Skip to main content

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

Popular posts from this blog

Ron Paul and Foreign Entanglements

Ron Paul Photo from: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/ Sean Hannity photo from: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/150507_ron_paul_debate.html I like Congressman and former multiple-election Libertarian party presidential candidate Ron Paul . I do. I admire him for his straight talk, and even more for the fact that he actually does walk it too. I had a conversation with a brother of mine (who I respect immensely and who has researched and thought through many of the aspects of his affiliation with Ron Paul's ideals) at our family reunion recently that helped me understand what appeal he might have in the Republican primary. So between that and a recent Michael Medved interview with him, where he answered so frankly and unapologetically that I almost had a hard time reminding myself that this was a politician, I think it's time I finally address his candidacy and policy positions. First, I espouse the fundamental libertarian ideals on most issues. I think Ron Paul is right on...

Gas price "gouging"

Blogs are meant to be frequently updated, so I'm going to try to do a little (shorter) something every day even if it's not a complete treatment of the item in question. Today, I'm thinking that there's so much to get to with the PBS special that a radical shift of topic might be refreshing, so here goes… I recently had a liberal friend of mine forward me a canvassing email from www.moveon.org , a liberal political activist site, asking me to electronically sign a petition supporting an anti-price gouging bill that was in discussion in Congress at the time. The legislation, much to my dismay, was passed, but the email conversation with my friend would make a great cut and paste here. I have heavily edited the original email to refine my arguments, to take out elements that should remain personal, and continue to establish my own internet persona. If I decide to post his replies, I'll edit even more carefully so less personal and more generally useful arguments are m...

Mountain Meadows and the Danger of Faith in Man

I've got to confess, with the Mountain Meadows Massacre I'm close to factless. I know the general context of the tragedy, and it wasn't too unfairly presented in the PBS series the Mormons. The upshot is that a group of Mormons responded to their local leader (I think he was a Stake President?) when he got spooked for no good reason about a caravan of peaceful settlers who were guilty by association from the accident of having come from Arkansas where a prominent church leader had been recently assassinated. The leader ordered an armed conflict that was apparently carefully premeditated to involve a local Indian population so as to make it seem like it wasn't his own barbarism attacking them. When it was revealed that it wasn't ONLY Indians attacking them, the LDS leaders devised a way to wipe out witnesses, won the skirmish, captured the settlers, and then ordered all but children younger than 8 years old to be massacred. Granted this was the wild, wild West at the...