Why do missionaries die on their mission?

[_madeleine]

I've always wondered why missionaries (usually in their early twenties) were called 'Elders'. It's known that elders (usually 70 years old and above) have a higher mortality rate than younger people.

Maybe they should be called 'Youngers'.

On my mission we had a missionary whose last name was Elder so he was Elder Elder. I wonder if he had a sister who served a mission? Now that would have been confusing. Sister Elder!

A family member of mine served in an area that had something like 10 Mormons in a branch. None of the ten people had any musical talent/abilities, so they used a boom box with CDs for the music in sacrament meeting. They named the boom box, "Sister Sony".

[_madeleine]

It was Thomas S Monson who said you are entitled to the Lords protection whilst on His errand.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23954442
So why does this type of thing happen?

Edited to provide a different link.

Tomorrow is promised to no one?

[_Bazooka]

It was Thomas S Monson who said you are entitled to the Lords protection whilst on His errand.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=23954442
So why does this type of thing happen?

Edited to provide a different link.

Tomorrow is promised to no one?

I agree, yet that seems inconsistent with the promise made by Thomas S. Monson (unless, like subgenius, one considers being run over by a truck as 'protection').

[_Bhodi]

I agree, yet that seems inconsistent with the promise made by Thomas S. Monson (unless, like subgenius, one considers being run over by a truck as 'protection').

No, your position is intended to insult Mormons, not to be logically consistent or even rational. You pose the question then insist on the only possible solution. This is, like so much here, just silly.

People do die; terrible things happen to people, it is actually one of the great debates within religion, "Why do bad things happen?" The fact that bad things happen to LDS missionaries is hardly evidence of a lack of divine favor, and more than terribly good things happening is evidence of an overabundance of divine favor. The nuances of religious belief will inevitably see good as divine favor and bad as not, but the internal consistency of LDS thought and even theology does allow for bad things to happen, as well as the good, without invalidating Monson's promise. When my children go on their missions, I do think and hope that they will have some divine protection, but this does not mean they may not come to harm.

As an aside the fact that you would use deaths to score what you think are points in a very silly vendetta is terribly inconsiderate and as harmful to yourself as it might be to those who have lost loved ones.

[_subgenius]

I agree, yet that seems inconsistent with the promise made by Thomas S. Monson (unless, like subgenius, one considers being run over by a truck as 'protection').

No, your position is intended to insult Mormons, not to be logically consistent or even rational. You pose the question then insist on the only possible solution. This is, like so much here, just silly.

People do die; terrible things happen to people, it is actually one of the great debates within religion, "Why do bad things happen?" The fact that bad things happen to LDS missionaries is hardly evidence of a lack of divine favor, and more than terribly good things happening is evidence of an overabundance of divine favor. The nuances of religious belief will inevitably see good as divine favor and bad as not, but the internal consistency of LDS thought and even theology does allow for bad things to happen, as well as the good, without invalidating Monson's promise. When my children go on their missions, I do think and hope that they will have some divine protection, but this does not mean they may not come to harm.

As an aside the fact that you would use deaths to score what you think are points in a very silly vendetta is terribly inconsiderate and as harmful to yourself as it might be to those who have lost loved ones.

+1

[_Falcon A]

subgenius, where did you serve your mission?
You've been asked and returned to the thread without a reply. Seems like a harmless inquiry to me. No shame in not going either, some may envy you for that.

I was stateside. USA. Thankfully no one died in my mission.

[_madeleine]

Tomorrow is promised to no one?

I agree, yet that seems inconsistent with the promise made by Thomas S. Monson (unless, like subgenius, one considers being run over by a truck as 'protection').

I'm sure it makes sense in a Mormon framework. It is just sad.

[_Bazooka]

Tomorrow is promised to no one?

I agree, yet that seems inconsistent with the promise made by Thomas S. Monson (unless, like subgenius, one considers being run over by a truck as 'protection').

I'm sure it makes sense in a Mormon framework. It is just sad.

It is sad, especially for the families of the ones lost.

What bothers me is that these young people (and getting younger since last Octobers announcement) go out to the mission field thinking that they have special protection. Monson's claim above reinforces their feeling of invincibility. The fact is, they don't have special protection.
- missionaries get run over
- missionaries get shot
- missionaries get abducted and raped
- missionaries contract serious illnesses and diseases that hamper the rest of their lives
- missionaries get harmed physically and mentally be their supposed companions

Missionaries do not get special protection from the dangers of this world, and Monson is flat out wrong when he promises that they will.

[_Bhodi]

It is sad, especially for the families of the ones lost.

The very idea that you would feel for those who have lost loved ones is eclipsed by the glaringly unethical action of using those same deaths to advance your Mormon antagonistic agenda.

[_madeleine]

It is sad, especially for the families of the ones lost.

The very idea that you would feel for those who have lost loved ones is eclipsed by the glaringly unethical action of using those same deaths to advance your Mormon antagonistic agenda.

While yes, I am conversing in this thread, that doesn't indicate I have come to the same conclusion as the OP. In my own religious framework (Catholic) promised protection by God, and the reality of suffering and death, are approached differently than in Mormonism. That is why I said, in a Mormon framework, I am sure it makes sense. I am also sure that in the face of suffering and death, "why?" is a common question. I see no harm in asking a question, even if it is framed as hyper-critical of religious belief.

I have yet to see the "Mormon answer" to the "why?" question. I assume it is because the question isn't taken seriously because the person asking it didn't ask it how Mormons would like it to be asked. *shrug*

I do in fact think it is very sad. I have a daughter of a similar age and as her parent, I would be devastated. I would also think there would be a small measure of comfort found in recognizing she was following what she believed and her own passion for what she wanted to do with her life. I don't see how anyone can be critical of that. I think there is an underlying assumption that if there wasn't a statement of promised protection, she may not have chosen to serve an LDS mission. I haven't made that assumption.