Vort

If you insist. You are crazy, FT. That did indeed seem to be the point of the story. But I doubt it was the point of JAG's posting of the story, which is what you were responding to.

The comment makes no sense. Ignore it.

Pretty sure I said nothing of the sort. That isn't what I got from his post.

And old timer? You mean like this?

I assumed he was saying that it is sad that we have created a system where people have systemic incentive to commit bank robbery.

Shenanigans. Evidence, please.

You keep saying this, but you are mistaken. It IS a choice, even if a young man wants to follow God's commandments and even if he wants not to disappoint leaders and parents. It's still a choice. He is still choosing. His choice is his.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to hold the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. That opinion is wrong, too, but you are entitled to it. Nor did I suggest that it made you so. I simply remarked that your opinion does not change the facts.

I am painfully aware of most of my unsavory traits. I do not need a well-meaning brother or sister to point them out to me. On the contrary, such a thing would weaken our friendship and put me on the defensive in all future encounters.

I got the idea from these posts: The "pressure" that has been continually mentioned in this thread originates from the Church's teaching that missionary service is a Priesthood duty. You put the word "choice" in quotation marks, presumably to call into question whether it is actually a choice. This is absurd. Of course it is a choice. Your clear implication is that, by teaching the doctrinal fact that full-time missionary service is a duty, the Church is somehow guilty of removing a person's choice, or perhaps of helping parents to remove that choice by their incessant pressuring. This is pure nonsense. If parents put inappropriate pressure on their sons to serve, that does not mean the Church's teachings or efforts are therefore wrong. And I doubt that you (or I) are in a position to judge whether that parent's efforts really are inappropriate. Which "over-expectations" are those? The "over-expectations" that teach the simple truth that full-time missionary service is a Priesthood obligation? Why ought I to believe some random discontented internet person who champions the idea that young men wait until their early to mid-20s to serve a mission instead of trust that the Lord's anointed leaders know what they are doing when they urge 19-year-olds to serve? Can you provide me any possible inducement to believe and trust you over them?

Welcome. Patrick. I loved Utah. You need to learn how to ski; then you'll enjoy the winters.

No, of course not. My daughter's suitor need not be a man of wealth. But I do want him to be a man of honor, a man who strives always to fulfill his Priesthood duty. Serving a mission is an obvious, highly visible duty performed. While I agree that not serving a mission should not permanently disqualify a young man from a potential pool of suitors, surely you can understand why a young woman and her parents would put so much importance on that as a shibboleth of faith.

I would avoid it.

No. I suggest that if all of the best people you know are women, you need to get to know a different class of men than you apparently do. I don't know that you insulted anyone. If you did, I don't think you insulted me. I'm not sure I qualify as one of "the good guys" in any case. I have known some truly great men, not perfect, but men I look up to, including my father, my father-in-law, my mission president, and other Priesthood leaders. When I look at them, I see some semblance of my Savior. Apparently, you know no such men. I am sorry for you. True enough. But I also have been privileged to know some truly great, Christlike women. I would certainly never suppose that all the best people I know are and have been men. Other scriptures give this as "many" (e.g. Matthew 24:12). I think the word "men" in this passage refers to the sex-neutral "mankind", and not specifically to the male of the species. And at least one comment that the young women, too, should quit wasting their time and their lives and commit to a good man. Perhaps, though probably no moreso than "good women". Even those women who "hit the jackpot" married imperfect men. Interestingly, all the married men I know foolishly married imperfect women. What were they thinking? Perhaps because the courts through the past decades have consistently refused to acknowledge the father as anything more than an ATM? Indeed, I have read the Proclamation on the Family numerous times. I recall nowhere that it said that men do not understand how to nurture, to take care of those around them in a nurturing capacity, or to bond with others like women do. I'm not trying to rag on you. Just pointing out that your disappointing experiences with men don't generalize to everyone else. Men are not lesser beings of inferior spirituality, whatever you may have heard to the contrary.

This I agree with, and I find it regrettable. There is something wrong with vilifying a young man who, for whatever reason, hasn't fulfilled his duty to serve a mission. Even if the vilification is subtle, it's a shameful thing. If it's my son being marginalized, I'm not the least bit happy. But then...do I want my daughter to date and possibly marry the guy who refused to serve a mission? Or would I rather she date men who have fulfilled that Priesthood responsibility? All other things being equal (and I realize they never are), the choice is obvious.

Though I don't have much interest in this thread's topic, my eye was caught by SS's sentence above. I actually disagree with him, in that I believe that we carry in our bodies and also in our spirits the marks of the actions of those who have gone before. We think of ourselves as autonomous individuals, entirely separate from those around us, even our ancestors. I suspect this is grossly wrong. We without them cannot be made perfect, neither can they without us be made perfect. There is a deep spiritual intimacy between us and our progenitors (and descendants). Our good efforts literally lift past and future generations closer to God. Similarly, our rebellions and poor choices have negative consequences far beyond the borders of our own souls. We cringe at this idea and wish to believe it false, that we are responsible only for our own selves and cannot be held responsible for anyone else's situation. But this is manifestly false. We are truly our brother's keeper.

The Church accepts the appelation "Mormon" as a historical reality. Indeed, it would be foolish to give up such a recognizable word or "brand", the kind of thing corporations spend literally billions of dollars trying to create. Looks like the Church is trying to leverage some of that. But our leaders have consistently instructed us to refer to ourselves as "Latter-day Saints" and the Church as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", as designated in revelation. Whatever the Church's PR efforts, it is our place to obey the requests of our leaders (and indeed of the Lord) in how we refer to Christ's Church and to ourselves as members of the kingdom.

I was going to respond with something about how those "paid clergy" aren't really paid very much and how we should be very cautious about making such comparisons...but then I thought about what you wrote, and I changed my mind. I think you're right. When you have a "paid clergy", however much or little that pay might be, the natural tendency on the part of the "flock" is to assume that it's the clergyman's job. Hey, that's what we pay him for! Whereas on the local LDS level, such feelings are much diminished. Sure, some will still say, "It's the bishop's headache." (Or RS pres, or whoever.) But most members realize that these men and women are donating their time. I think you're right; that does engender more of a spirit of volunteerism.

Perhaps you know of Church doctrine of which I am not aware. Please point out the Church policy of sending out as missionaries 19-year-olds who don't want to be there. On the contrary, for years now the Church has increasingly emphasized preparedness for missionaries. A few years back, they "raised the bar", expecting ever more of the young men who serve missions, not merely in chastity issues but in other spiritual preparation. I am confident that "not wanting to serve a mission" was not on the list of requirements; quite the opposite, I expect. And so, your solution to this problem is...don't tell young men that the Lord expects them to do their Priesthood duty? Sorry, you will have to explain how your "solution" actually solves any problems. I'm not seeing it.

lol. I would have "laugh"ed your comment, but unfortunately there is no such button there.

Speaking for myself, PC, I do not find it overwhelming. I appreciate it. In the LDS Church, you tend to hear the phrase "ward family" a lot. In some wards, these are just empty words, but my ward really does feel like a family. I suppose you could draw the parallel out further and talk about family squabbles and "dysfunctions", but the bottom line is that I feel that I am among friends and siblings when I'm at Church. They know my idiosyncracies and weirdness, but somehow they accept me and act glad to see me. They embrace my family, ask about how my kids are, and congratulate them on achievement. I do not believe these things are uniquely LDS. I certainly hope they are not. But I appreciate your recognition that the Church tries to foster such feelings, and I agree with you. For my part, I think the effort is well-received. I see little pretense and a lot of sincere effort on the part of the ward members -- and not only from the fabled 20% who do 80% of the work.

Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. The fact is that serving a full-time mission is a Priesthood duty, notwithstanding your disbelief.

That strikes me as absurd. So everything that is your duty to do, you have no choice in the matter. Right? Ridiculous. If your goal is to do God's bidding, then there is only one legitimate choice. But you can still choose not to do so. To say otherwise is simply false. You are perverting the very meaning of the word "choice" by claiming that the mere existence of an expectation abrogates choice.

That is sad. You ought perhaps to get to know more men, or maybe just a different class of men. Yet somehow, we find enough Priesthood holders to staff our leadership positions and still have men left over to serve elsewhere. Methinks you underestimate men. When you define "everyone else" as "men", then your statement is a tautology. I could equally well claim, "Men don't run away screaming when everyone else does." You might reconsider how you view men.

No apology necessary. I did not mean to hurt your feelings. I didn't feel any contention; I was just commenting on your story. Not trying to criticize. Sorry if that's how it came across.