Missionary qualifications

[riverogue]

I was wondering how come young single adults who had a baby but are no longer in custody of the child due to adoption, etc, are not permitted to go on a mission, (Church handbook of instructions, 2010 edition). Does anyone know why?

[mnn727]

Probably because they were not living the Law of Chastity and no doubt had been disfellowshipped or excommunicated if they had been members while making the baby.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Probably because they were not living the Law of Chastity and no doubt had been disfellowshipped or excommunicated if they had been members while making the baby.

This man is being very disrespectful and the let me assure you that the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock. Depending on the situation they very well could be fellowshipped (lose there priesthood office, lose there callings) but this is a Church lead by a loving savior and thankfully he is not quick to judge like the previous poster is!

Remember thought that the Missionary Requirements are very strict. If someone has violated the Law of Chastity that is something very serious in our Church. It does have serious implications on your standing.

It does have serious implications on your ability to be worthy to serve on a mission or serve in the priesthood! Like all things nothing is a automatic approval or disapproval, each case is looked at individually and taken on it's merits and leaders seek the will of the Lord before making and decisions or policies!

Thank you for your question and I apologize for the rude nature of the previous commenter, know that he is not the face of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are a loving body of people and do not judge anyone for we all sin and fall short of the Glory of the Lord!

[Justice]

I am also certain that part of it is that you still have a responsibility to the baby, even if you do not have custody.

The first few years of your child's life are among the most important years in the development of a young child to a competent adult. Include yourself in the child's life as much as possible and be a father. Don't think that since you do not have custody that you cannot play a significant role in your child's life.

I have a step son who has never met his father. His father did not contact him until my son was 18. He claimed it was out of respect for his "new" family, but my son saw right through it.

I can't begin to imagine what it must be like for a child to grow up feeling that their father did not want to be a part of their life. That was very destructive to my son.

So, be a father. The child is yours too.

[bytebear]

I agree with the previous post. The reason missionaries are sent out at age 19 is because it's a time in their life when they have no other life obligations. No wife, no children, no career yet. It's the perfect time to go. But if you have had a child, your obligations change, and your first obligation is to your child.

[Just_A_Guy]

A guy I grew up with got another girl in the ward pregnant. Back then the Church's policy was more lenient--you could go if the child had been adopted out, which the guy's family strongly pressured the girl into doing.

She did. But here's the funny thing: he got to go do the mission and ultimately came home "with honor", and his role in the shabby little affair was forgotten. She was never regarded as anything other than the little skank who almost kept elder so-and-so off his mission, until the day she quit coming to Church altogether--then she was forgotten entirely.

The current policy is better, I think.

[Just_A_Guy]

This man is being very disrespectful and the let me assure you that the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock.

Err . . . depending on the circumstances, yes, it sometimes does.

I recognize the desire to put a kinder, gentler face to Mormonism. But misrepresenting our teachings and our policies doesn't help anyone.

[mnn727]

This man is being very disrespectful and the let me assure you that the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock. !

Having sat on disiplinary councils I am telling the truth here.

Say what you want, but Sex outside of marriage is a serious sin. Listen to an general conference and you'll hear that a number of times.

It's much more disrespectful say "the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock." when they can and very very often do.

I assumed this person came here looking for truth - I gave it.

Edited January 29, 2011 by mnn727

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Having sat on disiplinary councils I am telling the truth here.

Say what you want, but Sex outside of marriage is a serious sin. Listen to an general conference and you'll hear that a number of times.

It's much more disrespectful say "the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock." when they can and very very often do.

I assumed this person came here looking for truth - I gave it.

Excommunication is not the answer to this, a unplanned pregnancy is a very emotional and difficult time. To turn your back on a spirit child of God in need is a far worse sin then breaking the law of Chastity.

Yes living unchaste is a serious sin, so is abandoning a brother or sister in need. Christ told us those who neglect our fellow man neglect him. Obviously serious disciplinary action is needed when a situation like this happens but to assume automatic excommunication means you are not following the Holy Ghost when you are making your decisions.

I am not denying that a member can be excommunicated over this, but it is something decided on a case by case basis. A time like this is a time to circle around a hurting family and show the love of Christ by support them not run them out of the Church.

[pam]

I don't think anyone has said that it's an automatic thing. Mnm has said it can happen and often does. It is of course a case by case basis.

[Just_A_Guy]

Excommunication is not the answer to this, a unplanned pregnancy is a very emotional and difficult time. To turn your back on a spirit child of God in need is a far worse sin then breaking the law of Chastity.

1. Excommunication ≠ abandonment.

Yes living unchaste is a serious sin, so is abandoning a brother or sister in need. Christ told us those who neglect our fellow man neglect him. Obviously serious disciplinary action is needed when a situation like this happens but to assume automatic excommunication means you are not following the Holy Ghost when you are making your decisions.

2. No one here has "assume[d] automatic excommunication".

I am not denying that a member can be excommunicated over this, but it is something decided on a case by case basis. A time like this is a time to circle around a hurting family and show the love of Christ by support them not run them out of the Church.

I'm glad you've backed off your original position that

the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Err . . . depending on the circumstances, yes, it sometimes does.

I recognize the desire to put a kinder, gentler face to Mormonism. But misrepresenting our teachings and our policies doesn't help anyone.

How am I misrepresenting LDS Doctrine? Show me the policy, doctrine, or revelation that says having a child out of wedlock is grounds for automatic excommunication. There is no doctrine, policy, or revelation. We are taught to love and forgive. Of course, a breach of the Law of Chastity has serious repercussions, but your self righteousness gets the best of your if your first instinct is to jump to excommunication without knowing anything about the situation at all.

I am just thankful that this Church is true and does not jump to judgement like some on this forum has.

[john doe]

This man is being very disrespectful and the let me assure you that the Church does not excommunicate someone for having a child out of wedlock. Depending on the situation they very well could be fellowshipped (lose there priesthood office, lose there callings) but this is a Church lead by a loving savior and thankfully he is not quick to judge like the previous poster is!

Depending on the situation, young people have been and could in the future be excommunicated for for having a child out of wedlock. Granted, excommunication in these types of cases are generally reserved for people who have been through the temple, but it can happen.

Thank you for your question and I apologize for the rude nature of the previous commenter, know that he is not the face of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We are a loving body of people and do not judge anyone for we all sin and fall short of the Glory of the Lord!

I saw no rudeness in his response, but rather a directness that may have rubbed you the wrong way. As for judging people, I suggest that you may be mistaken on what that means. Sin is sin, and the church has disciplinary courts for those who commit serious sins. Bishops are Judges in Israel, and as such are charged with exercising righteous judgement on those they have jurisdiction over.

[beefche]

LDSGuy, please quote someone in this thread who said it was AUTOMATIC excommunication.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

1. Excommunication ≠ abandonment.

This is absolute baloney, excommunication does result in shunning by former friends and family members. It isn't the right thing to do but it definitely happens especially in Utah.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

no doubt had been disfellowshipped or excommunicated if they had been members while making the baby.

Seems pretty automatic if there is no doubt that they have been excommunicated. It helps if you read the posts cause this it the first post made.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

I saw no rudeness in his response, but rather a directness that may have rubbed you the wrong way. As for judging people, I suggest that you may be mistaken on what that means. Sin is sin, and the church has disciplinary courts for those who commit serious sins. Bishops are Judges in Israel, and as such are charged with exercising righteous judgement on those they have jurisdiction over.

And there Bishop has the right to Judge based on the merits and the Law. As members we do not judge as we are taught by Christ. "Judge not least ye be judged"

His instantaneous damnation of the accused with not information or understanding of the situation is total hypocrisy. Plain and simple

[beefche]

Seems pretty automatic if there is no doubt that they have been excommunicated. It helps if you read the posts cause this it the first post made.

Oh, I see...skip words to make your point. He didn't say anything about being disfellowshipped, right? And using the the words "no doubt" means "automatic." Got it.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

I'm glad you've backed off your original position that

In your arrogant and judgmental nature you inferred something I did not say you can't be excommunicated for breaking the law of Chastity. If my meaning was lost in your fit of near rage, I am sorry that you misunderstood what I mean, or that I didn't say it well enough.

The point still stands that this in not the true Church of Christ is we have "no doubt that someone will be excommunicated", for any reason besides the two unforgivable sins of murder (after becoming a member) and denying the Holy Ghost, this is the only time where excommunication if automatic.

If anyone for any reason assumes excommunication on any other topic they are being hypocritical and are going after the speck in there brothers eye while ignoring the plank in there own.

Leave the decisions to the rightful authority and focus on being more Christ like a showing compassion and love to your fellow man!

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Oh, I see...skip words to make your point. He didn't say anything about being disfellowshipped, right? And using the the words "no doubt" means "automatic." Got it.

Wow, what else does no doubt mean?

In my vocabulary no doubt means without reservation, which means that no matter what the reasoning presented the person must be excommunicated, no exceptions, no excuses, no mercy, nothing. Your done and your damned. How is that not automatic?

[john doe]

How am I misrepresenting LDS Doctrine? Show me the policy, doctrine, or revelation that says having a child out of wedlock is grounds for automatic excommunication. There is no doctrine, policy, or revelation.

I am just thankful that this Church is true and does not jump to judgement like some on this forum has.

What you allege was said was not said. Here is what mnn said:

Probably because they were not living the Law of Chastity and no doubt had been disfellowshipped or excommunicated if they had been members while making the baby.

He did not say that having a child out of wedlock means you are going to be excommunicated automatically. What he did say is that members who were not living the Law of Chastity and made a baby out of wedlock likely have been disfellowshipped or excommunicated, and inferred that one or either of those consequences of sin would seriously impede the ability of a young man or woman to serve a mission. He was not rushing to judgement of you or anyone else.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

What you allege was said was not said. Here is what mnn said:

He did not say that having a child out of wedlock means you are going to be excommunicated automatically. What he did say is that members who were not living the Law of Chastity and made a baby out of wedlock likely have been disfellowshipped or excommunicated, and inferred that one or either of those consequences of sin would seriously impede the ability of a young man or woman to serve a mission. He was not rushing to judgement of you or anyone else.

What part of NO DOUBT isn't state that in his unhumble opinion that doesn't imply automatic excommunication.

[john doe]

What part of NO DOUBT isn't state that in his unhumble opinion that doesn't imply automatic excommunication.

Why do you insist on skipping the word 'disfellowshipped'? Is your monitor broken? Disfellowship does not equal excommunication.

[Dravin]

Wow, what else does no doubt mean?

In my vocabulary no doubt means without reservation, which means that no matter what the reasoning presented the person must be excommunicated, no exceptions, no excuses, no mercy, nothing. Your done and your damned. How is that not automatic?

If one is to derive an automatic consequence based on the statement it would be disfellowship or excommunication. Meaning excommunication is not automatic (as disfellowship is an option).

It appears logical operators give you difficulty.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Why do you insist on skipping the word 'disfellowshipped'? Is your monitor broken? Disfellowship does not equal excommunication.

WOW, he didn't say no doubt disfellowshipped and could be excommunicated. He said no doubt disfellowshipped and excommunicated.

See the and tells us that unlike the Christ who was forgiving, he thinks that this requires that the person be automatically disfellowshipped AND excommunicated.

I think I need to recluse myself from this discussion any further before I lose my composure or really start believing that the unchristian view presented here are held at large by my fellow Mormons.