Differences between Mormon Missions and Catholic Missions

[dianaiad]

Funny you should mention that, since we have this.

sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49942960-76/church-missionaries-online-lds.html.csp

"The Internet is the new “town square,” said Ron Wilson, manager of Internet and marketing for the church. “And Mormons are taking to it like never before.”

Yes, indeed, the internet is a great way to communicate. I’ve been floating around on it since 1995 or so.

However, you can not ‘accuse’ me of prosyliting. I have never done that in here, not once. I do not start threads…I join others. I am here to defend my faith against attacks by others, NOT to go after converts. My goal in here is one thing, and one thing only; to make certain that if critics are going to attack Mormonism, that they attack what we actually believe and do, rather than some strawman construct invented by the Deckers and inhabitants of CARM.

I’m a big fan of the Internet, and I see a lot of wonderful Catholic sites, too. More power to all of us!

 

[dianaiad]

Mormon Missions are staffed by young people serving a limited term of service in the work.

Catholic Missions are usually staffed by religious brothers and sisters who make lifetime commitments to the work. Protestant missions are similar to Catholic ones as the married couples they send to the mission field make long term commitments and aren’t looking to finish up and reenter secular society.

Just two different paradigms at work here.

Yes…and those Protestant and Catholic missionaries are generally ‘employees’ in a way, of the church they represent. They are supported, financially. Perhaps not WELL, but still…

Mormons pay their own way; especially the service, or ‘couple’ missionaries.

There are quite a few differences that make deciding that one way is ‘better’ than the other problematic…except for the ultimate goals, of teaching the gospel and helping people, it’s a little like comparing chalk and cheese!

One of the problems is that Mormons consider this aspect of Mormonism to be something that everybody is responsible for; it’s not JUST a two year commitment, and it’s not that we can leave the "doing good’ part to a select and dedicated, but separate, group.

This is not to disparage Catholic volunteerism and philanthropy, by any means! It is simply a difference in expectation/attitude: that is, Mormons are taught from the beginning that we are ALL supposed to be one of these guys if we can; not just as volunteers, but officially. We see that a ‘couples’ mission" or service mission isn’t a special and separate calling, but is part of a normal Mormon life; a reward if we can achieve it.

I’m having trouble expressing this…

I get the feeling, from some posters and others, that Catholic and Protestant missionaries are very special people, with special callings; they give up their lives and dedicate themselves to service, either as purely service or proselyting missionaries. They are apart from the rest of the group; a different calling, a special group. Indeed, they very much are that, every inch! What they do is amazing and admirable, and they should be honored like crazy for what they do.

Mormons do it differently. It’s not ‘better…’ it’s just…different. It’s a whole paradigm shift. We don’t see the missionaries as 'different and better." They are–just us, shifting our lives and what we do temporarily to a different place or calling. I don’t know whether it is bringing missionary work down to the level of “Mormon daily life,” or elevating “Daily Life” to that extra level of dedication true missionaries should show…or some combination of both, or something very different. It’s just…

How we do it. Neither better, nor worse, just…different.

 

[Eliza10]

Dianaiad, I find it SO taxing when youa re in a discussion because you take offense SO SO easily. You are like one big raw defensive sore! *You read offenses where they are not. * You exaggerate possible offensive wording to be what it is not. I do not want to get into pages long discussion about your interpretation of my original post - as your interpretation is longer than my post, my reply would have to be even longer! And it all feels so petty and off-topic and distracting. But since you are now with Soren accusing me of “feeling morally superior”, and have made this accusation of me in a long, long post refering to my original post, to prove that I am an ofending anti-mormon person, I’ll go back to my original and comment on what “could be” seen as my “feeling morally superior.” Its is exhausting to have to choose words so extremely, extremely carefully when you are around becasue you might read offense into it.

I do* not* feel morally superior, but I do feel my religion is superior. Guess what - you think yours is too! No big surprise there. No offense meant and no offense taken.

 

[Eliza10]

Let’s ‘lemon squeeze’ this one.

The translation of this saying is* “This animal is very bad (or evil)”* meaning that the speaker is warning about the evil nature of this animal. He is calling it bad: evil. Why?

Because: “when attacked, it defends itself.” The irony is obvious; the attacker is calling his victim evil for having the gall to defend himself against the attack.

I really hate when I have to explain this stuff.

So you really hate it? It seems like you must like it, or why would you be here. You are coming from a completely different paridigm. It seems like you are here becasue you think that Mormons are “attacked” and you are here to beat off the attackers. I’m here to discuss ideas and in non-Catholic Religon Forums to discuss the different aspects of different religions. (Which is Mormon more often as that is what I see in my corner of the world here, over by Cumorah.) It is disconcerting to be discussing and be constantly drawn into battle because of accusations of attacks when no “attack” or animal warfare was intended.

[cut from end of your post]:It’s not a comment on the ANIMAL, in other words. It’s an indictment of the speaker, who is being hypocritical; figuring that he is not evil for attacking, but that his victim IS evil for not allowing that attack to take place without defense.

Sigh. Inditctment. Evil. Attack. The speaker is hypocritical. Lets lemon-squeeze this. The victim. Has the gall to defend himself. Sign. It seems like you are here to wage a war, rather than discuss. It makes me tired.

 

[Eliza10]

Here is my whole original post which is supposed to be so offensive and reveals that I feel “morally supeior” (- and I do take offense to the inappropriate judgment of my inner motives).

I am not an expert on this topic. I am seeing distinct differences and want to confirm if these differences are as stark I think they are.

My observations could be wrong, as they are only my observations.

It seems to me that Catholic Missions and Missionaries are more about serving the poor and the needy, in contrast to Mormon Missions and Missionaries, which are about getting others in the fold and taking caring of their own fold.

Mormon Missionaries - (which seem to be almost all the young people required/strongly encouraged to fund their own two-year mission) - seem to be all about getting getitng converts to the Mormon faith.

Catholic Missionaries seem to be of many stripe, but have in common the goal to bring Christ and Catholic truth to the unchurched and the needy, and to serve those who have no one to serve them.

Catholic Mission seems to be all about serving others based on need, no matter if Catholic or not Catholic. And you can be served by Catholic Missions and never convert and that’s okay (an example is the Mission work of Mother Teresa).

The Mormon MIssions seem to be about serving those needy in their own fold, with some spill-over to others who aren’t Mormon - but non_mormons aren’t the goal. I see NO examples of ANY Mormon Missions that are ALL about serving the non-Mormon needy like Mother Teresa’s, which is all aobut serving the non-Catholic needy.

To me the contrast of what Catholics see what Missions to be and Mormons see Missions to be is stark.

Am I seeing this accurately?

Is anyone else seeing this as morally superior and offensive?

I said these are my observations, and that “it seems to be…”. and “My observations could be wrong”. Etc.

To me, that invokes expression of opposing views. Have at it.

Why waste space arguing my perceptions, inappropriately discssing hidden motives for my perceptions, which are clearly started as personal perceptions and not paraded as be-all-end-all facts. Why not just post the facts, the opposing observations, or opposing opinions. They are clearly invited here. Aren’t they??

Is this really as unacceptable as Dianiad accuses, or is she being, as I told her here, a little too defensive and battle-minded?

 

[dianaiad]

So you really hate it?

Do I hate having to explain the meaning behind a parable/saying/bon mot/quip?

Yes. It spoils the whole thing; like having to explain the meaning of a joke. If you have to explain why it’s funny, then…it’s not funny. If you have to explain the irony behind a statement like “Cet animal est très méchant,Quand on l’attaque il se défend,” then the whole thing loses its punch.

And of course explaining it takes a LOT longer than simply qouting it in the first place, because the idea behind these is that they are a sort of shorthand for meaning; this one small sentence is a very big lesson in irony and hypocrisy. When the reader ‘gets’ it, a huge amount of understanding flashes through the mind–and it usually brings a laugh, or at least a thoughtful…‘oh…’ along with it.

Having to explain such things…well, it’s a defeat. One might as well write a five page essay on the matter. It becomes boring, whereas the original short saying is not boring.

By the way, I WAS referring to having to explain the meaning of quotes and such, not being here in general.

It seems like you must like it, or why would you be here. You are coming from a completely different paridigm. It seems like you are here becasue you think that Mormons are “attacked” and you are here to beat off the attackers.

Gee, I wonder why I could POSSIBLY think that? Could it be because there are books being advertised on the side bar with titles like “INside Mormonism, What Mormons really believe,” and “When Mormons come to Call?”

Could it be because there are entire threads here that are devoted to attacking Mormonism?

I’m here to discuss ideas and in non-Catholic Religon Forums to discuss the different aspects of different religions. (Which is Mormon more often as that is what I see in my corner of the world here, over by Cumorah.)

Precisely.

 

[Eliza10]

And I would sure like some comment on that original post in light of what Diana said about it being SO OFFENSIVE because Diana’s post #39 commentary on it is such an offensively distorted view of what I wrote. It just seems CRAZY to me. I wouldn’t know how to begin to comment on it.

It sounds like she is saying, “If you have any personal perceptions about the Mormon way of doing things, just SHUT UP about it. We will be the ones to say what you are seeing.” :hypno:

 

[SirThomasMore]

]Yes…and those Protestant and Catholic missionaries are generally ‘employees’ in a way, of the church they represent. They are supported, financially. Perhaps not WELL, but still…

Mormons pay their own way; especially the service, or ‘couple’ missionaries.

Not necessarily true. Many LDs missionaries cannot pay their way. We were always asked to donate money for this mission or that mission. And yes, when a Catholic makes a lifetime commitment, they receive a stpend…much less than LDS GAs who receive a salary. And to compare receiving a stiprend for a lifetime job to paying your way for 24 months is a bit ludicrous. When I served, I had several members who sent me money. Additionally, the LDS Church had contracts with people for housing to get cheap housing. When I had a kidney stone during my mission, the LDS Church paid all the doctor and hospital bills. So, lets be honest and fair about this…ok?

One of the problems is that Mormons consider this aspect of Mormonism to be something that everybody is responsible for; it’s not JUST a two year commitment, and it’s not that we can leave the "doing good’ part to a select and dedicated, but separate, group.

A bit misleading. Many, many Catholics also feel the responsibility and dedication. We do not leave it all to a select dedicated group. When I was LDS and they had a meeting staske-wide to try a “every member a missionary” program, less than 20 showed up. And this was in Idaho. Again, lets be honest and fair, ok?

This is not to disparage Catholic volunteerism and philanthropy, by any means! It is simply a difference in expectation/attitude: that is, Mormons are taught from the beginning that we are ALL supposed to be one of these guys if we can; not just as volunteers, but officially. We see that a ‘couples’ mission" or service mission isn’t a special and separate calling, but is part of a normal Mormon life; a reward if we can achieve it.

If that is true, then more than about 16 should have showed up…right?

I get the feeling, from some posters and others, that Catholic and Protestant missionaries are very special people, with special callings; they give up their lives and dedicate themselves to service, either as purely service or proselyting missionaries. They are apart from the rest of the group; a different calling, a special group. Indeed, they very much are that, every inch! What they do is amazing and admirable, and they should be honored like crazy for what they do.

Mormons do it differently. It’s not ‘better…’ it’s just…different. It’s a whole paradigm shift. We don’t see the missionaries as 'different and better." They are–just us, shifting our lives and what we do temporarily to a different place or calling. I don’t know whether it is bringing missionary work down to the level of “Mormon daily life,” or elevating “Daily Life” to that extra level of dedication true missionaries should show…or some combination of both, or something very different. It’s just…

it is not that hard to take a break between your freshman and sophomore year of college and go on a 2-year mission in a place that has been deemed safe by the LDS Church, come back to school, get your degree and go get a nice comfy job somewhere. It is a different thing altogether to give up your entire life and serve the Lord. No good income, no good housing…just serving the Lord. And they do not always go to places deemed safe. Would you care to guess at how many Catholics serving in other countries have been killed? Yes…good idea not to compare.

 

[Eliza10]

Gee, I wonder why I could POSSIBLY think that? Could it be because there are books being advertised on the side bar with titles like “INside Mormonism, What Mormons really believe,” and “When Mormons come to Call?”

What is wrong with those books? Have you read them? How can you judge a book that you haven’t read??

I have. I read Isaiah Bennets book which I got from CA after seeing it advertised here. So I can attest that Bennett is an honest man with honest motives, reporting the facts as they are. There is nothing wrong with his book.

You can’t judge a book by its cover. *. *

 

[TikiTokiguy]

It’s what Priests do and it’s something that attracts me to the Catholic church. To see the men and women give up their lives to the Lord and His people. And from what I understand, they do it because they love the Lord and His people, with no ulterior motives. LDS on the other hand, may love the Lord and His people but do have that “get to Celestial Kingdom and become a god with all the benefits” motive.

 

[PaulDupre]

Many LDS women will not date someone unless he is an returned missionary. LDS girls would often “accidently” brush my thigh to see if I wearing garments…a tell-tale that you have served a mission

I have to chuckle at that. It was quite easy to tell when someone was wearing the 1970’s style garments, as the uniquely tailored neckline created the well-known “eternal smile” under your shirt. I had a number of young women approach me, wink and say “I see your eternal smile”, which was Mormon-speak for “I see that you are a worthy RM (and good husband material)”.

I wonder if they still say that?

 

[dianaiad]

What is wrong with those books? Have you read them? How can you judge a book that you haven’t read??

I have. I read Isaiah Bennets book which I got from CA after seeing it advertised here. So I can attest that Bennett is an honest man with honest motives, reporting the facts as they are. There is nothing wrong with his book.

You can’t judge a book by its cover. *. *

I have read them.
They contain inaccuracies regarding what our beliefs are.
He makes no attempt to present our beliefs in a fair manner, and consistently impugns our motives for everything we do: for instance, in his view it is impossible for a Mormon to actually care about someone else; we are only friendly so that we can become gods.

He twists statistics…for instance, using Utah statistics to ‘prove’ that Mormons have a higher divorce rate than average…when in fact that the divorce rate for LDS marriages (not simply 'Utahn") is lower by three points than for Catholics. In fact, his creative use of statistics is so biased as to be unusable in any real sense…

He uses work from the Tanners without attribution…and without fact checking, which leads to a couple of embarrassing screwups in terms of the formation of the Danites and the idea behind blood atonement.

According to him, being friendly is ‘love bombing.’ (a term I’ve never heard until I heard it from him, by the way…) No action we take, no word we say, nothing we think or do can have any motive other than the most sinister and underhanded.

This book, and others like it,are specifically intended to criticise and defeat my belief system, rather than to teach Catholicism.

I find both things distasteful, and I find them distasteful no matter who publishes books like this, no matter the target faith. I am just as opposed to the anti-Catholic clap trap written by the Jack Chicks of the world.

The point is, you will not see a book entitled “When Catholics come to call” or “Inside Catholicism, what Catholics REALLY believe” written by an ex-Catholic convert to Mormonism being published by Deseret Books.

It is something that I, personally, intensely disapprove of; it’s a waste of time, if nothing else. If you have the Truth, you don’t HAVE to attack someone else’s belief system before you show that Truth to them; simply teaching them Truth will dispell lies–that is, if you actually have the faith in your Truth you claim you do, and if it is, in fact, Truth.

 

[PaulDupre]

Many Catholic and Protestant young people go on mission trips to poor parts of the world. These “missions” are usually a few weeks in length and are financed by the kids and their parents. My nieces and nephews, as teenagers, went on several of these missions. They built houses for the poor, dug irrigation ditches, distributed food, seeds and supplies, taught dental hygiene and many other things.

These missions changed them much like my mission changed me. They saw real poverty - not the “poverty” of those on welfare in the US, but true poverty with no opportunity, no food, no where to sleep, no government safety net and no hope of anything better. They learned to appreciate what it means to be an American and how blessed they have been.

Like me, they now cannot bear to see food go to waste. Don’t make more than you can eat. Don’t take more than you can eat.

 

[StevieD]

Salt Lake City didn’t have a hospital until the Catholic missionaries got there, which seems to sum up the differences neatly.
Brigham didn’t see a profit in healthcare.

 

[soren1]

What?! Where??
Please cite examples. I am not seeing what you are seeing. Who is feeling “moral superiority”?? Explain why you accuse this.

So you think this thread is about Catholics feeling morally superior, and that the posters to this thread think they are “better”, and that this “makes them feel good all over”? I am not seeing that motive. I see levelheaded logical straightforward commentary and somehow you are seeing something quite different. Please cite what is drawing you to this accusation!

Well I am not taking this seriously because I don’t see it being said!

Here are examples:

We see Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, Catholic homeless shelters, food banks, etc.

We see the mormon missionaries helping prospective members with different things, but as soon as they don’t look like a good prospect anymore, they are gone.

We do see the mormons providing relief in major disasters, but many times it seems like the press release beats the “aid” to the location in need.

and

That being said, their service is made into a form of proselytizing by the methods they use. If you look at Mother Teresa, she never proselytized (that I know of), she just lived out the love of Christ and through this love brought about MANY conversions. There was no preaching, no intent to convert, just an intent to LIVE the love of Christ.

It is hard for Mormons to live the love of Christ, since for them, Christ is not God…

and

Catholic Missionaries know their faith.

Mormon missionaries generally do not

Catholic Missionaries go because they want to

Many Mormon missionaries go because they are guilted, pressured and talked into it and because it is expected. Many LDS women will not date someone unless he is an returned missionary. LDS girls would often “accidently” brush my thigh to see if I wearing garments…a tell-tale that you have served a mission

and

This is true. Mormons are only interested in converts whereas Catholics are interested in serving the poor and needy as Christ commanded.

Do you see it now?

Admittedly, your OP did not ask people to take the conversation in this direction, but they did do so, and it set a bad tone for me early on. Things have smoothed over on this thread since, but Dianaiad was not whistling Dixie about defending herself (although she was speaking French). Admittedly, you were not the perpetrator of these insults, but you raised the question that elicited them and you did not endeavor to correct them. I am quite sure you had no intention to make the implication that parts of the thread began to generate, but I am unsurprised at the offense Dianaiad took at it.

 

[dianaiad]

Salt Lake City didn’t have a hospital until the Catholic missionaries got there, which seems to sum up the differences neatly.
Brigham didn’t see a profit in healthcare.

UHmn…St. Marks was built by the Episcopalians, and it showed up five years before Holy Cross. Sorry…

Nice try, though.

As to bragging about hospitals, the thing is, nobody wanted to go to a hospital in the mid 1800’s; doing so was generally considered to be a death sentence. This was the time of doctors coming to one’s HOME.

A better measure, then, would be what Brigham Young did regarding providing doctors. As it happens, along with other pioneer groups, there weren’t a lot of doctors wandering around. As a result, BY encouraged women to go to Philadelphia to study at the Woman’s Medical College there. This provided real medical doctors (as opposed to “Thomsonian doctors,” who paid a “Dr. Thompson” $20 for a book on herbs and permission to resell his stuff. St. Marks hospital staff consisted mostly of the latter, since women doctors…even with honest to goodness medical degrees…were not allowed to practice there.

Research. It’s a good thing. Try it.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Originally Posted by SirThomasMore
Catholic Missionaries know their faith.

Mormon missionaries generally do not

Catholic Missionaries go because they want to

Many Mormon missionaries go because they are guilted, pressured and talked into it and because it is expected. Many LDS women will not date someone unless he is an returned missionary. LDS girls would often “accidently” brush my thigh to see if I wearing garments…a tell-tale that you have served a mission

Soren, what I posted here was fact.

 

[Eliza10]

UHmn…Sorry…
Nice try, though. Research. It’s a good thing. Try it.

Can’t we just discuss without the snarkiness? Its so unpleasant. Just have confidence when you make a point that you’ve made a point. The snarkiness actually detracts from your points.

 

[Eliza10]

Originally Posted by SirThomasMore
Catholic Missionaries know their faith.

Mormon missionaries generally do not

Catholic Missionaries go because they want to

Many Mormon missionaries go because they are guilted, pressured and talked into it and because it is expected. Many LDS women will not date someone unless he is an returned missionary. LDS girls would often “accidently” brush my thigh to see if I wearing garments…a tell-tale that you have served a mission

Soren, what I posted here was fact.

Yes, Soren, I was going to point out that each one of those examples you gave are people’s valid opinions or observations. I didn’t see a problem with them. For example, this one of Sir Thomas’.

He says Catholic Missionaries know their faith and Mormon ones don’t. I assume he is talking about the young ones sent on two-year missions. Now that is a comment I wouldn’t make; I feel I have no authority or understanding to make that comparison. However, Sir Thomas here has BEEN a Mormon Missionary, and now he is Catholic so I assume he makes the comparison from some knowledge base. I have no reason to quesiton what he said. I am not going to adopt it as my belief system without further knowledge, but I do take note that he has that opinion and is in a better postion than I to hold it.

However if one of our Mormon brothers or sisters feels that statement is refutable, this is the very place to refute it and make their argument.

Who can possibly argue that many Mormon Missionaries are guilted and pressured into it? It is expected of them. Frankly, to me, those young missionaries are more of a witness of the commandment to honor father and mother than it is a witness to the Mormon faith.

As to Sir Thomas’ witness of the actions of the Mormon girls he knew, who can argue with his own testamony?? Unless a Mormon writer here wants to counter they can’t imagine such a thing ever happening. If they feel that way they should share their opinion!

Well thats my commentary on this one. As to all the others you cited, I don’t see these as being attacks on Mormons. Twopekinguys shares how things look to him. I am in no postion to counter his observations. I can only assume they are his honest obseravations.

Holly probably overstated - she would have been wiser to temper her conclusions with “seems to me” and “looks as if”. But she wrote such a short blurb, so I added those phrases in my mind. If what she said is in fact true, I am sure Mormons have a reason.They can state if ther is any truth to her observation and state the reason. For example, perhaps that the priority in the Mormon church is to spread the Mormon faith. Which is because they believe it is Gods will. Doing what you think God is calling you to do is honorable and good.

Fides’ comment was telling to me. I do not know if the Mormon Chruch has any missions like Mother Teresa’s, Missions made up almost entirely of people who devote their ENTIRE lives to to poverty and obedience and serving without proselitizing. I do think that is a huge difference in the missions of the two religions. So Fides’ comment is directly related to the subject of this thread and I don’t think its inappropirate. I think he is simply stating the truth.

Its more informative for everyone if we can just converse, discuss, share points of view. It seems like on the Mormon threads its a witch hunt sometimes for people who state things wrong, or without enough caution, or with the tiniest inaccuracy. Then its outrage and then the discussion becomes all about placating outrage. Basically the topics get derailed on a regular basis, IMO.

 

[dianaiad]

this thread has been , in my opinion, permanently derailed.

It would have been one thing if the issues of actual organizational differences were addressed in a manner that educates people…after all, there are some things that Catholics do very well, and things that Mormons do very well. Sometimes they are the same things.

The goals for both organizations are the same; to spread the gospel to those who don’t have it, and to provide comfort and physical aid to those who need it.

However, this thread began, and continued, as a whole sale slam against the ‘Mormon way’ of doing things. To be honest, nobody here has talked about any of the specific Catholic organizations that help others. The only emphasis is about how awful the Mormons are and how gloriously unselfish and better at everything the Catholics are.

As a result, there really isn’t any place for this thread to go, since in this talk about charity, there simply isn’t any. Therefore I’m bowing out.