LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope that wasn't too rambling.
Not even close. I've learned more from you and Empress than our own beloved Margaret Houlihan and B.J. Hunnicutt Janadele and skyrider44 could put on offer in a million-post thread. So if you don't mind, more questions for both of you.

First by way of background, were you, RandFan, raised through high school in southern California (specific location not important)?

Second, about the preparation, did anyone "fail" (or not complete) the prep class? At MTC, did anybody wash out? Did anyone get caught diddling the local Provo talent (of either gender) or, for that matter, other MTC attendees? What was your impression of your classmates there? First class folks or high school jocks who didn't know what to do.

Well, first I graduated seminary. In Mormonism that's a high school course. I then attended local missionary prep class. We met once a week and we talked about what to expect when we got to the field, what to purchase, etc. That was about 6 months. When you decide to go on a mission you must submit paperwork and have two interviews. You then receive a calling. Mine was to Orange County California, we affectionately called it the Mickey Mouse Mission.
Did you have any influence at all on where you went? For example, could you beg a post to Switzerland or Martinique? Do you know who really decided? Where did you personally want to go?

The Mickey Mouse connection could have two meanings. It's because Disney Land is in Orange County or it's because it was a plume piece of cake compared to other potential assignments. Or, I suppose, both.

This lasts a couple of weeks to a month depending on whether you need to learn a foreign language.
Surely they didn't think a foreign language can be acquired in a month. Which languages did they teach?

When you leave the MTC (I left the day Reagan took office and the hostages were released) you go to the field and are given a senior companion. You also meet with your mission president and all of your leaders, district, zone, and assistants to the president. At the beginning you are a junior partner and demonstrate that you have memorized all of your discussions.
Really? How much material did you have to commit to memory?

Empress, you said women could be missionaries if they wanted to. How many actually do? If they do, is that seen as a compliment or that they aren't doing their Mormon duty to start dropping kids? Also, at MTC are the sexes mixed or separate training? I presume in the field there was no mixed gender teams.

What about race and age? Are there many Asians? Blacks? Latinos? Is it only a young person's gig? Do people come to the MTC from around the world?

You also said families finance the whole gig? What about the less well off? Are there scholarships or grants or whatever it is called?

Lastly, thanks to both of you again. Your contributions are one of the few things that keep this whole boondoggle from being consigned to AAH.
 
Not even close. I've learned more from you and Empress than our own beloved Margaret Houlihan and B.J. Hunnicutt Janadele and skyrider44 could put on offer in a million-post thread. So if you don't mind, more questions for both of you.

First by way of background, were you, RandFan, raised through high school in southern California (specific location not important)?

Second, about the preparation, did anyone "fail" (or not complete) the prep class? At MTC, did anybody wash out? Did anyone get caught diddling the local Provo talent (of either gender) or, for that matter, other MTC attendees? What was your impression of your classmates there? First class folks or high school jocks who didn't know what to do.


Did you have any influence at all on where you went? For example, could you beg a post to Switzerland or Martinique? Do you know who really decided? Where did you personally want to go?

The Mickey Mouse connection could have two meanings. It's because Disney Land is in Orange County or it's because it was a plume piece of cake compared to other potential assignments. Or, I suppose, both.


Surely they didn't think a foreign language can be acquired in a month. Which languages did they teach?


Really? How much material did you have to commit to memory?

Empress, you said women could be missionaries if they wanted to. How many actually do? If they do, is that seen as a compliment or that they aren't doing their Mormon duty to start dropping kids? Also, at MTC are the sexes mixed or separate training? I presume in the field there was no mixed gender teams.

What about race and age? Are there many Asians? Blacks? Latinos? Is it only a young person's gig? Do people come to the MTC from around the world?

You also said families finance the whole gig? What about the less well off? Are there scholarships or grants or whatever it is called?

Lastly, thanks to both of you again. Your contributions are one of the few things that keep this whole boondoggle from being consigned to AAH.

Some of these questions obviously are best for RandFan, so I'll leave them to him.

Women as missionaries:

Not as many as men, but I've had three sisters who were missionaries out in the field. There are also a lot of older, retired people who are missionary couples, and other sundry missions like workers at the temple. My mother used to drive once a month from NW Florida to Atlanta to spend a week working at the Atlanta temple when she was in her 60s. (My father was deceased by then.)

I believe that the Lds church is de-emphasizing the whole "women as perpetual baby-maker" business that the church tended towards when I was young, but I believe it's still considered less important for a woman to serve a mission. It's really considered a duty for a young man of good standing, but not so for women. Still, my understanding is that half of missionary applications are from women today.

Paying for the mission:

The missionary and or his family pays for the mission themselves, but it can be subsidized by others. My mother makes a contribution to the missionary fund every month when she pays her tithing. How that money is divided I have no idea. Whether any of the money from the upper church is given to missionaries to help subsidize I couldn't say, but I have my doubts. There's no way to check, as the LDS church does not keep open records.

Race and Age:

Men: 18, Women: 21 (IIRC) You can go a bit later (I think one of my sisters went when she was 27), but the earlier ages are more common. LDS tend to go to college after their mission, so they're frequently a couple years behind their peers.

The LDS church is overwhelmingly white (not surprising considering their racial history) but Latinos are quite well represented, and I've known quite a few Latino missionaries. I've personally never met a black missionary, but I do notice more and more people of color when I go to pick my mother up from church, so perhaps there are more black missionaries today then when I was a child. To the best of my knowledge, everyone goes to the MTC in Provo, regardless of where they originate, or where they are ultimately going to be sent.

Learning a Language

Three of my siblings and one of my nephews went on foreign-speaking missions. I think some of my cousins did too, but I can't say for sure. They spent a couple months at the MTC learning the lessons and also the language, and then it was: BOOM! Into the field. That's where you really learn most of the language, probably. I remember one of my sisters talking about a lesson she was giving on her mission in Japan. She said something and saw the audience members trying not to laugh. Then she realized that whatever she was trying to say, she actually said "My stomach is a watermelon."

After two years, the missionaries are quite fluent, and many of the find the second language a real help later in life.

Choice of Mission

I don't recall if you're allowed to put down where you would like to go on your application, but you definitely just get wherever you're "called" to go. How far up the ladder the decision is made, I can't say, but it could be that whoever makes the decision really believes they're getting direction from god or perhaps it's strictly pragmatic. I believe the church says that all the decisions on where a missionary goes is made by one of the Quorum members, which is preposterous, since there are approx 60,000 missionaries, and it would take numerous people to make such decisions.

Mixing of sexes in the field

Strictly forbidden unless it's a couple mission. When I was a kid the men, at least, were allowed to enter a household that only had women (can't remember if the reverse was true for women missionaries in male households) but there was a change when some illicit behavior occurred. A pair of missionaries was sent home from this area (NW Florida) because one of the missionaries had sex with someone they were giving the lessons to. Both missionaries were punished--the one for engaging in the sexual act; the other for not stopping it. I presume enough cases have occurred that it's no longer allowed to enter a household without a buffer person. Since my mother and I live together alone, the local male missionaries can't come here by themselves, but there is an older couple who are serving a mission in the area, and they come over and visit with my mother.

I think that covered all the questions for me, but if I missed anything I'll address it later. I'm glad that you're enjoying the discussion, and feel I've been able to contribute. :) Going to try to get some sleep. Stupid insomnia. :)
 
Halley, My comment you refer to was a response post to insults to myself from deaman.

Jeff Lindsay has interesting observations on the Book of Abraham at the following links:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml Part 1

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml Part 2

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/boa.shtml Part 3

The FAIR Wiki:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Evidence_for_antiquity

Kerry Shirts' Book of Abraham articles:
http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/papyri.htm

KERRY SHIRTS ON THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM VIDEO:
http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/lostbook.htm

"The Jewish Origin of the Book of Abraham" by Jonathan Moyer, a scholarly paper exploring the ancient Jewish roots of the Book of Abraham:
http://www.hains.net/articles/moyer/jewishbookofabraham.html



Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rules 0 and 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

The American anachronisms and Smith's claims of translating the Ancient Egyptian papyri are patent absurdities. Propaganda doesn't enter into it.

The subject of this thread is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And this is a sceptics forum where, as you will remember, we approach claims with doubt and a critical mind. As you can see now, we can conclude that criticism of the LDS is appropriate to this thread in a way that an unrelated topic like communism is not.

Glad to clear that up. You are welcome.
 
Interesting.
Earlier we'd had claims Smith only 'translated' the papyri because he'd been asked to.

That's true, based on all the evidence I've seen. The owner of the mummies, Michael Chandler, who was exhibiting them, approached Smith and asked him to translate them. The way I see it, Chandler was a showman, trying to attract attention to his mummies. Approaching Smith was a publicity stunt. Smith was put on the spot, but with some ego stroking and the realization that the publicity would help both ways, plunged into the translation and discovered it worked--meaning it was something he could do (i.e. tell stories inspired by the pictures on the papyri) and people would believe him. So he forged ahead.

Here's a BYU site's version:

In early July 1835, Chandler visited Kirtland, where he met Joseph Smith and inquired "if he had a power by which he could translate the ancient Egyptian. Mr. Smith replied that he had" (P. Pratt, Millennial Star, July 1842). Chandler presented some hieroglyphics, which others supposedly had interpreted. Joseph Smith left and returned with a written English translation corresponding to the interpretation Chandler had already received. The Prophet displayed interest in the papyri, but Chandler would not break up his exhibit. Shortly thereafter, Church members purchased for $2,400 "four human figures…with two or more rolls of papyrus"

An anti-Mormon book saying essentially the same thing, though claiming that no others had interpreted them:

Later, Chandler had the mummies unwrapped and found a number of rolls of papyrus written in the ancient Egyptian language. He searched among the scholars of his day for someone to attempt a translation but none were able since it was written in a 'lost language.' After hearing that there was a man in Ohio whom his followers called a prophet and who claimed to have the ability to miraculously translate any language, Chandler made the journey to Kirtland. The following appears in the church's history series:

"On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies... As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters and I gave him the interpretation..."
 
I'm curious as to why you think it sleazy? I'm not saying that it isn't I just had not expected it. If you are an organization that believes that it comforts people and brings them salvation then whats sleazy about finding people who are more likely receptive to the message?
I suppose it does depend on which side of the fence you're on. If you really believe the stuff, I guess any salvation is a plus. For the outside observer, the word "receptive" is replaced by "susceptible or weak," and the sense of what you're doing changes. Anyway, there seems something at least a bit dodgy about an idea that appeals more to the unhappy than to the happy.
 
I suppose it does depend on which side of the fence you're on. If you really believe the stuff, I guess any salvation is a plus. For the outside observer, the word "receptive" is replaced by "susceptible or weak," and the sense of what you're doing changes. Anyway, there seems something at least a bit dodgy about an idea that appeals more to the unhappy than to the happy.

I agree with you, bruto. I really, really don't like missionaries to the point I didn't even write my siblings while they were on their missions except when my parents forced me to. (I was a teen back then, still living at home.) I find the whole "your superstition is wrong, mine is right" extremely offensive, even if they're nice about it.

My next door neighbors have a "son" that is on a mission back to his homeland. (He was a foreign exchange student and they got on so well, that the boy never left and went to college and married here.) When I was asking about how he was doing, they told me how they were all rejoicing. Turns out their son's father had just passed away, but this was not sorrowful, b/c the father was a Muslim but that their son had managed to get him to accept Jesus as his savior on his deathbed so he was saved and went to heaven. (They're Baptists.) So this boy harangued his father on his deathbed to change religions, and they were all so happy. Religion really pisses me off, sometimes. :mad:
 
I suppose it does depend on which side of the fence you're on. If you really believe the stuff, I guess any salvation is a plus. For the outside observer, the word "receptive" is replaced by "susceptible or weak," and the sense of what you're doing changes. Anyway, there seems something at least a bit dodgy about an idea that appeals more to the unhappy than to the happy.
Thanks for the response. I understand you better. Note that I included in my list weddings, new baby, etc., any life changing event. It's not simply ambulance chasing.
 
Not even close. I've learned more from you and Empress than our own beloved Margaret Houlihan and B.J. Hunnicutt Janadele and skyrider44 could put on offer in a million-post thread. So if you don't mind, more questions for both of you.

First by way of background, were you, RandFan, raised through high school in southern California (specific location not important)?

Second, about the preparation, did anyone "fail" (or not complete) the prep class? At MTC, did anybody wash out? Did anyone get caught diddling the local Provo talent (of either gender) or, for that matter, other MTC attendees? What was your impression of your classmates there? First class folks or high school jocks who didn't know what to do.


Did you have any influence at all on where you went? For example, could you beg a post to Switzerland or Martinique? Do you know who really decided? Where did you personally want to go?

The Mickey Mouse connection could have two meanings. It's because Disney Land is in Orange County or it's because it was a plume piece of cake compared to other potential assignments. Or, I suppose, both.


Surely they didn't think a foreign language can be acquired in a month. Which languages did they teach?


Really? How much material did you have to commit to memory?

Empress, you said women could be missionaries if they wanted to. How many actually do? If they do, is that seen as a compliment or that they aren't doing their Mormon duty to start dropping kids? Also, at MTC are the sexes mixed or separate training? I presume in the field there was no mixed gender teams.

What about race and age? Are there many Asians? Blacks? Latinos? Is it only a young person's gig? Do people come to the MTC from around the world?

You also said families finance the whole gig? What about the less well off? Are there scholarships or grants or whatever it is called?

Lastly, thanks to both of you again. Your contributions are one of the few things that keep this whole boondoggle from being consigned to AAH.
Thanks to Empress she saved me some writting. I do have more to say but I have a Dr. appointment.
 
I respectfully disagree. No friend of Janadele's religion here, but if, in fact, her sons did not receive the same sleazy instructions that Randfan did, it would indicate that they are not an inherent and necessary element in being a Mormon missionary. In a discussion of what is right and wrong with Mormonism, the religion itself and the policy of its leaders, while they overlap, are not always the same. It's a little thing but not nothing.

I see no reason to trust Janadele to get this detail right. Her sons would not necessarily have a reason to tell her if they received such instruction. Even if she asked them point blank if they DID receive such instruction, there's no guarantee they would even remember it, or have thought enough of it at the time to take note of it.

Janadele's statements about what instruction her sons did or did not receive are hearsay at best, a second hand report.

I am tempted to suggest that she might be willing to deliberately misrepresent what instruction her sons received if she feels the truth casts Mormonism in a negative light. While such speculation is, in my view, a reasonable extrapolation of her previous comments, I see no reason to seriously consider duplicity where less sinister explanations suffice.

TL;DR

I give more weight to the first hand account than to the second hand hearsay.
 
Am I doing this forum discussion thing right, Janadele?


If you were on an anti-Mormon site, or posting in an anti-Mormon thread... but as that is NOT the case, NO you are not.


And you'd be doing it right if you were on a pro-Mormon site, or posting in a pro-Mormon thread... but as that is NOT the case, no YOU are not.
 
There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

How cute. You seem to have confused the JREF with one of those earthy-crunchy sites where everyone is there to circle the wagons and congratulate each other on how great their religion is. On forums like this the whole POINT of a thread is to dissect, discuss and examine the topic, both good and bad. You started a thread about the LDS church on a skepticism forum. In so doing you invited the people on this forum to dig up everything they can about Mormon theology and hold it up to the light of inquiry.

I'm sorry you did not comprehend what you were inviting when you started this thread, but your martyr complex and hurt feelings are not a reason for anyone here to stop discussing the parts of Mormonism you prefer to ignore.
 
Forums have many threads and a number of sections for good reasons.


None of which you've bothered to mention as being relevant to your repeated objections to pointing out the lies, inconsistencies and other faults with your version of LDS doctrine in this thread.


It is dishonest and disruptive for anti-Mormon posts to encroach on this LDS thread.


Posting the truth in response to the incessant preaching of a transparently ridiculous fairytale is the one of the main functions of this Forum.

That you disagree with what's been posted doesn't make it dishonest (pretty much the opposite, in fact) and the fact that you're peeved about it spoiling the flow of your unthinking prattle doesn't make it disruptive.

Truth is, the thread would flow much better and people would be able to learn a whole lot more if you'd stop disrupting it with the dishonest and self-serving annunciations of Old Dead Guys.


If such posters had even a shred of ethics, it would not be difficult to start an anti-Mormon thread and post the venom there.


Since it vexes you so much to see the truth posted here, why don't you start such a thread yourself.

It's the ethical thing to do, surely.
 
There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.


Isis wept.

Atheism, anti-mormonism and communism are all religions now?

Next you'll be telling us that LDS isn't a cult.
 
Race and Age:

Men: 18, Women: 21 (IIRC) You can go a bit later (I think one of my sisters went when she was 27), but the earlier ages are more common. LDS tend to go to college after their mission, so they're frequently a couple years behind their peers.

The LDS church is overwhelmingly white (not surprising considering their racial history) but Latinos are quite well represented, and I've known quite a few Latino missionaries. I've personally never met a black missionary, but I do notice more and more people of color when I go to pick my mother up from church, so perhaps there are more black missionaries today then when I was a child. To the best of my knowledge, everyone goes to the MTC in Provo, regardless of where they originate, or where they are ultimately going to be sent.

Actually it was men 19, women 21. However, President Monson just announced a change in policy at the last General Conference.

President Thomas S. Monson said:
I am pleased to announce that effective immediately all worthy and able young men who have graduated from high school or its equivalent, regardless of where they live, will have the option of being recommended for missionary service beginning at the age of 18, instead of age 19. I am not suggesting that all young men will—or should—serve at this earlier age. Rather, based on individual circumstances as well as upon a determination by priesthood leaders, this option is now available.

As we have prayerfully pondered the age at which young men may begin their missionary service, we have also given consideration to the age at which a young woman might serve. Today I am pleased to announce that able, worthy young women who have the desire to serve may be recommended for missionary service beginning at age 19, instead of age 21.

There are 15 Missionary Training Centers today that are located all across the globe. I believe the one in Mexico City will be #16, it's opening in July (IIRC).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the response. I understand you better. Note that I included in my list weddings, new baby, etc., any life changing event. It's not simply ambulance chasing.
Hmmm. Are you taking into account the church's leaders hypocrisy? I don't know that much about LDS, but from the experience you shared it seems LDS and jehovah's witnesses have a lot in common. While ambulance chasing is not an "official" guideline for their ministry, JWs are reminded quite often that it is indeed a productive shot. The "ensign" magazine looks quite like the LDS equivalent of the JW's "watchtower". The latter clearly gave more emphasis on how the loss of a loved one was a pain than on the joy of getting married or having a baby. Just a slight poke once in a while is enough, and if it's hidden it's even better. In the end, talking to experienced door-to-door proselytisers leaves no doubt as how the ambulance guideline is encroached in their mind without the proselytiser himself noticing it.
 
Last edited:
Forums have many threads and a number of sections for good reasons. It is dishonest and disruptive for anti-Mormon posts to encroach on this LDS thread. If such posters had even a shred of ethics, it would not be difficult to start an anti-Mormon thread and post the venom there.

If you want to simply preach your beliefs without anyone questioning them, then perhaps you should start your own blog.
 
There are threads about different "religions" here in this very section. Just as atheists are a "religion" of their own so is the anti-Mormon movement, and their literature and propaganda are not appropriate to this thread in the same way as discussing Communism would not be.

First of all, atheism is not a religion. There are no doctrines or beliefs that one has to observe in order to be an atheist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. The reasons for this lack of belief can be widely varied. Atheism is a religion like not playing baseball is a sport.

Second, "anti-Mormon" is clearly your go-to dismissal for any evidence that contradicts your claims. Is the University of Chicago part of the "anti-Mormon religion"? What about the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities?
 
If you want to simply preach your beliefs without anyone questioning them, then perhaps you should start your own blog.

Janadele has completely missed the fact that on a Skeptic's forum, there will never be such a thing as an "Anti-Mormon" thread or a "Pro-Mormon" thread because all threads are, by virtue of being here, pro-inquiry.

Any thread about a topic will question and probe that topic. That's the POINT.

I can't figure out if she's honestly that oblivious as to the purpose of forums such as this, or if she's just used to getting her way by whining.

'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so *********** what?' —Stephen Fry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom