How Should Evangelicals Approach Mormon Missionaries?
A triad of posts appeared this week: “How to Witness to Mormon Missionaries. Or, what to do when you have Mormon missionaries at your door” by Bridget Jack Meyers of ClobberBlog, “Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries” by Tim of LDS & Evangelical Conversations, and “Three Evangelical Perspectives on Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries” by Aaron Shafovaloff at Mormon Coffee. While these three authors do not represent a unified school of thought as to how to approach Mormon Missionaries as Evangelicals, each is a self-identified Evangelical Christian and offer his or her perspective in the matter.
Perhaps you are wondering what I think about these distinct posts from my perspective of interfaith dialogue and interreligious communication. If you are, you’ve come to the right place. What follows are my observations, critiques and commentary.
Why Approaches With Missionaries?
First of all, I would like to point out that these posts deal not with how Evangelicals should relate with their Latter-day Saint neighbors, friends or family in the general sense, but rather the posts particularly target the unique population of Latter-day Saint missionaries.
One might ask, “Isn’t it more important that Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals develop relationships with neighbors who are living in their community, rather than missionaries?” It is very important. Having said that, however, I believe there is merit to addressing this particular issue. Mormon missionaries may be the only Latter-day Saints some Evangelicals will ever meet (or are more likely to meet) and individual Latter-day Saint feelings and attitudes about Evangelicals (mostly negative) are most often formed by Latter-day Saints while serving full-time missions.
This point was illustrated well by Dr. Craig Blomberg on Feb 27, 2008, to the Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum in a talk titled “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation.” [1] When asked by the audience what to do when missionaries come to the door, Blomberg stressed:
What do you do when Mormon missionaries come to the door? Single most important thing, even if you are too busy to talk. Be Polite! Imagine what it is like for a year and a half to two years for several hours every day, five days a week, to go door to door. I’ve done it half a day for my church and I am utterly drained at the end of it. Imagine what it is like to have the majority of totally unchurched people in our country over and over again simply show no interest at best, and slam the door literally at worst.
But I have asked Latter-day Saint leaders repeatedly, “Who when you did your mission was the most hostile to you?” and the answer is always somebody who is either a self-identified Evangelical or an ex-Mormon. That is horrible! You don’t have to agree with the theology. Be polite! If we can’t show Christian love we have no right to talk to them about anything.” (time marker 1:17:40 to 1:19:15).
I’ve also heard this point in my own conversations with Latter-day Saints and from other speakers including Pastor Greg Johnson of Standing Together. During a public conversation in Tempe, Arizona on April 25, 2008, Greg Johnson explained a time when he and Robert Millet were ready to give their event at an LDS Chapel when the bishop unexpectedly canceled the event. Greg went to speak with the bishop to ask why he canceled the event. The bishop began to explain that he served a mission almost 30 years ago and, as Greg explained, he wasn’t treated very well by the Evangelical Christians he had met. The experience had such an effect that he simply didn’t want to expose his congregation, comprised of the youth, to this same experience. Greg told the bishop that this would not be the same experience. The bishop then agreed. Greg noted that after the event, the bishop came up to him and thanked him. Greg remarked that there was healing that was taking place at that moment. [2]
Be Polite
Therefore, since most attitudes are formed by Latter-day Saints while serving missions, many who continue on to hold leadership positions in the Church, it behooves Evangelicals to seek to eliminate this source of many negative attitudes towards Evangelical Christians. I was therefore quite pleased that all three authors stressed this point in their articles. Tim writes:
One thing I’ve learned is that Mormons generally walk away from their missions with a really bad taste in their mouth from Evangelicals. Any hope we might have of bringing them into one of our churches after their mission is pretty slim, particularly if they were sent to the Bible Belt.
Jack writes:
DO be polite. Especially focus on gentleness and self-control as these are the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Besides, Mormon missionaries have typically seen plenty of rude behavior from evangelicals. What they need is our respect.
Purpose and Role of Latter-day Saint Missions
Having agreed that this is a topic that could be fruitful, let’s now turn to specifics of the articles. I appreciated Jack’s suggestions in delineating the role and purpose of missionaries:
[A missionary's] purpose is not to seek out mutual interfaith dialogue. It is not to be apologists for the church and it is not to spend long amounts of time debating and answering questions from people who have no interest in joining the LDS church. They may find themselves engaging in such activities from time to time in their search for converts, but ultimately, the duty of LDS missionaries is “to find people, teach them the principles of the gospel, help them repent, and then baptize them members of the Mormon Church.” If you are not interested in leaving your religion for Mormonism, you are arguably wasting the missionaries’ time.
I probably couldn’t have said this better myself. I find time and time again that many people simply do not understand or appreciate the role and purpose of missionaries. For example, Aaron describes the missionary lifestyle almost in terms of prison life (i.e. forbidden to call home but twice a year, and only letters and email once a week), he also describes missionary apartments as a “budget-conscious bachelor pad” and the missionaries who inhabit them as “a bunch of 19 and 20 year olds” on an adventure of self-discovery. He continues:
Mormons tell us all the time to take our tough and deep questions to the young missionaries, because surely these guys know the answers. But that is hardly the case. These are a bunch of young 19 and 20-year-olds who are playing the part of a Mormon tradition that is designed to help them plant deep roots of Mormon commitment and belief. Many of them are on their mission to participate in an adventure and figure things out for themselves, not yet having the deep belief in Mormonism that they wish they had. The two-year-mission largely functions in Mormonism to solidify that belief.
The reality is that Latter-day Saints members are encouraged to refer interested individuals to the missionaries because the missionaries’ purpose is to teach those interested in learning about the Church. As Jack appropriately stated, the purpose of a missionary “is not to be apologists for the church and it is not to spend long amounts of time debating and answering questions from people who have no interest in joining the LDS church.”
Are there young Latter-day Saints who perhaps enter the mission field for the wrong reasons or who may not be as prepared as they could be? Of course. How many of us have always been prepared for all our undertakings? Are there also young Latter-day Saints who have studied and learned for themselves and gained a witness for themselves prior to entering the mission field? Absolutely! [3] On this point, I plead with Evangelicals to take a charitable view of Latter-day Saint missions and missionaries. Let’s remember Krister Stendahl’s admonition: “Don’t compare your bests with their worsts, but compare bests with bests.”
I would also remind future Latter-day Saint missionaries that their behavior largely influences how Evangelicals think of Mormons. It is clear to me that many Evangelical’s negative attitudes of Mormons comes largely from their experiences with Mormon missionaries [4].
Tim’s writings reveal that he simply does not respect the purpose of Latter-day Saint missions. For example, he suggests that Evangelicals try to find out the first name of missionaries as a bonus.
If possible, pry their first names out of them. Don’t be too pushy, they’re “technically” not supposed to use them. But gently chide them about both of them not really being born with the first name “Elder.”
A charitable reading may suggest that Tim hopes that knowing the first names of missionaries will create a sense of intimacy or familiarity. However, Tim’s view is that missionaries are “stripped of their first name.” [5]. This is a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of the title Elder regarding missionaries. I’ve known some people who would call missionaries by their first name and never address them as Elder. I think this is very bad form and demonstrates either misunderstanding or a lack of respect for the faith community of others.
The term Elder is used when referring to missionaries as well as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It is not a first name that is being denied but rather it is a title signifying that one is called to serve. For Evangelicals who are used to a more informal worshiping style with lack of hierarchical church organization where a leader may be referred to as “Pastor Bob” the term Elder Smith may seem awkward or contrived. However, part of being polite is to respect the usages of titles, as it is used in a particular faith community.
Avoid Deception
In addition, part of being polite to the missionaries is to not intentionally masquerade as a potential investigator to squander the time of the missionaries. Of course perhaps it could be the goal of some individuals to deliberately keep missionaries away from achieving their purpose of teaching those genuinely interested in Mormonism by deceptively keeping the missionaries busy and perhaps getting them to doubt their faith in the process. Jack’s suggestion (listed as option 1) that if you are not interested in the Mormon Church, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with telling the missionaries just that: “I’m not interested.”
Jack offers another alternative (option 2) and that is to engage in interfaith dialogue. She writes, “Explain that while you are not interested in joining the church, you would not mind learning more about what they believe if they are willing to learn more about what you believe.” (emphasis added). I greatly appreciate Jack’s suggestion about being forthright about one’s interest in the church and her overall suggestions would be applicable to interfaith dialogue with anyone.
One of the concerns I have with approaches advanced by Tim and Aaron is the slight tendency to mask one’s interest in the Church, to be somewhat vague about it, in order to entice missionaries to accept invitations and keep coming back for more. Tim suggests:
Answer the door, smile politely and say “I would LOVE to talk with you more about faith, but I’ve found that it’s really difficult to find meaningful conversation with strangers. Would you like to come back on a different night and have dinner? We could just get to know each other a little bit first and then on another night we could meet up again to talk about each other’s faith.”
This sounds as if the person is genuinely interested in learning about Mormonism. I prefer Jack’s approach or some combination such as “I want to be upfront with you that I’m not interested in joining your Church, however, I would love to invite you over for dinner and I am genuinely interesting in hearing about your beliefs.” Missionaries can then make up their own mind on what is the most effective utilization of their time.
Getting Missionaries to Break Mission Rules?
This is another area where Tim reveals a complete lack of respect for the Latter-day Saint missionary tradition. Tim writes:
See if [the missionaries] want to play a board game (If they take you up on video games they’re breaking the rules. They’ll have fun, but feel guilty later).
Let them know at some point in the evening that your phone and internet access are available to them if they’d like to contact somebody back home. They will decline, but make sure they know that they can return any time in the future to use either one.
Tim has knowledge concerning appropriate conduct for missionaries during their time of service, and yet suggests that Evangelicals intentionally invite missionaries to ignore such rules. I find this very distasteful. In a more recent post, Tim describes a mission experience in even more grave terms than Aaron does. According to Tim, a Mormon mission is “a breeding ground for emotional and spiritual abuse,” and as a result Evangelicals should offer their homes to missionaries as “some place safe” and a “sanctuary” from abuse and harm. Especially so, Tim adds, “if just one Mission President is inclined to be abusive” and “on the off-chance that he’s not kind and decent.” In other words, Evangelicals should open their home to missionaries as a kind of “safe haven” for the spiritual abuse and emotional turmoil that might befall them. So, Evangelicals should be willing to “giv[e] them a lifeline out of an abusive situation” by allowing missionaries to use their home phone. This is an extremely unflattering view of missions and missionaries and mission presidents. I think I don’t need to say anymore on this point.
Preach the Good News
Other than these distasteful points, I do appreciate Tim’s suggestions. He offers three steps: Step 1. The introduction (making two appointments) . Step 2. The dinner (to build a relationship of trust and not discuss theology). Step 3: The testimony meeting (let the missionaries share their testimony and then you share yours). One thing I do appreciate about Tim’s suggestion is to share the positive things that God has done for you in your life. This is quite different from other approaches where the goal isn’t to tell the “good news” of the Gospel, but the “bad news” of Mormonism. Tim suggests:
When they’re finished, ask if you could share your own testimony. This is your own story of what Jesus has done for you, so I’m not going to tell you how to script it. Your story is more powerful than anything I could tell you to say. . . If this is all you do, you’ve just given those young men (or women) an oasis experience amidst a very difficult two years. They WILL remember your kindness and hospitality and they will remember that it was someone desperately in love with Jesus who gave it to them.
I agree. I think more Evangelicals should take the time to share the good news of the Gospel with Latter-day Saints, rather than the bad news of Mormonism, and I give kudos to Tim for making the suggestion. I think this would help to decrease the negativity towards Evangelicals that young Latter-day Saints sometimes learn in the mission field. In fact, I would urge Evangelicals to use this approach not just with the missionaries but the Latter-day Saints in their neighborhood.
What is your motivation behind asking Mormons to share their testimony?
One thing, however, I would like to point out is to be sincere. In other words, don’t just go through all of this if you really aren’t interested in really listening to these missionaries.
I’m reminded by a segment in the introductory video “Grounded: Relating to Your Mormon Friends in Truth and Love,” a training program for youth ministries developed by produced by David Pascoe and the Salt Lake Theological Seminary and is promoted by John W. Morehead, who served as a consultant, and the Neighboring Faiths Project. In one segment, one Evangelical youth leader explained an experience of one of youths with LDS missionaries:
And we were just going all to hang out to eat some ice cream and so we’re are sitting [and] just got our ice cream, and two LDS missionaries walk in. One of the teens with me [said] “Well I’m gonna go and share my faith with them.” So he goes up and starts dialoging with these missionaries. And he just kept on giving them question after question after question talking and asking them about what they believe. And in the process I noticed the LDS missionary kind of pausing and just kind of looking at the guy more and more intent. And finally toward the end of the conversation the LDS missionary turned to the Christian teen and said “You know, I don’t think you care about me a bit. Every time I answered one of your questions, you were in the process thinking of the next question to ask me. You are not even listening to my answer.” And that teen has never forgot that. Watch video here.
The point is that people can tell if you are not sincere, if you know you aren’t interested in hearing what the missionaries have to say, but still want to share a message with them, just be forthright about it.
Aaron’s approach is kind of like Tim’s approach on steroids. Rather than 3 steps there are a series of invitations, always keep inviting the missionaries back and back and back and entice them with dinner and dessert and more dessert. (Images of Hansel and Gretel come to mind). Furthermore, Aaron doesn’t just wait for missionaries to show up at his door (which they do), he actively makes sure they do by filling out referral cards at Visitor Center’s or other events and asking for new videos put out by the Church. His suggestion is to invite missionaries in and have a short chat and then “quickly get to the heart of the matter.” He explains:
I am forthright about my knowledge of the Mormon faith. “I have studied it for years, I find it fascinating, but I have some grave concerns.” But what I know about the history and larger movement of Mormonism is inconsequential for the moment, because “I would love to hear what you two individually believe.”
This isn’t a lie. Of course, he leaves out the part that he would never join the LDS church in a million years but it is true he does find it “fascinating” and does want to hear what the missionaries “individually believe.” Aaron then unleashes his dynamite question that he has been asking Mormons every chance he gets. The question is whether it is possible that God the Father could have been a sinner on another planet like us and progressed to be a God like us, and probably he will follow up with how does that make you feel? For those not familiar with this question, you can watch Aaron asking dozens of Mormons this question at Aaron’s website “God Never Sinned.” [6]
After letting the missionaries “have their say” and share their “series of affirmations” (i.e. I know the Church is true, etc.), Aaron then proceeds to share the Word of God from the Old and New Testaments. On this point, as with Tim, I’m pleased that the suggestion is to share the Word of God and discuss the scriptures rather than the “bad news” of Mormonism. Lastly, Aaron offers the following suggestion:
Keep a mental note of three or so tough questions that went unanswered, and write them down for them. “Would you guys please research the answers to these questions, and come back another time to share what you found?” Insist on it with a free dinner.
Aaron’s method is to keep this up as long as possible. In addition, he suggests that when the missionaries ask for someone to pray “Use the opportunity to pray to our awesome and eternal God.” I heartily endorse Evangelicals to pray to God with the missionaries.
Both Tim and Aaron focus on proactively sharing the positive experiences they have with their faith. Jack also urges this method under option 2 “interfaith dialogue.” She explains “As to what to talk about, you’re probably going to want to talk about your faith in Christ and your Christian testimony, and there’s nothing wrong with that.” However, she feels that in order to explain why she is an Evangelical Christian and not a Mormon, this approach is probably insufficient. “So when I talk about my faith,” she adds, “I spend some time discussing the things I love about my religion that Mormonism can’t give me.”
Any other options?
Jack’s last and final option (option 3) is for those who
would like to do everything you can to convince the missionaries at your door that Mormonism is not true while helping them arrive at or maintain their faith in Christ.
She explains she has less experience with this method but offers some thoughts on it nonetheless. She describes this option almost as a mission impossible, and throws down the challenge. Play the theme song here. “Your mission, should you chose to accept it…”
It is almost impossible to convert people who are satisfied with their current religion, and I have never known a Mormon who switched to evangelical Christianity without becoming intensely dissatisfied with the LDS church first. The Mormon missionaries, on the other hand, are probably not going to be dissatisfied with Mormonism. If you’re interested in witnessing to them, you have to convince them that Mormonism is in error while reaffirming the positive things about the biblical Gospel.
And that is a very difficult thing because for years Evangelicals have thrown the baby out with the bath water and when Mormons doubt God and the Church, the disaffiliation research has shown that they are more likely to leave religion all together [7]. Among the ones that do stay in organized religion, the majority join the Catholic Church rather than any Protestant denomination [8]. To-get-Mormons-to-be-dissatisfied-with-their-religion approach is not a winner in my book, and I think it rightly belongs at the bottom of the list. [9] It often ends up backfiring and strengthening the faith of Latter-day Saints. Generally speaking, it assumes a causality between disaffiliation and doctrinal dissatisfaction. Studies tend to suggest that people become dissatisfied with religion for a combination of reasons and even where some intellectual defection is involved it is usually in the context of other factors. [10]
Closing Thoughts
In summary, I applaud the suggestions for Evangelicals to be polite to Mormon missionaries and I also think that if Evangelicals have the opportunity they should let missionaries, and everyone else, know what God has done for them in their lives and preach the Good News. I do think it is important to be forthright and let missionaries know if you really aren’t interested and not pretend to be an investigator, lest Latter-day Saints suspect that there is a hidden strategy of getting all Evangelicals to invite Mormon missionaries over repeatedly to squander their limited time and prevent them from reaching the unchurched population that is genuinely considering the Latter-day Saint faith. In one sense, however, even if this were true, I can think of worse things in life than being invited into someone’s home and being offered dinner and plates of dessert and listening to the miracles of God of the lives of others devoted to Christ. Finally, I think we can do without the unflattering description of Latter-day Saint missionary service akin to being stripped of freedoms and coerced into a manipulative environment. On this point I think it would be wise for Evangelicals to follow Dr. Craig Blomberg’s respectful and sympathetic example above.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Dr. Craig Blomberg, “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicas in Conversation.” (audio) Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum, Feb 27, 2008. I highly recommend this talk.
[2] See Summa Theologica blog. “Reading Scriptures with New Eyes: A Baptist and Mormon Converse.” Published June 8, 2008.
[3] For an example of prepared and articulate Latter-day Saint missionaries see Summa Theologica blog “Ergun Caner Interviewing the Missionaries” Published November 1, 2007. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Theological Seminary in Virginia, interviews and dialogues with LDS missionaries in front of a live audience (in 2006) as part of his “Engaging The Cults” podcast (1:06:36 total time).
[4] See for example Tim’s “Me & Mormons” series at LDS & Evangelical Conversations blog.
[5] See “Helping Mormon Missionaries Call Home” LDS & Evangelical Conversations blog, Oct 1, 2009.
[6] If you are interested in an exchange between Aaron and myself on this issue see our series of comments at “What Separates Mormons and Evangelicals Most.” LDS & Evangelical Conversations blog, June 30, 2009.
[7] See generally Stan L. Albrecht and Howard M. Bahr, “Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1983): 366-379; Howard M. Bahr and Stan L. Albrecht, “Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 28, No. 2 (1989): 180-200. See also John W. Morehead, “LDS Religious Disaffiliation Narratives” Morehead’s Musings blog, October 03, 2008; John W. Morehead, “Religious Disaffiliation and Migration” Morehead’s Musings blog, Wednesday, November 19, 2008.
[8] Stan L. Albrecht and Howard M. Bahr, “Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1983): 366-379.
[9] I’ve categorized various approaches before. See Summa Theologica blog “How to Win Friends and Influence Mormons.” Published September 28, 2007.
[10] See Howard M. Bahr and Stan L. Albrecht, “Strangers Once More: Patterns of Disaffiliation from Mormonism,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 28, No. 2 (1989): 180-200.
sideblog – delicious
- Why Everyone Needs Theology
- Organizing the Doctrine and Covenants Lessons: Or, Why the Topical Approach Doesn’t Work
- Doctrine & Covenants in 2013: Introduction
- Studying the Doctrines of the Gospel in the D&C; and Church History this year by Jeffrey Marsh: A response
- The Pedagogy of Sunday School (part 1)
- The Burden of Church History and its implications for Mormon History
- Relief Society Lesson: The Life and Ministry of Lorenzo Snow
- How the Early Church Made Peace with Prosperity
- Its a Destructive Life: A Critique of George Bailey
- A Reply to Nate Oman’s Reply to my Reply to His Post on Liberal Mormons and Prophetic Power or Long Live the Bloggernacle
- Another Surreply: Nate Oman responds to critiques
- Mormons and Gays
- Another Liberal Mormon’s Response to Nate Oman
- New Church Website on Same-Sex Attraction Offers Love, Understanding and Hope
- Previewing 2013: A Look Forward to Exciting Books in Mormon History
The first thing I say is that I am a Baptist pastor. Secondly, I always try to be polite, aquinas. And often times, my curiosity makes me think of questions that don’t seem very doctrinal at all. I am very curious.
“Are you an eagle scout? Did you do the four years of high school seminary? Do you have a girlfriend back home? Are your parents active in Church? When you were a senior did you sincerely look forward to a mission? How does all this service make you feel now? What did you first think when hearing the news that you were to be in Southeast Idaho? Do you have plans to attend BYU-Idaho? What do you think of that school?” Etc.
(And by the way, aquinas, what are the LDS missionaries effective approaches for talking with conservative evangelicals? How would they be coached to talk with us?)
Thanks for the comment Todd. I have no doubt that you are polite to missionaries that you meet. As to how missionaries should approach conservative evangelicals, I think the golden rule still holds true. They should be polite regardless of whether you are a pastor or not or whether you are interested in joining the church or not.
Thank you for your kind words and your kudos.
A couple of points of clarification.
1) I did not recommend discovering the first names of missionaries as a means of disrespecting them or undermining the Mormon faith. Your charitable thought was correct, I suggested that as a means of deepening a new friendship. I did not recommend disregarding the title of “Elder” and do not disregard it when speaking with Mormon missionaries myself (though they often encourage me to).
As to my “stripped of their first name” comment from another post. I plainly explained that I was describing the situation from an outside perspective so that Mormons could better understand how they might be viewed by non-Mormons. I went on to validate that there may be valid reasons for each and every one of those “specifics”.
For clarification for you and your readers. I understand why Mormon missionaries use the title “Elder” and do not advocate undermining the use of the title or disregarding it.
2) My reference to video games was an attempt to let Evangelicals know that video games are off limits (though a number of missionaries may still enjoy them). My specific recommendation was to engage Mormon missionaries in board games.
3) As I explained numerous times in the comments of my post and in my subsequent post on the matter, I do not recommend offering long distance phone calls as a means of undermining the LDS church or disrespecting the Mormon faith. I recommend it as an act of kindness. If someone is struggling and hurting, it is never wrong to offer kindness, even if their hurt is self-inflicted and for the sake of their faith. They are free to reject the offer and as long as I am not pressuring them or forcing them to call their families my offer is still inside the bounds of kindness and nothing more.
I bent over backwards to make it clear that the need for this sort of “life-line” would be the rare exception not the rule. But, I did indeed draw a bleak and potentially abusive scenario for Mormon missionaries. I did not invent this picture by myself. It’s been drawn for me by dozens of people who have been through the experience and reported it back to me.
This recent comment by Katie L. illustrates my point exactly:
I feel EXACTLY the same way about my mission. It sucked hard-core, and I never realized how awful it was until I got home and had some time to decompress. And then I was like, “WOW. What a miserable experience.” And not even the righteous sort of “it’s so sad to see people reject God” kind of misery, but hard-core, no-holds-barred 100% emotional and psychological trauma brought on by endless guilt trips and intense feelings of inadequacy.
I suppose I do in fact disrespect the Mormon missionary program, but only in the ways it disrespects Mormon missionaries. I will always honor people even if their program or regulations demand they be left without honor.
Your comments reinforce to me the need for Evangelicals to offer Mormon missionaries the opportunity to call their friends or family. I so frequently encounter such a legalistic tendency among Mormons to prefer the rules over the people that I’m less than confident that local Mormons would help a missionary in distress if an abusive Mission President did exist and was harming someone.
The faith of Mormon missionaries should not be defined by the rules and regulations of the LDS missionary program. The Mormon faith is much broader and grander than those “best practices” that inform Mission Presidents. Disrespecting and undermining the faith of LDS missionaries would look much more like encouraging them to break the Word of Wisdom and disregard prohibitions of electronic media or non-church reading materials. Letting them know that if they need to contact their family you’re available to help is hardly a desecration of another person’s beliefs.
Tim, I really appreciate taking the time to respond and offer clarification. I made particular efforts to make sure I didn’t misquote you or construe your words in an unfair light. I appreciate that you are speaking from your experience and all I can do is also speak from my experience.
In my experience I’ve only heard of one missionary who referred to himself by his first name and I don’t believe that practice is common and I think if a missionary does this, it is simply an indication that they lack understanding into the role and nature of their calling. Even if a missionary refers to himself by his first name, I think it would be more than appropriate to continue to use the term “Elder.”
In regards to a missionary experience being challenging, I don’t think anyone disputes that serving a full-time mission is a very challenging and demanding experience, physically and emotionally. It requires living away from home, leaving behind family and friends, often learning a new language and culture, learning to love and care for a companion and people who don’t want to listen to you or your message. I don’t disregard stories of difficult companions or even mission presidents. Reality is that a mission is often a crucible in life.
Yet, consider the life of Paul who could have complained that his mission experience wasn’t really ideal. He had to deal with Peter, another leader, who really didn’t get it and didn’t get his own role, he had to deal with companions who abandoned their post, he was beaten, whipped, thrown into prison, stoned and dealt with the guilt of knowing he had assisted in the murder of Christians not long before his mission, endured storms at sea, he had to deal with church members who ranked themselves according to who had baptized them, and who constantly forgot his message as soon as he left them, he had his own “thorn in his side” that he prayed God would remove but God never did, and tradition holds that ultimately he was beheaded for his actions. Was that a horrible experience for Paul? Was Paul’s experience self-inflicted? Was it even necessary?
No one expects modern day missionaries to go through that experience. Ultimately, Latter-day Saints believe they are responding to the Lord’s words: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Missions are completely voluntary and any missionary can decide to return home at any time. People have bad experiences in life and a mission is no different, as its part of life. Missionaries work along side companions for safety reasons and are constantly in contact with other missionaries and members. The picture you paint is of missionaries being held hostage.
What you are saying isn’t simply that missions are difficult, what you are telling Evangelical Christians is this: “Look, the missionary that comes to your door may actually be a victim. A victim of his faith, a victim of his religion, a victim of an abusive mission president and a victim of system that has “the exact set of circumstances manipulative religious leaders put their followers into.” Therefore, the only way he can get out of this trap is for you to allow this victim to make a phone call to call home and get help. You may be his only hope.” This again is an extremely distasteful and unflattering view of missions, missionaries and mission presidents. If a missionary is determined to call home or leave the mission field, he or she does not need the assistance of an Evangelical Christian to do so. It doesn’t matter that you offer a disclaimer that you think this rarely happens, your words are so highly prejudicial and statistics don’t temper the comment at all. Your language of “if there happens to be an abusive mission president” is again highly prejudicial. Why don’t you just add “if there happens to be a sexually abusive mission president.” If your post is about how Evangelicals should be polite to missionaries, I have no problem with that and I greatly welcome such a message. But you have moved to critiquing missions as a religious environment where missionaries are victims either of their own ignorance or abusive leaders, and I fail to see how I should respond to his positively and I fail to see how Latter-day Saints in general would respond to this positively.
I’m simply letting you know what your words sound like to me. You can continue portraying missionaries as victims of an inherently manipulative and oppressive regime (which is an age old strategy employed by Evangelicals and other critics towards Mormonism), but I’m just telling you what I see, and that I don’t think it is effective, useful or helpful. People should just see it for what it is. Of course, you are free to disagree with LDS missions, and to disrespect it. I’m not asking you to accept it, or embrace it, but I do want to make clear to readers and to yourself the method you are using and the assumptions and attitudes that go into it.
In addition, I feel you are also manipulating the self-critique of missions by Latter-day Saints for evangelistic purposes. I’ve already addressed this issue in my recent post: “Exploiting Self-Criticism in Interfaith Dialogue.” I already know you don’t care much for the LDS faith and don’t see any redeeming value in it, you don’t just want to help missionaries have a positive attitude about Evangelicals (a goal that I greatly support by the way), but would like to help them out of their faith (just as you feel LDS missionaries are trying to get you out of your faith). Again, that’s your prerogative and you have every right to that view, but I don’t think your strategy of using the icon of a “missionary victim” is ultimately a strategy that will produce fruit or will it gain favor with Latter-day Saints.
This is a wonderful response. For what it’s worth, I actually WAS wondering about your thoughts. I read each of them the day they were posted and they’ve been on my mind lately. I appreciate your responsible and charitable synthesis from an LDS perspective. This is an important contribution in positive interfaith dialogue.
Thanks for your comment Clean Cut. I appreciate your support and encouragement.
No matter how you try to “pretty-up” anti-Mormonism with the cologne of “civility,” the underlying stench of bigotry, intolerance, and hatred remain.
If Mormon missionaries knock on your door, be nice and tell them you’re not interested in their message and they’ll go away. If you feign interest for the intent of evangelizing, that’s not very honest. Honesty should be a cardinal principle of Christianity.
aquinas, it is so nice to hear a voice of balance and understanding. Thanks. True empathy can never be faked and never stops producing results – for everyone.
I think your example of Paul captured a feeling that is often hard to share and even harder to transmit from the wrong side of the fence.
aquinas, another thoughtful post, as always. I am often asked by evangelicals as to the best way to share faith concerns with Mormon missionaries, an encounter that does not provide an opportunity for relationships and ongoing dialogue that I encourage in other settings. I find it interesting and ironic that some of the best advice on sharing with missionaries comes from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint. I have linked to this on my own blog in the hope that evangelicals will take your advice to heart.
Thanks for referencing my reflections on religious disaffiliation and reaffilation, as well as my ministry. An update needs to be made here in that I am now with the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies, the successor to Neighboring Faiths Project. The website can be found at http://www.wiics.org. WIIS now promotes and offers both the Grounded resource for youth on Mormonism, as well as Bridges for adults. We are also working on Transitions, a resource designed to assist immigrants moving out of Mormonism for whatever reasons and into more traditional forms of Christianity.
Thanks again for your thoughtful reflections and advice on this topic.
John, thanks for your comments and support and for linking my post. I hope that continuing dialogue will lead to more respectful and winsome means to share our faith with others.
Lets face it, the best approach for Evangelicals is to not talk with missionaries at all. The best approach for Mormon missionaries is to not talk to Evangelicals at all. No matter how “nice” or how “polite” either of them are, there is an undeclared spiritual war underlying both parties. Even Morehead who I like has basically declared his intention for conversation is ultimately conversion. As long as that is the goal, and it will be almost every single time, then hostility is unavoidable. It may be under the surface, but it will always be there and not that hard to recognize.
To be polite is good. To believe it will create lasting good impressions is unfounded. On my mission I had some good discussions with a few Evangelical types, but I never took them seriously.
Jettboy, I understand that often it seems to some that Evangelicals and Mormons should just keep away from each other in their own isolated communities. I simply do not believe this is realistic nor desirable. In addition, I personally do not consider there to be an “undeclared spiritual war underlying both parties.” Rather, I think the problem is that there is a explicit declaration of war in the minds of many people. They believe that religions cannot co-exist without war and hostility. I disagree, hence the reason for my blog.
But I think something that no one should forget is that we should expect individuals who accept Christ and the New Testament narrative to also take upon themselves the Great Commission (i.e. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”). I reject any proposal or policy that says Evangelicals and Mormons should be prohibited, under any circumstances, from trying convert one another.
I do not think it is realistic to say that Evangelicals should be forbidden to engage in the Great Commission or that only Latter-day Saints should do this. I must stress that I do not think that is what you are saying, but I want to be clear about this for readers who may feel this way. We need to be willing to allow people the same privilege to worship how, where, or what they may, and that includes the freedom to engage in the Great Commission. The question is how to go about it. My critique and those of others as well is that all too often it isn’t the Great Commission that people are engaging in. All too often people have read the New Testament and mistakenly believed the Great Commission is “Go ye therefore, and tell everyone who doesn’t believe like you that they are wrong and are trapped in manipulative cults, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
All too often what Evangelicals and other critics engage in is not the Great Commission and rather it simply invites negativity and hostility from the Latter-day Saint community. I think everyone agrees on this. However, what you are essentially saying, if I understand you correctly, is that if anyone has the goal to convert you, then hostility is unavoidable. Many people feel this way. And there is a reason for that.
Whether interfaith dialogue can only exist in absence of a desire to convert or evangelize or whether it can co-exist with it, is a subject of controversy and and issue I have not explicitly deal with on my blog. The reason is that it depends on what conversion actually means. Too often people only consider conversion to be a formal goal (i.e. switching denominations) but I think we need to consider broader definitions of conversion.
I believe there is an appropriate time to choose to focus more on mutual understanding rather than formal goals of conversion. I also believe however that some view this as abandoning their mandate to share the gospel. I find it very unfortunate that people see this as a zero-sum game or a trade-off (i.e. “either I stop preaching the gospel and only seek to be friends or I forget friendship and preach my Gospel, after all Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword”). I believe that even for those who desire to engage in the Great Commission, that the principles of interfaith dialogue (in the way I’ve defined it on my blog), respect and a desire to mutually understand one another cannot help but allow someone the means by which to present their message in the most effective and winsome way possible. In other words, regardless of whether one believes interfaith dialogue precludes evangelism or not, true, respectful and genuine dialogue cannot but help improve relations. I want to assist both groups to better improve their communications.
The whole point why my blog exists is that I firmly believe Latter-day Saints, Evangelicals and Catholics can engage in true interfaith dialogue and this does not require anyone to abandon the Great Commission! I do not want people to abandon their faith, rather want people to share the best of their faith with others. All too often people forget that the Mormon mandate is that “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” I seek after these things. If my Catholic and Evangelical friends bring me these things I will seek after them and will embrace them. The problem is too many people are not bringing anything virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy. They bring contempt, disrespect, insincerity, hostility, pride, etc. If people assume a warfare mentality then that is what they will get.
There are many Latter-day Saints out there (I know because I listen to them and dialogue with them, and they leave comments on my blog) who have already decided, based on their negative experiences with Evangelicals, that interfaith dialogue is worthless and bankrupt and there is no point to it. I don’t judge them. Perhaps if I have had their experiences I would feel the same way. For those individuals they probably consider my goals and approach to be naive or misguided. I hope to winsomely persuade them otherwise but if I cannot, then I cannot. For LDS or Evangelicals who are skeptical but open to the possibility I hope they listen and consider. And for those who share my same approach I hope we find strength in each other.
Lastly, as to John Morehead’s approach I have to say that John is one of the few Evangelicals I have met who I greatly respect and who has genuinely listened to my concerns and feedback over the years. I’ve spent a great deal of time looking at John’s projects and I have found them to be of good report and praiseworthy. Clearly John and I belong to different theological traditions, but I believe we share a common goal in sincere and genuine attempts at mutual understanding and really seeking to place ourselves as much as possible within the worldview of those we seek to communicate with.
I know I’m not going to convince everyone and I know there are Latter-day Saints who disagree with me, or who agree with me on some issues and not others. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I expect that. I respect Latter-day Saints who disagree with me, and I hope they continue to try to persuade me of their views where they think I err. Especially when they provide articulate arguments for their positions. I enjoy the ongoing dialogue and what I want is for everyone to try to persuade me winsomely and effectively, but be civil and please be charitable. Give me the benefit of the doubt as I try to give that to others. It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Evangelical or a Latter-day Saint and it doesn’t matter if you disagree with me as to my interpretation of the Bible or the King Follett Discourse, or classical Christian theology or Patristics or methods of interfaith dialogue. I want the dialogue to remain open and I want people to bring to me the very best in their faith and share it with me.
Jettboy, I’m afraid you have misunderstood me. I have never stated, nor do I believe, that dialogue and conversions is merely the means to an end for conversion or persuasion. While it can and should include such elements when appropriate and welcomed by one’s dialogue partner, I differ with many evangelicals who seen dialogue as simply another form of evangelism, or that evangelism is the only goal. I hope these comments help clarify my views.
aquinas, I appreciate what you have to say on the subject. However, I cannot and will not participate in any dialogue with an Evangelical so long as conversion is a reasoning. Chalk me up as one of those who think The Great Commission might not be about “your religion is a cult,” but it is about my religion brings salvation and yours doesn’t. If it wasn’t the case then I might as well be a Universalist and not a Latter-day Saint. Real dialogue and understanding can only come when questions of conversion are dropped. My hats off to you if conversion possibility in the discussion isn’t off putting.
Jettboy, I appreciate your comments and clarifications. I simply want to point out that there are a variety of views on this topic on both sides. For example, there are Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals who, like yourself, mutually agree to put a moratorium on attempts at conversion, to cease trying to convert each other and rather to seek to increase mutual understanding.
On the other hand, there are other Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals who do not believe conversion and dialogue are incompatible but regardless they still seek to understand each other with civility and charity. In the short term, perhaps there is very little difference in these two approaches and in the mean time it is very possible that as dialogue continues one or both sides might reconsider their ultimate goals in the process. Therefore, I do not think it is wise to reject dialogue with someone up front, when they no absolutely nothing about my faith. Now, after engaging in dialogue, if I feel it is going no where, then nothing is stopping me from devoting my time to other more fruitful pursuits. In many cases, you simply do not know what will happen until you try.
As another mutation, John states above, there are some Evangelicals who only see interfaith dialogue as a subtle method to get Mormons to either complain about their faith and leave it. Now, clearly I reject that approach for many reasons which I’ve repeated stated on my blog. In fact, I do not consider that approach to be a legitimate expression of interfaith dialogue. And as I think I’ve made clear above, it is off-putting and distasteful to me when someone seeks to engage in dialogue with Latter-day Saints who doesn’t even really care what the Latter-day Saint thinks, and just wait their turn to they can say what they want. That isn’t what I’m about.
Also consider that I see Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints who in their attempts to do “missionary work” or “evangelism” use completely ineffective and completely misguided approaches and their arguments do a great deal more damage than good. In my opinion, the reason is that they have made absolutely no attempts to really understand the person they are communicating with, they have no understanding or knowledge about the tradition or the person they are seeking to communicate with. In these cases, it makes a lot of sense for both sides to spend a great deal more time trying to understand the person they are communicating with rather than present their message in a completely inappropriate manner. Some might consider that stopping conversion, some might consider it delaying attempts at conversion. At this point, I don’t think it matters because both sides are going to learn something in the process. I’m not about shutting down communication before I’ve even made any attempts at communicating with someone.
Lastly, again as I tried to state above, it depends on what we mean by “conversion.” If by conversion we mean “I leave my church and join yours” then that is one thing. However, that isn’t the only definition of conversion. Many Latter-day Saints are familiar with the phrase that the Lord told Peter “when thou art converted, strengthen my brethren.” There are many people who attend Church who are not converted. There are many people who are formally baptized into the LDS Church who are not converted. Simply going through the formalities is not conversion. Conversion is something more. And if there is a sincere Evangelical who desires that I grow closer to Christ why should I be offended? Why should it make a difference whether this person is in my church or not? The desire is the same. I desire that for everyone, whether they are in the LDS Church or not. If that is the scenario, then I am not offended. In a related point, there are some Evangelicals who believe that some Latter-day Saints are indeed saved, even while remaining in the LDS Church. Now, for many LDS that might be offensive. But from my long-range perspective seeing the trends in this field, I think this is a good development, because it signifies that being saved isn’t simply a matter of changing denominations but something else. Now, I’m not saying that those Evangelicals don’t have concerns with Mormonism, but from my perspective it’s not either I agree with someone or I don’t. It’s not, either you are anti or you are not. If I see developments in LDS-Evangelicals relations that are promising I want to encourage that and not tear it down and criticize it just because it isn’t 100% perfect or just because Evangelicals still “don’t get it.” I want to point out places where I think people err and encourage them where I believe they are on the right track, and I welcome others to do the same to me.
Ultimately, dialoguing with those of another faith isn’t for everyone. Many LDS and Evangelicals don’t want to do it and don’t care to. If people aren’t interested then they shouldn’t do it. However, I’ve greatly benefited from doing so and I hope to share my experiences with others. I know others who have greatly benefited from doing so and I hope they share their experiences with me on this blog.
Jettboy raises an interesting topic that needs to be put on the table for both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. We must acknowledge that *both* religious communities are evangelistic and mission-minded ones, and that conversions do take place in both directions. This is enough of a concern for members of both groups so as to poison the well for dialogue. I submit that we need to recognize this as a reality, and that evangelism is a deeply held value that must be retained if members of both groups take their faiths seriously. After all, it was Jesus who said both “follow me” and “make disciples.” Having said this, I have been at the forefront at developing a new paradigm among evangelicals that urges them to move beyond the “counter-cult” label, concept, and approach. So I am sympahetic here, Jettboy. Yet again, keep in mind that both Evangelicals and Latter-day Sanits have been quick to dismiss each other as having “salvation”, “the fulness of the gospel,” or whatever terms referencing the ultimate and most desired in our religious traditions.
I am reminded of my Neopagan friends where the fact that traditional Christians are evangelistic is off putting, and for many put an end in any claims to desires for genuine undersanding and friendship. For many Neopagans being evangelistically minded is incompatible to genuine dialogue.
I strongly disagree. I believe that it is possible to share one’s faith in respectable ways in a persuasive manner when the context permits and when the dialogue partner is willing to consider it. But this means that evangelism is one part of a full-orbed, holistic, and robust theology of interreligious dialogue. In my view, many Evangelicals do not have such a theology, so I am something of an aberration. However, I am glad to find people like aquinas, and Charles Randall Paul at the Foundation for Interrelgious Diplomacy who agree with me on this topic.
I hope that Latter-day Saints and Neopagans who still find genuine dialogue incompatible with those of us who seek obedience to Jesus’ Great Commission mandate (connected of course to the Great Commandment to love God and neighbor) will be willing to continue our discussion as we work through this important issue.
spamlds ~ No matter how you try to “pretty-up” anti-Mormonism with the cologne of “civility,” the underlying stench of bigotry, intolerance, and hatred remain.
This is why we appreciate you, spam. You drop all pretense of civility and let your hatred, intolerance of and bigotry toward evangelical Christianity stand out for all to see.
Jettboy ~ To be polite is good. To believe it will create lasting good impressions is unfounded.
I guess that explains why you’re rude to everyone you disagree with.
aquinas ~ I greatly enjoyed reading this analysis. I especially enjoyed hearing what Blomberg and Johnson have said on the matter and how that ties in with what I wrote. I’m probably a bigger advocate of being up-front with the missionaries about not being interested in joining the church than Tim and Aaron are because I’ve known so many former missionaries, and I believe evangelicals lose a tremendous amount of good will with them when they realize we’re only meeting with them so that we can waste their time, or that wasting their time might be on our list of motivations if progress toward conversion isn’t feasible. As you correctly note, the LDS missionaries of today are the LDS leaders of tomorrow, and making a good impression on them overall can have such a big impact on whether the church at large listens to our message in the future.
Concerning calling the male missionaries “elders,” I agree with what you said about showing respect. I’ll be honest: I’ve always disliked the practice of calling 19-year-olds “elders,” but I think it’s sad when people learn their real names and then refuse to call them anything else. My rule is always to grant people the honorific titles used in their religion regardless of my disagreements with them. Likewise, I prefer to be called “Jack” over “Bridget” or “Sister Meyers,” which is hard on some Mormons with their love for formality and traditional expressions of gender, but most of them do it.
I figured that my suggestion to learn about the three things which (I believe) are most common in leading Mormons out of the church would be the most controversial. I certainly believe that it can be ineffective or backfire, but I also don’t believe anyone has discovered a magic bullet which works better. I do think my Option 2 is the safest bet for a healthy, productive exchange, and those evangelicals who are hoping for conversion can always hope that such exchanges will lead to seeds planted.
Concerning some of the things you’ve been discussing with Jettboy, I believe it’s natural and healthy for Mormons and evangelicals to be interested in converting one another. I don’t get offended if my long-time LDS friends “make a plug” to me once in a while. I do get offended if the plugs that they make are hackneyed and trite (i.e., “You need to read the Book of Mormon and be sincere about it” or “If you would just ask God, He would tell you”). That’s just as irritating to me as it would be if I told my LDS friends that they need to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, something most of them believe they’ve already done. But when a good LDS friend finds a fresh approach, I usually understand his or her concern and hear him/her out.
Jack, I really appreciate your comments and response to my post. I think you’ve succinctly stated my long-winded view that LDS missionaries of today are LDS leaders of tomorrow. Well said.
John and Jack, I appreciate your thoughts on the topic of being conversion or mission-minding. I agree that we need to acknowledge that both our faith traditions take seriously the Great Commission and that this is something that perhaps could be discussed further. I think it all depends on how a person goes about it. I really sympathize with what you say Jack and often what one person considers to be sincere does come across as presumptuous and irritating. I think Latter-day Saints who do want to be effective with Evangelicals should learn to be sensitive to these things and I think often this results from dialogue. One point I’ve often feel is worth repeating is that there is too much emphasis on sending a message rather than a concern that one’s message is well received and is in a language that another person can understand.
I hope people appreciate the great difficulty of interfaith dialogue. We have several different audiences who have different concerns. I’m advocating for interfaith dialogue with Evangelicals, many of which have been brought up on counter-cult methods and writings who think a hard-core tell it like it is approach is the approach to use. I’m advocating dialogue to Latter-day Saints who are used to discussing the Gospel with an unchurched population or seeker types of individuals and have very little experience or training on how to approach those who are committed adherents to their faith (i.e. becoming religiously bilingual). My own experience is that LDS apologetic approaches that are effective for strengthening the faith of members internally are often wholly ineffective where the goal is interreligious understanding. I’m advocating dialogue to Latter-day Saints who have had a series of unfortunate events with Evangelical Christians and make no distinctions between individuals who protest in front of LDS temples and parade LDS garments in the street. Evangelicals also have their own internal disputes and when prominent Evangelical leaders apologize for past practices they are criticized by those who feel they have ministered well to Mormons over the years. It is very difficult to appeal to all these groups and I hope people understand the extremely difficult position it is to be in to try to persuade not only people in one’s own faith community but those in another that we need to find better and more effective means at understanding one another. Often when I praise Evangelicals, I feel like I’m doing them a disservice in the eyes of their peers who see them as possible sell-outs, just as people like Robert Millet or Stephen Robinson have been criticized by those in their own faith traditions. However, ultimately I believe what we are doing is extremely important and it isn’t simply about playing nice with each other. The quality of people’s lives and families is often at stake. Families and communities are often torn apart by religious animosities and I believe that what we are doing is laying an important foundation for future work. I’m so grateful that I’ve been able to meet others who feel a sense of mission and vision about what we are doing. I can’t thank those individuals enough.
I’m a bit out of pocket this weekend, so I’ll look forward to returning and reading the rest of these comments.
Two quick clarifications
1) No LDS missionary has encouraged me to use their first name, but instead I’m frequently encouraged to disregard the use of “Elder” in favor of just using their last names. A small point to be sure, but I just wanted to accurately reflect my experience.
2) It is not the difficulty of the Mormon missionary experience that I object to. I have numerous Evangelical friends who are on very difficult, isolated, physically and spiritually wearisome mission assignments. I expect any faith that holds a high value in evangelism, as Protestantism and Mormonism do, will send missionaries out to difficult places with difficult jobs.
What I object to are the LDS practices which strip young Mormon missionaries of their personal identity while they serve such difficult, distant missions. For all of the talk of “personal agency” I find little of it available to Mormon missionaries. My main concern for those who may be without their personal boundaries and identity is that they can easily find themselves victimized by abusers.
While Evangelical missionaries are out in similar dangerous and difficult environments they are still allowed to make as many personal choices for themselves as possible.
I have read your “exploiting self-criticism” post and I certainly pointed to the negative experiences numerous former Mormon missionaries have described. But I did not use those experiences to say “therefore the LDS church is not true and it should be abandoned.” Instead I said “therefore we Evangelicals should seek ways to help those who might be victims of abuse.” Perhaps you think I still violated the principles of your earlier post. I see a nuance and feel secure in the knowledge that my motivations for suggesting phone access were only in the interest of kindness. If my acts of kindness are unnecessary and ill-conceived or somehow construed as disrespectful, I’m sure the Mormon missionaries and I will move past the offense quickly when they turn my offer down.
Tim, I do appreciate your clarifications and continued interaction. I still disagree with your method of trying to describe missionaries as individuals stripped of their personal identity, and being victims of abuse. Your approach is still to compare “Evangelical missions” and “Mormon missions” and argue that somehow Evangelical missions are superior to Mormon missions in that Evangelical missionaries “are still allowed to make as many personal choices for themselves as possible.” This has often been your approach. You are still in an apologetics mode, which is fine if you want to curry favor with former or disaffected Mormons or Evangelicals who do not think very much of Mormons or do not know much about Mormonism.
I personally find it presumptuous and in this case offensive. Again, I feel like this stems from a lack of understanding about missions, yet I don’t feel like you are making much attempts to charitably understand LDS missions. I’ve tried to explain the term “Elder.” You claimed that missionaries are “stripped of their first name” and now you claim that missionaries are “stripped of their personal identities.”
On your blog you list ten rules for interfaith dialogue and I’d like to quote two of them here:
You don’t seem to me to care much for these rules. I simply do not recognize myself in your interpretations of Mormonism, nor do I think many practicing LDS do either. Also, I don’t feel like you make any attempts to experience Mormonism “from within.”
First of all, missions are voluntary and it should be kept in mind that missions are for a limited time: 18-24 months. Second of all, you overlook the obvious that religion itself is about creating new identities. To call yourself “born again” is about identity. To call yourself a “disciple of Christ” or “saved” is about identity. Identity is at the heart of religious conversion. The bible is full of stories about people receiving a new name: Saul to Paul for example. The Latter-day Saint sacramental ordinance has adherents covenanting to “take upon themselves the name of Christ.” Christ himself taught that he who seeks his life shall lose it, and he who loses his life for Christ’s sake shall find it. You seem to be completely and intentionally oblivious to these fundamental elements in religious experience. In the Latter-day Saint tradition, prospective missionaries receive the name of Elder when they are called and set apart in a priesthood ordinance. Receiving the priesthood ordinance and covenant is part of one’s religious identity. Being called and set apart, is also an element of religious identity. Yet, you assume, mistakenly, that receiving additional identities must mean that former identities are somehow abolished. People can hold several identities simultaneously: husband, father, brother, US citizen, Christian, republican or democrat, etc. When a prospective missionary is called and set apart and enters the Missionary Training Center and becomes part of a companionship, a part of a mission and area, yes this adds to that individual’s personal makeup. A name-tag alone doesn’t change a person, and neither does simply going on a mission automatically imply that an individual “becomes a missionary.” Identities are formed by experience and by behavior.
Yet, despite this, you continue to prefer only seeing missionaries as victims and being stripped of personal freedoms, again the “missionary as hostage” motif. Not only is this offensive, but to me this displays a complete lack of willingness to “experience the partner’s religion ‘from within.’” It also displays a complete lack of regard for the importance that members of a faith community “recognize herself in the interpretation.” This is why I don’t consider your approach to fall within the domain of genuine interfaith dialogue. It appears to me to be apologetics masquerading as “interfaith dialogue.” In addition, your reliance on the experiences of former Mormons I believe is your choice. I believe you prefer to surround yourself with former Mormons who complain about their experience with Mormonism, rather than seek to gain a more balanced and holistic picture of the Mormon tradition from practicing members. And if even if members do share their experiences with you, you seem to prefer experiences that portray the Mormon faith in a negative light. Again, this is vintage counter-cult methodology (i.e. members are victims of a controlling cult). But honestly speaking it seems to me that this is really what you believe, so you are simply being honest that this is your belief. I’m simply being honest that in my view this is distasteful and unattractive.
aquinas, I’m so impressed with everything you’ve written here. I second John’s comment about hoping evangelicals will take it to heart (and I say this an evangelical). Thank you for being so generous.
I especially liked your comment about it not being Great Commission that people are engaging in. I’ve learned, since moving to Utah four years ago, that much of what I considered to be evangelism was really just me speaking from my flesh. My motivations were always mixed; I probably wanted people to admit that they were wrong at least as much as I wanted them to grow closer to Jesus. I still struggle with my flesh, but realizing what’s really going on in my heart seems like half the battle.
As much as I like Tim, I agree with aquinas on this point, describing the mission as an environment where abuse is likely or where missionaries are at all “stripped” of their identity amounts to prejudice.
Advocating that people approach missionaries generally as if they are experiencing what is experienced by a small minority comes close to the very definition of prejudice or bias. And it simply reveals a strong opposition to some of the discipline involved in the mission field.
Its like criticizing soldiers for wearing uniforms according to regulations, not using first names, and saluting superior officers. Or like criticizing families who make their children say “sir” and “ma’am” and not speak to adults on a first name basis. Or offering a wrestler a meal when he is trying to make weight the next day. These examples of discipline can be associated with abuse or other bad stuff as well but are just as likely to promote positive discipline and some degree of maturity and order. By considering these things as primarily a means of dehumanization or simply highlighting the negative side, you are showing disrespect to those who get a lot out of these methods of discipline.
I don’t think the approach Tim is advocating regarding phone calls etc, matters much or is really harmful, other than to the goal of having a sincere, close relationship. Approaching missionaries as if they are potential victims of abuse reveals a lack of understanding (or alternatively, sincerity) is almost always going to feel fake or clueless. You are always going to distance yourself and lessen your influence, and mutual respect when you come across this way.
Sarah, thank you for visiting my blog and leaving a comment. I appreciate your perspective.
I don’t consider myself rude. I consider myself direct. Guess its a culture, or personality, thing. My experience has been that sincere polite behavior, especially involving disagreements, is very rare. If there is anything I am going to say, then I am going to say it. No bull or tiptoeing. I can see how that can be seen as rude, but I consider it emotionally truthful. Maybe that is why I can’t get involved in or fully appreciate Inter-religious dialogue; I see the forest for the trees of conversion.
This discussion reminds me of Prof. Davis Davies reaction at the Joseph Smith Symposium in Washington D.C. After several presentations and a panel discussion he asked if it was an academic meeting or a gathering for apologetics. He wasn’t exactly thrilled by the results.
Jettboy, I think most of us here are trying to be clear and truthful. In addition, I’ve had many experiences with people where we can strongly disagree but remain civil and courteous. In my communications with Gerald McDermott for example, Professor McDermott was nothing but courteous and civil in our personal communications. If I remember correctly you approved of my critique of McDermott’s article. But I wish to stress that while I may have disagreed with Professor McDermott’s descriptions of Mormon theology, I greatly respect Professor McDermott. I was disappointed by the inability of some to respectfully engage in dialogue with him.
While very few people are able to robustly and vigorously discuss our differences in a spirit of charity, it can and ought to be done. As I’ve stated before, we should be concerned about how others receive our message. Sending a message is only one part of communication, if our message is constantly being misunderstood or rejected, dismissed or ignored, it is as if we never sent the message in the first place. I think we should put more emphasis on confirming our messages are received than ending our efforts just with giving people a piece of our mind. But that is only if you are interesting in influencing those who disagree with you.
The problem I have with traditional apologetics is that it is not communication directed towards those of other faiths. Apologetics as traditionally practiced only cares about communication aimed at one’s own faith community. Books written by LDS for LDS, published by LDS publishers about how to defend against criticism or how to refute critics may well serve the purpose of strengthening the faith of LDS members. However, generally speaking, they are less than persuasive to those outside the faith. Books written by Evangelicals on how to refute Mormons also are entirely unpersuasive to Mormons. In other words, apologetics lacks the technology for true inter-religious communication. And traditionally speaking Mormons and Evangelicals have been raised on apologetics and in many cases don’t know anything else. Now, if Evangelicals and Mormons don’t want to talk to each other effectively, then they should continue doing what they have always done. However, I’m not interested in persisting in ineffective means of communication.
I think it is important that you have learned that perhaps you don’t appreciate interfaith dialogue and are unable to get involved with it. I hope that perhaps you might keep an open mind about it and I appreciate your participation, but it’s clearly not for everyone.
Hi aquinas,
I’m pleased to see this discussion moving forward to deeper issues.
I understand the use of the title “Elder”. Thank you for your continued explanation. It further reinforced my existing understanding of the use of the title by Mormons.
It is not the specific or isolated use of that title that causes me to use phrases such as “stripped of personal identity”. It was the sum total of the thirteen concerns I listed on my post. None of those items alone would be of much concern to me if they were not further weighed down by the other twelve. I’m not seeking for you or any Mormon to agree with me that these concerns are problematic. I’m explaining why they motivate me to offer missionaries the use of my phone. The LDS church is free to operate their mission program in any way they see fit, I’m simply letting you know what their actions communicate to me.
I think you’ve also expressed yourself consistently and firmly that you find my comments and views of Mormonism to be prejudicial, presumptuous, offensive, distasteful and unattractive. I understand that you think I am operating in apologetics mode in a classic counter-cult method. You feel I am not serving the cause of inter-faith dialogue well and that I’m masquerading myself as someone who wants to understand Mormonism better but instead just wants to find evidences which confirm my bias against Mormonism. It’s your understanding that I don’t care much for the LDS faith and don’t see any redeeming value in it and you feel that my views and opinions are not effective, useful or helpful. You feel I am completely and intentionally oblivious to the fundamental elements in transforming people into new creations among which are giving them new identities. I hear you and understand the sentiments you wish to express. If I’m missing something please let me know.
Though you have not directly stated it I get the sense that you are frustrated and disappointed with my blog for not being what you think it should be or could be. I understand the emotion because in the same way I feel the Mormon church is not what it should be or could be. Both of us feel at a loss for a way to motivate the objects of our frustration toward our ideals.
I would like further clarity on one matter. You said
“Again, I feel like this stems from a lack of understanding about missions”
Do you feel I don’t have an understanding of religious missions in general or just LDS missions? I would love to know what aspect of missions that you feel I don’t understand.
Interesting debate, which I started following on LDSTalk. A couple of links later and I’m reading four threads now..
aquinas
Whether interfaith dialogue can only exist in absence of a desire to convert or evangelize or whether it can co-exist with it, is a subject of controversy and and issue I have not explicitly deal with on my blog. The reason is that it depends on what conversion actually means. Too often people only consider conversion to be a formal goal (i.e. switching denominations) but I think we need to consider broader definitions of conversion.
On the money! Why do we talk to anyone of another faith? To understand? To gain knowledge? Or to convert? When I invite them in, it’s partly because
1) I know that they’re away from home and can use a bit of homeyness.
2) I am interested in understanding more
3) I do want to show them there is a fundamental difference between our form of Christianity and what they believe. We have to cut through the bull of saying we believe the same thing. We don’t. Nothing hostile about it, just a matter of facts.
However, when you mention that:
Tim’s writings reveal that he simply does not respect the purpose of Latter-day Saint missions. For example, he suggests that Evangelicals try to find out the first name of missionaries as a bonus
I take some exception to this, since I have done this before. It is not a matter of lack of respect if put in context. I explain that in my Church the name elder is given to those leading the body and that I am uncomfortable using it with them. We’re pretty informal in my house (with 5 kids ranging from 26 to 18… what do you think ;-) ) and that I would be more at ease using their first names. Some oblige, some don’t. I’ll stick to Mr. so-and-so for those that don’t. It just makes talking harder.
As an ex-RC, now evangelical, I have been called names by both sides well. From “You’re not really a believer” by my baptist in-laws to “We’re sorry you left the faith” and “You didn’t marry a Protestant did you” by my own family. (Granted I grew in a strong RC European context and not in the US where it appears to be less confrontational.)
In summary, there’s nothing wrong to talk, offer some comfort and discuss. I agree with Jack that to be up front is the best approach, but let’s call a duck for what it is. They knock on the door to seek converts, we have a different opinion. Once that’s out of the way, we can have a true interfaith dialogue and yes, I believe all of them have an undertone of trying to convert the other one. But it can be done respectfully.
In Him
Mick
Tim,
“I’m not seeking for you or any Mormon to agree with me that these concerns are problematic. I’m explaining why they motivate me to offer missionaries the use of my phone. The LDS church is free to operate their mission program in any way they see fit, I’m simply letting you know what their actions communicate to me.”
I understand that you think missions can serve to “strip” missionaries of their identity and I can understand why that might concern you. However, when you are approaching missionaries with this approach, in the vast majority of the cases its just going to be counterproductive to your overall goal, which I gather is to build a real relationship in order to share personal spiritual feelings and ideas. I don’t know that your approach is disrespectful necessarily, just ineffective.
Why is it counterproductive and ineffective? because the vast majority of missionaries are just not going to see it the same way.
Regardless of how you justify, and it may certainly be justified by your understanding, your approach it just seems wrongheaded to me. The wrongheadedness seems to come from a misunderstanding in how LDS missionaries themselves see these rules in relationship to their identity. If you could see the rules through the eyes of most missionaries you would understand that few believe that they strip them of their identity or are oppressive to any significant degree. Many would acknowledge they are pretty strict, but they understand the purpose to the strictness.
You can believe me or not regarding how missionaries generally see their missions and the mission rules, but I don’t think you are going to uncover any real cases of abuse or be of help to these people with the approach.
Jared
I think you’re right. There was a similar comment on ldstalk. The comparison to the military is not too farfetched I guess.
People make a choice to go in the military. No matter how harsh BCT (and definitely AIT) training may be, you can’t convince someone who’s committed to it that the climate can lead to abuse. That being said, I know there is abuse in basic training. Not while I was in training or in what I experienced. But I’m sure it’s there.
On the other hand, Tim’s approach, if nothing else, can show to missionaries that not all evangelicals are rude and intolerant. Perhaps enough to plant a seed for mutual respect and understanding (if nothing else)
In Him
Mick
Michael, I just wanted to reply to your comments. First of all, I’ve never advocating the approach of just saying everyone believes the same things if they really do not. Rather, I hope information will be as accurate as possible. This also means that when ever we describe the faith of another, they should see themselves reflected in our description. If they do not, then we have failed in coming to a mutual understanding. However, I appreciate that you are interested in learning more about the faith of others and also in offering comfort and hospitality.
Second, I’m not sure I understand exactly why it would be difficult addressing missionaries as Elder, even if you use the term “Elder” in your own church to refer to leaders in the Church. People do this all the time who are not members of the LDS Church without difficulty. However, I appreciate the comment and perhaps we can discuss this further.
In a sense, one could argue that refusing to address missionaries as “Elder” is in fact denying them the religious identity that they have taken upon themselves. Clearly some wish to do this. However, I’m not saying that this is necessarily disrespectful or inappropriate in all cases. It would depend on the situation.
Lastly, I’m glad you agree that we should be upfront about our intentions to enter into dialogue. Thank you for visiting my blog and I hope you find the content and conversation valuable.
Jared, I wanted to let you know I appreciate your insightful comments. I think you provided particularly fitting examples, both here and elsewhere, that illustrate well the problems involved.
I would like to express my appreciation for an open discussion about missionary work and interfaith relations. As a prospective Mormon missionary I have enjoyed getting some insights as to the thoughts and evangelical beliefs on Mormonism, the purpose of missionaries and the conditions they are ‘subjected to’. Some beliefs that concern me as a member of the church is the implication that we do not accept the role of our saviour Jesus Christ and that some how the missionaries lead people away from him. Nothing could ever be so far from the truth. Aquinas your statements show love for your fellow man and I am glad that I could come across a discussion about the Mormons on the internet that does not promote anti-Mormonism. I like how you understand that our beliefs are different but that animosity, hatred and fear comes from misunderstanding and a rejection of so many of the principles of righteousness that have been taught by our Lord, most of all to love thy neighbour as thyself. I believe that a common denominator of global religion is obedience to the great commandment, to love the Lord thy God, with all their heart might mind and strength. Each religion shows there love in unique and individual ways. Truly religious groups must also keep the second commandment basically to love one another. I am grateful for the love that you have shown through your spirit of understanding and the spirit of respect that you have shown. To the evangelists that are anti-Mormon in the fullest degree, I am interested if you could find any anti-evangelical, anti-catholic, anti-Jehovah’s witness, anti-Muslim literature written by the men or woman in any position of authority within the church. You will find only discussion on the differences in our religion and the doctrine that supports why those differences exist. I have never in my life in the church come across anything about how to approach missionaries of different faiths or the ways we can make their work harder for them. It is hard for me to comprehend a person who believes they are a follower of Jesus, who would give advice to others about how to tempt a group of people into breaking promises made to that same Jesus. The Lord said ‘If ye love me keep my commandments’. To those missionaries currently serving around the world the rules given and the limitations all have a purpose in living lives outside of worldly things and focusing on the Lord’s work to preach His gospel. Missionaries who follow these rules show their love to the Lord by following them to the best of their ability. I would plead with any who read this that they do not tempt and entice missionaries, by doing so it may lead them into disobedience to the promises they have made. I know of one person who would shout for joy if you should succeed and as Christians it should be our goal to disappoint that person at every opportunity.
Ryan,
Congratulations on the start of your mission and I do sincerely hope it will be a good experience for you that will strengthen you in your faith.
There is a very good post about this subject on ldstalk.wordpress.com as well. Jack made a solid comment on there that is rather blunt, yet accurate.
In as much as LDS elders on mission would like to convert evangelicals to join the LDS church, we, as evangelicals, would like to convert you. There are fundamental doctrinal and soteriological differences between evangelicals and LDS, and we should be able to discourse about those in an open and respectful manner. Let’s at least be honest about that. Anything else would show a lack of respect in thinking we can pull the wool over each others eyes.
Good luck on your mission
In Him
Mick
Also aquinas, on the use of the term “elder”.
Having grown up RC, calling someone “priest” has some connotations with it. I have no trouble calling someone ordained in one of the major denominations “priest” as well. However, I would feel funny calling someone “priest” if they, for instance, claim to be ordained in the Church of the Rising Sun. (or whatever other organization). It just doesn’t mesh with me. Definitely in light of 1 Tim 3 (depending on the translation it’s elder, overseer or bishop).
FWIW, I wouldn’t call someone “Sifu” either just because they show up at my door wearing some kind of martial arts uniform. ;-)
Hope this clarifies
Mick
Ryan, thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate getting the perspective of a prospective missionary. I hope people read your comments and take them to heart.
Michael, thank you for your comments
I must stress that I believe that the majority of people are not trying to “pull the wool” over each others eyes. Are there differences between evangelicals and LDS? Of course. I don’t know anyone who says there are no differences. In fact, time and time again, LDS repeatedly highlight their differences with evangelicals. For a interview where I discuss some of these issues see Morehead’s Musings “An LDS Perspective on Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate.” There I offer my critique of an book co-authored by two scholars, one evangelical and one LDS. For a recent post where Latter-day Saints passionately distance themselves from the beliefs of some evangelicals see my March 15, 2009 post “Explaining a Calvinist Worldview to a Latter-day Saint.” Therefore, Evangelicals and LDS often discuss what “divides” them and what the differences are. There are dozens of examples on this blog alone I could refer you to.
What I object to are uninformed assertions on how we differ that is not grounded in the actual religious tradition and furthermore not grounded in actual dialogue with informed members of the religious tradition. I agree with you that we should discuss openly and honestly (and I add civilly and charitably) our beliefs. As we do so, we will become more accurate in describing each others faiths. What I object to is where someone takes limited information and then assumes all LDS believe one way or think a certain way. Or, when someone takes only one strand of LDS thought as the only thought there is without recognizing areas where LDS actually embrace a variety of viewpoints. Or, when someone asserts LDS believe something when they do not, or when someone asserts LDS reject something when they do not. I hope that through interfaith dialogue that these things will cease to happen. No one is claiming that LDS and Evangelicals have no differences, but I think the greater temptation is to err in amplifying our differences, not similarities. There is a very strong temptation to defend our religious identities and often we do this by comparing and contrasting our beliefs with others. However, people should not be surprised to find out that LDS in fact do share some beliefs with their Evangelical or Catholic neighbors. Why shouldn’t this be the case? The Old and New Testaments is part of the LDS canon of scripture. LDS use many of the same hymns as Lutheran churches do. The list goes on and on. Again, the goal is never to diminish differences, but to get them right. The goal is not pretend no common beliefs exist because we don’t want common beliefs to exist, but to have the courage and integrity to acknowledge similarities where they do in fact exist. Perhaps even to rejoice over them and perhaps even to learn from them. Again, the goal is to get it right and not just technically correct, but do it in a way where our neighbors can see themselves in our description.
I realize that whether to highlight similarities or differences is yet another controversial topic. Apologetics and other boundary maintenance approaches thrive in making distinctions and distinguishing theological beliefs. Religious identity is often based upon comparing and contrasting oneself from the “religious other.” However, we shouldn’t ignore or dismiss similarities just because it is inconvenient or because we are afraid that finding similarities means our religious identity is threatened (i.e. “If I have something in common with a heretical group what does that say about my beliefs?” And by the way, individual Latter-day Saints, Evangelical and Catholics often hold beliefs which are actually heretical or inconsistent with the religious tradition to which they belong. This is a real phenomenon that most people continue to overlook. So isn’t enough just to talk to a few people and draw generalizations based upon that). I think distancing oneself from others for mere polemical reasons is the serious danger and what happens more often than not. There are many LDS and Evangelicals who lack knowledge of each other and just assume differences where differences do not exist. There are many LDS and Evangelicals who are knowledgeable but have little interest in similarities and only differences. Fine. To each his own. Whether we choose to point out similarities or differences, only concern is that we will get it right and we can only do this through continuous dialogue with our neighbors and ask them “Do you see yourself in my description of you?” Only when we begin to answer in the affirmative can we say we are getting it right.
Lastly, we don’t just have one chance to get it right. Through continuous dialogue we can improve our understanding. It is okay to get it wrong where we may not have all the facts or where we have a genuine misunderstanding. Some of these issues can be extremely complex and very intelligent people who devote a great deal of time to these issues can have difficulty. I personally think it is wrong to persist in an inaccurate description in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but most people do not fall into that category, and I believe most people do want to be accurate.
This is a few years old, but I stumbled upon it today and thought I’d put in my two cents. First, let’s be clear who I am- I’m LDS, I served a two year mission, and I’m quite happy to remain LDS.
That said, I love the comments about being polite to missionaries. It really is a breath of fresh air to meet Christians who behave like Christians. There were a great many people I met on my mission who said they were Christians but then treated us in a very un-Christian like manner. I suppose this is understandable behavior if they legitimately believe Mormons to be devil worshipers (and I met some who did), but for everyone who doesn’t believe Mormon’s have horns, its quite inappropriate. Slammed doors, insults, yelling, mocking, etc. When missionaries encounter this, it really does lead them to believe the person they’re speaking with is, at best, ignorant and immature, or at worst, a mean person.
That isn’t a just decision to come to, considering the person could just be having a bad day. But that’s how it often comes across to the average 20 yr old missionary.
Todd Wood asked an interesting question. How are LDS missionaries trained to talk with Evangelicals? I have a simple answer- they aren’t. In general, missionaries receive no formal training concerning any denomination or religious group. Individual mission presidents may address particular groups, particularly in the Bible Belt, but for the most part, missionaries are taught to treat everyone as children of a loving God. How best to teach them about that God is almost always universal and not dependent on the person’s beliefs.
To address something debated in the article and other comments, missionaries are actually very happy on their missions. There are restrictions, and of course there is yearning for things they are not supposed to have or do. But to say it is a prison sentence is over dramatizing it. To say they are abused, or at threat of abuse, is absurd. Missions are hard, but extremely rewarding. Ask almost any returned LDS missionary and they will say it was two of the best years of their life.
We live in the world, but try not to be of the world. When we go about doing everything we need to do and, indeed, want to do, we are exposed to things that are not of God. When missionaries follow mission rules, they are trying to avoid as much of this as possible. This is not practical for normal life; we would be quite sheltered if we never turned on the TV, and its impossible to not have a paying job forever. But for two years, missionaries can get away with not doing a great many things. By leaving behind video games, movies, TV, most books, most music, etc, the missionary can draw closer to God. The influences that detract from God’s Spirit simply aren’t as prevalent.
By the same token, you can’t completely focus on God’s work if you are constantly worried about a girlfriend. Other things that are incredibly important to a missionary must also take a back seat; the young man’s favorite car is left behind, as are jobs and sports, and as important as family is, God takes priority.
Is there homesickness? Of course. I think a great deal of that comes from many missionaries never having been away from home until their missions. But I believe it is actually more difficult for the young man’s parents than it is for him.
Blessings attend those who sacrifice for God. There are of course unhappy missionaries, and certainly there are hard days. But most of the time and for most missionaries, it really is a very happy two years. Those who look from the outside in and claim otherwise simply don’t understand what it is to devote oneself to God 24/7, 730. (Which should be clarified: one of the Blomberg quotes says missionaries work 5 days a week. Reality is different: missionaries spend only a part of one day NOT doing God’s work. That’s when they do laundry, write letters home, go shopping, and generally do whatever. Excepting the need to eat, shower, etc, almost every other waking moment is spent in service to God.)
I’m glad to see so many who want to be honest with missionaries and treat them with respect. I know some missionaries may not return the respect, but I believe most will. Regardless of our differences, everyone should be capable of at least treating others with decency.