Missionaires to majority Christian nations, why?

Missionaries need training like anything else. You don’t send a high school kid on a first-time mission into a country that might put them in jail for proselytizing and they won’t do much good if they don’t know the language. You want to acclimate them with easier tasks first.

Mormons and JW’s consider all the other Christian sects to be in need of conversion. At best, they think we’ll wind up in some lesser version of Heaven because we don’t believe all the right things. But, as others have mentioned, even Protestants and Catholics try to convert each other on a regular basis.

But your link says that more than 1/3 of the country are non-Christian (Hindu, Muslim, other). That’s pretty sizable amount right there. More importantly, those people are probably not evenly mixed into the population - there are probably Hindu neighborhoods, cities, etc. So you may be able to send a mission to an area that is 90% Hindu.

As for seeing it as a vacation: yeah, some may see it that way, but I don’t know how many do, and it probably depends a lot on the group and the particular mission. In High School, I did two, week-long missions to the Tijuana area to build houses for families in need. We paid for all the materials and travel costs and worked our butts off - we did everything: mixing and pouring concrete, framing, roofing, stucco. We took one afternoon in San Diego for “vacation” on the way home, and I don’t think any of the kids went for any reason but a sincere desire to help the needy and share our faith.

The question is similar to “Most of the people in Africa don’t have AIDS, why should you send AIDS medicine to Africa?”
Missionaries may attract audiences that locals could not. Most of the missions trips my churches have gone are partnering with a local church or organization. There is some outreach, some service to the community and some service to the local church. It is also a good way for young people to exercise their faith and grow in their Christianity.

OK. I don’t know Mormonism as well. “Saved” may be the wrong term to use. My basic point is that Mormon missionaries see other Christians as legitimate targets for mission work and have missions whose basic purpose is to convert Catholic and Protestant Christians to Mormonism.

“Because the world is not enough.”

And back at 'em. A Baptist church near me had a guest speaker recently who had been a missionary to Utah.

They don’t use the word “unsaved”, because in Mormonism “salvation” refers to resurrection which is given freely to all. But they consider everyone else to be inelegible for “Eternal Life” dwelling with God and “Exaltation” becoming like God unless they receive a Mormon baptism.

Also true, but I’m curious about the numbers. There are approx 50,000 LDS proselyting missionaries these days. How many service missionaries are there? And how many of those service missionaries are doing actual charity work rather than working without pay for one of the corporation’s for-profit enterprises?

Exactly. I was a Mormon missionary in Tahiti. The stated mission was to “bring souls to Christ.” The people of Tahiti are already 100% Christian, but they still need to be brought to Mormon Christ via Mormon baptism. Secondary activities included service such as disaster cleanup and English lessons, which of course are excellent ways to meet potential converts.

No. I’d say their purpose is to convert everyone to their faith. You know, kind of like how, say, a Catholic won’t turn away a Protestant who wishes to convert or vice versa.

How many missionaries are “working without pay for one of the corporation’s for-profit enterprises?” I’ll let it slide that you refer to the church as “corporation.”

As Rhodes has pointed out, this statement is correct only in the very narrowest sense that Mormons use a different terminology, hence the reason for the quotation marks, I guess.

Mormon prophets and apostles have taught that the Catholic church as the church of the devil and the secret Mormon temple ceremony featured a Protestant minister taking money from Lucifer. That apparently had been changed since I last went.

In the spirit of the original comment, unlike many Protestants who do believe members of other sects also are saved, Mormons believe that only they are correct and those who are not baptized specifically by Mormons, then go on and complete the secret rites in the Mormon temple will receive eternal salvation.

So, the difference is between the words “saved” and salvation.

The Mormon church is incorporated and owns and operates businesses for profit.

Is there anything there which is in dispute?

Yup, this is correct. I went on a mission to Japan, but most baptisms come from going after other Christians.

Yes, the snide use of the term corporation. I’m more than certain you’re also familiar with the term snide. Whether you agree with the church’s theology or practices is irrelevant: it is still a church.

Also, I’ve told you before that I will not discuss any issues regarding the LDS with you on this board for a variety of reasons, most of those reasons dealing with your choice of words, not the LDS’s.

That is Rhodes’ comment, so direct your ire at him.

I’m also very familiar with the term evasive, and like **Rhodes ** says in the thread in Great Debates, trying to get Mormons to be clear about their own beliefs is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. I think intellectual dishonesty is one something which should be called out, so I will continue to do so.

Start by looking in the mirror. I have not been evasive. Again, I have told you–you, not the general public–that there will be no discussion between you and me on this board of Mormonism and I have told you–you, not the general public–the reasons why.

Got it?

PS: My response to you about the use of the term corporation was a clarification of my response to Rhodes.

You, TokyoBayer, on the other hand can now feel free to rant, rave, post utter BS, your very own experiences, or any other thing you like about the LDS, and be quite happy in the knowledge that I shan’t darken the post’s door, so to speak. Any other subject, perhaps we can have a civil conversation. On this current subject, though, in my experience with you here, you are not civil, in my opinion.

I’m unclear how you’re splitting this hair. What’s the difference between what I posted and what you did?

You said they had missions wose basic purpose was to convert Catholic and Protestant Christians to Mormonism. They don’t. They have missions whose basic purpose it convert everyone–you know, including people who are not Catholic or Protestant Christians. Not to mentioon that the LDS do not have missions specifically targeting Catholics or Protestants or both; they have missions targeting everyone in a particular geographic area.

That’s not hair-splitting.

Cynical answer: Going to Trinidad and Tobago is a lot cheaper and more fun than going to, say Chad. (Atlhough many people couldn’t afford to go to Chad even if given the choice).

Non-Cynical answer. As long as there is one unsaved person in a country, it is still a potential mission field. Even assuming everyone that calls themselves a Christian actually is, and denominational differences don’t matter, then 36.1% of 1.3 million is still a lot of people.

(This coming from about the only person in an evangelical church that was never on a mission trip)

If you’re letting it slide, does that mean you’re going to answer the question?

No, I wasn’t being snide. Although I confess it maybe was ignorant. Hopefully you can set me straight. I thought that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was owned by Intellectual Reserve, which is owned by Bonneville something (Holdings?), which is owned by The Corporation of the President if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I had assumed (I am not an accountant nor a theologian) that the for-profit hunting ranch (for example) was owned by The Corporation and was not a religious or charitable activity of the Church. If I got that mixed up, I apologize and request that you fight my ignorance.

And I find your responses on Mormonism to be intellectually dishonest, as well as pointless and silly. One of my favorites was when you defended a living prophet of God by saying what he did was no worse than what politicians do. As the Mormon church’s claim to fame is that it is guided by God in real time, I found that defense to be silly and told you as such. Is that what you are pissed off at? Feel free to point out any “BS” which I’ve posted. Otherwise, we can assume that it’s simply “BS” on your part.

Mormonism is a mess of contradictions, which you are full aware of, unlike some of more naive posters in the past.

In the thread going on over in GD, it is being pointed out that Brigham Young, the second president of the church and the prophet who succeeded Joseph Smith, taught that God was Adam. I suspect that the reason you don’t want to engage with me is that there are too many quotes by Mormon prophets which you would rather not be brought up.

Anyway, so don’t engage me. The question was brought up by Rhodes, who has said he didn’t intend it to be snide. Feel free to answer him.