Non-RM stigma

[guitarwizard]

i would also like to reply (again) to the "important" calling comment...

All callings are "important" callings. All callings that are set in the church are a delegation of power of things that ultimately the prophet would have to do himself if he did not set up a system in which members could become stewards over certain responsibilities. These callings insure that every bit of the church runs smoothly and is just another sign that it is the true church. There are not unimportant callings, and all members who are worthy can serve in these callings. Just because someone may have not had the capability of going on a mission does not affect their worthiness to that calling. The stake president or bishop calling said member is the only person that can deem the member unworthy to participate in that calling.

[Guest bren1975]

seconded. I am pretty sure my bishop joined the church after he and his wife were married. That takes out the "married in the temple" and "served a mission" requirements. But he is my bishop.

Also, the second counselor to my bishop in my college ward never went on a mission and was only sealed in the temple. Not the bishop, but still a respectable position.

Do you see what you're saying? This is exactly why many LDS women want to marry RMs. They anticipate having sons someday. They don't want their son to say, "Dad never served a mission and he's OK."

Many don't serve for valid reasons, due to health, etc. But if you don't go, and your reason is simply justification for not wanting to, don't complain when a girl doesn't want to marry you. She's staking a lot on her choice of a husband. She has every right to want for her children someday, a man who did his duty and served the Lord.

I sent off one boyfriend (who I later married) and three sons on missions. None of them regrets the decision to go. The experience and the personal growth they gained, was beyond what I can say here. Our family has been blessed becauses of those missions. I was blessed because I did not stand in the way of my boyfriend's mission, even though it was REALLY HARD to see him go. I am convinced our marriage is better than it would have been had he not gone.

It IS a sacrifice. But to choose not to, is a HUGE loss.

[Guest bren1975]

Things you have to have to serve in any of the "important" callings (bishop, counselors, stake leadership, relief society (for women, of course)):

Served a mission

married in the temple (not married first and then sealed later, you have to do it all at once)

have more than two children

have a really good professional job where your wife doesn't have to work outside the home

Things that will prevent you from holding any of those callings:

no mission

no children (for whatever reason)

being single, or

being divorced

being married to a non-member

Sorry, but much of this is not true.

[guitarwizard]

Do you see what you're saying? This is exactly why many LDS women want to marry RMs. They anticipate having sons someday. They don't want their son to say, "Dad never served a mission and he's OK."

Many don't serve for valid reasons, due to health, etc. But if you don't go, and your reason is simply justification for not wanting to, don't complain when a girl doesn't want to marry you. She's staking a lot on her choice of a husband. She has every right to want for her children someday, a man who did his duty and served the Lord.

I sent off one boyfriend (who I later married) and three sons on missions. None of them regrets the decision to go. The experience and the personal growth they gained, was beyond what I can say here. Our family has been blessed becauses of those missions. I was blessed because I did not stand in the way of my boyfriend's mission, even though it was REALLY HARD to see him go. I am convinced our marriage is better than it would have been had he not gone.

It IS a sacrifice. But to choose not to, is a HUGE loss.

I am not doubting that at all! my comment was not saying that you would be fine without a mission, i think every young man in the church should prepare to serve on a mission, go, honorably return and start a family, worthily raising his children in the church to do the same. It doesn't always happen. That second counselor? He was a late convert. He also didn't have the ability. But you are right, he turned out great. There are negative things about not going, but there are even worse things for going and not wanting to. I just had a heated debate yesterday with an RM who didn't want to go. He left the church for feeling forced to go on a mission, among many other things. This stigma sucks though. If you force someone to do something, they will hate it. Like i hated reading in high school! I hated 1984 and Shakespeare, now i love them because i am not forced to do something i don't want to.

Young men should be prepared to serve a mission. If something happens and they are found incapable of going (be it a life predicament or that they do not have a firm grasp of the gospel, OR the only reason to go is that there parents will buy them a car) they should not be looked down upon. That is like looking at someone who judged themselves not worthy to take the sacrament and coming up to them after church, in the middle of their repentance process, and bullying them about their lack of reverence for the Saviour.

That is my opinion.

[Guest bren1975]

i would also like to reply (again) to the "important" calling comment...

All callings are "important" callings. All callings that are set in the church are a delegation of power of things that ultimately the prophet would have to do himself if he did not set up a system in which members could become stewards over certain responsibilities. These callings insure that every bit of the church runs smoothly and is just another sign that it is the true church. There are not unimportant callings, and all members who are worthy can serve in these callings. Just because someone may have not had the capability of going on a mission does not affect their worthiness to that calling. The stake president or bishop calling said member is the only person that can deem the member unworthy to participate in that calling.

I completely agree.

[Guest bren1975]

Young men should be prepared to serve a mission. If something happens and they are found incapable of going (be it a life predicament or that they do not have a firm grasp of the gospel, OR the only reason to go is that there parents will buy them a car) they should not be looked down upon. That is like looking at someone who judged themselves not worthy to take the sacrament and coming up to them after church, in the middle of their repentance process, and bullying them about their lack of reverence for the Saviour.

That is my opinion.

I agree also. However, in some of the previous posts, someone complained about girls not interested in dating any such young man, who didn't serve a mission for the reasons you say, except for anything beyond the young man's control.

I wouldn't advise my daughter to marry someone who only went for the new car, or doesn't have a firm grasp of the gospel, etc. These reasons denote weak testimonies. I wouldn't recommend risking marriage with him. Her future children deserve and need a dad with a strong testimony.

There are always exceptions. In those cases the Spirit would be needed to give a strong witness in decisions as to whether or not to go, or to marry a man who chose not to go.

Edited August 7, 2008 by bren1975

[Vort]

Marriage is such an individual choice and is predicated on so many silly things, so what's the matter with "RM" being on the list? Heck, most guys date and marry women they find attractive. How high does "pretty" rank on the list? Pretty high (forgive the pun).

• Would you date and marry someone with AIDS? Would it make a difference if s/he got AIDS from an infected needle that poked him/her while working to save a junkie's life?
• Would you date and marry someone you knew to be mentally or emotionally unstable, even if you also knew it wasn't his or her "fault"?
• Would you date and marry someone with chronically, incurably bad breath caused by body chemistry issues?
• Would you date and marry someone who was four feet tall?
• Would you date and marry someone who was too shy to talk with you or ever be alone with you?

These are arguably much less immediate and relevant reasons than "not being an RM" for refusing to date or marry someone, yet most of us would act in some, many, or all of the ways portrayed. So to me, it seems nonsensical to understand and accept the actions listed above, but then condemn a girl for insisting that she will only date RMs.

[Maureen]

Vort:

Would you date and marry someone with AIDS? Would it make a difference if s/he got AIDS from an infected needle that poked him/her while working to save a junkie's life? Would you date and marry someone you knew to be mentally or emotionally unstable, even if you also knew it wasn't his or her "fault"? Would you date and marry someone with chronically, incurably bad breath caused by body chemistry issues? Would you date and marry someone who was four feet tall? Would you date and marry someone who was too shy to talk with you or ever be alone with you?

Therefore you equate someone who is NOT a Returned Missionary with someone who has mental and physical problems, including growth hormone deficiencies and social disabilities?

[Vort]

Vort:Therefore you equate someone who is NOT a Returned Missionary with someone who has mental and physical problems, including growth hormone deficiencies and social disabilities?

The statement was made that young women should not disqualify a man from dating consideration just because he was unable to serve a mission. I was simply pointing out that young women routinely disqualify men from their dating pool for all sorts of reasons beyond the man's control, so why should being an RM be any different?

[miztrniceguy]

I am gonna call hogwash on this.

yeah...call for references.

[Moksha]

I was simply pointing out that young women routinely disqualify men from their dating pool for all sorts of reasons beyond the man's control, so why should being an RM be any different?

Besides, there is always the consideration that this non-RM condition could be passed on to the next generation through a dominent gene combination.

[BenRaines]

Vort,

I like you have done all those things since I joined the church at 16. Makes me wonder if I am a failure by other's standards. Good thing I am not by mine and the Lord's, since those are the only ones that matter.

Ben Raines

[bmy-]

I am also a convert but I joined too late to have served a mission. I suspect that you already made up your mind that you do not desire to serve a mission and, of course, that is your prerogative. But I join the statement above that ALL worthy males should heed the call of the Priesthood of God to serve their Heavenly Father in spreading the Gospel and bring others to His kingdom. As you are a new convert is likely that you do not understand the doctrine and significance of serving a mission. ALL of the apostles and prophets of this dispensations have served missions and most returned to school to have very successful carriers and professional lives. You would not be throwing away anything but gaining a testimony, spiritual strength, experience and faith that you now lack and that otherwise will never gain. In a decade as a member I have been able to see that it makes a universe of difference between those that serve a mission and those that don't, even among siblings in the same family.

As stated before.. Pres. Monson never went on his mission. I agree I likely would gain more spiritual strength and good experiences. I would also miss out on other good experiences and oppurtunities to grow spiritually.

I've seen boys go on missions and come back men. I've seen men leave for missions and come back boys. I've talked about mission life with friends that are RMs.. i've gone on splits with the missionaries. From my experiences I can say that it just isn't for me.

I'm worthy and I intend to make my life a 'mission'. But when the fruit is ripe you pick it.

There are practical and spiritual implications to going on a mission. Today's missionaries are tomorrow's leaders. There is no doubt that you will be a better man, a better friend, a better husband and father, a better priesthood holder, a better leader and a much more powerful servant of your Heavenly Father should you desire and serve a mission. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me as a father of a young girl expecting my future son-in-law to show that he has the faith, the desire, determination and drive it takes to walk the streets of the world in the service of our Savior 10 hours a day searching for those waiting to hear the Gospel. Past behavior and attitude is a fair indicator of future performance.The prophets expect it and so should I.

I can understand where your view comes from.. I just think it's incorrect to assume that a mission is what is right for me. I don't see where serving a mission helps you in areas that the real world can't. Faith is faith and good men are good men.

Whether your future son-in-law spent two years serving a mission or two years in college.. I think he (and I!) should be judged by who we are instead of 'what' we are.

I would never publicly shun a young man that choses not to go on a mission. But he has made it abundantly clear where his priorities lay and people have a right to assess those issues and make inferences. That it makes you uncomfortable because you feel is unfair, I guess that comes with the choices you make.

I'm not speaking of young men who choose not to go on a mission because they are lazy or unworthy. I'm speaking of young men who feel as if there are "better" roads for them to follow. It makes me uncomfortable because it seems to be relatively common for young girls to value mission experience over an education.

It's not just missionary stigma. It's the 'he's a new convert' stigma..and the 'he was never a scout' stigma.. and the 'he questions authority' stigma.

I hope you can relate unless I just have terrible ward luck. Good luck with your daughter.. give my regards to her! (I joke.)

Edited August 8, 2008 by bmy-

[Guest bren1975]

The decision to not serve a full-time mission is a serious one. It's foregoing a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Should the Spirit give you a very clear answer to NOT go, then don't go. But short of that, go. It takes a lot of faith to put aside one's life for two years.

Going against the counsel of the prophet to serve a mission, without the confirmation from the Spirit, shows pride. It shows that you believe you know better than the Lord. Setting aside your own wants and plans, and obeying the prophet along with the Spirit, shows humility.

Humility and faith are what it's all about.

Matt. 10: 39

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

There's time for the education afterwards.

Edited August 10, 2008 by bren1975

[Islander]

bmy-

Without desire to contend and just for clarification, Pres. Monson did not served a mission just like 10,000 other Elders kept home because of WW II. I think you should not compare pears and apples. But there is no "better road" than the one that the Savior has pointed to his servants to travel on. And yes, it is quite valid to make a value judgment based on what they do/did, the choices and priorities they have and the choices they make in life. How else are we to form an opinion of who they are?

Again, you had your reasons for not serving a mission and that is your prerogative. You know what the stance of the priesthood is on the matter. Your agency ends there. Complaining about what people may think or say about you because of your choice serves no purpose.

By the way, the whispering of the Spirit about NOT going points to YOU not being ready to serve for God knows all things. The call to serve has been issued to ALL able priesthood holders but it is our duty and responsibility to measure up to be worthy and willing to heed to that calling. So by all means, stay and go on with your life trying your absolute best to reach and fulfill the measure of your purpose in God.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Islander

[skalenfehl]

Hey VOL, a mission is a wonderful experience and something worth doing ( I don't regret serving), but I understand it may not be for everyone and if you truly feel that it isn't for you, then I know you have your reasons and if you've taken it to the Lord, that should be good enough for anyone. Sometimes well intentioned folks can talk "too much" and make you feel uncomfortable, to the point where you are feeling judged. If you wanted to give 'em a little taste of their own medicine after you've politely told them you aren't going to serve, you could ask them how many temple sessions they've attended this year or if they're faithful hometeachers. Maybe they're full tithe payers, too?

Best wishes, bud. I know you are a valiant young man and I admire you for your faith and what you deal with every day. Keep your chin up.

[bmy-]

Without desire to contend and just for clarification, Pres. Monson did not served a mission just like 10,000 other Elders kept home because of WW II. I think you should not compare pears and apples. But there is no "better road" than the one that the Savior has pointed to his servants to travel on. And yes, it is quite valid to make a value judgment based on what they do/did, the choices and priorities they have and the choices they make in life. How else are we to form an opinion of who they are?

I hear you friend. I was just pointing out that not all of the apostles and men of authority have been on their literal 2 year mission. I don't see people whispering behind the prophets back over it, though.

You should get to know the man in my opinion. If he has 'RM qualities' I don't see the problem. Private schools generally prepare students better.. do you discriminate against public school students also?

Again, you had your reasons for not serving a mission and that is your prerogative. You know what the stance of the priesthood is on the matter. Your agency ends there. Complaining about what people may think or say about you because of your choice serves no purpose.

I complain because I think it's ridiculous. I could infer from a young girls choice to be married at age 19 that she is a whore.. but I don't. I could say that a young couple who doesn't get married in a temple was having pre-marital relations.. but I don't. I don't presume to know how 'worthy' they are or are not.

Then again them complaining would serve no purpose.. they should just accept being called a whore or unworthy. I think it's much the same.

By the way, the whispering of the Spirit about NOT going points to YOU not being ready to serve for God knows all things. The call to serve has been issued to ALL able priesthood holders but it is our duty and responsibility to measure up to be worthy and willing to heed to that calling. So by all means, stay and go on with your life trying your absolute best to reach and fulfill the measure of your purpose in God.

This church is built on eternal progression. You cannot be omniscient and still progress. I'll say instead that God knows everything about us. I'm mission-worthy. Perhaps God has other plans for me? Who is to say he doesn't? I for one am not that arrogant.

All I 'know' are the answers i've received through personal prayer. It wouldn't be the first time man was instructed to go against the 'norm'.

[LolaBella]

Originally Posted by Bookmeister

Things you have to have to serve in any of the "important" callings (bishop, counselors, stake leadership, relief society (for women, of course)):

Served a mission

married in the temple (not married first and then sealed later, you have to do it all at once)

have more than two children

have a really good professional job where your wife doesn't have to work outside the home

Things that will prevent you from holding any of those callings:

no mission

no children (for whatever reason)

being single, or

being divorced

being married to a non-member

This is absolutely untrue. My Bishop does not have children, and is also a divorcee on his second marriage. One of the counsellors is a convert who was called to the Bishopric a year before he got sealed (he was already married) and the other counsellor is ALSO a divorcee onhis second marriage. Not one of them has served a mission either as they are all converts. The Bishops wife is a successful accountant who works outside the home and the other two wives are retired. So, I agree, this is indeed hogwash!! My Bishopric is a wonderful example of people serving no matter what their past circumstances. Its the desire in the heart thats what matters.

[Maureen]

...I could infer from a young girls choice to be married at age 19 that she is a whore.. but I don't....

I'm confused why you would equate wanting to get married to being a whore. Marriage, if I remember correctly, is considered a respectable institution; being married is a respectable status.

M.

[Jenamarie]

I think the assumption is that a young woman is getting married that young because she's craving sex in a bad way, but doesn't want to break the law of chastity. I've had the unfortunate "opportunity" to run into people who think like that, having been engaged myself at 19. (people who assumed I was getting married out of lust, rather than love)

[guitarwizard]

I think the assumption is that a young woman is getting married that young because she's craving sex in a bad way, but doesn't want to break the law of chastity. I've had the unfortunate "opportunity" to run into people who think like that, having been engaged myself at 19. (people who assumed I was getting married out of lust, rather than love)

But that is not always (i'd like to hope it rarely is) the case, so saying a girl who wants to get married is a whore is not a correct statement. Just because a there is a deep abiding love between a man and a woman and it is so strong that they wish to devote the remainder of their lives together does not make a young woman a whore.

[bmy-]

But that is not always (i'd like to hope it rarely is) the case, so saying a girl who wants to get married is a whore is not a correct statement. Just because a there is a deep abiding love between a man and a woman and it is so strong that they wish to devote the remainder of their lives together does not make a young woman a whore.

Which is exactly what I was getting at. That we shouldn't presume to know how righteous or worthy people are by a decision they made that wasn't sinful in nature [Even then.. tread lightly]. The 'calling her a whore' part was an exaggeration to show how ridiculous presumptions can be.

I surely don't call them whores.. but some people do. In the same manner I dislike the assumptions people make about my 'righteousness' or whether or not i'm 'worthy' in regards to a mission.

A quote from Pres. Monson came up when I was thinking about this 'RM stigma'...

"Every one of us has been foreordained for some work as [God's] chosen servant on whom he has seen fit to confer the priesthood and power to act in his name. Always remember that people are looking to you for leadership and you are influencing the lives of individuals either for good or for bad, which influence will be felt for generations to come."

[NateHowe]

There is great danger in seeing oneself as the rare exception to a prophet's call. If the commandment is for every worthy young man to serve, then a young man must tread very carefully when even toying with the idea of skipping missionary service. Generally, when I look back to identify times in my life when I have thought a prophet's counsel did not apply to me, I see that the counsel usually applied directly to a weakness I held. The counsel I most want to rationalize away is that which is most important for my welfare.

[bmy-]

There is great danger in seeing oneself as the rare exception to a prophet's call. If the commandment is for every worthy young man to serve, then a young man must tread very carefully when even toying with the idea of skipping missionary service. Generally, when I look back to identify times in my life when I have thought a prophet's counsel did not apply to me, I see that the counsel usually applied directly to a weakness I held. The counsel I most want to rationalize away is that which is most important for my welfare.

An extremely valid point -- I don't necessarily believe i'm an exception to the 'rule'.. but I don't rule out that possibility for myself or anyone. Personally I feel called to do other things.. and I suppose alot of that has to do with my upbringing. It's difficult to make plain in every day situations that i'm not neglecting my 'mission' at all.. I simply feel called to serve elsewhere.

It's good counsel and I'll make sure I remember it on a day to day basis.

Edited August 11, 2008 by bmy-

[VisionOfLehi]

Kinda forgot about this topic. Great to see so many replies in my absence. I read through them all. Just wanted to say thanks for the discussion, and all the replies just for me.