Mission required?

[Faded]

I suppose that LDS girls make this a priority because it is kind of mitigating risk.

The logic would seem to be: RM is less likely to fall away from the Church, commit adultery, will be a better father, and has demonstrated their commitment to God by their two years service. We are often told of the fast-forward of maturity and world-experience that a mission provides. The logic makes sense certainly.

It would be interesting to see stats on this sort of thing. I'd almost bet money that RM's are not significantly better in virtually every category.

I am a Returned Missionary myself, and I think Returned Missionary status is over-blown. Too many incorrect assumptions are made about RM's. People will presume you are better than you really are because you served. People assume that you are automagically on a higher plane of righteousness because of your two years service. People too often place RM's on a pedestal that they don't belong on. Young men should be commended for their service, but I think Latter Day Saints have gone way too far with it.

[Just_A_Guy]

My point is that serving a mission is not at all a good indicator of the quality of person your daughter could potentially marry.

I concur. My position is, as I just told Hordak, is that

I don't think being an RM automatically makes one a good husband.

But frankly, I think dishonoring one's priesthood [in the context of an LDS family] puts one pretty well on the road to being a bad one.

Because the standards for acceptance into the mission field have been raised, thus excluding a few elders/sister that previously might have been able to go, we should understand something.

1. If serving a mission were mandatory for every priesthood holder, the Lord wouldn't have raised the standards, or allowed the prophet to raise them.

I think there's a difference between "unqualified under the new standards" and "honorably excused".

Is someone who never read the Book of Mormon through "honorably excused"?

How about someone who knocked up a girl when he was 17?

How about someone who racked up a few thousand dollars in credit card debt during his freshman year in college?

2. Since it's clear that the Lord neither expects, nor requires every priesthood holder to serve a full time mission, we shouldn't require it of ourselves. It's a personal decision, and the individual who makes it will account for their reason, good or bad....the judement is in the Lord's hands, not ours.

I concur . . . as long as the individual is not imposing himself upon me or my family, it's his decision and it is solely for him to find out if the Lord accepts his rationale.

3. How many GA's never served a mission? Would you seriously forbid your daughter from marrying one of them just for that fact?

How many of those GA's were eligible for missionary service after President Kimball's injunction and after the Church had the requisite infrastructure in place to support indigent missionaries?

I think you'll find that nearly all non-RM GAs, regardless of when they were eligible for service, were honorably excused from service due to wartime or exigent personal circumstances.

While you do have a role in establishing the standars of behavior for your daughers, you have absolutely no say, ultimately, in who they decide to marry.

I disagree. I have no control, but I have plenty of say.

Suppose she marrys a non-RM in the temple...will you turn your back on her and him for that?

Just how serious is this matter to you, and how far are you willing to push your point?

See my post to Dove.

[Jenamarie]

Because the standards for acceptance into the mission field have been raised, thus excluding a few elders/sister that previously might have been able to go, we should understand something.

1. If serving a mission were mandatory for every priesthood holder, the Lord wouldn't have raised the standards, or allowed the prophet to raise them.

2. Since it's clear that the Lord neither expects, nor requires every priesthood holder to serve a full time mission, we shouldn't require it of ourselves. It's a personal decision, and the individual who makes it will account for their reason, good or bad....the judement is in the Lord's hands, not ours.

3. How many GA's never served a mission? Would you seriously forbid your daughter from marrying one of them just for that fact?

While you do have a role in establishing the standars of behavior for your daughers, you have absolutely no say, ultimately, in who they decide to marry.

Suppose she marrys a non-RM in the temple...will you turn your back on her and him for that?

Just how serious is this matter to you, and how far are you willing to push your point?

I don't understand how you came to #2 from #1. I can agree that the Lord doesn't mandate that *every* male serve a mission (for obvious exceptions listed such as disability, illness, military service, and other such "honorable release" reasons), but I don't think that means the Lord doesn't require those who do NOT fall into those categories to serve missions either. And I think he DOES expect those who don't follow under the "honorable release" umbrella to serve, and He expects them to expect it of themselves! I also think that it's exactly why He raised the bar! If a young man is fulfilling his Priesthood obligations, then the bar really isn't all that high.

[hordak]

Is it also the worst reason not to go on a mission?

I kept my husband from going on a mission . I wasn't a member at the time. we would not be married right now if he went, I'm glad he stayed for me. Is that horrible? We'll try and go on a couples mission when we are old and grey.

No i wouldn't think so. Serving a mission is officially acting for the lord not going could be not fulfilling your duty if you were called (though i don't see it as, your male, you haven't been in trouble = your called, and think being called to serve comes from a still small voice not your parents, friends, or even Bishop, reminding you to turn in your paperwork)

Serving for the wrong reason is worse then not serving IMO. Would it be better if the Priest skipped Sunday service because he had a late date. Or If he went and blessed the sacrament so he could check out sister smith and it is what it expected?

I would think shirking your responsibly (and again i don't know if your husband was called, chances are only he knows) would be better then acting officially for the wrong reason.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Once again, the laguage of the prophets is more persuasive. "should" and "ought to" are everywhere present, but you never hear the words "must" and "need to".

There is no scriptural demand to serve a mission. To reiterate, in my two years in San Diego, I met several missionaries that really shouldn't have been there, were there for the wrong reasons, or really didn't want to be there in the first place. None of these situations fit squarely with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Once more, my younger brother decided against a mission and married his wife in the temple instead.

Are you seriously going to say that he's 'well on the way to becoming' a bad father just because he never served full-time? Even though he's in the elder's quorum presidency...he's somehow fallen or less worthy? Even though he's been temple worthy since I can remember?

How can you possibly judge someone at all, let alone based solely upon whether or not they served a full time mission? I think when it comes to serving missions and RM's, as has been stated above, we take too much assumption upon ourselves.

[Just_A_Guy]

Once again, the laguage of the prophets is more persuasive. "should" and "ought to" are everywhere present, but you never hear the words "must" and "need to".

There is no scriptural demand to serve a mission.

No; the demand is merely to

teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day.

If someone gets a revelation that he can do that by some means other than serving a mission--OK, then.

To reiterate, in my two years in San Diego, I met several missionaries that really shouldn't have been there, were there for the wrong reasons, or really didn't want to be there in the first place. None of these situations fit squarely with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Agreed. I'm not saying an unworthy male has an obligation to go on a mission now; I'm saying he has an obligation to get worthy and then go. If he doesn't get worthy in time--it's like Oliver Cowdery and translating the plates, isn't it? The fact that he may no longer take advantage of the opportunity doesn't mean that the opportunity never existed, that was not lost through his own negligence, or that (had he succeeded) it wouldn't have been a highly beneficial experience for his spiritual growth. It just means that he fouled up, and it's one more thing we trust the Atonement will cover.

Once more, my younger brother decided against a mission and married his wife in the temple instead.

Are you seriously going to say that he's 'well on the way to becoming' a bad father just because he never served full-time? Even though he's in the elder's quorum presidency...he's somehow fallen or less worthy? Even though he's been temple worthy since I can remember?

Please reread what I wrote to you:

I don't think being an RM automatically makes one a good husband.

But frankly, I think dishonoring one's priesthood [in the context of an LDS family] puts one pretty well on the road to being a bad one.

I said nothing about serving a mission per se, I just spoke generally about dishonoring the priesthood. I've acknowledged the existence of some valid revelations excusing the recipient from missionary service, and if you believe your brother received one of these then there's no need for you to take offense.

How can you possibly judge someone at all, let alone based solely upon whether or not they served a full time mission? I think when it comes to serving missions and RM's, as has been stated above, we take too much assumption upon ourselves.

Who have I judged? Thus far I've spoken only in generalities. I do reserve the right to speak to my kids about potential issues with their choice of a mate, and if that's "judging" it's an intermediate judgment and justifiable, provided it is done on correct principles.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[RipplecutBuddha]

You say you speak generally about dishonoring one's priesthood...yet you still say this;

I don't think being an RM automatically makes one a good husband.

But frankly I think dishonoring one's priesthood [in the context of an LDS family] puts one pretty well on the road to being a bad one.

You're directly equating choosing not to serve with dishonoring one's priesthood. What other conclusion can be reached?

[RipplecutBuddha]

I have no problem with you having standards for your daughters. Please understand that.

My problem is with how far you take it.

You'd seriously sit them down and

A ) tell them that what they want (presumably a temple marriage to a man who never served a mission) is a mistake????

B ) tell them you hope they'll reconsider????

Just because the guy decided not to serve a mission???

IMHO that is simply too far beyond the standards set in the church...otherwise No male that decided against a full time mission would ever get sealed in the temple.

[Nikkie85]

Is it also the worst reason not to go on a mission?

I kept my husband from going on a mission . I wasn't a member at the time. we would not be married right now if he went, I'm glad he stayed for me. Is that horrible? We'll try and go on a couples mission when we are old and grey.

He was your own personal missionary!

I say this about my husband because we meet when he should of been on mission but was inactive.

[Wingnut]

And, more germane to the topic at hand: an able-bodied-and-minded LDS male under 28 (IIRC, the maximum eligibility age) who has not served a mission is not taking his priesthood obligations seriously.

I believe they lowered that age to 24 or 25.

I think you must be no older than 26 at the time you enter the MTC. I know it's a moot point, but I'm pretty sure that's the current max.

I am a Returned Missionary myself, and I think Returned Missionary status is over-blown. Too many incorrect assumptions are made about RM's. People will presume you are better than you really are because you served. People assume that you are automagically on a higher plane of righteousness because of your two years service. People too often place RM's on a pedestal that they don't belong on. Young men should be commended for their service, but I think Latter Day Saints have gone way too far with it.

I am also a returned missionary. I am curious to know the opinions of female returned missionaries, as I'm not sure any have posted on this thread yet (other than myself, and I didn't really say much before). I'm pretty much in agreement with your thoughts, though. Being older than the "boys" who served, and serving with a lot of them, I realized that RMs really aren't all they're cracked up to be. For some, it's a great experience, for others it's not. They all have a lot of immaturity still when they come home, with rare exceptions. A mission doesn't automatically make you anything, except an RM.

The benefits come from learning how to study the Gospel and knowing how to share it. There is also the benefit of having been with a companion twenty-four hours a day and having to learn communication skills, which some people equate to marriage practice. I don't think it's quite an accurate comparison. For one thing, you get to choose your own spouse rather than having one assigned to you, and getting a new one every 3 months (or more). For another thing, living out of a suitcase wears on you and can make you more irritable than you might normally be. Lastly, you're not with your spouse twenty-four hours a day. If you need cool-down time in an argument, you can go for a drive before dealing with things.

I can agree that the Lord doesn't mandate that *every* male serve a mission (for obvious exceptions listed such as disability, illness, military service, and other such "honorable release" reasons), but I don't think that means the Lord doesn't require those who do NOT fall into those categories to serve missions either. And I think he DOES expect those who don't follow under the "honorable release" umbrella to serve, and He expects them to expect it of themselves! I also think that it's exactly why He raised the bar! If a young man is fulfilling his Priesthood obligations, then the bar really isn't all that high.

I think I'm reading you right, here. In 1974, President Kimball said that "every young man should fill a mission." In 2002/2003, the "bar was raised," launched by a conference talk given by M. Russell Ballard. I don't think that the Lord expects or desires any fewer young men to serve missions now than He did in 1987, with the exception of those with medical or mental health issues that prevent them from fully serving. I think the Lord expects every young man to make himself worthy and able to serve a mission with the newer standards, not fall below them because they're no longer the status quo.

In the interest of equality and fairness if "we" are to judge a mans "worthiness" to marry our daughters based on there ability to serve a mission (which show commitment to the church, their calling etc) I propose the young women are assigned to nursery, and spend the last 2 years of the YW program cooking meal, cleaning the rooms of and doing the laundry for the men to prove their "worthiness" to marry our sons (commitment to the family, church, their calling etc).

I realize that although this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, the idea still has some merit. However, I find it an unfair comparison. If a "worthy" man wants to marry a "worthy" woman, and a woman makes herself worthy by going through the internship you propose above, that is, child-raising, cooking, and cleaning (the practical things in a homemaking mom's life), then how exactly does a mission prepare a man in the same way? A mission doesn't teach a man to build a house, or to clean teeth, or to treat patients, or to litigate, or to balance the books of a company, or to fix cars, or to fix computers, or to do any number of other professions. It teaches spirituality and salesmanship. Even the salesmanship doesn't always carry over into the "real world" without the Spirit behind it.

A mission prepare a man (or woman) for a lifetime of spirituality. The way it does that is by providing a dedicated environment to learn how to study the scriptures and other good books related to the Gospel. It provides intense experiences that -- in theory, at least -- stay with an individual for decades to come. It teaches that we must always be learning and progressing.

A mission is not a fail-safe.

[Just_A_Guy]

You say you speak generally about dishonoring one's priesthood...yet you still say this;

I don't think being an RM automatically makes one a good husband.

But frankly I think dishonoring one's priesthood [in the context of an LDS family] puts one pretty well on the road to being a bad one.

You're directly equating choosing not to serve with dishonoring one's priesthood. What other conclusion can be reached?

My understanding was that we were discussing young men, in the LDS Church under modern circumstances (ie a missionary program that, to all intents and purposes, is fully funded), who have neither been honorably excused by the Church, nor received a bona fide revelation to that effect from the Lord Himself. My apologies if the context got lost.

My problem is with how far you take it.

You'd seriously sit them down and

A ) tell them that what they want (presumably a temple marriage to a man who never served a mission) is a mistake????

B ) tell them you hope they'll reconsider????

Just because the guy decided not to serve a mission???

IMHO that is simply too far beyond the standards set in the church... otherwise No male that decided against a full time mission would ever get sealed in the temple.

You know, this is probably my fault, because all the ins and outs of my position haven't been summed up in one post and it's easy to miss them. Let me try to consolidate it:

My position, as it concerns my own family, is that I would object to my daughters' marrying an able-bodied-and-minded LDS male under the maximum missionary eligibility age who has not served a mission, and has neither been honorably excused by the Church, nor received a credible bona fide revelation to that effect from the Lord Himself.

So I'm not talking about excluding every "male that decided against a full time mission" from temple sealings. But I am saying that I will look askance on someone who facially appears to either not understand or willfully neglect his covenants right now, but insists he's ready to make even more significant covenants to my own daughter.

[Guest]

Of course I think that nonmembers share my values and morals. I have only been a member for three years and I am the only member in my family. I am surrounded by nonmembers who are good honest people. No I do not believe that you have to be LDS to be a good person.

I will expect my children to get good grades, I will expect my children to do as they are told, and I will expect my children to respect others. I think if you set goals for your children then they will strive to achieve them.

If my child decided not to serve a mission or marry outside of the temple I would still love them and would respect their decisions. I would support them no matter what and would always want the best for them.

Since I want the very best for my children I want them to have a temple marriage. I want them to uphold the covenants they make in the temple and serve the Lord.

Nikki, I'm truly not picking an argument with you. I hope you don't see my posts that way. It's just two differing parenting styles from 2 different backgrounds brought on by personal experiences hopefully ending in the same success/failure ratio...

When I had my firstborn, I read parenting books and I tell you, I ended up throwing all of them in the trash. Every one of them said something different, one sometimes contradicting the other. I was one of those parents who stripped the nursery of every color except red black and white... because some book said so.

That said, my style of parenting is not to make the expectations for my children in the way you described (okay, please understand I'm not saying that my style is better or your style is wrong, it is just my preferred method). And here's where that came from - I'm Asian - and yes, the Asian stereotype is fairly accurate on education. My dad laid the law in the house when we were kindergarten - you get A's. That's the expectation. I came home from Kindergarten with a 1 out of 10 score on a test for greater than, less than, and equal to because I thought > is less than and < is greater than, so I got one point for the one question that was =. I didn't get to eat dinner. Failed the expectation. I went to engineering college because it was expected. I worked as a programmer through college while taking engineering classes. At graduation, I handed my dad my diploma, and told him, that's it - I've completed all your expectations, and I continued working as a programmer. The expensive college degree was nothing but a blip in my resume. I went on to "almost" marry this one guy that he expected me to marry until I got up the nerve to defy my parents and flee the scene one week before the ceremony.

I hated my teen-age years because I was always failing my parents' expectations - they called me the "black sheep". Why? Because, I wanted to wear jeans when my dad expected skirts, I don't spend all my after-school hours studying, instead I was at the tennis court - regardless that I had good grades - but not as good as my brother's. My other brother and my father do not have a good relationship until today. Why? Because my father burnt all his soccer stuff when he got C's in high school when my brother's one dream in life is to play professional soccer. A was expected - soccer was a distraction. My "good" brother is a neurologist now. He is my father's pride and joy because he filled all the expectations. My father do not intentionally show preference, but my soccer-brother and I feel the pride in my father's voice when talking to my other brother. We feel like rejects.

So, when I had my own children, I did things differently. Instead of establishing expectations, I taught my kids to make their own goals. For example, my 8 year old is a very smart kid. Genius level. Very similar to my neurologist brother. So, when he started school, I told him how people have different talents, and how God blessed him with brains. So, to honor heavenly Father's gift to him, he will have to use that brain to the best of his ability. So, I helped him set up the bar. A only. Well, like most genius kids, he has a hard time paying attention. So, he comes home with a B. I ooh and ahh and say that's good and we both agree, yes, he can do better. So, he tries harder. He comes home with an A, I do the same ooh and ahh and tell him to keep it up and he says he will keep trying harder. What I'm hoping is that he will not get an A "for me" - he will get an A because that's what he knows he is capable of.

I know this is getting long - and it's not even relevant to the thread. But, really, the only fundamental difference between our styles is the incentive - instead of me expecting it, I'm teaching my kids to make expectations for themselves to "train" them to think and choose correctly on their own. The end result is the same, I hope.

11 years from now, if this forum is still here, I will report to you if my style worked - if my child chooses for himself to serve a mission, or if he chooses not to, to have a good reason.

That's the trick about raising children - you get one chance at it. Sink or swim...

Edited January 31, 2010 by anatess

[ferretrunner]

Just curious- many posters have mentioned medically able to serve. Does a disability disqualify someone from serving? For example, if a young man (or woman) is paralyzed or lost a leg would they be allowed to serve?

[Guest]

Just curious- many posters have mentioned medically able to serve. Does a disability disqualify someone from serving? For example, if a young man (or woman) is paralyzed or lost a leg would they be allowed to serve?

The answer is yes if you are physically capable to handle the rigors of mission life - obviously, you won't be sent to foreign countries who do not have facilities for handicapped people.

If you are not physically capable to serve a full-time mission, there are part-time missions offered as well.

[annamaureen]

Just out of curiosity since many post have expressed the idea "Not good enough for my daughter"

How many women here picked their spouses based on their father or mothers approval?

How many turned a man down because daddy didn't like him?

This reminds me of how my father got all doubtful and skeptical when he found out my boyfriend (now husband) wasn't an RM. I was like, "Uh, Dad, you're not an RM!"

We got engaged when he was twenty-three. Technically he could've still served a mission (as a family friend snootily reminded me.) But it seemed pointless for me to insist on it. After years of inactivity he'd returned to full activity in the church. We were engaged and were both worthy to be sealed. I don't see how going on a mission would've made him "better."

[AintNoCityBoy]

Well, I am saving up now for my future mission. Being a new member isn't a good enough excuse for me. Hope to serve with Honor.

Also, I'd never Marry/Date outside of my own Race. Ever. I will just say that they Church has helped lighten my views on others who do so.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Well, I am saving up now for my future mission. Being a new member isn't a good enough excuse for me. Hope to serve with Honor.

Also, I'd never Marry/Date outside of my own Race. Ever. I will just say that they Church has helped lighten my views on others who do so.

that's great, not sure how long you have but as a convert you need to prepare extra diligently, but you also have an advantage over BIC missionaries.

[Mahone]

Also, I'd never Marry/Date outside of my own Race. Ever. I will just say that they Church has helped lighten my views on others who do so.

How do you define 'race' anyway? By skin colour? Other physical appearances? By the location of where they were bought up? Would it be wrong for a white English guy to marry a black American girl? Or a white English girl with a white American guy? Or a black American girl with a white American guy? Would any of these be wrong?

I can understand why some people might be wary of marrying outside of their own race, but this should be decided on a individual basis, in my opinion. The American and English cultures are very similar... which is understandable considering Americas history. Why would it cause problems in marriage, other than the small arguments to as whether colour should have that redundant letter, or whether the right side of the road is the right or left?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Mahone

[Jenamarie]

that's great, not sure how long you have but as a convert you need to prepare extra diligently, but you also have an advantage over BIC missionaries.

I'm curious about this. How so?

[hordak]

This reminds me of how my father got all doubtful and skeptical when he found out my boyfriend (now husband) wasn't an RM. I was like, "Uh, Dad, you're not an RM!"

We got engaged when he was twenty-three. Technically he could've still served a mission (as a family friend snootily reminded me.) But it seemed pointless for me to insist on it. After years of inactivity he'd returned to full activity in the church. We were engaged and were both worthy to be sealed. I don't see how going on a mission would've made him "better."

I can't help but wonder if it's just a way to get rid of the guy and avoid the problem for a while. I can't say for sure but i have heard Dear John letters are pretty common for missionaries (i know some make it but can't imagine most 19 yearold girls can "put their life on hold" so to speak for 2 years , especially if their going off to college)

"You want to marry my daughter huh?" Well you leave the state (and or country) for 2 years have minimal contact with her, i'll send her off to college and we will see what happens."

Maybe i will have to use that RM standard after all.

[Just_A_Guy]

Where's that laugh button?

[Guest mysticmorini]

I can't help but wonder if it's just a way to get rid of the guy and avoid the problem for a while. I can't say for sure but i have heard Dear John letters are pretty common for missionaries (i know some make it but can't imagine most 19 yearold girls can "put their life on hold" so to speak for 2 years , especially if their going off to college)

"You want to marry my daughter huh?" Well you leave the state (and or country) for 2 years have minimal contact with her, i'll send her off to college and we will see what happens."

Maybe i will have to use that RM standard after all.

LOL i think you just found the source of the social stigma, I can image a father say in his head "I don't want my daughter to get married at 18 but if she does it better darn well be to a return missionary"

[AintNoCityBoy]

How do you define 'race' anyway? By skin colour? Other physical appearances? By the location of where they were bought up? Would it be wrong for a white English guy to marry a black American girl? Or a white English girl with a white American guy? Or a black American girl with a white American guy? Would any of these be wrong?

I can understand why some people might be wary of marrying outside of their own race, but this should be decided on a individual basis, in my opinion. The American and English cultures are very similar... which is understandable considering Americas history. Why would it cause problems in marriage, other than the small arguments to as whether colour should have that redundant letter, or whether the right side of the road is the right or left?

I'd say by your Heritage to be honest. Location doesn't matter much to me. I couldn't care less if their from England, etc. I just know I ain't leavin Arkansas, I'm tellin ya. So chances are they will be from here.

White English, Black American? Huge problem

White English, White American? No problems there.

Black American, White American? Huge problem

My own personal views though, and I understand most people don't share them.

I don't know much about England, but im around 90% English/10% German mix. My folks (non-LDS) had our Family History done. Woohoo!

I don't think it would be too much of a problem having different nationalities, though it would be hard depending on their views. Political Views in my opinion would be more of a breaker than where your from (Nationwise). I couldn't find myself with a bleeding heart diehard liberal. I'd prefer a "Fire and Brimstone" lady myself.

[pam]

I'm going to close this thread. The conversation has gotten away from the original intent and I don't want it to become a racial debate.