Need for Missionaries

Pres. Monson's opening remarks asked the Church to pay special attention to the need for full-time missionaries. The LDS have always asked all their members to be ambassadors of Christ, and to always be on the lookout for people who might be prepared to receive our invitation to come learn more of Him, and join us through baptism. The call for missionaries to leave their homes and go actively preparing people for just such invitations is anchored in equally longstanding tradition and commandment.

But let me throw out the question...

We're all asked to be missionaries. I have more experience teaching than the average missionary. I have developed a closeness with the Spirit for longer than most missionaries. Through longer study I know the doctrines of the Church better than most missionaries. If I meet someone I know who is interested, I have the added advantage of knowing the person about to be taught. Why should I need a missionary's help at all? Why shouldn't I just teach the discussions, invite people to commit themselves to the Gospel, to baptism, to the Word of Wisdom (LDS health code), to the law of chastity, tithing, faithful attendance, the whole 9 yards?

I'm honestly not sure I have the answer to this one.

But I think an element may be this: priesthood authority runs through established channels. I may have all the skills necessary to be the CEO of a company, but without the keys, I'm only an intruder and have no right to make decisions for that company. The keys for Perfecting the Saints (one of the 3 missions of the Church), run through the channels I'm part of in my home ward (congregation), but the keys to the administering and teaching of the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel to people outside my own family and ward members runs through a Mission President and missionaries.

Remind me to explain in plain language what would otherwise be mysterious about the passage Acts 19:1-6

Comments

Beyond the term “identity”

I didn't want to become one of those grad students who takes forever to find out what he wants to study, so I entered the Masters program at PITT with an idea what I wanted to do as a dissertation: national identity in the Ivory Coast. It sounds like a straightforward enough concept, but I encountered an article while I was taking a history course which looked at several case studies of the construction of racial, ethnic, and gender identities over a variety of geographical locations and historical periods that made me radically re-think the entire concept of identity . It's a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, I would imagine. It means who you are, right? The layperson could also probably understand quite readily that there seem to be many different levels at which our "identity" can be determined or constrained. A black person may feel more of a racial component to identity than a white person, for example. My religious identity takes primacy over my

Abortion "Complexities" and Morality

It's just not that hard, folks. Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living. And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day. I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights. So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument

Historical Malpractice

Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends. Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity. I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality. With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her

Defense of Truth

Search This Blog