DiscussMormonism.com

From a thread on another forum:

Moksha Question:
I am wondering about those reports from some of the former missionaries on this thread that talked about avoiding bringing the Gospel either to people they suspect of being gay or entire neighborhoods that have a high concentration of gay people. Does this derive from a conscious decision that "we don't want those people"?

Response from Poster X: Actually its probably an example of time management. Tracting in such a neighborhood is likely to be less productive than other places. For instance I always found trailer parks and the like more productive then the neighborhoods around golf courses, course it was not mission policy that we didn't tract rich neighborhoods but generally preference baring any other input (such as revelation) was given to more 'humble' areas.

Also, there may be other things at play, if for instance said neighbor hood had a high incidence of the missionaries being pelted with rotten tomatoes, threatened with violence or people following them around jeering them to the point they couldn't really work (or was just plain dangerous, the whole don't go there after dark policies some areas get*) I could see such a policy. Of course that would apply regardless of the sexual orientation of the neighborhood at large. Or the experience was Missionaries would just call them names and 'condemn' them to burning in hell (19-21 year olds are not always the most sensitive of people) and nothing was getting done so a general, just leave'm alone policy went into effect. It could've course have been something that wasn't inspired, Mission Presidents are entitled to revelation but they aren't infallible.

*I don't know the areas being referenced, but if a dangerous neighbor hood got put on the don't go there list and it happened to be mostly Latinos/Black/Canadian it isn't that we don't want Latinos/Blacks/Canadians in the church its caution.

This is both interesting and informative. Do any of you have more details as to certain population groups being avoided by LDS Missionaries?

moksha wrote:This is both interesting and informative. Do any of you have more details as to certain population groups being avoided by LDS Missionaries?

We made a conscious decision to avoid people that swung tire irons or pointed guns threatening to kill us. We were pretty vigilant at making a mark on the map to alert the next set of white shirts.

Everyone else was pretty much fair game. From gays to whomever.

Within the last several years in foreign countries, the kids are forbidden to teach muslims. I suppose the boys could be in danger, but depending on the faction, the investigators could be killed.

I read in the Book of Mormon that I should not be a respector of persons so I had no issue. We taught anything we could find with a pulse.

moksha wrote:This is both interesting and informative. Do any of you have more details as to certain population groups being avoided by LDS Missionaries?

Well, obviously blacks were avoided pre-1978. Some missions even had helpful ways for missionaries to identify potential ban-nees by their physical characteristics, and if a black person or family wanted to be taught, the priesthood ban would be introduced early on so they knew what they were getting into.

In the past, I lived in a ward with a large area that was almost 100% gay. The missionaries would only go there on referrals and to visit anyone on the ward roster. They would never, ever go tracting or do street contacting there (especially now!)

cinepro wrote:Well, obviously blacks were avoided pre-1978. Some missions even had helpful ways for missionaries to identify potential ban-nees by their physical characteristics, and if a black person or family wanted to be taught, the priesthood band would be introduced early on so they knew what they were getting into.

In the past, I lived in a ward with a large area that was almost 100% gay. The missionaries would only go there on referrals and to visit anyone on the ward roster. They would never, ever go tracting or do street contacting there (especially now!)

That was the case in my Mission in the Southeast from 1976 - 1978.. we kept tracting records of each street of where Blacks lived so we could avoid as per instruction from the MP. The upside when the change occured we knew where to go - our teaching numbers jumped.. despite a bigoted MP who told us to "go slow".

Pre-revelation if we did knock on a Black door we would just give them a tract and move on.

I had an online conversation a while back with a Mormon polygamist who said that the LDS church forbids their missionaries from proselytizing to them. Not just the FLDS, but any practicing polygamist.
A spokesman for the church has stated it's because of security concerns.


It's more likely the church fears for their spiritual safety and not any real physical danger because this polygamist said the FLDS would welcome the Mormon missionaries into their homes. Missionaries are put in far more dangerous situations (physically) in other parts of the world than an FLDS community.
This polygamist also told me the FLDS have encouraged it and asked for the missionaries to come there.
I can see why they would. The FLDS would probably welcome the chance to educate these missionaries about the real Joseph Smith and convert them to the true church living the fundamental principle of Mormon exaltation- Celestial/plural marriage.


I asked around to verify if this was true, but wasn't able to find any missionaries in my circle who had served near a polygamist community to confirm his story.
I think it's highly plausible based on the church's concerted efforts to cover up it's polygamous history and keep members ignorant of the doctrine.


This was the only information I could find on it:

Reports of child abuse and rape were never investigated by police or District Attorneys but instead referred to the FLDS authorities; girls who escaped were turned over to the church, like runaway slaves. The best advice that Richard Anderson, head of Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services, could offer for an abused girl was "to find someone she can trust," an impossible hope in a closed community where everyone is a spy for the Prophet.

The dominant moral authority in Utah, the LDS Church, has kept a studious distance. While weighing in on a wide range of subjects including the Equal Rights Amendment (against), gay marriage (against), the flat tax concept (for) and even the television series Big Love (against), it has little to say about institutionalized child slavery and rape. When asked if the church could do more, spokesman Michael Otterson made this statement:

"The church cannot assume the role of government or law enforcement. It is not charged with doing the job of elected officials. We would not expect such an action from any other church in American society. The church can only raise its voice and explain its concerns, which it has done."


While the LDS church sends its missionaries to the four corners of the earth, it does not proselyze in Hildale, Colorado City or other polygamist strongholds due to “security concerns.”
Since missionaries are required to report suspected polygamy to their superiors, roaming the streets of Short Creek would generate a lot of paperwork and no small amount of enmity.

This topic reminded me of a quote by Cinepro in reply to WhyMe:

QUOTE(why me @ Apr 23 2008, 10:39 AM)
There is no reason for the LDS church to get involved with the flds. There is already confusion between two the faiths among the general population. No sense in adding to the confusion. Also, since the texas actions seems built on flimsy evidence and a phoney phone call, it may be best to stay clear of this case. The govenment may have overstepped their authority in this case and if so, any group and faiths that may involved themselves in this case may end up with egg on their face in the future.



Quote "Cinepro"
Is there any group of people on the Earth today that should be easier to baptize than the FLDS?

They already have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. They already have a testimony of Brigham Young and John Taylor. All we have to do is convince them that Wilford Woodruff really was a prophet, and they're in. They probably haven't ever really prayed to find out if the LDS church is true, and if they did, they must be close enough to the Holy Ghost for God to testify to them of their error.

Instead of sending missionaries to areas of the world with incredibly low rates of conversion and huge cultural and religious obstacles (Japan?), we should be blitzing Colorado City, where everyone is a dry Mormon with the same concern to resolve.

We weren't allowed to teach homosexuals in my mission. The mission president pointed out that every homosexual he baptized had gone inactive and fallen back to their old ways. I think another issue should be baptizing retarded people and old people who have lost their minds. To me that was cheating, but it did earn a few missionaries positions as zone leaders.

Since living around a lot of black people I've come to think they're not much different from any other poor population in how they view the church. Nearly half the ward I attend is black, but usually never the same black people. They get baptized quick, probably get a few welfare checks and then go inactive, come back to get a few more checks and then go inactive again. I have to salute the local leadership for desiring these type of baptisms. Most local leaders I've seen are at constant odds with mission presidents over this very type of conversion. The MP gets the number, while the local leaders are left to clean up the mess.

I agree with Seven in that I think most LDS are scared of apostates. For instance, they've never bothered me as long as I don't go to church. I can hear them now saying, "Oh he's really smart and tricky, don't talk to him." I'm not smart at all as most of you know. I just don't put my head in the sand at what I see.

As a stake missionary in a campus ward (following the mission), we taught a girl who's parents were FLDS. I'm not particularly sure how she ended up at University outside of her element. She was conflicted on the issue of polygamy. She just couldn't see the wrongness of it at all and it took about 6 months for her to get baptised. I don't think she ever released her belief in it. She just considered it a natural way of life for her family.

As a chapel TBM, the first time I heard an FLDS person speak, I was quite disturbed. This FLDS guy quoted the revelations of my prophets. Quotes I was familiar with. They followed the founders to the letter. I surely didn't. They had to be rascally apostates.

Although I was rarely allowed to associate with my mother's side of the family (as per my father's side), several uncles caved to this FLDS argument in the 1960's and became polygamists. My grandfather even gave away one of his kids to an old man in the cult. For the last 10 years or so, my mom and her husband would go to his family reunions dressing him up as his celebrated great great grandfather polygamist and do a monolog and a testimony etc. by the way, they are active TBM returned missionaries.

To answer the question, "why not teach the FLDS?". Truth is, the new Utah church could loose some of the most fundamental of it's core - yes, every one of them would be full tithpayers.

The FLDS doctrine is the fundamental doctrine of the LDS church.

About polygamists, in Preach My Gospel it says that those who are married to more than one person at a time cannot be baptized (page 77).

I served in the Philippines (in fact my user name basically means "super filipino" ) and there were a fair amount of Muslims there. It was an unwritten rule to not teach them.

There were also many homosexuals and transvestites (sp?), and I personally didn't teach any of them just because I was uncomfortable in doing so. I never even spoke to the transvestites. My view was "let them come to us sincerely, and then I will teach them."

I spent four months in San Francisco on my mission back in 83-85. We were told "nothing" about how to handle gay investigators. Nada! Zilch. We were told to ride buses and street-cars, to sit separate from our companion (but always in view), and to strike up Gospel conversations with whomever stanger we were sitting next to.

Well, one missionary before I arrived did this, and the guy next to him slipped his hand into the Elder's pants and started playing with his junk. So the Elder, from Idaho, PUNCHED the guy! The other Elder said, "Come'on let's go" and they FLED! Why? The Elder who punched the man who put his hand in his pants, had just committed a felony hate crime; a Federal offense which would have gotten him at least 7 years in Federal prison.

This was San Franciso. You can BET YOUR SOUL that the Elder would have been prosecuted for a hate crime!

And YES, gay men would do sexual things with each other on the bus all time. We wrote the bus 2 to 4 hours a day--the only way we could get around the city. The gay men would kiss and fondle all the time. We saw it. So, needless to say, the Elder's decided to "ignore" the "starting a Gospel conversation on a bus" thing that our mission president suggested.

We had at least one gay investigator, and the other companionship had two of them. These men did not like being gay and wanted out of the gay lifestyle. They weren't happy with it. They just weren't happy individuals and were looking for spirituality and something other than their current lives. Many of the members of the San Francisco 1st Ward "seemed" gay (femmes), but they seemed to enjoy going to Church.

Our area was not Castro Street, which was the major "gay" area. The other Elders had that area, and they had two gay investigators that I personally knew of, and probably a third (not sure if he was gay or not). Did they "avoid" the area? I don't know. I don't think they did.

However, in our area downtown San Francisco, also a place called Fulton District, and Hunter's Point; a lower-class black "Ghetto" area. We avoided it unless we went there to deliver a free Book of Mormon. Why? San Francisco Police would pick us up any white person walking around Hunter's Point and drive them to a "safe" area. They told us NOT to be there. We said, "But we're missionaries!" They told us, "Don't ever come down here after 2pm in the afternoon!" So, we didn't.

I am wondering about those reports from some of the former missionaries on this thread that talked about avoiding bringing the Gospel either to people they suspect of being gay or entire neighborhoods that have a high concentration of gay people. Does this derive from a conscious decision that "we don't want those people"?