paracaidista508

Banned
  • Posts

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by paracaidista508

  1. 3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    [Adding to the above]

    It does seem to me that “missionary service” ought to entail some level of sacrifice; and when someone declines to serve citing the moral power of their multi-million-dollar entertainment or athletic contracts, it’s hard not to wonder where the “sacrifice” is.  Of course, it’s none of my business if I have no priesthood/family stewardship over the individual; but when such a person starts holding themselves up as an acceptable standard of missionary service for others to emulate, I think one has to push back a little.

    To those who are citing presidents Monson and Nelson, I would note that both came of age in the middle of World War 2–Monson actually enlisted in the Navy; Nelson finished up his college and was two years away from his MD by the end of the war.  I respect LDS kids today who sign up for military service in lieu of missions; though I think it’s fair to note that none of those situations compares to that of the vast majority of pot-smoking, skirt-chasing, money-grubbing Mormon kids who justify their idleness with Nelson’s and Monson’s examples and then come to MormonHub.com kvetching about all those uppity Mormon girls who won’t give them the time of day because they aren’t RMs.

    A young man who “got a revelation” saying he shouldn’t have to serve a mission has no right to complain when an LDS girl he fancies “gets a revelation” saying he isn’t  husband material. 

     

    You know...Monson joined the navy with a contract that released him 6 months after the war was over. That put him out of the Navy in approx. March of 46. He was still 18 or maybe even 19 yrs old. Single, didn't leave the states or do any combat time and then went to school. Married in Oct 1948. Plenty of tim to go ona  mission.

    Nelson was in the relatively same boat. Didn't go into military till after ww2 and I think it wasn't until Korean war was up and running. I may be wrong on that. That said, WW2 was going on while he was in college and didn't go then. Waited till finished school to be an MD and then joined the Army. Plenty of time to go on a mission also but chose not to.

    Oftentimes people cite the fact the war got in the way. Well Nelson was the only one to go to war and it was long after he was an adult. Monson never left the country and I'm pretty sure did less than a year in uniform. No one to include myself has any problem with this, but for anyone to say they couldn't go on a mission because of ww2 is laughable.

    So who are these guys you are talking about??...well heres the quote:

    "...majority of pot-smoking, skirt-chasing, money-grubbing Mormon kids who justify their idleness with Nelson’s and Monson’s examples and then come to MormonHub.com kvetching about all those uppity Mormon girls who won’t give them the time of day because they aren’t RMs.

    Who exactly are you talking about? Have not seen anyone claim that resume here.

    As for respecting todays kids who join the military in lieu of a mission...that's not very mormonish of you. You are supposed to say it is a terrible option. The worst thing ever. In fact it is a selfish and lousy thing to do. 

  2. 14 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    Not playing a game, trying to help you understand what you are misunderstanding. You need to read this in correlation with the others. If this was the only statement, you are correct. This isn't the only statement and must be understood through the others. Fixating on one portion while "ignoring" (irony) the others isn't good.

    The paragraph actually encompasses the entire idea and sums it up nicely... every member a missionary

    what it doesn’t say is every male 18 yrs old it is mandatory to serve a full time mission. In fact it explicitly states no one is subject to be compelled to do it on a full time basis. That I s not what we tell our kids though. They are told they have no option but to serve a full time mission. End of story.

  3. 2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    Already answered this question in my initial response to this quote. It should be read and acted upon in the Spirit given. This quote is in relation to the commandment of "every member a missionary." This quote begins with the question regarding "young women," "mothers," and "fathers." So, definitely not, we don't ignore any word from Prophets when spoken as a prophet. We understand them in the light and spirit they were given, not the "light and spirit" we want them to say.

    Young women, mothers, and father do not need to be called "formerly" to preach the gospel. Notice the quote you are referencing also speaks about "every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission." How does a little boy and girl serve a mission when they are not old enough to leave their parents? Easy, the quote is perfect, not ignored, "This does not mean that [little boys and girls] must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries." Little boys and little girls can invite people to their baptism, which has caused some to reactivate and the part member family (the husband to join the Church).

    Oh no, definitely not ignored, but read in proper light and spirit.

    Ok I'll play your game. Here is the whole quote:

    Yes, every man, woman, and child—every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission. This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries

     

    It includes everyone. Unless you think everyone means all members except for 18 year old males.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    The decision to serve is the same. What freedoms one is allowed doesn't change the decision to serve. I would recommend reading the biography of President Monson, that came out two years ago, or last year, that details your last question. He worked in printing.

    Not interested in reading the book. That's why I'm on here. We have sources who memorize the  minutia to regurgitate on a forum or sharpshoot the gospel doctrine teachers.

    As for being the same decision...Not even close. Don't go as a youth...get ripped a new one. Don't go as an adult....well no one really cares.

  5. 8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    Intriguing, so to you when the Lord through his prophet states the following pertaining to every male member, young men:

    1) Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him.

    2) Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing,

    This to you isn't a commandment? So paying tithing isn't a commandment, because every "male" member should fill a mission like he should pay his tithing. Yep, right from President Kimball's mouth, nope don't believe you.

    I bet what you are saying. Question is how are you so smart that you can basically say, " yea ignore this statement he made,but all the others apply?"

    So you are saying this statement is to be ignored? This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries.

    I think your mindset is a lot like many other mormons...If you don't serve a full time 2 yr mission as a male....your service doesn't count. This knowing the pres Kimbal himself says a full time gig isn't neccessary.

     

  6. 14 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    Well, President Monson did serve a mission -- just not at 19. He was a Mission President at 31 which, well, that is definitely serving a mission.

    We are talking about 19 year olds here, not married adults who have significantly more freedom on a mission than the kiddos do. It is a completely different level of a decision to serve. I do wonder tbough how was he able to afford the mission with three kids and like two days under his belt in a career. Was he a church employee already?

  7. 18 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    I highlighted the initial part you missed, which begins with "Should every young woman..." The irony of someone speaking about "agenda" and "cherry picking" and not noticing what this quote was in reference to.

    The only person turning a commandment would be you with regards to young man and President Kimball's statement. Now contrast that with what President Kimball said with relation to young man, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself."

    And since you enjoy speaking about agendas and cherry picking, here is another one you missed (same article), "Thus, the elders—the young men of the Church of the age to be ordained elders—should be prepared and anxious to fill a mission for the Church throughout the world. Presently, only about one-third of the eligible young men of the Church are serving full-time missions! One-third is not “every young man.” The average stake that I have visited had only between 25 percent and 40 percent of its eligible boys on missions. That’s all! Where are the other boys? Why do they not go on missions?

    Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord."

    These are two different statements in response to questions. This isn't hard to comprehend what President Kimball is saying in relation to both young men and young women. The paragraph you quote is the commandment of "every member a missionary." You don't have to be called to preach the gospel as a father, mother, or as a young woman. Read the article again, more closely next time.

    Another quote from the article, "All young men in the Church should be very eager to go on a mission, and they should also assist their parents to fill missions after the families are raised. Young people should study the gospel, prepare themselves for service in the Church, and keep the commandments as diligently as it is possible to do."

    Ya, me thinks, you didn't read very closely.

     

     I read close enough so the the one part everyone seems to leave out of these discussions come to find out. So to my point...serving a full time mission is not mandatory contrary to what nearly every lds person would either tell you or believe.

    Right from the mouth of pres kimball. You will never hear that part of his talk brought up in any church talk about missions. I have never heard it, but I have heard the other part a million times. Believe me I would have picked up on it. 

     

  8. 3 hours ago, lostinwater said:

    i would say this is a very common stigma within the culture of the mormon church.  Not doctrinal - that i acknowledge.

    i had a good friend who tried to serve, lasted about 2 weeks in the MTC, and came back.  At the time, they said they were just giving up - sent home because they wanted it.  After coming home, they were referred to a church psychologist who damaged them even further.  Then the bishop tried to get them to serve again.  That was during the time of 'if every ward sends just 1 more person to the mission field.......'.  There wasn't any malice in what anyone did.  But good intentions did nothing to lesson the emotional damage.

    As far as they were concerned, this was the end of their life - like a scarlet letter had been hung around their necks.  They were convinced nobody in the church would ever want to date them - would always feel humiliation as they had to leave their hand down when a group was asked who'd served.  The whole dating thing was unreasonable assumption probably - but it's difficult to argue that it definitely adds an additional layer of complexity surrounding dating in a singles ward.

    My experience was of my family and bishop pretty much saying yea if you don't go you will pretty much be damaged goods. Those girls in the singles ward (these were a new thing back then) will not want to have anything to do with you. My family laid off of that one fairly quickly after I asked why my mom married my dad. He didn't go on a mission ....the bishop on the other hand. He constantly brought it up.

    After getting out of the military, I didn't have much difficulty getting dates in the singles ward. I did have one girl cut a date short though once she found out I didn't go on a mission .  That was a fun drive back to her house. Ended up getting married in that ward.

    Temple, kids, kids married and gone on missions....terrible the way everything turned out and we are even still married. Oh got my eagle too. Funny how that one all of a sudden turned into a nothing burger..eagle used to be the big indicator of your future success. 

    As for a stigma later.on in life...I can't say I have experienced that other than in discussions with people or on forums like this. I was actually called a "nominal mormon boy" by a member of this forum because I didn't serve a mission .  I like that one, kinda cute moniker.  I can say though that the informal raise your hand if you served a mission happens quite a bit. Interestingly nothing ever happens with the Information from the impromptu poll. I never understood why they do that, but it has happened in every ward I have been in. Doesn't really bug me other than it seems like a dumb survey to take without any follow up like....hey you back there that didn't go on a mission...what's your major malfunction...ha that would be pretty exciting. 

  9. 3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

    Again, you are being disingenuous toward DoctorLemon. DoctorLemon knows his "conditions" do not apply to President Monson, President Eyring, Elder Packer, and President Nelson for the same reasons I have already given you.

    President Kimball provided the following statement, "I was asked a few years ago, “Should every young man who is a member of the Church fill a mission?” And I responded with the answer the Lord has given: “Yes, every worthy young man should fill a mission.” The Lord expects it of him. And if he is not now worthy to fill a mission, then he should start at once to qualify himself. The Lord has instructed, “Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and them upon the Jews.” (D&C 133:8)." (Source)

     

    Well thank you very much for referencing this talk given by pres Kimball. I went and read it. A few paragraphs later I found this:

     

    "Someone might also ask, “Should every young woman, should every father and mother, should every member of the Church serve a mission?” Again, the Lord has given the answer: Yes, every man, woman, and child—every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission. This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries. But it does mean that each of us is responsible to bear witness of the gospel truths that we have been given. We all have relatives, neighbors, friends, and fellow workmen, and it is our responsibility to pass the truths of the gospel on to them, by example as well as by precept."

    https://www.lds.org/new-era/1981/05/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-being-a-missionary?lang=eng

    Funny how if one just reads the entire talk, they find out what the prophet really said as opposed to cherry picking a paragraph to support an agenda. I should have read this talk a long time ago. I have heard the quote you provide parroted ad infinitum, but never a mention of the follow on commentary. 

    This is yet another classic example of one statement being turned into something completely different and then being held up as a commandment or some rule. Kinda like the caffeine statement some GA made over the pulpit years ago and all of a sudden Mormons can't drink coke and Pepsi. That one lasted over 30 years I believe until the church cleared that one up in 2012 with a , " uh yea that was never against our religion" statement in the news.

    Thanks again

     

     

     

     

     

  10. 5 minutes ago, seashmore said:

    This is why I think military service is considered an acceptable substitute for mission service: here also you make a commitment to give up your everything and do whatever is asked of you in the name of serving others.

    Wish you were in my ward growing up. I got treated like the spawn of Satan for going in the army lol...

    Of course there was no war going on back then so I was not  justified... now the fact there is a war it has now become an excuse not to serve in the military lol.

  11. 29 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    Nor did President Eyring. He counts his serving as a mission leader during his time as his mission. The same for anyone else during their time and the prophetic counsel given. If a prophet was commanded to serve and did not he is held accountable for his decision.

    If there wasn't a commandment, but a calling or assignment (i.e. Jay Golden Kimball) who petitioned to serve and was finally called because he petitioned to go and serve the Lord.

    When we disregard commandments for selfish reasons, yes, that is really not hard to comprehend either, it is selfish. You are also misquoting @DoctorLemon, let me quote him so we actually read carefully what he said, "I think not serving a mission when you are a male member who is 19 years old, physically able, worthy, and not drafted into the army Is kind of a lousy and selfish thing to do."

    DoctorLemon places conditions that are obvious: 1) 19 years of age, 2) physically able, 3) worthy, and 4) not drafted. In our own wisdom we are able to think of other reasonable reasons (in our time). I know of a young man who the time he was ready to serve a mission, fell sick, went to doctor and discovered a brain tumor. DoctorLemon wasn't mentioning this young man as "selfish and lousy" which is a tad disingenuous on your part toward Doctor Lemon.

    His words don't apply to our late prophet, to President Eyring, to Elder Packer. Already answered this easy question. Not sure why you want to rehash it. Different times, different seasons. It would be similar to trying to hold Brigham Young and others as breaking the Word of Wisdom before their was a word of wisdom. The moment we had this, "History has recently recorded the words of a prophet calling for every worthy and able young man to serve a full-time mission." Things change, just as the Word of Wisdom, which was first given as counsel, and is now a commandment. Really simple gospel principle.

    Ok so for the conditions... Both  Monson and Nelson met that criteria. Dr lemon didn't qualify his statement so without that qualification...He is essentially calling those two selfish and lousy. 

    As for the tumor guy. He has a legit reason. Did I say someone like that would not?

    Lastly the commandment part. So which prophet made it a Commandment (mandatory)for all worthy and phys able young men to serve a full time mission?

    If it is a commandment, not following it then results in what? We have 10 commandments which if we do not repent for breaking we do no get a temple recommend or even worse....much worse in many cases.  As for not going on a mission?  What? Nothing. 

    Go ask your stake pres, bishop. Ask what happens to someone in a temple rec interview who says yea I didn't go on a mission because I didn't feel like it and I don't regret it. Ask what they would then do with a person who broke this commandment and is not repentant. You might even get a blank stare. 

    I've been the one sitting across from my bishop and stake pres right after getting out of the army. Neither one admonished me, asked if I had repented etc. Both knew my story in great detail and boy was some of it a great time to put out on the table, but I was never called to repentance for not going...recommend in pocket.

    This is why I don't understand why so many get all in a tizzy when someone didn't go on a mission or resorts to name calling. 

  12. 5 hours ago, Fether said:

    http://www.ldsliving.com/Donny-Osmond-I-Didn-t-Serve-a-Mission-But-I-m-Still-a-Missionary/s/84729?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ctr

    I get sorts concerned when I see articles like this. 

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a time where the church not teach that all young men should serve missions?

    but regardless, when a celebrity says this, young men that are already on the fence about serving may take this as their excuse not to go. Especially if they have a reason to stay for “missionary purposes”. Like playing on a college sports team.

    I’m pretty one sided on this. All able and worthy young men should serve regardless of worldly opportunity.

    thoughts?

    I think they should go if they want to. If they don't want to and won't do a good job, then why waste the time. Many think all should go no matter what. Many families just care that you go so they can maintain " good standing" in  the eyes of their friends.....whatever that even is.

  13. 23 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    That is easy, during their time the prophetic counsel wasn't "every young and worthy male is to serve a mission." Not hard to comprehend their accountability. Similar to Jay Golden Kimball's time.

    I'm thinking he went on a mission though...right? 

  14. 2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

    Back when I was a missionary - from time to time someone would ask, "How many missionaries are serving in your mission?"  My response was, "About half of them."

     

    The Traveler

    Thats probably accurate. I would have been one of the ones just spinning my wheels till I got my heroes welcome home two years later. Not saying that is right and it is not, just being honest. Let me tell you, that was not an admirable trait at the time.

  15. 2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    That wasn't the question, as to their reasons they did not serve. The question was pertaining to "accountability" as you specified here, "Please tell us how they will be held accountable." That was answered, so it accounts according to your question.

    This new questions doesn't really matter. Why they chose to serve or not to serve was their choice. Some had college, some were drafted into war (i.e. Elder Packer served and I believe drafted during WWII).

    Yea and neither Nelson or Monson were drafted. Both were single in peacetime and chose college over a mission. As it has already been said here that whoever opts not to go on a mission is selfish and lousy...just curious how it applies to our propbets. Just say in. 

  16. 3 minutes ago, Vort said:

    You're right. Surely they are on the fast track to hell. I'm certainly glad that I am so much more righteous and acceptable before God than they are. Makes me sleep well at night.

    That's a dumb answer...hyperbole much? Just asking. 800 lb elephant in the room

    Keep in mind, I'm not the one who posted here that it was selfish and lousy not to serve

  17. 3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    That is easy, during their time the prophetic counsel wasn't "every young and worthy male is to serve a mission." Not hard to comprehend their accountability. Similar to Jay Golden Kimball's time.

    Still doesnt account for why they did not... just curious, why did they have better things to do like uhhhh college.

    Since we are on the accountability train, what is the penalty, punishment or whatever for not serving a full time mission? No recommend, no higher calling, disfellowship...what? 

    Answer: there is no accountability because it isn't and never was a commandment to serve a full time mission

  18. 2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

    I think not serving a mission when you are a male member who is 19 years old, physically able, worthy, and not drafted into the army Is kind of a lousy and selfish thing to do.  People out there are spiritually dying and need the gospel.  If you don't go on a mission, your absence could mean the difference between these people winding up in the Celestial Kingdom and people winding up in the telestial kingdom.  Is an athletic scholarship or even a chance at playing in the NFL really worth it, as not serving a mission can really potentially mess these people up?  (Thanks to revelation the Lord has made it clear that those who don't have the opportunity to serve, e.g. those who converted later in life, don't need to drop their careers and go.  But the plan works because 18 year old male members are supposed to go).

    I walked away from a national merit scholarship to go on my mission . . . (Fortunately I was unexpectedly able to get a different scholarship upon return).

    Current and most recent late prophet were not drafted, yet still chose to not serve a mission. 

    How can they do that and not be lazy and selfish???? Or are they? Just curious

  19. 45 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

    A mission is an "open calling" for women. For men, not so much. Women who do not serve a mission are not held accountable if they choose not to serve. Men on the other hand are very much accountable before the Lord if they "choose" not to serve. It would be similar to saying, the Savior was an "open" calling, that Christ easily could have said "no". Yep he could have, but his obedience and love for his Father, our Father, caused him to say, "Here I am." Celebrity status and knowledge of who we are shouldn't be any reason to withhold our service to God if we are "worthy" and "capable" -- David Archuletta is a great example of this.

    Our current and also most recent late prophet chose not to serve missions. Please tell us how they will be held accountable. There are many other gen authorities in the same boat. 

  20. 1 hour ago, Vort said:

    I expect paracaidista was hyperfocusing on the word "generally" for the men, from which he (wrongly) inferred that men are excused in wearing a wider latitude of clothing types to Church than women. If anything, the opposite is true -- but whatever. It's a silly thing to worry about in any case.

    You are right. I'm just reading what was written, not what I want it to say ?

    The author chose to make it two separate sentences. If the two ideas were separated by "and" instead of a period,  then perhaps it may not come off like it does. It says what it says and apparently many here agree. 

    If one of my sister's would have tried to wear pants to church there would have been a mini Armageddon in our home. My parents were so ultra orthodox pioneer decendant hard core lds it would scare the crap out of some. That said, I dont  think it appropriate for Sunday services, but I don't care enough to call someone out on it.

    And the white dudes who are not Polynesian or Hawaiian can leave those dresses home.

  21. 4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    I'm not sure what you're talking about. But whatever "neener neener" game you're trying to play, I'm not interested.

    Memory refresher:

    The Folk Prophet

    • Everything wrong with the church according to "progressives"
    • The Folk Prophet
    • Members
    •  5064
    • 8418 posts
    • Location: Saratoga Springs, UT
    • Religion: LDS

    I suspect it was intended as a teaching thing rather than a judgemental condemnatory thing. When and how to bring up some things with investigators is tricky. I'd forgive the guy, try to take what is important in the idea(s), and move on. Getting offended helps nothing and no one

    Not a neener game. Just pointing out that you are prone to judge from afar also. 

  22. 1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

    You have GOT to be kidding me (about the goatee).  Same for the people giving @The Folk Prophet a hard time.  I would ask what their motivation is for questioning your discipleship over such a silly and trivial matter.  Is their motivation really to help someone repent, or is it because they are smug, self righteous and enjoy asserting some degree of control over another?  

    For the record, there really IS nothing wrong with having a goatee.  I think that really IS an invented rule.  I had one back in 2005, and no one cared (as it should be).  Yes I would shave if my bishop asked me, but I have zero desire to shave for people who have no Priesthood authority over me whatsoever.  It is not their place to enforce my obedience to standards that they wish were gospel standards but aren't. 

    I also think people chastizing others for facial hair are coming mighty close to adding to the gospel (a form of apostasy).  It is just like word of wisdom additions - everyone has something they want to see added to the word of wisdom, but where does it stop?  Should meat be banned?  Caffeine? Sugar?  Non gluten free foods?  How about we stick to the teachings of the Church?

    Okay, I am done with my rant.

     

    I recently went to a sealing and there were at least 15 or 20 men with beards and goatees.....To include the groom lol.

    My old bishop just a few years ago used to yank any kid off the sacrament detail who had any facial hair at all. Made up rules. My own bishop used to order kids to cut their hair when I was in hs or they were not allowed to perform any ordinances. We got down to about 4 boys and he rest were elders or HP.