Missionaries & the Internet

[_harmony]

Shades,

Excuse me for butting in here again, but yet another ignorant thought came to me. Given the information that ex-mo's have access to, would it have been a good idea to remain in the church on some level to bring this type of information (church wealth vs expenditures on Missionaries) to the Ward members at grassroots level?

Dumb @ssedly yours,
Jersey Girl

Good question. Do you mind if I butt in with an answer?

The church makes sure there is absolutely no mechanism to make this possible.

1. only ward leadership (bishop, counselors, and financial clerk) has access to ward budgetary information. No ordinary member has access to financial information.

2. No one has access to church-wide financial information, so the information available is always tainted as "unofficial". The semi-annual financial report is spectacularly uninformative.

3. there is no time or place when this information could be disseminated to an entire ward... ever. Absolutely not. No time. No. Every meeting is scheduled out in 5 minute intervals, and there is no time for this sort of information. If a member actually brings this up in a meeting, such as F&T meeting, there would be an instant shut down of the microphone and an escort to the bishop's office.

4. Ward members as a general rule don't want to know. They're content to let SLC run things, as long as they feel like they're getting a good bargain for their tithing dollar.

Very very very few members are anywhere near as concerned as some of us here are, about the lack of transparency of the church's finances.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason Bourne said:

".... They are also asking for members to help house missionaries at least in the US. A cynical view of this is the Church is doing this so they can save the bucks. Some may say this is a way to keep mission costs down and make it more affordable for missionaries to serve. I served from 79-81 in the US. My mission cost was before the standardized on price for all no matter where they serve. My US mission was about $250 per month. Standard costs are now $400. So the cost of a mission seems to have been kept down when adjusted for inflation...."

This could be a boon to low-income members who might have an extra room and bathroom to rent out. I certainly can't imagine any member would be expected to "Room" then as a "freebie"?? In my home area a going rent for such a place would run $500.00 to $675.00. Just called an agent here in Florida about a small detached bungy, $525.00 + services?? Would be a very nice income supplement to many widows and/or retirees.

That said, I do think there would be some pros and cons. A lot to consider. But, isn't there always, eh? Roger

Well for the sake of full disclosure the answer is yea, the Church wants members to house missionaries as part of their responsibility to proclaim the gospel. The only financially reimbursement to a member so doing is if there is in increase cost for utilities. Then the Church will pay for that. The guidelines for who can have missionaries in their home is pretty tough as well. If there are children in the home and or a woman may be home a lot where the husband is not home then it may not work to house elders. It is preferred that they have a separate bathroom and a separate place to study. Member are not expected provide food for the missionaries living with them.

In our ward we have announced this and asked for people to come forward if they think it might work for them. Nobody has so far and the request had been made a number of times over a number of months. The SP and Area authorities keep asking for names of members who can do this.

Personally I have been very unenthusiastic about this. I think it is better that missionaries do not live with members. And I think the Church can afford to keep the cost down and still find decent housing for them. I did not like the language of the letter with the guidelines stating that housing missionaries was part of the members responsibility for proclaiming the gospel. It seemed a but manipulative to me. Often when young Elders stay at members homes, as at times I have seem them do so, it ends up in a bad situation. The members gets a few less then great elders and it can sour them on the missionaries. It is nice to have some space between the elders and members. Living in members homes make it too close.

[_Jason Bourne]

Sucks being a missionary.

Really?

How do you know. Were you ever one? I was. I actually enjoyed it and look back at the two years with grand fondness. During that time an awkward 19 year old grew up, learned a lot about life, became confident, learned to work hard and have taken all that I learned into other endeavors that I have been quite successful at.

Good for you JB,
The feeling is among many RM's are as genuine as your name. I heard of many more miserable RM stories than happy ones.
I bet the retention failure to keep them as brainwashed is less than 40%.

YAWN. The brainwash accusation certianly is a tiresome accusation. It is typically uses when a better argument is not to be found. It is boring.


Well my experience is opposite of yours. Guess it depends on the crowds you run in. I am sure active RMs which are mostly the ones I know, feel pretty good about their mission. Those who have left, most likely not. And I bet your 40% number is a accurate and genuine as your name here as well.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well Shade I see you are pretty passionate about this.

I guess we will agree on some and not on other parts.

I do not think any missionary expects that they are going out to live in wondrous conditions, especially in a third world country. I know a number of EV missionaries who have gone to Africa and Guatemala and they live in tough situations as well

I am not saying this is A OK and I do agree that the Church should do better. I do not like the pressure to house the missionaries that is recently being rolled out and I think members should not be pressures to feed them either. I do think if the Church has extra funds they should do everything they can to reduce the cost of a missionary serving that the missionary or his family pays.

I know having served in the US things were better for me. I had friends in poorer countries and they had it tough. However not one complains about it like you do.

So, I think all in all most missionaries are not suffering horribly though some may. I do think things could improve in the way the Church does this but I do not think it is abusive. I think mostly that a mission is a great way for young people to give of themselves in a cause they believe in. They do it at a time where they are pretty selfish by nature. It can teach them a lot about life and themselves and prepare them to be better all around humans.

I am sure many of you will disagree with me and think I am all wet on this. That is ok. I appreciate your views as well and know I don't have it all figured out. But mostly we will have at agree to disagree. I just don't see it as this vast evil group of men un-caringly exploiting the missionaries so they can spend money on other things.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Well Shade I see you are pretty passionate about this.

I guess we will agree on some and not on other parts.

I do not think any missionary expects that they are going out to live in wondrous conditions, especially in a third world country. I know a number of EV missionaries who have gone to Africa and Guatemala and they live in tough situations as well

I am not saying this is A OK and I do agree that the Church should do better. I do not like the pressure to house the missionaries that is recently being rolled out and I think members should not be pressures to feed them either. I do think if the Church has extra funds they should do everything they can to reduce the cost of a missionary serving that the missionary or his family pays.

I know having served in the US things were better for me. I had friends in poorer countries and they had it tough. However not one complains about it like you do.

So, I think all in all most missionaries are not suffering horribly though some may. I do think things could improve in the way the Church does this but I do not think it is abusive. I think mostly that a mission is a great way for young people to give of themselves in a cause they believe in. They do it at a time where they are pretty selfish by nature. It can teach them a lot about life and themselves and prepare them to be better all around humans.

I am sure many of you will disagree with me and think I am all wet on this. That is ok. I appreciate your views as well and know I don't have it all figured out. But mostly we will have at agree to disagree. I just don't see it as this vast evil group of men un-caringly exploiting the missionaries so they can spend money on other things.

Of course you don't see it as a vast evil group of men un-caringly exploiting the missionaries. You are still on the inside looking out. Some of us are on the outside looking in and we see things differently.
We see a billion dollar church scrimping on the care of the missionaries.
Nothing you can say can justify how the church spends its money.

Of course no RM is going to come home and complain about his/her awful mission. That would be suicide.
You are not allowed to complain now are you.
I admire those that serve a mission, selling a religion has got to be a tough job.

[_Roger Morrison]

Jason Bourne said:

".... They are also asking for members to help house missionaries at least in the US. A cynical view of this is the Church is doing this so they can save the bucks. Some may say this is a way to keep mission costs down and make it more affordable for missionaries to serve. I served from 79-81 in the US. My mission cost was before the standardized on price for all no matter where they serve. My US mission was about $250 per month. Standard costs are now $400. So the cost of a mission seems to have been kept down when adjusted for inflation...."

This could be a boon to low-income members who might have an extra room and bathroom to rent out. I certainly can't imagine any member would be expected to "Room" then as a "freebie"?? In my home area a going rent for such a place would run $500.00 to $675.00. Just called an agent here in Florida about a small detached bungy, $525.00 + services?? Would be a very nice income supplement to many widows and/or retirees.

That said, I do think there would be some pros and cons. A lot to consider. But, isn't there always, eh? Roger

Well for the sake of full disclosure the answer is yea, the Church wants members to house missionaries as part of their responsibility to proclaim the gospel. The only financially reimbursement to a member so doing is if there is in increase cost for utilities. Then the Church will pay for that. The guidelines for who can have missionaries in their home is pretty tough as well. If there are children in the home and or a woman may be home a lot where the husband is not home then it may not work to house elders. It is preferred that they have a separate bathroom and a separate place to study. Member are not expected provide food for the missionaries living with them.

In our ward we have announced this and asked for people to come forward if they think it might work for them. Nobody has so far and the request had been made a number of times over a number of months. The SP and Area authorities keep asking for names of members who can do this. (UL added by RM)

Personally I have been very unenthusiastic about this. I think it is better that missionaries do not live with members. And I think the Church can afford to keep the cost down and still find decent housing for them. I did not like the language of the letter with the guidelines stating that housing missionaries was part of the members responsibility for proclaiming the gospel. It seemed a but manipulative to me. Often when young Elders stay at members homes, as at times I have seem them do so, it ends up in a bad situation. The members gets a few less then great elders and it can sour them on the missionaries. It is nice to have some space between the elders and members. Living in members homes make it too close.

Jason, thanks for your response, and "full disclosure" ;-). We seem on the same page with this one. As a one-time landlord, i would have liked Missionaries as tenants. In those days I couldn't, as a member, rent to them. Times do change.

As to the ULd: Seems your members are voting "Nea" to this policy. That the "...authorities keep asking..." is in poor taste from a courteous stand point, and disengagingly in disregard of the obvious, from a human-relations perspective.

Probably this reality is enlightening to "Leaders" who sense the difference from 'times-past' unquestioned obedience, and the present days of
considered-conformity to a reasonable request. Which this one does not seem to be.

Those "Leaders" will abide free-agency with no more pleas; which will result in a good Ward/Stake feeling. OTOH, authoritarian persistance, that is intimidative, and effectively uncharitable, will have the opposite effect. The question is well asked, "are true-colours being displayed here?"

Very sad conditions. All without help from them nasty Anti-Mos. I hope your Ward, and Stake are aware of Your sentiments. Warm regards, Roger

[_solomarineris]

No I was never a missionary so I would not know, but reading these posts tells me enough that it would suck.
Of course you liked your mission but there have been many others that have not.

Now I have read that the church has cut their monthly money for food down to 110.00 a month. How can anyone live on 110.00 dollars a month for food? They must be hungry all the time. Doesn't the parents pay close to 400.00 a month to the church for the missionary? So where does the rest of the money go?

The church is so rich I would think they could support the missionaries themselves and have them living in lap of luxury because the missionaries are the salesmen for the church and should be paid accordingly. Instead they are living in run down places and forced to live on 110.00 for food. Something does not add up here.

Did the disciples of Christ live in the "lap of luxury"? For that matter, did Christ?

Excuse me?
How much do I care about Christ when I am constantly hungry?
$110 a month is not a fictional number. I spend more on my dogs & cats .
There is no way in hell that I am going to sit in a plush higrise office & all luxuries at my armlength
and send young hungry kids to tract!
I won't do that for Jesus, I won't do that for God.
I don't think it is ethical & humane thing to do.

[_harmony]

$110 a month is not a fictional number. I spend more on my dogs & cats .

What you spend on your pets is not at issue here.

$110 a month is frugal, but not impossible if all dinners are given by the members. That amounts to about $4 per day for breakfast and lunch. If the missionaries are frugal and careful, they can eat fairly adequately on that amount. They won't be eating high end bread, namebrand foods, and a lot of fresh vegetables, but they can eat an adequate diet if the members are feeding them the evening meal. When we fed the missionaries, we sent them off with a bag of leftovers and goodies. No way would they be hungry the next day, after I fed them. I can't believe I'm the only LDS woman who ever did that.

For reference sake: I fed a family of 10 on $400-500 a month for years. This is not impossible, not is it bare bones. You just have to know how to shop and how to cook.

Personally, if it was a child of mine out in the mission field, I'd see if he was able to adequately feed himself (by my standards) on what he is given. If he wasn't, I'd send him more money. No one, least of all a bureaucrat in an Armani suit in some office building in SLC, tells me what I can give my child.

[_Dr. Shades]

I do not think any missionary expects that they are going out to live in wondrous conditions, especially in a third world country.

Of course they don't expect that. THAT ISN'T THE POINT I'M MAKING. My point is that there is a better way, but the church is immorally withholding the truth about that better way and simply allowing the expectation of spartanhood to perpetuate (since it's cheaper for them to let the status quo continue).

I know having served in the US things were better for me. I had friends in poorer countries and they had it tough. However not one complains about it like you do.

The reason they don't complain is that they weren't informed that they could've been far better taken care of were it not for the fact that the bureaucrats cared less about the missionaries' welfare than they did about buying malls.

I think mostly that a mission is a great way for young people to give of themselves in a cause they believe in. They do it at a time where they are pretty selfish by nature. It can teach them a lot about life and themselves and prepare them to be better all around humans.

And they can easily learn all of those lessons while living in quarters fit for human habitation.

I just don't see it as this vast evil group of men un-caringly exploiting the missionaries so they can spend money on other things.

What other way can you possibly see it? Think about the squalid, roach-infested, dirt-floor apartments that your acquaintances who served in South America lived in. Then think about the innumerable billions of spare dollars that the multinational, tax-exempt corporate empire is instead choosing to spend on remodelling a few city blocks.

Now tell me whether your final sentence holds true.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Once again Dr. Shades you tell it like it is and once again certain people will still not understand the point what you are trying to make. They will huff and puff and blow out hot air out their asses in order to justify the churches actions. Some people that aren't even Mormon will try and throw out scriptures in order to back up Mormon beliefs about the suffering the missionaries must endure.

The billion dollar church that spends more on a mall then they do on their missionaries leaves a bad taste in my mouth.