Premissionary stuck in a situation

[lost123]

Here's a great letter written by an Elder in Alaska. Thought you'd enjoy reading it.

http://http://homertribune.com/2011/06/lds-missionary-workers-want-to-serve/

[Vort]

Here's a great letter written by an Elder in Alaska. Thought you'd enjoy reading it.

LDS missionary workers want to serve | Homer Tribune

Great writeup on HTTP. :) I've fixed the link above.

[Guest saintish]

@vort: i'll follow the church where ever it leads me but if I feel something is wrong I won't sit idly by, I'm going to speak up. And yet again you are essentially telling me to shut up and stay in your lane, well I won't not now or ever. The only way things change sometimes is if people speak up and ignore those who are to afraid or sheeply to speak up.

[Guest tbaird22]

Talk to your bishop! now! As for stopping, do the addiction recovery steps in the pmg pages 187-190. Pray always.

As for the pressure of going on a mission, I think its a good thing. Who knows how many pressured missionaries turn into great missionaries once they're out there. No matter what its still the young man's choice. If parents take away all your stuff and you still don't want to go on a mission then do rotc at your college to pay for it.

[Carl62]

This is simply untrue. Of course it is a choice for 19-year-olds. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

Talk to some of the 19 year olds out there and I think you might hear differently.

[Built]

Most of my friends that went on missions were pressured in and the reasoning was always "My parents are making me," or this and that. I think it depends on the person. I was never pressured or told by my parents I have to go on a mission and I think for me that was for the best, but there definably is a lot who are.

[Torch]

I have to agree with Carl62. In my mission I would say that about 60-70% were pressured with undue pressure to serve a mission. For the church to say it is "your duty" is to say you have no choice. God expects it and if you want to be worthy and follow the prophet, you WILL serve. So, there really is no choice.

[Vort]

I have to agree with Carl62. In my mission I would say that about 60-70% were pressured with undue pressure to serve a mission. For the church to say it is "your duty" is to say you have no choice.

That strikes me as absurd. So everything that is your duty to do, you have no choice in the matter. Right? Ridiculous.

God expects it and if you want to be worthy and follow the prophet, you WILL serve. So, there really is no choice.

If your goal is to do God's bidding, then there is only one legitimate choice. But you can still choose not to do so. To say otherwise is simply false. You are perverting the very meaning of the word "choice" by claiming that the mere existence of an expectation abrogates choice.

[MichaelPAGuy]

I was just talking about this last night with my in-laws and my wife. I said how I feel the church puts too much pressure on young men to serve. I tis their "priesthood duty" to serve. Nobody can make you serve if you do not want to. What kind of effective missionary would you be if your heart was not into it? My brother-in-law jst announced he intends to not go on a mission. Now he is getting pressure from everyone in his ward and in the family. I think this is wrong, it is a personal choice to serve a mission and in my opinion should not be a duty.

[Vort]

I was just talking about this last night with my in-laws and my wife. I said how I feel the church puts too much pressure on young men to serve. I tis their "priesthood duty" to serve. [...] I think this is wrong, it is a personal choice to serve a mission and in my opinion should not be a duty.

Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. The fact is that serving a full-time mission is a Priesthood duty, notwithstanding your disbelief.

[MorningStar]

I don't think the church is doing anything wrong in expecting young men to serve missions. Members though need to mind their own business as to why there has been a delay and respect them for choosing not to lie and go unworthily. A friend of mine broke the Law of Chastity and he was so sick of members asking him why he hadn't gone on a mission, he went inactive for a while and then he joined the military.

[estradling75]

I am going to take it a bit farther then Vort does... For a worthy young man going on a mission is a commandment... Yes I said commandment... Put it in stone under the 10, type commandment.

For those making the claim that you have no choice but to obey commandment, I would like you remind you of the very real possibility of sin, which comes from breaking the commandments.

And I think that is really what this discussion about pressure, and expectations boils down to. Some people in the church are very self righteous and judgmental when it come to pointing out the flaws and mistakes of others. And a mission age young man that doesn't go is an easy target for this kind of gossip. Even well meaning people will be curious as to why. And lets face it, if you don't go you are going to be feeling guilt, and even the most well meaning question can be taken wrong when a person carries such a burden.

[Guest saintish]

I am going to take it a bit farther then Vort does... For a worthy young man going on a mission is a commandment... Yes I said commandment... Put it in stone under the 10, type commandment.

while i dont disagree that it is a commandment, I'm not sure that I would place it on the same level as adultery and murder. I'm not sure if thats what you ment or not.

For those making the claim that you have no choice but to obey commandment, I would like you remind you of the very real possibility of sin, which comes from breaking the commandments.

again as with above, is not going on a mission the same as murder or adultery or is it more like not paying tithing? Is there a repentance process for not going on a mission?

And lets face it, if you don't go you are going to be feeling guilt, and even the most well meaning question can be taken wrong when a person carries such a burden.

Is that guilt due to sin or because of the pressure others put on the young man? or perhaps the answer is both, in which case the latter should be minimized.

[Carl62]

But what is the point of sending a 19 year old who simply doesn't want to be there? All your doing is giving him a 2 year period of doing whatever he wants without being under the watchful eye of mommy and daddy. I know, I have seen this many times. They'll just simply hook up with the other truant missionaries and do whatever they want. When it comes to handing in weekly reports to the mission president, they'll just write in whatever sounds good (oh yes, they can lie!). If you think this doesn't happen with a somewhat sizeable percentage of missionaries, then you do have blinders on. If they don't feel like they're quite ready at 19, then keep them home for about 1-2 years and have them do something productive for those 2 years, THEN they could very well be ready and more mature to handle such a commitment as opposed to just simply shoving them out the door the second they turn 19. They're human beings, not robots!

[estradling75]

while i dont disagree that it is a commandment, I'm not sure that I would place it on the same level as adultery and murder. I'm not sure if thats what you ment or not.

again as with above, is not going on a mission the same as murder or adultery or is it more like not paying tithing? Is there a repentance process for not going on a mission?

Is that guilt due to sin or because of the pressure others put on the young man? or perhaps the answer is both, in which case the latter should be minimized.

I would not put in on the level of adultery and murder either... I would put in on the level of potentially hindering someone else spiritual growth. Either from not reaching the people you would have if you had gone worthily or hindering because you are unworthy or unfocused while you are out. And that is serious. The repentance process is the same for any sin, recognize that it was wrong, forsake what you have done wrong, try to make amends as much as you can and seek out help from church leaders if need.

Carl62 You ask what is the point... Seeing no benefit, but remember the whole point in this life is to see if we will do all things which the Lord commands... For those that don't go or choose to not do it while there... The answer comes back as a pretty big no. They can repent of course, and get back on track. But if they don't this could be a point were the Lord is separating the Wheat from the Tares. And that is kind of a brutal process no matter how you look at it

[Vort]

But what is the point of sending a 19 year old who simply doesn't want to be there?

Perhaps you know of Church doctrine of which I am not aware. Please point out the Church policy of sending out as missionaries 19-year-olds who don't want to be there.

On the contrary, for years now the Church has increasingly emphasized preparedness for missionaries. A few years back, they "raised the bar", expecting ever more of the young men who serve missions, not merely in chastity issues but in other spiritual preparation. I am confident that "not wanting to serve a mission" was not on the list of requirements; quite the opposite, I expect.

They'll just simply hook up with the other truant missionaries and do whatever they want. When it comes to handing in weekly reports to the mission president, they'll just write in whatever sounds good (oh yes, they can lie!). If you think this doesn't happen with a somewhat sizeable percentage of missionaries, then you do have blinders on.

And so, your solution to this problem is...don't tell young men that the Lord expects them to do their Priesthood duty?

Sorry, you will have to explain how your "solution" actually solves any problems. I'm not seeing it.

[Guest saintish]

I think Carl62 is pointing out that there is a social stigma attached to not going on a mission. So perhaps a solution would be that we not by default, expect young men to go on a mission as soon as they turn 19. Instead, focus on preparing and making sure they are prepared, then instead of saying "you should go on a mission when you turn 19," say "you should go on a mission before you turn 25."

[Jennarator]

I think Carl62 is pointing out that there is a social stigma attached to not going on a mission. So perhaps a solution would be that we not by default, expect young men to go on a mission as soon as they turn 19. Instead, focus on preparing and making sure they are prepared, then instead of saying "you should go on a mission when you turn 19," say "you should go on a mission before you turn 25."

For sure there is a stigma. My mom taught me to marry a RM since I can remember. I didn't I paid, I divorced and I married and RM.

For sure there are many RMs that don't live right and end up ruining a marriage and even thier lives, and same with the opposite. Lots of non-RMs that are great and live up to the standards of the church, are great examples and so on.

But there is the reputation and the stigma. Although I have seen no bad reputaions with those that went a little later not right at 19. There are lots of reasons for that, money, needing to repent, not read, wanting to finish school, first, whatever. Sure they might get a tiny bit of of a stigma at first, but I think it goes away when the do go on the mission. I have never heard of someone saying "oh he's and RM, but went out at 20 years old." Sadly I do hear "he didn't go on a mission, he must of done something wrong."

[Vort]

I think Carl62 is pointing out that there is a social stigma attached to not going on a mission.

This I agree with, and I find it regrettable. There is something wrong with vilifying a young man who, for whatever reason, hasn't fulfilled his duty to serve a mission. Even if the vilification is subtle, it's a shameful thing. If it's my son being marginalized, I'm not the least bit happy.

But then...do I want my daughter to date and possibly marry the guy who refused to serve a mission? Or would I rather she date men who have fulfilled that Priesthood responsibility? All other things being equal (and I realize they never are), the choice is obvious.

[estradling75]

I think Carl62 is pointing out that there is a social stigma attached to not going on a mission. So perhaps a solution would be that we not by default, expect young men to go on a mission as soon as they turn 19. Instead, focus on preparing and making sure they are prepared, then instead of saying "you should go on a mission when you turn 19," say "you should go on a mission before you turn 25."

If the parents and various youth leaders are not currently doing this then they are FAILING...

Its not like the mission program is new or unexpected. Generally speaking young men should be prepared to go at 19. There is slack up to age 25 for support of individual needs and circumstance.

[Guest saintish]

If the parents and various youth leaders are not currently doing this then they are FAILING...

to cut deeper into the problem and speaking from experiance, its hard to prepare young men who are afraid to say they aren't prepared to go on a mission or don't want to go. It is so ingrained in our culture that a young man, even in private, is afraid to say "im not ready/ dont want to go on a mission"

But then...do I want my daughter to date and possibly marry the guy who refused to serve a mission? Or would I rather she date men who have fulfilled that Priesthood responsibility? All other things being equal (and I realize they never are), the choice is obvious.

I think we should be careful with this as well. It is understandable to say it is a positive if he went on a mission but I don't think it should disqualify or even be a negative if he hasn't. Just as it is a positive if the man is a doctor but you certainly wouldn't stipulate that your daughter’s suitor must be a doctor.

[Vort]

I think we should be careful with this as well. It is understandable to say it is a positive if he went on a mission but I don't think it should disqualify or even be a negative if he hasn't. Just as it is a positive if the man is a doctor but you certainly wouldn't stipulate that your daughter’s suitor must be a doctor.

No, of course not. My daughter's suitor need not be a man of wealth. But I do want him to be a man of honor, a man who strives always to fulfill his Priesthood duty. Serving a mission is an obvious, highly visible duty performed. While I agree that not serving a mission should not permanently disqualify a young man from a potential pool of suitors, surely you can understand why a young woman and her parents would put so much importance on that as a shibboleth of faith.

[Guest saintish]

i agree, we also have to admit that we will likely have little control over who are daughters marry, we can only influance and teach until a certian age and then they must make their own decisions.

[BenRaines]

What was the OP's original question? I think it has gotten lost.

Ben Raines

[Carl62]

Perhaps you know of Church doctrine of which I am not aware. Please point out the Church policy of sending out as missionaries 19-year-olds who don't want to be there.

And so, your solution to this problem is...don't tell young men that the Lord expects them to do their Priesthood duty?

Sorry, you will have to explain how your "solution" actually solves any problems. I'm not seeing it.

This is ridiculous. Where did I say anything in my post about this being connected with church doctrine or policy? This is about parent and leaders over-expectations which ends up having missionaries to be in the field who shouldn't be. As far as my solution to the problem, try reading the rest of my post that you omitted and you might see my idea that could help future missionaries get a bit more prepared.