Oaks tries to re-raise the missionary bar....

[_moksha]

Indoctrination is definitely the key here. They obviously think that reciting a testimony over and over again to strangers will convert the unsuspecting youth and psychologically speaking there is something to that.

What if the converts were incidental to the true cornucopia of the missionaries themselves being the beneficiaries of reciting such a testimony over and over?

An indoctrination that can withstand all doubt will produce a new generation of members to start a fresh cycle. The tithing must flow and this can keep the valves open and clog free.

[_I have a question]

Scott Lloyd haas clarified that when Oaks stated missionaries weren’t to be considered sources of answers to doctrinal questions...

”Don’t let members use you or your missionaries as conduits or authorities to answer doctrinal questions,' he said. 'This is not your assignment.'”

...he only meant the female missionaries not the males.

In considering your question, it occurs to me that the context is not proselyting missionaries per se, but rather, sister missionaries who serve as guides at Church visitors’ centers and historic sites and the Church members who encounter them. What then-Elder Oaks seems to be saying is that such missionaries are not to allow Church members to try to use them as authorities on deep or advanced doctrinal topics and questions, because such is not their assignment.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/700 ... sionaries/

Staggering stuff from Brother Lloyd.

*FTR I cannot find any statement from Oaks that could be construed in any way as only meaning sister missionaries serving in Visitors centres. It seems that Scott Lloyd is making stuff up and putting it into the mouths of Church leaders and is therefore more indicative of Lloyd’s personally held views about what females should or should not be allowed to do, rather than what Oaks actually said.

[_moksha]

Staggering stuff from Brother Lloyd.

Did Calm and Juliann go ballistic over that point, or where they able to restate the point Scott Lloyd should have made if he was not suffering from male-pattern apologetics?

[_bcuzbcuz]

As an ironic example of how the church is not only uninspired but is also unthinking, I know a kid who is over-the-top charismatic and intelligent, but at the same time has some pretty serious ADHD issues. He's the kind of kid who gets straight A's in honor courses when he is on his meds, but literally can't get a grade higher than an F when he isn't on his meds. He applied to go on a mission, and despite the high recommendations of his bishop and stake president, the church said no--people who take his specific pills are ineligible to be missionaries. But that is the irony--the pills are magical with him--they completely control his issues, have no side effects, and turn him into a model citizen. But the church won't touch him because he is using pills to manage his psychological issues. The unqualified success of the medication in his case doesn't enter into the equation.

The takeaway is that if you have untreated ADHD the church would love to have you. But if you are successfully treating it then you need not apply.

The Mormon church is therefore lockstep in line with the Scientology "church" that does not accept the diagnosis of ADHD. To Scientologists ADHD is an imaginary affliction. Therefore doesn't need treatment. It will go away if ignored. (Or if the ADHD diagnosed simply changes his/her ways. Sinning, for example)

[_bcuzbcuz]

Unfortunately, in my screwed up TBM thinking days, this was a factor in my choosing a wife. I was dating a fairly hardcore “born in the church” gal who was crazy about me. We got along great and there was something about her that was special to me. I was also dating a gal who was a recent convert to the church and therefore was not raised with an “I must marry a returned missionary” type of attitude.

[SNIP!]

She told me that that had never entered her mind…that she loved me for who I was and for what WE could become. Besides, she had two brothers who both hated their missions and wished they would have come home early. That opened her eyes. To her, me not serving a mission had no bearing on her whatsoever.

DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHH! Isn't hindsight the craps. Hope everything works out for you. But remember, even TBM marriages (RM + BYU virgin) sometimes sink and drown. I've heard the stats are roughly the same for any group. I think we should switch to parents arranging marriages. In my case, my parents could never agree on anything so I'd still be unmarried.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Unfortunately, in my screwed up TBM thinking days, this was a factor in my choosing a wife. I was dating a fairly hardcore “born in the church” gal who was crazy about me. We got along great and there was something about her that was special to me. I was also dating a gal who was a recent convert to the church and therefore was not raised with an “I must marry a returned missionary” type of attitude.

[SNIP!]

She told me that that had never entered her mind…that she loved me for who I was and for what WE could become. Besides, she had two brothers who both hated their missions and wished they would have come home early. That opened her eyes. To her, me not serving a mission had no bearing on her whatsoever.

DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHH! Isn't hindsight the craps. Hope everything works out for you. But remember, even TBM marriages (RM + BYU virgin) sometimes sink and drown. I've heard the stats are roughly the same for any group. I think we should switch to parents arranging marriages. In my case, my parents could never agree on anything so I'd still be unmarried.

LOLOL! That's really funny.

Here is a case in point. My ex-husband was a Returned Missionary. I was a virgin. We both met at BYU and married. After 30 years of marriage, and 3 children later, we divorced. He came out as being gay, and didn't want to work on trying to repair the marriage.

It has been very rough on my teen-aged son. My ex is remarried to his gay lover. I am now engaged to a wonderful man who is not LDS. He is actually Methodist. His grandfather was a Methodist preacher. He is not overtly religious, but if he attends Church, he prefers to go to the church he grew up with.

Since Sunday is one of the few days we both have off work, we kind of guard it as "our day" to spend quality time together, so we rarely attend any church at all.

I feel like this marriage will be much more successful than my first marriage ever was. And, if the Church wasn't so against the gay lifestyle, we would have never married to begin with, and would have found different partners from the "get-go" who were better suited for us. 30 years and 3 children later. I don't regret my kids, but it has been a hard road to travel.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I attended a prospective missionary night at which a Missionary President stated that if those young men didn’t serve missions their wives and children wouldn’t be as good as they could have been.

Well, if it makes you feel any better (heh) I served a totally honorable mission, busted my ass, and was rewarded by God with a total crap bag of a faithful TBM girl. Lazy. Narcissistic. Deceitful. A perpetual toddler. I can't even begin to express to you the level of freedom I felt when my youngest turned 18 and there would never come another day where she could “F” with me.

The LDS god is more along the lines of Loki than Jesus, in my opinion. ;)

- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I attended a prospective missionary night at which a Missionary President stated that if those young men didn’t serve missions their wives and children wouldn’t be as good as they could have been.

Well, if it makes you feel any better (heh) I served a totally honorable mission, busted my ass, and was rewarded by God with a total ____ bag of a faithful TBM girl. Lazy. Narcissistic. Deceitful. A perpetual toddler. I can't even begin to express to you the level of freedom I felt when my youngest turned 18 and there would never come another day where she could ____ with me.

The LDS god is more along the lines of Loki than Jesus, in my opinion. ;)

- Doc

(Bold emphasis mine)
So, Doc, your ex-wife was "a perpetual toddler"...meaning she couldn't think for herself?

Unfortunately, I think this is also something encouraged with women in the LDS culture. Women are taught to, instead of being self-reliant, depend on their husband, the priesthood holder, to be the primary decision maker. I strongly disagree with this approach.

I'm just curious, and would love for you to explain a little further your ex-wife's "toddler" traits.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm just curious, and would love for you to explain a little further your ex-wife's "toddler" traits.

Well, lucky for you I'm MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN and I love to bitch about my ex-wife. So here goes:

I don't believe she was raised with any sense of expectation from her parents growing up, so she was completely new to the concept of accountability when she married. She had the sense of entitlement that comes along with being a woman who wanted to marry, be given a home, have some kids, and never have to think about where money comes from because 'that's a man's responsibility', all the while being overwhelmed with not having the lifestyle she envisioned herself having. The mere idea that she could actually be at fault for anything was an offense too egregious to ponder and a hurt so deep that the cross she constructed and bore, though claimed to be hundreds of pounds of pine, was more diamond-encrusted broach to be worn with a Shakespearean sense of pain that would make Meryl Streep blush with shame for having entertained the notion of acting as a career.

If she and her mother secretly conspired to secure her a credit card without my knowledge, she tells a tale about how she was put in a manipulative economic situation by an uncaring and controlling man. The fact that I was a junior enlisted man supporting a family on a small paycheck wasn't a factor to be considered. Living within one's means and balancing a checkbook were concepts that produced confusion and sadness.

She never really believed in her own agency. She believed in cosmic forces like fate and patriarchy, because nothing she ever did was her fault. When urged to go to school she would enroll and drop out. When urged to find a career she would cry and claim she worked when she was a teen and she put in her time. When confronted with the reality of women having successful careers in the military or whatever, she would burn with hot shame and claim some reason why she felt her place was in the home, while doing nothing in the home other than feel sorry for herself. The fact of the matter was she was lazy, and it was a depressing reality to her that she'd never have access to the wealth and lifestyle that would distract her from herself. This has been true to this day.

I wouldn't have really cared post-divorce who she was or what she did with herself, except her laziness and desire to be passive-aggressive toward my kids because they weren't the post-divorce cash cow she thought she could get through them affected their development. For example, with me they had clearly defined responsibilities regarding school and chores, were enrolled in extracurriculars, and ate healthily. With her she just let them exist, fed them crap food and tons of sugar, and did nothing to mentor them. I mean, they had chores with her, but it was so she didn't have to do any housework. She didn't set chores as a joint family responsibility so they all could take pride in a clean home; she worked them like free labor so there was no sense of pride in it for them. So it was a perpetual yo-yo thing with them that regressed their development. Very, very frustrating.

Anyway. I could go on for pages because that's how divorces go. Oddly enough with my second wife I went waaaaaaaaay the other way and married a high achiever, but that's another story. We divorced, but to this day I have nothing but good things to say about her and I wish her the best in her endeavors (and believe you me she has done well for herself).

- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I'm just curious, and would love for you to explain a little further your ex-wife's "toddler" traits.

Well, lucky for you I'm MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN and I love to bitch about my ex-wife. So here goes:

[SNIP!]

Anyway. I could go on for pages because that's how divorces go. Oddly enough with my second wife I went waaaaaaaaay the other way and married a high achiever, but that's another story. We divorced, but to this day I have nothing but good things to say about her and I wish her the best in her endeavors (and believe you me she has done well for herself).

- Doc

Thanks for sharing, Doc. I really appreciate it. Divorce is always tricky when you share kids. That is what I have found. I have tried to keep things as consistent as possible between the two home environments for my son. He has similar responsibilities both places. And, it has taken a while, but there is an amicable attitude that exists between my household and my ex's household. At Christmas, I had the kids, my ex and his partner, my parents (who are living with me), and my fiance all over at my house for a Christmas brunch. It was a very nice event, and everyone was able to get along.

My fiance and my ex are very different, just like your situation. My ex was very selfish. My fiance is very giving. My fiance is also older, so there is a greater sense of maturity with him.

Anyway, I really appreciate you expanding on your thoughts.

I think that it does tie into missionary work in the sense that members are groomed to act in a certain way. Going on a mission is considered a huge rite of passage. It is presented as the gateway to "living happily ever after".