Mormon Missionaries Are Not Ministers to Mormons
You may have seen them walking door-to-door in your neighborhood, riding their bikes down the street, or have been approached by them in the parking lot of your local Walmart. They wear nice conservative clothing, like dark suits or nice blouses (for women) and have a black name tag prominently displayed. Only their last names are engraved on these tags, preceded by the title “Elder” or “Sister”. These are Mormon missionaries.
These young men and women (and some older women and couples) take time away from their normal lives to serve their church as missionaries, taking their beliefs to the far ends of the world. They are well trained, spending hundreds of hours in the classroom before setting foot on your door step. Their approach is based on proven methods of gaining the trust of those they talk to and then leading them to understand and accept their beliefs as being valid, and maybe even true.
One might think of them as ministers, as they themselves often do. However, the truth is that these missionaries are little more than sales representatives for a very large world wide corporation, and recieved little to no training in actually ministering to people. They are trained to find, teach, and baptize. Period.
How do I know this? Simple. I WAS a Mormon missionary.
There were many occasions where, as a missionary, I found myself in situations where people really needed guidance. They were seeking the will of God, and needed inspired counsel. I always did my best to lead them down what I thought was the right direction. I would, as a priesthood holder, bless them and seek inspiration myself to say the words that hopefully would help these people while giving the blessing. I always felt inadaquate. Ministering to people like this was not in the training manual for missionaries.
Why would members of the Mormon church seek out missionaries, knowing that the missionaries were not qualified, when they were in need of ministering? I’ve thought about this a good bit, and the only conclusion I’ve been able to reach is this: Missionaries do not have authority in the church to act as judges, and they are hesitant to cause any fiction with members who support missionaries by way of referrals and food. In other words, they are safe. Members attempt to use missionaries to bypass the authoritarian judgement of chuch leaders. Missionaries ought to be as, or more, spiritual than those leaders; right?
That, of course, is debatable.
Of course, with so much in life, and especially when religion is concerned; it’s all about perception. The eager missionary’s counsel is seriously considered and their blessing accepted as being inspired. It’s just sad that Mormons don’t have a real, safe ministry to seek comfort from.
15 responses so far
The real, safe minister is Christ. If a minister’s focus, Mormon missionary, bishop or Catholic priest alike, is ‘how can I solve this person’s problem’ instead of ‘how can Christ solve this problem’ the minister is asking for frustration and disappointment and is ultimately not functioning in their proper role.
In regards to Mormon missionaries being salesman, I would agree that there those who never get beyond a salesman-like mentality but I would argue that those are not the missionaries driving the quality growth of the church and that that is not at all the type of missionary endorsed by the LDS Church, sure they provide training in how to talk to people and how to manage a schedule but the emphasis and the ideal is always about love. They cannot train love into someone, they can invite but the decision and internal motivation is ultimately left up to each individual missionary.
Regarding the training provided, training manuals etc. The primary “training” ground for missionaries is not intended to be the missionary training center but the homes of their youth. The ‘training manual’ for missionaries is ultimately the scriptures and in them there is endless guidance in how to minister.
I’m sorry if you had a bad experience as a missionary or have had other experiences that have made you feel the Church is some large top-down organization. Truth is, the vast majority of Church members, from the general authorities to the sunday school teacher, are simply normal people trying to serve their fellow man, contribute to their community, and to do the will of God as they understand it.
Dave,
You have a valid point in mentioning the kind of teachings that should take place in the home, and how those teachings can be applied to the ministry of missionaries. “How can Christ solve this problem” is still a tricky question. I knew I was powerless to solve anyone’s problem, and really tried to seek some sort of inspiration to guide people in the right direction.
Still, I also understood that it really wasn’t my place as a missionary to minister to people. It wasn’t a column on our tally board or what was asked of us when we had to report our weekly statistics. It wasn’t expected, and it was indirectly discouraged. We were temporary figures in those areas, we were not members of the ward; we were not to get involved. This is completely understandable.
…and was understood by some members as well. These were people in need who know that confiding in and seeking counsel from us would be a whole lot easier than working through the chain of command of their ward. Most of these situations were not so serious as to necessitate an official disciplinary procedure. Talking to church leaders seemed to only add to the stress of their situations.
So there we were…easy targets; but completely untrained. Funny thing is…church leadership wasn’t much better as far as training went.
- Joel McDonald
Joel, how long after your mission did you stay in the Church? What made you leave it?
Thaddeus,
I feel like I left the church while serving a mission. I left because there were too many inconsistencies between the world I saw and the world the church paints for its members. The so-called answers that the church provides for people on difficult issues, such as polygamy, racism, sexism, homophobia, historical contradictions, changes to sacred practices, faulty prophecy, and a myriad of issues with “the most perfect book” are not answers at all; they’re excuses.
I also understand the benefits of the church. I miss it at times, and know that most members are just good people who fully believe in the validity of their church and that their beliefs are good and sanctioned by God. Unfortunately, the very keystone of their church is porous and brittle. It crumbled for me, leaving me with no other choice but to walk away.
- Joel McDonald
I’d pose a number of questions from your last comment, not necessarily to answer immediately to me but worthy of reflection–
“I left because there were too many inconsistencies between the world I saw…”
Was the world you saw reality? How complete was your knowledge at that time? Were you the first to discover such “inconsistencies”? What has been the spectrum of response to the said “inconsistencies”?
“…and the world the church paints for its members.”
Was the world you perceived the church painting the same perceived painting seen by other members of the church? What do you believe was the intended image the church was trying to portray? What do you think were the personal motivations of the leadership of the church to portray that desired image? If someone disagrees with some of the PR decisions of the church can they still be a faithful member of the church?
“The so-called answers that the church provides for people on difficult issues, such as polygamy, racism, sexism, homophobia, historical contradictions, changes to sacred practices, faulty prophecy, and a myriad of issues with “the most perfect book” are not answers at all; they’re excuses.”
Is “the church” (whatever that means) the proper voice to speak on the difficult issues? There is a large body of writing by independent writers on these issues, faithful LDS included, how is that literature to be considered?
“Unfortunately, the very keystone of their church is porous and brittle. It crumbled for me, leaving me with no other choice but to walk away.”
I think you made the honest choice for your own integrity to walk away if it truly crumbled for you. Regarding the keystone of the church being porous and brittle– would you consider any body of people to have greater knowledge than you about that keystone yet have not come to the same conclusion that it is “porous and brittle.”
Was the world you saw reality? How complete was your knowledge at that time? Were you the first to discover such “inconsistencies”? What has been the spectrum of response to the said “inconsistencies”?
Is the world anyone sees the reality? Is not the perceived world merely the result of the axioms employed by a person to construct the reality they experience? Is this not the very reason that many who leave churches like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints find is so difficult to reorganize themselves and their lives?
Beyond philosophy, the experiences I mention are really those that I had on my mission; meeting people, talking with them about their faith…their experiences with God. I often came to the point of wondering why I was trying to sell Mormonism to people who had a close relationship with the Lord, experienced the power and witness of the Spirit daily, and really had no need for the church structure I was offering. Of course, I would submit that it is the authority I was offering…the restored Priesthood! However, this was a point not accepted by most. Further, all are promised in D&C that if we opened our mouths, the Spirit would witness to the people the validity of our words. Like Moroni’s promise working with investigators, this was very hit or miss and was attached to a myriad of explanations on why it sometimes does not seem to work…more excuses.
Was the world you perceived the church painting the same perceived painting seen by other members of the church? What do you believe was the intended image the church was trying to portray? What do you think were the personal motivations of the leadership of the church to portray that desired image? If someone disagrees with some of the PR decisions of the church can they still be a faithful member of the church?
I believe that many faithful members of the church accept the teachings of the church as being the final answer. Their axioms that built their worldview are set by these teachings. For those that continue in this state, they will not see what I see. For those who dissolve those axioms, they do see.
It goes beyond PR. It’s what is set in church meetings. It is the defining of people and their beliefs as behind sub-par to those of Mormons.
Is “the church” (whatever that means) the proper voice to speak on the difficult issues? There is a large body of writing by independent writers on these issues, faithful LDS included, how is that literature to be considered?
The church is the organization, primarily the leadership. Most members of the church will agree that it is the proper voice to speak on difficult issues. These men are supposed to be the mouthpieces of the Lord! Who better to lead people to better knowledge and understanding than “the church”?
Independent writings are marginalized. If they agree with church leaders, or even have their approval, then they hold greater weight. If the writings run contrary, either a member will reject what is writer, or their way of thinking will be altered to allow for the possibility that the leaders of the church may be wrong. They may not be who they say they are. Depending on the popularity of the book, the contrary writer may be excommunicated.
I think you made the honest choice for your own integrity to walk away if it truly crumbled for you. Regarding the keystone of the church being porous and brittle– would you consider any body of people to have greater knowledge than you about that keystone yet have not come to the same conclusion that it is “porous and brittle.”
The works presented by the church are enough for most. For those that venture into the works of pro-Mormon authors, I think they find them tedious reads; presenting explanations like those given by FARMS on issues which should not be made out to be so complicated. They tend to only muddy the waters, allowing enough wiggle room to wonder but not enough space to make any decision concerning the validity of The Book of Mormon.
A completely independent investigation on the evolution of religion and the connection between various religions does provide some insight. While on my mission, as I struggled to accept the church as true, but still wanted to be able to do so, I did such an independent study. I read various works on the life of Christ, the history of religion, even the history of civilization. What I found was that the teachings of Mormonism did not seem to span back to the original church. This shouldn’t be surprising, as there is little evidence to show that Jesus Christ existed at all. Looking more broadly, I think it can be safely determined that Mormonism exists outside the evolution of religion. It is not a new, better species. It is merely a random twig on a reactionary branch.
I respectfully disagree with many of you assumptions.
I would argue that many members of the church have had the same experience as you, in terms of their initial axioms being broken, conducting independent studies spanning religions and history, and coming “to see”… but then they have come to a very different conclusion on the back end, namely that their faith and devotion increased as their knowledge increased and broadened.
“the church” “the organization” is fundamentally made up of members. The same independent writers who tackle the tough issues as faithful latter-day saints are the very church leaders at the pulpit on Sunday. Bushman is a stake president, a lot of the FARMS folks serve as bishops and stake leaders. Hugh Nibley, perhaps the greatest critic the Church ever had, wrote the curriculum for Sunday school in his day. There is a recognizable difference in spirit between the academics who are able to criticize/examine and remain faithful and those who criticize/examine and leave the church, the difference is pride.
You answer your own question when you say “the works of the church are enough for most” which is exactly the point and what should be expected from the church organizationally. Calling the works of pro-mormon scholars “tedious” and making the issues “too complicated” is actually a sign of good academic scholarship and standards on their part. Authors that make the issues less complicated and jump to simplified conclusions reveal themselves as inferior scholars. If an individual’s faith is not enough to sustain them when presented with academic challenges then they must be willing to pay the price academically. But ultimately, I would argue, that as one becomes a truly great scholar, humility for the unknown increases, and faith returns as a fundamental choice.
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.
I’ve never, even as a devoted Latter-day Saint, ever been impressed by any pro-Mormon scholarly work, as far as works defending the faith. Nibley was hit or miss. I appreciated his views. His main criticism, at least from the tiny sliver of his works I read, was not that the church was off base; but that the church was not stringent enough in their practice. In fact, I suppose that is a point I make with some people; that the change in focus and practice contrary to what was originally revealed and believed denotes the lack of authority given to the church by God, and thus evidence that the church is indeed not true.
More apologetic works, including some of Nibley’s, are not what I would call more academic. Issues such as anachronisms in The Book of Mormon, or lack of DNA and linguistic evidence supporting the account given by The Book of Mormon don’t require volumes to explain. FARMS, and others, provide these volumes, however. It’s more laughable than intriguing to read through their research and conclusions. Where have they gotten in their work? The church has not been able to forge ahead in educating the masses that a group from Israel came to the Americas, formed nations, were visited by Christ, and are partially the ancestors of Native Americans. On the contrary, the church has deemed it wise to back away from these grand claims in order to preserve their believe in The Book of Mormon as a historical records. Instead of being able to scholastically show their claim as being true, they are accepting that such evidence will not be found.
Joel, were you glad you found the Church was false, or were you disappointed?
Thadeus,
I was disappointed. “Disappointed” doesn’t really describe the feeling though. I had converted to the church at 17, served a mission at 19. I had sacrificed a lot of time and money into something that I fully believed was true. When I realized it wasn’t, I was crushed. Tears were shed, nights were spent sleepless, and depression set in. Part of the difficulty was that I was discovering this as a missionary. I had many difficult conversations with my mission president about my not believing the church to be true. It was a heartbreaking period of my life.
Joel, I’m sorry it led to depression and sleepless nights. I hope that didn’t last too long. Has your new path led you to greater spiritual/emotional fulfillment? Are you happier now than as a Mormon?
You mentioned a variety of issues you felt the Church was being disingenuous about: polygamy, racism, sexism, homophobia, historical contradictions, changes to sacred practices, faulty prophecy, and a myriad of issues with “the most perfect book”
What was the primary issue that got you thinking and looking at the other issues? Where did the itching begin?
Thaddeus
Thaddeus,
Honestly, I’m not quite certain what was the catalyst for further examination. If I had to name anything, I guess it would be my disillusionment regarding the missionary program of the church. Prior to converting, I had given some serious thought into becoming a minister. For me, serving a mission seemed to be a way where I could combine that desire with my new found beliefs. Perhaps I was ill prepared for the realities of the missionary program. I didn’t realize until I was actually serving as a missionary just how the program is designed according to principles of salesmanship, using the scripture to boost morale and provide levity to our endeavors as salesmen. I guess you could say that I was bothered by the usage of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.
As I reached out to God for some sort of understanding or assurance, I was provided with none. I would try to act according to the promptings of the Spirit, only to endure emotional and spiritual pain at the outcome. I felt that every time I extended my neck out in faith, my head was getting cut off.
I wondered why things were the way they were. I lost my faith in the missionary program. I stopped believing that I was actually called by God to serve in my specific mission. Every time I attempted to reconnect, it seemed as though what I saw as reality was becoming more and more distant from the truth.
I wanted the church to be true. In many ways, I STILL want the church to be true. However, every time I consider the possibility of the validity of the church; I am readily reminded of it’s errors. God could not have established nor can be given credit for the constant navigation of the church. There is just too much that seems out of sync and suspicious.
- Joel McDonald
Was it the lack of spiritual maturity you observed in the other missionaries? I’m just trying to understand what you meant by, “using the scripture to boost morale and provide levity to our endeavors as salesmen,” and it did bring to my mind some of the silliness our zone conferences would occasionally bring out.
How did you envision the missionary program would operate in the Lord’s Church? Just out of curiosity, where did you serve? I was in Wisconsin.
Thaddeus
Thaddeus,
The usage of “levity” was a slip of the tongue (finger?). What I meant was that the scriptures were used to lend weight to what otherwise were sales meetings.
Some levity was good. A release is needed every now and then, especially while under the pressure of being a salesman for God.
Still, I did expect a higher level of maturity. Don’t get me wrong, there were some amazing missionaries that I met. Not because they were incredibly good at baptizing people…just the quality of their character who who they were. Unfortunately, who they were was often stomped out the the missionary program itself.
I didn’t expect the missionary program to be so mechanical, so rote. Sure, Preach My Gospel was introduced shortly after I entered the mission field; however, things were still mechanical. Missionaries are basically told to do and say things in a certain way. Supposedly for best results. Somethings are statistically proven to be more effective, and some less effective.
I applaud the church’s attempts at giving missionaries additional flexibility in what they teach and when with the release of Preach My Gospel.
There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the program as a whole. On one hand a missionary has been recommended as one worthy to represent the church and Christ. On the other, they aren’t trusted. The rigid schedule, clothing, limited access to technology, etc. Far too much structure for anyone who is actually trusted.
I served in Colorado and Kansas.
We served in the same country! Sweet!
You’ve shown some areas that the current program is weak in, and you have some valid points. I’d still like to know what missionary work should look like in the Lord’s Church. Would it be similar to what we have, minus the rigid rules and the trainings on “how better to talk to people?” Are there examples among other groups that have it figured out better (i.e. Southern Baptist, Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Megachurch outreach, etc.)?
I don’t mean to be combative (in case my tone doesn’t translate into text very well). I’d really just like to know what you think.
Thanks,
Thaddeus