Skip to main content

The LDS Missionary Robot Machine

I've been promising part 2 on polygamy for a long time, but it's such an in depth topic that I postpone thought on it so I can give it it's full due in time and treatment. And today's no exception: I need an easy one.

PBS's modus operandi for the entire 4-hour documentary "The Mormons" is to frame elements of LDS belief and practice as controversial, then proceed to give an accurate, but cursory glance at what Mormons believe followed by an extended critique or contrary view. In the case of the legions of young missionaries in the field today, the controversy was more contrived and less sinister than most other issues, in my view. Essentially, PBS was following the tack that so many people sacrificing so much of their youth, time, freedom, and money, were obviously numb of mind and victims of a controlling leadership, whose effectiveness at creating such a deep social pressure to conform bordered on Stalinist. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a little there, but I only exaggerate to make the point more starkly clear, and demonstrate the ridiculousness of the charge. Occam's razor should rule out the Manichean attention to detail it would take for such manipulation to work out so successfully as to maintain the Church's constant supply of 60,000 missionaries from among a membership of almost 12 million (that's roughly .5% of the entire Church's membership serving 24/7 365 missions at any given time). Why does it not even occur to PBS that the most simple and relevant response to why so many serve is because they are personally convinced of the correctness of their decision to donate 2 years to the Lord?

Maybe I'm being too cavalier in dismissing the pressure brought to bear on youth, but I think, in fairness, that the social and doctrinal pressures are really a good thing if they produce such a wonderful result as a ready volunteer missionary. When you think about all the things you can learn on a mission, and at that precise window of formative youth, it's really a win-win situation for the Church, the volunteers, and the world at large. Self-denial in the aim of service of fellow-man, and service to a cause higher than oneself produce habits of moral thought and the challenges develop character and leadership. Because you're always with a companion as a missionary, you learn interpersonal skills that prepare you for married life. Because you're almost never called to serve in your own home area, you almost always return with deep contact with another culture, oftentimes another language becomes part of your repertoire. And in the time you devote to finding and teaching those who would be interested in your message, you develop deep insights, and live experiences which confirm and solidify your own faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in how He oversees His work. Whether or not you believe they are misguided, you can at least, I hope, be comforted in appreciating that they are investing themselves into a belief, which risk of investment returns faith with interest. You may object to their direction as I might with yours, but I hope you will join me in refraining from criticizing their devotion, especially since, when judged on the merits of what it produces as opposed to what opinions you may have of the doctrines they teach and live, the fruits are so obviously positive.

There's no controversy. No one is ever punished by the Church for failure to serve a mission. It's a choice with social ramifications that those who choose not to go must also accept unless they are willing to change their social network (which they are also completely free to do--shunning only occurs among the most misguided of the LDS and is spoken out against frequently by leaders, who encourage rather reaching out to "less-actives"). The children of the Church ARE taught that missions are a commandment of God, and they are taught from before the age when they can effectively choose for themselves that they OWE such obedience to God. However, as you will never see in the PBS documentary falsely framing itself as seeking understanding of the subject, these same children are taught even MORE emphatically the empowering fact of their own agency at every point of decision in obeying any command from God (or man for that matter), the same children are taught HOW to think through decisions, consider consequences, weight benefits, and these same children grow into adults who make the completely RATIONAL decision to serve missions by themselves when the time comes.

Are there some, even many, who choose to serve for other than pure reasons? Of course. Are some coerced by the addition of consequences or the threat of losing rewards? Of course. Do they all go home having discovered at some point the pure spiritual motivations that they may or may not have had at the beginning? Sadly but predictably, no--as with any investment, they can only get out what they put in. Do they even really know exactly what they're getting into so as to make an informed decision? Not really, of course--there are an enormous amount of variables. But in any of this is there any real conspiratorial exploitation? The evidence just isn't there.

Oh, and as another minor point about the control of the missionary robots. Are there strict rules and guidelines? You bet. And they all fit into a neat little pocket pamphlet about 30 pages 4 inches by 3 inches. Have you ever seen the military code? In other words, the Church is doing a phenomenal job of teaching correct principles and letting, yes even the missionaries, govern themselves.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...