Missionary Force Shortfall?


Fiannan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am wondering, when I joined the church in the late 70s almost every active LDS family had five or more kids. The size of the church was smaller though. Now it is much larger but I see very ideological-traditional LDS families are still large but many others seem to justify small families (many interpret the Bishop's Handbook's comments in regards to birth control as an endorsement of the practice based on the world's standards. However, the Bishop's Handbook carries no doctrinal significance.).

Since I believe the birthrate probably started falling off in the late 80s then does that mean we have less missionaries in total or less missionaries per capita? I have heard that even leaders in the church predict curtailment of missionary work due to less children being born.

Have others heard this? If it is true is that the reason the church is taking a more agressive approach to encouraging women to stay at home as well as emphasizing the reasons for having large families again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Fiannan@Aug 23 2005, 05:17 AM

I am wondering, when I joined the church in the late 70s almost every active LDS family had five or more kids.  The size of the church was smaller though.  Now it is much larger but I see very ideological-traditional LDS families are still large but many others seem to justify small families (many interpret the Bishop's Handbook's comments in regards to birth control as an endorsement of the practice based on the world's standards.  However, the Bishop's Handbook carries no doctrinal significance.).

Since I believe the birthrate probably started falling off in the late 80s then does that mean we have less missionaries in total or less missionaries per capita?  I have heard that even leaders in the church predict curtailment of missionary work due to less children being born. 

Have others heard this?  If it is true is that the reason the church is taking a more agressive approach to encouraging women to stay at home as well as emphasizing the reasons for having large families again?

As far as women being encouraged to stay home, I have heard this at least for the last 23 years since I married.

I have also heard that there are many young men who are choosing to stay home from missions since the church leaders came out with "The raising of the Bar" several years ago. I am not saying that the concept is wrong, they just had no easing in period where they would announce it and then a year or two make it affective. I believe that many boys who were preparing to go or considering going fell away from their goals for feeling inadequate. That coupled with the removal of lesson manuals or discussion books left potent ional missionaries feeling scared. Within few years church leaders came out with a manual for missionaries to help guide their discussions. Now that the Bar has been raised, and the manuals are out, I still think that some boys still might be clinging to the "Well so and so didn't go and he is just a few years older then I am so I will not go either. The standard was changed when the Bar was raised. Could that be a crutch that will keep boys home for many years to come? I don't know and only time will tell.

I agree that years ago it was "Every worthy young man should fulfill a mission". I guess their have been some problems with young men going out into the mission field who have been pressured maybe by family or maybe even the standard itself. Some missionaries who have gone out end up coming home because they didn't go out prepared spiritually or who didn't belong there for one reason or another. I would imagine that this would cause problems in itself with boys who didn't want to be there.

Does anyone know specifically what has been changed? If a potential missionary has had sex but then repented can they still go? I have heard several different interpretations to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen the best come out of young men serving mission pressured or not it all boils down to if they have a testimony.

When I lived in the eastern part of Canada the stake president and the mission president came up with a good tool to see if the young men in the stake were mission ready.

A year before their mission age each ward mission leadership challenges each young man to go on splits or tag along with the elders to experience real teaching of the gospel.

This was not a one time thing that year was used to build their testimonies and experience a Mission even if it was once a week. It gave these young men the taste of the work.

This also keeps the young men’s minds on the gospel and less time with a girl they might be getting to close too.

My husband as been talking about doing this in our ward here.

It breaks my hart so see how some men fall away from church activity once they return home.

Three we were very close to when on their missions or taught seminary to the last five years have become in active and have fallen in to drugs and other addictions that was never part of their life’s before they served their missions.

Some would say that the lord removes protection once inactivity sets in. I don’t believe that is the case. One of them I can say with a certainty has become mentally ill and the other has fallen in to a bottle then drugs to drown a broken hart after his Temple marriage failed. The third one was a stake president’s son who came home from the MTC.

It is these reasons the church must raise the bar higher.

Bishops should know their young men and women then just “Oh right the Jonas families have a son close to mission age”.

Bishops need to know them spend time with them,

I have seen Bishops who hold fire sides in their homes almost weekly just so he can really know his young men, bishops hold that position in the church.

Elders quorum presidents as well. It takes a village to rise a child.

If the bar is raised higher then bishops and elders quorum presidents can lesion the pressure by knowing the young men and what makes each one tic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A young man who has sex before marriage would be worthy of excommunication from the Church, much less of being an ambassador. And that means he wouldn’t be worthy to hold the Aaronic priesthood, much less the Melchizedek priesthood. And it also means he wouldn’t be worthy to take the sacrament, much less pass it.

Of course it would still be possible for that young man to fully repent and receive the priesthood again, speaking of the Aaronic priesthood, but he might have to be baptized again himself before he could baptize somebody else. And by that time most of his young life might have passed him by so that it would then be best for him to focus on getting a job so he can get ready to take care of a family, instead of trying to teach other families the way to be.

Btw, you can get a lot of good information about what it means to be worthy to serve a mission by doing a Search for key words “mission personal worthiness” on the lds.org website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 24 2005, 04:00 PM

A young man who has sex before marriage would be worthy of excommunication from the Church, much less of being an ambassador. 

Are you sure about that?

Your post seems a bit harsh.

I did look at lds.org and I didn't find the information that varifies the above statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

young man who has sex before marriage would be worthy of excommunication from the Church, much less of being an ambassador. And that means he wouldn’t be worthy to hold the Aaronic priesthood, much less the Melchizedek priesthood.

Are you sure of this, Ray? I have never heard of a young man (under 20) being excommunicated for having sex before marriage. Disfellowshipped, forbidden from performing priesthood duties, yes. But Exed? As SF said, it sound a little harsh. It must be a new policy I haven't heard of yet. I have known of young men in the past who have fallen into that sin, repented and still went on missions at age 19 or 20. None of them were Exed and had to be rebaptized. I would think that excommunication of these young men would be reserved for the unrepentant or continual repeat sinners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way: If a man voluntary engages in sex before marriage, and thus violates the covenants he made with the Lord at baptism and when receiving the priesthood, a member of his bishopric or stake presidency would be justified in judging that man to be worthy of excommunication, and the fact that there are many men who have sex before marriage who are not excommunicated shows that members of a bishopric or stake presidency are inclined to show leniency even when excommunication is justified.

And FYI, the other factors to weigh in the judgment, in addition to those mentioned above, are any other covenants that man has made with the Lord, the type of sex, the frequency, the person(s) involved, the situation(s), and whether or not the covenant breaker confessed his sin(s) willingly or only answered to question(s) or accusation(s).

And btw, from personal experience, I received the lesser judgment for my sexual sins, but from the beginning of the process I was told that I could be excommunicated and that no man holding the preisthood should expect to only receive the lesser judgment. And I suppose that’s why such offenders go to court instead of simply reading the judgment from a rulebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 25 2005, 10:25 AM

Let me put it this way:  If a man voluntary engages in sex before marriage, and thus violates the covenants he made with the Lord at baptism and when receiving the priesthood, a member of a bishopric or stake presidency would be justified in judging that man to be worthy of excommunication, and the fact that there are many men who have sex before marriage who are not excommunicated shows that members of a bishopric or stake presidency are inclined to show leniency even when excommunication is justified.

And FYI, the other factors to weigh in the judgment, in addition to those mentioned above, are any other covenants that man has made with the Lord, the type of sex, the frequency, the person(s) involved, the situation(s), and whether or not the covenant breaker confessed his sin(s) willingly or only answered to question(s) or accusation(s).

And btw, from personal experience, I received the lesser judgment for my sexual sins, but from the beginning of the process I was told that I could be excommunicated and that nobody should expect to only receive the lesser judgment.  And I suppose that’s why such offenders go to court instead of simply reading the judgment from a rulebook.

About your BTW statement... If you were a member having already been baptized, held the priesthood, etc and been a man it weighs heavier then being a youth from what I recall. Being married and committing adultery is something that will pretty much get someone Excommunicated. ;)

Ray have you ever served as a bishop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we were talking about members who had already been baptized, held the priesthood, and were men, albeit young men, and because of that, I was teaching that any young man who has been baptized and received the priesthood should not be told he will definitely never get excommunicated if he voluntarily breaks his covenants by having sex before marriage… because it could happen and it would be justified.

And for another btw, I’ve only been active in the Church for about 7 years now, which is probably a little too soon to be called as a Bishop considering there are so many other worthy men to choose from in my ward, but I’ve been told that the time will come. Right now I’m an Exec Sec, having previously served as a Sunday School President, a Stake Missionary, and a Ward Choir President. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Laureltree, and I agree with what you added.

I believe excommunication is reserved for people who show they really don’t want to observe their covenants, NOT people who stumble and sincerely strive to repent… because why excommunicate someone who sincerely desires to keep the covenants they have made as a member of the Church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have a difficult time seeing any person excommunicated who has had sex before marriage, and never been to the temple, and goes to his/her bishop with a repentant heart. Although I would have to admit the possibility is always there. If a person is committing moral transgression, and has no desire to repent, and does not believe in God and the commandments, why would he/she want to be a member of the church anyway? I do know of two people who were excommunicated (not for moral transgression) who have never been to the temple, and I totally agree with the decision for them to be excommunicated.

The Covenant of Baptism - Elder Hales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Heather. A discussion of what it takes to be excommunicated from the Church would not be complete if we didn’t mention what it means to be worthy and remain worthy of membership in the Church, and Elder Hales summed that up very nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know specifically what has been changed? If a potential missionary has had sex but then repented can they still go? I have heard several different interpretations to this.

I believe that my question above is what sparked the question of worthiiness of a missionary serving a mission after committing the sin of sex before marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Aug 24 2005, 08:00 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Aug 24 2005, 04:00 PM

A young man who has sex before marriage would be worthy of excommunication from the Church, much less of being an ambassador. 

Are you sure about that?

Your post seems a bit harsh.

I did look at lds.org and I didn't find the information that varifies the above statement.

I still stand by this that his original reply was harsh but fortunately he has softened in his replies following the first. B)

To say that a young man not be worthy of serving as an ambassador was not right after I had already stated that the potent ional missionary had already repented is the post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Heather@Aug 26 2005, 11:10 AM

I would have a difficult time seeing any person excommunicated who has had sex before marriage, and never been to the temple, and goes to his/her bishop with a repentant heart.  Although I would have to admit the possibility is always there.  If a person is committing moral transgression, and has no desire to repent, and does not believe in God and the commandments, why would he/she want to be a member of the church anyway?  I do know of two people who were excommunicated (not for moral transgression) who have never been to the temple, and I totally agree with the decision for them to be excommunicated.

The Covenant of Baptism - Elder Hales

Heather,

You put that very nicely and I agree. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+ Aug 23 2005, 07:28 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Strawberry Fields@ Aug 26 2005, 11:57 AM

Does anyone know specifically what has been changed? If a potential missionary has had sex but then repented can they still go? I have heard several different interpretations to this.

I believe that my question above is what sparked the question of worthiiness of a missionary serving a mission after committing the sin of sex before marriage.

Yes, that statement from you sparked my response, and I was trying to tell you that a young man, who is a member of the Church, with the Aaronic priesthood, who has sex before marriage, is not a “potential missionary”….at least not any more than another young man who is not even a member of the Church.

And rather than being a “potential missionary” he would potentially:

lose his Aaronic priesthood, rather than advancing to the Melchizedek priesthood, and

lose his worthiness to take the sacrament, rather than remaining worthy to pass it.

Or in other words, the repentance process for that young man would involve taking away all the rights and privileges he had as a member of the Church, and he would basically be as if he were not even a member of the Church.

I hope that helps to clarify what I was trying to tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, new here, but thought that Id give my two cents.

My understanding of the eligability of a young man who has transgressed the laws of morality to serve a mission relys mostly on a few key bits of information. 1. How many occurrences of the offence there were. 2. How many partners there were. 3. The length of time since the last occurrence. 4. The willingness to confess and be forthcoming with the information.

My understanding is that a young man who has had only a few incidents of transgression with a single partner may still be able to serve a mission. However once you start talking about multiple partners and steady occurrences of the sin, then they would not be likely to be able to consider the mission.

It is quite impossible to put a blanket statement of punishment over any young man who has transgressed the laws of morality. I would say that some young men who have repeatedly transgressed this law while serving in church positions would be worthy of excommunication... although I doubt that a bishop would go as far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by seamusz@ Aug 28, 2005, 12:25 PM

My understanding is that a young man who has had only a few incidents of transgression with a single partner may still be able to serve a mission…

I will assume that you meant after that young man showed repentance by going through a repentance process, because I’m sure you don’t believe the bishop would be ready to submit his name to the First Presidency immediately after discovering his sins.

And btw, nice to have you aboard, seamusz. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome Seamusz :D

I all my years in the church I have never seen a young person excommunicated for having sex before marriage. I have however seen it where these young people have been dis-fellowshipped where they need to abstain from taking the sacrament, holding church callings, praying at church and things like that.

I will say that it could happen but probably not.

My initial question was can they still go and now I think the answer is it depends on the things that seamusz mentioned above which is pretty much how it has been in the past to the best of my knowledge. I just wondered if when the Raised the Bar for missionaries if the rules had changed about this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ray+Aug 26 2005, 01:45 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-seamusz@ Aug 28, 2005, 12:25 PM

My understanding is that a young man who has had only a few incidents of transgression with a single partner may still be able to serve a mission…

I will assume that you meant after that young man showed repentance by going through a repentance process, because I’m sure you don’t believe the bishop would be ready to submit his name to the First Presidency immediately after discovering his sins.

And btw, nice to have you aboard, seamusz. :)

Hey Ray, my case scenario was after he had repented as well. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the welcome :)

To my understanding, before the bar was raised, a young man could still go on a mission even if he had had multiple partners or lived with a girl. The deciding factor used to be a commitment to church principals for an amount of time... no longer so. Like I said before, although time is considered, it is only available if a "prospective missionary" has not grossly overstepped the line. So The limitations that I mentioned were a substantial tightening of the requirements. In my estimation, this new policy allowed those who have made mistakes to still serve, while excluding those who had willfully rebelled... least thats the way I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ray+Aug 26 2005, 01:45 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-seamusz@ Aug 28, 2005, 12:25 PM

My understanding is that a young man who has had only a few incidents of transgression with a single partner may still be able to serve a mission…

I will assume that you meant after that young man showed repentance by going through a repentance process, because I’m sure you don’t believe the bishop would be ready to submit his name to the First Presidency immediately after discovering his sins.

And btw, nice to have you aboard, seamusz. :)

Thanks.

Yes, after repentance has taken place, including a time lapse appropriate to the sin. My understanding is this needs to be in the year+ category... but I'm not too sure about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me see if I can correctly understand the words from seamusz:

Today, if an unmarried young man who is a member of the Church with the Aaronic priesthood has only a few sexual incidents with a single partner, he could still be considered worthy to serve a mission after he shows repentance and goes through a repentance process.

In the past, if an unmarried young man who was a member of the Church with the Aaronic priesthood had more than a few sexual incidents, or had sex with someone who wasn't single, he could still be considered worthy to serve a mission after he showed repentance and went through a repentance process.

Personally, I like my more harsh answer better, because I don’t want to say anything to help a young man think he can “get away with” having sex before marriage, and I would want that young man to remember and realize the significance of the covenant he made at baptism, and the covenant he made when he received the priesthood, instead of thinking he can do something and just repent for it later.

You guys do know there are young men reading this board, right?

And btw, the Lord has always expected chastity before marriage, so the counsel regarding “raising the bar” was only telling bishops they should put the bar back where it belongs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share