogue can only help.
I’m skeptical that foreign popular enthusiasm will do much to enhance America’s foreign policy but I can see it helping the missionary work abroad at the margins and I hope it does. I would imagine, however, that the effect would be greatest with respect to African-American missionaries, of whom there are not many.
I’ve been wondering about this lately, Wilfried. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. You are quite right that missionary blogs provide a rich and fascinating source for researchers. Nice work.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out as Obama’s presidency progresses. My aunt and uncle are currently serving in Albania, where they are heading the Church’s humanitarian aid efforts. They’ve reported that Obama’s election has helped their early efforts there for the reason you suggest in the post–it’s improved the image of Americans in the Albanians’ minds.
Reflecting on my own experience (I was in South America during the 2000 election), I recall being unprepared to effectively utilize the openings created with people interested in discussing the American political process. There were certainly people more willing to talk to me, simply because they wanted to discuss the issue with a “real American,” but I tended to proclaim my political ignorance up front (I left in 1999, and had missed much of the campaign, etc.) in an effort to avoid talking politics when I felt I should be preaching the gospel. I wish I had instead 1) educated myself as to some of the general contours of the political situation so that I could respond with some level of intelligence and 2) used those opportunities to initiate discussions and possible relationships. A missionary’s sense of time is often distorted: the focus on the “now” in an effort to share the message may partially obscure long term vision … at least, for me, at that point in my life, it did.
Wow, the last few paragraphs of your post are one of the must mind-bendingly frustrating things I’ve ever read.
The Obama election has the effect of “re-branding” America and the church benefits because of the link between America and the LDS church for branding purposes. The LDS Church is an American Brand.
I am not sure how long this will last though.
My sister served in Korea and they were told by the mission president in a pre-departure letter to bring a pocket photo album showing scenes from their everyday lives, because the people loved to see real American life and it helped to build connections. These photo albums were that valuable as missionary tools. Starting a conversation with Obama could be a similar thing, except it has the benefit that the people come to you, vs only being able to whip out the photos after some initial contact has been made. For missionaries to squander those opportunities “converting” people to Repulbicanism instead of the gospel is…distressing. (also probably >= half of what they’re saying about Obama isn’t even true…sigh)
PS: I would now like to coin the phrase, “It’s like stabbing a gift horse the eye!”
Wilfried,
Brilliant stuff.
How much should missionaries be expected to lie in order to build relationships?
An implicit assumption in this post is that the ‘rabid Republicanism’ of many American saints is mistaken and the foreign view of President Obama is correct. But I see little attempt to justify that in the post and no gospel basis for that assumption. Every one in the comments and the post here who has condemned the missionaries for not being enthusiastic about Obama for the sake of missionary work is, not so coincidentally, enthusiastic about Obama, period.
I not too infrequently had conversations with fascists and Francoists and communists and anti-American conspiratorialists in Spain. I was not above disagreeing with them, though usually I tried to smile, nod, and say nothing.
I sometimes found that challenging people’s ideas about America was just as effective a way to reach out to them as pretending to agree with them was. People like to feel like they had the inside scoop from a genuine American.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually think Adam makes a really good point in #9. Certainly an American elder or sister who is conservative in his or her politics should not be expected to agree with every pro-Obama statement made to them.
I think the way you handled conversations with fascists, communists, etc. in Spain (with silence re: politics) seems an appropriate approach.
Christopher (10), don’t fall off your stool just yet. Adam does indeed speak truth, from time to time. ;)
Jon
Adam, I assume you are at least in part addressing me with your #9. First, I don’t think I “condemned” the missionaries at all. I think it is unfortunate that this is happening but I don’t blame the individuals. Second, I would never suggest that someone lie in order to build relationships. What they shouldn’t do is treat other people’s opinions about Obama as wrong and something that needs correcting (by a representative of the Lord, no less). If they are correcting others’ “mistaken” views about Obama while that black tag is on their chest, it could very likely come across that favoring Obama is against the gospel. Coming across that way is even more likely when people are aware (as they were in one of the quotes above) that the church’s home state went overwhelmingly for McCain.
Again, missionaries needn’t lie, and if asked their opinion they can give it, framed emphatically as “just my opinion.” They can also pry open their hearts just enough to not be too terribly annoyed by others’ enthusiasm for Obama (as in the last story above). They can think of *one* good thing about him, even if it is simply that others like him, then when in those situations they can smile and trot it out, e.g., “Well, I personally would have voted for McCain, but it’s great that we have a president that is so loved throughout the world.” If they can’t minimally empathize with the joy of others, even if they disagree on politics, that’s just not the makings of a good missionary heart.
Adam and Christopher–
While it is certainly true that no missionary should have to lie about his politics to get an “in” with a potential invesitgator, that question is beside the point.
Missionaries probably are not having lond and detailed discussions about politics; but it seems that anything that burnished the U.S. image abroad would be helpful in creating an entree for missionaries looking to spread the word.
This is especially true since, as Wilfried points out, many folks perceive Mormon missionaries more as “American” than as “Mormon”–the perception that they have of the states, then, is vital in helping a missionary gain trust and acceptance before the missionary even speaks.
Regardless of a person’s feelings about Obama, anything that improves the perception of the U.S. abroad would, I think, be a help to missionary work.
However the missionaries respond, they ought to take care not to pass on calumny about anyone, including Obama, no matter what they think of his political approach. Missionaries aren’t sent out to convince anyone that the Republican point of view is correct.
Tyler, I agree with everything you said. It seems there’s a delicate balance missionaries abroad are faced with trying to maintain between benefitting from an improved image of the church abroad and not engaging in political arguments that distract from their purpose as missionaries.
I’m glad that the Obama win will hopefully open doors for the Church worldwide. How long it lasts is another thing, as Obama may have to make difficult decisions in the future that could sour that relationship.
What will happen if his economic choices end up hurting the world? Will they still love him tomorrow?
What will happen if there is another terrorist attack on our soil? Will his actions push people in other countries to fear Americans?
I come from a very political family. I was very politically involved as a teenager/college freshman. I left on a mission at 19. After my bishop finished my interview prior to receiving my call he then went off script and said: “I have one personal request for you: leave politics behind. If you talk about politics, someone may disagree with you, and if they disagree with you about politics, they may tune out your gospel message as a result. I’m asking you to not talk about it–at all–for the next two years.” That was some of the best counsel I received regarding my mission, and is really no different than the charge that all missionaries receive regarding anything from the past that might be a distraction.
With that as my own background, it absolutely disturbs me that some of the missionaries you are citing above felt that it was appropriate to be having conversations about Obama’s merits, or about why Utah voted republican…as if that has anything at all to do with the message they’re supposed to be sharing.
I know that this is slightly off topic, but still–that really disturbs me.
As to the topic itself, I think America’s standing absolutely has an impact on how our missionaries are received. I served in an Eastern European country in the late 90’s, and when the Kosovo situation flared up, the reactions we got from the people absolutely became more hostile.
Why aren’t mission presidents telling their missionaries to be politically neutral, rather than sharing the political spewings coming out of Utah with the world? I personally don’t think missionaries should jump on the bandwagon of ANY politician, even if specifically asked by someone, seeing as how they represent a politically neutral church. If people choose to associate us with America, that is fine, but it shouldn’t be encouraged by the missionaries.
(As a side note, I’d be interested to see a similar analysis and sampling of missionaries and how they are being treated and/or responding to the fallout from Prop 8 in other countries.)
People will carry their political opinions about America for a long, long time. I served in Korea from ‘78-’80, and it was still not unusual to have people come up to me and tell me that Truman was an idiot for not letting MacArthur invade China when he had the chance.
Yikes at Elder Tallierco.
I’m glad that our missionaries REALLY feel it appropriate to use time to do that kind of proselytizing. Way to make the religion seem more like just an American Conservative one and get people to recognize that it’s EXACTLY what they’ve come to fear and dislike of America.
If people are so excited for Obama and that’s improving America’s image, then if the missionaries and the church aren’t for that, they shouldn’t take the glory of improved image due to a man whose ideals they don’t agree with.
I think the trickiest political discussions are those that involve the country that the missionary is serving in.
In my mission in South Africa I was constantly asked what I thought about apartheid, Mandela, The National Party etc. ANC vs Zulu violence in Natal, evil white people from Blacks, violent black people from whites, mixed race people bashing both groups etc. During the 94 elections the blacks would want to talk about how excited they were to take power and the whites would talk about being afraid for their personal safety.
The questions would increase when I had a African elder with me. I would always simply plead neutrality. Local politics are more explosive in my view.
Thanks to all for interesting comments. The various memories from the mission field seem to confirm the sensitivity of political topics in missionary work, but also the opportunities if reactions are well managed. It raises the question to what extent missionaries are trained or should be trained to handle certain topics people bring up, steer the conversation to the Gospel, and still show genuine interest in people’s ideas so it can also enrich the life of all participants.
A side phenomenon in all this are the missionary blogs, which allow an exceptional view on daily reactions from missionaries around the world, offering pretty raw material in quickly written words. To what extent can this public display of information, originally meant for a few insiders (family, friends), contribute to better understanding missionaries and missionary work and be used as a reflection base for improvement?
Thoughtful post as always.
My concern is that missionaries sometimes claim to define Mormon political views generally. An American missionary here recently explained in a newspaper interview that most Mormons are pretty conservative, so Obama is probably not very popular with Mormons. Members were furious.
#24 – Exactly.
I know in the Phoenix AZ mission (in which I live) the full time missionaries were directly instructed by their mission president to refrain from any discussion whatsover about the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq. Pretty good advice. I tried to bait a few missionaries (I was the ward mission leader then) but they really abided by that counsel.
I think the counsel RT received is pretty good counsel, and probably should be followed by local church officials as well.
Thankfully, of the five quotes from missionaries, only one of them admitted to actively pushing a political discussion. All in all, I take that as a good sign. I’d hope most missionaries would know better than to seek out political discussions.
For example, the sister whose family is described as “rabidly republican” is “pretty happily ambivalent about it all -who cares about politics when you get to share the gospel with the coolest country ever?” That was the sentiment among the median missionary I knew.
Of course, there are a lot of things I’d hope missionaries would or wouldn’t do, and that doesn’t always pan out either. Comes with the territory, I suppose.
Wilfried: I suspect that you are correct that any improvement in America’s image abroad is likely to help missionary work. Obviously, Obama has greatly helped to improve America’s image abroad. On the other hand, I am not sure how long lived such a boost will be. Much of Bush’s foreign policy — particularlly in the first term — was ham fisted and destructive. The Bushies moderated considerably in the second term with the exit of Rumsfeld and the move of Rice from NSC to State. As it stands, I actually don’t think that we are going to see much in the way of real shifts in American foreign policy. In a delicious bit of irony, Obama, who began as the anti-war candidate, has retained Bush’s Sec. of Defense and has picked a very hard-headed realist to run the NSC. His middle eastern policy at this point looks to be essentially a continuation of Bush’s policy. He is moving to shut down Gitmo with all deliberate speed, but I am willing to bet you good money that after a round or two of legislative tweaks, we will end up putting the Gitmo prisoners in military brigs elsewhere and trying them before something that looks very like the Bushies’ military commissions.
In other words, to the extent that anti-Americanism is driven by American foreign policy, I suspect that many people will ultiamtely be disappointed by Obama’s policy. American interests remain fairly constant, and while I think that Obama will adopt a very different tone and hopefully will avoid monumental bits of incompetence like the post-invasion occupation adminstration in Iraq, I don’t think that American policy will change that much.
Tone matters a lot on these things, but substance matters as well. Frankly, Obama’s foreign policy is unlikely to be particularlly revolutionary on a substantive level.
Wow, this is a really tricky issue. I think Adam is right that we can’t entirely leave politics out of it; we have to at least think about the issue of what to do when politics comes into contact with missionary work, and one of the most enduring things about politics will be deep disagreements that arise, often unexpectedly. Part of why people are rightly cautious about bringing up politics in polite company is that there is a very high probability you will inadvertently make someone very upset.
Here’s how I think about it. I think in the case of Obama, as in all else, missionaries should start by finding out and building on common beliefs. If someone wants to talk to you about Obama, listen, and have a conversation. Find out what excites them, and be sympathetic so far as you can. In other words, have a conversation, and keep it friendly. Don’t just stick your disagreement in their face. This builds rapport and the beginnings of trust, and as you learn more about the person, you come to see where you might be able to say something a bit more challenging, in a way that they would listen to.
This is of course a difficult thing to do well on a topic as controversial as politics or religion. Learning to do it on religion is hard enough for missionaries. Expecting them to do it on politics, too, may be too much, especially since most of them probably find Obama pretty upsetting. Still, there are things about Obama that seem hopeful; there are things that seem worrisome. A missionary who has learned how to talk sincerely and considerately with people very different from him or herself, on loaded topics, may be able to do a lot of good by using the interest in Obama as an occasion to get to know someone and build goodwill. I hope many of them will do it. I just think we shouldn’t be surprised when most of them don’t.
Especially since we don’t teach that stuff about finding out and building common beliefs to the missionaries anymore, anyway.
You’re probably right Nate, I wish you weren’t. I remember hearing many members of the church saying that wars, while terrible, can eventually bring the church to the world. That may be true, but i’m willing to argue that peace can do a much better job of opening up countries, and I think it has. If the gospel is to be preached to the whole world, I think that peace is a better way.
“Expecting them to do it on politics, too, may be too much, especially since most of them probably find Obama pretty upsetting.”
I don’t know–teaching them something as simple as, “Oh, that’s interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. One of the things that I appreciate about being from the US is the variety of political opinions that we have there–some Americans would agree with what you just said, others wouldn’t. Because of that open environment, the Lord was able to restore the gospel there. In fact, my companion and I would like to share a message yada yada yada . . .”
I think (contra green mormon architect #19) it is false that the CJCLDS is a politically neutral church. It is, by policy, neutral regarding particular political figures like Obama, and so, as representatives of the church, you are probably right, gma, that they should avoid expressing opinions on candidates per se, but that is not the same thing as being politically neutral, as evidenced in the case of Prop 8.
That said, because it is a lot to expect missionaries to handle political discussions well (religion is enough of a handful already), policies steering missionaries away from political conversation are pretty smart.
Awesome transition, Julie. :-)
It is undeniable that Pres. Bush was extraordinarily unpopular in most countries abroad, but especially Europe and most of Latin America, and it is undeniable that Pres. Obama is more popular. Does this have any affect on missionary efforts? I’m skeptical.
At the same time, there are many of us who feel that “peace through strength” is much more likely to keep the peace than Obama’s apparent willingness to engage tyrants in dialogue. In my opinion, there is a strong possibility that Obama, like Carter, will be surprised at how mean and dastardly these tyrants can be. And such weakness usually means instability (Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc during Carter’s years). Instability is not popular. So, three years from now we may be dealing with a much less stable world, and many people will look back at the failed dialogues with the tyrants as one of the reasons.
It may very well turn out that Pres. Obama is much less popular abroad in three years than he is today. So, will that have a negative affect on missionary efforts? Again, I’m skeptical.
Okay, Julie, that is a fabulous transition. Maybe we should try harder.
I do think that trying to surf a wave of excitement about Obama, just because people are excited, is very dangerous for many reasons. Whatever we may think of particular policies or traits of Obama, people got excited about him based on words, and now we will be dealing with actions, and it is very hard to know how long the excitement will last. Even if it lasts a long time, suppressing one’s own view because the opposite view is convenient is a bad habit to get into. I think, though, that any time someone wants to talk to the missionaries about something, they should be big enough to respond in a sympathetic fashion (which doesn’t mean agreeing), rather than, say, firing back their own contrary opinion. To the extent that the missionaries are failing to do this in the case of Obama, because in fact many of them find it more difficult to respond sympathetically here, it is unfortunate.
I’m not impressed by Julie’s transition. How about something more like this? “Thanks for sharing your enthusiastic opinion about President Obama. My own view is somewhat different: I suspect that within a year he will have set up a system of reeducation camps for his political opponents, and that his death squads will operate with impunity, much like the death squads that are active here in your country. Speaking of which, have you had any of your family members killed by political death squads, and have you wondered how you might be able to be reunited with them as a family for eternity?”
Lol, GST! Thanks for bringing in the light note, though gallows humour.
I appreciate preceding comments. Indeed, Nate, Ben H and Geoff B, what the future of Obama will bring is uncertain, just as we cannot be sure of its effect either way. There are no easy solutions for the problems of the world. At least we should hope and pray he will achieve the best possible. But, whatever the present administration will achieve or not, however they may have to change policies, the principle of good relations with foreign countries is difficult to deny. With good relations missionaries will have more opportunities to preach the Gospel (visas, proselyting permits) and is there a greater chance to have the Church recognized in countries where it is not yet the case.
The Church, as we may presume from the neutrality statements, wishes to operate in a totally different realm than politics (though good relations with those in power is important and though some moral issues imply politics). For its missionary work, if we truly believe the promises of the Restoration and the spreading of the Kingdom, missionaries can only proclaim their message in a sphere of peace and charity, without thoughts given to partisan politics. See Ian Cook’s comment (30): “If the gospel is to be preached to the whole world, I think that peace is a better way.”
It would probably also help if parents and friends, who are in intense contact with missionaries, do not feed them with rabid political standpoints, but let them focus on the Work. The ease and speed of electronic communication, however, implies challenges in that regard. The very fast and often thoughtless exchanges we see on the blogspots do not seem to invite to careful writing and a better focus. There certainly is room for improvement there.
I was really amazed to learn that there are missionaries out there blogging. I had no idea.
Much of the world-wide excitement about Obama winning the presidency has died out since the election. I follow around two to three hundred missionary blogs (which are usually put together by the parents of the missionary) and really none of them have said things like “now that Obama is president we get twice as many investigators to Church” or “people stop and talk to us on the street more about the Gospel since the election.” Most missionaries did report people being more friendly with them, but that’s about it.
Perhaps anti-Americanism has gone down a bit, but I do not think it will make much of a difference on how receptive people are to the Church. However, I do think that this might help expediate the Church entering nations which it currently does not operate in.
I believe the biggest obstacle hindering greater growth of the Church internationally is under-trained leadership. Leaders in the Church outside the United States are doing their best, but many have not seen how the Church operates firsthand. The Church has really focused on training leadership to take care of and maintain Church growth in the past five years or so.
Kevin, I might be wrong, but I believe most of the blogs of actual missionaries are administered by family members, with material taken from correspondences sent by the missionaries. That’s what we intend to do when our son leaves on his mission soon.
Should have read Matt’s #39. My #40 is useless.
I’m a firm believer in the idea that missionaries should not talk about politics of either their home country or their mission area. It is just not worth the trouble that it can cause. As a counter example to the near worship of the former junior senator from Illinois, let me offer my experience in Bangkok during the last three weeks of November 1979 after the Iranian Mullahs overran the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. During that time, my companion and I were asked several times a day as to when President Carter would get off his hands and school the mullahs about proper respect for foreign embassies. We reminded them that we were religious teachers, and were not focused on the world. People on the street in that city expected the U.S. to provide a strong, military response to the offense of the Iranian government. Mr. Carter disappointed them greatly with his ineptitude. Given Mr. Obama’s poor performance so far domestically, I expect him to disappoint in foriegn policy and national defense soon as well.
Interesting to see how reactions continue to point at President Obama’s most probable failure. Unavoidable politics: for some, every problem or challenge or weakness will be highlighted as the fulfillment of the expectation that he will not succeed.
From the First Presidency comes this message:
“We pray for President Barack Obama’s success in these challenging times and join in his expressions of hope and optimism.”
“We send our best wishes to President Obama and pray for the blessings of a loving Father in Heaven to be upon him and his administration.”
In December my wife and I visited southern Spain for the first time. We are not conversant in Spanish (shame on us) and so sometimes it was a challenge to communicate with local folks, such as restaurant workers. But usually when it became apparent that we were Americans there would be a thumbs up signal from the local person who would smile a big smile and simply say “Obama!” It was a personal experience in a limited geographical area of the world but I took it as a positve step forward in improving Americas image across the globe. I hope that improved image equates to imcreased interest in our “American church.”
I don’t see how there is any debate: of course missionaries should express political neutrality, just as they would conduct themselves in conversation with their home ward members, yet always cognizant that people in their missionary fields will view them more as religious leaders than as the know-nothing yahoos they are used to being at home.
Julie–you missed your calling. I hope they call you on a mission.
gst–you must have been the funnest missionary companion ever.
RE: missionary blogs
My sister had one for her missionary letters and early on she described an encounter with someone they had found while tracting. This person was a Christian Scientist (I think) and apparently my sister found him “creepy”–a state unrelated to his religion. She reported this interesting contact as missionaries do share with their families, but this was on a blog and she almost immediately got a comment from a Christian Science apologist chastizing her for her characterization of his co-religionist. I reported on the comment to my sister (she could not read her own blog) and after that her letters became much less interesting. I think missionaries just need to remember that blogs are public.
We have been out of the US since before the election and we saw quite a bit of Obama-mania. Had a few conversations that started “you know the US became very unpopular under Bush?”, mostly from Europeans. In most cases, it takes only one or two probing questions to determine that the expectations for an Obama administration are unrealistic, uninformed or simply knee-jerk anti-Americanism (so you uncultured Americans finally decided to listen to join the Enlightenment, it’s about time).
But my feeling is that once the dust has settled that Obama’s impact on international relations will be based primarily on US actions just as they have in the past. The whole we don’t like Americans because Bush is from Texas and speaks with an accent was always a straw man in my opinion. I have yet to see a single substantial action taken by any nation in response to Obama, words yes, but only words.
I think the argument that Obama will materially improve the political response of any particular nation to LDS activity is a real stretch. My feeling about the suggestion that any one individuals response to a missionary would be about the same, wishful partisan thinking.
Wilfried, regarding your #43, of course people want Pres. Obama to be successful. Personally, I have prayed for his success many times. This does not mean that we cannot acknowledge that some of his possible policies (ie, negotiating with tyrants) are not likely to be successful.
Thanks for the clarification, Geoff. I certainly agree!
It remains a fact, however, that the “I hope him to fail, I want him to fail”, is shared by some I hear around here in Utah County, and pertaining to all issues, even on issues we could all agree on.
When asked by my non-US coworkers about how my religion considers Obama, I tell them that there are extremists on both sides, but that they are dwindling in number and influence, and that generally speaking, my Church takes a dim view of the ultra-partisans.
Wilfried, how did you find these blogs? I like your use of Obama and how it relates to missionaries. It is not something that interests me enough to blog about myself so nicely done. In response to #38–Most of them are on my sidebar and it took me literally hundreds of hours to find them. I am glad they are useful for finding this kind of information. I am perplexed why Kevin Barney or anyone that has ever been to my blog wouldn’t realize that missionaries blog about a vast amount of topics. There are now dozens of missionary blogs most are put up by their families. I list all of them that I can find. It is not surprising several of them have conservative views that are expressed since many of them mirror their parents beliefs.
Thank you, dr. b. — Well, it is precisely through your http://mormonmission.blogspot.com/ that we are able to locate so many missionary-related blogs. And then, within those blogs, do a search with Obama… You are to be credited with the instrument to help us in those searches.
I think we need to express concern about what those missionaries or their parents make public. Some missionaries put up lots of pics with monkey tricks they perform alone or with their companions — things kids do in their puberty. But often plain stupid: Remember the uproar with the missionary holding the broken head of a Catholic statue in Colorado? I just came across one picture where the missionary adopts a Buddha position, to mock himself meditating. We haven’t seen the end of this with immature kids being sent out. Reminds me of a mission president’s statement: “We would baptize twice as many converts if I could send half of my missionaries home.”
My last encounter with a family-posted missionary blog was when I read a missionary’s letter that mentioned the alcoholism of an investigator whose full name and neighborhood (in South America) were posted. Not finding an e-mail address for the bloggers, I posted a comment reminding the family that the blog was public and asking how they would feel if the comments about the investigator ever got back to that person. I also provided my own e-mail address (altered as I do below to fool e-mail address harvesting bots.)
I was astonished at the vitriolic e-mails I received from several family members about my “intrusion” into their “private” “family” blog. I responded with a suggestion about how they could make their blog truly private, but it became clear to me that they actually intended for their conversations to be public. I felt like I was being exposed to a form of religious exhibitionism.
I was called to the Berlin Mission in early 1965, during the height of the cold war and just after the ‘64 presidential campaign. During the campaign I had been a rabid Goldwater activist. At that time we were set apart by general authorities, and my parents joined me in the office of Elder S. Dilworth Young, who didn’t know me from Adam. Three times during his blessing he repeated, “Elder Hall, do not discuss politics.” It’s all I still remember from his inspired counsel. Perhaps his concern was primarily with the political sensitivity of my destination, and in fact I was able during my mission to travel in East Berlin and in East Germany to visit with the Saints there. But I have also believed that his inspiration was directed to my personal obsession.
Needless to say, I avoided discussing politics during my mission, either with my companions or my investigators!
hthalljr’gmail’com
Are the people who aren’t getting baptized because of the missionaries the same kind of people who won’t stay active because they get offended by something the bishop says?
Well, I wouldn’t generalize that much, queuno, though there may be similar cases. But usually a bishop is not going to post pictures of himself mocking other religions. And “not getting baptized” is quite a different decision than getting offended once you’re in, wouldn’t we say?
There is probably a much lower percentage of “idiot missionaries” than “idiot members”…
queuno, re #53: the “double the converts with half the missionaries” was likely hyperbole, and also likely made before the 2002 raising of the bar. But there was a degree of truth to it. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been 25% more converts with 25% less missionaries.
My estimate, back in 1984, was that the percentage of elders who honestly and sincerely didn’t want to be full time missionaries, plus the percentage of those who shouldn’t have been missionaries likely totaled around 25%. The actual decrease in missionaries due to the 2002 change in standards was 15%.
The likely basis for the original comment is that MP’s often had to assign their best missionaries with strong personalities as baby-sitting companions for the ones who didn’t want to be there. Damage-control or prevention then cost the mission one good elder for every touble-making one. Such a +/- companionship hopefully would be neutral (or better), and not set back the work.
The quoted MP was probably referring to the converts that those + elders would have found, had they been paired with other +’s and not been saddled with baby-sitting the -’s.
Much effort goes into (or went into) managing inter-missionary or intra-mission affairs compared to the overall proselyting effort. If less man-power has to be spent on managing problems within the mission, more can be directed outwards to proselyting efforts.
And, I don’t think the alleged quote is referring to investigators getting scared or driven off, rather they were not being found and not being taught with the Spirit in the first place.
Re: #55 I got bent out of shape (unjustifiable so) on my mission by the 25% whom I considered “idiot missionaries”. But long after I got back, I finally realized that they (the ones I considered the idiot missionaries) either end up converting and signing-on to the gospel cause, or they leave the church or go inactive. So I don’t think we see the kind of stuff among active members 25 years and older, that we do among those 12 to 22 years old.
Now, post-raise-the-bar, we can see a filtering process in effect that wasn’t there prior to 2002. And it has gotten better in the 6.5 years since it was implemented. Within less than a year, all born-in-the-church 19 year olds will have gone through the entire youth program under “raise the bar” expectations and having been taught the new requirements for full-time missionary service. Their older brothers and slightly older peers will have gone through post-raise-the-bar missions. They will have seen some of their older brothers and slightly older peers turned down for missions or honorably excused.
Therefore, each year those entering missionary service have been trained by the new post-raise-the-bar program to a greater degree than previous years. And next year, those prepared by the entire 7 year (12th birthday through 19th birthday) “program” will be going to the MTC.
Julie, #23: Yup. It all starts with conversation starters and door-openers.
Thanks, Bookslinger, for these valuable comments.
Excellent to refer to the raise the bar efforts. It still surprises me how, in spite of these efforts, quite a few missionary blogspots still reveal a fair amount of genuine immaturity and lack of basic missionary attitude. Not all, of course! I wonder if we need more education given to the missionaries, and their families, on how to run a blogspot in the interest of the Church and missionary work (also to affect future missionaries), not just as snippets from “adventures away from home”.
BR.Decoo ,
We hear many positive comments about Pres Obamo especially from home , others [ central americans ] are questioning us carefully wondering where this is going to lead us . As for myself , now and under Clinton I would rather not be known as an american mormon but yes as a constitution upholding mormon.
I really wanted to reply on your 2006 [just discovered ] article on Br. Troffaes , that sure brings memories . I found it looking for the hymn “Geloof ” after reading an article about Br. Vlam recently . I had not realized our patriarch Jongkees was baptized through him .
What on earth are missionaries doing blogging in the first place. Also, every member and missionary is counseled to avoid political endorsements or their opposite. Finally, every missionary is supposed to refrain from television, radio, internet and such – so how are they blogging at all?
My 4 sons ages 23, 26, 28, and 30 all served missions, and my daughter is serving now. Each was given the counsel by his MP about politics that RT #17 was “Leave politics behind. If you talk about politics, someone may disagree with you, and if they disagree with you about politics, they may tune out your gospel message as a result.” During this last election I know at least one Bishop, an ardent rightie, who asked one missionary to restrain his right wing talk. This Bishop later called the MP and asked him to rein in the Elder or transfer him out of his ward. MP must have done so, because the talk stopped.
Page 52 of The Missionary Handbook reads:
Be careful what you say and write in public and in private. Do not make negative of offensive comments about political or cultural circumstances, even in letters or e-mails home. Never become involved in political or commercial activities or in discussions or arguments on political or economic topics.
So yeah, it’s official. Missionaries should not be talking politics.
Appreciation for those latest comments! Nice to hear from you, Marie-Joseph. Special thanks to Karen for the “official” statement in the Missionary handbook.