Mission required?

[pam]

I brought this up for future reference. From years of experience on this site, we've had these conversations before. I was trying to point out there are two different parenting styles here and neither one is right for everyone nor is it wrong for everyone. The conversation would inevitably turn into who's parenting style is right and whose is wrong. I was in reality trying to defend or ward off future comments anatess..not put yours down. If it appeared that way I apologize. But I've got too much experience on this board to not know in which direction this would turn.

But Nikki and you both have the right to bring up your children in the way you feel is best and based on your own personal experiences. I also realize that this is a subject close to you.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pam

[Maya]

It is easier to leave a marriage done with a non member as there is no promises made. IT SHOULD be a lot more difficult to leave a spouse married in the Temple. It is too bad so many Templemarriages have been ended, it makes me feel that a Templemarriage is not worth more than any other marriage... unless if the couple keeps the convenant! Then again there are couples married to non members who keep teh marriage to the death... I think LDS married in the Temple should make a better effort to keep the convenant.

I sure hope my sons will marry in the Church, but I dont consider it a must. My greatest wish si that they stay strong in Church as then it is possible the girl they will marry will follow them in to the Church. Much worse is if they become inative because they think we demand a marriage to a member. In dating nonmembers they can soon become inactive and fall out unless they are strong enough. Sometimes there is no possibilities to meet a nice LDS person of the opposite sex to fall in love with there, where you move around.

I have a LDS friend who is married to a nonmember. He is not at all interested in LDS, has never been. She beome a member when they already had been married many years. She dont want to give him a chanse to remarry one of the ladies in line already. He is a high salary man too. Only one of her kids is active in Church one in active and one is against the Church.

Personally I think one can marry a nonmember, but then it has to be clair from the beginning in what religion the kids are to be brought up with, how much time the LDS can use in the Church things. The other has to be VERY flexible or come with.

It might be best to arrange a nontemple marriage for LDS to begin with and not make it a Templemarriage before one knows for sure it IS for REAL! All these marriages ending in a few years after the Templemarriage takes from the holyness of the Templemarriage!

Wedges in Our Lives Pres Monson:

There are hidden wedges in the lives of many whom we know—yes, perhaps in our own families.

Let me share with you the account of a lifelong friend, now departed from mortality. His name was Leonard. He was not a member of the Church, although his wife and children were. His wife served as a Primary president; his son served an honorable mission. His daughter and his son married companions in solemn ceremonies and had families of their own.

Everyone who knew Leonard liked him, as did I. He supported his wife and children in their Church assignments. He attended many Church-sponsored events with them. He lived a good and clean life, even a life of service and kindness. His family and indeed many others wondered why Leonard had gone through mortality without the blessings the gospel brings to its members.

In Leonard’s advanced years, his health declined. Eventually he was hospitalized, and life was ebbing away. In what turned out to be my last conversation with Leonard, he said, “Tom, I’ve known you since you were a boy. I feel persuaded to explain to you why I have never joined the Church.” He then related an experience of his parents many, many years before. Reluctantly, the family had reached a point where they felt it was necessary to sell their farm, and an offer had been received. Then a neighboring farmer asked that the farm be sold to him instead—although at a lesser price—adding, “We’ve been such close friends. This way, if I own the property, I’ll be able to watch over it.” At length Leonard’s parents agreed, and the farm was sold. The buyer—even the neighbor—held a responsible position in the Church, and the trust this implied helped to persuade the family to sell to him, even though they did not realize as much money from the sale as they would have if they had sold to the first interested buyer. Not long after the sale was made, the neighbor sold both his own farm and the farm acquired from Leonard’s family in a combined parcel, which maximized the value and hence the selling price. The long-asked question of why Leonard had never joined the Church had been answered. He always felt that his family had been deceived.

He confided to me following our conversation that he felt a great burden had at last been lifted as he prepared to meet his Maker. The tragedy is that a hidden wedge had kept Leonard from soaring to greater heights. LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Peril of Hidden Wedges

[Maya]

I brought this up for future reference. From years of experience on this site, we've had these conversations before. I was trying to point out there are two different parenting styles here and neither one is right for everyone nor is it wrong for everyone. The conversation would inevitably turn into who's parenting style is right and whose is wrong. I was in reality trying to defend or ward off future comments anatess..not put yours down. If it appeared that way I apologize. But I've got too much experience on this board to not know in which direction this would turn.

But Nikki and you both have the right to bring up your children in the way you feel is best and based on your own personal experiences. I also realize that this is a subject close to you.

Yep... ALL kids are different. They all need their own way to be brought up with. For someone jsut a hint is enough adn someone dont see the love in taking away the computer or other previligies and some just have to find out themselves and make all the mistakes they could have done without, if they just had listened.... some are just unbreakable by the methods we can use or if we try they are the ones taht run away from us and spread around that the LDS are terrible parents forcing their kids to this or that = live rigiosly... horrible... There just happened a mistake in the methods used to that kid. And we LDS should be perfect, but we are not. Sigh

[Nikkie85]

So, you're saying that ONLY LDS members can share your values and morals? And you think that any LDS member share your values and morals?

Actually, national statistics in the USA prove this statement wrong. There is about the same percentage of divorces between mormon marriages and the national average. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

I'm not teaching "expected". That's what my mom taught me when I was Catholic. I'm expected to marry a Filipino Catholic. If I would have (I broke off my relationship 1 week before the wedding), I could be divorced right now.

That's what my friend went through when her parents put that expectation on her - she married and divorced 2 return missionaries - one with a temple sealing, before finding happiness with a non-member who shares her values and respects their differences. Her home teachers and bishopric provide the needed priesthood in her home.

I'm teaching my children to choose wisely. I'm teaching them about the plan of salvation, I'm teaching them about the temple, I'm teaching them about eternal marriages, I'm teaching them about exaltation. And they are taught to build their own testimonies separate from mine and the value of prayer. In addition, I am teaching them about spiritual strength, self-worth and self-confidence, commitment, working through differences, overcoming challenges, respect, and charity. And on top of that, I'm teaching them the value of good education and how to provide for a family.

They are taught to decide for themselves whether serving a mission will bring them closer to their eternal goals.

And then, when the time comes, they will be adviced to choose the person they love and respect who will bring them closer to that goal and not take them farther away. They decide who - member or no.

As a parent - I don't intend to live my children's lives for them. They will have the tools necessary to live their own.

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.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Nikkie85

[RipplecutBuddha]

Okay...just for fun, can anyone point to an example (except for Snow...who already did this... )

Of how someone lost their salvation because they didn't serve a mission? In any of the temple ceremonies, does full-time RM ever come up?

My father didn't serve a mission, and I cannot think of a better person to have been raised by. Even with seven of us, he never once raised his voice in anger to any of us, nor did he ever physically discipline us.

My little brother is the only male in my family that didn't go on a mission. Why? because he was prompted to get sealed to his wife instead. He prayed about it for months while I was on my mission, and I cannot find a reason to even think of looking down on him for the choice. He's in the Elder's Quoroum presidency now, and has held a valid TR since his marriage.

Is he going to lose salvation because he never was a full-time missionary? I fail to see any doctrinal support for this at all. As such, while RM's are very attractive as potential companions for single sisters....never should it be a 'reqirement'.

The Lord has not made it a hard and fast rule, nor should we.

[hordak]

It is easier to leave a marriage done with a non member as there is no promises made.

Not sure how many non temple weddings you have been to but there are promises made. The promises are so important that breaking them would result in the same church discipline as if they were a temple marriage.

While it is understandable to place more importance on going to and being sealed in the temple it should not be done at the "devaluing" of traditional marriage. In fact non temple marriage is so sacred that the 1st Presidency sent a letter to all the wards in California asking the members to keep it so.

The vows made outside the temple are no less important, just less lasting.

[Dove]

As I have been reading this thread some concerns about it's general tone have come up for me.

It seems to me that there is more concern about the "appearance" of good than the actual goodness of anybody who may or may not go on a mission.....who are we to judge anyone who does or doesn't go?

I believe a few examples have been given of RM's who have gone and still, we presume, don't honor their priesthood. I have talked to a missionary who went simply because that is what his parents expected him to do, and he, I believe, ended going home early. Which is almost worse in our culture than not going at all.

I also believe a few examples have been given of wonderful people who did not serve a mission....

What I'm trying to get to is that I don't believe we can judge a person's heart/worthiness by whether or not they have served a mission...

I also wonder who we are thinking of when we start putting expectations on others to act/be/believe in a certain way in order for us to associate with them? Are we considering what's right for them or what's in their best interest as we hasten to judgement about their lives and how they choose to live it? Or are we only considering our own limited and foggy perspective when we condemn them for not doing something we think they should? I believe the pure love of Christ is to be won through the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the surrendering of our own paradigms.....the willingness to admit we don't know everything and to relinquish our pride in thinking we can gauge judge another.....rather than to love them.

I have felt judged so many times by other members so many times in my life, even though I was (and still am) LDS. My experience of many members in the church has been so unloving. I'm so glad I married the man I did, who is not LDS but, who loves me unconditionally. My husband is very devoted, loyal, committed, tender and sweet with me. Of course, I would love to marry him in the temple some day. I want ours to be an eternal relationship. But, I have found that it is not mine to force my religion on anyone, especially my husband. I have also found that I have my hands full with cleansing my own inner vessel and getting ready myself to be temple ready. Sort of the "beam in my eye" versus the "mote" in my husband's eye. Yes, the doctrine says that we have to be sealed in the temple to another, willing, participant in order to "qualify" for exhaltation. However, I have learned that I am the only one to control my eternal destiny. No one but I can determine my eternal welfare, and even I don't know how to go about securing a "position" in the celestial kingdom. Meanwhile, the point seems to be about loving; God, myself and others...

[ferretrunner]

My parents both practice different religions. When my siblings and I were children, this was problematic, as they argued about which church to attend constantly. Sundays were "fight days" and often we were also treat to "Saturday Night Fights" are a prelude to the next morning. Our lives developed a pattern. We'd attend a protestant church of some sort for a month or so. Something would happen. Then, the fighting would become more intense and we wouldn't attend church again for several months. Wash, repeat, rinse.

Fundamentally, my parents were not respecting each others' differing beliefs. The children grew up with a skewed view of Christianity. Of the three, I am the only one invloved in a Church right now. And, most of you know that I struggle constantly with my faith. I wish I could get to the point that I was comfortable questioning without feeling fear. Or get to the point that questioning isn't all that important. Did this come of our upbrining? I doubt that it was 100% responsible. After all, my siblings and I have agency to choose. But, I know this upbrining impacted our faith development.

In the years after the children all grew up and left the house, my parents came to an eventual acceptance. My father attends services at his church on Sundays and my mother attends hers. Mom goes with Dad on the senior trips to various places that his church offers. Occassionally, my father goes with Mom to a special service at her church- like Christmas Eve midnight Mass.

I am happy my parents have found a way to mutually respect each other's choices and faith practices. Dad had to work at getting past his upbringing and beliefs regarding my Mom's church. He still has moments but he tries.

I wish my parents had discovered the importance of mutual respect of each other's religious practices when we were still children. I think it would have made a huge difference in how things turned out for all of us.

Marrying outside your religion is not necessarily bad. But, it brings about challenges. Mutual respect is mandatory. You have to be willing to accept your partner's beliefs and work to find solutions to how to raise your children to respect both and to follow their agency.

[Dove]

Of the three, I am the only one invloved in a Church right now. And, most of you know that I struggle constantly with my faith. I wish I could get to the point that I was comfortable questioning without feeling fear. Or get to the point that questioning isn't all that important. Did this come of our upbrining? I doubt that it was 100% responsible. After all, my siblings and I have agency to choose. But, I know this upbrining impacted our faith development.

Hello, ferretrunner,

Thank you so much for addressing the point of being "comfortable questioning without feeling fear."

This to I have struggled with in the development of my faith. I believe I was taught so much fear in coming to God~the "oughtta's," shoulds," and "have tos." I have a strong aversion to this....

I do believe a healthy respect for living God's will in my life is in order, but I absolutely do not like the fear factor. I used to often say that if one had to scare me into going to Heaven, he/she may as well send me to hell, because that's what fear is for me.

It's ironic that the two greatest commandments taught in the Bible have to do with loving; but, so often I have observed so little love in christian and LDS communities.

While I am LDS, I like the budhist concepts of being in harmony and at one with each other, living peacably and without discord, contention, etc....I wish all of us would practice these concepts more so.

[Guest mysticmorini]

As I have been reading this thread some concerns about it's general tone have come up for me.

It seems to me that there is more concern about the "appearance" of good than the actual goodness of anybody who may or may not go on a mission.....who are we to judge anyone who does or doesn't go?

I believe a few examples have been given of RM's who have gone and still, we presume, don't honor their priesthood. I have talked to a missionary who went simply because that is what his parents expected him to do, and he, I believe, ended going home early. Which is almost worse in our culture than not going at all.

I also believe a few examples have been given of wonderful people who did not serve a mission....

What I'm trying to get to is that I don't believe we can judge a person's heart/worthiness by whether or not they have served a mission...

I also wonder who we are thinking of when we start putting expectations on others to act/be/believe in a certain way in order for us to associate with them? Are we considering what's right for them or what's in their best interest as we hasten to judgement about their lives and how they choose to live it? Or are we only considering our own limited and foggy perspective when we condemn them for not doing something we think they should? I believe the pure love of Christ is to be won through the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the surrendering of our own paradigms.....the willingness to admit we don't know everything and to relinquish our pride in thinking we can gauge judge another.....rather than to love them.

I have felt judged so many times by other members so many times in my life, even though I was (and still am) LDS. My experience of many members in the church has been so unloving. I'm so glad I married the man I did, who is not LDS but, who loves me unconditionally. My husband is very devoted, loyal, committed, tender and sweet with me. Of course, I would love to marry him in the temple some day. I want ours to be an eternal relationship. But, I have found that it is not mine to force my religion on anyone, especially my husband. I have also found that I have my hands full with cleansing my own inner vessel and getting ready myself to be temple ready. Sort of the "beam in my eye" versus the "mote" in my husband's eye. Yes, the doctrine says that we have to be sealed in the temple to another, willing, participant in order to "qualify" for exhaltation. However, I have learned that I am the only one to control my eternal destiny. No one but I can determine my eternal welfare, and even I don't know how to go about securing a "position" in the celestial kingdom. Meanwhile, the point seems to be about loving; God, myself and others...

I love this, we need more people like you in the church, non-member husband and all!

[Nikkie85]

As I have been reading this thread some concerns about it's general tone have come up for me.

It seems to me that there is more concern about the "appearance" of good than the actual goodness of anybody who may or may not go on a mission.....who are we to judge anyone who does or doesn't go?

I believe a few examples have been given of RM's who have gone and still, we presume, don't honor their priesthood. I have talked to a missionary who went simply because that is what his parents expected him to do, and he, I believe, ended going home early. Which is almost worse in our culture than not going at all.

I also believe a few examples have been given of wonderful people who did not serve a mission....

What I'm trying to get to is that I don't believe we can judge a person's heart/worthiness by whether or not they have served a mission...

I also wonder who we are thinking of when we start putting expectations on others to act/be/believe in a certain way in order for us to associate with them? Are we considering what's right for them or what's in their best interest as we hasten to judgement about their lives and how they choose to live it? Or are we only considering our own limited and foggy perspective when we condemn them for not doing something we think they should? I believe the pure love of Christ is to be won through the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the surrendering of our own paradigms.....the willingness to admit we don't know everything and to relinquish our pride in thinking we can gauge judge another.....rather than to love them.

I have felt judged so many times by other members so many times in my life, even though I was (and still am) LDS. My experience of many members in the church has been so unloving. I'm so glad I married the man I did, who is not LDS but, who loves me unconditionally. My husband is very devoted, loyal, committed, tender and sweet with me. Of course, I would love to marry him in the temple some day. I want ours to be an eternal relationship. But, I have found that it is not mine to force my religion on anyone, especially my husband. I have also found that I have my hands full with cleansing my own inner vessel and getting ready myself to be temple ready. Sort of the "beam in my eye" versus the "mote" in my husband's eye. Yes, the doctrine says that we have to be sealed in the temple to another, willing, participant in order to "qualify" for exhaltation. However, I have learned that I am the only one to control my eternal destiny. No one but I can determine my eternal welfare, and even I don't know how to go about securing a "position" in the celestial kingdom. Meanwhile, the point seems to be about loving; God, myself and others...

My husband did not serve a mission and I agree he is a wonderful man and priesthood holder. My main point is that I want my children to strive for goals. I want them to set a goal when they are eight to serve a faithful mission and marry in the temple.

[Dove]

My husband did not serve a mission and I agree he is a wonderful man and priesthood holder. My main point is that I want my children to strive for goals. I want them to set a goal when they are eight to serve a faithful mission and marry in the temple.

Hello, Nikkie,

Oops! I'm sorry, I hope you didn't feel I was taking potshots at you in my post. I wasn't singling you out or thinking of you in particular when I wrote what I did. No hurt intended.

I like that you have boundaries expectations with your children.... I think this is important in raising a healthy child. I also really like that you have said that you will love them regardless of what they choose to do as adults. I think that is important too in the emotional health of children.

I am not a parent (unable to conceive) and can't presume to know the difficulties of child raising. I admit that I agree more with Anatess' pov in the raising of her kids.....

I once gave a young homosexual man a ride to his friends' house, where he was staying. He was only eighteen and his LDS family had kicked him out of the house for being gay. While I didn't know all the details, this seemed rather harsh and too rigid to me.

I also have a very close friend whose RM son married another male RM not too long ago. Of course this has broken her heart. But she has remained loving towards her son and his partner; even attending their "commitment ceremony." I counseled her to continue loving them. That she had done everything she could while her son was growing up to teach him the gospel and coming back to God. That her role now was to simply exemplify the beauty of the gospel to her son and his companion.

I hope this helps and that you don't feel I was targeting you. Sorry if you felt that.

Dove

[Bini]

OK this is coming from an inactive LDS with a non-member husband :]

Is a mission required? From my understanding, it's recommended but it's not mandatory. As most of us know, regardless whether you're a RM or a non-member, you get good seeds and bad seeds. But if we're talking about men that righteously serve missions in comparison to men that don't (ie. are unrighteous and serve or simply don't serve at all)—certainly I believe those righteous RM are at an advantage at that point. This is not to say that men who have served unworthy missions cannot repent and men who didn't serve at all are lesser human-beings. A good analogy for myself is that my marriage is no less important than a temple marriage but a "worthy" temple marriage is on closer track to God's will.

[hordak]

OK this is coming from an inactive LDS with a non-member husband :]

Is a mission required? From my understanding, it's recommended but it's not mandatory. As most of us know, regardless whether you're a RM or a non-member, you get good seeds and bad seeds. But if we're talking about men that righteously serve missions in comparison to men that don't (ie. are unrighteous and serve or simply don't serve at all)—certainly I believe those righteous RM are at an advantage at that point. This is not to say that men who have served unworthy missions cannot repent and men who didn't serve at all are lesser human-beings. A good analogy for myself is that my marriage is no less important than a temple marriage but a "worthy" temple marriage is on closer track to God's will.

A good man, is a good man, whether in this church, or out of it.

- Brigham Young

[Bini]

Exactly, hordak.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's how I see it, doctrinally:

When you receive the priesthood (possibly the Aaronic, certainly the Melchizedek), you take upon you the blood and sins of your generation. The Book of Mormon authors (notably Jacob (see also here and here), Benjamin, and Moroni (see also here) were preoccupied with this idea. This obligation has not been discharged by the "raised bar". If you pay very close attention to the beginning of the endowment, it mentions that the initiatory ordinances function differently for those who have the priesthood (i.e. men) versus those who do not (i.e. women).

D&C 84 is clear that males have an obligation to receive the priesthood; so you can't dodge its obligations merely by declining to receive your ordination.

So, with reasonable allowances as defined by the Church based primarily on ability (health/mental conditions, etc), all males are expected to do everything in their power to help others free themselves from the bond of sin. You're most likely never going to get a better chance to do that, than you will by serving an LDS mission.

The Atonement's power covers even our own failure to carry out our duties to the letter; but I think males who had both the opportunity and the ability to serve missions--and declined--will have some uncomfortable moments during their final stewardship interviews. 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. Which is none of my business, as long as he's not applying to be my son-in-law.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest mysticmorini]

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; and I will take that into account if and when he starts courting my daughter.

I believe they lowered that age to 24 or 25.

[RachelleDrew]

I don't care if someone is an RM or not. It matters very little to me, because as a convert I was never given the opportunity to serve on a two year mission. I'm also not quite as subject to some of the cultural issues that other LDS folk are because I didn't grow up around that life.

I want to be married to a man that is kind, loves god and the church, intelligent and that I am attracted to. Those qualities can apply to anyone regardless of if they served a mission or not.

[hordak]

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?

As parents it's nice to have dreams for out kids, but i'm willing to bet we have less say then we like to think we have.

[Dove]

Hello, Just a Guy~

I have some responses to your post.... I'm trying to intersperse them in with your quote. Thanks for your patience. :)

Here's how I see it, doctrinally:

When you receive the priesthood (possibly the Aaronic, certainly the Melchizedek), you take upon you the blood and sins of your generation.

That sounds like quite a hefty responsibility......Are we responsible for the choices of others?

The Book of Mormon authors (notably Jacob (see also here and here), Benjamin, and Moroni (see also here) were preoccupied with this idea. This obligation has not been discharged by the "raised bar".

The word "obligation" leaves me cringeing a little bit. I don't get the "want to" in it. Wouldn't one want to love others into the gospel, rather than having to out of "duty" or "obligation?" I say this because I've been on the receiving end of both the want to and the obligatory kindness/service. The difference in sincerity and intent (true love vs. fear) is apparent.

If you pay very close attention to the beginning of the endowment, it mentions that the initiatory ordinances function differently for those who have the priesthood (i.e. men) versus those who do not (i.e. women).

Does this mean that women are held to a different standard then men in our faith and devotion to serving God? Of course, you probably meant that our duties/callings are different rather than the level of commitment asked from each of us.....

D&C 84 is clear that males have an obligation to receive the priesthood; so you can't dodge its obligations merely by declining to receive your ordination.

So, with reasonable allowances as defined by the Church based primarily on ability (health/mental conditions, etc), all males are expected to do everything in their power to help others free themselves from the bond of sin. You're most likely never going to get a better chance to do that, than you will by serving an LDS mission.

Again, words like "obligation" and "expected" seems to overlook that maybe it would be a worthwhile joy to serve. This reminds me of the 121st section of the D&C, which speaks at length about never forcing or coercing anyone into anything the don't really want to do.

I happen to also believe that all those people who were not given an opportunity to "serve" a mission will be afforded many opportunities to "help others free themselves from the bond of sin."

The Atonement's power covers even our own failure to carry out our duties to the letter; but I think males who had both the opportunity and the ability to serve missions--and declined--will have some uncomfortable moments during their final stewardship interviews.

What of personal revelation? This statement sounds rather presumptive to me. How do we know what anyone's final stewardship interview will look like? Who are we to say?

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.

This definately seems to be judging another's intent in deciding whether or not to go. You seem to assume that those who do decide not to are doing it out of selfishness and/or skirting their responsibilities in the church.

Which is none of my business, as long as he's not applying to be my son-in-law.

I hear protectiveness for you daughter(s) in this statement, which I appreciate. However, what of your daughters' feelings and desires for herself? Do you trust her enough to let her choose for herself a person who may or may not have served as a missionary? Would you be willing to accept her decision to perhaps marry a non RM or even a nonmember, if that's what she wanted?

I hope you find this worthwhile to consider.....

Dove

Edited January 30, 2010 by Dove

[Just_A_Guy]

But surely you're not saying that since I'm not the final arbiter of my child's marital companion, I should just sit down and shut up no matter what kind of character (s)he drags through the door?

I think a parent is well within his/her prerogatives to suggest to a child that his/her prospective spouse possesses certain characteristics which may make harm the marital relationship once the hormones have worn off.

(Edit: the above was addressed to Hordak, not to Dove.)

[hordak]

But surely you're not saying that since I'm not the final arbiter of my child's marital companion, I should just sit down and shut up no matter what kind of character (s)he drags through the door?

I think a parent is well within his/her prerogatives to suggest to a child that his/her prospective spouse possesses certain characteristics which may make harm the marital relationship once the hormones have worn off.

(Edit: the above was addressed to Hordak, not to Dove.)

of course not. I'm merely suggesting that parents have less control over the situation then they think, and that there are far better indications of spousal qualities/ future happiness then your personal parental religious standard.

This comes from a man who proposal was followed with "If you marry him he's not welcome in my house" from the phone of my wife after sharing the good news. What Christian mother would want their daughter to (cue sinister music) marry a man raised in the cult of Mormonism.

She thinks (or thought) (MIL) that seeing God as spirit, would make me a good husband.

But what makes me a good husband is the love i have for her daughter.

You might think a mission will but it's not what makes a good husband.

[RipplecutBuddha]

But surely you're not saying that since I'm not the final arbiter of my child's marital companion, I should just sit down and shut up no matter what kind of character (s)he drags through the door?

I think a parent is well within his/her prerogatives to suggest to a child that his/her prospective spouse possesses certain characteristics which may make harm the marital relationship once the hormones have worn off.

(Edit: the above was addressed to Hordak, not to Dove.)

I personally know of at least five elders that served with me in San Diego who only went on a mission because their parents promised them something worldly once they got back; a car being the most popular bribe. How would you feel about that RM marrying your daughter?

People in the church have this romanticized idea of what it's like to serve a mission. Yes for the most part the elders and sisters that serve are excellent people. At the same time, there are also bad missionaries. One of my companions would spend his personal study time practicing the guitar. Another one would practice the bagpipe...seriously!

Still other missionaries were genuinely not good people. As has already been mentioned, some missionaries don't last the entire two years...talk about a stigma in the church.

For heaven's sake, I got the honorable release from my mission, then almost immediately went inactive for the next six years.

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

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?

[Just_A_Guy]

Hello, Just a Guy~

I have some responses to your post.... I'm trying to intersperse them in with your quote. Thanks for your patience. :)

No problem.

That sounds like quite a hefty responsibility......Are we responsible for the choices of others?

If we have the Melchizedek Priesthood, and we haven't put our full effort into preaching the gospel to others--it seems to me that the only doctrinal answer can be "yes". It's the baptismal covenant (part of it, anyways) on steroids.

The word "obligation" leaves me cringeing a little bit. I don't get the "want to" in it. Wouldn't one want to love others into the gospel, rather than having to out of "duty" or "obligation?" I say this because I've been on the receiving end of both the want to and the obligatory kindness/service. The difference in sincerity and intent (true love vs. fear) is apparent.

Sure; ideally, it's both. Moroni certainly knew about charity. And he recognized that if you don't have charity, you can develop it. So if the argument is merely that a prospective missionary is excused from service because he doesn't "feel love", or whatever: I'd say, no; his obligation is simply to develop love, and then use that love as the driving force as (in the words of Joseph Smith) he "ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race".

Does this mean that women are held to a different standard then men in our faith and devotion to serving God? Of course, you probably meant that our duties/callings are different rather than the level of commitment asked from each of us.....[emphasis added - JAG]

Precisely. Different spheres of labor.

Again, words like "obligation" and "expected" seems to overlook that maybe it would be a worthwhile joy to serve. This reminds me of the 121st section of the D&C, which speaks at length about never forcing or coercing anyone into anything the don't really want to do.

I would reply, again--yes, ideally you're going to build charity. And I wouldn't coerce anyone to serve a mission who didn't want to serve a mission.

But I maintain it would be absurd to say that (all other things being equal) a nineteen-year-old who doesn't go on a mission with the excuse that he lacks such charity, has demonstrated all the same character virtues as another nineteen-year-old who has developed such charity and does serve a mission. Which, again, is none of my business, unless he's applying for a position in my family (see below).

I happen to also believe that all those people who were not given an opportunity to "serve" a mission will be afforded many opportunities to "help others free themselves from the bond of sin."

I fully concur. And my comments primarily concern who decline the opportunity once it is offered; not those who never receive the opportunity in the first place through no fault of their own (or, as I mentioned earlier, are honorably excused under current LDS policy).

What of personal revelation? This statement sounds rather presumptive to me. How do we know what anyone's final stewardship interview will look like? Who are we to say?

I acknowledge the possibility that here may rarely be situations where young men who meet the church-established criteria nevertheless get a revelation that in their case it is inappropriate for them to serve. But I think, far more often, "personal revelation" is just a catchphrase for people who are seeking to deceive themselves or others.

I don't think it's presumptive to suggest that a stewardship interview will take place or that we're going to be held to account for knowingly and deliberately shirking a scripturally-imposed directive that has been repeatedly reinforced by modern prophets. If someone's got a bona fide revelation excusing him from service, and that revelation did not coincide with a drug-induced-haze or a bad case of "the hots" for an LDS girl or some unresolved sin or just a general lack of desire to serve--more power to him.

This definitely seems to be judging another's intent in deciding whether or not to go. You seem to assume that those who do decide not to are doing it out of selfishness and/or skirting their responsibilities in the church.

I was probably a little broad (I can see, for example, a breadwinner staying home to care for his widowed mother and siblings, or serving in the military in time of war, or something like that), but frankly I think I've laid out a decent doctrinal foundation for the proposition that able-bodied-and-minded males who knowingly and deliberately forego the opportunity to serve a mission without being honorably excused by the Church, are skirting their responsibilities.

I hear protectiveness for you daughter(s) in this statement, which I appreciate. However, what of your daughters' feelings and desires for herself? Do you trust her enough to let her choose for herself a person who may or may not have served as a missionary? Would you be willing to accept her decision to perhaps marry a non RM or even a nonmember, if that's what she wanted?

As opposed to--what--locking her in her room til she's past childbearing?

Seriously--all I can see is just sitting the couple down privately and telling them the following:

1) While I do have objections to their marriage, I will not discuss those objections with anyone except them and my wife;

2) Once they are married, they will never hear another word about my misgivings;

3) I think they're making a mistake (and state the reasons);

4) I hope they reconsider their decision;

5) At minimum, I hope they realize that these differences may cause conflicts down the road, and I hope they have a plan to resolve those conflicts;

6) I realize it's ultimately their decision; and

7) (if it's true) I like my prospective son-in-law personally and look forward to getting to know him better.

I hope you find this worthwhile to consider.....

Very much so; thank you!

[Just_A_Guy]

You might think a mission will but it's not what makes a good husband.

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

But frankly, I think dishonoring one's priesthood puts one pretty well on the road to being a bad one.