Our daughter is on a mission in the U.S.

In our weekly email, she said the following while discussing a woman in her ward:

"This woman just had her 6th baby (who we can't hold, which is the biggest woe I have on my mission, not being able to hold children)."

Most of the mission rules, while controlling, at least make some sense as far as safety ("spiritual" and physical) is concerned.

But not being able to hold babies just seems funny.

Does anyone know if this is a general mission rule or rule from her particular mission. I don't remember this rule when I was out 25 years ago.





t

Like about 90% of the missionary "rules" out there, that is just plain stupid...

I HATE tbms reaction when I have brought up the stupid, asinine rules of missionaries: Well, there are reasons for the rules! Really? Pray, tell, what exactly are they? I really hate when my parents say that the missionary would be homesick if they talked to family. Okaaaay....

I also remember a few years back when my father was a bishop and there was a mandate sent down that he couldn't hug any of the children or give them candy for that matter. Of course that was insulting for someone with no ill intent! A man of god even! I think it's probably two fold. One so the sisters don't get stuck babysitting. Yes, that would happen, and two to keep the unquestionable elders from doing something inappropriate with the kids. BUt as we know, the ones that are going to molest and hurt children will do it anyway. Like many mormon rules the innocent suffer!It's a one rules fits all!

Never heard of that rule. Sounds silly, but yea-- they could get stuck babysitting. Plus I wonder if their mission had a problem with pedophiles.

I was on my mission when the rules about not touching any children, including babies, came out in the 90s. My mission president went on and on, about California having too many lawyers who will sue the church, if they even think a missionary acted inappropriately. Reading between the lines, I think there was an incident, or incidents, of missionaries molesting children, sometime in the mid to late 90s that the church covered up by paying off the kids. Based on how my MP was talking, I am 99 percent sure that there was an incident in California, that was most likely in southern California, in one of the missions just north of the San Diego California mission.

That's all I know, but I figured I would throw it out there, in the even that anyone wants to do a little digging.

While on my mission in '86 they had no such rule. My companion and I got roped into babysitting a large, wealthy family with a huge new house and with eight kids. We were left all day with these kids and there were no diapers and no food in the house, not even canned goods. I refused to buy diapers for this mooching family and diapered their child with hand towels from their bathroom. Then we took all their expensive party food (crackers, olives, cherries, expensive cheese) and fed the kids on that stuff. There was just enough milk for the little kids but not a drop extra. My companion and I ate nothing. And because we were so far from town with no car and tied down with the little kids we couldn't get to any stores even if we had wanted to.

When the mom returned home she acted completely dumbfounded that there were no diapers and no food in the house. Yeah, right, she didn't know.

Haven't yet helped a Mormon mother who had adequate supplies in the home for an emergency. But they wouldn't go without paying tithing. Stupid church.

But they probably had plenty of old, inedible, moldy food tucked away in the back of their closets.

Your right. For all the work Mormons do on their food storage, they never have anything on hand, that can be used right now, for short term emergencies.

What? I'm sure there was plenty of food. Just got down into
the basement. Be sure to add water.

No, not even that stuff. Believe me we searched the whole house with a fine toothed comb. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

I'm pretty sure they expected free babysitting and free supplies out of the missionaries' pockets as I later heard this family often did this sort of thing to missionaries. This time they got a tight fisted, take no s(p)it American missionary. In that country they thought all American missionaries were wealthy and needed no support or help from members. Stiff the missionaries was a sport.

It was a rule back in the 90's during mine. We were told that it was because of some accusation of child molestation against missionaries in the past. Of course, as always, there was no details about the story making it hard to find out if it was a true story.

That's the same story we got, but the mission president went out of his way to ensure us they were false accusations. Of course, in rape culture, men will always assume that any accusation made against a member of their society, be it a church, business, or college football program, is a lie.

I never heard of that rule either - sometimes MPs make up their own "add-on" rules specific for their mission. Some are based on the local culture and others might be because of past problems in that mission. For example, halfway through my mission I got a new MP and he immediately made a rule sister missionaries couldn't have phones in their apartments. This was because a sister missionary who went home a month or two before he arrived left a phone bill that ran into the thousands of dollars, that the mission had to pay. But that was by no means a church-wide policy.

It sounds like something Mormons would do though - they want to be super careful to not get a bad reputation from one elder doing something wrong. Ironic, considering bishops interviews with the youth still continue but Mormonism doesn't make sense.

Missionaries also do closed door interviews with children. Baptismal interviews are always done by zone leaders, not Bishops or other adults. If you answer the question in the wrong way, you then have to interview with the Mission President. In my experience, the Mission President almost always approved the baptism, as long as it wasn't someone they thought would be bad for the image of the church.

Perfect rule to break to be sent home early.

LDS inc would not want to have to explain that one.

I held babies all the time. Some by choice and some otherwise. I remember having to hold a baby covered in ice cream and chocolate surp. I did not want to do that but when they come at you what are you going to do?

Even if I could have I wouldn't have. I'd be too afraid I'd drop someone's kid. I always get really nervous if someone brings a baby to work and just passes them around like a football :|

I seriously doubt this "no holding babies" is a rule in the mission.

I'm a guy and even I understand what this mother is thinking in regards to the "no touch" missionaries.

The baby sounds like a newborn and the last thing the mother wants is a sick kid. She has 5 other punk kids to deal with. I'm surprised the mother is even at church. My wife stayed home for quite awhile befor introducing all the germs one can get at the unclean church building. (Free labor force cleaning just sucks and never gets the job done correctly. Be honest with this reality.)

In 3 months if the missionary dauther is still in the ward then maybe the mother will let her hold the baby. Maybe not, it's mother's choice at that time.

Missionaries touch all kinds of people by shaking hands and what not. So, I'm sure they are loaded with the plague. ;-)

Now, I would think the mother was overly cautious if the missionary girl washed her hands aggresively, threw on some hand sanitizer and was still denied holding the baby.

Maybe the mother simply could care less if the missonary is unable to hold her baby. It's hers, so she can tell them to step off however she pleases. If the missionary doesn't like it, well go cry about it and make your own damn kid to hold.

Perhaps they think it may be catching?

Because if sister missionaries held babies, they might get the uncontrollable urge to start making their own.

"Elder, I need to speak to you... in private."

Finally. An answer that makes sense.

Trust me, Kirton McKonkie makes the rules.

Someone makes chicken for a ward dinner and somebody sues because they got salmonella. We settle for an undisclosed amount and a promise that no one will be allowed to cook in the kitchen again.

A kid sits on a missionary's lap and the missionary touches her under her dress. We settle for an undisclosed amount and a promise that missionaries will no longer be allowed to hold children.

A bishop offers a kid candy and gives them an inappropriate hug, we settle for an undisclosed amount and a promise that bishops will no longer be able to give candy or hugs to children.

All it will really take to stop inappropriate interviews of teenagers is for a parent to take the verbal sexual abuse seriously and come up with a valid lawsuit.

liability. So if a missionary drops a baby on their dumb heads the church or missionary doesn't get sued.

It was a rule introduced to my mission in the early 90's. Put in place when an elder was playing with a kid and threw them into the air.
....
Right into the family's ceiling fan.

He was transferred out of that ward the following week but as far as I know there was no lawsuit. After that we were admonished to not play with the members kids.

Can you ask her why she isn't allowed to hold babies? Is it in the "white bible" or is it a mission rule or what? I'd really like to know.

Is there a list of missionary rules anywhere online? I would like to find out if mission presidents have a lot of leeway. I have a family member in a hot third world country who is not allowed to carry bottled water. Abuse, plain and simple.

Here is the rule in question, straight from the Morg's official Missionary Handbook: "Avoid any behavior that could be misunderstood or could appear to be inappropriate, including tickling, changing diapers, holding children, and allowing children to sit on your lap. Never babysit children of any age."

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/topics/missionary/MissionaryHandbook2006Navigate.pdf (page 35)

Thanks, nickname. I guess it must be for liability reasons.

I'm just getting tired of her mentioning, mostly as an aside, all the rules she has to follow. On Christmas day, we could only speak with her for 45 minutes. Not one minute longer. I know a lot of missionaries bend the rules, but my daughter has to live the rules with exactness. That's where all the blessings come from, don't you know?

I recall it being a rule on my mission. Italy, 2001-2003

In my mission some missionaries took this rule to the extreme.

There was an elder standing under a tree during a zone activity and a child was in the tree climbing. As he watched the child slipped and fell to the ground.

What did the Elder do?

Nothing. He watched the kid fall, and then didn't help him afterwards.

Oh and this rule is in the white bible now, so it is not a specific MP add on, it is church wide. (I dont know how long its been that way though)

Kids love sitting on missionaries' laps. I understand not being left alone with them, but holding them in public just shows you are human and have natural affections for kids.

As a young mother with lots of little kids and an inactive husband, the elders or sisters often took one of the babies for me during SM. It was a REAL help. They were in full sight of me and everyone else at the meeting, and either played with the baby, or held him/her when they fell asleep. Often they would draw little cartoons for them on pages from their notebooks or make little puppets etc and the kids would be delighted. There was nothing evil or wrong involved. The kids usually loved the mishies and would go toddling to them or hold out their arms to them. I feel sad that this normal healthy activity has been stopped.

As a mother I would be the FIRST to SCREAM STOP to anything that was abuse, but playing quietly with children in SM is NOT one of them. What a sad world we live in when normal activity has to stop because of one pervert. By all means STOP the pervert, but let the normal stuff continue!