A Google search of “Mormon” and “Peace Corps” brings up many links. Several are comparisons of the Mormon missionary experience and the Peace Corps. Some seek to explain the life of a Mormon missionary as a “proselytizing version of the Peace Corps.” Others are critical of the Mormon missionary system and say that Mormons would be better off serving with the Peace Corps. As one of the few people who has actually experienced both, I would like to offer my comparison.
Incidentally, the Mormon missionary program was a significant influence in the design of the Peace Corps. When he first proposed the Peace Corps, President John F. Kennedy expressed his personal admiration for the Mormon missionary program, and envisioned the Peace Corps as a similar volunteer service program.
Today, there are a number of striking similarities between the two programs. The most notable is the two-year commitment. Mormon men serve on missions from 23-25 months (women serve for about 18 months), including anywhere between 3-12 weeks of training at one of the various Missionary Training Centers (MTC). Peace Corps volunteers commit to 27 months of service, and serve between 25-27 months (some volunteers extend for an additional year or two) which includes 10 weeks of language, cultural, and job-related training. The MTC provides a similar training program, though it is significantly more intense.
Unlike missionaries, Peace Corps volunteers are often alone, serving in small villages far from other volunteers. They don’t have companions like Mormon missionaries, and they usually stay in one area for their entire service. Mormon missionaries generally change companions (work partner) every 6 weeks to 6 months. Most missionaries also have the opportunity to serve in a variety of cities and areas.
The goal of missionary service is more clearly stated (bring converts to the Church) than the goals of Peace Corps service, which differ greatly depending on country, assignment, and person. The rules of Mormon missionary service are significantly stricter (in truth, doing anything besides missionary work is basically outlawed). Both Peace Corps volunteers and Mormon missionaries are able to make lasting friendships, but the nature of their service makes this process different. In my experience, fellow missionaries are more unified in their effort, while in the Peace Corps there is more of an “every man for himself” mentality.
Two more big differences: First, Mormon missionaries pay their way to serve, while Peace Corps volunteers are fully financed by the government. Second, there are seven times as many Mormon missionaries in the world than there are Peace Corps volunteers, and Mormon missionaries serve in every country, not only developing countries.
And so, these are just a few examples of the how the experiences of being a Mormon missionary and a Peace Corps volunteer compare. For me, these have been two of the top three most amazing experiences of my life (we can’t forget marriage).
Here is how I would like this week’s discussion to go. I know there are a number of readers who are Peace Corps volunteers, as well as a number of readers who are returned missionaries. I am often asked by Peace Corps volunteers what it was like being a missionary. Likewise, many returned missionaries have asked how Peace Corps compares. There is too much to write in just one article, but I am happy to answer any individual questions that you have. Also, it would be a great opportunity for people who have had either experience to share some of those experiences. And, for those who have done neither, here is your chance to get a feel for both.
DISCLAIMER:
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Oh Very Young
I don’t recall the precise moment, but sometime on or around July 2nd, 2004 (incidentally, the day after I finished being a missionary) I began to notice how young missionaries are. They are mere children, sent throughout the world, suddenly finding themselves in a situation much more challenging than anything they have ever faced. I felt glad I was never that young as a missionary.
In truth, I was that young. When I first set foot in the Missionary Training Center in June 2002, I was all of 19 years old. I thought I was older than the other missionaries, but I really wasn’t. Attending two years of college and living away from home for that time perhaps made a difference. But no matter how you slice it, I was just as clueless about life as the rest. And to complicate matters, I was a clueless 19-year-old in Siberia.
Such is the reality of the entire missionary force of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In over 150 countries, there are young men and young women (as young as they can possibly be and still be called men and women) volunteering prime years of their young lives to do missionary work. There are currently over 52,000 of them.
With nearly half of the Church’s members living in the United States, a significant fraction of the missionary force is American. Many world leaders have made comments alluding to Mormon missionaries being one of the primary means of cultural exposure their citizens have to America. Even here in Romania, I have been asked multiple times “are you a Mormon?” Knowing what they mean, it’s a tricky question to answer, “Well yes, but…”
Two years in Russia as a missionary were the most life-changing I have yet to experience. Peace Corps has also been a significant experience, but had I never served a mission, I doubt my chosen career path would have been the same. This same path fostered my desire to serve in the Peace Corps.
Last week, we talked about one purpose of missionary work – “spreading the Gospel.” I mentioned that it was only one of the major purposes of missionary work. Now I wish to address the other purpose, which perhaps is more important.
First I post a question: If Mormon missionary work is focused on church growth, why are their most inexperienced members sent out to represent the religion to the world? I posed this question to some missionaries this past week, and they couldn’t answer it. They had never even considered it.
When a new mission president (missionary supervisor in a given area) is called, they are told that their primary responsibility is to “convert the missionaries,” rather than “convert as many others as possible.” True, missionaries are already fully participating church members, and by definition can’t be converted. However, for Mormons, conversion is more than changing from one belief system to another. It is a life-long process of self-improvement, and the quest to come to know God.
Having the experience to focus 100% of one’s time to a singular cause, with daily reflection on things pertaining to life and the divine, it is a very effective way of jump-starting eternal progression. Doing so at the threshold of adulthood helps to set a course for life.
Therefore, I believe that the ultimate purpose of the missionary program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not solely to increase their membership. It is to develop conviction among their existing membership, by providing an ideal environment for spiritual development for their youngest adult members.
Would the readers agree with this assessment?
In truth, I was that young. When I first set foot in the Missionary Training Center in June 2002, I was all of 19 years old. I thought I was older than the other missionaries, but I really wasn’t. Attending two years of college and living away from home for that time perhaps made a difference. But no matter how you slice it, I was just as clueless about life as the rest. And to complicate matters, I was a clueless 19-year-old in Siberia.
Such is the reality of the entire missionary force of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In over 150 countries, there are young men and young women (as young as they can possibly be and still be called men and women) volunteering prime years of their young lives to do missionary work. There are currently over 52,000 of them.
With nearly half of the Church’s members living in the United States, a significant fraction of the missionary force is American. Many world leaders have made comments alluding to Mormon missionaries being one of the primary means of cultural exposure their citizens have to America. Even here in Romania, I have been asked multiple times “are you a Mormon?” Knowing what they mean, it’s a tricky question to answer, “Well yes, but…”
Two years in Russia as a missionary were the most life-changing I have yet to experience. Peace Corps has also been a significant experience, but had I never served a mission, I doubt my chosen career path would have been the same. This same path fostered my desire to serve in the Peace Corps.
Last week, we talked about one purpose of missionary work – “spreading the Gospel.” I mentioned that it was only one of the major purposes of missionary work. Now I wish to address the other purpose, which perhaps is more important.
First I post a question: If Mormon missionary work is focused on church growth, why are their most inexperienced members sent out to represent the religion to the world? I posed this question to some missionaries this past week, and they couldn’t answer it. They had never even considered it.
When a new mission president (missionary supervisor in a given area) is called, they are told that their primary responsibility is to “convert the missionaries,” rather than “convert as many others as possible.” True, missionaries are already fully participating church members, and by definition can’t be converted. However, for Mormons, conversion is more than changing from one belief system to another. It is a life-long process of self-improvement, and the quest to come to know God.
Having the experience to focus 100% of one’s time to a singular cause, with daily reflection on things pertaining to life and the divine, it is a very effective way of jump-starting eternal progression. Doing so at the threshold of adulthood helps to set a course for life.
Therefore, I believe that the ultimate purpose of the missionary program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not solely to increase their membership. It is to develop conviction among their existing membership, by providing an ideal environment for spiritual development for their youngest adult members.
Would the readers agree with this assessment?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Mormons and Proselytizing
I have received requests to describe the purpose and goals of missionary work in Mormonism. I am an “R.M.” (Returned Missionary), which unfortunately means I love to bend the ear of others talking about my missionary experiences. However, it has been more than four years since I finished, so my incessant talking about my mission has gone down. I will try not to revert back into my old ways.
Many have admitted to me that when they hear the word “missionary,” they immediately get tense and begin looking for some place to hide. Even though I was one, I tend to have a similar response. Missionaries from all churches, including Mormons, have doubtless contributed to a negative stereotype – the used-car salespeople of the religious world.
Many churches have missionary programs, and I have met missionaries from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Methodists, and other Christian religions, as well as from religions such as the Hare Krishnas and the Baha’i. These experiences have been varied from polite, to neutral, to negative with missionaries quickly judging me and the error of my ways. According to some missionaries, I am in danger of hellfire, and I need to “really think” about my life, because obviously that is something I have never done.
Mormons believe that one of the important principles of their participation in the Church is “proclaiming the Gospel.” However, unlike some churches, the only members who proselytize are the full-time missionaries, and even they aren’t always involved in proselytizing efforts. Regular members are encouraged to share their beliefs with their family and friends, but they are not encouraged to go door-to-door or otherwise try to promote their religion publicly. Even Mormon missionaries are taught that the door-to-door approach is one of the least effective methods of meeting people who would be interested in learning about their religion. When I was a missionary, I doubt I knocked on doors more than a dozen times. I don’t even recall doing it once during the last year of my service. My time was spent on other activities, such as working with church members, conducting missionary trainings, doing service projects, teaching English, and teaching people who were interested in our religion.
Many people are opposed to missionary work because they feel it is detrimental to the existing culture of those who live in a community. Others feel that trying to promote one’s religious belief is insulting, as if it is saying that the existing religious system is not good enough. When a missionary becomes a salesperson, I feel these objections have merit. However, is it wrong to exchange beliefs if it is done in a polite and non-pushy way? If I were to pressure somebody to join my religion, then I would say that I am doing missionary work the wrong way. But is there a right way to share religious beliefs?
The world has always changed based on the exchange of ideas, including philosophical, scientific, political and religious ideas. In the Peace Corps, one of our roles is in a sense being a secular missionary, promoting American culture, absorbing the culture of our host country, and sharing new ideas that might promote development in that country. However, this process becomes more controversial when it is done in the name of religion. Why do you think that is?
Please share your thoughts on this question. Despite all that I have said about “proclaiming the Gospel,” I believe this is only one of two of the major goals of the Mormon missionary program. Next week we will talk about the other purpose.
Many have admitted to me that when they hear the word “missionary,” they immediately get tense and begin looking for some place to hide. Even though I was one, I tend to have a similar response. Missionaries from all churches, including Mormons, have doubtless contributed to a negative stereotype – the used-car salespeople of the religious world.
Many churches have missionary programs, and I have met missionaries from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Methodists, and other Christian religions, as well as from religions such as the Hare Krishnas and the Baha’i. These experiences have been varied from polite, to neutral, to negative with missionaries quickly judging me and the error of my ways. According to some missionaries, I am in danger of hellfire, and I need to “really think” about my life, because obviously that is something I have never done.
Mormons believe that one of the important principles of their participation in the Church is “proclaiming the Gospel.” However, unlike some churches, the only members who proselytize are the full-time missionaries, and even they aren’t always involved in proselytizing efforts. Regular members are encouraged to share their beliefs with their family and friends, but they are not encouraged to go door-to-door or otherwise try to promote their religion publicly. Even Mormon missionaries are taught that the door-to-door approach is one of the least effective methods of meeting people who would be interested in learning about their religion. When I was a missionary, I doubt I knocked on doors more than a dozen times. I don’t even recall doing it once during the last year of my service. My time was spent on other activities, such as working with church members, conducting missionary trainings, doing service projects, teaching English, and teaching people who were interested in our religion.
Many people are opposed to missionary work because they feel it is detrimental to the existing culture of those who live in a community. Others feel that trying to promote one’s religious belief is insulting, as if it is saying that the existing religious system is not good enough. When a missionary becomes a salesperson, I feel these objections have merit. However, is it wrong to exchange beliefs if it is done in a polite and non-pushy way? If I were to pressure somebody to join my religion, then I would say that I am doing missionary work the wrong way. But is there a right way to share religious beliefs?
The world has always changed based on the exchange of ideas, including philosophical, scientific, political and religious ideas. In the Peace Corps, one of our roles is in a sense being a secular missionary, promoting American culture, absorbing the culture of our host country, and sharing new ideas that might promote development in that country. However, this process becomes more controversial when it is done in the name of religion. Why do you think that is?
Please share your thoughts on this question. Despite all that I have said about “proclaiming the Gospel,” I believe this is only one of two of the major goals of the Mormon missionary program. Next week we will talk about the other purpose.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Defining the Church Part III: Is There a Doctrine the House?
The last two posts dealt with visible symbols of the Church – membership and history. This week’s post is dedicated to another essential component of “The Church.” In fact, it is the foundation for the Church’s existence as an organization: The Doctrine.
One of the biggest challenges faced when defining the Church is separating what doctrine is from what it isn’t. It’s not easy, and everybody’s path to understanding is different. Looking up a standard dictionary definition of doctrine, I came up with two possibilities:
1) A rule or principle which becomes the basis of one’s belief
2) A body of ideas taught as truth
In the context of church doctrine, both of these definitions are accurate. The first refers to individual doctrines or principles. The second refers the package of these specific principles, or doctrine as a whole. To understand what a principle is, think of an “if…then” statement, or a cause and effect relationship. This can be secular, such as, “if I keep my finger out of my nose, it won’t bleed so much,” or, it can be in a gospel context. For instance, the Book of Mormon repeats the following principle dozens of times: “If you will obey [God’s] commandments, you will prosper…”
Inherent to the concept of principle is the assumption that it should be implemented in our lives. In church-speak, this is often referred to as “faith” or “obedience.” Principles instruct us how to live in ways which result in positive consequences, or “blessings.”
The second definition refers to the concept of truth. Now, we can certainly be as philosophical as we want in speculating the mysteries of truth, but to lay a more simple foundation, let’s define truth as something that is, or exists. You exist, this blog exists, the world, guitars, hippos exist…the list continues. Religious truths are disputed as their existence cannot be determined using the usual methods. This is why religion tends to fair poorly in an empirical setting. Personal understanding of what one deems to be religious truth is obtained only on an individual basis, and we are all free to determine what to accept as religious truth.
Before getting too deep into the discussion of truth, faith, etc., let’s return back to the idea of doctrine. Gospel doctrine, in the Mormon sense, is the collection religious truths established by God and revealed through prophets. Also, some doctrines may be personal, and therefore are revealed to the individual.
I will attempt to combine the two definitions of doctrine to describe this founding pillar of Mormonism:
Church Doctrine: Universal truth which, if followed as a way of life, results in optimal positive results. After all, the purpose of our existence is that we “might have joy.” (2nd Nephi 2:25)
Considering these definitions, I have a quiz for you. Which of the following are Church doctrines:
A) Pioneer children sang as they walked and walked and walked.
B) Repentance is the process of changing one’s life to align more closely to
God’s will.
C) Coke is devil water.
D) Being humble helps us receive answers to our prayers.
E) People are accountable for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
F) American Indians are the descendents of characters in the Book of Mormon.
G) Noah built an ark which was 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide.
H) Love one another.
Please turn over your paper when you are done and sit quietly until everyone is finished. For extra credit, name additional doctrines as well as additional non-doctrines that might be confused as doctrines.
One of the biggest challenges faced when defining the Church is separating what doctrine is from what it isn’t. It’s not easy, and everybody’s path to understanding is different. Looking up a standard dictionary definition of doctrine, I came up with two possibilities:
1) A rule or principle which becomes the basis of one’s belief
2) A body of ideas taught as truth
In the context of church doctrine, both of these definitions are accurate. The first refers to individual doctrines or principles. The second refers the package of these specific principles, or doctrine as a whole. To understand what a principle is, think of an “if…then” statement, or a cause and effect relationship. This can be secular, such as, “if I keep my finger out of my nose, it won’t bleed so much,” or, it can be in a gospel context. For instance, the Book of Mormon repeats the following principle dozens of times: “If you will obey [God’s] commandments, you will prosper…”
Inherent to the concept of principle is the assumption that it should be implemented in our lives. In church-speak, this is often referred to as “faith” or “obedience.” Principles instruct us how to live in ways which result in positive consequences, or “blessings.”
The second definition refers to the concept of truth. Now, we can certainly be as philosophical as we want in speculating the mysteries of truth, but to lay a more simple foundation, let’s define truth as something that is, or exists. You exist, this blog exists, the world, guitars, hippos exist…the list continues. Religious truths are disputed as their existence cannot be determined using the usual methods. This is why religion tends to fair poorly in an empirical setting. Personal understanding of what one deems to be religious truth is obtained only on an individual basis, and we are all free to determine what to accept as religious truth.
Before getting too deep into the discussion of truth, faith, etc., let’s return back to the idea of doctrine. Gospel doctrine, in the Mormon sense, is the collection religious truths established by God and revealed through prophets. Also, some doctrines may be personal, and therefore are revealed to the individual.
I will attempt to combine the two definitions of doctrine to describe this founding pillar of Mormonism:
Church Doctrine: Universal truth which, if followed as a way of life, results in optimal positive results. After all, the purpose of our existence is that we “might have joy.” (2nd Nephi 2:25)
Considering these definitions, I have a quiz for you. Which of the following are Church doctrines:
A) Pioneer children sang as they walked and walked and walked.
B) Repentance is the process of changing one’s life to align more closely to
God’s will.
C) Coke is devil water.
D) Being humble helps us receive answers to our prayers.
E) People are accountable for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
F) American Indians are the descendents of characters in the Book of Mormon.
G) Noah built an ark which was 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide.
H) Love one another.
Please turn over your paper when you are done and sit quietly until everyone is finished. For extra credit, name additional doctrines as well as additional non-doctrines that might be confused as doctrines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
