"The lord doesn't require me to go on a mission"

[Hemidakota]

Nice correction Pam...did you email the website owner?

[Just_A_Guy]

I saw a few things on this website that were inaccurate. Such as Dallin H. Oaks. It states he didn't serve a mission and also states he wasn't in the military.

But the military is what kept him from serving a mission.

Not the most trustworthy of websites to get information.

As per Wikipedia, Elder Oaks graduated from high school in 1950, from BYU in 1954, and from Chicago Law in 1957. That doesn't seem to leave much time for military service.

I would venture to guess that the Korean War kept a number of young men in some kind of "standby" mode without formally drafting them, and Elder Oaks fell into this category.

[pam]

He was a member of the Utah National Guard. He just states he was ordered to prepare for mobilization. Didn't say he did. But being under orders probably prevented him from serving.

[Landy77]

I am in the National Guard. Back then if you were in school at a University they would not draft you usually. Also with him being in the National Guard he was undraftable because he was already serving. I know a few people from the National Guard that missed vietnam because of this.

[Hemidakota]

Today, military reservist and National Guard [if you have no overseas orders] can put in for sabbatical leave to go on a mission for two-years. I don’t know how it was back in the 50s.

[Just_A_Guy]

He was a member of the Utah National Guard.

Woops! Didn't read close enough . . .

[Guest mormonmusic]

If I can sort of bring this back to the opening poster's question. I read through the pages so far (scanning some) and I have a few observations.

I think the opening poster's question is a good question. I think as a group we've assumed the question was meant to judge the person who claims revelation told him he's exempt from a mission. I don't see this as explicitly stated, or even reasonably implied. And even if it was reasonably implied to you, it still doesn't nullify the validity of the question.So, I would suggest being careful of jumping to that conclusion. My read on the opening post was that s/he didn't want to offend the person by saying it was a commandment, when s/he wasn't sure if it is or not.

And then, came here looking for knowledge about whether it's even a commandment in the first place. I think that's very sensitive and thoughtful.

Edited June 14, 2010 by mormonmusic

[CopenKagan]

I didn't read through everything so I may repeat what someone has already said, so please pardon me. I didn't go on a mission, so I don't want to sound biased. Although I have been through the temple and I am a worthy person.

Personally, I think that it is a personal choice for every person to go. There are plenty of people that I think go because they are pressured into it. Then they go out and serve half-heartily (or worse, get sent home early). If you don't feel like you should go after prayer, then I don't think you should go.

There are a host of other reasons, but I think that's the main one.

[Guest mormonmusic]

So, to answer the opening question....

I was a young adult around the time Spencer Kimball said "Every worthy young man should serve a mission". The general membership treated it as a commandment. However, when I prepared to go, as a convert and having been in school for three years, I was heavily bound to student loan debt, and had no savings for a mission -- I didn't know a mission was in the cards as a saving teenager because I'd never heard of the Church until I was about 20. All my savings went to getting an education.

My local leaders told me to stay home, citing the improbability of getting out of debt AND saving for the whole mission was really low. They had borrowed money to send other young adults onto missions, and a new stake president disagreed with the decision. My Bishop, looking at the numbers, told me to stay home and get married to my devoted girlfriend. The STake President told me to "stay home and earn it", which, in my circumstances, meant 7 years of saving. He told my girlfriend years later that after that conversation, he didn't expect to ever see me again.

So here is a situation where there was no expectation that I go -- even encouragement to stay home due to personal circumstances. My experience showed me that serving a mission is not a hard commandment like WoW or other commandments. There is interpretation laid on it at all levels -- at the local leadership level, and also on a personal level.

The Brethren came out with the "Raising the Bar" talk -- I think it was Elder Ballard (not sure) in the early part of the 21st century. This excluded young men from going if they weren't prepared. While this doesn't lessen the directive from Spencer W. Kimball, it's created more young men who don't go, and has softened the commandment even further.

So, I think it's something we should train and point our kids to. We can be personally disappointed if they choose not to go, but it's not a firm commandment to all young men/young adults everywhere. It's a general principles with exceptions, like all general principles.

(By the way, I ended up on a mission in spite of the leanings of my local leaders, but that's another story).

Edited June 14, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Hemidakota]

The Brethren came out with the "Raising the Bar" talk -- I think it was Elder Ballard (not sure) in the early part of the 21st century. This excluded young men from going if they weren't prepared. While this doesn't lessen the directive from Spencer W. Kimball, it's created more young men who don't go, and has softened the commandment even further.

So, I think it's something we should train and point our kids to. We can be personally disappointed if they choose not to go, but it's not a firm commandment to all young men/young adults everywhere. It's a general principles with exceptions, like all general principles.

(By the way, I ended up on a mission in spite of the leanings of my local leaders, but that's another story).

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Tending the Flock: Teaching Leadership Skills to Youth

Edited June 14, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Guest]

Serving a mission is not a commandment, it's a choice. A very important choice.

There are so many reasons why God could potentially guide a person not to go. For example, if his faith is not developed enough, going on a mission could be detrimental, not just for him, but also for the people he serves. This does not mean that he would never be able to develop his faith to its full potential.

A person who goes on a mission out of "guilt" or "pressure" can possibly lead hundreds of people away from the restored gospel instead. I know a returned missionary who is now Catholic who is vocal about how bad the LDS is and how Joseph Smith is a conman. I think that person would have been better off not serving a mission.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Serving a mission is not a commandment, it's a choice. A very important choice.

There are so many reasons why God could potentially guide a person not to go. For example, if his faith is not developed enough, going on a mission could be detrimental, not just for him, but also for the people he serves. This does not mean that he would never be able to develop his faith to its full potential.

A person who goes on a mission out of "guilt" or "pressure" can possibly lead hundreds of people away from the restored gospel instead. I know a returned missionary who is now Catholic who is vocal about how bad the LDS is and how Joseph Smith is a conman. I think that person would have been better off not serving a mission.

Here is a real life example. As an investigator, I had a ton of doubts. Couldn't get an "answer" that was satisfactory when I prayed about the BoM. One of the missionaries called me to set another appointment, and then, we started talking about my spiritual progress.

I shared my doubts, and for some reason, we clicked and he started sharing his plethora of doubts -- he didn't have a testimony and it bothered him, and actually identified with me -- an investigator!

He was later sent home from his mission. I don't know what he did, but now he has the blight of going home early on him as well -- for the rest of his life.

Do we want testimony barren missionaries? I think not, nor do we want ones who don't want to be there. I had one as a missionary companion and he only interfered with my faith, my ability to get results, and the work.

I wouldn't want my son to go unless he has a testimony and wants to go. And you can bet I'll do everything possible, within the bounds of choice, kindness, and spirituality to encourage that in him, but ultimately, it will be his choice.

After the decison is made, I'll support him in it.

Edited June 14, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it was Elder Ballard (not sure) in the early part of the 21st century. This excluded young men from going if they weren't prepared. While this doesn't lessen the directive from Spencer W. Kimball, it's created more young men who don't go, and has softened the commandment even further.

The talk was this one. The tenor of that talk was not "if you're not worthy, you don't have to go". The tenor of the talk was, "if you aren't worthy--become worthy, and then go".

I believe sharing the gospel is a priesthood obligation--I've discussed that before here, and I don't recall anyone offering a doctrinal rebuttal to date. Just like many other obligations under the Gospel--helping the poor, visiting the sick, etc--the manner in which we fulfill that obligation is between the individual and the Lord.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest mormonmusic]

The talk was this one. The tenor of that talk was not "if you're not worthy, you don't have to go". The tenor of the talk was, "if you aren't worthy--become worthy, and then go".

I believe sharing the gospel is a priesthood obligation--I've discussed that before here, and I don't recall anyone offering a doctrinal rebuttal to date. Just like many other obligations under the Gospel--helping the poor, visiting the sick, etc--the manner in which we fulfill that obligation is between the individual and the Lord.

My understanding of the implementation of this, though, is that if you've had a serious sexual transgression, your chances of going are remote. One missionary I split with a while ago indicated his brother had to stay home as a result; in spite the event occurring some time ago, and his subsequent repentence.

So, there may well be young men who simply can't go, in spite of repentence. I recognize this is anectdotal, but I saw no reason for this missionary to lie about his brother.

[Just_A_Guy]

My understanding of the implementation of this, though, is that if you've had a serious sexual transgression, your chances of going are remote. One missionary I split with a while ago indicated his brother had to stay home as a result; in spite the event occurring some time ago, and his subsequent repentence.

So, there may well be young men who simply can't go, in spite of repentence. I recognize this is anectdotal, but I saw no reason for this missionary to lie about his brother.

I see where you're going; I just worry about unintentionally promoting the idea that one can be "excused" from missionary service through fornication.

The individual you mention was not excused from service; he was disqualified from service.

[pam]

Woops! Didn't read close enough . . .

Sheesh..don't become like another regular member of this site that posts quite often without reading.

[Moksha]

If you look at church history only in the last fifty years or so has the missionary program really taken off. The early church and even into the early twentieth century the numbers of missionaries were modest. Now days it is more of a personal right of passage than a sanction of the church.

I think the Church defused the progression of the need to serve from finally becoming an obsession and commandment, when they "raised the bar" and declared missions are not for everyone, and that past deeds, physical handicaps and mental disabilities would be disqualifying factors.

[Suzie]

Well, there are special missions for people with disabilities, they usually serve in their own area, for shorter periods of time up to 2 years or more, they wear name tags and all and they are also released honorably when they complete it just like a regular mission. There is a chance for everyone to serve. :)

[pam]

Funny you should mention that Suzie. I was just talking to a long time friend of mine last night catching up with the latest from over the years. She has a sister who is in her 40's now with Down Syndrome. She was a paid employee for DI before DI went to more of a volunteer service. So they called her as a service missionary to allow her to continue working there. She gets to wear the name tag just like missionaries and it really makes her feel important and part of something.

[Snow]

1) If god commands every righteous young man to go on a mission why would his prayers make him feel as if he doesn't need to serve a full time mission? is it because he is not truly praying or what?

Personal revelation is one of the most notoriously unreliable source of information imaginable.