I am sure you all have noticed. The church has made sure to give special effort into welcoming islamic refugees. This is great! We should be welcoming to refugees, regardless of their religion.

But, as I was on reddit, I was reading through an account given of someone who attended Apostle Rasband's talk. In the talk Rasband stated that there were would be a lot of missionary opportunities in the world of Islam.

Its a somewhat vague, yet ominous statement. The reason being, it is punishable by death to prostelyte anything but Islam in an islamic country.

I wondered why those missionaries were stationed in Russia, when they are clearly not wanted. They were doing what the church wanted and it got them into trouble. They were jailed and investigated for possible "crimes".

This is so much worse. I hope there are more reasonable people higher up and that Rasband isn't parroting the talking points being thrown around in their little planning meetings.

This puts a sinking feeling in my stomach.

ref; https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/b4qtxl/my_experience_at_a_local_leadership_training/

I spent some time in Afghanistan, living among the people in a section of Kabul -- it doesn't matter why. I had a good relationship with the local security guy who doubled as my bodyguard whenever I needed to be out in public. Haroun is his name. I trusted him as much as I could trust any man there, and obviously he was willing to work for/with kafirs, or infidels, as many would not.

Once I thought to ask him what would happen in the case of a Muslim who left the faith--became an apostate--and then wanted to come back and rejoin? He didn't even think twice.

"No," he said, "he still has to be killed anyway."

In the Islamic world such words aren't hyperbolic by any means, they are factual. So I don't agree with Apostle Rasband, no not at all.

Islam is not monolithic. Afghanistan and Pakistan used to be great fun; Wesrerners loved living there. They have since the 80 80s become terrible places.

But there are other places that are very nice. Iran, counterintuitively, is one. Western visitors are very well received in the big cities and are likely to be offered wine and food routinely. So it is necessary to differentiate between the government and the people.

Also between countries. They vary greatly.

I agree Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad.

But Iran is really bad too. They just recently let women drive their own cars and not get hit or killed for that, and they hit girls with sticks if they show too much skin on the street. Iran is always in the news because of their nuclear desires. And cuz they want to beat on Israel.

But what's most interesting is looking at the incomes by nation. What amazes me is that Israel households make ten times that of Iraqi households. Why would that be. Israel is a miserable awful piece of land, hot and dry. But yet these people are as prosperous or more so than we are in America or Europe.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Iran is really bad too. They just recently let
> women drive their own cars....

I think you are confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia. Iranian women can drive, but Saudi women were not allowed to drive until recently. (Iranian women are not allowed to ride bicycles, however--a holdover from when the Ayatollah was in power.)

> ....and they hit girls with sticks if
> they show too much skin on the street.

Iranian women have to wear hijab (headscarf), but again, I think you are confusing Saudi Arabia with Iran.

The Saudi "religious police" (this is an actual job category in Saudi) CAN hit women with sticks if they are not covered up "enough" when they are in public, but I don't think this happens in Iran. (I've never head of it, and we have a sizable Iranian-immigrant population in the area of southern California where I live.)

> But what's most interesting is looking at the
> incomes by nation. What amazes me is that Israel
> households make ten times that of Iraqi
> households. Why would that be.

Iraq is a much different country than is Israel, and has a much different culture. Israelis include a large number of highly-educated people (education is Priority Number One in Jewish life) who often tend scientific and/or create new industries. In this case, Israel has learned how to create "new" fresh water supplies, and how to manage existing fresh water supplies, which supports a strong agricultural industry (Israel pretty much feeds Europe with their fruits and vegetables for much of the year), and a relatively high (by Middle Eastern norms) standard of living.

> Israel is a
> miserable awful piece of land, hot and dry.

Israel is basically southern California. If you love one of them, you generally love the other.


> But yet these people are as prosperous or more so than
> we are in America or Europe.

I wouldn't go this far. (I live in southern California, and have been to both Israel and western Europe.)

By the general economic and living standards of the Middle East, Israel does well, despite the fact that the total land area of Israel is teeny-tiny by rest-of-the-world standards.

Eliyahu, our Yemenite-Israeli guide when I went to Israel with a group of American Hebrew day school teachers, did not understand why "we" (as a group) were so reluctant to take taxi cabs, and we didn't understand why he thought we were so odd--except that one day, I realized what the problem was.

I said to him: "If YOU took a taxi from here (we were in Jerusalem at that moment), and went to I think I named somewhere in northern Israel (Tsfat/Safed or something), and then you went to (someplace on the Israeli Mediterranean coast), and then you went to (basically: the border with Jordan), and then you went to (somewhere in the Negev desert in the south), how much would that cost you?

He look at me as if I were daft and said: "More than I make in two months!"

And I said: "If I drove that same route where I live, in Southern California, I would still be inside the borders of Los Angeles County." And after a jaw drop, he got it!

[I think I was exaggerating a bit, but not by all that much.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2019 08:01PM by Tevai.

Interesting response to Macaromney. However, I would add one thing that I was told when I was a senior in high school back in the fall of 1980.

I was taking a class on international relations, and the teacher was explaining the differences between the first-, second-, and third-world countries. I asked him where he thought Israel fit on this list, and his response was very illuminating (at least to me at the time). What he said was that the real determination of where a country fit in the the tiering order of the world had more to do with who were its friends. He said that the U.S. was a very strong friend of Israel and that because of that friendship (and the economic and other support provided to Israel by both the U.S. government and Jewish groups based in the U.S.), he had to conclude that Israel was really a first-world country.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting response to Macaromney. However, I
> would add one thing that I was told when I was a
> senior in high school back in the fall of 1980.
>
> I was taking a class on international relations,
> and the teacher was explaining the differences
> between the first-, second-, and third-world
> countries. I asked him where he thought Israel fit
> on this list, and his response was very
> illuminating (at least to me at the time). What he
> said was that the real determination of where a
> country fit in the the tiering order of the world
> had more to do with who were its friends. He said
> that the U.S. was a very strong friend of Israel
> and that because of that friendship (and the
> economic and other support provided to Israel by
> both the U.S. government and Jewish groups based
> in the U.S.), he had to conclude that Israel was
> really a first-world country.

Your response is interesting too, blindguy!

I think there is validity to what you were told in high school, and I also think there are other factors at work.

Israel has first-world educational facilities and also a constant stream of first-world "best minds" who come to Israel to work for awhile, or to live permanently.

My understanding is that they are working on state-of-the-art scientific (and archaeological) studies at all times, medical facilities are first world for most of the population (I think there are some practical problems with the Bedouins, etc.), the food supply is among the best in the world, and they are well represented in the arts--plus: the Israeli armed forces are among the world's best, both in personnel and in equipment.

Affordable housing is one of Israel's problems, and one that would cause me to pause for a very long time before I ever made a decision to move there. There is great housing, and great new neighborhoods and communities with absolutely first-class schools, in the West Bank: affordable, high-quality, "San Fernando Valley suburban style" homes....but these new houses are being built on land confiscated from the Palestinians, so actually buying a house there is a political statement many Israelis refuse to make--which means, often, that those Israelis are stuck in high-cost apartments which may well be not the best, or in the best repair.

All in all, though, I would also consider Israel a "first world" country. (When our tour group had our first meeting as a group, we were handed packets of information we might need or find of interest. In every one of those packets was a medical insurance card with our name and identifying information on it. No fees to us, no quibbling: suddenly, and for all of the time we were present in Israel, we had full medical insurance for anything that might happen during our visit. From an American standpoint, this was kind of mind-blowing.)

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the general economic and living standards of
> the Middle East, Israel does well, despite the
> fact that the total land area of Israel is
> teeny-tiny by rest-of-the-world standards.
>
> Eliyahu, our Yemenite-Israeli guide when I went to
> Israel with a group of American Hebrew day school
> teachers, did not understand why "we" (as a group)
> were so reluctant to take taxi cabs, and we didn't
> understand why he thought we were so odd--except
> that one day, I realized what the problem was.
>
> I said to him: "If YOU took a taxi from here (we
> were in Jerusalem at that moment), and went to I
> think I named somewhere in northern Israel
> (Tsfat/Safed or something), and then you went to
> (someplace on the Israeli Mediterranean coast),
> and then you went to (basically: the border with
> Jordan), and then you went to (somewhere in the
> Negev desert in the south), how much would that
> cost you?
>
> He look at me as if I were daft and said: "More
> than I make in two months!"
>
> And I said: "If I drove that same route where I
> live, in Southern California, I would still be
> inside the borders of Los Angeles County." And
> after a jaw drop, he got it!

I was off by more than I thought, but my point was valid.

Google has told me:

Israel is 8,019 square miles in area.

Los Angeles COUNTY is 4,751 square miles in area.

Israel is 263 miles long, from north to south.

The narrowest point of Israel's land width is 9.3 miles.

https://geology.com/county-map/california.shtml

It turns out that, although Los Angeles County is NOT the "same size" as Israel, Kern County [California], our neighboring county to the north (Bakersfield is the county seat), IS--all by itself--larger than the entire nation of Israel.

Israel: 8,019 square miles in area

Kern County, California: 8,163 square miles in area

The state of California has 58 counties in all.

If you look at the link above, and realize that--when you are looking at Kern County (which shares a common boundary with Los Angeles County)--you are looking at an area which is LARGER than the entire country of Israel, you will understand the "why" of many otherwise puzzling current events and internationally-political stances.

All of Israel is SMALLER than Kern County, California--which provides some much needed perspective when events in the Middle East are being discussed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2019 03:32PM by Tevai.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree Afghanistan and Pakistan are bad.
>
> But Iran is really bad too. They just recently let
> women drive their own cars and not get hit or
> killed for that, and they hit girls with sticks if
> they show too much skin on the street.

As Tevai said, you are confusing two different countries.
---------


> Iran is
> always in the news because of their nuclear
> desires. And cuz they want to beat on Israel.

As I said, it is critical to distinguish between the Iranian government and the Iranian people. As I said in reply to the Caffeinated One, Teheran really worries me particularly given the extent to which the US is expanding Iranian influence in the Middle East. Angering a country and strengthening it internationally make for bad policy.
----------


> But what's most interesting is looking at the
> incomes by nation. What amazes me is that Israel
> households make ten times that of Iraqi
> households.

Uh, Iraq has been at war for 20 years. So there's that. And to anticipate your next argument, correct any comparison of Iran's per capita GDP by Purchasing Power Parity and not market exchange rates. That is what you were doing with Iraq and Israel, I hope.
----------


> Why would that be. Israel is a
> miserable awful piece of land, hot and dry. But
> yet these people are as prosperous or more so than
> we are in America or Europe.

Not true.

Israel comes in at 34-39th in the world relative to the US at 11 or 12. And the Arab world? Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE all beat the United States; and those three plus Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman all come in well in the top 20. So in the Middle East Israel is pretty much middle of the pack. About four European countries beat the US and a slew of them come in above Israel.

There are reasons to question whether those are the right metrics, but the place to start is with the facts.
-----------

On Iran, more properly the Iranian people, they are about close to an American country as you can get in terms of valuing education, income, and individual expression. There are backward parts of the country, but in the cities you'll find extreme self-assertion--particularly by women. Yes, they must wear the hijab, but take a look at how they do so. They are about as far from the stereotype as you can imagine.

https://www.google.com/search?q=iranian+women+fashion&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF8LvPlZzhAhVWqJ4KHS0nCO4QsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=1440&bih=725

Now safely back home again--missing being assassinated by a Taliban suicide squad because of an unexpected one-hour delay is something I'll never forget about)--I'm friends with a very smart Afghan young man getting a college education over here, perhaps an Afghan Leader of Tomorrow. As a child refugee living in Iran during the early 2000s, he learned Farsi fluently, and carefully follows the political news from inside Iran.

What he has said to me a couple of times is that Afghanistan has frequently, including presently, had governments that were more progressive and forward-looking than the bulk of the population.

But in Iran it was the opposite: the population was often more progressive and forward-looking than the governments were willing to be.

Something else to think about.

Your stories resonate.

Military brats and diplomats' kids who grew up in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran in the 1960s and 1970s say they had absolutely wonderful times there. But a few things went wrong: first, the Shah made a mess of things and people got so pissed off they did something foolish; second, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan radicalized that country and the US and its allies pumped money into the extremists' hands. Third, behind all of this was a long-term Saudi strategy of financing the spread of Wahabi and Deobandi Islam so that when the region emerged from the Soviet shadow it moved sharply towards militancy. Thus the tide turned.

Afghanistan is much as you describe. I have a colleague who was seconded to support a minister. That Westerner was almost assassinated by the employees of another minister, who led a different clan. He informed his minister, who said he would take care of it and then ordered a hit on his rival's lieutenant. Tribal balance was restored and the Westerner was granted immunity--unless his patron were killed, which in the event did not happen.

Whereas the pre-Soviet, stable Afghanistan comprised a fragile balance of different tribal relationships that were upset by the invasion, Iran was much more orderly and well-founded society--which is why the US relied so heavily on that country in the 1960s and 1970s. Today even supporters of the Islamic Revolution believe they made a terrible mistake. Enthusiasm for the government is almost non-existent, but the government has the guns.

Iran remains an urbane, worldly place with an educated and very western-inclined populace under the control of a repressive and dangerous government. If the government were displaced, its successor would probably seek a close relationship with the West very quickly. That fact needs to be borne in mind when discussing the correct policy towards Iran.

Thanks for your on-the-ground observations.

If either the government OR the people are bad, its bad.

I would hate to see missionaries sent.

Thank you for your interesting insight and story, Curelom.

This agrees with what I have read in the Koran, that everyone other than believers are to be killed, but that it IS a sin to kill other believers.

How the 9/11 hijackers justified killing the "true believers" on the planes with them (the other hijackers) is a point I do not understand.

However, I doubt the church will hesitate to send missionaries in, they continually barge in where they aren't wanted, its how they operate. The same way they pursue ex-members.

The excuse for killing innocent fellow-Muslims as well as the "traitors" and "apostates" who were the actual targets, as happens in many suicide or truck bombings in Afghanistan for example, is: it's regrettable; but Allah will take the souls of all the dead good Muslims straight into his loving arms (if He had arms, which He doesn't, as anthropomorphizing Allah would be a heretical sin). So in that sense they are actually better off than if still living. Paradise came sooner than they could have expected.

Any "bad Muslims" who are killed, on the other hand, are people whom Allah would not have welcomed no matter when or how they died, so that isn't a problem either.

Rasband obviously knows very little about Islam. But apostles don’t need to know anything. They just ask God. Or Wendy.

SixAM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the talk Rasband stated that
> there were would be a lot of missionary
> opportunities in the world of Islam.

This is an immensely naïve, and frightening (in anticipation of those missionaries who will be attempting to do this), statement.

I grieve for those who might, in the future, be injured or killed --and who will, as this is happening, think that somehow it is due to their, personal, individual "failings."

April 2035 general conference: President Bednar announces Mecca Saudi Arabia and Tehran Iran temples

Also in 2035: Muslims open a mosque in SLC that will actually be larger and better attended than the Salt Lake temple

Fun fact: The church actually had a mission in Tehran from 1975 to 1978. Then stuff happened.

If anything, the recruiting efforts will go the opposite way and the LDS Church will be outplayed at every level.

Who knows, the Mormon fundies may find more in common with Islamic fundamentalists than with the Nelson-led Church.

They may convert to Islam and then be able to reach out to the more hard-core traditionalists in Nelson's church.

The idea that many Muslims will find anything attractive in Nelson's church is pretty hilarious. Sure, given the total numbers involved, there will be a few outliers. But in the bigger picture, it's just another dead end for Mormonism. Their prospects vis-a-vis Russian Orthodox Christians is grim and gloomy, but probably about 100 times better than their prospects vis-a-vis Islamists.

Related terms: #Pointless; #Stupid; #waste-of-time; #futile

(rather than Rasbands).

At this point, my guess is that it's just standard GA bloviation and bullsheeeting.

I remember way back when guys like McDonkie were prophesying that within a few decades church growth in Asia was going to be so huge that it would be regarded as the "Age of Asia" and, by implication, the center of things for the Church would be moving toward Asia.

Uhmmm. That didn't happen. Church growth in Asia is pathetic and among people who are actual members of record, activity rates are extremely low.

Suddenly, as I contemplate Curtis's optimistic predictions, a line from an Aerosmith song keeps playing in my head:

Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream until your dreams come true
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on
Dream on

Go for it Curtis! The Muslim world is waiting for you. Don't bother sending innocent kids fresh out of high school. You go! They want to hear the gospel from You and the other General Authorities!

As I originally said, I am concerned its more than just posturing. With how they insisted on keeping missionaries in Russia, despite the danger shows they don't give a crap about the well-being of the young men they send.

They are willing to sacrifice them as a gamble that their empire can expand into a new territory.

"honor killings" of people who convert out of Islam may happen in a.ny sharia dominated community. It definitely happens in Islamic countries; sometimes it even happens here, although it would be illegal here. Europe in Sharia-dominated neighborhoods? hmmmm

What about the safety of the missionaries? Surely the church would not send missionaries to countries where trying to convert Muslims to other faiths is illegal.

I know they do send kids to places where the water is bad, for example, and still have the kids eat and drink with the locals. I know an RM who ended up spending a year getting rid of the parasites from his mission. No doubt everyone here does too.

Maybe the apostle was referring to converting people here in the USA who are Muslim, where it's not illegal, and where honor killing would be illegal?

Islam and Mormonism have a lot in common doctrinely.