The mission president here has told all the missionaries that all visits with investigators need to have a member of the ward with them. Since we are the only people in Hempstead, we get called about 2 times a week to accompany the missionaries. They either ask for Mike and I separately or to get a babysitter when we both 'need' to go-they tell us Oliver needs to stay home, he's too distracting (Yea right-I'm getting a babysitter). They also informed us that it is now okay for women to ride alone with them if they are going to a lesson-which Mike responded, "I don't think so." Now I understand that members giving support to new investigators helps, but really. The missionaries we currently have get really mad if we aren't able to go (they somehow forget that we have school and our family to spend time with). It's really weird and kind of ridiculous.
Is it like this anywhere else?
4 comments:
I don't see how Oliver is the distracting one. I would think the distracting part would be four adults showing up on some lady's doorstep, like you just got out of a church revival. Or maybe the missionary that is falling asleep while he's not giving the discussion. I think Oliver would be the less of the missionaries' worries.
Trevor's comment reminded me of something else they have us do. They have made us "practice our part" for them from the book Preach My Gospel before we go over. They get really frustrated with Mike because he refuses and just says "I'll go with the spirit." It's pretty funny.
Our missionaries are too busy with inner city success to venture out into our neck of the woods. Your situation reminds me of the time when a couple of missionaries kept harassing Kim to set up an appointment to subject us to the "set-a-date" program. Kim finally said something like "No thanks, we don't do that kind of thing." It was funny.
Now for some advice (I hate being serious).
From past experience I would guess that this is some new protocol introduced by a new mission president to enforce member missionary work. For some people, this might be great. Others would find this new policy overbearing. Given the zeal of many missionaries, the fact that they get upset when you aren't fully cooperative is understandable although it certainly oversteps the bounds of decorum. It reminds me of my favorite article from Hugh Nibley where he discusses the all too common attribute amongst the members of the church who have "zeal without knowledge". He even quotes Br. Joseph who recognized this common attribute in young missionaries:
"Be careful about sending boys to preach the Gospel to the world," said Joseph Smith. Why Certainly not because they lacked zeal, that's the one thing they had.
My advice would be to discuss your priorities with Mike (for example, I remember a suggestion from some priesthood manual the following ordering: (1) God (2) Family (3) Employment (4) Church). Whatever you choose, make decisions based on those priorities without guilt or fear. If that means that you have to say 'no' to some missionary or other priesthood leader then so be it. I mean what's the worst that will happen? It's not like they can fire you or anything.
(Now for the tongue-in-cheek advice.)
However, if your style is more passive-aggressive, I would pursue Mike's brilliance to the point of absurdity. During a discussion of the more rote missionary topics, such as the Book of Mormon, somehow tie that in with some taboo topic such as polygamy. This will go over fabulously in light of recent events. You can always play the spirit card and pretty soon they'll find you too unstable to take with them. Also, and I have been giving this advice for years but at the risk of repeating myself --- "sandals and no tie" is simple yet effective.
Post a Comment