Thesis (M.A.)--B.Y.U. Dept. of Church History and Doctrine.

Thesis (M.A.)--B.Y.U. Dept. of Church History and Doctrine. / Electronic thesis. Also available in print ed.

Since the instigation of the first language training mission in December, 1961, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been vitally interested in the language instruction of its missionaries. As the number of missionaries called to foreign missions increased, the need for more facilities and instruction grew rapidly. During the week of January 18, 1969, Elder Spencer W. Kimball, Chairman of the Church Missionary Committee, announced expansion of the language training mission program that would go into effect on February 8 of that same year. Languages would not only be taught at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, but also at Ricks College, Rexburg, Idaho, and at the Church College of Hawaii at Laie. Seven languages are taught at the Language Training Mission in Provo; five languages are taught at the Language Training Mission in Rexburg; and seven languages are taught at the Language Training Mission in Laie. The programs to train missionaries to speak a foreign language are diversified and thorough. One of the reasons the missionaries are successful in learning their target language is because of the training they receive at the language training missions. These programs have expanded and grown over the years. Although the main goal of all the language training missions is the same, that of teaching the missionaries the various languages, the roads to that goal are somewhat samewhat different. There is a definite need to compile and correlate the different materials and programs used by these three language larguage training missions. A comparison of the programs might be helpful to mission leaders in gaining new ideas about how to better train missionaries to learn their target languages more effectively. Perhaps such a comparison would also generate many more ideas to further other facets of the missionary program. An attempt will be made to show only a comparison between the programs of the three missions. There will be no attempt to draw any conclusions as to how the work should or should not be accomplished. Goals common to all of the missions will be analyzed separately, and an explanation of how each of the missions attains that goal by the use of various programs will be discussed.