Talk:Missionary (LDS Church)/Archive 1

Items from Missionary

Below are some items that were brought up when this article was part of the more general missionary article. Please use these ideas to spur discussion:

This [article has] a number of benefits:

We could go on and on as long as we like about LDS missions
We could better organize the topic
We could go in depth into topics which aren't discussed, such as zone leaders, district leaders and assisstants to the president.— Frecklefoot | Talk 14:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

... I would propose a longer view than just what this article contains. Please see my rant about the history of Christian missions above. 1839 marks the beginning of the ongoing "LDS Missionary Effort" -- and there are great mission related events in LDS history, such as the three early missions to England, early apostles' visits in Europe and the Holy Land, the early Indian missions, and the missions to the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) and Tonga that have had such lasting implications for the church's population. There is also the issue of "gathering to Zion" and the counterbalance of the modern direction to "build the Church in your region." The differences between the early missionaries (in prepardness, financial support, and organization) and what is done today in all the LDS offshoots could be discussed as well. There might be more than one article here. I am going to copy this discussion section to the LDS project page for more input. Comments? WBardwin 00:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... Why don't we start with a modern article -- it could include a very short history introduction, and real descriptions of the actual mission experience -- MTC, companions, door approaches and all that stuff. Maybe a list of modern mission names and locations too.

I think a history based article(s) on the early missions would also be important, but then I'm a history nut. I've been doing some personal research on the three successive missions to England that brought so many English saints to Nauvoo and to the west. And the RLDS had missionaries too, although I've never actually met a modern one. "Missions of the Latter Day Saint Movement"? Quite long and cumbersome for a name. WBardwin 17:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might start in the near future creating a simple history section starting with sources largely from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. Maybe after that we can add other stories, martyrs, methods, etc. Also, a look at any recent church almanac would reveal a lot about the development of the current mission organization. Wrad 00:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Mormon missionary"

Some comments on why this article is named as it is:

What are we gonna call it? LDS missionary, Latter-day Saint missionary, Mormon missionary, Those guys in suits riding bikes? I'd like to nail this down before creating the article. I'll bring this up on the project page too. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I can't decide between Mormon missionary and Latter-day Saint missionary (I don't think LDS missionary is appropriate in a title, because it's an initialism, nor is Mormon Elder because it is gender exclusive). On the one hand, Mormon missionary is the most commonly used. But on the other hand, the church would prefer Latter-day Saint missionary, although very few people outside the church actually call them that. A google search of various names gives the following results:

Mormon missionary: 20,500 hits
LDS missionary: 16,400 hits
Mormon Elder: 5,980 hits
Latter-day Saint missionary: 875 hits
LDS Elder": 466 hits
Missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: 130 hits
Latter-day Saint Elder: 34 hits

COGDEN 17:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

"Missionary (Latter-day Saint)?" -- would match the current Mission (Christian) format and tie to the home article. If people are currently typing "Missionary" -- and find this article, it would be easy to refer them from the short section on LDS missionaries which would remain here. Why don't we start with a modern article -- it could include a very short history introduction, and real descriptions of the actual mission experience -- MTC, companions, door approaches and all that stuff. Maybe a list of modern mission names and locations too.

In short, it's named "Mormon missionary" because that is the most widely used term. The other names can redirect to this article. If you feel it should be changed, please discuss here first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be called Latter-day Saint missionary, since that's the, for lack of better words, "politically correct" term. Mormon missionary should redirect to that. Antley 00:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as it is a cultural term. I belive Missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should redirect here. Who has ever asked about Latter-day Saint missionaries? No one would recognize the term, nor find the page in a general search. However, we should have redirects at other obvious places. -Visorstuff 13:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Visorstuff. Other terms should redirect to here. Plus, all the confusing ways one could word another term would make it onerous to link to. Most people will use the term "Mormon missionary" and that's why we chose the name. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point of view Frecklefoot. However, this is an Encylopedia. I propose to change it to Latter-day Saint Missionaries, and not Mormon Missionaries. Here's my reasoning. I look up Jimmy Stewart on Wikipedia, and I am automatically redirected to James Stewart, which is his full given name. Most people would not reccognize "James Stewart" as the popular actor he is. Yet the encyclopedia lists the factual name. "Mormon" missionary is not the correct term (according to the Associated Press Handbook, one would first state Latter-day Saint, and subsequently the term "mormon" could be used.) Therefore, I propose to have "Mormon Missionary" redirect to "Latter-day Saint Missionary", since this is the correct term. I feel that it would be closer to an encyclopedia in such a way. Sylverdin 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If article names in wikipedia are to go by the popular name, the "cultural term", then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article should be renamed to Mormon_church. However, since it doesn't go by that name the article isn't named so. The same rule applies here. This article should be named either "Latter-day Saint missionary" or "Missionary (Latter-day Saint)," my thought being the prior, with all others re-directing to it so people can still find the article.

If I do not see any objections to this I'll work on renaming the article, once I figure out how. Gh5046 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are objections. Haven't you read the preceding discussion? Moving a page isn't hard, but you shouldn't do it to this article because of the objections. I don't want to reiterate all the reasons it should be "Mormon missionary" instead of one of the other variants. Unless someone can come up with an overwhelming reason why it should be moved to another name, it should stay put. I, myself, was a "Mormon missionary" and wasn't offended by the term then, nor am I now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, have you? There are more yeas than nays for the moving of the article, and so far the main reasons for not doing it are either POV or because of what's more "well known", more popular. Those reasons are hardly overwhelming.

This isn't about whether or not it is offensive, just what is the correct term. Just as I said before, If article names in wikipedia are to go by the popular name, the "cultural term", then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article should be renamed to Mormon_church, but that is not how things work on Wikipedia.

Just keep in mind, "Mormon missionary" can be re-directed to whatever name this article can be moved to. The article name change does not have to affect one's ability to find this article. Gh5046 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about what is offensive or not. The name of any article should be (what we can best determine) is the proper name of the article. Other article names should redirect to the proper name. I think that the proper name of this article should be "Missionary (Latter-day Saint)". Val42 16:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will rename this article in the next couple of days. If you are opposed to it please address the points made by Val42, Sylverdin, and myself. Gh5046 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When is it going to be renamed? Joseph Antley 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose renaming to Missionary (Latter-day Saint) because according to WP:LDSMOS we don't use that appendage. We use -(Latter Day Saints), but that would not be appropriate because this article deals only with missionaries of the LDS Church. It is possible to use the appendage -(LDS Church) for LDS Church specific articles, but this usage is discouraged. Personally, I think "Mormon missionary" is the best title. But if it's going to be moved, at least follow the naming conventions and use Missionary (LDS Church). –SESmith 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support Missionary (LDS Church). WBardwin 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree with this name. — Val42 01:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the worthy need apply

Concerning this edit, I was about to revert it, but then I remembered something from a Sacrament meeting a while ago. They read a letter from the First Presidency stating that they only wanted higher-qualified young men to serve missions. I was surprised by this, but soon forgot it. The edit I linked kind of mentions this.

Does anyone else have any more information on this? I took "highly qualified" to mean that they had attended Seminary all four years and didn't have drinking problems or smoke.

I still don't like the tone of the edit—"determine if it's right for them to go on a two-year, full-time proselyting mission"—just sounds really bad to me as an RM. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agree the wording could be better. -Visorstuff 21:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request a visit link

I was just going to revert it, but I'm kind of on the fence on this one. Can we leave the "Request a visit" link or should we nix it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anon editor just eliminated the 'request a visit', and replaced it with :Missionary Manipulation/Techniques Used by Mormon missionaries, which I just moved here. Both are probably a POV magnet, and I suspect, would result in continued edits and deletions. I think that information only sites would be best. WBardwin 07:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -Visorstuff 14:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge

As you may have noticed I have proposed a merge with Mormon missionaries. I'm fully capable of doing the move, but I'm not sure which page should merge into which. In any case, I would like everyone's comments and opinions before any action is taken. --Hetar 07:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I think that the information should be merged to this page and the other page be a redirect. What does Wikipedia policy say about singular vs. plural? Val42 17:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the singular should be the main article, and the plural a redirect. I have completed the merge, as well as put in a request to get permission for some images for this article. --Hetar 04:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected LDS Mission here. There was nothing extra there to merge, except for some POV comments at the end which were not worth bringing here. Kevin 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I think the information is all related also, and should be merged as well. They should be understood.. sub-categories of the broad topic "Mormon Missionaries". JavaDog 00:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming of age, see also

There is a section listing coming of age movies and books regarding missionaries, all were removed except for one [1], I added it back. We should either have them all, or none, but what are people's opinions about their inclusion at all? The formatting is somewhat odd. If people want to include them I will probably just make them a list, "see also" isn't really appropriate. - cohesion 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

I noticed these three articles were added to the "See also" seciton:

The naming conventions for two of these articles are wrong (all article titles should be singular), are capped wrong (e.g. "Returned Missionary" should be "Returned missionary") and the articles are in bad need of wikifying. Please help out if y'all can. Thx. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section and 132.178.227.221

I am again reverting this section which has been introduced twice now by 132.178.227.221. I have no problem with a section like this being created with appropriate NPOV, including citing who the criticizing parties and any bias they may have. However, the citations currently included are not actually related to what is being discussed--see this link which is referenced when discussing the MTC--or of questionable reliability as critics who aren't making blatantly or subtly biased cases based on their own prejudices and personal feelings about the Church. Most of the actual criticism in this section is couched in weasel words to indicate that it shared by a wider group of people than the inserter, which while it may be true is almost completely unsupported by the text or citations. In addition, this user, User:132.178.227.221, has a history of inserting these sort of POV edits regarding Mormonism into various articles including: Homosexuality, Electroconvulsive therapy, Brigham Young University-Idaho, and Brigham Young University. I am writing this to explain my revert and allow discussion if anyone, including 132.178.227.221, disagree with me and wish to support their disagreement. Phil 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tags

I'm not sure how long the merge tags have been up , and I don't see any discussion here. As far as I understand, you can go ahead and merge if nobody complains after a few days, so it should be alright to merge them now. --Lethargy 00:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this was discussed in October at Talk:Mormon Humanitarian Missionaries, but I see the articles were only recently tagged. Perhaps waiting a few more days would be a good idea. --Lethargy 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lethargy. I agree with the merge of returned missionary and Mormon Missionaries. However, I think that Humanitarian missionaries would fit more under LDS Humanitarian Services. Since they do not proselyte and are called, so to speak, to fill humanitarian needs, it seems that there is much more similarities to that area of the church. In addition, the Humanitaran Services article needs a ton of fleshing out, which merging the two would accomplish. I don't know how to do merges at all, so I didn't even try to do it. :) What do you think? Sylverdin 05:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look through the humanitarian articles (again) to see if I still think they should be merged (I haven't looked through them thoroughly in a while). In the meantime, since you mentioned you don't know how to merge pages, here is the policy page about merges: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages --Lethargy 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mormon Humanitarian Missionaries article doesn't really explain what they do, it just talks about LDS Philanthropies, humanitarian work, and missionaries in general. it also contains POV wording and only one citation. In its current state, it should definitely be merged with LDS Humanitarian services and be reworded for neutrality. From reading the article, as far as I can tell humanitarian missionaries don't exist, it is just another name given to normal missionaries or members who temporarily do humanitarian work. --Lethargy 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It needs a ton of work. If we merged it into the LDS Humanitarian Services, a lot of the info could be reworded and worked into that article, with a subheading about humanitarian missionaries. So ... then do we wait to merge it? I'm not that familiar with etiquette on mergers. :) Sylverdin 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per our discussion, I have removed the Mormon Humanitarian Missionaries tag merge and will be merging that page into the LDS Humanitarian Services page. It does need a ton of work, but I'll be working on it slowly. Any other help would be much appreciated. Cheers! Sylverdin 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual Relationships

It is dependent on the mission president as to whether or not a missionary may email his girl/boyfriend. Some presidents only allow emailing among family members (I would say most in fact). I think the article should be changed to reflect this Epachamo 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez! Missionaries have it easy nowadays! When I served a mission, all we could do was write—by hand—once a week. What, can missionaries instant message folks back home too? When I was on my mission, we could write (yes, really write, with a real pen and paper) once a week, on P-day, to anyone we pleased. But I can see how email use might be more restricted. If you like, you can modify the information yourself. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail is for family member only. Missionaries can still write letters to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrewq3434 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between modern and historic missionary experience

It appears that we are missing a large chunk of LDS history by not at least mentioning the differences between the modern Missionary Program (sending young unmarrieds & Sr Couples) and the days when mostly married men had to leave their families for a season to serve. -- FishUtah 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were also "home missionaries" (similar to Stake missionaries now). -- 12.106.111.10 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my notes in "Comments from Missionary" regarding the history of LDS missionary work. The section(s) I envisioned about the early and ongoing mission experience have alas never appeared. I still would like to expand this article/create a related article. Sooooooooo little time. WBardwin 08:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orgazmo

Why does the link to Orgazmo keep getting deleted? The article links to other pro-missionary movies, why not this parody? I didn't add the link, and I've never seen the film, but from the article, it doesn't even sound anti-Mormon. It just sounds like a comedy based on a Mormon practice. I'm LDS, and I'm not offended by the link. Why do other editors keep removing it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Orgazmo should stay. The Mormon missionary is the central character in the film. It's satire, people—have a sense of humor and stop deleting it. -SESmith 02:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably stay, although at NC-17 it is "porn" by Mormon standards. So it is likely to be removed repeatedly. WBardwin 21:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "sense of humor" argument is not one that will sway most who would delete it. The only reason it should be here is logical, not humorous. It is about a mormon missionary. That is the reason it should be here. Objectivity is on its side. It's not here because it's funny, it's here because it's a mormon missionary movie, and wikipedia does not censor information. Wrad 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing that it should stay because it was funny. I was appealing to people's sense of humor to influence them to avoid using what WBardin calls "Mormon standards" in editing WP. That should have been clear from reading last sentence, which supplemented my first two sentences, which essentially made the point that you made in a more abbreviated form. I don't lose much sleep over whether or not my statements are "effective" or not; that's what the undo function is for. -SESmith 22:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that came off bad, I was just trying to cover your back and present it in a cold-hearted, logical way. Wrad 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's OK. I didn't take offence—I just thought maybe you'd misunderstood me. I think we're all on the same page about why it should stay, anyway. -SESmith 22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think it looks unprofessional to to give the MPAA rating of one film and not the others? I think the name of the film and the information on what it's about should be enough warning for those that want to be warned; and those that care about the rating should look it up. --70.160.97.60 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... the fact that a film is NC-17 says a lot about it. PG, PG-13, R, mean a lot less than NC17. NC-17 means commercial death. It's not a common rating. I think it's notable. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with it being deleted, but I also don't have a problem with it remaining. I don't think it looks "unprofessional" — given the context of this article, stating that the film is NC-17 is at least somewhat notable, because one normally wouldn't expect a Mormon missionary to show up in an NC-17 movie. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added, though I don't know it'll "stick". I also removed entries with questionable notability. tedder (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move: Last call to support/oppose move!

I've created this new section and posted a proposed move tag to make this discussion more conspicuous, as largely being discussed in a section above. (I have not requested help with the move, as we don't need it to move to the propsed page.)

Consensus seems to be building to support a move to Missionary (LDS Church). For example, the following comments are copied from a section above:

I would also support Missionary (LDS Church). WBardwin 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also agree with this name. — Val42 01:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to comment on this—anyone opposed, for example? Otherwise I think we should perform the move in the next few days. –SESmith 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of converts per missionary

I removed the statment that "some LDS" are "concerned" about the dropping number of converts per missionary. It was uncited, for one thing. For another, I have never heard a single thing in the church about this concern from anyone, much less someone official. I would submit that the reason for this (as yet uncited) drop is an increased quality of converts. Nowadays they have to go to church before being baptized. They also have to be confirmed in sacrament meeting. Convert baptisms have to be recorded by the Mission and not the ward or stake. The Church has really tightened the requirements on who to baptize and how to go about doing it. That, to me, is the reason for the drop, not poor missionaries. Until the facts I removed can be cited, they should stay out. Wrad (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce an exclusionary factor?

Is this statement really correct:

"...are usually excluded from missionary service, as are men under 26 and women under 40 who have been divorced"

I served with a sister missionary who was in her early twenties and she had been married and divorced. Of course that was almost 20 years ago, so this may be a new regulation. Just want to make sure everything here is factual. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the 2006 Handbook of Instructions. It says on p. 92: "In addition, the following members are not normally recommended to serve full-time missions: 1. Brethren ages 19 through 25 and sisters ages 21 through 39 who have been divorced. ... If priesthood leaders believe that unusual circumstances or situations may warrant an exception, and if they can recommend that an exception be made, the stake presidency may submit a request for the First Presidency to consider it."

It seems to be a rule, but not an absolute one that cannot be excepted to in any circumstances. I expect that if the divorce was the result of the husband's bad behavior where the wife could be considered an innocent victim, i.e., he ran off with another woman or something, they would probably grant an exception for a woman who desired to be a missionary? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Like I said, I served like 18 years ago, so things may have changed, but maybe she got an exception like you noted. I don't know too much about it, she didn't talk about it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gender relations

"Missionary companionships are also asked to not visit with single members of the opposite sex apart from an initial first visit. If further visits are required, those contacts are usually handed over to a companionship of the same gender as the contact or to married couple missionaries" That is not neccessary true. In my mission we had to have some one with us of our own sex to teach in in the home where only the opposite sex is present. We did not usually hand the teaching over. If someone has the current white handbook they should quote the rule in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrewq3434 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident

Do we really need that "incident" in the article? It looks like it's an isolated case, and not something that has besmirched the image of Mormon Missionaries as a whole. And it sounds like a small story at that—I didn't hear about it until I saw it in the article here. If many Mormon missionaries did this type of thing, it'd be worth mentioning. But why is just one incident a big deal? I think it should be removed. Anyone else? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this is an appropriate inclusion. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not an LDS owned site and it is acceptable to include documented events that don't always place the group in a positive light. This inclusion is balanced as it includes a mention of the LDS response in disciplining the vandals. I would say that this "incident" should be considered notable, as it shows that LDS missionaries do not exist in a vacuum, especially since the Wikipedia article for "Christian Mission" has a significant section for controversial incidents. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but it shouldn't be paraded about in a completely negative tone. Don't revert valid edits just because it might introduce a different viewpoint than you want to give to the incident. Gh5046 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that focusing on this single event violates the undue weight rule unless it is combined with several other incidents. (Shouldn't be much of a problem finding more) Also, I believe this summary of incidents should include crimes against missionaries, such as the missionary shot in the US a while ago. Combining these things should give us the breadth and balance needed to really improve the article. Wrad (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah forget it. I'll delete the whole thing myself. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No need for that. I think we've got something here and should run with it! Wrad (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Thanks for taking the time to do that. Gh5046 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ran into some interesting stuff. Wrad (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about a potential addition. Did the LDS church allow black missionaries before 1978, or only after?(EinsteinEnergy (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I really have no idea. Wrad (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not specific to missionaries, but information related to that is covered in the Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. Gh5046 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll add that to the article. Having a racial qualification that only discriminated against blacks certainly seems as historically significant as noting when the first LDS missionary went to Ghana. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You may want to determine if black female missionaries could serve before 1978. The priesthood issue does not apply in their case. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my earlier edits, I was rude and disrespectful. I will edit more considerately in the future, thank you for your patience. (EinsteinEnergy (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Other" section

I didn't remove it, but I have to admit the section doesn't have much substance. I could care less what some wall calendar in LV says. Is this really notable enough to be in this article? Wrad (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there's at least as much substance to the calendar as there is to some of the movies listed. Some people could probably "care less" about the mention of missionaries in the movie Millions, but it's listed. I think the list works better if we try to list all appearances of Mormon missionaries in popular culture, since they are relatively few and far between. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, movies are a clear and notable category. Wall calendars are not. Wrad (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are different, sure; but how one views them is essentially a question of POV. To favour movies over calendars, or books over comic books, or rap music over adult contemporary, is just choosing sides. Why even try to pick and choose what is worthy of mention from popular culture references and what is not? It's not like the popular culture section is overflowing with content that things have to be weeded out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to determine if it's notable is by how much press the subject in question has received. If "Men on a Mission" received more press coverage than "Millions" then I'd wager it's worth keeping. Just because something exists doesn't make it notable. That's why you won't find an article on Wikipedia about me or yourself. Gh5046 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you will find a WP article about me, but that's beside the point. The calendar has a "press reference". Some of the movies listed don't even have a WP article about them, and there is no citation for some of them right now. In fact, there are no references in this article for almost all of the movies listed. So I would say that based on the citations currently in the article, the calendar is at least if not more notable than some of the movies listed.

That being said, if you want more "press references" for the calendar, I can provide 'em. There was an AP story about it that was picked up by many newspapers worldwide; the Washington Post and the Sydney Morning Herald reported on it, and the Huffington Post picked it up too, as did USA Today and BYU NewsNet. It also received quite a bit of attention in LGBT media around the world, partly because there was an article in The Advocate about it, and Andrew Sullivan blogged about it on The Atlantic website. Oh yeah, and it was in Rolling Stone. It seems pretty "notable" to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the incident involving the "Mormons Exposed" calendar is worthy of inclusion as referring to a current event. As time goes on, that may change. It also suggests the possible need for a separate article that explores the thoughts and feelings of missionaries, both while on the mission and after they return. For example, Mr. Hardy could not produce his calendar unless there were returned missionaries who were willing to cooperate with him. Also, what percentage of missionaries, after seeing the big, wide world, decide that the LDS faith is not for them?

John Paul Parks (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hours of community service

My mistake on whether 4 hours/week is a min or max, and thanks to the editor who provided the source setting out that it was a maximum. Hopefully the standard hasn't changed since the 1991 source; I suppose a current copy of the Missionary Handbook could tell us definitively. I was under the impression that the 4 hours was a minimum only because of a recent anecdotal experience: I knew some Mormon missionaries that I worked with in a community service context last year and they worked there for way more than 4 hours per week, so I assumed that was normal, but perhaps not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either those missionaries were disobedient or they were instructed to offer more community service than usual. For example, during times of natural disaster, missionaries in surrounding areas will usually help out a lot more than the program usually allows. —Eustress ^talk 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify on the building missionaries section needed

Following the WP:BRD pattern, I reverted Eustress's removal of the {{wikify}} tag on the Building missionaries section. Certainly the other tag ({{refimprove}}) is justified, but so is the wikify tag- the section is long, has very few wikireferences, has an essaylike tone, and appears to place undue weight on this missionary type, based on the length of the page. These issues should be improved and/or discussed before the wikify tag is removed- alternately, the wikify tag could be replaced with specific tags dealing with the specific issues. I'd be happy to do that, but it clutters up the page even more. tedder (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is unduly long. I served a 2 year mission, but never heard of "building missionaries" until reading it in this article. Too much emphasis on an obscure sub-sector of LDS missionaries. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Image

The image has been repeatedly placed in the article by anon editors. The picture, to me, looks like a couple of priests or young elders at a Sunday meeting or Fireside. There is no indication that these are "costumes", as this is normal Sunday dress for many LDS churches. I would rather discuss this "trend" - if any - then show a non-documented picture. As I have reverted twice this evening, I will not again. But I will vote to remove the picture in any future entries. WBardwin (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into this page dispute while reading up on a bud of mine who recently left on his "Mission" and ran into this. I've noticed a lot of the attention missionaries got in popular culture, and this picture kind of shows us what our culture kind of feels about the missionaries and parodies them periodically. I see no harm in showing a bit of the cultural opinions of the missionaries, regardless if they are dressing up or not. Imon87 (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Imon87. This image should remain if the caption is properly identifies them as "It has been common in popular culture for young adults to dress up as missionaries at social gatherings" Dlull1 (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is normal Sunday dress for LDS males above the age of 12, and this pic could have been taken in a variety of contexts. But...they are not clearly dressed as missionaries or identified in any way as missionaries. One kid is wearing a plaid shirt -- which is a no-no for missionaries. If these were costumes, I would expect that they would have "fake" missionary nametags. These name tags are readily available for Primary kids -- my eight year old nephew wears his every Sunday! So, perhaps the trend exists, even for kids, but the picture does not accurately reflect any such fad. Call me suspicious, but it may be that these young men want their picture in Wikipedia! I vote no. WBardwin (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, and how famous these two youngsters would be by having their image on a video game such as wikipedia, I'm not sure where the picture came from, but I personally like seeing the cultural views of Mormon missionaries, even in this lightly comical/satirical portrayal. Perhaps these two guys are just people just trying to get their image on an arbitrary wikipedia page, but at least they gave some content to the page itself. Imon87 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlull1, who is contributing to this discussion submitted the image, and says he took the photo! So he knows who the kids are. WBardwin (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, you respond outrageously quickly. I noticed that the first image shown on this articles page is also a self taken image. It is obviously more legitimate than the one our good friend User:Dlull1 claims to have taken, but how does this distinguish the fact that it adds a little to the popular culture section, which in itself seems bare. At this rate we might as well edit out all the images on the page because they must be kids trying to get on wikipedia! Imon87 (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vote is two yes votes and one no vote. The image shall remain. Dlull1 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of deleting the image. This could be a picture of any two people. I also find it hard to believe that User:Dlull1 and User:Imon87 are two separate users. Both have only made edits to this article and this talk page. User:Imon87 has only made edits to this discussion. I don't want to assume bad faith, but it prima facie looks like a fairly obvious case of sockpuppetry. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure how I would go about proving that I am a separate person than User:Dlull1, and I was pretty certain that I would get hardcore investigated on this video game, since I haven't done anything on wikipedia edit-wise until tonight, but people have to start somewhere, and as I explained above, my friend recently left for his mission, and when reading over this article to get a better idea as to what called my friend away for two years I noticed the popular culture and how a picture was there showing two guys satirically showcasing the attire of a Mormon missionary. I decided to continue reading it after I reinstalled my firefox patches, and noticed the picture of the two joyful fellows had be removed very suddenly, and saw it as a good opportunity to start a small editing career (Nothing compared to most of you guys arguing this image) on this website that has helped me in the past. Make conspiracies of it as you want, but I just felt this innocent image gave that segment some flavor, and since the Mormon missionaries do get a lot of satirical face-time in popular culture, I'm arguing to display some of that face-time here on the Wikipedia article, even if it's just one image and a few movies listed off. Imon87 (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete the image. I just reverted it from the article. It doesn't look like two missionaries, or even two guys dressed like missionaries. It's not even a "popular trend" to dress like missionaries. Delete it, it doesn't help the article at all. Frecklefσσt | Talk 10:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this image. At the very least, it adds some substance to the Popular Culture section as stated above by User:Imon87. Regardless, the only point against this image is that it is not a completely accurate representation of missionaries in the field. This does not necessarily hurt the article at all, especially since the image would be located in the popular culture section. And we all know how accurate popular culture can be. Until a better image can be found, I believe that since this image is not really hurting the article at all, it should remain. 9:42, 17 August 2009 (MST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.67.228 (talk)

Okay, let me get this straight. One user, Imon87, whose only contribution to Wikipedia is to this article, votes to keep the image. Another user, Dlull1, also whose only contributions to Wikipedia are on this article, also wants to keep the image. A third user, an anon user at 68.230.67.228, also whose only contributions to Wikipedia are at this article, thirds the motion to keep this article. Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect that all these accounts are sock puppets for the same user? So, in effect, one user is is stuffing the ballot box? In which case, the vote would be 3 to delete, one to keep. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that four to delete. Nothing in the picture conveys anything about LDS missionaries or their depiction in popular culture. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make that five to delete for the same reasons as Alanyst. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dlull1. I am not looking for anyone to be blocked over this; if there has been sockpuppetry then I hope those who were involved, most likely being new to Wikipedia, will just be cautioned not to do so in the future. The point of the request for the SPI is to resolve whether the amount of support for the photo is genuine. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ you guys are serious, why am I get internet investigated when all I did was vote for a stupid image to stay when reading up on a friend's mission details?Imon87 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make my point clear. The young men in photo that we are discussing is not supposed to look like real missionaires, they are only pretending to be. I am not saying that they are real missionaries. They are creating a stereotype of real missionaries to portray how they are depicted in popular culture. One of them is wearing a short sleeve shirt. This is an obvious mimic and is representing a more casual look. Dlull1 (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, since we don't have any cited information in the text of the article that talks about how "dressing up like missionaries" is popular or a trend, the photo does not serve to illustrate anything the article talks about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image should not be labeled in the image file as Mormon Missionaries. That is clearly incorrect and misleading. If you really want to keep it in Wikipedia's image file, it should be renamed. WBardwin (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image nominated for deletion at commons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming over from Commons where I intended to close the rfd for this image: I noticed that on September 1st, while the rfd for the original image[2] was already filed and ongoing, another user uploaded a different though similar image (now shown above) over the original one. Are the above statements about the "authenticity" of the original image also true for the new image (currently shown above) ? --Túrelio (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image just above is the newest image, which appears much more authentic. The previous discussion referred to the original image, with much younger men dressed less formally. The newer image could stay, I think. Hope that helps. WBardwin (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Finally, I've deleted the disputed original file version. Is the current description on the image description page correct for the actual image? --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so -- this picture looks very much like two Mormon Missionaries in a casual situation. WBardwin (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dress and grooming standards question

Is it still the case that male Mormon missionaries must adhere to grooming standards that preclude having any facial hair and above-the-collar haircuts? This is not mentioned in the article... Thanks for a reply (and please cite a source). --Saukkomies ^talk 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On p 11 of the 2006 Missionary Handbook (which is available for download on the internet if you do a bit of looking), which is the latest set of "rules" for missionaries, it says, when discussing Elder missionaries' hair:

Keep your hair relatively short (not clipped too close) and evenly tapered. Extreme or faddish styles—including spiked, permed, or bleached hair or a shaved head—are not appropriate. Sideburns should reach no lower than the middle of the ear. (See the pictures of a missionary haircut included with your call packet.) Elders should shave each day.

That's a primary source, of course. I'm not sure where you find a secondary source discuss this. I note that the entire dress and grooming section of the article is presently unreferenced. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material removed with no explanation

71.219.41.35 is removing information from the article with no explanation for the removal. If accurate information is removed from articles simply because the information reflects poorly on the subject of the article, then the Neutral Point of View is damaged.--Thelema12 (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NPOV is damaged. That's why I restored the content removed. --Europe22 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a building missionary?

I can't tell if "building missionaries" are about building relationships and congregations (social building), or carpentry and electrical work (physical building). There is absolutely no indication in the beginning of the section, it just jumps right in; references are made to both social and physical building, and it's very unclear what the church means by the term. -Etoile (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! That section needs a lot of work, but a "building missionary" is called to build new buildings, as in construction. HTH — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Preach My Gospel/Missionary discussion

Recently a wp:PROD was done on Preach My Gospel, stating

"Very obscure topic - This is a book about an internal Mormon church missionary initiative. It is orphaned, and makes some claims I suspect are completely unsupportable from independent sources, and hasn't had any real editing traffic in a very long time - not because it is a good article, but because it is completely uninteresting and not notable."

I disagree with this, even though the article needs improvements; however I don't believe that after cleanup it has enough content to merit a full article by itself, so I'd suggest merging it here. After looking at Missionary discussion it would appear that it also falls under a similar situation. Some of what doesn't need to be merged includes the names of all of the chapters that don't have any other descriptive text; even those that do have descriptive text need to be paired down. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree merging both Preach My Gospel and Missionary discussions to this article. At the very least, Missionary discussions should be merged with Preach My Gospel, since the discussions come right out of material in Preach My Gospel. But to merge both here would be fine, as long as appropriate redirects to the specific sections are retained. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry - I didn't realize there was an open discussion on this - I just completed the merge. Feel free to revert my edits if you think there is any objection (though I suspect there is probably a good deal of support for this). Oh and if it wasn't obvious, for my part - Strong support--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision 408686091

Hi! I was in the process of reorganizing the information in the article in a way that I think makes more sense. I think it's all still there, its just some of it is in a different place. If I did leave something out, it was unintended. I just checked though, and I don't think I deleted any paragraphs....

But I've been known to be wrong. Let me know so that we can manually add it back in rather than un-doing the reorganization. Thanks! :) --75.189.152.184 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It deleted the section on number of missionaries and number of converts. I disagree with a number of your edits, such as the one renaming "types of missionaries" header to "non-proselyting missionaries". A subsection there is "senior missionaries", who may be proselytizing missionaries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Axe "Coming of Age"

Hi, I propose we Axe the "Coming of Age" section of this article. I don't find it very encyclopedic, and it isn't necessarily true. I'm sure it was at least one person's experience, or the culture in one area, but this is a church that has more membership outside the United States then in it. It would be very difficult to prove or cite reliably that this is true across even a majority of thirteen million members of this church. I'm not a big fan of the "Returned Missionaries" section either.

But what does everyone else think? --75.189.152.184 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether or not it is true, but whether or not it can be verified through reliable sources that a Mormon mission is viewed as a "coming of age" experience. I'm guessing that that probably can be verified, since Gordon B. Hinckley deemed it necessary to emphasise in instructions to mission presidents that it should not be viewed as a rite of passage. I'll look for sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a few references for this and have included 4 of them in the text of the article. It seems to be a fairly well documented idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but I guess I'm not sure that it should be in the article for two reasons: First, I don't think it is encyclopedic. It is a general statement of culture. Second, even though it would be easy to prove that in some cases and areas that is certainly true, it seems like a sweeping and overgeneralizing paragraph.--75.189.152.184 (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are from some serious anthropological works, so I don't understand why it would be considered "not encyclopedic". You'll need to explain more by what you consider to be and not to be "encyclopedic". Mormon missionaries is an certainly encyclopedic topic (hence this article), and some anthropologists and other observers have stated that the process of a young person going on a Mormon mission can be seen as a "rite of passage". This is just a small section in a much larger article, not a self-standing article, so I don't see what the issue is.

Your second concern seems to me to be a concern with what the sources say, since the article simply reproduces what is in the sources. Wikipedia writes about what is verifiable, not what is necessarily true. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with anon and agree with Good Olfactory - I would wager my annual salary that there are reliable sources that speak to missionary service as a "Coming of Age"/rite of passage in Mormon culture - at least in Utah. Every single missionary that I knew, including myself regarded it that way (admittedly an unscientific source - but I think a decent bellwether on the overall trend). And by the way - "general statement of culture" is definitely an encyclopedic topic. --Descartes1979 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have the "this is not a rite of passage" quote from Hinckley in here. this may help. tedder (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It already is in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Google's first couple of references:

Elizabeth Smart mission a rite of passage (CNN): http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/08/hfr-for-tues-amelizabeth-smarts-other-journey/
General statement backed up by a bunch of personal stories about how missionary work is a "rite of passage" (PBS): http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/
A study by BYU itself (a church owned school) on the history of missionary work - calling out the study of the topic as a "rite of passage": http://www.lib.byu.edu/dlib/mmd/missionary.html
Random personal blog (on of thousands I am sure) where the person refers to it as a "rite of passage": http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Trial-by-Fire-Serving-an-LDS-Mission.html

I think the articles wording is perfectly appropriate - i.e. that the church seeks to downplay the mission as a rite of passage, but culturally, it is very much so for many mormons. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]