Talk:Mission (LDS Church)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

comment removed from article[edit]

Any links here ought to be to articles about the missions, not the individual cities or states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The above comment was added to the article - I think the links should go to the mission pages if available and also to the cities - as on the List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --Trödel 11:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The new table format looks great. Also, I removed the link to nonexistent pages. Please don't link a mission page unless you make one. Isaac Crumm 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added information on "special" missions and on Salt Lake Temple Square Mission. Critic-at-Arms 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

links to mission websites[edit]

since Wikipedia is not a web directory - I don't think we should include links to mission home pages - they are added fairly frequently - However we should include a link to an existing web-director of such home pages if one exists - any thoughts? --Trödel 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The LDS Mission Network [1] is an existing web-director of mission home pages. Links to current missions are on this page [2] --Crocoite 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)--Crocoite

Is there any objections to removing all the links from individual missions - and reference the site in the external links. --Trödel 04:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am a fan of the links to the missions, I have to agree with Trödel, that they don't really belong on wikipedia, as explained. Please, everyone refrain from putting the links there, the one link is good enough.Isaac Crumm 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the following sentence should probably go. I'll remove it from the article and save it here.
As the LDS Church does not maintain official Websites for its missions (as opposed to individual wards and stakes), external links are to unofficial alumni sites.
After all, there are no more external links inside the table. -- pne (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

History of Missions[edit]

LDS mission efforts have a long and vibrant history, beginning with the first missionaries sent out when the church was organized, the Lamanite missions, and the first call to the apostles to Europe. The topic would make a large article in itself. So should we start a new one (what should we name it?) or introduce the topic here? Ideas welcome. WBardwin 05:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You could put the list in "List of missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and leave the history/explanation here. Similar to what we did with Temples (Mormonism) and List of temples ... --Trödel 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
We would, of course, have to make a distinction between the missions of Church of Christ/Latter Day Saints and the post schism Latter-day Saints. Two history articles? The pre-schism section would have more available sources. Lots of work has been done on the Lamanite missions and the missions to England. Good information for the Utah Saints in the 19th century should be avaible but, offhand, I know of no 20th century examination of the growth and development of the missionary effort. Maybe we could find statistical information from Church headquarters? Charts/graphs showing number of missions, by worldwide location, over time might be very useful. Brainstorming on this would be helpful. WBardwin 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am in the process of developing a history of missions here. There is probably a lot more. If someone could hunt down specifics on when missions began to regularly have counselors in the mission presidency that might help. Old Church News could be useful, but you would have to go back before 1989, which is the earliest date available on the web. Eventually this section might justify subdivision. Also I was thinking we could try short write ups on the history of specific missions.Johnpacklambert 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List Cleanup[edit]

Someone put the tag "Cleanup-list|December 2006" on the list portion. I disagree, in that the list is well defined, verifieable, and not indiscriminate in the least. It may be incomplete, but that can be remedied over time. Unless someone disagres, I plan on removing the tag soon. Perhaps someone can find a suitable (official) source or reference link to the list of missions. Just my thoughts on the matter.Isaac Crumm 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has any comments on it, it has been removed.Isaac Crumm 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of the Earth[edit]

The article says that all parts of the world, even those without actual missionaries, are covered by missions. But when I was in mission training I saw a map of the world with the missions on it; I believe Israel is not in a mission. Can anyone confirm/deny? Eran of Arcadia 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Certain parts of the world where the Church is not able to send missionaries for any reason (political, social, etc.) are not technically covered by a specific mission. Isreal and much of the middle east is like this, as is China and a few other places. The map at the MTC just shows the actual mission boundaries of where each mission sends its missionaries to give missionaries an idea of where they could go. I think in theory, at least, even those "off-limits" areas would fall under the jurisdiction of a specific nearby mission for exceptions (like troops in Iraq or English teachers in China), even if they don't actually send missionaries to cover those specific areas. Does this make any sense??? --JonRidinger 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I know what you are saying, but that's not what I mean. Mainland China is geographically part of a mission, as is Iraq and Saudi Arabia and all that. But I remember that Israel, specifically, wasn't - not just that we can;t send missionaries there, but because of our beliefs, we won't, even if they would let us. Whereas the second mainland China lets our missionaries in, we are going in force. Eran of Arcadia 02:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The map must have changed since I saw it last because when I saw it, large sections of the middle east were still "unassigned." As far as Israel, if there is some sort of belief, I'm not aware of it other than a "show of good will" towards Israel that we have no intention of sending missionaries there for the forseeable future. Israel is very picky about that kind of stuff and the Church wants to maintain a good relationship with them. That would be my best guess. --JonRidinger 02:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This was in 2002; I noted that the entire Middle East was covered. And I didn't think it was a "show of good will", because we don't send missionaries anywhere they don't allow them. I figured it had something to do with the idea that the Jews will be converted in the Millenium. Eran of Arcadia 12:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
While Latter-day Saints believe that eventually the Jews will convert and recognize the Savior during the time of the millennium, that wouldn't be a reason to not include Israel in a mission, especially since not all Israelis are Jews. Also, I seriously doubt it's going to be some magical mass conversion either; it's going to be a process, so yes, missionaries will be needed. Whether or not those missionaries are the traditional LDS missionaries we currently have remains to be seen, however. Again, I think that map is by no means some sort of doctrinal statement on Israel, missionary work, or the millennium; it it purely an informational item showing the current mission boundaries which are always subject to change. The map you saw in 2002 has no doubt been changed several times since then. I think you're reading just a bit too far into this and making something out of nothing. The church does have a good, but delicate relationship with Israel (don't forget the BYU Jerusalem center) and like I said before, that's my best guess as to the purpose of leaving Israel "out" of a mission currently on that specific map. --JonRidinger 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Many Jews has joined the Church. My grandmother was a Jew before she joined the church and I have known several others as well. The situation in Israel has to do with the agreements reached to start the BYU Jerusalem Center, which basically involved the church in saying it would not in any way try to teach the gospel in Israel. If the Israeli government would let us we would send missionaries there. There were missionaries in Israel in the past, well, that was back before it was the modern nation state of Israel.Johnpacklambert 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"If the Israeli government would let us we would send missionaries there". Classic WP example of an uncited, dubious claim being made by someone with probably no say in the matter whatsoever. Just don't add this into the article.
Incidentally, Israel has a general law which prohibits religious proseletyzing. The fact that Mormon missionaries are not there is nothing to do with any "special deal" made with the government, because no religious organization is allowed to do "missionary work". (After 2000 years of Christians trying to persuade them (or at times forcing them) to become Christians, you cannot blame them.) You are perhaps just thinking of the assurances that the LDS Church gave the government that the establishment of the Jerusalem Center would not violate the non-proseletyzing laws that were already in place. Interestingly, the LDS Church has ceased their publication of the Hebrew language Book of Mormon. –SESmith 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the person who made that statement intended for it to be placed in the article, hence putting it here in the talk page and contributing to the discussion. That's what the talk page is for. This entire thread was started from an honest question about information in the article, not to change the article. He is entitled to share his opinion just as you are and honestly, I don't think it's that far off. I think the Church's history of sending missionaries supports that claim, particularly recent history in the former communist countries where missionaries were sent soon after the fall of communism in the early 1990's. If the Israeli government would allow missionaries there, the Church would send them in a heartbeat (as would every Christian church), plain and simple, but only if the political situation allowed. Right now I doubt the Church would send missionaries there anyway given the current political situation and violence even if they were allowed to. The Church has and will continue to send missionaries where governments and situations allow. They go, as one apostle put it, "through the front door" and Israel is no different. --JonRidinger 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
And here we have classic examples of "not getting the joke" and "taking oneself too seriously". –SESmith 06:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You could've just said you were trying to make a joke, or "hey I was just kidding =)" but instead you felt the need to make some "clever" comeback. I initially deleted it because your most recent comment is irrelevant to the discussion thread, so no, I don't consider what I did "vandalism." Now I'm forced to address it, so the thread continues to veer off on a tangent. I wasn't embarrassed; I was irritated that you treated my comments so lightly and came across so arrogantly. When people don't get your so-called "joke" perhaps you need to analyze your delivery more because it did not at all come across that you were "just joking" about the previous poster's comments. I'd like to put this to rest, but if you have anything further you'd like to discuss, please use my user talk page and not this one. --JonRidinger 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"perhaps you need to analyze your delivery more". Yeah, I agree that my timing is pretty bad on this WP thing, what with it all being dependent on how you read it and all—next time I'll Skype you. Anyway, it's not cool to delete others' comments, regardless of how (in)appropriate you feel they are in tone, content, or placement in WP. –SESmith 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have responded on your user talk page. --JonRidinger 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Map of the Missions?[edit]

I'm going on a mission in a couple of months. According to some above statements, there is map of the world with all of the mission boundaries in it at the Provo MTC. Should I take a picture of the map and post it on the article (my family will have to actually post it for me)? TerraNirvana (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewording, maybe?[edit]

In the Europe subsection of the History section, it is stated that Louis Bertrand "ran a Mormon newspaper out of Paris." There are two opposing ways to understand this statement. Perhaps a rewording is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. "A few years later one of Taylor's converts, Louis Bertrand, returned to the mission and organized a Mormon newspaper out of Paris." TerraNirvana (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


I support the recently added suggestion to split out a stand alone article called List of missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This article currently has an unmanageable length, and separating out this Gazetteer type info would improve things. -- (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)