Talk:Missionary

Pretty one sided

I'd like to see some discussion of some of the negative aspects of missionaries and they way being sent on some missions is designed to alienate you from the public, not to convert people.

Huh? I assume you're referring to LDS Missionaries? I was one, and I was under the impression I was sent to spread the word (and my sons plan on doing the same when they are old enough). Do you have any sources? Could it be done in a NPOV fashion? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, it couldn't be done in an NPOV fashion, otherwise, how would Christianity exist and survive (after calling other religions as "fakes")? And that's precisely why it is viewed negatively. The Truth is more like the Speculation. Heilme 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Christians don't say that other religions are "fake." At least, they shouldn't. Christians believe that there is only one path to salvation, and that's through belief in and obedience to Jesus Christ. That doesn't make any other religions "false" although it does make the gods these other religions worship wrong. Christian's shouldn't deny that other people actually believe they are worshipping another power. It's just that this other power, they are taught, is not Godly and is therefore incorrect and likely to be promoted by Satan.

That has to be one of the most confused paragraphs I've ever read; it boils down to "other religions aren't false, but the fact is they are false"! You might like to consider that teaching naive people that the whole basis of the universe is that a) they are slaves of God b) their only purpose in life is to obey the orders of this God absolutely c) they must love this harsh God with every fibre of their being and d) if they fail even the tiniest bit in either b) or c) this God will throw them into a lake of fire and torture them for eternity is hardly "bringing them the Good News". If that's the Good News, I can't imagine what the Bad News must be like.

Anyway, this article desperately needs some balance regarding the negative side of missionaries.

So you're saying that Christianity wouldn't survive if the Christian missionaries didn't convert people? Man, there are about 2.1 billion adherents - how is it not going to survive? --Khoikhoi 03:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is dying in the west. Europe, in particular, are growing more and more atheistic/agnostic over the past decades. The trend is much slower in United States, but it's happening. Christianity needs new ground, fresh believers to survive and keep its momentum. If all missionaries cease to exist, all evangelists cease to work, I don't think Christianity can keep its momentum and will eventually wither. Of course, it may take 2 or 3 generations or more, it's a guess. But what I'm saying really in my original text is that spreading the Gospel cannot be done in an NPOV fashion. In other words, it cannot be done without discrediting other faiths first. Heilme 08:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. I thought that people in the west were just becomming lazy on going to Church and things like that. I didn't know that they were becomming atheistic/agnostic. But what about the fact that missionaries destroy cultures in an attempt to convert people? Have you ever read Things Fall Apart? --Khoikhoi 18:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to say to what extent missionaries affect cultures. I mean, yes, there are some practices that they discourage (like the ritual slaughtering of animals in the name of the ancestors, the worship of idols, etc.). But in the village where my family has worked for 20 years there hasn't been a noticeable change in the way people do things. I think that our family's presence has had less effect on the native peoples than the modernizing of the world around them. For example, the government just put a cell phone tower up in the village. But for all our discouraging of various Animistic practices, it was the people themselves who decided to change the way they acted. And I haven't come out of the experience without changing, either. I'm used to living in a mud-brick hut and the USA comes as quite a shock.

Hmm. So they all just decided to start filing into a church to have somebody yell at them that they're born evil and must spend the rest of their lives trying to apologise for it on a whim, did they?82.71.30.178 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

lol who gives a damn about christianity anyway? Let them have their fun trying to convert people in some generic part in africa. From what I see in the US and Europe, Christians believe quantity is more important than quality. Sure, you can have 2.1 billion christians in the world, but if only 10% practice, whats the point?

Mary Sleser

Mary Sleser was a missionary to Africa, she was known as "White Ma" by the Indian Tribes.

Mary settled conflicts, and arguments.

---

European culture vs. Christians

"They were successful in obtaining several thousand converts to the faith, but adoption of European culture was slow, retarding acceptance of the new converts as real Christians." Huh? What does European culture have to do with being real Christians? -phma

Christianity in its most famous current form (Catholics and Protestants) originates from Europe? Duh.

The editor doesn't acknowledge that missions often had non-imperialistic motivations, even if the arrival of missionaries was always a harbinger of imperialistic expansion during the colonial period. The paragraph is dealing with complex and controversial material. It would take great skill to treat the topic in a "neutral" way (so, I'm leaving it alone). Mkmcconn

Expanding the Kingdom of God is not considered imperialist? Heilme 05:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

From a historical point of view -- this article lacks information on the long history of Christian missions, i.e.

• The missions of the first apostles to Greek speaking counties, the Middle East, Egypt, and India.
• Early Christian movements had strong missionary efforts into Asia and what is now China, and resulting Christian communities were known there until at least the time of the Great Khans.
• The Catholic and Protestant mission patterns, and the expansion of missionary work was simultaneous, with European colonialism, and so extended into "barbarian" lands, areas controlled by Islam, the Pacific Islands, Africa, China and other parts of Asia.
• Missionary work was both a real and a politically acceptable motive for exploration of the New World, with Catholic efforts by Spain, Portugal, and France, and Protestant efforts by the Netherlands and England.
• These efforts continued as New World states emerged, for example missionary work a part of the expansion of the western United States and western Canada.

Some of this information and other articles relating to missionary work are listed in Mission (Christian) and History of Christian missions. So -- should there be more articles? Should this article be more clearly defined or divided into seperate articles? How about missionary work by other religious traditions, if any? Comments please. WBardwin 22:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Mormon missionaries fluent

I don't really agree with this sentence from the article: "Often, missionaries are fluent in the language they study at the end of the six-week period." From what I understand, LDS missionaries are given a set of common phrases to learn as well as basic syntax for the foreign language, but I don't think they are often fluent in the language by the time they arrive at their destination. Many say they are completely lost for the first few weeks while learning the new language. After they are immersed in it, however, they learn it more quickly. I may be wrong, however, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I served a domestic mission, so I didn't go through the foreign-language training. —Frecklefoot 15:40, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The official MTC website says that foreign-speaking missionaries are trained for 8 to 10 weeks, and I was there for 9 weeks learning Spanish, so I made the change. —Hawryluka 15:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for making the change! :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:05, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

If this can help, I've met a number of LDS missionaries in France and none of them were "fluent". David.Monniaux 13:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know them in the Czech republic, Czech is a difficult language and they can speak only about their topic - mormon stuff. --jvano 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Searching problem

I was searching for Missions which took me to "ambigous" page about all kinds of "missions"

I clicked on Mission (Christian) [one of the links] and that brought me to a page of the same name. It only contained a short 2 sentence blurb and no links (stub) to something as full as what I found in Missionary! I don't remember how I got to Missionary but that page has everything on it!

I copied the Christian Missions section to "Mission (Christian)" but I didn't want to remove so much from Missionary without some comments from others.

Does this make sence? Strbenjr

Sorry it's taken so long to respond, but people will be more inclined to answer, Strbenjr, if you sign your posts. You can do this ny using 3 or 4 tildes, e.g. ~~~~. The latter version signs your post and adds a time stamp--three tildes signs with no timestamp. The 4 tilde version is preferred by most.

Next, what do you want to do? Create a seperate article for Christian missions? If there is a seperate article with Christian mission information in it, it should be deleted and any links to it redirected to the Christian section of this article. This article isn't big enough to be split up into seperate articles yet. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:04, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I remember coming back a few times but didn't see a response until now. Sorry I didn't leave a Signature but I am glad to know how to do that now.

Obviously I made the change that I was asking about. I also changed references from other pages so they don't go to the old stubs and other places when they are obviously refering to religous missions.

Strbenjr 00:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LDS missionaries

Full-time proselyting missionaries are required to adhere to a dress code: for men, dark trousers and suit coats (which are optional in hot climates), white dress shirts, and ties are required;

That, I understand. However, I noticed that, quite often, LDS missionaries preaching in France wear backpacks whose color violently clashes with their suit. I understand that LDS policy is to wear professional, strict attire, but why doesn't this extend to accessories? David.Monniaux 13:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. When I was serving a mission, we weren't allowed to use them. The allowance nwo is a rather recent. AFAIK, there is no "dress code" for backpacks. Perhaps there will be someday. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:04, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that backpacks are Strongly discouraged in general - but it is a mission president's call. And, obviously, it has not (as yet) made its way into the white handbook. I think the missionaries that have been allowed to use them are doing future missionaries a disservice by not using backpacks that are dark in colour - more likely to get noticed and possibly banned. I sure wish I could have had a backpack on my long walks. Trödel|talk 20:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree missionaries should use backpacks in dark, conservative colors. I sure would've appreciated being able to use them too. Luckily, I had a car in most my areas, so getting stuff around wasn't too hard, but it sure would've been easier on bikes with backpacks.

What's worse than using backpacks in garrish colors is using backpacks with inappropriate decals and patches. I went on trade-offs with a missionary who had Smashing Pumpkins and Pink Floyd patches on his backpack. I love Pink Floyd, but I don't think emissaries of the Church should be proclaiming them on their clothing. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:28, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

LDS long

Take a look at Missionary#LDS_missionaries. It's more than twice as long as any of the other entries! I'd like to propose that we create a new article just for LDS missionaries and trim the entry in this article. We would, of course, provide a link to the main article from the smaller entry. This would have a number of benefits:

1. We could go on and on as long as we like about LDS missions
2. We could better organize the topic
3. We could go in depth into topics which aren't discussed, such as zone leaders, district leaders and assisstants to the president.

What does everyone else say? — Frecklefoot | Talk

I agree with this. Missions are a important part of LDS Culture. Trödel|talk 16:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This topic has been dead for a long time. Does anyone else have strong feeling against an LDS Missionary article? If not, I vote we go ahead and create this article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think an LDS article would be good, but 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)

I think we can talk about what should and can be added to the LDS missionary article once we have it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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:

1. Mormon missionary: 20,500 hits
2. LDS missionary: 16,400 hits
3. Mormon Elder: 5,980 hits
4. Latter-day Saint missionary: 875 hits
5. LDS Elder": 466 hits
6. Missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: 130 hits
7. 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.

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)

I'm going to go with Mormon missionary since it is the most widely used. We can change it later or move it if we find it is not the optimal name. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I created it and now it's just sitting there waiting for some thoughtful edits! I also moved some pertinent talk items there. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right about subtracting the LDS page and giving it's own space. On the nomenclature, Mormon is more widely used (even though Latter day saints don't use it officially any more). Most people would search for Mormon. It's more user frinedly even if not precise.

Cor Unum 11:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

LDS Cult

I just made accommodating edits of an anons POV contributions. Tom Haws 23:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The LDS church is not a cult, rather, it is a church much like others, believing in Christ and hoping to reach heaven after death just like many different sects.

Missions vs. Missionaries

Since this page is about Missionaries (people), I wonder how relevant it is to talk about Missions (organisations) here. Shouldn't this page only be about Missionaries, historical figures, stereotypes, and so on? The stuff about Missions should be moved to another page --Ritchy 16 August 2005

Missionary kid

Children of missionaries who grew up overseas are often called missionary kids. We could work this into the article somehow. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:01, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Individual missionaries

The external links to individual missionaries doesn't seem appropriate here. I suppose it could have value as an "example" of what missionaries are like, but it also could just be something to tag on somebody's "friend from church." Worth keeping? Deadsalmon 23:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As of 4 January 2006, I've removed the Individual Missionaries section. It added little to the article and was exclusively Protestant (mostly Assemblies of God). The websites provided should suffice as "example sites," and the article's purpose isn't to be a directory for every missionary with a website. Deadsalmon 10:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist missionaries

Isn't that how Buddhism originally expanded. (Missions to Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka, Japan, Korea, China, Tibet, etc.) 12.220.47.145 01:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC).

Criticism?

How come there isn't a Criticism section in this article? How come it isn't mentioned that converting tribes to Christianity opens them up to the outside world and destroys their culture? Let me know if there is some criticism in this article somewhere and I missed it. --Khoikhoi 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - also how missionaries spread STDs wiping out many native populaces to the South American continent. --Belfry 05:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Or about the mindset that they think their religion is superior. --Khoikhoi 05:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed. such stuff should definitely be mentioned.--Dangerous-Boy 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt. I'll see if I can get anything up anytime soon.--INO Exodus 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC

I'm deleting the article from burningcross. It is assertion under the guise of citation. I am tempted to delete the superfluous amount of book references. There should be references that represent the response to the charge of cultural imperialism. To allow the charge and not the Christian response to the charge is patently not neutral. If you want to claim that Christianity destroys cultures, cite authorities and their arguments....from a respectable sociological and historical source.

Protestant?

The Mormons and the Jehovah's witnesses are considered cults by virtually every other prodistant denomination. Why on earth are they even under "protestant," and why aren't there any other denominations in "protestant missions"? Thanatosimii 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See the JW article and you'll see that they don't consider themselves "Protestant" either and don't believe in the trinity. Mormons can broadly be called Christians, though they add a completely different "bible". Clearly they are not. -But neither are Muslims or Hindus who are ALSO under this messed up category. I'll try and fix it. Armon 14:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the Mormons add 3 other sets of scripture: the Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and The Book of Mormon. And they consider themselves to be Christian, despite what other Christian religions think of them. — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Missionary

I trained in a modern Catholic missionary college- so I at least have a grasp of modern (ecumenical) theory of missions. I'm working through the article to knock it into better shape. Might take a couple of weeks to reference it properly.

I don't think we should get too distracted by the JW + Mormon argument either. If they are classified as "other" (as I have done) this neither declares them to be non-Christian (which offends LDS believers) nor riles Catholics, Anglicans and other mainline Protestants.

I've now added and wiki'd the LMS and CMS (both very significant organisations the article had missed.

cheers Cor Unum 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting Bold

I've deleted some of the half-thought through stuff in this article, trying to make it more from an NPOV. Trying to make it more complete. I'm going to take some of the the Jehovah's Witness stuff (there's too much detail here) and move it onto the JW organisational page. After looking at the JW organisational page, this stuff only repeats what on there, so I have removed it and left the link to the main JW article.

Cor Unum 04:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Orthodox missionaries

I've added one obvious omission now and referenced it to other articles. Cor Unum 05:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate denominational Headings

I've made heading changes other might have a dfifferent view on- but here are my reasons. I have changed "Evangelical Missions" to Evangelical church missions". This is becuase the prior heading implied that Roman Catholic, Orthodox and other groups were not "Evangelical" (literally Gospel driven); but they do consider themselves to be so. The other change I have made is to put JW's and LDS's into "Other groups that identify as Christian" (their own heading). There is hot dispute among mainline churches as to whether these groups are legitimately to be identified as Christian - owing to key doctrinal disagreements concerning the Trinity and Revelation. I am trying to leave the heading open enough, but not too open (since both groups consider themselves Christian, and indeed churches) while, for example, the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists and the Catholics see them as (absolutely) outside the boundaries of normative Christian doctrine. But then again, the Catholics, technicially, do not consider members of the Salvation Army as fully Christian because they are not baptized (the Sallies are bemused by this view - if not somewhat offended). How should wiki deal with issues like this? Should any group who self-identifies as Christian simply be accorded the name? Is this a matter of referencing and footnoting?

I'm interested in comments on this- particularly from LDS or JW scholars. How should wiki deal with these sorts of major disagreements in a neutral and appropriate way?

cheers Cor Unum 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• While speaking from a Catholic background I have a hard time understanding why you made Evangelical a level == section, besides - instead of a === SUBsection of Christian missions. As for the two 'grey zone' cases, I suggest 'other Churches', which fits their self-qualification as Christian churches and the reluctant alternative- why pronounce on a thorny issue when we don't need to do so here? We might fit them in as a subsection too, but then better rename the section 'Church missions' Fastifex 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• On the first point you're probably right here. It ought to be a SUBsection of Christian missions. I just didn't notice I had cut it out altogether. What I was focussed on weas the distinctions around the use of the word "Evangelical". In English speaking reporting Religious Affairs, "evangelical churches" refers to any (mainline) church that claims to be Bible based (it can mean (generally) Baptist, non-conformist, Sydney Anglican, Uniting Church etc. etc) - and does not refer exclusively to The Lutheran Church. On the other point, it is exactly whether they are a "church" an "eccelesial communion" or "other group" that is at dispute. If you call them "church", then you have made an editorial decision to favour their interpretation of themselves. This is what my question is about. Cor Unum 08:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• You seem to start from the premise that any Church is by definition Christian, and then ask whether a self-defining (yet mutually accusing of heresy) majority of 'correct' Christians (I personally believe they're right to exclude at least Mormons, but who has the authority to decide so?) may then unilaterally monopolize the term church as well as Christian- that's to much POV, , and I still don't see the need for it. Or are we in earnest to define Jehova's Witnesses as 'religious people not realizing they're posing as a Church and as Christians' even though they have more Bible-knowledge (however disputable) then the average believer of any mainstream church, while any theology -without which there can be no christians nor Christian churches- is arguably just as disputable in the eyes of non-believers? By the way, at reflection we could alternatively call the section (including Evangelical churches) 'Mainstream Church Missions', if we opt for keeping the grey cases in a separate section, for which I would still propose to use Churches without Christian (a labelling of the contentious nature of their self-styling would of course be wise to include) Fastifex 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes I am saying this, with plenty of scholarly precedent (but a lot of this is scholarship from mainline churches). However, I am not a post-modernist, and while I see wikimis pretty democratic, I'm not conviced yet that it is driven by a philosophy of relativism. The term "ekklesia" (literally "assembly") was historically appropriated by the churches of Judaeo-Christian origin - and there is an extensive discussion of ekklesia in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council as well as many other places that are not Catholic. Jews (in particular) dislike being referred to as church (in English that is. I notice in some places the term is being used for Buddhists now too- though I suspect this is a modern lingusitic development that is cut off from the genuine usage of the word historically- but hey - that's modern English sometimes!. At this point I think it is still very ably defensible to reserve the word "church" for Christian organisations and mainline groups - even where they dispute it about each other, eg. Pope Benedict recently referred to the Anglican church as an "ecclesial communion" - which was a pointed way of not saying "church". I would vote for a dispute to be footnoted and citation given to point out the differing points of view on this. What I do where I work is use self-descriptions (and this always excites bitter dispute!). Mormons call themselves "church" (Well, they Call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints) so we use that descriptor "church" - though just about every other major groups squawks with outrage when we do this. I don't have a very, very strong preference here- but I do have a preference that "church" has a measure of defineable meaning content in English which ought to include Baptism + Bible + Nicene Creed + generally Orthodox teaching (No offence to the Salvation Army -who don't baptise- intended- but they do call themselves an "Army"). Cor Unum 06:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfair calling the Dalai Lama a missionary?

I'm not sure it's fair to call the Dalai Lama a missionary, as he's advocating against the changing of ones religion in his autobiography (weather it be Christian missionaries converting Buddhists in Mongolia, or western Christians converting themselves into Buddhism). He suggests sticking with the religion you grew up with as suddenly "switching" cause confusion for the person, and the different religions are just roads to the same goal anyway. (don't have the book at hand so possibly not qouting very well) The Dalai Lama is interested in teaching people about Tibetan religion and culture (to preserve what is vanishing quickly after 1959), but as far as I can tell he does not want to "make" people change into his religion in the way that is characteristic for missionaries.

"Missionary Position"

Including "Missionary Position" in "See Also" seems to me to be unnecessary. It is unlikely people will be visiting the "Missionary" page to find out about sex positions. Also, surely it is a slang term only used by a certain sub-section of society... if a person was seriously interested in studying it there would probably be a more technical term that would be used.

The term "Missionary position" is also loaded ideologically, in that it is an attempt to sideline what is normal as if it were only used be a certain fundemantalist, or even extreme group in society. It is likely there is no term necessary for this normative position, and it would only be deviations that would require distinctive terms.

Thoughts?User:A.J.Chesswas 11:49, 18 August 2006 (NZST)

agreed. It should'nt be there. --The Fear 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish missions"?

Since most of the "Jewish missions" section is about how Judaism does not have missions, shouldn't the title be renamed? Mo-Al 17:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Section about Jehovah's Witnesses

The sub-topic about Jehovah's Witnesses is somewhat misleading and confusing. The description section at the top of the page describes a missionary as someone who goes outside of their community to preach their religious beliefs. However, the section on Jehovah's Witnesses describes activity they do within their own communities.

Jehovah's Witnesses do have an extensive missionary and missionary training program that has been around for at least 50 years and sends people all over the world. Unfortunately, this program is not cited either on this page or on the linked page to "Jehovah's Witnesses Organizational Structure."

Please see for more detail: [[1]]

Per WP:EL

This article has way too many external links. I'm removing some. If some of them are actually of importance and qualify under WP:EL, feel free to re-add. -- Anaraug 08:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a VERY bad article

all this article talks about is the different types of missionaries and their histories. it doesnt talk about the social/anthropological effect whats so ever. there needs to be a "criticism" section which talks about how countless cultures have been destroyed by evangelical white missionaries. cultural imperialism if you like.

--Greg.loutsenko 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)