Mission, Calling or policy?

[hordak]

So all this talk of RM husband status got me thinking. I noticed a few posters mentioned "acceptable" reason to not serve a mission. I always thought a mission was calling and like any calling (especially of that magnitude) it would come through personal revelation/confirmation.

I do agree that we are taught every young man should prepare to serve a mission. But like food storage being prepared does not mean you will "need" it.

We are taught every child deserves a mother and a father in the home, that doesn't mean every unwed mother must give her child up for adoption.Or that divorced mother must get remarried asap.

We are taught we shouldn't put off having kids for education. That doesn't mean every lds women must drop out of college and start trying to have kids.

We are taught it is not good for a man to be alone. It doesn't mean the widow must get out there and get hitched (actually know a sister who used this as a pick up line on my father:rolleyes:)

We are taught "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children." But it doesn't mean our singles need to get with the plan and get hitched to the next worthy available person.

These are all things we are taught from the leaders to the church as a whole. But no one would (or at least should ) judge a person for not doing them, or fault them for seeking personal revelation on the issue.

So my question is, Are we turning the calling to be a missionary into a policy? And if it is all worthy men are automatically called is there or has there every been any other callings (not commandments ) that come in this this fashion?(aside from every member a missionary)

[Just_A_Guy]

I gave my impressions on that issue here. To quote it (without the links I included in the original, and omitting what wound up being the most controversial statement I made):

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.

So there may be no duty to serve a mission per se, but when you receive the priesthood a general duty attaches to do everything in your power to spread the gospel. Declining the opportunity to serve a mission when you are otherwise capable of serving does, I think, beg the question of whether you're really serious about that duty.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[hordak]

I gave my impressions on that issue here. To quote it (without the links I included in the original, and omitting what wound up being the most controversial statement I made):

So there may be no duty to serve a mission per se, but when you receive the priesthood a general duty attaches to do everything in your power to spread the gospel. Declining the opportunity to serve a mission when you are otherwise capable of serving does, I think, beg the question of whether you're really serious about that duty.

Thanks. I should say i do believe everyone called should serve. I just think being called involves more then being the right age and gender . And while i understand the general point , i don't think we can judge another commitment based on them not following the "status quo" on this issue anymore then another life changing personal issue.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks. I should say i do believe everyone called should serve. I just think being called involves more then being the right age and gender.

I agree, which is why I talked about "reasonable allowances as defined by the Church based primarily on ability".

And while i understand the general point , i don't think we can judge another commitment based on them not following the "status quo" on this issue anymore then another life changing personal issue.

I agree that the decision, in and of itself, shouldn't be a dealbreaker; but I think a young woman is justified in scrutinizing that decision where the young man involved wants to be intimately involved in that woman's life.

[Finrock]

Good morning hordak. I hope you are well today! :)

So all this talk of RM husband status got me thinking. I noticed a few posters mentioned "acceptable" reason to not serve a mission. I always thought a mission was calling and like any calling (especially of that magnitude) it would come through personal revelation/confirmation.

I do agree that we are taught every young man should prepare to serve a mission. But like food storage being prepared does not mean you will "need" it.

We are taught every child deserves a mother and a father in the home, that doesn't mean every unwed mother must give her child up for adoption.Or that divorced mother must get remarried asap.

We are taught we shouldn't put off having kids for education. That doesn't mean every lds women must drop out of college and start trying to have kids.

We are taught it is not good for a man to be alone. It doesn't mean the widow must get out there and get hitched (actually know a sister who used this as a pick up line on my father:rolleyes:)

We are taught "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children." But it doesn't mean our singles need to get with the plan and get hitched to the next worthy available person.

These are all things we are taught from the leaders to the church as a whole. But no one would (or at least should ) judge a person for not doing them, or fault them for seeking personal revelation on the issue.

Read and understood.

So my question is, Are we turning the calling to be a missionary into a policy? And if it is all worthy men are automatically called is there or has there every been any other callings (not commandments ) that come in this this fashion?(aside from every member a missionary)

So, I've read several comments at various times that "Raising the Bar" changed how a young man approaches going on a mission. I agree that it does "change" it in some respect. However, it seems that "Raising the Bar" has been used as an excuse not to go or that it isn't a requirement. I think this is wrong.

Home Teaching is one of those callings that is a matter of "policy". If you refuse to accept that calling you are neglecting your priesthood oath and covenant. In the same way, preaching the gospel and serving a full-time mission for a young man is expected. I want to also emphasize that there is a true corolary in responsibility and duty between home teaching and serving a full-time mission. President Harold B. Lee said:

"Missionary work is but home teaching to those who are not now members of the Church, and home teaching is nothing more or less than missionary work to Church members” (Preach My Gospel, pg. 13).

Now, let me further quote D&C 4:

1 Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.

2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.

3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;

4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;

5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.

6 Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.

7 Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen.

I emphasized verse 3. If we have desires to serve God, we are called to the work. If we do not have desires to serve God, then it behooves us to get to a point in our life where we do want to serve God and that is what "Raising the Bar" means. Verse 5 gives us the qualifications. This is Raising the Bar: A young man must have faith, hope, charity, love, with an eye single to the glory of God, and this is what qualifies them for the work.

The question for the young man is not "Should I server a full-time mission?" but rather "Am I worthy and prepared to serve a full-time mission?" I firmly believe that God will hold priesthood holders accountable for not serving a full-time mission if they could have done so but they were simply unwilling to "raise the bar" and/or unwilling to serve God.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 4, 2010 by Finrock
Fixed some typos

[Wingnut]

I outlined my thoughts (some on both sides of the fence) here. Regarding the use of the word "should" and the recent (2003?) raising of the bar, I had this to say, and I stand by it:

Originally posted by Wingnut

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.

[hordak]

Home Teaching is one of those callings that is a matter of "policy". If you refuse to accept that calling you are neglecting your priesthood oath and covenant. In the same way, preaching the gospel and serving a full-time mission for a young man is expected. I want to also emphasize that there is a true corolary in responsibility and duty between home teaching and serving a full-time mission. President Harold B. Lee said:

Finrock

Good example. Though i must say i think spending 2 years serving a mission would be more of calling needing Godly confirmation then HT. But good example

Not that home teaching isn't important.

[Finrock]

Hordak,

Thanks for sharing your insights.

Good example. Though i must say i think spending 2 years serving a mission would be more of calling needing Godly confirmation then HT. But good example

Not that home teaching isn't important.

I don't think so. I think members in general dilute the corolary between missionary service and home teaching as if they are two separate classes of things. I am, obviously, contending that they are not. Again, D&C 4 makes it clear: If you desire to serve God, you are called to the work ("the work" in this case is referring to serving as a full-time missionary). There is no equivocation going on in D&C 4. Also, you will be a home teacher for the rest of your mortal probation, so "time" is an irrelevant factor. The factors are priesthood oath and covenant, desire to serve God, and obedience. If you desire to serve God, you are called to the work. That question is settled. Now the question becomes one of worthiness only, not a question of oughtness. And questions of worthiness are things that we are held accountable for; they are not excuses that exempt us from our duty or responsibility.

Now don't get me wrong, if a young man is struggling with the decision to serve a mission then they should most certainly pray. But, I don't think the prayer should be one of "should I go" but rather "will you help me to be worthy to go."

Regards,

Finrock

[hordak]

I outlined my thoughts (some on both sides of the fence) here. Regarding the use of the word "should" and the recent (2003?) raising of the bar, I had this to say, and I stand by it:

I should note i'm not saying people should use the higher standards as an excuse not to go. I agree that 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."

But i believe on such a personal life changing task (like kids, marriage, career etc) he will ask/confirm it to you personally. You might discuss children with the Bishop but you don't have them based on his recommendation and the fact that's the way every other young married couple is doing it.

I think when we (particularly those of us not in a Priesthood position of authority over said individual, I.E. Bishop) say "Brother Jones, your old enough, you need to turn in your mission papers in" Are as out of place as the well meaning but nosy sister (every ward has one)who ask

"Sister Smith, your 24 when are going to get married? or "Sister Doe, you've been married 3 years, when are you going to have a baby? Do you have problem?" and risk turning a calling to aspire to (i want to serve a mission for the lord) into a policy (i'm old enough, guss it's time to serve a mission)

[Finrock]

Hi hordak!

I should note i'm not saying people should use the higher standards as an excuse not to go. I agree that 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."

But i believe on such a personal life changing task (like kids, marriage, career etc) he will ask/confirm it to you personally. You might discuss children with the Bishop but you don't have them based on his recommendation and the fact that's the way every other young married couple is doing it.

I think when we (particularly those of us not in a Priesthood position of authority over said individual, I.E. Bishop) say "Brother Jones, your old enough, you need to turn in your mission papers in" Are as out of place as the well meaning but nosy sister (every ward has one)who ask

"Sister Smith, your 24 when are going to get married? or "Sister Doe, you've been married 3 years, when are you going to have a baby? Do you have problem?" and risk turning a calling to aspire to (i want to serve a mission for the lord) into a policy (i'm old enough, guss it's time to serve a mission)

I think I understand what you are saying. Consider the following scenario:

Suppose Brother Joe has been given a home teaching assignment but he doesn't accept it. Suppose further that the Bishop comes up to Brother Joe and says, "Brother Joe, you're a priesthood holder, why are you not accepting your calling as a home teacher?"

Would you say in the above scenario the Bishop is out-of-line?

Regards,

Finrock

[Palerider]

The bar has been raised and not every young man will be able to go. I have already seen some in our stake that have not been able to go.

While I was serving as a Bishop and later as Branch President I never told a young man to go on a mission. I did challenge several to prepare themselves to go. I also told them the choice was theirs and I could not make them go.

I will go on record and say I think that every young man should serve a mission. I know what it can do for a person. I also know while serving if they don't do the work then they are wasting their time and someones money..

[Wingnut]

Suppose Brother Joe has been given a home teaching assignment but he doesn't accept it. Suppose further that the Bishop comes up to Brother Joe and says, "Brother Joe, you're a priesthood holder, why are you not accepting your calling as a home teacher?"

Would you say in the above scenario the Bishop is out-of-line?

Technically yes, as "home teacher" is an assignment, not a calling.

/me pulls tongue out of cheek

[spamlds]

I think the question is whether a young man should attempt to "evade" mission service or whether he should live his life in such a manner as to qualify himself to serve. The qualifications to serve a mission are simply the same qualifications to enter the temple or the celestial kingdom.

There are obvious reasons that someone should not serve a mission. Severe, chronic health problems might keep one from the demanding pace of a missionary lifestyle. Yet there are many brethren and sisters who serve despite some of these limitations because their desire to share the gospel is so strong. Someone with serious mental illness should not serve. A person who is schizophrenic might be technically worthy in every way, yet through no fault of his own, but might be reasonably excused because of the difficulties he'd encounter.

That's where the "calling by inspiration" comes in. We had a missionary here in Virginia that had Tourette's Syndrome. It was a real difficulty for him and his companions, but I think he served faithfully. His companions had to learn some real longsuffering and patience as a result, which isn't a bad thing.

The "raising of the bar" was intended to send out missionaries who are worthy of the Spirit's companionship. There was a time when ill-prepared elders were sent out in the hopes that they'd catch the vision of the work. Many of them did. they became truly converted and became effective preachers of the gospel. There were some that didn't and they were a drag on the work. Raising the bar seeks to identify the more prepared missionary candidates.

All males in the Church are called to qualify themselves to serve in the same way they're called to qualify to enter the celestial kingdom. A man who evades the responsibility to preach the gospel misses out on fulfilling a part of his foreordained purposes. He misses more blessings in time and in eternity than he can possibly imagine.

I left for a mission in France, approximately 20 months after I converted to the Church in 1978. I can't imagine what blessings I would have forfeited had I not gone. I can trace every good thing in life that came to me afterwards to my decision to serve. What a blessing it was to serve a mission!